Colorado's Statewide Smoking Ban

[Lyle]

A colleague from Colorado mentioned this story (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_3614700) this morning:
Gov. Bill Owens will sign a statewide smoking ban into law, he said Friday after lawmakers gave their final approval.

Though Owens said he would prefer to see cities and counties devise their own smoking policies, he believes most Coloradans are behind this proposal. The smoking ban would go into effect July 1.
The list of exceptions was interesting to me:The only exemptions are for casinos, small businesses, the smoking lounge at Denver International Airport, smoke shops, family farms and cigar bars.I wonder why they decided to exempt small businesses (and how they define small businesses)?

[XNine]

Yes, I plan on starting total anarchy here in Colorado. Once again the neo-conservative-anti-anything-that-gives-you-choice establishment has decided the fate of many.

Many bars and businesses of the like will go under because of this. All because people insist that they have more of a right in a sports bar or restaraunt than smokers. Once again, if it's a smoking establishment, and you don't like smoke, don't go. It's simple.

[leekohler]

Sigh- although many people will be behind this, I still feel it establishes bad precedent. The nanny state strikes again. :rolleyes:

[SilentPanda]

Once again, if it's a smoking establishment, and you don't like smoke, don't go. It's simple.

Once again, if it's a non-smoking establishment, and you like smoke, don't go. It's simple.

:confused:

[XNine]

Once again, if it's a non-smoking establishment, and you like smoke, don't go. It's simple.

:confused:

And I don't go to them.

Why should all of these places that already cater to smokers have to change because a bunch of whiney little bitches want their way?

[leekohler]

Once again, if it's a non-smoking establishment, and you like smoke, don't go. It's simple.

:confused:

Unfortunately, there won't be any choice soon.

[IJ Reilly]

One of the rationales behind these broad indoor smoking bans is that the people who work in these establishments have to breathe the second-hand smoke, so it has also become a workplace safety issue. Yes, I'm aware of the counter-argument -- but also that it's never caught fire, so to speak.

[IJ Reilly]

Many bars and businesses of the like will go under because of this.

This argument was raised and proven false in the states with indoor smoking bans. Apparently the number of people who will stop drinking if they can't smoke at the same time is rather small.

[SilentPanda]

Where I live they banned smoking in establishments that primarily serve food over alcohol. People complained but thus far businesses have seen more people going to restaurants according to "the journalists".

[i.Feature]

Many bars and businesses of the like will go under because of this.

This is absolutely not true. My brother part-owner of a Sports bar in Ontario, Canada. When they enacted the smoking bans bar owners across city in which he is located were yelling the same thing, "we're gonna go out of business". Fast forward to today, a few years later. His bar is doing better business than it ever has. They have see an increase of more than 20%. 20% is a staggering number. People are going out who previously never did. They are also saving money on the upkeep of their building. Only one bar has closed since the ban. And it had absolutely nothing to do with the smoking laws.

[zimv20]

there's something in the article that confuses me:

Colorado's smoking ban will apply almost everywhere.

The only exemptions are for casinos, small businesses, the smoking lounge at Denver International Airport, smoke shops, family farms and cigar bars.
is this a ban on smoking in public areas or everywhere? for example, can people smoke in their homes and cars? the family farm exemption strkes me as odd.

[StarbucksSam]

Sigh- although many people will be behind this, I still feel it establishes bad precedent. The nanny state strikes again. :rolleyes:

I'm just a little surprised that it's Colorado... they aren't exactly THE HEALTH CONCIOUS STATE in my mind... that's California, Washington, or Oregon. The Pacific Northwest is where I'd expect this from.

[yellow]

Well the writing is on the wall... I'm REALLY glad I quit smoking after 20 years just 6 months ago.

[XNine]

I'm just a little surprised that it's Colorado... they aren't exactly THE HEALTH CONCIOUS STATE in my mind... that's California, Washington, or Oregon. The Pacific Northwest is where I'd expect this from.

Apparently, you've never been witness to the Independant Republic of Boulder. People there are crazy. The yuppies and vitamin-pushers rule that city with an iron fist. Yet I do agree, it's odd for place such as this.

As far as I know, I can still smoke in my car, and in my house, but I can't go to a sports bar, smoke, drink, and watch a hockey game with collegues and friends and have a good old time just like I have since... forever.

I will protest this every chance I get. A letter to Mr. Owens will be going out in the mail every day for the next month.

A lot of the bars around here make a ton of money off of cigarette sales. "Run out of smokes? We've got em for 4 bucks a pack!" A rediculous price, but people pay it.

[eva01]

4 dollars a pack of cigs, christ when i rarely rarely ever smoke packs are easily over 5 dollars.

And the people selling them make almost zero profit on it due to the taxes.

[Lyle]

is this a ban on smoking in public areas or everywhere? for example, can people smoke in their homes and cars? the family farm exemption strkes me as odd.As best I can tell from the other reporting on this story, it's only banned in public places and businesses. I agree that it's unclear from this particular article. I wonder if the "family farm" exemption is necessary because a family farm is considered a business, but a business that the lawmakers didn't want to subject to this law?

[zimv20]

I wonder if the "family farm" exemption is necessary because a family farm is considered a business, but a business that the lawmakers didn't want to subject to this law?
and that makes me wonder about all the other businesses run out of the home.

[Lyle]

and that makes me wonder about all the other businesses run out of the home.Those would presumably be covered by the exemption for "small businesses", although as I noted earlier, I'm wondering exactly what's covered under that description.

I'm not a smoker, and I don't live in Colorado, so this story's only interesting to me in terms of what precedent it sets for other states. I am of the opinion that as long as smoking is legal in the U.S. there's no need for lawmakers to ban smoking in restaurants and bars -- if your restaurant allows smoking, I simply choose not to go there. It really is just that easy.

[zimv20]

Those would presumably be covered by the exemption for "small businesses"
ah, right.

[Ugg]

I'm not a smoker, and I don't live in Colorado, so this story's only interesting to me in terms of what precedent it sets for other states. I am of the opinion that as long as smoking is legal in the U.S. there's no need for lawmakers to ban smoking in restaurants and bars -- if your restaurant allows smoking, I simply choose not to go there. It really is just that easy.

Yeah, but as IJ says, it's a clear health hazard to employees.

I am a smoker and having lived in WA state and CA all my adult life, the idea of smoking inside is completely foreign to me. WA began to ban public smoking in the early 80s and CA banned it quite awhile ago.

Last summer I drove through WY and a bunch of places had these huge signs outside saying they were tobacco friendly. It was honestly like being on another planet. Even though I smoke, I hate being in smoke-filled places, especially when I'm eating. Although it's a hassle going outside for that cig sometimes, it's far preferable to coming home smelling like a dirty ashtray. Since fewer Americans are smoking I don't think it's unreasonable to ban it in most public places. It's not a matter of rights but a matter of health. It's that simple.

[IJ Reilly]

I'm just a little surprised that it's Colorado... they aren't exactly THE HEALTH CONCIOUS STATE in my mind... that's California, Washington, or Oregon. The Pacific Northwest is where I'd expect this from.

California already bans smoking in most public, indoor spaces. Has done for at least a decade. The great hue and cry over the loss of "smoker's rights" lasted maybe a month or two. Now it's difficult to imagine a time when people could expose others to the noxious fumes that they foolishly choose to inhale.

[XNine]

Yeah, but as IJ says, it's a clear health hazard to employees.

I am a smoker and having lived in WA state and CA all my adult life, the idea of smoking inside is completely foreign to me. WA began to ban public smoking in the early 80s and CA banned it quite awhile ago.

Last summer I drove through WY and a bunch of places had these huge signs outside saying they were tobacco friendly. It was honestly like being on another planet. Even though I smoke, I hate being in smoke-filled places, especially when I'm eating. Although it's a hassle going outside for that cig sometimes, it's far preferable to coming home smelling like a dirty ashtray. Since fewer Americans are smoking I don't think it's unreasonable to ban it in most public places. It's not a matter of rights but a matter of health. It's that simple.


At the same time, Colorado is an "At Will" employment state. Which means that if an employee feels that the environement they work in should be non-smoking, their employer can terminate them, without giving reason. This goes with anything, though. An employer in the state of Colorado can fire an employee for any reason, any time, and not explain themselves. (However, this could possibly subject them to legal action from the terminated eomployee for descrimination, etc.)

The reasoning of "do not attend" is not only realistic for patrons, but possible employees as well. If you are that worried, then don't work there or ask to work the non-smoking section only.

Most restaraunts here in Colorado are non-smoking, or at the very least have a sectioned off smoking area where giant filters and ventilators carry the smoke out of the venue through the roof.

The bars are not this way. But whether you go get Sushi or a good steak, you will find the sctions divided appropriately, if there's smoking allowed at all.

[dejo]

I wonder why they decided to exempt small businesses (and how they define small businesses)?

They define small businesses as any business of less than three employees. That is, only one or two employees. Wow, I wonder how many of those there are in Colorado.

[Peyton]

this is really interesting. In Lexington Kentucky (where I live) we have a smoking ban. Even in cigar shops, bars, and eateries of all types. Seems stupid to ban it from cigar shops of all places, also, KY is a huge producer of tobacco which makes it even more odd....:rolleyes:

But I really hate smoke so...

[dejo]

I'm just a little surprised that it's Colorado... they aren't exactly THE HEALTH CONCIOUS STATE in my mind...

You need to change your mind then. The State of Colorado (and its cities) are consistently ranked as having some of the healthiest populations in the Union.

[IJ Reilly]

The reasoning of "do not attend" is not only realistic for patrons, but possible employees as well. If you are that worried, then don't work there or ask to work the non-smoking section only.

But again, it has not been accepted practice for a long time that an employer can expose his employees to a health risk that he could easily mitigate simply because the employee could theoretically elect to work elsewhere.

[XNine]

But again, it has not been accepted practice for a long time that an employer can expose his employees to a health risk that he could easily mitigate simply because the employee could theoretically elect to work elsewhere.

True. Common sense doesn't dictate our laws anymore, the facist health nuts do.

I'm just pissed because this takes away virtually any kind of socializing I really do. I will not support establishments that conform to this.

[zimv20]

Colorado is an "At Will" employment state.
having an at-will arrangement doesn't necessarily protect the employer from the law. employers still cannot discriminate.

[SilentPanda]

I will not support establishments that conform to this.

It's not really their "fault". I'm pretty sure they get large fines if they don't conform to this.

[zimv20]

Common sense doesn't dictate our laws anymore, the facist health nuts do.
to IJ's point, in the US you're looking at a long history of legislation to protect workers and their health. heck, there's even a cabinet position for labor and a federal program (OSHA) to protect workers.

i think it's a little disingenuous to label such a worker protection program as fascist. to your point of employees going elsewhere, the obvious retort is "why can't the smokers?".

[leekohler]

i think it's a little disingenuous to label such a worker protection program as fascist. to your point of employees going elsewhere, the obvious retort is "why can't the smokers?".

And the other obvious retort "because there isn't anywhere to go."

[leekohler]

True. Common sense doesn't dictate our laws anymore, the facist health nuts do.

I'm just pissed because this takes away virtually any kind of socializing I really do. I will not support establishments that conform to this.

We here in Chicago will have an alternative when our own "fascist" law goes into effect. :) Check it out man, this place is immune to the smoking ban too. But I wouldn't be surprised if non-smokers got upset because it wasn't non-smoking and tried to shut it down.

http://www.smokerswelcome.com/MAR/dtclogin.jsp?brand=MAR
http://www.reveries.com/?p=305

[zimv20]

And the other obvious retort "because there isn't anywhere to go."
:)

[zimv20]

We here in Chicago will have an alternative
when the smoking ban was first announced, it didn't take people long to figure out that the exemption for private clubs would mean the creation of more. i obviously haven't been to one of these smoking lounges, but i suspect they'll look exactly like bars, except maybe there'll be a nominal yearly charge to be a "member".

so long as they don't start replacing bars at an alarming rate, then i'm unconcerned. and the alderman control liquor licenses, so it'll be interesting to see which wards will have more of these clubs.

[leekohler]

when the smoking ban was first announced, it didn't take people long to figure out that the exemption for private clubs would mean the creation of more. i obviously haven't been to one of these smoking lounges, but i suspect they'll look exactly like bars, except maybe there'll be a nominal yearly charge to be a "member".

so long as they don't start replacing bars at an alarming rate, then i'm unconcerned. and the alderman control liquor licenses, so it'll be interesting to see which wards will have more of these clubs.

I still wouldn't be surprised if they tried to shut it down. Check out the second link too. They won't be happy until the tobacco leaf is illegal.

[zimv20]

I still wouldn't be surprised if they tried to shut it down. Check out the second link too.
oh, i guess i was wrong about the loophole being the private club, at least in this case.

my appreciation of the ban is almost purely for personal reasons -- i like bars and restaurants but hate the smoke. so long as when a friend says, "let's get a drink", 90% of our choices are smoke-free, i'm happy.

[leekohler]

oh, i guess i was wrong about the loophole being the private club, at least in this case.

my appreciation of the ban is almost purely for personal reasons -- i like bars and restaurants but hate the smoke. so long as when a friend says, "let's get a drink", 90% of our choices are smoke-free, i'm happy.

But they aren't trying for 90%, they want 100%.

[Ugg]

True. Common sense doesn't dictate our laws anymore, the facist health nuts do.

I'm just pissed because this takes away virtually any kind of socializing I really do. I will not support establishments that conform to this.

Get over it. If your only pleasure in life comes from smoking.....

[Dont Hurt Me]

Get over it. If your only pleasure in life comes from smoking.....
He should be free to smoke if he wants, its not Govts business or anyone elses how someone choose to live their life. Stay the F... out of our lives Govt.;)

[leekohler]

He should be free to smoke if he wants, its not Govts business or anyone elses how someone choose to live their life. Stay the F... out of our lives Govt.;)

You're so eloquent DHM. :) I agree with you completely.

[XNine]

Get over it. If your only pleasure in life comes from smoking.....

It's not my only pleasure, for instance I like having really rough sex. I also enjoy making fun of cats, because dogs are better. A sunset, a beer, and a good record are enjoyable as well. And let's not forget anything pointing out the traveshamockery that is the Bush committee gives me great pleasure.

He should be free to smoke if he wants, its not Govts business or anyone elses how someone choose to live their life. Stay the F... out of our lives Govt.

What the hell?! I swear I just heard the Voice of Common Sense!!!!!! Common Sense!!! You do exist! (raises palms toward sky)

[EGT]

What the hell?! I swear I just heard the Voice of Common Sense!!!!!! Common Sense!!! You do exist! (raises palms toward sky)

I've posted on this before ... I'm not getting into the discussion again, but please. You have no idea how hilarious(!!!) that comment sounds what with the blindingly obvious health problems associated with smoking and all.

Common sense, yes.

I'd beware the voices, Onizuka. :p :p

[cycocelica]

One thing I am grateful for about Washington is there hardcore smoking ban. You can't smoke 25 feet in front of a public doorways, windows and vents. Now I have no problem with smoking, I personally don't smoke, but many of my friends do and can stand being around them when they smoke. But I feel that other people do not have to be subjected to this so thats why I agree with there laws. I also don't want to be in a restaurant and breathing in smoke when I am eating. Everyone knows how bad smoking is for you and how bad second hand smoke is. If Washington wants to try and protect my health by all means let them. I also support higher taxes on cigs.

[pseudobrit]

It's not my only pleasure, for instance I like having really rough sex.

As long as you don't jump me and ravage me in the ass in a bar that doesn't have the convenience of a "no jumping other patrons and ****ing them in the ass section" I think I can live with that.

Same with the smoke. I have asthma. Wanna talk about "smokers' rights"? How about my needs?

My need for clean air trumps your right to smoldering nicotine.

Now don't get me wrong like. I'm no anti-tobak-fascist. I enjoy an occasional cigar. And you know what? I can enjoy it outside. And I can enjoy it more outside because I'm not breathing the smoke in. And I'm especially not breathing it in and out 960 times an hour.

I have a feeling most bars and restaurants would like to be nonsmoking because they'd attract new customers like me who avoid bars because of the atmosphere. They're afraid of going nonsmoking because they'll lose many (smoking) regulars to the (smoking allowed) competition, and they rightly assume there won't be enough new nonsmoking customers to bridge the gap.

But when the state bans smoking it levels the playing field. The regulars keep coming because there is no competition and fresh faces start popping in. Everybody wins. Except the smokers who can't stand the sheer horror of being forced outside for 7 minutes while they smoke.

[pseudobrit]

Why should all of these places that already cater to smokers have to change because a bunch of whiney little bitches want their way?

Whiney little bitches? Who're the ones screaming bloody murder about having step outside for 7 minutes?

[IJ Reilly]

Whiney little bitches? Who're the ones screaming bloody murder about having step outside for 7 mintues?

Preferably, in the pouring rain. ;)

[stubeeef]

I had heard some of this on a local public radio station.

What bothers me is the legislative action. What about people that stink? They smell and I don't want to eat next to one, or people that have bad breath? Should they open their mouth in public? While extreme examples for sure, will they be in 10 years?

What about legislation that people with a cold must stay home so as not to be a health hazard?

Are we protecting anyone with this legislation? Especially when the trend has been decreasing smoking, or are we exercising our ability to control others?

Too many questions I know, but I am confounded on this.

[StarbucksSam]

I think I had an opinion on this at some point, but now I don't. I see both sides.

[scem0]

My take:

I hate cigarette smoke. I think it's incredibly nasty. Why anyone would ever smoke is completely beyond me, but I'll let them make that decision themselves as long as I don't have to suffer from the harmful side effects of them smoking. Following this line of logic, I support in door smoking bans. I like to go out, and it's not fair to me, a non-smoker, to have to smell like smoke when I come home, or to have to breathe in the second hand smoke. If too many people are smoking around me it makes my stomach hurt. However if someone wants to smoke in the privacy of their own home, I say go for it. If someone wants to smoke outside, where I don't have to breathe it in, I say go for it. However, the main reason I'd support it is health issues. That's what gives the in door smoking bans so much weight in my opinion. It's been proven over and over again that breathing in second hand smoke is bad for you. In many cities there's nowhere to go when it comes to nightlife that isn't smoke filled. I have to compromise my health for a nightlife? That's the main reason I don't support smoking.

Also, I hate to see people harm themselves! That's another issue for me. If indoor smoking bans lead to the eventual elimination of cigarettes as a whole, then that's another reason to support it IMO. Cigarettes do nothing to help people. They are incredibly bad to the person smoking them, they are bad for the people around that person, and they are generally unpleasant.

I'm also going to explain why the 'I find it unpleasant' argument carries weight as well. There are many unpleasant things that we have to put up with. However when someone does something like... say... set off a stink bomb in a crowded area people get pissed. People get pissed, as they should, they're now going to have to wash their clothes and deal with that stink in the meantime. I guess you might be able to call it an invasion of the right to pursue happiness. A stinkbomb doesn't even pose a health threat. So why do we stop people from setting off stink bombs? Because it's nasty. Is that considered an invasion of the person who sets off the stink bomb's rights? I don't think so, and I doubt many would. Cigarettes aren't far behind stink bombs when it comes to nastiness, in my opinion, and apparently in the opinion of thousands of people who support these bans.

But having said all of that, a statewide smoking ban is silly. Private homes aren't even included in the list of acceptable places to smoke. That's crazy. I would not support this ban, but I would support an in-door ban.

e

[solvs]

What about people that stink? They smell and I don't want to eat next to one, or people that have bad breath? Should they open their mouth in public? While extreme examples for sure, will they be in 10 years?
You don't get cancer from second hand B.O. ;)

While the implications of this bother me, I don't see a problem with them banning it in restaurants. If you can't stop smoking for an hour or 2, you have bigger problems to worry about. Plus, your rights end where mine begin. If you want to breathe that stuff in when you're at home or in your car or outside, that's fine. But I shouldn't have to breathe in your smoke because you don't want to wait or go outside. You can't smoke at work either, same principle. Just go outside to a designated smoking area where nonsmokers aren't affected. Smoking is a choice, not some right that needs defending.

On the other hand, I could see this going too far like the thing in Calabasas, so it should probably stay restricted to places where there's food or children and some enclosed places where it could affect the health of nonsmokers.

[blackfox]

hmm...I've really already said my piece in other (related) threads,, but even as a smoker, I generally support indoor smoking bans.

Still, it is easy for me to say that as I live in Austin, which while smoke-free, is also very temperate with many an outdoor patio to enjoy a smoke with your beverage - something that in a locale like Chicage would be impractical for four months of the year.

Another thing, is how this law is implemented/policed. In Austin, for example, which is a cith of over 1 million with a large amount of bars, there are less than five inspectors to check for compliance. Because of this, bars and patrons are largely on the honor system/grey areas. Generally, everyone voluntarily complies with the law, but in a crowded bar with drinks being consumed, people do tend to bend the law and look the other way.

One last point - while smokers are a relatively indefensible group, it does annoy me that so many people persecute them with one hand (however rightly so), while with the other hand make a ton of money off them with settlements and taxes. That's pretty lame to me.

[stubeeef]

You don't get cancer from second hand B.O. ;)

Well, I'll agree that there has not been a link yet!:p But those that stink might have lice, or fleas, and those can carry deseases. While, like before I concede the extreme here, but 20-30 years ago this smoking legislation was undreamable.

But...

What about legislation that people with a cold must stay home so as not to be a health hazard?

What about those with contagious illness? HIV positive and have an open sore?

it does annoy me that so many people persecute them with one hand (however rightly so), while with the other hand make a ton of money off them with settlements and taxes. That's pretty lame to me.

agreed.

[mactastic]

But... what if I want to get an abortion, but that might affect someone else's health? Should the gaddamn nanny state be able to step in and tell me what I should do with MY body?

I love it... this issue totally exposes the hypocrisy of a large chunk of the right-to-lifers.