RRC Archives

I'm starting to side with Uncle Big Green and his angle on property owners...good point!

UBG,
If I might editorialize your stance, what I hear you saying is that you object to the paternalistic attitude of our government telling private business owners what to do for "their own good".
I feel, though, that this is what government is supposed to do, whether it chaps a few or not. Good government policy is supposed to tell people what is good for them, because, as I have said earlier, people are too self interested (or, in this case, addicted and unwilling to admit their addiction and how it colors their judgement), to act for the good of the community.
Interestly the Lexington Herald Leader published a poll conducted several months back that asked age demographic groups if they approved or disapproved of the ban. The group that disapproved the most (75%) was the 18-25 yo. All the rest, smokers and non, where better than 80% in favor. My point is that anyone who has suffered with nicotine addiction for greater than 10-15 years knows its distructive ablity and welcomes any attempt at controlling it, including infringing on their ability to smoke in public.

I disagree with you there Lurkist. I have smoked 10+ years and I want to make the decision of whether or not I want to sit in smoking or non-smoking. I don't want theat decision made for me. I have no problem (obviously) vocalizing my opinion to owners of establishments that at one time allowed smoking and have since changed.I freely vocalize my opinion as well as boycott their place, i.e. Sitwell's in Cincinnati went to a smoke free lunch, haven't been back there even though you can still smoke there in the evenings.
Now with little Aidan, we sit in non-smoking and walk to the bar/or outside if needed. That is my choice and I don't need the goverment to make that decision for me. Like they haven't had enough kick backs from the tobacco industry over the years. SOunds like an act of contrition to me this new ban. Hmmmmmmmmmm

There is a restaurant here in Louisville, Lynn's Paradise Cafe, that took a vote of the patrons. It was real simple, Should Lynn's be smoke free? Yes or no!. They stated that they would adjust based on the results of this poll.

Results were 97% smoke free, 3% smoke.

Lynn's is now smoke free and their business continues to grow.

Gretchen wrote:Now with little Aidan, we sit in non-smoking and walk to the bar/or outside if needed.

so it is ok to smoke while pregnant, but not ok to smoke around him now that he is born?

the lurkist wrote:UBG,
If I might editorialize your stance, what I hear you saying is that you object to the paternalistic attitude of our government telling private business owners what to do for "their own good".
I feel, though, that this is what government is supposed to do, whether it chaps a few or not. Good government policy is supposed to tell people what is good for them, because, as I have said earlier, people are too self interested (or, in this case, addicted and unwilling to admit their addiction and how it colors their judgement), to act for the good of the community.
Interestly the Lexington Herald Leader published a poll conducted several months back that asked age demographic groups if they approved or disapproved of the ban. The group that disapproved the most (75%) was the 18-25 yo. All the rest, smokers and non, where better than 80% in favor. My point is that anyone who has suffered with nicotine addiction for greater than 10-15 years knows its distructive ablity and welcomes any attempt at controlling it, including infringing on their ability to smoke in public.

the proper function of any and all govts. is to protect your right to your life. once it goes beyond that role it is an agressor (I can't think of any that aren't right now). tell me how you arrived at your conclusion of what the govt's function is? if I am compelled to change a behavior ('act for the good of the community') that in no way violates anyone's right to their life (again, no one is forced to enter Ben's Smokey Brewpub and you're only allowed in until I tell you to leave), then the party that forces me to do so is an agressor. are you saying I should be forced to act for the 'good of the community' (whatever that is)? that sounds like some sort of conscription to me.

finally, as you claim speak for all of those who have suffered w/ ciggy addiction, you are saying that these people have some sort of 'right' to infringe on my ability to decide whether or not I want to enter or own a smoke-filled bar. again, guestimating the %age of people that seek to control other people's lives does not justify any sort of action. that's lynch mob mentality.

It's a real Hobson's choice in Lexington to say you can choose to go to a non-smoking establishment if you like. If you have severe asthma, heart disease, or other cardiopulmonary problems, going to a smoking establishment could be dangerous. The only non-smoking public places in Lex are the churches and the hospitals. Now that's not entertainment to me. So in the end, you really have no choice at all (i.e. Hobson's choice). If you are willing to protect property owners to the teeth, then they should have responsibility for the ramifications on the health of workers and patrons (and what about the poor children!) Give the property owners the right to do what they want, but give the bartenders et al the right to sue the property owners for the health costs related to working in an environment that is proven to be dangerous. Rights come with responsibility.

UBG, you should know by now that it's not equal rights, but majority rights the government is supposed to ensure.

It amazes me that people still think this is a smoking issue. Is rhunt the only one reading this thread?

If the ban was against country music and the government telling people they couldn't play country music in their place, would it be any different? Probably not in this crowd, but lots of lexingtonians wouldn't be so thrilled. I know I for one have a right to live a life free from country music and whenever I am forced to hear it my psyche suffers and I get a passive buzzkill, not unlike cancer.

This thing pisses me off and I don't even smoke.

charlie, I am a big property rights fan too....

we're pulling for you..I am afraid it is a lost cause on most here.

tomdarch wrote:Idea 1: Second hand smoke is toxic.

I cannot think of any type of smoke that is good for you. Stay away from 2nd hand smoke.

tomdarch wrote: Idea 2: low-wage workers don't have much input into their working conditions and can't easily change jobs, thus they need to be protected from dangerous working conditions such as dangerous factory equipment or environmental toxins. When you put these two ideas together, you get to the point that waiters, bussers and bar tenders shouldn't be forced to work in clouds of toxic smoke, and claiming that they 'volunteer' for it doesn't cut it.

please support your 'matter of factly' last sentence. "doesn't cut it" doesn't cut it in any argument. if you're saying they're forced labor, I'd like to hear all about it. if anything, as a taxpayer, my labor is forced as I have to work to support things that I neither would choose to fund nor receive any benefit (but that's another somewhat related topic). Any worker should be made AWARE (easy to see and smell the smoke) of their working conditions and not nec. protected. shouldn't I be free to engage in any risky activity that doesn't harm another? it's my life to put at risk - or do you own me?

tomdarch wrote: This is an extension of decades of development of OSHA regulations (for better and worse) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (for better and worse). In Canada (those sensible folks) they can have a glassed in area in places that doesn't get bussed during normal hours and only gets cleaned after all the smokers leave. Seems like a sensible compromise.

emulating canada? ha. anyway, that idea doesn't sound to bad, but it should be voluntary (the choice of the establishment owner).