Smokers revolt
wait dont die as then who would have to buy insurance for all of the uninsured children if not enough smokers were taxed to make the payments? DB Coffman, What Constitutional right would that be? Maybe you are referring to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution? About liberty? Your liberty ends where mine begins. That means that your rights only extend as far as they do not negatively impact the rights of others. Smoking, in this instance, impacts my right to remain smoke free. Go ahead and petition all you want, as is your right. Smoke until your lungs collapse for all I care (at least until we get a single payer health system, at which time, my liberties are again effected by your selfishness). Tobacco does indeed remain a legal product. It's use indoors in a public domain is not. Way to make an ignorant rear end of yourself. Thanks for making me smile this afternoon. Instances of the word "liberal" in this letter - 3 Hate to break it to you, Coffman, but the Colorado Clean Air Act was sponsored by a Democrat AND a Republican. Nice try, though ... 1:44, got a link to backup the claim of a $10 tax on a single cigar? What's that, no? Then quit being an idiot. And DB Coffman - go ahead, have your little smoke-in. Go ahead and sing kumbaya. I'm sure you'll get an outpouring of support. I'll look forward to the press coverage. Wow, that is some serious civil disobediance! Using a legal product, wow! I'm sure everyone will be amazed at the heights of your civil disobediance by......smoking a cigarette outside. Call the gestapo! "Denver liberal establishment would probably have to spend at least two weeks in Democrat rehab." It was Mike May, a Republican who sponsored the bill and Governor Owens, a Republican who signed it into law. So It doesn't matter to nannyist Republicans, they are the ones infringing on your Constitutional rights. "Smoking, in this instance, impacts my right to remain smoke free." Dan, You have a 'right' to remain somke free on someone else's private property? A smoker's revolt? God, do we have to get off our bar stool for that, too? Geez...why is everyone making it so hard for us to kill ourselves. And all just because we don't care if our little cancer sticks cause others some discomfort or disease. Geez...waht about our right to be inconsiderate...what about our right to burden the health care system with all the illnesses we will have from years of smoking our ciggies...emphezema, cancer, COPD, etc.... FYI - there is a quicker way to kill yourselves.. Instead of sticking a Benson & Hedges in your mouth, try a Smith & Wesson. When and if you stage your revolt at the Capitol D.B. Coffman...be sure to fly the Mexican flag THAT will get you news coverage and the Governors attention immediately!! I don't have a beef with where smokers smoke (althoug tobacco smoke is stinky, especially on the clothes of us non-smokers, but hey, I can deal with that) What burns me up about smokers (nice pun...i know) is the fact that many of them litter...they toss their butts everywhere, all the time...out the car window, on the sidewalk...is it such a tough thing to throw that away, you lazy bum!! i will concede some smokers are considerate in this regard, but I feel you are a vast minority in the galaxy of tobacco smokers. Imagine all the butts on the capitol steps once the protest is over. You have a 'right' to remain somke free on someone else's private property? Yes, Mike, we do...if that person opens up that property to do business in the public realm. Don't bother responding. I already know that you're never going to understand the difference between private property (like a home) and business property (like a bar). They're completely different but you, like Allan Campbell, are one-trick ponies when it comes to this subject. You've both got minds like a steel trap. Everything that gets in it...dies there. DickBrain Coffman writes: "Colorado and the rest of the smoke Nazis are infringing on my Constitutional rights" And just what rights are these exactly, and if it is such a heinous violation, why not call the ACLU in? They love to take on controversial cases. 3:04, I do understand the difference between private property and business property. What other legal activities that you consider to be a nuisance, do you have the 'right' to be free from on my business property? Smokers are revolting. Mike, In a public establishment, that is regulated by the state, a smokers liberty is limited to how much it impacts someone else's liberty. If an establishment is truly private, with dues and such, then being a member of that establishment means that I give up my expected liberties to conform to that "rules" of that establishment. As we typically write of taverns, and now casinos, the purpose of frequenting those establishments is not to smoke, but to consume an alcoholic beverage or to gamble, and it is at that point that a smokers liberty to smoke begins to interview with a non-smokers liberty to not. Either way, I don't have a "right" to smoke or to not smoke. I have the personal liberty to choose to smoke or to not, but a smokers liberty should not interfere with my liberty to not smoke. Sorry, busy busy day. Not interview, I meant to write impact. My second to last paragraph should read: "As we typically write of taverns, and now casinos, the purpose of frequenting those establishments is not to smoke, but to consume an alcoholic beverage or to gamble, and it is at that point that a smokers liberty to smoke begins to impact a non-smokers liberty to not." Should you be the owner of a tavern, or any other business that was impacted by this new law, it is now incumbent on you to change your marketing or business plan, to entice those that do not smoke to enter and enjoy themselves in your establishment. For example, offer drink specials, if you have the space, open a "smoking area" outside and during the summer have a portable beer tap of your customers favorite beer, employ a local favorite band to get customers in the door, if you offer food, offer food specials, put up flyers, advertise on the radio or in the paper. There are many things that tavern owners could have done to lessen the impact of the local drunk that sits at the bar all evening and smokes, and now is too pissed off to go out. If these customers really were your loyal bread and butter customers, they would also find a way to make it happen. But they don't care about you and your business either. It is not the law that impacted your business tavern owners. It was your own failure to make adjustments to either attract new customers, or find ways to keep the ones you depend on coming through the door and still respecting the law of Colorado. Perhaps in honor of Mr. Coffman, his proposed demonstration on the Capitol steps could be called a Coff-in: not only because of the amount of coughin' that the protest will cause, but the coffins that smokers seem to be eager to get to. Tbone, here's one link: http://www.sptimes.com/2007/07/17/Business/Cigarmakers_in_a_pani.shtml Dan, "Either way, I don't have a "right" to smoke or to not smoke." Thank you. "I have the personal liberty to choose to smoke or to not, but a smokers liberty should not interfere with my liberty to not smoke." I don't see how it ever would; unless, the smoker is holding you down and breathing into your face. You may leave the establishment if the environment isn't to your liking, or you can ask the owner/manager to seat you in a smoke free area, request that the smoker stop smoking, etc... I don't understand the rush to pass laws to change behavior in someone else's business. Find someplace else that better suits your likes. I don't own a business (I said "my business property" earlier just to ask a question). I also don't smoke. I prefer non-smoking establishments, so I benefit from the smoking ban. I am just more bothered by the sense of entitlement some people have. I would never dream that my wishes would matter at all, other than the owner making what he believes to be a good business decision. If that decision is to allow smoking; so be it. There they go again......A whole lot of hot air(or is that flames) at smokers who they THINK won't fight back...... Dan2, "Should you be the owner of a tavern, or any other business that was impacted by this new law, it is now incumbent on you to change your marketing or business plan, to entice those that do not smoke to enter and enjoy themselves in your establishment" So instead of you having to make a personal choice of either entering a smoking establishment or not entering, you are forcing businesses to change their entire business practices because you don't like smoking. I am not very happy with the XXX stores so I choose not to enter. What right should I have to make them change their business practices simply because it offends me. This is still America if I am not mistaken. At least it use to be! jgd777-This is still America,and we have a longstanding tradition of first giving government the opportunity to fix problems like this one.If they do,fine.If they don't,well a determined group of angry people can put some effective,if somewhat rough and ready solutions together.So now's a real good time for all you antis to do the right thing and back off. Dan 2, You seem to forget that even those private clubs, with dues paying members, and keyed doors, were included in this anti-smoking mess. And they were also told that it was all for a SMOKE FREE COLORADO. What "rights" do you have to tell them that, because YOU don't smoke, they can't? Your arguments about private property being subject to your prejudices and dislikes, whether or not you even bother to patronize the business in question - or belong to the private club - are hogwash. Thank you, OG. Privately owned businesses should have the right to choose between smoking and smoke free. Employees/potential employees are free to choose whether or not they work in a smoking establishment. As a customer Dan2 has the right to not patronize a smoking establishment in favor of one with a smoke free policy. Just because a business exists doesn't mean that it has to cater to all people all the time. People seem to lack understanding of what a right is. Smoking is not a right it is a privilage. But I have heard the arguement that smokers use saying that if a non smoker does not like the enviroment created by cigarette smoke they can go elsewhere or stay home. So according to this logic non smokers should stay home so smokers can do what they want wherever they want. I am sorry but I do have a personal stake in this. My 2 1/2 year old son has asthma and going into a smoke filled establishment causes him to have an asthma attack but he should just stay home. You want to smoke do so but in your car or home! This is a democarcy and with 80% of people being non smokers is it not logical to think that the minority in this case smokers should be allowed to adversely affect the majority in persuit of their habit. It is totally idiotic to think that a buisiness has to change their buisiness plan because they have to be non smoking. I am sorry if you are a bar you still serve drinks and people come in. If you are a dining establishment serve food. If anything it makes doing buisiness easier because you do not have to attempt to accomodate 2 entirely different groups of people. Another individual decided to attempt to make a case for smoking saying that they were offended by obese people and thought that they should be targeted as well. I have to say that is a weak comparison. while obesity is a problem an obese person has no adverse affects on the health of anyone but themselves. Smokers affect those around them because of the second hand smoke emitted by them. Standing next to an obese person that is eating something my only affect me in that i might get a desire to eat whatever they are but eating it is still my choice. Standing next to a smoker does harm me because now I have to breathe in smoke which i normally do not do. So I am sorry smokers but your habit affects those around you and substance abuse is not a right. Yes I called substance abuse nicotine is a drug and if one cannot eat a meal out without having a cigarette then there is an addiction and hence the term substance abuse. So using smokers logic if you want to smoke----stay home. "So according to this logic non smokers should stay home so smokers can do what they want wherever they want." Nonsense. This isn't an issue of smokers doing what they want, or non-smokers having the 'right' to be free from smoke. It has to do with the property owner deciding what HE allows on HIS property. The decision should be his, and his alone. You're right marinecorpsat, standing next to a smoker does harm me because now I have to breathe in smoke which i normally do not do. Of course, you had to put yourself in that position in the first place. You had to notice a smoker, go stand next to them, and then decide to complain about it. Nobody has ever advocated that you stay home if you don't like smoke. Simply make a decision based on what you want to be exposed to. If you want to go to a smoking establishment, then go, if you don't want to be around smoke, go to a non smoking establishment. It's pretty simple once you stand up for yourself. That's probably why nobody has ever had to cater to two different types of people. Everybody had the free will to either enter or not enter a place they thought to be bad for their health. Now, I can't defend your decision to take your 2 1/2 year old son to a bar with you, but perhaps you shouldn't be a parent if you can't keep your urges under control. The only way this supposed majority of non smokers would have any kind of health issues, it's because they purposefully went into the smoking establishment. If they were able to control themselves, and stay out, then there would be nothing for them to complain about. I know though, your need to be seen in public in front of your co-workers is more important than the business owners right to run his business the way he wants. If one wanted to have a cigarette with a meal, that is the business owners decision to allow it or not. I will agree with you that 80% of people don't smoke, but you can't automatically assume that these 80% are going into bars. A majority of these 80%'ers go to an already non smoking place. Actually the obese comment holds more water than your "I don't like smoke so I shouldn't be subjected to it" base. Obese people drive up insurance costs due to surgeries, prescription drugs, weight loss programs, and especially laying in the hospital bed struggling to breathe. So in fact, obese people cost the average person more money than smokers ever could. Go ahead and call me a drug addict, go ahead and tell me I'm driving America into the ground. Spew out any and all comments you think will justify taking the owners rights away from them even though you have no plans on patronizing the places you wanted to be let in smoke free. If you throw your cigarrette butts on the ground, out your car window, ect., you are If you can't go 45-60 mins. at a restaurant RICHARD LEE LANDRUM II I need to add; I believe bar owners should be the ones who decide if smoking is allowed in their establishments, not the nanny government. Oh, your pointless rambling about how your better than everybody else really have opened my eyes. How could I have been so blind? It must have been the tobacco companies that forced me to smoke. I can pass off any responsibility for myself too. The manager that we tied up in the back so we could smoke must've gotten loose. "Your arguments about private property being subject to your prejudices and dislikes, whether or not you even bother to patronize the business in question - or belong to the private club - are hogwash." Posted by Old Grouch on July 18, 2007 07:09 AM Did OG really post that comment? If so... YOU DA MAN, OG!!! But please refrain from posting too many things I agree with. People will begin to talk. KW, Thanks. I guess it's a small world after all. But, seriously, there are times when I wonder at the tom foolery some of the people posting seem to thik is sound and rational argument for their position. I didn't go on to comment about the stupidity of the remark about it being incumbent upon the business owner to change his program to entice new customers. But, that one is just too assinine to be worth it. Just goes to show that Dan 2 knows nothing whatsoever about business. But . . . ! I think he's proved that many times already anyway. Fanatics just prove what I've said so many times already: Those who don't want to learn, won't. But the saddest thing of all is, they always want to "teach" others. I really don't want to butt in (I slay myself), but rather than saying that Dan2 knows nothing about business, let's just say that we know how he would run his business instead. To follow your line of thought, Larry, we might find than Dan2 would reduce his business to ashes constantly having to adjust his business plan to fit within the shifting parameters of the nanny state. That is a very real possibility. But if I could borrow a line from others on this site, if he can't offer something that appeals to more people, he shouldn't be in business. I can't dis Dan2 on his stand (although I should). I usually am in agreement with him on many subjects and debating with OG. Go figure??? OK, I can't resist. Dan2 - Why do you consider a private business "public." Just because you open (and license) a business doesn't mean you have to do business with every person that walks in your door. A business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone. A "public" place refers to such places as the post office, or the library. Government (taxpayer) owned property that is there for the use of all taxpayers. First, I don't mind if you smoke if you don't mind if I pass gas in your face. KW, It appears that we have entered a bizarre parallel universe. I can't believe we are on the same side of an issue with OG, and Dan2 is on the opposite side; especially since Dan2 leans libertarian and dislikes government involvement in issues such as this. hey t-bum some of us really work so here is your like. ask some one to read it to you as it has big words in there http://www.sptimes.com/2007/07/17/Business/Cigarmakers_in_a_pani.shtml So far all of the anti-smoking crowd has skirted providing a direct answer to the questions posed repeatedly. Why should a private business cater to the non-smoking population if access to that business, and employment with that business, is left to the free choice of individuals? Just because a private business exists doesn't mean that it has to cater to all the people all the time. If that were to be the case, we have quite a few cans of worms to deal with (i.e., XXX stores catering to the family shopping trip -- the family doesn't have to go in, but if it exists it should be able to accommodate all people, not just porno affection ados). In other words, if you don't want to be around smokers, don't go to, or seek employment with, local bars that allow smoking. Your rights aren't trampled. You have the option of going to a bar that doesn't allow smoking. Bill Johnson wrote a column a few days ago concerning the bingo halls that are closing because of the smoking ban. He and other fans of the game are suffering because the halls can't sustain enough players to cover the overhead. Why can't there be bingo halls that allow smoking along with bingo halls that don't allow smoking? People have a CHOICE then to patronize the venue of their choice. Instead, everybody loses because the nanny state is dictating how private business operates. I agree mike. We've entered the bloggerz-zone. I just wish I could type the in theme music here... Frankly Jeff, if I was stupid enough to go into a place that allowed farting in other patrons face, no it wouldn't bother me. I knew what went on in there beforehand, it obviously would not have bothered me enough to go to a place that didn't allow farting in other peoples faces. Secondly, nobody has ever said that fat people give fat to skinny people. The way this topic came about was a comment about smokers draining health care. You take a smoker and an overly obese person, and you can bet that the costs to everybody around will lean towards the obese person. Since I and most smokers I know carry an empty soda can in their car to use as an ash tray, I'm not sure why non smokers have more ash trays in their cars, they certainly don't use them. But you're right, my car does not have an ash tray built in. Maybe we should make them get rid of their cars because they don't use the ash tray? What does voting have to do with this issue, other than the fact that it was not voted on? Don't confuse them with the facts coz they already made up their minds! PS: OG you are awesome! Dan, Since when did the congress pass a constitutional amendment granting you a constitutional right to not self inflict yourself to the alleged health hazards of second hand smoke anywhere or anytime based on your personal preferences? Some interesting thoughts here. First of all I have seen those that do not want to restrict smoking ask repeatedly why should buisinesses cater to non smokers, Well the simple answer is this....On average 80% of the population do not smoke. So by "catering" to them you are giving the majority of the people what they are wanting. the article about bingo parlors closing because of smoking bans was very short sided and did not explore any other possible economic factors that could come into play. Could bingo parlors be suffering from a lack of disposable income of its patrons due to higher fuel costs and rise in food prices. How about alot of ARM mortgages going on the rise. Bingo is a frivolus activity that is usually cut first when money gets tight. So while some will stay away due to not being allowed to smoke inside but there are other factors. Where did I say my son went to bars with me? If smokers had their way we could not go into a restaurant and eat as a family without exposure to smoke. I also keep hearing that a non smoker has a choice to to work or goto a place that allowes smoking, Well on the same line a smoker has the right to choose not to indulge in their habit and go into a place that does not allow smoking. Separate smoking areas do not work smoke gets everywhere, I find it funny that about 20% of the population want to force their habit on the oter 80%.. With that being said if the 80% of non smokers were not working at establishments that allowed smoking smoking establishments would have a hard time with staffing. How hard is it to have a meal and do so without a cigarette burning at the table. Good grief it takes no more than 2 hours to eat a meal. Smoking inside public places is inconsiderate and rude. I find it funny that there are smokers that would complain about a person talking loudly on a cell phone or listening to music too loudly saying that it is annoying them but is the same breath they are willing to exhale smoke into the air that is not only annoying to those around them but also harmful. That is hypocritical. The bottom line is this...... The majority non smoking public should not have to deal with the minority smokers habit. Smokers rights are not being oppressed because substance abuse is not a right. In fact a smoker can still smoke basically all that has happened is you are being told where you can smoke or cant smoke. How hard is that to understand? I am also tired of hearing about buisiness owners rights and the right for them to choose what they do. Buisiness IS regulated already! According to the logic that a buisiness owner should be able to choose what is permitted in their establishment then a bar owner should be allow to sell alcohol to a 10 year old if they chose to. Because according to smokers logic it is the buisiness owners right to establish policy and they should be allowed to choose how to conduct buisiness! But we live in the real world and there is regulation place on buisiness all the time, Gun dealers cannot sell fully automatic weapons, Cigarettes cant be sold to anyone under 18 and the list goes on and on. So what is the difference? Smokers cry that it is an infringement on a buisiness owner's right to dictate what happens on their property but the reality is it a law restricting a smokers ability to partake of their habit wherever they want others be damned. Smoking is a selfish habit and when the poor property owners defense is raised it shows that to be very true. Smokers do not care about anyone or anything but fulfilling their habit. It is very annoying when a smoker tries to play the property rights card. Be honest...... Simply say I want to smoke wherever i want because I am selfish and care only about my wants and not the comfort or health of those around me. Now is that too hard? Nice try Marine..but, you definitely belong hook line and sinker to the nanny state. Or, worse, you're someone who likes to impose your will on others as only you have the moral and correct and judgment as to how everybody should live. Semper fi PS Marine - I'm not a smoker. Where do you get this stuff? On average 80% of the population is non smoking, good for them, nobody is disputing that. This 80% also doesn't go into bars. So in essense, they are not even there. The majority is getting what they want in places they are not going in. Yeah that makes a lot of sense. "I also keep hearing that a non smoker has a choice to to work or goto a place that allowes smoking, Well on the same line a smoker has the right to choose not to indulge in their habit and go into a place that does not allow smoking." Very true, that's why smokers went to a place that allowed smoking. It's a crazy concept I know but going to a place that offers what you want? Wow. Seems pretty simple to everybody else. Nobody has ever tried to force you to be around smoke, if they have, please tell us their names so we get some justice started. The 20% of smokers simply don't want the 80% of non smokers to dictate how and where we can go. You're right, smoking inside public areas is rude and inconsiderate. That's probably a good thing that a bar or restaraunt is not public property. I find that funny too, perhaps you could share with us who these people are? The bottom line is, the non smoking public NEVER had to deal with the habit of smokers. Nobody ever said that smoking is a right. And the fact you keep bringing this up only solidifies your arguement as simply, you don't like it. So we are being told where we can and can't smoke on somebody elses property. Obviously that doesn't bother you because you don't smoke. Does that make it ok? But let's say that you were no longer allowed to boil water between the hours of 7am and 9pm. You can't ask any questions, that's just the way it is. You can still boil water just not during those times. Would that make it ok for you? How hard is that to understand? Don't try to speak on behalf of people you despise, you show yourself as a moron every time you do that. Business is regulated by a law, does that all of a sudden make it alright? A bar cannot sell alcohol to a 10 year old because it is against the law. Gun dealers cannot sell full auto weapons because they are illegal. Cigarettes cannot be sold to under 18 year olds because it is against the law. What's the difference in all of this? Smoking is still a legal activity. Why should a bar remain open when their business is to get people drunk and then turn them loose on the roads? Nobody wanted to restrict the places you could go. Just to simply take responsibiity for yourself and don't go into a place that engages in an activity you don't want to be a part of. Of course, then you would only have yourself to blame and I know that is the last thing you would want. You could've gone to a non smoking establishment all you wanted, but then you wouldn't have anything to complain about and your head would cave in. No, it's not too hard to say that, but the reason nobody will say it is because that's not the way it is. The reason I didn't worry too much about the comfort of others around me was because I knew that they had to have made the choice themselves to enter, they made the choice to sit down, and they made the choice to go back. Everything I was doing was allowed by the owner, and didn't make anybody stand up and walk out. My simple believe is that a business owner has the right to run his business as he sees fit (without delving into moral turpitude issues like serving alcohol to minors, or offering prostitution). If he wants to allow smoking than everyone who goes in there knows ahead of time what type of business they are entering. Same if the owner wants a non smoking business. You, Marine, and other non smokers, have the right and ability to enter either business. If you enter the smokers business you then have the choice to smoke or abstain. If a smoker enters an non smoking business they are obligated to refrain from smoking while on the premises - no split section covering smoking or non smoking seating. According to your logic the vast majority of business should elect to be non smoking as that gives them a greater pool of potential customers. And I think that is just great - I'll be frequenting those establishments. But I will not attempt to force my choice as to smoking on anyone else in their selection of a smoking business -- I don't hold my judgment in a sanctimonious manner as to be the vanguard of civilized society. "I find it funny that about 20% of the population want to force their habit on the oter 80%.." No, they don't. The restaurant owner should decide- not smokers, not non-smokers. "According to the logic that a buisiness owner should be able to choose what is permitted in their establishment then a bar owner should be allow to sell alcohol to a 10 year old if they chose to." That's silly. Providing alcohol to minors is illegal EVERYWHERE; whether selling, or giving. It's not a legal activity that has been made illegal on private property. Try to come up with some better analogies. Just out of sheer curiosity, I really wonder how many of the anti-tobacco fanatics are also now involved with the upcoming anti-abortion referendum - the one that would deny even MEDICAL abortions in case of danger to the woman's health. The one that defines a blastocyst as a "person", from the moment sperm and egg come together, and even would outlaw any form of contraception that might prevent this "person" from full development, such as the "Morning After Pill". The freakos, whackos, and nut cases that want a SMOKE FREE COLORADO, certainly must be jumping on the new bandwagon in droves. What better way to force their own stupidity on the rest of us? From even before the cradle all the way to the grave. After all, it's certainly true that, "Birds of a feather flock together." Good old Cowlorado, where the inmates not only run the asylum, but have taken over the political process as well. Mike claims: "That's silly. Providing alcohol to minors is illegal EVERYWHERE; whether selling, or giving." Well now, so is smoking indoors also illegal. What's the argument. You yourself claim thatpurposefully breaking the law is silly. Maybe now, you see how lame your argument is. Glad we could debunk that one for you. Philip, I never claimed that purposefully breaking the law is silly. I said his analogy is silly. "Well now, so is smoking indoors also illegal." Uh, no it's not. It's illegal to smoke indoors in SOME places. It is ALWAYS illegal to give booze to a kid. With that argument, you are using the smoking ban to argue in favor of the smoking ban. That doesn't make any sense. "Glad we could debunk that one for you." Try again, genius. why is someone a freak for wanting a smoke free enviroment? But I still stand behing the premise that buisiness is already regulated so the property owner rights arguement is garbage. And alot of the regulation is designed to protect EVERYONE from potential harm, property owners are told how many people can be in a buisiness, there are health and safety codes to be followed. And as a consumer you can goto a buisiness that did not have those controls in place if they were not mandated by local or state law but with that being said the smoking ban is simply another regulation that is to be followed. How hard is that to understand? regulation is a fact of life! If you and your family are in a restaurant eating a meal and someone comes in and sits at the table right behind you and starts talking loudly and in a vulgar manner on a cell phone right behind your child would that not be annoying? Under a smokers logic it does not matter about those around them because they can leave if they do not like it! But i would be safe to say that you would be annoyed and probably complain. Now under the smokers logic you have a choice not to go into a place that allows cell phone usage. But my question is this... Why should I as a non smoker and father of an asthmatic child have to look for a smoke free dining establishment or simply know that we will endure the smoke of others to eat out? Why should my son have to pay for the SELLFISHNESS of smokers. I know the standard smokers answer.. Stay home or go elsewhere. Now tell me why cant a smoker stay home to indulge their habit? Funny how the stay home or go elsewhere agruement only seems to be onesided. So until someone can come up with a valid arguement as to why smoking bans are wrong the whining needs to stop why is someone a freak for wanting a smoke free enviroment? But I still stand behing the premise that buisiness is already regulated so the property owner rights arguement is garbage. And alot of the regulation is designed to protect EVERYONE from potential harm, property owners are told how many people can be in a buisiness, there are health and safety codes to be followed. And as a consumer you can goto a buisiness that did not have those controls in place if they were not mandated by local or state law but with that being said the smoking ban is simply another regulation that is to be followed. How hard is that to understand? regulation is a fact of life! If you and your family are in a restaurant eating a meal and someone comes in and sits at the table right behind you and starts talking loudly and in a vulgar manner on a cell phone right behind your child would that not be annoying? Under a smokers logic it does not matter about those around them because they can leave if they do not like it! But i would be safe to say that you would be annoyed and probably complain. Now under the smokers logic you have a choice not to go into a place that allows cell phone usage. But my question is this... Why should I as a non smoker and father of an asthmatic child have to look for a smoke free dining establishment or simply know that we will endure the smoke of others to eat out? Why should my son have to pay for the SELLFISHNESS of smokers. I know the standard smokers answer.. Stay home or go elsewhere. Now tell me why cant a smoker stay home to indulge their habit? Funny how the stay home or go elsewhere agruement only seems to be onesided. So until someone can come up with a valid arguement as to why smoking bans are wrong the whining needs to stop why is someone a freak for wanting a smoke free enviroment? But I still stand behing the premise that buisiness is already regulated so the property owner rights arguement is garbage. And alot of the regulation is designed to protect EVERYONE from potential harm, property owners are told how many people can be in a buisiness, there are health and safety codes to be followed. And as a consumer you can goto a buisiness that did not have those controls in place if they were not mandated by local or state law but with that being said the smoking ban is simply another regulation that is to be followed. How hard is that to understand? regulation is a fact of life! If you and your family are in a restaurant eating a meal and someone comes in and sits at the table right behind you and starts talking loudly and in a vulgar manner on a cell phone right behind your child would that not be annoying? Under a smokers logic it does not matter about those around them because they can leave if they do not like it! But i would be safe to say that you would be annoyed and probably complain. Now under the smokers logic you have a choice not to go into a place that allows cell phone usage. But my question is this... Why should I as a non smoker and father of an asthmatic child have to look for a smoke free dining establishment or simply know that we will endure the smoke of others to eat out? Why should my son have to pay for the SELLFISHNESS of smokers. I know the standard smokers answer.. Stay home or go elsewhere. Now tell me why cant a smoker stay home to indulge their habit? Funny how the stay home or go elsewhere agruement only seems to be onesided. So until someone can come up with a valid arguement as to why smoking bans are wrong the whining needs to stop "But I still stand behing the premise that buisiness is already regulated so the property owner rights arguement is garbage. And alot of the regulation is designed to protect EVERYONE from potential harm, property owners are told how many people can be in a buisiness, there are health and safety codes to be followed." Fire codes, health codes, standards for the proper storage of food, etc... protect the UNSUSPECTING from harm. In a restaurant, do you know if the cook washed his hands between defecating and preparing your meal? Do you know if the raw chicken was left on a counter for 8 hours before ending up in your chicken salad? Do you know if there are rats and rat feces in the kitchen? No, that is why there is government regulation in those areas. With smoking; the owner can simply post a sign that says: "Smoking Establishment", or "Non-Smoking Establishment". You are then able to make your own informed decision of whether or not to patronize that establishment. "If you and your family are in a restaurant eating a meal and someone comes in and sits at the table right behind you and starts talking loudly and in a vulgar manner on a cell phone right behind your child would that not be annoying? Under a smokers logic it does not matter about those around them because they can leave if they do not like it! But i would be safe to say that you would be annoyed and probably complain." Yes, I would complain but, I would not try to pass a law making it illegal to talk loudly on a cell phone in a restaurant. "So until someone can come up with a valid arguement as to why smoking bans are wrong the whining needs to stop" First of all, it's not "whining". Grow up and take some responsibility for yourself. Don't use government to force other people to behave the way you would like them to on THEIR property. I couldn't have said it any better OG!! Agree,agree,agree! Mike claims: "First of all, it's not "whining". Actually it is. Let me clue you in: 1. The law has been passed. All of the complaining on the parts of Mike, Larry and all of the others having temper tantrums is not going to do any good. Please go and stand in the corner, hold your breath, soil your diaper or refuse to eat your dinner. Tantrums rarely work, and they won't in this case. By the way, my gf wanted to go to The Grizzly Rose last night, and it was great! Came out not stinking of smoke, which was nice for a change. W, Great job not addressing any of my points. So, according to "W", taking issue with a law based in nannyism that tramples all over the rights of private property owners is "whining". We should just accept it, and not speak out against unjust laws. Thanks, W. "By the way, my gf wanted to go to The Grizzly Rose last night, and it was great! Came out not stinking of smoke, which was nice for a change." And you have a 'right' to go there, correct? You are entitled to go wherever you want and not deal with odors you consider to be unpleasant, correct? Why? So when we bring actual points to the table, debate merits and concequences, and are able to defend our position beyond the simple "I don't like it", that is whining? Geeze,guys! Arguing with the antis is like trying to teach a pig to sing.It wastes your time and annoys the pig.It's an absolute fact that there are enough nonsmokers to support a huge diversity of nonsmoking businesses- enough to accomodate each and every one of them spending their tobacco tax checks until Hell freezes over and none of them will ever get even a whiff of legal smoke.
I advocate a smokers day on the steps or lawn of the Capitol building.
Yep, total civil disob
The Denver
The cost to Denver in trying to police this. .
A major class
the liberals are looking at a bill today in DC to add a tax of $10.00 to a cigar.
Instances of the word "Democrat" in this letter - 3
I am, BTW, adamantly opposed to the smoking ban.
The nanny state mentality (which, don't get me wrong, does exist) is not restricted to one party. Examples that come to mind are the string of states in which Republicans have proposed banning sex toys.
Demand that Denver become a "Santuary City" for smokers!
Steal a few IDs while you're there, you will get anything you ask for in a nano second.
Posted by Mike on July 17, 2007 02:34 PM
a worthless scumbag.
table without your drug, you should take a serious look at your addiction. Heroine
addicts do better that that.
LONGMONT
Second, the "fat" argument. Can any smoker provide me with a single example of somebody's fat cells leeping from a fat person to a skinny person? Second hand fat maybe?
Third, why do only non-smokers have ashtrays in their cars?
Fourth, I love the "I'm a smoker and I vote" types. As a non-smoker I will be able to vote 20 years longer.
"My 2 1/2 year old son has asthma and going into a smoke filled establishment causes him to have an asthma attack " Why would you purposefully take your asthma ridden child into a smoking establishment? What kind of parent are you? Seems to me like if you had taken your child to a place a child was supposed to go, then it wouldn't even be an issue. Sorry to say, but if smokers had our way, you would take your family to a family eatery.
Your rights are not compromised as a non smoker in either case. Albeit your health might be if you go into the smoking allowed business.
Second of all, the responsibility is on you to come up with a valid argument as to why it is necessary and just.
2. The law has been broadened to include casinos.
3. Action is being proposed in the legislature to eliminate the smoking lounge at DIA due to ventilation issues.
Okay,Jimminy,you say,then why is there a smoking ban? The answer is that the group who doesn't like smoking is the group that doesn't like the USA.They're the spiritual descendants of the '30s intellectuals who helped people like Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.Later on they became the Fair Play For Cuba Committee,the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee,the hippies f**king in the mud at Woodstock.They deposed Presidents Johnson and Nixon,and elected Jimmy Carter to bend his knee to the Persians.They made people of color think bastardy is not child abuse.Now they're after us.They can deliver votes and can enable greedy governments(is there any other kind?) to extort literally billions in tobacco settlements and onerous taxes.Their stock in trade is the exaltation of group rights,and the hatred of individual rights.All of us smokers know only too well their smirking condescension and utter disrespect for anyone not of their disgusting mindset.
OF COURSE,the smoking ban is garbage law.OF COURSE it's based on junk science.The antis know it too, but it'll take something a little more vigorous than sweet reason to make them see the value of doing the right thing and backing off.Way off.