Skip to main content
What is/are the main reasons you do or do not support an ordinance similar to the CTEPA model?

View responses to question #3: If you were writing a new smoking ordinance, what elements would you want, if any?

I believe that non-smokers have the right to breathe non-polluted air, to avoid 2nd hand smoke. Smoke is no less obnoxious outdoors, than it is indoors.

I do not want to be exposed to secondhand smoke. I do not want my children exposed to secondhand smoke. I think nonsmokers' rights should supercede smokers' rights when it comes to health.

We now know enough about the dangers of smoking that the public has a right to not be exposed to other peoples trashy habit. My tax dollars are already going to take care of there health problems, I should at least have the right to eat dinner and go out of a building without breathing that foul poison.

This is an issue that shoud be VOTED UPON by the citizens of Ft. Collins.

This is a health and safety issue. All workers deserve to work in a safe and healthy environment

As a community we should support children's and employee's rights to a smoke-free environment in public places and work places, respectively.

I have children! My husband had two parents who both smoked and he was well known to their local pediatrician with numerous ear infections. We all are now well aware of the risks and side effects of second hand smoke. Let's not kid ourselves anymore! Allow those who want to smoke, to smoke in their own homes and not expose the rest of us to their smoke in public places.

I am a non-smoker, but like to go out to Ft. Collins bars. The amount of smoke in the air is usually overwhelming. It sting my eyes and makes my clothes smell like I rolled around in a gigantic ashtray. I have also been inadvertantly burned by the lit end of a cigarette. In the summer patios provide no relief from the smoke. The air is just as bad outside.

Smoking in public doesn't only affect the health of the smoker. There is ample evidence showing that 2nd hand smoke can also cause health problems especially for people who are exposed to it frequently such as waitresses and bartenders. Smoky, enclosed environments also promote the spread of communicable disease by irritating people's lungs.

I travel to California often and it is very nice not to have people smoking in public. They really don't have the right to jeporadize my life. They can smoke in their own car or house and kill only themselves and the ones they claim to love.

I hate smelling smoke in public places. If it's a person's choice to smoke, no-one else should have to deal with the consequences.

I think it is obvious that the majority of the public in our nation and in this city do not smoke. Since this is the case, why do business owners think that they will lose so much money if a non-smoking ordinance is passed? It should be obvious that the non-smoking customers they have been missing out on would come to spend their money. A smoker can always refrain for a period of time while they a

my son has a lung that does not work and asthma. we have left restaurants, concerts in old town and other places to go and do breathing treatments due to a thoughtless adult blowing smoke in his face. we have spent years taking care of the lung function he has. i struggle with taking him where he'll be exposed to smoke. he's a teen now and will not remove himself from a smoking environment.

I think the CTEPA plan sounds pretty good.

THE PROPOSED IDEAS ARE AN INFRINGEMENT OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS . YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO IMPOSE THE VALUES OF THOSE THAT HAVE NO RIGHT TO A SAY OTHER THAN TO MAKE A CHOICE AS TO WHERE THEY WANT TO BE AND NO ONE IS STOPPING THEM FROM STAYING AWAY OR SPENDING THEIR MONEY ELSEWHERE. I PERSONALLY DON'T SMOKE BUT I CAN MAKE MY OWN CHOICES, HAVE IN THE PAST AS WELL AS WOULD LIKE TO IN THE FUTURE.

I like being in a nonsmoking environment, but I think the CTEPA model goes a little farther than I think it needs to as there are only certain places that I am bothered by smoking. I don’t visit bowling alleys and bingo parlors so I don’t have an opinion on these places. I like the idea of smoking a certain distance away from a building, but this may be more than is necessary.

It should be the choice of the business owner to choose whether they allow smoking or not and then the choice of the patrons as to wether they agree with the policy.

health risks for non-smokers in public places such as bars.

I visit and stay in Ft. Collins, but if this ordinace is passed, I will find another place to stay when I come out west.

The majority of restaurants and many bars are already smoke free. We can already choose whether we want to be in a smoke free environment. A total ban is going too far.

Bowling Alleys should not be included - also the 20' perimeter around buildings should not be included

My husband & I eat out at least once per week. We want clean air in restaurants; we don't want to walk past (or in some cases thorugh, e.g., Mulligan's) a smoking section to get to a no smoking section. We do not enjoy the stench of cigarette smoke nor do we want an unhealthy environment.

I would have to agree on a very small part that smoking should be allowed in some areas and not in others but bars!? The 20 foot radius rule is absolutely ridiculous.This part of the ordinance should be omitted. The whole ordinance needs to be rewritten.Then in rewritten form it should be put to a vote by the people. Sounds familiar?!

Because my health is being affected by anothers discretionary pleasure. Employees should not be subjected to that kind of health risk.

I don't like to breathe smoke from smokers and I am unable to bowl because the bowling alleys are too smokey. I have allergies that act up the following day after breathing second hand smoke. I am not against smokers and would like better exhaust systems to remove the smoke from designated smoking areas. Plus, I now have a new baby that I do not want to expose to second hand smoke.

I think government should let individual business' decide if they will allow smoking or not. I personally do not patronize establishments that allow smoking, but I do not agree with doing away with an individual business' choice to allow or not allow smoking. Most restaurant/bar employees smoke anyway!

I don't want to risk my own health because other choose to smoke. Second hand smoke is deadly!

Second hand smoke is a class A carcinogen. This is a no-brainer. Inviting people to smoke in an enclosed public place (as is now the case) and telling others they should "vote with their feet" is like waving around a loaded gun and telling people they should get out if they don't want to get shot.

I am tired of the government intruding on my personal freedoms.

Smoking creates an unhealthy environment & should only occur in private. Anyone who chooses to intentionally create a health hazard around himself should be required to do so only when & where the hazard is not inflicted upon others. Public protection from man-made hazards is an everyday occurance in the USA, & smoking is no different from any other threat to public health & well being.

Health and comfort of both smokers and non-smokers.

I'm severly allergic to smoke, and being around it for any period of time causes me to feel extremely ill. In public, its usually groups of people smoking, not just one, so I can't escape. I should not have to be bombarded by smoke just because I want to have a good time out in a bar or eatery.

I would support a gradual move toward the CTEPA model from our current code.

The less smoking, the better.

Don't punish smokers. Freedom of choose.

second hand smoke has been proven to cause cancer in people who do not smoke. Service industry workers are dying from second hand smoke diseases. Many people have allergies to the smoke. We frequent restaurants that are smoke free and do not frequent restaurants that allow smoking due to the health risks.

We MUST protect our public health. This is particularly important because of the extreme difficulty for smokers to overcome their addiction. Their physical craving causes them to smoke around others even though they consider themselves to be considerate and compassionate.

Smoking causes lung cancer, emphazema and heart disease, as well as C.O.P.D. My mother died from smoking. Cigarettes serve no purpose, and I believe they should be banned.

I do not smoke, but enjoy going to restaurants and bars. When others smoke in those environments, it esentially forces me to smoke their second hand smoke, too. I've seen too many family members die from lung cancer to tolerate that.

Smoking is hazardous to my health, the health of the children of fort collins, and everyone else!

I always avoid taking my family to restaurants that permit smoking. Even though they have a seperate smoking section, it still drifts over to annoy us non-smokers. I have a right to be in a public place and not have to inhale the byproduct of other people's "cancer sticks."

What are you planning to ban next? Fast food restaurants, drinking, sex, cars, etc.

A number of medical studies have concluded that passive smoke is detrimental to anyone's health. Smoking in public places such as restaurants, bars, building entrances, etc., is not just an annoyance for many non-smokers, it is a threat to health.

Governement is restrictive as it is. These ordinances only serve to allow the government more power to harass individuals. The best way to ensure that someone does something you don't want them to is to tell them they can't. There are several modern laws that have served to worsen the problem they attempt to solve. As an example, just do a little research on the "War on 'some' Drugs.

Tobacco smoke is an adverse health imposition on all people. In public places, people are entitled to be free of it.

Smoking in public places (i.e. bars) is detrimental to the health of those who wish not to smoke, providing a separate room for this is the only way to accomplish the allowance of smoking.

Smoking has been demonstrated to cause health problem and death even to non-smoker. Although if it is necessary to defend personal freedom, I think it is strongly recommended to forbid smoking in all public facilities, especially those where people under 21 of age go.

Second hand smoke causes cancer and is therefore a health risk to all concerned.

I don't smoke, and I know how harmful it can be for me when I'm out trying to have a good time. If people want to smoke, they should go outside

Smoking in public areas: bars, bowling alleys etc.. is hazardous for all patrons. It is also very annoying for those who wish not intake second smoke and the dangers associated with it.

I am a non-smoker. Second-hand smoke thoroughly bothers me and I choose to not be around it. I hate having our beautiful air polluted by such a disgusting smell.

this is colodado if you don't like it get out

Smoking should be prohibited anywhere it can be intrusive to non-smokers, which is any public place, OUTDOORS INCLUDED.

It is documented that second hand smoke is hazardous to your health. It's fine if other people choose to smoke and harm there health, but just because they choose to doesn't mean that my children and I should have to endure the health effects do to their actions.

It makes no sense to outlaw smoking in bars. Alcohol does far more damage to our society than tobacco. Also, the proposed 20-foot perimeter (sic) makes no sense. It's vague and misleading. If they actually mean a 20-foot RADIUS centered on each outside entrance... then that leaves no place at all on the sidewalk, does it?

One of the worst things about smoking is that if you don't smoke, you just have to put up with others who do. It is bad for our (non-smokers) health, bad for the environment (litter/fire hazard). I definately think that stricter rules would help. I hate being stopped at a light breathing in the fumes (smoke) from the person next to me.

I dont need the goverment to decide matters that every business and individual should decide for themselves.

I support all parts of the ordinance.

Smoking needs to be allowed at bars. A total ban at restaurants, the 25% hotel thing, and everything else sounds good, but we need to be allowed to smoke at bars.

Second hand smoke presents a health hazard to the general public and certainly employees that work in establishments that currently allow smoking. Liability concerns should apply to this issue just as they do to providing safe buildings, properly prepared & held food, aesbestos-free...the list goes on.

We need to be free to decide to live as we please within the law if their lifestyle does not negatively affect others. Smoking - with care -can be continued without affecting those who do not wish to be around smokers. there should be some smoke free areas where children are present.Non-smokers should make allowances i.e. in places of adult recreation such as bars, pool halls etc..

Being affiliated with small business owners, I understand the nature of the bar clientele. About 60-70% of bar patrons smoke. A ban on smoking inside and within 20 feet of any bar, would drop profits significantly. This ban would mean death for the bars that barely survive as it is and would severely damage the business of those that are strong

second hand smoke!!! It is not fair to me!!

Second hand smoke is health risk. I have asthma that is triggered by smoke, even the smallest amount. Smoking Areas such as those used in resturants & work places are unsuccessful at capturing smoke and insuring non-smoking areas are unaffected. Fort Collins is at legal risk if it does not strengthen its laws. Future lawsuit could be avoided with the correct stance on smoking in public places.

I lived in Arlington, Texas (between Dallas and Fort Worth) when they instituted similar rules. Businesses feared a decline in visitors, but actually revenues went up. That ordinance required restaurants to install a separate air system if they wanted to allow smoking. Only 3 did.

I feel smokers have a choice in smoking but my family and I do NOT have a choice about beathing. We have a right to clean air without having other people's negative habits impinging on our need to breathe.

Bars are for EVERYONE over the age of 21. They are a social gathering place, and should not be reserved for those who smoke or who wish to breath in second hand smoke, the health risks of which are clearly documented. Requiring someone to breath in second hand smoke if they wish to visit a public place is no different from requiring someone to breath in, say, asbestos.

No one should to tell you when, where you should smoke. I beleive smokers have more restrictions then non-smokers. First it's where and when, and how much you spend. That's just wrong. What happen to Freedom in this country?

I have 50% function of my lungs...smoke stops my lungs from functioning. I can't get a breath. Yet smokers light up anywhere...no where is really safe. You walk out of a business and wham! You go to a city or county event and wham!

We have a right to clean air. we would like to be able to patronize all establishments, and can not do so because of health reasons.

As a former smoker I think government has a responsibility to protect non-smokers from smokers for health reasons and also annoyance reasons. On the other hand, if a business wants to cater to smokers, non-smokers would not have to patronize that business.

Having to breathe the smoke of other people when I am a non-smoker is completely disgusting and unacceptable. No other habit which is so detrimental to ones health is allowed to be forced on others unwillingly. When I go to McDonalds and eat a Big Mac, I dont force everyone else in the place who may eat more healthily to eat something that can negatively affect their health.

It's not the government's job to enforce social morays and preferences...and to fumble with economic markets in this way. If enough people truly feel this strongly about wanting a non-smoking bar, that will create a market and a business would make good money doing that. The problem, however, is that people want to dictate how others may behave based on their own prefences.

I've been smoking for about 10 years...on and off. Most people I know that smoke want to quit. Preventing smoking in bars would help me and friends in the effort to quit.

Smoking is a known health hazard and second hand smoke is just as bad. I would love to take my kids bowling but won't because of all the smoke and lingering smoke odor. It's just disgusting! Business owners can adapt for the good of the community. Tobacco money has been too great to stop some of this sooner, but citizens are wiser now.

The current smoking regulations do enough to protect the non-smoking public.

2nd hand smoke is very harmful to the customers as well as the employees. It is the role of government to limit exposure to toxic substances.

smoking kills people, and even second hand smoke is dangerous. i do not want to be exposed to it.

I worked in Boulder just before and just after they passed a strict non-smoking ordinance. I was amazed at the difference in the air quality of public places after the ordinance went into effect. I have a mild smoke allergy and always avoid places like bars that permit smoking.

Not wanting to breath the secondhand smoke; My own personel health and the concern of the secondhand smoke damaging it.

Smoking is extremely detrimental to one's health, the smoker and the innocent bystander. Nonsmokers don't have a choice not to breath. Why should we allow a few people to smoke a product, that everyone acknowledges is toxic, and contaminate our air? There are enough pollutants in the air.

I am not a smoker and would like to be able to go to bars/restaurants and play bingo without breathing second-hand smoke. It does not seem fair that I really cannot choose if I want to smoke or not. I believe I have the right to visit establishments without smoking.

I know that the risks from second hand smoke. I feel when in the community my family or anyone should not have to be subject to second hand smoke and the potential health issues related to it. Smoking is a right and a choice. I just feel it should occur where the only risk/impact is on the individuals choosing to smoke.

The dangers of second hand smoke are well known. As a non-smoker, I find it extremely offense to breath others smoke when my intention is to get a breath of fresh air by going outside. There are public events that I can't take my children to because of the polluted air caused by smokers.

Smoking is a personal elective, however, allowing their second- hand smoke to invade my nonsmoking space is a violation of my right to choose not to smoke. If an individual chooses to smoke they should do it strictly in their own "air space."

To promote the "well" being of our community. As a modern and informed society it is time to take this step to protect the community health even with the help of government.

That we do anything other than discourage smoking in the strongest way possible is unfathomable to me. The negative health impacts to smokers, and even more so to the innocent bystander or employee who has no choice but to breath second hand smoke, are atrocious and preventable.

My mother died in 2001 from lung cancer thru smoking. My daughter at age 11, now 13 developed a carsonoid tumor in her bronchial tube, had major surgery, I wonder if it's what she's been subject to breathing outside of the home (we have not ever smoked) My mother lived in Oregon. We need to stop subjecting ourselves and our kids to the dangers of other's smoking.

leave business owners alone. A capitalist society like ours lets businesses manage themselves. The market will take care of the problem.

I am sick to death of the government's rules and regulations on everything we do in life.

I Don't think that the city has a right to tell bisiness owners how to run thier shops.

Everyone has the right to breathe clean and healthy air. Smokers can smoke in the privacy of their own homes or cars. If a smoker is unable to go to a public place and refrain from smoking for a few hours, it is an issue of an unhealthy dependence. Citizens should not be subjected to this disgusting addiction that has been proven deadly for both smokers and those inhaling the second-hand smoke.

I believe that I have a right to breathe air that is not contaminated by cigarette smoke. A smoker can chose to light up or not to light up, but I cannot chose to breathe or not breathe!

Smoking kills; second hand smoking kills; people who smoke who don't die are harmed. The only good thing that anyone ever says about smoking is that it is good for the economy of the tobacco producing states, and people have a right to choose their lifestyle, even if it is harmful to them. They don't have a right to harm others, however.

I normally favor individual rights. But smokers are killing everyone, not just themselves. The only choice I have if I don't want to breath 2nd hand smoke, barring an ordinance such as this, is to stay home. Let smokers kill themselves if they want to, but let non-smokers be healthy in public as well as our own homes.

I am a non-smoker, I can chooose to go to or not go to a smoking facility. People who smoke should be able to make the same choice.

Although individuals do have the right to choose to smoke, they do not have the right to impose their secondary smoke on me.

Smoking is legal. The government should stay out of it. It should be up to the business owner to allow it or not. Non-smokers, quit whining. Maybe you don't care about your constitutional freedom but stop trying to take mine away. You aren't obligated to patronize a smoking establishment so don't impose your narrow-mindedness on those of us who CHOOSE to smoke.

I chose 9 because I strongly support the proposal, but no bill is completely perfect. Smoking is a disgusting, low-class habit (yes.. you really do reak of smoke) that not only affects your health, but those around you. I especially feel sorry for small children who have to live with parents that smoke. It is proven that secondary smoke is dangerous.

For decades, those of us who are non smokers were at the mercy of other folks' smoke: our parents, our co-workers, etc. People who wish to smoke can do so at home or outside AWAY from other people, but the rest of us shouldn't be subjected to those health risks.

Smoking is one of the leading causes of death today. It causes cancer and is bad for your health. If you choose to smoke I do not think you should be able to force those around you to inhale your toxins. Smoke aggrivates many peoples alergies and may cause them to get cancer as well. Smokers are rude and only care about their personal gratification.

health issues for myself and for employees who are required to work in smokey environments.

Because as a former smoker I am tired of being assaulted in public places by the awful smell of cigarettes. Also I'm tired of waiting for seating in restaurants when there are seats in the smoking section going begging. Smokers may be a minority but they impinge on my rights to a healthy environment. DO NOT be pressured by this vocal minority please vote for our health and vote for new ordinance.

Secondhand smoke endangers the health of children, adults, and workers.

Protect non-smokers from breathing second hand smoke.

Smoking infringes on every non-smokers freedoms! I choose to remain healthy & not have to inhale secondary smoke.

Secondary smoke is a significant detriment to my health and quality of life. It should not be allowed anywhere that you would not allow exhaust from a diesel/gasoline engine.

People have the CHOICE to avoid smoke. If you don't like it, don't support businesses that allow it. Likewise, business owners should have the CHOICE to allow or disallow smoking in their establishment.

1) there is not conclusive evidence that 2nd-hand smoke is harmful 2) it's a matter of personal freedom and choice 3) there are smoke-free areas already for non-smokers

If you eliminate smoking from all public places in an effort to appease rabid anti-smoking supporters, that is a drastic measure which is not supported in statistical data (there is data both ways as to the real effect of second-hand smoke versus other pollutants which may be just as harmful, i.e., carbon dioxide, vehicle emissions).

They have a right to smoke, but I have just as much right to not have to smell it or inhale the fumes. When in most restaurants even if you sit on the far side you can still smell it, having a negative impact on the dining experience even in places that have a separate desgnated area. The wait staff still have to use the doors to get into those areas for service.

This is not a government issue and it appears to reflect the opinions of a few loud and fanatical voices - the sqeaky wheel once again gets the attention!

I chose not to smoke and I do not enjoy the smoke of others.

I don't smoke. I don't that we should tell those who have been smoking for years that they can have the freedom of choice. I have no problem going into a place where there is smoking. I made that choice. If I didn't want to go there that would be my choice. A lot of business would lose money. How are we as a community going to make up for that.

I don't like the smell of smoke and my partner has asthma.

If someone's cause of pleasure results in my physical harm, I don't want them to do it near me. I can move away as easily as them, but nonsmokers outnumber smokers by far so I'm using the democratic "most votes count" 'rule'.

I am very sensitive to second hand smoke, I feel that when someone begins smoking in a restaurant, they should be the ones that need to leave.

I hate being forced to be around others smoke in public places. I should be protected from harmful things. I've been in boulder and california where they have this protection and it's great. In these places smokers don't seem to mind much.

As a manager of a smoke free restaurant, I feel that health of the public far outweighs any possible revenue loss that local businesses may suffer (which would be the only reason not to pass this ordinance). There is no doubt that some businesses (especially bars and pubs) will be negatively impacted but ordinances like these need to be passed.

I strongly support a smoke free environment. Smoking is a choice, chosen by smokers. Non-smokers should have the same choice to not have to inhale second hand smoke.

I do not feel bartenders and waitresses should have to put up with constant second hand smoke, which I believe is dangerous.

If a business wants to cater to smokers that should be their right. I, then, as a nonsmoker, can choose not to patronize an establishment that allows smoking. But, it still allows those who smoke to have places they can go.

Secondhand smoke is harmful to those who are forced to be around smokers. Being able to be in public areas without having to deal with this problem would be great.

I would like to bowl, play bingo, go dancing, etc., but the smoky atmosphere affects my sinuses, causes my hair and clothes to stink, and is generally highly offensive.

One of the main reasons I don't go out much in this city is because of the stink and clouds of cigarette smoke in so many places, bowling alleys particularly, as well as bars. I feel like I cannot get my breath and hate the way I smell when I get home. Smokers can do whatever they want to themselves, but not when in the company of others.

Reasons for selecting a 10: There are many wonderful restaurants in Ft. Collins that my family and I don't patronize because of the cigarrette smoke. Good restaurants would not lose business- both smokers and non-smokers would patronize them even if smoking were not allowed in them. In the end, smokers will discover that food tastes much better w/out that tobacco taste in their mouths.

I am convinced of health issues related to passive smoke. There are ordinances that control speed limits for public safety. This ordinance is in support of public health.

I think it is fine for people to choose to smoke or not, but when they smoke in public places, I have no choice but endure THEIR choice as I can't escape their second hand smoke.

I feel that it should be the individual businesses's decision to allow smoking or not. I do not think the government should be involved in this issue.

being a business owner, i put all my time and money into a business that was bought and based on the current ordinance. What will happen to business owners?? and does city council even care??

I am really tired of the "Boulderization" of Ft. Collins. Part of what makes America great are the founding principles of freedom of choice and NOT having to jump whenever someone decides that they think that they know how to run my life better than I do.

I do not smoke and am bothered by smoke.

This is a public health issue. All establishments where the public is invited should protect the health of their patrons. As to the argument of lost business, Many people do not currently frequent business where smoking is allowed because of the second hand smoke.

Making others suffer form your choice 2 smoke isn't fair.

Smoking makes me cough and feel sick, and I don't see why somebody else should have the right to make me feel sick just because they want to smoke.

My husband & I are allergic to tobacco smoke.

Less government, less laws

I can not stand going out and not being able to breathe.

I don't smoke and dislike being around people who do. It's especially annoying at places like concerts or dance clubs when you just want to have fun, but people are ruining the air quality and make your clothes stink.

I believe that it is bad for my small children's and my health to have to breath the smoke from smokers. A lot of times, I feel like I can't go to a restaurant, because even though I am in the non-smoking, I still get plenty of smoke coming to our table. Bowling can't be a family activity because the place is full of smoke, etc....

Because this is the healthy alterna- tive. There are too many places where people are subjected to second hand smoke.

Smoking is a public health hazard. PERIOD!!! There is no safe level of second hand smoke and we would never allow other health hazards such as asbestos to be present in our public buildings.

It is a known fact that second hand smoke is damaging and unhealthy. Those who insist on smoking indoors put others' health at risk. Not everyone can "go somewhere else", nor should they have to. If smokers have no consideration or regards for the well being and safety of others, then laws need to be created to force them to appreciate the damage they are doing to others and themselves.

Goverment; City, State, or Federal has no business turning the preferences of a few people into laws and regulations which impact all people. Require better air handling equipment in public places rather than ban smoking. From a non-smoker

I think smoking should not be allowed in any public places.

Protection. The only people that have a choice, are the smokers. I have to breathe! No matter how long I can hold my breathe, I have to inhale their choice. My babies do not have the choice to crawl out of a smoke filled room or not breathing. Do you know what it is like to have your five year old, 2 year old and 8 week old smell like they smoked two packs of cigarettes?

I believe that people have the right to go into public places without worrying about the dangers that second-hand smoke have on themselves and/or their children. The building itself becomes less of a fire hazard as well. I believe that if people want to smoke, they should have the freedom to smoke... outside.

Smoking is life threatening to those who smoke and non-smokers who must breathe smokers' air.

Second hand smoke is a health risk to me. I am very sensitive to it. Even outside a smokers 20 feet away will irritate my throat.

Clean air is everyone nonsmokers right. I deserve not to breathe poluted air out in public. If money is the argument to keep smoking then business owners do not realize how much $$$ they are loosing by having smoking in any part of their establishments. They must not have lived through anyone's slow death because of smoking habits or breathing in carcinogens.

It is so nice to go out and be able to come home not smelling like an ashtray. It will contribute to the health of our community.

i can not stand smelling tobacco smoke. i would find it very refreshing to go to a restaurant and not have to smell smoke because they do not have a good ventalation system.

i Go to Boulder aND IT IS NICE TO NOT SMELL LIKE SMOKE WHEN I LEAVE

Everyone should have the right to a safe, clean air, without the polution and "bad smell" of cigarettes ( or similar). Smoking is not a natural physiological need for humans. We should not be exposed to second-hand smoking anywhere in public places.

Smoke is a carcinogen. There is no excuse. Smoking is not even a "pleasure", it's an addiction pure and simple.

Although, I do not smoke myself & do not like the habit, I have friends who smoke & would not want to exclude them from all public places.

Innocent people are subjected to the hazards of second-hand smoke when it is permitted in any public place. Even attending the concert in Old Town last night, I was troubled by smokers in that outside venue which was full of non-smoking adults and numerous children. The majority should be able to rule on this issue which affects our health and our insurance rates.

I enjoy listening to live music and I am forced to have to compromise my health if I want to enjoy music at the venues in this town.

It's none of the "City's" business!!

Too much "Big Brother" now -- if this is passed -- what's next??

I do not smoke, however, I do not feel there should be anymore anti-smoking laws. If I really didn't want to be around smoke, I wouldn't go to an establishment that allowed it. Money talks. One other thing: As of now tobacco is a LEGAL product, not that that matters to the holier-than-thou do-gooders out there. If they are serious, then pass laws to criminalize it. Why not?

I avoid restaurants that allow smoking

I have lung problems and it would be nice to go out here.

I have asthma and find it difficult to find placed to go where I can enjoy myself in a smoke-free environment. I am particularly bothered by people smoking right outside public buildings because I have no choice in avoiding it. I can avoid smokey bars, but not the CSU library or post office or other placed where smoking is permitted right outside the door.

As a person with asthma I have been limited on where I can go & how long I can stay places because of smoke. I believe that people should have the right to smoke if they want to live with the consiquences, but everyone who doesn't want to, should be allowed to breath smoke free air.

I just want smoking to be outside.

My family and I are highly allergic to tobacco smoke. It is extremely offensive. The stench sticks to our clothes and hair.

I don't smoke and I don't appreciate being forced to pollute my lungs with carcinogens simply because I chose to go to a public place. Maybe the smokers will be forced to smoke less reducing our nations healthcare bill and in the process prolong some lives.

I don't like to breathe smoke.

I do not want my family or myself exposed to second hand smoke.

Smokers have rights too!

Why should there be any debate about protecting the lives of our citizens, especially children, for smokers' pleasure? Let them kill themselve's, and their loved ones, at home.

We need less govt, not more...

400 keystrokes for an opinion! Given that clairvoyance, Council will be able to duck this issue for years! It's bad, ban it!

Individual choice

choice not government control

Smoking in indoor public and work places endangers everyone. Don't we all have the right to use public places and work? Smokers' right to endanger their own health should not let them endanger mine!

Govmt. regulates our cars via emission testing to protect the environment,why don't the protect our environment and make Ft. Collins smoke free. If California can do it in their bars, etc. we can do it.

smoking is toxic why would a community allow toxins in public places?

I believe that private establishments should be able to determine for themselves whether they want to allow their patrons to smoke. Currently, those who wish to smoke do not patronize non-smoking establishments. Those who wish to avoid smoke are free to avoid establishments where there is smoke in the air.

freedom of choice

I would prefer to see smoking prohibited in all indoor public places. I will not patronize businesses in which I can smell cigarette smoke. It is extremely distasteful.

let the business owner decide

Govenrmental interference with rights.

Because customers that CHOOSE to use restaurants, bars, etc. will determine the need for smoking regs by attending the places with regs that suit them. If business drops, the owners should be able to change the in-house regulations just as they would change a menu or daily special,

People should be able to smoke. We do not need non-smoking regulations that is STUPID. MORE STUPID REGULATION.NOOOOO!!!!

not all but a lot of smokers are inconsiderate of non-smokers. ie. in a public area I shouldn't have to move because the person next to me doesn't realize or care that there smoke is right in my face.

I have asthma-cigarette smoke or heavy smoke smell on clothing causes difficulty breathing

Do not care for more gov't control. Maybe we should restrict the types of foods obese folks can order or eat in resturants too. As a tax payer I pay for the medical care of alot of obese folks. If you are so obsessed with your health, stay home.

If government is "for the life and prosperity of its people" and this same government has proven tobacco smoke to be harmful, if not fatal to the health of its people, is there really any question as to the responsibility of the government?

I think that their are too many laws trying to protect us from ourselves. I don't view governments role as a "big brother".

Though I am the first to defend individual freedoms, I feel that public smoking poses a health risk to both the smoker and to the individual that has the misfortune to find themselves in close proximity to the smoker. While I agree that the smoker has the right to damage his/her own health, he/she certainly does not have the right to damage the health of others. Thus, I support with a 9.

IF IT AFFECTS ONE BUSSINESS, THAN I AM STRONGLY OPPOSED THIS. BOULDER SMOKING ORDINANCE CLOSED THE BOWLING ALLEYS IN 6 MONTHS TIME.

Second hand smoke is a poison. Plane and simple. No one should be subjected to breathing it. Why are we allowing these addicts to pollute our city and endanger our lives?!!

I'm allergic to cigarette smoke and hate the way everything smells after spending time in a smoky environment (i.e. restaurant, bar, etc.)

This is a matter of personal freedom, responability, choice and free market. There is ample opportunity for people to obtain smoke-free environs. The health factor for employees argument is flawed.

THIS IS A FREE COUNTRY AND SMOKING IS LEGAL.

I am a non-smoker, but I am opposed to the smoking ordinance. I don't think government, whether federal or otherwise, should tell a privately owned business what they can do.

I am a non-smoker, but I am opposed to the smoking ordinance. I don't think government, whether federal or otherwise, should tell a privately owned business what they can do.

I am a non-smoker, but I am opposed to the smoking ordinance. I don't think government, whether federal or otherwise, should tell a privately owned business what they can do.

Promoting Free Markets: While many people do not like smokers around, businesses should not be forced to all have one rule. Over time firms will adjust to consumers' desires in a least-cost manor. Some will ban smoking, others will specialize in offering it.

I frequent restaurants and bars in town often. The smoke in these places makes me nauseous and aggravates my allergies. I like the model proposed, and would be in favor of it. I'm from CA, where a similar model was adopted a few years ago. While those who do smoke complain, those who do not, and wish to not be exposed to it, will tell you it's a great thing. I like being able to go somewher

People DIE from exposure to 2nd hand smoke. I hope we think PEOPLE not profit. Cigarette companies have a tight grip on certain bar/ resturant owners in this city! Let's not let them win! 2 Fort Collins resturants are listed on a cigarette company website. Cig companies are the snakes that are still trying to "hook" our teenagers!

I am 33 years old, have defended my country in two conflicks around the world, Being free is the most important thing in the world, and with the changing times our freedoms are going to be some what restricted as it is. By the way I am a non-smoker.

We don't go out to many restaurans, bowling allys or sportsbars because of the smoke, if this passed we would go out more often!

I do smoke,but I want to be fair to the person next to me also..as I would want that person to be fair to me...

Increases limitations on smoking pollution in public places. Partial restrictions are not effective. But let business owners choose their own policy in #3 below.

Like Asbestos, Air Quality is a concern of mine. As a non-smoker, I live in a multiunit apartment where most of the other tenants are smokers. The smoke comes in my unit through vents and hallways. I think the city should protect me and my kids in my own residence aqnd leave the bars alone.

I believe that second hand smoke is the most harmful, so it's not just those who smoke are being harmed. We have young children and want public air space to be clean for us to breathe.

Smokers have rights too, if people want everything smoke free, then they also need to provide places where only smokers can go, smokers deserve designated places if non smokers do, it's called equal rights

i hate smelling like smoke after being inside. MY rights (to not smell) are being imposed upon by smokers.

Smoking is toxic to humans, and those who wish to do it should do so in the privacy of their own homes, not subjecting others to the effects of smoking.

I'm a non-smoking 34 yr old that frequents old town resturants/bars approx. once/week. I don't think the atmosphere/ambiance of a place should be determined by law. Let the economic rules apply.If a place is too smokey/unenjoyable people won't go and spend money there. If the owner decides they want to capture a smoking or non-smoking crowd let the owner provide the necessary facility.

The current code is not explicit enough in the reasons for its provisions, and its focus should be on what is NOT permitted as opposed to what is permitted.

businesses should be their own governors of what their patrons' desires are. Many businesses in California went under when such drastic measures were implemented. It is not in the best interests of businesses or revenue makers (via sales taxes) of the city to be regulated to a point that would impede their ablity to operate successfully.

I do not like having my children and myself exposed to cigarette smoking. Some people openly break the law now. Hopefully stronger laws we lessen the likelyhood that these people would smoke in public.

Health! I have asthma from being exposed to 2nd hand smoke as a child. I'm 32 an RN, and an athlete. Smoking, & 2nd hand smoke is toxic to the body. It delays wound healing, causes high blood pressure-which can lead to strokes, COPD, lung & gum disease, throat, neck, lung & tongue cancer, peripheral vascular disease,& much more. If exposed to smoke I am coughing brown sputum x 3 days.

I find second hand smoke very offensive.

Smoking is gross and it smells and I don't want it in my face

You can smoke in Jail, but the city is comsidering banning smoking in all restaurant/bars. This community should consider an ethics committee to review the city employees and the city council members.

I do not believe that it is the business of Government to regulate this issue to this extent. Providing a "safe" area under the current plan is adequate. Providing for public health does not include providing a sterile surrounding. I am an non-smoker and I'm not in the least offended by smoke. I choose not to go places where it may be a problem.

The EPA says second hand smoke is a Class A carcinogen, unsafe at any level. Would it be okay if someone walked around a public place emitting another toxic substance from a stick they held in their hand? Imagine people with tiny spraycans of pesticides, walking by and puffing it at other people?

Personal freedoms are only protectede as far as they don't harm others. Secondhand smoke is a Class A carcinogen, known to cause great harm to those who inhale. Why shsould non-smokers suffer the consequences of someone else's addiction?

I think our current ordinance is fine. Too much governing is worse than too much smoke.

I am a non-smoker who can't stand being in smoky rooms, so I simply don't frequent the businesses that are smoky. If we want a smoke free bowling alley we should be petitioning the bowling alley to make changes, not city council. As a non-smoker who has no problem finding smoke free environments to be in, I cannot see how this ordinance could be justified as protecting public health.

It is a matter of choice-if a person does not wish to breathe second hand smoke, then they should not patronize smoking establishments. It should be up to the business owner who they want to cater to-the government should not be involved in these decisions!!

Downtown Businesses didn't want the supercenter to come to town and they don't want a smoking ordinance. Don't let the city do a Double-Whammy to the old town businesses. The supercenter has been devastating enough to old town businesses. Old Town has about 47 Restaurant/Bars in the area.

Others should not be allowed to effect my health. I limit patronage based on true separation of smokers from patrons (which limits my spending in the community). This is a form of discrimination as smokers can choose to not smoke, whereas I cannot choose to be smoke free . 30% of the population (smokers) should not be able to cause discomfort and health issues with the other 70% (non-smokers).

I'm a non-smoker. however, the governement has no right to regulate where a person can smoke. If an individual business chooses to enact a smaoking ban within thier building, that's thier right, but the government hsould have no ability to make that descision for them. For people worried about second hand smoke, simply don't patronise locations which allow it.

I don't smoke and do not want to smell or breathe cigarette smoke. It is that unpleasant to me. My husband and I generally won't patronize restaurants where there is a smoking section. It's inevitable that smoke from the designated smoking areas in restaurants drifts into the non-smoking area.

Aside from well known heath risks from second hand smoke, I've heard of studies that show that eliminating smoking completely in resturants does not impact a businesses bottom line at all. It's time to start enforing serious smoking restrctions in public places. What smokers do in thier cars and homes is their business. In public places, it becomes my business.

I grew up in a smokig household and have worked as a waiter.bar tender. There is no way that that period did not have an effect on my health.I was a college student and that was the work that I could get at the time.

Smoking is very harmful to human health, smelly, and unrespectful of non-smokers who choose not to damage their lungs.

I'm tired of breathing at the mercy of smokers. Where are the rights of those who Don't want to breathe in toxins? The majority don't smoke, yet we cater to the smaller percentage that do -many not of legal age. It's time to change the way things have been done for Far too long. What's more important? Our & our childrens health or smokers need to smoke when & where they want. This is a No-Brainer

Because I am alergic to smoke! I will be happy to be able to go to indoor concerts at places downtown. I have missed so many good performances. (You want us to spend our money here in our town, right?)

Government has no place dictating how a restaurant runs its business. If a restaurant wants to be smoking they can choose to be. Customers can choose on their own to either go to these areas or not.

If I wanted to smoke, I would light up myself, but I do not, therefore I do not feel like I should have to breath smoke from other people's cigarettes.

The issue is choice,both for the individual and the business owner.Both now have the ability to limit or not limt the enviornment that they choose to be in.I would support an ordinance that restricted smoking in those public areas where the public had no choice in useing.

Because a local government judge recently identified Old Town Fort Collins as the Entertainment District for Northern Colorado, it would be irresponsible and borderline unethical to not further study the financial health impact this ordinance could do to the Entertainment District for Northern Colorado.

health

Don't micromanage people's rights

I have the right NOT to breath smoke in public areas. Employees in these locations do not have a choice.

Enough is enough. I think we need to put our energies into controlling the pollution from motor vechicles, which is far worse than that from smokers.

I get extremely irritated at bars. The second hand smoke is just too much. I know I would feel alot better after a night out If I wasnt inhaleing everyones smoke.

I feel that my rights are violated when I can't attend a local concert or go out to a bar without risking the known detriments of 2nd hand smoke. Government has already banned smoking on airplanes. How many people feel this is bad policy? I see no difference in having the freedom to fly in a smoke free plane than to dine in a smoke free restaurant.

Smoking kills. Just because someone else decides to smoke others should not be forced to breath the smoke filled air.

I am a nonsmoker and do not like to be in smoking areas. However, I believe strongly in personal responsibility and a free market economy. Government does not have the right to protect adults from themselves. Businesses will freely choose to become nonsmoking if that is what their clientele demand.

Health

All employees in a smoking establishment should be at least 18 years old. SOCIETY AND THE GOVERNMENT HAVE DETERMINED AND ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT ONCE YOU ARE 18 YEARS OLD, YOU ARE AN ADULT AND CAN MAKE YOUR OWN DECISIONS IN LIFE. You can vote, smoke, leave your parents,leave the country, work at the topless bar and even serve alcohol in a restaurant. Tobacco is regulated by the ATF.

This ordinance will especially benefit those who have allergies and asthma. My daughter has asthma, and she is very sensitive to cigarette smoke. I am total support for this new ordinance. It seems to work in California, why not here.

It has been proven that second hand smoke is as dangerous, if not more dangerous, than inhaled smoke. As a former smoker who quit because of lung problems, I feel there is a community responsibility to have clean, safe public environments. It is my opinion that cigarette smoke is neither clean nor safe.

Customers may be damaged by secondary smoke in small restaurants; when they volunteer at bingo halls or happen to take a friend or elderly parent; meet a business associate at a bar; or get a smoke choked hotel room when non-smoking rooms are all taken. EXPAND to protect the FULL public.

I beleive it's not the right of the government to tell people if they can or can not smoke. That's just getting a little to involved for me.

No smoking inside bars.

Smoking is adequately restricted. I don't think putting more restrictions on smokers is necessary. I exercise quite a lot outside, my main concern is pollution from vehicles not people smoking.

Smoking can cause cancer. Secondhand smoke is a proven cancer risk. Cancer creates a high cost to society.

As a non-smoker, I do not want to be exposed to the harmful effects of cigarette smoke!

Part of the reason I became a smoker was the ability to fire up a cigarette whenever and wherever, it seemed like the thing to do. Now, with the new ordinance, it would diminish the tendencies for youths to begin smoking.

I can't stand to be around cigarette smoke. One whiff of it sets my eyes watering. I find that several of my friends are the same way. This might mean that a lot of people can't be around cigarette smoke comfortably. Let's use Spock's logic and say that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one or the few. Besides, it's not like smoking is doing any good for these people.

People do not have the right to endanger my life, or that of my family. They do not have the right to lessen my ability to go to ANY public place I choose and breath clean air. In a perfect world we wouldn't need a law, people would have enough respect for others that this would not be an issue. Obviously we do not live in a perfect world.

Government has no business acting as a Nanny to the people it governs. IF the citizens that don't want to be exposed to 2nd hand smoke would concentrate more on exercising their rights to NOT do business at establishments that allow smoking, as opposed to formulating more stupid laws that infringe on other citizens rights, perhaps our community would be a nicer place to live.

Smoking is a foul habit that is a health and comfort imposition on non-smokers. It is not a matter of freedom for smokers to be able to smoke when and where they please, as it is the freedom for non-smokers to be free of noxious poison substances in public places.

smoking is a health risk to non smokers. also in california and boulder there has not been a decrease in revenue from banning smoking.

The anti group will take away freedoms that does not belong to them. 297 resturants give them plenty of places to eat without controlling everyone.

Why should I have have to live other peoples bad habits.

I recognize that smokers have some rights as well, but I hate inhaling their smoke.

Nothing is more aggrivating than having to breathe in someone elses smoke in a public place. If they wish to defile their bodies, let them do it at home and leave my lungs alone. I enjoy going out to eat or to a bar, but hate to put up with all the smoke. You go home stinking!

I myself smoke and if i cannot smoke at certian places i will not go there, such as old town, restraunts, the mall... Businesses will certianly lose alot of money because many of my freinds smoke and they agree they will not go to such places if the ordinance is passed.

Oppose gov't control over how business owners run businesses and the right of smokers to access smoking areas. (and I don't smoke).

People should have the right to smoke. Just have designated smoking areas in public building for them.

I feel that people should be able to smoke if they choose to do so. However, I do not feel the public should be exposed to toxins from this smoke. Eliminating smoking will cost some businesses smoking customers, but also bring in a substantial number of customers from the non-smoking public (like me) who have avoided their businesses altogether until now.

Government interference in daily lifestyle and health issues is not what the founding forefathers would have wanted, there is enough information in the public about smoking and its damages. If people choose to go to bars where smoking is common that is their option there are enough non-smoking establishments to accomodate that way of life!

Seeing personally what the effects of smoking can as I lost both granparents to smoking related illnesses, I want to be able to enjoy my dinner or microbrew without breathing someone elses smoke! Smoke if you want, it is a personal choice, just don't expose me and my family to the second-hand smoke that has proven to be not only highly dangerous, but downright bothersome as well.

Smoking is an important public health issue that affects smokers and non-smokers. Smelling smoke adversly affects my enjoyment of public places.

None of the Governments business

this is America. If you dont like smoke patronize only places that feel likewise.

Government should not tell individuals where they can or can't smoke because it is not government business.

Health

enough already--let private business do what they want and let the customers chose where they want to spend their money

Problems with smoke and pollutants aready in our environment

Equity and justice issues demand that everyone is entitled to a smoke free environment and work place.

I do not think that people should be allowed to some ANYWHERE other than their homes or smoking establishments. think businesses have the right to determine if their businesses out to be smoking or not.

The most dangerous effects of smoking are caused by passive smoking. Everyone has a right to his health.

I believe the government should not tell people whether or not to smoke, but the secondhand smoke is dangerous to bystanders, and therefore needs to be regulated. Just like any other activity: people have the right to practice scarification if they want, but not to practice it on others. When people smoke around me, it effectivly forces me to smoke, which is not fair

I've never been forced into a smoke environment. If I don't want to be around smoke, I find it easy to avoid in Fort Collins.

Smoking is noxious. Studies show that second hand smoke is hazardous to our health. We are saying people can't smoke - they can choose to smoke - outside.

I think many of the proposed regulations are absurd such as no smoking within 20 feet of a public place, however I respect non-smoker's view points on these issues.

Gov't should not be regulating this issue. Non-smoking alternatives exist. We are becoming Boulder (yuk!)

I think the restrictions currently in place are entirely adequate. Going any further smacks of "Big Brother". More government intervention is not always better and in this case it's much worse!

In the America that I grew up in people were free to make choices. Today, well meaning zealots (like you?) would prefer to dictate how people live. Such people are destroying the land of the free and the home of the brave.

I am a non-smoker and have lived in a City wher such an ordinance existed. This was a great experiance and would like to see it in Fort Collins.

I'm an ex-smoker and worked in bars and restaurants after I quit smoking. I was always very concerned with secondhand smoke in the work environment. I don't care if people smoke, but I think it should be limited to their personal space or out of doors.

I believe fc gov. needs to protect the health of it's citizens.

Individuals should take responsibility for their own health. If someone thinks a business is too smokey they should stop patronizing that business, and they should tell the owner why they are doing this. If there are so many people who want no smoking in bars, why aren't there more non-smoking bars in Ft. Collins?

America is (or used to be) the land of the free. When government acts to protect individuals from themselves (by prohibiting allegedly "risky" behaviour), freedom is diminished. Better to let the existing freedom of the consumer marketplace regulate behavior than impose new and punitive restrictions on the significant portion of the citizenry with nicotine addictions.

I do not want my children, husband or self to suffer consequences from another's poor decision. My decisions affect my family and myself, but are not inflicted on others. I feel this is only fair, as a general rule, in public settings.

This is a perfect example where the parents of this community have failed to raise their kids properly and teach them the difference between right and wrong. The parents can't control their kids and now they want to hide behind the government and have them enforce what they failed to teach. We need more education not laws.

If the citizens that want a smoke-free rest/bar; put up your own money($) and open your own smoke-free business. Probably can't or don't want to... that is your right but I don't want you, the government or anyone else dictating to me on how to operate my private business.SMOKING IS LEGAL, LET THE MARKET DECIDE.

You have no right to tell a private business what to do. If people do not like smoke, they are free to choose to eat, shop, or work wherever they want.

There is more than sufficient medical data to support the contention that smoking is hazardous to our health and that second hand smoke is just as deadly. There is also sufficient data to show that business does not suffer from having no smoking.

This is a decision to be made by Bar owners and resturants. The same decision that I have of where I want to go and spend my time and money.

Smokers' desire to smoke shoud not override every other citizen's right to breathe clean air.

I don't smoke. 25 yrs ago the govt gave free cigarettes to young men and put them in combat. Many of my friends are smokers because of that. Until the last person addicted to tobacco by our 1960's values and government policy dies, these ex-soldiers' (and others) needs must be accommodated.

I believe that if you enforce the suggested ordinance, it will put my company out of business. I believe in a market economy, people vote with their feet. If the general public decides that they will no longer frequent my business because of second hand smoke, I will of course change the policy. But I do not believe that anyone besides my customers should influence that decision.

I do not want to breathe air filled with smoke - it makes me sick and I have to leave any smoky business.

I don't smoke but feel people should be given a choice.

I support the ordinance because I have asthma.

Smoke is unhealthy! It stinks and is disgusting. It has been proven to be deadly. If smokers want to kill themselves-that's their choice. The rest of us should be able to enjoy clean air.

As a non smoker who absolutely can't stand smoke, even outdoors, I still feel that businesses should be able to choose to be non-smoking or not, and then people can choose or not choose to frequent that establishment. I certainly don't go to any bars that permit smoking, but would go to a non-smoking one.

I feel that if someone wants to smoke that's their choice, but I don't think I should have to breathe in their smoke if I want to go to a bar or restaurant.

Besides being rude, crude and unwelcome, second hand smoke is hazardous to my health.

Research findings on the effects of secondhand smoke clearly demonstrate the serious damage it can do to people's health.

It is too limiting. It's ok to restrict smoking but not eliminate it in all bars and restaurants. The 20 foot perimiter is too restrictive also.

I believe smoking creates a health risk to the person that is smoking and to others around them.

There's no reason why Ft Collins should go to Boulder-type smoking laws. Smoking vs. Non-smoking rooms in restaurants works fine how it is now.

Descriminates against smokers.

It should be up to businesses to decide what their customers wish in terms of smoking. By removing smoking from public places, you will force people into the streets to smoke in order to be 20 feet away from buildings, which then causes potential harm to pedestrians and motorists.

Is this TAX COLLINS? NO TO THE TRANSPORTATION TAX...NO TO THE LARIMER COUNTY RESTAURANT HEALTH INSPECTION TAX and NO TO THIS SMOKING ORDINANCE DOUBLE TAX. In a slowing economy, no more taxes.Government can't manage the money they receive, the only thing they do understand is HOW TO TAX THE PEOPLE!

I own a small neighborhood bar and serve light snacks for food with no room for a patio or outdoor space. I have a total of 6 employees that smoke and 85% of my customers smoke cigarettes! What are me and my kids going to do?

Breathing second-hand smoke is a serious health hazard. We have a right to breath clean air in public places.

NON-SMOKERS ARE NOT FORCED AND DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO VISIT MY RESTAURANT/BAR, IT'S A "PRIVILEGE" THAT THE PRIVATE BUSINESS OWNER PROVIDES!

Smokers have a choice whether or not to breathe toxic smoke. Non-smokers have no choice when they're in an environment that permits smoking. Study after study has proven how damaging it is to one's health- nearly as bad for those of us who inadvertantly inhale 2nd-hand smoke.

I do not think a person has the right to impose their style of living on another person. Smoke is a known carcinogen, and one has no right to endanger another's life. Only one's own.

non-smokers' health is endangered by second hand smoke and we shouldn't be forced to share anyone's habits.

Smoking kills people, including via second-hand smoke. It's intrusive - not a private practice. It smells, and lingers an unpleasant oder on many things (clothes, hair, furniture, etc.). Even a person passing by, who has just been smoking, wafts this abrupt and unpleasant oder. Smoking is a public nuisance!

I am an ex-smoker and even though I don't like to be around second hand smoke I think there are enough places in town that are no smoking that I can go to. If I chose to go to a smoking establishment then that's my problem. We shouldn't take away all the smoker's rights they are voters too and deserve the right to smoke.

Smoking is bad for me and my children. Other people have the right to smoke but they don't have the right to subject others to their 2nd hand smoke.

the is enough governmernt regulation in our lives. This is the land of the free. not the land of the regulated.

I don't smoke, but I have friends that do. I think local businesses should have the right to decide whether or not they allow smoking in their establishment. There are several businesses in this town where smoking is not allowed, it is unfair to extend it to all businesses. WE ARE NOT BOULDER!

I am very offended by walking around smokers going into the mall, into restaraunts, etc. I do not smoke, and I don't feel that I need to breath smoke from someone else.

SLOW DOWN WITH ALL OF THE NEW LAWS SOON YOU MIGHT FIND YOURSELF AND OTHERS UNKNOWINGLY BREAKING LAWS.

health

smoking is a health risk. People who do not smoke should not have to worry when at a restaurant or bar, or any business that the air will be poluted with smoke. Not being able to smoke would also discourage the occasional smoker from smoking.

smoking is a health risk. People who do not smoke should not have to worry when at a restaurant or bar, or any business that the air will be poluted with smoke. Not being able to smoke would also discourage the occasional smoker from smoking.

The right to breathe clean air supercedes the right to smoke.

i am concerned about the health of all who work in places that allow smoke.

It's not that hard to go outside to smoke if you want to. It is hard to not breathe in second hand smoke if someone in an enclosed area is smoking.

I don't wanna go somewhere that's completely smokey. My clothes smell, etc.. I don't mind it outside, but inside is a health hazard even to those that don't smoke

I don't smoke and I can't stand to be around people who do. I don't go to places that allow smoking.

Secondhand smoke has been scientifically proven to cause cancer and death. People smoking in public places is virtually the same as shooting guns randomly into a crowd. Both kill. Both are intentional. The only difference is the time involved for the murder to take place. Why is this even a question? Why has it taken so long?

I previously lived in CA where a similar ordinance was passed---banning smoking in all public buildings. As a non-smoker, going out to the bar was so much better. No second hand smoke, no washing clothes as soon as one gets home. Smokers still went to the bar: they just smoked outside.

Can anyone explain to me why someone's pre-existing health condition should rule the way other people live? This is no different than a smoker's inconsideration.

Are you going to ban alcoholics from bars? Are you going to force obese people to exercise? Are you going to shut down fast-food restaurants because they contribute to obesity? Quit whining and help find solutions to the problems. Everybody has one.

It is an irritation to me to be around smoke (irritates my eyes, nose, etc). The same is true of my family members. I will not visit some Fort Collins businesses because of this.

I HATE walking through a cloud of smoke when entering or exiting a nonsmoking building. I also HATE smelling smoke during a meal at a restaurant where I pay for service.

I believe it is the government's role to protect public health, so increased regulation is necessary.

I completely agree with the Alliance's point of view. Smoking at this point is essentially regulated drug use, which is a health risk, both to the smoker and others

I strongly support a new smoking ordinance in Colorado. I have severe asthma that is triggered by tobacco smoke. THrough my reasearch I have determined that for most people with asthma, tobacco smoke is a big trigger. so please help mine and all asthmatic's lungs, help us breath free!

Smoking is a known health hazard, and we should do everything we can to discourage it. By allowing smoking in public places, we expose all non-smokers to the dangers of second-hand smoke.

I have lived in towns that were smoke free and it did not hurt the resturant business but it was more enjoyable going to them.

i work hard to physically take good care of my body and do not want that work to be nullified by the harmful effects of second hand smoke. Also, if i would like to go to a bar or see a band, it would be nice to come not smelling like smoke.

No one should be subjected to breathing in environmental tobacco smoke which has been proven to cause cancer. Protect the health of ALL Ft. Collins residents!

It's not the governments business to legilate this. We need less government in our lives.

I am a non-smoker, but it is not the responsibility of the city to tell people not to smoke in a privately owned establishment. It is the choice of the owner of that establishment to allow smoking or to not allow smoking.

Available options to avoid smoke are sufficient; what's next--banning fast food restaurants???

I was once a smoker. During this time, I never realized how bad it is for others (also) to be surrended by cigarette smoke. Now, even if I consider that anybody should be allowed to smoke if it is their choice, I think that smokers don't care enough about non-smokers, so I'd like to forbid smoking inside every public building BUT NOT OUTSIDE !

Public safety. Quality community. Withdraw community support of harmful drug use. Responsible rearing of children.

Protect Public Health. Second hand smoke is deadly!

health reasons

Second hand smoke is unpleasant for non-smokers and is a health risk for employees that are required to work around sencon hand smoke.

smokers stink

I have asthma that is triggered by cigarette smoke. Because of the current ordinances, I cannot go into bars, bowling alleys, etc. Additionally, those establishments that have "smoking areas" usually have the restrooms in such a location so that I must walk through the smoking area. Another reason is that children are subjected to this smoke too.

The negative impact on the health of the public and the medical costs involved in treating smoke related illness (whether smoker or second hand)

The main reasons I support CTEPA's ideas are smoking negative health impacts and limiting children's exposure to smoking.

I believe the government's duty to protect citizens outways the right to smoke. The reasons are clear. It effects the health of many non-smokers in indirect ways. With the new ordinance, our rights to a healthy environment are upheld.

SMOKING IS TOTALY BAD FOR ALL OF OURS HEALTH

The ordinance in place is enough. Let the non-smoker engage in personal discussion/challenge with the smoker, instead of hiding behind the ordinance. Stick up for yourself instead of waiting for some one else to do it.

I'm a frequent visitor to many bars and restaurants in town. I would rather they be non-smoking, as I don't have a choice in most except to breath second-hand smoke. It's difficult to find non-smoking establishments, and severely limits the places that I can visit, so I put up with these unhealthy enviroments. But I know eventually Fort Collins will move to being a healthier city.

I generally agree with the ban on smoking except that I think smoking in attached bars (four walls and a ceiling seperated) of restaurants should be allowed.

First of all, I am not a smoker. I believe the market place should rule. Businesses that allow smoking will change their policy if they lose business because their policies.

present regulations are adequate to insure nonsmokers can avoid smoke

There are many restaurants and bars/restaurants that I will not patronize due to the heavy cigarette smell/smoke that you are sitting in while trying to eat and enjoy yourself. There is research that supports that damaging effects of second hand smoke.

avoid obnoxious odor. avoid health issues associated with smoke, including irritated eyes and throat. while there may be a civil rights issue, each citizen also has a responsibility to NOT interfere or adversely affect others.

2nd hand smoke is a Class A Carcinogen - there is no safe level of exposure. I believe in personal rights & freedoms, but when a smoker's freedom to smoke exposes restaurant/bar workers, kids, the unborn, & others to secondhand smoke, regulation is not only appropriate, its imperative. The free market does NOT always respond to what is in the public's best interest. That's why we've elected yo

I do not smoke and appreciate bars and restaurants where I am not subject to the smell and health issues related to smoking. While I am not opposed to the idea of letting people decide for themselves where they will smoke, in reality their smoking directly effects me even if they wish it not to.

I feel this is another infringement on the rights of citizens of Fort Collins. People who smoke, do it because it is their choice. I do feel that there are appropriate places to smoke. I also think the places people should not smoke are places where children are allowed.

It is time that we acknowledge the hazards that smoking is responsible for. Smoking is the leading contributing factor to the top 4 causes of death in our country. The effect of tobacco costs every American -- whether they choose to smoke or not. I'm sick of paying the health care bills of those who choose to maim themselves.

Smoking should not be restricted in all public places as long as it is known that these facilities allow smoking.

Our main reasons: 1. health concerns. We do not want to be exposed to second hand smoke. 2. We don't want to have our access limited to places we want to go 3. Illnesses resulting from smoking contribute to high cost of health care 4. Smoking makes our clothes stink obnoxiously

freedom of choice, there are many smoke-free restaurants. There need not be a law prohibiting smoking in all places.

second hand smoke is damaging to my health. it's hard to find a place to go bowling or play pool without heavy smoking. at restaurants, the non-smoking sections are often right up against the smoking sections. i'm forced to choose between my health and activities i enjoy.

Second hand smoke health hazards

There is nothing good about smoking for anybody - those who smoke, or those who are innocent bystanders

The present smoking ordinance is quite a good one and not in need of replacement. Let's let the business owners run their businesses as they see fit to cater to their particular customers. There is no shortage of "smoke-free" restaurants in Fort Collins now, and no one is forced to work in or patronize the few that do have smoking sections.

I am allergic to tobacco smoke. I am elderly and have a hist. of cancer in my family. Folks with addictions make a choice. I don't want them to make my choice.

I grew up in Ft. Collins and now live in Los Angeles where a similar law has been in place. You can't keep smoke from a non-smoking area. You place the workers at risk. And it has been found that more people visit restaurants and bars now than before. I find it shocking when I go to places where smoking is still allowed.

Businesses are not public places, they are privatley owned and operated, so each individual owner should be able to set thier own smoking standards. If you do not want to be subject to a smokey environment, simply do not do your business at that store or restaurant. Vote with your dollars and do not take away anyones rights to decide how to run thier own business.

It's none of the Governments business to regulate things like this.

I strongly support it because it works to keep second hand smoke to a minimun. Although the ban in CA works only because it is statewide, city to city may be a bad policy. In CA it sure is nice to go to a bar and not smell nasty when you get home. This would probably have me going out more frequently so others that feel the same as myself might offset lost business from smokers.

Non-smokers have the right to breath clean air. When smokers are in front of entrances, etc. - non-smokers are not being protected by the government. Laws should be written to protect our health and provide isolated areas where smokers can go.

Upon moving to Fort Collins, my fiancT and I decided to take on an environmentally and ecologically friendly lifestyle. So, we found a condo (high density housing) walking distance from work and stores. It was great. Except a few of the neighbors smoked outside, causing the smoke to go into our condo. It gave me a headache and aggravated my fiancT's asthma. The smoke forced us to move out of town

Government is not in place to protect public health. The smoking ordinance will not only hurt businesses, but also detract from the the citizens' (and business owners') freedom of choice. There is no need for it, as there are many establishments that are currently smoke-free.

1st. I don't smoke and don't like it. I applaud the ordinance in place now, but This new ordinance violates the rights of those who do. I am against it. I vote with my feet.

I hate second hand smoke. Both the health implications and the discomfort due to the smell. I don't want my children ever to have to breath it.

This should be the choice of the owner of the business. Let the free market prevail. Additionally, employees of business can choose where they wish to work.

What people do in the privacy of their own homes or vehicles is their business, although I pity their children. However, they should not be allowed to subject anyone else to second-hand smoke and the harmful chemicals it contains in the name of "personal freedom". That's addiction talking!

People have the right to smoke if they want to and where they want to. The people who own the organizations have the right to decide whether or not smoking is allowed inside their establishment. It is their choice to have a smoke-free business or not if they want to, not the governments or the peoples. This is obsurd, educate and/or help the smokers instead of patronizing them.

I currently do not smoke. However, second hand smoke is just as bad for your health as smoking can be. I don't want to put myself in a position where I am hurting my health.

The health of our community

I think it is completly unconstitutional to ban smokers from any public place. non-smokers complain that they have no place to go because every where is smoking. they say it is discrimination...by putting this into place you are doing the same thing to smokers...you are reversing discrimination and making it legal! Make a proposal that gives refuge to both groups not just the non-smokers.

i believe it would force many people to give up a part of their lives, it may be unhealthy, but it's their choice to begin it should be their choice to stop. no one can be forced into such a big change, it isn't fair.

I am a non smoker, but this ordinance goes too far.

bars and restaurants should choose to be smoking, non-smoking, or separate smoking sections. Patrons can then choose to go to that place or not. If enough people avoid, it will close.

for one, I'am allergic to the smoke. However, I do smoke an occasional cigar. This being said, I feel that as a smoker one must understand that it is endangering the lives of those around them. I like to hunt and target shoot,but you don't see me walking through town popping off birds in the super market parking lot!

Because people have a right to chose to smoke and not to smoke. I think that non-smoking restaurants and businesses are a good idea. But making the choice for people whether they can smoke or not smoke outside is going way too far.

Because there is no reason that a person's decision and "freedom" to smoke cigarettes should infringe upon my rights to breathe clean air. There are many times and places where I cannot escape the smoke with my young baby, and I feel that any public place should be free of it.

The existing code is sufficeint. We do not need more government, more laws. I am a nonsmoker and if an establishment is to smokey. I go elsewhere. We should not be restricting the private sector any more than necessart.

Smoking is hazardous to your health.

Who actually has the right to tell someone else what they can and cant do, especially when its not an illegal activity.

To many laws on the books now that are hard to enforce and some that are not, Local, State, and Fed Gov is way to large and is trying to take control of our every day lives!

- health concerns - preserving the freedom to clean air

I have and I know others who have strong allergic reactions to cigarette smoke. I have to hold my breath when I get anywhere near it.

My wife and children have highly reactive asthma and many restaurants smoking areas are directly bordering non-smoking and regardless of ventilation often crosses over and affects people seated nearby.

I think its absurd that our city govermant needs to dictate where a person can have a cigerette. I think business should be able to determine how they should treat thier customers. Government does not need to dictate where a person can or can not have a smoke.

When considering proposals to restrict individual behavior, it is best to choose the option which preserves freedom.

The main reasons for my support: 1. I do not want to breathe second hand smoke from other people. It gives me a headache, causes my clothes to smell, and generally has a negative effect on our activities. 2. I am concerned for the health effects of second hand smoke. In particular, I am worried about the health of the workers in smoke-filled environments.

Second-hand smoke is harmful.

I support the smoking ordinance. However, I'm not sure about the 20 foot perimeter rule.

I have yet to find a restaurant that me and my wife are alowed to smoke in. I fail to see what all the non-smokers are complaining about! today I was enjoying breakfast with my wife in a non-smoking restaurant and a child coughed on my food and i feel this was much more of a threat to my well being. maybe we should bann children from public places due to this health threat.

Fort Collins is nothing more than a Boulder want-to-be. Down to Earth is becoming a past fad. I thought FC had everything Boulder had minus the attitude. FC is certainly doing a great job of reducing it's once quaint image.

I love being able to sit in the bars when I am in Los Angeles, California without being sufficated by the smoke like I would be here

2nd hand smoke is very offensive. It would be SO nice to be able to go out and enjoy activities without coming home reeking of smoke!

I am a heathlcare provider and feel strongly that we should promote healthy life styles and decrease potential exposure to smoke for all members of our community.

Let me start off by saying I’m a non-smoker but, I do believe smokers have a right to patronize restaurants and nightclubs where they can smoke as non-smokers have the choice of going to one that prohibits smoking. We are America not some country that dictates what we can and cannot do. By prohibiting smoking in public places you are violating a smokers freedom of choice.

I think our current smoking ordinance is adequate

Prior to moving to Fort Collins, we lived in California where smoking is controlled by a similar state law in restaurants and bars. It was one of the best things about living in California. You shouldn't have to inhale someone else's second hand smoke and leave smelling like a cigar just to enjoy a meal or drink.

I believe we shouldn't have to live with other peoples bad habits, but i believe the establishment should be able to say wheather or not people can some there. as long as there is adiqute ventilation.

I am tired of breathing smoke in public areas, in particular, when I walk into our out of a publick establishment, I often have to breath smoke from people that are standing just outside the doors.

Government should not be dictating bans such as these. The health risk to other's via second hand smoke should not be an issue when one could easily argue drinking as a health hazard much worse than smoking. The amount of drunk driving accidents compared to those who are actually at risk from second hand smoke. Where will it end????? By the way, I'm not a smoker!!!

I admit that it is generally expected for bars and bowling alleys to smell like smoke, but that doesn't mean that everyone who likes to bowl wants to be forced to inhale the second-hand smoke of others. Smokers infringe on the rights of others to good health and clean air by insisting on their right to smoke.

As a recovering smoker and drug abuser, I regret the damage I have done to my body. I try to keep away from toxins and dangers related to second hand smoke.

I feel that people have the right to smoke if that is their choice, but not when it interferes with the rights of others. I feel that what is more important is that everyone has the right to breathe clean, fresh air.

A person who doesn't smoke is more uncomfortable in a smoking environment than a person who smokes in a smoke-free environment. And smoke doesn't makes a meal more appetizing.

i disagree with increasing government control over individual rights. if citizens want non-smoking options, the marketplace will provide. Keep government out of it.

The model ordinance is too restrictive. Smoking *should* be allowed in bars, and the 20-foot perimeter rule is absurd (smoking should be allowed outdoors under nearly all circumstances). The current ordinance does not seem bad.

Smoking causes cancer, even second hand smoke, and I don't want to breathe it when I'm out in public.

Hate smoke and don't want to breath it just because I want to go bowling (for example).

Government to often supports the whims of the vocal minority activists in Fort Collins. City government should regulate smoking within city buildings and other structures under the City's control. Leave that same decision to business owners within their buildings and other buildings under their control. Smoking should not be prohibited outside in the open space, open air.

This is an issue far beyond this city. Fort Collins does not have the right to even think about limiting the constitutional rights of others. Be it smoking, freedom of religion, speech, type of perfume one uses, etc.. I believe it's a ploy to get the supreme court involved in a battle for more town recognition.

america is still a free country. keep it that way. mind your own bisness.

I see not problem with RESTRICTING smoking to designated areas in restaurants, bars, bowling alleys, and public areas of all kinds (both indoors and outdoors). However, the decision for an establishment to go TOTALLY smoke-free should be up to its owners.

I get tired of walking through a smokey area in front of a building as smokers try to get their fix.

Customers go to the restaurant for about 1 hour on average, However customers go to the bowling alley, pool room, dance club, bingo parlor,neighborhood tavern for 3-4 hours on average. Don't try to tell me it won't destroy businesses and then try to put them in the same classification of business!

Numerous studies have indicated that smoking is hazardous to everyone's health.

not strong enough

smoking is a health hazard

a non-smoker and have alwaqys been concerned about third party smoke

People should be allowed to smoke if they want. I thought this was a free country.

I moved from CA where the entire state is smoke-free. It is such a better environment. You don't have to worry about going out to dinner or a bar and coming home smelling like an ashtray. The other thing is that Boulder is smoke-free and I am more willing to spend a night on the town in Boulder than Fort Collins just based on the fact that it's smoke-free.

I don't want to breath second hand smoke nor do I want my children to breath it either.

This model does not leave a refuge for smokers outside thier home. Typically, bars have been a public place for smokers and those that don't want to inhale smoke should go only to non-smoking bars.

Anti-smoking ordinances are unconstitutional.

I am a non-smoker and can not stand it! It bothers me that in most restaurant, in order to get to the non-smoking section, you have to go through the smoking section. Why should I risk my health?

I believe that smoking (and drinking) is what you do in bars and bowling alleys. If you pay for a motel room you should, if you smoke and request a smoking room, be able to.

I've heard it said that one's right to swing his fists ends where my nose begins. This analogy is very germain to this discussion because cigarette smoke is not currently localized to the environment of the smoker. To the non-smoker, second hand smoke is, at best, unpleasant, and at worst, dangerous.

health reasons, allergies, smoke stinks

Having to breathe other people's smoke has obviously been linked to deadly diseases, not to mention allergic reactions in some. Why all governments haven't followed California's no smoking laws is a puzzle.

Ability to enjoy any public place without being exposed to secondhand smoke. Employee safety.

I smoke. My choice. Designated areas should be fine! If you don't like it, don't go there. There are already plenty of eating establishments and bars that have restricted or eliminated smoking. If this becomes a smoke free town, I will move back to Loveland and never come back here. I think it's rediculous that such a progressive town would limit someone's freedom of choice!

I am opposed to this kind of ordinance. I think this alienates people. I feel that we as citizens of Fort Collins have lost enough of our rights and shouldn't lose more. Fast food rest. put an incredible amount of greasy vapor out into the atmosphere and the restaurant, we going to shut them down next?

Smokers are the minority and their activity keep non smokers from enjoying themselves at the expense of the smoker's addiction. Smokers have no idea how pervasive the smell of cigarrette smoke is. I shouldn't have to smell your drug delivery system (smoke) while I am minding my own business. I don't care if you do drugs, just spare me the secondary experience.

This is America. Free Choice. Government shouldn't govern personal choices, or buisness.

Smokers should not be inconvenienced to the extent you are proposing. There are proposals for funding various programs with a new tax on cigarettes. How can this happen if people can't smoke?

erosion of individual rights is not to be taken lightly - once begun that erosion is likely to evolve into a more widespread area than smoking/non smoking. There are plenty of places for people to go without encountering smoke - I don't smoke and seldom find myself around people who do and I am in public places much of the time. According to the numbers/percentages being quoted by various suppo

Smoking and second hand smoke are known health hazards. Why should non smokers be subjected to known health hazards when they are out in public?

I am an asthmatic with an extreme sensitivity to cigarette smoke. In my home town of St. Louis, MO, not much is being done to stop public smoking. But that's the midwest for you. I am hoping to attend Veterinary College at Colorado Sate, and having it located in a smoke-free town would make me want to move there as soon as I finish my pre-vet studies, so I can be a Colorado resident.

Because there is too much attention leveled at smokers when there is just as much, if not more abuse, with alcohol.

This ordinance is just one more example of government interference in the life of the individual. If the Ft. Collins government is so worried about it citizens, how about a ban on hamburger chains, that cause obesity and heart disease? The rationale for this type of ordinance is horribly flawed.

Too much gov't. Creating a set of victims be rescuing another is not the answer! The air can be PURIFIED - not filtered or ventilated. There is technology available that can keep everyone happy.

Land of the free

ALLERGIES, RESTRAUNTS CAN NOT KEEP THE SMOKE OUT. EVEN THOUGH THE SECTIONS ARE APART SMOKE PARTICLES STILL DISPLACE TO ALL AREAS OF THE BUILDING.

Freedom, busines owners should deceide their own policy,

I KNOW the effects of smoking on non-smokers! Smoke knows no boundaries. While a smoker feels he/she is not harming anyone if they are in a designated smoking area- any smoke that escapes and reaches the lungs of children, elderly, and any non-smoker is harmful.

This is a persons own choice. Is this the CHOICE CITY ??

I would LOVE and appreciate an ordinance designed for this proposed degree of intolerance. I have no sympathy for smokers who have no idea how rude and disgusting they are. Nasty tabacco smoke knows no boundaries, and Ft. Collins is too high of a socio economic, and educated, area to be polluting our air with such a low class habit!

It is wrong if a person and especially children are subjected to second hand smoke when it is beyond their control. That is why I do not like it when people smoke in public. The public should have a choice what they are exposed to. Those who smoke in public take away that choice. A smoker can choose to kill themselves but not my children.

It is a large health concern! It has been branded a class A cancer causing agent! Why would anyone NOT care about their involuntary exposure to that!

What a bunch of hog wash. Lets not be like Boulder! I don't smoke, don't particularly like to be around it but this is infringing on a persons rights. Why can't they smoke out in the open? Are we trying to create "closet smokers". I understand in resturants..but bars? come on...that's what generally happens in a bar, drinking and smoking. Leave well enough alone.

Business operators should have the choice of serving a specific customer (the smoker). If some businesses want to be non-smoking they are free to do that... Gov't should stay out of "free market" economics.

I have an asthmatic child. My entire family sneezes continually around second-hand smoke, indoors or outdoors. All the facts point to smokers being a hazard to themselves, the environment, and those around them.

I feel that the city council has a right to put such a regulation in place, because it is not the smokers' rights that are being taken away, but the rights of the non-smoker to NOT have problems related to smoking because we are around their smoke. Smoking is a privilege, not a right, and privileges should not encroach upon the rights non-smokers have of breathing non-smoke-filled air.

I don't smoke but most of my friends that I go to public places smoke. I don't see that this is going to do much help because you can be a friend's house and they are smoking in front of you anyways

Living in a Democracy means that you must ultimately compromise on issues that annoy you. This ordinace involves no compromises - it's just very un-American

We are losing too many FREEDOMS everyday! But the real problems is how a few people can decide how to run my life and all the rest of the citizens of fort Collins.

The current non-smoking areas are so much more pleasant to be in than smokey rooms that stink up my clothes and clog my nose. Second-hand smoke is unpleasant, unhealthy, and unwelcome in my environment.

I don't believe it is fair to permit smoking in a public setting for it permits a smoker to harm the health of others. If an individual chooses to smoke he/she may do so, however, I do not wish to pasivelly participate in their desition just because I happen to be in the same building as he/she.

I'm no rocket scientist but I do know that smoking is BAD for you and BAD for me and BAD for everyone else!

Smoking patrons ruin my desire to go to bars and clubs in Fort Collins. I used to live in Boulder and loved that is was not allowed there.

Come on folks, how much feedback and study is this issure going to take? I am obviously venting some frustration but lets be real. The answer is pretty clealy that the voters in Fort Collins want the council to take action and eliminate smoking in public places. No, this isnt big brother over stepping his boundaries, it is Gov, looking after the safety, and wellfare of thier citizens.

There is a better compromise than this proposed ban. Non-smokers should be more protected in shared public places- that is one of the reasons we have government- but one does have a distinct choice in the businesses they frequent, including the various non-smoking restaurants and bars existing in Fort Collins already.

I love going out. I've been in Fort Collins for 6 years, including 4 years at CSU. I can not even begin to count the number of times that I wanted to go out to Old Town or Bowling, but ended up staying home or going to a movie theater because of my not wanting to be forced to breathe and smell like stale cigarette smoke. Why should I risk my health for somebody else's bad habit? I shouldn't.

Because 2nd-hand smoke is proven to be as damaging to my lungs and body as 1st-hand smoke. I choose not to defile my body with these toxins on my own, so why should I be submitted to cancer-causing agents by a MINORITY group who forces me to? It is not right that I cannot go out and enjoy a healthy evening of entertainment in my city for fear of developing a deadly disease in the future.

I like a smoke free environment, however, there are far more important things this city should be concerned with and that's the absentee landlords and their lack of responsibility for their rentals, the loud cars, the fact that no one seems to think our traffic laws especially stop signs are intended for them.

Living in a Democracy means that you must ultimately compromise on issues that annoy you. This ordinace involves no compromises - it's just very un-American

I support education about the dangers of smoking.

I support no smoking in our community.

While I am almost constantly annoyed by smoking in public places, I feel that a ban on smoking would raise the prices resturants have to charge to stay in business.

1. This is a public health issue. If I go out to dinner, I don't want to be exposed to carcinogens from the next table. The employees of establishments where smoking is allowed also suffer. If a smoking ban were enacted, there are several restuarants/bars in fort collins which I would try. So far, I've avoided them due to smoke.

I support a nonsmoking ordinance because I believe it promotes better health for Fort Collins residents. I believe smokers' rights are limited to their own properties.

Invasion of privacy

Let economics or individual business owners decide if they want their establishments to be smoke free. If enough people want smoke free establishments they will stop patronizing smoking restaurants/bars and then business owners will possibly go smoke free voluntarily. I don't think that the City should tell private business owners whether or not they can allow smoking in their own establishments.

I and many of my friends would like to be able to go out and socialise without feeling sick the next day due to other peoples smoking.Bars especially would probably do more business as a result of this ordinance, California would be a good example of this.

1.Fiancee has asthma and is partially blind-can't see if someone is smoking and even a whif can induce an attack. 2.Smoke ruins my enjoyment of meal, concert, whatever. 3.Concerned with litter (wrappers, butts, etc) 4. Obvious health concerns (except to clueless).

I recently went to a bar in oldtown ft.collins that chose to go smoke free on its own, and it was the best thing I had ever seen. I did not know how much I was being exposed until I saw how much of a difference a smokefree place could be. I did not have a headache, or dry itchy eyes no smell on my clothes and hair and most of all I could breath when I was dancing!!

Cigarette smoke gives me a headache, literally. Over time, I have developed an allergy to smoke.

I personally don't smoke, and don't like smelling and breathing it, but I also do not believe in the government controlling every aspect of our lives and those of businesses. Currently there are a number of smoke free establishments in town that created a marketing niche for themselves, now the city wants to take that away. I say leave things the way they are, and let the free market do its thin

JUST AS THOSE WHO SMOKE LIKE TO ARGUE THAT THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO WHAT THEY WISH, I WANT HAVE CHOSEN TO LIVE A SMOKE FREE LIFE AND WANT TO BE ABLE TO INTERACT IN A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT WHEREVER I MAY BE. I THINK THAT BASED ON RECENT REVELATIONS IN THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS THAT MAKES THEM MORE DANGEROUS AND ADDICTIVE, THE GOVERNMENT HAS AN OBLIGATION TO PROTECT ITS CITIZENS.

Although not a smoker myself, I'm convinced this will hurt bar and restaurant business. That would hurt my business since we are a supplier of bars, etc.

Creates a clean, healthy environment for families, particularly children.

Second hand smoke has a health consequence to non-smokers. Therefore I support a smoke-free environment.

I love the idea of a smoke free Fort Collins because I hate the smell of smoke, and my wife is pregnant and it would be nice to go out and not have to worry about being in a smoking environment. I think this would be a huge step in the RIGHT direction!

I beleave it is a terible habitt, that i don't enjoy being a part of. How am i a part of? I have to breath their air every time i am near.

Smoking is a liability to everyone who is around a smoker.

Cigarette smoke can cause cancer and other diseases in those exposed to it.

Government, at any level should not tell business owners how to run their legal business. If smoking cigs. were against the federal law, then that would be different

To make people more aware of just what health problems are caused by smoking. Will young folks as well as older ones just pay attention to how many people they see who are dragging around those oxygen tanks just to breathe and picture themselves doing the same if they continue to smoke.

I am against smoking in public places along with outdoor smoking which makes me ill to smell the smoke when leaving a business building.

Government has a right to protect its people. 2nd hand smoke is bad for everyones health.

I think that current smoking structure isn't working that well. Between people smoking at the enterences of stores/restaurant I go to, having to walk through the smoking section in restaurant to get to non-smoking, or non-smoking being the table next to smoking. It's unplesant, and I don't appreciate others actions endangering my health.

I am sick of being at smokers mercy. plus I have a very good friend who is allergic to smoke and she is very limited as to where she can go. she is not being treated equally.

I do NOT think it's anoyone's right to foul the air others breathe, and would simply like to be able to go out in public without having to plan an evening out around where there may or may not be breathable air. I live in Old Town, but avoid many downtown establishments on a regular basis because of the heavy smoke. Sorry - I just don't enjoy dinner in a smoke cloud.

I personally think the existing ordinances are sufficeint.

Limits are fine, but a total ban infringes on our rights as individuals. Abortion is far worse to an individual's (i.e. the unborn child) than smoking is in my opinion. Yet it is legal and encouraged.

Everyone has been guaranteed freedom of choice, and I believe this ordinance does not give everyone that choice.

Disgusting habit, I would rather be coughed and sneezed upon. Polluting someone's air for breathing should be treated the same as a crime of assault (with a deadly weapon...)

Dislike being exposed to tobacco smoke. Unpleasant to breathe and unhealthy to inhale. Gets into clothes and hair. Allergic. Most smokers disregard the rights of others to enjoy a smoke-free environment. Non-smoking sections of restaurants generally are not smoke-free. Smoking-related illnesses cost all of us who have to subsidize the medical expenses of others.

I am stronly opposed to this because when someone is smoking outside in the open air the amount of 2nd hand smoke that someone must deal with is very little. Yes there is a smell of someone smoking but just because you can smell someone's 2nd hand smoke that doesn't mean that you are being bombarded with it and you are going to suffer health risks.

I think that if restaurants are now equipped for smoking they should be allowed to continue with this policy.

I hate cigarette, for its bad for everybody! Is that enough reason?

It's time to end this public health hazzard. Nicotine is a drug, and defined a a "poisonous oily liquid" by Webster's. People can't just poor (toxic) motor oil on the sidewalk, so why should they be able to smoke poison and pass it to others?

I am NOT a smoker, but I am not required to patronize establishments where smoking is allowed. Smoking is currently prohibited from most public places (indoors). Energy would be better put into transportation issues. Move on!

I've never smoked, but to tell other people they can't do it in bars seems absurd. I would leave it up to the business itself. Government prides themselves in being fair to people of all walks of life... unless they are smokers. Then the message is, go sit at home - stay out of our establishments. If a person doesn't want to be subjected to it, they have the ability to leave the area.

- The negative health impact of second-hand smoke is indisputible: cancer, heart disease, bronchitis, emphesema, etc. - It can trigger asthma attacks - It causes allergic reactions: burning/watering eyes, sneezing, irritated airways, etc. - It is exceedingly unpleasant - I have the right to clean air

I can't enjoy going to many public places because of the second-hand smoke. I'd go to these places if my health wasn't an issue.

cigarette smoke is a known carcinogen, which is harmful to everyone not just the smoker. Any other cancer causing agent has been taken off the market and outlawed. Cigarettes should be treated as a toxin which they are!

There are smoke-free restaurants in place based on the determination of the restaurant owner. The decision should be a business decision and not a governmental decision. Perhaps the City of Fort Collins should create menus for local area restaurants, so that all the citizens would eat only heart-healthy food while dining out.

I would like to go bowling, dancing or play bingo, but the smoke affects my eyes, my breathing, and leaves a stinky residue on my clothes and hair. So I don't do these things because of other's bad habit - smoking.

Smoke is not subject to containment by typical venting systems. In essence, allowing smoking places the smoke throughout the entire establishment. Those who wish to not smoke or be subjected to the effects of smoke are powerless to prevent it. Those who wish to smoke still have the ability to smoke in a different location AND attend the establishment.

Citizens should be allowed freedom of choice in this matter. There are more than adequate non-smoking restaurants for those who need to be completely free of 2nd hand smoke. The City and its businesses would lose a substantial amount of income and customers if this ordinance were adopted.

Because second hand smoke is a public health risk. We should do what we can to protect the health of those who do not smoke and protect the health of those who do and support those who want to quit. We are also discriminating against workers who work in environments that allow smoking by not protecting their health.

More and more frequently, I come home after an evening out coughing and rubbing my eyes. I want to enjoy the events and social life just as much as others, but this diminishes each time I go to a public facility allowing others to smoke.

I don't allow smoking in my business however; I think businesses need to make their own decisions based on the type of business and clientele. Nightclubs might have a different client then a high end restaurant. If a restaurant allow a smoking and non-smoking sections, that should be good enough. Do Not add more laws!

Second hand smoke is a killer, and the public should be protected from it when at a restaurant.

Exposure to second hand smoke is a serious public health hazard that the council should take immediate steps to protect the public from.

dangers and annoyances of second hand smoke, health risks

Smoking is harmful to all of us

America is a free nation and by having the government regulate private business that is just one step closer to a socialist nation.

Second hand smoke is said to be highly toxic. Why should the non-smokers be subjected to the toxicity and resulting diseases unneccesarily? I should be able to have a good meal inside, taste the food, and be able to breath decent air.

I don't feel that non-smokers should be subject to smokers harmful waste.

Because second hand smoke is a public health risk. We should do what we can to protect the health of those who do not smoke and protect the health of those who do and support those who want to quit. We are also discriminating against workers who work in environments that allow smoking by not protecting their health.

Because second hand smoke is a public health risk. We should do what we can to protect the health of those who do not smoke and protect the health of those who do and support those who want to quit. We are also discriminating against workers who work in environments that allow smoking by not protecting their health.

Smokers are strong supporters of taverns and help to keep them afloat. On the other hand I don't like smoke in bars (even though I smoke too.)

I currently work in a bar and feel that my health is being adversely affected. I have a constant cough and I don't smoke.

No one should be subjected to smoke, or feel that they cannot go somewhere because smoking is allowed in that venue.

Business should be able to decide what is best for their individual business. If people do not agree with their decision they do not have to frequent that establishment. Any law that limit freedom of choice is dangerous

Second hand smoke causes cancer! Is it fair that anothers persons pleasure (drug addiction) will kill innocent citizens. I use to smoke; why lie, I got a cheap high, its a drug and its by-product kills innocent adults as well as children! Second hand smoke particles carry lung infections from infected smokers to innocent citizens

I'm allergic to smoke, and would like to limit my exposure to it.

Unlike other un-healthy habits (drinking, junk food, lack of excercise), this habit effects the health and enjoyment others. Restaurants/bars with extensive smoking don't even know they've lost my business.

Freedom of choice for your own body. Woman demanded the right to choose whether to reproduce or not, and won. Yet now, some people are taking away my choice. What is next, salt illegal because it's bad for you? Or fatty foods? It is all bad for you. Cooking meat puts fumes in the air that Vegans might not want to go into thier systems - do we ban steak houses?

I am extremely alergic to cigarettes. If I am around even one for more than a few minutes I quit breathing. Therefore I must stay away from places like bowling alleys or any restaraunt that allows smoking.

Government imposes standards to protect the public every day -- e.g., restaurants' kitchens must be clean (Dept. of Health), people cannot be exposed to hazardous materials (OSHA). Restaurants are forced to comply with those standards. A smoking ordinance is no different. People do not have the right to contaminate "public" air in a public place. Smokers do not own it, everyone does.

Our choices should not be made for, or taken away from us. It's a choice to smoke or not to smoke, and it's a choice to go to a smoking bar or a non-smoking bar (they do exist). Also business would be hurt, often some are patronized or more importantly not patronized because of their smoking policies!

Public establishments should have the right to have a non-smoking night or non-smoking establishment if they choose. This should not be designated by the government. If an establishment chooses to have smoking allowed, those who are offended don't have to go there. Likewise, if they choose to have a non-smoking policy, smokers can either go elsewhere or smoke outside.

I believe it should be left to each business owner whether or not they allow smoking in their establishment or not. I do not believe there should be a smoking ordinance at all.

Businesses should have the right to decide for themselves, if they want to be smoke free or not. Non-smokers can choose whether or not they want to spend their money in a smoking establishment. The government should have no right to tell a business owner if his customers can smoke or not. The decision should be the owners and the owner can then deal with whatever financial ramifications that bri

The ordinance completely disregards a persons right to freedom and a business owner's right to manage an establishment as they see fit.

It is a matter of choice. I can choose to not frequent those establishments that I know cause me problems. I don't do well is smoking environments, but I avoid them. If the particular establishment wants my business, they will limit or prohibit smoking. But I do not expect government to intervene here on my behalf.

My safety and others.

Tobacco smoke causes many deseases and there are some people that have no choice but to work in the places that allow smoking. Also, the smell of tobacco smoke spoils the taste of a good meal for me. I have the right to swing my arms so long as I do not strike someone. Others have the right to smoke so long as it does not empact me

I DON'T SMOKE, BUT I HATE THE GOVERNMENT HOLDING DOWN THE MINORITY.

I am strongly opposed- this is ridiculous and unconstitutional!

I have lived in Boulder for 18 years unitll 2000, at which time I moved to Fort Collins. I quite enjoy going to resturants and not having to worry about smoke. As a server, it is difficult when the smoking section is empty, but there is a large wait for non-smoking. Many of my smoking friends still have place and time to smoke and aren't too inconvenienced.

I'm not a smoker. I believe that as long as an establishment gives one the option to sit at a non smoking area then that's fine. I just will not go to places that do not have that option. I believe that the proposed ordinance is too restrictive and smokers have rights too. Like I said, I'm NOT a smoker and have never smoked.

I believe that I should be able to go out to a bar or a club without putting my health at risk. I have mild asthma, so my lungs are tight for many hours after I leave a smokey environment. If people want to smoke, they should do it on their own property so they don't influence my health. I am also tired of walking through a cloud of smoke on my way into a public building.

I believe that smoking is hazardous to the heath of all people and children. I think if someone wants to endanger their own health, that is their business. It becomes my (and the government's) business when they do it around others who do not wish to be exposed to cigarette smoke. Therefore, those who choose to smoke need to do it in a place where they are not around those who do not.

Government needs to put their foot down, in order for the ordinance to be enforceable. The market should not dictate a health issue. Smokers can go outside for a minute or two to light up...there's their choice...non-smokers have no choice, but to sit at home. What kind of life is that?

Health reasons due to second hand smoke, simply put.

No one should be exposed to second-hand smoke. It is a fact that it is a serious health risk. Smoking should be totally prohibited in ALL public places.

It isn't stong enough. :-) Smoking areas need to be physically separated from non-smoking and must have separate air flow systems. Smoke doesn't read signs, it follows air flow.

I am a non-smoker in my 20's. I do not like having to inhale someone else's smoke when I'm in public. This includes restaurtants, outside (like downtown -- concert nights). It's not healthy for me or others that do or don't smoke. I do not like my children being exposed to it either. It's not a positive thing for them to be exposed to.

2nd hand smoke causes deaths from cardiovascular disease and cancer (an estimated 30 to 40 such deaths/year in our county). Non-smoking workers in bars and restaurants are often exposed to much more second hand smoke at work than they would experience from living with a smoker. Protect these workers & the public! Smokers' rights end when they injure others in public places.

City Council should focus on more important things. For example we live in one of the most beautiful states and don't even have manditory recycling programs.

I find it curious that many people for this ordinance are from CA. If they had stayed in CA our pollution, traffic, growth issues, would not be problems. Smoking/second hand smoke are proven health risks. But I do believe a business should have the right to choose. If you banned smoking, what would make up all of the $'s that are now being levied against cigarettes?

I hate smoking and obviously don't. Can't stand walking into a building where people are crouched around the door smoking. There's no way to avoid smelling it, I try to stay away at all times. I don't like going to bars with smoke.

I do not enjoy the smell of cigarette smoke nor do I want the consequences of second-hand smoke. Being an exsmoker .. maybe I'm more sensitive to the smell than a non-smoker. I do not like going to restaurants where smoking is allowed and I really resent being outside at a public event and having to deal with cigarette smoke as well.

Non-smokers shouldn't have to be exposed to smoke in public areas where there are not designated areas for smokers/non-smokers. For example, I enjoy sitting outside places like Starbucks but often end up moving back inside because someone lights up and starts blowing smoke my way. I believe I should be able to sit outside without having to be exposed to smoke wherever I go.

Private Businesses Reserves the Right to Refuse service to anyone they want. Maybe the solution is to place a sign out in front: If you dont like smoking, go somewhere else!

I am a non-smoker. But am against this ordinance. Independent studies on second hand smoke show no correlation to any increased health risks. I do not believe in restricting anyones freedoms for the sake of PC politics.

Healthy enviroment. Pleasant dinning without smoke odors. New Surgeon says---National focus on No Smoking---.(Coloradoan July 24)

The two of us want a smoke free environment. My husband is allergic to cigarette smoke and it makes my eyes burn and water. I also feel it is hard on peoples health such as asthma, heart and etc. I like to be able to eat in a smoke free restuarant otherwise we don't eat there. If people know it is harmful why do they still insist on smoking.

I enjoy listening to the great local music in FtC, but I hate having to put up with the smoke in the bars. I am not sure a total ban is necessary, but some control is to allow non-smokers access to local entertainment.

Freedom, When you limit someone they will rebel. How hard do you think it will be to regulate this in a college town where the majority are at least social smokers?

We sould not govren peoples personal lifes. This is The Choice City so leave that way.

The government's job is NOT to protect us from stupidity, it is to protect our borders from enemies.

Freedom. Less government. Also, take the Fluoride out of the water ... let people choose what chemicals they want to put in their bodies, whether nicotine or fluoride.

The government regulates other harmful, noxious fumes and emissions to protect public health, why should second-hand smoke be any different? It is deadly! Having a "smoking section" anywhere is like having a "peeing section" in a pool. Inevitably, the whole thing becomes polluted. Smoking should be allowed only in enclosed private areas for those foolish enough to risk their own health.

Main reason is for my own health and the health of my family. As a former smoker I now know how disgusting smoke is for non-smokers. I even use to smoke in the check-out line of the grocery store. Yuck! I do not like to smell smoke while I am eating even if I choose the non-smoking section. I have to hold my breath walking in to public buildings when people are smoking by the doors.

Smokers shouldn't be an outcast

To say it simply, smoking is disgusting! Cigarette butts litter the street, the smoke smells, and closes up my airways to breathe whenever I pass a smoker on the street. I would go into Old Town more if smoking was banned in Fort Collins.

Coming from California, I am thrilled that there is FINALLY the possibility of going out anywhere/everywhere and not being subjected to second hand smoke. Please, please work hard to pass this model for my health and safety and the health and safety of my kids! THANK YOU!

Health and comfort reasons- I am concered about 2nd hand smoke and I don't enjoy going to a bar or restaurant that is smoky.

It is not the governments business to tell people when and where to smoke. The last time I checked this was still the US.

400 characters is too small to write anything to make a point. Provide a way to email ideas better.

My personal experience for my family and I with getting sick from smoke at the following establishments (i.e- restaurants, bowling alley, etc.)

leave everything alone.

Smokers have rights ONLY as long as they do not impose on nonsmokers, and unfortunately second hand smoke does not differentiate. In this ordinance case I believe government intervention is important and necessary to limit and eventually eradicate smoking as the health hazard it is!!!!!!!!!!

WHY DON'T WE SUPPORT OUR TRAFFIC ORDINANCES BETTER THAN WE DO. A QUICK SCAN OF POLICE REPORTS A WEEK OR SO AGO I WAS STUNNED TO SEE ANYWHERE FROM 18 TO WELL OVER 20 ACCIDENTS ON ANY GIVEN DAY. DO YOU SUPPOSE MORE POLICE PRESENCE COULD HELP THIS MESS???

It is simply not needed - I am a nonsmoker and have rarely been bothered by smokers in public. And Fort Collins should quit following Boulder's lead in city government.

If the public does not want to be around second hand smoke, I would suggest that they choose not to frequent places that allow smoking.

Government should stay out of our private and business lives!

I am a smoker but I always smoke in designated smoking areas.

Smoking Kills Period. Second Hand Smoke Kills Period. Thank you for the opportunity to have a voice in Fort Collins.

Economic demand should dictate whether an owner chooses smoking or non. It is ridiculous to force a business one will never patronize out of business over an issue like this. Littering, however, is an issue that does merit public juristiction.

Second hand smoke endagers the health of all citizens. There is nothing more discouraging then going somewhere with your children and having to leave in order to keep them away from the smoke. There is plenty of research supporting the need for kids to be second hand smoke-free, its about time Ft. Collins started looking out for non-smokers!

I agree with current ban on smoking in public buildings, but believe it is the right of privately owned establishments such as bars and restaurants to provide smoking sections for patrons should they choose to do so. Effective air cleaners, such as those found in some airports, are available to minimize risk to employees.

I lived in CA when they were considering a similar ordinance. Biggest fear was bars shutting down due to lack of business. Actually, it helped increase business. I don't smoke and the smell of smoke spoils a dinner out faster than anything else. Please, please adopt a non-smoking ordinance. It would really fit into our healthier Northern Colorado lifestyle!

Health concerns especially those of the non-smoker

If I could change ONE thing about the city I love it would undoubtedly be the current smoking ordinance. Trust me, just as many people will visit our bars and restaurants if they're not allowed to smoke. Some may throw a fit in the begining but they'll get over it and we'll ALL be better for it!

Smoking is a killer, literally. It's the cause of illnesses to numerous to mention; and costs each one of us money we cannot afford. Look at health care costs and "cures"; and the answer is obvious. Smoking should be illegal because of its lethal affect.

Because all non-smokers should have the right to breathe smoke free air in public places. Second hand smoke causes health problems. To me, I equate people smoking in public places with people spitting on other people ... really, what is the difference? I don't want someone's cigarette smoke in my face just like I don't want to be spit on.

I am a smoker but I don't think that is the real issue. We should be allowed as citizens of the United States to make our own choices and to be able to live as we see fit. No person, city or ordinance should be allowed to take away from your basic free choices.

I don't believe that I should be put into a position to be exposed to a substance that I would never have deliberately put into my body in the first place. With all of the information on second hand smoke out there, why would anybody that cares about themselves want to be put into that position?

I believe goverment should stay out of legislating how business should be run. Let the individual establishment make their own decisions. I think Fort Collins is trying to keep up with Boulder.

Government should not pass laws to change behavior. They should provide the information and let their citizens make their choices. My experience is that smokers are very considerate.

Smokers have rights also. This is America land of the Free. I believe that if I choose to smoke no one has the right to tell me where I can and can not smoke. I do reapect non smokers but, they do not have the right to tell me that I can not smoke. What's next, is someone going to tell me that I can not go to the restroom.

My right is to not have to breath in cigarette smoke. If someone wants to smoke they should have to go elsewhere. Second hand smoke is a carcinogen. Smokers in public places force me to become a cigarette smoker by proximity

THERE IS INDISPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF THE EFFECTS OF SECOND HAND SMOKE!!!!!!! The majority of residents have stated they are in favor of a non-smoking ordinance in survey after survey after survey, ad nauseum (be they scientific or not).

This is a market decision, and should be left to the market alone. This issue will effect my decision regarding the coming election.

I believe in smoke free...smokers are entitled to smoke at their risk not others...one or two hours spent in a restaurant without a cigarette should not be a hardship.

Smoking is a health hazard to even those exposed to smoke from cigarettes. I would like my family protected.

I have small children. I would like to not subject them to second-hand smoke when we eat out.

My son and I suffer from allergies / asthma induced by smoke.

I can't believe that we are talking about this. It is everybodys freedom to either smoke or not.

I am a "social" smoker and sometimes wish the law would ban smoking to make it easier for us all to kick the habbit. If you cant smoke, you dont.

Second hand smoke is dangerous and I don't want to come into contact with it anywhere.

After living in California for a number of years, I have seen how a no smoking ordinance is effective. Now that second-hand smoke is listed as a risk factor for heart disease, I don't see how any town cannot support this ordinance.

I really enjoy visting Boulder, and California where there are strict no-smoking regulations. It makes going out more enjoyable

The government should not be involved with private enterprise. If the business owners want to deal with smokers then it is thier right to do so since they own the buisness and take the business risk. Also, the community tries to get conventions etc to come here are we then telling them it's ok but do not bring the smokers?

My parents both died of smoke related causes and my two children are initiating smoking in their early 20s because of wanting to fit in with peers and the community.

Smoking has been proven to cause cancer even by second hand smoke. If a person wants to smoke, other people should not have to been subjected to getting sick. There is also a littering problem with people throwing their butts out the window and into the streets..and now, with our fire restrictions, we have to even be more careful..

I feel that smoking is a personal choice and should not be imposed onto people that do not enjoy tobacco or the smoke that it creates when burned. Also, tobacco smoke is a known carcinigen, and public buildings should not endanger ones health when dangers are know and easily avoided.

No one should be subjected to toxic waste, no matter what the form.

I think law is too broad and limits some personal freedoms. People can CHOOSE not to go to places where smoking is allowed. I think it is OK to not allow smoking inside public buildings where everyone must do business. Places of entertainment are a choice. It should be required in the law too that a designated place outside be established for those who smoke to limit litter.

I believe businesses should have the ability to attract customers who are smokers. For instance, bowling alleys are a place which I have found to be quite smokey. If they choose to lose the non-smoker's business than so be it. The government should either leave smoking legal or make it illegal then they can have a chance at enforcing this.

Public health

I am sick and tired of putting up with smokers while dining out.

people from other states and areas need to keep their nose out of our business. I you don't like the status quo here go back to where you came from.

No one knows what really causes cancer. There is a correlation between smoking and cancer, but it does not neccesarily cause it. perfectly healthy people who don't smoke get cancer all the time. and all heavy smokers don't get it. You have to be genetically predisposed to it for a carcinogen to have its effect.

How can you outlaw free outside air? What will be next? Outlawing looking at citizens cross eyed, becasue it might hurt a their feelings.

No one knows what really causes cancer. There is a correlation between smoking and cancer, but it does not neccesarily cause it. perfectly healthy people who don't smoke get cancer all the time. and all heavy smokers don't get it. You have to be genetically predisposed to it for a carcinogen to have its effect.

I DON'T FEEL LIKE I NEED TO DIE AT A YOUNGER AGE BECAUSE OF SOMEONE ELSE'S HABIT.

the GOVERNMENT needs to limit its activities that limit the choices its citizens make. Until smoking is legislated into the illegal category, don't do it!

I strongly support the ordinance because I believe that second hand smoke is detrimental to my health. I also feel its unfair that I have to 'choose' not to frequent public places because they allow smoking.

The issue seems simple: second hand smoke can't possibly be healthy. I know the research is inconclusive, but common sense tells me that it can't possibly have no affect. What a shame it would be to find out in 10 years that second-hand smoke causes some kind of disease, and we were too gutless to follow our instinct.

Health and comfort in public places

Let the market decide: If people don't want to deal with second-hand smoke, they can take their money to smoke-free businesses. Leave everybody else alone

I support all efforts to eliminate smoking.

I have asthma and get extremely ill whenever I am around cigarette smoke. It isn't good for anyone's health. I avoid many businesses, bars, restaurants and bowling alleys that I would otherwise frequent.

Smoking is disgusting and in the long run, a drain on the health care system, and ultimately the economy.

I don't like second hand smoke. I don't pay to eat someplace and have second hand smoke given to me as part of the price of enjoying eating or going out.

My wife is alergic to smoke... I do not like the smell of it...

Public health and comfort.

I for one will no longer take my business to any establishment that does not allow smoking. Ever heard of a smoking SECTION. It isn't the whole restaurant folks.

The economy is already in the crapper why would anyone want to jeopardize businesses more by banning smoking and thus decreasing their business and profits

Cigarette smokers are more than likely educated about the effects of this habit-but there addiction is so strong that they cannot help themselves. Therefore, they light up wherever possible. Hence, the govt. does need to protect the public.

People who care about their health should be free to go to a public place without putting their health at risk (from cigarrete smoke)

I personally dislike smoking-friendly places, and try to frequent no-smoking businesses. I'm just not sure this should be dictated through city laws, when we can vote with our pocketbooks. Stop going to businesses where second-hand smoke is unpleasant and poses a health risk. Voice your opinion to the business owners. If it's profitable enough for them, they'll get the message.

I think that these regulations find no reasonable accommodation for smokers. Most smokers are curtious awish no ill affects upon others; however, a totalitarian approach (ban) because of possible health affects without considering reasonable accommodation of liberty is wrong and not the role of government.

It's not the smokers that are killing the non smokers with the smoke, its the cement plants, beer plants, ect that release toxic smoke into the air daily and its 20 times as bad as 10 smokers smoking. We can't restrict this in other peoples homes and cars. what happened to freedom

I do not support government interference with our natural liberties. If someone has a problem with a smoking institution (such as a bar) then don't go inside. If proprietors deemed it profitable then they would open up smoke-free institutions. We don't need the government spending money to police this activity.

smokers should not be singled out because some one doesn't like what they do there are a lot of things that other people do that i dont like but i am not trying to single them out and not allow them their consitutional rights.

I want more proof that second hand smoke causes all the air quality, health problems. What about all the exhauste from the hundered of cars on the road

Does Big Brother ring a bell? Soon you wont be able to speak your mind in public because someone might find it offensive. Then we will all have matching uniforms so you wont be able to tell anyone apart there will be no individuality.

I think that these regulations find no reasonable accommodation for smokers. Most smokers are curtious awish no ill affects upon others; however, a totalitarian approach (ban) because of possible health affects without considering reasonable accommodation of liberty is wrong and not the role of government.

I am a smoker. I choose where I go based on whether I can smoke. Noone should interfere with the business owners choices to make a profitable business. even with smoke

I am a smoker. I choose where I go based on whether I can smoke. Noone should interfere with the business owners choices to make a profitable business. even with smoke

Until smoking itself is made illegal, private enterprise should be allowed to cater to whichever clientele it desires - smokers or nonsmokers. If a bar or restaurant wishes to allow smoking, it will lose the business of nonsmokers, and I believe that is a powerful enough incentive. It is proper to ban smoking in all government facilities or anyplace a nonsmoker might be required to go.

Until smoking itself is made illegal, private enterprise should be allowed to cater to whichever clientele it desires - smokers or nonsmokers. If a bar or restaurant wishes to allow smoking, it will lose the business of nonsmokers, and I believe that is a powerful enough incentive. It is proper to ban smoking in all government facilities or anyplace a nonsmoker might be required to go.

Smoking not only affects the person making the choice, but also those who are around him or her. Often, there is not a choice.

Proposed ordinance represents a bigoted, draconian assault on individual civil liberties. It would be a travesty for government to intrude this malevolently into the lives of citizens!

I feel that second had smoke is unhealty and unpleasent.

For many years I suffered from asthma in the presence of second hand smoke. When smoking was barred from most public places and many people quit smoking, my asthma went away. I find the odor of second hand smoke nauseating. I realize that smoking is addictive and that some people must smoke. My mother, who died of emphysema, was such a person.

I want the personal freedom to be able to breathe clean air in public.

Let the business man decide what they want with there business not government.

I have the right to breathe poison free air.

My city,Tempe Az., just past such an ordinance. It covers public buildings and bars/rest., etc. . As much as I like the non-smoking in bars/rest. it has just stiffeled their business by some 40%. That has lead to a big drop in sales tax revenue.

It is not the governments right nor priviliege to do so. People not wanting to be around smoke can stay away from establishments that allow smoking. There is nothing requring them to be there and avoiding smoke is quite easy.

By no means do I believe smoking is "healthy", however tobacco was and has been made legal, and therefore I strongly question why the government feels as though they can tell people where to perform this legal activity. I also strongly feel as though it could put Fort Collins merchants, in bars or music halls, in jeopardy of losing business due to this ordinance.

Smoking does not only affect the person smoking -- it affects the health of all those exposed to it. For that reason, I believe that govt. should limit the public exposure.

I don't personally enjoy the smell, the taste, or the effect of cigarette smoke. However, restricting one's right to smoke is unconstitutional. Besides, such a law would restrict polite smokers who always do it in a private place where they don't offend anyone. It would not have any effect on the ones who cause problems; it would just make breaking the law more desirable.

Second hand smoke makes me feel sick and nauseous. If it endangers the lives of people, then we should do away with it. It's not fair for a non-smoker to be subject to someone elses bad habit.

This is a critical public health issue. The city council needs to protect Fort Collins citizens from this hazard.

I should not be exposed to secondhand smoke when I choose not to smoke. Ventilation systems do not work well enough.

I'd like more places to go where I won't come out stinky and coughing. I'd also like for there to be more places for people to work without fear of illness due to inhaling second-hand smoke. It's a health issue to me more than anything.

I don't like smoking, nor do I smoke. However, I don't believe it is the governments right to choose whether a restaurant/business can have smokers or not. I will take my business to the ones that cater to non-smokers, but smokers may want a place they can smoke in.

Smoking is not a right that the state should interfere with. Restraunts should be allowed to practice smoking policies dictated by thier parent company and the current smoking laws in place.

In the city of Fort Collins there are already places that you go eat, drink, etc that are non-smoking and smoking places. Putting this in place will just tell the smokers they are not welcome.

Bars and other popular smoking areas will surely suffer economically if this goes through. This is clearly an attempt at social engineering through legislation, and that is NEVER what laws were intended to do.

I am a nn-smoking 15 year old. I selected 10 becuase, this is a city that I live in too and my lungs don't have to subjected to the 1,000's of dangerous chemicals in 2nd hand smoke.

Despite scientific fact regarding the effects of smoking, it remains legal. This is the best way to overpower the deep pockets of tobacco companies.

My father died of lung cancer....he NEVER smoked!!!! I want to avoid ALL risks of a similar outcome!

Invasion of personal rights. How about all city vehicles, all vehicles, businesses, etc. are forced to eliminate all cartigen /carbon polution - much more effective. Funny how people get hung up on the "popular" issue instead of the real issues.

I defenitely support the ordinance because I absolutley hate the smell of tobacco smoke, especially in a public place.

We all pay the consequences of second-hand smoke---with our health, our taxes and our health insurance premiums.

this isn't something we need another law for

My parents were heavy smokers. Together they had 6 cardiac events, 1 stroke, throat cancer, COPD and recurring pneumonia.

I should NOT be told by government where I can and can't smoke. We all have rights, and we should meet at middle ground.

As an ex-smoker, I am bothered b the exposure to second-hand smoke.

My right to breathe clean air outways the smokers right to commit suicide.

I do feel that smoking should be banned in most workplaces and restaurants. However, I feel smoking should be permitted in bars, bowling alleys and other recreational adult places. Banning smoking in all public places goes way to far.

It is time that people have the right to breathe clean air. Individuals with an addiction to a substance that is harmful to those arround them have no right to decice this issue. It's time smokers are recognized for what they are -- addicts whose thinking is directed by their addiction and self absorbtion -- not the best for all.

Smokers are addict's should a town support addicts? then what is all this about?

Smoking is unhealthy and costly! It affects everyone from those who breath it to those who have to pay tax dollars to cover its cost. Having a "no smoking" area in a restaurant or building is like having a "no urinating" section in a swimming pool. (Please pardon the crude analogy.)

I don't smoke and never have had a problem finding a non-smoking establishment or no-smoking area at any business in Fort Collins. This ordinance would clearly be taking government regulation one step too far. We don't need regulation about every aspect of life. People can vote with their pocketbooks and businesses will survive accordingly.

Just one person smoking in a public place will affect everyone in the area. If you want to smoke, please do it in private where you will not affect everyone around you.

Nobody should ever be subjected to second-hand smoke in any public area.

I Hate Smoke! The smell of smoke offends me in all places, especially in restaurants.

I get sick from cigarette smoke. Other people don't have the right to infringe on my rights of clean air. They have their own homes and cars for that purpose.

I can't stand smoke! I really don't care what others wish to do to their own bodies, as long as it doesn't effect anyone else. If I'm in a restaurant or other public place I don't want to smell it or breath it! I don't care what they say, no amount of ventilation clears the smoke completly!

I do not go to places that allow smoking, for my health and my 2 year old daughter. It has been shown in studies that second hand smoke causes illness. I believe, if it is more difficult for people to smoke more people would quit. Which would increase their health and the health of those around them.

I choose not to sit in smoking areas, but some people may want to. Hence, I support the concept, but recognize others may choose go out and smoke.

IT'S NOT ILLEGAL TO SMOKE, WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO TAKE AWAY THE RIGHTS OF SMOKERS. WE ALREADY HAVE NO SMOKING SECTIONS IN RESTAURANTS, EVEN ENTIRE RESTAURANTS THAT DON'T ALLOW SMOKING. I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY DUMB OF YOU TO PASS THIS SMOKING BILL. ANYWAYS, IT'S A COLLEGE TOWN, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET RID OF IT NO MATTER WHAT!

One of the functions of government is to protect public health. If smokers wish to smoke in their own homes, that's their business. Passive smoking is a nuisance and health hazard which citizens should not have to suffer.

I'm an ex-smoker, and as such I realize the danger of first and second hand smoke. Smoking nearly ruined my life. Now I have a more acute awarness of the problems it causes to oneself and the people who are forced to inhale others smoke.

I believe it will increase public health to non-smokers and smokers alike. I know I will be much more likely to go out to local venues if I know that there will either be a smoking section or no smoking.

Healthy environment for all young and old.

I believe that 2nd hand smoke can be harmful to my health.

It's really a serious health issue for one. Second, smokers simply don't realize how badly they make entire areas smell. Third, look at the litter they create! Cigarette butts surround the place and I've seen cigarettes flying off from the roof top patio onto the sidewalk and parking lot below.

government should not be in the business of telling us what to do with legal substances. If there is such a great demand for smoke free restrauants the market will find a way to fill that need. If you dont want smoking and it is a health issue then ban tobacco and make it illegal.

I hate smoking, it stinks, is intrusive, and the cigarrette butts on the highways just look bad.

The main reason is because my father is very ill due to smoking for many years, which causes me to be an extremely strong proponent for banning smoking any place. The secondary reasons would be that the smell of smoke is horrible, and just for the basic reason that it is bad for their health and mine.

I will not go into Bowling Alleys because of the smoke. I am a non-smoker, and everyone I know are non-smokers, I don't see a disadvantage to the new ordinance.

Restaurant workers should not be subjected to 2nd hand smoke.

I am a smoker and believe that I have rights as well as non smokers. If I want to smoke in a hotel room, I should be allowed to.

Even with the existing FC smoking laws, I continue to end up in situation where I am bothered by second hand smoke

I work in the service industry and the current bar/restuarant environment is hazardous. States that have adopted tougher smoking laws have NOT seen a decrease in business, in fact it has helped bring in customers.

freedom from government imposed restriction

If I were a councilman, I not only would be concerned about basing my support solely on an ordinance from a biased special interest group. I would also have a problem, from a verifiability standpoint, accepting ANYTHING that quotes 'numerous studies' without specifically citing them.

I am currently living in Duluth, and thinking of moving to Fort Collins next year. Duluth currently has a smoking ban for the whole city and it is great to be able to walk into bars and restaurants and not have to worry about second hand smoke. Everything looks and smells cleaner, and it's done a lot for the city. I think that it could do a lot for Fort Collins as well.

The current ordinance works just fine. Economics dictates whether a smoking or nonsmoking business is needed. Go where you fit in and stay away from where you don't. I'm a non smoker and I choose where I want to go and leave the others be.

Smoking is not illegal. I believe there should be more places in FC that are smoke free, but people who smoke should also be allowed to go out to public places and smoke.

It's really nice to be able to go out for the evening and not have to worry about smelling like smoke.

I have a son with sever asthma and I'm really tired of always having to worry about smoke. I realize that restaurants have "smoking" and "non-smoking" areas, but we all know that's just a legality. I am 100% in favor of this ordinance. I realize that smokers have rights, but non-smokers have rights too!!!!!!

Because I really don't want to see Fort Collins turning into a city like Boulder where people can't feel free to do what they want.

There are no safe levels of exposures to second hand smoke. I feel our City has the right and responsability to provide a safe free community.

I'm accustomed to smoke free restaurants etc in Boulder and I think the smokers will adjust accordingly. However, for nonsmokers, it's hard to avoid smoke when it flows through the air at restaurants and bars.

We need to get our priorities lined up in regards to clean air!!! I quit smoking and if everyone would quit smoking our air would not be any cleaner.cigarett's second hand smoke then the vehicle they drive produces billions upon billions of these chemicals every minute !!!!! There are numerouse smells in Fort Collins that are less pleasent then cigarette smoke.

Second-hand smoke is not only annoying, it's dangerous. Most public places are relatively smoke free already. Those people who wish to smoke can simply go outside -- and leave the rest of the air free for us to breathe!

There happens to be a constitution which guarantees personal freedoms, you would think a city government would know and follow these principals on which this country was founded. The smoking policy which is now in place certainly is adequate. Smoking in open areas does no one any harm.

I don't think that the CTEP model is too restrictive. Government must protect the health rights of those who don't smoke from the unhealthy habits of those who choose to smoke. Not to mention the universal researched hazards of secondhand smoke to everyone, particularly to children and those with asthma (asthma is highly prevalent in Colorado).

I don't believe that government has the right to control this issue. I do believe that business owners should have the right to choose, it is their business isn't it?.This issue does not belong in the legislative process. Special interest groups have had too much influence over the legislative process.

This ordinance would protect my health. If it is not adopted, my health would be compromised.

I would like the business owners to regulate what goes on in their establishment. If citizens are displeased with smoking areas, they need to comment to the owner. We should not make a blanket rule covering the entire city. I think the current rules allow nonsmokers to be in areas that are smoke free.

There is no eveidence that anyone has died as a result of second hand smoke. It is a legal substance. If there really was danger from second hand smoke then I am sure that our government would be spending the tobacco settlement money on efforts to help smokers quit such as classes drugs and hypno therapy and using said money to help with associated tobacoo related illnesses.

"Government should not tell individuals where they can or can't smoke because it's not government business."

Smoke is an irritant and is a proven health issue. The public should be free to go to any restaurant, bar, public building and know that they will have access to smoke-free air. Designated smoking areas are not adequate to provide a smoke-free environment. People have a choice to smoke, but their choice should not restrict a non-smoker's ability to breathe clean air.

I don't believe that government has the right to control this issue. I do believe that business owners should have the right to choose, it is their business isn't it?.This issue does not belong in the legislative process. Special interest groups have had too much influence over the legislative process.

i think that is appropriate to provide smoking and nonsmoking sections. By outlawing smoking in public places you are taking away our rights.

Bussiness have the right to choose how best to serve thier customers. If a bussiness decides to go smoke free it is thier choice. not the goverment's.

Private businesses should be allowed to determine whether or not smoking is allowed in their establishment. I do not believe that government should intervene. If a business allows smoking and a patron does not wish to smell the smoke he/she are very capable of visiting an establishment which has an environment more suited to his/her desires. This decision should be made by businesses and patron

I have many relatives that smoke and their families have health problems ranging from asthma to cancer from the second hand smoke. When people intentionally blow smoke towards me, I feel that the only way these disrespectful actions will be stopped is if there is a law against it in many public places. I don't want to be the one to die for their actions.

Business owners should be allowed to establish their own policies and citizens are free to select their establishments accordingly.

If smokers are not allowed to smoke in bars and the few restaurants that still permit smoking, we would not severely curtail our "entertainment budget". Already we have done this due to the inconvenience of not being able to smoke. Banning smoking in public places violates my right to choose. One of the primary reason this country was established was for civil liberties.

We lived in California where this level of ordinance was already in place. The effects of smoking on workers is a great liability. If the city chooses not to improve its position on this matter, then it exposes itself to numerous lawsuits. The California law showed that there were no mass business foreclosures (even bars) four years after enactment.

I never heard of Fort Collins until about two years ago. I was watching a show on the "Top Ten Places to Live in America" and this was one of them. I moved here from Chicago and was surprised to see more smoking in public places! Obviously not enough emphasis on air quality was included in that survey.

Smoke is harmful to EVERYONE. I have chronic ear infections, sinusitis, athsma as result of second hand smoke for 40 years. Smokers are inconsiderate, and they do NOT have the right to ham my own health. They do not have the right to trash up the city with their cigarette butts.

So many people are worried about "big brother". This the USA where "big brother" is the majority of the people, NOT Saddam Hussein standing in Old Town Square saying "you can't smoke here". I don't see why people should be given a choice to destroy my lungs or force me into a segregated area to breath good air.

I have Cystic Fibrosis and would like to be able to go into whatever restaurant or bar I want. In people's arguements, so many things are compared to smoking like food, alcohol, etc. But the thing is, if someone drinks too much or eats a fatty meal, even if they do right next to me, I won't go home sick.

It is unnecesarily restrictive! There is no credible scientific evidence to support such a restrictive ordinance.

It is not fair to let the people causing the problem (smokers) run around and get to go wherever they want when the considerate people (non-smokers) are forced to go to specific places that don't allow smoking. There are far less non-smoking places.

Health Obnoxious smell

I am tired of paying a lot of money for concert tickets and being choked out because of poor ventilation. I wouldn't mind so much if there were superb ventilation systems required in all smoking establishments. I can't believe college kids have to work in that hazardous environment.

Second hand smoke burns your eyes, makes your throat hurt, and I always have to take my asthma medication whenever it drifts into the non-smoking section. Not to mention that it is proven to cause cancer. My children's health should be more important that a bad habit. Red Robins bar does more business than most bars in town. Why not go smoke free?????

I don't smoke, I don't go to restaurants that don't have non-smoking rooms, but I believe the property owners have a right to run their business as they wish to with regard to smoking. No one needs to work there or patronize the business, if they don't want to.

let the individual make their own choice. who needs another watchdog dictating! special interest groups need a life. I also think the Mayor and the city needs to back off matters that are obviously personel choices.

To protect public health

More and more I am finding it very uncomfortable to be in the area where people are smoking. Even within the same public area/eating establishmentwhen they have a designated smoking area.

People who don't like smoke don't have to enter smoking establishments. Second-hand smoke may be annoying, but there is no credible evidence that it is harmful. Junk science seems to reign.

Maintaining the current Ft. Collins Ordinance is only "Common Sense". People have a choice to exercise their right to choose to go into an estblishment that allows smoking or not, just as people have a choice to smoke or not smoke. I am a Physician and I strongly condemn smoking , however I also strongly support a persons right to choose.

"Government should not tell individuals where they can or can't smoke because it's not government business."

The smoking ordance is already enough.

I'm not a smoker, but I think to restrict smoking so completely would bejust to much government control. What would be next? I'd love a smokefree env. but at what cost?

I do not smoke, it does bother me, but i feel bussiness owners should have the right to make their property smoke free and should not be forced to make those decisions....as is, i never return to a resteraunt when it is uncomfortably smokey....if business owners want my business, they should provide a smoke free atmosphere for me by CHOICE, not by government force.

I feel that government should play a strong role in making Fort Collins a healthy and enjoyable place to live.

A business owner should be able to determine what and how they market thier product. If the majority of the people want non-smoking then the businesses that market themselves as non-smoking should succeed over those who don't. My concern is that those who want this ban don't support the bars and resturants that they want to control thru City Council. The argument is a strawdog.

The bar/restuarant owner should make that decision. If the potential customer objects to the smoke, they have the option of going elsewere, likewise with the employees. There is a huge selection of places to eat and drink in Ft. Collins.

I support a no smoking ordinance since I don't smoke and demand that the places I frequent have no smoking. I believe second-hand smoke is harmful to everyones health and I find the smell repulsive. I don't believe an ordinance will significantly impact businesses in Ft Collins, because for every smoker that is inconvienced, there will probably be two non-smokers that will take their place.

I think the current ordinance is a good compromise between those who smoke and those who don't. If I were a smoker and the proposed model were approved, I'd feel discriminated against. Those who don't smoke should be happy to have the current ordinance in place and leave it alone.

Health risks are one issue. But, smoking is one habit that people have that affects anyone around them instead of just themselves. It smells, makes you cough, gets in your eyes, makes it hard to breathe, etc. People should be able to stand in lines at amusement parks, view a ballgame, enjoy a park, and eat dinner without having to "smoke" involuntarily by the people who are around them.

I have an allergy to cigarette smoke which prohibits me from enjoying leisure activities like bingo and bowling. I also live next to people that smoke outside our apartment building and their cigarette smoke gets sucked up through my air conditioner and into my apartment.

My daughter has asthma and is affected strongly by smoke.

It is the right of non-smoking citizens to choose whether or not to occupy certain bars or restaurants if they are offended by smoking. Most restaurants don't allow smoking now anyways, and bars should always have the right to be smoking areas. If you don't like the smoke, go somewhere else.

I don't smoke and prefer not to be around it in public facilities.

I would have marked 100, but you only went to 10. I feel that more needs to be done to protect people who choose not to smoke. I do understand that some people feel they have the right to kill themselves slowly by smoking, but I should not have to die the same slow death or suffer in the process.