An unusual development

[Bruce Watson]

That's because the amended bill bans smoking in restaurants with a
certain kind of liquor license. Several lawmakers said they were
unaware of that.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/legislature/article/0,1299,DRMN_37_3738858,00.html

[L Sternn]

Post by Bruce Watson
That's because the amended bill bans smoking in restaurants with a
certain kind of liquor license. Several lawmakers said they were
unaware of that.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/legislature/article/0,1299,DRMN_37_3738858,00.html

Very interesting - it seems that the only reason the bill is as tough
as it is, is because lawmakers misunderstood what it actually did.

Is this a case of incompetence or is there some active deception going
on by the ban's proponents?

|"We've got to correct that," said Sen. Ken Kester, R-Las Animas.
|"I thought (the ban) only applied to restaurants without liquor
|licenses."

|But it turns out that the Colorado Restaurant Association, which
|backed the original ban, now can't support the bill.
|
|"Before, businesses were losing customers to other cities that allowed
|smoking," said association president Pete Meersman.
|
|"Now they're going to lose them to the business next door."

Well, I guess Bruce can go back to calling restaurant associations
shills of big tobacco now.


|During the debate Thursday, Republican Sens. Mark Hillman of
|Burlington and Jim Dyer of Centennial renewed their opposition
|to any kind of smoking ban.
|
|"Show me the customer, show me the workers that have no
|choice but to go in and breathe smoke-filled air. Show me the
|group of militant smokers forcing nonsmokers to breathe that
|smoke," Hillman said.
|
|"They don't exist."

["- Prof. Jonez©"]

Post by L Sternn

Post by Bruce Watson
That's because the amended bill bans smoking in restaurants with a
certain kind of liquor license. Several lawmakers said they were
unaware of that.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/legislature/article/0,1299,DRMN_37_3738858,00.html

Very interesting - it seems that the only reason the bill is as tough
as it is, is because lawmakers misunderstood what it actually did.
Is this a case of incompetence or is there some active deception going
on by the ban's proponents?

Greater or less than the active deception put on by BigTobacco ?

Post by L Sternn

Post by Bruce Watson
"We've got to correct that," said Sen. Ken Kester, R-Las Animas.
"I thought (the ban) only applied to restaurants without liquor
licenses."
But it turns out that the Colorado Restaurant Association, which
backed the original ban, now can't support the bill.
"Before, businesses were losing customers to other cities that
allowed
smoking," said association president Pete Meersman.
"Now they're going to lose them to the business next door."

Well, I guess Bruce can go back to calling restaurant associations
shills of big tobacco now.

Post by Bruce Watson
During the debate Thursday, Republican Sens. Mark Hillman of
Burlington and Jim Dyer of Centennial renewed their opposition
to any kind of smoking ban.
"Show me the customer, show me the workers that have no
choice but to go in and breathe smoke-filled air. Show me the
group of militant smokers forcing nonsmokers to breathe that
smoke," Hillman said.
"They don't exist."

[Cirque]

Post by Bruce Watson
That's because the amended bill bans smoking in restaurants with a
certain kind of liquor license. Several lawmakers said they were
unaware of that.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/legislature/article/0,1299,DRMN_37_3738858,00.html

Worth noting that the recent data from Summit County and Breckenridge
shows NO drop in business since the smoking ban in restaurants and bars.

Many of the waiters are lauding the ability to wait tables without being
asphyxiated.