So, they ban smoking everywhere, then they can just stop taxing the smokers to high heaven. Seems only fair to me.
Posted on 10/24/2002 10:21:11 AM PDT by scab4faa
October 24, 2002 - Anti-smoking efforts are gaining ground in Colorado, with the next big push aimed at banning tobacco use in Denver restaurants and bars.
At least 3,000 people have signed a petition calling for no smoking in restaurants, bars or other public places, which has prompted Denver's Department of Environmental Health to consider drafting a proposal for the City Council. "There is absolutely no doubt that the momentum is with us," said Chris Sherwin, executive director of Colorado Tobacco Education and Prevention Alliance. It is one of about 30 groups that have joined under the banner "Smoke Free Denver" in the past three months.
Currently, Denver restaurants with seating for more than 25 must have non-smoking sections, but they can be separated from smoking sections by a simple sign.
Tougher ordinances in 10 Colorado communities either impose a blanket ban on smoking or require that smoking sections be walled off from the rest of the restaurant.
The Denver petition calls for workplaces and public places to be 100 percent smoke-free. Walling off a bar in a restaurant would not be sufficient to allow smoking there.
New York City is ahead of Denver in considering a smoking ban. Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently gave an impassioned speech in favor of a blanket ban, but he faces a divided City Council. Boston and Chicago are in the early stages, like Denver.
""First and foremost, it's a health issue," said Celia Vanderloop, director of Denver's Department of Environmental Health. "Our charge is to protect the health of the residents of Denver. But we want to find what people think is adequate protection and what is overbearing."
Sherwin pointed to statistics that say second-hand smoke is the third-leading cause of preventable death and that for every eight people who die from smoking cigarettes, one person dies from second-hand smoke.
The tobacco industry contributes hundreds of thousands of dollars to local groups opposing the smoking restrictions in some cities.
A 1992 inter-office memo at Philip Morris said that if smoking were banned in all workplaces, average consumption would decline 10 percent and the quitting rate would increase 74 percent.
"We don't think bans are the answer," Philip Morris spokesman Billy Abshaw said. He said bans are appropriate at day care centers, government buildings and the workplace, "where people must go."
"But at places where people choose to go, like restaurants and bars, owners should retain their flexibility" regarding smoking rules.
Bob Doyle, chairman of Smoke Free Denver, said the tobacco industry is trying to cloud the science on second-hand smoke, as it did previously on whether nicotine is addictive. "They troll the world for medical professionals to help them keep the issue cloudy," he said.
As for the financial impact of bans, no-smoking advocates say that overall restaurant revenues don't go down in communities that have smoking bans.
Boulder passed a tough no-smoking ordinance years ago, banning all smoking in bars and restaurants. Aspen and Telluride, among other places, followed.
Fort Collins and Pueblo have votes on similar smoking ordinances scheduled for November.
The Louisville City Council recently banned smoking at all restaurants, including outdoor patios.
But Montrose, on the Western Slope, is the biggest surprise. "Montrose is the epitome of Marlboro Country," Sherwin said. "Citizens there did a great job of educating people on the need to protect the public and workers from second-hand smoke."
In fact, last year's ordinance survived a repeal effort - and at a greater margin than the original vote.
The Montrose ordinance bans smoking in restaurants and bars, unless the bar is completely walled off from the rest of the establishment.
In Montrose, several restaurant owners said the ban hasn't hurt business because they were already smoke-free, or that it hurt business a little bit but they've learned to live with the law.
But at the Backwoods Inn, which caters to working people who stop by after work, "It almost killed us," said owner Joel Carr.
"Two hundred meals a night dropped to 70," he said, and bar revenues fell by three-quarters.
The Backwoods Inn erected a wall this summer between the bar and restaurant so it could legally allow smoking at the bar. Revenues now are about 85 percent of what they were before the ban.
Carr said that in 18 years he heard complaints from two non-smokers.
"This is my business," he said. "Why shouldn't I let people come onto my property and smoke? It's our business, our lifestyle. If people don't like to smoke, they shouldn't come in."
The Colorado Restaurant Association argues smoking policies should be up to individual proprietors.
"Customers vote with their feet," said CRA executive director Peter Meersman. "If our customers want to have a smoking area, we try to accommodate that. If they don't, the restaurant can go smoke-free, and a lot of them have already done that" on their own.
"We're not advocating smoking," Meersman said. "But some of these ordinances that are passing have the potential of putting some people out of business."
Adde Bjorklund, owner of Adde Brewster in Cherry Creek North, went non-smoking for four months this year at the behest of some customers.
"I lost at least 50 percent of my bar business," he said. The smokers fled immediately, and the influx of non-smokers was a trickle.
He reinstated smoking in the bar in September and has won back most of his customers. Very little of the bar smoke wafts into the restaurant because of ventilators he installed, he said.
Not surprisingly, any debate that involves money, health, private property, law and individual rights stirs passions.
Doug Schnitzspahn, associate editor of Hooked on the Outdoors magazine, is wary of "overlegislating morality."
But he saw his grandfather die of lung cancer and his father suffer a smoking-related heart attack.
"Smokers want to think their right to enjoy something supersedes anyone's right to enjoy clean air," Schnitzspahn said. "But it's not fair to have it forced on you that way."
Michael DeSciose, who was taking a walk in Washington Park last week, agreed. "If they want to smoke in their own homes, fine, but they shouldn't infringe on anyone else's health."
He said he would go to restaurants more if a ban passes.
Not Kristin White, who power walks, runs, lifts weights and likes a smoke after a couple of beers. "You can put up walls or fans, whatever it takes. But I can't see bars not having smoking. I know I won't be going out as much" if Denver enacts a smoking ban.
the Center for Disease Control (CDC)
It is quite bothersome this fact never makes its way from the reporter to the article.
Discussing smoking bans without including the agenda of the CDC is to ignore the elephant in the room.
"I lost at least 50 percent of my bar business," he said. The smokers fled immediately, and the influx of non-smokers was a trickle.
He reinstated smoking in the bar in September and has won back most of his customers. Very little of the bar smoke wafts into the restaurant because of ventilators he installed, he said.
Nothing more to say...
So, they ban smoking everywhere, then they can just stop taxing the smokers to high heaven. Seems only fair to me.
This is bull. DOCTORS are the third leading cause of death in the US.
The tobacco industry contributes hundreds of thousands of dollars to local groups opposing the smoking restrictions in some cities.
And the antismoker organizations DON'T? I'd sure like to see the actual numbers on how many "hundreds of thousands of dollars" the tobacco industry has actually put into local groups.
Michael DeSciose, who was taking a walk in Washington Park last week, agreed. "If they want to smoke in their own homes, fine, but they shouldn't infringe on anyone else's health."
If this guy knew what he was talking about he MIGHT have some idea what he was talking about.
Prove it! There isn't one death certificate that states ANYone ever died from second hand smoke. Are they inventing it now?
The tobacco industry contributes hundreds of thousands of dollars to local groups opposing the smoking restrictions in some cities.
Is that right? Well, what about the thousands of private citizens out here fighting as well? Private citizens DO have the right to speak out!
the quitting rate would increase 74 percent.
BOGUS
As for the financial impact of bans, no-smoking advocates say that overall restaurant revenues don't go down in communities that have smoking bans.
WRONG!
Pub Report From Canada After Smoking Ban
"Two hundred meals a night dropped to 70," he said, and bar revenues fell by three-quarters."
The Colorado Restaurant Association argues smoking policies should be up to individual proprietors.
Exactly! Imagine owning a restaurant and/or bar, and in comes the City Council, who WE elected into OFFICE. Then THEY lay down laws that we have to abide by! And they never put a plug nickle into our business. Sound fair to you? Sure doesn't sound fair to me!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.