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

50%

50%

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

52%↑

48%↓

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
January 22, 2009 04:48 PM UTC

Smokers' Exile To End?

  • 22 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

As the Rocky Mountain News reports:

Portions of Colorado’s 2 1/2-year-old indoor-smoking ban could be in jeopardy under a bill expected to be introduced soon.

The bipartisan measure would classify bars, restaurants, racetracks and parts of casinos as cigar-tobacco bars if they have a humidor and make 5 percent of annual gross income or $50,000 in annual sales from tobacco products. Patrons would be required to buy the cigarettes or cigars they smoke at these bars.

The Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act, passed in 2006, bans smoking in most indoor locations in the state, and a 2007 law nixed puffing at casinos, which had been exempt from the original legislation…

It first would eliminate a clause stipulating that cigar bars that wish to be exempt from the smoking ban must have been in place since 2005.

At first glance you wouldn’t think this bill has much of a chance, given the broad acceptance today that smoking is a public health hazard. But evidence that the smoking ban has seriously hurt small businesses around the state may cause legislators to reconsider–especially in the current economic climate.

This bill certainly won’t force anyone to allow smoking in their establishment, but it would allow bars who want to accomodate smokers a legal way to do so.

Comments

22 thoughts on “Smokers’ Exile To End?

  1. if smoking is allowed in such establishments, few opt to prohibit it in most locales (very liberal towns being an exception). Those who like to frequent such establishments, but prefer not to be exposed to second hand smoke, are left with the choice of foregoing the former pleasure, or enduring the latter injury. I think that that would arguably be fair and reasonable, if it weren’t for the public costs of smoking related health problems. It is one thing for individuals to opt to risk their own health by exposing themselves to second-hand smoke in order to be able to go to bars and casinos. But when you couple that with the fact that, through private and public health insurance, those costs are spread to everybody, and are substantial, I think the scales are tipped in favor of maintaining the ban as it is.

    (Some, though not nearly all, of the public costs of the private choice to smoke are captured by the increased insurance premiums smokers must pay. But that’s another issue altogether.)

  2. Essentially the same alternatives and proposals during The Great Smoking Ban legislation.  Now we have to live through all the rancor again.

    My personal opinion is first opt for the least government interference.  Then restrict as desired.  That would mean individual establishments get to decide.  I’m OK with that.

    I am troubled by the requirement of buying the tobacco at the establishment.  So, you shell out some exhorbitant rate for a few cigarettes?  Do you know the markup on cigars?  And that typically these places purvey crap cigars with fancy names at high prices?  And that eliminates enjoying your very own favorite stogie?  Maybe they should “tax” the butts and add it to the bill, hey?

    Having said that, I do recall when I was working for Morgan Carroll getting a very articulate letter from a waitress.  She was asking for the smoking ban for her desire to work in a smoke free place.  I respect that, yet I wonder if she is in the wrong line of work if that is the case.  It seems that most of the restaurant and bar workers I’ve known smoked, too.  

  3. I was very opposed to the smoking ban when it first started, but after a while I just got used to it. We started going outside to smoke, and you know what? The trade off was well worth it. You can now go to a bar and not have to come home stinking of second-hand smoke.

    There still hasn’t been any evidence showing that second-hand cigarette smoke is anything other than annoying, but I’m willing to keep this ban on the books. I honestly think that outside of smaller communities, if this law passed, businesses who decided to allow smoking again would notice their sales start to drop. It really is nice hanging out in a bar that’s not full of smoke.

    1. You can now go to a bar and not have to come home stinking of second-hand smoke.

      I used to leave my coat outside when we came home from a bar because it made the entire house smell like a smoke-filled bar.

      Also, near as I can tell, the great majority of people in the bars (at least the neighborhood bar I go to) do not smoke.

      I also agree with Parsing that I hate to even see this issue come up again.

  4. …I was stationed in California when they had their draconian ban, and while there was some grumbling and hoots of “infringing on liberty” the bars stayed pretty full. In the case of the local blues bar, it actually picked up business.

    However, the local dive dart bar tanked. There’s something about smokin’ drinkin’ and dartin’ that goes together, and the supermajority of the patrons and staff were involved in all three.

    No absolute ban of anything ever works. You can never figure out who to include and exclude on the first pass, and maybe this is the natural evolution of the intent of the law.

    It does need to err on the side of the worker – regardless of your chosen profession, you should never be exposed to something life-threatening that can be protected against.

  5. Colorado businesses that are dependent on a public health hazard for the majority of their annual revenue should not be in business to begin with.

    Retro-legislating a vital piece of public health law will not offer a band-aid fix for Colorado’s small business economic woes.  

    I have finally realized why direct democracy is often the popular alternative in this state, with crappy bills like this one moving their way through the Capitol.

    Oooph…

    1. Hey nanny promoter … what about the DPS public health hazard. 50% of minority students drop out, few go on to become the next Bill Gates and the majority go on to low paid non-union jobs or the state welfare ranks.

      Seriously though. This will separate the wheat from the chaff (sp?).

      Businesses that want to serve up death will attract a dying clientele. The non smoking market will be served by those businesses who choose to serve this large niche. Their clients will tend to drive a longer term recurring revenue stream.

      On the public health front, those stupid enough to smoke will be more apt to die early. They don’t do lung transplants for smokers and these folks usually just die quicker. Look at it as weeding out the lesser, lowering the cost of public health care, etc… After all you choose to smoke, you are choosing to die.

      back to the DPS comment. I see DPS as a greater public health hazard then some old grandma hffing at the local bar.

      Its all good baby!  

  6. that the Clean Indoor Act went too far with saloons. And, a friend of mine with a saloon has been badly impacted, approx 40% of business gone. But, when I went in his saloon 6 months before the law was enacted I felt sick for 24 hours after from the smoke.  I was in there on NY Eve and no problem. I think we ought not tinker at this time. Besides, can you imagine the policing to be sure where one bought their smoke?

    1. I’m having a hard time believing that these small businesses lost so much revenue due to the ban. I understand that bars and restaurants exude a particular culture and brand, and some I am sure were considered “smokers bars”, but did everyone who smoked quit drinking too? Was there that much of an impact on beer, liquor and wine sales because people couldn’t smoke at their favorite bar?

      1. Billy’s Inn.  A guy name Von Felt (I think) owned a bar in northwest Denver called Billy’s Inn.  this guy was one of the most vocal in opposition to the ban claiming bars would not survive the ban.  He was one of the principals in the lawsuit that sought to overturn the ban.

        Billy sold the place, however it is far from tanking.  New owners spruced the place up (actually did a major remodel) are serving great food, and the place has never been busier and this in a very competitive restaurant/bar scene in northwest Denver.

        Billy could have done this himself and profited (I am guessing that he barely eked out a living under the old 3-drunks at the bar nursing bottle beer and smoking) but he wanted to resist change.

        1. While waiting for a table at Cafe Brazil across the street, some friends and I decided to take a chance on the old Billy’s for a drink since we knew it would be smoke-free post-ban. NOT! The four of us were overcome by the smoke as we entered the joint.  The ten regulars could barely be seen through the cloud of smoke, although the burning tips of their cigarettes shined through. As much as the former owner bitched and moaned, the truth is he never enforced the ban and he just flat out wasn’t offering what people wanted to buy. As Roger points out, someone smarter figured it out.

  7. Who thought up this proposal?  Don’t do it.  The pleasure of being able to go out and enjoy a meal will be ruined again.  Let those idiots who smoke kill only themselves, and not the rest of us.  And as for the idiot who introduced this thing, impeach the bastard.

    1. Yes, smoking drives many of us away. I stopped going to my favorite Mexican restaurant because of the smoke. Once it became smoke-free, we now go there once a week – and it’s packed.

      You can always find someone harmed by any legislation but I find it highly unlikely people stopped going out for food and booze because they have to go smoke outside.

  8. This doesn’t sound like the right solution to this particular problem.

    The one requirement I see in other states that allow smoking is that any smoking section must be isolated in its air circulation.  If a bar is all-smoking, then that’s another story.

    Are these places licensed?  If so, I’d like to see license quantity restrictions to ensure that everyone doesn’t just install a small humidor and sell cheap cigs in an attempt to attract this mythical majority customer base.

    Regardless, this bill appears to be as much a problem as a solution.

  9. I suspect any lost business occurring now is the result of the economy and not the smoking ban.  What happened after the ban but before the recession started?

  10. Outside, and damage only their own health. Smoke is a gas-confined to an indoor environment, it permeates the entire establishment. Smoking/nonsmoking sections are a convenient fiction. Casino patrons (most of whom are elderly gambling addicts-like me!)can’t avoid second hand smoke-nor can employees. Given the toxicity of tobacco smoke, it’s amazing that any legislator would seriously consider revising the law for its supposed economic benefits. I’m sure that there would be economic benefits to removing all speed limits/traffic laws/dui laws, and letting those who so desire get good & drunk & roar down the highway at 110-all those insurance payments would stimulate the economy, bars would do more business, and goods would move more quickly-and if you’re worried about dangerous highways-stay at home!  Just don’t interfere with the liberty of those who want to drink & drive!

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

120 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!