• Front page
• Receive this content on your RSS reader

By Sandra Holman-Watts, Jazz at Jack's

Recently there has been quite a bit of debate about the Clean Indoor Air Act implemented last July. As the one-year anniversary of the law is now upon us, it’s important to revisit why the law was passed in the first place.

While some might feel that the smoke-free law is an infringement on personal rights and freedoms, I feel that the law is a step in the right direction. The law was created to protect an establishment’s workers and clientele from breathing harmful secondhand smoke.

The personal health and safety of others should never be neglected just so that a few may exercise their “right” to smoke in public places.

Much of the commentary heard on the smoking ordinance is from an economic standpoint. Many business owners have been concerned that the new law could drive them out of business.

As an owner of Jazz at Jack’s, a local music venue that also serves food, I am happy to say that the smoke-free law has not only been good for business, but also for the health and enjoyment of my staff and my guests.

As soon as I took managing possession of Jazz at Jack’s, I made the decision to transform the club into a smoke-free environment. Naturally, this was a difficult and unpopular decision for some of my business partners as there was speculation that we would lose valuable business.

But when it came down to it, my gut instinct told me to put public health in front of all other concerns. That was seven years ago. Over time, our decision has proven to be a healthy one from both a financial and physical standpoint.

Our patrons and employees have continuously shown their appreciation for the change for many years now.

When someone pictures a jazz-and-blues club, their imagination might paint a dimly lit room with quaint, candlelit tables where guests sip martinis and blow smoke rings while performers sing about their troubles or fill the haze with notes from a saxophone.

Since we became a smoke-free venue, I have witnessed all of the romanticism associated with such a vision continue, minus one harmful ingredient: tobacco smoke.

While some might speculate that the smoke-free law could have a dramatic effect on businesses such as jazz clubs, I am happy to report a track record of success that reaches far beyond last year’s new law.

Upon making our decision to take the smoking outside, it quickly became apparent that our patrons were real enthusiasts about the music they were hearing and food they were eating, not the thick smoke that once hung in the air.

Our club’s decision to go smoke-free was made not only with the health of our staff and clientele in mind, but also with the health of the musicians in mind. It was a sad day when Colorado artists had to perform in lethally smoky venues just to pursue their art. Over the years, many of our regular performers have acknowledged our smoke-free environment as an opportunity to manage their own health more diligently.

Now that all venues are smoke-free, some have even reported being able to quit the habit altogether.

As the trend of going smoke-free continues to grow, it makes me feel good to see so many states taking the initiative to protect their most valuable asset — their people.

As a local business owner, I would like to offer my continued support to the Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act as I feel it is not only a necessary measure towards protecting a business’s workers and guests, but it also contributes to making our state’s many great places to enjoy music and food even better.

Sandra Holman-Watts is an owner of Jazz at Jack’s in the Denver Pavilions.

READER COMMENTS

Teachers must be paid based on performance

Vulgar language during primetime TV is, is not okay

My life's been basically boring. Such is life. Nothing exciting going on worth mentioning.

Cheating Is, is not Unacceptable!

Peace in the Middle East is obtainable with US and The European Union intervention

My life's been pretty dull these days. Such is life. I've basically been doing nothing.

Easter, Christmas is the best holiday - Or choose your own favorite and create another persuasive speech topic

I haven't been up to much recently, but whatever. I just don't have much to say lately. Basically nothing happening to speak of. So it goes. My mind is like a complete blank. Such is life.

A higher energy price is a sacrifice we have to make for cleaner fuels

An integrated, segregated society is better

An integrated, segregated society is better

Blame the parents of a murderer parents for the crime

Blame the parents of a murderer parents for the crime

We are killing the rainforest

We are killing the rainforest

Males should be allowed to go shirtless at home only - Or vary with places for another persuasive speech topic

Americans owe, doesn't owe Vietnam veterans an apology

Americans owe, doesn't owe Vietnam veterans an apology

My life's been pretty dull these days. Such is life. I've basically been doing nothing.

Peace in the Middle East is obtainable with US and The European Union intervention

I've just been letting everything wash over me recently. So it goes. What can I say?

Tom, show me the source material that secondhand smoke kills. I'll just bet it comes from tobacco control advocates payed for "On Demand" study contrived to fit the agenda of those who paid for it. Obviously you dan't care about the truth or you would access the OSHA seven year study and it's finding as the Federal Safety and Health agency in charge of workplace and worker health. This study and it's findings were upheld by Federal Appeals Courts. But tobacco control, knowing better than OSHA and the Federal Courts. The American Heart Association and The American Cancer Society withdrew their law suits claiming OSHA was wrong because, in the first place, they knew OSHA was right and, secondly, They knew their law suit would not fly because of the Courts ruling. So what did they do? They went out and got non government, payed for "On Demand" studies done that contrived the contrary findings of OSHA then presented them to the public as the truth. If you would rather believe a lie that agrees with your personal preferences than educate youself in what the truth is, so be it. Just don't scream to loud when you learn you have been lied to and by promoting the lie you believed in you took us one step furthure down the road to tyranny.

Just another bunch of lies. Show me one death certificate that lists secondhand smoke as the cause of death. Want to know why you can't do that? Because it is not true. If any of you tobacco control advocates would take the time to research the seven year study done by the federal agency charged with insuring the safety and health of work places and workers, OSHA, you would learn the truth of their findings and that the lies of the payed for "on demand" studies contrived to fit the agenda of those paying for it, tobacco control, are nothing more than a tactic to increase the mercantile interests of those who make nonsmoke nicotine delivery devices.

The Robert Wood Jonhson Foundation has granted $446 million dollars to to tobacco control, why?, because they own $ 56 billion worth of stock in the Johnson and Johnson pharmaceutical company. And what does the J&J manufacture?, why it's NicoDerm CQ for GlaxoSmithKline, a British owned company, and what does GSK also sell?, it's those high priced, so called smoking cures; Nicorrette gum and Commit lozenges and do so while claiming that smoking tobacco is harmful and addictive but there nonsmoke nicotine delivery devices are safe medicine. Even Philip Morris even has joined the fray with their Aria nicotine inhaler. Tobacco control advocates like to point to Philip Morris as a company thats fights on the side of smokers. Nothing could be more wrong. Thay have supported smoking bans for years and. why? Because they sold their cigarette interests overseas years ago and now own a great deal of stock in chewing tobacco and nonsmoke delivery devices companies.

The smoking bans have never been about the alleged dangers of secondhand smoke and the need to protect people from it for health reasons. It was, is and will always be about the mercantile interests of hugh pharmaceutical companies and their influence and interference that undermines the legitimate interests of govenrment and the people's interests it is supposed to represent and defend from private businesses influence and interference.

If you care about the truth more than you care about advancing an agenda based on deception and lies, take the time to find out what the truth is before you take us one step further down the road to tyranny.

I have a question.

The argument raised about smoking is that it is unquestionably bad for other people in the room. People who wanted to come to the establishment but not run the risks associated with second hand smoke felt that their rights were being violated. Okay.

Music over 120 decibels injures hearing. This is not a theory, it's a fact. The music industry has a history of workers with hearing problems. The same arguments that were applied to second hand smoke, apply to music over 120 decibels. If you want to know how loud this is, stand next to a trash truck while it is backing up. That is a lot quieter than many of the bars I attended.

So, should the volume of the music played in public plases be reduced by government fiat?

Personally, I avoid bars and restaurants for other reasons. And I have no wish to impose my opinions on other people. I'm just asking the question.

They weren't given the coice before the ban, they made it on there own and are speaking about how things have been since making the choice to do so. If making money comes before the customer, performer and employee's personal health then we have some serious problems. Say what you like about personal freedom, however noone would be allowed to disperse any other poisoinous gases in any establishment without being called a terrorist. The facts don't lie, tobacco smoke kills - smoker or not. I commend Sandra and the staff at Jazz at Jack's for making the choice to protect their customer's, employees and performers before they were forced to.

And it's too bad that so many business owners have been brainwashed by the pro-smoking crowd into believing that a smoking ban marks the inescapable end of their livelihood.

As Sandra's comments illustrate -- smoking in public is not good for business, as many claim it to be.

If you want to smoke - do it in your own space and on your own time. I go out to enjoy food, drink, music, dancing and conversation -- NOT foul-smelling and irritating smoke.

That's nice - Sandra and the other owners of this venue were able to make their own decision to make their business smoke-free. Too bad other businesses weren't given the same option.

POST A COMMENT

• It’s open enrollment time: Could consumer-driven health plans be the right choice for you?
• Rural Revitalization or deeper distress?
• No more ‘Mr. Nice Guv’
• In Pakistan, or U.S., lawyers make a stand
• First lesson in Disability 101: Treat me like a regular person -- because I am
• A few questions about abortion
• GUEST COLUMNIST: A new Russia emerges
• Returning veterans need support