The Steamboat Pilot & Today

paststudent (anonymous)
January 13, 2008 at 12:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You would not believe some of the things said by students in this community. It is a damn shame that all of their parents did not teach them the decency of respect for people who may look different than them or lead different lives. This will remain a problem until those parents punish their children for their words and actions. The school district isn't off the hook either. No one likes to talk about these issues, but it is life. People deal with this outside of Steamboat every day. Adults and children need to take some responsibility for their words and actions.

nxoby36 (anonymous)
January 13, 2008 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

why doesn't it surprise me that the children of this community practice bigotry they only have to look at the actions of the citizens and the "liberal " press in this state , city and across country for bad examples .... such as the discrimination against smokers and the complete lack of respect for the current President to show them that discrimination is OK . How can you teach your children that bigotry is wrong as long as you practice it yourself ?

mmm (anonymous)
January 13, 2008 at 12:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

After moving to this community few years ago from a mostly white community ( a little more diverse than Steamboat) our entire family including our 3 teenagers have all commented on the prejudices they have experienced due to race in this community. Needless to say we all find it very sad that it is 2008 and there are still so many uneducated individuals that still have superiority complexes. Time to get your heads out of the sand.

another_local (anonymous)
January 13, 2008 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Discrimination against smokers leading to bigotry?

letomayo (anonymous)
January 13, 2008 at 7:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ditto sbvor about everyone seeing racism in Routt County. Many of us ourselves are victims of predjudise. Have you ever said, I was jewed down told a joke about wops or Polacks or think the Chinese are ripping off America or thought about those with brown skin as illegals? Its even prejudise if you are afraid or think twice about getting on an elevater with a black man or when walking by a group of Latinos who are laughing and speaking Spanish as you go by. Do you think irish people are drinkers or poor people are dumber. Do you raise your eye brows at a person who is fatter than normal. What about the kids who wear all black and black lipstick and are pierced all over their faces and tattos on their arms. What about women who like sex? what do you say about them but men can do the same and sleep around. What about catholics and the masons. People always look for others faults to say they are better. When I say rapper what do you think? Do you think smokers are disgusting people? What do you think of old people like in there 60s and 70s? Do you feel comfortable talking to them at a party if you are young 20s or 30's. what about the woman driver? Cowboys or realters? Lawyers?

I think this topic is worthless because it should ask what you are doing to help end prejudise with your kids and this newest generation? That's not yes or no though so maybe its not a good question for hte pilot to ask. There question is not well done. Who makes them anyway? What happens with the votes? Does anyone care?

nxoby36 (anonymous)
January 14, 2008 at 9:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

bigotry, noun, pl. -ries.
bigoted conduct or attitude; intolerance; prejudice.

Yes "another_local" a discriminatory attitude toward "smokers" fits the definition of a bigot . like "letomayo" says It does not matter that you say " it's good for you " or "it's better for me" prejudice toward anyone for any reason is bigotry . as long as people feel justified in their bigotry the children will pick it up and prejudice and bigotry become a part of their life style

another_local (anonymous)
January 15, 2008 at 6:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

noxby,

Intolerance of a dangerous behavior is not prejudice toward the person engaged in the behavior.

Insistance that the dangerous behavior take place in locations that do not injure others is not bigotry. As soon as the cigarette is out the person is welcome back in the public place.

There is an important difference between intolerance and prejudice toward persons for who they are and requirements placed on them for what they are doing. People choose to smoke. It is a legal activity but one which has some minimal controls placed on it. In that sense it is a little driving a car. If you choose to do it in a way that endangers others, society has a mechanism in place to protect itself; giving tickets to reckless drivers is not bigotry either.

You are off on a detour.

nxoby36 (anonymous)
January 15, 2008 at 12:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

THE AIR, ACCORDING TO OSHA




Though repetition has little to do with "the truth," we're repeatedly told that there's "no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke." 
OSHA begs to differ.
OSHA has established PELs (Permissible Exposure Levels) for all the  measurable chemicals, including the 40 alleged carcinogens, in secondhand smoke.  PELs are levels of exposure for an 8-hour workday from which, according to OSHA, no harm will result.
Of course the idea of "thousands of chemicals" can itself sound spooky.  Perhaps it would help to note that coffee contains over 1000 chemicals, 19 of which are known to be rat carcinogens.  
-"Rodent Carcinogens: Setting Priorities" Gold Et Al., Science, 258: 261-65 (1992)
There. Feel better?
As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that:
"Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." 
-Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Ass't Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997
Indeed it would. 
Independent health researchers have done the chemistry and the math to prove how very very rare that would be. 
As you're about to see in a moment.
In 1999, comments were solicited by the government from an independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke.
Using EPA figures on the emissions per cigarette of  everything measurable in secondhand smoke, they compared them to OSHA's PELs.
The following excerpt and chart are directly from their report and their Washington testimony

nxoby36 (anonymous)
January 15, 2008 at 12:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

CALCULATING THE NON-EXISTENT RISKS OF ETS
"We have taken the substances for which measurements have actually been obtained--very few, of course, because it's difficult to even find these chemicals in diffuse and diluted ETS.
"We posit a sealed, unventilated enclosure that is 20 feet square with a 9 foot ceiling clearance.
"Taking the figures for ETS yields per cigarette directly from the EPA, we calculated the number of cigarettes that would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold for each of these substances.  The results are actually quite amusing.  In fact, it is difficult to imagine a situation where these threshold limits could be realized.
"Our chart (Table 1) illustrates each of these substances, but let me report some notable examples.
"For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold.
"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes would be required.
"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.
"At the lower end of the scale-- in the case of Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up simultaneously in our little room to reach the threshold at which they might begin to pose a danger.
"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes are required. Perhaps we could post a notice limiting this 20-foot square room to 300 rather tightly-packed people smoking no more than 62 packs per hour?
"Of course the moment we introduce real world factors to the room -- a door, an open window or two, or a healthy level of mechanical air exchange (remember, the room we've been talking about is sealed) achieving these levels becomes even more implausible.
"It becomes increasingly clear to us that ETS is a political, rather than scientific, scapegoat."
Chart (Table 1)
-"Toxic Toxicology" Littlewood & Fennel
Coming at OSHA from quite a different angle is litigator (and how!) John Banzhaf, founder and president of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH).
Banzhaf is on record as wanting to remove healthy children from intact homes if one of their family smokes.  He also favors national smoking bans both indoors and out throughout America, and has litigation kits for sale on how to get your landlord to evict your smoking neighbors.
Banzhaf originally wanted OSHA to ban smoking in all American workplaces. 

nxoby36 (anonymous)
January 15, 2008 at 12:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's not even that OSHA wasn't happy to play along; it's just that--darn it -- they couldn't find the real-world science to make it credible.
So Banzhaf sued them.  Suing federal agencies to get them to do what you want is, alas, a new trick in the political deck of cards. But OSHA, at least apparently, hung tough. 
In response to Banzhaf's law suit they said the best they could do would be to set some official standards for permissible levels of smoking in the workplace. 
Scaring Banzhaf, and Glantz and the rest of them to death.
Permissible levels?  No, no. That would mean that OSHA, officially, said that smoking was permitted. That in fact, there were levels (hard to exceed, as we hope we've already shown) that were generally safe.
This so frightened Banzhaf that he dropped the case.  Here are excerpts from his press release:
"ASH has agreed to dismiss its lawsuit against OSHA...to avoid serious harm to the non-smokers rights movement from adverse action OSHA had threatened to take if forced by the suit to do it....developing some hypothetical [ASH's characterization] measurement of smoke pollution that might be a better remedy than prohibiting smoking....[T]his could seriously hurt efforts to pass non-smokers' rights legislation at the state and local level...
Another major threat was that, if the agency were forced by ASH's suit to promulgate a rule regulating workplace smoking, [it] would be likely to pass a weak one.... This weak rule in turn could preempt future and possibly even existing non-smokers rights laws-- a risk no one was willing to take.
As a result of ASH's dismissal of the suit, OSHA will now withdraw its rule-making proceedings but will do so without using any of the damaging [to Anti activists] language they had threatened to include." 
-ASH Nixes OSHA Suit To Prevent Harm To Movement
Looking on the bright side, Banzhaf concludes:
"We might now be even more successful in persuading states and localities to ban smoking on their own, once they no longer have OSHA rule-making to hide behind."
Once again, the Anti-Smoking Movement reveals that it's true motive is basically Prohibition (stopping smokers from smoking; making them "social outcasts") --not "safe air."
And the attitude seems to be, as Stanton Glantz says, if the science doesn't "help" you, don't do the science.

 

nikobesti (anonymous)
January 15, 2008 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Likewise, dislike of President Bush is NOT bigotry (well, not all the time anyway). I do not like Bush because of the actions and positions he takes, not because of his physical appearance or any other traits he possesses. If someone dislikes Bush because he’s white, then yes, it is bigotry. However it is not bigotry if they dislike him because of traits specific to HIM as an individual, not a group of people. Every instance of dislike is NOT bigotry, folks.

I don’t really disagree with sbvor that *some* liberals may exacerbate the problem. However, it is ridiculous to maintain that liberals are leading the way with their hate of smokers, and that disliking Bush is similar to racial harassment and intimidation. Riiiiight.

Finally, I think a discussion can be had about the propensity of children and adolescents to display characteristics of bigotry compared to adults. Kids are mean. Always have been, always will be. Some actively seek out differences and opportunities to harass. Peer pressure and the need to be popular often drive kids towards bigotry. Because of those reasons, I would guess that one would encounter more bigotry in a school than in an office. Once a person “grows up” if you will, do some people also grow out of the habit of ridiculing and harassing people based on differences? I’m not sure about this, I’m posing it as an open question. I agree that when I was in school bigotry was very apparent. However, in the same community with some of my same classmates, I don’t find it so apparent. Is this just because kids are most honest while adults just know not to speak of these matters? Any thoughts?

nxoby36 (anonymous)
January 15, 2008 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Once again, the Anti-Smoking Movement reveals that it's true motive is basically Prohibition (stopping smokers from smoking; making them "social outcasts") --not "safe air."

In other words Discrimination against smokers !

nxoby36 (anonymous)
January 15, 2008 at 12:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"THE DOSE MAKES THE POISON"
This chart looks at substances found in Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS)
for which measurements have actually been obtained – very few, of course,
because it is difficult to even find these chemicals in diffuse and diluted ETS.
It calculates the volume of a 100m3 sealed and unventilated enclosure
(about 20 by 20 feet with a 9- foot ceiling). Taking Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) figures for ETS yields per cigarette, it determines the number of
cigarettes required to reach the lowest, most stringent published threshold for
these substances.
For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes would be needed to reach the
lowest published "danger" threshold.

For Acetone, 118,000.

For Hydrazine, slightly more than 14,000.

Toluene would require 50,000 packs of smoldering cigarettes. At 20
cigarettes per pack, that's one million cigarettes.

Of course, the moment one introduces real world factors to the room –
a door, an open window or two, or a healthy level of mechanical air
exchange – achieving these levels becomes even more implausible.

Frankly, it is difficult to imagine a situation where these threshold
limits could be realized.

nxoby36 (anonymous)
January 15, 2008 at 12:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

CALCULATED NUMBER OF CIGARETTES REQUIRED TO REACH A THRESHOLD LIMIT FROM ETS IN A SEALED, UNVENTILATED 100m3 ENCLOSURE AT STP (1)

ETS Component CAS Number Molecular Weight ETS Output (mg/cigarette)(2) Threshold Limit (ppm) Threshold Limit (mg/m3) Cigarettes Required
2-Toluidine (3 isomers) (3) 107.15 0.003 2 8.7 290,000
Acetaldehyde 75-07-0 44.05 1.26 111 180 (4) 14,285
Acetic acid 64-19-7 60.05 1.5 10 25 1,666
Acetone 67-64-1 58.05 1 500 1187 118,700
Benzene 71-43-2 78.11 0.24 1 3.1 (5) 1,290
Benzo[a]Pyrene 50-32-8 252.30 0.00009 0.02 0.2 (6) 222,000
Cadmium 7440-43-9 112.40 0.0007 0.002 0.01 1,430
Catechol 120-80-9 110.11 0.14 5 22 15,700
Dimethylamine 124-40-3 45.08 0.036 10 (7) 9.2 25,555
Formic acid 64-18-6 46.02 0.525 5 (8) 9.4 1,790
Hydrazine 302-01-2 32.05 0.00009 0.01 0.013 14,444
Hydroquinone 123-31-9 110.11 0.16 0.4 2 1,250
Methylamine 74-89-5 31.09 0.1 5 13 13,000
Methylchloride 74-87-3 50.49 0.88 50 103.0 11,170
Nickel 7440-02-0 58.71 0.0025 0.4 1 40,000
Phenol 108-95-2 94.11 0.25 5 19 7,600
Polonium 210 (9) 210 0.4pCi na 3pCi/liter (10) 750,000
Pyridine 110-86-1 70.01 0.39 5 16 4,100
Toluene 108-88-3 92.13 0.000035 50 375 1,000,000
These calculations are not complex. They assume a 100m3 enclosed and unventilated space at Standard Temperature and Pressure. STP assumes 24.45 = molar volume of air in liters at STP conditions (25oC. and 760 torr). Conversion equations are as follow:

(TLV in ppm)(gram mol wt of substance) (TLV in mg/m3)(24.45)
TLV in mg/m3 = ______________________________ TLV in ppm = ___________________
24.45 gram mol wt of substance

1. Limits expressed in ppm have been translated to mg/m3 for the sake of clarity and volume calculation. New values have been incorporated, and the lowest threshold (irrespective of source) has been used. Unless otherwise noted, lowest threshold limit values were found in “1999 TLVs and BEIs,” American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.
2. Data from NTP RoC ETS, December 2-3, 1998, Table 1-1, pp 1-3, per EPA.
3. Three isomers o-Toluidine [95-53-4], m-Toluidine [108-44-1], p-Toluidine [106-49-0]. Mol wt for each is 107.15, TWA/TLV is 2 ppm for each.
4. OSHA, PEL-TWA has been raised to 200ppm, vacating a previous lower level of 180 mg/m3. I used the lower limit.
5. This calculation based on the lowest possible calculated OSHA/NIOSH threshold of 1 ppm.
6. Based on coal tar pitch volatiles [65996-93-2], as benzene solubles
7. OSHA PEL
8. NIOSH PEL-TWA, and HSDB
9. “Levels of polonium-210 in tobacco smoke are not believed to be great enough to significantly impact lung cancer” Hecht S, Tobacco smoke carcinogens and lung cancer. JNCI 1999;91:1194-1210.
10. EPA (1990c).

untamedShrewd (anonymous)
January 15, 2008 at 1:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Unfortunately there is bigotry most everywhere. And I've seen a fair share of it in Steamboat from kids to parents to coaches. And the sad thing is its difficult to teach tolerance and humanity to kids when their parents and coaches continue to examplify prejudice behavior. I've heard parents make comments about a kid's speed because of skin color. I've seen coaches allow teammates to mock a bilingual teammate. And I've witnessed adults in the professional community turning kids away from activities because of disablities. The best thing we can do is to speak out as individuals when witnessing bigotry: the idle mind only breeds more hatred and ignorance. Our community needs to show it embraces diversity from religion to race and gender to disablity. Because many in Steamboat really do embrace diversity.

another_local (anonymous)
January 15, 2008 at 2:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

noxby, No-one is stopping you from smoking. Have at it.

However, you failed utterly to suport your point that there is any bigotry involved in smoking regulations or in others reponse to cigarette smoke.

nxoby36 (anonymous)
January 15, 2008 at 3:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Discrimination & Bigotry are never looked on as such by those who are not the target of the discrimination or bigotry . What do you call it when 25% of the population are not allowed the same freedoms as the rest ? Ask the smokers standing out in the freezing cold the next time you go into a bar how they feel about it . Never mind , the non-smokers feelings and rights are more important than the smokers anyway aren't they ?

curmudgeon (anonymous)
January 15, 2008 at 4:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Since perhaps the majority of the minority and/or people of color do not participate in these blogs or read the newspaper...I think perhaps the question should be posed as to: "have you ever or how often have you inflicted racism upon others in Routt County?"

nxoby36 (anonymous)
January 15, 2008 at 5:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

sorry I kinda got off the subject .
to answer your question :
"Have you ever or how often have you inflicted racism upon others in Routt County?"
I believe that I have always treated others as I would like to be treated . There for I would say ; I feel that I have not inflicted racism upon anyone here in Routt county or abroad .

bubba (anonymous)
January 15, 2008 at 7:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

nxoby, you are really cracking me up on this one.

Smokers huddled outside are not victims of bigotry or discrimination- there are no signs that say 'no SMOKERS,' just no smokING.

By your logic, movie theater owners are bigots and discriminate against people who talk on cell phones because cell phone conversations are not allowed in movie theaters.

nxoby36 (anonymous)
January 15, 2008 at 10:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bubba ... I imagine Ronald's tormenters enjoyed a good laugh at his expense also ...

sickofitall (anonymous)
January 16, 2008 at 5:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So how come I get tired and naucious when I'm around second hand smoke?

bubba (anonymous)
January 16, 2008 at 6:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

nxoby, I didn't understand the reference, but how about this:

I am a victim of bigotry too. I like shooting my gun straight up in the air on holidays. But it is against the law, so they don't let me do it in cities. They claim that it is potentially harmful to others as their excuse for this, but I think it is discrimination against me. I could even post some statistics about the infinitesimally small chance that my bullet lands on someone's head.

How is this different than your smoking discrimination? It is not- both are voluntary actions that are potentially dangerous to others and are accordingly banned from public places. I am not banned from public places, smokers are not banned from public places, but, if I start shooting my gun in the air, or you light a cigarette inside, then we will get in trouble. Again, the person is not being discriminated against, the action which is harmful to others is banned.

For what it's worth, I have never been a supporter of laws against smoking in bars, because I think it is government interference in private business, but it has opened up the number of places I might go out to, and I think it is laughable that you find these laws discriminatory.

nxoby36 (anonymous)
January 16, 2008 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Shooting ours guns in the air has always been illegal with in city limits to my knowledge . Again you are showing your lack of manners by stating that the loss of others rights are laughable . There were many non-smoking bars and restaurants in this town and only a few that allowed smoking no one ever twisted your arm to force you to enter them nor was anyone forced to work in one of them. Again laughing about the fact others are being discriminated against is deplorable . I'm glad you feel happy about having a number of different places to go , it's just too bad that you do not have any compassion for the folks that have lost theirs . Smoking is not illegal !

untamedShrewd (anonymous)
January 16, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It smells like nxoby36 is blowing a lot of hot air and missing the point. Discrimination is refusing to look at individual merit, by instead making a distinction in favor of or against a person based on race, religion, gender, class or disability. Most times the distinction is less favorable and is in the form of hatred. And unfortunately, many of those who display discrimination are less then likely to recognize that they indeed are discriminating. I could careless that you smoke...if it bothers me, I'll just move away from the smoke.

nxoby36 (anonymous)
January 16, 2008 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

discrimination, noun.
1. the act of making or recognizing differences and distinctions.
Ex. Do not buy clothes without discrimination. Discrimination between fact and theory is sometimes difficult to make.
(SYN) discernment, insight, acumen.
2. the ability to discriminate accurately between things that are very much alike; good judgment.
Ex. He lacked discrimination in his choice of friends. It does ... credit to your discrimination that you should have found such a very excellent young woman (Dickens).
3. a making a difference in favor of or against.
Ex. Racial or religious discrimination in hiring workers is against the law.
4. something that serves to differentiate.

bubba (anonymous)
January 17, 2008 at 6:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Nxoby, you are gravely mistaken, I am not laughing at people being discriminated against, I am laughing at YOU for trying to make yourself out to be a victim of discrimination.

To paraphrase your first statement at the beginning of this discussion, with the context of the story: "I am not surprised that bigotry is so common in this town that a black student at our middle school had to fight to protect himself from racist bullies, because our government passes laws to protect the health of it's citizens from the actions of other citizens and people can openly criticize the president based on his actions." To me, that statement is so absurd I find it funny.

You are right, smoking is not illegal, but smoking in restaurants is. Smokers are still allowed in restaurants, but they can not smoke while in there. Just like hunters are welcome in the national park system, they just can't hunt while there. That is not discrimination. It is a law.

Back to the shooting guns in the city analogy. You say it has always been illegal, and that makes it OK in your book. First off, in the history of mankind, there was a time before there were cities, laws or guns. So as those three things came into existence (probably in that order), someone must have realized that shooting guns in the air within city limits poses a health risk to others, and passed a law about it. Other cities thought it made sense, and did the same thing. Now we are used to it, so nobody is claiming discrimination. The same thing is happening with smoking, only in a much slower process, because it takes longer to prove the correlation between smoking and disease than it does to prove the correlation between stray bullets and gunshot wounds. Secondly, just because something was legal and became illegal does not mean that it should not be illegal. Slavery comes to mind as a good example. It was always bad, no matter if it was tolerated by law or not.

So, quit trying to put yourself on the level of people who are actually discriminated against. You can leave your cigarette smouldering in the ashtray outside the bar, and go inside to have the same experience as the rest of us. The poor kid who's story started this discussion could not leave his blackness outside and enjoy the same experience inside the school that his classmates could.

nxoby36 (anonymous)
January 17, 2008 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

hey if it makes you feel good to pretend that the term discrimination is reserved for race or religion , go ahead knock your socks off
that is not going to stop millions of smokers who are feeling like second class citizens
you are no different than the folks who laugh when they read about some one snapping an imaginary whip at a person of color

sickofitall (anonymous)
January 17, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So can we smoke crack in the street too? lol
BUTTHEAD

love_boat (anonymous)
January 17, 2008 at 9:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

nxoby36,

How would you feel if you were in a nice resturant or any public place and someone came up near you and let out the smelliest, foulest fart ever possible towards you? Would you feel descriminated against? I promise not to blow foul gas at you in a public place if you promise the same with your cancer sticks, and don't expect medicare to spend my tax dollars when your health begins to suffer.

Beer, saurkraut and beans may create noxious fumes but they won't cost the public money to heal me or pick up my litter.

bubba (anonymous)
January 18, 2008 at 6:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

nxoby, since you didn't address any of my comments and instead tried to insult me by comparing me to the kid who got his jaw broken, I will assume that you understood my points and could not counter them.

When you show me a sign that says 'no smokers allowed' or 'smokers need not apply' or something that discriminates against SMOKERS, I will agree that you are discriminated against. Until that point, laws banning SMOKING in public places do not discriminate, because your group can do all the things that the non-smoking group can, you are welcome in all the same places, can hold the same jobs, etc, you just cannot partake in one activity that you enjoy wherever you want. Drunks can't drink in the parks, I can't shoot my gun in the city limits, smokers can't smoke in public buildings. There is no difference. I'm sorry if you feel like a second class citizen, but there is nothing in the definition of discrimination posted by you that applies to smokers- you can do all the things nonsmokers can do, so there is no differentiation.

betamikeiski (anonymous)
January 19, 2008 at 7:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Have any of us witnessed racism in Routt County"? When two 14 year olds square off in a fight and the one who is defending himself(Nelson) ends up with assault charges and going before a trial by jury? We have ALL just witnessed racism only it was by our esteemed judicial system.

ski_and_be_green (anonymous)
January 19, 2008 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

this makes me very sad indeed. As a student at this high school, I can honestly tell you that steamboat is incredibly racist! I hear black jokes and cruel remarks about Hispanics on a day to day basis! What shocks me is how people respond to this question saying that it's misleading or a lie when there is such a huge and obvious class difference that causes little whiny rich whites boys to further inflate their egos and say such racist comments. Come to the high school for a day and you'll see how racist steamboat is.