Smoking Ban

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.

As people on here so eloquently have posted, they are going to stop patronizing a place, because they are simply following the laws before them. If smoking is allowed (as it is supposed to be), you can choose not to patronize said establishment. I am quite sure their business would maintain a healthy lifestyle.

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.

As people on here so eloquently have posted, they are going to stop patronizing a place, because they are simply following the laws before them. If smoking is allowed (as it is supposed to be), you can choose not to patronize said establishment. I am quite sure their business would maintain a healthy lifestyle.

I would have no problem with the right to allow smoking in a bar to fall on the owner IF they get 100% approval from their staff. The employees are the ones that have to work in it day to day and the ones more likely to be affected by the second hand smoke.

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.

As people on here so eloquently have posted, they are going to stop patronizing a place, because they are simply following the laws before them. If smoking is allowed (as it is supposed to be), you can choose not to patronize said establishment. I am quite sure their business would maintain a healthy lifestyle.

I'm not an attorney but isn't it the establishments choice to be smoke free or not? or are they by law forced to let people smoke?

[Robin Garr]

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.

Rob, there's fact, and then there's opinion, and I certainly would never dispute anyone's right to his or her own opinion, even if I disagreed with it.

I am <i>not</I> a lawyer, but I'm interested in these things, and I believe I'm well-read. It is my impression that the constitutionality of no-smoking statutes is not in question but has been amply decided. It seems to me that it's hard to dispute this as a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion. But what do I know?

Bottom line, as I said, I raised my objection with respect and would really much rather talk about food and dining here than argue about politics or law. I guess we'll all be getting more edumification about the constitutionality of no-smoking laws in coming weeks.

Just out of curiosity, though, do you happen to know what your father-in-law and his friends think about the constitutionality of other, similar issues that bear on business, from fire and safety codes to sanitation inspection to disability access and the minimum wage?

I've always thought of this as a common courtesy question:

Let's say I chew tobacco. Would it be OK for me to spit tobacco juice on your clothes, in your hair or in your mouth? I'm only hurting myself by chewing tobacco, right?

Why is it any different when you do the same with a known poisonous and carcinogenic substance like tobacco smoke?

Would either of those be construed as assault?

Where is our resident forum legal advisor?

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.

I didn't lump everyone together. I said "many", not "most". Sorry you took offense.

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?

With the utmost respect for business owners, they are not super-citizens with super-rights. They cannot decide to have a smoky atmosphere for their non-smoking patrons. That was merely a privilege that has been removed. It was never a right. Businesses open to the public are beholden to democratically decided public rules.

I would have no problem with the right to allow smoking in a bar to fall on the owner IF they get 100% approval from their staff. The employees are the ones that have to work in it day to day and the ones more likely to be affected by the second hand smoke.

Good idea! Then after the first vote fails they can just fire the employees who object to smoking to insure that the second vote passes! Sounds like a perfect solution that the lawyers would love!

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.

While it air quality standards sound like a good idea they're not practical. It's very difficult to measure air quality, it requires expensive equipment, knowledgeable people and the samples take time to perform. The local authorities have a difficult time enforcing the existing (previous) law where all they had to do was walk in and see smoke or cigarettes.

Setting an indoor air quality standard would also be a political nightmare. What chemicals and particulate matter are controlled at what levels? You'd have opposition from every organization possible including contractors, material suppliers, etc. Probably even the transportation industry and many businesses would get involved since some of their byproducts can be found most anywhere.

The local air pollution control district with all its resources has a difficult time monitoring the overall air quality. Just take the difficulty they experience and multiply it tenfold or more to include all the places that would have to be monitored this. Not saying it couldn't be done just that it's extremely impractical and expenses to do it this.

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.

This is true...But like I said if you knew an establishment was Smoking or Non, then you could make a choice to patronize it or not and not be effected....

Sure smoking is bad for you and I also beleve that second-hand smoke is harmful as well...But then again, Isn't staying out in the sun too long on a hot day harmful for you also? So when its hot outside you have the choice of staying in doors don't you? There are a myriad of things in this world that are harmful that we don't have a choice about how they effect us.

The thing that bothers me the most is that I'm really not happy about my lifestlye choices being dictated to me by a government that has no problem taxing me heavily to use said product.

Hey it will all be OK...All they have to do is take the Churchhill part out and repass it....The rest is fine...and the mayor said he will sign it as soon as it passes and will go into affect right away....So all fo you smokers enjoy your fags for about 2 weeks then it will be over for good....

There are at least two things going into the smoking ban: concern for workers and patrons health; and the related image issue. The Mayor-for-Life and other civic leaders want to project a public image of Louisville as a health-conscious (see efforts at promoting running, cycling, and other outdoor activities), educated, and "not backward" community.

For many folks a smoking ban fits that profile. I know that when I end up in a town where smoking is allowed in public places, it feels really "backward."

So, whatever the cries for smokers' rights, I agree with Robert , this will go through easily this time (Churchill has already caved!), and the Metro Louisville Hospitality Coalition will have to find new ways to be hospitable.

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.

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.

If you say so. But, I for one am pleased by that.

Several places that I called or visited tonight were demonstrating their good sense and keeping the smoking in check: Cumberland Brews (where we had dinner), ZA's Pizza (where we bought a gift certificate), BBC St. Matts (whom I called to ask if they were smoking. Answer=not inside).

I will not patronize a place that regresses to pre-smoking-ban days.

I'll tell you what - you go to a smoking place and breathe twice as fast. That way you can have my share of secondhand smoke, too.