Extend smoking ban
Kudos to Rep. Anne McGihon and Sen. Ken Gordon for introducing a bill to add casinos to the list of workplaces where smoking is prohibited (“Smoke-free casino bill on tap,” Jan. 13).
I have been to Black Hawk once in the past year and don’t care to go back into the casinos because of the smoke smell. I sympathize with the employees who are forced to work in those conditions. I don’t believe that restaurants have suffered from the ban and hope that casinos will be added to the list.
Jan Frederickson, Aurora
Jan you have one very large misconception in your statement. Just so you know there is NOT one employee in any of the casinos that is FORECED to work there. They all walked up on their own and put the application in.
I do agree with you that if you dont like the smoke then please dont return. Reastaurants will never suffer from being smoke free and many were before the dictated smoking ban. The places that were hurt were the small mom and pop neighborhood bar owners. Those are the places that the creators of the ban would never step into no matter what goes on inside. We use to have a choice in Colorado but no longer so.
Well Don...I suspect there are many of us who would like to enjoy the casino's but can't or won't because of the nasty smoke . It smells like death , which is fitting because of all the people killing themselves with such a stupid habit.
Posted by Ann Butler on January 29, 2007 06:34 AMDon,
No..not one employee was forced to work there but they are doing it so they can pay their rent, car payments, taxes, etc.
Were YOU forced to smoke? Newsflash, Don...when you smoke in the company of other people...you are forcing them to make a choice to either breathe in your smoke or remain in your company. That's fine if it's your house or car...I respect that. But when it's a neutral public place like a restaurant or bar where we both want to be...you are the one making a choice...AND I AM FIGHTING FOR AND DEFENDING MY RIGHT AND FREEDOM TO BREATHE air that you have not polluted with your smoke.
You're not being victimized by non-smoker's, Don. They're not the ones who are shortening your life, making you spend hundreds of your hard earned dollars, etc, ...that would be you, Don. You're the one making those choices...and others will still have to pay the price and consequences of it...strangers will have to pay higher insurance premiums and co-pays and your loved ones will have to care for you or live for years with you. Real considerate, huh?
I know what I'm talking about because my mother smoked for most of her life but quit in her 50's. Now she's in her 70's and is suffering the consequences of her smoking...she has COPD and has to be on oxygen 24/7. I and two of my sibling have asthsma and our father, who refused to quit smoking, missed alot of moments in our lives because his addiction to nicotine drove him to choose smoking in another room over being with his wife and children.
That's the future YOU are choosing for yourself, Don, by taking these risks . But you do not have the right to choose it for me or anyone else.
You're not a victim, Don, and your freedom was taken away a long time ago by the man you see in the mirror...when you became a slave to nicotine.
Posted by Thomas on January 29, 2007 07:04 AMAnn- It's their right to engage in what you call a "stupid habit", but it isn't your right to even be in any of the places that are forced to abide by the ban. Those places are someone else's private property and you are invited in by them. You have no standing to dictate any of the legal activities that take place in someone's private establishment. You do have the right to stay home, or patronize a no-smoking restaurant, or put your money at risk and open a restaurant of your own, but don't tell others what to do in their private businesses. And, by the way, apostrophes are used in possessives, not plurals (casinos, not casino's).
Posted by Mike on January 29, 2007 07:08 AMMy point went over your head Mike. Many would come to the casino's that won't or can't because of the putrid air they would have to breath. I do stay away...I do spend my money in places that care about my wants and dislikes. But I have just as much right to tell you how stupid your habit is as you do to spew you pollutants in the air. You must be a lefty...only they feel superior to the point of correcting someone's punctuation or spelling.
Posted by Ann on January 29, 2007 07:31 AMNo, I'm not a lefty. I just can't stand to see poor grammar and feel obligated to educate those who use it. By the way, you did it again. Also, I don't think the casinos are hurting for business. I'm not a smoker and I prefer non-smoking restaurants. I would also prefer non-smoking casinos, but I would never dream of trampling the right of someone else for my personal comfort.
Posted by Mike on January 29, 2007 07:44 AMFirst of all Mike...its not your place to correct me or anyone else. Such hubris! If 20% of the population smokes , as I've heard.....why should they get to dictate to the majority who don't smoke and would like to use public venues also? There are some who like to spit on the ground instead of using a kleenex . Its a health issue. So is smoking and causing breathing difficulties for non smokers.
Posted by Ann on January 29, 2007 07:57 AMNews flash Ann - The smokers didn't "dictate to the majority." The business owner(s) dictate how they run their business until people like you decide you want to do the dictating.
Your turn will come. Someday a majority will decide they don't like one of your legal activities and initiate a ban. And it might even affect something you do in your own home. You won't mind though, as long as its for bettering the community, to heck with individual rights, right?
Posted by KW on January 29, 2007 08:28 AMKw....yes...if my 'legal activites' cause health issues for someone else...it deserves to be banned. What good are freedom and rights if your 're dead because of someone's nasty habit?
Posted by Ann on January 29, 2007 08:33 AMMore alarmists whaling. You'll be dead from that brown cloud called smog long before 2nd hand cigarette smoke can even make a dent. The study you believe in like a bible never isolated the cause to cig smoke, just "2nd hand smoke" (of all kinds) and was so biased in its attempts to blame cigs that our own US Dept of Health thru the whole report in the toilet. You may want to actually read the report rather than relying on TV or newspaper versions.
I'll believe your concern is related to "health issues" when you quit driving. Until then your words are nothing more than rhetoric.
Posted by KW on January 29, 2007 08:45 AMWell well...you tipped your hand KW...your post says alot of about your mindwet. I find your rhetoric rediculous. So you've never been in a room full of smokers and seen non smokers practically gaging from the smoke? Your either a liar or in denial.
Posted by Ann on January 29, 2007 08:56 AMMy mindset? You mean the mindset where I gather facts to make informed decisions rather than jumping on alarmist bandwagons? You never have read that report, have you?
Posted by KW on January 29, 2007 09:03 AMWhy don't you answer my question first? Ever sat in room full of smokers and seen the effects on people who don't smoke? Do you even care? No I have not read the report...don't need to. My body tells me with every cough every hack that the smoke isn't helping my lungs. But you stic to your guns...just so you or others can keep your rights. What about my rights...or do they not matter because you don't like them?
Posted by Ann on January 29, 2007 09:16 AMExhaust from vehicles and other pollutants are much more of a health risk to the population than cigarette smoke, there is no point in trying to deny that. Banning smoking on the private property of citizens is nothing more than the big hand of government exerting its power on the general public, mostly because it makes them popular, which in turn makes their jobs more secure. As has been mentioned, until these people that want to make us all healthy stop driving cars, stop wearing perfume, stop flying on airplanes etc, all the talk about public health is nothing more than feel-good rhetoric.
Posted by Roy on January 29, 2007 09:17 AMAnn- The smoker's legal activities don't affect your health in any way. If you choose to go to a place where there is a room full of smokers, then you have made the choice to put your health at risk. Please don't be so sanctimonious as to think that you know best, and you get to decide how others live their lives. If it's my restaurant, then I decide what happens in it. Period. I won't tell you what to do in your private establishment, and you don't tell me what to do in mine. The arrogance of smoking ban supporters floors me.
Posted by Mike on January 29, 2007 09:17 AMAnd the arrogance of smokers who care for nothing more than their next 'fix' floors me. How hard is it for you to just step outside?
I'm glad you people are made to do that now. It took years to accomplished, and we're not done yet.
No, and the Nazis weren't done yet either when they made jews wear a badge.
Posted by smoker on January 29, 2007 09:24 AMYou all keep writing about the "right of the owners to do what they want in their business" well, those business are regulated. ALL of them. The food industry (FDA, state and local govs), the alcohol industry (ATF, state and local), and the gambling inudstry all have limits and are rgulated by license. There is a limit to how much one can drink (obivous over-sintoxication will mean you are cut off at that tavern), and it's not like the drunks whip it out and pee all over the other customers (which is what smokers do with thier smoke).
Common sense and logic. And a little respect for everyone. Smokers, you don't have a RIGHT to smoke. You do have a right to be angry about someone taking away your convenience to smoke, but that is about it, as far as rights go.
Posted by Dan on January 29, 2007 09:26 AMBut we all have a right to liberty...maybe you should take some time to find out what that means.
Posted by Roy on January 29, 2007 09:28 AMThanks for the help Mike and Roy. But I believe it's futile to have an intelligent discussion with someone who wants to disregard logic and facts. As Ann said herself, she doesn't need to read the report, she has her instincts to substitute for facts.
Posted by KW on January 29, 2007 09:28 AMOh please! We as a society get to dictate whats acceptable to us and whats not. Sorry your on the wrong side of the issue. Your 'need for nicotine' drives you forward. Not any true sense of your rights being done away with. At least be honest with yourselves!
Posted by Ann on January 29, 2007 09:29 AMYaaaawn.
Posted by KW on January 29, 2007 09:31 AMKw...you re the one that is unable to discuss or debate. ever heard of the old saying....book smart...people stupid? You and your ilk fit that to a tee. Step outside and smoke your self into an early grave...But If I want to go and gamble...I don't want to share my airsapce with your smoke. period.
Posted by Ann on January 29, 2007 09:34 AMThen please be honest with yourself ann. Listen to the first part of your sentence, "we as a society get to dictate whats acceptable..." Do you realize what your saying? Slavery was acceptable at one time in this country, genocide was acceptable at one time in this country, just because something is acceptable at some point in time does not mean anything beyond the prejudices and stereotypes of those who get to do your 'dictating'.
Posted by Roy on January 29, 2007 09:34 AMNot once have I ever said anything about a smoker's right to smoke. They don't have that right either. The rights I'm concerned with are those of the PROPERTY OWNERS- you know, the person who owns that property. The person who has risked his money starting up a restaurant. The person who determines the hours of operation, what's on the menu, what kind of music is played, and if smoking is permitted, or not. I don't care if he allows smoking, or not. I just want the decision left to him.
Posted by Mike on January 29, 2007 09:37 AMRoy...all I am saying is I have the right to go where I please and not share my air with addicts who needs their fix. Step outside....how hard is that?
Posted by Ann on January 29, 2007 09:39 AMMike...as someone said earlier....restuarants are regulted. Just because you own it doesn't mean you get to call all the shots. What about serving tainted meat...it would make folks ill, maybe even kill them? The state regulates alot in those businesses. If its has to do with health it should regulated.
Posted by Ann on January 29, 2007 09:42 AMBut you don't have that right ann. You have the right to be a hermit if that is what you wish, or to live in a bubble, but you dont have a right to keep people you dont like away from everywhere you may feel like being at some point in time.
Posted by Roy on January 29, 2007 09:43 AMLike I said Ann, it's all about feelings with you, no facts, no logic. You've decided what you "want" and if stepping on private property owners rights is required to attain your desires then so be it.
Posted by KW on January 29, 2007 09:43 AMThat's the fundamental flaw in your argument Ann. You DON'T have the right to go where you please. If you come to my restaurant, then you are there at my invitation, which I can revoke at any time. It's PRIVATE property, not public.
Posted by MIke on January 29, 2007 09:45 AMTainted meat, unclean kitchen, poison in food- yes those things are not allowed because the public doesn't get an opportunity to inspect everything before they eat, so we need some regulations. All a restaurant owner has to do is put a sign on the door that says, "Smoking", or "Non-smoking". Then you can make an informed decision. Simple, isn't it?
Posted by Mike on January 29, 2007 09:49 AMKw...Its not just about feelings. When I sit in room with smokers ...my lungs fill up and I truley can't breath.
Why do i have to suffer with that because I want to be in the same space as a smoker ( lets say for gambling)? You still never answered my question. I know you must have seen non smokers suffering with the smoke...but you don't care. As long as you get your necotine. To me you sound hypocritical. And you have no more proof that second hand smoke doesn't harm as I do by saying it does harm. So we will not come to a resolution on this. It will have to go to the voters again and again the majority will dictate.
I was what you would call a regular. I went to my bar every week at the same time. Met all the usual people there at the same time, and occasionally a new face would show up for a little while. I was part of what kept the bar in business. All of a sudden, I was no longer able to enjoy my bar. The smoking ban in Colorado is doing more harm than good no matter how you slice it. Let's look at the arguments.
1. Health- I have talked to the bartenders of about a dozen bars, and in some cases the owners as well. And every last one of them smoked. Seriously, show me a bartender that doesn't smoke. I'm not talking about the martini lounges or the brandy stops. I'm talking about the hole in the wall, dirt dive, two horse bars. Every last person in those establishments smoke. What the protesters aren't doing is going there. They’re also not looking at how many restaurants that were already non smoking. Applebee’s is one of my favorite restaurants, but I don't go there and huff down a few while I'm eating. I'll have one cigarette before I go in, and another when I leave. Do you know why it's not a big deal then? Because I'm there for a total of an hour, hour and a half tops. When I go into a bar, myself and the rest of the people there, are there for roughly 7-8 hours. And since when do you go into a bar to improve your physical health? That's like complaining about Chuck E Cheese’s because the kids’ screaming raises your blood pressure. But the kids are a natural side effect of the pizza and arcade. So is smoking a side effect of the alcohol and ashtrays. Roughly 65% of all restaurants were non smoking before the ban went into effect, so why couldn't those people who complain about it go there? Why inflict every last place with this law? I will fully agree that smoking is not healthy. It is a disgusting habit that would probably make my life richer if I didn't do it. But I do it. It's my personal choice to destroy my body by enjoying myself. And it was everybody else’s choice to go to a place that was already non smoking. It's a two way street whether you like it or not. I can't feel any sympathy for the whiners. Too many times I have seen a young mother, walk into the bar and place her toddler, carrier and all, on the table while she goes to get a drink and socialize. It doesn't take a genius to see that these are unfit parents, and now they can feel safer about leaving their babies on the table while they drink because there is no smoke.
2. Money- When you go into a bar or restaurant, everything you see, the tables, the chairs, the pictures on the wall, were all paid for by the people who go in there everyday. These things didn't just show up when the bar opened. The people who go into a bar everyday, if not every week, is what keeps the bar going. It's not the people who show up for two hours, after their hike in the mountains every other month. Let me give you some perspective. I would spend $40 on the pool table, $60 in the jukebox, and another $100 on my bar tab. That's $150-$200 a night, just by one person. The people who I would go out with would usually put down the same. And if you think the bars aren't going to be losing money, going from $200 a night per person, to the people who go in for an hour and spend about $40 every other month, I just thank the stars these people aren't my accountants. It's the people like me who kept bars afloat for years, now they are trying to rely on the DTC happy hour yuppie crowd; who don't tip by the way. Roughly a year ago, these people all of a sudden decided that it was cool and trendy to go to bars, but they are only doing it so they can be seen. In another year, the trend is going to go somewhere else, and all the bars that were struggling to stay alive during this time are going to go under. Another fact is that when other states have done polls to find out if the bars are losing money, they are not polling the dive bars; they are polling places like the Purple Martini, Fox and Hound, and the Hollyjumper. Basically anywhere you can get a shot of rum for $12. They are also not polling the places that have already closed due to the flaky business, or the places that had a clientele of about a dozen people.
3. Compromise- Many places have patios, and that's great, but I'm not going to leave my stuff, including my pool cues at the table while I go outside. It's like asking people to leave their wallet on the table while they go to the bathroom because they don't need their wallets in the bathroom. These are the same folks who preach tolerance and acceptance all the time, as long as it shares their same view. Accepting people for who they are goes beyond the person themselves. It's everything they are about, habits, flaws, and misunderstandings. They are also the people who complain about how bad it is for everyone around them, while at the same time choking down big macs in their Suburban that gets 2 miles a gallon. You can't fight one evil, while ignoring the evil that you're doing. I don’t go into a Jungle Jim playland and curse a blue streak. Even though I could, I have respect for the people who go there all the time.
Every single argument that praises the smoking ban stems from an idea that you are better than someone else, and that you deserve more rights than they do. While the non smokers are writing in with their spasms of self-satisfaction, I ask only for them to step back, take a good hard look at themselves, and look at the harm that was done in the interest of health and welfare of "all" Coloradans, as we are herded into that Kaiser Permenente idealized lifestyle. The bartenders and owners of establishments along Kipling, Alameda, Sheridan, etc. won't be able to afford health insurance much less the money and time it takes to "eat right and exercise" to supplement their liberated lungs. They'll be too busy trying to find the money that they've lost from this ban to support themselves and their families. Perhaps they'll all find jobs at the Rock Bottom, Dave and Busters, and other sanitized emporiums that seem to attract the anti-smoking crowd. Too bad they were unwilling to compromise on the food revenue piece. From the looks of it that would have made everyone happy since the militant non-smokers wouldn't have stepped foot in the mom and pop bars and they sure aren't doing so now that everything is non-smoking? Put your money where your mouth is...start supporting the bars that you are putting out of business or let those people be and change the law to allow the non food establishment to have their regulars and their income the way it was before.
I don't have the right to smoke Dan? excuse me? Well I say that you don't have the right to wear your hairstyle the way you do. Does that make any more sense than what you said? Of course it doesn't. You all could've gone somewhere that was non smoking, but instead you make everybody go outside. Sorry for intruding on your space your majesty. I forgot that everybody needs to serve you and your liberated lungs.
Unfortunately, here in CO, it didn't go to the voters AT ALL...
And don't forget the saying from your elementary school social studies class, majority rules, minority rights.
I fear ann's constant use of the word 'dictate'. Please move to the middle east if you want a dictator, or maybe you'd prefer a socialist dictator like hugo chavez?
Posted by Roy on January 29, 2007 09:52 AMRoy...I'm not trying to keep people that smoke out of all the places I want to go to at any given time. They are welcome to be there..just step outside when they smoke.
Posted by Ann on January 29, 2007 09:52 AMI find it funny that people (Ann, that means you) are arguing for their "rights" to go into a private business and demand the business bend to their image of how that business should be run. Is that a "right?" I think I will go down the street and demand that the Chinese restaurant put in a taco bar. I like tacos, so it's my "right" that I be able to walk into any restaurant and get tacos! Don't tell me different!
You know, it's ironic that people are arguing against smoking (a legal activity) so they can feel more comfortable gambling (a semi-legal activity). Ann, I used to work in a casino in Central City, and I can tell you from what I witnessed there, gambling is a bad habbit. Just stay home, activate your car alarm while burning your money in a coffee can. That will give you pretty much the same effect (see how it feels when someone tells you how to live?).
I find it funny that people (Ann, that means you) are arguing for their "rights" to go into a private business and demand the business bend to their image of how that business should be run. Is that a "right?" I think I will go down the street and demand that the Chinese restaurant put in a taco bar. I like tacos, so it's my "right" that I be able to walk into any restaurant and get tacos! Don't tell me different!
You know, it's ironic that people are arguing against smoking (a legal activity) so they can feel more comfortable gambling (a semi-legal activity). Ann, I used to work in a casino in Central City, and I can tell you from what I witnessed there, gambling is a bad habbit. Just stay home, activate your car alarm while burning your money in a coffee can. That will give you pretty much the same effect (see how it feels when someone tells you how to live?).
Eventually, the 'go outside' mantra will change to 'go home' and then 'go away'. Soon all the non-smokers who wouldn't go into smoking bars anyway will have to walk by all the smokers on the sidewalks, theyll get pissed and push for a smoking ban on sidewalks (even though car exhaust is much much worse for you), then non-smoking neighbors will begin to notice the faint smell of camels drifting in their window from somewhere down the block, poof, no more smoking in your house, etc, etc. Please, STOP BANNING THINGS!
Posted by Roy on January 29, 2007 10:02 AMRoy...we're not going to agre on this so it is pointless to go on. I wish smokers no ill...but I'm afraid they will do more than make themselves ill with their habit. But just so ya know...the little mom and pop restuarant down the street from has seen buisness up 25 % since the ban. Now the bars may be a different thing altogether. I don't go to bars much..but I'd most likely go more often if it wasn't for smoke. Altho I'd never become a 'regualr'. i'd love to go gambling tho...just can't ..again because of the smoke. And I dare say I'm not the only one who'd take the trip up to the casinos if the smoke was no longer a factor.
Posted by Ann on January 29, 2007 10:03 AMAnn, you do have every right in the world to not be bothered by smoking. You have the right to go somewhere else. That's what we in America call business competition. You want to be in the same place as a smoker? Obviously not since we are such a disgusting group of people. I don't care if the non smokers are hacking away. They can always get up and go somewhere else. And they never HAD to go there in the first place.
Posted by DR on January 29, 2007 10:05 AMYou know workers who work with dangerous substances can only be exposed to so much of that substance. For example, those who work in nuclear power plants can only be exposed to so many rads per year. The government states the limit, enforces the limit, and the employers must ensure that the workers are not exposed to dangerous levels of radiation. True, the workers do not have to work in the power plant, but one of the functions of government that has been established since the early 20th Century is that the government has been ensuring the safety of workers. So why treat waiters and casino workers differently than nuclear power plant workers. Cigeratte smokie is a pollutant, and it is about time that the government treats it as a pollutant.
I for one am glad that the minority of smokers are no longer able to impede the welfare of the majority of non-smokers in bars, eating establishements and other places people tend to gather..
That is what is called Capitalism. If a business realizes that more people will come and spend money at their establishment if they ban smoking then they will do it in a second. Obviously, the casinos think they will make more money by allowing smoking, and they are probably correct. These casinos do not care about you or if you get your gambling fix, they care about getting their hands on your money. For every non-smoker that decides not to go gambing because of smoke there are 10 smokers who would gladly sit at a slot machine and chainsmoke for 8 hours.
Posted by Roy on January 29, 2007 10:09 AMI've listened to your points and still do not agree with you. KW refuses to answer a question that will undermine his/her argument. I think I will head outside...its a beautiful day and I could use some fresh air.
Posted by Ann on January 29, 2007 10:10 AMYou really have no idea what your saying Ann. Business has not been up 25%. It has gone down 80%. I don't go into bars anymore, and truth be told, I'm glad the ban went into effect. I am saving money fist over fist. When I drive by the bars I used to go to, and I see that every month someone else has moved in and bought out the previous owners, it makes me smile.
Posted by DR on January 29, 2007 10:11 AMPlease don't compare cigarette smoke to radiation if you are trying to make any kind of logical point...it throws your whole argument...maybe if you'd compare cigarette smoke to car exhaust, that is a little closer thoughcar exhaust is much more prevalent, though i dont see the government regulating the amount of car exhaust the pit crew at the indy 500 takes in, or the amount of exhaust the average bus driver takes in everyday...
Posted by Roy on January 29, 2007 10:13 AMYes, go outside and inhale the beautifully polluted air...and think to yourself how wonderful it would be if you were the only person alive on the planet...
Posted by Roy on January 29, 2007 10:15 AMWatch, Ann is going to come back in complaining about the smokers she had to pass while getting to her smog.
Posted by DR on January 29, 2007 10:17 AMAnn- you have never addressed my point that you have no right to be in someone's private establishment. If you have no right to be there in the first place (you are there at my invitation), then how can you possibly have the right to dictate to me what legal activities I allow? Please answer that.
Posted by Mike on January 29, 2007 10:21 AMThe State of Colorado does regualate car emissions or have you never gotten an emissions test here. And believe me, I wish those black smoke belching buses and other diseal engines, would be regulated via a filtration system like in Western Europe. Besides cigarette smoke and radiation both cause cancer and other diseases, so my logic is not off.
Posted by Sean on January 29, 2007 10:22 AMSo is hairspray, so is standing in front of your microwave waiting for your food to be done, so is standing outside in the cosmic rays, so is answering the telephone, so is looking at your computer screen. You see Sean, many things cause cancer, the reason you shouldn't compair cigarette smoke to radiation is because one will kill you about 10,000 times faster.
Posted by DR on January 29, 2007 10:26 AMYour logic is off. Second hand smoke (from cigarettes) has not been proven to cause cancer (smoking cigarettes has).
CO regulates emissions of single vehicles, not of the overall pollution resulting from people driving 60 miles to work, etc. They do not make RTD provide a workplace free from pollutants, the regulation you speak of would be (in terms of cigarettes) similar to allowing people to only smoke 1 cigarette while they are at a bar, but if the bar is filled with 60 people all smoking their one cigarette, than the regulation means nothing.
I just googled "second hand smoke" and even the EPA, the same EPA that refuses to regulate car emissions, classifies second hand smoke as harmful to non-smokers. Simply google the term and you find plenty of scientifically reviewed studies concluding that second hand smoke is harmful. It is not just some liberal conspiracy.
Posted by Sean on January 29, 2007 10:33 AMAnn - To answer your question... NO. The vast majority of nonsmokers I've seen in bars are having a drink and visiting with their friends. They understand that smoking is a legal activity and is allowed by the owners of that establishment.
There has been a few rare times when I see a nonsmoker get out of sorts because of their hatred for cig smokers. They put on a big show acting as if they're about to die from it. Most recently this happened on a bar PATIO where the complainers where seated next to a busy street inhaling car exhaust with every passing motorist. They weren't keeling over but sure made a fuss about the cig smell and wondered why the owner aloud smoking at all. I'll give you one guess what they'll try and ban next.
My question is if cig smokes offends to the point of gagging, why on earth would you want to patronize that establishment and reward the owner???
Posted by KW on January 29, 2007 10:35 AMThe ONE report EVER done about the effects of second hand smoke by the EPA was flawed in countless ways and is in general NOT considered a valid sceintific study...
Posted by Roy on January 29, 2007 10:43 AMSean - I asked Ann this question but she doesn't feel the need to educate herself.
Have you ever read the report (AMA supported) that claimed 2nd hand (cig) smoke to be killing thousands of people each year?
They studued 2nd hand smoke (all kinds, exhaust, factory emissions, etc... not just cigs) and determined it to be dangerous (gee, what would we do without reports?). But to complete their hidden agenda they slanted the findings to read 2nd hand cig smoke. Slanted blatently to the point where the US Dept of Health saw through the intent and threw out the report.
If you want to edjumacate yaself on this subject, read the report and then read the reasons listed by our own gov as to why the report is bogus.
Ann wouldn't read the report becasue she has her feelings.
Posted by KW on January 29, 2007 10:51 AMYou guys keep on coming up with the example of air pollution, specifically that caused by trucks and cars. Firstly, vechicles operate in the open or in well ventilated spaces such as tunnels and parking garages. If you were to let a car run in an enclosed envirionment such as a bar it would not be long before people would become negatively affected. But run a car, or thousands of cars, in the open where the pollution can be disepated, and the affects lessen significantly. Pollution from cars is a negative externality that 1society accepts in living in a modern era , and 2 is regulated by the government. One needs to look at China to see what unregulated air pollution looks like. Smoking in enclosed spaces does harm non-smokers, and just as the government is right to enact air pollution measures to protect the majority of citizens at the expense of the polluters, so to is the government right to protect the majority non-smokers at the inconvienence of non smokers.
Posted by Sean on January 29, 2007 10:52 AMSo was it the inconvenience of going somewhere else, or the fact that you wouldn't be able to whine about it that prompted you to applaud the ban Sean?
Posted by DR on January 29, 2007 10:56 AMI have not read the AMA report, the American Medical Association I assume, but I will just not right now since work beckons once again. But I will. But I would recommend to you to use the Google scholary serch function found in Google's advance function. Type in second hand smoke and you will see plenty of peer reviewed studies that conclude second hand smoke is dangerous.
Posted by Sean on January 29, 2007 10:59 AMPleae DR who is whining, smoking in bars, and hopefully casinos, is banned and you fall over yourself to be the first to denounce those who support through name calling. Just admit you pathetic junkie - aka smoker - the majority of people are sick of being negatively affected by you getting your fix. No one is saying you cannot get your fix and thus go through withdrawls, you just cannot do it inside a commericial building.
Posted by Sean on January 29, 2007 11:04 AMit never takes long for the rmn to start censoring comments...oh well...
Posted by Roy on January 29, 2007 11:04 AMBut Sean - The regs on car emissions is to protect our atmosphere. The ban on cigs inside a privately owned establishment does nothing to protect our atmosphere. It DOES infringe on private property rights.
But don't worry, we'll all stand up for you when the gov needs your piece of land and condemns it, takes it and sells it to a developer thus trampling your property owner rights... NOT!
Please stop using health as a reason for the need to ban indoor smoking. If you (and Ann) are so concerned about health you would have given up your cars long ago.
Have you read that report yet?
Posted by KW on January 29, 2007 11:05 AMSean - How about a private building?
Posted by KW on January 29, 2007 11:08 AMWHO:
http://193.78.190.200/10/dougher1.htm
I know second hand smoke is not healthy for anybody, it's not something I am ignoring or denying. My point is that if the second hand smoke bothers you, don't put yourself in a situation that has it. I know, how could I even suggest a notion so outlandish as to take responsibility for yourself. Don't you remember? It was McDonalds fault for making the coffee too hot, it was Rockstar entertainments fault for letting an 84 year old grandmother buy Grand Theft Auto for her 14 year old grandson. You will never see a smoker blaming someone else for their habit. We took it upon ourselves to take up smoking, and you took up the choice to not. We chose to have smokey bars to go to, you chose to not go to the places that were non smoking, and invade our place. You will not know how smokers feel until a liberty and freedom you hold dear gets taken away because someone else complained about it.
Posted by DR on January 29, 2007 11:11 AMSome quotes:
"..not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer, but that it could even have a protective effect."
World Health Organization, March 1998
"The results are consistent with there being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer.."
London Telegraph, 1999
"In general, there was no elevated lung cancer risk associated with passive smoke exposure in the workplace. ..."
- Brownson et. al.
American Journal of Public Health, November 1992, Vol. 82, No. 11
"... no evidence of an adverse effect of environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace."
- Janerich et al. New England Journal of Medicine, Sept. 6, 1990
"... the association with exposure to passive smoking at work was small and not statistically significant."
- Kalandidi et al.
Cancer Causes and Control, 1, 15-21, 1990
"We did not generally find an increase in CHD [coronary heart disease] risk associated with ETS [environmental smoke] exposure at work or in other settings."
Steenland et al.
Circulation, Vol. 94, No. 4, August 15, 1996
"... no statistically significant increase in risk associated with exposure to environmental tobacco smoke at work or during social activities...."
- Stockwell et al.
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 84:1417-1422, 1992
"There was no association between exposure to ETS at the workplace and risk of lung cancer."
Zaridze et al., 1998
International Journal of Cancer, 1998, 75, 335-338
British Medical Journal:
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7232/417
Independent Public & Health Policy
Research Group :
http://www.forces.org/evidence/download/fennel.pdf
Ban that annoying smoke which MIGHT be harmful to me- check; now how about banning fatty foods which MIGHT harm me? Oh wait, New York is doing that so that should be here soon- check. I really wish those bars downtown would play a better selection of music (as I see it) and the level at which they play it is harmful to my hearing, so I will go to work on that next. How about exercising some free will and letting others do the same? And Sean, not all of us who oppose the ban are smokers. I'm not; I just happen to care about property rights.
Posted by Mike on January 29, 2007 11:15 AMCATO:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg16n3c.html
When did I call anybody a name Sean?
Posted by DR on January 29, 2007 11:15 AMMore CATO:
http://www.cato.org/dailys/9-28-98.html
oh ok, it was the whiners comment wasn't it? Well you see Sean, when you go into a place that does not meet your expectations or needs, you go somewhere else. And when you complain about a place that does not meet your needs, especially when there are countless places that DO meet your needs, yet you still complain about that one place, then you are whining. Hence being a whiner.
Posted by DR on January 29, 2007 11:40 AMWhy is it the smoking bars of the airport are always packed?
Why is it the smoking patios are always packed?
Before the state-wide ban, why did the cities who had bans complain people were forsaking their bars and going to nearby towns to use the smoking bars?
Why are bars in the "free" states, such as Wyoming, filled with a smoking majority?
Because people want to smoke when they drink.
It was never about the health of employees - the casio exemption (money talked) and DIA exemption (too difficult to deal with smokers going in and out of security to get a smoke outside) prove that.
It was always about changing people's behavior.
The ma and pa bars cater to a clientele much different than Aspen, Boulder, and Snowmass, and they are going broke thanks to a zealous Big Daddy government and self-rightous people who never owned a bar and most likely never lived in a small town out in the middle of nowhere where the bar is a gathering place after working 5 days in the oil fields or on the mesa herding livestock.
It is insane for a family bar, where the owners and employees smoke, to have to tell a customer to go outside in freezing weather to have a smoke.
And it is wrong for the owner to have to tell a customer to watch the register so he can go outside and have a smoke.
Or huddle in fear at 1:30 am, lighting up with a customer, paranoid some jack-booted cop will come in and drop a $500 ticket on the counter, looking for an easy source of revenue.
What's next? Telling bar owners they can't serve trans fats? Oh wait - that's already happened!
Sure -ban smoking in restaurants. But leave it up to the bar owners to decide if they want to be smoking or non-smoking.
Posted by ol on January 29, 2007 11:53 AMThat's why this law never went to vote. Too many people either can either get along with the smoke, or smoke themselves. Cheyenne passed a smoking Ban not long ago, but nobody noticed how the city didn't activate it until Frontier days were over. Nobody would stick around and buy cheap trinkets and drink beer if they couldn't smoke. My sister does not smoke, but get a couple drinks in her and she'll be lighting up with you. My boss doesn't smoke, but still thinks that the government went too far by not allowing the bar owners to make the decision. If the owners felt it would bring them more business to go non smoking, great! more power to them. But they didn't get the chance.
Posted by DR on January 29, 2007 12:03 PMThe best part of this whole exchange has to be the people on the side of private property rights seem to be armed with logic and facts (and provides references to these facts).
The other side appears:
a) unaware of these facts and/or not interested in discussing them
b) perfectly happy to trample the rights of others as long as it benefits themselves.
Why is this so common in our society?
Posted by KW on January 29, 2007 12:29 PMGood question KW, I wish I had an answer to that. My guess would be that these people have it in their heads that they know what is best, and that they have more rights than anybody else.
Posted by DR on January 29, 2007 12:33 PMAnd DR & KW - these are people who have never run their own small business.
Posted by ol on January 29, 2007 12:38 PMGood point ol.
Posted by DR on January 29, 2007 12:39 PMReason and logic just get in the way. They know what is best for us and the fact that the discussion is about private property escapes them. They think that they are entitled to regulate the behavior of others even when it involves legal activities among free persons on private property. It's simply arrogance.
Posted by Mike on January 29, 2007 12:43 PMI don't know if anybody else heard about this, but after the ban went into effect, there was a woman who went downtown to a nightclub. She walked inside and there was NOBODY in there. Everybody was outside smoking. The woman then asked the owner to close the door to the patio because the smoke wafting in was bothering her. The owner promptly told the woman to leave. True story.
Posted by DR on January 29, 2007 12:47 PMThat is a good story DR. I hadn't heard that.
Posted by Roy on January 29, 2007 01:04 PMI'm back...you guys still at it? OK..question.? How would you feel if I walked into the bar you were drinking at and started sneezing all over ya..I'm mean...sneezings legal right? Its my right to spit germs all over ya. How's those 'rights' feeling to ya at that point? How about If I'm chewing tobbacco instead of smoking and I let a stream land on your boot, maybe even you shirt. How's those rights still holding up? Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.
Posted by Ann on January 29, 2007 01:05 PMAnn, you would probably just get punched in the face if you walked into a bar and started spitting on people. There is no need to make a law banning spitting however (Though it has been done). If you didn't get punched in the face, you would probably get kicked out by the owner/bartender/bouncer/etc. and in some places that could be considered assault...it is not the same as smoking...however, if someone walked into a bar (where smoking was not banned) and started blowing smoke into peoples faces, the result would be the same as the spitter.
Posted by Roy on January 29, 2007 01:10 PMAnd if the owner posted a sign that said, "This is a spitting establishment", I would probably go somewhere else for lunch.
Posted by Mike on January 29, 2007 01:14 PMgood point mike...i would definatley not patronize a spit-friendly establishment. However, I support the right of a business owner to make that decision themselves.
Posted by Roy on January 29, 2007 01:18 PMAnn please go start your own casino, cafe or any other business you want and make them non-smoking. THAT IS YOUR RIGHT. Stop whinning about smoke when you have choices of places to go with out smokers to bother you.
Thomas you are correct in that I CHOOSE to smoke even today. I will smoke 1-2 very fine cigars and enjoy every minute of them. Everyone has a choice in what to enjoy. As far as it killing people I have no idea as we only have reports that non smokers put out. The World Health Org. did not find any relationship to death and second hand smoke. I would rather be in a closed garage all day with a smoker than your car running.
Here is a question to answer for your selves. Why was there a law passed to to ban smoking? All of you non smokers passed up a wonderful business option by not starting thousands upon thousands of new business that did not allow smoking. I am wondering why that happened. Was the risk to great or just getting a law you like easier?
I do believe I will go light up and sit back and smile at how all of you non smokers are raising your blood pressure in thinking of how you can reply to this comment.
BTW [Thomas that stands for by the way] when I do light up and there are others around I do ask it if will bother them and if the answer is yes I will leave or wait till they are gone. I do consider the feelings of others unlike the majority of non smokers who thing of only themselves.
Good night Gracie
Ann, if somebody did that to me, then they would have to answer to me. And it would not be pretty. It's not the way you picture it. This is how it would be. There would be a bunch of people sitting at the bar spitting already, it would be my responsibility to not step in it. If somebody spit on me while there was perfectly good floor to use, the next thing that person would do is wake up either on the floor with a broken nose, or in the dumpster in the back. I like Don's comment, you all missed out on a great opportunity to be the "smoke free" establishments that you seem to think everybody wants.
Posted by DR on January 29, 2007 01:44 PMWell dr...going by your own reasoning...why smoke inside when there is a perfectly good outdoors to smoke in.
I have no interest or need to open an smokefree establishment. I can now going into a restuarant or a bar and not smell your smoke. It is just a matter of time before all public places go non smoking. Sorry but the vast majority of people are just as happy about the ban as I am. Too bad for you.
This is all just hilarious.
Slaves to their addictions boo-hooing about not being able to expose everyone else to
the dangers,. residues and stenches of the tools of your own destruction.
I absolutely defend your rights to smoke. But you do not have the right to expose other people to the effects of your smoking.
As someone pointed out before the law was passed....smoke is the byproduct of consuming cigarettes and cigars. Urine is the byproduct of drinking beer. There are laws against urinating in public. You are required to do it in a designated receptable in a designated room. Why aren't smokers fighting for the right of beer drinkers to urinate anywhere they want? Sound ridiculous? Why? Because everyone accepts that urinating is offensive and a risk to health. Well, the majority of people in this country do not smoke and believe that cigarette smoke is offensive and dangerous to health.
Ultimately, the point is that SMOKERS ARE NOT BEING VICTIMIZED AND SHOULD STOP ACTING LIKE THEY ARE. YOU STILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO SMOKE BUT YOU WILL NOW HAVE TO SUFFER THE INCONVENIENCE OF YOUR DECISION RATHER THAN OTHER PEOPLE.
And by the way, there was a loophole in this law that allowed for bars that could prove they earned 5% of their income from tobacco sales to remain a smoking establishment. How many of you banded together to help your favorite bar achieve that goal? Obviously not many. You continued buying your ciggies wherever you could get them cheapest. So your crying foul on behalf of these small businesses is a hollow sentiment. You weren't there for them when you needed them.
And lastly, if smoker's feel that their rights are being so trampled on...let's compromise. I'll vote to repeal the smoking laws if you all agree to raise the taxes on cigarettes to compensate or at least shoulder the full burden of the finanical impact your choices have on the health care costs for all of us non-smokers.
Are you willing to pay hundreds of dollars for a carton of cigarettes so that the rest of us don't have to pay higher insurance premiums, rising hospital costs, etc for all the people who are sick and dying of lung disease because of smoking?
Free us from the paying the consequences of your choices and then maybe your argument will have some merit.
Thomas...you are very articulate. Even on my best day I couldn't have put it as good as you just did. Hats off to you.
Posted by Ann on January 29, 2007 02:24 PMAnd what exactly are the 'effects on other people' that smokers are imposing on others?
I assume you think we should raise taxes on everything that may cause someone to go to the doctor? including various foods, alchohol, cars, gasoline, sports, etc. Should people who get stressed at work have to pay an extra tax so all us calm people don't have to pay their medical bills?
Posted by Roy on January 29, 2007 02:30 PMThomas is the perfect Socialist...he will allow anything, as long as its taxed enough...
Posted by Matthew on January 29, 2007 02:32 PMAnn and Thomas- What do you not understand about the distinction between public and private? The post office is public, a restaurant is private- a very important distinction.
Posted by Mike on January 29, 2007 02:40 PMLost causes.
Roy...understand this...people have to eat, they need to get from point A to point B...
But they do not have to smoke. That's a choice. More precisely, it's a luxury. A luxury that smokers spend billions of dollars on every year...as is their right.
The fact is, however, that tobacco related diseases drive health care costs up for EVERYONE. Is that fair that anyone else should end up paying higher costs for their own health care because of you chose to smoke?
And Matthew...read the paragraph above...THAT is the definition of socialism. You make choices for yourself but everyone else has to pay for them.
Making you pay the financial consequences of your own choices isn't socialism..it's you taking full responsibility and consideration for your decision. When a drunk driver kills someone we hold them responsible, make them pay restitution. When smokers kill themselves...slowly...everyone has to pay for it.
Posted by Thomas on January 29, 2007 02:41 PMWhy don't stop assighning names to those who disagree with you. Accept your responsability for your part in making yourselves and many others sick with what you do. I hadn't even thought of the side that Thomas brought up. i am certain there are studies out there that prove what the obvious is. Smoking kills ...no if and or butts( pun intended)
Posted by Ann on January 29, 2007 02:41 PMViva the socialist Thomas. You must have forgot that we do pay high taxes on tobacco in Colorado to buy insureance for uninsured children. I have never found urinating to be a healt risk but not doing so could be a real pain. What is the health risk of urinating? You are right smokers are not being victimized just like the workers who work at places that allow smoking are not victims, but willing and egar to work there to pay their bills. Now that you have made all of the wonderful statements about health, what is your next health concern, fast food?
Why not ban all fast food as it is bad for your health, as the government has said so? I am sure we could find a group that will ban anything for enough money so lets do it. Oh BTW you will no longer be able to eat anything with transfat in your home as it is a health rish and it will raise the cost of health care.
I like your comment Ann that you dont have to start a business becasue the government took care of you. That is a wonderful statement about how you value life and freedom. If you dont like it have the government fix it for you. Just think you might have been the first person to create a new business based on a non smoking platform.
Thomas you have not made one payment towards any consequences of my choice. There are a lot of private business owners paying the price of your choice in supporting a smoking ban. Oh yes the 5% of their revenue that they need to prove, had a small clause to it, and it was a moving target as most small owners nerver thought to keep records of how much tobacco products accounted for in their bottom line. It was also established that owners of 'private' businesses could not convert over to 'cigar bars' where the exception was.
Please enjoy your fast food for a bit longer because that will be next and after that who knows what will be a health risk to be banned.
How is that by my own reasoning Ann? That's like telling you to cook dinner outside on the sidewalk because the sun gives off more energy than your stove ever could. Wrong, NOT too bad for me. It's too bad for the businesses. I'm happy the ban went into effect simply because the places you can now go into are going to closing their doors because of your flaky patronage. But why not ban smoking in casinos right away Thomas? Why wait? This ban couldn't have less to do with your elected officials caring about your health. The reason casinos were exempt was because they generate revenue for the state. The problem with your loophole was that most bars don't outright sell cigarettes, they have vending machines, and even if there was a line out the door all day for people using that machine, the bar wouldn't be able to count that as their profit. They get a percentage of that from the vending company. Your asking us to free you from the consequences of our actions. How about you take responsibility for your own actions and go somewhere that has been non smoking all the time.
Posted by DR on January 29, 2007 02:44 PMYes, full responsibility is fine with me...should we get into why one persons trip to the doctor would make a healthy person pay money for nothing?
I have nothing wrong with paying my own medical bills...I have never asked anyone to supply me with money to cover a doctors visit. I pay for lots of people that get sick, either from necesity, choice, or luck...but that doesnt mean i want to tax all the sick people into the gutter.
And no, you do not have to drive to make a living...There is this wonderful thing called feet...I use them everyday to get to work. If only people would plan better, they would live near whaere they worked, and no longer would they have to drive everywhere raising the cost of healthcare for us pedestrians...
Posted by Roy on January 29, 2007 02:51 PMUrine is one of the most sterile substances on the planet...it is not a health risk, people just dont like it...
Posted by Roy on January 29, 2007 02:52 PMdr..its a market economy...Maybe those buinesses should have made it a point to offer more than just smoking to keep them in buisness.
Posted by Ann on January 29, 2007 02:53 PMYes, its a market economy...smoking establishments would go out of business if people only wanted to go to non-smoking establishments...the government has no right to meddle.
Posted by Roy on January 29, 2007 02:57 PMWell don't forget that the government IS us. And we have spoken. Since your rights don't trump ours and our rights don't trump yours...I guess we'll just have to go with the majority. Again...to bad for you...not my falt you are on the wrong side of the issue.
Posted by Ann on January 29, 2007 03:01 PMWell it's a good thing that all the business owners can come to you for the lost revenue of your actions. You think the bars only offered smoking? Obviously you've never even been in a bar let alone understand what it's like to unwind in one after a long day. Your right, it is a market economy, that's why it should've been left up to the owners to CHOOSE to go non smoking. You see choice is a word that means you can do something if you want, and don't have to if you don't want. You could've CHOSEN to go to a place that was non smoking, but instead didn't like the idea of people enjoying themselves in places you weren't.
Posted by DR on January 29, 2007 03:02 PMMike,
Every privately owned business is regulated for the public good....whether it's to ensure that your food is untainted and healthy, that employees wash their hands after using the restroom, that people with disabilities have access, that people are not denied the opportunity to work or receive service because of ther color, gender, etc..that employees are paid fairly...etc.
Businesses have to abide by these restrictions in order to do business in the public sector. If you open a business to sell goods or services to the public...you must accept that there will be regulations that will affect how you run your business.
And as I said in a different thread...it's very disingenuous that you smokers are crying foul on behalf of these business owners while simulaneously punishing them by depriving them of your business because you have to be inconvenienced by stepping outside or onto a patio to smoke.
You don't give a damn about these business owners. Your allegiance is to your smoking addiction and to the tobacco companies that feed it.
But you know that arguing about the plight of the small business owners makes for a better argument than you lamenting about the tremendous inconvenience of having to off your bar stool to go smoke.
Enough with the smoke screen, Mike. If you care about the small business owners you'll put their existence above your convenience and other people's health and comfort.
Your do not have the right to smoke anywhere you want...it is regulated for the good of others...even in privately owned businesses. Want another example? There are privately owned gas stations all over this city...you are still required, by law, to extinguish your cigarette before pumping fuel? The reason is obvious.
Posted by Thomas on January 29, 2007 03:05 PMI could care less if you can enjoy your self at your bar or not. My issue is I should be able to go anywhere I please an not suffer your air assault. If you are such a 'regular' at your favorite bar....then sit there and drink your beer and continue to support your hangout. To put it on me and others that you cannot go for a couple hours out with out smoking like a chimney and causing your favorite hangout to go out of business is just as much your choice as mine is not want to smell your smoke. Blaming others for your habit is really rich.
Posted by Ann on January 29, 2007 03:09 PMAnn, I still don't see how someone can be so thick? I'll say this one more time for you, this time slow down and get some assistance if you can't read it. THE BAN WAS NOT PUT TO A VOTE. Aawww, it's our fault the businesses are going under because we won't go to a place that was forced to cater to you? Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense Thomas.
Posted by DR on January 29, 2007 03:13 PMThe reason isnt so obvious at bars though Thomas...
Posted by Roy on January 29, 2007 03:13 PMDon't you love it when a Fascist and a Socialist can come together in a common cause against liberty?
Posted by Roy on January 29, 2007 03:15 PMAnn, your still not getting it. YOU HAD THE CHOICE TO GO SOMEWHERE THAT WAS NON SMOKING. THAT'S WHAT IS CALLED COMPETITION FOR BUSINESS. Who do you think you are? You think you should be able to go anywhere you please and not suffer assault? You complain and moan about the smoke and then get upset when somebody complains about you. You should run for president.
Posted by DR on January 29, 2007 03:16 PMI've been enjoying tobacco for more than 40 years. The doctor says I'm in good shape. And I feel great about it.
Frankly, it was the booze that nearly killed me some 30 years ago, until I was able to beat that frightening addiction. It killed my father before his 45th birthday. Several of my friends have passed away early due to the corrosive health effects of alcohol on the brain & other vital organs. Other friends were killed by drunken drivers.
Also, you've noticed how terrible people smell after an evening's round of drinks. I could never stand that sickly sweet odor, except if I was drinking, too.
Nonetheless, I've never felt compelled to require that people stop drinking wine, beer, vodka, rum or bourbon.
But then, I'm a communist...
So it's alright if you care less that I have to be inconvenienced, but it's not alright for you to be inconvenienced? My we think highly of ourselves don't we Ann. You kick me out of my place, and somehow it's my fault for the closure? You didn't want smoke in the bars, now you got it. And when the doors close, you want to blame the people that would've kept it alive if you hadn't come along. Yeah, ok.
Posted by DR on January 29, 2007 03:22 PMThomas- you are late to this argument. I've already stated that I am a nonsmoker. My main concern is property rights.
We've already covered the regulations aspect, too. Tainted meat, unclean kitchens, poison in food, etc... it isn't reasonable to inspect every restaurant you go to, but the smoking issue is simple. The owner puts up a Smoking or No Smoking sign, then you make an informed decision. It's very simple.
Posted by Mike on January 29, 2007 03:22 PMThats not simple enough Mike, What if the bar i want to go into has a smoking sign? I dont want to be forced to smell smoke.
Posted by Non-Smoker on January 29, 2007 03:25 PMAgain with the insults dr....why can' you just allow someone to differ in opinions from you. I am not thick or dense. I justifiably see things from a different perspective. I could say the same about you that you don't 'get it' .
Our politicians are our agents. They set the rules that society says they want. Or they wouldn't have a job. Get over it ...you lost and will continue to lose on this issue. Move on.
Maybe Ann could agree with DR that it may have been a better idea to put the ban to vote, rather than have a politician give us a royal decree...
Posted by Roy on January 29, 2007 03:32 PMI just love all the zealots who complain about second hand smoke but yet eat smog for breakfast everyday. I'd rather be in a roomful of smokers. Probably not one of the anti-smoking zealots has ever read any of the studies but just spout what they have been spoon fed. Second hand smoke has a protective effect on the lungs. Look the studies up on the Web. All the chemists here are laughing at the zealots. In the meantime, I suggest the anti-smoking zealots go suck up some diesel fumes.
Posted by Linda on January 29, 2007 03:36 PMLeave the small-time bars of Craig, Meeker, Fruita, Trinadad, Naturita, Cortez, Leadville, et al. ALONE!
We DO NOT want to be like Boulder or Aspen!
We want to run our bars by ourselves!
I've always wondered if RePubs (BIG DADDY) or Dems (BIG MOMMY) claimed ownership of smoking bans.
If either side did - they'd LOSE, big time!
The only ones who support this ban are a.) NOT small business owners; b.) DON'T live in a small town in COLD country; c.) DON'T have clientele who come in the bar to relax after a hard physically-draining day and want to catch up on the ranching or oil or agriculture stories; d.) young and self-rightous; or e.) are guaranteed a check from my taxes.
BAN THIS SMOKING BAN!
Posted by ol on January 29, 2007 03:38 PMI would have been fine with that Roy. You smokers would still have lost.
Posted by Ann on January 29, 2007 03:39 PMAnn - Lets try this once again.
You CANNOT go "anywhere you please" in life. You can only go to those places that allow you access. Some allow smoking, some do not. Your CHOICE is to go where you are comfortable. It WAS the business owners choice to allow or not allow smoking but people who simply detest cigs decided they needed to tell the owner what to do.
It's not a regulatory agency doing this as some have likened it to (Health Dept, emissions testing, etc...) but rather the majority of non-business owners imposing their will on ALL business owners without gov oversight, and it's wrong.
Please try dealing with these elements in your next post and explain to me why you think trampling of others property rights (not the right to breath clean air because health is NOT the issue) is accpetable.
That is impossible to say Ann.
Posted by Roy on January 29, 2007 03:42 PMKW....My lungs right to breath superceeds your inconvience of going outside. How many other ways can I explain. Honestly! Just as you feel y ou should be ablw to light up at your favorite hangout....I who might like the same hangout would rather you step out side. Then we all can enjoy clean air. Its courtesy that had to be forced on you for the publics good, because if your habit. Smoke in home ...smoke in your car. Smoke in the street , the park, the bed...but spare we nonsmokers your stink. We have the right to go anywhere we want. support your bar by still visiting and drinking. I'll do the same ...just without the necessary trip out of doors for the smoke.
Posted by Ann on January 29, 2007 03:52 PMThe facetiousness of these arguments just bust me up.
I'll say it again...and please...please..one of you respond...
You're all so say you're SOOOOOO concerned about the small business owners...yet you're all going to deprive them of your business if you can't smoke in the bar!
YOU DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS!
YOU ONLY CARE ABOUT BEING ABLE TO SMOKE!
STOP ACTING LIKE YOU CARE ABOUT THEM WHILE SAYING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO STAY HOME IF YOU HAVE GET OFF A BARSTOOL TO GO SMOKE!
YOU HAVE NO ALLEGIANCE TO THEM AND THEY KNOW THAT! IF YOU DID, YOU'D ACCEPT THIS AND STILL GIVE THEM YOUR BUSINESS!
Stop blowing smoke up our .......!
Posted by Thomas on January 29, 2007 03:55 PM[You CANNOT go "anywhere you please" in life. You can only go to those places that allow you access.]
Ann - repeating becasue you never address this issue. You only have access to someone elses business WHEN THEY LET YOU. YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO ENTER A PRIVATE BUSINESS. This is called permission granted to you by the owner.
Please explain how your PERMISSION TO ENTER suddenly becomes your right???
Posted by KW on January 29, 2007 04:01 PMThomas,
if my favorite sandwich shop was forced by the government to stop putting my favorite ingredient into their sandwiches, I will stop going there, because there is no point in buying a sandwich I dont like, regardless of the fact that they made a good sandwich before my favorite ingredient was banned. I will not buy a sandwich i dont like so that the people who suppoert the ban wont feel bad when the sandwich shop goes out of business.
I guess depriving these bars of your business will punish the lawmakers who sponsored and passed this bill on behalf of the citizens who asked for it.
That'll teach 'em!
If you believe that, then the smoke isn't just rotting your lungs.
You're punishing the very people you claim to be supporting.
Bar owners...WAKE UP!
These smokers don't care about YOU!
They care about only about smoking! They will stay home and let your business go down the tubes because they are too stubborn and self-centered to put anyone else's welfare above their own...which is why the ban was enacted.
Posted by Thomas on January 29, 2007 04:03 PMSmoking bars made money because of the combination of drinking and smoking, period. Taking away one of those ingredients takes away the pull factor for those establishments and adds a reason to stay home.
Posted by Roy on January 29, 2007 04:04 PMSooo...Thomas and Ann .... exactly what do you do for a living and where do you live?
Tell you what, kiddos - DON'T COME INTO MY BAR after you've had a hard day of ranching or just spent five days in the oil fields.
You just have a nice time in your fern-encrusted domicile, where you look at your guaranteed paycheck and have NO CLUE how to run a small business, by yourself, AND LEAVE MY BUSINESS ALONE!
Posted by OL on January 29, 2007 04:05 PMI've been trying to get her to answer that one, too KW. She can't because she knows it isn't a right. She will keep repeating it, though, trying to form an argument without any foundation.
Posted by Mike on January 29, 2007 04:06 PMThe bars existed so people could drink and smoke in them. If the reason for their existence is gone, something will take its place (in this case it will be liquor stores and homes). It is not my responsibility to give someone my money because the government ruined their business...i dont have that much money. I spend my money how I like. I dont stay home out of spite, but because I prefer staying at home than going to a bar, its that simple.
Posted by Roy on January 29, 2007 04:08 PMI'm glad your opinions differ from mine Ann, but the fact that you want to make everybody think like you is what I have the problem with. Your right, I lost. I can't go into my bar anymore and enjoy myself, and since I lost, you won correct? Ok, then do the winning thing and keep the bars in business. They are depending on you now. And only you can help them feed their families.
Posted by DR on January 29, 2007 04:08 PMOL,
You had an option to remain a smoking establishment, if that is what you wanted.
That you didn't take advantage of that is solely on you.
You just needed to prove that 5% of your revenues came from tobacco sales. But I know plenty of smokers and they don't buy their cigarettes in the bar machines because they can get them cheaper at the grocery stores with coupons.
Like I said...those smokers don't care about you or they would have banded together to help you meet that 5% in the time alloted.
But they didn't want to spend that extra money on ciggies in your machines to help you get there and now they're saying that they won't come to your bar if they can't smoke.
It's not the smoking ban that is hurting your business....it's the fickless of smokers.
but ol, Ann might want to come to your business some day, and god forbid there be any smoke residue there, for her untainted lungs would be so sad.
Posted by Jon on January 29, 2007 04:11 PMOh the drama!
Posted by Ann on January 29, 2007 04:14 PMThomas,
your argument is faulty. There is no need to repeat it over and over again.
Do you think beer drinkers would continue to patronize a bar that was banned from selling beer? Do you expect people to just walk up and hand people money for nothing? That is not how it works. If a business does not supply what you want, you will not patronize it.
Thomas, I'm not going to bars anymore because you feel your need for clean air superceeds my enjoyment. I still can't understand why your rights are more important than the people who have been keeping that bar alive all this time are. You say oh it's no big deal, just go outside and smoke. Well tell you what, why don't you go outside to drink? that's fair.
Posted by DR on January 29, 2007 04:16 PMThis same issue comes over the state's blue laws..
I bet there are plenty of people out there ranting and raving about how unfair the ban is for small business owners.
Currently, the state of Colorado restricts liquor licenses to a single business name. It's the reason why t grocery stores in Colorado don't sell liquor as they do in other states. It's the reason we don't have chain liquor stores..as other states do.
But I bet alot of you smokers would gladly put the small "mom and pop" liquor store owners out of business if it meant you could pick up a less expensive bottle of Jack Daniels or whatever at your local King Soopers or Safeway.
Stop pretending like you give a damn about the small business owners.
Posted by Thomas on January 29, 2007 04:17 PMWell jon....my lungs are already tainted enough....why do I have to be equally as dum as you in your smoking choice and make them even worse.
Dr...yes ..I did win. And so did every lung that patrons restuarants and bars. Even you won in a way. Maybe your smoking shall be of a lesser amount if you are so against putting one leg in front of another to go outside?
DR Wrote: "Well tell you what, why don't you go outside to drink? "
Good one DR!
Yeah Ann... take that!
I'm outa here. Time to go home and excercise some property rights before they take that away too.
Posted by KW on January 29, 2007 04:20 PMYeah ol, don't you see Thomas over there in the corner typing on the laptop in your bar keeping it in business? I didn't think so. Roy made my point better than I could have. If a business is not going to supply what I want, I won't go there. Would you go and buy a car at a dealership just to keep it in business?
Posted by DR on January 29, 2007 04:21 PMAnn,
how would my choice to smoke affect your lungs? Please tell me, i really want to know
Roy,
YOUR logic is faulty.
A bar is in the business of selling alcohol. Ergo, if they were banned from selling beer (which would mean they somehow lost their liquor license) they wouldn't really be a bar anymore, now would they?
There are clubs just for smoking, you know, if that's what you really care about?
And DR,
I like to go to clubs and bars...just like you do. I'm there to drink, spend time with friend and spend money..just like you. I have asthma and wear contacts. Your smoke negatively impacts my health and well being. Your smoke pollutes the air we both have to breathe. That 's why my right to breathe clean air supercedes "your enjoyment"...because my health is more important than your enjoyment.
That's basic common sense.
I, like many other people, like to drive fast but we have speed limits and traffic laws to try to ensure a greater degree of safety and well being for everyone on the road.
Posted by Thomas on January 29, 2007 04:30 PMI don't care if you smoke...thats your choice...just don't make me not able to come into a bar or restuarant of my choosing and have to smell your smoke. 'Thats the only way you effect me. My lungs can do without, it...and if we're honest..so can yours. But smoke all ya want in your private spaces. I have no problem with that.
Posted by Ann on January 29, 2007 04:33 PMA bar is indeed in the business of selling alchohol, and what do you think is the main difference between a bar and a liquor store? People stay at a bar while they drink, a bar sells the atmosphere that it provides it sells relaxation, which is why the same alchohol at a bar costs more than at a liquor store. For many bars smoking is a part of the atmosphere that they sell, and a big reason people choose to pay higher prices for the same alchohol. If people feel they cannot relax or dont feel comfortable at a bar, they will stop going there because the point of a bar is relaxation.
Posted by Roy on January 29, 2007 04:34 PMI too do not care about the business owners, I cared about the fun I had when I went there. That's what it was there for. I did win, absolutely. And I won by not having to shell out a bunch of cash for over priced drinks, I don't have to worry about getting a ride home after drinking, and I don't have to listen to people like you complain about the smoke, when all the clean air you can handle was right outside the door. You wanted clean air? Oh but you didn't want to get up off your barstool to go get it, but you expect other people to go out of their way for you. That's wonderful. Well now Thomas and Ann can go into their bars and get on the treadmill, oh wait, no. Now they can go into their bars and do yoga, wait, no. Now they can go into their bars....wait, tell me why you go into bars to improve your physical health?
Posted by DR on January 29, 2007 04:35 PMso ann, please tell me how my smoking affects your lungs, id really like to know.
Posted by Jon on January 29, 2007 04:35 PMThomas,
PUBLIC roads have speed limits, PRIVATE roads do not. Why can't you grasp the difference between public and private. My bar is not a public building; the local library is. You DON'T have a right to breathe clean air in my bar, my car, or my house. You don't even have a right to be there. If I invite you in, you deal with the rules I set, or you are free to leave. See? No coercion, just freedom of choice.
Posted by Mike on January 29, 2007 04:38 PMSo Ann, is it that you just dont like the smell of cigarettes? What else dont you like? I Know a politician, maybe i can get him to ban something else for you...
Posted by Jon on January 29, 2007 04:39 PMOh absolutely Ann, your health is so much more important to everybody than my good time. I apologize for overstepping my bounds, I shall go give myself 40 lashes for even thinking that we were equal. I don't know how else to explain this to you. YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO BE THERE.
Posted by DR on January 29, 2007 04:41 PMAnn and Thomas you two should get together and enjoy each others misery and dictate to the world your rights and how everyone should live becasue you two have the best solution to life. If a building with smokers bothers you Ann you really should never leave your house as there are so many days in Denver that you can see the smog from cars, and you cant see cig smoke outside, that I am betting that will kill you long before any smokers second hand made up smoke will.
With all you wantabe socialist there I do belive I will stay here in Caracas with Hugo, as he doesnt care about smoking at all.
I go into a bar to have a drink, enjoy friends , relax ...pretty much all the same reasons you do dr. You are not there to please me...and I am not there to please you. Thats it..no more complicated than that. You want to smoke..I don't want you to smoke arround me. The law sides with me finally...after many years of suffering. Now its your turn ...suffer or stay home. Just like you told us nonsmokers all these years. How does it feel ? Not so great huh? Well life never is fair...so suck it up and smoke in your private spaces.
Posted by Ann on January 29, 2007 04:47 PMSo Ann, How exactly does my choice to smoke affect your lungs? Id really like to know?
Posted by Jon on January 29, 2007 04:48 PMNo, DR...you're right..I would not buy a car just to keep the dealership in business.
But I did go bars even though the smoke in them burned my eyes and exacerbated my asthsma.
And I have smoker friends who, apparently unlike you and Roy, will still go to bars even though they have to get up and go outside or onto a patio to smoke a cigarette every now and then. But then my friends seem to understand and respect that everyone else doesn't want to breathe in their smoke or go home reeking of it's stench.
That's why I find the whole "we're so worried about small business owner's lament" so facetious (and thank you and Roy for having the integrity for admitting that is not why you're so opposed to the ban)...This isn't about the small business owners...it's about people feeling like they have some god given right to blow smoke into the air that everyone else has to breathe.
I used to have friends who smoked those sickly sweet smelling clove cigarettes or cheap cigars...and oddly enough, it was the good old crusty Marlboro Red's smokers who took the most offense to them.
Whether you agree or not...this smoking ban is actualy a compromise. We're both there to drink, chat with friends, spend money. You like to smoke and that's fine. I have nothing against smokers. I just don't want to inhale smoke myself and since the enclosed air in the bar is, in effect, community property, of everyone who is breathing...you do not have the right to pollute it for everyone else.
I'm sorry that means that you have to go outside but until the tobacco companies come up with a smokeless cigarette that doesn't pollute the air we both have to breathe..it's the only equitable solution.
Posted by Thomas on January 29, 2007 04:49 PMIs that what you would have told slaves? Deal with it, the law is on my side...life isn't fair? is that what you would have said to Jews in Nazi Germany? "Sorry, but the law isn't on your side anymore..."
You are such a Fascist Ann...
Well don...I'm not in misery anymore...seems to me it you and your ilk who are whinning after we non smokers suffered for years with you nasty habit. Hugo smokes if I'm any judge of miscreants.
Posted by Ann on January 29, 2007 04:50 PM"But I did go bars even though the smoke in them burned my eyes and exacerbated my asthsma."
--Thomas
Is that because you are a drunk?-
Posted by Jon on January 29, 2007 04:51 PMRoy...you're sounding hysterical...smoke break!
Posted by Ann on January 29, 2007 04:54 PMIn response Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in adults who have never smoked themselves.1
Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing lung cancer by 20–30 percent.
Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths among U.S. nonsmokers each year.
Cancer is the second most common cause of death in the United States.
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death among both men and women.
Every year more U.S. women die from lung cancer than die from breast cancer.
More than 160,000 lung cancer deaths are expected in 2006.
Most cases of lung cancer are caused by active smoking, but exposure to secondhand smoke is an important cause among non–smokers.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institutes of Health National Toxicology Program, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer have concluded that secondhand smoke is a known human carcinogen.3,4,5
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has concluded that secondhand smoke is an occupational carcinogen.6
Secondhand smoke contains more than 50 cancer–causing chemicals. Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke are inhaling many of the same cancer–causing substances and poisons as smokers.1
Even brief secondhand smoke exposure can damage cells in ways that set the cancer process in motion.
Some damage is reversible, but some is not.
As with active smoking, there is a dose–response relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and lung cancer—the longer the duration and the higher the level of exposure, the greater the risk of developing lung cancer.1
There is no risk–free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.1
References
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, Georgia: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coordinating Center for Health Promotion, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/sgr/sgr_2006/index.htm
American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures 2006. Atlanta, Georgia: American Cancer Society, 2006.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, 1992. Publication No. EPA/600/6-90/006F. Available at: http://cfpub2.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=2835
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 9th Report on Carcinogens. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina: U.S. Department of Health and Human Sciences, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program, 2000.
International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans: Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking. Volume 83. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2004.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Environmental Tobacco Smoke in the Workplace: Lung Cancer and Other Health Effects. Current Intelligence Bulletin 54. Cincinnati, Ohio: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Division of Standards Development and Technology Transfer, Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations, and Field Studies, 1991. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 91-108.
to Jon...
jon jon...don't you know that when you start the insults you've lost the cause?
Posted by Ann on January 29, 2007 04:56 PMWill somebody please buy Ann a dictionary? Ann, you keep saying enjoy your cigs in your own private space. What do you think a restaurant is? You still haven't answered that one.
Posted by Mike on January 29, 2007 04:56 PMAnn--
I am curious to your believe that a perceived health concern means your rights are greater than others. If I understand your argument correctly, you believe since smoking and 2nd-hand smoke may cause a public health concern (which many readers have pointed out is not a proven fact), you have the right to dictate to all business that they cannot provide a forum for this activity. If that is the case, then I would like you to join my cause to outlaw the sale and serving of meat and meat products in restaurants, grocery stores, etc. As I strict vegetarian, I strongly believe that meat is harmful to humans and there is no justification for our eating it. All the vitamins and nutrients meat supplies can be found in vegetation without the risk of germs and diseases eating the meat of animals can cause.
As to the public health concern, there are studies proving women who eat a daily serving of meat are at a 3.8% higher risk for breast cancer. There are studies showing men who eat meat are 50% more likely to have a heart attack. The connect between meat-based diets and high cholesterol are irrefutable With all of this prove, I believe this is a reasonable argument to ban all meat products—even if I am not stricken with these diseases, the health costs of treating these diseases do trickle down to me through higher insurance and medical costs.
But you might think since these outcomes are personal based, they don't equate to the 2nd-had cigarette smoke you complain about, i.e., if you're only hurting yourself by eating meat, why should I care. But, just like cigarette smoking, there are risks and problems that effect even the strictest vegetarian. When you eat your meat and become infected with E Coli, you are contagious and anyone near you is at risk of contracting the disease—to me that makes all meat eaters potential public health concerns. And the large amounts of antibiotics pumped through the cattle are a direct cause of super-bacteria and antibiotic resistant disease. Again, by your support of the meat industry and eating their filthy product, you are putting my health at risk.
So by your argument, you will have no problem signing my petition to outlaw all meat consumption. It provides no value to the user and it is a serious public health concern—everything you state cigarette smoking is. I hope you don't mind the next time you go to your federally-mandated non-smoking casino that you won't be able to have a steak with your win. Personally, I will rest easy knowing I have protected your health…even if it is against your will.
Ann--
I am curious to your believe that a perceived health concern means your rights are greater than others. If I understand your argument correctly, you believe since smoking and 2nd-hand smoke may cause a public health concern (which many readers have pointed out is not a proven fact), you have the right to dictate to all business that they cannot provide a forum for this activity. If that is the case, then I would like you to join my cause to outlaw the sale and serving of meat and meat products in restaurants, grocery stores, etc. As I strict vegetarian, I strongly believe that meat is harmful to humans and there is no justification for our eating it. All the vitamins and nutrients meat supplies can be found in vegetation without the risk of germs and diseases eating the meat of animals can cause.
As to the public health concern, there are studies proving women who eat a daily serving of meat are at a 3.8% higher risk for breast cancer. There are studies showing men who eat meat are 50% more likely to have a heart attack. The connect between meat-based diets and high cholesterol are irrefutable With all of this prove, I believe this is a reasonable argument to ban all meat products—even if I am not stricken with these diseases, the health costs of treating these diseases do trickle down to me through higher insurance and medical costs.
But you might think since these outcomes are personal based, they don't equate to the 2nd-had cigarette smoke you complain about, i.e., if you're only hurting yourself by eating meat, why should I care. But, just like cigarette smoking, there are risks and problems that effect even the strictest vegetarian. When you eat your meat and become infected with E Coli, you are contagious and anyone near you is at risk of contracting the disease—to me that makes all meat eaters potential public health concerns. And the large amounts of antibiotics pumped through the cattle are a direct cause of super-bacteria and antibiotic resistant disease. Again, by your support of the meat industry and eating their filthy product, you are putting my health at risk.
So by your argument, you will have no problem signing my petition to outlaw all meat consumption. It provides no value to the user and it is a serious public health concern—everything you state cigarette smoking is. I hope you don't mind the next time you go to your federally-mandated non-smoking casino that you won't be able to have a steak with your wine. Personally, I will rest easy knowing I have protected your health…even if it is against your will.
People like choice, that is it! The ban eliminates choice for the smokers and bar owners who approve of smoking. There is no place a person can go to sit down drink a beer and smake a cigarette. Obviously, that is not a right. Liberty is a right, however, and so is the right to property. When the government tells property owners which actions can and cannot take place on their property, the that government is Fascist. If a property owner refuses entry to people smoking cigarettes, that is their right.
Posted by Roy on January 29, 2007 04:58 PMYour petty comment about the dictionary show you for what you are. I may not be the best speller, or always have perfect sentence structure, and I may have typos and not proof read well. But unless your just a petty prig about that stuff...you get my drift.
Posted by Ann on January 29, 2007 05:00 PMand some from the other side Thomas...(repost)
Some quotes:
"..not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer, but that it could even have a protective effect."
World Health Organization, March 1998
"The results are consistent with there being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer.."
London Telegraph, 1999
"In general, there was no elevated lung cancer risk associated with passive smoke exposure in the workplace. ..."
- Brownson et. al.
American Journal of Public Health, November 1992, Vol. 82, No. 11
"... no evidence of an adverse effect of environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace."
- Janerich et al. New England Journal of Medicine, Sept. 6, 1990
"... the association with exposure to passive smoking at work was small and not statistically significant."
- Kalandidi et al.
Cancer Causes and Control, 1, 15-21, 1990
"We did not generally find an increase in CHD [coronary heart disease] risk associated with ETS [environmental smoke] exposure at work or in other settings."
Steenland et al.
Circulation, Vol. 94, No. 4, August 15, 1996
"... no statistically significant increase in risk associated with exposure to environmental tobacco smoke at work or during social activities...."
- Stockwell et al.
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 84:1417-1422, 1992
"There was no association between exposure to ETS at the workplace and risk of lung cancer."
Zaridze et al., 1998
International Journal of Cancer, 1998, 75, 335-338
Jon...
Name calling is the last resort of those who have no cogent argument.
But to answer your insult...No, I'm not a drunk. I just like hanging out with my friends and, for as long as I was able, I tolerated the smoke. I still spent plenty of money on other stuff (sodas, water, food, pool tables, darts, etc).
I'm thrilled that the table has turned as non-smokers do outnumber smokers and now I can stay out longer and not go home reeking of the smoke produced by a minority of people in the bars.
Posted by Thomas on January 29, 2007 05:01 PM***
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, 1992. Publication No. EPA/600/6-90/006F. Available at: http://cfpub2.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=2835***
This study is bogus as has been mentioned before...the results were biased and the study concentrated on all airborne pollutants (not just cig smoke) though it falsly claims that cig smoke is what they were studying.
Posted by Roy on January 29, 2007 05:03 PMAnn,
The dictionary is for you to look up 2 words: public and private. It wasn't a knock on your poor spelling.
Posted by Mike on January 29, 2007 05:04 PMThomas...please enjoy being in the majority while it lasts...eventually you will not be (not regarding smoking, but maybe some other issue)...It is how people act when in the majority that shows what kind of people they are...
Posted by Roy on January 29, 2007 05:05 PMkp...your a staunch vegetarian...yet you favor putting cancer sticks in your mouth and into you lungs? You've lost instant credibility with me . When I start chewing my meat and it somehow damages your insides...you might have an arguement. Until then..you do not. In any case...I repeat...I don't give a rats ass if you smoke...just keep it out of my space. And my space is anywhere you can go I can go.
Posted by Ann on January 29, 2007 05:06 PMmike ..then I apologize. Since I was rudely corrected on this thread about my punctuation , you could see how i would misread that?
Posted by on January 29, 2007 05:09 PMRoy,
Non smokers outnumber smokers by more than 3 to 1 and that ratio is increasing, in favor of non smokers, every day.
If you believe in democracy, then by all means, you should support a public vote on the issue. But be aware, the end result will almost surely be the same.
And although the proprietor may own the bar and it's property. .he or she does NOT own the AIR in the bar...it is the community property of anyone who enters the bar.
Bar owners that wanted to remains smoking preferred establishments had that option. I would support and amendment to the smoking bad that allowed these small business owners to designate their businesses as smoking establishment licenses, in lieu of the 5% tobacco revenue
requirement, as long as at they provide a completely smoke free environment that is equal to or greater than 75% (3-1) of their total space accessible by customers.
I've seen bars in other cities that do that. They actually installed glass enclosed areas to contain and vent smoke out of the building. The enclosed areas had bar access so that the minority smokers could have the full bar experience you want..."smoke, drink and relax" and the majority non smokers could enjoy themselves, as well.
Would you accept that, Roy?
Posted by Thomas on January 29, 2007 05:17 PMSo Ann, How exactly does my choosing to smoke affect you?
Posted by Jon on January 29, 2007 05:22 PMAnd Roy..
I don't really care what studies you post that say second hand smoke is not dangerous.
As I mentioned previously, my mother has COPD and emphezema. She stopped smoking 25 years ago but my father continued to subject her to second hand smoke until he died of heart disease 4 years ago.
She is on oxygen 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
This once vital woman who took up distance walking and hiking after she quit smoking is now chained to an oxygen machine and doesn't have the lung capacity to walk her dogs around the block.
I have absolutely no doubt that his smoking contributed to what she is living with now and will ultimately cause her to die prematurely.
I might accept something like that as it gives smokers and bar owners a choice rather than a mandate, though i don't support forcing bars to prove that any percent of their revenue comes from the sales of tobacco. If they want to be a smoking establishment, then they should be one, otherwise not. Nor do i support making bars that have smoking areas have a better and bigger non-smoking area, it should be wholly the owners choice of how to lay out their bar.
Posted by Roy on January 29, 2007 05:27 PMYou have no doubt because you have no ability to think critically...to say you dont care what scientists and doctors say on the subject shows that you are not open to rational discussion and that you base your reasoning on emotion rather than reason, which is all fine with me, but don't pretend otherwise.
Posted by Roy on January 29, 2007 05:30 PMOh absolutely Ann, your health is so much more important to everybody than my good time. I apologize for overstepping my bounds, I shall go give myself 40 lashes for even thinking that we were equal. I don't know how else to explain this to you. YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO BE THERE.
Posted by DR on January 29, 2007 04:41
Neither did you! Thats what you don't get.
Jon...I already answered your question. Look under a time frame at 443 pm
Posted by ann on January 29, 2007 05:37 PMRoy....how about you not caring what my body is telling me...that your smoke hurts my eyes, my lungs, my clothes...Scientist don't speak for me ...my body tells me the truth every day. Just because you body is numb with all the bad stuff you choose to do with it...doesn't mean its all in my head.
Posted by Ann on January 29, 2007 05:41 PMAnn (and Thomas) wouldn't ever discuss this issue with facts or logic so I gave up on them long ago. But, this just in...
The US Senate will introduce legistlation this week restricting automobile travel distance from work to no more than 5 miles.
They determined the extra pollutants emitted from people driving over 5 miles was excessive and those driving less than 5 miles are within their rights to demand that they be allowed to breath cleaner air.
Affected homeowners will be required to use public transportation or resort to "other" forms of travel that will be permitted by the bill if they choose to continue living so far from work.
People choosing not to use public transportation will have a 3 month window to either find a new job closer to home... or move.
Again, we are sorry for any inconvenience.
Posted by KW on January 29, 2007 05:50 PMAnn--I have read and re-read my post and can find nowhere where I state I am a smoker. I do not and have never smoked, but that is besides the point.
My point is your personal believes cannot be used to mandate others behaviors. Your statement that you have a 'right' to a smoke-free casino is flat out wrong. Just like I don't have a 'right' to mandate your eating habits, even thought they could adversly effect me.
But instead of subjecting my views on everyone, I vote with my wallet. Before the ban, I would only frequent establishments that were non-smoking...and that was my choice. I might not have enjoyed all the restaurants a smoker did, but those restaurants also did not enjoy my money.
As to your 'right' to a smoke-free casino, you have the ability right now to vote with your wallet. The problem seems to be that you don't want to take responsibility for your own recreation. A very quick Google would have easily led you here http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/100smokefreecasinos.pdf.
But I guess it's easier to force everyone to your behavioral mind-set than take responsibility for yourself.
Posted by KP on January 29, 2007 05:57 PMYou know ...I have been here trying to get my point across for 12 hours now. I have said everything I wanted , Defended my thoughts on the issue. I think its time to let others have their say. There are more articulate posters out there on both sides of the issue. I'm not trying to change your mind ...youcertainly haven't change my happiness that for the moste part...I can enjoy my dinning and bar experiance with the foulness of ciggerette smoke assaulting. Happy smoking....the law says it won't be in my face anymore. Its all good.
Posted by Ann on January 29, 2007 06:08 PMThomas- We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Democracy means mob rule. A Republic protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority.- it should protect the minority business owner from the tyranny of the public who don't respect private property rights.
Posted by Mike on January 29, 2007 06:10 PMOops...without the foulness of cigs...
Posted by Ann on January 29, 2007 06:10 PM"OL,
You had an option to remain a smoking establishment, if that is what you wanted.
That you didn't take advantage of that is solely on you.
You just needed to prove that 5% of your revenues came from tobacco sales. But I know plenty of smokers and they don't buy their cigarettes in the bar machines because they can get them cheaper at the grocery stores with coupons."
Thomas! - the fact that you posted that tells me you have no clue about what happened.
You have no clue how to run a business in Western Colorado.
Tell ya what - you, if you are ever on the Western Slope - go have a nice time in the nice non-smoking bar in Aspen. Fine.
I'll be in MY PRIVATE PROPERTY BAR with the ranchers, oilys, orchard-farmers and hard-working folk who sit and SMOKE in MY SMOKING BAR and discuss how they and their families will juggle the agriculture futures, what herd went where, what the weather is doing, how to afford a doctor visit for the ripped arm muscle, the rig that just went down, the new rigs proposed on THEIR ranch -
And while we are talking and arguing - maybe a biker will pull up on a 1956 Panhead, delight us and we will make our lives better by sitting around in MY SMOKING BAR, mixing, perhaps coming to a common census.
You can sit in your imaginary, fake world, collect your government check, or your Truct Fund gifts, or your parent's insurance, AND NOT COME INTO MY BAR,...
you can pretend business and life does not take place in the small time bars - FINE! STAY OUTA MY BAR!
But I will be damned if the Front Range takes, not just my water, but my rights to run my own business!
Tell me Thomas & Ann, what business do you exactly run?
PS I am a Progressive Democrat and I will be dammed if you stomp on my right to the 4th Amendment as well as
RUN MY BUSINESS!!!
Fascists. Why don't you read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and see how HITLER BANNED banned SMOKING?
Ann Wrote:
"You know ...I have been here trying to get my point across for 12 hours now. I have said everything I wanted , Defended my thoughts on the issue."
But Ann, why haven't you addressed ANY of the many questions regarding property rights?
Ann also wrote:
"I think its time to let others have their say."
So, are you going to cut-and-run?"
Posted by KW on January 29, 2007 06:36 PMOL - Some people just don't understand what they're doing. Good luck with your bar. If I come across your place someday I'll make sure to stop and have a beer. Maybe we can sneak in a smoke too!
Posted by KW on January 29, 2007 06:50 PMol....I ciouldn't resist coming back long enough to say...don't worry...if all your bars has to attract folks is ciggs....it won't last for the duration. Change with the times or fail. Your choice.
Kw...I think twelve hours is enough . America is grand that way...I don't have to stay if I don't want to.. bubye.
Yeah, KW - you know, you and I disagree about Iraq and our invasion and occupation in search of 40-year Production-Sharing-Agreements.
BUT WE AGREE on PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS, my SECOND and FOURTH amendment rights and protection from these anti-smoking, non-business-owner, non-western-slope, water-stealing fascists.
Perhaps you and I will meet in a ma&pa Naturita bar, SMOKE, and discuss whether Iraq was about an imminent threat, or an oil grab.
At least you and I will have the opportunity to discuss the day with THE WORKERS - the ranchers, oil-field workers who are just tryin' to make the next truck payment, and the orchard farmers who just lost their crop to a freeze.
If you don't want to hang out in THE SMOKING BAR, then, fine, go to the bar down the street.
The fern-bar people can go to the corporate Holiday Inn, not smoke, and talk about their government checks and Trust Funds from Boulder.
LET ME RUN MY SMALL BUSINESS AS I CHOSE!
Posted by ol on January 29, 2007 07:30 PMTell you what all you people who oppose the smoking ban, we live in a country where it is possible to redress your grievences to your elected officials. Furthermore, in Colorado we have the ballot initiave, get enough signatures to get rid of the smoking ban and it can be on the November ballot for an official vote. So call your elected official and start gathering those signatures. You keep talking about rights so enact your right to pention the government. However, smokers are in the minority and the majority is sick of being affected by your habit. Just as you can exercise you right of free speech saying that the smoking ban is wrong, non-smokers can exercise their right to say the smoking ban is great. I think your cause is a lost one, but please try, I would love the chance to solify the smoking ban via a vote in November.
Posted by Sean on January 30, 2007 12:27 AMAm I the only one who sees the hypocrisy in the arguments of the proponents of this ban? Where are your cries to renew the alcohol prohibition after incidents such as that reported last week in RMN regarding the deaths of 3 family memebers and the injuries of another in an accident caused by a hit-and-run drunken driver? Oh yeah, no one has a problem in admitting that Prohibition was a colossal failure that should never have been on the books in the first place. The smoking ban is just another example of activists using their right to petition to force the government into granting them the ability to have their cake and eat it too. The Subway restaurant where I worked in high school was smoke-free long before the smoking ban was in place, and in my younger days I would have welcomed the opportunity to work a job that frequently pays in the hundreds of dollars per shift. Of course that smoke-free environment in Subway brings with it a much lower rate of pay, but this is about employee health, not the bottom line. Hell, if I didnt already make more than a bartenders wages I would probably welcome such a high paying job as the pay far exceeds the labor involved. I often ask myself why I care so much about a ban of tobacco when I dont even smoke, but I guess that it's just principle. It is easy to promote the ban when one doesn't own a business affected by the ban(Ann and Sean), but those whose livelihood depends on the poor decision making of others typically dont agree. Although it makes me a jerk, I must admit that I laughed when reading the article about the bar owner who laid off both his employees due to a loss of business from the ban. I shouldn't have found it funny given that I dont know the opinion of those employees regarding the ban, but talk about poetic justice if they were in favor of the ban. Bar employees losing their lucrative high pay for liltle work racket that they have maintained through taking advantage of people who maintain unhealthy habits such as drinking alcohol and smokin cigareettes, directly as the result of the passage of this poorly thought out piece of socialist nonsense. If that's not irony, I dont know what is. I bet it was really just the fact that he didnt want those liberal non-smoking droves who showed up at his smoke-free door giving him business and not the fact that the ban crippled his customer base. This kind of legislative crap belongs in the EU, not the US.
Posted by Geoff on January 30, 2007 01:49 AMThe ones against the smoking ban keep throwing around the word Socialism wrongly Socialism is an economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control. Just because I cannot start a pig farm in the backyard of my suburban home or burn trash in my fireplace does not mean we live in a Socialist state. We live in a society, which for better of for worse depending on the rule and your point of view, prevent people from impeding the welfare of others. You make it sound as though that through the smoking ban, smokers will no longer go out anymore ever, they will just sit home and smoke while complaining about the smoking ban on blogs. Some businesses will loose because of the smoking ban, but some will win. Jobs are lost and created all the time, that is just the nature of capitalism. One bar will close and others will open for a variety of reasons. Blaming lost jobs soley on the smoking ban is just plain ignorant.
Posted by Sean on January 30, 2007 06:41 AMI still find this incredible. All of those entries yesterday and Ann never addressed the fact that this ban affects PRIVATE property. Now we have Sean chiming in, and he also misses the point. Sean, if you don't have a right to be on the property, then why do you have a right to decide what is allowed on the property?
Posted by Mike on January 30, 2007 06:45 AMActually I do have a right to say what goes on in private property through pentioning my elected officials. I cannot go into your backyard without your permission. But at the same time you cannot start a coal fired iron smelting furnace in your back either. It happens all the time Mike, people do decide to protest the building of a jail, a Wal-Mart, a factory, etc. that takes place on private property all the time. Bars are private property, but they cannot serve minors nor serve after 2 a.m. in Colorado because that is what the law says and now they cannot allow smoking. For better of for worse, there are laws out there that restrict what happens on private property. If you do not like, appeal to your elected official to get it changed.
Selling alcohol to minors, or selling it after 2:00 A.M. are ILLEGAL activities. Smoking (by adults) is a LEGAL activity. The other activities that you mentioned all have an effect outside of the private property; smoking does not.
Posted by Mike on January 30, 2007 07:04 AMI'm tired of making my points over and over again, so I'll say it one more time and be done. You had the choice and the freedom to go to a place that was already non smoking. The bars that did allow smoking did so because they knew they would be getting more customers. Is it their fault that they offered a place that had some advantages to the non smoking bar down the street? And I say advantages because they obviously had something that the other bars didn't. So is it their fault? A business had every right to suddenly not allow smoking anymore. And that would've been fine, because it would've been their choice. But notice how none of them did. So no, I will not be going to bars anymore because I cannot smoke in them anymore. You wanted clean air, now you got it, and it's not going to fall on my concience when the bar goes under. You say if I was a true patron I would still go and support the bar, but fail to see the fact that there is no reason to go into a bar anymore. You say you don't care if people smoke, as long as you don't have to breathe the air. Well then yes you do care if we smoke. You cared enough to push all of us outside for you. I'm sorry but I'm not going to go to a place that treats me like a second class citizen. And don't even try to deny that's what is happening. When you force somebody to do something because you don't like what they are doing, that's what being a second class citizen is all about. So enjoy my bar, it's all on your shoulders now.
Posted by DR on January 30, 2007 08:19 AMYou will not be missed.
Posted by Sean on January 30, 2007 08:21 AMI sure hope not.
Posted by DR on January 30, 2007 08:51 AMHey Sean, here's a definition straight from the dictionary. Socialism: the belief or theory that a country's wealth (its land, mines, industries, railways etc) should belong to the people as a whole, not to private owners. I guess that those bars and the land they sit on are not "wealth", although I think that many barowners/drinkers would disagree. Explain to me how the smoking ban does not fall under that definition, because I'm just "plain ignorant".
Posted by Geoff on January 30, 2007 09:29 AMIm a member of my local American Legion. We had a club where we could drink and smoke. Im not a smoker, and the smoke didnt bother me and I choose to be there. The fact of the matter is business is down. People still volunteer, but asking old folks to go outside in the cold to smoke is hard to do. So many come and havea drink and leave a bit earlier. We erected a shelter for them with some donations to make them as comfortable as can be, but lets be honest, I fell like we are treating guests as lepers for doing something they were allowed to do in their hall for a long time. Especially since people pay dues to be a part of our organization. I dont know who is right or who is wrong. The real losers are kids, and others whom which we used our club proceeds for charities. When our club suffers, so does the charities in a way. Were meeting most of our obligations, but not all. How do we deal? As best we can. And hope that people stay longer. No one at the club is happy about the smoking ban in a way. It brought some unintended consequences. I hope it all works out.
Posted by Rich on January 30, 2007 09:33 AMSean- Any new examples since I pointed out the errors with the ones you provided earlier?
Posted by Mike on January 30, 2007 09:34 AMPOOR ANN HAS TAKEN SUCH A BEATING FROM ALL THE LUNG CANCER JOCKEYS.
ANN, I HOPE YOU COME BACK TO JUST READ ONE MORE COMMENT: MINE -- Because I SUPPORT YOU !
The nonsmokers will eventually rule! How many smokers regret ever getting hooked? NOW...how many nonsmokers regret never having lit up? Hmmm...
If smokers were offered a safe, one-time-dose pill that would permanently eradicate all tobacco cravings...would they take it? Hmmm...That's a no-brainer, folks! Especially when you consider that a pack-a-day habit, over a five-year period, equates to the price of a brand-new car!
Note to the grammar and punctuation police: How did I do?
Posted by ERRICKA on January 30, 2007 03:54 PMErricka- Your grammar and punctuation are tolerable, but you have totally missed the point. This isn't a smoking issue. It could just as easily be about loud music in a club, or anything else that you deem to be harmful or annoying to you. It's a personal property rights issue. If you don't like the environment, then don't come in to my establishment. You don't get to change the behavior in my PRIVATE establishment so that it suits you. It's constantly repeated that this is about people addicted to nicotine. Well, I don't smoke and I'm not on the side of the smokers. I'm on the side of the business owner to decide for himself. If he wants to allow smoking, or not, it's not any of my business, or yours.
Posted by Mike on January 30, 2007 04:46 PMBravo, Mike, bravo. I dont think that the side of business owners could be any more eloquently stated. And worrying about grammar is for squares, I dont know why the hell that came up at all.
Posted by Geoff on January 31, 2007 02:39 AMThanks Erricka! I couldn't find this yesterday....took some doing but I found it today. Good to know I'm not alone out here with the 'cancer jockeys' :)
Geoff: The punctution police started nitpicking. Thought it was their place...I told that poster it wasn't. Nuff said. I think the point were still apparently clear.
Ann, you're back. And yet, you still don't address the private property issue.
Posted by Mike on January 31, 2007 09:21 AMMike...I think I made it perfectly clear...my health is more important to me than the bar owners, restuarant owners property rights. I consider it another health regulation that those folks have to adhere to for the good of society. I've spent a life time suffering because of all the smokers. For a minority...smokers sure are everywhere. I feel no regret what so ever that a few places might go under. Small price too pay as a free market society. I'll say it again...if you are worried about you hangout bar...support it and smoke outside or watch them go under. I'm ok with that as a result of the betterment of everyone's health.
Posted by Ann on January 31, 2007 03:13 PMBTW...anyone now of an easy way to not have to scroll down this long thread? Is there a shortcut you'd like to share?
Posted by Ann on January 31, 2007 03:29 PMThere you have it folks! If Ann wants to come over to your place, you'd better get rid of anything that she thinks might be harmful to her. She has a RIGHT to be there and your individual rights to determine what happens on your private property don't mean a thing.
And if you lose your life savings, then so be it. She doesn't care as long as SHE is comfortable in YOUR building.
Posted by Mike on January 31, 2007 04:22 PMGee Mike...you finally 'get it'! But not anything....just the smoking. And unfortunately for a very few....a price will be paid. Kindof like when we give our kids immunizations. Some of those kids are going to get really ill from the shot...some even die. Its a rarity . But for the good of our kids, and our society ...we take that gamble.
Posted by Ann on January 31, 2007 07:45 PMJust the smoking, huh? So, I can play my music at whatever volume level I want in my bar? You will still come in even though I am damaging the hearing of my employees and customers? I can serve alcohol and fatty foods damaging their livers and hearts? How about if I keep the lights down low so you suffer from eye strain while you read my menu? Should I be forced to turn them up for you?
You are an arrogant woman, Ann. You don't own the property. You don't pay the bills. You don't take the risk. You don't have a right to even be on the property. You are there at the whim of the owner; yet, you think you have the right to determine what activities other people engage in. Why prevent a property owner from making the decision himself? Because you might not agree with his decision? To quote you, "Such hubris." You can always walk down the street to the nearest non-smoking bar (or risk your own money and open one yourself), but instead you force your will on the property owner without having any of the responsibility.
Posted by Mike on January 31, 2007 08:52 PMI can see it now. smokers going to the casinos playing slots for 30 minutes, they need a cigarette. they have 2 or 3 hundred dollars racked up on the machine,.they do not want to give there machine up, so they call an attendent over to lock down their machine while they go out and smoke for 20 min. 20% of the people who go into a casino smoke. How many casinos, which adds up to a few 100 people stand outside smoking. So during that 20 min every hour, ha, poluting the outside and how much money do you think the casino's are loosing? Gee, how much tax revenue is lost? So now government need to recoop their loses and you people who want to ban smoking are now going to be taxed even more for one of you favorite things.
Maybe you need to realize that the small pubs, taverns and bar have an econimic lost up to 30 - 40 % . additional problems have been cause by the ban Examples,. drinks being taken outside, woman who go out to have a cig. get harrassed or even worse by man. people have been robbed or beaten while out smoking , drug dealers have approached the smokers wanting to sell drugs or pot, fights, or just people out there smoking pot while the police think they are just smoking regular cig. Then we have the bartender going out to police their property and their cash register gets cleaned out or liquor being taken from the back bar and the thief walks out the back door and dissappears. Who is the big looser? Not the non-smokers because none of the bar owners have seen any of you.
The only good way to solve a bad bill is FREEDOM OF CHOICE. POST A PLAQUE ON THE DOOR STATING THIS IS A SMOKING OR NON-SMOKING ESTABLISHMENT. THAT WAY THE PEOPLE WHO SMOKE CAN EVER WORK OR PATRONIZE THAT LOCATIONS AND THE ESTABLISHMENT WHO MAKE A CHOICE TO BE NON-SMOKING CAN DO THE SAME FOR NON-SMOKER. (NOW THAT IS EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL ). remember Its called
FREEDOM OF CHOICE.
Hi Fergie, I see Ann didn't comment on your posting?! I can't believe people like her. The world doesn't revolve around you Ann. You think you are superior over smokers, to the point that it's ok to create hate. It's still discrimination anyway you look at it and it creates hate. When people create they're own business and put they're life savings into it and then they are legislated out for a legal product, well Ann that is wrong. It's against what this country stands for. Banning smoking is not the answer, education, which has been working for 30 yrs now, is the answer. You are a fanatic and you have tunnel vision. You don't like being around smoking well that's ok, no one says you have to go to those places. That's called freedom of choice. Everyone deserves freedom of choice. If they would have allowed good ventillation and sepparate rooms that would have worked just fine. The anti's were given an inch and they took a mile. Nothing is good enough till it's illegal. Well our government makes trillions off the taxes for cigs and if they made it illegal where do you think the government would get that money? Do you think they would just accept the trillion dollars lost or find it somewhere else, like everyones pocketbook. All people deserve a place to go to relax and kick back. This world is more stressful than ever. So when you have to go outside to smoke and freeze that's not relaxing so you go home or invite your friends over and the bar or club loses money. Obviously you must work for someone and can't understand the consept of running a business but it takes all of you to make it work. I find some of your comments rude and discriminatory and I hope at some point in your life you have to feel what it's like to be oppressed. What comes around goes around.
Posted by Lisa on February 1, 2007 06:09 AMThanks Lisa, Yes there are all kinds of people out there that disagree. This time it is smoking. Sorry to say these people are so busy telling the smokers not to smoke and how to live their lives, they like to control other people, because they have no life of their own. Its very sad. Government intrusion is the same way. The need to control. People are not suppose to have any kind of life. entertainment or relaxation. This is why there are so many problems in this world. They need your tax money, they want you to work 24/7, no time for living. No time for fun or relaxation.
These people are so busy seeing the smokers as a problem, they do not see the small Business and the hugh economic losses they have suffered. Some of these businesses have been passed down from generation to generation. These people have put their life savings in to their business. They employee hard working people and provide a place for good conversations and place to relax and get away from the daily problems of the world. Now they are forced into being discriminated against because of people who want to control them, these people go to the bars to get away from people like that. Mainly because these people to do not patronize those locations.
Now we have this woman who does not like the smell of perfume. How dump. Whats next, smelly tennis shoes, limburger cheese, fish, just outlaw it all. Then people like Ann will be happy. Maybe these people should address issues of more importance like loosing English as the American language. Then I could say you might be a true American.
Posted by FERGIE on February 1, 2007 08:57 AMYou people are a riot! I have had to stay away from many establishments for many years because of you. So when the tables frnally...finally turns to allow me to go into more places...you whine , and moan and wring your hands. How about you taking responisbility and giving up what causes you and others such strife? NO? Don't want to do that huh? Too bad...I don't think I'll worry about you or the people who can't see the majority despises your fouling the air. And now that you can't do it...youhave the gall to blame us for your habit. I'm not arrogant...any more than you and your ilk have been for my entire life!! I get to breath fresh air( well fresher) for the first time and the feeling is indeed heady. Again...to bad for you. Now its your turn to suffer.
Posted by Ann on February 1, 2007 12:05 PMAnn, just out of curiosity, just how many restaurants and bars do you visit, and how often? Do you go to so many of them and so often that they all have to be non-smoking just for you? Or do you go only to your favorites (non-smoking) a few times a year? If the answer is the latter, then all of your hullabaloo is about control and not health in which case I don't know why anyone is bothering to explain their viewpoint to you.
Posted by Linda on February 1, 2007 03:33 PMAnn STILL has not made mention of why the non smoking establishments weren't good enough to go to. She makes the claim of not being able to go places because of the smoke. Which of the 2,593 non smoking restraunts and bars was she not allowed to go into? Nobody is blaming Ann for the habit of smoking, in fact nobody is blaming Ann for anything. Because she knows that if the smoking ban actually went to a vote it wouldn't pass. The problem that everybody has with people like Ann is that she makes the effort to avoid going to places that suit her needs and wants, simply to complain about other people. That is her motivation. It's the smokers fault for keeping her from going to a smoke free place.
Posted by Pop on February 1, 2007 03:52 PMlol...denial...and I don't mean a river . It doesn't matter how many times I go out...I now can do it mostly anywhere without having to deal with your smoke. And what you people seem to forget...more people feel like I do than you do. I hope the ban expands to the casino's . I'll be one of the firsts ones up there enjoying them. Its a matter of time....best start accepting it. How does it feel ? For me and millions of others...just great!
Posted by Ann on February 1, 2007 06:06 PMWell Ann if most people feel like you that how come is it when you read these forums posts that most are against the ban? The only people that I can count on your side is 3 including you. You are a rude person. Since when is it ok to be rude and treat people the way you do? Were you raised in a barn? What ever happened to tolerence for people that are different than you. Like I said before life doesn't revolve around you and I am tired of people like you that try to push your agenda on them. You really are a hateful person and again what comes around goes around. Just remember the prohibition on alcohol was eventually turned around and this might possibly turn around some day also, due to the economic losses both to the businesses and the state revenues. This isn't over yet.
Posted by Lisa on February 1, 2007 06:35 PMAnn- who is blaming you for an addiction? What an idiotic statement- one of many for you. I don't smoke. I don't own a bar. I prefer to not be around smoke. But, this ban makes me ill. The fact that people like you would dare tell someone else what to do in his private establishment sickens me. You are so willing to trample the rights of others for your personal comfort. What an appalling position to hold. And don't say anything about your right to breathe fresh air. It's a false dilemma. You aren't forced to be in the bar or restaurant. You are there by INVITATION. Therefore, no rights are being violated.
Posted by Mike on February 1, 2007 06:38 PMAwwww....Lisa got her little feelings hurt. Big , bad , rude me! New York went smokeless years ago...Think they are suffering economic loss? Why do you suppose one of the largest US cities passed that ban and have kept it? Why do you suppose more and more cities and towns are passing smoking bans and keeping them? Its because its for the good of our society.People have finally found their voices...made their stands. The politicians know if they do not act on this , they will be out next term. Like one of the 'smart 3 pro ban posters' you mentioned said, until the smokers started picking up the tab for all the death and destruction they cause by their habit...it won't be getting better for them. This is a forum for stating ones opinion. No one said it had to be a polite forum. If smokers wanted to be polite...they would get off their behinds , put one foot in front of the other and step outside to do their damage. Nuff said.
Posted by Ann on February 2, 2007 05:21 AMAnn is right, this is a public forum and she has every right to tell everybody just how better she is than everybody else. She has the right to express that you are not as much of a person as she is. She has the right to dodge such issues as private property, freedom of choice, and forcing people to do what you want them to do, that would dismantle her arguements. You see Ann here, was one of the people that was rounded up in the middle of night and brought to a bar to breathe smoke. She didn't have a choice about it.
Posted by Pop on February 2, 2007 07:54 AMvery interesting opinions here. i for one am a smoker and if the world don't like it then to bad. if i am first in a resturant for example i should have the right to smoke. if someone else comes that don't then they should just leave.hmmmmmm think i have that cig now.
Posted by puffer on February 2, 2007 08:47 AMAnn you need to get your head out of the clouds of smog. you really need to worry dear of all the polution you breath in.cig smoke is the least of your worries.omg don't have that drink after all drunk drivers kill more peeps in a day than smoking ever could..now hurry dear that drink is calling you to that bar.then make sure you don't crash and kill someone.after all it is your right to drink but not alright for us to smoke
Posted by puffer on February 2, 2007 08:54 AMIt's too bad that when people like Ann see those truth commercials, they assume that since somebody is talking about it, it must be the worst thing for you. The latest commercial I saw had a bunch of fake body parts in trash cans around New York, stating that cigarettes kill enough people each year to fill every garbage can in NY. But they fail to mention that auto accidents, kill enough people EVERY DAY to fill the garbage cans of half of the country. It's selective discrimination.
Posted by Pop on February 2, 2007 09:01 AMANN do us all a favor why don't you find a subject opinion page to go battle.get real hunny.now lets see where you could do some good at with your holier than thou attitude..yes i know why don't we send you to iraq and you can preach to the peeps there what is good for them and why your the only one who matters.AND ONLY YOUR RIGHTS COUNT..OOPS MY CIG SMOKE JUST DRIFTED OVER THE PC..
Posted by puffer on February 2, 2007 09:12 AMThe truth hurts puffer doesn't it? I believe this thread was started about expanding the smoking ban. I have thigs like smog that I worry about too. But htis thread is for the. smoking ban I think I've made my point over and over. Your right to smoke does not trump my right to healthy lungs and my right to visit the same establishments as you. I am better than you....I don't make myself and those arround me sick with a nasty habit. My lungs are all I'm getting so suck it up smokers. Keep it real...keep it in your own space. I'll be seeing ya puffing away in the cold outside while I walk by holding my breath until I get through you nasty haze. :-) LOL!
Posted by Ann on February 2, 2007 12:41 PMNews flash here Ann, We DID keep it in our own space. I don't know why you keep saying that we didn't when we clearly did. So Ann, which of the over 2000 bars that were non smoking weren't you allowed to go into? Seriously, answer this one and I'll leave you alone. How long will it be before you want to ban smoking outside? Your nasty habit is talking about your rights, while ignoring the rights of everybody else. That makes more people sick than my smoking.
Posted by Pop on February 2, 2007 01:45 PMAnn- you said that you have the right to visit the same establishments as anyone else. That is where you show your ignorance. Eating dinner in a restaurant is NOT a right. You have a right to walk up and ask PERMISSION to come in and they have a right to say no. If they grant you permission, you live with THEIR rules (whether it be to allow smoking, or not); you don't make your own.
Posted by Mike on February 2, 2007 02:19 PMAnn, you also had the right to demand that the non smoking bar that you didn't frequent supply the same things that the smoking bars did. You say you've made your point over and over, but your forgetting that you don't HAVE a point. You simply state over and over again about much better you are than other people. So which bar will you be attending tonight?
Posted by Pop on February 2, 2007 02:37 PMANN turn off your car and walk gag gag gag your killing me with the exhaust fumes..and put that barbeque out it is making your children if they are near the smoke have scientifcally proven just smoked a pack of cigs..now who is laughing
Posted by puffer on February 2, 2007 03:05 PMANN also please let us know which bar you will be getting drunk at tonight so we can save our lifes from a drunk driver..hm yes i believe i should take your rights away also..after all whats good for the goose is good for the gander. now puff puff
Posted by puffer on February 2, 2007 03:11 PMAnn with pompous people like you that talk through thier arses i inform you to know others have rights also..i will make sure i have the thickest haze for you to walk through as possible as i can't be bothered with some pompous arse
Posted by puffer on February 2, 2007 03:19 PMPuffer, I wouldn't be so quick to boast that you're a smoker. I bet your fingernails are brown, your teeth are brown, you stink like an ash tray, you have crinkles around your lips from all your puffing, you can't climb a flight of stairs without gasping for air, you have blood clots in the making inside your legs, and your breath reeks. Did Ann say she barbeques? Yeah, bbq smoke is bad but how often does one do it? Smoking is nothing to be proud of. If you want to stand up for rights of business owners, then do that, but spare us the bragging of your filthy habit. Kissing a smoker is like licking a dirty ashtray. Yuck. And the car fumes defense doesn't hold water. WE NEED CARS. We can't go back to horse and buggies. But sad to say, some smokers would actually give up their cars if they had to choose between their cars and cancerettes. Now, I'm gonna sit back and wait for the backlash of responses!
Posted by Anti-puffer on February 2, 2007 03:38 PMTO ANTIPUFFER oh another pompous arse, i look at it this way.when arguing with a pompous fool such as you why bother.oh and for the record pompous one your discription of me is so far of base.excuse me now but the cameraman is waiting for me.
Posted by puffer on February 2, 2007 04:29 PMHow typical: You actually deny your breath stinks like an ash tray and your hair reek of ashes? Maybe your nails aren't yellow yet, but those blood clots are developing - maybe no symptoms now, but you just wait and see. And put your hand on a Bible and swear to all that you can actually run 10 yards without collapsing. Why did you take up smoking, anyways? 'cause you thought it was cool? Talk about pompous. Or maybe you didn't have the backbone to tell your smoking friends to shove it when they teased you about being "scared" to try smoking? Or maybe it was because you wanted to throw away your money; nahhh, what teenager needs cool clothes and a car?
Posted by Anti-puffer on February 2, 2007 05:52 PMYa know...I shouldn't be enjoying the flame throwing i'm doing so much. I am being true about my opinions...I don't have to be so 'in your face' about htem. But you guys are pretty easy feathers to ruffle. I'm actually not this bad in person...this is a forum and I have stated my opinion fully know that I would have some of you squawking and fussing. It's part of the fun. No matter what topic, no matter what board people post their opinions on....you can pretty much expect someone to correct your grammar, spelling or even sentence structure. Like that stuff makes or breaks a point you are trying to make. You can count on someone calling you a moron, or an eletist pig... or whatever. This forum is rather tame to some I visit. So don't take any of this too seriously. Besides...if we all had the same opinions it would be such a boring world. Humor can make your point a bit easier to tke. It's not my forte...but I admire those who do have it. No one here has shown they have a gift of it either. Anyway, I'll t ry not to bait anymore. Doesn't mean I'll change my stance ..but I can can do it with out the flame throwing. But I will give as good as I get if others cross lines. Peace.
Posted by Ann on February 2, 2007 06:16 PMI've posted to wake me up from the drowsiness I sometimes get while doing my computer work projects. I state my beliefs and don't get hurt feelings. But what amazes me is that some people in this forum actually think Ann is some kind of witch or evil person. My goodness, just because a person thinks smoking should be banned in businesses makes them out to be some moral demon. For all you know, critics, Ann could be your friendly co-worker in the next cubicle. She could be your child's daycare provider. She could be your personal trainer or your dentist! Lighten up. For pete's sake, it's just a discussion about smoking!
Posted by Anti-puffer on February 2, 2007 07:12 PMTo Anti-puffer, I don't know if you read through these postings but I think it is Ann who needs to lighten up and she has been insulting from the beginning. It's one thing to voice your opinion and respect the fact that we are all different and we all deserve our rights, it's another to be insulting and down right rude and arrogant. It's ok that she doesn't like smoke, but life doesn't revolve around her and smoking has been around a-lot longer than her arse!! It is our right to smoke and to go out and relax and have a good time too without having to go outside and freeze. There could have been compromises in the beginning with filtration for these businesses instead of legislating them out of they're businesses. There could have been closed off areas. There were other alternatives and now it has effected our rights. We pay taxes too and vote and could be the person next door also. We deserve to be treated as humanbeings and not discriminated against as obviously Ann has done. Ann needs to grow up and learn some manners and respect for other people. Lisa
Posted by Lisa on February 2, 2007 07:48 PMThanks Anti-puffer. It seems we are in the minority on this board...which is odd because in the real world we are the majority. Thanks for sticking up for me. I did indeed present my opinion in a rough way. I can admit that and that wasn't real nice. But you are right. I could be anyone that these folk knows. and it is just a diecussion. Its not like we're all gonna meet up for a drink or whatever.Thanks for seeing past the 'tude' and knowing its just part of the cyber game. :-)
Posted by Ann on February 2, 2007 08:12 PMThere is a big mistake that all of you are addressing. While so bashing each other personnally, none of you are really addressing the issue. Its call Freedom of Choice.
This country was built with tabacco. One our countrys biggst exports. It was a honest living and a product that the farmers produced.
addressing the issues is that there is a major survey being done in the done in metro area on how the smoking ban has affected the Business Owners. These bar owners economic loses are at 30 to 40 %. There have been over 34 of these establishment close due to economic lose.
So what the anti- smokers are saying to the business owner are they have no rights to own and run a business. I see is people being descriminated against and their 1st and 14th amendment of the Consitution of the United States is being violated. So people blame each other is not the answer. What a shame people have come down to bashing each other. What people do not understand is that businesses are being depressed here.
The state law say you should not discriminate agaisnt, race, religion, sex and now we can add non-smokers. oh excuse me......SMOKERS. what is next all the the six sences like smell will become a nuisance. Then we should outlaw, body odor, fish, limburger cheese, smelly car or truck smoke exhaust. Walking is more healther then driving. Hummmmm interesting.
State over State all have done surveys. One big problems is in these state's,that only 20 percentage of the people smoke. What the surveys did not tell you is that over the millions that live in that state only about 500 or so are survied. What they also did not tell you is that the 80 percent they say do not smoker, How many of that 80 percent are children under the age of 18 who legally can not buy the product in the first place. Their have been so many health problems placed on smoking and later found out it was never caused by smoking in the first place.
But as an American I do believe in Freedom of Choice and there is enough business for both smokers and non- smokers to patronize. Wake up people address the issue and stop bashing each other.
Ann- You might be in the majority (or not) when it comes to the smoking issue, but hopefully, you are in the minority when it comes to taking away others' rights. You (for some reason I cannot fathom) feel entitled to decide what happens in somebody else's building. If you don't like the decision the owner has made, then leave. I have said this several times: I am a non-smoker. I prefer smoke-free buildings. But, this is a private property rights issue. Although I would prefer that bars not allow smoking, I understand that I have absolutely no standing in making the decision. I would hold the same position if someone demanded that bars allow smoking. It is the business owner's decision and nobody else's.
Posted by Mike on February 2, 2007 11:08 PMThere is one way everyone could be happy and keep thier rights to smoke or not.There is a resturant business down the road from me,that added on to the side of thiers.there made sure a solid wall seperated the smoking from none smoking.both sections have thier own seperate door .the kitchen is inbetween both sections along with cash register peeps in both sections.Along with the filteration system everyone is happy and thier business is tripled.
Posted by puffer on February 3, 2007 05:34 AMPuffer...I would have liked someone to make an effort at your idea a long time ago. All we nonsmokers ever got was sitting in the same building, most of the time inthe same room with maybe a ceiling fan or two. It wasn't enoug and now its just a little to little to late. Had these buisness owners really cared about their buisness..they would have invested some money and effort into making everyone happy then this ban wouldn'thave been neccessary. Now they are being forced to do the right thing. It didn't have to be that way..but because they didn't want to spend the money to improve things for all...now its gonna (you say) hit them in the pockets now.
As I've posted earlier. A mom and pop restuarant down thr street ( I know the
owner and the 15 year waitstaff) have told me that buisness is up 20 -25%. Now I'm not saying that all restuarants are up that much...but even the smaking waitstaff are happy withthis ban. Go figure! As a buisness///you have top offer more than just an ashtry to bring in buisness and survive now that the ban is in effect. If they cannot or will not change...then it's really on them.
Ann- Explain why you have a right to be in somebody else's restaurant. Why are you entitled to be part of the decision making process when it comes to anything the restaurant does?
Posted by Mike on February 3, 2007 07:37 AMMike. Unless its a private club where they accept your membership at the door...you are wrong. If I have a shirt and shoes on...I can walk into any establishment and they would welcome my money. They can't even stop me from coming in...why would they? Their whole point of being in buisness is to cater to me and people like me. To give service for my money. If the service of 2 smokers were pit against the service of 8 other nonsmokers...well any business man worth his salt will cater to the people who will make him more money. Why do you think you have anymore say in the restaurant 's decision making than me or others like me? You're point can go both way Mike. You just refuse to see any other point than your own. You have a dog in this fight too. I'm standing up for my right just as much as you are your right . For some reason you find that un acceptable. I can't help you there.
Posted by Ann on February 3, 2007 09:48 AMLets make it equal rights.
post a plaque on the outside of the business door.
THIS IS A NON-SMOKING ESTABLISHMENT
then anyone who is a now-smoker can patronize if the choice to do so, and anyone who is a non-smoker who wants to work in that establishment can also choose to do so.
OR
THIS IS A SMOKING ESTABLISHMENT
then anyone who is a smoker can choose to work or patronize that establishment if they choose to do so.
then no one is descriminated against and then everyone might be happy.
Posted by FERGIE on February 3, 2007 10:53 AMFergie...that battle is over. That might have worked at one time. But since nothing was really done to prevent the smoke from fouling the air for non smokers...this is law now. And of course since I'm on the side that has prevailed...I'm not into going backwards now. I'm for going forrward and making the whole state smoke free...cassino's included. The momentum is going forward...not back. If ther shoe was on the other foot, Ihave no doubt the other side would wage a dedicated battle . So why would you expect any differently ?
Posted by Ann on February 3, 2007 11:05 AMAnn- You asked me, "Why do you think you have any more say in the restaurant's decision making than me, or others like me?" That's just it, Ann; I understand that I DON'T have a say, and neither do you. The OWNER has the say, period. You also said, "you have a dog in this fight, too". What is my dog? I DON'T SMOKE. I don't own a restaurant, either. You said that you are standing up for your rights just as I am standing up for my own. You and I don't have any rights in this area, Ann. I am standing up for the property owners' rights. You are standing up for your own selfish wants and PERCEIVED rights. And yes, I find that unacceptable.
Posted by Mike on February 3, 2007 12:07 PMAnn- You also unwittingly make the point of letting the business owner make a rational business decision for himself. If there were 2 smokers and 8 non-smokers, then he would be wise to ban smoking. Let's reverse those numbers: We have 2 non-smokers and 8 smokers. You don't want to let him make the decision himself; you want to impose your will on him and the 8 smokers. Let him decide what he wants to do, and you are free to seek out a restaurant that suits you. What is wrong with liberty and freedom of choice, Ann?
Posted by Mike on February 3, 2007 12:11 PMMike ..I gave those %'s because supposidly only 20 % of the population smokes as opposed to 80% that doesn't. Those are published facts...not numbers I've made up. Now assuming that we've not all been lied to...my numbers and %'s work for a better model than turning those numbers arround.
If you so for everyone's freedom of liberty and freedom of choice...why can't the smoking choose to step outside and smoke and make it so eveyone is happy? Its not just one sided like you are trying to say. And like I said...if the owner of the establishment is there to make money , to serve his patrons...he would be smart to choose the patrons with the most percetages to make more money. Now if he's just opened up a private little smoking den for his friends and neighbors...then make it a 'private club' and be happy with making the smaller amount of money serving the smaller amount of patrons.
It doesn't matter what the numbers are. A business owner has the right to make a poor business decision. If he thinks that allowing smoking is the right decision, then he lives with the consequences. If the market rewards him, great; if not, then he adjusts or goes out of business.
In some instances, he will be rewarded. In some, he won't. Think of the little, hole in the wall tavern where people go to shoot pool and drink. They will probably do well allowing smoking. The upscale club in LoDo who tries to attract a young, professional crowd would probably be better served by not allowing smoking. If either business doesn't do as well as anticipated, then a change in approach is needed.
If that little place that allows smoking attracts a good crowd who don't mind the smoke, then who are you to walk in and change it to suit you? You would be better served to look for a place that is a better fit for you. You could even try to put pressure on the owner to change his rule,and then it would be up to him to make whatever decision he thinks is best for his business.
There are a lot of choices out there. We don't need to bend others to our will. The smokers can find places that allow smoking. The non-smokers can find places that don't. If the percentages are as you say, then there would be no shortage of places that would be good for you. Why make everybody do what you want?
Posted by Mike on February 3, 2007 01:07 PMGEE Ann you just might have something there. lets make all the bars, taverns and pubs, private clubs. then the owners would have a say.... wonder what that would be?? non- smokers not allowed, now what good would that do... oh and by the way patrons choose the estblishment not the other way around. but one thing you should remember is that any business has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.
Posted by FERGIE on February 3, 2007 01:08 PMFergie...I'm in my 50's and not once in my entire life have I been denied service from any establishment. Ever! You keep harping on that ill concieved reason...look where its got you? No where. The fact that the law is now no smoking is a wakeup call to you smokers. We are done with putting up with it and won't be taking it nicely anymore. Forwarned is always a good thing.
Posted by Ann on February 3, 2007 01:34 PMMike...I have trie danwering your question about owners rights. Why will you not answer why smokers can not go outside. Is it because they resent that its been 'decided ' for them? I think its mostly because they jsut don't feel t hey should have to. But now its a saw...they do and have no say anymore.
Posted by Ann on February 3, 2007 01:38 PMAnn- you haven't come within a mile of answering the question about owner's rights. Why do your wants trump their rights?
Smokers can go outside; if that is the policy set by the owner. If he allows them to stay inside, then they stay inside.
I don't care if smokers don't like what the OWNER decides, but owners should be outraged that sanctimonious, selfish people like you feel that you somehow have any say in what their smoking policies are.
You and I have no standing at all in the decision making process. It is the business owners decision and no one else's.
Why don't you understand that not all restaurant owners agree with you. Some do and you would do well to patronize their establishments, but don't force your will on the rest.
Posted by Mike on February 3, 2007 01:47 PMjAnn, neither will the bar owners... I got 10+ years babe on you and I do not not want or care to become like you either. Thank God for Freedom of Choice. Enjoys yours and I will enjoy mine.
Posted by FERGIE on February 3, 2007 01:51 PMFergie....its over. It is law now. The bar owners will comply and eventually stop complaining and to what the majority of their patrons want. This is ( for them) about making money ...bottom line and they will bend or fail. That is their choice.
Posted by Ann on February 3, 2007 01:58 PManother thing...
I have an adult daughter who smokes and she is thrilled about hte ban. It keeps her from smoking as much. Always a good thing if you can't find the salt to quit.
Also...that little neighborhood restaurant I told you guys about ( buisness up 20 -25%)? Well all the waitstaff that smokes is also ok with the ban. Turns out alot of them got migrains from never getting a break from the constant fumes. So even some of you smokers are perfectly fine withthis ban. And many of thm don't mind stepping outside either. Only you fringers are being dragged kicking and screaming into the the smokeless future.
My response to your point about some smokers liking the ban- so what?
What a smokers wants or likes? Irrelevant
What a non-smoker wants or likes? Irrelevant
Letting a PRIVATE business owner make his own decision and dealing with the consequences? The only thing that is relevant.
And, about the workers? They were never required to work in that industry in the first place. We abolished slavery long ago.
Posted by Mike on February 3, 2007 02:20 PMMike, well said!!!!!!! The main issue is government intrustion into same business.
That is all any of us have been trying to tell Ann. What we all should do is not reply anymore of her comments and then she will have nothing more to say. Let her stew. There are over 200 comments and Ann seems to be the only one supporting the non smokers, while the rest of us are supporting the business. Shows you how stupid she really is. Amem the end.
Posted by FERGIE on February 3, 2007 03:22 PMThanks for knowing your place fergie....if this thread has to die...then let it die with my handle being the last one you see.lol!
Posted by Ann on February 4, 2007 07:43 AMAnn- For someone in her 50's, you sure act like a child; and that carries over to your selfish, childish view on this issue. You don't like something, so others can't do it, even though it's taking place on someone else's property.
Posted by Mike on February 4, 2007 08:30 AMANN, your are a rude, nasty, foul mouth woman. It is people like you who think you know it all. Sad to say but you are uneducated, ingorant, and stupid. You are the type of person who wants to rule other people lives because you have no life of your own. GET A LIFE WOMAN.
I am not a smoker but I applaud the business owners in protecting their properity rights. I play on 5 pool leagues in the bars. Many of whom are smokers, Now the pool leagues who once would play from 7 to about 10:30 a night are taking twice as long to play because people stop and go out for a cig. Now these leagues do not finish until midnight or later. Many of the players are starting to quit playing because they are hard working people and have to work the next day... . So each division has 8 or more teams of 8 people on each team, now we are down to 5 or 6 teams. You see these people at one time had fun, good converation, laughed, drank and smoked. Not any more. Many of these bars were packed everynight. when we played. The bars now have maybe 3 or 4 people other than the leagues playing. Many of my friends are now doing their drinking at home and inviting their friends to join them. The bar owners are now losing business right and left. The legislators said the non-smokers would start coming out to the bars. My question is WHERE ARE THEY???????????
In 2004 the smoking ban went to the voters for the entire state.. The voters clearly voted NO. It failed, so big brother thought they knew better than the voters and brought back the smoking ban for bars only. Casino's, the airport lounges and cigar bars were exempted and by the way there is no difference between cigar smoke and cigarette smoke. Health issue my foot. It is discrimination, why because most of the male legislators smoke cigars.. what a laugh. So what the legislators are tell people that they know better than we do and that our votes at the ballot mean nothing.
People are losing their rights every day. Our votes mean nothing. HITLER THOUGHT HE KNEW MORE TOO, WHEN HE TRIED TO BAN SMOKING. I know that I am not willing to live under a Hitler ear.
LOL! We are there Britney...of course, we dcon't make it our whole life like you do. But we walk past you and your puffer friends and smile. Its about time we get some satisfaction. Stop putting your bad habit before others health and the world will be a better place. I really don't care what you self rightous...my smoke don't stink people think of me. I'm tickled pink and won't miss a few of your hangouts if they go under because you can't move your lazy, nicotine saturated bodies out the door for your cancer break. At least you won't be taking me with ya.
Posted by Ann on February 4, 2007 09:54 AMYou did not get it did you lady. What I said was
ANN, your are a rude, nasty, foul mouth woman. It is people like you who think you know it all. Sad to say but you are uneducated, ingorant, and stupid. You are the type of person who wants to rule other people lives because you have no life of your own. So GET A LIFE WOMAN.
As a NON-smoker myself. I would not want you to go to any of the bars I go to anyway. It is people like you I go there to get away from. I have to deal with people like you all day long. Your smoke don't stink but your personality does. You are a very angry person and I feel sorry for you.
Posted by Britney on February 4, 2007 10:22 AMAnn- You are pathetic. You cannot argue with logic and reason, so you throw out stupid, childish responses. You don't have an argument beyond, "I don't like smoke, I think it's bad for me to breathe second-hand smoke, so you can't smoke anyplace I want to go." That is such a childish feeling of entitlement.
Why are you entitled to have the bar atmosphere the way you want it?
Why do you have more say than the bar owner?
No one is forced to patronize any bar. No one is forced to work in any bar. But, you feel entitled to force your desires on someone who has invested his time, money, and effort in his own business. Someone who has the right to make the decisions that could lead to the success or failure of his business.
I like non-smoking bars, but it is absurd to think that my wants matter a wit when it comes to making decisions about the legal activities allowed in a private establishment among free people.
Grow up
Posted by Mike on February 4, 2007 10:28 AMoh and another thing.
Ye who lives in a glass house should not cast the first stone. Like you seem to be doing.
Posted by Britney on February 4, 2007 10:30 AMI have a question to smokers, and maybe even nonsmokers can ponder this one. Britney said the pool games take a lot longer because the smokers must go outside and this holds up the game. Is smoking so addictive that a pool player must keep lighting up? What if there was pool players who, every 15 minutes, had to step aside to chow down on donuts and candy or hamburgers? I bet the other players would complain and think the person was a pig or glutton. Why can't smoking be like snacking in that it's done every so often? Why must someone have a cig every 20 minutes? Can't you go two hours without a cig, just like you can go two hours without food? Smokers act like they HAVE to smoke all the time. Can you not go too long without a cig? I can go half the day without food. Why can't you go without a cig? If the pool game is that important, why don't the smokers practice a little will power to keep the game going? Nobody would tolerate a compulsive snacker who had to keep delaying the game to munch on chips and ice cream, you can be sure.
Posted by Intrigued By This Forum on February 4, 2007 01:42 PMIntrigued by this forum: It was an example used. The thing of it is that smokers do have the freedom of choice to smoke or not smoke, you missed the point all together. It is not the smokers who are suffering. It is the small business owners. Smoking only is one part of it. They (the legislators) stated more non smokers would patronize their locations. The only problem with that is they are not do that. So the non smokers who have been whinning about wanting smoke free business, now have then, yet they are not out there supporting them.
The true issue is, casinos have smoking, the air port lounges have smoking, cigar bars have smoking. That is discrimination pitting one business against the other. In Washington DC. The legislators can smoke in their offices. The voters went to the ballot in 2004 and voted down the smoking ban. Now the legislators our famous big brother know better than everyone else and passed a bill. So now we have the voters, votes being depressed.
Our voting rights being lost, properity rights being taken away. Someday I hope you do not suffer a lost of one of your most perious gift of Freedom or your business run into the ground by the government.
Posted by Britney on February 4, 2007 02:12 PMI forgot to mention. What about the couple in Jefferson County. Who lost their rights to smoke in their own home. Thanks to a Jefferson judge. There home is not their castle anymore and not a business, yet they lost their rights. tell me the fairness in that.
Posted by Britney on February 4, 2007 02:38 PMAnn, lets talk about the social aspects of smoking. You say you now enjoy visiting with your friends in a bar/restaurant. In your vast wisdom of what is good for you is good for other people, you are ignoring one or two generations whose way of life has been completely changed for the worse because of the smoking ban in restaurants. An example, I know an 80 year old man whose whole life centers around his home and a nearby restaurant. He is in that restaurant many times a day to meet friends, eat, have coffee, and smoke a cigarette. (By the way, he picked up the habit when he was in the service--yes, the government got him hooked.) Well now, some of his friends don't come in because they can't smoke. It is 15 degrees below zero today, and you and other zealots have displaced a lot of senior citizens. But that's okay, all that matters is you! Since restaurants were required by law to provide both smoking and non-smoking area, just what was your beef? I suggest that you weren't breathing in second hand smoke--you just didn't like the odor! All you had to do was go to a non-smoking restaurant. You have been catered to all along because I never saw a restaurant that was for smokers only. By the way, my wheel chair bound 90 year old aunt was told by her own son that she couldn't smoke in his house. He told her to go the garage where she would have to contend with stairs or go outside (it was raining). I sincerely hope you and others are proud of the service that you have done for others. You didn't do any research at all into second hand smoke, you just jumped on the bandwagon. Have you ever seen a group of nursing home residents being wheeled outside in the freezing cold because no-one cares enough to provide another alternative for them? I have and it made me want to cry. You should be ashamed. There is room for all of us. A little respect and understanding go a long way.
Posted by Linda on February 5, 2007 12:37 AMIf that 80 year old man's so-called friends won't come into the restuarant because they can't smoke, then they're really not his friends, are they? They have to smoke to enjoy his ocmpany? They can't sit with him and chat and have a laugh for 45 minute without a smoke? I guess cigarettes are more important to these so-called friends than the company of this 80 year old man. And if my friends refused to visit me in a restuarnt becuase they couldn't smoke , man, I'd be really hurt. Some "friends" these are. Can't they smoke before going into the restaurnt, visit the old man for a while, and then smoke when it's time to leave? Gee whiz can't you smokers go 30 minutes without a fix? Man o Lord.
Posted by on February 5, 2007 02:52 AMIt's not the smokers going 30 minutes without a fix. It's the private property owner deciding for himself. What is so difficult to understand about that?
Posted by Mike on February 5, 2007 07:04 AMmike...but that is not the arguement you all are using. You are the one who has stuck to theyour point of the property owners rights.
I have stated my point to that ...over and over.
They must change the way they attract customers now. if smoking was all they had ...they will fail. They need to come up with some ideas to promote buisness that don't include smoking. Pool, Fooseball, kareoke...theme nights ...whatever. The law has already bee passed. Its now up to them to make changes so their buisness can thrive. Since all their old 'regulars' have abandoned them ...they need to see those people as a loss and work on gaining others that will enjoy their places for other reasons...good food, unusual entertainment...etc. Its law...now ..past tense. I don't feel badly for them....they have had opportunity upon opportunity to be 'progressive'( thats one of your buzz words right?) But they didn't. now they have to...or they will not stay in buisness. The law is now in effect and there is no going back. Perhaps there is going forward for the ones who truly want to stay in thier buisness. they will have to work harder than providing ashtrays and drinks now. So? Ar they incapable or just going to sit and whine and lose? Up to them.
Mike,
I've answered your question about "proper;ty rights" in previous posts but you chose to ignore.
Yes, the bar owner does own the bar and it's furnishings. But he/she does not own the air that circulates in it. It is, by law, and because it is a human necessity, the community property of ALL the persons who are in the bar.
Do you understand, the bar owner does not own the air that everyone has to breathe, just because it happens to be circulating through his or her bar at that moment.
For decades, cigarette smokers have had their way. Only in recent years, as the dangers and unpleasant side effects of cigarette smoke have become known and/or recognized, have the rights of non-smokers to breathe unpolluted begun to be considered.
If you own a bar, you are already operating under hundreds of state regulations that wer passed with the general welfare of the public in mind. You cannot sell alcohol to anyone under 21. You must meet standards of cleanliness. You must pay your employees legal wages. Your employees must wash their hands after using the bathroom. You must carry certain types of insurance (property and injury). You must have emergency exits that are unblocked and clearly marked.
These are all things that you...a PRIVATE businessman are required to do in order to operate in the PUBLIC sector.
Smokers are making a personal choice to endanger their health. That is their right and nobody is taking it away from them. What is being done is the law is finally recognizing that the air we breathe, in enclosed environments like bars, is community property.
You asked about private vs public. I'm just answering your question. Just because you are a private person who owns a bar you are still subject to numerous laws and regulations for operating that establishment in the public sector.
Your bar is your private property to do with as you please ...until you open the doors to the public for business...when some of those rights are superceded by the regulations you are required to follow in order to operate your business legally. If you are a bar owner, as you claim, you already now that this is true.
Posted by Thomas on February 5, 2007 08:49 AMann. laws were made to be broken or change. who died and made you God of men and women
Posted by on February 5, 2007 09:03 AMAnn- 'Progressive' is one of my buzzwords? I've never used that word.
Thomas- So, if I invite someone into my home, the air becomes 'community' property and I cannot smoke in my own home? Are you insane? And, it's not the air that everyone 'has' to breathe. You are free to leave and breathe other air.
I have addressed the regulation aspect several times. As far as not being able to sell alcohol to someone under 21. That's because that is against the law. I can't GIVE alcohol to someone under 21, either; regardless of whether I am in a restaurant, my home, or on the street. Smoking is LEGAL.
We have regulations against unclean situations in kitchens, tainted meat, rules about employees washing their hands, etc... because the public doesn't have the opportunity to inspect everything. It isn't reasonable to have a restaurant who gets 500 or so customers per day to allow each one access to the kitchen to inspect the condition of the meat, to make sure everybody washes their hands, to make sure cockroaches aren't all over the place, etc...It therefore is necessary to have some government oversight to ensure safe conditions.
With smoking, all you need to do is post a sign that says, "Smoking" or, "Non-smoking" and you have all the information you need to make a decision for yourself.
And no, I am not a bar owner. I put things in the first person when making a point. I am not a smoker, either. Like you, I prefer non-smoking restaurants and bars. I hate to leave a place smelling like smoke, but I have no right to force my desires on the bar owner.
Posted by Mike on February 5, 2007 09:24 AMTo 9:03 ....The law made that decision..I'm only stating my happiness that the law finally wised up. Its like you people can change course or something. If something I did for a living got regulated and I wasn't going to be able to pull in what I use to pull in. I'd then put on my thinking cap and go to work doing what I could to again provide what I need to be whole again. You folks act like you have nothing more you can do for your buisness now that this law is law. Get over the problem by changing and evolving or not. Again... up to you. I am pleased and don't feel any need to apologize for something that took decades to come about. Its all good. Evolve or die as a buisness....millions do it every day. Stop the crying and 'get er done'
Mike.. its a word...don't let it throw ya.
Ann- it didn't 'throw' me. I just want to know why you attributed it to me.
Posted by Mike on February 5, 2007 10:00 AMYeah Mike didn't you that it was the smokers that kept people like Ann from going into the NON smoking places. Yes Ann, evolve or die as a business. Since the non smoking places couldn't get the ammenities that you wanted that would help them compete with the smoking places. THEY had the choice to evolve or die. So Ann, for the third time, which of the 2000 some odd non smoking places couldn't you go into?
Posted by Pop on February 5, 2007 11:07 AMMike,
There is obviously a difference between your home and a business property, Mike. You're being facetious to the point of being absurd.
Those regulations that you keep blowing off as irrelevant ARE the difference betweeen a privately owned property intended strictly for personal use by the owern and a privately owned property intended for use a business open to the public.
If you open the doors of a property you own to do business with the public than your rights as a property owner ARE superceded by these regulations which are, in part, meant to protect the rights of workers and customers. They are there to protect customers from having food or drinks prepared in unsanitary conditions and to protect workers from unsafe or dangerous work conditions.
And yes, Mike, people have a choice of whether to breathe fresh air or leave. Those were the choices that people like me, and you have lived with for a long time. Either go out and deal with burning eyes, shortness of breath and reeking of the stench of other people's cigarettes...or stay home.
Smokers have choices, too. They can smoke in designated areas where their smoke will not affect or offend anyone else, or they can stay home.
What is truly insane is that there are such more important issues going on in the world...a war were hundreds of people are dying every day to name a big one..and this thread has almost 300 replies to it.
It would have been nice if all the smokers in the world were as considerate as some of the ones I know. But most of them didn't care that I and other people wear contacts and that their smoke burned our eyes, or that some of us have asthma and that their smoke makes it difficult for us to breathe, or that we had to go home and shower and wash our clothes because we couldn't stand the stench of their smoke in our clothes. If they had been more considerate, maybe we wouldn't be at this juncture. They made a choice to sujbect us to their smoke and our choices were to "deal with it or leave it".
Now, they're the ones have to make that choice and rather than recognizing that the tide is changing, that the shoe is on the other foot now...that nonsmokers do outnumber smokers 3 to 1 and that other people shouldn't have to be affected by their choices...theye trying to play the VICTIM card, saying that they're rights and freedoms are being taken away.
As I said before, you're slaves to your addiction so don't cry about your loss of rights to me. Nobody is depriving you of your right to exchange years of your life for a nicotine fix, to turn your hair, teeth and nails yellow from it, or to reek of tobacco and ash.. But you do NOT have the right to subject everyone else, in a business open to the public, with the side effects of your habit.
Posted by Thomas on February 5, 2007 11:23 AMThomas, I'm sorry to point out your mistake here, but the colective attitude of the smokers was never "deal with it or leave", it was "deal with it, or go to the non smoking place down the street". Nobody was depriving you from going to the places that catered to your needs and wants. This is what is known as competitve business. As many on this post have said, if the bar owners thought they could do more business by being non smoking, they would do it in a heartbeat. But they didn't.
Posted by Pop on February 5, 2007 11:46 AMThomas- I never blew off those regulations as irrelevant. I thought I made a very good point why those regulations are needed and why that is different than smoking. It's all about disclosure. Since you don't have the ability to inspect the kitchen yourself, the regulations are needed. We don't need a smoking ban because it is not hidden (like a filthy kitchen or tainted meat would be). It is out in the open, so people like you and I can take our business elsewhere.
You left out a couple choices that you and I have had in the past: Go to a non-smoking establishment, or open our own business and set our own rules.
There are plenty of choices out there: Chinese or Italian, casual and inexpensive or formal and pricy, romantic or family atmosphere, topless bar or sports bar, SMOKING or NON-SMOKING.
What's wrong with leaving the choices out there and letting each business owner or customer decide what is best for himself?
oh hell i am sitting back lol with my cig and reading...there is no sense in trying to debate with narrow minded peeps that think we should give up our smoking rights to please them.
TO ALL NON-SMOKERS...give it a rest ..get over yourselfs...AND STAY OUT OF SMOKING PLACES...my sign is on door this is smoking premises
Posted by puffer on February 5, 2007 12:11 PMLet's run through this. The smoking bars had something inside that the non smoking places didn't. Nobody seems to know what it is, but it was important enough that you wanted to get in there. The places that were non smoking did not have these things, otherwise you would've been happy going there. It would've taken any more effort to convince the non smoking places to bring in or add whatever it was that the smoking places had that was so desireable.
I am a smoker, and honestly I am glad the ban went into effect. I am glad I no longer have to pay $6 for a rum and coke. I am glad I no longer have to sit there and listen to somebody's obnoxious kid scream at the top of their lungs and run around giving me a headache. I am glad I no longer have to put up with somebody taking a seat right next to my pool table when there are 50 other seats in the place. I am glad I no longer have to listen to other peoples songs being played on the jukebox. I am glad I no longer wait for the bathroom.
The reason I went to the bar I went to was because I could go in, have some drinks, smoke some cigarettes, and have fun. The owner could've woken up the next day and declare that he would no longer allow smoking in his bar. And that would've perfectly fine. But he knew he would lose my business. So he didn't.
Yes, I am a slave to my cigarettes, just like I'm a slave to good food, just like you are a slave to your car (yes, you can ride your bike to work everyday), just like I'm a slave to my paycheck, just like you are to yours. You will never see a smoker complain about the smoke, just like how we'll never see you complain about how bad your gas mileage is. You had the choice to buy the car your driving, just like I had the choice to start smoking. Yes, our rights and freedoms are being taken away because you make the claim of not being able to go into somewhere without being choked by the smoke. Well use YOUR rights then and go somewhere that didn't allow smoking. Your trying to make it sound like you didn't know the bar you went into was smoker friendly, and as soon as you walked in, they locked the doors behind and wouldn't unlock them until 2am. The non smokers are the ones playing the victim card in this discussion. They are the ones complaining about how they couldn't go into a place, when they most certainly could've, and in all cases, they made the concious choice to NOT go to the places that were non smoking.
Posted by Pop on February 5, 2007 12:15 PMMike,
Unlike some others on this board, I do believe in compromise.
I would support an amendment that allowed smaller neighborhood type bars, which tend to rely on regular clientele, to classify themselves as smoking or non smoking establishments.
I would not support that distinction being extended to larger bars, sports bars and clubs.
I've been in both and I do respect that the smaller businesses can make a case for a majority of their clientele being smokers but the same cannot be said for the larger bars.
So, let's do it by customer volume or revenue earnings. The smaller bars retain their autonomy but larger businesses should be smoke free except for designated areas.
The reasoning behind this is that smaller bars to have a familiar, regular clientele who they may rely on for much of their business. I recognize that these smaller bars tend to have a regular clientele that either smokes or doesn't care if others smoke.
Larger bars and clubs do cater to a wider cross section of the population where non smokers outnumber smokers three to one. I do feel they should be smoke free in the general public areas: bar, pool tables, rest rooms, etc. but have a designated smoking area.
The casinos should have the same guidelines. The big casinos should be smoke free with desinated smoking areas.
Any thoughts? Anyone else willing to compromise?
Posted by Thomas on February 5, 2007 12:39 PMHEY PUFFER AND POP, I'll race you around the block! Hee hee!
Posted by Anti-puffer on February 5, 2007 12:40 PMYour on anti-puffer. zoom, I win. Now is that any more fair than what is happening?
I really REALLY would've loved to be able to compromise with you Thomas, I would've. Letting the owner of the bar decide is the best compromise that could've happened.
Posted by Pop on February 5, 2007 12:44 PMThomas- No, I don't believe in compromising property rights. It doesn't matter to me who they cater to, or who chooses to some in.
1) It's private property.
2) Smoking is not a hidden threat as are some of the others things we have mentioned (it's out in the open unlike salmonella in the kitchen).
3) People are freely associating in the restaurant or bar (nobody is forced to be there).
4) Nobody is prevented from seeking out, or opening a non-smoking establishment.
Because of the above; restaurants should be under no obligation to provide anybody with a smoke free environment anywhere in the building.
Posted by Mike on February 5, 2007 01:18 PMTO ANTI-PUFFER, i really don't think you would want to race me..i can and do outrun most peeps. For the record you are now the one straying from the forum now. Racing lol is not have anything to do with smoking bans.Or smokers rights being took away. You are so arrogantly foolish not to see what kind of devasting havoc this will bring on the small business owners of bars and resturants. Now i do wonder what your next whinging fit will be over?> The fact that maybe your rights to have a drink will be took away?. Oh trust me lol if that comes up for vote we will hear you whine that you can't go get drunk AND DRIVE
Posted by puffer on February 5, 2007 03:38 PMwhat I want to know is this...the law is already decided and is already put to action. What good do you thing whinning about it on a thread is going to do. Whinning won't change it. You still have to comply. If y ou want to change it. ...go for it. jump through what ever hurdles you have to to get it on the ballot. I promise you it will be the same results But if it makes you feel better...go for it and do you worst( best). I am so confident of the outcome that I;d have no problem with you taking it on and giving it a shot. But please...stop the inncessant wring of hands. Thats why I figured you for a 'progressive' Mike....thats a left leaning train of thought. Abnd you sound very much like a lefty.
Posted by Ann on February 5, 2007 03:54 PMAnn- I am very much NOT a lefty. I am a proud, conservative Republican. That is why I am so disgusted by the trampling of private property owner's rights.
The leftist mentality is the one that would mandate the behavior you want in somebody else's business. That sounds a lot like you.
Posted by Mike on February 5, 2007 04:20 PMEven if he was a lefty? Does that make him less important because he doesn't believe what you believe? I guess we can all start calling you a commie since you want to have businesses be regulated on what they can and can't do inside, and so they would all be equal? Waiting for your reply commie.
Posted by Pop on February 5, 2007 04:29 PMThomas, That is the very point we have been trying to make. there is plenty out there for both.
Posted by on February 5, 2007 04:46 PMThis comment was made a few days ago. This is the right idea.
but let it be known that these people have been talking about mom and pop bars, taverns and private clubs.. They are not talking about eating establishments.
Lets make it equal rights.
post a plaque on the outside of the business door.
THIS IS A NON-SMOKING ESTABLISHMENT
then anyone who is a now-smoker can patronize if the choice to do so, and anyone who is a non-smoker who wants to work in that establishment can also choose to do so.
OR
THIS IS A SMOKING ESTABLISHMENT
then anyone who is a smoker can choose to work or patronize that establishment if they choose to do so.
then no one is descriminated against and then everyone might be happy.
But this is not good enough for Ann or Thomas who are so busy trying to run everyone else life, when they should worry about their own.
To PUFFER: I don't drink, so if they banned alcohol, it wouldn't affect me, and by the way, just because a person favors banning smoking in restaurants (I didn't say bars, I said restaurants) doesn't mean we don't care about all the drunk driving out there.
Posted by Anti-puffer on February 5, 2007 05:13 PMI have an observation that I'd like Mike, Fergie and Britney to respond to. ALl throughout this forum it comes up that nobody is forced to take a job in a smoky envorinment like casinos. That is true. But lets suppose we have a person with little education, a woman who has no trained special skills, but she's got a great smile, great legs, pretty face, friendly personality. She can either get a job at Walmart for close to minimum wage or King's for 7 bucks an hour, or, she can get a job as a casino cocktail server and rake in 50 grand a year. The ones in Vegas make up to 80 to 100 greand a year. But she can't take this high paying job that will help support her three kids because of the smoke. So she ends up at Walmart or some place like that, and lives paycheck to paychek. nobody's forcing her N-O-T to work at the giant casino, ture. But she can't take that job because of the smoke. A chance at a high paying job, down the tubes. Though this doesn't address the business owner rights talked about here, it still stays somwehat on the topic because the topic of not being forced to work in a smoky environment has come up a lot.
Posted by Anti-puffer on February 5, 2007 05:19 PMI myself am a life long republican. Its usually the left leaners who think they are owed a living, who think they have all the ansers and are always right about everything. We are just on the opposite side of the issue. Its ok that we don't agree. Thats one of the bennifits of being americans. I disagree that smokers should have all the rights and the nonsmokers have to either conceed or go somewhere other than their close neighborhood bar or restuarant or any place that serves the public.. I do hate the smoke...I admit it. I hate coming home and stinking like a smoker. I don't b elieve there is much else we can say to each other since neither side is willing to budge. Right now the law happens to favor my views...but for most of my life it was favoring the smokers wants. I would be surprised if we take any steps backwards on this isssue. If anything we will be going forward as a society that wants most of our air to be cleaner than it is now. It won't be perfect...we still have a long way to go to clean up our outside air. But we've taken the step forward in indoor polution and thats just the smartest evolving as a society that we can do for a start.
Posted by Ann on February 5, 2007 05:47 PMShe should take whatever her best option is. If the smoke bothers her to the point where she doesn't think it's a good idea for her to take the casino job, then she doesn't take that job. She should take whatever job she thinks best meets all of her needs that she is qualified for.
Life is about choices and trade-offs. Her poor education and lack of skills aren't justifications to dictate what someone else does in his business. She would be prudent to update her skills to the point where she can get a good job in the environment that she wants.
Posted by Mike on February 5, 2007 05:59 PMAnn- Who has ever said that the smokers should have all the rights? I have been very clear.
The smokers have NO rights in this area.
The non-smokers have NO rights in this area.
It is about the property owner's rights. If he wants to have a smoking establishment- fine. If he wants to have a non-smoking establishment- fine. The choice should be his; not the smokers or non-smokers.
I don't want anything forced on anyone. If you are a smoker, then seek out a business that allows smoking. If you are a non-smoker, then seek out a business that doesn't allow it.
Starbucks has never allowed smoking. How was this possible? Because Starbucks management made that decision. No force. No law. The free market.
I used to seek out restaurants that had good ventilation where I didn't even notice that they had a smoking section.
Ann, you are the one who wants to bend others to your will; not the smokers. Before there was choice, now there isn't.
Posted by Mike on February 5, 2007 06:10 PMmike ...we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Posted by Ann on February 5, 2007 08:47 PMAnti puffer. I guess what I said went right over your head again.
There are enough businesses out there for a bar owner to make the choice to be a smoking or non smoking establishment.
(that is mom and pop bars or tavern, NOT food establishments.
That way a person could this person could apply for a job at either locations of her choice. But it also depends on where the bar owner decides to employee her.
1. waitresses and waiter make below minium wage. The depend on their tips.
2. since there is no customers these people tips are down.
3. maybe the tips are great in Vegas. But talking to a few of my friend up at the casinos, their tips are also down and they only make less than minuim wage as a server.
4. Great legs have nothing to do with it. I perfer men to woman any day.
5. there are enough locations and some bar owner who would like to be non smoking and some who like to be a smoking bar.
6. If this was a health issue. there would be no smoking allowed.
Cigar bars, the Airport casinos and now Mike May is requesting that Adult Care centers be allowed to smoke. That is discrimation, pitting one business over another. that is a double standard.
that was my last statement to any of you. I have more important things to do with my time than to reply to Ann, Thomas or Anit -puffers narrow minded statements. As a non smoker myself you have not given me any proof other than you do not like the smell.
if you really want the truth check out the OSHA report on ETS in bars. You might learn something.
You all have made me want to join the smoking group and fight you narrow minded people. Equal rights, property rights and Freedom of Choice are first in my book and I really do and will not let people like you take my rights away.
I will not reply to your stupidity anymore. As I said before get a life. This is American
Posted by on February 6, 2007 01:02 AMPoor baby.....can't change someone minds with your weak arguments so you are going to pick up your ball and go home....awwwww. You are right..this is America and your rights don't trump mine. I have a life too, but I find time for the important things. Tho your opinion is never going to be more important than my own. Vise versa I'm sure. Bubbye.
Posted by Ann on February 6, 2007 05:55 AMANN it seems more and more to me that the only real reason you are on this forum is to argue..come on look how immature your last response is.
Posted by puffer on February 6, 2007 06:11 AMAnn- You call yourself a Republican, but you don't respect property rights or the free market. You have no problem using the heavy hand of government to force your wants on others.
While the rest of us use reason and logic in our arguments, you argue like a child. You freely admit that your desire to not be annoyed by smoke is more important to you that protecting the rights of others.
How sad.
Posted by Mike on February 6, 2007 07:12 AMNo Ann I do not run, just did not care about answering someone who blows as much smoke you. A person who just can not get pass the smell of being brain dead as you are. All I have heard you say is you, you, you, you. You have not addressed on issue that would prove you are right. You have not give me on logical answer except for whinning about your rights. You remind me of the 1930's when people like you participated in Crystal Night, who saw it as an expedient way to drive competing businesses out of business so they would benefit, the self-righteous Target their neighbor without targeting themselves. I have not seen you come up with one good idea that both the smokers and non-smokers could do to make it equal right for both sides to work together and both have common ground to do or go as they please without taking away anyones rights. Wheather it be running a business, patronizing a business, working in a business.
Use your head Lady. There are over 1600 bars and Taverns in this state. Many bars owner have and will choice to have no smoker, yet the one's who want smoking should be allowed to make that choice for themselves. TABACCO IS A LEGAL PRODUCT. What part of equal rights do you not understand? What part of freedom of Choice do you not understand? You give me one good reply that does not deal with the smell or a smoke filled room and then I just might agree with you. But you have not done so, that tells me you can"t.
Posted by Britney on February 6, 2007 09:16 AMGlad to see you came back brit. I have never said any differently. After my entire life dealing with the smokers and their poison....now that the law is reflecting my and millions of others issues with the health part of second hand smoke, and the just plain stink of the cigs...at last the law backs us. Its a done deal...you repeqting over and over on a forum how unfair it is won't change it. Its done. Why won't you move on and update and upgrade your bars so that more non smokers will enjoy coming in to have a drink , play some pool what ever. But this forum will not give you what y ou want. To revert this law. Won',t can't ,shouldn't. If you consider me and themillions who feel the same as narrow minded...thenyouneed to look carefully into the mirror. You all are just as fanatical about your side of the issue as I am. I enjoy yanking some of your side's chains...its true. But you people deserve that. You are so rediculous with stating your rights are being taken away. Nonsense...you can still smoke, just not arround me and all the millions of others who say you can't and are glad of it. I did comprimise with you for 35 plus years....now I'm not willing to compromise anymore..I can live without some bars and restuarants ...I can't my lungs and I shouldn't have to be denied clean air anywhere I chose to go.
Mike....just because I enjoy talking a bit of trash doesn't mean I'm not a muture ,responsible awesome adult. Like I said previously.....we're not going to convince each other into changing our stances. If you read this entire thread...you will see how utterly boring it really is because of the same stuff repeated on both sides all the way down. I'm just stirring the pot. At least it gets some juices flowing in this otherwise stagnant thread. So take everything that seems to upset you with a grain of salt. Its just a forum that strangers get together on. No big deal in the big picture of things.
Yes Ann, it's all in good fun, except for all the bars that have to close due to your flaky business. I don't see them laughing. Maybe you can live without some bars and restaurants, but I doubt very much the owners and staff of those bars can. It still floors me when I see you talk about being free to go anywhere you want and not have to smell smoke. You obviously don't know that you can be refused service at any place at all for no reason. If they don't like your tone, what your wearing, they can boot you right out the door. You still, time after time, dodge the concept of freedom of choice.
Posted by Pop on February 6, 2007 11:14 AMLike I stated before. No one has ever refused me service for any reason so I don't really take your point as valid. I only care about my freedom from smoke. I give lots of buisness to both resturants and bars. Not every night...but enough that I think your other point is also invalid. see ..you too are stuck in a rut here. You only see your side. You are no better or worse than I.
Posted by Ann on February 6, 2007 11:22 AMNobody ever said they were better than you, that's why you had non smoking places to go to. You don't have to take my point as valid, doesn't change the fact that it does happen. My what other point, the freedom of choice? I do see your side, that's why I didn't go into a non smoking place and demand that they allow smoking. I respected you enough to keep it away from the people who complained about it.
Posted by Pop on February 6, 2007 11:39 AMThe two points I don't consider valid....'my flaky business' ....I go out lots
and being refused entrance into any rest. or bar. Never has happened and never will unless I misbrhave which I don't
So what your saying is that you give more business to the bar that had a clientele of a dozen people?
Posted by Pop on February 6, 2007 12:09 PMAnd you don't have to misbehave to be refused service. It can be any reason at all. Just because it's never happened to you doesn't make it invalid.
Posted by Pop on February 6, 2007 12:11 PMIf you are going to use it as a point...then I think it should be something thatactually happenss. What do you suppose the percentage of folks refused service? Seems to me if a buisness does that alot( and again never seen it myself) then word would be getting arround and that buisness wouldn't be arround long. Sorry...not a valid point. I come in , behave, spend my hard earned money and tip well. No owner with his salt would throw me out for a smoker.
Posted by Ann on February 6, 2007 12:19 PMSo what your saying is that you give more business to the bar that had a clientele of a dozen people?
***********************************
Yes...What I'm saying is I shouldn't have to drive arround looking for nonsmoking. I have plenty of neighborhood places I can go and now I can go wtihout the bad side effects.
Posted by a on February 6, 2007 12:26 PMAre you kidding me? IT DOES HAPPEN. I'd say the percentage of people refused service is about 1/2%, if that. That's why the business doesn't close down is because it doesn't happen very often at all. But for you to just throw it out because you've never seen it happen is just as ignorant. And guess what, a bar owner would never throw a smoker out for you either.
So the fact that a business owner can refuse service to anybody they don't want in their place, and because you've never seen it happen, you don't think I should say it can happen?
Posted by Pop on February 6, 2007 12:27 PMDo you have horse blinders on? Because that's the only way you would have to "drive around" looking for a non smoking place.
Posted by Pop on February 6, 2007 12:29 PMAgain...you are missing the point. It does happen .I'm not disputing that it does on occassion happen. You are trying to use that as valid point that the ownre has the right to do that. He does...that part of y our point is valid. The only part. But what owner is going to throw out a good customer who is insisting he follow the law that has been inacted? None. So your point is not valid.
Posted by Ann on February 6, 2007 12:33 PMWhatever the place is that you can now go into, realized that they wouldn't be making money by going non smoking, that's why they didn't. The owner of this place you now go to, had every option and right to go completely non smoking, but you really think that he couldn't? You really think he wanted to but just wasn't able?
Posted by Pop on February 6, 2007 12:33 PMI NEVER said that you would be thrown out for insisting that he follow the law. The fact that your trying to pass off things I never said as something I DID say just shows that your too scared to stand on any kind of point.
Posted by Pop on February 6, 2007 12:37 PM?? Yes he fully had the right to go non smoking and didn't. Now he has to go non smoking. Thats the law...its not going away because youthink its unfair.
Posted by Ann on February 6, 2007 12:39 PMIn hindsite...its clear he chose wrong. He should have made more of an effort to care about his customers lungs. That the law now says he has no choice but to follow the law doesn't make it a bad law.Its a great law. He just doesn't want to be told what to do with his buisness...but he has to follow all state laws and regulations. This is just the newest of those. If its for the betterment of society...more may come down the road. He has the right to get out of that buisness if he's not willing to change . Maybe that would serve him better.
Posted by Ann on February 6, 2007 12:44 PMAnn- Which of the Bill of Rights delineates your "Freedom from smoke?"
I looked and I couldn't find that anywhere.
Posted by Mike on February 6, 2007 01:00 PMIt doesn't have to be in the bill of rights. I think I've made myself very clear. I'm happy about the new law. Your not. Thats it in a nut shell. I gert to breath free of smoke air for the first time in my adult life with out having to go past my neighborhood haunts. Its all good for me. I'm not ashamed of my happiness. Sorry that doesn't do anything for you...but I'm really not caring too much about that. Like I said ...its about time its happened.
Posted by Ann on February 6, 2007 01:10 PMAnn- I just want you to keep repeating it.
THIS BAN BENEFITS ME, THEREFORE, I SUPPORT IT.
I don't care how it infringes on someone else's rights; as long as it's good for me, I'm for it.
That's it, isn't it Ann? As long as it's good for you, you don't care how many rights it strips from someone else.
That's shameful.
Posted by Mike on February 6, 2007 01:21 PMI'll repeat as much as you need to hear it. ITS BEEN A LONG TIME COMING. And stop acting like its only good for me. It will bennifit all...even the smokers ! I'm in the majority on this issue. You're in the minority. I have given up my right to clean air for most of my life...I've stopped that now. I am free at last ...free at last. So....would you like me to reeat it again?
Posted by Ann on February 6, 2007 01:48 PMHow again will it benefit anybody but non smokers?
Posted by Pop on February 6, 2007 01:58 PMYes, Ann. Please keep repeating it. There are a lot of people reading this post who don't write in, and I want them all to see what your motivation is.
I am trying to protect individual property owner's rights.
I am trying to keep choice out there.
I am trying to prevent anyone being forced to do anything. (smokers, non-smokers, and business owners alike)
I am being unselfish.
You want to dictate to everybody how they live their lives.
You want to take away the rights of business owners to make their own decisions.
You want to mandate the behavior you want on property you have no right to be on in the first place. (you are an invited guest)
Your comfort supercedes all others' rights.
You are unbelievably selfish with a childish sense of entitlement.
guess all Anns friends are smokers if she has been around it most of her life.
poor thing
Posted by on February 6, 2007 02:35 PMIt will bennifit smokers for the same reason it bennifits nonsmokers...cleaner air. ,Maybe even cut back the cigs the smokers smoke since they seem to have an aversion to going out side. People who have to make an effort to go smoke will decide at times its not worth it at the moment..thus they'll end up not smoking as much. They'll save money because their cigs will go further. The bar owners will still sell drinks to both sides thus making a living. Happy happy joy joy!
Posted by Ann on February 6, 2007 02:39 PMAlrighty...lets try this again Mike
We ask as a society for our children to be immunized for certain childhood deseases. We do this because we know its will cut back ...maybe even erradicate the deseases we innoculate against. A certain percentage of those children that are innoculated will become very ill...some actually die. Do we stop innoculting all the kids because of the relative few( incomparrison) sicken or die? No. We still innoculate. WE have as a soiety for many years said we think smoking is bad...but those who choose to smoke have the right to sicken themselves. But they do not have the right to sicken others. It makes me sick to smell and breath in smoke. Finally a law is passed for the common good of society in mych the same way. You want me and others to what? Understand how you feel? I do...I just don't care anymore. I feel I have given you more than your due for all these years of having to deal with it. Now its law you can't do that and you wht? Want me to be sad for you? for the businesses? I'm not...I truly think you are being unreasonable about my and the majority's) position. Believe me...a very small percentage of bars will go under. The ones that do won't be missed that much or their patrons would have stood bye them even with the ban.
Posted by Ann on February 6, 2007 02:50 PMAnn- And it is your responsibilty to take care of us all?
"Maybe even cut back the cigs the smokers smoke." Why is that any of your business? How much do you weigh, Ann? Maybe you would be better off staying out of restaurants and bars- it might be better for your health.
Of all the sanctimonious, condescending attitudes to have. Live your life, Ann; and let others live theirs.
Posted by Mike on February 6, 2007 02:57 PMAnn- Children go into PUBLIC places where they can spread disease to others. Therefore, mandating immunization is reasonable.
How does smoking in a PRIVATE building endanger you unless you CHOOSE to go into that PRIVATE building?
It's like debating with a 4 year old.
C'mon people- think!
Posted by Mike on February 6, 2007 03:02 PMThank you Mike. We immunize our children Ann so that when they go to daycare, they will be protected from the many deseases that they encounter. We don't do it so that they will be protected from themselves and the decisions they make. That's why there's not a "digestion of anything smaller than a quarter" innoculations.
Posted by Pop on February 6, 2007 03:11 PMOk...welll enough is enough. I think its time to stop going on with this. I have the right to my opinion and so do you. We have both had ample opportunity to say how we feel. Nothing is going to change either of our minds. So I can say the same thing to you. Its like debating with a 4 year old. It s law..and its not changing and I don't feel bad about it like you seem to think I should. This is America...as someone said in an earlier thread. We're all intitled to believe in causes. Goodluck with yours.
Posted by Ann on February 6, 2007 03:17 PMAnn- The 4 year old analogy only works when referring to someone whose argument lacks logic, reason, and common sense. That's you. Your argument is based solely on your desires. "Mommy make them stop smoking around me."
My argument IS based on logic, reason, and common sense. I am actually arguing AGAINST what benefits me because it is the right thing to do to protect property rights. I am mature enough to realize that what I want personally is irrelevent if it infringes on the rights of thers.
Posted by Mike on February 6, 2007 03:32 PMExplain to me what good is a law is when the very person D- Mike May who introduced the smoking ban to the legislator in 2005 because he did not like cigarette smoke, and then in 2007 comes back an introduces another bill just yesterday in to the legislator to allow smoking in assistant living facilities.
What does this tell you about this smoking ban? Why then would HE TARGETED bars and taverns.
May be Mike May D- Parker need to answer why his place of business (A restaurant failed) Was this his true reason behind his plan?
Say Goodnight Gracie.....
Posted by Ann on February 6, 2007 03:41 PMCAN'T ANSWER THAT ONE CAN YOU ANN
Posted by on February 6, 2007 04:10 PMyeah Ann think Fergie got you on that on. by saying Say Goodnight Gracie tells me you live in the dark ages.
Posted by BRITNEY on February 6, 2007 04:17 PMAnswer what? That Mike May tried to do something for his and everyone elses health? I don't know about the 'rest of the story". I want all smoking banned from all buisnesses. So fergie...what are you suggesting with your last sentence? Are you accusing that dem of underhanded dealings? I'm jstu happy others picked up the nonsmoking ball and ran with it. It worked out well for me and others who would like to visit our neighborhood bars minus the smoke. Our lungs thankyou.
Posted by Ann on February 6, 2007 04:20 PMBritney the only thing your name brings to mind is an idiot blonde who went out without her panties. New age enough for ya?
Posted by Ann on February 6, 2007 04:25 PMAnn- Your lungs might thank the idiots who put this ban through, but our individual property rights wept.
Posted by Mike on February 6, 2007 04:28 PMWell dry your tears and move on, because the fat lady has sung.
Posted by Ann on February 6, 2007 04:32 PMYou proved my very point ANN, your are a rude, nasty, foul mouth woman. It is people like you who think you know it all. Sad to say but you are uneducated, ingorant, and stupid. You are the type of person who wants to rule other people lives because you have no life of your own.
oh by the way I am a red head and I would love to meet you in one of the bars I go to
Posted by on February 6, 2007 04:32 PMWhy...going to beat me up LOL! Poor baby...if ya can't stand the heat...well , I'm sure you know the rest of the saying...
Posted by Ann on February 6, 2007 04:35 PMAnn- I hope some bill comes along that takes away some rights you hold dear, since you obviously don't care about anyone else's property rights.
On second thought, I don't, because I actually still care about your rights even if you are willing to cast other's rights aside for your own comfort.
Posted by Mike on February 6, 2007 04:45 PMnow Ann. Beat you up. oh come on. I have already done that verbally right here. I was suggesting a good one or one conversation, which I believe you are uncapable of doing.
since you do not believe the story about Mike May Dem out of Parker you might want to check out the Rocky under government. It clearly states he now want to allow assisted living facilities to smoke. what did I tell you about Double standards..
Posted by Britney on February 6, 2007 05:13 PMYa britney...you're a lengend lol. I did not say I didn't believe it. I said I didn't know the rest of the story and I challenged fergie to state what she was insinuating about him. I already told you and everyone here I'm for total banning of smoking for all places of buisness where the public gathers. Next.
Posted by Ann on February 6, 2007 05:21 PMAnn, Maybe you should go down to the capital and listen to the testimony they will be presenting on the up coming smoking bills. That is the one with Senator Lois tochtrop who is asking for a special license to allow bars and taverns to acquire a license to allow smoking. Maybe you will learn something.
As for Mike May. He had a restaurant in Parker and closed it . Maybe you should check it out for yourself and again you might learn something.
Posted by Fer1gie on February 6, 2007 05:31 PM.ANN
Let me give you a few places that you might want to check out. www.forces.org or www.stopthebans.com... Then maybe you might understand the issue a little better
Ann, Gee after reading back, The word is Legend. I see you are 50 +, just to let you know I am 25, Seems I have more information on what is going on at the Capital than you. Maybe before you complain be behalf of all of you, you should be more informed on the subject.Again all you have given any of us here is you, you, you, you don't like smoke, and have bad mouth anyone who disagreed with you. You never addressed the isues, of smoking a legal product, property rights, or even addressed the 1st or 14th Amendment. As for the name calling, my 6 yr old niece can address issues better than you did. Again check out www.forces.org and www.stopthebans.com... Then maybe you might understand issues better.
Posted by Britney on February 7, 2007 08:02 AMANN- i see you are still acting very immature i also find it extremely hard to believe you are 50 plus years..Ann if you cannot act mature and find logic to donate this forum, please i am sure there is a forum for children you can go to.
Posted by puffer on February 7, 2007 01:10 PMHello friends.:-) I gotta say....you guys crack me up. Just because I don't agree with you..."I'm not informed'. Ah...I see...free speach is only that if its free speach you agree with! You seem to think if you repeat something enough that it will change reality. Its law....done, finito, over. You lost. Move on.
If you have enough people who think like you and you get some signatures...go forward. Do what you need to do. But know this. It will still be a losing cause for your side. i would be willing to bet you ...a real wager that you would still have a smoking ban if you took it to the voters.
Britney...just because I'm not the best typist( I suppose you never mess up
Hmmmm...strange , not all of my post went through.
I'm just stating my opinion like you, and playing ya all with some trash talking . I know all I need to know about this issue. I'm not going to be changing my happiness for clean indoor air anytime soon.
Posted by on February 7, 2007 06:19 PMAnd before the spelling police show up...I know its speech....but you get the idea.
Posted by Ann on February 7, 2007 06:24 PMJUST THE FACTS ANN JUST THE FACTS
Posted by Britney on February 7, 2007 06:27 PMwE know the facts ....the law was passed and its not what you wanted...but it was what I wanted. Those are the facts.
Posted by Ann on February 7, 2007 06:48 PMShe's a lost cause, Britney. She has stated numerous times that her comfort is more important than property rights, so no rational argument is going to sway her.
She believes (why, I can't figure out) that she is entitled to:
1) Be in the establishment (she doesn't realize that she is invited in)
2) Outlaw a legal product
3) Prevent a property owner from deciding what happens in his building
4) Remove choice from the situation
She is unapologetic about the fact that she doesn't care if people lose their businesses and life savings as long as she is comfortable in their buildings.
Posted by Mike on February 7, 2007 06:48 PMMike...you are relentless! Either get over that the law was passed or do something about it. Whinning that I don't agree with you gets you no where.
ANN, REMEMBER YOUR WORDS BECAUSE YOU COULD CHOKE ON THEM. YE WHO LAUGHS LAST, LAUGHS BEST. BECAUSE THE ONLY SMOKE YOU WILL BLOW IS OUT YOUR _ _ _. JUST IN CASE YOU GET THIS ONE WRONG TOO. E A R.
Posted by Britney on February 7, 2007 07:34 PMI've noticed a theme in this huge thread, that Ann doesn't care about property rights, and other people criticize Ann by saying, Ann it's about you, you, you, you. You're selfish, Ann, blah blah blah, Ann only cares about her, her, her feelings. But the reality is, you must multiply Anne's stance by tens of thousands, because the way she feels is the way tens of thousands feel out there. She speaks for herself, but also for tens of thousands of nonsmokers. She's the only vigilante on this thread, well, with a few others, but she's basically the big anti-smoker here (besides Thomas), but it's not about Ann, Ann, Ann. It's about all of us, us, us, too!
Posted by on February 7, 2007 07:37 PMMike thank you for all your comments. I know it is relentless to talk to Ann. But I have enjoyed pissing her off. This woman is twice my age and has no more sense than a snail. She has not given me or anyone else a good reason other than she now can breath fresh air. She has not address one fact to prove her point. Monday Feb 12 at 1pm Senator L. Tochtrop will be presenting HB 1108 which is a bill that will allow owners of bars and Taverns to get a special license to allow smoking. She is very supportive of the Business man and will address the economic lose's of these business. Hope you keep and eye on this one. hopefully Logic and Common Sense will preveil.
Posted by Britney on February 7, 2007 07:49 PMAnn- I'm not whining; I benefit from this ban. And, I am doing something. I'm pointing out to whomever is reading this that there are more important things than our own selfish wants.
Unnamed- That's sad, sad, sad. Tens of thousands willing to take away my rights, and yours. This isn't a smoking issue.
Posted by Mike on February 7, 2007 07:50 PMThe people who are fight for their rights are Free Americans who believe that they are being denied their equal rights according to the 1st and 14th amendment of the Constitiution of the United States.
The Equal Protection Clause : IE: NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVELAGES OF ITS CITIZENS OR DEPRIVE ANY PERSON OF LIFE, LIBERTY, OR THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS: NOR TO DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.
Privileges and liberty to engage in a lawful activity has been infringed upon. That a bar owners right to use their own property within the law and with smokers not being treated equally under the law
IE: THAT ONE GROUP OF LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, WHO HAVE BECOME A MAJORITY, CAN ENJOY THE INSIDE OF AN ESTABLISHMENT WHILE ANOTHER GROUP IS BANISHED TO THE OUTSIDE. AND ie: THE SMOKERS FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION ALONG WITH THE RIGHT TO GATHER IN A PUBLIC PLACE DEPRIVED, CONSTITUTES TYRANNY BY THE MAJORITY. (JIM CROW LAW) IE: SEGREGATION STATUTES, 1870 IS UNEQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW.
SO UNDER THE LAW IT SHOULD BE THE BUSINESS OWNERS FREEDOM OF CHOICE TO ALLOW SMOKING OF A LEGAL PRODUCT OR NOT ALLOW SMOKING OF A LEGAL PRODUCT IN THEIR ESTABLISHMENT AND FOR THE PATRONS TO ENJOY THEIR ENTERTAINMNET AND LEIZURE TIME WHILE IN A LIQUOR ESTABLISHMENT OF THEIR CHOICE.
ARGUE THAT ONE..... ANN OR THOMAS
Posted by Fergie on February 7, 2007 08:14 PMOh britney...stop being an agest. And if you think me laughing at you is pissing me off... then I'm just laughing even louder. You have much to learn grasshopper. Get over yourself ...your not so special.
Posted by Ann on February 7, 2007 09:13 PMAnn Butler, Got you again. I think you better read what you wrote last, sounds very inmature. and by the way I am going to let you have the last word ... So Why don't you just write about your life story on breathing to much smoke. Everyone hear needs a good laugh. I know I enjoyed it. Have a nice life with yourself. Because I can still do as I please, I can go out and talk to my friend when they smoke if I choose to. its still called Freedom of Choice any way you look at it.
Posted by Britney on February 8, 2007 06:37 AMoh and Ann, you need not reply to me anymore. I will not be here to read it. I will be on the beach in Hawaii enjoy a good cocktail and the warm sun for the next week. TATA
Posted by Britney on February 8, 2007 06:43 AMWhat you got is cyber slapped. Don't forget the sunblock...your jiggle that wiggles will burn...aloha.
Posted by Ann on February 8, 2007 07:08 AMAnn- You have to be the most inarticulate, juvenile, and rude 50-ish person I have ever come across. I expect it from a child, but not an adult.
Posted by on February 8, 2007 07:39 AMAnn- you are the type of person who just has to have the last word. I have to agree you are juvenile. You have made a lot of people here realize how stupid you really are. If anyone needs to be cyber slapped it is you. If I were a drinker or a smoker, I would rather be in the bars with those people. I am surprised if you even have any friends at all.
Posted by not like you and proud of it on February 8, 2007 11:08 AMThar she blows!!! You guys are just too easy. I still don't have to smell your smoke anymore. I win...and I have lots of friends so I don't need a stranger friend on this forum. I just love baiting you guys. Now I know why the blogs are so popular these days. See how I get your blood pumping? Maybe I should be charging for the health bennifits your gaining fromm y posts? A small fee will be suficient. :)
Posted by Ann on February 8, 2007 11:30 AMmaybe you should just invest that money and go back to school and learn how to spell
Posted by not like you and proud of it on February 8, 2007 12:11 PMWell....that still won't get you into a bar smoking will it there bucko? I still win:-)
Posted by Ann on February 8, 2007 05:08 PMNOT YET YOU HAVEN'T THERE IS A BILL ON THE FLOOR FOR A SPECIAL LICENSE TO ALLOW SMOKING IN THE BARS....
Posted by THE INVESTIGATOR on February 9, 2007 06:37 AMIf they pass that the uproar sure to come will hasten another bill to revert it. I'm not worried. In the mean time...smokers can go out side.
Posted by Ann on February 9, 2007 01:07 PMWhy the leftist sense of entitlement, Ann?
Posted by Mike on February 9, 2007 02:36 PMWell Mike...again its the law...you can just keep whinning about it or try to undertand why we non smokers are elated about this law. I don't care about the buisness that won't make it...they can choose to attrack customers with other thanashtrays or go under...I don't care. Again.....my whole adult life I have dealt with smokers fouling my air. Not anymore and I and thousands (if not millions) of folks will keep it that way. Our voices have been heard and we won't give that up without a huge fight. Deal with it or not.
Posted by Ann on February 10, 2007 06:16 AMAnn- Good job not answering the question.
"...my adult life I have dealt with smokers fouling my air." Your air? There's that sense of entitlement, again. You don't own the air, Ann. You don't own the building, the furniture, the equipment in the kitchen, or anything else in the establishment; including the air. You don't like the air inside? You leave. Simple as that.
I understand why "we" non-smokers are elated. Again, I am a non-smoker. But, the fact that you would put your comfort above the rights of property owners so you can decide what goes on in their building, sickens me.
Posted by Mike on February 10, 2007 07:54 AM