In case you haven't heard!

Despite the anecdotal evidence put forth here, I just have a hard time believing that people are going to stop dining out because of a smoking ban.

Of course reducing this may also affect the number of drunks on our highways!

That's why I am a public transportation advocate. I never worry about DUI in NYC because I take the subway home! I think the stricter DUI laws and lack of public transportation have hurt bar business. People are scared to have more than two drinks when they have to drive home. That's a good thing, but if you take driving out of the equation, bars could sell more drinks.

What's the difference between gaming and gambling aside from the fact that gaming sounds innocent and pure like playing with baby bunnies?

This really isn't a non-sequitor at all. I wasn't trying to generalize but it did rather read like a judgement on gambling in general. At worst it read like an indictment against people who both smoke and gamble.

I still don't have a feel from your ammended statement about your distinction here. At what line does the operation become pathetic in your eyes? Appealing to gambling addicts? Or appealing to smoking addicts? Or appealing to gambling addicts that happen to be smokers?

Intuition would suggest that a smoking ban doesn't affect gambling addicts much. The gambling addicts still go. Those who smoke just run out side for a quick smoke real fast. The extra people who are attending now clearly weren't the addicts. They were staying home after the ban. They aren't the gambling addicts.

Or is it pathetic just because it appeals to gambling addicts? Apparently that's not the case by your ammended statement. So I take it you are ok with appealing to gambing addicts. But that would indicate that it's the appeal to smoking addicts that makes it pathetic.

Why? Both are addictions. If it's not ok to exploit one, why is it ok to exploit the other?

As a bit of an aside, it has been my experience that many people who do not normally smoke do so when they gamble, as do many people when they drink. These people aren't regular smokers, and are clearly not addicts, as hard as that may be to believe to many people in the anti-crowd. To many of these people, though not all, the two go hand in hand. Lack of a smoking ban in a bar appeals to these people. Lack of smoking in a casino/bingo hall appeals to these people. These people are not addicts, they simply enjoy the confluence of two guilty pleasures from time to time. These are people who stay home from bars and casinos/bingo halls under a ban. The real addicts keep going and getting drunk. The real addicts keep going and gambling away their life's savings.

What's the difference between gaming and gambling aside from the fact that gaming sounds innocent and pure like playing with baby bunnies?

In this context absolutely nothing. It's all political maneuvering. But that is the commonly used term for it here in Frankfort now, and in the media, so that's what I went with.

For the record, in case anyone wonders where I fall in these issues which I am arguing: republican, pro-casinos, pro-smoking ban, but preferably not such a totalitarian one as we have currently.

I take it Robin and John L. will be voting against expanded gaming in Kentucky when the vote for the ammendment comes up? Honestly, that little bit about exploiting/support gambling addicts sounded more like Fletcher rhetoric from our recent election than the usual philosphical stands taken here.

I just couldn't let the idea of "promoting gambling to raise money to rescue the (canine) victims of gambling" go by without being questioned.
BTW- I'm tempted to support casinos for no other reason than to be at odds with the pathetic little vermin who was our last governor.
IMHO, legalized gambling, like the lottery, is a "Stupid " tax (which takes no money from my pocket).

[Robin Garr]

I still don't have a feel from your ammended statement about your distinction here. At what line does the operation become pathetic in your eyes? Appealing to gambling addicts? Or appealing to smoking addicts? Or appealing to gambling addicts that happen to be smokers?

Well, you're really taking this waaaay further than I ever meant my casual comment to go, and I don't honestly have much time today for deep analysis.

I'm just sayin' that crowds of little old ladies chain-smoking, cussing and monitoring a table full of cards in a giant, smoke-filled bingo hall seem pretty pathetic to me; and if I was on the board or staff of a credible non-profit, it might not be my first choice as a fund-raising effort that would build my organization's stature in the community, no matter how much money it made.

If this opinion says more about me than about bingo, so be it, but I didn't really mean it as a deep statement of core principles. (shrug)

For the record, in case anyone wonders where I fall in these issues which I am arguing: republican, pro-casinos, pro-smoking ban, but preferably not such a totalitarian one as we have currently.

lol. We knew. It's not like you were sugarcoating it.

lol. We knew. It's not like you were sugarcoating it.

No, but much of what I have said on these subjects, especially in this thread, can easily be misinterpreted resulting in false assumption.

Republicans are generally anti-casinos. I am not and I was not happy about Fletcher's moralizing on the issue last year in his campaign. Much of what I've said on the smoking ban can lead people to think I am anti-ban, and I'm not. People like to put others and their views in between neat little dividing lines.

For the record, in case anyone wonders where I fall in these issues which I am arguing: republican, pro-casinos, pro-smoking ban, but preferably not such a totalitarian one as we have currently.

I fall exactly where Aaron does on all the issues except the smoking ban, I think it should be as tough as it is except it should be statewide or better yet Nationwide! If it was businesses couldn't argue that they were losing business to places where people could smoke.

...A bipartisan vote by 23 of 26 council members agreed on the final measure. It's kind of hard to blame Mayor Jerry for that, although I notice the Pro-Smoke Coalition sought to do so just the same.

The Mayor took a stronger stand on this than he has taken on any issue in recent memory. He threatened to veto the measure if any exemptions were attached, including the suggested exemption for separately ventilated smoking rooms. That lends credence to his "Healthy Hometown" initiative.

Let's round up all the smokers, gamblers, drinkers, overeaters, sex-addicts, internet junkies, gamers, and adrenalin addicted thrill seekers and move them somewhere else.

Then we can have our little utopia in Louisville and only go where they are when we want to have a fun vacation to escape our boring existence.

Vegas Baby!!

Let's round up all the smokers, gamblers, drinkers, overeaters, sex-addicts, internet junkies, gamers, and adrenalin addicted thrill seekers and move them somewhere else.

Then we can have our little utopia in Louisville and only go where they are when we want to have a fun vacation to escape our boring existence.

Vegas Baby!!

see Brett, there you go again with the sky is falling theory: If we ban smoking, surely we will ban eating, drinking, and all fun too, right?
sorry, I just don't see it. It's the same argument they make against legalizing marijuana . . . it's a gateway drug, one hit off the bong and the next thing you know you're cooking up meth in a spoon and have a needle in your arm.

in 100 years smoking is going to be one of those things that we look back on and shake our heads and think I can't believe those morons used to dry up plants, light them on fire, and then breathe the smoke all day long. Smoking will be gone, but we'll still have all the rest of it.

It's actually interesting that you use gambling as an example because that is something that is expanding in our country and it is something we are adding, not banning, in this state.

I think Louisville has plenty of vice to go around. We've got OTB, Churchill Downs, more tittie bars than you can shake a stick at, loads of adult bookstores, asian massage parlors, bars that serve booze till 4 am, a skatepark, punk rock shows, a theme park where you can lose BOTH feet at once, a river where you can waterski and pick up typhoid on a nice summer's day, not to mention enough great restaurants to satisfy the most ardent overeater.

The sky is not falling, there is still plenty of opportunity to get your sin on in the 'ville. You just can't smoke during the lap dances anymore. Probably safer for the dancer anyway.

Let's round up all the smokers, gamblers, drinkers, overeaters, sex-addicts, internet junkies, gamers, and adrenalin addicted thrill seekers and move them somewhere else.

Then we can have our little utopia in Louisville and only go where they are when we want to have a fun vacation to escape our boring existence.

Vegas Baby!!

Nobody is suggesting that the smokers be rounded up and moved somewhere else. It's just that now they must step outside to engage their addiction so as not to poison the rest of us. They do the same thing at work all day - what's the biggie?

i've talked to plenty of people that have noticed bars being far busier over the past few weeks due to smoking being allowed. nachbar, cahoots and mag bar are all examples of this.[/quote]

Do you think that might have to do with the holiday gatherings?

Given that:
1) many people in Louisville do want to smoke in bars
2) smoking was prohibited in bars for months
3) Everyone knew that the ban would be renewed within weeks
4) it wouldn't surprise me that there was a rush for smokers to go out to bars in that short window.