No to smoking ban
I am writing to urge Rocky readers to call their state legislators to vote against House Bill 1269, the casino smoking ban.
The harassment of smokers has gone quite far enough. Smokers are made to feel they are doing something wrong, when they are not. The ban in bars, casinos, private clubs, etc., is an absolute infringement on the property rights of the business owner. Let the market persuade an owner whether to allow or ban smoking.
Cigarette smoke can be avoided — simply don’t go where it is. Polluted outdoor air, on the other hand, cannot be avoided, and causes all sorts of health problems. This is the issue the legislature should be addressing.
Elise Brougham, Wheat Ridge
I agree with you Elise! I just wrote all of them about the ban. The biggest think of all is also the job loss. 60 bars have closed now and if the casinos go non-smoking and end up losing money, which they will, think of the possible job loss. I think the minumum could be 2000 jobs which is a 1/4 of the casinos jobs. We need to continue to fight this nannyizm and realize that everyone deserves liberty!
Posted by pagen on April 3, 2007 05:14 AMHey I like to go to casinos. I am tired of coughing my butt off when a smoker lights up and it drifts right into my lungs. Let the smokers go outside in a predetermined smoking area, then come back inside and gamble..I hope it passes.
Posted by A on April 3, 2007 07:44 AMI hope the ban goes forward. I don't care about buisnesses that only cater to smokers and their habits...and of course their bottom line. Get with the program and evolve or see ya . Not a problem for me. There will still be plenty of places that make it just fine and actually do well.
Posted by Ann on April 3, 2007 08:10 AMYeah, if a business can't suit me and what I want it to be, then it shouldn't be in business. It's as simple as that. The establishment is there to serve me, and just because I go somewhere, it's still the smokers fault for offending me.
Posted by Stann on April 3, 2007 08:19 AMYou guys act like there is a law against going non-smoking voluntarily. If there was such a driving force of non-smokers to indulge in unhealthy vices like gambling and drinking before, wouldn't bars/casinos have gone non-smoking to acquire that business? It's pretty easy to be pro ban when your employment isn't affected by it, as I'm guessing it is not in the case of A, Ann, and Stann...you might think differently if you stood to lose your livelihood from this socialist nonsense. Go to Europe if you want to live in a society where the greater good is placed ahead of the individual.
Posted by on April 3, 2007 08:31 AMNope...I'd rather stay put and have things going the way they are. Its about damn time. Onward!!! Complete and utter defeat of smoking is the way of the future. Get it, learn it ...love it.
Posted by Ann on April 3, 2007 08:36 AMPagen-the market HAS decided that non-smoking is a non-starter.It would have been much more sensible for casinos,taverns,restaurants,and other similar businesses to offer non-smoking areas-with an entrance fee to offset the cost of ventilation equipment. Since the antis preferred their present thuggish tactics to the eminently logical solution outlined above,I'm thinking that the hate campaign mounted against smoking is driven by societal forces similar to those that gave rise to Nazism in Germany and the KKK here.Specifically that,like Germany after WWI and the American South post-Reconstruction,our society was outraged over losing a war (for us,several wars,including the present one),and not being able to punish the guilty,began to scapegoat and bully those who couldn't or wouldn't fight back .Looks like we smokers are it for our time. I hope most sincerely that the courts and the legislatures will realize that the government sponsored vigilantism the antis want leads us all towards places no one wants to get to
Posted by Jimminy on April 3, 2007 08:39 AMWell Jimminy...maybe your side should have made the effort to do what you outline above BEFORE it got to this point? Humm? Now those businesses will be forced to do the right thing. How freaking hard is it to step out side? You people are laughable! The ban is here to stay...and if I have any say in it ...it will go even further. Stop the whining and adjust or you are in for some bad times.
Posted by Ann on April 3, 2007 08:45 AMI just don't understand why it's so hard for you to get it through your head? I am better than you. I deserve more rights than you, I deserve more freedoms than you, I deserve to have trash thrown out instead of stinking up everything. It's not that difficult to realize that I am simply a higher life form than you and that you should not be able to taint my air with anything I don't like.
Posted by Stann on April 3, 2007 08:52 AMYou hit the nail right on the head Jimminy, just listen to the undertones of threat in Ann's response, "follow my socialist lead for your own betterment, or I'll crack your skull". Unfortunately, a lot of our politicians seem to have the same mindset about their pet political issues. People like Ann can't seem to understand that a lot of nonsmokers(like myself), are against this law because it is another piece of legislation that ultimately costs Joe Citizen money in the form of lost taxes that must be made up elsewhere, and the loss of local establishments so that they can be replaced by some glitzy no-smoke club where gangbangers will settle their disputes right outside the door with violence. It also opens the door for banning other activities "to help out people who are to stupid to help themselves" I dread the day when nachos are banned due to their high fat content, I love nachos. Pretty soon after that we'll start banning the stupid and unhealthy from our country, for the betterment of all. Welcome to a Brave New World.
PS what's really funny is that I have read other posts by Ann where she claims to be a Republican/conservative.
Satire has it place in the world. Stann...you are something else. :-)
Posted by Ann on April 3, 2007 08:56 AMI guarantee the foul hot air coming from Ann's mouth and the putrid fumes her "personal transportation" (undoubtedly an oversized SUV) produce are responsible for polluting the air far more than all the smokers in Colorado. This is not an issue for the state but for the owners, staff and patrons of each establishment. To the rest of you rabid antis: keep up the goose stepping you nazi pigs, it'll be you next.
Posted by J on April 3, 2007 08:59 AMYeppers...I hate to piss on your parade and call it rain...but I am a life long conservative.
I'm not a lockstep con tho. This is important to me. I vow to keep the momentum of this ban moving forward. And J: your rediculous nazi comparisons are just as laughable as you sound.
Ann, you're right, the nazis didn't try to exercise control over the populace. Great comeback.
Posted by J on April 3, 2007 09:09 AMOh....and to 8:56
You are sound hystarical....cracking skulls indeed. You hand wringing is unneccessary.
That you can twist and turn with simple words into something threatening is hugely funny. You sure you're not a lib? It sounds like something a lefty would spout.
J : I'm still laughing at you.
Posted by Ann on April 3, 2007 09:14 AMAnd then there is this little item about cigarette smoke causing cancer (along with other major diseases).
In 1994, executives of the major tobacco companies appeared before Congress and swore, each of them that smoking is not addictive and does not cause cancer.
In 1999, the tobacco company executives again appeared before Congress and were forced by the overwhelming scientific evidence to admit that tobacco is addictive and can cause cancer.
Today, even the cigarette companies have been forced to advertise that teens should not smoke becuase smoking is addictive and can cause cancer. and other diseases.
Lorillard advertises that "Tobacco is whacko if you're a teen".
From the Phillip Morris website:
"There is no safe cigarette. Philip Morris USA (PM USA) agrees with the overwhelming medical and scientific consensus that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema and other serious diseases in smokers. Smokers are far more likely to develop such serious diseases than non-smokers."
For years, the tobacco companies denied the evidence that second hand smoke is dangerous. Now, however:
"R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company believes that individuals should rely on the conclusions of the U.S. Surgeon General, the Centers for Disease Control and other public health and medical officials when making decisions regarding smoking."
Philip Morris USA: "Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from cigarettes causes disease, including lung cancer and heart disease, in non-smoking adults, as well as causes conditions in children such as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, otitis media (middle ear infection) and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. In addition, public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke can exacerbate adult asthma and cause eye, throat and nasal irritation.
Philip Morris USA believes that the public should be guided by the conclusions of public health officials regarding the health effects of secondhand smoke in deciding whether to be in places where secondhand smoke is present, or if they are smokers, when and where to smoke around others. Particular care should be exercised where children are concerned, and adults should avoid smoking around them.
We also believe that the conclusions of public health officials concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant measures that regulate smoking in public places. We also believe that where smoking is permitted, the government should require the posting of warning notices that communicate public health officials' conclusions that secondhand smoke causes disease in non-smokers."
Of course, the tobacco companies, with the help of people like those posting their opposition to smoking bans, continue to surreptitiously encourage smoking in both adults and youth.
Posted by Truth on April 3, 2007 09:18 AMTruth, so tobacco is unhealthy. Wow, what a revalation. We are talking about bars and casinos where all the patrons and staff are making adult choices. Guess what, drinking and poor eating habits are also unhealthy. Do you advocate outlawing donuts? Studies show smokers die a quicker, cheaper death than non-smokers. I have seen a non smoking male linger in an Alzheimer's coma for 12 years. If only he had smoked...
Posted by J on April 3, 2007 09:26 AMIt is funny how cigarette companies suddenly changed their position on smoking. They are a bunch a hypocrits. It wasn't bad for you then, but it's bad for you now. They shouldn't be allowed to do that. I'm just waiting until we get slavery back.
Posted by Stann on April 3, 2007 09:28 AM"I am a life long conservative."
An odd claim from someone who obviously believes in expanding the government, which is certainly more associated with a liberal viewpoint. I can assure you that I am no lefty, more of a libertarian if anything, although I don't label myself with some political adjective, I decide my positions issue by issue. The government is already too large, which is one reason why I oppose nanny laws like the ban, it is a waste of my money, and nothing prevents businesses from voluntarily being non-smoking, the Subway I worked for in high school was non-smoking 20 years ago, and I'm sure it probably still is. You don't even have to deal with potential leakage from a smoking section while you eat in smoke-free peace. Frankly, even though I don't smoke, I have never found second hand smoke to be more than an annoyance, generally one that is very easily avoided, much like someone with gas, but I'm sure you and your ilk will be bringing legislature to ban passing gas in a public place soon enough.
"You are sound hystarical....cracking skulls indeed"
Also funny, considering that in another thread on this subject, you said that you would blast a smoker with your concealed carry weapon if they got in front of you on a sidewalk. Your statement "Stop the whining and adjust or you are in for some bad times." is most certainly threatening.
Smokers....suck it in, just don't blow it out.
How would you like it if I enjoyed smoking dog feces, or rubber? Yea I love the smell of burning tires. Don't I have the right to get up wind of your house and burn away? "OH, that's toxic though" you might say. Well so is cigarette smoke. Get a clue.
I've had to put up with others smoke all my life. Now finally it's my turn to be put up with.
Posted by Dave C. on April 3, 2007 09:34 AMAnn says "Stop the whining or you're in for some bad times." I think everyone reading this thread should take that statement very seriously. Here's why: Passage of the smoking ban brings law enforcement into the controversy,and the police have blanket discretion to use any level of force,including deadly force,to resolve a situation. That an arrest is illegal,or that government only enforces some laws,is irrelevant.I'm pretty sure that on a personal level Ann is probably a a pleasure to encounter,but her postings contain a level of emotional violence and barely veiled threats comparable to what comes out of Tehran. I tend to believe that there are many who agree with her and she's become an inadvertent but most accurate spokesperson for the sort of unreasoning hatred that gives rise to the abuses I outlined in my post of earlier this morning. Those abuses ,as I said earlier,lead us towards places no one wants to go.
Posted by Jimminy on April 3, 2007 09:36 AMThis issue is not about health and smoking. Its about taxes. I dont smoke. But I can say there are a few things that go together. Having a cig after sex , and smoking and gambling. Ive seen a few bars go out of business because of the smoking ban. It happens. Im sure some of you are happy that the people are unemployed and healthy. I beat cancer... and by cancer I mean my kids.... Just a few things to ponder... or not
Posted by Rich M on April 3, 2007 09:46 AM9:32...you are such a liar. when I heard what Larry threaten me with ..then and only then did I comment on my concealed weapon. Or at least the possibility that I had such a thing. Get over your hystronics. I'm not making any threats . Intentional or not. I'm simply saying what I have been saying all along. I'm thrilled with the ban. I hope it goes further and you can't handle that. So don't reads my posts if I frighten you. Simple huh?. If smokers break the law and the police come in and tell them to put out their cigs and they refuse...its their actions that will bring on anything more than a citation. I don't hate smokers...I hate their smoke and its about time someone told them to move it outside. Tada! Thats all folks!
Posted by Ann on April 3, 2007 09:51 AMWhenever I get hungry, my ability to make choices suddenly disappears. I am inexplicably drawn inside smoke-filled bars and casinos, and I am unable to make myself go down the street to the smoke-free restaurant.
And the last time a guy lit up at work, I was suddenly stricken with paralysis. I couldn't leave the room!
Good thing Nanny Government is looking out for me.
When will they institute a B.O. ban, a cursing ban, a baggy hip-hop clown clothing ban, an excessive-tattoo ban, a John Kerry bumper-sticker ban ... you know, anything I might object to being around?
Posted by prima facie on April 3, 2007 10:12 AM09:32 states: "Frankly, even though I don't smoke, I have never found second hand smoke to be more than an annoyance,"
The question is not whether smoking is an annoyance. The question is whether tobacco smoke can kill you. The millions of smokers who have died prematurely because of their smoking certainly did not find their smoking to be an annoyance, but they did eventually find it to be deadly.
Some predictably drag out the old, rather ridiculous saw that if we ban smoking we should also ban all other activities that are unhealthy, such as unhealthy eating habits, including, would you believe it?, eating donuts. The principle seems to be that we should ban one unhealthy or dangerous activity unless we ban all of them. A very specious argument.
J says: ". Guess what, drinking and poor eating habits are also unhealthy. Do you advocate outlawing donuts? Studies show smokers die a quicker, cheaper death than non-smokers. I have seen a non smoking male linger in an Alzheimer's coma for 12 years. If only he had smoked..."
I wonder if he opposes laws that prohibit the sale of cigarettes to minors unless we also ban eating donuts? Or that prohibit the sale of alchohol to minors unless we also ban eating donuts? Or that prohibit carrying a loaded gun into a school unless we also ban eating donuts? Or that prohibit maintaining dangerous working conditions on a worksite unless we also ban eating donuts? Or that prohibit a person from driving 100 miles per hour unless we also ban eating donuts? Or the "attractive nuisance" doctrine that would prohibit, for example, a property owner from maintaining a swimming pool on his own property without any effort to keep kides from using it unless we also ban eating donuts? Or laws which prohibit the sale of dangerous drugs without a prescription unless we also ban eating donuts? Or that prohibit the sale of poisons except under certain conditions unless we also ban eating donuts? Or that prohibit the sale of firearms to minors or convicted criminals unless we also ban eating donuts?
Would J be opposed to all these laws simply because the law does not prohibit poor eating habits? I'm sure J would have to answer "no".
I don't think there is any doubt that J would approve of the law prohibiting some activities or the sale of some products because they are dangerous. So his argument is quite fallacious.
He can certainly argue that smoking is not sufficiently dangerous to warrant smoking bans. Whether or not that argument is valid, at least it is not irrational.
J also argues that smoking is a good way to die. I won't comment on that, except to ask, is it also a good way to kill others?
Posted by Truth on April 3, 2007 10:18 AMThat's NOT all,folks....Ann is only partially correct when she says she's not making any threats.She's not threatening anyone herself,but she gleefully cites the scenario of law enforcement coming in and doing everything legally allowed to restore order- which I have said before(and Governer Ritter backed me up some three dozen times)includes the taking of human life. I have also said before that Ann is probably a sweetheart in person and I'm not afraid of her on a personal level,but WHATshe and too many others say scares the dickens out of me.
Posted by Jimminy on April 3, 2007 10:20 AM"How would you like it if I enjoyed smoking dog feces, or rubber?"
Dave C - If the owner of the bar allowed that to take place I wouldn't patronize his establishment anymore. But I wouldn't seek to legistlate away his right to choose, or yours.
Can you see the difference?
Posted by KW on April 3, 2007 10:22 AMIt's too bad that there is no spirit of comprimise here. In Texas, you cannot smoke in any establishment that serves food. You can smoke in the nightclubs and local taverns. Sounds like a good comprimise to me. In Nevada, the politicos realized that they make entirely too much money from gamblers who smoke. As I understand it, some 40% of gambers are smokers. They eliminated smoking in all of the restaurants, but allow smoking on the gambling floor. Again, another comprimise and I would imagine that they probably set aside non-smoking areas on the gaming floor. What would be so difficult about a comprimise?
Posted by Blue on April 3, 2007 10:44 AMHi Blue. Compromise is not in the smoking nazis vocabulary. Excellent and wise post.
Posted by J on April 3, 2007 10:52 AMI read that entire post ann. Larry NEVER made a threat, instead he was replying to your statement of "I will take the law into my own hands if I see a single smoker light up in a bar".
Posted by Shane on April 3, 2007 10:59 AMBlue,that's a thoughtful,clearly reasoned,literately succinct exposition of the best possible solution to this issue.How wonderful it would be for those in power to implement it exactly as written.Our best hope as smoker-Americans is to encourage the powers that be to balance the zealotry of the antis with the realization that smoker or anti,we're all on the same team.History is full of examples of zealotry leading to dreadful conseqences for not only the zealots but those around them whose only misdeed was inaction.
Posted by Jimminy on April 3, 2007 11:11 AMBlue,that's a thoughtful,clearly reasoned,literately succinct exposition of the best possible solution to this issue.How wonderful it would be for those in power to implement it exactly as written.Our best hope as smoker-Americans is to encourage the powers that be to balance the zealotry of the antis with the realization that smoker or anti,we're all on the same team.History is full of examples of zealotry leading to dreadful conseqences for not only the zealots but those around them whose only misdeed was inaction.
Posted by Jimminy on April 3, 2007 11:13 AMSorry.Double post
Posted by Jimminy on April 3, 2007 11:14 AMTruth, I don't know where you get off on this stuff. Does tobacco smoke kill smokers? Yes. Does secondhand smoke kill nonsmokers? Possibly, there is not nearly enough data available to say one way or the other conclusively. I'm sure a lot of KKKers believe that being around black people is a threat to their health, with almost as much data to back it up. So I guess you'd be alright with going back to segregation to appease a loud extremist group, right? prima facie, you stated the main anti ban argument perfectly. I guess a lot of people in this state weren't raised properly, they seem to share your inability to make a rational adult choice. I guess I should count my blessings that I have free will, seems to be sorely lacking among much of Colorado's "adult" population.
Posted by on April 3, 2007 11:18 AMUnfortunately the liberal political correct in this country are destroying our freedoms. Unless we agree with them we will have no freedoms at all if they have their way. As a reformed smoker I think it is disgusting that they are trying to make it illegal everywhere in a free country. If people don't wake up very soon we will be living in a socialistic country and believe me that is what the Dems are working very hard for.
Posted by troll on April 3, 2007 11:19 AMtroll, don't you want to live in a Brave New World? I mean, isn't the idea of an anti-free will caste system something you dream about at night?
Posted by on April 3, 2007 11:23 AMBe careful around Ann if she starts taking the law into her own hands. She has stated before that she has a concealed carry permit. Obviously she wasn't trained very well as to when use of the gun is warranted but she thinks she was.
Posted by KW on April 3, 2007 11:29 AMI will certainly protect myself from the possible paper cuts from her permit. Oh wait, now she's the one doing harm to other people. Let's ban ann!
Posted by Shane on April 3, 2007 11:33 AMDon't ban Ann.....Flatulence,even the verbal kind,is entirely legal,although it does pollute.
Posted by Lavrenti Beria on April 3, 2007 11:49 AMSo is smoking. I'm glad we're on the same page. On with the ann ban.
Posted by Shane on April 3, 2007 11:52 AMDave C.- How does somebody smoking on his private property bother you on yours? What a stupid analogy.
Truth:
"Of course, the tobacco companies, with the help of people like those posting their opposition to smoking bans, continue to surreptitiously encourage smoking in both adults and youth."
How does trying to protect the property rights of others encourage smoking in adults and youth?
J- an interesting aside on the guy who had Alzheimer’s and got the long lingering death- you said, “If only he had smoked,” his death might not have been so long and drawn-out. Did you know there is evidence that nicotine tends to inhibit the development of Alzheimer’s? It was in interesting study done many years ago, but I have not seen anything to contradict it.
Ann- you carry a gun, huh? Wow, somehow that makes you more attractive at the same time as it makes a guy think, “I don’t know if it’s really smart to date a woman that carries a gun…” But I bet they’re polite when they break up with you…
For those that don’t know, Ann clearly is quite conservative, on all issues I have seen her write on but this one.
Jimminy- What have you been watching on late night TV? I sort of doubt we’ll be seeing any use of deadly force to stop smokers from lighting up in prohibited areas… and before you bring it up, let me say I also don't think you can be charged with chemical weapons/WMD for possesion of Marlboros. Especially not Marlboro Lights.
Dave C- “How would you like it if I enjoyed smoking dog feces, or rubber?”
Oh, come on- tell us what you have REALLY been smoking, if you think that’s an apt comparison. I can hear him now… “Hey, don’t bogart the feces, dude!” but to answer your question, I would not really care if you liked smoking dog feces. In fact, I see nothing to convnce me you don't, but whatever you do with your dog is between you and the dog.
Truth- you have had SOME statistical analysis training haven’t you? Because most people know the second-hand smoke studies have been pretty well debunked. Some of those studies wind up saying that if someone smokes a cigar in the room you are in, you are at higher risk than the person smoking the cigar!Smoking laws are justified with junk science, just like the ban on DDT was- but read Ann, she has the right argument. Some people don’t like smoke, and they have managed to convince the pols that it’s in their interest to ban it anywhere Ann or others might be offended by it. It’s a loser deal to worry about the 20% who smoke, and the smaller number who care about the loss if property rights to decide if one’s business will allow smoking or not, (mostly small business owners) compared to the about 40% who are militant on the issue, and the 20-25% that don’t care enough to have an opinion. The one really good thing that will come out of this is the demonstration that when the casinos lobbied to get an exemption, they should have spent that money fighting the law altogether, because they will fall with the rest of the bar owners eventually.
For the record, I don’t smoke, but I do mind the state telling me what I can and can’t allow in my offices.
Sigh.
When you open your doors to the public, the rules change. The government can and *should* regulate how private folks run their public businesses. Equal employment laws, building and safety codes, etc are just a few places where the government is *already* telling PRIVATE businesses how they can operate.
Blathering on and on about how "the guvmint kint tell me whut ta do wit muh own propity" sounds just plain silly.
You might want to focus on why this specific law is unnecessary.
Personally as a rabid non-smoker I'm still unconvinced it IS necessary. I simply don't go to the places it's allowed - but that's easy for me 'cause I don't like bars or casinos anyway.
I *do* remember when smoking was allowed at Rockies games, and that was damn nasty. Glad that was changed, and even more glad it was changed by the business and not the government.
Posted by Tim on April 3, 2007 12:14 PMSahne...again...I say you lie. Larry was the one who made the statement that no non smoker better say a thing as they are walking by or they'd be sorry. I told him to tell that to my conceal and carry. So get your facts streight or STFU. You may lie to everyone in your life ...but you won't get away with it on my watch. Go have smoke Shane...your yellow teeth will shine for the world to enjoy. Your skanky beath will attrack just your type of girl. Enjoy. But stop lieing.
Posted by Ann on April 3, 2007 12:24 PMLet me see, Bar owners have a nonsmoker on one side, a smoker on the other, a legislative public health zealot in front of them and the police in back of them. Ann, read the Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act and show me where it says bar owners are charged with inforcing this law. I'll save you time, it does not exist. Nor does it say a bar owner must force a smoker to put out his cigarette, take away his drink, make him leave, deny him service or call the police.
Now back to the spatial example. The smoker says, I don't have to put out my cigarette. The bar owner can't do anything. The nonsmoker says Oh my god, he's smoking and I feel a heart attack coming on. The bar owner can't do anything about that. The public health zealot says but you must. The bar owner tries to grab the cigarette out of the smokers hand but he's to quick, backs off and says If you try that again I'll have you arrested for assault and sue you on top of it. The nonsmoker says if you don't make him put it out I'll sue you for endangering my health. The zealot says me too and I have tons of money from the pharmaceutical companies, I can sink you into the swamp of total economic ruin. The cop who has been quietly observing this farce finally butts in and says, hey you bar owner here's a ticket for letting that guy smoke in your bar. The owner says give it to the smoker, I can't legally stop him from smoking. and I'm not the one who broke the law. The cop says well here's your ticket anyway, you may think it's unconstitutional for me to give you this ticket but the smokin ban law gives me no guidence in those or any other aspects, so sell your house and get a lawyer.
What is the net result of all this Ann. Once again I'll explain it. The bar owner has no authority to inforce the law but is held accountable by all four resulting in a situation where he can't win no matter what he does or does not do.
Now, think about this then tell me that any law that puts a minority segment of society in a place where they are surrounded by jeopardies without any avenue to relief and denies them any way of remedial recourse is constitutionally valid or is morally right.
Posted by Allen Campbell on April 3, 2007 12:34 PMWrong again. The conversation went as follows:
Larry: I will light up where I please.
ann: You do and I'll make a citizens arrest.
Larry: I would LOVE to see you try.
ann: You would with my conceal and carry.
That is a threat ann. When you say you will cause physical harm to someone who doesn't agree with you, that is taking an agressive approach to a situation that doesn't warrant it. You would be the one to go to jail, you would be the one to face consecutive sentences. So now that the facts are straight, you once again have no leg to stand on, and are exposed for the ignorant snob you are.
Posted by Shane on April 3, 2007 12:36 PMTim- Double sigh
Yes, we know that the rules change and there is government regulation when you open your doors to INVITE the public in. (they don't have a RIGHT to come in)
Those regulations deal with:
Unseen hazards (tainted meat and unsanitary kitchens).
Laws already on the books (not selling alcohol to minors, selling without a liquor license, etc...)
Nuisance ordinances (loud music disrupting neighboring properties, feces from livestock stinking up neighboring properties, etc...)
Zoning issues (not allowing an adult bookstore or a gun store next door to a school, not allowing a rendering plant next to a park, etc...)
A smoking ban doesn't fall under any of those.
It isn't hidden- post a smoking sign on the front door.
Smoking isn't against the law.
It doesn't affect neighboring properties.
It doesn't violate any zoning codes.
It's an unnecessary ban that violates property rights.
shane: your memory is falty. It did not go that way at all. There was even a poster who called Larry on his threats instead of his debating skills. So you are the one with the issues. I don't care what you think. You aren't worth the time I'm taking to post back at. I just refuse to let you lie anymore. I would defend my self ...anyone would . Especially when its a man beating down a woman. I would do what was neccessary to protect myself. Nothinbg more , nothing less. But I did not do the threatening. Someone on your sideof the issue even said threats are not the way to win the minds of the undecided. I don't threaten...but I don't take any physical threats against me lightly either.
Posted by Ann on April 3, 2007 12:59 PMWell Allen I'm willing to change the law so that both the owner and the smoker get the citiation. if that makes it better for you.
Posted by Ann on April 3, 2007 01:03 PMAnn - Just make sure you know the law better than you're professing now should you decide to make a citizens arrest.
You CAN'T make a citizens arrest for most petty offenses including traffic violations. I haven't researched this particular law yet but I'm willing to bet it would fall into a similar catagory as trying to make a citizens arrest for failure to use a turn signal.
Posted by KW on April 3, 2007 01:07 PMDon't be parinoid kw....I won't be making any 'arrests'....but I will be on my phone making sure the authorities do their duty. its law now , follow it or pay the citations. Might get aliitle pricy after a number of them are issued to you. Your choice.
Posted by Ann on April 3, 2007 01:12 PMSee Mike...*that's* what I'm talking about - you're explaining why *this* specific law is unnecessary. That works for me.
I hear way, WAY too many folks yakking about how the government has no business telling folks what to do on their private land. That kind of blanket statement is childish and simply untrue.
Posted by Tim on April 3, 2007 01:15 PMThe fight is on, put up your dukes. I can see both sides of this issue, I quit smoking 2 months ago. Everyone has a right to light up or not, until they make tobacco illegal. I think with as screwed up as this world is, no one can think of anything better to fight over. I understand the non-smokers wanting not to breath someone else's smoke, but if you walk outside your breathing car exhaust, and other harmful pollutions, what do you want next, demand a law that only certain hours you can drive your car or certain hours that business can be open so that when you go outside your not breathing the fumes of any kind. Give me a break, the United States was built on freedom and as long as it is not against the law, well duh.
Posted by P on April 3, 2007 01:16 PMAnn that was a set up for you. No answer you can make can be regarded as reasonable and the one you gave carves you into a statue of every despot, dictator and anti constitutional nut that has ever given your very same answer which is my , read Ann's, personal preferences and whims and fancies, even though they are in direct and absurdly driven contradiction of constitutional law, reign as more important than any constitution ever written that protects anyone but me.
Posted by Allen Campbell on April 3, 2007 01:16 PMWhat are you blathering about Allen? It is the law. It will be inforced . I will be one who make sure its enforced. this isn't an Ann whim. millions of people feel the same as I do. i just happen to have a voice that I'm not afraid to raise about it. i even know smokers who are enjoying the ban. There is no getting arround the fact that the law is here to stay and will go even further . It the future.....coming to call. Many countries besides the US is banning smoking . Its coming ....be best if you come to that realization . It will be easier on you all.
Posted by Ann on April 3, 2007 01:27 PMI'm reminded of a conversation I overheard in the airport in Moscow a couple years ago:
American tourist: “I hope they hurry up with the luggage; I'm dying for a cigarette!”
Tourist's Russian friend: “Darling, you're in Russia now! Light up! Enjoy freedom!”
Funny how things turn out, isn't it?
Posted by Michael Trimble on April 3, 2007 01:29 PMMT: Yes light, up enjoy your freedom at the exspense of the non smokers waiting for their luggage at the same airport. What of those folks right to be free of the smoke. Whats your remedy? non smoking and smoking airports. Rediculous. Simply walk out side and light up. But that would mean you actually cared about your habit's effect on others.
Posted by Ann on April 3, 2007 01:35 PMHey guys,let's not let Ann's invective cloud the issue.She personally is most unlikely to start blasting away, and is just venting to the Internet.She knows (as do we) that she has no license to kill,BUT her views are the official policy of those who do have such license. You don't think the police are licensed to kill?Ask Esmail Mena's widow and his fatherless children.Ask the survivors of Jamal Bonner,machine-gunned in the back. I take Ann's writing very seriously and I read every word she says.I've said before she's probably a sweetheart privately,but what she says publicly rises at times to Goebbels-esque malignance.
Mike Trimble,you deserve a medal for your faith in our system,but my information about police killings of citizens comes not from late night TV but the pages of the Rocky Mountain News.It was the Rocky who reported that then-DA Bill Ritter signed off on 37 police killings.The Rocky also told us about Jamal Bonner being killed by a burst from an Aurora SWAT team members' HK. Let no one doubt the right and the ability of government to write the book on savage vigilantism against its own citizens.I contend that the smoking ban is just such vigilantism, and I do hope we can find a better way than what Ann wants
MT: Yes light, up enjoy your freedom at the exspense of the non smokers waiting for their luggage at the same airport. What of those folks right to be free of the smoke. Whats your remedy? non smoking and smoking airports. Rediculous. Simply walk out side and light up. But that would mean you actually cared about your habit's effect on others.
Posted by Ann on April 3, 2007 01:36 PMLet it go Jimminy. Repeating the lie that I'm threatening will not make it true. Are you sure your not a lib?You sure got their mindset down.
Posted by Ann on April 3, 2007 01:38 PMTim- I agree. I think the wrong points are often argued on this topic- on both sides.
Personal property rights aren't absolute; no rights are. In an area like this, where the customer is not obligated (nor does he have a right) to be in someone's establishment, government regulation is not called for. If you think secondhand smoke is a danger to you (or if you just don't like it) don't go to a bar that allows smoking. It's not something you need to be protected from, like salmonella from improperly stored chicken, or Hepatitis C from an infected cook. It is YOUR choice to be exposed to it, or not.
I don't smoke and before this ban was enacted, I made that choice for myself. Sometimes I put up with it if I really wanted to go to that bar. Sometimes, I didn't and stayed home, or sought out someplace that better suited my tastes.
I would never think about imposing my wants on others on their property. That is so arrogant.
Ann, your answers serves to make my point. You would approve of any law that advances you personal preferences or whims and fancies or just any old thing your despotic mind can come up with regardless of the unconstitutionality of it.
An owner can not be held liable for any criminal action in his business if the law it's self prohibits him from taking action to prevent the crime from being committed, but the kicker is that if he does take action to prevent a smoker from smoking in his business, he can be held liable for assault both criminally and civilly, and if he obeys the law and does not commit these offences he can be sued for endangering nonsmokers. Even a die hard anti everything that doesn't fit you personal likes or dislikes should be able to see any law that puts a person in jeopardy no matter what he does is, at the very least, morally wrong and in fact is uncontitutional because it violates the equal protection under the law clause.
Posted by Allen Campbell on April 3, 2007 01:51 PMBlah blah, blah blah blah ME blah. Blah blah blah ME, blah blah ME blah. Blah ME blah, blah blah balh blah ME. ME blah ME.
ME ME blah, blah ME blah blah ME ME ME.
Posted by Ann Translated on April 3, 2007 02:09 PMAnn,you're not personally threatening anyone and I've said so repeatedly.WHAT you say is very frightening,because it so very perfectly ( and so very powerfully)articulates the views of some dangerous people.
Posted by Jimminy on April 3, 2007 02:10 PMHey ann, are you single? If you are--and I bet you are painfully alone--I think you might want to look up one Brian Stuckey. He might be just your cup of tea. And by tea I mean mean-spirited-narrow-minded-psycho-I'm-the-only-person-who-is-allowed-to-have-an-opinion-and-if-yours-differs-from-mine-then-you-should-kill-yourself-or-better-yet-let-me-help-douche-bag. You two might just be perfect for each other. And for your second date, maybe you both should check out a grammar class together. No thanks needed--I'm here to help.
Posted by shaupeen on April 3, 2007 02:12 PMNo ann, that is exactly how it went and you are simply trying to weasle out of it. The only people that posted were the people who couldn't come up with anything useful to say, so they decided they might as well start making assumptions that he was gay.
I know you don't care what I think, you don't care what anybody thinks that doesn't think like you. And that's ok, that's why we're in the US where idiotic people like you can be heard. Do whatever you feel is necessary to protect yourself, but try to keep the smile on your face hidden from the judge when you have to try to rationalize your rage against somebody who didn't pose a threat to you.
Posted by Shane on April 3, 2007 02:14 PMI don't have to weasel out of anything. I'm here standing my ground, telling you whats what and you don't like that. You don't like strong women do you shane? I have no idea about what you speaking of in the 'gay thing'. I must have left the thread before that . Anyway ...your wrong and I 've said your wrong enough.
Shaupeen: You have more issues to deal with than I'm willing to put forth the effort. The grammer police must keep you busy so as to keep you away from the important stuff. Good call on their part.
You have no idea what is what and your view of the world is so skewed that it's hard for you to picture life beyond main street. You say I'm wrong, but yet you squeal out this drivel that somehow makes sense in your mind.
Posted by Shane on April 3, 2007 02:51 PMI am currently starting to petition our Homeowners Assn. to pass a rule that will ban ALL outdoor grilling. I am a vegan and hate the smell of burning food on my neighbors' outdoor grills and the carcinogens given off blasting into my backyard. It has gotten so bad now that spring is here that I can't go outside in the evenings to enjoy the beuatiful weather.
Once this has passed I will petition our lawmakers to apply the ban statewide and work on legislation for indoor grills (have you ever wondered what kind of carcinogens exist in the smoke from indoor grills at bars?). Please help me win this battle against smoke of any kind!
Posted by on April 3, 2007 03:01 PMI never understood the problem with stepping outside if you absolutely cannot control your addiction. Is being outside for five minutes such a terrible thing? It is impossible to get away from smoke in a contained environment, which is why smoking and non smoking sections are a joke. Ask a smoker to take 6 steps outside and smoke, and they have a hissy fit over rights this and rights that. Being outside is generally a good thing! I'd gladly eat or gamble outside to get away from smokers... but I'm not so sure that outdoor gambling would work very well.
The passage of the ban relies on the amount of money that the casino lobby is able to donate. The vast number of Americans are in favor of smoking bans.
Posted by Kyle on April 3, 2007 03:02 PMHere is an excerpt from a speech by Michael Chricton (http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html):
In 1993, the EPA announced that second-hand smoke was "responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults," and that it " impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of people." In a 1994 pamphlet the EPA said that the eleven studies it based its decision on were not by themselves conclusive, and that they collectively assigned second-hand smoke a risk factor of 1.19. (For reference, a risk factor below 3.0 is too small for action by the EPA. or for publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example.) Furthermore, since there was no statistical association at the 95% confidence limits, the EPA lowered the limit to 90%. They then classified second hand smoke as a Group A Carcinogen.
This was openly fraudulent science, but it formed the basis for bans on smoking in restaurants, offices, and airports. California banned public smoking in 1995. Soon, no claim was too extreme. By 1998, the Christian Science Monitor was saying that "Second-hand smoke is the nation's third-leading preventable cause of death." The American Cancer Society announced that 53,000 people died each year of second-hand smoke. The evidence for this claim is nonexistent.
In 1998, a Federal judge held that the EPA had acted improperly, had "committed to a conclusion before research had begun", and had "disregarded information and made findings on selective information." The reaction of Carol Browner, head of the EPA was: "We stand by our science….there's wide agreement. The American people certainly recognize that exposure to second hand smoke brings…a whole host of health problems." Again, note how the claim of consensus trumps science. In this case, it isn't even a consensus of scientists that Browner evokes! It's the consensus of the American people.
Meanwhile, ever-larger studies failed to confirm any association. A large, seven-country WHO study in 1998 found no association. Nor have well-controlled subsequent studies, to my knowledge. Yet we now read, for example, that second hand smoke is a cause of breast cancer. At this point you can say pretty much anything you want about second-hand smoke.
Posted by J on April 3, 2007 03:06 PMKyle- It has nothing to do with stepping outside. Why can't you people in favor of the ban see that?
"The vast number of Americans are in favor of smoking bans." Who cares?
The vast number of Americans don't own Joe's bar; Joe does. Let Joe make the decision, then you decide if you want to give Joe your business, or not.
It doesn't matter if the vast number of Americans want bars to be non-smoking, or to have lower prices, or to not play Hip-Hop music ( I can't stand that), or to not have rude waitstaff, or whatever. The owner makes those decisions and then the vast number of Americans decide to patronize that business, or not.
Posted by Mike on April 3, 2007 03:10 PMAnn and others here
I have never smoked. When I owned my own taxi I posted it non-smoking and made certain smokers knew before they got in so they could get a smoking cab if they wished. The day they banned smoking in the airport I took my signs off because it was totally unfair to smokers.
In the state of Washington, that great conservative paradise, bar owners have stopped enforcing the ban. If someone complains they are not evicted but the chance of the police actually wasting the time to enforce the ordinance is miniscule. The casinos aren't stupid. If the law bans smoking in casinos they will wait for a citation, file a lawsuit, which demands damages as well as to set aside the law, and then proceed to sponsor a ballot initiative to give the little guys and the casinos the right to do business as non-nanny state partners. The numbers will be there to show how much money has been lost from the casino taxes and how much the local taxes have risen, and with this current group, any one want to bet on taxes going down?
Washington also has problems with the laws costing too much to enforce. In those cases where citattions were isssued seems someone there got the same idea posted here about jury trials etc. and the cost for each citation is about 3 grand with a total fine of a few hundred bucks which DAs quickly waive. Business owners DO have a legal foot with their not being responsible for enforcement. In California the truck stops allowed truck drivers to smoke in private areas and the state actually came in and pushed. The truck drivers pushed back. After a loss of tens of millions of dollars in fuel taxes California didn't change the law but drivers tell me they can still smoke in the truck stop restaurants.
Don't worry. This kind of thing goes in cycles. When the nannys get their own tails trimmed they will start to bleat out the other side of their faces. Hope I'm still here to rub it in. A local bar near my home up north passes out ash trays most week nights about 9PM. If any strangers are present they wait. Seems that even the non-smokers prefer to have a local place to hang with friends so they say nothing. Anyone who did complain would be denied admission the next time anyway. I don't drink either but a dear friend does both and the food in this place is awesome.
Posted by on April 3, 2007 03:15 PMIf you don't understand why it's a big deal, then perhaps the next time you go out to eat, you should leave your wallet on the table while you go to the bathroom. You don't need your wallet in the bathroom do you? If it's so impossible to get away from smoke in a contained environment, then it must be just as impossible to walk out the door and go to a smoke-free establishment which you could find a plethera of. Smokers know they don't have any rights on this issue, every single thread that comes up, the only people that think the smokers think they have any rights at all are the non smokers. You think, we think we have a right to smoke inside. And every week you get proven wrong and slink back under your rock. Smokers don't have any rights in this. Non smokers don't have any rights in this. The only one that had any rights were the owners, and now they don't have that right. Why should anybody, whether it be smoker or not need to go somewhere else just because you don't like what they do? Would you be so passive if somebody asked you to step outside to drink your coffee? Of course not. Perhaps you should have partitioned the casinos to set up an outdoor gambling parlor. But then they would have laughed at you just like how the bar owner laughed at you when you asked them to convert to non smoking. If such a vast number of people were in favor of the smoking bans, wouldn't the market create that? Wouldn't somebody open the first ever non smoking bar and make a killing? Let me ask you this Kyle, when spring rolls around, will you still be inside? Or will you be outside with all the smokers?
Posted by Shane on April 3, 2007 03:15 PMMike
Private does not mean above the democratic process. Joe's bar cannot set up a cock fighting ring even if he wants to as a private business. The democratic system has decided that limits need to be put on freedom, and those limits do not stop when you enter a private establishment. A private establishment cannot deny access based on race either, even if they want to as a private entity. Your argument is weak at best.
Shane
What? Leaving your wallet at the table when going to the bathroom? What are you talking about? What does that have to do with stepping outside to smoke? Running out on the bill? I highly doubt that is an epidemic. If you are not in favor of democracy, that's fine with me. But in a democratic process, in most cases, it is majority rule. Smokers are not a suspect class with a history of oppression with immutable characteristics, and thus the state only has to have a state interest to ban smoking. Smoking bans are here to stay, and the courts have no power to overturn them.
And yes, I prefer to be outside, even if smokers are close. The vastness of the atmosphere does a much better job of dispersing smoke than a small, contained environment.
Posted by Kyle on April 3, 2007 03:38 PMAnn, I was just relating what I found to be an entertaining anecdote...
But you are taking a lot of heat in here, so I can understand why you might be a bit tense. And I think it is beyond useless some of the posts to get as rude as some have (CAUTION: METAPHORE AHEAD-NOT TO BE TAKEN LITERALY) if I were you, I would gotten out the sharp knives by now (THAT WAS A METPHORE-NO CONEHEAD RESPONSES ABOUT VIOLENCE ALLOWED).
Kyle you are dead wrong. This is not a Democracy but a constitutional republic. The constitution is designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. If this isn't a classic case of that I do not know what is. And rembmer Kyle cock fighting is illegal which is why a privately owned establishment is prohibited from staging the activity. Again, DEAD WRONG.
Posted by J on April 3, 2007 03:49 PMKyle- My argument is weak? Yours is idiotic and has already been covered.
Cockfighting is illegal; smoking isn't.
Discrimination based on race is illegal; smoking isn't.
Try again.
Posted by Mike on April 3, 2007 03:51 PMWhat am I talking about? Think about what you do at a bar. Do you play pool? Do you listen to the jukebox? Let's say for a second that you played pool. Would you leave your cues at the table while you went outside? Or would you take them with you and have the table be taken away by the time you got back? Let's say you listen to music, would you ask that the jukebox be put on pause while you went outside to drink your coffee? We don't live in a democracy bud. I suggest we all take to the streets and hunt down and slaughter people like ann and all others who think they have an obligation to save somebody else from themselves. NOTE: That also was a metaphor.
Posted by Shane on April 3, 2007 03:58 PMMT...no worries. The heat has never been a problem for me. The hotter the better!
I'll let you know if anyhthing changes in that ..ok? Ya know ? Everyone has an opinion. i have obne , you have one, shane has on the grammar police have one. This is a great country is it not/!
Smoking in bars is illegal in the state of Colorado. Smoking in casinos will likely soon be illegal in the state of Colorado. What then? Once it is illegal, will you change your tune? There are probably many that think that cockfighting should be legal, but the fact is that it is not. Is this a violation of private rights? Smoking outside, however, is generally not illegal.
J
The constitution only protects the minority in certain circumstances. The constitution does not protect gay people in many cases for instance. Why? Scrutiny. Race parcitularly is given strict scrutiny by the courts, meaning that there has to be a compelling reason with no less invasive means in order to discriminate based on race. Smokers are not given such scrutiny, for the same reason that gay people are not. The courts, who interpret the constitution, feel that both are characteristics that can be changed, and thus do not require strict scrutiny. In cases not involving the highest level of scrutiny, state interest is generally enough to alter private behavior. The will of the minority cannot always be protected, and smokers rights is not one instance that applies to the constitution as historically interpreted. It is unlikely that this will change anytime soon, or ever in the case of smokers.
If you don't like the system, change it. But under the current system, you are wrong.
Posted by Kyle on April 3, 2007 04:03 PMShane
If you cannot wait for your song to finish, or your game of pool to end, then I feel sorry for your enslavement to addiction.
Regardless, the law is there and the majority have won on this issue.
Posted by Kyle on April 3, 2007 04:05 PMOne poster asks where I get off on this stuff. Michael Trimble accuses me, falsely, of having training in statistical analysis.
Gentlemen, my name is not now, nor has it ever been, Phillip Morris. If you take issue with what he said, take your beef up with him.
All I did was to quote the tobacco companies, particularly Phillip Morris, and state what they have said.
(Michael, I presume that the tobacco companies hire people with training in statistical analysis, but you'd have to confirm that with them.)
From Phillip Morris, not also known as Truth (for more reasons than one):
"Philip Morris USA believes that the public should be guided by the conclusions of public health officials regarding the health effects of secondhand smoke in deciding whether to be in places where secondhand smoke is present, or if they are smokers, when and where to smoke around others."
"Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from cigarettes causes disease, including lung cancer and heart disease, in non-smoking adults, as well as causes conditions in children such as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, otitis media (middle ear infection) and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome."
"In addition, public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke can exacerbate adult asthma and cause eye, throat and nasal irritation."
"Particular care should be exercised where children are concerned, and adults should avoid smoking around them."
"We also believe that the conclusions of public health officials concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant measures that regulate smoking in public places."
"We also believe that where smoking is permitted, the government should require the posting of warning notices that communicate public health officials' conclusions that secondhand smoke causes disease in non-smokers."
"We also believe that the conclusions of public health officials concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant measures that regulate smoking in public places."
Posted by Truth on April 3, 2007 04:07 PMWhile I didn't intend the duplications, they are probably a good idea since some readers have trouble distinguishing what I say from what Phillip Morris says; perhaps they will better understand if Phil repeats himself.
Posted by Truth on April 3, 2007 04:10 PMKyle- We are debating whether the ban is okay, or not.
You brought up two things that are illegal WHEREVER they take place.
"Once it is illegal, will you change your tune?"
No, that's stupid. You are using the illegality of an act to justify it being illegal. That makes no sense. Why is it okay that it is illegal? Because the majority wants it? That's hardly a valid reason.
Truth- Who cares if smoking is bad for you? It is still a legal product.
Posted by Mike on April 3, 2007 04:11 PMI say at least twice a night, in every bar, call out the names Ann or Kyle. Anyone who responds will be asked to leave and never come back. End of problem.
Might even be easier just to light up. Ann will be the one on her cell phone screaming for the swat team to respond. Kyle will be the one looking for the cockfight.
Posted by KW on April 3, 2007 04:12 PMTruth - Any thoughts on Plame?
Posted by KW on April 3, 2007 04:13 PMTruth. No comment on the Michael Chricton quote? And I had come to depend on you as a voice of reason in these posts. Read it again: "A large, seven-country WHO study in 1998 found no association". Fraudulant science leads to junk policy. 60 small bars have closed in Colorado since July, 60 families whose livelyhood is gone. And there are many more struggling. What is the constitution for, KW, if not to protect THIS class.
Posted by J on April 3, 2007 04:19 PMMeant Kyle not KW in last post, sorry.
Posted by J on April 3, 2007 04:22 PMI don't get your qustion J. I'm against the ban. I side on the individual rights of property owners to choose what they want to serve and what atmosphere they want to serve it in.
Posted by KW on April 3, 2007 04:23 PMThat nakes more sense.
Posted by KW on April 3, 2007 04:23 PMYes, sorry again KW. I meant Kyle/
Posted by J on April 3, 2007 04:24 PMTruth-
It's hardly an "accusation" to say I expect you have some awareness of statistical analysis, and it certainly was not meant as an insult. I really just expected that you had the ability to look at the second hand smoke studies and see the levels of error and probablility/confidence- it's pretty obvious to anybody that has been thorugh stat. anal. that they stretched to get to the conlcusions they reached.
Tobacco companies parroting the PC lines do not even suggest evidence to me. After the way they were thrown down and raped, I should think they would say cigarettes cause people to speak with a bad French accent, if thats what they think will get them out of the cross hairs.
As I said to Tim yesterday, you should consider taking some stat. anal., or at least freshman statistics. It's really useful when you are examining the studies for validity.
How many of you pro ban people are sitting in a dorm room in Boulder or FortCo right now? and how many of you own a bar or restaurant?
Posted by on April 3, 2007 06:33 PMMichael, I didn't consider your saying I had training in statistical analysis as an insult but rather as a mistake caused by your failure to read my post carefully enough so that you thought I was giving you my opinion rather than giving you the opinion of the tobacco companies.
Your "thinking" that the tobacco companies have caved in is absurd. They are fighting tooth and nail. To think that these billion dollar industries would be cowed into submission is, well, what are some synonyms for ridiculous?
And your notion that you have a greater capability at statistical analysis than the tobacco companies can afford to hire is the height of egotism.
Where oh where have the tobacco companies conceded anything without a long, hard fight, and without being confronted with a great deal of scientific evidence?
But if you have come across some scientific evidence that smoking causes people to speak French with a bad accent, I'd be interested in hearing it. Do you know if any of the brands cause you to speak Spanish with a bad accent? I tried hard to learn that the hard way and failed, but I might be willing to take up smoking for a spell if that would do the trick.
Posted by Truth on April 3, 2007 06:55 PMTruth- You didn't answer my question from before. Who cares if smoking is bad for you? The product is still legal.
Posted by Mike on April 3, 2007 07:05 PMThe guy who wrote the shopping carts post knows whats up. Instead of focusing on the unproven health hazards of secondhand smoke, we should be focusing on the known hazard of microbes from children in public places. BAN CHILDREN IN PUBLIC AREAS NOW, THEIR AIRBORNE GERMS ARE HAZARDOUS TO MY HEALTH!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by on April 3, 2007 07:06 PMMike
I realize that we are debating whether the ban is ok or not. I don't feel that I should have to educate you on the way the legislative process works, but perhaps it is necessary. We elect legislators to do our will, and they make laws accordingly... laws that sometimes interefere with private business rights. This is the nature of the process. Since the majority favor smoking bans, it makes sense that laws banning smoking are becoming more and more popular. There is a protection for the minority called the courts, specifically the supreme court. Smokers do not fall under the protection of a minority because they do not meet the qualifications of an oppressed class.
In summary, the majority want smoking bans, limits on private enterprise is one of the functions of government, thus legally the smoking ban is ok. Since the masses also support it, it is also socially acceptable. What is a GOOD argument against the smoking ban other than a potential loss of business for some? Potential loss of business is not the only factor that matters in the legislative process, even if there has been a decided pro business trend in law and government.
And cock fights are still legal in one state I believe, as disgusting as that is. Sorry, but smokers have little ground, either legal or moral, to stand on when it comes to indoor smoking.
Kyle- "What is a GOOD argument against the smoking ban other than a potential loss of business for some?"
I would say a good argument against it, is the fact that it bans a legal activity, on private property, between freely associating persons.
"Since the majority favor smoking bans..."
Where is your data for that?
"And cock fights are still legal in one state I believe..."
So what? You used that as an example of something you can't do in a private business. The reason you can't do it is because it is illegal; not because it is illegal to do it in a private business.
With smoking; an activity that is legal in your home, car, on the street,etc... has been made illegal in a private business, because people who are there VOLUNTARILY (and have no right to be there) have decided they don't want to be around it.
It is another example of government overstepping their bounds; aided by a society that feels entitled to whatever it wants- individual liberties be damned.
Truth-
"And your notion that you have a greater capability at statistical analysis than the tobacco companies can afford to hire is the height of egotism. "
No, "Truth," not "the height of egotism."
At best, I can only claim second place for egotism in this forum.
"well, what are some synonyms for ridiculous?"
You really want me to answer that? No, it's too easy... I'm going to pass it up. Get a clue, bud.
Posted by Michael Trimble on April 3, 2007 10:12 PMWow!!! 100 posts! I think we pros know how serious this issue is, but what we in general hear from the antis is flippant rudeness to the effect that we should just shut up and stop whining.This does not solve anything,it just makes a large group of angry people angrier and more eager to fight. I suggest again to the antis that a reasonable compromise is the best way out of this quagmire.
Posted by Jimminy on April 3, 2007 10:31 PMOh yes I can hardly wait to be in a world where the government makes all my decisions for me and they take all my money in taxes so I can help support people that are too lazy to work. How about you???
Posted by troll on April 4, 2007 02:40 PMI damn near wore out my mouse getting to the end of all this. People smoke to get nicotine into their brains and can do that with the nicotine inhalers. These can be usd anywhere because there is no flame or smoke. Gum or patches are okay but its hard to keep re-lighting the gum when your drinking in a bar. Also, the patches look woosey to most men and might be mistaken for hormone patches so the inhalers are a perfect solution. Drink, inhale, drink, inhale and all indoors out of the rain and snow. Fine if you use an inhaler in a bar, cafe or casino next to me, I will never complain or care but cigarette smoke makes me vomit and I might aim at your shoes it you light up in public. However, I really hope you all continue to huddle outside in lousy weather sucking on your soggy butts because you said we would never prevail and we did. Ann, you are a hoot. How can you stand these nuts?
Posted by Sharon B on April 4, 2007 04:50 PMSharon- Did you have a point?
Why do you ban proponents constantly attack smokers? Smokers don't decide to create a smoking or non-smoking bar. The bar owner does. This is an issue of letting the owner decide what he allows. You can make your decision of whether, or not, to give him your business based on whether, or not, he allows smoking.
Smokers don't get to dictate to the owner.
Non-smokers don't either.
What is wrong with letting the owner decide? The fact that he might decide differently than you? Grow up. You aren't entitled to have everything your way. Sometimes, people will decide to do things in THEIR businesses that you don't like. Deal with it, or go someplace else.
And by the way, Sharon, Ann is the nut.
Posted by Mike on April 4, 2007 06:30 PMa nicotine inhaler lets everyone win. You get your nicotine and I get to sit near you and breath. I think smokers are often aggresive with their exhaling because it makes a statment. Kind of nanana, but a statement none the less. There are no non-smoking casinos in state so we need to go after them next. Lots of my frlends would flock to Colorado casinos if they were smoke free. I don`t really have a point except that anyone can get nicotine without smoke and then they can go anywhere and not argue all the time. However it does feel good to be on the big stick side of democracy for once.
Posted by Sharon B on April 4, 2007 10:00 PM"I don`t really have a point"
My thought exactly.
Posted by Mike on April 4, 2007 10:06 PMbut i`m funny and your just angry.
Posted by Sharon B on April 4, 2007 11:16 PMover a hundred posts, and the venom and name calling and contorted re-wording come about 90% from the smokers. Still think nicotine inhalers could be used in public places and no one needs to go outside anymore. We can all sip Colorado wines together and breath decent air.
Posted by Sharon B on April 4, 2007 11:27 PMSharon- You are (see that, it's not 'your) showing your (that's where 'your' is used) idiocy.
"but i`m funny and your just angry" (that should be you're or you are)
Have you tried to say something funny?
"contorted re-wording come about 90% from the smokers."
Contorted re-wording? What are you talking about? Come from smokers? I don't smoke and my opposition to the ban has nothing to do with smoking. It has to do with property rights, and the fact that you shouldn't get to dictate to a private property owner what legal activities he allows on HIS property.
You are right about one thing, though; I am angry. I'm angry that self-entitled people like you and Ann think you have any business at all telling someone else what HE can allow on HIS property.
My post on nicotine gum and patches was funny and you`re (your) Eats, shoots and leaves comeback was just snottyl. How hard does it have to be for you to walk before you realize someone is pulling your leg? Bars can`t sell drinks to a drunken person, even if they walk home. Private property that is open to the public is a new area of law. Blacks can`t be kept out and smokers can`t come in. Never said you personally smoked. But you do call names and get all sputtery.
Posted by Sharon B on April 5, 2007 05:51 PM"but cigarette smoke makes me vomit and I might aim at your shoes it you light up in public. However, I really hope you all continue to huddle outside in lousy weather sucking on your soggy butts"- Sharon B
I'm the snotty one?
"But you do call names and get all sputtery."
The only name I have called you is Sharon, and I don't remember getting "sputtery", whatever that means.
"Bars can`t sell drinks to a drunken person"
That's a condition of their liquor license. They also can't sell between certain hours in the morning.
"Blacks can`t be kept out"
That's because everyone has a constitutionally protected right to not be discriminated against based on race.
Now, tell me why a smoking ban is okay.
Posted by Mike on April 5, 2007 06:07 PMBecause We non-smokers don`t care about the health or comfort of smokers but we care about our own comfort. Some towns are so small there is no place where we could eat or drink and breath. Because we care about the workers who can`t just run off and get another job. Of course I get a chuckle out of seeing the biker types huddled outside near the bars. Many times these people were unnecessarily rude with their smoke and where it went. This is what I think karma means. Those non-smokers who want to can still fight for property rights and we can enjoy the ban.
Posted by old geologist on April 5, 2007 07:47 PMThat was my alter-ego. The one who chats about global warming, my alternative personality.
Posted by Sharon B. on April 5, 2007 07:51 PMFirst of all, breathe has an 'e' at the end.
Second of all, do you have a mental disorder?
Posted by Mike on April 5, 2007 10:35 PMYou anti-smokers would have a lot more fun in bars and casinos if you lose your self-righteous attitude.
Posted by spyglass on April 6, 2007 11:58 AMsee what I mean about getting snotty? I smoked for 40 years, probably smoked before I was born, since mom and everyone around her smoked. I don`t correct your language use and spellling, what point does that make for your side? I don`t ask about your mental state or judge your attitude. How can we ever discuss anything as long as you waste electrons on snottyness? Did I spell that right? The respect for private property is , in my opinion, a smoke screen (joke here) . There are other legal activities you can`t do on private property. Buy or sell cars or alcohol on Sunday, put a business in the wrong zone, etc. I don`t think you care a fig for private property rights, I think you are just angry that your side of an argument lost. Mike , what prompted the mental health inquire in a discussion on smoking bans?
Posted by on April 6, 2007 05:04 PMThe mental health comment was based on the fact that you are posting under different names.
"I don`t think you care a fig for private property rights, I think you are just angry that your side of an argument lost."
You are ABSOLUTELY wrong. Property rights is my only concern. I don't smoke. I PREFER non-smoking establishments. My wants don't matter a wit on someone else's property.
"There are other legal activities you can`t do on private property. Buy or sell cars or alcohol on Sunday, put a business in the wrong zone, etc."
I understand that and we have addressed those many times on numerous posts. The 'Blue Laws' requiring liquor stores, pawn shops, etc... to be closed on Sunday are antiquated, but the owners of those businesses like them because it forces their competition to be closed, also.
The other issues (zoning for instance, since you brought that up) deal with how your business affects neighboring properties. You can't open an adult bookstore next to an elementary school, for example. Smoking in one business does not impact a neighboring property.
You can't serve tainted meat or contaminated water because it can harm unsuspecting customers. We, as customers, don't know if the cook washed his hands after defecating, or if the kitchen is clean- we aren't given an opportunity to inspect that, so we need some government oversight.
Smoking is out in the open. A ban is not appropriate. A business that allows smoking can post a sign on the front door, and you as a customer can then make a decision of whether, or not, to enter.
I make comments regarding spelling and punctuation because it is aggravating to me. I get frustrated trying to wade through misspelled words to get to his (or her) point.
I have a split personallity. Part old geologist, part Sharon. Didn`t know I had not changed the name. I could have left it and let you think you were talking to two people. Hope I get a better grade this one. Do you correct everyone?
Posted by Sharon B. on April 8, 2007 08:26 PMBlue laws are usually religious laws but cars on Sunday isn`t even that. Think of the smoking ban as an un-religious blue law.
Posted by Sharon B. on April 8, 2007 08:32 PM"An un-religious blue law"
Oh, that makes it okay. The current blue laws are supported by those people they affect. The business owners don't mind them because it forces their competition to be closed also, and it gives them a day off. I would still get rid of them.
The smoking ban is a law that bans a LEGAL activity, on PRIVATE property, between FREE persons. The property isn't supported by public dollars. No one is forced to enter. No one has a right to enter. It shouldn't be in place.
Posted by Mike on April 9, 2007 06:58 AMlets see, sex between legal adults, free people in a private property bar is ok?
Legal, private, free but illegal as hell. Today the bars and tomorrow the casinos for the ban
"lets see, sex between legal adults, free people in a private property bar is ok?"
Yes, that would be okay with me. Obviously, they would have to follow guidelines like strip clubs, adult bookstores, adult movie houses, etc..., but what would be the problem? If I don't want to be exposed to that, I don't go in. Simple.
"We make the laws"- why do you feel so entitled?
Posted by Mike on April 9, 2007 01:08 PMokay with you! sex in public is illegal. Maybe we should switch the bans. I want to know where all the smokers are drinking now. We could get rid of the ban and give everyone a water pistol so thay can shoot out the fires in public. Kind of make us all junior firefighters.
Posted by Sharon B. on April 10, 2007 07:20 PMSharon- Yes, it would be okay with me. Just as it is okay to be naked in a bar (Shotgun Willies for example).
And, it's not "sex in public". It would be in private establishments.
"...so thay (sic) can shoot out the fires in public."
Again, it's private. By the way, it's legal to smoke in public; just not inside public places. This ban affects PRIVATE property.
Strip away the smoking laws. Strip away government regulating business, and tell me, PHILOSOPHICALLY, why it's okay to ban a legal activity on private property.
Posted by Mike on April 10, 2007 08:04 PM
Haven't heard about it already, now you have. State (NATIONAL) mourn the loss of freedom and the infringement of American’s rights day. If not for some current reason or some ban, than one of the other loss of freedoms that have been stripped away and/or the infringement of American’s rights. Or just because you're currently unhappy with government operations. Included: Tainted products. Boarder problems, sin tax on gas & tobacco, health bans, etc. JANUARY 1ST, fly the flag half-mast for the State (NATIONAL) mourn what America use to be and was meant to be. Don’t have a flag you can lower. Roll it around the poll and tie it down for a day. Don’t own a flag, buy a little one and do the above. And send this on so everyone knows about it. Lets send a message to this state government and to federal government that WE ARE NOT HAPPY.