prohibited or by allowing alternatives to smoking tobacco. Colorado's ban does not exempt theaters, and it prohibits the smoking of tobacco alternatives, such as cloves or tea leaves, which are often used instead of tobaceo products during theatrical perform-ancesA See § 25-14-203(17); see also Zachary Pincus-Roth, No Smoking in the Theater, Especially Onstage, N.Y. Times, Jan. 28, 2007, available at http://www. ny-times.com/2007/01/28/theater/28pine.html?_r=1 & sep=1 & sq=pin-cus-rothfogmoking & st=ese. In contradiction to Colorado's theatrical smoking ban is the unjustified exemption for airport smoking concessions. See § 25-14-205(1)(f). There is no constitutional right at stake in the airport context, yet smoking is allowed. See id.; see also NYC C.L.A.S.H., 315 F.Supp.2d at 478-79 (<HOLDING>). Despite the majority's confusion about
holding that the video games at issue are expressive and qualify as speech for purposes of the first amendment holding that raising chickens is not an expressive act for the purposes of the first amendment holding that if the speech in question does not address a matter of public concern there is no first amendment violation holding in defamation context that first amendment protects speech regarding a public official unless made with actual malice holding that smoking in a public indoor establishment such as a bar or restaurant does not constitute expressive speech under the first amendment because a smokers motivation in that context is generally not to convey a message