Herbal Cigarettes on Stage

The use of tobacco products in any public, contained space is illegal in New York. Thus, herbal cigarettes. It has nothing to do with the smell.

After I googled I found Herbal cigarettes are not addictive in the sense that they don't contain nicotine. Here is what one site said.

Toxins

Nicotine is not the only dangerous substance in cigarettes. Cigarette smoke contains tar and other toxins, and herbal cigarettes also generate tar, carbon monoxide and other toxic materials as they burn. You do not get addicted to herbal cigarettes, but you face health risks from the toxins for as long as you continue to smoke them.

The note in the On the Town playbill stated that the actors were using e-cigarettes. Why isn't everyone using those now? Assuming they are nicotine free, wouldn't the vapor be less harmful than the herbal cigarette smoke?

I've heard of actors refusing to smoke at all on stage and they simply hold a fake cigarette and mimic the motions.

I once saw Agnes of God in a TINY store-front blackbox and the actress chain smoked throughout the entire play. Half the audience spent the show coughing and fanning their faces and the poor actress could barely speak by the end. I know it says she chain smokes in the script, but it was still rather annoying.

They're definitely not as annoying as actual cigarettes, which are like boarding an express train to Sinus Headache Mountain.

Updated On: 12/29/15 at 03:09 PM

xxdrewboy85xx said: "I direct a lot of shows in black box and store-front theater's and have had quite a few shows with cigarettes needing to be smoked. Because of the realism of the scripts and the close proximity the actors are to the audience, using fake cigarettes is not an option.

"

Sounds like bull to me. Give your audience more credit. I'm sure they are capable of suspending their disbelief over something as trivial as a fake cigarette, even in a tiny storefront theatre.

I have no problem worth smoking herbal cigarettes in a play if that is the row everyone involved decides to take, but don't tell me that the realism of the script combined with the theatre size demands it.

"Sounds like bull to me. Give your audience more credit. I'm sure they are capable of suspending their disbelief over something as trivial as a fake cigarette, even in a tiny storefront theatre."

Speaking for myself, I do give my audiences credit. Never underestimate the intelligence of your audience; which is why I personally put so much attention to detail in even the smallest moments. With Annie Baker for instance, her plays are so realistic in the dialogue and characters that every "um", "like" and pause is important. When working in black boxes its about transforming the space into the world and the audience are like voyeurs watching real people converse.

An actor uses a smart phone to make a phone call and let's say leave a voicemail.... That actor is actually calling someone (usually on the SM team) with the name stored as the character they're calling. The light from the phone that shines on their face is important to me as is the screen going black when it hits their ear. One person in the audience may be able to see the screen and tell if they're fake dialing or able to read the contact name. Maybe 5 people are close enough to hear the voicemail on the phone. Same with reading-- I wouldn't have someone "fake reading" a bunch of scribbles, they are actually reading the words they speaking. To me it's more believable and you can tell by the direction their eyes move when reading.

But that's just me.... I'm pretty stubborn. I may not give as much attention to detail in a 800 seat proscenium auditorium or subtle actions when playing to the back of the house. It's like with the thread about rat in "Curious Incident..." Not everyone could see that the rat was real but for those that could it was important. I for one, sitting dead center in the front row of the mezzanine for that show (best seat in the house) would have been taken out of the moment if I could tell the rat was fake.

Auggie27 said: "It's not just about the audience, it's the actors. Likely an AEA issue. Tobacco contains a powerful addictive drug, nicotine. Herbal cigarettes do not. I don't believe producers could demand an actor smoke an addictive substance even once (for a film) let alone eight times a week. Real cigarettes are not used in TV -- "Mad Men" -- or film for the same reason (SAG-AFTRA weighs in). I do know that Liev Shrieber had special dispensation for "Talk Radio" on b'way, and the use of (real) tobacco smoke was posted at the box office. (OT: I hear he has sense quite smoking, as many parents do.)

Why would Shrieber have special dispensation? I have seen Broadway performers in and around the theatre district (specially on two show days) having a smoke. Yet, they are in a show that uses herbal cigarettes. Hell, a couple of years back I was outside the Music Box after a performance of August. Amy Mortan came out and asked to borrow my light. When I did and she lit up, she had this look of extreme happiness. After complementing her on her performance I asked if she was allowed to smoke a real cigarette onstage. She said that there are rules in place that don't allow that to happen, mostly union.

Also, the smoke that comes out of an herbal cigarette is much more lighter than a regular one. Regular cigarette smoke is much less thick than herbal cigs. I think that if they did use real ones, the smell would be more potent and travel farther than herbal cigarettes. You'd be able to smell throughout the theatre. You only really notice the smell of herbal cigarettes if you're in the first couple of rows.