Jeralyn, You make a bold statement when you say; the law is about regulating what can go into everyone’s bodies, and that’s what I object to. Do you believe in drug medication regulations, minimum health code standards for foods, and laws prohibiting hard drugs? Or rather, do you feel that people should be left on their own to defend for themselves in today's complex world? This law is simple; it protects the rights of the majority while not unduly restricting those of the minority. That is democracy. No one is saying you can't smoke, they are just saying you can't smoke in the public space where you detrimentally effect the quality of life of other citizens around you.

Why? Why are you against the ban? The Government has issued it considering his each and every citizen.One should has respect for himself, for his precious life granted by our Almighty!! Sop Smoking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jason, I'm familiar with the bill, the arguments pro and counter. You make and even enhance my case when you say

The issue here was never about our own bodies, but rather, the bodies of everyone else who you infringe upon with second hand smoke

The law is about regulating what can go into everyone's bodies, and that's what I object to. Today those who smoke are the enemy. Who will it be next year?

[...] litt Blogs on this issue: ColoradoPols.com GOPUSA Colorado Tobacco News & Analysis 5280 This entry was posted on Saturday, March 18th, 2006 at 10:27 pm [...]

Market forces work both ways. The 80% non-smokers in Colorado could have a significant impact on which restaurants stay open by sheer numbers in patronage. That's not enough for them. The issue is about control. Non-smokers want private business owners to be forced to kow-tow to their demands. I'm sure the number of people that die at the hands of drunk drivers greatly exceeds the number of people who can legitimately be connected to dying from "second-hand smoke." Correlation of events does not definitively mean causality. Yet there is no push against closing bars or forbidding restaurants from selling alcohol. This issue is not about health. Its not about the "80%'s" rights. Its about forced control of a disliked group by a group of people who enjoy the taste of power and who are willing to exert that force. It is mob rule. Liberty is not their interest. They could easily choose to patronize any restaurant that doesn't permit smoking. If the "80%" did this then the restaurants that patronize the 20% would be out of business. Market freedom works. But power is much more of an intoxicant than either alcohol or nicotine and its effects are death - the death of liberty.

You opinionated articles on this issue have never adequately addressed both sides of the issue nor do they live up to 5280's standards. The issue here was never about our own bodies, but rather, the bodies of everyone else who you infringe upon with second hand smoke. You'd understand that if you were familiar with the bill and the arguments for and against it.

Speakeasies, anyone?