Smoking Ban

Haha, what? Two social classes? Is that anything like the social classes created by people who won't, oh I'm sorry, can't go to strip clubs? Or like the social classes who won't, OOPS DID IT AGAIN, can't ride airplanes because it might crash?

Sorry for the absurd response, but looks like absurd is the only territory left in this debate. I just can't believe anyone would liken such a situation to discrimination.

Actually it's more like people with health problems (asthma for example) that cannot visit restaurants of their choice do to the fact that others are inconsiderate. In my mind that makes it a lot like discrimination, people who should be able to freely go to a place are prevented from going there by others! Your examples do not apply in this situation.

Of course in another couple of weeks this entire thread will be a mute point since the new smoking ban will be enacted and this time it'll be written so that some dingbat judge can't strike it down for a technicality.

Actually it's more like people with health problems (asthma for example) that cannot visit restaurants of their choice do to the fact that others are inconsiderate. In my mind that makes it a lot like discrimination, people who should be able to freely go to a place are prevented from going there by others! Your examples do not apply in this situation.

Uh, yeah...my so called examples were only meant to illustrate the (what should be) obvious difference between won't and can't. There are lots of places I can't go, and lots of places I could but simply won't for a variety of reasons.

Of course in another couple of weeks this entire thread will be a mute point since the new smoking ban will be enacted and this time it'll be written so that some dingbat judge can't strike it down for a technicality.

In that sense it's been moot since the very beginning. Like I said very early on, a new one will be passed which is comprehensive... therefore so what if the smokers get a little reprieve from what they see as a repressive law for a few scant weeks, and during the holidays no less. We all knew from the beginning ti wouldn't last long, and they all do as well. The ones who aren't completely in denial anyway. No reason for people to get all crazy like in the mean time...

Uh, yeah...my so called examples were only meant to illustrate the (what should be) obvious difference between won't and can't. There are lots of places I can't go, and lots of places I could but simply won't for a variety of reasons.

As was mine, there are many people who have various illnesses that CAN'T go to places that allows smoking! Yes there are some that won't go to a place that allows smoking but other people just can't!

I smoke but I tend to recuse myself from arguments like these as I often find that they're more taxing than the eventual policy result, whichever way it goes.

As someone who very consciously make choices based on many other community health and environmental standards, though, I find it intriguing that people are willing to expend so much energy on either side of the smoking debate while relatively ignoring a load of other issues that have tremendous impact on wellness. They're occasionally touched on but don't seem to compel the same level of participation.

People do all sorts of things that are collectively bad for us, both as a matter of business and personal pleasure. Why not focus all that energy on the ones more common than smoking?

I'm willing to admit that my smoking gets in the way of some of my other stances. Are others willing to concede their own destructive behaviors, even if it means being a little less comfortable or profitable?

Does someone who commutes 25 miles each way every day in a gas guzzler have any business complaining about air quality and public health? By the same token, most grocery stores sell foods chock full of stuff our bodies were never meant metabolize for consumption by children. Why isn't a majority of the public trying to regulate Brown Brothers Cadillac and Krogers with the same fervor? Why are state attorneys general not suing Kraft Foods and General Motors?

If it really is about the public good rather than personal preference (or at least politically acceptable preference), there are issues to be tackled that regularly touch the the lives of the population at large much more than possible exposure to secondhand smoke and yet smoking always takes center stage.

The conspiracy theorist in me suggests there may be purpose in that. Get 'em riled up about abortion and they'll forget all bout the bombs.

I can't agree more with the above and Kent's arguments about this being more about where we draw the line for government intervention than it is about health.

Nobody is stupid enough to argue about the health issues related to smoking. There were however different studies funded by organizations with different agendas that did not agree upon the effects of second hand smoke. No study came out and claimed secondhand smoke safe. The debate was over how safe it was compared to so many other pollutants everyone is simply ignoring. Car exhaust, fumes from grills and compressors, alcoholic beverages, perfumes...etc.

Any of you for this ban who drive a car with less than 25mpg is a total hypocrite by the way. Those of us who drive cars with better gas mileage aren't much better. Go ahead everyone, divert yourself from the real issues and be smug about how you won the battle against the evil second hand smoke. Now hop into you SUV after taking your 15 minute shower and left your thermostat on 72 when nobody is at home.

What scares me is what is next on your agenda to help divert you from your own sins. I’m in the wine business so I get very worried when “morality politics” rears its ugly head as it has in this case.

Ron, your arguments about alcohol are not on base by any means. Just because we are loosening our blue laws and a few counties are going wet, does not discount Kent's argument about "what's next" on the agenda of those who want to tell us how to live our lives. If I would have told you twenty years ago smoking would be banned in public in Louisville and Lexington, you would have thought I was crazy. If any of you do not think alcohol is next on the agenda for those who started these bans, you need to do some research on who started and funded this movement. What you guys aren’t seeing is almost everything negative you argue about smoking can be argued about alcohol, just in different ways.

Regardless, this is a mute argument with people who cannot see beyond “how does this affect me” because it is now law. I just want to point out that Kent is a non-smoker arguing for something that he personally hates but at least he sees beyond his personal agenda and recognizes the slippery slope of this type legislature. The rest of you for the ban are all non-smokers who are beyond obvious in your bias.

The fact is, both sides have a legitimate argument and neither side is evil. Those of you holding grudges against restaurants that happened to be against the smoking ban are the truly scary ones. Let it go. Next thing you know, you will be boycotting a restaurant because the owner is a Republican or Democrat or Muslim or Jew…etc. So what, they had a different opinion. It is important in a society to have diverse opinions and the right to vocalize those opinions. What’s the point of punishing them for not being JUST LIKE YOU?

Ron, your arguments about alcohol are not on base by any means. Just because we are loosening our blue laws and a few counties are going wet, does not discount Kent's argument about "what's next" on the agenda of those who want to tell us how to live our lives. If I would have told you twenty years ago smoking would be banned in public in Louisville and Lexington, you would have thought I was crazy. If any of you do not think alcohol is next on the agenda for those who started these bans, you need to do some research on who started and funded this movement. What you guys aren’t seeing is almost everything negative you argue about smoking can be argued about alcohol, just in different ways.

Brett, you say my argument is off base, yet you give me nothing to support that. You just give more of the argument of "if we pass this then what is next?" But, you fail to give even one concrete of example of some new pending legislation that will effect my personal privacy that is an outgrowth of the tobacco ordinance. Dude, the gvernment has been in your grill for decades, and never more so than now. They want to tell what sexual acts are ok for you and your consenting partner, they want to tell you who you can marry and who you can't, they want to tell you which god you will worship and how. You think the smoking ban is going to be a springboard for "morality" legislation? That train has already left the station.

I don't drive an SUV, I don't set my thermostat on 72, and I've never timed my showers, but to me the smoking ban isn't about being Al Gore's new best friend. It's about an activity that someone else engages in a place of public accomodation that makes me physically sick. It directly impacts me. So, if I am choosing between two candidates for Metro Council, and one proposes a ban on smoking in restaurants, I will vote for him or her. If the majority of Louisvillians do the same thing regarding the council members running in their district then a smoking ban will be enacted. If it is not unconstitutional, then the courts will uphold it. That's how democracy works.

You and Kent and the others act as if Metro Government is some type of Big Brother acting unilaterally without the input of the people. That's not the case. The majority of Louisvillians WANT a smoking ban. There is nothing unconstitutional about a smoking ban as long as it applied to all businesses equally. So, we have a smoking ban.

You are in the minority on this issue, so you lose. It sucks, I know because in my life it seems like I have been on the minority side of an issue about 90% of the time, especially in the last 7 years. But, that's the country we live in. The majority speaks through its elected leaders who enact laws that reflect the majority's values and desires. We don't live in a country where we have given up legislation in favor of the silent hand of market forces as advocated by Kent.

So, you may not agree with my alcohol analogy, and you may be privy to some confidential pending legislation that is going to ban alcohol, but that really doesn't bear on whether this ban is ok or not. At the end of the day the ban is ok for those who support it and not ok for those who don't, but it will stay in place until the majority switches from former to the latter.

Uh, yeah...my so called examples were only meant to illustrate the (what should be) obvious difference between won't and can't. There are lots of places I can't go, and lots of places I could but simply won't for a variety of reasons.

As was mine, there are many people who have various illnesses that CAN'T go to places that allows smoking! Yes there are some that won't go to a place that allows smoking but other people just can't!

No, these people WON'T go because of possible/likely side effects of their illnesses. This situation still involves a choice.

Your post was about social classes and discrimination. Making allusions to conditions where people have been outright prohibited from entering certain establishments. These conditions involve no choice for the consumer.

Uh, yeah...my so called examples were only meant to illustrate the (what should be) obvious difference between won't and can't. There are lots of places I can't go, and lots of places I could but simply won't for a variety of reasons.

As was mine, there are many people who have various illnesses that CAN'T go to places that allows smoking! Yes there are some that won't go to a place that allows smoking but other people just can't!

No, these people WON'T go because of possible/likely side effects of their illnesses. This situation still involves a choice.

I am not so sure Aaron. I imagine there are plenty of medical conditions where people cannot be exposed to second hand smoke. I would guess that cystic fibrosis is one of them, but I could be wrong.

The ultimate issue of CHOICE is at the voting booth. There you have a CHOICE to vote for or against a council member who supports the smoking ban. If more people choose to vote for pro-ban candidates, we will have a ban. The converse is also true.

Brett, I think you are pretty smug when you talk about those of us who DO have a personal stake in this issue because of our health. Why not boycott a place because of an owner? What's wrong with that? Isn't that my CHOICE? I Boycott 2 other restaurants in town because of the way I was treated by the owners. I would boycott a place if the owner was a skinhead or a nazi. So what? Maybe I don't speak for all musicians in the city, but I do know that the ones I've talked to lately tell me that smoke free rooms have made singing better and they feel better after a night of playing.

btw- I drive a Honda, always have, and ride a bicycle a lot as well. My thermostat is on 65. We recycle and try to keep it green around here.

Paris, France, the capital of smoking in restaurants and cafes, just enacted a smoking ban.

[Robin Garr]

Paris, France, the capital of smoking in restaurants and cafes, just enacted a smoking ban.

And Italy, where smoking IS considered a civil right (joke!) has had one for a couple of years. Much to my amazement, people actually seem to be observing the rules.

I think the real issue here is that this issue has become an ignition point for the Ayn Rand/Milton Friedman "invisible hand" crowd ... you'd think after 8 years of Dubya, that theory has become about as discredited as it can be, but like any religion, there are always going to be true believers.

The ultimate issue of CHOICE is at the voting booth. There you have a CHOICE to vote for or against a council member who supports the smoking ban. If more people choose to vote for pro-ban candidates, we will have a ban. The converse is also true.

I think the ultimate point of choice is and always will be on the individual level. In my scenario, everyone has options that satisfy them. Every single person gets the choice on how to live their life. In your scenario, only one group does. Admittedly they are the majority but when two sides Because like I said before, not everything needs legislation.

So, you may not agree with my alcohol analogy, and you may be privy to some confidential pending legislation that is going to ban alcohol, but that really doesn't bear on whether this ban is ok or not. At the end of the day the ban is ok for those who support it and not ok for those who don't, but it will stay in place until the majority switches from former to the latter.

Let me make my point clear. I enjoy walking into smoke free restaurants. I like the fact it makes smoking less accessible and thus may be the catalyst for them quitting. I'm happy for my friends who operated restaurants who were relieved this law took the perceived decision off their plate. I'm happy for Linda C who seems to have found her health again because of this law. To be honest, I see nothing but good from this law but one item. Big government.

The fact that we already have a government that infringes upon my personal freedoms does not mean I should ignore every time they infringe on more freedoms of intelligent choice in America. No Ron, there is no secret law in Kentucky I know of but you know as well as I do there are neo-prohibitionists out there working the system every day. We both also know there are more constitutionally debatable laws against alcohol than any other “legal” item out there.

Right now, there are groups trying and succeeding with laws against sugar, duck liver, cooking oils…etc. All of them use the same arguments and most of them relying on faulty and/or manipulated scientific studies and statistics to back them up. Everyone needs to be more of a skeptic when it comes to “popular” scientific findings. Please take the time to read…

http://www.nycclash.com/Zion-Skeptic-Sc ... nd_SHS.PDF

No matter how righteous the cause or the benefits, we cannot allow ourselves to be manipulated by any type of moral majority that have no substantiated truth to back them up.

On top of that , you would think that being in the middle of the sub-prime/balloon loan/fraud mortgage crisis brought on in large part because Rand-ite Alan Greenspan's free market ideas might be enough to sway or cause a little reflection. Look, part of me thinks if someone is stubborn or dumb enough to smoke, eat, or drive themself to death, then so be it...but, the more humane side thinks that it's unfortunately necessary to ban public smoking, require seat belt use while driving, and not allow the young-uns to drink Pepsi all day long at school.



...I think the real issue here is that this issue has become an ignition point for the Ayn Rand/Milton Friedman "invisible hand" crowd ... you'd think after 8 years of Dubya, that theory has become about as discredited as it can be, but like any religion, there are always going to be true believers.

Brett, I think you are pretty smug when you talk about those of us who DO have a personal stake in this issue because of our health. Why not boycott a place because of an owner? What's wrong with that? Isn't that my CHOICE? I Boycott 2 other restaurants in town because of the way I was treated by the owners. I would boycott a place if the owner was a skinhead or a nazi. So what? Maybe I don't speak for all musicians in the city, but I do know that the ones I've talked to lately tell me that smoke free rooms have made singing better and they feel better after a night of playing.

btw- I drive a Honda, always have, and ride a bicycle a lot as well. My thermostat is on 65. We recycle and try to keep it green around here.

The argument of protecting the health of the employees is pretty weak in my opinion. You can choose not to work at any of these establishments just like you choose to boycott others. Think about coal miners and firemen. They breathe in air that is off the charts harmful compared to a smoky lounge not to mention all the other dangers they face. Are you boycotting electricity or the use of our metro emergency services? I doubt it.

What about the exhaust you suck in riding your bike? Are you boycotting every business that supports the auto industry? How about the restaurants that don’t recycle or force their employees to use carcinogenic chemicals to clean? That would leave you eating at home. Which brings us to Whole Foods and all the other stores? Are you boycotting them for selling farm raised salmon even though the diseases spreading from these farms are destroying all the wild salmon? No? Me either. I just choose not to buy the farm raised salmon.

Linda, I’ve been a foodie for years and am known across this city and others for being extremely picky and somewhat of a difficult customer if something I am served or the manner in which I am being served is flawed. In all my years, never have I felt the need to use the word boycott against an establishment, especially in a public forum. You preach about the wellbeing of the employees but you are quick to toss that notion out if an owner has “done you wrong” and seem to do your best to hurt their business and thus the income of those that “choose” to work there. Buy hey, that’s your right and you can exercise that right as much and as loud as you want even if you are a minority in your opinions.

The ultimate issue of CHOICE is at the voting booth. There you have a CHOICE to vote for or against a council member who supports the smoking ban. If more people choose to vote for pro-ban candidates, we will have a ban. The converse is also true.

When people vote for candidates, they're voting on any number of issues other than just a smoking ban.

Regardless of where one stands on the ban, the election of a majority of pro-ban representatives does not necessarily reflect that a majority of citizens support a ban. People may very well overlook a candidate's smoking position in order to support something else entirely. I would, as it's not an issue that I feel trumps all (or even most) others. I suspect a lot of others feel the same.

Please note, I'm neither advocating for or against a ban and I tend to be on the opposite end of the political spectrum from anything resembling Keynesian economics.

The proposed smoking ban is a workplace safety issue AND it's a slippery slope. The constant demanding that it's one or the other but not both and the attempted defense of that position is what seems to lead to very smart people losing the handle on what made them smart in the first place.

We're not fighting Nazis nor are we granting voting rights to previously disenfranchised groups. What we are doing is singling out a particular activity for regulation while letting a host of others that are at least arguably more important to the supposed goal of environmental health go largely unregulated. We're asking a minority to sacrifice for the sake of the majority while not asking the majority to sacrifice for the sake of the majority. It's no wonder that creates defensiveness well beyond any sense of Rand and others.

I'm not suggesting that as a reason to forgo a smoking ban. I am suggesting it as overall poor strategy and perhaps a source of hypocrisy for some. I think that if we are going to encroach on that slippery slope, we'd be better served by choosing to "give up freedoms" for something that demands full participation from all of us, thereby guaranteeing a larger return.