Snowmass Village 2001


GASP of Colorado (Group to Alleviate Smoking Pollution)

Ordinance Grade: 2


Some local laws have provisions that are stronger than the Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act and provide better protection from exposure to secondhand smoke at work and in public places. GASP of Colorado rates local laws compared to the state law on a scale of zero to five.  The highest and best rating is a five (click here for an explanation of our rating system).  Any stronger provisions in the state law take precedence over any weaker local provisions so the state law should be reviewed first through these links: or


This local law provides more protection from secondhand smoke than the state law in the following area(s):


Work Places: (10-82-1-2)

Employee Retaliation Prohibited: (none)

Restaurants and Bars: (10-82-1-2) definitions of public places and smoking appear to prohibit smoking in cigar and hookah bars.

Building Entrances and Perimeters: (none)

Outdoor Places: (none)



                                                               TOWN COUNCIL






WHEREAS, the Town Council enacted smoking regulations by the adoption of Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1989; and


WHEREAS, in considering Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1989, the Town Council found that studies by the Surgeon General of the United States, the National Academy of Sciences and other health organizations have linked passive exposure to tobacco smoke (second hand smoke) to a variety of negative health conditions in nonsmokers; and


WHEREAS, the current provisions of the Municipal Code authorize smoking in bars, restaurants and public places in certain limited circumstances; and


WHEREAS, employees of bars in which smoking is permitted have petitioned the Town Council to prohibit smoking in their work places as they feel that they are unnecessarily being exposed to environmental tobacco smoke which they believe to be detrimental to their health; and


WHEREAS, the Surgeon General of the United States issued a fact sheet in 2000 concerning Clean Indoor Air Regulations; and


WHEREAS, the fact sheet contains the following information regarding environmental tobacco smoke (ETS):


1.  As reported in 1992 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), exposure to tobacco smoke in the environment can cause lung cancer in adult nonsmokers. Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) also has been linked to an increased risk of heart disease among nonsmokers.


2.  ETS causes about 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually among adult nonsmokers.


3.  In 1997, the California EPA concluded that ETS causes coronary heart disease and death in nonsmokers. Scientific studies have estimated that ETS accounts for as many as 62,000 deaths from coronary heart disease annually in the United States.


4.  The 1992 EPA report also concluded that ETS causes serious respiratory problems in children, such as greater number and severity of asthma attacks and lower respiratory tract infections.  ETS exposure increases children=s risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and middle ear infections as well.


5.  Each year ETS causes 150,000-300,000 lower respiratory tract infections, such as pneumonia and bronchitis, in children.


6.  In a large U.S. study, maternal exposure during pregnancy and postnatal exposure of the newborn to ETS increased the risk for SIDS.


7.  Comparative risk studies performed by the EPA have consistently found ETS to be a risk to public health. ETS is classified as a group A carcinogen (known to cause cancer in humans) under the EPA=s carcinogen assessment guidelines.


8.  Several studies have documented the widespread exposure of ETS among nonsmoking adults and children in the United States. Testing nonsmokers blood for the presence of cotinine, a chemical produced when the body metabolizes nicotine, shows that nearly 9 out of 10 nonsmoking Americans (88%) are exposed to ETS.


9.  A 1988 National Health Interview Survey reported that an estimated 37% of the 79.2 million nonsmoking U.S. workers were employed in places that permitted smoking in designated areas, and that 59% of these workers experienced moderate or great discomfort from ETS exposure in the workplace.


10.  The federal government has instituted increasingly stringent regulations on smoking in its own facilities. On August 9, 1997, an Executive Order was issued declaring that Executive Branch federal worksites be smoke-free, there-by protecting nonsmoking federal employees and thousands of citizens who visit federal facilities from the dangers of ETS.


11.  Only the state of California meets the nation’s Healthy People 2010 objective to eliminate exposure to ETS by either banning indoor smoking or limiting it to separately ventilated areas.


12.  Thirty-one states have laws that regulate smoking in restaurants; of these, only Utah and Vermont completely prohibit smoking in restaurants. California requires either a no smoking area or separate ventilation for smoking areas; and


WHEREAS, a finding in the 2000 report Reducing Tobacco Use: A Report of the Surgeon General  concerning Clean Indoor Air Regulation, states as follows:


Unlike the regulation of tobacco products per se and of their advertising and promotion, regulation of exposure to ETS  has encountered less resistance. This course is probably the result of (1) long-standing grassroots efforts to diminish exposure to ambient tobacco smoke and (2) consistent epidemiologic evidence of adverse health effects of ETS. Since 1971, a series of rules, regulations, and laws have created smoke-free environments in an increasing number of settings: government offices, public places, eating establishments, worksites, military establishments, and domestic airline flights.  As of December 31, 1999, smoking was restricted in public places in 45 states and the District of Columbia.  Currently, some 820 local ordinances, encompassing a variety of enforcement mechanisms, are in place.  The effectiveness of clean indoor air restrictions is under intensive study.  Most studies have concluded that even among smokers, support for smoking restrictions and smoke-free environments is high.  Research has also verified that the institution of smoke-free workplaces effectively reduces nonsmokers= exposure to ETS. Although smoke-free environments have not reduced smoking prevalence in most studies, such environments have been shown to decrease daily tobacco consumption among smokers and to increase smoking cessation; and


WHEREAS, a further finding in the report Reducing Tobacco Use: A Report of the Surgeon General  concerning environmental tobacco smoke states as follows:


ETS contains more than 4,000 chemicals; of these, at least 43 are known carcinogens (Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders. Washington: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Office of Air and Radiation, 1992. Publication No. EPA/600/6-90/006F). Exposure to ETS has serious health effects (US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, 2000.  US Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2000: National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives. Washington: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, 1991. DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 91-50212). Despite this documented risk, research has demonstrated that more than 88 percent of nonsmokers in this country aged 4 years and older had detectable levels of serum cotinine, a marker for exposure to ETS (Pirkle JL, Flegal KM, Bernert JT, Brody DJ, Etzel RA, Maurer KR. Exposure of the US population to environmental tobacco smoke: the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988 to 1991. Journal of the American Medical Association 1996; 275 (16):1233B40.). The research reviewed in this report indicates that smoking bans are the most effective method for reducing ETS exposure. Four Healthy People 2010 objectives address this issue and seek optimal protection of non-smokers through policies, regulations, and laws requiring smoke-free environments in all schools, worksites, and public places; and


WHEREAS, a conclusion of Chapter 5 Regulatory Efforts regarding Clean Indoor Air Regulation of the report Reducing Tobacco Use: A Report of the Surgeon General  states as follows:


Although population-based data show declining environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure in the workplace over time, ETS exposure remains a common public health hazard that is entirely prevent-able.  Most state and local laws for clean indoor air reduce but do not eliminate nonsmokers= exposure to ETS; smoking bans are the most effective method for reducing ETS exposure. Beyond eliminating ETS exposure among nonsmokers, smoking bans have additional benefits, including reduced smoking intensity and potential cost savings to employers.  Optimal protection of nonsmokers and smokers requires a smoke-free environment; and


WHEREAS, the Surgeon General states in the report Reducing Tobacco Use: A Report of the Surgeon General  that:


Tobacco use will remain the leading cause of preventable illness and death in this nation and a growing number of other countries until tobacco prevention and control efforts are commensurate with the harm caused by tobacco use; and


WHEREAS, the Town Council hereby incorporates by reference Reducing Tobacco Use: A Report of the Surgeon General  as referred to above; and


WHEREAS, the Town Council received and considered comment from concerned employees of bars in which smoking is permitted, the owner of a businesses in which smoking is permitted and the public at a work session occurring on February 5, 2001, from the public at a hearing occurring on February 19, 2001and comment given by the public during the consideration of this Ordinance; and


WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the hazards caused by environmental tobacco smoke are an unnecessary health hazard for employees as well as patrons of public areas including restaurants and bars; and


WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that smoking is not a right, but a privilege and that the exercise of such privilege to smoke in public places is harmful to the health of the public; and


WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that it is in the interest of public health that the existing prohibition on smoking be extended to all enclosed public places; and


WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the adoption of this Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety and welfare.


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Town Council of the Town of Snowmass Village, as follows:


1.  Smoking Prohibition in Public Places.  The provisions of Chapter 10 Article V Smoking Regulation of the Municipal Code are amended and restated as follows:


Sec. 10-81    Declaration of Policy.  Smoking and environmental tobacco smoke have been established to be Group A carcinogens that cause cancer in humans.  It is the express policy of the Town Council that abstention from smoking occur in public places.  As a public policy objective, the Town Council desires that smoking not occur in enclosed public places and that the public effectuate this policy to the greatest extent practicable.


Sec. 10-82.   Definitions.  As used in this Article, the following words shall be construed to have the meanings defined below:


(1)       Public place means any area where the public is invited or permitted.


(2)       Smoking means the combustion of any cigar, cigarette, pipe or similar article, using any form of tobacco or other combustible substance in any form, other than for theatrical performances by an employee of the establishment.


Sec. 10-83.   Smoking Prohibited.  Smoking is prohibited in all enclosed public places.


Sec. 10-84.   Signs.  All enclosed public places shall be posted with signs that clearly and conspicuously recite the phrase "No Smoking" or use the international no-smoking symbol.  The signs shall be of sufficient number and placed in prominent locations to convey the message that smoking is prohibited to the public clearly and legibly.


Sec. 10-85.   Violation and penalty.  The following acts constitute violations of this Article:


(1)        Smoking in an enclosed public place;


(2)       Failing to post signs as required by this Article;


(3)       Willfully destructing or defacing signs required to be posted by this Article.


2.  Effective Date.  The provisions of this Ordinance shall become effective and shall be enforceable commencing at 2:00 o’clock a.m. on May 1, 2001.


3.  Severability.  If any provision of this Ordinance or application hereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect any other provision or application of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable.