In case you haven't heard!

Nobody is suggesting that the smokers be rounded up and moved somewhere else. It's just that now they must step outside to engage their addiction so as not to poison the rest of us. They do the same thing at work all day - what's the biggie?

see Brett, there you go again with the sky is falling theory: If we ban smoking, surely we will ban eating, drinking, and all fun too, right?
sorry, I just don't see it. It's the same argument they make against legalizing marijuana . . . it's a gateway drug, one hit off the bong and the next thing you know you're cooking up meth in a spoon and have a needle in your arm.

It's actually interesting that you use gambling as an example because that is something that is expanding in our country and it is something we are adding, not banning, in this state.

Like I said in the previous thread, I’m not going to debate the smoking ban and that was not the point of my post. I was attempting a cynical joke in response to the subject switching to addicts in general and the absurd judgments against the seedy bingo players and gamblers. I read the words pathetic, stupid, and addicts along with the exploitation of them. I’m sorry but doesn’t this site support a business that exploits food addicts and alcoholics. Are we pathetic or stupid?

We all have our dark-side folks and we all become addicted (or some say passionate) about the things we enjoy doing. These addictions may not be illegal, apparent, or even chemical base but we have them none the less. I say this as I drink my first cup of coffee for the day to help cure the ever slight hangover from the bottle of wine I drank last night while posting on this board about eating and drinking, and considering that bong hit Ron was talking about earlier. I will not bore you with the rest of my daily routines, habits, or addictions that likely aren’t much different than many of yours. Go ahead and judge food, wine, beer, and the restaurants and stores they are sold in but stop judging others for being who and what they are. Just because you do not agree with it does not make it pathetic or stupid.

I did not mean to throw fuel on the flames of debate.

My poorly written comment was intended only to mention that a LOT of charities -- churches, child advocates, sports leagues, animal welfare groups, whatever -- are going to suffer because (a) attendance is down in Jefferson Co. bingo halls due to Metro's smoking ban and (b) the State requires charities to maintain a minimum average profit of forty percent, which is nearly impossible with lowered attendance.

Consequently, in the next few months, I imagine a number of bingo halls will close and the charities that used to rent them are going to be hard-pressed for money to continue their good works. I leave it to others far more intelligent than I to decide if this is good or bad.

For some charities, this will bring an end to their organizations; others will learn to be creative and find other ways to raise money to continue operations.

That's all I was trying to express and regret I did it so poorly in my original post. I'll shut up now.

[Robin Garr]

That's all I was trying to express and regret I did it so poorly in my original post. I'll shut up now.

No need Lois. You didn't say anything wrong, and you didn't say it poorly. Your point raised an interesting issue for discussion that most people don't associate with the smoking law. I hope it's abundantly clear, though, that no one here is criticizing the greyhound rescue organization, which serves an important mission and does it well.

I did not mean to throw fuel on the flames of debate.

My poorly written comment was intended only to mention that a LOT of charities -- churches, child advocates, sports leagues, animal welfare groups, whatever -- are going to suffer because (a) attendance is down in Jefferson Co. bingo halls due to Metro's smoking ban and (b) the State requires charities to maintain a minimum average profit of forty percent, which is nearly impossible with lowered attendance.

Consequently, in the next few months, I imagine a number of bingo halls will close and the charities that used to rent them are going to be hard-pressed for money to continue their good works. I leave it to others far more intelligent than I to decide if this is good or bad.

For some charities, this will bring an end to their organizations; others will learn to be creative and find other ways to raise money to continue operations.

That's all I was trying to express and regret I did it so poorly in my original post. I'll shut up now.

I'm with Robin. No need to apologize or shut up Lois. You post was not poorly written nor was it the fuel to the flame of debate. That fuel is ever present on this site. I personally think your post was enlightening. I have never considered the effect this ban would have on organizations like yours. Regardless if the good outweighs the bad with this ban, it is important to know the negative effects any law has on the community.

Nobody is suggesting that the smokers be rounded up and moved somewhere else. It's just that now they must step outside to engage their addiction so as not to poison the rest of us. They do the same thing at work all day - what's the biggie?

see Brett, there you go again with the sky is falling theory: If we ban smoking, surely we will ban eating, drinking, and all fun too, right?
sorry, I just don't see it. It's the same argument they make against legalizing marijuana . . . it's a gateway drug, one hit off the bong and the next thing you know you're cooking up meth in a spoon and have a needle in your arm.

It's actually interesting that you use gambling as an example because that is something that is expanding in our country and it is something we are adding, not banning, in this state.

Like I said in the previous thread, I’m not going to debate the smoking ban and that was not the point of my post. I was attempting a cynical joke in response to the subject switching to addicts in general and the absurd judgments against the seedy bingo players and gamblers. I read the words pathetic, stupid, and addicts along with the exploitation of them. I’m sorry but doesn’t this site support a business that exploits food addicts and alcoholics. Are we pathetic or stupid?

We all have our dark-side folks and we all become addicted (or some say passionate) about the things we enjoy doing. These addictions may not be illegal, apparent, or even chemical base but we have them none the less. I say this as I drink my first cup of coffee for the day to help cure the ever slight hangover from the bottle of wine I drank last night while posting on this board about eating and drinking, and considering that bong hit Ron was talking about earlier. I will not bore you with the rest of my daily routines, habits, or addictions that likely aren’t much different than many of yours. Go ahead and judge food, wine, beer, and the restaurants and stores they are sold in but stop judging others for being who and what they are. Just because you do not agree with it does not make it pathetic or stupid.

Brett, I hope that you do not believe anything I have said is a judgment on others. I've got more vices than I can count, and a bunch of others I am in deep denial about. Then only thing I disagree with you about is that the smoking ban is bad because it paves the way for the future prohibition of other less than puritanical activities. I just don't see it. Right or wrong, the smoking ban was about tangible and immediate health risks, not morality. These perceived health risks may be wrong. Maybe smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. I'm not C. Everett Koop. But I really believe that is why the somking ban was enacted and is not a sign that Louisville has fallen to the Morality Police.

Nobody is suggesting that the smokers be rounded up and moved somewhere else. It's just that now they must step outside to engage their addiction so as not to poison the rest of us. They do the same thing at work all day - what's the biggie?

see Brett, there you go again with the sky is falling theory: If we ban smoking, surely we will ban eating, drinking, and all fun too, right?
sorry, I just don't see it. It's the same argument they make against legalizing marijuana . . . it's a gateway drug, one hit off the bong and the next thing you know you're cooking up meth in a spoon and have a needle in your arm.

It's actually interesting that you use gambling as an example because that is something that is expanding in our country and it is something we are adding, not banning, in this state.

Like I said in the previous thread, I’m not going to debate the smoking ban and that was not the point of my post. I was attempting a cynical joke in response to the subject switching to addicts in general and the absurd judgments against the seedy bingo players and gamblers. I read the words pathetic, stupid, and addicts along with the exploitation of them. I’m sorry but doesn’t this site support a business that exploits food addicts and alcoholics. Are we pathetic or stupid?

We all have our dark-side folks and we all become addicted (or some say passionate) about the things we enjoy doing. These addictions may not be illegal, apparent, or even chemical base but we have them none the less. I say this as I drink my first cup of coffee for the day to help cure the ever slight hangover from the bottle of wine I drank last night while posting on this board about eating and drinking, and considering that bong hit Ron was talking about earlier. I will not bore you with the rest of my daily routines, habits, or addictions that likely aren’t much different than many of yours. Go ahead and judge food, wine, beer, and the restaurants and stores they are sold in but stop judging others for being who and what they are. Just because you do not agree with it does not make it pathetic or stupid.

Brett, I hope that you do not believe anything I have said is a judgment on others. I've got more vices than I can count, and a bunch of others I am in deep denial about. Then only thing I disagree with you about is that the smoking ban is bad because it paves the way for the future prohibition of other less than puritanical activities. I just don't see it. Right or wrong, the smoking ban was about tangible and immediate health risks, not morality. These perceived health risks may be wrong. Maybe smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. I'm not C. Everett Koop. But I really believe that is why the somking ban was enacted and is not a sign that Louisville has fallen to the Morality Police.

Ron, I purposely avoided bringing that subject up. I see the ban in one light, you see it in another, and many others see it in many other ways. No problem, I don't hold it against anyone and I hope nobody holds my views against me.

Now as far as you being judgmental. Lets leave the "judg" out of that word and call it a day.

By the way, are you still in Cincinnati? I haven't seen you around the wine haunts lately. Come to think about it, I haven't seen you since I've been back.

I am indeed living 90 minutes northeast of the 'ville, but I am still doing cases there, and I am eating and drinking there as much as possible. Let's get together soon.