Smoking Ban

I am shocked that the first I heard of this even being up for review was today. I guess they did think they could sneak it by us. You can bet it will keep me out of the bars and restaurants that choose to smoke. After finally having clean air and clothes, I just can't go back.

"Had I never seen such riches, I could live with being poor."

BBC in St. Matthews was smokeless last night.

We called Molly Malone's last night to see if they were still going to be smoke free and were told no. What a shame - we had a large group that was planning on going - smokers and non-smokers alike - and we cancelled our reservation. We told them it was strictly based on their decision to go back to allowing smoking again. Their response - too bad.

We are good friends with the owners and you can be certain they will hear about our displeasure. I understand with them needing to compete fairly with all the neighborhood establishments; however, they supposedly pride themselves on being an Irish pub and restaurant and when we go to Ireland we don't have to worry about smoking over there.

Too sad.

I've never understood why this country can't figure out ventilation systems. You can smoke anywhere in Germany and you will never walk out of a place reeking of smoke.

Because many local bar owners are cheap bastards. There, I said it. And it's the truth.

I find this statement to be a bit off putting. Do you have first hand knowledge of their parentage and their financial situations? You assume that just because someone serves drinks they are rolling in the $$$. Unless you have run a bar or a restaurant I do not see where you can make such statements.

Don't forget, there's always Jack's Lounge, who voluntarily went smoke free and will stay smoke free.

Don't forget, there's always Jack's Lounge, who voluntarily went smoke free and will stay smoke free.

Thats the beauty of a 'free market society'. It should be up to the owner of the establishment NOT the govt. IMHO

I received a slap on the wrist when I commented that I wouldn't go to Bristol because of the owner's work against the smoking ban. I stand by it after reading his comments in today's paper. I attended all the council meetings heard all the comments. I don't want to patronize a place where the owners don't care about the health of their employees. We went to places over the last 6 months where we could never go...Air Devil's, Pucker's...an all night MERF event at Porter's, Captain's Quarters, Dutch's Tavern, BBC (always had to walk through the bar there). I could go on. We truly have enjoyed clean air and have patronized many places. I agree about telling owners that "we won't be back". I saw the fellow from Wick's Pizza on Baxter yesterday. He was ecstatic. Cross Wick's off my list. I truly hope this passes again and soon. We got to enjoy music at so many places and all the musicians loved it.

[Robin Garr]

Thats the beauty of a 'free market society'. It should be up to the owner of the establishment NOT the govt. IMHO

You're overlooking the public-policy issue: The smoking ban is not predicated on the consumer's preference (although as far as I'm concerned, it could be); It's predicated on the health of people who work there, and - sadly - generations of experience has shown that the community sometimes has to step in and ensure that employers pay proper attention to worker health and safety.

Correct, Robin. And how many of those places pay for health insurance? I meant to include some research but you can google it. They have several studies...one in Helena Montana and one up the road in Indiana which showed a dramatic decrease in heart attacks when bans were enforced. Even in non-smokers, the particulates in smoke can cause dramatic changes in the arteries quickly.

The worker safety issue is true. We were discussing this last night, focusing the topic on how the bar workers pockets have been hurt by the ban. I know it is true. So many smokers just stay home and drink now, rather than brave the cold to stand outside and smoke.

My husband said, "yeah, it maybe hurting their pockets now, but I guarantee you that lung cancer will put a bigger dent in it than the smoking ban."

And he is correct.

I've never understood why this country can't figure out ventilation systems. You can smoke anywhere in Germany and you will never walk out of a place reeking of smoke.

Because many local bar owners are cheap bastards. There, I said it. And it's the truth.

I find this statement to be a bit off putting. Do you have first hand knowledge of their parentage and their financial situations? You assume that just because someone serves drinks they are rolling in the $$$. Unless you have run a bar or a restaurant I do not see where you can make such statements.

Ventilation should be one of the primary investments into such an establishment in areas where smoking is allowed. If one cannot properly invest in their business from the start, then they shouldn't be starting that business.

Ventilation should be one of the primary investments into such an establishment in areas where smoking is allowed. If one cannot properly invest in their business from the start, then they shouldn't be starting that business.

I agree. A better solution than a smoking ban are indoor air quality standards. Keep your air clean in your bar and you can do whatever you want, but if it's not clean enough you get fined and have to fix it somehow.

I agree. A better solution than a smoking ban are indoor air quality standards. Keep your air clean in your bar and you can do whatever you want, but if it's not clean enough you get fined and have to fix it somehow.

A good theory that won't work in practice. Louisville nor any other local governments and that matter has the resources to enforce their existing codes. Just look at the smoking ban, they couldn't even enforce it and all they had to do was walk into a place and see smoke or cigarettes. In order to enforce an indoor air quality standard samples would have to be taken on a regular basis with expensive sample equipment. Something that Louisville doesn't have the people, resources or money to enforce. Just take the example of the local air pollution control district standards, the APCD doesn't have sufficient resources to adequately monitor compliance and the standard is much easier to monitor than an indoor air quality standards would be. If every public building had to be monitored for air quality the amount of time and money required would be astronomical!

The only viable solution is to pass a new smoking ban without the Churchill Downs exception then a nit wit judge can't throw it out!

Just from anecdotal observation it appears that a large percentage of those in the food service industry smoke anyway. Drive behind your favorite establishment some night and see the crowd by the dunpster.

I've never understood why this country can't figure out ventilation systems. You can smoke anywhere in Germany and you will never walk out of a place reeking of smoke.

Because many local bar owners are cheap bastards. There, I said it. And it's the truth.

I find this statement to be a bit off putting. Do you have first hand knowledge of their parentage and their financial situations? You assume that just because someone serves drinks they are rolling in the $$$. Unless you have run a bar or a restaurant I do not see where you can make such statements.

Ventilation should be one of the primary investments into such an establishment in areas where smoking is allowed. If one cannot properly invest in their business from the start, then they shouldn't be starting that business.

Only took offence to your bad language and lumping everyone together.