Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act
This letter has not been edited
The Colorado Tobacco Education and Prevention Alliance (CTEPA) of Denver writes:
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Since being implemented on July 1, 2006, The Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act (CCIA), or the smoke-free law, has already helped improve the health of Colorado’s population. In fact, air quality in bars and restaurants improved by 90 percent in the first year the law went into effect and now Colorado ranks 9th in the nation for the lowest prevalence of adult smoking.
As of January 1, 2008 the ranks of Colorado’s casinos have joined in to comply with CCIA, providing smoke-free establishments that allow their patrons and employees cleaner air quality in which to work and play.
Unfortunately, the Wild Card Casino in Black Hawk is attempting to circumvent this Colorado law for its own benefit. Under the guise of an exemption built into the 2006 law to grandfather in a limited number of cigar bars, Wild Card is claiming this “cigar bar” status. Cigar bars do not hold gaming licenses, so let’s call a spade a spade; Wild Card is a casino. Not only is this a disservice to Wild Card’s employees and patrons, it does not provide a level playing field for all the other casinos complying with CCIA, which was one of the galvanizing factors for support from the Colorado Restaurant Association and other businesses in 2006.
Tobacco is still the leading cause of preventable death in Colorado. Before CCIA, bar employees typically inhaled the equivalent of one-and-a-half to two packs of cigarettes during an eight-hour shift! According to Public Health Reports this cost Colorado an estimated $180 million in direct medical costs and $19 million for loss of life. These are the numbers that should matter to Wild Card.
We strongly encourage Wild Card Casino to play fair in this high stakes game of health and comply with the law.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
January 23, 2008
7:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Old_Grouch writes:
Well, the anti-smoking propaganda machine, and its little trolls, are busy churning out the party line. Just imagine! They've "improved the health of Colorado's population" - to hear them tell it anyway.
No proof there - or even any partially reliable evidence - of course. But a propaganda machine isn't really there to provide access to such trivial and unimportant little things as verifiable facts, much less truth, or logic.
No use "strongly urging" that they at least try to find some little grain of truth to back up their outrageous claims either. After all, the good old Josef Goebbels School of spin-doctoring long ago set the standard for successful propagandizing.
January 23, 2008
9:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
jgd writes:
***As of January 1, 2008 the ranks of Colorado’s casinos have joined in to comply with CCIA, providing smoke-free establishments that allow their patrons and employees cleaner air quality in which to work and play.***
The smoke police now calls "strong arming and forced" as "joined in to comply" Great spin!!
January 23, 2008
9:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
clyde writes:
Alcohol, sugar, fast foods, lack of exercise, and any other thing that costs a health insurer money is next. Enjoy your slavery Colorado, you voted for it.
January 23, 2008
11:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
Calm down,guys.It's the law now,albeit originating from the Left.There are multitudes of clearly unhealthy individual and group behaviors beloved of the Left that have been allowed to flourish under the rubric of "rights".That article of the Emperor's new tie-dies is gone now,and we can begin to change the landscape for the better.........
And as for the smoking ban,in the long run,cooler heads will prevail.Expect modifications of the legislation along the lines of smoking and nonsmoking establishments,rather than sections within an establishment.Just don't expect it next week.
January 23, 2008
11:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
Y'all might want to pay particular attention to CTEPA's paragraph re The Wild Card.Selecting them for a flame here based on their entirely legal challenge to anyone disputing their cigar-bar exemption tells me that the antis they represent are worried about the public becoming aware that smoking establishments are far more profitable than non-smoking ones,and they so concede it in saying "...it does not provide a level playing field for all the other casinos complying with CCIA...".Although I think the legal precendence of health concerns over individual rights will stand for a very long time,I think also that a law that harms the health of the business community will undergo some changes once its harmful effects receive public attention..
Does anyone else think CTEPA in caps looks like something you'd see above the door of KGB Headquarters?
January 24, 2008
6:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Pagen writes:
I find it interesting that they post a letter after the letter from the day before about smoking and the casinos. They're letter is the biggest bunch of bull and has cost Colorado a lot of money in revenues and closed 70 bars...how is that good for Colorado? The Wild Card sold cigs long before it was a casino and has every right under the "cigar bar" exemption to continue to smoke as long as they have they're information in tact. By the way Clyde we did not vote this in, the legislators did on they're own. There is absolutely no proof in what they are saying and I want them to name me the bars that they have gone in and tested since the ban. They are liars and hope that the public will just listen to the bull they put out. Another thing that is interesting is that they don't sign a name to they're letter and when they had they're supposed "open to the public STEPP meetings" they would continue to hide they're location and date so no one could show up and de-bunk they're junk science. This is based on the money recieved from Robert Woods Johnson grants and on they're discrimination of smokers. They don't care if it closes a business and that people lose they're jobs. If you truly want to debate Tobacco Alliance then name the date and place. We will be there with over 43 studies that proove other wise and the media.
Coalition For Equal Rights
January 24, 2008
6:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Earl writes:
oh how wonderful the 'ctepa' is. they say what ever they want with no proof or facts just words. they are the same group that refuses to say what size room or how many smokers in that room will cause any harm to anyone. the good ole smoking establishments always had a venilation system or some form of smoke eater in there. even when these smoke places asked to be cigar bars they were shot down becasue ctepa knew better that they would remain just a bar where people who smoked could smoke, now that was a really bright super star who said that.
problem with ctepa is they dont want smoking anywhere period. they believe that if you allow smoking that you will find a non smoker and make them an employee by force and have them around smokers. that employee will have no choice in working there or not as they will be hog tied in there.
so how long before fast food is in the sights of the anti nanny's?
January 24, 2008
8:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
1. Smoking is NOT a right- it is a legally allowable activity. Given that even constitutionally guaranteed rights have limits and restrictions, why would smokers expect that they can smoke in an unlimited manner? Look at drinking. It is another legally allowed activity, but it has even more restrictions- age, location, amount, days/times, etc.
2. Smokers are NOT being told they can't smoke, but being asked to do it in a more appropriate venue (i.e. outside). This is on par with being told you can't pee at the bar, but need to go to the appropriate bathroom.
3. Regarding the so-called "rights of property owners", smokers are forgetting that 1) this issue doesn't apply to private homes but public businesses, and 2) businesses must apply for, and receive, a business license, for which they must agree to abide by all applicable laws. I'm sure there are several other restrictions besides smoking that business owners don't like, but accept as the price to do business.
4. Regarding the whole "nanny" government arguments, smoking advocates are using scare tactics. Look at the other end of the spectrum- anarchy. Do you want that? Of course not. Obviously, we want a middle ground, so we don't have a totalitarian state but also don't have complete chaos. Government is supposed to ensure and protect our rights, by using the minimum laws necessary. In this case, we have no "rights" being violated; to the contrary, the public interest and safety is being protected in the minimum way necessary- folks aren't being told NOT to smoke, but just to step outside to avoid harming others.
5. When it comes to issues of public safety, smokers are being hypocritical in supporting other laws such as workplace safety or food handling but arguing against smoking laws.
6. Further, smokers are willfully engaging in an activity that is known to be harmful to themselves and others. By utilizing smoker laws, we are able to prevent bystanders from being physically harmed. But what about the other harm being perpetrated? Such as higher insurance premiums because smokers are developing illnesses such as mouth and lung cancer, or emphysema. I think we should reform medical insurance so that anyone willfully and purposely engaging in a known harmful activity should forfeit paid treatment for diseases developed from it. Let 'em pay for doing it! I can just see the smokers up in arms over THAT.
January 24, 2008
9:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
DoubleChubbyChuck-
First off, I'm a woman. Second, I have addressed specific arguments from smoking advocates. Third, rather than some vague comment about "not getting it", why don't you actually try a rebuttal??
January 24, 2008
10:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Earl writes:
ok fiesty you said alcohol has more limits like age, so does smoking, location, so does smoking, amount, what 2 drinks..sorry I can drink as much as I want and if I drink to much then I go home,
days/ times what in a public place or private club?
smoking outside is crap as precidence has been set untill the nannys come along
as for not smoking in a PUBLIC building I have not one problem with. as for a PRIVATE BUSINESS to be told they can not conduct business as they want to, with in the legal limits for all who will go off the deep end, as in allowing smoking in their business is just wrong. that is not what America stands for but more like a communist country where the government tells you what you can and cannnot do. why should your home be any different from a private business and in fact was there not a family kicked out of their home because the neighbors said they smelled smoke? yep a condo board did it up in the gestapo area called denver.
so now that you dont have to worry about smelling smoke do you go to your neighborhood bar and support the owner who is trying to make a living? remember these people were with in the legal rights of the law until the nannys changed it so they could go to lodo cool spots. cigar bars are not allowed as there is smoking there and private clubs are another no no as they would not charge enough and would form to get around the law.
so please state the medical documentation that states smoking is harmful and show the study they used to get their conclusion. the WHO came out with their research and found no relationship on second hand smoke.
and for you insurance crap you can forget it. yes insurance companies charge the user more but it doesnt affect you one bit. I have smoked for over 60 years, cigars to boot, have a check up every year and my lungs are clear, no cancer and dont even take blood pressure meds. how many of you under 70+ can say that?
so anyone who drives is engaging in a known activity that can be harmful so they cant have insurance either, and dont forget drinking or eating unhealthy. honey I do pay for my health insurance and hate the idea that folks like you are for socialized health care so I can pay for yours also.
January 24, 2008
10:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
CWW writes:
It's obvious the anti-smokers are only concerned with forcing their agenda on everyone. I saw a letter recently that stated the NEXT thing they will do is ban smoking in apartments and rented houses. After that, probably outside as well since we all share the air outside.
There will never be enough for these nazi's.
January 24, 2008
11:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
JimB writes:
To all those posting on this board opposing the Colorado smoking ban, here's a tip on how to tick off the anti-tobacco, anti-freedom propagandists who pushed for the ban: Join FORCES International! http://forces.org
Additionally, if you make a good healthy donation, you will have Fiesty and the rest of them stomping on the floor and pulling their hair out.
If enough of you join, you won't have to worry about the senseless and counter-productive Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act because it won't exist anymore.
January 24, 2008
2:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
drew writes:
Jeez what a bunch of whiners! Why don't you all just go out into the fresh air & suck some nicotine into your lungs - and then spew it out all over each other & talk about how unfair life is, property rights & the nanny state. You're a dying breed - literally. Plus your hair, breath & clothing smells!
January 24, 2008
2:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
drew writes:
And what's more - your right to spew noxious fumes over unsuspecting people has been terminated - permanently - and it's not coming back. So suck on that as well as your cigarette & get used to it! But just remember to do it outdoors.
January 24, 2008
2:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
Hmmm.... I see whiners and insults but no refuting the points I raised. Earl tried albeit in a rambling way. To answer your question about health risks Earl, I will refer you to the top health official here in the US-
"The debate is over," according to Surgeon General Richard Carmona said in issuing the report. "The science is clear. Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance but a serious health hazard."
(http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2...)
January 24, 2008
3:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Pagen writes:
If you have any personal responsibility you don't need a smoking ban. If you, as a nonsmoker, are unable read or understand a sign on an entrance to a bar or tavern, that you probably have never gone into or even heard of before and probably will never return to, that says SMOKING ALLOWED, you are more than likely a zealot who is argueing based on hate instead of reason.
Since when did we become a society of ignorant children who need the government to make decisions to protect us from ourselves? Since when have fanatics like Stephanie Stienberg, the self appointed avenging angel of smoking bans in casinos and everywhere else who, by the way, reminds me of Carry Nation who was the self appointed avenging angel who caused the disasterous prohibition movement. If you don't know about that, read about it and find out what the consequences of bans really are, of course if you can't understand a sign on a bar entrance, you're going to have a problem doing that, some, but not all, of which were, the creation of blackmarkets, the powerful rise of organized crime and the loss of governmental economic control that had more than a bit to do with the crash of "29" and the following depression that took this country to the brink of distruction.
Since when have tabacoo control fanatics and their masters, big pharmaceutical companies, become the anointed elite and empowered to dictate what is best for our health and to pass laws to insure we have no freedom of choice in the matter. As a matter of fact, where does anyone get off telling you that they know better how you should live your life than you yourself do? Who are these zealots that they can induce legislators to vote for a law supporting their personal preferences, no matter the damage done to thousands of other voting, taxpaying citizens, just so they can get a dose of that power control drug without which they cannot survive? And where has common sense and personal responsibility gone? You probably won't like the answer. It wasn't taken from you by anyone, you gave it away through buying into the same propaganda tactics the nazis used, tell a lie long enough and it becomes the new truth, not investigating before passing judgement, failing to regard any evidence to the contrary, without questioning the inevitable consquences and not caring about the tyranny that it imposes on others as long as it does not negatively effect you, for the moment that is.
God save us from self appointed saviors of society that dictate what is the right and proper way to live our lives according to their personal preferences and beliefs and passed laws over a weekend to insure those beliefs and preferences cannot be argued with by the people.
Allen Campbell
January 24, 2008
3:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
drew writes:
Oh, please, Allen Campbell, get over your hysteria & take a breath.
I really don't care if you smoke until it comes out of every orifice - just don't blow your poisonous, smelly fumes over me in a confined, public space. I never signed up to suck in the crap that you're subjecting yourself to. And you'll find the vast majority of people in this state agree.
And by the way I'm neither a "zealot" nor a "self appointed savior of society," just someone who doesn't want to be your unwitting smoking buddy, thanks very much.
And as for comparing a curb on smoking in public places to prohibition & the stock market crash of 1929 - all I can say is puh-leese!
January 24, 2008
4:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
Too funny, the responsibility should all be on the side of the "Non-smokers".
What a howling bunch of crybabies you smokers, and smokers pals, really are.
So I guess it is always up to the non to move, walk, or run away from the smokers. Sorry, not anymore.
January 24, 2008
5:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Pagen writes:
NO one says you have to be a "smoking buddy" that is what freedom of choice means. You have the choice whether or not to go in an establishment that has smoking. No one is forcing you. Where are all the non-smokers that were going to flock to all these bars and make up the difference? It is an establishment that most non-smokers don't go to anyway so what do you care if they smoke there or not? Why should businesses close and people lose jobs just to satisfy your discrimination and zealotry? Drew you have serious hate issues and don't sit here and tell me you don't hate smokers coz you obviously do. People love to have someone or something to hate.
January 24, 2008
10:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
I spoke earlier of the precedence of community health concerns over individual "rights".I think one of those concerns might be the amount of hate that goes on in the community.If not expressed,hate is damaging to the person who hates.If it is expressed,even if only verbally,then those around the person who hates,especially children,suffer the physiological and psychological damage.
Drew's posts of 2:35 and 2:51 today(go read them) seem to display a level of antipathy that,if not hate,is close enough perhaps to need a closer look.As adults,we on this board need fear no harm from this speech.The situation may be different somewhere else.
January 24, 2008
11:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
Calling this a situation of "nannying" is a deliberate mischaracterization of the situation. This is not a case of the government "protecting you for your own good", but rather a protection of your RIGHTS, which is their responsibility! Obviously it's time for U.S. Government 101:
1. We are a country of laws, not anarchy.
2. We have constitutionally guaranteed rights.
3. No right is unlimited in its scope. We have necessary restrictions on those rights, only when unlimited expression of those rights violate the rights of others.
It is our responsibility as citizens to ensure that laws passed are the minimum necessary to ensure the freedoms of all involved. This is definitely the case with the indoor smoking act. It would be excessive if smoking had been outlawed completely in the state of Colorado, in your home, or outside. As it is, it only restricted it indoors in public areas, where the rights of others have to be considered. It restricted to the necessary amount, by allowing smoke patios and lounges with separate ventilation systems.
January 25, 2008
8:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
JimB writes:
To DoubleChubbyChuck:
Thank you! You have proven that you are a fighter and not a whiner. We can use a lot more just like you. God put us on this earth to live free, but he also created tyrants because he wanted us to work for our freedom.
We at FORCES fight the fraud and corruption of the anti-smoking movement which is best described as blind obsession funded by the blind greed of the pharmaceutical industry.
Smoking bans have little or nothing to do with "protecting nonsmokers" or "the kids". If that were so, they would have the science to back up their SHS risk claims, but they don't. When Hitler spoke, every third word out of his mouth was either "freedom" or "for the kids". Same with every other two bit phony social engineering totalitarian who ever rose to power.
We have deep respect for truth, honor, freedom, and scientific integrity which are values the anti-smoking movement has no concept of. We have highly motivated and capable people who are working hard to instill those values in government and to demolish the anti-smoking movement. But unlike them, we recieve no industry funding. Big Tobacco execs are typically a bunch of goofy kids, still wet behind the ears. We want no part of them and we let them know it.
Therefore we depend on the support of people like you who absolutely will not allow yourselves to be controlled by a group of obsessed fanatics.
Keep the faith, keep up the fight!
Jim
January 25, 2008
8:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
JimB writes:
To Fiesty:
Most of your invalid points have been slammed by others, so I'm going to take what's left.
What makes you think that business owners don't have a right to allow peeing at their bars? In fact, I have heard of one who installed a trough along the front of his bar, sloped to a drain so that his beer guzzling customers wouldn't be interrupted by having to go to "the appropriate bathroom". Personally, I think it's a novel idea and I wonder why more bar owners havn't thought of it. Now that I think of it, maybe I should invent one that is easilly installed and is safe enough to satisfy public health inspectors. If you know anything about obtaining patents, please advise.
As for EX Surgeon General, Richard Carmona, he hasn't been the Surgeon General for a year and a half. That outrageously un-scientific piece of anti-smoking propaganda that he called a Surgeon General's Report fell under heavy criticism and he resigned one month after issuing it. The last I heard, he is working at a health camp in the mountains of Arizona as far away from Washington as he can get.
Remember this, Fiesty; The healthiest people live in a free society. The unhealthiest are those who live under oppression. If you are truly interested in health, fight for freedom, not tyranny.
Jim
January 25, 2008
8:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
hakj writes:
Unfortunately, Wild Card Casino will eventually go the way of that last bar hold out in Boulder when the smoking ban first went into effect.
January 25, 2008
9:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
drew writes:
"don't sit here and tell me you don't hate smokers coz you obviously do"
Actually,Allen, I'm an ex cigarette smoker & I still smoke cigars. However, I have no problem smoking them outside since I don't want to force people who aren't that way inclined to share my stogie - it's called consideration for others - you whiney smokers should try it sometime.
And incidentally I go to a few places now - like the Cherry Cricket - that I never used to when they were smoke-filled grottos. They seem to be thriving. So obviously bar owners who are good business people make a plan - The Irish Hound & others report that they are making up the difference by welcoming more families who were kept out by smokers before.
Others just sit with their smoking buddies and whine.
January 25, 2008
9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
Jim-
1. You don't address any of the points listed, nor have others, so that doesn't qualify as being invalid or "slammed".
2. Are you advocating for anarchy? Because you seem to view anything but as a "tyranny". Or maybe you are deliberately refusing to recognize that there is a middle ground between the two.
3. Are you advocating that all restrictions to ALL freedoms and rights be revoked, regardless of whether those restrictions protect the rights of others, since it is the actions of a "tyrannical" state? So...
- Eliminate laws regarding slander and libel, despite the fact it's a restriction to freedom of speech but necessary to protect the rights of the slandered, since that's "nannying".
- Ditto with laws regarding shouting such things as "fire" in a crowded theater, despite the fact it too is a restriction to your freedom of speech yet necessary to protect lives in the event of a panic, since we want to live in a 100% completely free society.
- Eliminate laws regarding treason, despite the fact it abridges the right to talk to whoever and about whatever you want even though the lives of military can be put at risk, since we don't want a "police state".
There is a HUGE difference between A) passing laws which place the *minimum* restrictions necessary on rights in order to protect the rights of everyone, and B) a tyrannical society that is wantonly oppressing the rights of a free society.
A TRUE example of the government forcing us to lose our rights as a free society is some of the measures being passed under the guise of "homeland security". Legislation and acts are being passed that violate EVERYONE'S rights, and far in excess of what is needed to protect us and our rights. Such as legislation passed in the name of "homeland security". We have the Military Commissions Act, which violates the constitutional right to Habeaus Corpus as outlined in Amendment 5 of the Constitution as well as Article 1, Section 9. We have the Martial Law Presidential Directive and National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, both of which violate Articles 1-3 of the Constitution. We have illegal domestic wiretapping without judicial warrants, which directly violates the 4th Amendment. We have the Real ID Act, which violates the Privacy Act of 1974 and purpose of the social security number. We have the "No Fly" transportation database, which violates the Privacy Act of 1974 as well as the federal collection of records statues, as well as denying citizens rights to redress.
January 25, 2008
10 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
Jim-
Further, regarding the stupidity of your comments about the Surgeon General:
1. Trying to discredit the spokesman doesn't negate the message.
2. I'm pretty sure his qualifications are greater than yours in the medical arena.
3. Did you bother to read his report and study? Probably not. Than how can you have the nerve to dismiss what it says?
4. The following are FACTS that all the denials in the world cannot change:
a. Cigarette smoke contains about 4,000 chemical agents, including over 60 known and proven carcinogens.
b. Many of these substances, such as carbon monoxide, tar, arsenic, and lead, are known and proven to be poisonous and toxic to the human body.
c. Cigarette smoking is the cause of 87 percent of lung cancer deaths and is responsible for most cancers of the larynx, oral cavity and pharynx, esophagus, and bladder .
d. Secondhand smoke is responsible for an estimated 3,000 lung cancer deaths among U.S. nonsmokers each year.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/fa...
5. If smoking is so safe, it must be sheer coincidence that children born to smoking mothers have such a phenomenally higher incidence of birth defects and premature birth. Or that children living with smokers are phenomenally more likely to develop asthma and lung cancer.
With all the medical evidence available, it would really take an idiot to try and claim that smoking is NOT harmful to either the smoker or bystanders.
January 25, 2008
10:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
And pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
January 25, 2008
10:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
Huh??
January 25, 2008
2:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Blair writes:
When did a “smoke-free” environment become a “RIGHT”?
Not to be too sarcastic, but, when someone invents a process or system that will guarantee EVERYONE smoke-free and non- polluted air, I would be willing to accept that a “RIGHT” may be in order. Until then, it is a freedom of choice to attempt to find an environment that satisfies your needs and/or ideals.
If this is indeed a health issue alone, then is the next step to outlaw smoking completely? Do you stop there, or continue onto polluting cars, or maybe the offensive body odors generated by bicyclists? If you have a “RIGHT” to clean air, where does it end?
January 25, 2008
3:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Pagen writes:
Thank you Blair!! And as for Drew... Allen Campbell didn't write that about you hating smokers I did. I posted a letter for Allen under my name but I am not Allen. And yes you obviously do have issues about smokers. You don't know how to have a discussion and "agree to disagree"! Also going to Cherry Cricket doesn't give any good point since it is pretty much people going there to eat. It isn't really a "hangout" kind of place. I am sure there are a few that do but I used to eat there myself and there's is a lunch and dinner crowd. As far as you not having any problem going outside to smoke, well good for you! I am pretty much tired of it myself. Since you smoke cigars and not on a regular basis it doesn't effect you like a cig smoker. It isn't such a big deal when it is warm out but when it is cold I prefer not to go to bars because I don't want to go out and freeze everytime I want a cig. That is the reason why the bars are hurting because most smokers feel that way. Nothing against the bar just it takes away from an enjoyable night out. In a restaurant it is different because you only spend about an hour there. I again still feel this is a personal property issue, not a smoking issue. If an owner wants to allow smoking in his establishment he or she should be allowed to do so since it is they're business and it is a legal product and also I think we are all adults and can make our own decisions of not only whether or not we smoke but also whether or not we want to patrionize a certain business.
January 25, 2008
5:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
MsProgressive writes:
Feisty:
So, by your "logic," my Constitutionally guaranteed Right to FREE ASSEMBLY can be usurped by anyone else's opinion of what is a "legally acceptable" health law?
No doubt this opinion would further assert that all of our "settled" laws pertaining to "private property rights" or "consenting adults" can now be expunged from the books!
This 180 degree turn from "accepted" American law has been brought to us by a huge, and incestuous, corporate lobby; with a legion of well-paid PR schills (like The Colorado Tobacco Education and Prevention Alliance).
Anyone with a shred of true knowledge about the inoccuous (but annoying) nature of 'second hand smoke' must question why the press is so willing to reprint lies like the one that appears in the article above. To whit: "... employees typically inhaled the equivalent of one-and-a-half to two packs of cigarettes during an eight hour shift." In 1993, a U.S. District Court Judge ruled on a proposed OSHA law, that typical workplace ETS exposure (which OSHA had MEASURED at between .01 -.1 of ONE cigarette per shift!) did NOT meet the scientific criteria for adverse "significance" to health!
This decision forced the "anti-tobacco" crowd to turn to other tactics: unjust taxation, and the manipulation of public opinion, in order to effect their desired prohibitions.
The Master Settlement Agreement of 1998, spawned a propaganda monster. Certain of the MSA's provisions protect it from any "oversight" from the tobacco industry; thus, this beast can spew any factless claim it cares to, with impunity. Even through the mouth of a Surgeon General! Dr. Carmona's "one whiff death" claims made in his "forward" to the 2006 report have been refuted by a long-time "clean air" scientist, and can be found here. [Dr.Siegel:http://tobaccoanalysis.blog...]
Although his appointment was quietly rescinded in the next month, Carmona's words are still dutifully parroted; in news articles, at Town Council Meetings, and in State Legislatures, across the land.
The issue of second hand smoke is not about health - it is about money!
The corporate monster has effectively villified, and socially ostracized, some 20-25% of adult Americans. We are those who still choose to use a legal product, despite relentless "arm-twisting." Greed, and self-righteousness, has sadly returned America to the shameful days of "Jim Crow."
If you are one of these browbeaten Americans - Do NOT cower in the shadows - join the resistance! www.FORCES.org is organizing a legal army which can vanquish the lying beast! But the Smoker's Forum at www.smokersclubinc.com offers another virtual "Liberty Tree." Meet with us there to restore your dignity, through truth! Come to organize with other 21st Century Patriots, who refuse to drink the bitter tea of our oppressors. The Constitution plainly states that Your life is your OWN - Defend it!
January 25, 2008
6:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
MsProgressive writes:
The Dr. Siegel link again:
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2...
Wherein he refutes Carmona's ridiculous claim that "even brief exposure" to tobacco smoke can cause heart attacks and circulatory disease. (Please note: if this were true, a generation of baby boomers would be EXTINCT by now!)
January 25, 2008
8:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
Blair-
Using your logic regarding smoke-free air not being a right, the public doesn't have the "right" to abestos-free public facilities. Or patients don't have the "right" to smoke-free air in hospitals. What you obviously don't understand is that it's not a right in and of itself, but included under the legal precept that people have the right not to be harmed by the actions of others.
Also, in regards to yours outlawing smoke completely, you obviously didn't read my part about laws being the MINIMUM necessary to protect the rights of all involved. Oulawing it indoors was the minimum needed, outlawing it completely would be excessive and not accomplish anything further, so is not required.
MSProgressive-
Right to assembly has nothing to do with the right to not be harmed by the actions of others, so why in the world are you mixing the two?? Or is it a deliberate smokescreen?
And it's your belief that there is some nefarious secret reason of money motivating anti-smoking laws, but for the rest of us, it IS about our health being harmed by smokers! Just ask the approximately 3,000 non-smokers who died from second-hand smoke last year.
January 26, 2008
7:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Blair writes:
Feisty,
No, you do not have a “right” to asbestos free air any more than you have a “right” to carbon monoxide free air. If, by your logic, these are “rights”, how and by whom are they guaranteed and protected?
You say that you have a “right” not to be harmed by the actions of others. I say that I have been harmed by the actions of the anti-smoking fanatics. I have been verbally accosted and subjected to mental anguish. Does that fall into your definition of the “right” not to be harmed by the actions of others?
Now I know that you will call this an absurd argument, but it is no more absurd than yours. It is you that does not understand the difference between a “right” and a “freedom”.
Do you drive a car or ride a bicycle? Do have the “right” not to be involved in an accident? If you would consider that a “right”, does that mean that some entity is therefore responsible to insure that everyone around is made aware of your presence and they may not harm you? Would that mean that you are not responsible to avoid an accident? All others would be responsible to protect your “right” not to be harmed by their actions?
Let’s face it, the only reason separate smoking and non-smoking areas is unacceptable to the anti-smokers is because they didn’t want to wait for a table in the non-smoking area. There were tables available in “smoking”, so let’s just take away the smoking section, then, I won’t have to wait.
January 26, 2008
1:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
Blair, you're right, your statements are completely absurd.
Using your own "logic" that clean air isn't a "right", neither is smoking! Further, stating that the indoor smoking ban was "really" motivated by non-smokers not wanting to wait for non-smoking seats is absolutely idiotic. Air doesn't recognize human defined boundaries!
Whether you like it or not, we have the legal precedent that "your rights end where mine begin". We also have the precedent that you are not able to physically (and reputation) harm another.
I don't know if you are coming up with such garbage logic because you're so emotionally invested you can't think dispassionately about the topic, or because I'm winning the debate because you cannot refute my statements. Either way, I'm about tired of answering such irrational comments.
Anyone else out there want to make a better stab at it??
January 26, 2008
2:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Blair writes:
fiesty,
I only point out that your logic is no better than mine. You are the ones claiming the "right" to a smoke-free environment, not I.
You claim a superior "right", I merely point out that what you call a "right" is in reality a freedom no more superior than any of my freedoms. By claiming a "right" you have justified your lack of logical thinking or abillity to compromise. As a "right", in your mind, there can be no compromise. When you become capable of understanding the difference between rights and freedoms, there can be a productive debate.
January 26, 2008
2:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
MsProgressive writes:
There is nothing ILLOGICAL about smoking bans ABRIDGING the Constitutional Right to FREE Assembly. In fact, one province in Canada is challenging their ban on Just such a premise ... saying "It has changed the way people socialize." (Or "don't at all," I might add!)
You keep assuming that your statistics are rock solid - they are not ... they are, in fact, "fixed around the policy."
Although that 1993 case could not effect an OSHA ban, because the Judge readily saw that the "tobacco free" camp's "statistics" were derived from meta-analysis studies that were CHERRY PICKED ... your "people" STILL USE those SAME FIGURES!!! Worse, you keep spreading these bogus numbers with "projections" that "3,000 people a year die from lung cancer from second hand smoke" - totally UNproven! But your legion of PR toadies keep repeating the same bogus claims, as FACT! (As YOU just did with the example above!)
Talk about a LACK of ethics!
BTW, Children who live with CATs or COCKROACHES have the HIGHEST rate of Asthma - yet the antis STILL want to "blame" second hand smoke! And, in this pharma-driven crusade, your camp has even "blamed" smoking parents for SIDs deaths - and had that claim pushed in LaMaze classes. However, recently, it came to light, that - to a ONE - SIDS victims had received thimerosal laden innoculations within 2 WEEKS of their crib deaths. (Talk about a "smokescreen!")
Can you show me JUST ONE death certificate with "ETS exposure" as the "Cause of Death"? ... Fact is, you can't!
January 26, 2008
3:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Blair writes:
Fiesty,
It is your claim to a right to a smoke-free environment. I never claimed a right to smoke. I only claim a right to choose. Your claim to a right justifies you to alleviate my right to choose. Your claim to a right justifies you to remove a business owner’s right to choose. By claiming a right to a smoke-free environment, you have alleviated your responsibility to make a choice. You have elevated yourself to a moral high ground from which you are no longer required to accept responsibility for your own choices.
By claiming a right, you no longer, in your mind, have to logically justify your position. You can therefore sight statistics and science based on supposition and innuendo, not fact. You can now rely on emotion and the belief that you are protecting society from the evil of second hand smoke.
The science you sight to justify your position is based on the use of words such as “believed to cause cancer” and “estimates 3000 deaths”. These are the words of people that do not have definitive proof.
Please remember that it was you that addressed me. My first post was not directed at you and I, too, am tired of answering illogical and irrational responses.
January 26, 2008
10:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
hakj writes:
I would think that if a bar or a casino owner thought that he/she could make money by focusing on the non-smoker patrons they would have done it themselves. Since they haven't, it seems to me that they have already put the notion aside. Now they have to do it by law thus forcing the smokers now into an environment that is not user friendly to them. As seeing the smokers typically out number the non-smokers at these establishments it seem the clean error act should be repealed.
By the way I'm a non-smoker. I hate the rights of others being tread upon.
January 26, 2008
11:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
MSProgressive-
Sorry, but I am going to believe the American Cancer society and Surgeon General over you. You want to debate about deaths and effects, but carcinogens are carcinogens.
hakj-
If you truly object to rights being tread upon, than I expect you to not be selective about the issue, and start advocating for the repeal of ALL laws that do so- workplace safety laws, food handling laws, abestos construstion, libel and slander laws, treason laws, speech constraints, licenses for parades and assemblies, bigamy laws, licenses and restrictions for guns, etc. Otherwise you're being a hypocrite by only doing so for those you like and those you don't.
January 27, 2008
10:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
hakj writes:
Posted by fiesty on January 26, 2008 at 11:19 p.m.
hakj-
If you truly object to rights being tread upon, than I expect you to not be selective about the issue, and start advocating for the repeal of ALL laws that do so- workplace safety laws, food handling laws, abestos construstion, libel and slander laws, treason laws, speech constraints, licenses for parades and assemblies, bigamy laws, licenses and restrictions for guns, etc. Otherwise you're being a hypocrite by only doing so for those you like and those you don't.
Asbestos, food handling, OSHA standards are little different from the Colorado Clean Error Act. Second hand smoke is tentative at best. These businesses are such that their patrons are for the most part smokers and NOT non-smokers. If I visited Amsterdam I would NOT go into one of their smoke houses, primarily, because I don’t smoke pot. The Colorado Clean Error Act would be the same as Amsterdam telling all those smoke houses that they can no longer promote pot in their establishments because non-smokers go in and they don’t want to get high. Even though such a law would close down several hundred businesses.
What’s the difference? Oh wait, we’re in America, land of the free, as long as non-smokers can participate in certain risky behavior as well while not risking their health? Come on. Why don’t we shut down bars? They create drunk drivers, again a public health risk. Oh wait, we can shut down the casinos. They promote gambling addictions that ruin personal finances, marriages, and families. I guess as long as the non-smokers don’t suffer from tentative second hand smoke while potentially ruining the rest of their lives, then that’s OK.
January 27, 2008
11:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
hakj writes:
feisty
Furthermore, I would wager a guess and say more innocent lives are lost every year do to DUI's than secondhand smoke. Therefore, it would be better to shut down the bars due to public safety than it would be to promote this clean error act. Also I would wager a guess that more personal finances, marriages, and families are destroyed every year to gambling addictions than to second hand smoke. Therefore, it would better serve our society to shut down the casinos than to promote the clean error act.
January 27, 2008
12:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
Nice try, but you're arguing indirect vs direct harm, which goes beyond the minimum needed to protect rights. Further, you are once again arguing about absolutes vs minimum.
I also noticed you didn't address the points above, demonstrating your selective logic again...
January 27, 2008
2:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
hakj writes:
Let me see.
Smokers light up in an enclosed place. Direct harm is possible cancer to that individual smoking and creating second hand smoke. A person standing nearby inhales the second hand smoke possibly getting cancer. It’s called second hand smoke because it is an indirect result of another individual smoking. The direct smoke goes into the lungs of the person doing the puffing.
A person, non-smoker, goes into a bar thanks the Colorado Voters for saving him/her from second hand smoke, and has a couple of drinks. Leaves the bar gets into an auto accident killing four smoking non-drinkers in a vehicle. Yep sounds pretty indirect to me.
Smokers could potentially die from direct smoke while non-smokers could potentially die from indirect or second hand smoke. A non-drinker could die from a person having too much to drink causing an accident. Sounds to me they are both risky behaviors possibly resulting in the death of another being. Direct or indirect both could end up the same.
Direct harm vs. indirect harm. Hmm. Which is which? Seems to me they both cross the lines.
Absolutes vs. minimum. Meaning? I could go several ways here so to make sure I won’t go off on some unintended tangent I need further explanation.
Points? What points? I think addressed some of them but not all of them, I think. I said, “Asbestos, food handling, OSHA standards are little different from the Colorado Clean Error Act.”
I’ll spell it out for you. Asbestos is known to cause cancer to one extent or another in most people. Safer food handling has been shown to cut down the spread of certain diseases to all people. OSHA standards are set to provide a safer work environment for all employers and employees and have cut down on workplace injuries and fatalities. The Clean Error Act MAY prevent cancer from second hand smoke to SOME individuals.
Second hand smoke MAY cause cancer to those inhaling the smoke from a nearby smoker, if enough smoke is inhaled. The research is tentative and I think it has a lot to do with the individual make up of that person. I have known people who’ve smoked all their lives, 2+ packs a day and are now in their 70’s don’t have any type of cancer (Lucky? Maybe.) and others who’ve smoked less than a pack a week have gotten minor forms of cancer in which a little bit of treatment sent the cancer into remission. I’ve met one person diagnosed with lung cancer due to possible second hand smoke who has never smoked a day in his life. This all tells me that it is possible for a person to get cancer from smoking and from second hand smoke; more unlikely for the non-smoker than from the smoker but possible non-the-less. Enough to warrant the Clean Error act? I don’t believe so.
More people are killed every year from DUI’s than from second hand smoke making that a bigger problem. Even with the DUI laws in effect. I think they ought to stop the sale of all alcohol.
January 27, 2008
6:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
hakj- once again, nice try. You're advocating for the elimination for the sale of alchohol, because harm occurs when people drink and drive. The problem with your argument is that there ALREADY is laws in place against drinking and driving, you have people willfully breaking those laws. That happens with all rights we have laws to protect. Punish the law-breakers, not the ones obeying the law.
And your argument about abestos, OSHA, and clean air act is sheer BS. AND You just shot yourself in the foot, by agreeing the purpose was right, but by trying to argue by trying to argue that one protects ALL vs one trying to protect SOME. Indoor Act protects EVERYONE from the harm resulting from someone else's deliberate action to hurt themselves. A direct parallel is active suicide (I view smoking as passive since it is indicative of someone who places no value on their own body). You want to hurt yourself? Fine, be selfish, and then go do it at home- cut your wrists at home, but avoid driving a car into someone else so that you can take someone else with you. It's the same thing. You have no right to hurt someone else because of YOUR CHOICE in dangerous, reckless, and harmful activities.
January 27, 2008
6:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
hakj writes:
fiesty
Fine, be selfish, and then go do it at home- cut your wrists at home, but avoid driving a car into someone else so that you can take someone else with you. It's the same thing. You have no right to hurt someone else because of YOUR CHOICE in dangerous, reckless, and harmful activities.
LOL. You are so funny.
Likewise. Alcohol consumption is best left at home. Somebody goes to the bar gets drunk then drives? Sure we’ve got laws but look at how high the DUI deaths are? Hence my statement by your reasoning then bars should then be closed and the consumption of alcohol best left at home. How many deaths do we see every year by young adults with alcohol poisoning? Do it at home would be your philosophy.
I’ll bet you’re one of those who proposed or backed the not-so-long-ago movement in Boulder to ban smoking in ones own vehicle.
January 29, 2008
8:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
No, I did not. Why can't you READ what I post, and quit making ASSumptions about what I do?
There is a difference between alcohol and smoking in one's car. When smoking INDOOR in a PUBLIC location, you are pumping POISON in the air that others cannot avoid. That makes it wrong. If you support OSHA, food handling laws etc, then you must support this too.
You are just getting ridiculous now, and throwing out smokescreens. When you can actually debate the points I've raised, I'll answer. Until then, I'm done addressing absurdies.
OUT.