How well do restaurant patios and smoking coexist?

Righhhhht....especially while they are sitting on some restaurant patio on Bardstown Road or Frankfort Ave enjoying their cappuccino and the fumes of a thousand cars and buses....

Kentucky (30.2%) and West Virginia (29.9%) have the highest smoking rates in the nation, as has been the case since 2008.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/167771/smoki ... tucky.aspx

And the correlation with lung cancer?

The state’s death rate for the disease is 56 percent higher than the national average — and some Appalachian counties’ rates are more than double the national average.

So no Steve I dont think the fumes are having as bad of an effect as the smoking.

Fortunately most restaurants my wife and I frequent either have smoking bans in their outdoor areas as well

Would you mind naming some of them, Doug? Here in the thread if you'd like to publicize them, or PM if you prefer? I'd like to get some specific examples.

I will start making note and PM or list them here. Not having smoking around us when we eat (inside or outside) has become such a normal thing, I dont tend to note it when the smoke is absent. I make note of it, as is the case with The Brewery, when the smoke is there.

My mother died a quick death from lung cancer at age 89. Never smoked. My husband's father recently, the same death, never smoked. Don't know what's going on in this state. They lived their long lives in Louisville.

My mother died a quick death from lung cancer at age 89. Never smoked. My husband's father recently, the same death, never smoked. Don't know what's going on in this state. They lived their long lives in Louisville.

Ellen the #2 cause of lung cancer behind smoking in Kentucky is radon gas. That might have been the case for them.

I propose a thread title change:

How well do non-smokers coexist with smokers?

[Robin Garr]

I propose a thread title change:

How well do non-smokers coexist with smokers?

How well do people who don't like to get punched in the nose coexist with those who like to punch people in the nose?

I propose a thread title change:

How well do non-smokers coexist with smokers?

How well do people who don't like to get punched in the nose coexist with those who like to punch people in the nose?

People who enter a boxing match should expect to get the occasional punch in the nose.

Getting back with the answer regarding Corbett's- they do have a non-smoking policy on their patio.

I propose a thread title change:

How well do non-smokers coexist with smokers?

How well do people who don't like to get punched in the nose coexist with those who like to punch people in the nose?

People who enter a boxing match should expect to get the occasional punch in the nose.

Now if you had to solve this problem without imposing your will on someone else how would you accomplish it? I think that is the problem, that no one has addressed to my satisfaction in this smoking in public debate.

Person A does something Person B doesn't like and you have to find a compromise for both. The only rule is, one can't oppose their will on the other through the use of force (i.e. fines, fees, imprisonment, etc...).

[Robin Garr]

Now if you had to solve this problem without imposing your will on someone else how would you accomplish it? I think that is the problem, that no one has addressed to my satisfaction in this smoking in public debate.

Person A does something Person B doesn't like and you have to find a compromise for both. The only rule is, one can't oppose their will on the other through the use of force (i.e. fines, fees, imprisonment, etc...).

Well, Adriel, first, for the record, I reject the variant definition of "force" for the common law established via elected representation. Despite Ayn Rand, that's not "force." It's "community governance." There is a huge difference, and its use in this discussion starts it off on a sour note for me.

But setting that aside, I think I plowed this furrow in a previous post: Smoking is a deliberate invasion of your neighbor's personal space with an environmental assault that your neighbor doesn't desire. It's rude and crude, and more and more, the general public is coming to recognize that. In many demographics, public smoking is disappearing because relatively few people are rude enough to keep doing it. The more this trend continues, the less we need a law.

But sadly, when it comes to graciousness, the people who are the last to notice seem to be the most resistant to change, and most people - being more naturally gracious - would prefer having a regulation to fall back upon rather than making a polite request to someone to whom politeness may not be a natural behavior.

Well, Adriel, first, for the record, I reject the variant definition of "force" for the common law established via elected representation. Despite Ayn Rand, that's not "force." It's "community governance." There is a huge difference, and its use in this discussion starts it off on a sour note for me.

Here's the thing. If someone ignores your "community governance", after a period men with guns show up to force compliance. Just because others are carrying the guns for you doesn't change that. It's easier to unleash "community governance" on people if you lose sight of that fact.

[Robin Garr]

Here's the thing. If someone ignores your "community governance", after a period men with guns show up to force compliance. Just because others are carrying the guns for you doesn't change that. It's easier to unleash "community governance" on people if you lose sight of that fact.

The deal, Adriel, is that in the ancient past, people skipped the governance part and just went after each other in packs with weapons. Having a system of laws to smooth that process was seen by most humans as a beneficial development called "civilization."

And yes, if you break the law, the cops come. This is probably an advance over having a mob of angry armed neighbors come.

Here's the thing. If someone ignores your "community governance", after a period men with guns show up to force compliance. Just because others are carrying the guns for you doesn't change that. It's easier to unleash "community governance" on people if you lose sight of that fact.

The deal, Adriel, is that in the ancient past, people skipped the governance part and just went after each other in packs with weapons. Having a system of laws to smooth that process was seen by most humans as a beneficial development called "civilization."

And yes, if you break the law, the cops come. This is probably an advance over having a mob of angry armed neighbors come.

Hey Robin, THAT WAS STEVE! Not little old me.

I get you don't like Randian Objectivism or Libertarian arguments, that's cool I'm not the biggest fan myself. I'm a voluntarist or some such nonsense . . I'm down to negotiate and can totally see past my philosophical leanings to meet you somewhere half way on this. I am not an ideologue and I dig a good debate. So let's delve into this just a little further on the philosophical side.

This thread started with a statement about coexisting. I am trying to find a good compromise in this where Person A and Person B in this case smoker/non-smoker meet somewhere, a patio say and have a comfortable environment where they coexist. Win/win solutions.

Robin you are pretty against smoking, and I can concede that is an irritant, it is smelly, it is gross, and unhealthy. You win this one, no argument. Smoking sucks.

As of right now it is still a quasi legal hobby however, and in some places in town it is still up to business owners to allow patrons to smoke. I'm cool with that. Let your freak flag fly.

Now how do we make it where non-smokers who are now grossed out by the irritant of smoking happy in a world where others enjoy smoking? How do we get them to coexist with business owners who allow smoking and patrons who wish to smoke?

[Robin Garr]

Hey Robin, THAT WAS STEVE! Not little old me.

D'oh! My bad ... I must really learn to use this software ...

Now if you had to solve this problem without imposing your will on someone else how would you accomplish it? I think that is the problem, that no one has addressed to my satisfaction in this smoking in public debate.

Person A does something Person B doesn't like and you have to find a compromise for both. The only rule is, one can't oppose their will on the other through the use of force (i.e. fines, fees, imprisonment, etc...).

Allow the owner of the space to set the rules? Of course, I would allow the use of force if someone wanted to violate the owners rules AND refused to leave.

The deal, Adriel, is that in the ancient past, people skipped the governance part and just went after each other in packs with weapons. Having a system of laws to smooth that process was seen by most humans as a beneficial development called "civilization."

And yes, if you break the law, the cops come. This is probably an advance over having a mob of angry armed neighbors come.

And that is fine, but that doesnt make it any less force.

Justifiable force is still force. Dont be afraid of the word.