How well do restaurant patios and smoking coexist?

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.

This is the way I see it too. Their business, their rules. You pick if you want to dine based on how they set those rules. I like it.

[Robin Garr]

This is the way I see it too. Their business, their rules. You pick if you want to dine based on how they set those rules. I like it.

How would you apply that to discrimination on the basis of race? That's pretty much settled law. Should we un-settle it? Serious question.

This is the way I see it too. Their business, their rules. You pick if you want to dine based on how they set those rules. I like it.

How would you apply that to discrimination on the basis of race? That's pretty much settled law. Should we un-settle it? Serious question.

Apples and Oranges, Robin. As of now, outdoor dining with or without smoking is a rule and not law. You're reaching a little too far...

This is the way I see it too. Their business, their rules. You pick if you want to dine based on how they set those rules. I like it.

How would you apply that to discrimination on the basis of race? That's pretty much settled law. Should we un-settle it? Serious question.

Sure, fair question. I can see you aren't messing around Robin

How would ME personally settle serving those of different races at MY restaurant? I would serve them. All are welcome at my restaurant. Smokers and non-smokers alike, all races creeds, genders, and colors.

Now did passing a law that makes it illegal to discriminate who you serve based on race stop racism and discrimination? As it stands you have to give your money to hateful a-holes because they are no longer allowed to show their intolerance. It's only when a Chik-Fil-A owner (for example), makes an off hand comment do we know where their heart lies. Like food labeling, I would rather know out right.

For me voting with money is a far more democratic process than ruling by declarations like kings do.

Sorry for the double post but I forgot the "un-settle it" part.

Do you think with social media, and modern responses to Paula Deen, or Mel Gibson's rants etc. that we still need a law to punish racism and discrimination? It's not that those things aren't morally wrong, They are clearly. I just don't see why we need to make a law, per se to address what we so thoroughly have the ability to do ourselves as citizens. Also that social pressure is the real cure to racism and discrimination as far as I'm concerned.

I think we need to look no further than this website to see some pretty strong responses to discrimination. Vito's pizza is now closed, and I recall some pretty misogynistic talk reported here that made me stop going.

But again, good questions.

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.

So are cologne and perfume, body odor, loud talking, boorish behavior, laughter, and noisy children. Are we going to ban all of those, too?

Part of being a mature human being in a free, civilized society is tolerating the behavior of those around you, even when their actions irritate you. I am disappointed that those who normally do the best job of promoting tolerance and respect in our society, the left, suddenly become intolerant in the extreme when confronted with behaviors of which they disapprove.

[Robin Garr]

So are cologne and perfume, body odor, loud talking, boorish behavior, laughter, and noisy children. Are we going to ban all of those, too?

Well, one thing is that those other things aren't implicated as probable carcinogens.

But more to the point, at this point many of you seem to be arguing against a straw man^H^H^H person hear. As I said upthread, the problem is solving itself because smoking is becoming increasingly Not Done in most quarters, and it's also becoming demographically stratified. To be honest, the imposition of a ban was useful, in my opinion, because it gave restaurateurs and barkeeps cover. They didn't have to bear the blame for going smoke-free. But now that everyone is used to it, I honestly hear very little sentiment for returning to the old ways, and I suspect that even if the law were to be "sunset"-ed, few places would return to the days of the smoke-filled room.

So, maybe Jeff and Adriel are on to something. But as a card-carrying liberal I had no problem with the government of the people giving it a gentle nudge.

Reallyl, as long as I'm babbling, consider this. Mayor-for-life-or-not-so-much Jerry pushed through a law around 2006-7 that barred smoking in restaurants but made a glaring exception for pockets-full-of-bucks Churchil Downs. That was obviously outrageous, and it could not stand. First, a huge public outcry. Then a lawsuit and a firm decision telling Jerry, "you can't do that." And then, eventually, an even-handed law that included restaurants and bars across the board, including Churchill Downs.

It seems to me that the system worked, upending an unfair law and replacing it with a tough one that, nevertheless, seems to have substantial public support.

So are cologne and perfume, body odor, loud talking, boorish behavior, laughter, and noisy children. Are we going to ban all of those, too?

Part of being a mature human being in a free, civilized society is tolerating the behavior of those around you, even when their actions irritate you. I am disappointed that those who normally do the best job of promoting tolerance and respect in our society, the left, suddenly become intolerant in the extreme when confronted with behaviors of which they disapprove.

Body odor,loud talking, boorish behavior etc. are not health threatening. Anyone that has lived or currently lives with a smoker will tell you, yes, it does affect their health as well. You mentioned civilized society yet I deem it uncivilized when strangers decide that the air I breath will be noxious and unhealthy. Please, exercise your right to shorten your own life, smell like an ashtray, and not be able to carry on any conversation with out coughing but please act "civilized" and not impose it on the rest of us that are attempting to take care of our health. (And yes, I watch what I eat, don't use refined sugars, don't use toxic cleaners in my house, get regular exercise and , on general, pay close attention to taking care of the body - however pathetic others may view it- I was GIVEN.

Just out of curiosity, for those non smokers out there, (prior to the new regulations) have you ever asked a smoker (politely) to refrain from smoking in your presence and been met with anything close to "oh, I'm so sorry. I will be happy to put it out until you're finished dining." On the few occasions I've had to say something I was met with nasty "my civil rights" arguments and derisive comments. Never anything civil.

Now, having shared this rant, I will add that I do have some friends that still do smoke. They are always courteous and polite about not exposing us non smokers to smoke. I thank them for that. Could also be why I like having them for friends, they care about others. Unfortunately too many smokers don't give a rats patoot about others when they are in need of their fix.

So, maybe Jeff and Adriel are on to something. But as a card-carrying liberal I had no problem with the government of the people giving it a gentle nudge.

And on that we may agree. I think the civil rights movement, though started by citizen action which I dig, culminating in a law that changed the face of the nation very quickly is a powerful example.

Just out of curiosity, for those non smokers out there, (prior to the new regulations) have you ever asked a smoker (politely) to refrain from smoking in your presence and been met with anything close to "oh, I'm so sorry. I will be happy to put it out until you're finished dining."

Did you offer to buy them a drink? You know offer one vice as payment for another? Not saying it would work but I'd take that peace offering any day. A tall cold beer would soothe my thirst for an American Spirit rolled tobacco product any day!

Reallyl, as long as I'm babbling, consider this. Mayor-for-life-or-not-so-much Jerry pushed through a law around 2006-7 that barred smoking in restaurants but made a glaring exception for pockets-full-of-bucks Churchil Downs. That was obviously outrageous, and it could not stand. First, a huge public outcry. Then a lawsuit and a firm decision telling Jerry, "you can't do that." And then, eventually, an even-handed law that included restaurants and bars across the board, including Churchill Downs.

It seems to me that the system worked, upending an unfair law and replacing it with a tough one that, nevertheless, seems to have substantial public support.

It was fair to everybody except those people who ran places like Buck's Cigar Room.

[Robin Garr]

It was fair to everybody except those people who ran places like Buck's Cigar Room.

Actually, if I were king, I would absolutely craft an exemption for places like that.

But I expect Jerry, burned by his silly decision to suck up to Churchill and craft an indefensible exception, wasn't going to make ANY exceptions on the second try.

Body odor,loud talking, boorish behavior etc. are not health threatening. Anyone that has lived or currently lives with a smoker will tell you, yes, it does affect their health as well. You mentioned civilized society yet I deem it uncivilized when strangers decide that the air I breath will be noxious and unhealthy. Please, exercise your right to shorten your own life, smell like an ashtray, and not be able to carry on any conversation with out coughing but please act "civilized" and not impose it on the rest of us that are attempting to take care of our health. (And yes, I watch what I eat, don't use refined sugars, don't use toxic cleaners in my house, get regular exercise and , on general, pay close attention to taking care of the body - however pathetic others may view it- I was GIVEN.

- Many people are highly sensitive to odors, and when those sensitivities are triggered by cologne, perfume, and other such things (maybe B.O. too, I don't know), the effects can be debilitating. I call that a health effect.
- I've gone home from restaurants many times with headaches and tension from loud talking and children screaming. I call that a health effect.
- Do you own a car? Ever drive it down Bardstown Road? If so, you've deemed that the air I breath as I sit on the Kashmir patio and enjoy my lamb vindaloo be noxious and unhealthy. I could say, "Please, exercise your right to drive but act "civilized" and not impose it on the rest of us that are attempting to take care of our health," but I don't expect the world to bend to my preferences.

In any case, the smoking intoleristas here seem to want to have it both ways. When shown evidence that secondhand smoke's health effects are ill-understood and quite possibly exaggerated, the response is "But it's unpleasant! It ruins my meal!" When other things that are unpleasant and meal-ruining are brought up, the response is, "But those things aren't health threatening!"

Body odor,loud talking, boorish behavior etc. are not health threatening. Anyone that has lived or currently lives with a smoker will tell you, yes, it does affect their health as well. You mentioned civilized society yet I deem it uncivilized when strangers decide that the air I breath will be noxious and unhealthy. Please, exercise your right to shorten your own life, smell like an ashtray, and not be able to carry on any conversation with out coughing but please act "civilized" and not impose it on the rest of us that are attempting to take care of our health. (And yes, I watch what I eat, don't use refined sugars, don't use toxic cleaners in my house, get regular exercise and , on general, pay close attention to taking care of the body - however pathetic others may view it- I was GIVEN.

- Many people are highly sensitive to odors, and when those sensitivities are triggered by cologne, perfume, and other such things (maybe B.O. too, I don't know), the effects can be debilitating. I call that a health effect.
- I've gone home from restaurants many times with headaches and tension from loud talking and children screaming. I call that a health effect.
- Do you own a car? Ever drive it down Bardstown Road? If so, you've deemed that the air I breath as I sit on the Kashmir patio and enjoy my lamb vindaloo be noxious and unhealthy. I could say, "Please, exercise your right to drive but act "civilized" and not impose it on the rest of us that are attempting to take care of our health," but I don't expect the world to bend to my preferences.

In any case, the smoking intoleristas here seem to want to have it both ways. When shown evidence that secondhand smoke's health effects are ill-understood and quite possibly exaggerated, the response is "But it's unpleasant! It ruins my meal!" When other things that are unpleasant and meal-ruining are brought up, the response is, "But those things aren't health threatening!"

I hear what you are saying. But there is not a multi billion dollar industry in place to supply the public with B.O. Or bratty kids. As to car emissions , I agree totally. I support any political decision to lesson our dependence on oil, I use public transportation when available (or walk) and do what I can to lesson my carbon footprint. And I disagree about the effects of second hand smoke being misunderstood. Personal experience from a family of smokers has shown me the dangers and nasty effects first hand. But, I also know addicts will stay in denial until all other options are depleted. Thus all the "well, this stuff is bad too so we might as well tolerate everything." argument. The studies are in, the effects are obvious. Please smokers, keep your addiction to yourself.

The studies are in, the effects are obvious. Please smokers, keep your addiction to yourself.

Carla, not trying to be difficult, just pointing out:

You could say the same about a great many things. Consuming alcohol kills, and makes you a douche. Not taking all your antibiotics ruins them for everyone. Eating too much starch sucks health care resources from me and my family. Drinking Coke sucks, having kids you neglect and turn into a-holes sucks, coughing near me sucks, jailing me for marijuana sucks, but yet smokers need to stay home and keep that to themselves?! And look at the giant industries behind these things. Coke, Bud, KFC, all of them agents of DEATH! Addictive, CHECK! Ubiquitous, CHECK! Profitable, CHECK! Health risk? Absolutely... But they are all free for you to chose to do anywhere in my book.

Again it is YOUR preference. Send this back up to the how do you COEXIST question? Cause "step off, and stop doing the thing you like doing because I don't like it" isn't coexisting, it's domination. I respect your health, and I appreciate the responsibility you are taking with it. That is super cool and more should follow you. However I just don't see the cohesive reason for pushing hard on smoking other than feelings about that particular hobby.

Many of the things you listed ARE addressed with laws...there are laws in place about alcohol consumption and driving for instance. Would you suggest we repeal drunk driving laws? Allow everyone to drive regardless of how much alcohol they consume because it's their right? While we are at it we could let them drive as fast as they want and in what ever lane they want as well. It's a free world and no one wants their life decisions to be limited or made for them. They paid for their own autos they should be allowed to drive them any way they like.

As far as smoking pot, I'm all for it as long as you don't endanger others. Drinking cokes? Go right ahead. And at least a cougher near me has the courtesy of covering their mouth. The problem with what to do with juvenile delinquents , well the courts are filled with adults that don't accept their responsibility there. Again, just because there are unaddressed problems elsewhere is no reason to NOT address this one - public smoking. I am sorry but the old, tired, "But Mommmmm! All the other kids are doing it ." argument just doesn't stand up anymore.