The Great Smoke Debate, Part I – Chicago’s Smoking Ban and Onstage Performances

It’s not often we associate Frankie Valli with the First Amendment, nor did we ever think that he would factor in any Chicago ordinances.

“Jersey Boys” –the musical about the lives of Valli and The Four Seasons (“Sherry,” “Walk Like A Man,” “Big Girls Don’t Cry”)- appeared in the news when Chicago’s Smoking Ban forced the production to go smoke free and change several scenes where smoking appears, eliciting strong responses from theatre goers, members of the theatre community, politicians and others.

John Nothdurft, legislative specialist of the Heartland Institute, calls the ordinance a "liberty instrusive ban." "Even the most ardent second hand smoke alarmists would be hard pressed to claim such trace amounts caused by Jersey Boys could be harmful to its audience," he stated.

Chicago theatre fan, Kimberly Jackewicz, reacted by saying, “That is honestly one of the more ridiculous things I've heard with regards to the smoking ban. This is not a venue where secondhand smoke is going to be an issue. The city needs to stop trying to save us from ourselves - isn't the murder rate the highest it's been in years? Seems like that would be more worthy of our lawmakers' attention than something like this.”

Worthy of Lawmakers’ Attention

Something like this, however, has become the center of some of our lawmakers’ attention. Downtown Ald. Brendan Reilly (42nd Ward) introduced a measure at the July 9th City Council meeting that would allow actors on stage to smoke for theatrical purposes only. Other cities with smoking bans, such as New York, London and Minnesota, already have these exemptions in place.

Reilly's predecessor, former Alderman Burt Natarus, proposed an exemption that would have allowed actors onstage to smoke on May 4, 2007. The City Council’s Buildings Committee, however, rejected the proposal, 4-2.

The Ban and Artistic Expression

A January 2007 Broadwayworld.com article reported that Broadway In Chicago, presenter of shows like “Jersey Boys,” brought in $635 million dollars annually to the city of Chicago and the state of Illinois and supports more than 7,500 local jobs. It is no wonder that 42nd Ward Alderman Reilly wants to protect anything that could jeopardize the quality of these shows.

For some, however, the ban is beyond economics. As applied to "Jersey Boys," some artists say the smoking ban limits theatrical conduct and is therefore an abridgement of the rights of artistic expression.

Ralph Sevush, Executive Director of the Dramatist Guild of America, wrote in a letter that the ordinance needs to be narrowly tailored in order to avoid unconstitutional implications, "To the extent that the antismoking ordinances around the country inhibit the free expression of playwrights to create the characters they choose and to tell the stories that they wish, those statutes has the effect of censoring their work. "

Proponents of the ban deny implications of its unconstitutionality as there are alternative means to suggest smoking onstage without actually doing so. Chicago artist, Mark Burnell, asserts, "Actors are often portrayed with a gun. That certainly doesn't mean they should carry a real firearm onto the stage."

However Chicago photographer Saundra Karol, who describes herself as a non-smoker but a lover of the arts, attest that substitutes to smoking take away from the quality of the show. " I think the smoking ban during live performances is ridiculous. The last few shows I went to where there was supposed to be smoking onstage, I found it very hokey and distracting when they were snuffing out their "lit" (read, unlit) cigarettes."

Smoking ban proponents have also suggested the use of herbal prop cigarettes. But Chicago Tribune's Chris Jones wrote in a recent column that the law does not distinguish between tobacco and herbal cigarettes. And even if it did, some say that they are not adequate substitutes. In an article in PerformInk.com Stage Managers' Association member Marci Glotzer complained that herbal cigarettes don't always burn properly and won't stay lit without constant puffing.

Slippery Slopes and Loopholes

Opponents of the ban argue that the ordinance would broaden the areas that legislators' can control. Karol sums up her concern, " Next thing you know, popcorn will be banned in movie theatres because it seduces those patrons not eating into buying it, therefore adding to their cholesterol intake. "

Proponents of the ban fear that the current exemption being sought by Alderman Reilly would lead to loopholes around the current ban. Matt, a poster on the Tribune's The Theater Loop website, commented, "If they make exceptions for stage productions, then I'll just stage a production of Jersey boys at my local bar. I'm acting! " Which is exactly how bars in Minnesota used their theatre exemptions.

According to an article on the Minnesota Public Radio website, some Minnesota bar owners began calling their bars, "theatres," and patrons "actors." They then held theatre nights when smoking would be allowed. When a county judge stopped bar owners from staging theatre nights, the article quoted bar owner Robert Ripley, ""If a judge is going to rule what is and what is not theater, it's going to get sticky."

Situations are always sticky when civil liberties are concerned, and theatre smoking bans are proving to be no exception.

The Great Smoke Debate, Part II

The Great Smoke Debate, Part III