March 21, 2007 7:45 AM
If bars sell enough cigarette, patrons can light up inside
That cigarette machine in the corner will still allow bars to embrace smoking if cigarette sales generate enough revenue, reports April M. Washington. A measure designed to fix that loophole died in a legislative committee Tuesday.
Colorado's Clean Indoor Air Act says that if a bar gets 5 percent or $50,000 of its gross revenue from "tobacco products" it can continue to allow smoking.House Bill 1108 would have limited the term "tobacco products" solely to cigars.
It also would have required bars to undergo a certification process to receive a "cigar bar" exemption and install on-site humidors.
Sen. Chris Romer, D-Denver, was instrumental in the bill's demise. He said that measure didn't give bar owners who have used the exemption enough time to adjust their business plans to stave off the financial hit.
March 21, 2007
8:43 AM
Smoking King writes:
First of all RMN,
Its not getting around the ban, the language of the bill did not count those bars which have 5%, so there is not something to "get around"
Second, using words like "demise", "dodge" and "get around" only shows your nanny state-socialistic bias; Shame!
Thrid, nice job puting the Sen. picture up who actually stood up for the rights of smokers and business owners like its some sort of mug shot. I know your attempt was to earmark his face to the voters in the hopes of retaliation at the voting box, but why not put a picture of the supporters of the ban as well?
In any event, RMN reporters are missing their purpose for reporting, namely to state the news, not give their opinions.
Come on RMN reporters do your job or get out of the business!
March 21, 2007
8:59 AM
Nick Teen writes:
Are there any bars in Denver that have gotten around the ban in this way? Seems like a good business opportunity.
March 21, 2007
9:15 AM
jay writes:
Don't worry SK, you'll still have the right to give your family cancer in the privacy of your own home no matter what those evil nannystatesocialisticheathens say about it okay?
March 21, 2007
9:19 AM
gr8fuldude writes:
I think the bigger issue is just how in hell long are we going to continue to beat this dead freakin horse of an issue.
March 21, 2007
9:37 AM
Smoking KIng writes:
Actually,
While giving others cancer is important to me, I actually wanted to turn the blog topic into an issue of the lack of quality journalism is in our media, using this wanna be RMN story as an example.
March 21, 2007
9:47 AM
David Hakala writes:
Jesus H. Christ on an iPod! Doesn't anyone READ existing law before deciding there's a "loophole" in it?!
Vending machine sales are EXPLICITLY EXCLUDED from the revenue milestone that establishments must meet in order to keep selling tobacco. Tobacco products must be sold over the counter - or from a stripper's G-string, perhaps.
Furthermore, the Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act cuts off qualification for a revenue exemption at Dec. 31, 2005. You cannot get yourself exempted by boosting tobacco revenues now or ever.
Finally, any exempted establishment whose tobacco revenues fall below $50,000 in any future year loses its exemption forever.
WTF do our dully (sic) elected morons need any amendments for?
March 21, 2007
9:49 AM
David Hakala writes:
Correction: "to keep letting customers smoke", not "to keep selling tobacco".
March 21, 2007
9:55 AM
David Hakala writes:
Hm. My booboo below and the short-lived proposal to sell bar owners' property rights back to them for $500 gives me a new idea. It's all about the tax money, after all.
Sell me a smoking license that permits me to light up in bars, pool halls, and other traditional bastions of freedom, just like a fishing, hunting, or polluting license permits people to do what others find objectionable and unhealthy.
I'll pay double the license fee for the privilege of punching any Lung Nazi who objects. :-)
March 21, 2007
10:00 AM
Tree writes:
8dude-
You do know what's coming next. Utahism- where you have to join the club before going into the sin joint to have a beer.
Sure, come on in and have a drink, have to buy a $10. fatty rolled with tobaccy first.
March 21, 2007
10:05 AM
gr8fuldude writes:
Tree - Good point...between this stuff and the DUI laws, it really makes me think that booze is way more trouble than its worth. Maybe I'm just getting old.
In any case, how was the show last weekend?
March 21, 2007
10:14 AM
lg writes:
The smoking bill protects the employees of the bars. After years of working in smoky bars, I have developed lung disease. I have never smoked. When the same ban was passed in New York and San Francisco everything thought the effects would be devasting for bar owners. It wasn't. In fact more people went to bars because they didn't have to smell like smoke. People who do smoke, simply step outside and come back in.Nobody lost their "business or home" as Sen. Romer has stated. He should work in a smoky bar-he should see what lung disease is all about. Would he want his children to work in a bar, knowing that second-hand smoke will eventually kill them? Of course not-Thats not his problem. He is clearly an ignorant man who is missing the point. People outside of Denver think it's a cow town full of idiots. Thank you, Romer for confirming this.
March 21, 2007
10:27 AM
David (R) writes:
Being a reformed smoker (14 years this Labor Day), I wonder if there isn't a reasonable and reliable compromise.
One of the falacies of the "old system" was that it kept smoke away from non-smokers. If you walked into a restaurant that had smoking on one side, non-smoking on the other, and there were smokers there, you WERE going to smoke while you were there. That's not right.
It's also not right to abridge the rights of property owners to open their businesses to whichever clientele they want to, as long as the activities are legal. Further, is it really right to tell smokers they then cannot engage in smoking in an establishment where the owner would permit it? I don't think so, and I know when I smoked, I would have been totally ticked.
Isnt' there a way for bar owners to set up an area that is served by a truly effective exhaust fan/system that would placate everyone? Is it really right to simply outlaw something rather than to work toward a resolution that accomplishes a solution everyone can live with?
lg raises a valid point about employees and their health, but maybe there is a solution there too. Couldn't bartenders work in the non-smoking area (which it is anyway - can't smoke behind the bar), and smokers could simply fetch their own refills, or certain wait-staff who smoke could 'agree' to serve the smoking area.
I really think we're smart enough to figure this out - it's really a matter of whether or not we want to.
March 21, 2007
10:35 AM
David Hakala writes:
David (R) asks, "Isnt' there a way for bar owners to set up an area that is served by a truly effective exhaust fan/system that would placate everyone?"
Well, yes, there is. Collect a surcharge from every non-smoking wannabe patron to pay such a system.
Non-smokers are not a protected class, David. They are not covered by the Civil Rights Act. It is entirely within a property owner's purview to refuse service to anyone who doesn't like the smell of his establishment.
March 21, 2007
10:41 AM
Smoking King writes:
Again,
lets talk about the root of the smoking issue. Namely choice. Choice determines whether to smoke or not, whether to work in a smoking envionment, or whether to patronize a smoking establishment. The anti smoking nazi are against choices. They want to impose on business a lack of choice on how to run their estabishments, they impose their will upon others who don't share their (narrowminded) views, and they impose their opinions, through stupid frickn' stories (such as found in today's RMN). Bottom line, those against smoking should exercise their choice to STFU and go patronize their hippie commune where there is no smoking
March 21, 2007
10:48 AM
Dave writes:
I am a smoker who actually understands the smoking ban. I do not have a problem with a smoking ban in restaurants. I do think there should be some type of exemption for bars to allow smoking.
If I want to spend $20 dollars on a brandy and another $15 on a cigar I can go to the Churchill Bar in the Brown Palace and smoke away. I guess we don't care about the health of the proletarian workers who cater to the well-heeled patrons of the Brown Palace.
If I want to spend $2 on a beer while having a cigarette I am out of luck.
There is a "Cigar Bar" exemption. There should be a "Cigarette Bar" exemption.
March 21, 2007
10:50 AM
David (R) writes:
David Hakala said, "Collect a surcharge from every non-smoking wannabe patron to pay such a system."
LOL. Well, I see where you're coming from, but perhaps there is a solution that would be more of a compromise of all parties? How about these:
1) Collect a fee (in the drinks) to cover the cost of the system, based on consumption. It's not really fair to tax the "non-users" of something for the benefit of the "users", is it? I wouldn't think so.
2) Allow the establishment owners to install the system at their expense. I think many would choose this option.
March 21, 2007
10:51 AM
critter writes:
OK Ig, I will bite. Why did you keep working in smoky bars? Are you that pathetic that you could not find anything else? How about going to school and getting qualified?
March 21, 2007
10:55 AM
Rude Gus writes:
The stupid smokers in backward Colorado are fighting a losing battle. What a stupid thing to fight.
In other states, it's a done deal. Here in the "West Virginia of the west" the smokers can't handle the ban.
They will lose - eventually.
March 21, 2007
10:56 AM
Dave writes:
I am a smoker who actually understands the smoking ban. I do not have a problem with a smoking ban in restaurants. I do think there should be some type of exemption for bars to allow smoking.
If I want to spend $20 dollars on a brandy and another $15 on a cigar I can go to the Churchill Bar in the Brown Palace and smoke away. I guess we don't care about the health of the proletarian workers who cater to the well-heeled patrons of the Brown Palace.
If I want to spend $2 on a beer while having a cigarette I am out of luck.
There is a "Cigar Bar" exemption. There should be a "Cigarette Bar" exemption.
March 21, 2007
10:56 AM
David Hakala writes:
"It's not really fair to tax the "non-users" of something for the benefit of the "users", is it? "
But it's the foundation of our entire tax code, David. I don't use Titan missiles. Tobacco taxes don't go to tobacco users. Empty nesters don't use public schools. Etc.
Besides, my surcharge proposal would tax non-smokers for the clean air that they want to use.
March 21, 2007
11:13 AM
David (R) writes:
David Hakala said, "Besides, my surcharge proposal would tax non-smokers for the clean air that they want to use."
Still LOL. Okay - I see the source of our difference on this. It appears to be a "reverse view" of what would generally be a typical public view of things, but it is a valid way to look at things nonetheless. I just don't know that you should hold out a great deal of hope for gaining proponents.
And, are you trying to say that the benefits derived from the education system aren't enjoyed by the empty-nesters? I didn't think so. Before I had kids, I didn't really enjoy that "school tax" line on my house property tax bill, but I recognized that many people paid to edumacate me (pardon the Homerism) and now it was my turn to return the favor to younger generations. Addtionally, if we are attacked by another nation, you may use the Titan missles - be glad you don't have to push the button ;)
March 21, 2007
11:54 AM
Anonymous writes:
click, snap, grrrrrr....the sound of opening a can of worms...lol...
lg, the non-smoker who has lung disease from working in a smoke filled bar, question for you (and all the other non-smokers)...
Have you been exposed to asbestos or any other airborne carcinogen?
Now I am not saying that second hand smoke isn’t bad for you, again, I am not saying that, but why does anyone with a lung disease (especially the non-smoker) automatically assume the cause is from second hand smoke? Perhaps you were predisposed to getting a lung disease, perhaps you were exposed to… I am sorry to hear you have a lung disease…point is life rarely offers a simple answer, life is not fair and is about choices and even “right choices� can have bad results…let’s not forget the old cliché “ IF is the middle word of life�…just my ramblings/observations
March 21, 2007
12:16 PM
jay writes:
I see we still have some folks here who think it is their right to give other folks cancer. How arrogant.
March 21, 2007
12:31 PM
KW writes:
Which report you reading from jay? EPA 's? Tossed in the toilet by federal court. Surgeon Generals? Sorry, that was not an actual study, just a report based on the bogus EPA data.
This is about property rights. If you don't like the atmosphere in a bar, don't go in (gee, what a concept). You are allowed to enter a private business by the owners permission only and they can revoke your permission whenever they want.
This isn't the library or the post office, it's private property.
March 21, 2007
12:35 PM
Smoking KING writes:
Again Jay is missing the point; this is not a health issue, it is a control issue. The fact that you sissy non-smoker types think you are entitled to tell someone else who CHOOSES to be around smokers and smoking places what to do; thereby restricting choice, rather than take your sorry tofu eating- tree hugging-micro bear drinking asses to a place more conducive to your preferences. But for people like Jay that is not enough, they feel they have the right to not only remove choice from smokers in smoking areas, but to delude people into thinking that this is for your best interests, and that choice should only be upheld for certain people. Bottom line, don’t like smoke, don’t be near smoke. No one is forcing you to do so. But on the other hand, you non-smoking ninnies are forcing your opinions, and your laws on us.
March 21, 2007
12:43 PM
Burger King writes:
King says:
micro bear drinking asses...
What is a micro bear? Is it anything like a micro beer?
March 21, 2007
12:50 PM
smoking king writes:
its the same thing Burger King after about 6 of them.
March 21, 2007
12:53 PM
Dave writes:
This is regarding Smoking King's comments.
I am a smoker, I think the smoking ban is excessive. I think there are a number of compromises which could allow us smokers some places to go while keeping a large number smoke-free.
I state my case without rancor and without insulting those who disagree with me.
When you tell someone to "take your sorry tofu eating- tree hugging-micro bear drinking asses..." you are not contributing to the debate.
In fact you are making all of us who agree with you look petty.
Democracy is about civilized debate--not hurling insults.
And just for the record: I smoke, I hate Tofu, I love a good micro-brewed IPA, I hate watered down beer, I am concerned with the environment, and I think bars should be exempt from the smoking ban.
When things are painted with a very broad brush they get very blurry.
March 21, 2007
1:16 PM
Anonymous writes:
smoking king opens his yap to, once again, show us what a horses patoot he is ..... what makes you think you have an inherent right to pollute my air with a known carcinogen? what stupifying arrogance .... you know, I'm going to get an attorney and file a class action suit against all the tobacco companies .... for not killing their customers faster .... it's taking too long to get rid of smokers who have no compassion for others and their health
March 21, 2007
1:25 PM
Anonymous writes:
"bear drinking asses".
Sounds like an Alaskan thing to me.
March 21, 2007
1:45 PM
Anonymous writes:
KW,
Why am I not surprised that you don't think smoking causes cancer. SK, why is it that you feel the need to give other folks cancer? Why is it too much to ask you to go outside so you don't do other people harm?
I just don't understand some people.
March 21, 2007
1:46 PM
jay writes:
Sorry....just got back...that was me.
March 21, 2007
1:47 PM
Anonymous writes:
O.k. Critter, I'll bite back. First, of all I haven't spent my life working in bars. I worked my way through graduate school. Had I known I was destroying my lungs (I'm 40, those things weren't common knowledge then) I would have quit. And judging by your elitist attitude insuating that people who work in bars are "pathetic" I think you're the one who needs an education. After working in a non "service industry" job for years, I appreciate the patience, hard work and abuse that those workers put up with. They should not have to contract cancer because of the ill-informed opinions of people like you and Mr. Romer.
March 21, 2007
2:18 PM
benn writes:
I have a newbish, off-topic question.
What does (sic) stand for? As in DH's:
"WTF do our dully (sic) elected morons need any amendments for?"
March 21, 2007
2:21 PM
gr8fuldude writes:
Sic is latin for "thus"...it is used in writing, to indicate an unusual spelling. It indicates that the author is aware of the incorrect spelling, but left it in the context for effect.
March 21, 2007
2:23 PM
Blue writes:
Sic is a Latin word meaning "thus", "so", or "just as that". In writing, it is placed within square brackets and usually italicized — [sic] — to indicate that an incorrect or unusual spelling, phrase, punctuation, and/or other preceding quoted material has been reproduced verbatim from the quoted original and is not a transcription error.
March 21, 2007
2:45 PM
KW writes:
Because jay, it's about what the owner of the property wants, not what you want to force him to do.
And I never said smoke doesn't cause cancer, you said that. I was pointing out the falsified reports that most people still quote were extremely biased and created purposely to defend the argument that it's ok to take away peoples property rights.
Now if you can respond without distorting my comments I may engage in further discussion with you. Stick to what is actually written in someones post, not what you wish they wrote.
March 21, 2007
3:00 PM
Larry writes:
re:1:16 Since when is it your air? Is any place you go automatically become yours? If you walk into somewhere, is everything including the air yours? Your still turning this into smokers vs. non smokers. Your real issue should be with the bar owners themselves since they would not listen to your pleas to become non smoking. You made your case and they didn't listen or realized how much money they would lose if they listened to you. So would you go back to those places anyway? Of course not. Yeah, it's taking much longer to kill us, in comparison to car exaust, auto accidents, alcohol related deaths, etc.
1:45; Since when is it anybody elses responsibility to make sure you put yourself in a "healthy" bar? Why is too much to expect you to make a decision that best suits you and what you want? I REALLY don't understand some people.
March 21, 2007
3:08 PM
jay writes:
KW,
I'm glad you agree that smoking causes cancer. You had me worried there for a second. Furthermore, no one has the right to do others harm...unless they are defending themselves within the law. Agreed again?
March 21, 2007
3:17 PM
Anonymous writes:
Larry .... try not to be a dipshit ...... is it okay for me to open a can of hanta virus or ebola virus around you? it kills too, just a bit faster .... think of someone besides yourself
March 21, 2007
3:27 PM
Larry writes:
And what exactly makes me one? The fact that I know you don't open a can of ebola virus? The only reason you would have to open a can of ebola on anybody is to kill them. This may surprise you, but you I don't smoke to kill people. If you did open a can of ebola, I probably wouldn't stick around. Which is more action than you apparently are able to take regarding smoking. I am thinking about everybody who lost their business, everybody who lost their retreat, everybody who lost what they worked so hard to get. And who exactly are you thinking about? The people who you want to be just like you because you know what is best for them? In other words, you.
March 21, 2007
3:30 PM
jay writes:
Larry they're talking about you not having the right to do others harm.
Clear enough?
March 21, 2007
3:36 PM
Larry writes:
So I'll ask this again. When did it become my responsibility to make sure you put yourself in a "healthy" bar?
March 21, 2007
3:42 PM
jay writes:
Larry no one is asking you to do that...the law simply states that you no longer have the right to give other people cancer. Do you disagree? Do you feel you have that right?
March 21, 2007
3:49 PM
Larry writes:
You're talking about two completely different things. You are accusing smokers of walking down the street and randomly giving people injections that have cancer in it. Now if I were to walk up to somebody and ask them if they would like to be stuck with this needle containing cancer, shouldn't that person be responsible enough to say no? If they said yes, then yeah, I do have that right to give them cancer. That is so completely different than a mature adult walking into a bar of their own free will, and wanting the owner to change their business plan to suit them.
March 21, 2007
3:51 PM
jay writes:
wow
That was from left field Larry...just answer the question...do you feel you have the right to give people cancer?
March 21, 2007
3:55 PM
KW writes:
No jay, not agreed. Do you think it's ok to take away private property rights? You seem to be avoiding having to deal with this side of the issue.
March 21, 2007
3:57 PM
Larry writes:
Since I obviously exposed a BIG loophole in your arguement, and you didn't answer my question either, I will go ahead and skip the part where you lose all credibility. If I was in a place that allowed cancer to be passed around, yes, I would feel I have the right to give the person sitting next to me cancer since they made the concious decision to be there in the first place.
March 21, 2007
3:57 PM
jay writes:
So you believe you have the right to harm folks on private property KW?
March 21, 2007
3:59 PM
Larry writes:
I will even answer this one. Yes Jay, I have the right to harm people on my private property since they made the decision to be there, stay there and keep going back there. They must like it.
March 21, 2007
4:03 PM
KW writes:
Only if I bump into you jay.
And I apologize, my fault for trying to engage in intellectual conversation with you. I already knew better but thought I'd give you another try to see if you had matured yet. Maybe next year.
March 21, 2007
4:07 PM
jay writes:
lol...that's what I thought Larry.
KW...thanks for playing...why do you always go insulty when you're backed into a corner? The answer you're looking for is no...you don't, under ANY circumstances, have the right to do others harm unless you're defending yourself. That's what this law comes down to ladies. Your rights to smoke end at the tip of my nose (to quote Mr. Franklin). Got it?
March 21, 2007
4:14 PM
benn writes:
your property rights does not trump my right to life.
March 21, 2007
4:16 PM
KW writes:
Larry - Nevermind jay. He has trouble forming thoughts and discussing things. When he gets a line in his head he just keeps repeating it.
Fortunately a lot of people are starting to realize that this is a property rights issue and they're concerned that the next set of rights taken might concern them. These issues are being fought (and some won) in courts already. In the end, property rights should prevail.
Jay forgets, his right to enter a smoking bar ends when the owner says get out.
March 21, 2007
4:25 PM
jay writes:
For the record gents (and KW), I don't have a problem with private clubs allowing smoking. If you want to sell memberships and sign waivers of liability for your employees healthcare I say go nuts, spread all the cancer you want...but if you want the general public to enter your establishment you have a duty to provide a safe environment....no smoking, no asbestos in the air, no noxious fumes, etc.
Again...KW...please don't go pouting and start throwing around insults because you once again losing an argument okay? If you don't like losing arguments go get an education.
March 21, 2007
4:25 PM
KW writes:
At least we don't have to worry about seeing jay or benn at the smoking casinos. Sanity from the legistlature is rare, but damn sweet!
March 21, 2007
4:26 PM
Larry writes:
I just find it so amazing that people are still trying to eliminate any responsibility from themselves because they know that if they fail, they only have themselves to blame. I guess I can go ahead and make every last decision for jay and benn from now on since they just can't seem to make it for themselves. By the way you both are having a jar of relish for dinner tonight. It's too bad that people like jay and benn and ann seem to think that the freedoms they enjoy aren't going to go away because people might have a problem with it. They think they are immune to the law and that the law favors them. They don't want to admit that the reason casinos were exempt is because the state collects a hefty revenue from them. And if the casinos lose money, the state looses money. jay doesn't have what it takes to get on my nerves. But I'm sure he can get someone to do it for him.
March 21, 2007
4:30 PM
Larry writes:
And jay thinks that KW is loosing this discusion!!!! HAHAHA!!!
March 21, 2007
4:39 PM
KW writes:
The jays of the world like to stick their hands in a beehive, and then complain because they got stung. But rather than learn to leave the bees alone, they want legistlation outlawing stingers. No wonder you hate this country jay, you don't don't have the smarts to appreciate freedoms, let alone exercise them.
March 21, 2007
4:43 PM
Larry writes:
Well you can't expect people like jay to make sound decisions for themselves. They've gone their whole lives having somebody watch over them and keep them from making their own mistakes.
March 21, 2007
4:44 PM
benn writes:
nice rant Larry.
I am well aware that casino's were exempt because of their revenue. That doesn't mean I agree with the exemption, and in fact I think it is bullshit.
Second, you folks are plain stupid if you think we live in a totally free society where you can do whatever you want. Business has been regulated since our inception, and rightfully so. Imagine factory workers during the industrial revolution... thank god someone was there to protect them, because the market won't.
And again, just because you own a business does not suddenly give you the right to do whatever you want to the patrons and employees, regardless of whether they are they voluntarily or not. It doesn't, and there is no precedence for it. So pull your head out of your ass and realize that no matter how much you stomp your feet and wish it to be so, our society and our property rights don't follow the mirage of a path that you think they should.
March 21, 2007
4:44 PM
jay writes:
That's funny Larry...and, like KW, with a little more education you might wrap your mind around the fact that this isn't about OUR responsibility...it's about yours. YOU are responsible for your actions....and in this case your actions harm others.
Come back and see us when you're ready to admit that you don't have the right to give other folks cancer and we'll talk again.
By the way...where did you get the idea that I wouldn't admit that the casinos were exempted from the law because of state revenue?
Have a good night.
March 21, 2007
4:44 PM
Dave writes:
I am old enough to remember when you could smoke everywhere, and I do mean everywhere. Once upon a time you could smoke in elevators, grocery stores and even hospitals (in non-oxygen use areas).
I'm a smoker and I think most smokers would agree that is obnoxious.
Obviously changes needed to happen and they did over time.
I think all of us need to remember all the way back to last year when the smoking ban was being debated.
At the time a number of compromise ideas were floated. One would have allowed bars with Tavern License to stay smoking while banning it for other Hotel/Restaurant License holders.
The organization that was opposed to any compromise and wanted an all or nothing ban was the Colorado Restaurant Association. They feared the competition between establishments with one form of License and those holding another.
As it stands the exemptions are money based. Cigar bars where the well-heeled and well-connected quaff Brandy are allowed.
DIA's smoking room is odd, plenty of other airports have no smoking at all. I can't quite explain that one.
The Casino exemption just shows that the Casinos could spend more money lobbying (bribing) officials than could the Colorado Restaurant Association.
I do not have a problem with not smoking in an establishment with a kitchen. I think most smokers, on consideration, would agree. The problem is not having options.
If all you smokers want to be mad at someone or something, be mad at the Restaurant Association which pushed for an all or nothing state-wide ban.
March 21, 2007
4:47 PM
Larry writes:
How does you walking into a smoking bar and crying about it until you get your way reflect badly on me?
March 21, 2007
4:49 PM
Old Timer writes:
I am old enough to remember when they used asbestos in construction. Not being able to use asbestos impacts my construction companies profits. Why is it illegal?
March 21, 2007
5:11 PM
KW writes:
Old Timer - Because you can't see asbestos in the air. Same with health codes, you can't see ecoli. We have agencies to protect you from things common sense can't. But if you need legistlation to see smoke in a bar you are half way in the grave already.
I'm outa here. jay, benn, see ya at the casinos, er, I mean, have fun staying away from the casinos.
March 21, 2007
6:33 PM
Non-Smoker writes:
At first I supported the ban but I think it is excessive now. A golfing friend of mine has closed his 2 bars. A vast majority of his clientele smoked and non-smokers did not make up his losses. Basically a bunch of people who did not patronize his businesses made it so that those that did would not any longer. I also know people who are making a lot less in tips. They are generally smokers themselves and not happy about the loss in income. It seems to me that the "It'll Do" type lounges should have been able to allow their 90 some percent of clientele to keep smoking.
March 21, 2007
6:48 PM
Anonymous writes:
David (R) says, "are you trying to say that the benefits derived from the education system aren't enjoyed by the empty-nesters? "
Not at all. Those damned kids aren't on your lawn while they're in school. That's worth a few bucks for prison guards per year.
"if we are attacked by another nation, you may use the Titan missles "
David, if we are attacked by another nation and use the Titan missiles, there won't be any nations to defend or defend against. That is the design mission of Titan missiles.
Making people who want to use clean air in my bar "appears to be a 'reverse view' of what would generally be a typical public view of things, but it is a valid way to look at things nonetheless."
You can't have it both ways, David. If it isn't fair to charge users or non-users of things, then who's supposed to pay for things?
But I'll be happy to cut this Gordian knot by buying a smoking license that permits me to thumb my nose at people who don't like air pollution - just like Exel Energy does.
It may not be fair, but it is politically acceptable, obviously. Tens of thousands of permits to pollute are sold by the EPA and state water & air quality control agencies every year.
March 21, 2007
8:35 PM
Dave writes:
Okay seems as though someone posted from a different forum.
But what the heck....
The Titan was retired from our ICBM fleet in 1987.
I believe the last space launch of the Titan was the Titan IV which launched Cassini.
Just sayin'....
March 22, 2007
8:29 AM
Jim writes:
Why don’t we have a separate classification for Bars that allow smoking. They can be called Smoking Bars. This way small independent bar owners and customers will regain their freedom of choice to decide how they run their businesses and which business they visit.
This would only be fair and less like a Dictatorship.
At the present time and with the current law that was enacted by the politicians, and not a vote being offered to the public, there is nothing fair to anyone. Would allowing us some freedoms be too far out of the question?
March 22, 2007
8:58 AM
Anonymous writes:
you have the freedom to go outside and smoke all you want
March 22, 2007
9:22 AM
See how that works? writes:
And, you have the freedom not to go inside of a bar where smoking is allowed.
March 22, 2007
9:36 AM
Chris writes:
jay,
Smoke DOES cause cancer... FIRST HAND SMOKE. What KW was referring to are the falsified studies that state cancer can be caused by second-hand smoke. Completely false. The EPA had to increase their margin of error six-fold in order to classify tobacco as a class-a carcinogen. In all studies across the board, the instances of cancer from second-hand smoke fell into the margin of error. Hence, the studies are; inconclusive at best, propaganda at worst. And you fell for the propaganda, hook, line and sinker. Try looking into these things before you make decide to believe everything you are told. I swear this place is turning into Orwell's 1984
March 22, 2007
9:53 AM
jay writes:
wow
Now you guys are saying that second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer? Did you get this info the same place that told you that global warming doesn't exist, evolution isn't real, the earth is 5000 years old or that adult stem cell research has the same potential as embryonic stem cell research?
Seriously...where do you guys come up with this stuff?
March 22, 2007
10:44 AM
Larry writes:
And jay you STILL don't want to have to take responsibility for yourself.
March 22, 2007
10:54 AM
KW writes:
"Seriously...where do you guys come up with this stuff?"
I think that'll be jay's standard response for the day if you disagree with his talking points.
March 22, 2007
11:09 AM
jay writes:
You guys crack me up...you are back and still insisting that you have the right to give people cancer and refuse to hold yourselves (or be held) responsible for your actions.
Brilliant.
So KW...are you one of the deniers about second hand smoke causing cancer?
March 22, 2007
11:11 AM
KW writes:
Seriously jay, were do you come up with this stuff?
March 22, 2007
11:15 AM
Anonymous writes:
Why all the adrenaline over "smoker's rights" anyway??? It's not like smoking is outlawed altogether. Just go outside. Not a big deal.
Now when tobacco is outlawed altogether (which will happen eventually), then you might have something to complain about.
March 22, 2007
11:17 AM
Larry writes:
News flash here for ya jay, we are the only ones being responsible here. All you're doing is wanting us to be responsible for you. We make a choice on what we want, you refuse to want to have to make that choice for yourself. If the people didn't want cancer, they wouldn't go into a place that gave them cancer. Sounds like somebody who knows what they want right?
March 22, 2007
11:20 AM
Larry writes:
Again, smokers don't have any rights in this, non smokers don't have any rights. The only ones that think smokers are having any rights taken away is the non smokers who think we think we do.
March 22, 2007
11:23 AM
jay writes:
So again Larry,...you think you have the "right" to give folks cancer. Sorry man, just doesn't work that way.
KW...just answer the question.
Do you think second hand smoke causes cancer.
March 22, 2007
11:24 AM
Anonymous writes:
Smokers do not deserve special rights any more than the gays do.
March 22, 2007
11:31 AM
Anonymous writes:
last time those with educations checked, smoking was still a choice and homosexuality was not
March 22, 2007
11:33 AM
Ar writes:
The 'owners' need to be able to decide THEMSELVES as to having a business that allows smoking, or not. THIS way, the people will decide where to go, where to work! It should be a choice for all, not a law issued by control hungry *$$)@))%!
If you want a strip bar, you go to a strip bar. If you want a smoking bar, go!!! DO not take peoples rights from them..
March 22, 2007
11:38 AM
Larry writes:
Since jay here has yet to answer a single question anybody has asked him, I will ask another one I'm sure he won't answer. Do you think you should have the right to NOT get cancer?
March 22, 2007
11:41 AM
Nonsmoker writes:
I won't speak for jay, but I can tell you I damn well have a right to not get cancer from you. Take your disgusting habit outside. Better yet, quit altogether. You'll save money and smell not as bad. Maybe you'll even manage to get laid.
March 22, 2007
11:42 AM
jay writes:
Yes Larry...I have the right not to get cancer from your activities. See Asbestos. See Benzine. See Lead Paint. See Nuclear Waste.
March 22, 2007
11:44 AM
Larry writes:
Then you should be enough of an adult to not get cancer by not going anywhere that would give you cancer. What a concept!! You're just wanting everybody but yourself to be held accountable for you.
March 22, 2007
11:47 AM
Larry writes:
"I have the right to not get cancer from your activities" They must be your activities since you're there too. Again, when did it become my responsibility that you put yourself in a "healthy" bar?
March 22, 2007
11:50 AM
HeHeHe writes:
Actually Larrster, I don't drink or smoke, so I really don't care...I just love watching your footsoldiers get all worked up. More entertaining than Youtube.
March 22, 2007
11:51 AM
jay writes:
Sorry man, it just doesn't work that way. If you're talking about your home...go nuts. If you're talking in public...not so much. Like I've said before...if a business owner makes the decision not to allow the public in his or her establishment I don't have a problem with folks smoking in private clubs. That being said, your right to smoke doesn't out weigh my right not to get cancer.
Take it outside brother.
If you don't like the law I suggest you vote for folks that have ties to the tobacco lobby.
March 22, 2007
11:52 AM
Annette writes:
Hey nonsmoker, if you "damn well have a right to not get cancer from me" why not take your disgusting self rightousness outside and don't come back. Better yet, you should start smoking and you may be able to unplug whatever is stuck up your @$$ and start enjoying life a little.
March 22, 2007
11:58 AM
Nonsmoker writes:
Annette, it sounds like niether you nor Larrster have been laid in a while. No wonder with your crappy attitudes. Why don't you both exchange information and try to hook up later tonight.
March 22, 2007
12:01 PM
Anonymous writes:
In this "you're with me or you're against me" world, where is the ability to compromise? The world isn't black/white ...isn't it interesting that the more "self righteous" the view is the less likely a fair compromise will be reached and the more the misinformation/personal attacks fly out of the mouths of the ignorant/self righteous...
March 22, 2007
12:02 PM
Anonymous writes:
Oh government, please protect me, I'm an idiot liberal who can't make choices for myself. And even if I could I'd be too scared to.
March 22, 2007
12:06 PM
Larry writes:
So you can't actually hold on to a point you try to make so you think you might as well try to attack on something you know nothing about. I am married and "get laid" (which shows how often you do with your choice of words) more than I can keep track of. Again, a bar is not public. I don't know why you keep thinking it is. And far as hehehe is concerned, I'm sure you are getting entertainment because the non smokers are the ones getting so frazzled by having to be responsible for themselves.
March 22, 2007
12:09 PM
Anonymous writes:
Losery - Nice that you think so little of your wife that you would endanger her life so that you can get your fix. What a great husband you must be. A true paragon of manhood.
March 22, 2007
12:11 PM
Larry writes:
Thank you for proving my point again and again.
March 22, 2007
12:18 PM
benn writes:
"Now we get the backlash of moral superiority from smokers who claim that smoking is a courageous exercise of freedom. Painful irony, coming from people who are physiologically dependent on nicotine."
- Anonymous comment to the Rocky Mountain News
March 22, 2007
12:20 PM
Anonymous writes:
Seriously Larry, why would you endanger the health of your family? Do you smoke indoors at home? If so, that is exactly what you are doing. If you go outside to smoke at home, why is it such an issue in a bar.
Besides, if you're married, why not hang out at home with your wife? Why go out and drink?
March 22, 2007
12:23 PM
Larry writes:
"And all the while non smokers still spout their spasms of self satisfaction and how they are better than smokers and deserve to be protected from themselves."
Comment by Larry right here right now.
March 22, 2007
12:29 PM
Larry writes:
Since you're so concerned about my home life I'll inform you. I'm not endangering my family. My wife smokes too. No I don't smoke at home because I want the resale value of my house to be higher than it would be if I smoked inside. It's an issue at the bar because the owner gave me permission to smoke inside. My wife would go out and drink with me and we would mop the floor with people like you in pool together. We went out and drank and had fun because we could.
March 22, 2007
12:37 PM
Anonymous writes:
I continue to be astounded by all the "it's my choice" arguments... I guess I should be allowed to open a restaurant and have the filthiest kitchen on planet earth and that would be OK as long as I said "Dirty Kitchen Inside". Or I should be allowed to have child labor in my factories as long as the parents said it was OK...
Get real folks - the government IS in the business of protecting us from ourselves. And you smokers only scream when you drug habit is threatened....
jd
March 22, 2007
12:41 PM
Larry writes:
I wouldn't have a problem if you opened a restaurant and placed a sign outside that said, filthiest kitchen ever. I would be enough of an adult to make an intelligent decision not to go there. I certainly wouldn't MAKE you change what you wanted your business to be. But that's ok jd, you'll be the only one fighting for your cause when it comes time to give up your car or fast food or coffee.
March 22, 2007
12:45 PM
Anonymous writes:
You know Larry, I am not sure I'd want to marry some woman who drinks, smokes and hangs out in bars, but if it works for you, then enjoy it.
Back to the original topic, if you care enough about your home to not want it damaged by smoke, why not your body? Is your body somehow less valuable than your home?
You have some pretty skewed values pal.
March 22, 2007
12:48 PM
benn writes:
I think it is hilarious that smokers now refuse to leave their house because of their habit. They are going to forsake the outside world because they can't smoke.
Seems pretty silly to me.
It was just like the silly argument that smokers will now fly to Las Vegas to gamble... just because they can't smoke indoors. HAHAHA. You are seriously going to buy a plane ticket (what do they go for Las Vegas... $50-70 bucks? More?), spend the hour flying out there, gamble, then fly back?! HAHA... what a waste of time when you could really just step outside of your local casino and spend your 5 minutes smoking. Hilarious overreaction to the situation.
You guys are basically saying you are going to stop doing what you like to do (pool, darts, socializing, etc.) because ONE of your activities is now illegal. "If I can't do it all, then I won't do ANY of it"
Makes me laugh every time I think about a smoker moping around the house, chain smoking cigarettes, lamenting how the government has now prevented them from enjoying their activities... when really it is their ADDICTION that prevents them from enjoying the world.
March 22, 2007
12:49 PM
james writes:
Why the F would someone bring someone's marriage activies into the debate. It has nothing to do with anything being discussed, and is the sign of a poor thinker ordebater.
A healthy relationship is having a life of your own and having things to discuss. They can't happen if you're around each other 24/7.
Christ I've never seen a discussion get so inanely off topic. Oh wait yes I have. Every forum here.
james www.futuregringo.com
March 22, 2007
12:50 PM
Anonymous writes:
Larry - like most addicts, you try to deflect the argument. The facts are indisputable - smoking kills 400,000 people a year. And the 80% of us who don't smoke are going to prevail over the 20% of you who do. Like it or not, majority rules in this country.
March 22, 2007
12:51 PM
Larry writes:
I really don't see why it matters to you. You didn't go to bars, you don't go to bars, so why are you even chiming in? Is it just because you want to take freedoms away from other people? And I'm the one with the skewed views.
March 22, 2007
12:51 PM
KW writes:
JD - Your dirty kitchen argument is doesn't hold water. You can't see all of the food handling practices of a restaurant nor can you see bacteria. That is why we have health codes and a department to enforce them for your protection.
Old Timer used the same lame argument yesterday and I'll tell you the same. If you need legistlation because you can't tell if there's smoke in a bar, you have much worse problems you should be attending to.
I was west of the divide a couple weeks ago and most small town bars I stopped at scoffed at the idea of banning smoking. Their question to me was - who around here's gonna enforce that stupid law?
March 22, 2007
1:12 PM
Chris writes:
Jay, I come up with "this stuff" from solid research and not believing what everybody tells me. And just because I am in the vast minority of people who know the truth about second-hand smoke does not make me incorrect. Tell me something: is the Earth flat and the center of the universe?
March 22, 2007
1:26 PM
Anonymous writes:
And where, pray tell, is this "solid research"? How about a link.....
March 22, 2007
1:34 PM
jd writes:
KW - OK - point taken on the dirty kitchen. So, I guess I'll stick with my idea to employ child labor as the parents would have to sign off on it. Being that parents can put their kids at risk by smoking around them, I'm sure there would be no problem with me working them. Isn't it every parent's right to do what they want with their kids? And I would post a sign in plain sight describing my hiring practices. That would make it all OK, right?
March 22, 2007
1:36 PM
Larry writes:
I'm sure you do find it funny benn seeing as how the way you see things aren't the way they are. Nobody is stopping anything. I still play pool, I still drink, I still socialize. I simply do it in a place where people aren't so stuck on themselves. The non smokers were supposed to be the ones coming out of the woodwork to frequent these bars now that you can't smoke in them anymore. So where are they, why are all these bars closing? Sounds to me like it's the non smokers who are still cowaring at home. I'm not deflecting anything. Smoking kills 400,000 people a year. Car accidents kill 4.5 million people a year. Alcohol kills 3.2 million people a year. It's too bad that the 80% of non smokers don't go into bars at all. I guess your just not happy as long as people have freedoms you don't participate in.
March 22, 2007
1:38 PM
Larry writes:
Go ahead jd. But keep the responsibilty on the parents that let their kids work in those conditions.
March 22, 2007
1:43 PM
Anonymous writes:
Larry asks:
So where are they, why are all these bars closing?
Larry, you say that as though it is a bad thing. Bars closing is actually a good thing given the DUI arrests in this state. And as to why the nonsmokers are not hanging out in bars, perhaps because nonsmokers are healthier than addicts, and prefer to be outdoors running, biking, hiking, kayaking, etc.
March 22, 2007
2:06 PM
Anonymous writes:
Chris @ 1:12 .... I'd like to see the link to your solid research myself there pardner .... if true, I'm going back to the bars :) .... but I suspect it's your claim that is false, or the governments of many other countries who don't have EPA wouldn't be banning smoking in bars/pubs because of research results that show passive smoking cancer rates far higher than non-contact rates. Here are my citations, and I'd post more but we're only allowed 2 per blog post:
http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422
http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm
C'mon Chris, et al ..... buck up and decide to quit man ..... there are free help lines, free patches .... you'll feel better, smell better, your food will taste better, a cold beer tastes AWESOME, things seem brighter, and life is just better .....
March 22, 2007
2:10 PM
Larry writes:
Then why was there such a push to get it banned? You had no intention of going to a bar, so what difference does it make to you what people do in a bar? You consider it a good thing despite people loosing everything they've worked for. You consider it a good thing because you don't participate in it. Perhaps when everybody is just like you, then you will be happy.
March 22, 2007
2:12 PM
jay writes:
This one has certainly gone downhill....
Chris....all I can advise you to do is believe the science...but if you insist on being one of the Deniers that believe that second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer, global warming doesn't exist, evolution isn't valid, ESCR isn't more promising than ASCR, heliocentricity, gravity, etc etc...that's certainly your right as an American.
Personally.....I'll stick to the facts.
http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422
Just the highlights:
Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen).2
Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke. Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic, including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic ammonia and hydrogen cyanide.3
Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700-69,600 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year.4
A study found that nonsmokers exposed to environmental smoke were 25 percent more likely to have coronary heart diseases compared to nonsmokers not exposed to smoke.5
Clear enough?
Any questions?
March 22, 2007
2:13 PM
Anonymous writes:
by the way, I posted an opposing viewpoint link in that second URL just for the other view ... .but if you research them, they seem to be missing credible study references. Here are a couple other links from non-US sources:
http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/healthyliving/smokingandtobacco/passivesmoking/
http://www.actnow.com.au/Issues/Smoking_and_secondhand_smoke.aspx
Anybody have other research, especially peer-reviewed work? post it. please
March 22, 2007
2:19 PM
R writes:
Jeeez, if the nicotine addicted folks in here had their way - speeding, running red lights, arson, murder, poisoning your neighbor’s dog, taking a dump on the sidewalk, and masturbating in front of 24 hour fitness would all be legal.
Right guys - because it's all about "personal responsibility" and government shouldn't be in the business of protecting the quality of life of its' citizens.
-Especially if it interferes with your sad, little, smelly addiction.
March 22, 2007
2:20 PM
jay writes:
Sure 2:13...see my last post. There's also information on second hand smokes cancer causing properties to be had from the American Medical Association, the United States Surgeon General, the US Department of Health and various other respected health organizations world wide.
You would literally have to try to stick your head up your own ass to miss the credible, peer-reviewed data that clearly and undeniably point to the dangers of second hand smoke. For those out there in need of a Cranialrectoscopy...speak to your doctor as soon as possible. In fact, while you're there...tell your doctor that you don't think second hand smoke causes cancer and see what he/she says about your mental health as well.
March 22, 2007
2:23 PM
Anonymous writes:
"...... then you will be happy."
no Larry - we'll be happy when people who smoke can't make the rest of us miserable, if, and when, we do go back into the bars
and in the meantime, we'd just move all the way to freaking delirious if the inconvenience of having to smoke at home or in your cars makes you decide to quit because it just isn't worth $3 a pack to kill yourselves any more .... and the cost will only go up ..... you know, I've been a pall-bearer for five of my friends parents who all died of cancer and/or emphysema .... I watched those people die .... slow, painful, suffering, miserable deaths ... every one ... and it broke my heart .... it sneaks up on a person like a stealthy villain whos come to steal your breath, a little at first, more later, and eventually all of it that ends your life, and it bugs the hell out of me to see it happen to even someone I don't know ... if it happens to you, I promise there won't be a single one of those coffin-nails you can think of that will convince you it was worth it .... please stop ..... soon
March 22, 2007
2:27 PM
Larry writes:
I have a question. Why are you lumping other things into this? eg. the earth being flat, evolution, GRAVITY?! Once you get over this assumption that whatever you believe in is right, you will be able to see this ban for what it really is. KW and I have very different views on the war in Iraq, but I'm not going to say he doesn't believe in evolution, I'm not going to say that he believes that the earth is flat. This is your way of trying to be grouped into whatever mindset you think is winning at the time.
Second hand smoke does not count for 22 million heart disease deaths a year in the US. So a study (I love that you wouldn't dare say what study) says that non smokers that are exposed to smoke are 25% more likely to develop heart disease. That's 1 out of 4. Those are certainly better odds than anything you'd find in any casino. Did you know that a study says that people who don't take responsibility for themselves are 100% more likely to be incredibly childish?
March 22, 2007
2:36 PM
R writes:
I love all this preaching about personal responsibility coming from those who by according to their views in here, seem to have absolutely no consideration for anyone else's personal space, health, and or comfort.
That's like if I rear ended someone and said I wasn't liable because it was their personal responsibility due to the fact that they chose to drive their car that day.
Seriously in addition to having your lungs checked, get your brain examined on the way out.
March 22, 2007
2:37 PM
David (R) writes:
Anonymous said, ".... if, and when, we do go back into the bars"
This is actually a good point. My wife and I, and a number of people we know, simply stopped going to bars and restaurants where smoking existed because we got tired of smelling like smoke and breathing it. Maybe it's just going to take awhile to get people interested in going back out. Maybe some promotions for new "non smoking" customers?? Just a thought.
March 22, 2007
2:42 PM
Larry writes:
That's unfortunate that you have had to watch those people die in front of you. It's a lot like what I had to go through when I watched my dad die from lung cancer. But you know what the irony of these cases are? None of the people that died would EVER blame somebody else for their addiction. I really hope you don't lose any sleep over me killing myself by smoking. I would hope you have more important matters, but I appreciate your concern, I just hope that you have a better place to spend it.
R seems to think that smokers are all criminals who would be flinging feces at each other if it wasn't for their amazing insight. She doesn't seem to want to realize that non smokers speed, they litter, they vandalize, they rape, they kill.
So back to annonymous. Who is making you go into a smoking bar? Please I'd like to know who it was that kidnapped you and forced to spend all your time and money in a smokey bar against your will? Maybe it was the same people who forced me go into chuck-e-cheese and curse a blue streak in front of all the little children.
March 22, 2007
2:42 PM
Anonymous writes:
Larry says:
despite people loosing everything they've worked for...
Spelling aside, just cry me a freakin river. If you decide that peddling booze is a good career, then you know that you are working in a very regulated industry, subject to MANY laws. "Loosing" everything you've worked for is no different than the manual laborer who gets replaced by automation, or the family farmer who gets displaced by corporate mega-farms. It's called retraining - Get some new skills, because chances are you will need to shift gears at some point in your working life. (premature cancer deaths exempted)
March 22, 2007
2:47 PM
jay writes:
"Why are you lumping other things into this? eg. the earth being flat, evolution, GRAVITY?! "
I'm glad you asked Larry. Because not believing that second hand smoke causes cancer is just as ridiculous as not believing in gravity, heliocentricity, evolution, etc.
"So a study (I love that you wouldn't dare say what study) says that non smokers that are exposed to smoke are 25% more likely to develop heart disease."
You obviously haven't mastered the art of cutting and pasting....highlight the link I posted, press control C, then click on your IE navigation window, press control V....all sources, references and information you'll need to determine the validity of the obviously personally inconvenient facts are there. Good luck Larry...if you don't believe the AMA, the ALA, the Surgeon General, the US DOH, etc...I urge you to speak to your doctor about the dangers of first hand and second hand smoke....there's no need for you to kill yourself and/or those around you because of ignorance...the information is out there, credible and readily available.
March 22, 2007
2:48 PM
Anonymous writes:
"I'd like to know who it was that kidnapped you and forced to spend all your time and money in a smokey bar" ....... holy smokes Larry (now that was funny!!) .... my friend, nobody kidnapped me or forced me to go there ...... but don't I deserve to be able to go in, have a beer, maybe dance a little, shoot the breeze with friends, scratch my nuts, or whatever, without having to sit in smoke that is dangerous? that's all .... what if I'd just like to go in for a drink ..... I don't smoke .... why should I have to?
March 22, 2007
2:54 PM
KW writes:
"That's like if I rear ended someone and said I wasn't liable because it was their personal responsibility due to the fact that they chose to drive their car that day."
No that wouldn't be the same. The person driving in fornt of you had a RIGHT to be on the road. Our roadways are PUBLIC PROPERTY, belonging to the taxpayers. A bar is PRIVATE PROPERTY. If you don't like what they serve or how they serve it, go elsewhere.
It's too bad you feel you have the right to make them change the menu.
March 22, 2007
2:56 PM
R writes:
Hey Larry,
I can see that metaphores are lost on you.
No, I don't think that smokers in general are feces throwing criminals.
Mostly they are just sad, little minded people who flush thier money, personal appearence, and health down the toilet.
Apparently none of these things matter much to you - So, you sir have my pity.
I too have lost way to many loved ones to cancer and tobacco.
Your choices are you own Larry.
You clearly just need to learn about personal responsibility in regards to not making others suffer as a direct result of YOUR choices.
March 22, 2007
3:07 PM
R writes:
"That's like if I rear ended someone and said I wasn't liable because it was their personal responsibility due to the fact that they chose to drive their car that day."
No that wouldn't be the same. The person driving in fornt of you had a RIGHT to be on the road. Our roadways are PUBLIC PROPERTY, belonging to the taxpayers. A bar is PRIVATE PROPERTY. If you don't like what they serve or how they serve it, go elsewhere.
It's too bad you feel you have the right to make them change the menu.
Hey KW,
My lungs are also PRIVATE PROPERTY!
I can't pee on your shoes if we are in a public park or private pub.
To a non-smoker 2nd hand smoke is just as bad of a violation of personal space.
March 22, 2007
3:21 PM
Larry writes:
So you wouldn't mind if nobody had any remorse for you losing your job to a robot or overseas? I know the dangers of smoking, and I know of the dangers to the people around me, the point is, that the people around me choose to be in the same surroundings, under the same circumstances.
No, sorry you don't deserve to be in a place where you can do all the things you mentioned. Not because I think you are a lower form of life, I'm sure you are a delightful person to be around as long as everything is the way you want it. My point is, that there were places to go where you could scratch your nuts or whatever without having to be surrounded by smoke. The option was always there. And the fact your taking your rage out on smokers instead of the bar owners who were the ones who denied your plea to be non smoking, is as much laughable almost as it is confusing. Dang I don't appear the way R wants me to. Boohoo, cry me a freaking river. I spend so much time caring about what others think of me to realize that. It was YOUR choice to be in the thing you despise so much. You hate smoke so much, but yet you keep going back. How does that reflect badly on me?
March 22, 2007
3:24 PM
Larry writes:
Why the change in tune R?
March 22, 2007
3:27 PM
KW writes:
R sounds vaguely like the liberal lacky jay, don't you think. Make that exactly. Try to cloak yourself better next time jay.
March 22, 2007
3:30 PM
Larry writes:
At least they are finally able to admit that a bar is a private property.
March 22, 2007
3:40 PM
Anonymous writes:
I don't believe I changed my tune one bit Larry.
Yep a bar is private property.
So is my clothes, hair, and lungs. Keep cherrypicking there Larr.
KW - No, I'm not Jay. But, thanks for the compliment. That "liberal lackey" as you put it is one of the few posters around here with a brain and a rational, level headed arguement.
Now, do either one of you bone-heads have a real response to my last posts?
March 22, 2007
3:47 PM
R writes:
BTW - Larry, I'm glad your comfortable with your oder, and your premature aging.
I could care less.
March 22, 2007
4:14 PM
Larry writes:
Sure, I will. Your lungs are your private property, then take care of them and don't expose them to smoke.
March 22, 2007
4:15 PM
KW writes:
Yes jay, I can repsond - Your lungs are not real property. They are your responsibility though. Maybe keep them from entering a smoking establishment in the first place by going to a NON SMOKING restaurant or bar. You know, it's like not letting your kids go see R or X rated movies. Naw, that would be over your head. You'd rather sue so the movie house could only show the movies you wanted to see.
March 22, 2007
4:22 PM
benn writes:
Actually KW, as I said yesterday, we have a Right to Life. Your smoking harms my Right to Life.
Second, private property is not the same between business and residence. Business face regulations that protect customers, employees, the environment, etc. It is because a business serves the public. Therefore, even though you may think that your business should be free to do as it pleases, it cannot as it must also adhere to public interest.
Now, you might WANT businesses to be free to do as they wish. But WANTING something does not make it so. So, you hold the belief that business SHOULD be free to do as they please. But you are confusing your desire for something with how things really work.
Does that make sense to ya? So, stop spouting off about private property and business rights that don't exist.
I do agree with Jay, if you want to run a private club (which is different then a business), then you can have all the smoking you want.
March 22, 2007
4:26 PM
KW writes:
Just remember benn, your right to life ends where my property begins.
March 22, 2007
4:27 PM
benn writes:
maybe your residential property, but certainly not your business however.
March 22, 2007
4:33 PM
benn writes:
And I also suspect that my Right to Life doesn't even end just by being on your property. I am pretty sure that I would have to pose a threat for you to be allowed to shoot me.
Just because someone is ON my property does not give me the right to kill them.
March 22, 2007
4:37 PM
R writes:
KW - Last I checked human organs are property.
Larry - I can avoid smoke much better these days. Thanks to the Colorado Indoor Clean Air Law!
You guys really need to get over this. Play nice and step outside to smoke. What's the big deal?
I do everytime I fart!
March 22, 2007
4:39 PM
KW writes:
You need to go attend some business law classes, brush up on property rights as well benn. You really don't have any idea what your talking about.
March 22, 2007
4:43 PM
R writes:
benn needs to brush up on property law KW?
This coming from a guy who thinks he can shoot someone for walking on his front yard!
March 22, 2007
4:46 PM
benn writes:
Why don't you enlighten me all ignorant KW?
I just want to be sure I understand. You are saying that if I am standing on your lawn, suddenly you have the right to kill me. So, I stand there, not doing anything, and that forfeits my right to life?
Not likely. I might have to serve some time in jail for trespassing, but not as much as you would for killing a non-threatening person.
Anyway, that is all off-topic.
Please, tell me about business law, because when I look around I see all kinds of laws and regulations placed on business, whether you like it or not. And I know one thing about law, and that is precedence... so there appears to be plenty precedence in our brief history to support regulation of activities that harm employees and customers... and even the environment.
I like it when you post KW, your ignorance shines on through.
March 22, 2007
5:02 PM
Bottom Line writes:
The bottom line is that smoking in a bar is against the law. The anger from smokers is understandable and predictable - it happens in every city, in every state, in every nation, that the majority finally exercise their right to mandate what can, and cannot, be done in various places. There are many, many things that are against the law that violate a person's "rights" in some sense that is roughly equivalent to the infringement on smokers. For example, no liquor sales after 1pm, no driving with a BAC of > .08%, no drinking in public (in most places), no smoking in restaurants, no smoking in food stores, no animals (but assist dogs) in food stores, and I'm sure HUNDREDS of other things could be added. Smokers, you not going to win this one, at least not directly. The best you can hope for are conciliatory measures like someone mentioned regarding exhaust fans or the like. Or you can break the law, and as enforcement gets better, and the penalties grow increasingly stringent, you can eventually prepare to spend some quality time with Bubba, Horker, and Grips in jail. Bet on it.
March 22, 2007
5:30 PM
KW writes:
Benn, leave legal matters to attorneys. You really don't understand property rights at all and your wasting space trying to. If you need legal advice, pay a retainer fee and go see one.
March 22, 2007
6:09 PM
Anonymous writes:
David (R) said: "Maybe some promotions for new "non smoking" customers?? Just a thought."
I thought the new promotion was the smoke free environment. So you're not happy with that, you need more. How about double priced drinks to make up for the loss of business?
March 22, 2007
7:19 PM
benn writes:
Oh KW, you silly ignorant monkey. I like it when you say I don't know anything, yet your only response is to "go pay a lawyer". Quite the compelling argument!
You must have been the captain of the debate team with logic such as yours!
March 22, 2007
8:35 PM
David (R) writes:
6:09 said, "..... you need more."
Okay. So we've established that you're a disgruntled smoker. Let's see if we have anything to actually discuss or build on, or if you simply wish to express your anger and frustration.
The "promotion" was, and is, the smoke free environment. But consider for a minute that many young people in the 80's and 90's left the night-life scene - some because they just got tired of that path, some because they took on familial roles, some for many other reasons of which one was they got tired of the unhealthy atmosphere which was becoming far more publicized at that time. I'm in that last group, as are a lot of folks I know. Frankly, we got "out of the habit" of going to those places, and my comment about "promotions" was intended to say that maybe there was a way to get that group "back in the groove" now.
You might also have noticed in previous posts that I have been one of the more supportive people here toward smokers, even suggesting that we find alternatives that would work for everyone. Of course, we could just piss off and alienate those of us who advocate for a reasonable solution for all, and then maybe some future solution will receive far less support than it could have gotten.
March 22, 2007
10:22 PM
6:09 writes:
David (R),
Sorry to jump on you, I had to rant!
I am one of the ones who got tired of the rowdy scene (and the costs) at the "night clubs" and took up a more familial role. I have been going outside almost every where I go to partake of my habit for many more years than the ban has been in effect. I do this because I come from a non-smoking family and respect the rights of others.
I do however like to go out for a drink with my buddies once a month or so and would like to sit and have a cigarette (or even a cigar now and then) and a drink. Now I have to go outside to get my fix.
The bar we go to used to have 50-75% smokers in it on any night. My problem is that now with the smoking ban, there are about half as many people in the bar and most of us are smokers (the employees all are too). Why can't the bar owner decide to be smoke free or not?
PS, there are plenty of other "nightclubs in town also"
March 23, 2007
7:45 AM
David (R) writes:
6:09 -
I think there should be smoking allowed at some level. Another possible solution is to have some way to select some number of bars that are "smoking bars". For example, in an average residential neighborhood, maybe none are allowed. Where there is a mix of greater than 15% business mixed with residential, maybe there arer two allow per 1500 lineal feet. And where business is greater than 50% something like 1 or 2 in every 3 bars would be smoking bars.
The hard part is who gets to be one? A drawing? Maybe let them buy a special license? Perhaps the patrons could buy a "smokers pass" for a few bucks a year and the funds put into fund for health care for non-smoking employees? I don't know, there are loads of potential solutions. And if bar owners can put in exhaust systems that actually work well, I'm all for sections like restaurants.
My general mode of thought on anything that is exclusionary or exclusive is that we ought to look for ways to bring people together rather than separate them, as we have enough of those things already. But the health risks are too valid to ignore. And business owners who have a shrunken customer base do have very real concerns because of this legislation.
Maybe smoking customers will come in anyway, but I know that when I smoked and went to bars, my smoking went way up. I might have smoked 6 the rest of the day, but I'd easily go through that pack and one more from 7pm to midnight while drinking. It was probably the very worst thing I could be doing - smoking like a train, drinking like a fish, and eating greasy bar food most nights. It's a wonder I lived through it - a testimony to the miraculous human mechanism.
I just think there are workable solutions that would make everyone happy. When it comes to passing a law about something that is deemed serious, legislatures tend to take the more invasive/intrusive action first, and then are open to modifications that provide relief in some areas, and I think that if a proposal was well thought out, and properly presented, there is a good chance that some compromise(s) could be built in. There have to be twenty or more good ideas that would work in this case. We just have to work together to find them. I hate government intervention even more than most guys.
March 23, 2007
8:23 AM
KW writes:
"Oh KW, you silly ignorant monkey."
benn - Your comments say a lot about your character. When you resort to these inane comments you've already lost the battle.
What amazes me most is that you can sit here arguing FOR peoples rights on other issues but when the violation of someones elses rights suits your desires, your ok with that.
March 23, 2007
11:09 AM
jay writes:
So KW...I never did get an answer from you.
Do you believe that second hand smoke causes cancer?
April 7, 2007
9:17 AM
Gregory writes:
I think it is safe to say that this ban is about "odor control" and not health hazards.
If you dig into the reports that all of these studies are based on you will find flaws and fabrications. Especially concerning any ventilated areas or outdoor areas.
Should we go ahead and file legislation to ban indoor and outdoor grills, wood smoke, lawn equipment, perfumes and deodorants, cleaning detergents, and fireworks.
If anyone on the BAN side of the debate thinks these things arent more dangerous, I propose a study where I will be confined in a room with second hand smoke, and they in a room with any of these things, then see who succumbs first.