Smoke, Smoke, Smoke that Cigarette — But Not Here

I'll admit that I didn't get active in any way in opposition to this. Why? Well, it just had that feeling of inevitability about it, sort of like a freight train on a downhill slope. Arguing against it just felt like a complete waste of time. I just looked at the bill, HR06-1175, at the Colorado General Assembly site, and I don't believe that the "latest" version there is what passed the Senate today, based on what the Rocky Mountain News Reported. There's some interesting language in there, to be sure. The treatment of "Cigar Bars" is interesting.

"CIGAR-TOBACCO BAR" MEANS A BAR THAT, IN THE CALENDAR YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2005, GENERATED AT LEAST FIVE PERCENT OR MORE OF ITS TOTAL ANNUAL GROSS INCOME OR FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS IN ANNUAL SALES FROM THE ON-SITE SALE OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND THE RENTAL OF ON-SITE HUMIDORS, NOT INCLUDING ANY SALES FROM VENDING MACHINES. IN ANY CALENDAR YEAR AFTER DECEMBER 31, 2005, A BAR THAT FAILS TO GENERATE AT LEAST FIVE PERCENT OF ITS TOTAL ANNUAL GROSS INCOME OR FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS IN ANNUAL SALES FROM THE ON-SITE SALE OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND THE RENTAL OF ON-SITE HUMIDORS SHALL NOT BE DEFINED AS A "CIGAR-TOBACCO BAR" AND SHALL NOT THEREAFTER BE INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION REGARDLESS OF SALES FIGURES.

Well, how about that. As I read this, if your business is a "legitimate" cigar bar as of the end of 2005, then you're grandfathered, as long as your sales don't drop below the threshold. If they do, then even if you rebuild your sales, you won't qualify for the exemption. And not only that, but:

A CIGAR-TOBACCO BAR SHALL NOT EXPAND ITS SIZE OR CHANGE ITS LOCATION FROM THE SIZE AND LOCATION IN WHICH IT EXISTED AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2005. A CIGAR-TOBACCO BAR SHALL DISPLAY SIGNAGE IN AT LEAST ONE CONSPICUOUS PLACE AND AT LEAST FOUR INCHES BY SIX INCHES IN SIZE STATING: "SMOKING ALLOWED. CHILDREN UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A PARENT OR 11 GUARDIAN."

Seems to me this opens the door for various municipalities to put cigar bars out of business by using zoning laws. The most egregious provision of this law isn't, however, in its various prohibitions and restrictions. It's in the misstatement of it's philosophy.

EVERY EMPLOYEE SHALL HAVE A RIGHT TO WORK IN AN AREA FREE OF ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE.

Well, of course, everybody actually has that right. But what I mean by that is that everyone has the right to seek out a place of employment where, by mutual consent, they don't have to deal with tobacco smoke. That's a very basic piece of property rights and right to contract. What the Colorado Legislature really means by that statement is that employees have the power to utilize the coercive authority of the state to infringe on the right of certain property owners to control what happens on their own property.

And that doesn't fit my definition of a right.

Might as well toss out a couple 'graphs from the Rocky.

A strict smoking-ban bill was approved by a vote of 19-15 this afternoon in the Senate. The measure bans smoking in bars, restaurants and private clubs, but still allows people to light up in casinos.

[...]

But in an earlier version of the bill, the Senate had exempted bars, bingo halls, and racetracks. Senators also tried to create an exemption for private clubs but critics said any bar could easily reorganize as a club to skirt the ban.

Oh, the horror! My god we can't have 50 people, all of whom want to hang out together, have dinner, a few drinks, and light up a cigarette, cigar, or pipe, to freely associate with one another in a building owned jointly by all of them.

It takes effect July 1st, 2006. So close to Independence Day; I wonder if any in the Legislature appreciate the irony.

Posted by Jed at March 16, 2006 09:34 PM | TrackBack