light one up while you still can . . . .

[Big Dave]

http://www.9news.com/acm_news.aspx?OSGNAME=KUSA&IKOBJECTID=04de7110-0abe-421a-00b8-0cd6b580e84b&TEMPLATEID=0c76dce6-ac1f-02d8-0047-c589c01ca7bf

:smokin:

[Sound_Man]

Time for me to move........

[2LoudDodge]

awesome. I can't stand the smell of that crap.

People at work do it alot, and when they come back in the room, they smell of it badly for like an hour.

But, i don't think it should be banned in places like bars and strip joints. Anywhere where children aren't allowed should be okay.

[oleblue]

Time for me to move........

Where, Boulder?

[zero cool]

When I lived in California, I remember there being a ban but people smoked in bars all the time anyway. :shrug:

[rubbersidedown]

:pbj: :pbj: :pbj: :pbj:


(nonsmoker here :D )

[OffroadGirl]

We're pretty spoiled on the north end of town with a lot of places that are non-smoking or have some version of the law (Broomfield, Boulder, Arvada, Louisville, etc.). It gives us a choice. I've noticed when I'm down on the south end of town that everywhere is smoking, so it probably seems like a drastic change.

Boulder has bars with big smoking areas and people can still smoke outside. It has all worked itself out. It's not the end of the world. It gives everyone more options.

[Ric]

I love it, i went to bar in Broomfield, and it was nice to leave not smelling nasty, BUT i also see the other side, hey its YOUR life, smoke up if ya want, i just dont want to breath it.

[spacely]

awesome. I can't stand the smell of that crap.

People at work do it alot, and when they come back in the room, they smell of it badly for like an hour.

But, i don't think it should be banned in places like bars and strip joints. Anywhere where children aren't allowed should be okay.

I don't care if people at work smoke (I'm not around them), but what irks me is when they decide to smoke right outside the door and NOT in the designated smoking area...

[Leon Phelps]

Been there, done that in CA. Smokers will learn to live with it, or quit. I quit. Just like the enormous tax that shot the price up to approx 5.50 for a cheapie pack.

[Big Dave]

If an establishment sets up an area outside for people to smoke away from the door, I don't see much of an issue. But if they don't, everybody inside that smokes will just go outside, and stand right by the door, making it unavoidable for anyone going in or out. Granted it's not as prolonged as inside, but it's not avoidable at all when it's right there outside the door.

I dunno, guess we'll have to wait and see. I don't go out to the bar scene that much anyways, this'll just allow me to save money and drink at home, where ironically I go outside to smoke anyways, lol.

[Lil_Mule]

I agree, I'm glad to see it pass but I do have a question for the smokers.

Honest curiousity....

With all the facts about how it could kill you blah blah blah.... why do you do it? Is it a I don't care, I can't quit, you only live once?

I eat a lot of salt and personally I don't care... that's what I want to do. Is it the same thing? I was never into smoking so I don't know. :shrug:

[jtw2]

I'm torn on the issue. Good for me cause I don't smoke but I also hate to see .gov promulgating more lifestyle regulation.

[Sound_Man]

I agree, I'm glad to see it pass but I do have a question for the smokers.

Honest curiousity....

With all the facts about how it could kill you blah blah blah.... why do you do it? Is it a I don't care, I can't quit, you only live once?

I eat a lot of salt and personally I don't care... that's what I want to do. Is it the same thing? I was never into smoking so I don't know. :shrug:

I always tell my Mom when she hounds me about it, as she loves to do. That I know it is bad for me and yeah it might even kill me but so is that martini in your hand. It is tearing up your liver and killing brain cells. I enjoy it and have for many years. Would I like to quit? sure, would I be better off if I did? probably. Am I motivated to do so or have a desire to do so at this point in my life? nope.

Everyone has their vices, for some it is smoking others it is drinking others maybe salt, and others have this jeep thing that I understand... :D

Honestly speaking how many people that are reading this have gotten behind the wheel after they had a couple more drinks than they should have? That is by far more dangerous than smoking.

I don't buy the second hand smoke kills crap. I tried for years and my ex is still kicking damnit :rant:

[otisdog]

That's just the point. They are doing this with tobacco and what's next? I heard on Fox news a while back that obesity has actually passed tobacco use as the #1 drain on healthcare resources so maybe junk food will get canned next. How about a $5 tax on a 99 cent hamburger?
My thoughts are that a significant percentage of adults smoke and there's really no reason that there can't be some smoking restaurants and some nonsmoking. Oh wait - that's the way it already is. So what this really is about is that a group of people want to change the way another group lives. Very American. Watch your freedom go.
Freedom means annoyances. If you want to dress and look as you desire then you have to allow the kid down the steet to have blue hair and 25 piercings in his body.
I smoke and I hate it. I want to quit but still these taxes and and smoking bans have really turned me against this state.
Jim

[oleblue]

I always tell my Mom when she hounds me about it, as she loves to do. That I know it is bad for me and yeah it might even kill me but so is that martini in your hand. It is tearing up your liver and killing brain cells. I enjoy it and have for many years. Would I like to quit? sure, would I be better off if I did? probably. Am I motivated to do so or have a desire to do so at this point in my life? nope.

Everyone has their vices, for some it is smoking others it is drinking others maybe salt, and others have this jeep thing that I understand... :D

Honestly speaking how many people that are reading this have gotten behind the wheel after they had a couple more drinks than they should have? That is by far more dangerous than smoking.

I don't buy the second hand smoke kills crap. I tried for years and my ex is still kicking damnit :rant:

X2

It's more habbit than anything for me. But I still don't have the true desire to quit just yet.

This bill is written strickly as a public health issue, which means second hand smoke - That I call mostly BS too.

I did quit the drinking, 21 years ago. But still smoke.

[DaJudge]

I agree, I'm glad to see it pass but I do have a question for the smokers.

Honest curiousity....

With all the facts about how it could kill you blah blah blah.... why do you do it? Is it a I don't care, I can't quit, you only live once?

I eat a lot of salt and personally I don't care... that's what I want to do. Is it the same thing? I was never into smoking so I don't know. :shrug:

At least 2 packs a day for 40 years for me. Quit cold turkey 8 years ago because I couldn't get SWMBO to quit (even though she had health-related reasons and heredity-related reasons to quit) unless we did it together. It took her a year on the gum to get nicotine-free and we love the fact that we have done it.

We hate how we smell and feel after a night in a place where smoking is allowed and we have cut back on going to such places but still go occasionally with friends who smoke. We also hate that this is being dictated from the top down. More NANNY STATE diktat! Businesses will go where the market drives them and that is away from smoking. When people make a voluntary decision it is better for all concerned than to have it crammed down their throats by outside forces. The rationale that this is needed for the health of patrons or employees is a smokescreen (PUN INTENDED). No one forces them to be there.

[Lil_Mule]

That's an excellent point Otis.... could be prohibition, junk food, etc... although they may not be quite the same from the second hand point of view but... one could argue that with junk food, medical costs are higher.

Hmm....

[ccondrey]

I think like people have mentioned this will work itself out and people will find that it's not that big of a deal. I've been a smoker in Boulder and managed just fine. There are bars that have smoking rooms, and the door to the sidewalk is always just a quick walk to go outside and have a smoke. There is still at least one place here that has an area where you can smoke and shoot pool. (seperate ventilation system from rest of area) I quit smoking about four years ago and I'm to the point now where I can't hardly stand being in a smokey (denver) bar for 4+ hours. I think it's a good thing. There will still be plenty of places to smoke, and people aren't going to lose their businesses because people suddenly decide to stay home cause they can't smoke in the bar.

Oh - and yeah - I think they should ban soda machines and junk food machines from all public schools too - but that's a different thread. :)

[rockkrusher]

I smoke but never realy did smoke in resteraunts.Since i live in pueblo and there is a smoking ban it is strange for me to go where there isnt one.Since the ban was started there have been at least 2 women attacked and one killed thanks in part to the ban.They go out to smoke and become a victom.where is the right in that?Personaly they should ban alcohol from all family type events including ball games and racing.

[jtw2]

what's really weird is when you are on a domestic flight in Mexico and everyone is smoking. I forgot how bad that really is!

[Whitey]

...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness....
Maybe if people thought about this a little more and with some depth of conviction, we wouldn't have the 'nannyism laws' that are getting to be more prevalent.

I know someone's going to come back and say, (in their whiney voice), 'Cigarette's hurt people, 2nd hand smoke, medical costs, I don't like it, Why would anyone smoke, etc.'

BS. Think about cars and use the same excuses for that. Wrecks, pollution, cost of road maintenance, etc.

To me, it's just too many people putting their noses into other person's business. How many shop owners wanted this law? WTH, where is the freedom of choice? Certain ones don't like it and want everyone to be like them, in their perfect universe.

Enviromental issues. Gun issues (ammo?), drinking, the list can go on and on. There are a lot of stupid people that are convinced their way is the only way and push to see everyone on their path.

BTW, I don't smoke and don't have a problem if anyone chooses to do so. When I don't like it because of the smoke, I don't go.

[1BGDOG]

Everyone get your panties out of a bunch. CA, NYC, WA, and Boston have all survived a smoking ban and so will CO. BTW I work in a bar partime that is sponsored by a cig company.

[bsaunder]

I do find the quotes funny from the bar owners saying they will have to close the doors because of it - why? Do they really think that people will drive 2-4 hours just so they can go out-of-state so they can smoke in a bar?

I'm still on the fence as to how I feel about it as I don?t really like have personal issues legislated on.
I am a non-smoker and have minor asthma, so I really don?t like being around people smoking; but I also made the choice to rarely go to an establishment that had smoking many years ago ? and when I do choose to go to an establishment where I know there will be smoke, I don?t bitch about it. I have really like going to restaurants in Boulder/Broomfield/Superior and not having to deal with the smoke (FYI for those that smoke - the smoking and non-smoking sections are a joke; any restaurant or bar with a smoking section stinks in entirety and is full of smoke, there is just an active smoking section and a smoke filled section. )

[Gags]

Legislating taste.

[AMMOtj]

Awesome..

The problem I have with smoking is that it directly affects me. I can't quit breathing while your having a smoke next to me. And if I enjoy a certain bar, I can't quit breathing so I can enjoy that bar. Now alcohol on the other hand, as long as you don't get behind the wheel while your sloshed, it doesn't affect me. You having a beer isn't going to give me liver disease. but you having a smoke next to me will (with some probability) give me lung cancer. It's not fair for me.

[sungecko420]

My wife and I have smoked for years and years now. Every single time we have walked into a restaurant that is non smoking we just turn around and go somewhere else. For instance, we are big IHOPers. The one over here recently became non smoking and has permanently lost our business. Not that our business pays the bills but I know there are plenty of people like me that do the same thing. I also remember going to a Bennigans in Arvada. We walked in, sat down, ordered a beer and realized it was a non smoking restaurant. This was a Saturday night at like 9 or so and the place was dead. I mean Bennigans bar is usually pretty busy. This place was a ghost town. We ended up go to the one further south that is still smoking and it was totally packed. I think it will have an impact on some places.

One other thing on this. Since second hand smoke is so harmful, you have the right to chose to go to a place that offers smoking and if you don't want to you don't have to. What about the people that smoke in their house around their babies and kids. Or pregnant women that smoke? Those kids don't even have a choice. Why isn't anyone doing anything about that? I personally think that might be a little more important.

[AMMOtj]

Let me know where you live. I'll come driving through your neighborhood drunk off my ass. I mean, if don't want to drive on the same road as me, you don't have to.

[Jerry]

To me, it's just big brother taking away another one of are rights as americans to do what we want.

[bsaunder]

To me, it's just big brother taking away another one of are rights as americans to do what we want.

ah - there's the rub though; smoking isn't an implicitly definied right.

[DT]

(FYI for those that smoke - the smoking and non-smoking sections are a joke; any restaurant or bar with a smoking section stinks in entirety and is full of smoke, there is just an active smoking section and a smoke filled section. )


Agreed. Quote from a friend: "having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool? :spit:

[Big Dave]

Agreed. Quote from a friend: "having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool? :spit:

So how about a restaurant like Chili's, where you can smoke in the bar, and outside of the entrance to the bar area near the lobby, the bar is completely closed off from the rest of the restaurant.

As a smoker, I'll pick up on the smell of tobacco as much as any non-smoker, especially when it's been a few hours since I've had a smoke, and frankly I don't smell the smoke often at all when I'm outside of the smoking section somewhere.

[Whitey]

Everyone get your panties out of a bunch. CA, NYC, WA, and Boston have all survived a smoking ban and so will CO.
China has survived a lot more, does that mean we should go down that road?

ah - there's the rub though; smoking isn't an implicitly definied right.
It's not inherently a right, niether is rock climbing, race car driving, 4x4ing, among others, all of which could kill you.

Should we start legislating everything? That is the true rub, where does it stop.

Like I said before, if an establishment has smoking and it bothers me, I don't go. If I'm there and it begins to bother me, giving me lung cancer, I leave. There has never been a ball and chain on me making me stay there. It's called free choice, stay or leave. I don't see the rationale in saying it should be banned. I really think if you like to go to bars that smoke and are offended, talk to the owner or go some where else.

[jnschwie]

We can't do what we want with our own bodies?

Next you'll tell me the government is going to force me to wear a seatbelt even if I don't want to and that they are allowed to listen in on my own private phone conversations.

[Whitey]

We can't do what we want with our own bodies?

Next you'll tell me the government is going to force me to wear a seatbelt even if I don't want to and that they are allowed to listen in on my own private phone conversations.
Absolutely, it's good for you. :rolleyes:

How about limiting the noise at rock concerts so I can go. The noise bothers my hearing so I think we need a law to cover that. :P

[1BGDOG]

If its to loud your to old. LOL

[SteveH - Colo Springs]

Does anyone find the casino exemption from the Senate bill a bit exasperating. Why not screw the casinos too - oh, forgot - big donors to politicians. Bill Owens is not a big fan of casinos, I believe, so this would be a good time for him to threaten to veto the bill until they get added.

I don't believe in the ban from a liberty standpoint at all, so all or nothing.

Steve

[OlBlueCJ7]

Just like the enormous tax that shot the price up to approx 5.50 for a cheapie pack.

I couldn't believe when I went back to Canada a couple weeks ago - the cost of a single pack of cigarettes was now $11.00. For ONE pack. Cartons were like $83.00 (there's only 8 packs in a Canadian carton). Saskatoon (where I was) also has a ban on smoking pretty much anywhere, and you know what, PEOPLE STILL SMOKED.

[Big Dave]

I couldn't believe when I went back to Canada a couple weeks ago - the cost of a single pack of cigarettes was now $11.00. For ONE pack. Cartons were like $83.00 (there's only 8 packs in a Canadian carton). Saskatoon (where I was) also has a ban on smoking pretty much anywhere, and you know what, PEOPLE STILL SMOKED.

Dude, if that's canadian dollars, thats like 13 cents american for a pack of smokes!

[OlBlueCJ7]

Actually, that's $9.50 U.S.

[Lil_Mule]

What about the people that smoke in their house around their babies and kids. Or pregnant women that smoke? Those kids don't even have a choice. Why isn't anyone doing anything about that? I personally think that might be a little more important.


So they shouldn't regulate resturants but they should regulate what goes on in your home?

[AMMOtj]

What you fail to understand is that I dont' give a rats ass what your doing with your body. Smoking is one of those things where everyone around you is affected. It's my right to go a certain bar just as it is yours, but is it your right to put my health in danger by smoking in said bar? No.

And your damn right I wish there was a ban to prevent houses with kids from smoking in them or pregnant women. Should be the same consequences as beating your kids up.

[Waifer2112]

I smoke but never realy did smoke in resteraunts.Since i live in pueblo and there is a smoking ban it is strange for me to go where there isnt one.Since the ban was started there have been at least 2 women attacked and one killed thanks in part to the ban.They go out to smoke and become a victom.where is the right in that?Personaly they should ban alcohol from all family type events including ball games and racing.

That's not a very good analogy. They chose to go outside and smoke. Nobody made them. The only choice limitation was not to smoke indoors. This is the funny part of the debate. Some people who smoke don't look at it as a choice on their part, they have to. What's the big deal about not smoking for a few hours, if there could be a safety issue?:shrug:

[jnschwie]

What you fail to understand is that I dont' give a rats ass what your doing with your body. Smoking is one of those things where everyone around you is affected. It's my right to go a certain bar just as it is yours, but is it your right to put my health in danger by smoking in said bar? No.


Doesn't sound like it should be either YOURS or THEIR choice to decide: How about letting the proprietor decide? :shrug:

[Waifer2112]

Maybe if people thought about this a little more and with some depth of conviction, we wouldn't have the 'nannyism laws' that are getting to be more prevalent.

I know someone's going to come back and say, (in their whiney voice), 'Cigarette's hurt people, 2nd hand smoke, medical costs, I don't like it, Why would anyone smoke, etc.'

BS. Think about cars and use the same excuses for that. Wrecks, pollution, cost of road maintenance, etc.

This is not a good analogy. Cars, trucks, trains etc. provide us with getting from point a to point b. Smoking is strictly a recreational action.

To me, it's just too many people putting their noses into other person's business. How many shop owners wanted this law? WTH, where is the freedom of choice? Certain ones don't like it and want everyone to be like them, in their perfect universe.

Enviromental issues. Gun issues (ammo?), drinking, the list can go on and on. There are a lot of stupid people that are convinced their way is the only way and push to see everyone on their path.

BTW, I don't smoke and don't have a problem if anyone chooses to do so. When I don't like it because of the smoke, I don't go.

I do agree there shouldn't have to be a law. But it got to this point because of all the jackasses that couldn't care less about anyone else. I know many smokers that didn't need a law to know that it's just plain cool to not blow smoke up my ass.

[OlBlueCJ7]

How about letting the proprietor decide? :shrug:



DING DING DING! :idea:

WEENAR! WEENAR!!

THREAD CLOSED! :D

[jnschwie]

I do agree there shouldn't have to be a law. But it got to this point because of all the jackasses that couldn't care less about anyone else. I know many smokers that didn't need a law to know that it's just plain cool to not blow smoke up my ass.


Exercise your right to either tell them, avoid them, or boycott their business.

[Waifer2112]

Exercise your right to either tell them, avoid them, or boycott their business.

Your speaking of my right to go to a public establishment, and not be threatened with safety issues, right?

When I was gigging on a regular basis and we were in a bar that allowed smoking (that is every bar outside of Boulder at the time), I would have to walk outside in between sets and hack and cough, trying to breath normally again. Let alone having to clean my set twice as often as I should, to get the yellow slime off.:barf:

[CLYDE]

well this pos passed, all I can say is BOOOOO HISSSSSSSSS.....
Regime change time,, unelect all of em.....

[rubbersidedown]

we passed a car in Houston a few weeks back, and there was a chick smoking a J while her two (young) kids were in the back in car seats!!:rant:

[jnschwie]

Your speaking of my right to go to a public establishment, and not be threatened with safety issues, right?


Clearly where we differ.
Your RIGHT or your CHOICE?

You know the risks involved. If you go to a bar, you're gonna get smoke. Go sit front row at an NBA game, you might have a player try to fight you. Join the army, you may get shot at. Walk down colfax at night, you might get mugged. Play with fire, you might get burned.

Who are you to tell a business owner how to run their business?

This is (to me) IDENTICAL to the case of walmart being *forced* to stock plan B in Mass.



Just let the free hand of the economy work, people...

[Waifer2112]

Clearly where we differ.
Your RIGHT or your CHOICE?

My right to be safe in a public place. Your (or whoevers) choice to smoke.

You know the risks involved. If you go to a bar, you're gonna get smoke. Go sit front row at an NBA game, you might have a player try to fight you. Join the army, you may get shot at. Walk down colfax at night, you might get mugged. Play with fire, you might get burned.

Key words in this sentence...gonna get...might, may. If you were gonna get mugged, not might, there would be new laws. If you were gonna get a player fighting you, there would be barriers put in place. If you might/may have your blood pressure go up because of the bar you're in, there would probably no new law.

Who are you to tell a business owner how to run their business?

This is (to me) IDENTICAL to the case of walmart being *forced* to stock plan B in Mass.



Just let the free hand of the economy work, people...

Had I an option to vote, I would have voted against it. I'm simply pointing out how many smokers have brought this debate on themselves by not respecting others. Remember ashtrays in cars? Remember when people used them?

[jnschwie]

Had I an option to vote, I would have voted against it. I'm simply pointing out how many smokers have brought this debate on themselves by not respecting others. Remember ashtrays in cars? Remember when people used them?

I see what you are saying.
I am *very* in tune to how dangerous smoking is. (Incidentally, I'm a never once smoked)

I am just extremely opposed to any sort of government control in business (besides SEC type stuff, of course), and against government mandated safety stuff. In the case of someone driving recklessly (or a similar situation) -prosecute them. Don't mandate air bags for MY car.

In the case of obnoxious smokers, its much harder to do that. Its not hard for a business owner to throw them out, though, or for the patrons to go elsewhere. :)

[Waifer2112]

I see what you are saying.
I am *very* in tune to how dangerous smoking is. (Incidentally, I'm a never once smoked)

I am just extremely opposed to any sort of government control in business (besides SEC type stuff, of course), and against government mandated safety stuff. In the case of someone driving recklessly (or a similar situation) -prosecute them. Don't mandate air bags for MY car.

In the case of obnoxious smokers, its much harder to do that. Its not hard for a business owner to throw them out, though, or for the patrons to go elsewhere. :)

:beer: (even tho I don't drink, either:o )

[Waifer2112]

So they shouldn't regulate resturants but they should regulate what goes on in your home?

Although I'm against such action for the populace, I sure would've liked it when I was growing up. My mom smoked constantly (still does). I hated it constantly. Especially being locked up in the car with her. I know, I know. Just roll your window down, right? Because all the smoke goes instantly out the window, and there's no way it will stay in the vehicle.:rolleyes: My brother and I both jumped out of a moving vehicle one time when my Grandma and Mom were smoking. Back windows didn't roll down. So at about 5 m.p.h., we bailed. Neither of them yelled at us much. They knew we hated it with a passion. I still do. Never even could stomach the idea of holding an unlit cig. in my hand because of the non-stop stench growing up.

[CLYDE]

Rights? choices? Ok what gives anyone more RIGHT to be in a place than anyone else, wether they are smoking or not, ANSWER. It isnt a right, It is a choice, you choose to be somewhere, that doesnt give you any more rights than the next person tho. if you dont like your surroundings, then by all means CHOOSE somewhere else, example, Im not gay, therefore I choose not to go into gay bars, I dont want to be exposed to their way of life, that doesnt give me the right to pass a law making it illegal for them to be gay, I simply choose to go somewhere else,, and yes, this IS EXACTLY the same....

[Waifer2112]

Rights? choices? Ok what gives anyone more RIGHT to be in a place than anyone else, wether they are smoking or not, ANSWER. It isnt a right, It is a choice, you choose to be somewhere, that doesnt give you any more rights than the next person tho. if you dont like your surroundings, then by all means CHOOSE somewhere else, example, Im not gay, therefore I choose not to go into gay bars, I dont want to be exposed to their way of life, that doesnt give me the right to pass a law making it illegal for them to be gay, I simply choose to go somewhere else,, and yes, this IS EXACTLY the same....

Sorry, Clyde, but I think your missing my point. Yes, I can choose to be somewhere. But we have instituted safety laws. We don't have a choice to be in a public place that the owners know will fall down and kill us. There were laws put in place to protect the public, and the building would be condemned. This is a public safety issue, not a choice issue. I wish it were a choice issue, and people would have been "policing" themselves already. :shrug:

[CLYDE]

I would still have to disagree, and of course just agree to disagree in this instance. as for the WE that instituted the safety laws, I was not part of that WE, and in fact very few people were involved, to bad the few can dictate to the many like this... Hey hey tho,, all in the name of political correctness......

[Waifer2112]

I would still have to disagree, and of course just agree to disagree in this instance. as for the WE that instituted the safety laws, I was not part of that WE, and in fact very few people were involved, to bad the few can dictate to the many like this... Hey hey tho,, all in the name of political correctness......

Actually, they were instituted because of workers dying in buildings that weren't safe. If you consider that to be p.c., well :shrug:

[CLYDE]

Ok fine, nitpick my meaning why dont ya,,, you know what i mean, the Nanny laws, seatbelts, helmets, airbags, marijuana, etc etc...

[Whitey]

......But we have instituted safety laws. There were laws put in place to protect the public....... This is a public safety issue, not a choice issue. I wish it were a choice issue, and people would have been "policing" themselves already. :shrug:
Well, if it's a safety issue, why isn't this a good analogy?
BS. Think about cars and use the same excuses for that. Wrecks, pollution, cost of road maintenance, etc.
I haven't checked recently, but something like 56,000 people die on the highways every year!
This is not a good analogy. Cars, trucks, trains etc. provide us with getting from point a to point b. Smoking is strictly a recreational action.
So, awhile ago, it was a recreational action and now it's a safely issue? :rolleyes:

[Waifer2112]

Ok fine, nitpick my meaning why dont ya,,, you know what i mean, the Nanny laws, seatbelts, helmets, airbags, marijuana, etc etc...

:beer: :) :beer:

[ColoCherokees]

I do find the quotes funny from the bar owners saying they will have to close the doors because of it - why? Do they really think that people will drive 2-4 hours just so they can go out-of-state so they can smoke in a bar?

No, they'll just drink at home where they can smoke.

Many have tried to frame this debate/issue as a "smoking is bad, so don't" thing, but its really an issue of private property owners' rights. I've heard several bars/restaurants say their business increased after going non-smoking. Good for them, they recognized a business opportunity and went for it. So allow business owners decide, and the FREE MARKET will choose which kind of establishment to frequent, and which establishments will prosper and which will go under. Until someone shows me data that people are FORCED to go to a PRIVATELY owned bar/restaurant and forced to put up with smoke, then the gov't needs to STFU.

[Zed Mikey]

As a smoker, I'll pick up on the smell of tobacco as much as any non-smoker, especially when it's been a few hours since I've had a smoke, and frankly I don't smell the smoke often at all when I'm outside of the smoking section somewhere.
Here's my only addition to this thread... you are mistaken, Dave. As a smoker you will probably NOT pick up on the smell of smoke as well as your typical non-smoker. You may not have noticed it, because it is a gradual process, but your sense of smell is most likely not what it was before you started smoking. Just something to think about. :)

[bsaunder]

So how about a restaurant like Chili's, where you can smoke in the bar, and outside of the entrance to the bar area near the lobby, the bar is completely closed off from the rest of the restaurant.

As a smoker, I'll pick up on the smell of tobacco as much as any non-smoker, especially when it's been a few hours since I've had a smoke, and frankly I don't smell the smoke often at all when I'm outside of the smoking section somewhere.

They are better - but I can still smell the smoke once the first set of double doors are opened. They seem to be the best at cleaning, so if there isn't anyone actively smoking, it's just a minor smell of stale smoke throughout the place. If there are several people smoking, with the exception of a few of the places that have seperate patio like places that you can sit; the rest of the place will be smoky fairly quick.

You'd be amazed at what you can smell if you quit - talking to my parents and friends after they have quit; every single one was complely amazed at how much they were missing out on for smells and taste. yes, taste too - all of them couldn't believe how much better good food tasted; on the flip side, they couldn't believe how bad the crap tasted either.

[oleblue]

I?m forced to breathe the smoke of others, I work at a casino.

I went to school and got my gaming license and then got a job at a casino.

I had no idea what a casino was like before hand, else I would not have gone to school for it. This is the only thing I know how to do now. I?ve been doing this for 50 years now and can?t change. I don?t have time to go to school for something else now. I?m too old for someone else to employ me now.

I?m soooo glad this law passed, now I can breath.

Okay I know casinos were excluded in this bill, but they were not going to be on the last attempt. This is just for argument sake.

I did not know what it was like in casino before I even schooled for that kind of job, what a dumb A$$ I am.

Been in the business for 50 years now and glad that I can breathe now. Wow what a dumb A$$ again, like 50 years already exposed, with only a couple more years left, is that going to make a difference. STFU.

Just remember that all employees of public smoking places are forced to live in that atmosphere. They have no choice, they have to work.

[jtw2]

looks like it passed the house this morning. That means that probably on July 1 this will go into effect.

[OffroadGirl]

You think that quickly? I figured they'd take a year or two to get it in place.

[jtw2]

Usually a sessions laws take effect july 1st of the same year.

[lilgreenjeepyj]

I hate the smoking "sections" that bleed over into the rest of the restaurant. Im glad they are gonna ban it. I say its your choice, but I shouldn't have to suffer from your choices either. At least you get a fliter. Im glad I work in a smoke free environment and wouldn't have it any other way.

[Sound_Man]

http://www.denverpost.com/legislature/ci_3644647

Time to move I guess :shrug:

[jnschwie]

<snip, snip>
Just remember that all employees of public smoking places are forced to live in that atmosphere. They have no choice, they have to work.

You have got to be kidding me....

[OlBlueCJ7]

Pretty soon we'll all be running around with padded helmets and knee pads.

Further proof of Mr. Carlin's (I think that's who coined the term) Pussification of America.

Yeah, I know smoking is wrong, it's bad for you & all that other jazz. Why does the government feel the need to dictate my ability to smoke? I'm not on welfare, or on medicare, so why should they care?

[scottycards]

RANT ON:
Owner buys building, opens bar with his investment. Can "reserve the right to refuse service to anyone", government now tells him he has to ban smoking in his bar. Smokers (who tend to drink more than non smokers- this is FACT) no longer patronize his establishment- they go to friends house where they can smoke and drink. Business owner sees about 30% decrease in business.
So much for free enterprise.
My wife has been in the restaurant business for 17 years. Her company operates restaurants in several states. As a corporation, when a local community bans smoking, they cut the revenue forecast for that partucular location by 30%. They have been doing this for years, and the numbers pan out to pretty much exactly that amount every time.
People can choose which establishments they patronize.
Doesn't anyone think it's quite interesting how the CASINOS are not subject to the smoking ban. Can you say Political Action Committee dollars at work?
WTF? Smoking ban everywhere but casinos? It's because the casinos KNOW that their revenue will decrease. And to the guy who is such little victim- "I can only work in a casino". Dude, cry me a river. You can work anywhere you choose.
Our local government is a joke.
Anyone been to Rooster's bar lately? Noticied how dead it is? It's because a good part of their customer base, who smoke, now go across the street to Fox N Hound where smoking is allowed.
Whatever you think of this issue, the facts are the facts, and business owners will suffer.
Anyone who says their business picked up after smoking ban is full of s**t. It just don't happen that way.
RANT OFF.
I'm with Clyde. :hail: Let's un-elect them...........:hail:

[Lil_Mule]

I'm much like Waifer... trapped in a car as a child and affected so much that the idea of touching a cig disgusts me. Never tried it, always avoided it, can't stand it. I pick up the smell instantly in the air or on someone. Sometimes I wonder if certain smokers can smell their own stink? Now I say certain because some are just horrid... but I can smell all of you... from here :P

However I sort of have to agree with the smokers.... I don't think they should be told where they can smoke. If I have a choice to not visit a business that allows smoking, that should be enough. It's not an illegal activity, and personally, if you go to your smoking area, and it doesn't affect me... I don't care. Same as homosexuality really. I don't agree with it for me, but at the same time I don't care as long as it's not put out there in my face.

Maybe every building should be forced to have a smoking area? I mean, you can't discriminate, and you have to have accesibility ramps... is it any different? It might even make the area outside the buildings smell better? God forbid the smokers might actually pick up the butts?

[JPGUY]

So what about other things that cause damage to people who have no choice? It's easy to get behind a smoking ban because smokers are the minority. What about your BOOZE? I don't drink. I smoke. Yep I said it I SMOKE:eek: . Guess what?.....I hate the smell of stale Beer. Yep I said it I hate the smell of BEER. I hate the smell of your puke in the bathroom at the bar resturant or wherever you could not control yourself. It makes me F%&KING ILL. I HATE THE FACT THAT YOU MAY DRINK AND KILL ME AND MY FAMILY ON THE WAY HOME. I hate when your drunk ass tells me the same things twenty-five times a night cuz you are so wasted you can not control yourself or remember anything. I hate the fact that your beer cans and bottles litter all parks with softball fields and smell horrible the next day. I hate the fact that booze took over your life and now you beg on the streets for.....guess what BOOZE. I want to know who looks out for me? Everyone says smokers need to do this and that fine...what will you do for me?:shrug: Will you stop peeing in the alley? How about no more drunken barfights? Maybe you can just not breath or talk to me cuz you fricking stink!!!! What are my rights? To make life easier for all of you? At what point can I enjoy my existance without being submitted to your drunk,smelly, rancid, incoherent vise??!!!??? When I was young you could smoke in planes, hospitals and so on. Now you are an outkast and a POS. Celebrate now for your smoking ban...because soon they will take something away from YOU!!!:tisk: Maybe it will be your ALL HOLY :beer: :beer: :beer: :beer: THEN WHAT WILL YOU DO? YOU LEAVE ME ALONE AND I WILL RETURN THE FAVOR THANKS!! We all do things that affect others know it or not. Soon you will not have any choice in what is "your' way. Whatever the general public thinks,must be good for us all right?? So next time you have a decision to make about yourself or children ask me. I know what is good for you,because you all know what is good for me.

[TLWeber]

Government in Colorado SUCKS! Gov in the USA SUCKS! slowly they are taking away our rights as so called free Americans have. People say we have the most freedom...yeah right! If you dont like to be around people who smoke or go to places were smoking is allowed then DONT GO!!! there are many places (bars, etc.) that have smoke free areas, go there...pretty soon the gov. will control us, shit is hitting the fan folks! I am personally not a smoker but i am cool with people smoking around me...i go to bar expecting to come home smelling of that shit, but i know that before i even go...so cry me a river if you dont like to smell like smoke when you come home from a bar...you big babies! there are plenty of smoke free establishments, go there if you dont like to smell like smoke.

[Gags]

How can some of you people be such sissy bitches when it comes to a little cigarette smoke? This is nothing more than fascist bullsh!t. Fawking poosees. Toughen up, jeez. I guess peoples fawking comfort-level out weighs personal freedom.

With all the other odors and emissions that can hurt you, second hand smoke would be the least of my worries.

Nazi's.

[Gags]

I almost went off on this sissy at the bar last night for saying how happy he was that the law passed so he could sit his big fat ass down and get fawking drunk without smoke.

Nanny laws are extremely objectionable to me.

[Sound_Man]

The thing that gets me about it is they are taking away the choice for the owner of the establishment.

Face it, if non smoking bars made more money than smoking bars there wouldn't be any smoking bars. So the owners of the bars allow people to smoke. There are non-smoking bars, not very many but they do exist. The thing is now the owners have no choice. They can't even create an area outside to cater to their smoking customers because their patrons will be drinking in public.

Poor legislation from weak leadership if you ask me. Owens didn't even have the nuts to do it in public.

I play in a lot of bars and have talked to a few of the club owners about this. None of them are happy about it. One even told me that he has had one person tell him that they thought it was a good idea and the guy was smoking. One bar owner told me that he is worried that it may hurt his business enough that he may close.

Whats next? The type and or style of clothing you are allowed to wear? Wait, they do that in schools already. Have to teach the kids early that it is okay to be sensored and manipulated by the system.

[Gags]

The thing that gets me about it is they are taking away the choice for the owner of the establishment.

Face it, if non smoking bars made more money than smoking bars there wouldn't be any smoking bars. So the owners of the bars allow people to smoke. There are non-smoking bars, not very many but they do exist. The thing is now the owners have no choice. They can't even create an area outside to cater to their smoking customers because their patrons will be drinking in public.

Poor legislation from weak leadership if you ask me. Owens didn't even have the nuts to do it in public.

I play in a lot of bars and have talked to a few of the club owners about this. None of them are happy about it. One even told me that he has had one person tell him that they thought it was a good idea and the guy was smoking. One bar owner told me that he is worried that it may hurt his business enough that he may close.

Whats next? The type and or style of clothing you are allowed to wear? Wait, they do that in schools already. Have to teach the kids early that it is okay to be sensored and manipulated by the system.



I agree totally. WTF, how does this not present itself as a solution. Why do people feel perfectly OK about telling the bar owners to go f-themselves? Let economics decide.

[Gags]

I think our elected officials have better sh!t to do than create Nanny laws. It pisses me off that they even devoted attention to this.

[jtw2]

None of these bars are going to close. When I'm up in Canada all of the bars are non smoking cause of the same type of law. They all have little patios that everyone congregates on to smoke. Every bar I went to was packed. People don't change where they go if there is no alternative. They will simply step outside to smoke.

As I said before though, I don't like the idea of the nanny state telling people what to do "for their own good".

[Sound_Man]

I think our elected officials have better sh!t to do than create Nanny laws. It pisses me off that they even devoted attention to this.

Agreed, and it is not normal for the two of us to agree so :beer:

I think they should close I-70 and I-25. One truck that drives through the state from end to end or side to side in a single day produces more polution and puts more crap in the air than a smoker does. So close the highways and protect the air!!!!

Wait a minute though, those are public highways. You can't smoke there with this new legislation because it is a public place. :rolleyes:

[CLYDE]

How can some of you people be such sissy bitches when it comes to a little cigarette smoke? This is nothing more than fascist bullsh!t. Fawking poosees. Toughen up, jeez. I guess peoples fawking comfort-level out weighs personal freedom.

With all the other odors and emissions that can hurt you, second hand smoke would be the least of my worries.

Nazi's. Lmao,, I plan to go on a pure bean diet, smell this all you political correctness nazis...

[oleblue]

Lmao,, I plan to go on a pure bean diet, smell this all you political correctness nazis...

Oh yea, only problem is that produces methane gasses, which are a known greenhouse gas. There for will have to me made illegal. :D

[CLYDE]

Oh yea, only problem is that produces methane gasses, which are a known greenhouse gas. There for will have to me made illegal. :D
Yeah I pity the person who gets tasked to enforce that one...

[bojik]

some places are supposed to be smoky bars, pool halls, bowling alleys etc... they had that ban in cali sometimes i walked into a place and something was just missing, kinda weirded me out

[bsaunder]

I think our elected officials have better sh!t to do than create Nanny laws. It pisses me off that they even devoted attention to this.

On a basic level - the vast majority, if not all laws, could be considered nanny laws. Laws legislate morality - ie what you should and should not do.

While I disagree with taking away a business owner's right to make the choice themselves; I'd be lying to say I'm not at least a little bit happy about the law. The writing has been on the wall for years, so I'm not too surprised it passed, just surprised it did so now rather than several years from now.

Maybe I?m off base, but I find the ?sky is falling? argument that the bars will loose tons of business etc and people will stay home as a very weak argument. People go to bars to socialize first and foremost (talking pure bars, not restaurant/bars); the same social people will still want to be social even if they have to go through a few more hoops to be able to smoke. For those that don?t need the social aspect and choose to stay home, great for them; they?ll be saving a ton of $$.

So a question for those that are much more adamantly against the new law than I am - how many of you contacted your representatives to inform them of your opinion once the deliberations made the news?
It was mentioned on the news for well over a month before the vote occurred, so there was plenty of time to have your voice heard.

[Sound_Man]

On a basic level - the vast majority, if not all laws, could be considered nanny laws. Laws legislate morality - ie what you should and should not do. Sorry that my smoking is against your morality :rolleyes: It sits just fine with me. I don't think that is a good way to try to justify laws and regulations but to each his own.


So a question for those that are much more adamantly against the new law than I am - how many of you contacted your representatives to inform them of your opinion once the deliberations made the news?
It was mentioned on the news for well over a month before the vote occurred, so there was plenty of time to have your voice heard.

I sure did more than once.

[bsaunder]

Sorry that my smoking is against your morality :rolleyes: It sits just fine with me. I don't think that is a good way to try to justify laws and regulations but to each his own.


Whoa - back the truck up there - I NEVER said I thought that smoking was not moral. I stated that laws legislate morailty - morailty being what we should and should not do.

Do not put words in my mouth that I did not say - I say enough stupid crap on my own.

I sure did more than once.
I'm glad to hear it; unfortunately I think you are in the vast minority that exercises their write to tell their representatives how they want to be represented.

[Sound_Man]

Whoa - back the truck up there bud - I NEVER said I thought that smoking was not moral. I stated that laws legislate morailty - morailty being what we should and should not do. Show me one law that does not do that.

Do not put words in my mouth that I did not say - I say enough stupid shit on my own.

Telling a bar owner that he can not allow his patrons to smoke in his establishment is a morally correct thing? Not some misconstrued legislation that is being done because it is "good for their health"?

I am not jumping on you or running you over with the truck so to speak. :beer: :smokin:

[bsaunder]

Telling a bar owner that he can not allow his patrons to smoke in his establishment is a morally correct thing? Not some misconstrued legislation that is being done because it is "good for their health"?

I am not jumping on you or running you over with the truck so to speak. :beer: :smokin:

Nope - I don't think its moral or otherwise a correct thing to do; hense why I said I disagree with it.
Just responding to the comment that our legislators shouldn't be passing nanny laws as any law could be considered a nanny law - it just depends on your view point of the law.:beer:

[Gags]

Telling a bar owner that he can not allow his patrons to smoke in his establishment is a morally correct thing? Not some misconstrued legislation that is being done because it is "good for their health"?

I am not jumping on you or running you over with the truck so to speak. :beer: :smokin:


That's hillarious.:D

Getting drunk and eating crap food is oh so healthy. LEAVE OUR BROTHELS AND WHORE HOUSES ALONE YOU BASTARDS. THESE ARE PLACES OF SIN AND ALWAYS WILL BE...PLEASE LEAVE THEM ALONE. I LOVE THEM...VERY MUCH.

[Gags]

They had me at hello.

[Gags]

Really? People are dying. This doesn't matter except for the fact that the utter bullsh!t just sucks.

[jx94148]

Been there, done that in CA. Smokers will learn to live with it, or quit. I quit. Just like the enormous tax that shot the price up to approx 5.50 for a cheapie pack.

Roll your own brother.
Its the American way.

[jx94148]

We're pretty spoiled on the north end of town with a lot of places that are non-smoking or have some version of the law (Broomfield, Boulder, Arvada, Louisville, etc.). It gives us a choice. I've noticed when I'm down on the south end of town that everywhere is smoking, so it probably seems like a drastic change.

Boulder has bars with big smoking areas and people can still smoke outside. It has all worked itself out. It's not the end of the world. It gives everyone more options.

That's an awesome post. Choices, options; that's the American way. Let stuff work its self out instead of cramming laws down our throats.

Testify!!

[Gags]

Nope - I don't think its moral or otherwise a correct thing to do; hense why I said I disagree with it.
Just responding to the comment that our legislators shouldn't be passing nanny laws as any law could be considered a nanny law - it just depends on your view point of the law.:beer:

OK, explain to me the difference between laws against rape and murder and laws against smoking and seatbelt laws? Yes, I understand your argument. I would say Nanny laws, however, can be classified as not having anything to do with morality. Smoking isn't moral or immoral. Seat-belts are neither moral or immoral. Multiple wives = immoral in court of public opinion.

[Sound_Man]

Who is going to enforce it?

How?

When it's Friday night and the whole state is in party/ wife beating/drunk driving/prostitution/looking for Meth mode. Will the cops drop everything and run to a bar when somone lights a cigarette?

And if they do, what will the penalty be? Let's tie up the courts with smoking-in-a-bar-cases. That's a great idea.

Nice job on another un-enforceable law.

That is all.
From the other thread.....

I would have to believe that in order for this to work the club/bar owners would have to be responsible for enforcing it. The only way that would be possible is to put their liquor license on the line the same way it would be if people are doing any other illegal activity in their establishment or on the premises.
I really don't know how they will do it for sure or even where to find out what the penalties are for breaking this new law.

DaJudge do you have any insight on this?

[Waifer2112]

To those who say workers can just work somewhere else. Should this apply to all trades? You know, like the miners who died recently. Hey, tough sh!t. They were the one who "chose" to work there, right? Or maybe we should just buy cars we can afford. OF course, the cheap cars would come with breaks that fail, no windshield wipers, etc...

Or, are you glad that when you go into a public building, there were codes that mandated (nannied) it be built safely, so it won't fall on you. Why can't the builder/owner of their own personal property be allowed to throw a few 2x4's together right next to your house and call it home? Could it be for safety? Naw, it must be the fascist nannies crying that it would de-value their property. This was presented (rightly in my mind) to be about safety for workers and patrons, not about morality. But, those who smoke tend not to want to think about the proven dangers of it, and spin it to be about morality and business owner rights.:shrug:

[bsaunder]

OK, explain to me the difference between laws against rape and murder and laws against smoking and seatbelt laws? Yes, I understand your argument. I would say Nanny laws, however, can be classified as not having anything to do with morality. Smoking isn't moral or immoral. Seat-belts are neither moral or immoral. Multiple wives = immoral in court of public opinion.

Its all in the eyes of the law makers;

**Not my feelings**, but this is how I could word it

- they feel it is morally wrong for one person to jeopardize another person?s health via their choice to lite up.
- They feel it is morally wrong for a person to not use a safety device (seatbelt) and in doing so increase the cost to the tax paying populace through increased insurance costs to pay for medical treatment ? or they feel it is morally wrong for a parent to possibly jeopardize themselves and cause mental scars on the kid through loss of a parent etc.
- They feel it is morally wrong for someone to force another to have sex with them
- They feel it is morally wrong for one person to take another person?s life
- They feel it is morally wrong for a person to take their own life

Bottom line ? if everyone agreed to the same set of rules or morals; there would be no need for laws.

[Sound_Man]

Here is the law..
http://www.gaspforair.org/gasp/gedc/pdf/HB1175.pdf

It states the fines but not who is responsible for enforcment.

Also from the same site http://www.gaspforair.org/gasp/gedc/pdf/modelrevised.pdf

Colorado?s Model Ordinance for
Smoke-Free Workplaces and Public Places
Endorsed By:

The American Cancer Society ? American Heart Association ? American Lung Association ? Colorado Breath (Bar and Restaurant Employees Against Tobacco Hazards) ? CoPIRG (Colorado Public Interest Research Group) ? CTEPA (Colorado Tobacco Education and Prevention Alliance) ? GASP of Colorado (Group To Alleviate Smoking Pollution)

States

Sec. 1010. Enforcement
A. Enforcement of this Article shall be implemented by the [Department of Health, City or County Law Enforcement, City or County Code Enforcement or City Manager], or his or her designee.
B. Notice of the provisions set forth in this Article shall be given to all applicants for a business license in the City [County] of _____________.
C.
D. Any person who desires to register a complaint under this chapter may initiate enforcement with the [Department of Health, City or County Law Enforcement, City or County Code Enforcement or City Manager].
D. The Health Department or the Fire Department shall inspect for compliance of this ordinance while an establishment is undergoing otherwise mandated inspections.
E. Any owner, manager, operator or employee of any establishment regulated by this Article shall inform persons violating this Article of the appropriate provisions thereof and request their compliance.
F. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Article, a private citizen may bring legal action to enforce this Article.

[oleblue]

From the other thread.....

I would have to believe that in order for this to work the club/bar owners would have to be responsible for enforcing it. The only way that would be possible is to put their liquor license on the line the same way it would be if people are doing any other illegal activity in their establishment or on the premises.
I really don't know how they will do it for sure or even where to find out what the penalties are for breaking this new law.

DaJudge do you have any insight on this?

Here is the the law with the questions you have, as I found it, not sure which one passed, this is from (House bill) HB06-1175:

25-14-207. Other applicable regulations of smoking - local
counterpart regulations authorized. (1) THIS PART 2 SHALL NOT BE
INTERPRETED OR CONSTRUED TO PERMIT SMOKING WHERE IT IS OTHERWISE
RESTRICTED BY ANY OTHER APPLICABLE LAW.
(2) (a) A LOCAL AUTHORITY MAY, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 16 OF TITLE
31, C.R.S., A MUNICIPAL HOME RULE CHARTER, OR ARTICLE 15 OF TITLE 30,
C.R.S., ENACT, ADOPT, AND ENFORCE SMOKING REGULATIONS THAT COVER
THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER AS THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THIS PART 2.
NO LOCAL AUTHORITY MAY ADOPT ANY LOCAL REGULATION OF SMOKING
THAT IS LESS STRINGENT THAN THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PART 2; EXCEPT
THAT A LOCAL AUTHORITY MAY SPECIFY A RADIUS OF LESS THAN FIFTEEN
FEET FOR THE AREA INCLUDED WITHIN AN ENTRYWAY.
(b) THE MUNICIPAL COURTS OR THEIR EQUIVALENT IN ANY CITY, CITY
AND COUNTY, OR TOWN HAVE JURISDICTION OVER VIOLATIONS OF SMOKING
REGULATIONS ENACTED BY ANY CITY, CITY AND COUNTY, OR TOWN UNDER
THIS SECTION.
25-14-208. Unlawful acts - penalty - disposition of fines and
surcharges. (1) IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON WHO OWNS, MANAGES,
OPERATES, OR OTHERWISE CONTROLS THE USE OF A PREMISES SUBJECT TO
THIS PART 2 TO VIOLATE ANY PROVISION OF THIS PART 2.
(2) IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO SMOKE IN AN AREA WHERE
SMOKING IS PROHIBITED PURSUANT TO THIS PART 2.
(3) A PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS PART 2 IS GUILTY OF A CLASS 2
PETTY OFFENSE AND, UPON CONVICTION THEREOF, SHALL BE PUNISHED BY
A FINE NOT TO EXCEED TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR A FIRST VIOLATION
WITHIN A CALENDAR YEAR, A FINE NOT TO EXCEED THREE HUNDRED
DOLLARS FOR A SECOND VIOLATION WITHIN A CALENDAR YEAR, AND A FINE
PAGE 10-HOUSE BILL 06-1175
NOT TO EXCEED FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR EACH ADDITIONAL VIOLATION
WITHIN A CALENDAR YEAR. EACH DAY OF A CONTINUING VIOLATION SHALL
BE DEEMED A SEPARATE VIOLATION.
(4) ALL JUDGES, CLERKS OF A COURT OF RECORD, OR OTHER
OFFICERS IMPOSING OR RECEIVING FINES COLLECTED PURSUANT TO OR AS A
RESULT OF A CONVICTION OF ANY PERSONS FOR A VIOLATION OF ANY
PROVISION OF THIS PART 2 SHALL TRANSMIT ALL SUCH MONEYS SO
COLLECTED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:
(a) SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF ANY SUCH FINE FOR A VIOLATION
OCCURRING WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF A CITY, TOWN, OR CITY AND
COUNTY SHALL BE TRANSMITTED TO THE TREASURER OR CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER OF SAID CITY, TOWN, OR CITY AND COUNTY, AND THE REMAINING
TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT SHALL BE TRANSMITTED TO THE STATE TREASURER,
WHO SHALL CREDIT THE SAME TO THE GENERAL FUND.
(b) SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF ANY FINE FOR A VIOLATION
OCCURRING OUTSIDE THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF A CITY OR TOWN SHALL BE
TRANSMITTED TO THE TREASURER OF THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE CITY OR
TOWN IS LOCATED, AND THE REMAINING TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT SHALL BE
TRANSMITTED TO THE STATE TREASURER, WHO SHALL CREDIT THE SAME TO
THE GENERAL FUND.

You can file the complete bill here:
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics2006a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/962CE166CD2E8DA6872570970080A542?Open&file=1175_enr.pdf

[bsaunder]

Here is the law..
http://www.gaspforair.org/gasp/gedc/pdf/HB1175.pdf

It states the fines but not who is responsible for enforcment.

Also from the same site http://www.gaspforair.org/gasp/gedc/pdf/modelrevised.pdf



States

Actually I'd say its quite clear who has to enforce it - the business owner has to enforce it if they want to stay open. The fire dept and health inspector can shut down a business if they are not in compliance and both regularly do announced and unannouced inspections.

[Sound_Man]

Californication of Colorado is how it appears to me.

[Milo]

I can't believe everyone is so upset about this they are just asking you to smoke outside. Its not like they are making you quit.

[Sound_Man]

I can't believe everyone is so upset about this they are just asking you to smoke outside. Its not like they are making you quit.

Want to go stand outside in the middle of January or Febuary?

That is not the real issue to me. What is the issue is the rights of the owner of a bar to choose what will happen in his/her bar are being dictated to them. Prohibition all over again.

This country was pretty much founded on tobacco and as we seemingly always do, we are going to cut the things that are good for the economy so someone can impose their "rights" on someone else.

It was the "staple" of the Chesapeake colonies in a broader sense than any other staple the world has known. For, in the ancient province, all the processes of government society and domestic life began and ended with tobacco.

Whats next? Booze? Diesel trucks? Levis?

[bsaunder]

If we start following suit of several EU nations (which seems to be the desire of many of our elected officials) - it may soon be illegal to smoke anywhere except on your private property. Spain just passed a nation wide law that prohibits smoking in any public place; including outside.

I doubt that will happen any time soon; but I wouldn't be surprised to see another significant tax increase on cigarettes in the near future.

[oleblue]

...
Whats next? Booze? Diesel trucks? Levis?

Cell phones.

[Gags]

I can't believe everyone is so upset about this they are just asking you to smoke outside. Its not like they are making you quit.

I be just as offended if they made religion illegal...And I'm definitely not a fan of organized religion.

(the analogy is based on what I hate the most and would fight for, even though on some level it would make me happy if they made it illegal)

[Sound_Man]

NUREMBERG DOCTORS' TRIAL

The anti-tobacco campaign of the Nazis: a little known aspect of public health in Germany, 1933-45

Robert N Proctor, professor of the history of science

Department of History, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, United States

Historians and epidemiologists have only recently begun to explore the Nazi anti-tobacco movement. Germany had the world's strongest antismoking movement in the 1930s and early 1940s, encompassing bans on smoking in public spaces, bans on advertising, restrictions on tobacco rations for women, and the world's most refined tobacco epidemiology, linking tobacco use with the already evident epidemic of lung cancer. The anti-tobacco campaign must be understood against the backdrop of the Nazi quest for racial and bodily purity, which also motivated many other public health efforts of the era.


Sound familiar?

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1450

[Gags]

I knew it - facist anti-tobacco people ( 1 2)
Gags

More ammo from this thread for you.

[Milo]

How many of you honestly smoke at your home dinner table or smoke while cooking???? Go outside in winter, common where a jacket or better yet quit smoking. They arent going to outlaw booze and levis and deisel trucks. Get a grip those all combined don't kill as many as cigarettes do. They are doing it for safety and health reasons. They can pound it in to peoples heads over and over again, smoking kills. But until smoking directly effects people they could give two cents. Now that they are taking it away and giving smoking a consequence smokers all of a sudden give a damn.

[Sound_Man]

How many of you honestly smoke at your home dinner table or smoke while cooking???? Go outside in winter, common where a jacket or better yet quit smoking. They arent going to outlaw booze and levis and deisel trucks. Get a grip those all combined don't kill as many as cigarettes do. They are doing it for safety and health reasons. They can pound it in to peoples heads over and over again, smoking kills. But until smoking directly effects people they could give two cents. Now that they are taking it away and giving smoking a consequence smokers all of a sudden give a damn.

You are missing the point. The thing to be concerned with is that laws are being passed that dictate a ban on someones right to choose to do what they want to do with their body. The next thing in all probability will be booze. It is bad for your liver, people die from it too, it is addictive. Drunk drivers kill people all the time. I would guess that it is next on the chopping block. Cell phones are controlable, in a lot of newer buildings there are devices in the walls or paint the kill reception with the flick of a switch. I am willing to bet that cars will have that in them soon.

Yes I smoke, big deal, that is not why I am arguing this. It is legislation being put on the right to choose and that I don't agree with.

[Gags]

You are missing the point. The thing to be concerned with is that laws are being passed that dictate a ban on someones right to choose to do what they want to do with their body. The next thing in all probability will be booze. It is bad for your liver, people die from it too, it is addictive. Drunk drivers kill people all the time. I would guess that it is next on the chopping block. Cell phones are controlable, in a lot of newer buildings there are devices in the walls or paint the kill reception with the flick of a switch. I am willing to bet that cars will have that in them soon.

Yes I smoke, big deal, that is not why I am arguing this. It is legislation being put on the right to choose and that I don't agree with.


X2

[Joker]

Yes I smoke, big deal, that is not why I am arguing this.

No offense...but somehow I feel that IS a major reason you are voicing your opinion.
I personally don't care about the law....why? Because I DON'T smoke and it doesn't effect me like it does smokers.

[oleblue]

No offense...but somehow I feel that IS a major reason you are voicing your opinion.
I personally don't care about the law....why? Because I DON'T smoke and it doesn't effect me like it does smokers.

But this law is written FOR you.

[bsaunder]

You are missing the point. The thing to be concerned with is that laws are being passed that dictate a ban on someones right to choose to do what they want to do with their body. The next thing in all probability will be booze. It is bad for your liver, people die from it too, it is addictive. Drunk drivers kill people all the time. I would guess that it is next on the chopping block. Cell phones are controlable, in a lot of newer buildings there are devices in the walls or paint the kill reception with the flick of a switch. I am willing to bet that cars will have that in them soon.

Yes I smoke, big deal, that is not why I am arguing this. It is legislation being put on the right to choose and that I don't agree with.

Laws already regulate what drugs you can put in your body and how old you have to be.
Laws already tell a woman if/when she can get an abortion.
Laws already force a man to get spousal consent for a vasectomy.
Laws already regulate how old you have to be to get a tattoo without consent.
Laws already "prohibit" you from ending your own life.

If limiting what you do with your body is the basis for the argument, then I would hope you are also against all of the above limiting laws (you very well may be).

For blocking cell phones, except in specific government installations, you'll have to get the FCC to change its laws as it is currently against the law to actively or passively block any FCC allowed signal in a publicly accessible area.

[oleblue]

...as it is currently against the law to actively or passively block any FCC allowed signal in a publicly accessible area.

It's also against the law to block any FCC allowed signal in your own home too. Trust me, I got to know the FBI folks.

[otisdog]

Really I am appalled at what they have done with ammendment 35 and now the smoking ban. Everyone should be - even if you are not a smoker. They have placed an outrageous tax on tobacco - way beyond fair, and now they are telling business owners they can't allow smoking under any circumstances. Even if you don't use tobacco you just got screwed big time because these were your freedoms too. So what's next?
I personally will not support this state government in any way anymore. When they ask the voters for something I'll vote against it. I'll darn sure be looking at the people I can vote for - whether they supported these things or not.
jim

[CLYDE]

I can't believe everyone is so upset about this they are just asking you to smoke outside. Its not like they are making you quit. Let me see? Would it bother you if YOU were asked to step outside so that we could smoke inside?????

[CLYDE]

Really I am appalled at what they have done with ammendment 35 and now the smoking ban. Everyone should be - even if you are not a smoker. They have placed an outrageous tax on tobacco - way beyond fair, and now they are telling business owners they can't allow smoking under any circumstances. Even if you don't use tobacco you just got screwed big time because these were your freedoms too. So what's next?
I personally will not support this state government in any way anymore. When they ask the voters for something I'll vote against it. I'll darn sure be looking at the people I can vote for - whether they supported these things or not.
jimX2 Owens betrayed us on this one for sure...

[Joker]

But this law is written FOR you.
I think it seemed obvious what I was trying to say.
It doesn't seem to bother non-smokers like it seems to bother an everyday smoker.

[Joker]

The one thing I do see happening maybe a little more often now is the possibility that more smokers might turn to smokeless tobacco when in the bar scene.

[CLYDE]

The one thing I do see happening maybe a little more often now is the possibility that more smokers might turn to smokeless tobacco when in the bar scene.Yep, and if ya non smokin type think smoke is bad,, waitll ya start walkin around in all that slimy snoose joose on the floor lol

[Joker]

Yep, and if ya non smokin type think smoke is bad,, waitll ya start walkin around in all that slimy snoose joose on the floor lol

Yeah...and I just quit the stuff within the last year.
That sure would make it easy to bum a dip when you have a few beers in ya.

[bsaunder]

Let me see? Would it bother you if YOU were asked to step outside so that we could smoke inside?????

actually no - I already do at most bars etc; they smoke inside - I breath outside. And yes, I do it in Jan-Feb too, the sky is usually the clearest on the really cold nights anyways and you get a great view of the stars. I would have actually been much more happy if they banned smoking on all the balconies etc outside so I could eat outside without smoke and let all the smokers rebreath their smoke inside. Oh well, I'll just continue to do as I have in the past and go into the balconies knowing there will be smoke there and deal with it, or just not go.
Now it will be just like anyother office - the inside is smoke free and the smokers go outside to smoke, and in the colder months I'll hold my breath for the ~50ft range by the doors as at least several of the smokers won't be able to walk further than a couple feet from the door.
The die hard smokers will still smoke, just like the die hard drinkers will still drink, businesses will still be in business and government will have one more law for health regulation.

[Sound_Man]

Another thing that I am curious about is what the loss of state revenue will be. The sale of cigerettes will drop considerably if you can't freely smoke in public places and bars. I know many people that only smoke when they drink and that is usually in a bar. The taxes are ridiculus on cigerettes and the purchases will go down, tax revenue will drop off from it. To make up for it I am sure the taxes will go up again. Unless the plan is to make up for the loss of revenue with fines against individuales that want the freedom to have a smoke if they want one in public.

Those of you that think I am voicing my opinion about this soley because I smoke don't know me very well. This is about legislation that I don't believe in. For those of you that don't smoke and don't want to be around it and think the ban is the best thing since synthetic oil more power to you and congrats on your legislative victory of freedoms.

If limiting what you do with your body is the basis for the argument, then I would hope you are also against all of the above limiting laws (you very well may be).

I am to some extent but then you would be driving this thread into parenting and other topics. I choose not to go there at this time. Maybe one day over a beer and a fat cuban cigar ;)

[bsaunder]

Yep, and if ya non smokin type think smoke is bad,, waitll ya start walkin around in all that slimy snoose joose on the floor lol

As disgusting as that may be, I have yet to hear of second hand sliming to cause medical problems.
Besides; its always fun to see the idot try and snag a sip from your drink only to find out its really your spittoon:D:barf:

[Joker]

Besides; its always fun to see the idot try and snag a sip from your drink only to find out its really your spittoon:D:barf:

:barf: :barf: :barf:

I just puked in my mouth a little.:(

[Sound_Man]

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_3663460?source=rss

[Sound_Man]

I got this in an email about the smoking ban that just went into effect in St. Paul...this guy's got a way with words.
____

Okay... I skipped reading most of this thread because a lot of the comments are probably posted by "Second Hand Smoke = Instant Death" a$$holes.
Simple solution. Knock the government out of the argument. Each business is allowed to make the decision -- smoking, non-smoking, split sections. Let market forces decide.
Put up big signs out front. "This Establishment Allows Smoking." "This Establishment Doesn't Allow Smoking." "This Establishment Has Smoking and Non-Smoking Sections." Now, let adults decide for themselves. Allow to fester for six months. biatch-slap and/or cock-punch anyone who enters a place with the "We Allow" sign and then complains.

Also, bitch-slap or (o(k-punch any asshole who passes within 300 feet of a cigarette and fakes coughing.

Return to previous step. Yank the courts and police out of the issue, let market forces decide -- if you're really either an a) States' Rights Freak or b) a Libertarian.

'Cause, you know what? I'm tired of letting non-smoking a$$holes decide this debate. It works like this. You get your choice in which business to patronize. You get the big-ass sign in your face. "Smoke Free" or "Smoking". You feel so goddamn strongly, you know which one to pick. You pick the wrong one... suck it up and shut up. And, for your information -- the few times in the last decade when I've been in states with smoking sections in restaurants, I've picked the non-smoking section, and have refrained from lighting up when I'm indoors. Why? I don't like a side of smoke with my fries either. I can wait until I'm away from the pussies to light up. But, note -- I can only wait as long as those pussies aren't reaching into my back pocket to control my life.

It's called "live and let live," (o(ksuckers. As in -- you don't try to micro-manage my life, then I'll be very inclined to be polite in yours. But -- dick with my every action, I'll be the first one to blow a big-a$$, lung-choking wad of smoke in your face, grab you by the collar and scream, "First Amendment, Mother****er."

Even if it's not. But, get the point? Smokers will be just as polite as the militant non-smokers are -- and militant non-smokers are among the rudest mother****ers I've ever met. Rudest and most self-righteous. (Ever ask Rob Reiner why, if he's so health-conscious, he weighs 400 pounds? Didn't think so...)

Ohmygawd. You walked out of a building and saw someone smoking half a mile away. Too farking bad, asshat. You make it sound like a walk outside involves me shoving a smoldering butt up your nose. It doesn't. Unless you go out of your way to be offended -- which 99% of you anti-smoking Nazis seem all too willing to do. And, anyway, why aren't you complaining about the smog, the lack of Ozone, the general shiattiness of the air in cities like LA or Seattle? Trust me -- ten minutes on a freeway will do more damage to your lungs then ten days in a smoky bar.

/Oops. I said "anti-smoking Nazis." Godwin is in play.
//Not at all undeserved, though.
///farking anti-smoking pussies.
////Find a cause that effects everyone, and then harp on that, dickwits. Otherwise, shut the fark up about something you can easily avoid, since you've legislated the hell out of this for the rest of us.
/////Asshats.

[Waifer2112]

Hey Soundman. You want to answer my question in post 101? I have yet to see you address the real reason of the ban, which is safety/health.

[Gags]

Hey Soundman. You want to answer my question in post 101? I have yet to see you address the real reason of the ban, which is safety/health.


Ah yes, because we are so extremely dedicated to the health and safety of our people.

[Sound_Man]

There are a bunch of ?'s in post #101
To those who say workers can just work somewhere else. Should this apply to all trades? You know, like the miners who died recently. Hey, tough sh!t. They were the one who "chose" to work there, right? Or maybe we should just buy cars we can afford. OF course, the cheap cars would come with breaks that fail, no windshield wipers, etc...

Or, are you glad that when you go into a public building, there were codes that mandated (nannied) it be built safely, so it won't fall on you. Why can't the builder/owner of their own personal property be allowed to throw a few 2x4's together right next to your house and call it home? Could it be for safety? Naw, it must be the fascist nannies crying that it would de-value their property. This was presented (rightly in my mind) to be about safety for workers and patrons, not about morality. But, those who smoke tend not to want to think about the proven dangers of it, and spin it to be about morality and business owner rights.:shrug:

But if it is saftey and health then why are the casino's still allowed?
Why are they still for sale?

Legislate our rights all to he11 :thumbsup:

[Waifer2112]

Well, at least you responded at all. I haven't seen any good arguements against the ban based on what it was written as. Just a bunch of name calling and changing the subject.

[Waifer2112]

There are a bunch of ?'s in post #101


But if it is saftey and health then why are the casino's still allowed?
Why are they still for sale?

Legislate our rights all to he11 :thumbsup:

See post 137.

We all know why the casino's were exempted. $$$. IMHO, if it's not a total ban, including casino's, there shouldn't be one for bars. KInd of an all or nothing deal.

[Sound_Man]

See post 137.

We all know why the casino's were exempted. $$$. IMHO, if it's not a total ban, including casino's, there shouldn't be one for bars. KInd of an all or nothing deal.
Agreed....

See paragraph #2 in post #129, that has been my argument all along.

I honestly don't mind walking outside if I want a smoke or can hold off until I am in the right company or the right place. That reall does not matter to me. The legislation that is very prohibition like to me is the kicker. I think it is poor legislation period.

[Sound_Man]

Well, at least you responded at all. I haven't seen any good arguements against the ban based on what it was written as. Just a bunch of name calling and changing the subject.

I don't think I have called anyone any names or tried to change the topic. More so I think I have tried to keep this on topic and not let it wander into parenting or anything else.

If taking away the ability for a bar owner or patron to make a choice is not good enough reason then I don't know what is.

If this is such great legislation why are there not more non-smoking bars already? Why is this not a nationwide thing? Probably because this country was founded on tobacco and it is still very heavily rooted in our culture.

I just wonder what will get legislated next. I am sure that someone has their panties in a bind over something.

[Snotty]

I have styaed out of this because it is something that hits a little closer to home. I also feel the law is stupid, but here is my take.

Smoking is a choice, breathing isn't.

[jnschwie]

I just wonder what will get legislated next. I am sure that someone has their panties in a bind over something.

I demand that our interstate expressways be restricted to healthcare workers only during the hours of 6:30am-7:30am and again from 3:30-5:00pm.

Lets be honest. Its for our collective health, Colorado.

[Zed Mikey]

Smoking is a choice, breathing isn't.
I have also stayed out of this... but I completely agree with the above statement.

I also agree that legislating such things is ridiculous... but since people are ridiculous things... we sometimes need ridiculous laws.

[Sound_Man]

Smoking is a choice, breathing isn't.

:idea: Choosing where you breath is.

[Zed Mikey]

After all... drinking is prohibited in cases where it might affect other people. Drinking and driving, for instance. Sure, it would be nice if people would just not do it because the consequences can be severe for other people, but obviously that doesn't happen, so there is a law against it... apparently enough people feel the same way about smoking. Smoking where it won't affect other people... no problem... smoking where it may... well, that'd going to be illegal now.

[Zed Mikey]

:idea: Choosing where you breath is.
Not necessarily. There are some places you have to go whether you want to or not.

[Waifer2112]

I don't think I have called anyone any names or tried to change the topic. More so I think I have tried to keep this on topic and not let it wander into parenting or anything else. Right on. I just haven't seen anyone directly try and answer the health thing. I've asked several times.

If taking away the ability for a bar owner or patron to make a choice is not good enough reason then I don't know what is.

If this is such great legislation why are there not more non-smoking bars already? Why is this not a nationwide thing? Probably because this country was founded on tobacco and it is still very heavily rooted in our culture.

I just wonder what will get legislated next. I am sure that someone has their panties in a bind over something.

I still stand on the position that if smokers would have policed themselves, it would never have come to this.

[jnschwie]

Not necessarily. There are some places you have to go whether you want to or not.


Bars are rarely those sorts of places.

The places your statement is true for already outlawed smoking years ago.

[Sound_Man]

Not necessarily. There are some places you have to go whether you want to or not.

Can you give an example of where you "have to go" that allows smoking.

[Sound_Man]

I just haven't seen anyone directly try and answer the health thing. I've asked several times.
Smokers make a choice to risk their health by smoking, drinkers by drinking. Every time my mother says something to me about smoking she usually has a drink in her hand. I ask her how her liver is doing and she gets quiet. ;)

I still stand on the position that if smokers would have policed themselves, it would never have come to this.

What do you mean by "policed themselves"?

[Waifer2112]

[/COLOR]
Smokers make a choice to risk their health by smoking, drinkers by drinking. Every time my mother says something to me about smoking she usually has a drink in her hand. I ask her how her liver is doing and she gets quiet. ;)

Yes, but non-smoking workers don't have that choice. We should all have the right to work safely.


What do you mean by "policed themselves"? JUst that maybe if more people would have stepped outside/not thrown their butts wherever the hell they wanted (including the mnts.:mad: ), we wouldn't be here today.

Edit: I'm outta here for today. Off to enjoy the hotties on campus.

[Snotty]

I personally want to bitch slap every asshole I see toss a cig butt out of their car. Maybe if smokers had better habits with their choice, people wouldn't getting so upset.

And I still say that you can't bitch about telling you what can and can't do if that is a choice you have made. i mean look at drugs. They are hurting the people that do them, physically, (not looking for a argument on that so save it) and yet is illegal, everywhere.

Asthma is a direct cause and effect from smokers, and courtesy of my mother I was never given a choice here. I think the law is stupid, but stop fawking whining about something that you have a choice over. Stop smoking and the law has no impact on you, does it. Keep smoking and do it where it doesn't impact others.

Still, the law is stupid.

[Gags]

The reason people voted for the ban is because they "don't like it." Easily done with the amount of negative effects smoking has on people. At the same time you sacrafice a little bit more of your personal freedoms.

However, everytime I hear the argument of how it's bad for your health at the same time ignoring the plethora of other things that are bad for your health that you're exposed to everyday, I can't support it.

Hell, McDonalds might as well include cigarettes in their Happy Meals.

There are no Taco Bells in Canada because the meat quality doesn't meet their National standard.

This is about "taste" and we should not legislate "taste."

[Sound_Man]

Littering smokers should be cockpunched and fined. You know there is a law for that already....

If you smoke or not this does have an impact on you. One of your freedoms has just gone away. More legislation of this sort is on the way I am sure of it. Didn't the anti smoking campaigns actually start in the work place? That is where the first bans actually took place if I remember correctly. Here comes round two http://www.local6.com/news/8464937/detail.html

I do understand that freedom without legislation would be anarchey and that is not what I am after by any means.

I wish that the "pursuit of happiness" was in the constitution and not the decloration of independance. Legislation would be a little different if that was the case.

[Snotty]

I wish that the "pursuit of happiness" was in the constitution and not the decloration of independance. Legislation would be a little different if that was the case.

But whos happiness? Yours or mine? The smokers, who's choice it is to smoke, or the non-smoker? Which by the way, nature did not plan on us smoking so I consider non-smokers by design, smokers by choice.

Regardless, I agree that it is a stupid law. With exception of the workplace. Until the law went into effect, I had to tolerate smokers all around me everyplace I worked.

[Sound_Man]

While we are banning things lets get rid of the flag http://cbs4denver.com/topstories/local_story_094003340.html

[jnschwie]

While we are banning things lets get rid of the flag http://cbs4denver.com/topstories/local_story_094003340.html

Wasn't there already a case JUST LIKE THIS ONE argued before the supreme court? Something about black arm bands? :rolleyes:

[Gags]

It's like legislating what is "fashionable."

[Sound_Man]

It's like legislating what is "fashionable."

This comming from the guy with the Ali-G avatar :lmao:

[Gags]

This comming from the guy with the Ali-G avatar :lmao:

WTF is that supposed to mean?

[Snotty]

WTF is that supposed to mean?

Highlighted hair...

[Gags]

Highlighted hair...

LOL...you suck.

[Sound_Man]

This still has a bit of a spark left in it.

If this goes before a judge it will get tossed unless it includes the casinos and any other public establishment.

http://www.kktv.com/news/headlines/2721036.html

[bsaunder]

it'll be an interesting debate. Similar cases have been struck down in other states before; but I'm not sure if there were casinos involved or not.

edit: NJ,NY and CT have the same ban (all except casinos), the CT law was passed in '03 - legal challenges are in process in CT, but the ban is still in effect.
AR and FL have a similar ban in that they only allow smoking in certain bars and hotels, from what I could gather the bars that are exempted had to be 100% drinking bars with no food service.

[Waifer2112]

This still has a bit of a spark left in it.

If this goes before a judge it will get tossed unless it includes the casinos and any other public establishment.

http://www.kktv.com/news/headlines/2721036.html

Good. Then we can start over and include casinos, which is what should have happened in the first place.

[Sound_Man]

http://www.9news.com/acm_news.aspx?OSGNAME=KUSA&IKOBJECTID=0199a262-0abe-421a-019f-e56e0106bbe4&TEMPLATEID=0c76dce6-ac1f-02d8-0047-c589c01ca7bf

DENVER (AP) - A federal judge refused Friday to block a statewide smoking ban from taking effect July 1 despite pleas from bar owners that it will irreparably hurt their businesses.

:(

[coloradobound]

It's coming up Saturday!!! (i'm a nonsmoker):pbj: :pbj: :pbj: :pbj:

:flipoff2: :flipoff2: :flipoff2: :flipoff2:

[Sound_Man]

It's coming up Saturday!!! (i'm a nonsmoker):pbj: :pbj: :pbj: :pbj:

:flipoff2: :flipoff2: :flipoff2: :flipoff2:

:troll:

My ship has already sunk and I am on the life raft..... :titanic:

[coloradobound]

:troll:

My ship has already sunk and I am on the life raft..... :titanic:

Why ya calling me a troll? I'm not the only one thats happy about this.

[Sound_Man]

Why ya calling me a troll? I'm not the only one thats happy about this.

Because I am so unhappy about it. :flipoff2: :beer:

[coloradobound]

Eh, stuff happens. There's stuff I dont like to have passed for laws that did. So I'd probably be in the same mood.

:beer:

[al24]

Because I am so unhappy about it. :flipoff2: :beer:
Good reason to quit. :eek:

[Sound_Man]

The thing that gets me about it is really simple.

Bar and resturant owners have had the ability to make the choice to be non-smoking all along.

The majority of them have not decided to do that.

Now their freedom to make a choice about their establishment has been taken away.

Legislated freedom of choice. :rolleyes:

Thats been my argument all along. Not the fact that I smoke but that a freedom has been taken away.

:shrug:

[Sound_Man]

Good reason to quit. :eek:

I quit about 20 times a day :flipoff2:

[al24]

I quit about 20 times a day :flipoff2:
Been there.
Everytime you want to light up, get a friend to SMACK you in the head with a 2x4.



I'll volunteer. :flipoff2: :flipoff2:

[jtw2]

The thing that gets me about it is really simple.

Bar and resturant owners have had the ability to make the choice to be non-smoking all along.

The majority of them have not decided to do that.

Now their freedom to make a choice about their establishment has been taken away.

Legislated freedom of choice. :rolleyes:

Thats been my argument all along. Not the fact that I smoke but that a freedom has been taken away.

:shrug:

I kinda agree to point. I see if from the point of view of living in a small town. businesses here really don't have the choice of being non smoking if they wan't to stay in business so if I wan't to go out to eat at my favorite mexican food restraunt I have to have my meal ruined by smokers. Until you quit you really have NO idea just how nasty it is. If you smoke you have no sense of smell or taste. That being said I don't like government making laws like this but it's a fallacy to suggest that smokers will quit going out to bars and restaraunts. If anything I'm betting business will increase. Personally there are two really small places here with "smoking sections" that I will probably go back to now that I don't have to sit right next somebody that's smoking. Like I said I don't like government passing laws like this but if were to be honest I like this one.

[creepycrawler]

I don't smoke but being around people who are smoking doesn't really bother me other than the fact that your clothes reak later. I know some people phisically can't be around smokers for one reason or another but to me, even that doesn't justify this law. If people were so concerned about it that they quit going to places that allow smoking, those places would probably do away with the smoking areas themselves. This is one thing that I believe the market should rule. If you don't like the smoke, go somewhere that doesn't allow it. Seems pretty simple to me.

[virden]

im a nonsmoker and got mixed feelings about this,
:thumbsup: the good side is i wont have to breath in all that smoke and smell like an ashtray at the end of the night

:thumbsdown: the bad side is now the wife wants to go to the bar with me:(

[Sound_Man]

Weather you are a smoker or not this type of legislation affects you. Let me try to make this point really clear.

From the time the owner of an establishment opened it and started his or her business they were able to decide if they as the owner wanted to allow their patrons who chose to go there to smoke in it. Lets just for arguments sake say that they also choose to let people wear h