Smoking Ban

And once again, the rights of property owners to do as they please (allow smoking) are thrown in the toilet by the shallowness of people who want to be nannies for everyone else.

Measured reasoning--I love it.

I'd be more ticked off, but this will be an easy win politically.

And once again, the rights of property owners to do as they please (allow smoking) are thrown in the toilet by the shallowness of people who want to be nannies for everyone else.

not worth it.

[Robin Garr]

And once again, the rights of property owners to do as they please (allow smoking) are thrown in the toilet by the shallowness of people who want to be nannies for everyone else.

Yeah, first they forced them to integrate, and it's just been downhill all the way from there.

I am a non-smoker who is 100% AGAINST the smoking ban. It is entirely un-American, and un-constitutional in every sense.

Rob, with all respect, while you may not like it, there's nothing remotely unconstitutional (or un-American) about it. The courts have made that abundantly clear. The <i>only</i> thing that put the recent law in legal jeopardy was the absurd decision by Mayor Jerry and the Metro Council to cut a huge, unconstitutional exception for a single corporate entity.

But the law itself is in no way unconstitutional. It might make good angry rhetoric to say that, but it's simply not true, and it doesn't advance the debate to declare otherwise.

What you say is strictly your opinion as is what I say. My father in law is a highly respected attorney and former judge here in Louisville, he and two of his best friends that served on the supreme court here in the Commonwealth (RIP Bill), feel the counter to your opinion as well. I am not saying your opinion is wrong, just as you can not say mine is wrong, and be accurate. As a business owner, I should have the right to allow ALL legal activities I so choose. Smoking is legal. You say the ban started for better health of the staff, that's a part of it, but it's their choice to work there, as it is of the people who would like to patronize the establishment. While I am sure that your OPINION is steadfast and un-waivering, know that mine is as well. I understand and realize, that the ban is an un-avoidable evil. I also know, that it won't effect my livelihood. That doesn't make me any less dis-pleased at our local government in thinking they have to make our choices for us. In California they are exactly starting some legislation in regards to soft drinks that contain sugar, and are debating whether or not to tax them at a higher rate, to dissuade the populous from drinking them. Sounds great, right?

Rob, there is no constitutional right to do whatever you want on your property as long as it is LEGAL. This issue is well decided in american jurisprudence. Your friend and mine, Judge M, knew that well.
People own homes where they are not allowed to erect a chain link fence, and chain link fences are legal. I am not allowed to sell alcohol from my home, and selling alcohol is legal.
Limitations on the rights of property owners are a good thing because we all have to live together and if we all do whatever we want whenever we want to just because we own the property, then we will have a very un-civilized society. Despite what Bedford Crenshaw says about such laws creating a "nannie" state, they are really designed to do what government is supposed to do, keep it's citizens safe, healthy and productive so that our country can continue to flourish. Stop signs, traffic lights, speed limits, and lane markers may be an attempt by government to "nannie" us, but it has the desired effect of making a very dangerous activity pretty damn safe and successful.

Ron: Thank you, thank you thank you. Your explanation was crystal clear.

Next they'll want to disconnect from the sewer lines because it infringes on their constitutional right to have a privy.

Thanks to all of our restaurant owners who have kept their non-smoking status during this hopefully brief setback for public health in Louisville.

Next they'll want to disconnect from the sewer lines because it infringes on their constitutional right to have a privy.

Lot's of hyperbole going both ways that have nothing to do with a smoking ban. It's a legit position to oppose it and legit to desire a ban....it strikes me that to many on this forum take it personally if someone doesn't buy into their argument. I'll voice my opinion at the ballot box or on a forum for politics/public health.

Next they'll want to disconnect from the sewer lines because it infringes on their constitutional right to have a privy.

Lot's of hyperbole going both ways that have nothing to do with a smoking ban. It's a legit position to oppose it and legit to desire a ban....it strikes me that to many on this forum take it personally if someone doesn't buy into their argument. I'll voice my opinion at the ballot box or on a forum for politics/public health.

It is an ENTIRELY legit position to oppose the smoking ban. ENTIRELY legit. And everyone who is opposed to it should vote for a mayor and council members who will not support a smoking ban. Unfortunately, for those who oppose a ban, the majority of American do not smoke and do not want to be exposed to the health risks associated with inhaling tobacco smoke. Lots of people like to drink and drive too. There was a tremendous uproar from bar owners when the DUI laws were strengthened, but the majority of the people opposed drinking and driving, hence the laws we have now.

What is not legit is claiming that a smoking ban is unconstitutional on its face. If the ban is not applied to all businesses equally, then yes, it does fail to pass constitutional muster, but there is not constitutional right to smoke cigarettes, nor is there a constitional right to do whatever one wants on one's own property.

Trust me, as a former smoker I completely understand the smokers' opposition to the ban. When you smoke it is impossible to discern how foul the air quality is in a restaurant when there is smoking.

You are right...it's not a constitutional issue nor should it be. It's a local referendum.

You are wrong...The only thing that was wrong with it was the ChurchHill Dpwn part...The rest is fine and will have no problems in court if taken there....By Jan 10 or so it will be repassed and signed by the Mayor and put into law at once....Enjoy your fags for a few weeks then it will be back to the way most people like it...smoke free....

You are right...it's not a constitutional issue nor should it be. It's a local referendum.

What makes this, among all the other issues the city government faces, one that requires an expensive referendum?

[Robin Garr]

What makes this, among all the other issues the city government faces, one that requires an expensive referendum?

Actually, it's not a referendum. It's simply legislation passed by the Metro Council and signed by the mayor.

What's really funny is that I have somebody over at LouHI basically arguing a perverted view of the Constitution in that we don't even have a democracy and therefore a majority cannot exert its will through the council members they elected.

Ummm... riiiiiiight.

The Majority: "Well, just watch us do it"

What makes this, among all the other issues the city government faces, one that requires an expensive referendum?

Actually, it's not a referendum. It's simply legislation passed by the Metro Council and signed by the mayor.

I know it wasn't a referendum. Mark Head suggested it should be a referendum, so I was asking why it should be.

I know it wasn't a referendum. Mark Head suggested it should be a referendum, so I was asking why it should be.

Unless I read Mark's post incorrectly all he said was he would express his opinion at the ballot. Saying this is calling for a referendum is reading a lot into it. I read it as saying it would determine how he voted and I assumed these votes were for mayor and city council not on a referendum!

Oh. I get it . . . nevermind.