(Smoking) Ban puts bars in the red

The Greeley Tribune (Greeley, Colorado) ^ | 1/12/04 | Phillip Yates

[Senormechanico]

I quit smoking in 1970, but I am 100% against this ban.
Let the establishment's owner decide whether or not it is to be a nonsmoking establishment!!

SM

[NorCoGOP]

Just for clarity - this ban applies to any business, including private clubs, fraternal organizations, etc...

Several Greeley businesses have tried to apply for exemptions, including a bowling alley that before the ban was even considered, installed an air filtration system at a cost of $60,000, and the owner proved that the air IN his building (with smokers present) was cleaning than the air OUTSIDE IN GREELEY.

The City Council rejected the exemptions outright.

Can't wait for the next election!

[Guillermo]

Don't you just love it when a plan comes together?

[swarthyguy]

The local town here even banned it in the VFW and KoC.

Despite veterans pleas, the scumbag "health" ninnynannies refuse to bend to some of the last vets from WW2 and Normandy DDay.

[CSM]

"We have terminated one of our bartenders because of it."

---

And the gnatzies are so happy that this bartender's lungs will not be exposed to ETS while standing in the unemployment line sucking on government tits!

[Orangedog]

I wonder how long it will take the local government to start talking about a tax increase to make up for the lost revenue that always happens when these ordinacnes pass?

[Arkinsaw]

The local town here even banned it in the VFW and KoC. Despite veterans pleas, the scumbag "health" ninnynannies refuse to bend to some of the last vets from WW2 and Normandy DDay.

The solution here is to ignore the ban. Let the city come and arrest the veterans. In fact, every veteran, whether they are a smoker or not should light up and call the police.

[antiRepublicrat]

I quit smoking in 1970, but I am 100% against this ban.

I was an ardent non-smoker when these bans started and was 100% against any legislated smoking ban, but private business decisions on smoking were perfectly okay. Just because it was something I wouldn't do didn't mean I had the right to boss others around.

[Gabz]

there are more and more articles like this appearing everywhere smoking bans are placed in effect, yet no one is paying attention.

Why??????

Because as soon as you get one of these supposed grassroots anti-smoker groups, such as GASP in this article, involved in these disputes they are able to convince the powers to be that the bar owners are wrong.

Why?????

Because they are highly funded organizations that put out slick brochures detailing all thesupposed "harms" of second hand smoke and the supposed "good" to business bottom lines with these bans.

As usual the anti-smokers speak out of both sides of their mouth. They scream bloody murder that the economic damage to business should not come before the health benefits of the bans - the sound bite phrase is "health over wealth." Yet when they are called on the so-called proof of health benefits, they immediately switch to their bogus studies of tax receipts to show the economic benefits of such bans.

Which is it health or money? In the end it is all about money to the antis. Groups like GASP get funding grants to push these anti smoking bans. Be afraid, be very afraid of these groups.

[ItsOurTimeNow]

But...but...but...I thought there were scores and scores of non-smokers who couldn't go to these establishments because of all the smoke?

I thought there were a multitude of them who REFUSED to go out to eat because certain establishments allowed smoking?

I thought they were looking forward to the ban, so they could go out and dine in pristine comfort?

Where'd they all go?

[Abe Froman]

"They are using it as a scapegoat," Bialick said. "The tobacco industry is behind this. They are probably getting paid to say that."

And you are an ideologically neutral non-paid volunteer for GASP?!?! The hypocrisy is deafening.

[Cardini]

Same thing is happening here in Fl where a similar law started in July.

I have little sympathy for the restaurant owners here because they made no effort to fight it before election while the anti smoking folks spent Millions running adds every commercial break.

[Fast 1975]

Cigarette smoking is no advantage to your body at all. This habit destroys your lungs (in God's temple) causes all kinds of cancer and decreases your life span, thus shorting the time you can serve God on this earth. So every time you light up as a Christian, you're tearing apart God's temple, decreasing your time to serve God and throwing away God's money.

[Fast 1975]

Cigarette smoking is no advantage to your body at all. This habit destroys your lungs (in God's temple) causes all kinds of cancer and decreases your life span, thus shorting the time you can serve God on this earth. So every time you light up as a Christian, you're tearing apart God's temple, decreasing your time to serve God and throwing away God's money.

[Fast 1975]

As the Bible says to Christians: Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you have been bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body. (1 Corinthians 6:19-20) This being so, a Christian should care for their body; they should not do anything which they know will harm it. The smoking of cigarettes has been proven to cause cancer, heart problems, emphysema and death.

[Protagoras]

Nice rant. Irrelevant, but nice rant.

[Protagoras]

The subject is property rights. Stay on topic or start your own preaching thread.

[Fast 1975]

Our Christian founding fathers developed the concept of property rights out of the Judeo-Christian tradition-
"Rights come from God- not human beings" Alan Keyes 1996

[Protagoras]

Alan was correct, at least you are back on topic.

The founders were not all Christian, some were, some weren't.

"Thou shalt not steal" established property rights.

Between humans, the right to control your own property was agreed upon.