As one city after another bans smoking in public buildings, it's unlikely that a threat to the First Amendment is among your first thoughts. You think about the cleaner air you'll breathe when you go out, or if you're a smoker, about the hassle you face every time you want a cigarette.

But in Colorado, the state's two-year-old indoor smoking ban has elicited precisely such a debate over our constitutional right to express ourselves: Three Denver theater companies sued the state for not allowing cigarettes in stage productions, and lost.

A Colorado appeals court ruled that while smoking does indeed create a mood, add something to a character's persona, or make a statement, it is "not sufficiently expressive to qualify for First Ammendment protection."

Now, let me say first off that I hate cigarettes. They do nothing but harm, and far more people than just smokers suffer their consequences. However, I also can't imagine seeing a production of The Graduate featuring a smoke-free Mrs. Robinson any more than I can imagine a production of Chekhov's Uncle Vanya without the vodka.

And what if such a ban extends beyond theater? In the 1940s, cigarettes were used as a code for sex in the great film noir movies, because the production code didn't allow the latter to be shown on screen. Can you picture Bogie with his five-o'clock shadow, wry grin, and rain coat -- sans cigarette?

Granted, a similar ban exists in many other states, including New York. But those bans don't include herbal cigarettes, so it's possible to maintain the illusion of smoking on stage without forcing toxic fumes upon the audience.

But the Colorado Court of Appeals stated that smoking is smoking -- regardless of what is being burned. And that if real murder, violence, and drug use aren't allowed on stage, then nor should real smoke.

In our rush to mandate healthier lifestyles, could we also be creating a toxic environment for creativity?