Colorado: Bar owners still fuming

STEAMBOAT SPRINGS — Saturday marks the one-year anniversary of Steamboat Springs' controversial municipal smoking ban, but local businesses that once catered to the smoker's dollar have no reason to celebrate.

Mike Miller, owner of Sun�--pie's Bistro, thinks the city's ordinance goes too far, banning smoking anywhere within the restaurant or bar's liquor license boundaries.

"It's almost impossible to enforce," Miller said about enforcing a ban that encompasses Sunpie's entire 5,000-square-foot outdoor seating area along the Yampa River. "You can be 150 feet from being indoors, and you're not allowed to smoke. You can inform customers of the law and put up signs, but you turn around, and they light up."

Slopeside Grill owner Chris Corna, whose restaurant and bar boasts ideal après-ski real estate, agreed with Miller.

"I said from the beginning that they were going a little overboard," Corna said, referring to the City Council that passed the ordinance. As president of the Steamboat Springs Restaurant Association, he spoke to the council when the ordinance was proposed. "It's not against the law to smoke. If they can't smoke inside, they should at least be able to smoke outside."

Because of the ban, Corna and Miller said they spend their mornings picking up cigarette butts along the edges of their properties. Corna thinks it would be more reasonable if his restaurant was subject only to the Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act that goes into effect Saturday.

The Clean Indoor Air Act -- essentially a statewide smoking ban -- prohibits smoking in public indoor areas and extends to a 15-foot radius around entryways, making it possible for owners such as Miller and Corna to accommodate customers who want to smoke outside rather than banishing them from their properties.

For businesses that lack exterior seatings to attract customers, the municipal ban has had a much more debilitating effect.

John Hoekstra has owned Golden Cue Billiards for 19 years. He estimated since last July's ban began, he has lost between $5,000 and $6,000 a month.

"Soon as the weather hit and it got cold in October -- bam -- there it went," Hoekstra said. "It used to be packed in here for Broncos games -- 15 to 20 people. Now I have only one or two people."

Steamboat Springs Police Department community service supervisor Tom Whiddon said most business owners have complied with the ban. Whiddon said the city has issued only a few warnings to businesses that violated the smoking ban.

"We respond if we get a complaint," Whiddon said. "We're not out there looking for every person that might be smoking and measuring the distance from the door."

Despite the statewide ban's looser regulations, restaurant and bar owners who own establishments outside of Steamboat city limits fear taking financial blows similar to Hoekstra's.

J. Elliott, owner of Oak Creek's Colorado Bar & Grill, sees the ban as government intrusion on his relationship with his customers' individual choices.

"The bar is about 47 percent of my business," Elliott said. "If this goes into effect, I'll have to make some drastic changes."

Fearing the worst, Elliott said he had his business up for sale "back in February when (the act) passed and was voted into the state Senate."

Because the Colorado Clean Air Act does not apply to casinos, cigar bars or Denver International Airport smoking lounges, Oak Creek mayor Kathy "Cargo" Rodeman had hoped a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court would result in a temporary injunction that could save the three Oak Creek businesses that allow smoking. But on Friday, U.S. District Judge Lewis Babcock refused to delay the ban from taking effect. His ruling did not affect the lawsuit itself, which can still proceed after the ban begins.

"If it's employees they're trying to protect, why are they making the ones with the most employees exempt?" Rodeman asked. "There's more employees in one casino than every business in Oak Creek -- times 10."

Teresa Wright, Northwest Colorado Visiting Nurse Association's tobacco prevention program coordinator, is quick to cite evidence she said contradicts Rodeman's and Elliott's fears that the act will destroy Oak Creek businesses.

"All the research we have from other states is that it always results in a positive impact on the economy," Wright said about legislation aimed at increasing public health. "Costs decrease for businesses because they no longer have to pay for added insurance coverage, increased ventilation and extra effort to clean their establishment."

Rather than dreading the July 1 enactment, Wright urges smokers to seize the day as a quit date and suggests calling (800) 639-QUIT, a toll-free quit line that provides Colorado residents with free counseling and nicotine patches.

Zon: People that support government forced smoking bans violate the rights of people that chose to allow smokers on their property. That they enlist government agents to do their muscle/dirty work is besides the point that they chose to violate another man's rights.4

If that's the case, where's the lawsuit? It should be a slam dunk case if what you say is true.

I suppose you'll pretend you didn't read the bold sentence above. I doubt there has ever been a successful "slam dunk" lawsuit against the government. When you enlist the full force of government to do your dirty work against people you gain an unfair advantage. That's why you enlist the government to do what you could never do on your own or you would be sued in a New York minute.

Environazis also enlist the full force of government to violate private property rights. Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, doesn't it.

It's sad but this board has become infested with nanny state do gooders who don't give a damn about property rights.
When hundreds and thousands view and only a couple of dozen respond it's hard to tell what the make-up of the unspoken is.
The nanny state do gooders have to speak out on this board or folks like YOU might be listened to.
Can't have that happening now, can we.

You're claiming that smoking in a business is a right. I'm saying it isn't.

Filing a lawsuit against the government is easy, more so for the smaller governments implementing these regulations. Smokers claiming to be helpless victims incapable of fighting the issue in the courts is laughable.

You're claiming that smoking in a business is a right. I'm saying it isn't.

You misconstrued what I said. Business owners have property rights that include who may access the property and what activates are allowed on their property. If a business owner doesn't want people to smoke on their property then the customer must abide the property owner's rights. There is no such thing as smokers rights than there are Christian rights, or female rights or Hispanic rights or black rights etc. Inalienable rights do not differentiate. You do -- erroneously.

Filing a lawsuit against the government is easy, more so for the smaller governments implementing these regulations.

I assume you intentionally misconstrued what I wrote: :"I doubt there has ever been a successful "slam dunk" lawsuit against the government." Of course it's easy to file a lawsuit against anybody and even easy to go to court. Being successful is not, especially against the government.

You shot your credibility by your intentional misconstruing of what I said.

There have been smoking regulations for private business owners for decades. Where's the successful lawsuit claiming their property rights have been infringed?

I'll give you credit for admitting that smokers don't have the right to smoke in a business. They can only smoke there if it is permitted by the owner and the law.

Because the Colorado Clean Air Act does not apply to casinos...

That's because second hand smoke does not cause cancer in establishments where the state gets a hefty percentage of revenues, but it does cause cancer on outdoor decks where the state doesn't make that much money. < / sarcasm >

They can only smoke there if it is permitted by the owner and the law.

The law violates private property rights -- violates inalienable right. I stand by what I wrote in post 4.

You enlist government agents to initiate harm/force against innocent business owner's that have harmed no one. People that support government forced smoking bans violate the rights of people that chose to allow smokers on their property. That they enlist government agents to do their muscle/dirty work is besides the point that they chose to violate another man's rights. They claim a right greater than business owners' property rights. They're lower than pond scum, IMO.

Let's see how many more pond scum dwellers show themselves by responding.

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.