Monday, February 18, 2008
Theaters take ban back to court
The Denver Post: "The Colorado Department of Public Health is keeping up its uncompromising fight against theaters seeking a performance exception to the state's indoor smoking ban."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
When I saw the title for this article, I immediately thought, "Just leave it alone.. seriously.." But, the article is hilarious. It's amazing how uncompromising and, well, stupid the Department of Public Health is being. I understand forbidding tobacco and yadda yadda, but the theatres are asking to smoke nontobacco alternatives and they're still getting grief.
"There you have it. Theater, to the state: dumping ground for all manner of illicit and immoral behavior."
The fact this woman is being so uncompromising is kind of ridiculous. Doesn't she have real problems to worry about rather than concerning herself with the presence of (non-tobacco) smoking in the theater?
The article's take on the entire issue was pretty funny though. It just shows the absurdity of the position of the assistant attorney general.
Ah! The quote on what theater is in the state's eyes is priceless. I think everyone has at least some understanding on why some people wouldn't want to be in a room full of even 75% smoke. But unless the character is smoking the entire length of the show and the venue is a closet...this is not a likely situation. Agreed, people need to focus on the larger issues at hand and stop clinging on, just hoping to win at some point in life.
Just like everyone else I do think this woman is a little extreme. It is pretty ridiculous to ban smoking of anything on the stage. My favorite part of this article though was "Freimann actually predicted a performance exception for smoking would inevitably lead to exceptions for underage drinking and firing real guns." Yes you are so right, letting adults smoke cigarettes which is legal will lead to illegal acts such as shooting "real" guns and underage drinking? What is that? Why doesnt she just hypothesize that people will actually kill people on the stage too?
It seems as though the Dept. of Public Health has lost sight of the original intent of whatever legislation brought this about. Obviously, indoor smoking is banned, 1 because it is bad for people, and 2 because it disturbs people around you. Even if the actors are smoking real cigarettes onstage, they aren't doing it for a extended period of time (such as a real smoker, unless, they are a smoker, and then the point is moot). Also, I can't really see the audience being put in harm's way by tabacco smoke/any other kind of smoke. Ventilation systems these days and the size of houses quickly takes care of that. Really, it's just a bunch of close-minded politicians who don't understand theatre or its purposes. I think we should run with the "freedom of expression" thing.
It seems to me that this judge is bring her personal emotions and thoughts into this case. That see does not even like the action of smoking that she is completly banning it from theatre, even if it is fake. I really understand the position that real smoke should not be in the theatre, but this is something else. I also think that everyone, beside the judge herself, thinks that this is totally absurd.
Smoking on stage should be allowed because it can be central to character development. Calling the theatre a “dumping ground” proves that Freimann has no taste or class and is clearly not fit to judge expressive content in the arts. It is even more outrageous that Freimann could not agree to a compromise allowing the smoking of non tobacco. Any arguments against smoking tobacco hold absolutely no relevance to the smoking of non-tobacco.
Post a Comment