Smoking Ban

Oh, Jeff.....I wish you had gone with me to the ENT who told me that my respiratory system was a mess because, as a musician, I had been exposed to so much smoke that the cilia in my bronchial tubes were paralyzed.

Sorry for your trouble, Linda, but I appreciate your comments. Arguments like the one you just made carry weight and should be considered as evidence.

Unfortunately, all too often citizens (and government) allow people like Christopher to represent such movements. As someone who's actively involved in community issues, I deal with people like him all the time, who would just as soon misconstrue and purposely misrepresent as long as it suits their purposes than to get to the information that really matters. He's made all sorts of inaccurate accusations about me and his "rights" while not providing a shred of objective evidence that actually supports his position. It's a waste of everyone's time.

By all means, ban advocates should plead their case and provide as much evidence in support of it as possible. Opponents should do the same. It's an issue that for me hinges on workplace protection as you mention to make it valid.

Either secondhand smoke poses a serious risk to employees or it doesn't. It's all the rest of the irrelevant stuff that gets attached to it that creates problems.

Jeff.

It is people like me that call people like you out. If we left it to you, you would be puffing away as long as you could in public places. Looking for irrefutable evidence, fighting it all the way. In the mean time be damned with the rest of us.

I am not a big brother advocate and I don't believe in big government. So you are way off base. I am just a citizen who wants to eat and drink in public without having risk my life and clothes.

I didn't pull any papers up on the issue earlier and neither did other people because we thought it was common knowledge. Second hand smoke kills. Can't you put 1 and 1 together and see the the same smoke that goes in your lungs and kills you, is also entering my body? It doesn't take a genius to understand that. Your addiction makes you fight logic.

Now as a lawyer you could find a million and one counter arguments and papers to confuse the issue. Poking holes all day That's what lawyers do. So there is little chance of changing your mind and getting you to do the right thing. However thank goodness that many smokers including many of my friends do get it and have no problem taking it outside. They have a concience and actually cringe at the idea they could be hurting other people. Unlike you.

You call yourself a civil rights activist and that you're coming from a good place.... that's a joke I would put dollars to doughnuts on it that you get paid for that work and it is not compassion driving you at all.

I am very serious about this matter , my health and many other peoples health is at stake. You need to stop talking crap and fighting logic and take it outside.

The courts have spoken so perhaps even you will listen now.

Thanks for everyone's help in getting this civil minded attorney the irrefutable evidence including the personal accounts that he needs to make him consider whether or not smoking in public is bad.

Oh, Jeff.....I wish you had gone with me to the ENT who told me that my respiratory system was a mess because, as a musician, I had been exposed to so much smoke that the cilia in my bronchial tubes were paralyzed.

Sorry for your trouble, Linda, but I appreciate your comments. Arguments like the one you just made carry weight and should be considered as evidence.

Unfortunately, all too often citizens (and government) allow people like Christopher to represent such movements. As someone who's actively involved in community issues, I deal with people like him all the time, who would just as soon misconstrue and purposely misrepresent as long as it suits their purposes than to get to the information that really matters. He's made all sorts of inaccurate accusations about me and his "rights" while not providing a shred of objective evidence that actually supports his position. It's a waste of everyone's time.

By all means, ban advocates should plead their case and provide as much evidence in support of it as possible. Opponents should do the same. It's an issue that for me hinges on workplace protection as you mention to make it valid.

Either secondhand smoke poses a serious risk to employees or it doesn't. It's all the rest of the irrelevant stuff that gets attached to it that creates problems.

Jeff.

It is people like me that call people like you out. If we left it to you, you would be puffing away as long as you could in public places. Looking for irrefutable evidence, fighting it all the way. In the mean time be damned with the rest of us.

I am not a big brother advocate and I don't believe in big government. So you are way off base. I am just a citizen who wants to eat and drink in public without having risk my life and clothes.

I didn't pull any papers up on the issue earlier and neither did other people because we thought it was common knowledge. Second hand smoke kills. Can't you put 1 and 1 together and see the the same smoke that goes in your lungs and kills you, is also entering my body? It doesn't take a genius to understand that. Your addiction makes you fight logic.

Now as a lawyer you could find a million and one counter arguments and papers to confuse the issue. Poking holes all day That's what lawyers do. So there is little chance of changing your mind and getting you to do the right thing. However thank goodness that many smokers including many of my friends do get it and have no problem taking it outside. They have a concience and actually cringe at the idea they could be hurting other people. Unlike you.

You call yourself a civil rights activist and that you're coming from a good place.... that's a joke I would put dollars to doughnuts on it that you get paid for that work and it is not compassion driving you at all.

I am very serious about this matter , my health and many other peoples health is at stake. You need to stop talking crap and fighting logic and take it outside.

The courts have spoken so perhaps even you will listen now.

Thanks for everyone's help in getting this civil minded attorney the irrefutable evidence including the personal accounts that he needs to make him consider whether or not smoking in public is bad.

Christopher,

You're just continuing to display the ridiculous attitude that some of my writing has tried to highlight. I'm not an attorney, I've never been paid for civil rights advocacy, and, as I've clearly stated over and over again, I'm not arguing against a smoking ban. For whatever reason, you feel justified in communicating falsehoods about me, whom you've never met and know nothing about.

You're simply a liar.

Oh, Jeff.....I wish you had gone with me to the ENT who told me that my respiratory system was a mess because, as a musician, I had been exposed to so much smoke that the cilia in my bronchial tubes were paralyzed.

Sorry for your trouble, Linda, but I appreciate your comments. Arguments like the one you just made carry weight and should be considered as evidence.

Unfortunately, all too often citizens (and government) allow people like Christopher to represent such movements. As someone who's actively involved in community issues, I deal with people like him all the time, who would just as soon misconstrue and purposely misrepresent as long as it suits their purposes than to get to the information that really matters. He's made all sorts of inaccurate accusations about me and his "rights" while not providing a shred of objective evidence that actually supports his position. It's a waste of everyone's time.

By all means, ban advocates should plead their case and provide as much evidence in support of it as possible. Opponents should do the same. It's an issue that for me hinges on workplace protection as you mention to make it valid.

Either secondhand smoke poses a serious risk to employees or it doesn't. It's all the rest of the irrelevant stuff that gets attached to it that creates problems.

Jeff.

It is people like me that call people like you out. If we left it to you, you would be puffing away as long as you could in public places. Looking for irrefutable evidence, fighting it all the way. In the mean time be damned with the rest of us.

I am not a big brother advocate and I don't believe in big government. So you are way off base. I am just a citizen who wants to eat and drink in public without having risk my life and clothes.

I didn't pull any papers up on the issue earlier and neither did other people because we thought it was common knowledge. Second hand smoke kills. Can't you put 1 and 1 together and see the the same smoke that goes in your lungs and kills you, is also entering my body? It doesn't take a genius to understand that. Your addiction makes you fight logic.

Now as a lawyer you could find a million and one counter arguments and papers to confuse the issue. Poking holes all day That's what lawyers do. So there is little chance of changing your mind and getting you to do the right thing. However thank goodness that many smokers including many of my friends do get it and have no problem taking it outside. They have a concience and actually cringe at the idea they could be hurting other people. Unlike you.

You call yourself a civil rights activist and that you're coming from a good place.... that's a joke I would put dollars to doughnuts on it that you get paid for that work and it is not compassion driving you at all.

I am very serious about this matter , my health and many other peoples health is at stake. You need to stop talking crap and fighting logic and take it outside.

The courts have spoken so perhaps even you will listen now.

Thanks for everyone's help in getting this civil minded attorney the irrefutable evidence including the personal accounts that he needs to make him consider whether or not smoking in public is bad.

Christopher,

You're just continuing to display the ridiculous attitude that some of my writing has tried to highlight. I'm not an attorney, I've never been paid for civil rights advocacy, and, as I've clearly stated over and over again, I'm not arguing against a smoking ban. For whatever reason, you feel justified in communicating falsehoods about me, whom you've never met and know nothing about.

You're simply a liar.

Jeff.

I am going to let the liar statement slide. Pathetic!

I'm sorry if I misunderstood the fact that you are not an attorney. You certainly seemed to insinuate that you were involved at a legal level of civil rights and not just as a defendant. What with all the supposed civil advocating you do, you can understand why.

I will however not back down on the type of person I believe you to be. A selfish addict. Who would not even consider smoking outside unless it was proven by irrefutable evidence that second hand smoke kills.

Lets just leave this argument as is I don't have the time to teach you morals. I'm sure you don't have the time to convince me you are a stand up guy.

I think we could all tone down the rhetoric and the name calling. Especially, calling someone a "lawyer". There really isn't a lower blow.

I think we could all tone down the rhetoric and the name calling. Especially, calling someone a "lawyer". There really isn't a lower blow.

I agree Ron. I have been ranting way too long. I can't say I don't usually get this passionate about something I believe in but I never get this personal with someone I don't know.

I am going to be a better person and apologize for the way I have retorted to Jeff.

Jeff you must understand this is a very hot topic and I believe in the ban with all my worth. I will refrain from any more unproductive banter.

PS I do have some very good attorney friends who I respect as people and the work they do.

I think we could all tone down the rhetoric and the name calling. Especially, calling someone a "lawyer". There really isn't a lower blow.

I agree Ron. I have been ranting way too long. I can't say I don't usually get this passionate about something I believe in but I never get this personal with someone I don't know.

I am going to be a better person and apologize for the way I have retorted to Jeff.

Jeff you must understand this is a very hot topic and I believe in the ban with all my worth. I will refrain from any more unproductive banter.

PS I do have some very good attorney friends who I respect as people and the work they do.

Apology accepted, Christopher.

Whether you believe it or not, we probably agree on a lot of political issues (just based on what I've seen at your place and on your company web site). Whether we do or don't, though, there's no justification for making stuff up about people and reporting it as fact on a public forum. As long as you refrain from that, we're cool. Like I said, I'm not opposing the ban so I'm no threat to your position anyway.

I think we could all tone down the rhetoric and the name calling. Especially, calling someone a "lawyer". There really isn't a lower blow.

I agree Ron. I have been ranting way too long. I can't say I don't usually get this passionate about something I believe in but I never get this personal with someone I don't know.

I am going to be a better person and apologize for the way I have retorted to Jeff.

Jeff you must understand this is a very hot topic and I believe in the ban with all my worth. I will refrain from any more unproductive banter.

PS I do have some very good attorney friends who I respect as people and the work they do.

Apology accepted, Christopher.

Whether you believe it or not, we probably agree on a lot of political issues (just based on what I've seen at your place and on your company web site). Whether we do or don't, though, there's no justification for making stuff up about people and reporting it as fact on a public forum. As long as you refrain from that, we're cool. Like I said, I'm not opposing the ban so I'm no threat to your position anyway.

Well let's leave it like that then Jeff. I was out of order, I think we both were.

I'm sorry this went this far.

No hard feelings.

Another wonderful example of how most disagreements start and end in a "bell curve" shape. Glad this one did, too.

I think of going out as a privilege not a right. I think owners of establishments have a right to say whether or not their patrons can smoke.

John, this ban does not exist because there is a belief that going out is a right.

Here is why we have the smoking ban:

The majority of Louisvillians do not smoke.
Those Louisvillians believe that exposure to secondhand smoke is either:
(1) Noxious and a cause of physical discomfort, or
(2) A cause of serious respiratory disease, or
(3) Both
Those Louisvillians believe that smoking should be prohibited in certain places of public accomodation, including restaurants.
Those Louisvillians voted for a mayor and council members who support their position.
The council passed such a ban, and the Mayor enacted it.
The ban was challenged on consitutional grounds because it excluded CHurchill Downs.
A judge found it unconstitutional.
A new ban was drafted that treats all businesses equally.

If you oppose the ban, you should make a concerted effort to support candidates for city council and mayor that share your position. Arguments about big government, whether secondhand smoke causes illness, and whose "rights" are being infringed upon are worthless because they mean nothing. This ban is the result of democracy in action. The only way to reverse it is to use democratic means.

I wasn't questioning democracy, I was questioning the way people think.
Also, how it started has everything to do about people thinking they have a "right" to go anywhere they want. So they get together and use the will of the people "democracy" as you call it to tell other what to do. But when it comes to law, as you well know, you have to have facts and those facts are stated as 1,2,and 3 in your post. Well my point is, if you know that second hand smoke does 1 and 2 or 3, then why in the hell do you keep going to these places? There is only one reason for that and I believe I stated it above. The only reason the city has gotten involved is because of money. Not the big 3. The big 3 make the ban viable. But I still say, personal responsiblity dictates that you don't need a law to end second hand smoking in places that you aren't obligated to be at.

If you don't believe the government decided to get involved is all about money, look at the Churchill exemption. Does 1,2 and 3 not apply there? Churchill must be a fountain of youth? That was their only mistake but it will be fixed. Then they crunch numbers to see how many smokers there are versus non-smokers in the city. Then suddenly realizes that if the majority(non-smokers) of consumers stop consuming and just stay at home, the city loses money. We can't have that. So in that case of the city, you are right it isn't about rights, its about money. The ban would not exist if it wasn't about people thinking they have a right to go anywhere they please. Like I said, nobody is forcing anyone to eat out.


You....you......LAWYER!

I think of going out as a privilege not a right. I think owners of establishments have a right to say whether or not their patrons can smoke.

John, this ban does not exist because there is a belief that going out is a right.

Here is why we have the smoking ban:

The majority of Louisvillians do not smoke.
Those Louisvillians believe that exposure to secondhand smoke is either:
(1) Noxious and a cause of physical discomfort, or
(2) A cause of serious respiratory disease, or
(3) Both
Those Louisvillians believe that smoking should be prohibited in certain places of public accomodation, including restaurants.
Those Louisvillians voted for a mayor and council members who support their position.
The council passed such a ban, and the Mayor enacted it.
The ban was challenged on consitutional grounds because it excluded CHurchill Downs.
A judge found it unconstitutional.
A new ban was drafted that treats all businesses equally.

If you oppose the ban, you should make a concerted effort to support candidates for city council and mayor that share your position. Arguments about big government, whether secondhand smoke causes illness, and whose "rights" are being infringed upon are worthless because they mean nothing. This ban is the result of democracy in action. The only way to reverse it is to use democratic means.

I wasn't questioning democracy, I was questioning the way people think.
Also, how it started has everything to do about people thinking they have a "right" to go anywhere they want. So they get together and use the will of the people "democracy" as you call it to tell other what to do. But when it comes to law, as you well know, you have to have facts and those facts are stated as 1,2,and 3 in your post. Well my point is, if you know that second hand smoke does 1 and 2 or 3, then why in the hell do you keep going to these places? There is only one reason for that and I believe I stated it above. The only reason the city has gotten involved is because of money. Not the big 3. The big 3 make the ban viable. But I still say, personal responsiblity dictates that you don't need a law to end second hand smoking in places that you aren't obligated to be at.

If you don't believe the government decided to get involved is all about money, look at the Churchill exemption. Does 1,2 and 3 not apply there? Churchill must be a fountain of youth? That was their only mistake but it will be fixed. Then they crunch numbers to see how many smokers there are versus non-smokers in the city. Then suddenly realizes that if the majority(non-smokers) of consumers stop consuming and just stay at home, the city loses money. We can't have that. So in that case of the city, you are right it isn't about rights, its about money. The ban would not exist if it wasn't about people thinking they have a right to go anywhere they please. Like I said, nobody is forcing anyone to eat out.

John, the government is us. We elect them.

Also, how it started has everything to do about people thinking they have a "right" to go anywhere they want. So they get together and use the will of the people "democracy" as you call it to tell other what to do.

This is how democracy works. You have every right to hate it, but this is how it works, and this is the system we have.

ha! Ron the very first sentence of my last post should take care of your comments.

Besides, name a politician that does exactly what the majority of the people wants he or she to do that doesn't have to do with money?

You're still a lawyer.

John,
You struck a new cord and I couldn't agree more. Government doesn't care about our health if they did we would have some type of healthcare reform but that topic could go on for pages and pages. The bottom line is still the bottom line and it is all about money for both sides.
The restaurants want the choice because loss of smokers in some cases means loss of busine$$. The government wants to get involved to maximize $$ spent. The consumer is stuck in the middle.
If you are a non smoker as I am, the power of YOUR dollar speaks loudly. Choose a restaurant based on your convictions. If you are a smoker, be prepared to make some concession like a smoking section. We can all get along and don't need "big brother" dictating what can and can not take place. Some restaurants choose a self imposed smoking ban and I applaud them for it, but I don't avoid those that make resonable concessions.
It all boils down to how many restrictions do we want our government to place on us? Republican, libertarian or democrat, I think we can all agree if the government is involved it will be a mess. In the long run, which ever side of the ban you plant yourself, the government intervention costs all of us. But hey, that is our tax dollars at work.

It all boils down to how many restrictions do we want our government to place on us? Republican, libertarian or democrat, I think we can all agree if the government is involved it will be a mess. In the long run, which ever side .

That's just it--we don't agree. I've lived in or visted numerous cities with smoking bans--and they weren't a mess. Gov't screws up many things. This ain't one of them.

Well in the case of Louisville, if they hadn't screwed it up in the first place we wouldn't have had this thread.

We can all get along and don't need "big brother" dictating what can and can not take place.

Kurt, there is no Big Brother. There is a city council. Here they are:

1 — Judith Green (D)
2 — Barbara Shanklin (D)
3 — Mary Woolridge (D)
4 — David Tandy (D)
5 — Cheri Bryant Hamilton (D)
6 — George Unseld (D)
7 — Kenneth C. Fleming (R)
8 — Tom Owen (D)
9 — Tina Ward-Pugh (D) 10 — Jim King (D)
11 — Kevin Kramer (R)
12 — Rick Blackwell (D)
13 — Vicki Aubrey Welch (D)
14 — Robert Henderson (D)
15 — Marianne Butler (D)
16 — Kelly Downard (R)
17 — Glen Stuckel (R)
18 — Julie Raque Adams (R) 19 — Hal Heiner (R)
20 — Stuart Benson (R)
21 — Dan Johnson (D)
22 — Robin Engel (R)
23 — James Peden (R)
24 — Madonna Flood (D)
25 — Doug Hawkins (R)
26 — Ellen Call (R)

If you and John don't like the smoking ban, find out if your councilperson voted for it. if so, don't vote for them next election. if enough people feel the way you do, you can have a council that will repeal the ordinance. See, no conspiracies, no black helicopters, just democracy.