While the idea of theater nights at bars makes for interesting conversation, the argument that it is a loophole in the state workplace smoking ban is specious.

The Freedom to Breathe Act, which is six months old now, exempts actors who smoke during a performance at a theater as long as the theater warns people beforehand that smoking takes place during the performance.

Cambridge lawyer Mark Benjamin has made a name for himself by pointing out that if all the patrons of a bar claim to be actors in a theatrical performance, with the entire bar as the theater and with notice to customers about the smoking, then it is OK for them to light up. About 40 bars &8212; mainly on the Iron Range &8212; have done this.

No citations have been issued, but they should be. Local prosecutors should feel confident in requiring officers of the law to enforce the smoking ban. Under the law, establishments that allow smoking can be fined up to $10,000.

The Freedom to Breathe Act exemption for theaters notes another passage in law that determines local municipalities can determine what is and what isn&8217;t a theater.

There is a clear difference between a bar and a theater. It&8217;s as wide as the difference between a bowling alley and a basketball gymnasium. Hopefully, local laws on the Iron Range and elsewhere can differentiate between a bar and a theater. Albert Lea&8217;s laws do. In places in Minnesota, they have no such laws.

These bars and the smokers in them are only asking for more laws. If their abuse of the theater exemption goes on, the state will only need to pass a stricter law to keep bar employees safe from secondhand smoke. If the local municipalities on the Iron Range and elsewhere can&8217;t help local bar workers, then state lawmakers have an obligation to change that law.