Smoking ban
In response to Raoul De Chant’s letter titled “Where there’s smoke".
In short Mr. De Chant calls Colorado’s smoking ban “denormalizing smoking by condescending nanny-state health fanatics who want to control our lives and eliminate freedom of choice.”
How about the fact cigarette smoke plain stinks and I don’t want to smell it in public facilities. Like Steve Martin said, when someone asks you, “Mind if I smoke?” The simple reply is, “No, mind if I fart.
It’s one of my habits.” Inhale some of that.
This letter has not been edited.
So personal freedom is important only if it is in your best interest.
Posted by z on July 20, 2007 02:12 PMI guess it's a good thing you never had to smell smoke in a public facility Stephen, otherwise you might actually have an outside chance at having a point. At least now we've proven that Stephen does not like the smell of smoke. That's all the proof you need of why the ban is great.
Posted by Larry on July 20, 2007 02:23 PM
"How about the fact cigarette smoke plain stinks and I don’t want to smell it in public facilities."
First of all, they are PRIVATE facilities that invite the public to come in.
But, I think it's great! Now we are going to extend the ban to anything that could be considered malodorous.
I can't wait to legally ban bad breath, body odor, women wearing too much perfume, dirty diapers, stinky feet, ...
Posted by Mike on July 20, 2007 02:31 PMFirst of all, there is no smoking "ban." Smoking is still legal in Colorado. It has merely been RESTRICTED.
There is a big difference between banning something completely and putting limitis on something.
Never in my life have I seen such whining about being allowed to pollute everyone else's personal space just so people can enjoy their unhealthy addiction to nicotine.
Smokers, if you just HAVE to have your tobacco fix while indoors -- why not switch over to snuff? Or how about staying home, or smoking in your car, or better yet -- how about quitting?
If that isn't satisfactory, then you just need to accept the fact that the voters have decided. That's democracy. Get over it.
Posted by Republican Guy on July 20, 2007 02:50 PMIf that isn't satisfactory, then you just need to accept the fact that the voters have decided. That's democracy. Get over it.
Posted by Republican Guy on July 20, 2007 02:50 PM
When did the voters decide this? By voters do you mean the few government officials who voted on this matter, or do you imply that because the officials were nominally voted into office, voters agree with everything they do?
Posted by Roy on July 20, 2007 02:55 PM"Never in my life have I seen such whining about being allowed to pollute everyone else's personal space just so people can enjoy their unhealthy addiction to nicotine."
So is everywhere you go your own personal space?
If you just HAVE to be in a place that allows smoking indoors.....I can't even go further. How about going to a place that didn't allow smoking? Is it really that much of a hardship to expose yourself to what you want to be exposed to?
Posted by Larry on July 20, 2007 02:57 PMWhat did the voters decide?
Posted by Larry on July 20, 2007 03:01 PMSo tell me where it stops? First we tell you you can't smoke in a public building. Then your favorite restaraunt or bar. Next they'll ticket you for smoking in your car. Soon, if these people get thier way, they'll say we can't smoke in our homes or anywhere outside.
What do we ban next? We've already opened the door to the possibility of legislating behavior. Why do people always think they know best how to live my life?
Many people I know smoke and all of them respec t the fact that I do not. They don't smoke in my home out of respect for me, but where would I get off telling them where they can light up. If I don't like the way it smells or impacts my health then it is totaly in my right to leave the area and come back when they're finished.
Ask any of the bars and taverns if thier profits are up or down because of this BAN on behavior. Think about it people, After they get this pushed through, what are they going to go after next?
Rep Guy,
What is your stance on Cigar Bars? Should they be eliminated also?
Posted by bwr on July 20, 2007 06:37 PMI guess Roy is not familiar with our representative form of government. Here it is in a nutshell and I will try to use simple words as I feel you will be unable to comprehend, whoops sorry, understand larger words. We have a representative form of government. We elect government officials to make the laws. Yes sometimes they will enact laws that you will not agree with, but hey that is life.
Why don't you go light up a smoke and cry over your perceived loss of freedom because you sure can't do that at a bar. Ha-ha.
Sean,
I have always wondered why a non-smoker would go into an establishment that catered to smokers, and then complain about the smoke. Just curious!
Posted by jgd777 on July 20, 2007 11:08 PMThe losses: over fifty bars closed, not one of them could be said to be marginal businesses; Over six hundred people layed off or lost their jobs because of closures, 82% of them single moms; vendors and suppliers businesses down 25% to 50%; many bingo halls, pool halls on the verge of closing; Taxi cabs loosing fares and. $16.8 million dollars in lost business for bars and taverns alone as of April 07. These are documented statistics, not exagerated or contrived as is done by tobacco control. losses are verified by the Colorado Department of Revenue. This puts the bald faced lie to tobacco controls propaganda that bans are good for business and that nonsmokers would flock to bars and taverns when the ban was passed. That is just two of the lies they have duped the public with. There is more concerning second hand smoke but, I won't go into that with people who say, " don't confuse me with the facts, I've got my mind made up". All will be revealed in good time and I would be be very surprised if the public, once they know the extent to which tobacco control advocates have gone and the sleazy, lying ways they used in the process, does not demand a severe punishment for them because of the the way in which they were lied to and deceived. This is all documented and validated information from government sources so, before you fly off the handle with an invective diatribe, you might want to check your sources and ask them to prove that the Colorado Department of Revenue and all the bar and tavern owners are lying.
Posted by Allen Campbell on July 21, 2007 06:57 AMSome comments:
1. Mike is an idiot.
2. The smoking ban is great!
3. I don't care about the (few) dingy dive bars that closed. That's is good news.
4. The smoking ban is different because smoke impacts non-smokers. The arguers are too stupid to see that.
5. Most smokers are lower class people.
There is no debate. It's over, idiots. Can't wait until the casino restriction kicks in!
Posted by Peace and Love on July 21, 2007 10:53 AMSome comments:
1. Mike is an idiot.
2. The smoking ban is great!
3. I don't care about the (few) dingy dive bars that closed. That's good news.
4. The smoking ban is different because smoke impacts non-smokers. The arguers are too stupid to see that.
5. Most smokers are lower class people.
There is no debate. It's over, idiots. Can't wait until the casino restriction kicks in!
Posted by Peace and Love on July 21, 2007 10:54 AMPeace and Love,
Why do you feel entitled to have other people's private property free from smoke? You have no right to be there, yet you think you have the right to have the environment the way you want it.
"3. I don't care about the (few) dingy dive bars that closed. That's good news."
Why is that good news? Were those bars somehow affecting your life?
"4. The smoking ban is different because smoke impacts non-smokers. The arguers are too stupid to see that."
Only if the non-smokers choose to let it impact them.
You sure throw out a lot of insults for someone who calls himself/herself, "Peace and Love".
Idiot.
Posted by Mike on July 21, 2007 11:35 AMPeace,ha,ha, and Love,ho,ho.
1. Mike, unlike you, is right on point about opening the door to yet more oppression, your's, I hope, is next so that you might experience fear and anger over something that matters to your selfish egotistic self
2. The smoking ban is great because it destroys hard working people and their families' lives, livelihoods and their future? You would have fit in perfectly with Hitlers Nazism view of what's wrong and right in the world.
3.How do you justify calling the over 50 bars that closed dingy dives? Did you frequent all of them in your sadistic way to get exposed to second hand smoke.
4.I'm not stupid, in fact a valid argument could be made that you are the stupid one because you, as a non smoker, seem to have a hard time going to places that are non smoking or is it that you are one those people who actually enjoy subjecting yourself to what you hate so you can bitch about it
5. Do you know a lot of smokers and did you hang out with them in places where smoking was going on long enough for you to reach a reasonable and considered opinion they are of a lower class than yourself, if so you I must assume, at least during that time you were in that same class yourself . Now, by virtue of your inability to write anything that is not an invective diatribe, I assume you grew tired of the class and sunk to a far lower class of person.
Posted by Allen Campbell on July 21, 2007 12:44 PMTo get relief from yourself, that is.
Posted by Allen Campbell on July 21, 2007 12:47 PMOn second thought that should have been ---to get relief from your miserable self distructive, self hating self. You sir, make a mockery of peace and love every time you put pen to paper, as it were.
Posted by Allen Campbell on July 21, 2007 12:56 PMAllen Campbell - Link please on the statistics you site, or is this just more unsubstantiated crap?
You've never heard such whining as we have from those children having a temper tantrum from not getting their way. Next they will sit in the corner, hold their breath and soil their diapers (which will smell better at least)
Posted by Philip on July 21, 2007 01:21 PMAllen - Link please on the statistics you site, or is this more unsubstantiated crap?
Nothing beats watching the nicotine addicts whine about the loss of their "rights". Where was all this outrage when dubya was pushing the Unpatriot Act up our backsides?
What will they do next, hold their breath, sit in the corner, and soil their diapers? At least it will smell better.
Posted by Philip on July 21, 2007 01:30 PMAllen - Would you please also provide financial statements of the 50 bars that you assert were not "Marginal Businesses".
Thanks Buddy!
Posted by PWA on July 21, 2007 01:34 PMI enjoyed reading Mike and his boyfriend Allen Campbell's responses. But I will not engage in a war of wits with unarmed adversaries.
Friends, do you notice how mad smokers get when you call them on their vile habit? It's amusing just how defensive they get! And then they reach for silly arguments based on "facts" that they make up as they go! :)
Smokers are, for the most part, weak-willed, low-class people hooked on a disgusting habit that negatively impacts not only their health (who cares about them?), but also the health of those around them.
Their right to contaminate the air is being curtailed more every day, and they can't handle it while we jump for joy.
Smokers are a dying breed....
Boy, it seems that "peace and love" along with "phillip" have a hard time justifying not allowing smokers to have their own bars to indulge in their habits...if it (a business) exists we non smokers have the right to enter it without smoke being present! The is simply because it's right and anybody who disagrees with us is an immature little brat who soils his diapers.
It's really hard to debate with such exemplary and precise logic. Save your time "Allen Campbell", you can't argue with fools ass they will win every time based on their experience.
Posted by carl on July 21, 2007 01:43 PMPeace and Love,
I don't smoke. Why do you assume that anyone who is against the ban, must be a smoker?
"Nothing beats watching the nicotine addicts whine about the loss of their 'rights'."
Philip,
Who has said anything about smoker's rights?
This about the rights of property owners to decide what goes on in their building, on their property.
Smokers and non-smokers have the same rights in this area. That right (or obligation) is to decide which establishment best suits their tastes; a smoking or, a non-smoking one.
Why should any individual, or group, have the right to dictate what legal activities take place on another's private property; when they don't even have a right to be on that property? We are all there at the INVITATION of the owner.
Posted by Mike on July 21, 2007 02:19 PMMike, wake up. You are tilting at windmills. You are arguing a moot point. The debate is over. In case you're not aware of it, the smoking ban went into effect OVER A YEAR AGO!!!!
Posted by Peace and Love on July 21, 2007 02:38 PMPeace and Love,
Why don't you respond to any of my points? Because you have no justification for the ban, other than it benefits you.
Please, try to give me one defensible reason why it is okay to ban the consumption of a legal product on private property.
Take heart Mike! I am going to push for a law that prohibits IDIOTS from leaving their houses or posting on the internet. They are contaminating the minds of other people. You might want to find a soft comfortable chair Peace and Love because your days of being able to leave your house are limited
Posted by jgd777 on July 21, 2007 02:46 PMFunny how the nouveau-Marxists howl about how the smoking ban is law now so that's the end of the debate.How's that working on immigration?
I'll repeat myself and say that there's nothing to be gained by debating an anti.They KNOW the smoking ban is garbage law.
There is no nice way of saying that if we want to get equity,we'll have to gather in large numbers and do some confronting.I'm sorry to say also that from the tenor of some of the posts hereabouts,particularly from "Peace and Love" among others we may have to provide against the probability of violence against us.
Peace, whata joke and Love, which you know nothing about.
I have never met Mike nor am I his boyfriend, whatever you meant by that, please explain and justify. Of course a comment like that is indicative of the mindless and unsubstantiated verboseness zealots like you employ in your hate filled and illconsidered diatribes. And my idiot friend, any time you want to test my resolve or will, I suggest you try first to get estate in order, I can make myself available at the nearest dojo.
Posted by Allen Campbell on July 22, 2007 07:10 AMPWA. I can't provide financial statements from the bars that closed specifically because that is privleged attorney/ client information. That's right my friend, a damages lawsuit is in the works. If however you would like to see a list of those closures go to stopthebans.com, which will take you to the Coalition for Equal Rights web site. Tobacoo Contol advocates have mounted a propaganda effort alleging that bars and taverns which have closed were marginal businesses in the first place. Of course the Colorado Department of Revenue reports that verify that bars and taverns have suffered a state wide $16.8 million loss since the smoking ban went into effect, thereby also reducing tax revenue to the state which will have to be made up from increased taxes, put the lie to that and also their contention that nonsmokers would flock to bars and taverns when the ban went into effect. We have more devastating news for tobacco control but, that will all come out at the proper and prudent time.
Posted by Allen Campbell on July 22, 2007 07:40 AMRepublican Guy needs to get his facts straight: The voters did not decide to restrict smoking. The legislature and the lobbyists did. I'm all for letting the voters decide. Then maybe the voters wil actually think about what their decision really means. The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. It's simple. If you are opposed to tobacco don't patronize establishments that allow it.
Posted by Stan B on July 22, 2007 10:45 AMStan...
When did smoking become a right?
And where is recreational drug use (which smoking is) constitutionally protected?
You do realize that at one time in our history cocain and heroin were legal recreational drugs as well do you not? According to smokers logic should we remove the restriction on them as well?
Until someone that says smoking is a right can show a specific constitutional protection afforded to smokers they need to be quiet about rights SUBSTANCE ABUSE (IE SMOKING) IS NOT A RIGHT IT IS A CHOICE!
Marinecorpsat,
I don't think Stan was referring to any rights that smokers might hold. It is the right of the property owner to decide what legal activities he allows on his property that is under assault.
I don't know why that is so difficult to understand. I have never heard anyone arguing for the right to smoke where they please. The decision should be left to the property owner, then potential customers can decide if they want to patronize a certain establishment, or not.
Posted by Mike on July 23, 2007 03:06 PMA business owner is already under regulation. So the arguement is a pointless arguement. regulation is part of doing business. How hard is this to understand? Property owners already cannot just do what they please and allow their customers to make the choice to go patronize them. Many municipalities have open container laws and food establishments are under health regulations, there are capacity regulations and in some states there are regulations limiting the days and hours that items like alcohol can be sold. If we really want to take the property owners rights arguement all the way then they could exclude any ethnic groups from coming in and we could take a huge step backwards. So since we already have regulation please explain to me how a smoking ban is any different. Regulation on alcohol consumption and other regulations controling consumption of various things have been on the books for years and I never heard the level of mindless complaining that we hear with the pro smoking movement. Honestly I do not think that smokers care about personal property owners but only themselves and the fact that they cannot smoke where ever they want. So let us get down to the real issue here smokers do not like the idea that they cannot continue to partake of their habit wherever they want with no consideration of the many non smokers around them. Come on let's be honest about our true motives.
Posted by Marinecorpsat on July 23, 2007 03:43 PMMarinecorpsat,
Let me refute your "I do not think that smokers care about personal property owners but only themselves and the fact that they cannot smoke where ever they want." statement.
I do not smoke.
I do not own a business.
I do care about the rights of business owners being trampled by people who, for selfish reasons, think that they should have a say in the matter. The only person who should make the decision is the owner.
"So since we already have regulation please explain to me how a smoking ban is any different."
This has been done many times, but let me do it again.
Most regulations protect the customers from dangers that are unknown, and or, beyond their control:
-Unsanitary kitchens
-Improperly stored meat
-Food handlers not washing their hands after defecating
-Fire exit dangers if capacity limits are exceeded
Require that a sign be posted that says "Smoking", or "Non-Smoking" and each individual can then make a decision of whether or not to enter that business.
"Come on let's be honest about our true motives."
Yes, let us. My motive is to protect the rights of property owners. I don't give a damn about smokers, or non-smokers, because neither of them should have a say in the matter. Your motive is your own comfort on someone else's property. Your motive is your sense of entitlement without regard to the fact that you don't own the property, have a right to be on the property, and aren't obligated to be on the property; yet you still think you should be the one to make the decision.
That's very selfish and sad.
Posted by Mike on July 23, 2007 04:03 PM