Skip to comments.
Nonsmokers on the move
Rocky Mountain News ^
| 05/22/03
| Dick Foster
Posted on 05/22/2003 10:12:56 AM PDT by Drew68
Nonsmokers on the move
Pueblo vote buoys alliance for bans in Denver, other cities
By Dick Foster, Rocky Mountain News
May 22, 2003
Buoyed by an emphatic victory in Pueblo, Colorado's smoke-free advocates are turning to proposed nonsmoking ordinances in Denver and other Colorado cities, an organizer said Wednesday.
"We're hoping the Denver City Council will act on this soon," said Chris Sherwin, executive director of the Colorado Tobacco Education and Prevention Alliance, CTEPA.
Similar ordinances may be appearing soon in Greeley, Broomfield and Grand Junction, said Sherwin.
The Denver law would prohibit smoking in restaurants but allow it in bars. Sherwin is hoping the Denver City Council will be encouraged by the Pueblo voters who approved a tougher law banning smoking in all bars and other places of public accommodation.
Pueblo was the 10th Colorado locale to pass a strict nonsmoking ordinance that includes restaurants and other places of public accommodation. But only Pueblo and three others - Snowmass, Fort Collins and Louisville - extended the ban to bars.
"Our hope is that Denver will look at what happened in Pueblo, and decide to act on this," said Sherwin. "We hope that the council will go further than what Councilwoman (Happy) Haynes and the mayor have supported, which is covering restaurants but exempting bars. We're hopeful that the final product will be something to protect all restaurant and bar workers."
Haynes' position hadn't changed after the Pueblo vote Tuesday. She said there wasn't adequate support on Denver City Council for a broader ban to include bars.
The alliance includes Colorado chapters of the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association of Colorado and other health organizations concerned with the health effects of smoking.
"There's a growing recognition that the most heavily exposed workers are bar workers," said Sherwin. "A bartender can inhale the equivalent of a pack and a half of cigarette smoke in just one 8-hour shift."
"People are waking up to the fact and asking why a bar worker would deserve less protection than others," he said.
Sherwin said the ordinances are not intended to infringe upon smoker's rights but to protect the workers and others who do not smoke.
"The big fear and the myth is that everybody goes to a bar to smoke and that bar business will suffer," he said. "In communities that have passed these laws, people just step outside and smoke, and bar business isn't hurt as a result."
Sherwin hopes other Colorado cities will be encouraged by the Pueblo vote.
"The momentum is definitely in the direction of communities going 100 percent smoke-free," he said.
fosterd@RockyMountainNews.com or (719)633-4442
TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Colorado
KEYWORDS: andscorpions; pufflist; smoking; tobacco
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 441-457 next last
1
posted on
05/22/2003 10:12:56 AM PDT
by
Drew68
To: *puff_list
Ping to the
Puff List for smoking related articles.
2
posted on
05/22/2003 10:13:57 AM PDT
by
Drew68
To: Drew68
"There's a growing recognition that the most heavily exposed workers are bar workers," said Sherwin. "A bartender can inhale the equivalent of a pack and a half of cigarette smoke in just one 8-hour shift."LIAR!
Go take a look at the study by the Oak Ridge National Labratory. Get the TRUTHTM.
3
posted on
05/22/2003 10:18:45 AM PDT
by
Just another Joe
(FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
To: Drew68
Let's just sit back and watch Colorado tourism fade out.
4
posted on
05/22/2003 10:20:28 AM PDT
by
EggsAckley
( Midnight at the Oasis)
To: Drew68; SheLion
Why don't they just mind their own d*mn business?
5
posted on
05/22/2003 10:20:43 AM PDT
by
facedown
(Armed in the Heartland)
To: Drew68
He Said: "In communities that have passed these laws, people just step outside and smoke, and bar business isn't hurt as a result."
I'd step outside alright and get in my car and go home. Many barworkers smoke. If they don't smoke they usually do something else for a living. (ANALOGY) "Most carpenters drive nails. Nails have sharp ends and hammers can mash the S##T out of your thumb. Carpenters deserve the same protection as everyone else. Lets bar hammers and nails. It's for the children."
6
posted on
05/22/2003 10:20:56 AM PDT
by
Conspiracy Guy
(If you're looking for a friend, get a dog.)
To: SheLion
PING
7
posted on
05/22/2003 10:23:29 AM PDT
by
Conspiracy Guy
(If you're looking for a friend, get a dog.)
To: EggsAckley
Let's just sit back and watch Colorado tourism fade out. I'm hoping that Hickenlooper wins the Denver mayoral race. He has not publicly stated his opinion on a proposed smoking ban for Denver, but as a resturaunt owner, I doubt he is for it.
8
posted on
05/22/2003 10:30:25 AM PDT
by
Drew68
To: Flurry
If they don't smoke they usually do something else for a living. This is my argument as well. Many occupations have hazards associated with them. In leu of these potential health risks, these workers are usually paid pretty well.
Guess what? Bartenders tend to make fairly good money. I know. My brother is one (and a smoker to boot).
9
posted on
05/22/2003 10:35:03 AM PDT
by
Drew68
To: Flurry
"Most carpenters drive nails. Nails have sharp ends and hammers can mash the S##T out of your thumb. Carpenters deserve the same protection as everyone else. Lets bar hammers and nails. It's for the children."
The difference is, the carpenter can control the danger of the nails and the hammer. The bartender or waitress can't control how much smoke they inhale at work.
I find a lot of smokers to be incredibly selfish. If somebody wants to give themselves cancer, fine. Don't force me to suck up your smoke.
To: facedown
Why don't they just mind their own d*mn business? That's positively Un-American.
11
posted on
05/22/2003 10:41:29 AM PDT
by
Wolfie
To: Drew68
Three years and the nation's bars and restaurants will be smoke free. Too bad the smokers won't be able to come out and play.
12
posted on
05/22/2003 10:46:09 AM PDT
by
VRWC_minion
(Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
To: VRWC_minion
Three years and the nation's bars and restaurants will be smoke free. Too bad the smokers won't be able to come out and play. Why would I enjoy the company of a bunch of nanny, condescending busybodies who treat me like a pariah.
F' em! They can have the bars (the few left that haven't closed down).
13
posted on
05/22/2003 10:50:00 AM PDT
by
Drew68
To: Drew68
While I'm not a strict Libertarian, this really is a property rights issue, i.e. it should be up to the owners of individual businesses to set their own policy. If there was a huge market for non-smoking establishments, then there would BE non-smoking restaurants, bars, etc. already. Similarly, if a bar owner wanted to cater to patrons who smoke the nastiest smelling cheap cigars out there, that's his right - and the marketplace would dictate whether or not it was a good idea.
Penn and Teller exposed the lies behind the secondhand smoke health myth in a recent episode of "BULLS**T!"
14
posted on
05/22/2003 10:51:17 AM PDT
by
Growler
To: Just another Joe
A PACK AND A HALF!!!" Bull!!! A recent study by the british medical journal found that workers inhale the equivalent of one cigarette per day in second hand smoke. This results in a negligable increase in cancer risk.
The natural rights protected by out constitution (in this case, personal property rights) were supposed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority trampling their freedoms, as in the case of smoking bans. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court hasn't done its job since the Second American Revolution (better known as the Roosevelt administration).
To: Drew68
F' em! They can have the bars (the few left that haven't closed down).The smoker owned bars will close, so who cares ?
16
posted on
05/22/2003 10:51:43 AM PDT
by
VRWC_minion
(Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
To: Texas Federalist
Why would the SC interfere with state laws ?
17
posted on
05/22/2003 10:53:32 AM PDT
by
VRWC_minion
(Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
To: VRWC_minion
The smoker owned bars will close, so who cares ? Maybe the proprietor, employees, and customers? Does it ever occur to you that these people need to make a living? Sheesh!
18
posted on
05/22/2003 10:54:10 AM PDT
by
Liberal Classic
(Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentis telum est.)
To: Drew68
Just another step in the slow creep of this. This is like a steamroller just let loose on the downhill.
No need to outlaw tobacco if they can restrict its use everywhere.(like 100 yards from any entrance to a residence/place of business, ANY land capable of catching fire, your car[Gas tank HIGHLY combustible, dontcha know]) They'll try the same thing with bullets in time.....tax the hell out of them and then require some kind of waiting period/psych profile check, etc.
Gonna happen...just watch.
19
posted on
05/22/2003 10:59:10 AM PDT
by
Range Rover
(Karma is a boomerang...)
To: Modernman
No one forces you to go into a place that allows smoking. Just as no one forces me into a place that doesn't. You, the militant non-smoker is the selfish one here bucko. DU is at a different WEBSITE. Take your government ban fanaticism there where you'll find good company.
20
posted on
05/22/2003 11:01:41 AM PDT
by
Conspiracy Guy
(If you're looking for a friend, get a dog.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 441-457 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson