# Colorado Smoking Ban



## Dodecaped (Jul 3, 2006)

Before July 1st, 2006, there were some people living in Colorado who felt that they did not have the choice to frequent non-smoking businesses. It’s true! There were actually undercover operatives patrolling the streets of every Colorado community who would hold guns to the heads of the poor, unsuspecting nonsmokers and force them into a smoke filled bar or restaurant - oftentimes, right next door to a non-smoking one.

But fear not, dear citizens! The government has come to rescue you from these anti-American, gun toting champions of heart disease. You no longer have to offer your patronage to these poisonous parlors. And just in case you were capable of making a personal choice not to enter one of these hazy dens, the choice has just been made easier for you. Actually, it was made altogether for you, and me, and the rest of the population.  

Just days before our celebration of liberty, freedom from government oppression, and the rights of, not only the individual citizen, but the property owner as well, three freedoms of choice were taken from all of us – the freedom to choose whether to go to a smoking or a non-smoking establishment, the freedom to choose whether to work in a smoking or a non-smoking establishment, and the freedom of property owners to choose to run a smoking or non-smoking establishment.

I suspect restaurants serving seafood will be a target soon, as the smell of fish is offensive, even nauseating, to many customers who were forced into dining there. Or, it could be the nostalgia diners whose customers are subjected to poodle skirts and Elvis songs. That’s got to offend someone nowadays. Just wait, once people are forcibly subjected to it, with no personal choice of avoidance, the government will bring those rogue establishments to their knees as well, and the only thing missing will be the King*.

* For those of you not in Colorado, this is a reference to the propaganda commercials preceding  the ban which went something like this: - blah blah blah we're no longer allowing smoking blah blah "and the only thing missing will be the smoke."

Just wanted some input into the feeling of the article. There is a lot of debate and discussion around here about it, but nothing has really grabbed me. I was hoping to write something that would make the audience think....also, I'm brand new to the forum, so nice to meet you everyone!


----------



## erotic_cookie (Jul 3, 2006)

I'll give you my opinion on this "article". It didn't seem like that much of an article to me, it was more of a rant. If you want people to take your opinion of this smoking ban more serious then you should do some research into states that have enforced this and the impact on how it effected both smokers and non-smokers.

Being from a province that has enforced a smoking ban I'm not going to get into a debate with you. I've had this debt with most of my friends (who are smokers) and I'm not here to fight with anyone on the forums.

Oh yeah, welcome to the Forums and enjoy your stay.


----------



## Dodecaped (Jul 3, 2006)

Point taken. I suppose it could be considered more of a rant. I am trying to compare it to other rants that are being published in the area that don't seem to be driving home a certain point...which I am also having trouble doing as well I suppose.

So are you suggesting maybe coming at it from more of an essay style and try to appeal to the intellect(?) rather than trying to rile up any feelings about personal responsibility?

Thank you for the welcome and I agree that we are not here to debate the subject of my writing, just the delivery...cause I already know I'm right  Just kidding!


----------



## Gunther409 (Jul 4, 2006)

I support this rant in its entirety. The only thing I would suggest is to not make the general overtone of it sarcastic, it takes away from the point. You want these people to know your opinion. Though my person word choice would be more along the lines of:

"Anyone who can't stand the smell of smoke and feels the need to try to bully others into not smoking has my personal permission to take their own life in the most brutal manner possible."

I visited Colorado not to long ago and I couldn't believe the propaganda they put on the air and that people are taken by these biased commercials is nothing short of stupefying.

Sorry for adding my own rant there. I give your post a 5\5 :5stars:

EDIT: A personal note; I do not, have not, and don't plan to smoke. That doesn't mean I want to restrict others.


----------



## gatoatigrado (Jul 4, 2006)

:1stars:

didn't like it, not only from a personal view though. you need more backup if you're going to make the generalizations you do.




> the government will bring those rogue establishments to their knees as well, and the only thing missing will be the King




this involves a lot of glittering generalities, which exemplifies weaknesses. at least as far as the writing goes. avoid use of freedom and simply state the facts. by going into more detail than the "smoking ban" statement, you can get your desired effect. this sounds like some stupid political statement. i used to write like this, and i don't mean to be offensive. it may appeal to some people, or a lot of ignorant americans, which is why politicians use "freedom" and those other now meaningless words so often. now you see i am ranting, so you can observe its ineffectiveness. lol. seriously, rants are boring, and ultimately unconvincing to an intelligent audience.


----------



## Stewart (Jul 4, 2006)

It was a bit silly, really, wasn't it?

It just rolled along, grumble leading to mumble, without making a coherent argument. Coherent, of course, being the keyword. If you want to make a point then you then there's little point in peppering generalisations into it - research the facts. Look at smoking bans elsewhere - and not just in America. There has been one in Ireland for the last few years and, in March 2006, Scotland adopted one too (and I must say, it's been great.) Ask questions about whether the ban has affected businesses for better or for worse and whether it has successfully reduced underage smokers. Who is the ban really for? You, at the moment, or a generation down the line who will feel less of a need to smoke?

If I wanted to rant in oppostion then I could just say that if you support smoking then you have to realise that a smoking ban is being put in place for the good of your health because you are to stupid to consider it yourself. A more reasoned approach would be to check stats, analyse them, and form a conclusion and then present it in a civilised manner and not that of a redneck with itchy balls (probably on his back) that he can't reach.


----------



## Dodecaped (Jul 4, 2006)

Good point about the sarcasm Gunther...I do tend to use a lot of it in almost all of my writing. I see how it could take away from the point in something like this. Thanks for the critique and the support!



			
				gatoatigrado said:
			
		

> :1stars:
> rants are boring, and ultimately unconvincing to an intelligent audience.


 
I guess I agree. I do like reading a good rant in the newspaper though, so intelligent audiences and rants aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, that is...if I may place myself in the category of an intelligent person. I think it gives a person a good chance to make a viewpoint heard without necessarily needing to quote facts and stats, which 77% of the people I surveyed found boring...j/k.

For real though, people already know that smoking is hazardous to their health. We are bombarded with the facts and stats every day. In a short piece, does one really want to tell an audience that 300 kids start smoking every day, 200 of them become addicts and 100 of them die from it? There are so many different stats out there that if I did use them they wouldn't grab anyone's attention because they have also become as meaningless as the word "freedom," which I agree I probably did overuse that word as a generality...except that I think that was the point of the whole piece - Freedom to choose for yourself, not take away everyone else's freedoms to choose...I'm at a loss to what other words to use that are not meaningless.

I was thinking of maybe using other unrelated examples of government interference (like motorcycle helmet laws - which we don't have here yet thank gawd - and seatbelt laws - which we do...both good, smart things to do, but are still forced on people...well if you consider fines and tickets force...which I do...) but I'm not quite sure why or how yet...Would it help matters? I think it would open the piece up to cover personal responsibility (as opposed to state responsibility) of personal safety in general instead of focusing on the smoking ban...which would be fine, but it was not the original intent. What do you think?

So far, 2 out of 3 would like more backup and research...meaning they would prefer to see even more facts and figures. Does this mean that in order to appeal to an intelligent audience about a conceptual subject, one has to use the same writing style one would use to write a feasibility report? Wait, no that's too extreme, but would it really be better if it was more of an essay? 

Again, thanks everyone for helping me refine this delivery. Please, help me poke holes in the style. If it really does need more research, keep telling me. I am already beginning to see where some "might" fit, I'm just not entirely convinced it needs it just yet...but I am open to it.

Cheers!

*Note: The point of this is not whether or not some people are too stupid to make healthy choices on their own, we all know they are. The point is that I think people should be allowed to make those stupid choices, especially in countries that don't have socialized medicine and profess to love freedom (damn...I did it again).


----------



## Stewart (Jul 4, 2006)

Dodecaped said:
			
		

> The point is that I think people should be allowed to make those stupid choices, especially in countries that don't have socialized medicine and profess to love freedom .


 
But it's their freedom that inevitable has led to such a smoking ban. By voting for and electing in whatever council body has the power to do this, you are exercising your freedom.


----------



## Dodecaped (Jul 4, 2006)

Alas...touche'.

But I would hope a written piece would show people that they just lost yet another choice because of their elected officials, and it's not too late to fix it.


----------



## Amour (Jul 8, 2006)

Stewart said:
			
		

> It was a bit silly, really, wasn't it?
> 
> It just rolled along, grumble leading to mumble, without making a coherent argument. Coherent, of course, being the keyword. If you want to make a point then you then there's little point in peppering generalisations into it - research the facts. Look at smoking bans elsewhere - and not just in America. There has been one in Ireland for the last few years and, in March 2006, Scotland adopted one too (and I must say, it's been great.) Ask questions about whether the ban has affected businesses for better or for worse and whether it has successfully reduced underage smokers. Who is the ban really for? You, at the moment, or a generation down the line who will feel less of a need to smoke?
> 
> If I wanted to rant in oppostion then I could just say that if you support smoking then you have to realise that a smoking ban is being put in place for the good of your health because you are to stupid to consider it yourself. A more reasoned approach would be to check stats, analyse them, and form a conclusion and then present it in a civilised manner and not that of a redneck with itchy balls (probably on his back) that he can't reach.


Well said.

While I don't really feel strongly either way, I do support the smoking ban. I understand the 'smoker' prospective, but I can't say I can sympathize with the smokers.

While it is your choice if you want to smoke or not, taking smoking away from public places is agreeable, especially for non-smokers. There is no law saying you can't smoke. All the law says is that you can't smoke in public places, such as restaurants, where you truly do affect non-smokers.

I guess the reason that I agree with this law is because I believe you should be/are free to do what you want with your body, as long as it doesn't affect others in a negative manner. And smoking in public places does affect people negatively. It generally makes others that don't smoke very uncomfortable. And not to bring up the cliche smoking argument, but second hand smoke is fairly touchy with most people, because it is harmful, and does make people very uncomfortable, even if you don't buy into it.

While I really do dislike cigarettes, detest the cigarette companies (no, not because of the 'truth' ads (or whatever) which were, or are, funded by a cigarette company, I believe..), and never want to smell another cig in my life, I have no problem with smokers, or smoking. I would just prefer it if you smoked on your own time, or with other people who smoke, or privately.

Worst of all is seeing all of the kids that are smoking. Maybe the ban really will help future generations, and those striving for a smoke free future.

Anyway. I'm always happy to listen to other people's perspectives, and it's great to hear your views. However, in my opinion, it seems like this rant is trying to start some uprising or revolution over a 'freedom' that just isn't that important to a majority of people. Even most of the smokers I know think of it as nothing more than another 'minor inconvenience'. It's just not a huge deal. I think that there are many, many more important things to be ranting and raving over than taking your 'right' to smoke a cigarette around people, who would really rather you didn't, away. If the point of your piece is to tell us that you disagree with the smoking ban, and your only intentions are to let us hear your opinion, that's great. We are happy to listen to what you have to say. But based on what you have said, it sounds like you are trying to accomplish something more. So if your real intention is to raise concern about freedoms being limited, and you want to open people's eyes, I would write about something that really is important, affects everyone, and limits true freedoms. There are some horrible things going on in our world, and frankly, I don't see a smoking ban as one of them.

Cheers,
//Ty


----------



## Amour (Jul 8, 2006)

Ahh, how rude of me! In my haste, I forgot to welcome you to the forums! -p)



So...Welcome! Hope to see you around.

//Ty


----------



## Tramontane (Jul 12, 2006)

I enjoy a good sarcastic rant, but as smoking was banned where I live about 2 years ago, I have heard them all. This doesn't mean I didn't enjoy yours.

If I owned a bar, I'd be furious if someone legislated whether or not people could smoke on my property, and I'd also be furious about the profit loss I would suffer after the ban was enforced. (I don't have the statistics, but at least around here, some of the places, usually bars more oriented toward lounging, having a beer and a smoke, being quiet, and shooting pool, lost a good percentage of their business.)

Anywho, I do feel that rants are entertaining. Like everyone else on earth, I love reading them when I agree, and think they are damn stupid when I don't (unless the writing is REALLY exceptional and makes me grin). However, since they don't compel very much, the poster who mentioned adding in some more empirical research had a point. If you're looking for anything from human interest stories to concrete numbers, I recommend checking out www.forces.org.

The site is biased pro-smoking, but so are you (thats okay by me), and as far as I am concerned, I haven't found ANYTHING unbiased on this topic.


----------



## Anne Lacey (Jul 16, 2006)

> I suspect restaurants serving seafood will be a target soon, as the smell of fish is offensive, even nauseating, to many customers who were forced into dining there. Or, it could be the nostalgia diners whose customers are subjected to poodle skirts and Elvis songs. That’s got to offend someone nowadays.



Horrible example. The smell of seafood has not killed anyone to date and I seriously doubt Elvis music has either. Second-hand smoke, on the other hand, has been irrufutabley linked to lung cancer. It does more than offend, it kills. I just moved away from CO and I saw the adds you were referring to. There was nothing wrong with them and they certainly weren't propoganda. They were true. All your article did was to remind me how selfish smokers can be.


----------

