|
|
Should We Have A Statewide Smoking Ban?
|
|
T O P I C
|
Discussion Started: 03-16-2005, 12:37 PM
|
|
|
|
On July 1, Colorado will be under a statewide smoking ban, with only casinos, cigar bars and the smoking lounge at DIA exempt.
What do you think of this ban? Is it a violation a person's rights? Is this good for businesses? Do you think taverns and small mom and pop bars should have been exempt too?
Let us know what you think!
|
|
View Messages: [newest first] | [oldest first]
|
AIMSKERS
|
03-16-2005, 1:14 PM
|
|
|
I am VERY opposed to a statewide ban! It is my constitutional right to be able to smoke. If you don't smoke, then go places where smoking is not allowed. I am a smoker and I will not go to places that are "Non-Smoking" establishments. I think the state government should butt out of this issue and also local governments need to butt out also. It should be up to each individual business to decide if they want smoking or not. Why don't they ban bars all together? When people go out drinking, they are affecting lives of other people when they get in a car and drive! What is the difference between that and smoking? They just passed a tobacco tax increase and what is a smoking ban going to do for that? People will quit smoking, therefore, the state will not get as much money as they are getting now off of the tax. I think the law makers and city governments don't have quite enough to do if all they are thinking about is smoking bans. There are more important things on the agenda! GET A LIFE!
|
|
remoore999
|
03-16-2005, 4:44 PM
|
|
|
The statewide smoking ban is the result of some bars and restaurants, already part of the ban who have lost business. They want it statewide so they are on an even playing field. The problem is that bars have smokers and should be allowed to have them. The restaurant should be smoke free. Now we face a group on banning and taxing, in total disregard of others rights.
good day
|
|
ndavey
|
03-16-2005, 5:54 PM
|
|
|
First of all your opinion pole should allow for the fact that smokers are a minoity number. Therefore the Yes votes will always beat out the No votes. Maybe you should break up pole between Smoker and non smokers. As a smoker, the law passed to raise taxes on cigarettes is already a violation of my rights. Why should one group pay for something that benefits all? Why don't we just tax all special interest groups? Such as church goers? Let's tax them to pay for health care for illegal immigrants? Smokers are paying for some health care funds for all. Now they want us to be kept out of all bars and restaurants. I agree with other writer. I don't go to non smoking bars, why can't non smokers stay out of smoking bars if they can't handle it for a few hours. It would be nice if no one ever started smoking, but that is not the case. It is a habit, and a very difficult one to break. A lot of non smokers cannot understand that nor do they have commpasion for people with the habit. Let's just ostrasize anyone with a habit that annoys someone else.
|
|
gerford
|
03-16-2005, 8:57 PM
|
|
|
We should not have a statewide ban for many reasons. *First, the smoking ban people are not telling the whole story on the dangers of second hand smoke (ETS). A federal judge had this to say about the 1992 EPA study that showed ETS to be a group A carcinogen: "The Agency disregarded information and made findings based on selective information... deviated from its own risk assessment guidelines; failed to disclose important (opposing) findings and reasoning; and left significant questions without answers." "Gathering all relevant information, researching and disseminating findings were subordinate to EPA's demonstrating ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke orSecond hand smoke) was a Group A carcinogen... In this case, EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency's public conclusion.6 US Fed Court Decision #6:93CV00307 17th day July 1998
This is what the Congerssional Resreach Service said about that report: "The process at every turn has been characterized by both scientific and procedural irregularities. Those irregularities include conflicts of interest by both Agency staff involved in the preparation of the risk assessment and members of the Science Advisory Board panel selected to provide a supposedly independent evaluation of the document." "the statistical evidence does not appear to support a conclusion that there are substantial health effects of passive smoking.? Finally, it is possible that very few or even no deaths can be attributed to ETS?. ?CRS Report for Congress Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer Risk? November 19957
*Another reason is called the Declaration of Independence: "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". Liberty is the key word and it is defined as "freedom of choice" or "The state of being free from willed constraints, constraints created by other people".
*Adults are free to make their own decisions and in a free society they should.
*The marketplace is working just fine. 10 years ago in Durango there were 7 non-smoking restaurants, now there are over 90.
*people vote with their feet and their wallets everyday, thats why the marketplace works.
Jim Carver Carver Brewing Company Durango CO Glenwood Canyon Brewing Company Glenwood Springs CO
|
|
angllvrs
|
03-17-2005, 11:08 AM
|
|
|
I don't think there should be a state wide smoking ban!!! I am a smoker and its getting harder & harder to find a place to smoke besides hiding in our homes. I know what smoking can do as far as your health BUT, what about all the health care costs for people who are alcoholics? They say that smokers cost the insurance companies alot of money, but nobody has said anything about alcohol. Alcohol costs the insurance companies just as much in my opinion. You have drinkers causing car accidents because they don't have enough sense not to drive, you have babies being born with alcohol syndrome, liver problems, ulcers, heart problems, etc. There are alot of people and young people that are drinking themselves to death. You don't see the lawmakers raising the taxes on alcohol and banning drinking in public places. Where is the rights of smokers? I don't have a problem with people who don't smoke. If I am around someone who doesn't smoke (like my office) then I respect there space and I don't smoke but What about my rights. You can drink in public, get drunk, drive, have an accident and kill someone but just don't smoke. Makes no sense to me.
Angllvrs
|
|
Raoul31
|
03-17-2005, 11:41 PM
|
|
|
Secondhand smoke is a bogus issue based in junk science fostered by nanny-state liberals and hate groups such as GASP and ASH. There is no need for a smoking ban in light of the fact that reasonably priced air filtration systems are readily available that can purify air in the smokiest bar to a cleaner state than city air on the outside or as clean as the air in a non-smoking establishment with no air filtration system.
|
|
jdnagle`
|
03-18-2005, 11:11 PM
|
|
|
being a X smoker I find the smell offensive if someone had told how bad I smelled I would have stoped years ago. No matter how much one tries to justify smoking as not harmfull has not seen the harm it can do to others. There is not one study that shows that secound hand smoke is safe except for the ones supported by the producers of cigarettes. I do not eat at places that allow smoking I do however try to support those places that are non smoking. Boulder and Arvada are smoke free. It is time for colorado to be a leader and ban smoking.
Dan
|
|
lbalvin
|
03-23-2005, 12:43 PM
|
|
|
Whomever suggested that 'air filtration' systems are sufficient to protect non-smokers from second hand smoke is deluding themselves. As someone who has reactive airway disease, I can tell you that there is NO PLACE that allows smoking, no matter how well they filter their air, that is comfortable for me to be. Even in some of the really big fancy new casinos in Las Vegas that have the best of the best, just walking through the place can cause me to start wheezing. If you want to bake your lungs into oblivion, that is you your business, but I should not have to suffer for it. If a business is non-smoking, you can still go there, you just can't smoke in it. I can't even GO to an establishment where there is smoking! What about MY rights and freedom?
|
|
Raoul31
|
03-23-2005, 3:01 PM
|
|
|
...no studies showing secondhand is safe..??, you might what to check out James E. Enstrom and Geoffery C. Kabat," Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98" which was publisned in the British Medical Journal May 17, 2003. Study concluded, "results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed." You may also want to check out the study conducted by the World Health Organization (Bofetta, Agudo, Ahrens, et al) published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (10/7/98)which found "no statistical increase of risk" from exposure to secondhand smoke.
|
|
gannon23
|
03-24-2005, 7:27 PM
|
|
|
My father, a lifelong non-smoker, is currently dieing of lung cancer. I don?t know if second hand smoke is the cause of his illness but given the choice, if one of your family members had the potential to get ill and die from something that was easily removable from their environment, would you just sit there and do nothing? I choose to error on the side of caution, and life (as our president recently stated). A smoking ban needs to be passed NOW! Lighting one up is my right you say? Your right to slowly kill yourself ends when that action effects the health of other people. Quote all the propaganda you want, you know it?s not good for you or anyone else.
|
|
Top
News