[durangotang]

DON'T VISIT DURANGO, COLORADO

Effective December 1st, nobody will be able to smoke in any public areas within city limits - not sidewalks, streets, bus stops, parks, or our nice river trail. Bars with designated smoking patios and the one bar that allows inside smoking are exempt.

Of course the pretext is for "public health." It was a our public health department who worked to push this through along with other liberal fascists. One of the key people was an Argentinian born woman. In fact most of the people in favor of this ban are women. Of course, our town council reached a "community compromise" by allowing private businesses to keep their smoking patios.

The real amazing thing about this is that we have a coal powered train that goes through town several times per day. The amount of pollution it generates is 100,000 times the amount generated by the occasional cigarette smoker, but it brings tourist dollars to town so it is untouchable. It does serve to demonstrate, clearly, the motive behind so called "liberals". It is not in fact public health, but controlling and running your life. They dislike the smell of cigarette smoke, and wanted desperately to join other progressive cities, led by so many in California, so they joined the crusade. One or two public hearings, no public vote, a "community compromise" and bam. Done.

Here are some pics to illustrate just how crazy this is:

The train that runs through town several times per day:


The river trail that smokers are no longer allow to pollute (notice the train):


What "science" has ruled is harmful to others - horrible second hand smoke outdoors:


1st Offense $100 fine
2nd Offense $200 fine
3rd Offense $300 fine (and all subsequent offenses for remainder of calendar year)

We have a huge police population, especially at night. Never mind that we are a small town, officially around 16,000, with a college population of 3,800 students. There is almost no violent crime here and a murder every few years, but you can't go two blocks without seeing a cop car. In fact, we led the nation one year in DUI's per capita. Think about that.

FBI stats: Durango is heavy on police

We used to have a zombie crawl every year on halloween at midnight. People would moan and walk down the main street having fun. Mostly drunk college kids. Apparently, the police didn't like knocked over trash cans or minor vandalism, so they decided to crack down last year. This year it was officially canceled. You can imagine my surprise last year when there were full cammo fatigued troops (national guard???), german-shepard police dogs, and police tear gassing and arresting people left and right. It was unreal. A lot of kids got roughed up. And I thought to myself, how did this fucking army take over our local police? Why here, in this little mountain town with no violent crime?

The situation is really bad here. A real police state/nanny state. I can only surmise that if it is happening in this small insignificant mountain town, then it has across the entire country - or it will. If so called "progressives" want to ban smoking, or open alcohol containers, or institute leash laws in your town you must stand up! If paranoid old people keep voting for more police, shut them up. If your local police or sheriffs department gets SWAT team funding, then vote to legalize drugs in your state - we have that on our ballot in Colorado (at least for marijuana).

Let us be a warning to the rest of the country. It is not just southern California, it is a "liberal" fascist nanny state and right wing police state developing around us more and more each day.

*Edit with an update from the future: It appears as if it is only enforced in parks, bus stops, etc. and the prior rule of not within 10 or 15 feet of a door or window still applies, so you can still smoke outside a bar for example or on a sidewalk without repercussions.

[Bronan the Barbarian!]

Jesus dude. I went to Fort Lewis for my first couple years of college and everybody who didn't smoke cigs smoked pot. Unreal. I can see banning smoking inside buildings, but outdoors? I say "fuck that" as a dude who's been straight edge for nearly a decade.

Fort Collins is the same way with cops. Total police state. Having a party? Have an ass beating. The SWPL'ers seem to love it though.

[Beyond Borders]

WTF!!!!

Land of the "free," eh....

[bojangles]

This is absolutely ridiculous, should not be allowed anywhere

[bacon]

yea but pot is basically legal there as it is in california. to me thats a much more important smoking law.

[HeyPete]

If they still allow smoking patios or make smoking patios, it actually works out to your benefit. Smoking patios are a great place to game. I'd say, 80% of the girls I've pulled have been from smoking patios.

It's not always leather-lunged chicks, either. Even non-smokers will bum smokes after a few drinks. It's a perfect spot to isolate.

[jammer]

I don't like it, but I'm not complaining since I hate the smell of smoke all over me.

[Screwston]

The worst of both worlds: SWPL granola freaks and a police state.

[BurnFirst]

In California we can't smoke in bars and restaurants but sidewalks are fair game. That's just dumb.

[durangotang]

(11-06-2012 08:17 PM)BurnFirst Wrote:  

In California we can't smoke in bars and restaurants but sidewalks are fair game. That's just dumb.

They banned smoking in bars and restaurants inside here in Colorado as well. Patios could still smoke, and one bar in town, a real dive bar claimed "cigar bar" status and sued to be allowed in door smoking. They won, and I have to respect them. Now private property, including bar and restaurant patios, can still smoke outside (as can the cigar bar inside). That was the "community compromise." But all side walks, streets, parks - any outdoor public area - it is now illegal to smoke outdoors.

*Edit with an update from the future: It appears as if it is only enforced in parks, bus stops, etc. and the prior rule of not smoking within 10 or 15 feet of a door or window still applies, so you can still smoke outside a bar for example or on a sidewalk without repercussions.

[Basil Ransom]

(11-06-2012 04:37 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

We used to have a zombie crawl every year on halloween at midnight. People would moan and walk down the main street having fun. Mostly drunk college kids. Apparently, the police didn't like knocked over trash cans or minor vandalism, so they decided to crack down last year. This year it was officially canceled. You can imagine my surprise last year when there were full cammo fatigued troops (national guard???), german-shepard police dogs, and police tear gassing and arresting people left and right. It was unreal. A lot of kids got roughed up. And I thought to myself, how did this fucking army take over our local police? Why here, in this little mountain town with no violent crime?

The situation is really bad here. A real police state/nanny state. I can only surmise that if it is happening in this small insignificant mountain town, then it has across the entire country - or it will. If so called "progressives" want to ban smoking, or open alcohol containers, or institute leash laws in your town you must stand up! If paranoid old people keep voting for more police, shut them up. If your local police or sheriffs department gets SWAT team funding, then vote to legalize drugs in your state - we have that on our ballot in Colorado (at least for marijuana).

I keep thinking that part of the reason our government is so fucked is because of the power of old people. There's lots of them, they vote a lot, and they have a powerful lobby in the AARP. As a voting bloc, they don't give a fuck about anyone themselves. Medicare that bankrupts today's working taxpayers? Sure, give me more!

I also don't understand how the police state is coming about - the masses of police on the streets coming down on innocent partiers, for instance. Who exactly is requesting it? Is it police unions in control of the police? Families bitching about nothing? Bored housewives and senile old people mad that young people are having fun?

[Cincinnatus]

I think it's pretty funny that the city of Durango banned cigarette smoking while it's on the state ballot to legalize marijuana.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Yeah, that's really idiotic. I'm all for banning cigarettes from public indoor spaces such as bars, banks, hotels and etc, but to prevent people from smoking anywhere outdoors, in parks, on the sidewalk, in the wilderness, whatnot, that's just stupid beyond comprehension! I weep for how liberals have twisted something originally positive into a dangerous lunacy like this.

[oldnemesis]

(11-06-2012 04:37 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

The real amazing thing about this is that we have a coal powered train that goes through town several times per day. The amount of pollution it generates is 100,000 times the amount generated by the occasional cigarette smoker

The question I have here is the following: did you calculate it yourself? The pollution spread and its effect on the health of the population vs the effect of the train? Or you just made up the number and threw it in?

Quote:

It is not in fact public health, but controlling and running your life.

Did your city banned smoking in your home as well? Or only in public?

Quote:

What "science" has ruled is harmful to others - horrible second hand smoke outdoors:

Yep. It is already bad enough our tax/insurance dollars might end up paying to treat your lung cancer. We don't need more lung cancer patients.

Quote:

Apparently, the police didn't like knocked over trash cans or minor vandalism, so they decided to crack down last year.

Stopped reading right here.
Looks like your concept of "freedom" seems to be about "I wanna do whatever I want, and if someone doesn't like it, screw them".
Guess what? The rest of your town doesn't want to you to have this kind of freedom. Apparently they got enough of your "minor vandalism".

[w00t]

Im a militant non-smoker but banning smoking outdoors is a bit harsh. Im all for smoke bans in bars though!

[Hades]

(11-07-2012 03:26 AM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(11-06-2012 04:37 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

The real amazing thing about this is that we have a coal powered train that goes through town several times per day. The amount of pollution it generates is 100,000 times the amount generated by the occasional cigarette smoker

The question I have here is the following: did you calculate it yourself? The pollution spread and its effect on the health of the population vs the effect of the train? Or you just made up the number and threw it in?

Quote:

It is not in fact public health, but controlling and running your life.

Did your city banned smoking in your home as well? Or only in public?

Quote:

What "science" has ruled is harmful to others - horrible second hand smoke outdoors:

Yep. It is already bad enough our tax/insurance dollars might end up paying to treat your lung cancer. We don't need more lung cancer patients.

Quote:

Apparently, the police didn't like knocked over trash cans or minor vandalism, so they decided to crack down last year.

Stopped reading right here.
Looks like your concept of "freedom" seems to be about "I wanna do whatever I want, and if someone doesn't like it, screw them".
Guess what? The rest of your town doesn't want to you to have this kind of freedom. Apparently they got enough of your "minor vandalism".

Isn't this kind of nitpicky?

According to this website about the train in Durango, you need roughly six tons of coal for a round trip to Silverton. Now supposing the train track throughout the town is about one mile long and the train can go about eighteen miles per hour (max speed, acceleration notwithstanding) you can guesstimate using Google Earth that emissions from roughly one-tenth of that coal used for a round trip between Silverton and Durango is expelled into the air within the city limits.

Given that, 6 / 10 = 0.6 tons
so 0.6 * 2000 pounds = 1200 pounds of raw coal which is consumed. You can model the exhaust as 1200*X pounds, with "X" being the imaginary ratio of exhaust divided by fuel.

Now supposing that the gaseous emission to solid emission ratio between coal and cigarettes is roughly the same, that is approximately -

1.058 ounces per pack of cigarettes = 0.066125 pounds per pack of cigarettes implies that -

1200 / 0.066125 = 18147 packs of cigarettes, chain smoked in the time it takes for the train to leave town.

Multiply that by however many trips the train must take between Durango and Silverton, and there you have it.

But supposing the train only makes one trip through town, you can assume that about eighteen thousand packs of cigarettes must be smoked (daily) to compare to the pollution.

Owing to the fact that Durango has a population of roughly 17,000, the ratio of smokers to nonsmokers in the country is about 23%, subtracting babies you can figure that the number of smokers is somewhat less than 3900.

Since the average smoker smokes about fifteen cigarettes a day, you can guesstimate that the net consumption of cigarettes in Durango on a daily basis is about 15 * 3900 / 20 = 2925 packs per day = 193 pounds of cigarettes on a daily basis.

Now ignoring the "X" factor which is the ratio of gaseous products to fuel (cigarettes are approximated as being equal to coal), that implies that the coal-fired train in it's trip through Durango releases the products of 1200 pounds of fuel compared to the daily net smoker's contribution of 193 pounds of fuel.

Given that, the train releases 6.2 times as much environmental waste as the net consumption of cigarettes. Seems low though.

There's some Fermi math for you

[tenderman100]

Alexis de Tocqueville

From Democracy in America
What Sort of Despotism Nations Have to Fear

Emphasis mine.

Quote:

I think, then, that the species of oppression by which democratic nations are menaced is unlike anything that ever before existed in the world; our contemporaries will find no prototype of it in their memories. I seek in vain for an expression that will accurately convey the whole of the idea I have formed of it; the old words despotism and tyranny are inappropriate: the thing itself is new, and since I cannot name, I must attempt to define it.

I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men, all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest; his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind. As for the rest of his fellow citizens, he is close to them, but he does not see them; he touches them, but he does not feel them; he exists only in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country.

Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?

Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things;it has predisposed men to endure them and often to look on them as benefits.

After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

I have always thought that servitude of the regular, quiet, and gentle kind which I have just described might be combined more easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms of freedom, and that it might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people.

Our contemporaries are constantly excited by two conflicting passions: they want to be led, and they wish to remain free. As they cannot destroy either the one or the other of these contrary propensities, they strive to satisfy them both at once. They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people. They combine the principle of centralization and that of popular sovereignty; this gives them a respite: they console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians. Every man allows himself to be put in leading-strings, because he sees that it is not a person or a class of persons, but the people at large who hold the end of his chain.

By this system the people shake off their state of dependence just long enough to select their master and then relapse into it again. A great many persons at the present day are quite contented with this sort of compromise between administrative despotism and the sovereignty of the people; and they think they have done enough for the protection of individual freedom when they have surrendered it to the power of the nation at large.

[oldnemesis]

(11-07-2012 08:25 AM)Hades Wrote:  

Isn't this kind of nitpicky?

No, it is not. I was just curious whether the OP did his due diligence and knows what he is talking about (and therefore should be taken seriously), or he's a typical hysterical smoker screaming about the world collapse because he lost his "right" to poison everyone around them. Unfortunately considering that he didn't reply and just "liked" those post, this seems to be the case.

Quote:

Now supposing that the gaseous emission to solid emission ratio between coal and cigarettes is roughly the same

Well, no. We're not talking about the environmental impact here. You need to take into account what is emitted, and its health effects as the original post specially mentioned "public health" as the main cause.

Burning clean coal produces only C+O2=CO2 which is harmless to humans. Of course they do not burn the clean coal (too expensive), and I doubt they have the catalyst exhausts or high temperature burners (like those they have on coal plants), so there is some CO, NO, NO2, some sulfur oxides and other complex solids and gases. Except the sulfur part none of them is carcinogenic, and whether the sulfur is carcinogenic is still being debated. Therefore the effect of the train on human health should not be significant.

The most important point here, however, is that the train is not running indoors. I guess it doesn't smell in town either - I haven't been there, but I rode a coal train two weeks ago, and there was no smell at all. So the health impact of the train might be significantly lower than the health impact of smokers.

Quote:

Given that, the train releases 6.2 times as much environmental waste as the net consumption of cigarettes. Seems low though.

So not 100,000x. That's a good starting point.

Now if you want to compare the environmental impact - which again wasn't the point here - you need to compare it with the other travel options, because the train doesn't run back and forth empty (and seem to be heavily booked). People travel between those destinations, and they wouldn't stop doing so just because there is no steam train anymore. A diesel train would produce less carbon dioxide, but more complex gases and might end up being more carcinogenic. People driving their cars would definitely have larger environmental impact than both trains. This is fairly complex issue, but unfortunately there is no published environmental study so we can only speculate here.

[Parlay44]

So Colorado bans smoking but legalizes recreational marijuana?
Ehh I can live with that

[durangotang]

(11-07-2012 05:49 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(11-07-2012 08:25 AM)Hades Wrote:  

Isn't this kind of nitpicky?

No, it is not. I was just curious whether the OP did his due diligence and knows what he is talking about (and therefore should be taken seriously), or he's a typical hysterical smoker screaming about the world collapse because he lost his "right" to poison everyone around them. Unfortunately considering that he didn't reply and just "liked" those post, this seems to be the case.

Quote:

Now supposing that the gaseous emission to solid emission ratio between coal and cigarettes is roughly the same

Well, no. We're not talking about the environmental impact here. You need to take into account what is emitted, and its health effects as the original post specially mentioned "public health" as the main cause.

Burning clean coal produces only C+O2=CO2 which is harmless to humans. Of course they do not burn the clean coal (too expensive), and I doubt they have the catalyst exhausts or high temperature burners (like those they have on coal plants), so there is some CO, NO, NO2, some sulfur oxides and other complex solids and gases. Except the sulfur part none of them is carcinogenic, and whether the sulfur is carcinogenic is still being debated. Therefore the effect of the train on human health should not be significant.

The most important point here, however, is that the train is not running indoors. I guess it doesn't smell in town either - I haven't been there, but I rode a coal train two weeks ago, and there was no smell at all. So the health impact of the train might be significantly lower than the health impact of smokers.

Quote:

Given that, the train releases 6.2 times as much environmental waste as the net consumption of cigarettes. Seems low though.

So not 100,000x. That's a good starting point.

Now if you want to compare the environmental impact - which again wasn't the point here - you need to compare it with the other travel options, because the train doesn't run back and forth empty (and seem to be heavily booked). People travel between those destinations, and they wouldn't stop doing so just because there is no steam train anymore. A diesel train would produce less carbon dioxide, but more complex gases and might end up being more carcinogenic. People driving their cars would definitely have larger environmental impact than both trains. This is fairly complex issue, but unfortunately there is no published environmental study so we can only speculate here.

Oldnemesis,

The coal power train creates a far greater amount of pollution. It is a historical train, so it is not clean coal. The 100,000 figure I cited is an arbitrary rhetorical figure intended to make a point. People do not ride the train for transportation, but rather for a historical experience riding through the mountains. I am glad that you brought up cars, however. Cars produce far more toxic pollution than a cigarette. If you don't believe me, park your car in your garage and let it idle with the garage door closed. Soon, you'll be dead. Turn off the engine and chain smoke instead, and aside from a possible headache, you'll just stink.

Second hand cigarette smoke outside is not a health risk. It is just not politically correct. Nobody is being poisoned. You alleged that I am a "typical hysterical smoker screaming about the world collapse because he lost his 'right' to poison everyone around them." It sounds like you have the axe to grind. Although far from hysterical, I care about our freedoms - and the fact remains that second hand smoke outdoors is not harmful. It is outside for fucks sake! On December 1st I will have an armed police officer confront me as a criminal and write tickets because I offend the politically correct worldview of fascists like you.

Based upon your rhetoric of complaining about paying for my "future lung cancer," and supporting the banning of smoking outside, I presume you are a "progressive" who voted for "free healthcare." Now you want to legislate what I can and cannot do to my body based upon the fact that "tax payers will pay for healthcare." This is what "progressives" fail to understand - voting for larger government ends up reducing our liberties. As the popular phrase goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Furthermore oldnemesis, you implied that I commit "minor vandalism" in the Zombie crawl. Not true. My point was that when you get hundreds of people together for a festival a trash can might get knocked over, or perhaps someone's parked car might get vandalized. Police can be present and enforce violations of the law, but to crack down on a peaceful crowd of college kids in the manner demonstrated in the video is a total police state. There are outdoor festivals all over the free world - Spain, Brazil, New Orleans, and people are not treated like violent criminals with cammo fatigued police, german shepards and tear gas - or at least they should not be treated in such a fashion.

[teh_skeeze]

Seems appropriate here.

[oldnemesis]

(11-07-2012 06:40 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

The coal power train creates a far greater amount of pollution. It is a historical train, so it is not clean coal. The 100,000 figure I cited is an arbitrary rhetorical figure intended to make a point.

People do not ride the train for transportation, but rather for a historical experience riding through the mountains. I am glad that you brought up cars, however. Cars produce far more toxic pollution than a cigarette. If you don't believe me, park your car in your garage and let it idle with the garage door closed. Soon, you'll be dead. Turn off the engine and chain smoke instead, and aside from a possible headache, you'll just stink.

You can't make a point with a made-up number or an idea which is so out of reality that it makes the people wonder whether you actually understand what you're talking about. Glenn Becks can do it, but only because he speaks to the audience which is retarded and gets their knowledge from a book which says the Earth is flat. Here the community is significantly smarter than that, so by making FUD or going hysterical you only get negative points.

And you keep coming up with some odd examples. This is not about pollution, it is about the public health risk. Your city banned smoking not because of its effect on the environment.

Quote:

Second hand cigarette smoke outside is not a health risk.

Here I'd like to see some scientific evidence supporting this statement. Or this is just your personal opinion? Then don't base a huge theory on it.

Quote:

Although far from hysterical, I care about our freedoms - and the fact remains that second hand smoke outdoors is not harmful.

That's a really funny way you care about OUR freedoms I'd say. In fact I'd definitely prefer you NOT to care about my freedoms the way you do it.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Has anyone ever proved that smoke outdoors, in places where people don't have to be clumped close together like in bars, lobbies or stations, causes any real harm? Perhaps a study could be made in a large park, have a man light up a few cigs and see if smoke sensors placed in a circle (upwind and downwind) 5, 10, 20 and 50m away pick up any significant increase in smoke around.

Given my (admittedly, basic) knowledge of aerodynamics, I strongly doubt that it would happen, except maybe at a minimum downwind distance, given how quickly everything diffuses to low concentrations in the atmosphere. A measurable effect does indeed happen with industry/powerplant/tailpipe emissions no matter the distance, true, but then we're talking amounts of smoke emissions orders of magnitude greater than any throng of smokers.

Barring the existence of a study proving the harm, I am firmly opposed to outdoor tobacco bans like this, no matter how much I might hate smoking otherwise. If people want to kill themselves, let them do it. Plenty of others do it with McDonalds, and we don't ban them from entering its restaurants.

oldnemesis Wrote:

Here I'd like to see some scientific evidence supporting this statement. Or this is just your personal opinion? Then don't base a huge theory on it.

I believe that the onus is on you to prove that it is harmful, not on durangotang to prove that it is not. It seems a case similar to Russel's teapot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot