A Colorado theater has officially lost its fight for an exemption to the Colorado Clean Indoor Act. In half of the states with indoor bans, actors are permitted to "set a mood" by smoking on stage, but the Colorado Supreme Court has chosen to prioritize public health concerns over actors' freedom of expression.
To me, this is a huge victory for opponents of public smoking because, more often that not, 1st Amendment claims seem to win out; it's easy to say that the government is intruding on one's freedom of "expression." Realizing this constitutional ambiguity, the theater basically attempted to pair smoking with the likes of religion, speech, and press--the other freedoms that the 1st Amendment protects from government intrusion. But with a 6-1 decision against the theater, the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that smoking is not a protected form of expression--at least when the public's health is at stake. And, because the U.S. Supreme Court chose not to hear the case (though they hear very few cases), the federal government has effectively said the same thing, for now.
Because the theater challenged the law on 1st Amendment grounds and lost, I think that this case has set a fairly significant precedent for issues between smoking and freedom of expression. With that said, the theater's founder is optimistic that his failure will breed future success in allowing smoking on stage.
Michigan: So Far, So Good
The indoor smoking ban that went into effect on May 1 seems to be going over well in the state of Michigan. No surprise here! However, considering the state's political orientation, this is especially good news for the 39th and 40th statewide public smoking bans that are about to go into effect on July 1 in Kansas and July 5 in Wisconsin.
NC High School Students Count Butts
A group of North Carolina high school students recently demonstrated how their state's Smoke-Free Restaurants and Bars Law has burdened the environment. They conducted cigarette litter scans on a street in downtown Chapel Hill and found 5,866 butts over two days. Comparing this to the 3,538 butts found during a 2008 scan (before the law was enacted), the students confirmed their hypothesis: Although the indoor smoking ban has been effective, the amount of outdoor cigarette litter has increased.
Their proposed solution? Restaurants should have ashtrays outside of their doors for the public to use. Even if this could work, I have a hard time believing that this would solve the problem. About a month ago, I read a great column written by a University of Maryland law student, who describes a similar problem in Baltimore:
This leads me to believe that as long as smoking is permitted in outdoor public spaces, laws against cigarette littering (and all littering, for that matter) need to be more heavily enforced. The challenge, however, is making revenue from fines pay for the cost of enforcement.Why do so many people who would never dump other garbage in the street nevertheless flick their butts without a second thought? The problem is twofold: (1) many smokers are unaware of the problems related to littered butts; and (2) smokers face little consequence for improperly disposing of their cigarettes.
That's unfortunate. Because filters are made out of cellulose-acetate, a material that does not biodegrade, a butt littered today will remain in the environment forever, and smokers have little incentive to change their behavior.
Quote of the Week
"I wasn't looking for a loophole...I was looking for a niche." --Nathan Porter, owner of Huka Bar & Grill
This is a no win situation. As a former smoker I can relate to people wanting to smoke in certain places. Here in MI you can still smoke in the casino, which I think is a disgrace. Shows that if you have money, you can get whatever you want in politics.
ReplyDelete