Smoking Ban

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

Everything? Even things that we know are dangerous? I do sometimes wonder what things would be like with no speed limits, no building or fire codes, no laws restrcting the sale of alcohol, and none regulating food safety. It would be interesting.

I am a non-smoker who is 100% AGAINST the smoking ban. It is entirely un-American, and un-constitutional in every sense. I enjoy the smoke free environments it provides while not standing behind its message.

[Robin Garr]

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.

Makes it an easy call as to where to go tonight. I would have went somewhere smoke free in Louisville and would have had lots of options. Anyone know of some places that are going to stay smoke free?

I would guess that places who were already heading in that direction are still fine. Napa River Grill, Equus,Jazz factory, Jack Fry's, Macaroni Grill, Mc Donalds..lol. I would be shocked if Cafe Lou Lou broke out the ashtrays. Same for the old Cafe Emilie...60 West? L&N was smoking only after dinner hour. Melillo's has always been smoke free.

I know that we will be dining out a lot in the next few weeks and i will call ahead and I will voice my opinion to owners. Doggone it, we just heard some interesting new artists, too.

January 10 can't come ("cough, cough") soon enough....

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.

Since many of us cannot attend the council meeting would you please post a thread stating what restaurants (owners) speak out against the ban at next week's meeting.

We like you have already stopped patronizing Wick's and The Bristol due to their opposition to the smoking ban!

As an off/on again smoker(my futile attempts at Quitting have failed me once again). I did feel a bit "wierd' being able to smoke indoors this evening....I personally don't have a problem stepping outside to smoke and have gotten quite used to it.

It was odd to me after several months of being banished outdoors to partake of my nasty habit to be able to "Light Up", enjoy my beverage, and watch the entirety of a televised sporting event with out having to leave my seat!

I know that it won't last, but still...there is something about a smokey room, full of alcohol laden patrons that seems better to me...Perhaps part of the "atmosphere" so to speak.

Maybe I'm waxing a little nostalgia, but iI feel that you really should be able to smoke in a bar if the owner of said establishment seems fit to allow it...If you know the place allows smoking then you can just choose not to patronize it....

I'm not talking about everywhere either. But It seems to me that choosing to smoke(health consequences be damned)is a sort of right of passage that goes hand in hand with being able to booze it up in a bar.

That's just my humble opinion

I'm not talking about everywhere either. But It seems to me that choosing to smoke(health consequences be damned)is a sort of right of passage that goes hand in hand with being able to booze it up in a bar.

That's just my humble opinion

I agree with your "humble opinion", not that it is going to make any difference. And I don't smoke.

I would be shocked if Cafe Lou Lou broke out the ashtrays.

And ruin our nice new paint job and banquette upholstery? It wasn't even considered for a second. We were packed to the rafters last night but I didn't hear about anyone even asking if they could smoke.

[Robin Garr]

choosing to smoke(health consequences be damned)

The problem here, Dan, is that you're making a decision not only about your own health but about the health of the people around you. That's where your argument kind of falls down just a little bit.

I must have missed the Right to Inhale Tobacco Smoke in our Bill of Rights.

[Robin Garr]

I must have missed the Right to Inhale Tobacco Smoke in our Bill of Rights.

That's the one that goes, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to Keep and Inhale Tobacco Smoke shall not be infringed."

I would never tell anyone to stop smoking. I don't have the right. Its their prerogative. As an ex smoker I can empathize.


I can't believe that even the most naive puffers don't believe second hand smoke kills though. If they did they would also believe the tobacco companies that claim smoking is not addictive.

I would think just that alone is enough to be a little more considerate to non smokers? especially employees of the establishment that have to be there day in and day out. These hard working people are putting their lives on the line to serve you. And no some can't find jobs in other places.

I'm sure smokers don't really want to smell and taste like a nasty cigarette butt either and I certainly don't, so why impose that on us too?

What's wrong with running outside to get your fix? I was at the back door bar a few nights ago and anyone who has been there will tell you they pour the strongest drink in town. It was also the smokiest bar in town till the ban. Now I can enjoy those drinks too. I doubt they have lost any revenue long term from the ban. They improvised and made it work with a covered porch.

Everyone was completely happy to nip out and have a quick smoke every half an hour or so and the chain smokers just wore a coat and hat and stayed outside. They seemed to be having a great time. This even had the added side effect of clearing the bar out so everyone could get a drink periodically.

I know I have a choice not to drink in a smoking bar but what if I really like the drinks? Do I have to risk my life? Nothing kills a good meal for me like cigarette smoke either, with the ban I never had to worry about it.

It's just common sense that smoking should be enjoyed by those who love to smoke and not forced on the rest of us. If the effects of smoking did not effect everyone in the vicinity of the smokers then there would be no debate about this at all

I have friends who are smokers and hated the ban to start with, now after adjusting, they love it. They say that they always felt a little guilty and embarrassed when they light up around non smokers. I think that is called a twinge of conscience. They are relieved of that burden with the ban.

Smokers and smoke friendly establishments I think it is time to be honest and say this ban makes sense. For everyone.

Let's not go backwards!

choosing to smoke(health consequences be damned)

The problem here, Dan, is that you're making a decision not only about your own health but about the health of the people around you. That's where your argument kind of falls down just a little bit.

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?