[an error occurred while processing this directive]

LATEST SUBMISSIONS

Smoking ban and property rights

Monday, April 16 at 12:01 AM

This Speakout has not been edited

By William Autrey, Boulder

Ari Armstrong “wish[es] the Rocky and other papers had made a greater attempt to discuss the heart of the argument against the [smoking] ban", namely that “people have the right to control their own property and associate freely". That Armstrong had 21 column inches (prime newspaper real estate) to do so and could only come up with “owners of private establishments have every right to set smoking policy there and patrons and employees are free to come or leave as they wish” is pretty pathetic. That the Rocky teases readers with a pull quote that “the smoking ban is an assault on private property rights, and property rights are a centerpiece of a free society” without delivering an incisive argument is even more pathetic.

Without the luxury of 21 column inches, I can offer several arguments for limiting property rights when it comes to hazardous substances like cigarette smoke:

1) Property rights do not give owners the right to dispose of hazardous materials in the public commons; raw sewage cannot be dumped in the gutter, tainted mining runoff cannot be diverted into waterways, smokestack emissions cannot exceed tolerable limits. Why then are smokers permitted to pollute the common air with hazardous emissions, especially in confined, often densely populated indoor areas?

2) Proprietors might own their property, but when they hang an “open for business” sign, their rights are not absolute. Their desire to sell to and profit from the public opens them to the rules of “public accommodation” for which they forfeit certain property rights in exchange for doing business. The right to sell comes with a responsibility for the health of your customers while on your property.

3) Armstrong’s simplistic assertion that “patrons and employees are free to come and leave as they wish” belies the fact that for many bars and restaurants smoking is a sales tool, where smoking patrons are used to “dry out” the non-smoking customers who will then purchase drinks to quench their parched throats. Owners simply don’t chase non-smokers from their establishments. A level playing field (smoke-free air) improves the health of all, which is bad business for proprietors craving a reliable revenue stream.

4) Yes, “property rights are a centerpiece of a free society", but why does your right to inhale carcinogenic material include disposing of it in the air I breathe? What about my right to access the untainted resources my body needs to function correctly? Protecting your right to poison your body shouldn’t trump my right to live free of sharing your choice of slow death.

I’m eager to hear a reasoned and passionate defense of a smoker’s “right” to poison the rest of us. Unfortunately, Armstrong and the Rocky waste space, paper, and ink on empty hyperbole.

READER COMMENTS

Cord,

If you like smoke smo much and just have to do it indoors, why don't you just stay home?

Or better yet, why don't you seal yourself up in your house and light a few barbecue grills? That way, you could get plenty of toxic smoke into your lungs.

Posted by Joe J. on April 19, 2007 08:29 AM

What I'd like to know is:
Just how did these anti-smoking zealots & health wusses ever make it this long in American society, if tobacco is such a hazard to them & they can't stand its aroma?

Posted by cord on April 18, 2007 06:46 PM

"10 years from now we may see businesses that are part indoor and part out door to solve this"

The non-smokers would have to let up a bit, for as the law is written now, that solution is illegal.

Posted by Larry on April 18, 2007 01:54 PM

I`m glad someone finally noticed my repeated posts about using a legal gun, water, to shoot out an illegal cigarette in a bar.

This whole smoking ban/private property rights debate has lost any touch of humor.
Smoking in public is a unique behavior, which does bother, effect, discomfit, etc, others. All the private property arguments in the world will not put it in the catagory of fast food, car exhaust and so on.

Every once in a while, societies have to deal with behavior that is one-of-a-kind like smoking around other patrons.

You can use smokeless tobacco, nicotine inhalers or gum and stay in the bars and drink or eat with others.

10 years from now we may see businesses that are part indoor and part out door to solve this. Maybe then smokers can loose the attitude and non-smokers can stop being so nananan.

Posted by on April 18, 2007 12:49 PM

The way the law is written. Bar/tavern owners cannot become cigar/cigarette bars. The establishment of new cigar bars is forbidden. Period. The ban was found to be unconstituational, because smoking was allowed at DIA and the casinos. The state will appeal the court decision. The "Gentlemens Club" off of I76 filed the lawsuit and won.

All of this would have never happened if the ban was written in such a way as to allow mom and pop bars to become cigar/cigarette bars.

Posted by Karen on April 18, 2007 11:46 AM

Karen,

Before the new law, some establishments only allowed smoking at the bar. However, the smoke didn't just "hover" over that area. It permeated every corner of the business.

As a non-smoker, it was annoying to me, but I didn't let it keep me from hanging out at Old Chicago's and my other favorite haunts.

I would have preferred that smokers not pollute the places that I like to go -- but it wasn't up to me. Every sports bar in the area allowed smoking. It was good for business.

Extremely few bar owners would willingly choose to restrict smoking for these reasons:

1. Smoking dries out people's throats (both smokers' and non-smokers') making them thirsty so that they buy more drinks. Bars can make more money that way.

2. Bars sell cigarettes. Bars can make more money that way.

3. Restricting smoking might aggravate smokers and cause them to go elsewhere.
In other words, bars could lose money that way. (Whereas non-smokers have learned to put up with smoking since the beginning of time.)

So without the law -- there are compelling financial incentives for bar owners to permit smoking in their establishments -- and to hell with everyone else.

As for having smoking and non-smoking sections -- that's a joke, right? Smoke doesn't just stay in the smoking section -- unless there's a wall or glass to stop it.

I understand your aggravation because you like to smoke -- but I am relieved that now I don't have to be in a noxious cloud when I go out and have a beer and pizza.

Posted by MX on April 18, 2007 11:05 AM

I'm with you Karen.

I quit back in 2004 when the last tax increases went up so drastically, out of financial necessity. But if I slip once and have "just one" I know it's all over. And I still enjoy the smell as well.

When I did smoke, however, I didn't realize I was being so selfish when I smoked in the bars. I just assumed that if a non-smoker patronized a smoking establishment, then it just wasn't offensive to them.

I purpose that smokers will have to follow suit with the Mormons when they instituted Utah's liquor laws banning bar sales of hard liquor. The majority public there got around the law by offering memberships to private clubs that could sell liquor (bars couldn't sell liquor but private clubs could). Maybe bar owners who's favorite clientele were smokers could explore the laws to see if private member clubs can offer smoking rights to its patrons.

But you just know that as soon as one person lit a cigarette, the non-smokers would be trying to get in.

Posted by Larry on April 18, 2007 10:45 AM

One thing I have noticed is that as far as the non-smoking public is concerned, smokers are the scum of the earth. More sympathy is generated for alcholic drug users than smokers. Nicotine is a drug. Quiting is very hard. Not only are cigarettes physically addictive, they are mentally addictive.

I quit, but I am one cigarette away from starting again, and no, second hand smoke does not bother me, How can that be?! Well, I am not holding the cig between my two fingers, and putting it into my mouth and inhaling deeply. What can I say. That's how it is. On the other hand my husband (an ex-smoker), has a hard time with second hand smoke.

If I owned a bar/tavern, where the majority of my customers were smokers, and John Q. Public passes a law banning smoking in my estabishment. Will members of John Q. Public come into my establishment and take up the slack? Doubt it. If I go out of business, too bad, so sad.

So, the question is....why were these establishment not allowed to become disignated smoking bars? Welllll.

Why force these people to change their establishments if you aren't going to go there anyway? For health reasons. Whose? Yours? You do not go there. Casinos? Some of them have non-smoking areas. Use them. Prove they are needed, by the amount of income those machines generate.

Posted by Karen on April 18, 2007 10:09 AM

What a grown up retaliation!

Posted by Larry on April 18, 2007 08:41 AM

On the news it was reported that 60 mom and pop bars/taverns have went out of business. These were neighborhood bars/taverns, and for the most part did not serve food.

As for the original letter writer there is a world of difference betwen sewage on the street and mine tailings polluting the watershed.

1. No one forces you to go into an establishment where people smoke. I would be willing to bet that you never went into any bar where the majority of people smoked.

2. Some casinos have slots in no smoking areas. No one uses them but they are there.

What about the smoker that is a home owner. Are you people going to pass a bill to ban smoking in houses, even if a smoker owns it? What are you going to ban next..

3. A person who applies for a job in a casino knows it is a smoking enviornment. If you can't deal with the smoke don't work there.

I don't feel the least bit of sympathy for whinny non-smokers. As for someone using a squirt gun to put out a cigarette. It isn't funny. For every action there is an equal reaction. But, then again leave it to a non-smoker to use some form of mild violence to make their point and call it funny. What happens if the smoker retaliates? Would that be funny?

Posted by Karen on April 18, 2007 08:37 AM

Larry,

Smoking was already affecting EVERYONE personally. That's why it got restricted.

If you and your ilk would have been more considerate of people who can't stand to breathe your pollution, perhaps legislation would not have become necessary. Unfortunately, you were focused only on yourself and your enjoyment. You weren't concerned with anyone else's well-being -- and you still aren't.

So keep demonstrating your high-school mindset by calling people names and stewing in your anger. That, along with your smoking, should help raise your blood pressure even more. At this rate, I hope you make it to age 50.

But on second thought, I fart in your general direction.

Have a nice day.

Posted by MX on April 18, 2007 08:30 AM

"Today bars and resturants, tomorrow the casinos. Whoever wrote about using water pistols to shoot out cigaretts is a howl. I love that. Where can smokers go to smoke unmolested? Home."

What a pantywaist remark Mr. No Name - it has to be mister; a woman wouldn't make such a "feminine" remark.

You should have included some of your other successes... "Yesterday we took away the rights for parents to raise their kids, teachers from disciplining students, businesses from catering to clientele they choose, (others can add here), today bars and restaurants..." yada yada yada.

According to the AMA, there were 3400 lung cancer deaths nationwide from second hand smoke and the DOT's death toll for the same year due to alchohol related traffic accidents was 17,000. Since most people would'nt be driving after drinking if they had not been at bars or restaurants, are you going to ban them next?

No, of course not. That would effect you personally.

Posted by Larry on April 18, 2007 07:22 AM

Today bars and resturants, tomorrow the casinos. Whoever wrote about using water pistols to shoot out cigaretts is a howl. I love that. Where can smokers go to smoke unmolested? Home.

Posted by on April 17, 2007 06:11 PM

Jim in Erie,

Nice non sequitur. You could be a speech writer for George Bush -- but you'd have to tone down the whining a little first.

Do you need me to call the waahmbulance for you?

Posted by MX on April 17, 2007 03:56 PM

To the author of the original letter.

"I’m eager to hear a reasoned and passionate defense of a smoker’s “right” to poison the rest of us."

I bet dollars to donuts that YOU pump poison into the air that the rest of us are required to breath, so stop with the sanctimonious propaganda, OK?

I don't know a single smoker who claims a "right" to "poison" you, or other people of your ilk. But you can't abide an honest discussion of anything you don't agree with, so even YOUR little rant is nothing but "empty hyperbole. "

Posted by Jim in Erie on April 17, 2007 02:29 PM

LW -- Could you please cite your source for that total -- other than just mentioning the state liquor licesnsing board?

If I'm not mistaken, that's a state-wide figure, isn't it?

I'm pretty sure that Colorado had close to 60 bar closures each year BEFORE the smoking legislation even took effect. (Especially if you count sports bars and grills that serve beer.)

Bars and restaurants have the highest rate of failure of any business within their first five years of operation. So I would be interested to see how many closures are actually due to the law, and how many are due to lousy management.

No matter what business you go into, you have to have a solid business plan, good financing, a great high-traffic location and decent advertising/promotions. How many of those bars had that when they failed?

My point here is that I doubt if many of the closures are solely due to the smoking law.

Posted by MX on April 17, 2007 12:05 PM

Allen, LODO is an acronym for Lower Downtown, the site of many trendy bars and restaraunts. And actually, the number of bars statewide that have closed since the smoking ban went into effect is closer to 60. This is the number from the state liquor licensing board.

Posted by LW on April 17, 2007 08:45 AM

Well Joe, There you go again spewing out utter nonsense. I don't know what LODO is but I would bet it is as much a restaurant as it is a bar or Tavern. We have the numbers reported by the owners documented by certified public accountants and tax records the prove conclusively that bar's and tavern's, not restaurants which were smoke free in the first place, losses average 35% across the board througout the state.

Our wokmans comp, unemployment, insurance and majority of operating costs have not deminished and thats why over 30 bars, as of one month ago, have closed. Tobacco control advocates skew statistics to fit their agenda just as they use false and fraudulant studies and information while denying the truth of any proof that does not support their claims about the health risks of secondhand smoke.

The truth is, as our evidence supports, that the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which owns 3.7 billion dollars in Johnson and Johnson stock, the makers of Nicoderm CQ, Nicorette and other no smoke delivery devices, has granted millions to the American Cancer Society which has just been caught in a web of lies and unethical influence and interference in Ohio's smoking ban processes.

It needs to be known that these two private interests have continued to unduely and just possibily illegaly, grant millions of dollars to state health departments to influence the public and legislators to pass laws that advance their mercantile interest over the interests of the public. In other words they lie.

All of this will come out and when it does I hope the people rise up in justified anger and demand that their government clean up corruption of the rule of law and punish all those who have benefited from it.

This could prove to be as big or even bigger than the Enron case and have a much larger negative economic impact.

Posted by Allen Campbell on April 17, 2007 07:57 AM

I firmly believe that the only 'good' argument that smokers can put out there is NOT about justifying smoking in public.
However, the mind set that accompanies so many of the rather aggressive anti smokers is a far greater threat to American society then this one issue.
But for those who want to believe that this is a single issue mindset, that will be satisfied with their current 'win', there is nothing that will convince them that there is indeed a slippery slope here.
So why bother?

Although it will be interesting to see what these same people have 'accomplished' in another thirty years or so.

Posted by Jim W on April 17, 2007 06:40 AM

I'm not sure who said this,
"Larry, on no.1. Smoke pollutes the air surrounding a non-smoker and since that comes from a cig used by a smoker, your no.1 is wrong. can I carry a water pistol and shoot our the cig`s? I think I have a 2nd amendment right to carry a water gun in public."

I actually said,
"Smokers don't pollute the surrounding air of a smoker. Non smokers please stay out of smoking establishments. Free market enterprise will determine if the people want such businesses."

And my point was... why can't smokers have a safe haven of their own where non smokers won't bother them and where non smokers won't be subjected to imminent peril from cigarrette smoke.

Zachary said earlier that before the ban you couldn't find a bar to go to that didn't have smoking. I agree with him on that. So before the ban you couldn't find a smoke free establishment and since the ban you're not allowed to smoke anywhere. Why couldn't there be both - a place for smokers and a place for non smokers? Why does it have to be one way or the other - no in between?

Posted by Larry on April 16, 2007 05:46 PM

William, you're absolutely correct.

If you read the responses to your article, you'll notice that most of the non-smokers provide cogent and logical reasons for supporting smoking restrictions.

On the other hand, smokers have angry name-calling and theories about how the restrictions are "hurting businesses" and how this new law will "lead to more of our 'rights' being taken away."

When I was in LoDo last weekend, the bars were just as packed as they've ever been. Isn't it weird how the law only seems to be hurting "mom and pop" proprietors?

And exactly where are these "poor bar owners" that are being put out of business? I haven't been seeing any "out of business" signs being put up in the windows of any bars near my neighborhood.

Allen, where do you live anyway? La la land?

Posted by Joe on April 16, 2007 02:57 PM

Urban myth you no name idiot. Where do you get myth from? Your own demented mind. I can prove my numbers can you prove it's a myth or do you just say anything that enters your alledged mind and after having said it fall so much in love with your own words you think yourself a master of the whatever subject you choose to write about. You'd make me laugh if your unthoughtout words were not the type of crap dictators use to establish a new truth to fit their personal preferences.

Posted by Allen Campbell on April 16, 2007 02:06 PM

Larry, on no.1. Smoke pollutes the air surrounding a non-smoker and since that comes from a cig used by a smoker, your no.1 is wrong. can I carry a water pistol and shoot our the cig`s? I think I have a 2nd amendment right to carry a water gun in public.

Smokers can use nicotine inhalers indoors and do everyone a big favor that way.

If a place for smokers was ourdoors, but with access to a part of the bar, that would be great . There is a great opportunity for someone to design insta-patios to install in bars so the smokers are part of the fun, covered from the weather, but actually outside.

We now have the urban myth of 30-60 mom and pop bars out of business due to the ban.

define mom and pop. Did anything else contribute to their failure? And finally, where have all the smoker/drinkers gone? Are they just hanging out in each others homes? There is a great business opportunity here, someone is going to make a fortune on this.

Posted by on April 16, 2007 11:50 AM

Once again there are no defined rights for smokers or nonsmokers so why are nonsmokers favored over smokers. Also the health risks tobacco control claim are based on a ten year old EFA study that was rigged to fit their needs which was smoking bans. This has been proven over and over by non demand studies and federal court rulings and that same study was used by the U.S. surgeon general to spread the fright factor. That office made no study of it's own. The phamaceutical companies promoted this to hide their mercantile interests which are in the billions of dollars. Any open minded person can access this information. It will come out that the public and the legislators were both duped by this propaganda in the law suits which are to come, defense payed for by the public, that proves the influence and interference used by the American Cancer Society, who is one of the largest grantees from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation which owns 3.7 billion dollars of Johnson and Johnson stock. And guess who makes the no smoke delivery devices that reap billions of dollars from idiots who think taking nicotine into your system a different way is healthy . I can't believe intelligent people are so ready to believe the obvious transparency of this sham. Of course zealots will believe anything that supports there belief while denying the truth of anything that disproves it.

Posted by Allen Campbell on April 16, 2007 11:18 AM

1. Yes, Zach you have the right to pick which unhealthy habit you wish. Like I said, I quit smoking before the ban.

2. Good Point - why didn't more bars offer no smoking? Restaurants have for years. Why weren't some smoking and some not? That would have alleviated many of the problems. Why couldn't there be that choice now?

And I did smoke outside when at a non smoking facility.

3. No, I wasn't comparing indoor smoking to fast food. William stated that all business had a responsibility to the health of their patrons. I was simply making the fast food analogy.

4. Smokers have been chased away from many mom and pop bars. Last count I heard was 30 such bars had closed since the ban.

5 and on - I quit smoking.

Posted by Larry on April 16, 2007 10:06 AM

I understand your points Larry, but I don't agree with them for the following reasons:

1. You say, "If you're drinking in a bar ... you can't be health conscious."

So let me get this straight -- if you're going to have one unhealthy habit, you might as well have them all? That doesn't make sense.

2. You say, "...stay out of smoking establishments." But when nearly every bar and many restaurants allowed smoking, the non-smokers really didn't have many choices when it came to having a drink after work or enjoying a steak at the local sports bar.

I would ask you -- why can't you step outside for a smoke? Are your legs broken?

3. You compare indoor smoking with fast food choices -- but if you're having a Big Mac, you're not forcing me to ingest part of it. So I can enjoy my grilled chicken salad and diet soda in realtive peace -- without worrying about how your porr choice is affecting my health.

4. You say property owners should chase non-smokers from their establishments. But nobody is chasing anyone away from anywhere.

Smoking hasn't been banned. It is merely restricted. People haven't been able to smoke in movie theaters or government buildings for years. Have you been whining about those restrictions too?

5. The smoking legislation passed largely because of arrogant and selfish smokers like you who want to dominate every nice bar and restaurant in town and make non-smokers feel like second-class citizens.

Althought you're trying to tell non-smokers to "stay out," nobody is telling you that you can't go to a non-smoking bar or resturant. Just enjoy your smoke outside.

Is there a compelling reason that you need to constantly chain smoke indoors while you're having a drink? If there is, please explain it to me. Until then, quit being such an ass.

Posted by Zackary on April 16, 2007 09:34 AM

William,

If you're in a bar drinking, you can not be as health conscious as you or your Boulder residence would have us believe. Since alchohol is the third leading cause of death in the US, just under tobacco and obesity, if you're at a bar drinking alchohol, health must not be your number one priority.

Unless of course you just want to hang out around smokers (before the ban) so you could push your political weight around.

Luckily, I was successful in quiting before the ban was instituted, and was always successful in hanging out around non smokers. I didn't want to be tempted, so I went where there wasn't smoke. Now I don't have to make any decision on the matter at all, that right has been taken away.

Point 1: Smokers don't pollute the surrounding air of a smoker. Non smokers please stay out of smoking establishments. Free market enterprise will determine if the people want such businesses.

Point 2: "The right to sell comes with a responsibility for the health of your customers while on your property." When will liberals ban McDonalds, BK and fancy restaurants with high fat meals? Remember, obesity is fast approaching the number 1 cause of death.

Point 3: "Owners simply don’t chase non-smokers from their establishments." They should! Would liberals allow establishments to serve smokers and only smokers?

Point 4: Again, stay away from smokers and smoking establishments (if they are ever allowed again). They don't want you around. Treat them like leper colonies back in the Roman days. You wouldn't hang out with lepers would you?

Posted by Larry on April 16, 2007 06:47 AM