Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Did smoking flier hit below the belt?

By Ed Sealover, Rocky Mountain News

Published February 13, 2009 at 6:58 p.m.

Text size  
In a 2006 photo, Stephanie Steinberg displays letters from workers asking the state not to make casinos exempt from the smoking ban.

Photo by Rocky Mountain News

In a 2006 photo, Stephanie Steinberg displays letters from workers asking the state not to make casinos exempt from the smoking ban.

State Representative Don Marostica

Photo by Dennis Schroeder © The Rocky

State Representative Don Marostica

Related Links

More Colorado Government

More stories »

One woman's health message is another man's pornography.

And now the difference of opinion could become a House disciplinary matter.

Rep. Don Marostica, R-Loveland, asked House Speaker Terrance Carroll on Friday to determine if a flier left in his office by an anti-smoking activist is a breach of ethics or "just bad behavior and bad judgment."

Stephanie Steinberg, executive director of Smoke-Free Gaming of Colorado, stopped by Marostica's office Thursday to discuss a bill that he was thinking about offering to make Colorado's indoor smoking ban less restrictive. The Loveland Republican had decided earlier in the day that he would not run the bill.

Steinberg said that while talking to one of Marostica's staffers, she showed the woman an ad run by the United Kingdom's National Health Service that linked cigarette smoke to impotence and erectile dysfunction. The caption reads, "Smoking damages the tissues in your penis."

Marostica got a copy of the ad from a 19-year-old male aide and deemed it to be "very inappropriate and offensive material." He went to the House floor Friday morning to speak out about it and said he would not even display the ad for other legislators because of its content.

Then he asked House Speaker Terrance Carroll, D-Denver, if the incident should be considered an ethical matter.

"I don't want someone doing that to your interns and aides," Marostica told colleagues. "I don't know if it was bad judgment on that individual's part or just bad behavior."

Steinberg said she was taken aback at the idea that an ad created by another country's government could be mistaken for a dirty picture. She suggested that if the ad is turning Marostica's face a little red, he should think about what exposure to cigarette smoke can do to discolor someone's lungs.

"That's hysterical," she said of his reaction. "I have pictures of diseased lungs. Would he be offended by that, too? I'm a health advocate, and I want to talk about health."

Rather than apologize, she said she is considering sending copies of the ad to every member of the legislature.

Comments

  • February 13, 2009

    7:13 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    gchc303 writes:

    I saw the ad. I have to say, it will make you twice about smoking another cigarette. Shocking works.

  • February 13, 2009

    7:54 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    pietrojoe writes:

    Steinberg, you're ridiculous. Everyone has their own choice to smoke or not. We all know the affects. Let people live the way they want to live...come on now

  • February 13, 2009

    8:16 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    leavemealone writes:

    Government knows best...NOT

    Fire them all.....& lets start over.

  • February 13, 2009

    8:21 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    ThingFish writes:

    These easily offended Republicans are getting dumber and dumber.

    http://www.politicswest.com/36032/law...

  • February 13, 2009

    8:29 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    leavemealone writes:

    & your Dems are kinda smelling ThingFish....

  • February 13, 2009

    8:30 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    stumanchu writes:

    I've been a non-smoker since 10/08. If someone left this on my desk, I would probably buy a pack and say $%#&-it.

  • February 13, 2009

    8:35 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    p_myers661 writes:

    The business owner and his/her customers should decide this. The failure of the legislature to address this problem will create an incentive for a ballot initiative that will allow a much more lenient system. End result will be more tax revenue from the casinos. Look at how much more revenue the smoking casino has produced. Time to see that no amount of nannyism will produce anything but disaster.

  • February 13, 2009

    9:03 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Barron writes:

    What, do we have kindergartners in the state house? unbelievable...

  • February 13, 2009

    9:40 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    fifty writes:

    Thanks for the ad address. I showed it to my impressionable 11 year-old daughter and the impression she got was that it was funny, which is the same impression Marostica's aides had according to other sources.

    In an age when many Catholic priests are willing to show impressionable kids the real thing, I hardly think two fingers holding a limp cigarette is a problem.

    There should be no smoking in public places where workers would be exposed to secondhand smoke. If you want to put a face to the issue, after Christopher Reeve died, his wife died of lung cancer from breathing second hand smoke in lounges where she sang and left her son orphaned.

  • February 13, 2009

    10:14 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    WiseFool writes:

    The ad in question must hit too close to home for Marostica ...

  • February 14, 2009

    12:20 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    fireguy5 writes:

    Marostica, brilliant on some issues; a prude, ignorant jerk on this one.

  • February 14, 2009

    2:59 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    k2ken45 writes:

    How can adults find this ad offensive? I thought it was the Dems that were PC.

  • February 14, 2009

    3:31 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    LOUIE writes:

    Stephanie Steinberg has shown great concern for the male penis; what more could we men ask of the woman. It's apparent she wants this wonderful member to be able to perform to perfection when called upon. Stephanie, I agree, many things can lead to erectile dysfunction. Things such as stress, obeasity, diabetes, blood pressure medications, martital difficulties, have been noted to cause a flat in a man's sex life. Yet some tobacco products, especially cigars of the churchill size and larger, have been used for decades to remedy the problem as Mr. Clinton's intern Monica Lewinsky can pleasurably attest too. Now that Ms. Steinberg is so sincerely concern with the physical and healthy function of men's penises, might I say on a personal note, I hope everything is okay with Mr. Steinberg, Stephanie. Maybe a nice cigar humidor filled with Cohiba's, Montecristo's, Upmanns, and other fine, hand selected cigars will pick up and stimulate his spirit a bit Stephanie!

  • February 14, 2009

    6:04 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    freedomfyter writes:

    Some people like to smoke, some are against it. However, when an individual owns their own place of business, saved his or her money to obtain the business, spent the time and money to learn how to run a business, they should have the right to run it any way they see fit in order for that business to be successful. Taking their freedom away is not the answer. Place a sign outside the establishment and give everyone a choice if they want to go there or not. I spent 3 years of my life as a Viet Nam vet, bought a bar later on, here comes the smoking ban, lost everything. Thanks a lot gov't. Sure glad I spent 3 years fighting for our freedom.

  • February 14, 2009

    7:09 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Billy writes:

    If you don't want to go into a buisness that allows smmoking, don't go there. No need to act like LOUIE here and try to demean someone for their views. But then again, it is LOUIE, he has nothing intelligent to say about anyone.

  • February 14, 2009

    8 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    LOUIE writes:

    I'll drink to that BILLY! See Ms. Steinberg cares nothing for the little people who get swept up in her noble causes. Know how many jobs were lost and counting because of the smoking ban. She cares nothing about the businesses that were closed or layed off their employees, or that we didn't acually vote for this ban as the people. But she's made it clear she is concerned about the male penises out here if tobacco is allowed to be consumed by adults as a legal product. Only one penis she should concern herself out of the litter if you know what I mean BILLY. I think public figures are more than fair game to satarize. If she wants to demean the rights of other in her position as spokesperson for the crusade, as well as lobby with lawmakers, I think she is more than a target for a political joke. She left her flier on tobacco and the male penis, she's ripe for a satirical hit as well. Sorry to offend your sensitive feelings BILLY, but in politics she better have the hide of an alligator! Ms. Steinberg isn't concerned with the real issues of her ban, her using erectile dysfunction as a one of her reasons prevoked the joke as they say. Didn't ask you to laugh BILLY, didn't expect to hear you whine either. So political lobbist, political leaders, political opponents, political subjects are off the table for any further satire, unless approved by you BILLY! Is that better BILLY, are your feelings okay with that? I'm sorry BILLY...LOL!~

  • February 14, 2009

    8:03 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    forty5ford writes:

    So in comparison to aborted fetuses, you deem photo's of a penis to be "very inappropriate and offensive material"? How laughable cause if the bill was about abortion then there wouldn't be such a big stink. Talk about selectivity.

    If Marostica, his interns and/or aides are that sensitive and offended by photo's of a penis then they need to step down and make way for other effectual legislator's who don't attempt to selectively make a mountain out of a mole hill cause the way you're acting now makes it sound like none of you have ever seen a penis before. All of you better get to church this Sunday and pray really, really hard for forgiveness cause you've openly admitted to looking at "pornography". Oh good gracious... what blasphemy.

  • February 14, 2009

    8:14 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    LOUIE writes:

    When lawmakers revoke the rights of people to enjoy a legal product, I think the people should have had the right to vote on it as their small businesses and jobs were the very things in the crux of this law. Ms. Steinberg will eat and have her upper elite life and more than enough in life to sustain her needs. The little guy who lost his business, or his job, he'll pay, and is paying, the real price for Ms. Steinbergs actions. This time her arguement centered on the male member so to speak. She's more than fair game for political satire from a small businessman's aspect after being these businessmen were financially impacted directly by her lobbying, and taking of their rights without a vote of the people.

  • February 14, 2009

    8:27 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    LOUIE writes:

    BILLY, stay out of the Boulder LIbrary, they sometimes hang penises from the ceiling and it's called art all by itself! Nothing like artsy penises hanging up in a public library to get the satire rolling. FORTY5FORD, they used to hold up the pictures outside a clinic downtown that preformed abortions, yell at and follow the people with their pictures of aborted fetuses. I always felt bad about the ones being hounded going to the clinic; where does the right to protest stop? Never agreed with abortion, but these folks were really into getting on the rights of others.

  • February 14, 2009

    9:04 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    LOUIE writes:

    I remember there being cigar dinners here in Denver, where fellas cleaned up, showed up, and forked up to support research on breast cancer. The revenue derived from tobacco taxes alone, could more than pay the premium on statewide healthcare for those without private insurance. There is a great list of tobacco paying the bills in history, going back to the begining of the 13 colonies. It's a choice.

  • February 14, 2009

    10:36 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    sundowner writes:

    My not smoking does not endanger anothers health if he is in my presents. On the other hand, his smoking in my presents can endanger my health, and his. Please smokers, I am no entruding on your health. I am asking you noy to entrude on mine.

  • February 14, 2009

    10:45 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    BigRich writes:

    It all really comes down to air quality. Technology does now allow for smokers and nonsmokers to mingle in a relatively smoke-free environment. If restaurants, bars, casinos, etc. are willing to install such equipment, why not allow smoking? Simply set air quality standards and monitor air quality. It can be done.

  • February 14, 2009

    11:55 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    bolt56 writes:

    Stephanie couldn't give a rats *** about anyone. She just has a fetious for seeing her name and picture in the press. Trust me, I know.

  • February 14, 2009

    12:47 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    DenverTea writes:

    The ad was brilliant - funny, and provocative, and hard-hitting, apparently. Heck, we get more "porn" showing womens bodies involving humor etc., guess it hits close to home with a lot of these mostly older male representatives. Get over it and welcome to the world of media body pressure...lol

  • February 14, 2009

    2:19 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    LOUIE writes:

    Well RICH, when ventalation systems were offered, when walls and other business points of consideration were offfered, Ms. Stephanie and company disagreed; it was her way or the highway. I, along with many others, chose the highway. Apparently the group Ms. Stephanie chaired didn't think our money was going to make a difference, it does and did. 15% the first month at the casinos before the economy ever went south. From casinos to bars, they lost a lot of business. Ms. Stephanie could care less, married to one of Denver's most prominent and successful attorney's, she set for life. Thus the working man and the small business owner suffers, but Ms. Stephanie has a wonderful financial set up in life. No resentment of wealth, but some of us small businessmen have to earn it the old fashion way. Marrying correctly is but one way to achieve the American dream, earning it as a small businessman is a much harder road. How many casino workers, owners, and others are paying the price for Ms. Stephanie's crusade? Kind of like a woman named Booth who once beat a drum through the taverns.

  • February 14, 2009

    2:54 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    BillORights writes:

    legalize tobacco bars that serve alcohol.
    they would have to have a greater level of insurance for workers than non-tobacco bars but not a prohibitive tax that would be used by politicians to marginalize or penalize that business.
    as for the ad, i do not know if it is true. it was rather funny, and was not obscene to me.
    as for tobacco, no its not good for you, yes it is addictive, yes it causes cancer, but jacking up the taxes every quarter is only going to fuel the black market. organized crime will appreciate the unintended goverment support. there is a limit to limiting choices before they backfire.

  • February 14, 2009

    4 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    LOUIE writes:

    BILLORIGHTS, what isn't addictive in human nature? Sex, cigarettes, coffee, etc. How about each business owner deciding what works for them, and let Ms. Steinberg and company decide what is also best for them? Choice, not a hard concept. I like Goodwill, she may prefer Saks Fifth Avenue. Each business owner should have the right to make the call. If her and others who share her beliefs were so important to the bottom line of business, Las Vegas and other cities that count on the sales revenue would have outlawed smoking long ago. She promised greater revenues with the smoking ban, she said more non-smokers were going to patronize the businesses if smoking were ban. Yet the first month the casinos lost 15% with the ban, forget the bars and restaurants, and the mom and pops establishments, months before the economy went south the losses took immediate effect. Why didn't they want the ban? Because it would cost money and jobs, along with tax revenues from these businesses. They lied, the business owners proved their arguement the first month the ban went into effect. Choice, Las Vegas is still a city that leaves the running of small and large business to those who have a choice and a vested stake in their own business success. The state is happy to tax the profits, and in this economic downturn have decided not to shoot both feet off with a smoking ban. Ms. Steinberg and company wanted no compromise, let them enjoy their destruction to the fullest extent, see the businesses close as I also have elsewhere to spend my money. Choice, people who promise and people who deliever, thus far it has cost the state quite a bit in revenue and jobs not to leave the choice up to businesses. So what if the single mom can't work, or the bar or casino lost money, Ms. Stephanie cares more than enough to help out! Let's take odds on how many casinos will close their doors by 2010, Ms. Stephanie isn't worried, Mr. Steinberg as a successful lawyer is worth a grip of cash. Problem is that choice made for more opportunity to make money than no choice or compromise. When was the last time Ms. Stephanie filled out a job application or much less filed for unemployment like casino workers, restaurant workers, and bar employees? It's great to have money and a bunch of eutopian platitudes to expound upon, but who pays the bills for the working man who lost his job because revenue is down? Even the state is starting to rethink riding this high horse that has damaged the economy when it least can afford it.

  • February 14, 2009

    4:03 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    LOUIE writes:

    BILLY, thanks for not calling in and having me censored as so many do with those whose opinion they find difference in. I will stand up for you when they silence your voice as well. I owe you BILLY.