President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
52%↑
48%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
50%
50%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 10, 2007 09:14 PM UTC
71 Comments
If a majority of people disagree with the law it will be changed, but since that hasn’t happened its not this bar owners place to pick and choose which laws he will follow.
The bar owners are not simply be contrary for its own sake. They are going out of business. They went to the legislature with their problems and concerns. As a Democrat, I was embarassed by the treatment they recieved from Groff and Windels at the committee hearing. During the testimony by the bar owners, Groff left the hearing to get a snack which proceeded to eat in front of the assembly and Windels spent time looking a jokes on a computer.
The Democratic Party professes to the the party of the middle and working class. Yet, when these middle and working class people appeared before them, the Democrats on the committee could not even extend the courtesy of listening to them. Shame.
Why don’t we treat second hand smoke like we do any other potentially harmful chemical in the workplace. We regulate it to a level that does not create a significant health risk. Require venting and clean air circulation.
The reason we don’t is two fold. The proponents of the smoking ban are not really interested in second hand smoke. They want to ban all smoking and this is the only way they have to do it at this time. Second, as comments here note – many people support the ban simply because they don’t like the smell of tobacco smoke. Well, that reason is not good enough for a government prohibition.
I barely notice the cigarette smoke when I’ve been to a casino because the ventilation and air circulation systems are so good. I went with a friend into the smoking bar at DIA once though, and I thought I was going to get lung cancer in about 15 minutes. Man, is that place bad!
I think concessions and compromises could have been reached, but alas, it was not to be. Big Daddy government wins again.
As to the rudeness, there is no excuse for this kind of treatment to anybody. I would never vote for a politician that consistently treated the people they work for with such indifference or disdain.
(1) You say “The bar owners are not simply be contrary for its own sake. They are going out of business.” I read the article and saw nothing about going out of business. It sounded exactly like they were being contrary for its own sake. From what I read before the smoking ban went into effect, studies elsewhere have showed that business is not harmed after smoking bans are put in place. If that is not true here, I’d like to see some cites.
(2) You say “The proponents of the smoking ban are not really interested in second hand smoke. They want to ban all smoking and this is the only way they have to do it at this time.” I can’t speak for every proponent of smoking bans, but *plenty* of them care very much about second hand smoke, and *plenty * of them have no intention or desire of banning all smoking. I would guess the vast majority in each case, but I don’t have statistics. Do you?
…I used to be a barfly for dancing and meeting women, I went to this one place in the San Fernando Valley near my home many hundreds of times over the years.
They had these huge electrostatic smoke eaters mounted on the ceiling. They worked very well. I don’t recall ever smelling like smoke after an evening there.
It can be done.
Those huge smoke eaters probably cost a pretty penny. I would be interested in seeing the drop in business, if any, juxtaposed with the cost of implementing machines that purify the air.
Just ask ASHRAE – the association governing them. Study after study as proven that they are ineffective.
My line of thinking was along the lines of people who oppose the smoking ban along the lines of a cost perspective will oppose these smoke eaters, which, apparently, are ineffective. The argument will be that mandating such machines is an overreach of the government.
If they are proven ineffective why are they still around?
What does the association that govern them do if the studies show they are ineffective?
They are the industry association – not the governing body. And while smoke-eaters may help kill the smell – they don’t really help eliminate the deadly effects. It’s about the same as having a smoking section and a non-smoking section.
It’s as effective as having a non-peeing section in a pool.
“It’s as effective as having a non-peeing section in a pool.”
That is probably the funniest thing I have heard in a while.
The air would have the various combustion chemicals ciruclating, presumably being diluted by open doors and such. I guess the amount of toxic gasses is something that I just can’t get worked up overs, since I’m pushing alcohol into my gut and standing by a street can be pretty toxifying. Life has its risks.
It IS the particulate matter that carries the smell, I’m sure, and is the cause of cancers and emphysema.
So, although imperfect, I’ll take the smoke eaters as a good compromise.
to smell the smoke. Really, they worked. Probably not 100%, but 98? Although I’m not phobic about smoky bars, given a choice I’ll take the less smoky environment. Trust me, I spent WAY too many hours in that joint drinking and dancing and, er, scouting.
Today it’s a paint store. There must be a lesson in there somewhere.
smoking ban was another government over reach. Fine to ban smoking in public places, not private businesses.
I’ve always hated cigarette smoke and there were restaurants I just wouldn’t go to because of that. But up until about 5 years ago it was very hard to eat in public and not be exposed to smoke. It would cross over from the smoking section. Or the restrooms were at the end of the smoking section.
And what about people who need a job? If you were a waiter you were going to get exposed because everyone wanted the non-smoking tables and so it had to be take turns. If you need money to survive, then you didn’t have much of a choice.
And finally, we have the part that has not been addressed yet. What about someone who smokes at home and they have children. We do not let adults beat their children. But we do allow adults to give their children cancer and heart disease from second hand smoke.
The giant problem with smoking is that the second hand smoke effects everyone. If we allowed people to shoot up with heroin there is a much better argument that they only directly hurt themselves. But smoking affects us all.
I can’t make up my mind on which side of the Great Tobacco Divide I belong. And I don’t smoke.
I was referring to government buildings, court houses, city owned parks, any place the government has control. I am not unsympathetic to the worker who has to suck it up, but if they applied for and agreed to work in a smoking establishment, then they knew they would be exposed to smoke. Parents that smoke indoors or in cars with their kids are despicable, but how are you going to control this? Government nanny cams? Some parents let their kids eat junk all day, just as bad. Every bad thing does not require a government response.
“Every bad thing does not require a government response.”
We need that etched in the marble above every capitol building in the country.
as long as I get full credit:)
With Doug Dean in his opening day speach at the legislature post-Columbine.
but I could be wrong. I been wrong before I think.
Lauren Bacall is Doug Dean.
I still want credit.
I googled Doug Dean and it seems he broke into his girlfriend’s house with a screw driver and was charged with Domestic Violence. Not exactly the person I want to be confused with.
I would argue that government does have control in restaurants. Health departments, liquor licenses and food licenses of the top of my head.
The question is, how much control do we want the government to have on private businesses? I respect the differing opinions on this. It’s not like you and David don’t have good arguments, I’m just giving my two cents.
And I always appreciate your opinion. For this issue, I have trouble with the nanny state argument. There is a difference between a private business that is patronized by the public (the public comes to them), and a private business that patronizes the public. Both require regulation by the government for a variety of reasons, but I think extra caution and yes regulation is needed for business that are patronized by the public. We expect it, and we definitely deserve it.
Restaurants, more than just about anywhere else, are and should be heavily regulated. The impact on public health is just too strong to call these “private businesses.” Food poisoning, vermin infestation, employee hand washing, typhoid, you name it.
I think we’ll eat at home tonight.
Even my own cooking is starting to look good.
Is it ok for companies to allow asbestos powder at work? Or unshielded electrical wires? Or open fires? Because if people agree to work there (because it’s that or starve) then tough???
As well as sink holes, land mines, and giant human eating plants. C’mon! I get the whole exaggeration to make a point thing but these are neglect hazards. No one’s personal enjoyment or business income is hinging on whether an unsheilded electrical wire is hanging. There are different types of hazards with different jobs. If I choose to be a lion tamer, I take a certain risk. Policemen, firemen, teachers, etc. etc., all have risks. The government can’t mitigate everything for everybody.
Second, this isn’t the depression era where twenty waitresses line up for one job and have to choose between sucking up smoke or starving, is it? My sister is a waitress. She could get another job tomorrow and two the next day. She won’t starve if she chooses to change jobs to a non smoking restaurant.
If you want to shoot up heroin in public – go crazy. It doesn’t directly impact anyone else (aside from occasionally having to step over a dead body of someone who OD’ed).
But when you smoke you hurt the health of everyone around you. Even with no smoking rules as they exist now, I still smell it daily. Walking past those huddled smokers, standing in line behind someone who reeks of smoke, etc.
It’s like drunk driving – that “personal action” kills other people.
If, prior to the smoking bans, your sister wanted a job at a smoke-free establishment, do you think she could have found one?
If I was lucky, I *might* have been able to come up with enough restaurants in the Denver Metro who chose to be smoke-free before the bans that I would have to start in on a second hand’s worth of fingers to count them. Maybe.
Part of the argument was that wait-staff didn’t have much of a choice. They lived and breathed in a smoke-filled environment every work day of their lives, and their only option if they didn’t like it was to find a different line of work. An entire profession, held to a horrible health standard due to a minority of people who wanted the pleasure and/or addiction fulfillment of tobacco smoke.
I’m in favor of the ban. It is nice to go out to eat with my family and not have to think about the smoke. I miss the smokey dive bars that I enjoy, but a small price to pay.
Personally, the privacy issues in the Patriot Act concern me more than a state government telling me I can’t smoke in my favorite bar anymore.
and the bar across the street was a smoking bar. Every employee I knew in that bar smoked, so they obviously weren’t concerned about the health hazards. Now all those poor employees and patrons stand outside in the cold, huddled up together in a pathetic circle puffing away, while all the other businesses complain about them loitering outside and dropping butts on the sidewalk.
Where is the compassion for them?:)
we’ve had to deal with mean looks, snide remarks, rude comments and smoking outside for a long time.
The way I see it, if I’m at a bar and want a smoke, I’ll think twice before going out into the cold to have one. If I could smoke in the bar, wouldn’t think twice about lighting up.
Screw ’em (us). Smoking is bad. Smoking kills you. Smoking is a disgusting habit that everyone should kick.
or condemn you. Hmmmm.
Well guys, I’ve run out of smoke, I mean steam for this argument. I’ve done what I can to keep Big Daddy Government out of your collective hair, while you pull out the easy chair and offer him some slippers and a warm toddy. OK, but when he gets too comfortable, won’t move off the sofa, and the cost of supporting him gets too high, don’t say I didn’t tell ya so:)
30 years ago people just like you were arguing that you couldn’t possibly ban smoking on airplanes – who cares if flight attendants were dying by the dozens.
Next it was the grocery stores, who gives a darn if people want to smoke where they shop, it’s their perogative. Now the battle has extended to bars and restaurants – and it’s the same exact people that we saw before fighting this. Now it’s who cares about waitresses or bartenders – they can just go get another job. Well, in a state whose hospitality industry employees over 100K workers, just where do you think they should go to get another job in our fantastic economy here in Colorado? Oh, they should just shut up and sacrifice their health to make a living?
13 states have already passed it and aren’t having any problems – and before anybody pops off with some crackpot study funded by tobacco companies I can assure you that you’re wrong. And for all of you who claim that it’s not normal to go into an Irish Bar and not be able to smoke – NEWS FLASH – smoking in bars/restaurants has been banned in Ireland for years. Same with countless other countries.
If anybody feels that this law was pushed with ANY intention other then to protect workers – you’re wrong.
I guess this debate is over, Big Irishman right, me wrong:)
Not calling Big Irishman “baby”, you understand….
Growing up in the 50’s get’s me thinking how universal smoking was. I saw some figures the other day on cigar sales numbers over the decades. Would you believe that America had over 2600 cigar manufacturers 80 years ago? Ybor City, part of Tampa was economically built on cigars.
Today, almost nothing. Nothing in Ybor City except restaurants now. There are a few little companies here and there making mostly machine made cigars. Imported hand rolled cigars are what most people would think of when “cigar” is mentioned. The cheap White Owls and such are still sold, but they were really part of two generations ago.
When Fitzsimmons was refurbing a few years ago, they decided to redecorate the room Ike recovered in after a heart attack. They used old news photos to guide them in their selection of things, and one thing they noticed were all the pedestal ashtrays in the room and reporters smoking while Ike was under and oxygen tent!
So many old people on oxygen come up to the casinos – they’re the leading source of deaths in Gilpin County! And then we put them in a room with many people (more often than never the same ones!) smoking cigarettes. The thought of someone’s cigarette undergoing sudden accelerated combustion is unsettling.
Off the topic a bit, what’s worse are smokers who are now so pissed off and unthinking that they feel the need to toss their (still glowing) ashes and butts out the window in an arid, fire-prone area. My house *will* burn down some day, and it’s almost certainly going to be because of this inconsiderate act.
I’m sick of seeing flaming butts -uh, cigarette butts, that is- flying out of car windows! Jack-asses!
My last “real” job was working with old, poor seniors, a thousand of them. One of the cardinal rules was not allowing smokers (outside) with oxygen. All this talk about explosions and such.
Hello! Presuming an oxygen stream blasted onto a burning cigarette, it would just burst into flames. Yes, could burn some fingers, but not explode. Way back when, that’s how oxygen was tested for, a smoldering splint in air would suddenly burn in oxygen. Pretty crude by today’s standards.
Anyway, an urban legend that thousands believe in.
Such policies and often laws are the result of ignorance about physics and chemistry.
Similarly, I’ve had a number of folks this winter talk about the need to keep the heat in an unoccupied building at least 50 degrees so that the pipes don’t freeze.
Why I don’t suffer fools…..although I frequently suffer their ignorances.
Lest you think I meant explosion, I said ‘accelerated combustion’. Still, burnt fingers == dropped cigarettes == potential fire.
It’s also discomforting to think that so many people already having a hard time breathing aren’t being helped by the smoke.
But I’ve heard “explosion” SO many times.
Yes, lots of old folks suffer some pulmonary problem and keep puffing away. Harder to give up than heroin.
government interference in private business (although they interfere in a million other different ways), but I appreciate not smelling like an ash tray after an evening in a bar.
Interestingly, a new bar opened up on West Colfax right abut the time of the first blizzard. They are now so packed on Friday nights that we can’t get in. One Friday, before they got so busy, I asked one of managers or owners, I don’t know which, if they would permit smoking if the ban were overturned. He shook his head no. He said they’re building a covered, heated smoking patio and they will remain smoke-free.
If the bar owners that are going out of business want to know how to increase their business, I suggest they take a field trip to Piflers on West Colfax for ways to fill their bars within the confines of the smoking ban. Maybe they can learn how to accommodate the smokers while attracting non-smokers.
We like going there because it’s clean and comfortable and the service and food are good. (But, IMO, the Friday night band is sometimes too loud and mostly boring.) My intention isn’t to plug the bar, and I certainly have nothing to gain from doing so, but I think the smoking ban is forcing bars to meet the demands of the marketplace. It’s surivial of the fittest and those most willing to adapt.
But since you mention it, I think the Surgeon General said something in his latest report you might find interesting-
“The debate is over, the science is clear. Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance but a serious health hazard.”
The good news, I’m 84% Irish, so while we might not agree on this issue, we still have something in common:)
As many people pointed out (and some people disagreed with), the question isn’t whether government should regulate private business, but in what ways and to what degree. For instance, civil rights legislation prohibiting discrimination of employment or permitted patronage in private businesses is an intrusion on the rights of owners of private property to invite whom they choose onto their property, yet I think that most of us, at this point, strongly support such legislation. And, of course, myriad laws limit what we can do on our private property. Many of those limitations can be defined as prohibitions against violating the property rights of others: Violent crime, child abuse or exploitation, etc. (the property right in question being the property right over one’s own body and person). However, most people accept and endorse laws that go beyond that: We can’t consume illegal drugs in our own homes, for instance (and when I say “most people,” I admit that I have my reservations about such laws).
We can also dispense with the argument that government intrusion into decisions made by business owners concerning activites on their property is inherently invasive by pointing out that, in many ways, it is generally part of an implicit and mutually beneficial contract between the public and the property owners: Private wealth is not produced in a vacuum, but rather in the context of an institutional and physical infrastructure which facilitates its production. The contract goes something like this: “You, the government, on behalf of the public and using public revenues, are obligated to define and defend my property rights, to maintain public goods (e.g., roads, reliable currency, etc.) that facilitate commerce and thus enable me to effectively and profitably exploit my property, and I, the business owner, in return agree to abide by the rules and regulations governing the use of my property that the public has, through its processes of collective decision making, deemed to be necessary to the public interest.”
The question, then, is whether a ban on smoking in all “public places” broadly defind (all places that have implicitly waved exclusion of the general public from their property by inviting public patronage) is in accord with the spirit of this implicit contract. On the one hand, such a ban may seriously diminish a business owner’s ability to profit from their business, and thus violate the agreement that goverment is generally obligated to facilitate rather than obstruct that ability. On the other hand, second-hand smoke in the establishment may violate the most important of all property rights: The property right over one’s own body (the right not to have to inhale toxins produced for others’ recreation).
The notion that patrons who don’t want to breathe second-hand smoke do not need to patronize the establishment is almost irrelevant: It’s like saying that a spouse can’t file a complaint for spousal abuse because they don’t need to be in the marriage. We should all have a right to, for example, go to bars if we want to, and if no bar owner finds it in their economic interest to accomodate those who do not want to breathe other people’s smoke, then those non-smokers will be effectively denied their right to patronize bars. Similarly, there was a very valid economic argument by business owners, particularly in the pre-Civil Rights south, that were they to permit African Americans to patronize their establishments they would lose many or most of their white patrons, and possibly be forced out of business. Is this a valid justification for permitting such discrimination?
The answer, basically, is that legal prohibition of such discrimination largely eliminated that concern. Undoubtedly, some white bigots refused to frequent any establishment that permitted blacks, but, given the laws, that meant that they couldn’t patronize any business establishments at all! I imagine that most eventually caved under those circumstances, and the business owners gained more than the lost. The smoking ban would seem to be logically similar: If it were enforced everywhere, patrons would have to choose between going nowhere, and going to bars where they can’t smoke. Some would stay home, but fewer and fewer over time. Undoubtedly, smoking areas outside the bars would become common place, and a normal part of life.
Beyond the individual calculations is the fact that smoking imposes large costs on society, whether in the form of health care (and whether government shoulders the costs or not, private insurance rates are affected), or loss of worker productivity. While it would certainly be overreach to micro-manage citizens’ lives to minimize health expanses and maximize worker productivity, it is not overreach to recognize those considerations as relevant to pubic policy decisions.
When private interests clash: The interests of bar-owners, the interests of smokers, and the interests of non-smokers, some preference should be given to the interests that better serve th basic public interests of health and productivity. There are solid reasons to encourage healthy activities and discourage unhealthy ones.
Therefore, weighing all interests, considering public health as one relevant factor, I think the smoking ban is a reasonable step in a positive direction.
strict enforcement of the law, otherwise it WILL seriously hurt those that comply with it!
The smoking ban is not reasonable. A law that would regulate the concentrations of the harmful chemicals and requiring bars to keep those concentrations below harmful levels would be a reasonable regulation. However, an outright ban is not.
Moreover, many states which adopted bans in bars gave the businesses time to make appropriate adjustments. Many small independant bars are in leases at locations where they cannot make changes to their establishments to meet the demands of the law and their smoking customers – i.e. patios. The bill and the people who supported it just don’t care about working and middle class people. They love humanity but really can’t stand people.
In Washington they had like two weeks to implement and everything went fine. And in Washington the rule isn’t 15 feet from the main enterance like it is in Colorado – it’s 25 feet from ANY entrance… and WA’s doing just fine.
And in Washington, unlike Colorado, the bars have a lot more competition from casinos (Washington has little Indian reservations everywhere, including near all the major urban centers, and reservations, being sovereign, were not affected by their ban).
What bothers me is what you and other proponents of the smoking ban learned from Big Tobacco – THE BIG LIE. Things are not “going well in Washington.” Hundreds of small bar owners are suffering.
I’ve worked on this issue in over 13 states and 20 local municipalities, so while you speak about it as if you read it in a newspaper, I was on the ground in Washington talking with bar owners and have continued to do so.
EVERY credible study that has been completed has concluded the same exact thing – little to no change in revenue, sometimes a slight increase, although I don’t think that’s significant enough to warrant bragging about. There is usually a dip in the first few months and then the revenues return to normal. If you don’t believe me, then go call Harvard – they did one of the more complete studies on the subject.
“Hundreds of small bar owners are suffering”? – that’s flat out incorrect. There’s hardly any bitching anymore in Washington about the ban – not anywhere near the caliber of here in Colorado.
This is just nuts. You have no respect for the truth. Whatever it takes you will say it.
What credible studies? You keep saying that but you don’t put it up.
Perhaps I need to explain myself. The promoters of the smoking ban like to point to studies which are not much more than junk science to support their position. Let’s talk about the business loss studies.
I will use an example. Let’s say that at the time the smoking ban goes into effect there are 50 bars. All the bars experience a 30% to 40% loss in revenue as a result of the smoking ban. (At least Big Irishman admits this.) As a result 20 of the bars close over the period of 6 months to a year. The remaining customers of these 20 bars go to the bars that are still open raising their revenues. Now, in come the promoters of the smoking ban and, voila, revenues of the bars still open have recovered. They don’t count the bars that closed.
They don’t count or care about the working and middle class people who have lost their businesses, their life savings and their jobs.
In Colorado, 32 locally owned, mom-&-pop bars have closed as a direct result of the smoking ban. Pretty soon we can all enjoy the plastic bars that corporate america gives us. They will be the only ones left.
Or else you’re going to sound as silly as Mark Hillman did when wrote that op ed on the subject. The “junk science” you refer to is from Harvard:
Connolly, G.N.; Carpenter, C.; Alpert, H.R.; Skeer, M.; Travers, M., “Evaluation of the Massachusetts Smoke-Free Workplace Law: a preliminary report,” Division of Public Health Practice, Harvard School of Public Health, Tobacco Research Program, April 4, 2005. Download at to http://www.hsph.harv….
Let me know if you’d like more – for every half assed bullshit study you come up with I have five more done by credible researchers – you have zero.
I like how you dare me to come up with studies and then you pull out anecdotal evidence with no factual backup. 30-40% loss of revenue my ass – I was talking in the single digits.
As far as 32 bars going out of business b/c of the smoking ban – please point to the evidence that shows that cause and effect?
And while I’m at it – can you tell me how many bars in Colorado went out of business in previous years during the same time period?
Thank you. The study you linked to proves my point. They did not count the bars which closed during their study. They just forgot them.
Second, they confound data from restaurants and bars. I have never addressed the restaurant issue. I have spoken merely to locally owned bars. These businesses are suffering. They have a unique clientele.
As for the loss in business, this is based upon a survey done by a group of local bar owners – more the 400 bars in the survey. Many more than the 27 which were in your hotshot Harvard study.
Finally, I work with the bar industry. The number – 32 bars closed because of the smoking ban – is based upon my personal knowledge. I spoke to the owners.
God, I hate True Believers!
But how many bars closed down during the same time period in years past?
And if businesses are closing in droves and they always do when these go into effect (according to you and other like-minded folks) – then how come not one state or country has reversed their ban?
I’m reminded of a bar owner in Louisville, Kentucky who about a year after the ban went into place wrote the group that worked on it and said, “You never saw a person fight a smoking ban as hard as I did – but you know what, I was wrong.”
We get those letters every time we pass one of these. Including here in Colorado.
on the weekends such as Sufferin Bastards, The Hogan, Union Station, Southside Johnnies, etc, and I have seen zero change in how many people frequent these establishments.
I have talked to close to two dozen bar owners and bartenders, that say the same thing.
Most bars have opened up an outside smoking area.
Problem solved.
The people that said they would not go to bars if the law was enacted apparently changed their minds.
Most can not give up the booze and since they can’t, they will still go to where they have friends. And when they feel the need to smoke, they step outside.
Then the rest of us can enjoy our brew without the ashtray affect.
Big deal.
Where is the problem here?
but not, I beleive, in this case. Even so, you make a good point about regulating the amount of a harmful substance, rather than making an outright ban, thus permitting the “excellent-ventilation” approach as a viable alternative.
There’s no such ventilation in existence that does what your proposing.
And in Washington – I’d absolutely disagree with you about the casino’s being considered competition for the bars – the indian casino’s were competition for the non-indian casino’s, but not for the bars.
but I’m also for “trying on” opposing arguments when they are presented. My endorsement of the suggestion that toxins should be regulated by quantity in the air rather than by bans is largely due to the benefits of creating limits and letting actors figure out how best to meet them. If reasonable limits on toxins in the air could not be accomodated by any existing ventilation system, then organizations of bar-owners would have no choice but to impose a ban, while, perhaps, investing in research to create what doesn’t yet exist.
Unfortunately, though this may be theoretically preferable, it is not highly practical: Having untamperable toxin-meters in every establishment, read by a corps of bureaucrats determining if the establishment has violated the law…. Sounds cumbersome, and condusive to lots and lots of abuse.
Once again you engage in the BIG LIE – either that you you don’t know what you are talking about.
You people make it sound like secondhand smoke is more toxic than plutonium. Sorry, it is not. The air quality problem can be mitigated just like we mitigate other air quality issues.
I agree with the smoking ban, and think that any bar or restaurant owner who refuses to ban smoking is violating the law. They are also taking advantage of law-abiding businessmen and women who have the honor to follow the law.
Business owners who decide that they are above this smoking law should be punished.
Bars and restaurants are regulated from the doorstep to the dumpster – they’re told what temp the food must be kept at, maximum occupancy, acidity of the bleach water, etc – all in the name of public health – Do you also feel that these regulations should be abandoned?
I, for one, am both aware and grateful for the health laws in effect where I eat. People used to get sick and die frequently before such “socialistic, intrusive” laws came into being.
Isn’t it amazing? You can spend your entire life eating thousands of meals out and never get sick.
Even Liberatarians.
Tyranny of the majority? You’re equating the word tyranny with the concept of asking a bunch of smokers to get up off their asses and go outside to puff on a cigarette? Wouldn’t it be more tyrannical if 18% of the state was dictating policy for the rest of us? This wasn’t tyranny -it’s called democracy and in a democracy a majority rules – get over it.
Everyone that smokes can put a fuckin bag over their head, tied tight at their stupid necks, that absorbs their stink. Attach some sort of filter to purify the air, and wahla, problem solved.
Whomever can invent this contraption could make a fortune that makes Bill Gates look poor.