Smoking ban
It appears that we will have only one favored exemption left putting the lie to the claims that health considerations were the fundamental reason for the smoking ban, Senator Boyd. Be for warned, these lies will plainly be proven, via lawsuits, to be a conspiracy foisted on the taxpaying public by huge pharmaceutical companies who have invested over 400 million dollars the past ten years in a carefully crafted anti smoking propaganda program to support their own greedy mercantile interests in smokeless nicotine products and devices. This has been successful in fooling not only the public but legislatures as well. These facts are unarguable and will be a major part of the legal actions which will follow.
Now there is only one place where people are not protected from the alleged insidious, nasty and fatal dangers of second hand smoke which requires justification and explanation by the lawmakers. I would like to hear Senator Boyd explain just what it was that prompted her to exclude the smoking lounge at D.I.A. I could venture a guess, yet perhaps it is only fair to allow her to respond responsibly first but, if that happens, it just might be the first time any legislator has had the courage to tell the truth about the real reasons for their actions and omissions since the travesty of law that is the smoking ban was implemented.
This letter has not been edited.
Before this turns into the usual pro-versus-anti shouting match, may I offer this suggestion to you, Allen? Learn about these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph
Allan-One-Note needs to get a freaking life.
Get over it and move on already.
Posted by T on April 3, 2007 06:02 PMT- Liberties of property owners are being stripped away, and we should just, "Get over it"?
Keep that in mind when something you hold dear is taken from you.
Posted by Mike on April 3, 2007 06:10 PMAs I understand it, Allen is a bar owner T. Makes sense to be pissed off about a law that is costing him money, especially one as ridiculous as CCIAA.
Posted by on April 3, 2007 06:10 PMAllen "is" a bar owner and has every right to fight this with every ounce of his being! "T" if you owned a business and you were being legislated out of your business you would be angry also. It takes guts to stand up and fight for your rights! This is a bad law and one that deserves a fight and also publicity. We all deserve a right to choose including smoking in a bar that wants to allow it. This law is putting people out of business and out of jobs. Maybe "T" you should think before you voice your opinion.
Posted by pagen on April 4, 2007 05:18 AMI've said it before and I'll say it again. If all a bar had to offer was ashtrays to keep its customers...then let it fail. Evolve...draw in new customers ( since your old ones abandoned you) with new ideas. Stop whining and make the changes that will re-invigorate your business.
Posted by Ann on April 4, 2007 06:24 AMArioch you should understant that when you quote anything from wikipedia that it is just like these comment here, added to and changed by readers and is not factual in any manner.
Why is it that all the socicon[far left socialist liberal democrats] screamed at Bush for "wire tapping and listening to our calls" when he used a law set up by carter, but have no problem with the smoking ban, that takes away our liberities of operating a business within the law in our own building? Allen is correct on every point he made and not only the owners should be upset but every citizen in the state should be up in arms over this.
For all the non smokers there are and have been for a long time non smoking places. That wasnt good enough thought as the really popular places allowed smoking and you wanted in on your rules.
What I dont understand is if there was such a need for all of the bars to be non smoking why did the anti smoking crowd just go out and start their own sports bars and clubs that were non smoking? It looked like a wonderful oportunity to start a business and have a cash cow with all of the non smokers flocking to these places. On the other hand that would have required a socicon to work and not have it handed to them on a plate as one of their 'rights'
What I dont understand is if there was such a need for all of the bars to be non smoking why did the anti smoking crowd just go out and start their own sports bars and clubs that were non smoking?
Maybe because we weren't interested in starting any business...let alone one that kept us from our families till the wee hours?
Posted by Ann on April 4, 2007 07:25 AMBecause the anti smoking crowd is typically the anti-capitalist left, who don't understand that if non-smoking bars were such a valuable market niche, they would have been the norm and not a rarity. But this law is standard M.O. for liberals, if you don't like something, whine a politician into legislating it away. Sometimes I don't understand why we don't have a law banning the bogeyman yet, surely some of these libs checked under their beds as children, or maybe even now.
Posted by on April 4, 2007 07:31 AM"Maybe because we weren't interested in starting any business...let alone one that kept us from our families till the wee hours?"
Why do you care what legal drugs barowners allow in their business if you are at home with your family? Oh yeah, lefties like you can't stand the idea of not meddling in an issue that doesn't even affect you.
Posted by on April 4, 2007 07:34 AMDon't kid yourself. Many on the right are thrilled with this ban and looking forward to its expansion. This is not as partisan as you want everyone to believe. Its a health issue, its a anoyance issue, its a respect others in your bad habits issue. Thats why the ban was put to work. Smokers couldn't be bothered to do the right thing. Well by golly ..now you will be forced. Its a win win for society.
Posted by Ann on April 4, 2007 07:37 AMAnd for some reason ann is still here thinking that it's the smokers that were the problem. What happened when you asked the bar owner to be non smoking ann? It's a health issue, to the people are ignorant enough to go there in the first place. It's an annoyance issue, to the people who for some reason kept going back. And it's a respect issue, to the people like ann who want respect, but doesn't want to give it. We couldn't be bothered to do the right thing? And what was that? To convince the bar owner to convert to non smoking for you? If you didn't want to put forth the effort to start your own business, how does that give you the right to want to tell other people how to run their business?
Posted by Shane on April 4, 2007 07:50 AMYep us horrible smokers need to be forced to do the right thing. While their at it might as well ban drinking and gambling since that's another vice alot of us smokers enjoy. god knows people like ann would never partake of something so dangerous. So been to any casinos lately Ann?
Posted by mary on April 4, 2007 08:02 AMWhen I asked the bar owners to be non smoking they did nothing so my representitive did it for me. No one is telling smokers they can not smoke...only where they can smoke. Big diff, so stop crying about having to get up and walk a few paces to do your damage.
As to the question about the casino's ...true the last time I attempted to go I got nauseated and coughed for days afterward.so I'm looking forward to the day I can again enjoy some gambling with out setting next to a chain smoking geezer who's chest heaves with the effort to breath.
And where was this majority?
Posted by Shane on April 4, 2007 08:32 AMSomeone posted: "Because the anti smoking crowd is typically the anti-capitalist left, who don't understand that if non-smoking bars were such a valuable market niche, they would have been the norm and not a rarity. But this law is standard M.O. for liberals, if you don't like something, whine a politician into legislating it away."
Wasn't the original anti-smoking bill co-sponsored by both a Republican and a Democrat?
I'm actually against the law, myself, but I thought it was worth clarifying this is not a "liberal" law.
Posted by mytwosense on April 4, 2007 08:38 AMThank you two sense, people like ann will use this issue as a stepping stone for their own political party. She will lump people together and say if your against the smoking ban, you are also in favor of raping women, murder, and child molestation. Nothing that actually has to do with the topic. ann claims to be a republican, which essentially is against government stepping in and telling people what they can and can't do. But what she supports is the complete opposite of what her party stands for. But it's ok, she's still confused.
Posted by Shane on April 4, 2007 08:42 AMWell now that the smoking ban will soon be complete our next goal is to lower the BAC for drinking and driving even lower. After that we are going after fatty foods. YOU WILL SOON SUBMIT TO OUR ULTIMATE POWER! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Posted by RichM on April 4, 2007 09:08 AMHmmmm.....I still think the system has the ability to protect smokers' rights,and I continue to hope that Ann's radical view of the situation will be disavowed by the public at large and the government that is tasked to protect everyone.Perhaps the most honest solution might lie in a rollback of the current ban,with some kind of tax advantage for non-smoking businesses to compensate for the marketplace advantage that smoker-friendly businesses enjoy.I think it more likely,though, that the ban will probably stay in place to placate the antis and be weakly enforced,much as Prohibition was.Not very pure ideologically,but workable, and much better than the damage that WILL result from buying what Ann and the other Ultras want to sell.
Posted by Jimminy on April 4, 2007 09:28 AMAnn has to be the most intolerent individual I have ever read.
Bar owners were not allowed to make their bars cigar (smoking) bars. Their rights were taken away from them, by the people. People who never went into their bars.
The smoking ban is just plain wrong. If the bar is in Denver. Don't light up your cigar, light up your joint. After all it's legal in Denver.
Oh yeah, I am an ex 1 1/2-2 pack a day smoker.
Next question. What rights are going to be taken away next?
Karen
Posted by Karen on April 4, 2007 09:51 AMI am working to get drinking inside the bar banned because the smell of the alcohol gives me headaches and tumors. Anybody wanna work with me?
Posted by Shane on April 4, 2007 09:56 AMOur freedoms are being taken away little by litte. They are hoping we won't notice....I miss the former America.. you know the place where freedom meant freedom and decency was the norm. I could go on and on but, the younger generation wouldn't believe such a wonderful place ever existed.
Posted by The other T on April 4, 2007 10:13 AMShane. You, as opposed to Ann, have a grasp of the real problem and, I'm not talking about smoke, as ann does incessantly like a wind up doll, I'm referring to the reasons people like her are so intent on refusing to allow themselves to accept any evidence or information that disagrees with their rabid zealously driven personal preferences.
It is impossible to argue intelligently and productively with those who refuse to recognize anything that disagrees with their their narrow minded, preconcieved, truth denying ignorance. If one bases their belief on false premises ipso facto they are wrong.
Convincing them that their false premise is wrong, however, is difficult at best. A preconcieved belief can not be changed by common sense or reasonable, rational critical thinking. It can only be altered by proving the foundation of the premise is patently undefensible.
To that end, we are in the process of completing a legal outline for the purpose of filing a law suit. We have been approached by more than one lawfirm that have expressed a keen interest in representing us in our case which,among other things, will prove that smoking ban advocasy has and is being funded by large pharmaceutical companies, and huge fondations that have a multi-million dollar vested interest in no smoke nicotine delivery devices, patches, pills, gums and video tape and smoke cessation programs, employing parity pricing.
We have undeniable evidence that the Robert Wood Johnson foundation has granted over 400,000,000 dollars to back smoking bans and that the American Cancer Society has been and continues to be the front line force behind this mercantile interest and that the State of Colorado has, through it's state health department and others, accepted a huge amount of money from the same source.
These facts and along with other evidence will be presented to prove that the smoking ban in Colorado is not now, nor ever was based on health but, was based on the mercantile interests of these large corporations and foundations.
We also now have new, higly credible cohort studies and irrefutable evidence that debunks the often cited Tobacco control contention that second hand smoke is a health risk in the vast majority of workplaces but specifically in bars and taverns.
This will be a landmark case and will forever put the lie to Ann's aserbic, caustic and just plain wrong diatribes.
Posted by Allen Campbell on April 4, 2007 10:25 AMShow me where to sign up.
Posted by Shane on April 4, 2007 10:32 AMAnn, Regarding your statement "Evolve...draw in new customers." 1. Why should bars need to? tobacco control has claimed ofr years that once bars go "Smoke Free" nonsmokers would flock i and increase their trade. 2. Now experiencing the consequences of yet another Social Marketing lie from anti-tobacco Allen Campbell point the way to a sensible solution: sue the Tobacco Control enterprise out of existence.
Beyond which it should be obvious that, in stark contrast with you, "Evolving" is precisely what normal folks are doing by standing up to the Neanderthal public policy of anti-tobacco.
Posted by norm on April 4, 2007 11:45 AMI go to the restuarants, the bars...the ones who you all should pissed at are the smokers who abandoned your business because they ouldn't se clear to going out side to suck on there cigs. put the blame where the blame belongs. The smokers. And try to to grasp the cincept that the majority of non smokers and even some somkers are thrilled with this ban. Sorry...you are on the wrong side of this debate.
Posted by Ann on April 4, 2007 12:03 PMThe one irrefutible fact in this whole situation
is that the Government does not care about your health.
If they did, affordable health care would be available to everybody, and it is not.
Medication would be available to every body at no cost if necessary, and it is not.
They would ensure everybody has a doctor, and they have not.
Hospitals would not lack for funding, and they do.
Staffing hospitals would not be a problem, and it is.
Equiping hospitals and clinics would not be a problem, and it is.
The poor would be taken care of, and they're not.
Whatever you believe, whatever your feelings,
or your preferences, please do not tell me that the government has done anything on the basis of caring about our health.
Smoking bans should be vehemently opposed not only by the business owners, not only by the smokers, but by everyone who believes the American adult is old enough to make their own decisions for their own body.
Second hand smoke is by far NOT a threat worthy of setting dangerous precedents. Don't let the self-serving fascists tell you otherwise. Wake up for the sake of not finding yourself one day being a puppet of the government and the pharma cartel. Forced medication is now a very present menace both for smoking cessation, obesity and any other lifestyle choice they deem could rake in money through the healthScare scam.
Tin foil alert!
Posted by Ann on April 4, 2007 12:14 PMWhat's the matter ann? Can't stand to face the facts that you are not intelligent enough to make a decision based on what you want to be exposed to?
Posted by Shane on April 4, 2007 12:17 PMFor ten long years, most of the activists in the United States have been fighting the smoking bans on "Rights Issues", whether they are Property Rights, Constitutional Rights, Personal Rights, Smokers Rights - even Personal Freedoms.
They have yet to have a win that has not immediately been lost at the anti tobacco extremists' whim and will. One would think after ten years of a losing argument those who argue using any "Rights" platform might re evaluate the argument.
The "smokers rights" arguments have yet to stop the any of the anti smokers, anywhere, with a permanent win. They get occasional concessions such as instead of a total ban, the antis will allow smoking in bars for a year or so, but the antis always come back and do the 'total ban'.
In some areas now one cannot smoke in their own homes, cars, yards - no where within the city limits, etc. So if you are just being exposed to smoking bans, now is the time to get active and learn what is going on.
Let’s look a little closer at the “Property Rights” issue.
That is certainly an important consideration and under proper circumstances property rights, as well as all other "rights" should be taken very seriously.
Were ETS to actually present the extraordinary health risks that anti-tobacco activists claim, however, no facility, including state run casinos would any more “right” to permit it in their establishments than they have a right to serve tainted food or contaminated drinking water.
When it comes to addressing well-documented and certain health risks that are credibly proven by legitimate science public health departments are properly granted very strong powers of inspection and enforcement.
Should there be a breakout of typhoid any where the Health Departments would quite properly demand that the business owner repair an open cess-pool behind their establishment. Were the drinking water in a business shown to include dangerous bacteria well above established limits that bar would be required to fix the problem or close their doors.
Any business owner who refused to do so because they had “rights” would properly be cited and then closed down if they persisted in refusing to address that threat to public health.
Asserting business owner “rights” without addressing the lack of genuine risk from ETS in a meaningful way is to advocate irresponsible public health anarchy.
In effect, those who oppose smoking bans based exclusively on business owner or consumers rights are saying loud and clear to the public that they demand their “right” to persist in maintaining a direct and immediate threat to public health because it will cost them money to abate the threat. Is it any wonder those who shout "Rights" can garner no media, political, or public support?
This can only be won by disproving the science being used, only then can our "rights" arguments become valid.
To address one issue you must address the other.
Establishing Second Hand Smoke as a "health issue" is what the anti tobacco extremists have done at the State Legislative level. We must reverse this, using legitimate science, before we can argue our "rights".
Fighting the smoking bans based on 'rights' will never win on its own merit; as the last ten years have repeatedly proven.
So how can we win? By advocating a real, measured Clean Indoor Air Law.
A smoking ban does nothing to protect anyone from the over 400 known carcinogenic and toxic indoor air pollutants.
By actually measuring the indoor air quality, all concerned would be assured the indoor air quality is in fact as clean and safe as possible.
What anti tobacco activists in their right mind would argue against real clean indoor air?
When indoor air tests have been done, the tests come in up to 25,000 times under OSHA standards for safe indoor air with normal size and ventilation... which is also why we do not have a National Smoking Ban.
If a real, measured Clean Indoor Air Law were passed there would be no smoking bans, but we would know our indoor air is clean.
Maryetta Ables
President, FORCES, Inc.
http://www.forces.org
304-765-5394, EST
For ten long years, most of the activists in the United States have been fighting the smoking bans on "Rights Issues", whether they are Property Rights, Constitutional Rights, Personal Rights, Smokers Rights - even Personal Freedoms.
They have yet to have a win that has not immediately been lost at the anti tobacco extremists' whim and will. One would think after ten years of a losing argument those who argue using any "Rights" platform might re evaluate the argument.
The "smokers rights" arguments have yet to stop the any of the anti smokers, anywhere, with a permanent win. They get occasional concessions such as instead of a total ban, the antis will allow smoking in bars for a year or so, but the antis always come back and do the 'total ban'.
In some areas now one cannot smoke in their own homes, cars, yards - no where within the city limits, etc. So if you are just being exposed to smoking bans, now is the time to get active and learn what is going on.
Let’s look a little closer at the “Property Rights” issue.
That is certainly an important consideration and under proper circumstances property rights, as well as all other "rights" should be taken very seriously.
Were ETS to actually present the extraordinary health risks that anti-tobacco activists claim, however, no facility, including state run casinos would any more “right” to permit it in their establishments than they have a right to serve tainted food or contaminated drinking water.
When it comes to addressing well-documented and certain health risks that are credibly proven by legitimate science public health departments are properly granted very strong powers of inspection and enforcement.
Should there be a breakout of typhoid any where the Health Departments would quite properly demand that the business owner repair an open cess-pool behind their establishment. Were the drinking water in a business shown to include dangerous bacteria well above established limits that bar would be required to fix the problem or close their doors.
Any business owner who refused to do so because they had “rights” would properly be cited and then closed down if they persisted in refusing to address that threat to public health.
Asserting business owner “rights” without addressing the lack of genuine risk from ETS in a meaningful way is to advocate irresponsible public health anarchy.
In effect, those who oppose smoking bans based exclusively on business owner or consumers rights are saying loud and clear to the public that they demand their “right” to persist in maintaining a direct and immediate threat to public health because it will cost them money to abate the threat. Is it any wonder those who shout "Rights" can garner no media, political, or public support?
This can only be won by disproving the science being used, only then can our "rights" arguments become valid.
To address one issue you must address the other.
Establishing Second Hand Smoke as a "health issue" is what the anti tobacco extremists have done at the State Legislative level. We must reverse this, using legitimate science, before we can argue our "rights".
Fighting the smoking bans based on 'rights' will never win on its own merit; as the last ten years have repeatedly proven.
So how can we win? By advocating a real, measured Clean Indoor Air Law.
A smoking ban does nothing to protect anyone from the over 400 known carcinogenic and toxic indoor air pollutants.
By actually measuring the indoor air quality, all concerned would be assured the indoor air quality is in fact as clean and safe as possible.
What anti tobacco activists in their right mind would argue against real clean indoor air?
When indoor air tests have been done, the tests come in up to 25,000 times under OSHA standards for safe indoor air with normal size and ventilation... which is also why we do not have a National Smoking Ban.
If a real, measured Clean Indoor Air Law were passed there would be no smoking bans, but we would know our indoor air is clean.
Maryetta Ables
President, FORCES, Inc.
304-765-5394, EST
Diana, I don't particularly wan't to be treated by a quack because the government mandates that we need free healthcare for everybody, being a medical doctor is not something everyone can do. While there are benefits to socialized medicine, there are also reasons that a lot of Canadians cross the border and pay out of pocket for possibly dangerous healthcare procedures like bypass surgery.
Posted by on April 4, 2007 12:38 PMMaryetta- Very informative.
I do take issue with one thing you said, however.
"Were ETS to actually present the extraordinary health risks that anti-tobacco activists claim, however, no facility, including state run casinos would any more 'right' to permit it in their establishments than they have a right to serve tainted food or contaminated drinking water."
Tainted food and contaminated water endanger the public when they have no knowledge the danger exists. Smoking is out in the open. If a "smoking" sign is posted on the front door, then anyone with allergies, or fears of secondhand smoke would be wise to stay out.
Tainted food, contaminated water, unsanitary conditions in the kitchen, a cook not washing his hands between defecating and preparing food, etc. are all things that are hidden from the unsuspecting customer; smoking is not.
I'm not allowed to serve tainted meat to guests in my home, but I can smoke around them; there is a difference.
Posted by Mike on April 4, 2007 12:59 PMExcellent post Maretta. Although all of that is contingient on assuming that people who go into bars, actually know they are going into bars and not a Chuck E. Cheese.
Posted by Shane on April 4, 2007 01:01 PMMike, a "health issue" is a "health issue" whether seen or unseen - known or unknown.
This is a "legal standing" that strips away all rights.
Shane, a real, measured Clean Indoor Air Law would pertain to all businesses - I believe anti tobacco calls it a "level playing field".
Thanks for the comments!
Posted by Maryetta on April 4, 2007 01:29 PMI will never, ever understand why anti-smoking zealots won't allow the marketplace the freedom to make it's own decisions. If the propaganda they spew is correct at least 80% of businesses would be smoke-free. What's wrong with that?
Posted by Frank on April 4, 2007 01:29 PMDon't you think though that the market is the only thing that should be able to "level the playing field"?
Posted by Shane on April 4, 2007 01:39 PMHi Frank, it appears to be simple economics. The Nicotine Replacement products were failing, so the pharmaceuticals came up with the idea to fund smoking bans to forcefully create a market for their products. So far it is working. They have even avoided telling the politicians that should tobacco control be successful, the state's cigarette tax income will go down - while their Nicotine Replacement products are not taxable - a special little benefit they got passed in almost all states... So who will pay the bill if the state's tax revenues go down if anti tobacco efforts are successful? The non smokers of course....
Posted by Maryetta on April 4, 2007 01:39 PMUnfortunately, it's all of us that will have to come up with lost revenue. The pro ban people will simply be able to look the other way and say, well it wasn't my fault.
Posted by Shane on April 4, 2007 01:43 PMShane, yes I do believe the market should adjust as IT deems necessary. But at this point in time, the general public has been "taught" that it deserves and therefore must have "clean indoor air" - and the politician must have a way to save face (although I would rather send most of them to prison) - so a legitimate compromise is a real, measured Clean Indoor Air Law. It can be funded with some of the money now going to the anti tobacco groups, after all, it is for Clean Indoor Air! Do you need precedence? Our Federal Clean Air Law (which pertains to the outdoor air only) already requires the measurement of air quality to assure it is clean and safe.
Posted by Maryetta on April 4, 2007 01:45 PMIt's all about the quick fix, thinking about "unforeseen consequences" before they occur just doesn't seem to fit in with the average modern American attitude.
Posted by on April 4, 2007 01:46 PMIs Jacobson's (?) group being targeted also, Maryetta? Center for Public Health, or something along those lines? He's a vapid non smoker/socialist, worked on the NYC ban, if I recall.
Posted by csj on April 4, 2007 01:50 PMSo the federal clean air law is doing a good job would you say?
Posted by Shane on April 4, 2007 02:05 PMMaryetta- I disagree that a health issue is a health issue whether seen or unseen. By going into some places of business you assume some risks; it's disclosure that is important.
At a baseball game you assume the risk of being hit by a baseball, but you know it going in. If you were sitting in a restaurant minding your own business and a baseball hit you in the head, you could sue. If one hits you at a Rockies game, you can't because that is a risk you agree to when you walk through the gate.
One of the risks you willingly expose yourself to in a bar that allows smoking, is secondhand smoke.
To me, there is a clear difference.
Posted by Mike on April 4, 2007 02:05 PMAnother angry smokers post.
Posted by Beavis on April 4, 2007 02:05 PMCSJ, what do you mean by "targeted"? Every state has a Center for Public Health in it's DHHR unit, which is actually a Federal office in the state. Its top is a Presidential Cabinet member for DHHR. You can see how this works at: http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/outusgov/
Anyone who thinks this is a "local issue" is gravely mistaken - when one goes to war - one should go to the correct battlefield......
Beavis (or is it Butthead?)
This isn't "another angry smokers post".
I don't smoke. I just hate an intrusive government and people who feel entitled to use government to bend others to their will.
Posted by Mike on April 4, 2007 02:09 PMMike - all non smokers should be quite concerned about this mercantile and legal attack on a legal product. If you wonder what I mean please look at http://banzhaf.net/obesitylinks and contemplate what is coming. And if that doesn't get your attention, then think about what segment of the tax paying society is going to pick up the tab if tobacco control is successful.
Posted by Maryetta on April 4, 2007 02:39 PMHealth issue???
The only time it is a health issue is to the person who thinks it is a health issue to HIM/HER
Otherwise don't enter
Level playing field??
The market decides the 'level' playing field..not government mandated no-smoking laws.
Politicains would rather be popular than 'right'
They know that approx. 80% of the adults don't smoke and that is where the votes are.
Where are those people in the era of "I would rather be 'right' than President...The Late President Kennedy??
The hard core antis are trying to quarantine/isolate the smokers.
The vast majority of anti smokers never or very seldom patronize the hospitality industry on any given day.
Whether people realize this or not..but Alcohol is on the back burner of The World Health organisation.
It will be called Prohibition..drip by drip
Health issue???
The only time it is a health issue is to the person who thinks it is a health issue to HIM/HER
Otherwise don't enter
Level playing field??
The market decides the 'level' playing field..not government mandated no-smoking laws.
Politicains would rather be popular than 'right'
They know that approx. 80% of the adults don't smoke and that is where the votes are.
Where are those people in the era of "I would rather be 'right' than President...The Late President Kennedy??
The hard core antis are trying to quarantine/isolate the smokers.
The vast majority of anti smokers never or very seldom patronize the hospitality industry on any given day.
Whether people realize this or not..but Alcohol is on the back burner of The World Health organisation.
It will be called Prohibition..drip by drip
Maryetta- I am on your side. I have been one of the more vocal (if that's the right word) people here on these posts, trying to defend private business owners against unreasonable government intrusion. And, believe me, I have no doubt where it is headed.
Posted by Mike on April 4, 2007 02:56 PMThomas, you know second hand smoke is not a health risk, I know it - and so does most of the informed public. No argument there.
I am referring to second hand smoke's "legal standing" as per the State Legislature:
NRS 202.249 Smoking tobacco: Declaration of public policy; enforcement; imposition of more stringent restrictions.
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-202.html#NRS202Sec2483
1. It is the public policy of the State of Nevada and the purpose of NRS 202.2491, 202.24915 and 202.2492 to place restrictions on the smoking of tobacco in public places to protect human health and safety.
2. The quality of air is declared to be affected with the public interest and NRS 202.2491, 202.24915 and 202.2492 are enacted in the exercise of the police power of this state to protect the health, peace, safety and general welfare of its people.
When the legislature, of any state, declares a substance such as tobacco smoke a "health hazard" that in and of itself invalidates all "rights" arguments.
This need not be replaced, thus saving face of the idiots who did it, but a real measured clean indoor air law would eliminate the smoking bans.
Posted by Maryetta on April 4, 2007 03:57 PMMaryetta,
It's not the Fed's. Mark Jacobson (?), has an org that concerns it's self with Public Health, not only smoking, it is also behind the transfat ban. It's a private org. If I can find the website, I'll post it on one of these daily ops or your forces site.
Posted by csj on April 4, 2007 04:30 PMThe British Medical Journal (BMJ) test results again prove secondhand smoke levels were 4 - 5,000 times SAFER than OSHA regulations (permissible exposure limits) for secondhand smoke.
Anybody with an upcoming court or legislative battle should disseminate this information far and wide.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/04/secondhand-smoke-air-quality-test.html
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/11/is-secondhand-smoke-health-hazard.html
This test, in a different commercial environment also proved the air is safe. And is substantiated by the American Cancer Society's attempted invalidation.
Don't expect the lobbyists for anti tobacco or the mass media to publish this info - the Lobbyist would loose his/her job and the media would loose advertising dollars (in the millions if not billions) from anti tobacco ads and drug advertisements.
Bottom line is it falls squarely on the Citizen to become politically active, as we should, to repair the damage done to date and prevent it from happening again.
Posted by Maryetta on April 5, 2007 10:06 AM
The smoking ban is totally unfair.
Even though it's not really a "ban" and just requires me to go outside to have a cigarette, it is totally unreasonable.
Half of my enjoyment from smoking is the knowledge that I am irritating others and possibly causing health problems for them.
It's not enough that I am ruining my own health. I want to ruin other people's as well -- and I want to dominate every establishment in Denver.
To hell with non-smokers. Let's fill up every restaurant, bar and club with the sweet stench of freedom.
Non-smokers, taste the ashy goodness of your food and drinks as putrid smoke curls up into your nostrils.
In other words, eff the world!
Signed,
A selfish and stupid smoker
Instead of coming to grips that not everybody thinks the way I do, I would much rather force you to be like me. Only then will we be able to move forward in this country. The problem I have is that even though it was my choice to go to a smoking bar, it was my choice to stay there, and it was even my choice to go back, I would rather take the choice away from myself and all others.
You can't blame me for what I do, I should not need to be responsible for myself. All I want is to have a place to go where I can enjoy myself. Well, not exactly. I'd rather go into a place that does not offer what I want, and make them offer what I want. I made the choice to pass by all the non smoking places and go to the few places that did not suit what I wanted to be exposed to. Again, you cannot blame me for things I do, I don't want to take the responsibility of destroying my body with alcohol, so that I can blame it on smoke.
I want to dominate the establishments in Denver, that's why I'm all for the ban. I don't like the idea of people being able to choose to do something in a place I shouldn't be in anyway. I don't like the idea of people having choices to choose from. Because even though we both had the freedom to choose what places we frequent, I don't want you to have that choice and I want you to conform to what I want you to be.
In other words: eff the people who like freedom of choice.
Signed,
A controlling and self-righteous non smoker
Great way of putting it I hate to smoke
Posted by on April 5, 2007 01:27 PMThe unsigned person who criticized me supporting health care for everyone must be from another planet. No where did I advocate anything except that everyone should receive what they need. I am an RN, I don't care whether the state provides all of it or not, I have worked in the public and private fields in Europe and North America.
To clarify the point I was making, no government I have ever worked for has ever cared about the health system, or anyones health except at election time when they make empty promises.
Having worked with inadequate and sub standard equipment in understaffed facilities doing double shifts with over worked doctors
no one on the face of the earth will ever,ever convince me that the anti smoking movement
is in any way connected with any government
caring one iota about our health
A Government is not one body.
It is made up of individuals who are either power hungry or become so. Each has his own agenda, and frankly we're not on it.
Between this and the previous thread on this topic, one question has been asked several times. That is, “Why do the smoking-ban folks care if smokers light up in places designated for smokers? Why don't they just stay away from it if it bothers them?”
There's lots of speculative answers to this, but here's one to think on...
Around 20-25 years ago there was a study of self-identified alcoholics who had been to voluntary inpatient treatment. The purpose of the study was to see if the causes of relapse could be identified. It was a longitudinal study, which means that people were followed over the course of several years after treatment, and when they were interviewed periodically to see if they had relapsed, any that had relapsed were asked to go over the events of the period from treatment up to relapse. Their friends and family were interviewed also. The result was a series of “symptoms” or steps that people tended to go through leading up to relapse, and while not everybody went through all of these symptoms, the majority hit most of them, and generally in the same order. Here's the first two items on that list:
1.The first symptom of relapse is an episode of “denial.” Essentially, people started to wonder if they were going to “make it” with sobriety or not. And the means of coping with this first episode of denial was usually to make a firm commitment to themselves, like, “Dang it! I'm sick of this! I'm just not going to let myself relapse!” This worked in most cases for a relatively short period of time, and by and large, people who did this either gave up and drank, or they went on to the second symptom (people who “made it” didn't use this kind of denial).
2.The second symptom of relapse is- are you ready for this?- people started to become obsessed with other people's sobriety. That's right- these are the people who tell all their friends that, since they stopped drinking their life is wonderful, and everything is better, and you need to stop drinking too. We've all met these folks, haven't we? The ones that see you sipping a beer and say, out of the blue, “Dude, the first step is, you have to admit you have a problem... why don't you come to a meeting with me?”
Well, I could go on and list some more of the symptoms they discussed in the study, but, hey, isn't it getting pretty obvious where we are? When I first thought about this in connection to tobacco, I thought, “Hmmm... In Colorado, it was Boulder that lead the charge... Who lives in Boulder? Well, a bunch of college students, but most of them don't vote there... And, yeah, that's right, a bunch of middle-aged ex-hippies live up there! And those folks, back in the 60's, they smoked EVERYTHING they could find!”
Well, now those ex-hippies are older, and the doctors have told them they have to quit smoking. They've had a heart attack or two, or know someone who has, and one of their uncles has died of cancer or emphazima, and you know what? It IS time to quit. And by God, if they have to quit, you are going to quit too.
Well, it's good to be careful when trying to generalize from one study into a whole different area, but haven't they been telling us for years that an addiction is an addiction, whatever the habit? Booze, meth, heroin, gambling... nicotine? And who hasn't seen someone go from a pack-a-day to “Put that stinking thing out!” in a few short months? It's so predictable that, though I'm not a smoker, when I saw someone quitting I used to tell the smokers in the office, “Watch out- there's a smoking Nazi in the making!”
I've looked for that old study on the Internet, but it predates the time when most of the studies were put in digital files. I first read it in about 1995, and it was an old study then. If anyone knows where it was done, or where to find it again, I'd like to hear about it. And I can't say that's really where all this smoking-ban momentum has come from. But I would bet that's where it started. Something to think about, isn't it? It might explain why tobacco is being outlawed at the same time that marijuana is being made legal. Lots of those old hippie Boomers who can't smoke cigarettes anymore are mostly still sneaking a toke here and there- and they are also being told to watch their diets- drop some weight, cut down on sugars and fats, and were starting to hear about that now, too, aren't we?
I hope the doctors leave them alone about their sex lives...
As a non-smoker, the first thirty years of my life were spent inhaling second-hand smoke from chain-smokers. Yet, I rationally defend their right to smoke.
Exactly how can government's, "create a healthier society for all," when they betray the smoker's sense of trust, demoralize their self-confidence, disrupt their employer, employee relationships, and undermind their efficacy, by alienating them from their own human nature? This irrational mind/body dichotomy will subject smoker's to long term emotional and mental disorders thus leading to serious physical ailments. In reality, our government is making them sick.
A particularily foreboding feature of the mind/body dichotomy is the government's suffocating negative influence they project while aggressively restricting young people from making their own decision about smoking. This exploitation will jeopardize each young person's struggle to form a sense of self-confidence, "find themself." This fragile process is usually a particularly traumatic experience, especially when that negative influence is hidden under the misconception of government benevolence.
The smoking ban is a disgrace, besides, government's lack the knowledge of the real #1 preventable killer today, the real threat!
Posted by Mr. Ken Hill on April 6, 2007 06:52 AMMichael Trimble, I remember the study you're talking about. No idea how to get a copy but I'll ask around.
Back in the sixties I tried all the life styles.
The boufant hair styles and three sets of false eyelashes, mini skirts and stilletos.
The hippy type make love not war.
I donned leathers and tried the biker scene.
The cocktail set, we drank a lot.
Then we all conformed and became mothers.
Now we are grandmothers, and I still continue to eat, drink and smoke. I am fit and healthy and haven't seen a doctor in years.
However, my friends appear to be obsessed with health and want to stay young and live forever.
This has created a very strange life style for them. Middle age spread is taking its toll and they belong to the gym where they try in vain to recover a young figure. Every line and wrinkle is attacked with diet, pills and topical treatments. No one has grey or white hair.
They go for manicures, pedicures and massages. Hair, teeth, depilatory, tanning, you name it. All trying to stave off the aging process, Then they come to my coffee shop and cheat, smoking my cigarettes, eating cream donuts, and bemoaning their lot.
They tell me I should stop smoking, while they puff away, that I should consider colesterol, while they eat my donuts.
What a sad generation. That is what makes them angry and vindictive. They want their youth back, and they are being dragged kicking and screaming into old age.
Well,they can attack smoking, diet, drink etc
but the ravages of time will still happen.
Their epitaph should read, fighters of a lost cause, except for causing misery.
Diana Reid
I will try to age with grace. Diana...I have a feeling you are grey haired, hairy, yellow teethed , ...overgrown toenails, wrinkled beyond recognition glow in the dark white,not to mention tense and judgemental of others looks.
Live your life...smoke if you want ( just keep it to yourself out in public) and don't worry about the ones who still care how they present to the world. I not only am fit ...I look damn good too. Don't knock looking good for as long as you can . If you look like I have been made to think you look by your post...you alone too.
Those with an interest in the Colorado Smoking ban may find today's posting to Forces.org to provide useful information.
April 6 [03:00 GMT] Opposition to Smoking Bans Heats up – Colorado On March 30th 2007 Forces columnist Norman Kjono appeared on the Chuck Baker Show (KKKK radio 1580) to discuss the Colorado smoking ban. Links to MP3 files for both one-hour segments of that show are provided in this commentary. In this posting Mr. Kjono discusses current events in Colorado and the damaging situation that bar owners and private clubs confront. Links to three Op-Ed works published by the Rocky Mountain News and many reader comments posted about those views are included as well. Questions posed to a member of the legislature about the smoking ban, the senator's response, and the resulting policy position of the Coalition for Equal Rights are also presented. Forces is pleased to provide a comprehensive overview of events in one state from the perspective of those who engage in boots-on-the-ground opposition to a statewide smoking ban.
Posted by norm on April 6, 2007 02:03 PMDiana Reid-
You will be my personal hero if you find a copy of that study for me- I have been looking for 2 years, since I lost my previous copy in an office move.
Ann- that last was beneath you, wasn't it? I've seen you dish with the best of them when someone gets rude to you- did I miss it when Diana got rude to you? Because I think your usually classier than that...
Hey, if I missed something, excuse me- everybody knows I get the daggers out, but fast, if I think someone is being rude on a personal level, but I haven't seen Diana do that so far...
"Because I think your usually classier than that..."
Michael, she's really not. Usually, someone will make a clear, rational argument, and Ann's response will be to rub his face in the fact the she "won" the smoking ban issue. She also puts in those silly, teenage girl texting codes (LOL, ;-), STFU, etc...)
Please don't give her too much credit.
The problem is that it is not the state legislators who are running this state any longer. It is the health care people who what all of you out there to pay through the nose. higher health care. higher cost of meds. higher medical treatments, higher insurance cost. Do you people watch tv and see the ads every day, every channel, every hour after hours. its all about contacting you doctors regarding sex. get the little blue pill and last for hours. lol. depressions--- wonder why, because these people are causing all of us to be stressed out.... don't do this, don't do that. got gas, heartburn, baddler problems, can't sleep, NO WONDER everyone falling apart. Well give me a break. You People who think you are better than everyone else (the Do Gooders ), and non smokers have made the milk of kindness turn to spoiled cottage cheese.
To the smokers keep up the fight. Its your rights your are protecting. You only live once so enjoy your freedoms while it last because the way this country is WE HAVE NO freedom any more.
Posted by doing it my way on April 7, 2007 02:44 PMThe problem is the state legislators do not run this state any longer. It is the health care people and fear mongrels who want all of you out there to pay through the nose. higher health care. higher cost of meds. higher medical treatments, higher insurance cost. Do you people watch tv and see the ads every day, every channel, every hour after hours. its all about contacting you doctors regarding sex. get the little blue pill and last for hours. lol. depressions--- wonder why ,because these people are causing all of us to be stressed out.... don't do this, don't do that. got gas, heartburn, baddler problems, can't sleep, NO WONDER everyone falling apart. Well give me a break. You People who think you are better than everyone else (the Do Gooders ), and non smokers have made the milk of kindness turn to spoiled cottage cheese.
To the smokers keep up the fight. Its your rights your are protecting. You only live once so enjoy your freedoms while it last because the way this country is going there is No freedom any more.
Ann See that you are the same old. bad mouth, insulting B---- You can't even address the issues, you just like attacking people. For some one who thinks they know it all. We wish you would show a little intelligence if you know how..
Posted by on April 7, 2007 03:02 PM"I not only am fit ...I look damn good too. Don't knock looking good for as long as you can . If you look like I have been made to think you look by your post...you alone too."
Anyone who would have to proclaim to herself "I look damn good" has a serious self-esteem problem. Please seek professional help instead of attacking innocent people. Also Ann, look into a new hobby, try to find something that will allow you to surround yourself with positive energy. All of this ugliness will surely blacken your heart and soul and it is definitely bad for your health, probably more than 2nd hand smoke.
Stop being a B*TCH and move on!
As far as removing only the smoke from all the bars as told when the Colorado Clean Air Act started I see that with the smoke the smokers have left. Something that a lot of people fail to understand is that bars are a business that will go with what their customers want. So if the nonsmokers wanted a bar to be nonsmoking then they would be nonsmoking. Money is the big thing here. I have seen a lot of places going down because the customer ask themselfs why should somebody stay where the state has siad you are not welcome here. Most of the people that I have seen go to bars are smokers. So if you can not outlaw drinking beer and other spirits outlaw the person that would go into a bar the most. So after a while then there are a lot less of the places that a person will drink at. I am a nonsmoker and have asthma and I never asked anybody to pass a law to protect me. Where I would what protection is some of the perfume that women wear. I see anything that is legal to own and is taxed then it should be up to the business to decide if they will allow to be used in their place of business.
Posted by Keith on April 7, 2007 07:12 PM