Legislators blew it on ‘cigar bar’ measure
Bill Johnson’s column, “Anti-smoking zealots get swift kick in the backside” (March 21), uses colorful language and inaccurate facts.
The loss of Rep. Ellen Roberts’ proposal to clarify Clean Indoor Air Act language defining “cigar bars” is a loss to Colorado citizens. Scofflaws such as the owners of the Durango bar have found a judge to twist the language of last year’s statute into a tasty pretzel for bar owners, but the legislative intent has thereby been distorted. Lack of courage, judgment or concern has waylaid some of our legislators who fail to realize that each year many small bars and restaurants close, not because of smoking restrictions but because of poor product, service or management. They had a chance to protect the innocent, and they blew it. Hope they recover some dignity by supporting the casino smoking exemption repeal.
Dr. Don Parsons, Dillon
You are correct doc that some small bars and restarurants close each year due to a bad product or lack of experience to run the business. Now explain how businesses that have been around for 20 years are not closing because of the smoking ban. These are not the fancy places you would ever go to but the working man and womans local watering hole where they would get together and talk, have a few beers, and god forbid even smoke while they socalized.
Your legislators are out to make you happy. So what is wrong with a cigar bar? If you dont smoke cigars you would never have a need to go into one would you? How about private clubs? Oops once again your legislators took care of that fearing that the culb owners would not charge enough to join.
How much is enough to charge, we will never know becasue that was not addressed.
If you are really a doc I bet you are in line to ban the sale of fast food too as it is a health risk, correct?
The Casino exemption was for money only as they bring in a lot of tax money every month that the legislators didnt want to lose.
Not a very surprising opinion from a doctor. Don't any of these people wonder why zero barowners are in favor of the ban? It's easy to to favor such legislation when you have a six figure doctor's income, not so easy when such legislation costs you your livelihood. At least a lot of those meddling bartenders that supported the ban at the Capitol found out you can't have your cake and eat it too when they got canned.
Too bad so many Americans don't have the ability to exercise their free will so they need legislators to punish business owners for *gasp*, selling a legal product in their establishment. It's totally a PC thing anyway, alcohol is also a serious health risk and the cause of much tragedy in the US, but you don't hear cries from the zealots for an alcohol ban. Could it be that maybe they don't smoke, but they do drink?
Posted by on April 4, 2007 07:19 AMMy wife and I enjoy going out to drink and dance, but we are both very allergic to smoke. Just a few minutes in a smoke-filled bar or club, and our sinuses close, our eyes begin to water, and we are forced to leave.
What is so difficult about stepping outside to enjoy a cigarette? Many bars and clubs have even built very nice outdoor smoking areas.
Smoking is a choice and a priviledge, not a guaranteed Constitutional right. Why should smokers' rights trump everyone elses'?
Before the smoking ban, my wife and I could never go out. We had no choice. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, smokers seem to be desperate to go back to the way things were.
When my wife and I went to LoDo last weekend, the bars seemed to be just as busy as they've ever been -- standing room only. If there are bars going out of business becauyse of the ban, then they must have been solely supported by a small group of die-hard indoor smokers. That doesn't seem very likely to me.
Posted by Jerry Jones on April 4, 2007 08:27 AMDoc???. That title implies a certain amount of intelligence, one would think. Why then do you insist on spouting the fabrications tobacco control advocates so glibly, and insidiously, spew out to the public.
Intelligence also inherently agrees with the scientific methodology of investigation before conclusion. You obviously have ignored the truth or you are to caught up in your own pompousness to recognize how wrong and inaccurate you are.
Or maybe it's just that you are so involved in a personal preference web of deceit that you can't see the truth when it's right in front of you and fail to see the absurd comments by people like representative Merrifield and others for what they really are, ignorance on one hand and purposely prepared lies on the other.
Loss of business equals loss of money equals closure. If you want to, you can find out why, but I'll save you the time. There is unarguable, documented, tetified to and established evidence compiled by independent objective accounting firms, that prove beyond any creditable doubt, that bars and taverns have suffered extreme loss of business specifically because of the smoking ban based on pre ban earnings as opposed after ban earnings. That is the truth and I invite, even dare you, to present evidence to the contrary. Put your money where your mouth is Doc.
Posted by Allen Campbell on April 4, 2007 08:45 AMYou said it yourself and right after that you contradicted yourself. "Smoking is a choice and a priviledge, not a guaranteed Constitutional right. Why should smokers' rights trump everyone elses'?" Smokers didn't have any rights in this issue. Why can't your get head around that fact? If the bar was a smoking bar, then it was the owner of the bar that allowed it to go on. Not the smokers. Nobody should feel bad for you because you were allergic to smoke. You had tons of options right in front of you that wouldn't flare up your allergies, so my sympathy for you falls flat because you couldn't make a decision that was best for you. Instead, you just wanted to be near the "in" crowd. You and your wife, COULD go out at any time and frequent a non smoking place any time you wished, but you CHOSE to go to a smoking venue. That leaves the blame squarely on your shoulders. It's too bad it doesn't seem very likely, because that's exactly what happened. Bars were kept alive for years by the clientelle of about a dozen people. But I wouldn't expect you to know anything about that since you were too good to go to those anyway.
Posted by Shane on April 4, 2007 08:51 AMLooking around I don't see Ann or Kyle anywhere... OK, smoke 'em if you got 'em.
Posted by KW on April 4, 2007 09:06 AMWell they have to get their coffee fix first.
Posted by Shane on April 4, 2007 09:08 AMHi Shane and KW....let's enjoy the discourse before the demagogues arrive.They'll be here as soon as the boss is busy and they can log on from work.
Posted by Jimminy on April 4, 2007 09:39 AMJerry Jones you missed a very big business opportunity with your desire to be in a non smoking social club to dance. Why did you not start one to serve the type of atmosphere you wanted? Just look at the thousands of anit smokers who would have been knocking your doors down to get in there.
So you know a lot of bar owners lost their 'constutational rights' because of the ban. They allowed smoking in their business and you did not have a 'right' to enter, but were allowed to enter. These bars are not public property or buildings but private. It says alot that you go to lodo so you could care less about the neighborhood bars, because they are not up to your standards of where you will be seen.
So Jerry why didnt you start your own non smoking club? You do have the right to do that, and the government wouldnt stop you or take away any of your rights either.
Posted by Earl on April 4, 2007 09:45 AMWell, I see where one of the Dr. Feelgood crowd is tossing in his anti-tobacco pitch.
After all, can't let people get hooked on the weed. (Or on relaxing in the local pub, having a friendly boilermaker with others.) Now can we?
Especially when there are all those nice, new, and expensive, pills out there just waiting to be prescribed to "cure" everything from dandruff to athlete's feet; and that make a he** of a lot more money for medics than cheap old tobacco and alcohol make for the folks down at the corner bar.
06:13 AM
You've got it right, friend. Even Jay Leno is off on an anti-fat shtick. And when showbiz takes on a cause, can Dr. Feelgood be far behind?
Anyone remember the days when Docs actually made house calls, and earned their (then) Buicks, and even Cadillacs?
Posted by Old Grouch on April 4, 2007 09:49 AMThis is for those who discuss businesses closing because of the smoking ban (and I am sure that I will get a lot of "BUT IT'S NOT MY FAULT'S")
Businesses that failed to plan for, make adjustments to business practices, or just plain closed their eyes and said, "oh whoa is me," are the businesses that did not have the sense to create promotions or specials to attract new clients (simple advertisements letting the "locals" know who they are and what they have to offer), that did not figure that their "regulars" would not abandone THEM for their addiction to tobacco, or didn't think to plan ahead just in case... Well, what can we say to them?
It is the failure of a business ownere to make necessary adjustments, improvements, or better marketing based on the changes of society. Bars that don't have cable or satelite TV won't compete during football or NASCAR season very well with the bars that do. Offer some food, create an outdoor smoking environment with a full bar, make capital improvements, drink specials, free pack of smokes for every pitcher...
To not look at what they can do to improve business until after it is too late, says to me (and this is MY opinion) that maybe they shouldn't be running a business anyway.
Remember, just because it has been something for a long time, doesn't make it right.
Looking around I don't see Ann or Kyle anywhere... OK, smoke 'em if you got 'em. KW
LOL thanks for the laugh
Posted by DMW on April 4, 2007 10:14 AMDan2,
Every attempt to offer a way to separate the poor, abused, picked on anti- tobacco people who "couldn't come in" to a place where there was smoking from those who smoke was not even given the courtesy of a hearing when the 1st bill got passed.
It was a case of "We don't give a d*** what happens to you. We're going to have a Smoke Free Colorado! OUR WAY!"
Oh! But! The casinos . . . ? Well, they can be exempt - at least for now; since they can "pay for it" by the high tax revenue they bring in. And of course, DIA can be exempt, because a lot of people - if not most - are travelling through; and we don't expect them to follow our Nanny positions - YET! And, we'll create something called "cigar bars"; since we haven't achieved criminalization of tobacco as such - YET!
Those private clubs, and Membership Organizations, already in existence weren't even heard. Just throw them in the pot for "Smoke Free" purposes. They don't pay enough taxes to count anyway.
And those businesses that already had separate smoking facilityies - or well divided places - weren't given the time of day in the mad rush to SMOKE FREE COLORADO!
Business may well fail from lack of proper planning. That's not the issue here. What has been - and still is - the issue is the blatant disregard for any business plans that didn't fit into the program of the anti-smoking fanatics, whose "right" to their crusade tops any and all other RIGHTS.
Just as, back in the days of Prohibition, the anti-alcohol people's "rights" became the law of the land, to the effect of the worst rise in crime in the nation's history. But, of course, those who don't want to learn, won't.
And they'll always find some excuse for not learning. And some way to blame their own ignorance on those who oppose their fanaticisms.
Posted by Old Grouch on April 4, 2007 10:52 AMShane, how could my wife and I go out to a non-smoking bar before the ban?
Prior to the smoking ban, THERE WEREN'T ANY NON-SMOKING BARS OR CLUBS.
Jerry,
You should have gone to Boulder, they have outlawed it in bars and restaurants for several years (possibly 10 or more) now. That's why I quit going to Boulder except to drive through and empty my ashtrays.
So, Jerry, the question was--why didn't you open one? And, you seem to forget places like the Mercury Cafe and others that have been smoke free for some time. Not trendy enough for you, I guess.
As side note, I had the pleasure of going to a local bar with a group of friends, many of who are "nicotine nazis" last weekend. No smoking in the bar, but you can on the patio. You should have heard the complaining about all the smoke leaking in whenever the door--a good 50 feet away--was opened. Some people are just never happy...
Posted by Do Not Care for Lo-Do on April 4, 2007 11:18 AMRight you are,Jerry! The marketplace makes it clear there's NO MONEY in non-smoking....I'm sorry to say that there also seems to be no money in real allergy mitigation. Maybe we should ask Good Doctor Parsons why he rants at us instead of helping you.
Posted by Jimminy on April 4, 2007 11:20 AMYour delusion of non smoking bars not being anywhere is exactly what I would expect from someone like you.
Posted by Shane on April 4, 2007 11:26 AMJerry Jones: where in the Constitution does it say that you have constitutional right to demand and enforce that all bars and clubs in Colorado accommodate your "Smoke Free" needs? By what legal theory does your demand for 100 percent "Freedom to Chose" equals other's mandate for zero choice? Are you utterly insensitive to the right of a small, independent hospitality owner to earn an honest living by engaging in a legal business?
Posted by norm on April 4, 2007 11:27 AMWaaaah-waaah-waaah...
We're smokers and if we're used to getting our way and if we don't get our way we're going to throw a big hissy fit.
Posted by Smokers are self centered jerks on April 4, 2007 11:32 AMBar owners don't have carte blanche to do whatever they want. They have to abide by health codes, fire codes, liquor licensing, zoing requirements, etc.
When bars, restaurants, clubs and other businesses open their doors to the public, they agree to abide by the rules.
Bar owners can still have smoking at their establishments if they provide an outdoor smoking area. Nobody is PROHIBITING smoking at bars and clubs.
The ban doesn't say you CAN'T smoke -- it only specifies WHERE you can snoke.
C'mon smokers. Answer the question: Why can't you just go outside and have your little nicotine fix there?
There's no valid reason that you can't, and I'm not going to stay home every night just so you can have your ciggies indoors.
Posted by Jerry Jones on April 4, 2007 11:39 AM
SASSJ--Like the nicotine nazi's that got their way and are still bitching and moaning?
Posted by Do Not Care for LoDo on April 4, 2007 11:40 AMDan2. I'll get over that when you open a bar for nonsmokers and find out when it's to late that it won't work because you have never been in the bar business, obviously, and have no idea how much work it takes to make it a viable venue. And I see a really juvenile change in the thinking of anti tobacco advocates. They said, yea even shouted to the roof tops that non smokers would "FLOCK" to bars when the smoking ban became law.
The Coalition for Equal Rights has surveyed hundreds of bars and not one of them have seen an increase in non smoker customers. In fact they have lost customers as a direct result of the smoking ban. Who do you think the reliable source is, anti tobacco zealots or the people who have put their lives, fortunes, and futures of themselves and their families in their businesses.
As for planning for the almost overnight radical change the smoking ban caused, just how do you, as an expert in the hospitality business, suggest that be accomplished. How about making ones bar into a gathering point for ban advocates to enforce other personal preference, like maybe the lighting, tile, color of paint, type of glasses you use and the bartender who has a beard and who refuses to shave it off to meet their alledged costitutional right's expectations in all bars that they sometimes enter to see if they can find something to get offended about.
No my friend, you see, non smokers never went to bars and taverns in the first place because they found them to, I don't know, full of everyday hard working men and women, and that offended their sense of superior taste and social status. That's why they did not show up and never will show up in flocks. All though, come to think of it, flocks might just be where they belong in the first place. After all,They do have similarties to the bovine natural tendency toward hard headed and unthinking action.
Posted by Allen Campbell on April 4, 2007 11:42 AMWaaahhh Waaahh Waaahh!!!
We're non smokers and we want to fit into the in crowd by going places that we know to be bad for our health, but go anyway so we can feel part of something to compensate for the fact that nobody would ever want to be around us by choice. So we force places to change to suit us. Wow that was easy.
Posted by Non smokers are self gratifying nobody's on April 4, 2007 11:42 AMI'll be happy to answer this "question" Jerry. Because I shouldn't have to just to make you happy. Answer this one then. Why couldn't you go to a non smoking place?
Posted by Shane on April 4, 2007 11:44 AMOh boo hoo. I can't be cool and puff on my substitute phallus while sitting at the bar anymore.
Now I have to go outdoors to puff on it.
Oh woe is me.
Non-smokers are Nazis because they like to breathe. They're gonna repeal the Constitution next.
Smokers, can you pull any more "slippery slope" BS out of your butts? I don't think so.
Smoking bans are working any many other large cities, and they will work in Denver too. So get used to it, and take a Midol.
Posted by Grouchy Health Guy on April 4, 2007 11:45 AM"Businesses that failed to plan for, make adjustments to business practices...."
Dan2, They were told that all the non-smokers would be coming out in droves. Don't remember that little ditty our esteemed legislature chanted? Seems they lied, err, enhanced the truth, just as those studies on 2nd hand smoke have. I know of a nice piece of swamp land that's for sale...
Posted by csj on April 4, 2007 11:46 AMThe government convinces us to give away our rights and freedoms voluntarily. This is another of a gazillion laws that should not be on the books.
Posted by Bob on April 4, 2007 11:49 AMName a few of these great non-smoking bars and cluybs that allegedly existed before the smoking ban.
Come on, I dare you.
Were they all the gay bars in Boulder? I'm not going to drive for an hour just to find a non-smoking establishment. That is ludicrous.
You calim you shouldn't have to go outside to smoke. Why shoul;d I have to go outside just to breathe?
At first, I sympathized with the inconveneince that the ban is causing for the smokers. But so many of you seem like inconsiderate jerks who just want to dominate every place in town.
Now, I'm laughing at the fact that you have to go outside.
I hope that your favorite bar NEVER builds a smoking deck for you, and I hope that it rains every time you step outside.
Posted by Jerry Jones on April 4, 2007 11:50 AMJerry,
You're wasting your breath. Smokers have an overwhelming sense of entitlement that inhibits them from understanding any viewpont that their own.
They can't wrap their feeble nicotine-addled brains around the fact that smoking is not a right...yet nobody is taking it away. They can't understand that up until last July 1st, other people have had to put up with the inconvenience of dealing with the residuals their filthy addictions and they are so selfish that they can't deal with being inconvenienced themselves.
The reason they are so testy about getting up to go outside is because they're all trying to bring about their own early deaths and walking outdoors exposes them to cleaner air as well as a little bit of exercise.
Geez, if we could just find a way to mix nicotine with carbon monoxide, they'd all be in their closed garages with their cars running.
This isn't about freedoms or property rights. It's about a bunch of drug addicts acting like selfish, spoiled children.
Get over yourselves. The law is not going to change and even if it were to go to vote, you would lose. These laws have been tested in other states and they have stood up.
So quit your never ending belly aching or go suck on your tailpipe. It'll bring about that death you crave alot faster and for less money.
Posted by Smokers are self-centered jerks on April 4, 2007 11:51 AMJerry: Regarding your question "C'mon smokers. Answer the question: Why can't you just go outside and have your little nicotine fix there?"
The answer is obvious: 1. Because smokers do not choose to do so 2. Because the bar owner does not choose to impose that requirement on his patrons 3. Because those who demand smokers and bar owners do so are not customers of the bar 4. Because the alleged science that claims there are credible health risks imposed by those who smoke is demonstrably and provably false.
Posted by norm on April 4, 2007 11:55 AMAllen Campbell can't quanitify the lost revenue that non-smokers would have generated over the years if they didn't have to leave or forego bars and taverns because of the smoke in them.
Allen loves to get on this high horse and try to play people off each other by implying that non-smokers are elitists who don't work as hard as smokers.
It doesn't occur or matter to him that non-smokers are hard-working people, too, who like to go out and have a drink and hang out with friends, the same as everybody else.
In all his endless diatribibes it's never occured to Allan to put the shoe on the other foot and actually consider what it's like for a non-smoker to go out and deal with other people's smoke. If you don't smoke, you're not acclimated to it burning your eyes all the time, to the shortness in breath, to the stench.
If Allan really cared about being fair, he would walk a mile in a non-smokers shoes before he went on his rants.
Gee, Allan, I hope if this goes to vote, they make you the spokesperson for the smoking side, because flippancy like yours will be the last nail in the smoking coffin.
Gotta tell you civilized discourse beats ranting every day.Now Jerry's been radicalized when his situation and his support could have helped us.Guys, it's common to use the enemy's tactics in even a verbal fight,but we have to resist temptation to sink to the abyss the antis occupy. Okay, a little dig here and there is probably all right,but we do have to prove to the public every day that we're better than the antis.We know we're better(sorry ,couldn't resist) but we want everyone else to as well...Play nice.
Posted by Jimminy on April 4, 2007 12:04 PMIt's unbelievable that somebody continues to make the claim that smokers had any rights at all on this issue. The only ones that think that smokers had any rights to begin with, are the non smokers. You can't seem to wrap your underdeveloped hypocrtical brain around the fact that it was the bar owners who decided whether or not smoking was allowed in their business. Your anger towards smokers simply expose the ignorance you have when you time and time again choose not to realize that bar owners had the ability to decide for themselves and their business plan to allow smoking or not. So was it never put to a vote because there is so much support for it? Seems like that would be something you could wave around and call it democracy in action. Nobody is complaining about going outside, it's the fact that the owner is non longer able to choose what they allow in their business. So keep your magnificently uninformed opinions out of a conversation that is dealing with facts.
I'd be happy to list them
Applebees
Dave and Busters
Chophouse
Smokehouse
Pf Changs
Champs
California pizza kitchen
TGIF
Fox and hound
Red lobster
Cheesecake Factory
Brewery bar
Anybody else want to pick up?
Non-smokers are so mean to smokers. Your words betray your heart.
Posted by Bob on April 4, 2007 12:17 PMSASCJ, talk about hypocrisy. You say "it's never occured to Allan to put the shoe on the other foot " but its pretty obvious that you've never tried on his shoes. If I was a bar owner who all of a sudden found it that much harder to pay their bills because a bunch of liberal elitists who don't even go to his bar decided to tell him that he cant permit the use of a legal substance in his bar, I'd be steaming too. You then proceed to cry about how the smoke stings your eyes. BOO HOO HOO. Here's an idea, don't give your business to a bar that allows smoking. As was stated above, places like the Mercury Cafe were smoke-free prior to the ban, why didn't you pro banners give them your business? I thought that bars were going to see huge influx of business from the smoke ban. It's easy to sit in your dorm room on mommy and daddy's dollar and support the ban because it doesn't have a real affect on you. It's a lot different for people like Allen who use a bar as their livelihood and are losing some of their ability to support themselves. I wish this ban had been a vote, these extremists on the boards don't realize that a lot of nonsmokers like myself would vote against this socialist crap because we believe in property rights.
Posted by on April 4, 2007 12:24 PMTo Smokers are self-centered Jerks, regarding: "Allen Campbell can't quanitify the lost revenue that non-smokers would have generated over the years if they didn't have to leave or forego bars and taverns because of the smoke in them."
Mr. Campbell, other bar owners and private clubs like VFW ARE currently quantifying on a daily basis the lost revenues that nonsmokers would have generated. It is ZERO. Had there been a meaningful anti-smoking market segment that could add to bar revenues it would have appeared by now, approaching a year after the Colorado ban was enacted.
Like provably false claims about bona fide health risk from secondhand smoke, anti-tobacco's claims about smoking bans being good for business are also a lie.
Repeat the mantra all you wish, you merely prove by your meanspirited posting name and repetition of anti-tobacco mantras despite the facts that there is a compelling need for adult supervision of public health advocacy and some members of the Colorado legislature.
Fortunately, Mr. Campbell and others at the Coalition for Equal Rights are providing leadership to invoke such adult supervision.
Posted by norm on April 4, 2007 12:25 PMSASCJ-
"Smokers have an overwhelming sense of entitlement that inhibits them from understanding any viewpont (sic) that (sic) their own."
The proponents of the ban want to outlaw LEGAL behavior that they don't like, on someone else's private property.
Who has a sense of entitlement?
Posted by Mike on April 4, 2007 12:31 PMShane,
Most of those are restaurant/bars. Unless the bar was located in a city with a smoking ban, I can't think of one bar/club/cabaret that was all nonsmoking all the time. Little Bear had a one or two night a week ban, didn't see as much business that night as there was on smokin' nights. The nons were as vapid when you stepped outside on the nonsmoking night as they are here...
Posted by csj on April 4, 2007 12:36 PMSo most of those are restaurants/bars? And your point being? They serve alcohol, they are a bar. If there was such a demand for non smoking establishments, the market would have followed that. Could you picture a wad of cash laying in the street all day with nobody claiming to own it? Of course not, is the money is there, somebody will take it. Which is why there was such a "lack" of non smoking businesses. But they were still there, whether or not people to choose to go to them is another story.
Posted by Shane on April 4, 2007 01:06 PMShane,
They made the choice, which is how it should be. I agree, there wasn't a market for a totally nonsmoking bar or club otherwise Hizonner Lickenpopper wouldn't have been whining for an even playing field for his bars had Denver of passed a citywide ban, instead of the statewide ban. Guess that hiring illegals isn't helping him anymore.
Posted by csj on April 4, 2007 01:23 PMThe owners should have the choice. Thank you, that's all I wanted to hear.
Posted by Shane on April 4, 2007 01:36 PMMr. Jones - Uh, you do realize this is Colorado don't you...NOT California?
Posted by Rick on April 4, 2007 03:09 PMWow, Rick, I'm surprised you can tell the difference. I sure can't.
Posted by polly on April 4, 2007 03:18 PMI'm still waiitng for that list of great (non-existent) non-smiking establishments that existed before the ban.
And for the umpteenth time, nobody has outlawed smoking. I repeat NOBODY HAS OUTLAWED SMOKING! We're just asking you to go outside to enjoy your smokes.
All this talk of lost revenue makes no sense. There's no way that smokers are taking all their meals at home and are no longer going out to have a drink once in awhile just because of a slight inconvenience imposed by the smoking ban.
Posted by Jerry Jones on April 4, 2007 03:30 PMJerry- What you have outlawed is a property owner deciding what LEGAL activities he allows on his private property.
"We're just asking you to go outside to enjoy your smokes."
The "we" to which you are referring, are people who have ZERO ownership in the businesses, and yet, feel entitled to dictate what the businesses do.
Mike -- Bars, restaurants, clubs, etc. are NOT private property. They are business establishments -- open to the public.
In return for operating a business at a profit, owners must abide by a ton of rules -- fire codes, health and safety laws, building inspections, liquor licensing, food handling, waste disposal, noise ordinances, etc.
The smoking ban is just one more rule on business owners -- not private property owners.
If a bar owner wants to shut his doors to the public, he can sit in there and smoke all he wants. It's only when he opens his business to the public that smoking is banned.
Now do you get it? There is a difference between you in your home, and Joe bar owner.
Posted by Jerry Jones on April 4, 2007 04:34 PMYou can wait for as long as you want. It doesn't change the fact that it's been above your post the whole time. It's really too bad you don't want to see what's all around you. Perhaps you can let the bar owners who have lost business come to your house and collect what they've lost. I am a smoker and I take all of my meals at home, I still drink, just not a bar. I don't go to bars anymore because it was made increasingly clear that I was not wanted by the people who just started going there. And as such I will never be compelled to fight for anybody's rights anymore. Whether or not I agreed with them, I always felt that I cannot keep somebody from doing something they want to do, especially since I always had the option to go somewhere else.
Posted by Shane on April 4, 2007 04:38 PMBars, restaurants, clubs, are all private property. They invite you in, you do not have a right to be there. Which is in contrast to the post office, library, etc.
Posted by Shane on April 4, 2007 04:40 PM"Bars, restaurants, clubs, etc. are NOT private property."
They're not? What country do you live in?
"In return for operating a business at a profit, owners must abide by a ton of rules -- fire codes, health and safety laws, building inspections, liquor licensing, food handling, waste disposal, noise ordinances, etc."
Yes, and all of those regulations either deal with how neighboring properties, or unsuspecting customers are affected. It's different with smoking.
Now do YOU get it? There is a difference between poisoning customers with tainted meat or contaminated water, and letting people CHOOSE to come in to a bar that allows smoking.
Posted by Mike on April 4, 2007 04:59 PMMike, you need to educate yourself about business law. In the battle of private property vs. public good, the public good always prevails. That's the crux of eminent domain. (The governement can take your property away if it benefits the public at large.)
And I hate to break this to you, but the the whole discussion is a non-issue because non-smokers have won, and there is little chance of you reversing the law.
Buh bye.
Posted by on April 4, 2007 05:52 PM5:52- Nice condescending dismissal at the end. Jerk.
So, we need to ban anything that takes place in a private business that MIGHT be harmful to the customers?
You need to educate yourself on eminent domain. The government doesn't "take your property away". It forces you to sell it to the government if it benefits society (to build a highway, or because you have let the property become a blight on the neighborhood, etc...). Poor analogy.
Posted by Mike on April 4, 2007 06:05 PMUh Mike -- you are mistaken.
From "American Heritage Dictionary"
eminent domain
n. The right of a government to appropriate private property for public use, usually with compensation to the owner.
See the part where it says "usually"? That means it's not required, and the government doesn't have to buy your property.
I have an easement in my back yard. It's my responsibility to keep it mowed, but I can't put any structures on it -- not even a fence, because the government may choose to use that area to bury utility lines.
It ain't fair, but that's life.
Lawson-
eminent domain
n. The right of a government to appropriate private property for public use, usually with compensation to the owner.
See the part where it says, 'appropriate'? One of the definitions of 'appropriate' is, "set apart". The easement in your yard has been "set apart", but it has not been "taken" from you; therefore, you are not due compensation. Your use of it is limited, but you can still use it; just don't set up any permanent structures, or plant any trees.
When property is "taken" from you (to put a highway through, or whatever, and you are forced to leave), you are compensated.
That's why it says, 'usually'.
Posted by Mike on April 4, 2007 08:13 PMIn any law there are two expenses. The cost of enforcement and the cost of prosecution.
Just work to keep the costs too high to the state and the law will be meaninless. Imagine the police dispatcher answering a call, "Hey there smoking in here! Send a squad car!"
Now the police don't have a lot of manpower and the rest of the time how many of the "nazis" will be there? In the time it takes a police car to park the cigarettes are out. Now, trying to prosecute,imagine a jury trial for every offense. That is one cost that won't be easily bourne by the public and a well funded campaign for a change in the law via a ballot initiative would most likely pass. That's why the casino exemption exisited in the first place. Thelegislature knew they could and would force a change in the law or a complete vacating of it.
As I posted elsewhere the Seattle PI paper outlined a real problem because the bar owners have decided to fight and just ignore the law. There is not enough enforcement nor enough ability to penalize for the bans to work and that is in Washington.
Ignore the law and unless Ann is there no one will know. If she calls let her waste a few days of her time in a postponed and otherwise delayed prosecution which most likely won't happen.
Posted by on April 4, 2007 08:43 PMSorry. The 8:43 post is mine forgot to fill in the blanks. OOPS!
Posted by momma y on April 4, 2007 08:46 PMIf smokers violate the ban, they're only going to hurt business owners even more.
People caught smoking in bars get a ticket (I think it's about $100) and the business owner is subject to a ticket as well. I don't know how much it costs them, but I know that the price goes up every time there is a violation.
It very unlikely that a bar owner would knowingly allow someone to violate the anti-smoking law, unless the guy has money to burn.
Posted by Another Legal Guy on April 5, 2007 07:46 PMI was a smoker for years, and I really enjoyed it. But I recently turned 50, and I decided that it's time to quit.
The first few days sucked, but things have been getting easier. My sense of smell is a lot sharper. Food tastes better, and I am saving a small fortune. I wish I would have given up the habit years ago.
My point here is that you shouldn't smoke forever. When you get to be my age, it really saps your energy, especially since we live where the air is thin anyway.
The health impact is undeniable. The cost of cigarettes is constantly going up, and with all the new restrictions, smoking is just not worth the aggravation.
Posted by Nothing Against Smokers on April 5, 2007 07:53 PMIf smokers violate the ban, they're only going to hurt business owners even more.
People caught smoking in bars get a ticket (I think it's about $100) and the business owner is subject to a ticket as well. I don't know how much it costs them, but I know that the price goes up every time there is a violation."
Yup. Subject to a ticket and tickets have to be enforced by a court after being issued by a police officer.
In small towns you might not find a police officer with time to waste on such things and in big cities the cost to the court system of those who would demand a jury trial would far exceed the amunt of the fine. Now add on the fact that the officer wuld have to actually see theoffense and testify or the person making the complaint would have to testify and yo have a large footprint for a very small mouse. A few postponements and the actual damages to the state could exceed ten times the amount of the fines. That's what happened in Seattle. Neighborhood bars are suposed to be smoke free and they aren't and only a few people have complained, most of them the nazi-nanny types, and they bar owners used the legal system to delay for over a year any hearings. A lawyer donated his services so the cost to the bar owner conviceted? A two hundred dollar find. Cost to the state? Well you figure the cost of court time and people and jury pay etc. End game...the bar owner still permits smoking and they aren't about to try any more tickets because it cost them too much!
Enough people disobey unjust laws happened a while back. Those laws got changed so will the smoking ban. It will just be a few more steps and might be a ballot initiative. Most would allow neighborhood bars and private clubs AND casinos to permit smoking and the vote will go that way wait and see. Only the antis think the whole world has to change to suit them but they think a legislative victory will last.
So according to momma y's logic, if a cop isn't around, or if a town doesn't have enough cops to enforce laws that I consider to be "unfair," then I can just do whatever I want.
Cool. Next time I go through Limon, I'm going to see if my car will do 120 mph. And maybe I'll stop at 711 and fill up my pockets with free stuff, then run out to my car and take off.
After all, I don't think speed limits are fair, and 711 charges too much for stuff.
Posted by Lawbreaker on April 6, 2007 01:37 PMThose who have an interest in the Colorado smoking ban, may find the below posting today to Forces.org to provide useful information.
April 6 [03:00 GMT] Opposition to Smoking Bans Heats up – Colorado On March 30th 2007 Forces columnist Norman Kjono appeared on the Chuck Baker Show (KKKK radio 1580) to discuss the Colorado smoking ban. Links to MP3 files for both one-hour segments of that show are provided in this commentary. In this posting Mr. Kjono discusses current events in Colorado and the damaging situation that bar owners and private clubs confront. Links to three Op-Ed works published by the Rocky Mountain News and many reader comments posted about those views are included as well. Questions posed to a member of the legislature about the smoking ban, the senator's response, and the resulting policy position of the Coalition for Equal Rights are also presented. Forces is pleased to provide a comprehensive overview of events in one state from the perspective of those who engage in boots-on-the-ground opposition to a statewide smoking ban.
Posted by norm on April 6, 2007 02:00 PMSmokers and bar owners are a minority of the population.
I thought Democracy means that the majority rules. Am I wrong?
Posted by Politician Guy on April 6, 2007 02:44 PM"I thought Democracy means that the majority rules. Am I wrong?"
No, that is what democracy means. Fortunately, we are a republic which was set up to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
Democracy is mob rule. A good quote (I don't know who originally said it) is: "Democracy is like 2 wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner."
Just because business owners number fewer than the population as a whole, doesn't mean that the majority gets to run roughshod over the minority business owners.
Posted by Mike on April 6, 2007 03:03 PMThe smoking ban is the best thing that ever happened to me! You see, four months after the ban, I lost my job of 13 years because the bar I worked at closed, after losing 65% of their revenue. Of course, I've not been able to find another bartending job because none of the other bars can afford to hire new bartenders. So why am I happy? Because I now get $186 a month in food stamps, $480 in rent assistance, $620 in unemployment, $400 from Leap to pay for my heat this winter, and started back in college back in January, where I'm getting over $7000 a year in grants to pay for college. Also getting commodoties, CICP, and a few other small assistance programs. I should be able to go to college full-time for the next four years, without having to spend a dime of my own money for my own living or educational expenses. Yup, I'm now a member of our wonderful welfare system, all because of the smoking ban.
Just think of the SAVINGS this smoking ban will bring to Colorado...
Posted by Lauren on April 9, 2007 11:58 AMWell, Sharon, I don't intend to blow this opportunity to go to college - I am taking that very very seriously, it is something I've always wanted to do but always earned "too much" money to qualify for assistance but "too little" to afford it myself. Honestly, despite my sarcastic attitude in my above post, I hate receiving assistance. I've paid my own way since I was 17, and have never received a penny in any sort of help ever. It is actually embarrassing to swipe that food stamp card at the grocers... but I had no choice. I seriously looked for another job, and still am looking, but who wants to hire someone whose only experience is bartending? I had one interviewer ask me if I had a drinking problem, because I'd worked so long as a bartender...
Posted by Lauren on April 9, 2007 12:52 PMLauren,
Be thankful for all the money that you'll save on chemotherapy.
P.S. Here's a news flash for you. Bartending is not a career.
Posted by Cancer's No Fun on April 11, 2007 09:34 AMLauren, you are receiving due compensation for all your years of hard work. Bartending is a stressful job, I know because I delivered drinks in lots of fine places and knew I couldn`t hack it as a "beverage engineer." Where are all the smoker/drinkers now? Are they drinking at home? How much fun is that. They can use nicotine inhalers in the bars and get back out into the fun. Very best wishes on your college experience. What is your major?
Posted by Sharon B. on April 11, 2007 03:05 PM