Push For A Smoking Ban in Murray

[JDMiller]

Report from WPSD TV-6......

A coalition of concerned citizens in Murray, Kentucky is trying to convince restaurants and other businesses to go smoke free. The group hopes to start with changes at Murray State.

Judy Lyle is a health educator and staff nurse at Murray State University and she's heading a group called the Coalition for Clean Air Murray, a group that wants to stop smoking in all public places. "I think it's important for people to understand hazards surrounding tobacco use," says Lyle.
Right now there is no smoking ban in Murray, but the coalition wants to change that. Parents like Michele Handegan say that sounds interesting. "I don't like going to crowded bars or crowded restaurants with a lot of smoke. I would probably be for it," says Handegan.
But for everyone who's interested in a smoking ban, there's a business -- like Boone Chambers' Big Apple Cafe that worries what a smoking ban would mean to the bottom line."As far as my cliental especially happy hour, three fourths of them smoke and so do the later crowd of college kids," Chambers says. Lyle's plans don't stop with businesses and restaurants. She also wants to make more areas on Murray State's Campus smoke free as well.
Smokers can't light up in any buildings on campus. Lyle wants to create no smoking zones around those buildings. Students like William Brummet say that's a good start. "It would be okay if there was a designated smoking area where people had to go smoke away from other people," Brummet says.
Lyle and the coalition hope to share ideas with staff at Murray State and eventually take the smoke free campaign to the community. They're convinced, a smoke free community is the way to go. Copyright 2007 WPSD-TV, LLC

[maxcam]

There will be a dog ordinance down there before long.....

[aceoky]

Smokers can't light up in any buildings on campus. Lyle wants to create no smoking zones around those buildings.

THAT is insane IMHO.....

Inside is one thing outside.....give me a break.....as a smoker (not proud of it though) what happened to MY rights, I pay HUGE taxes on smokes.....for someone to come up with this BS....:mad:

[KYCatBirdHunter]

They did this at UK when I was there. It was to the point that if it was raining, smokers couldn't stand under the overhangs, because the smoke might drift in through the doors when people opened them. (Mind you the overhangs were roughly 20 feet wide). Instead, smokers had to stand in the RAIN. I don't smoke, but I think that's just ridiculous.

[aceoky]

They did this at UK when I was there. It was to the point that if it was raining, smokers couldn't stand under the overhangs, because the smoke might drift in through the doors when people opened them. (Mind you the overhangs were roughly 20 feet wide). Instead, smokers had to stand in the RAIN. I don't smoke, but I think that's just ridiculous.

I agree it starts out half-way "sensible" then all common sense just vanishes I think...

[westkybanded]

THAT is insane IMHO.....

Inside is one thing outside.....give me a break.....as a smoker (not proud of it though) what happened to MY rights, I pay HUGE taxes on smokes.....for someone to come up with this BS....:mad:

They've already tried that once when I was attending a class or two at Murray State. They set up signs about 30 ft from the buildings that say "No Smoking Beyond This Point". Campus cops finally got tired of harassing people about it and they took the signs down.

I'm a smoker as well, and I've already resigned myself to the fact that this WILL happen in Murray. I would venture to guess that inside of a year from now the vote will go before the council. Murray likes to think that it's a bigger city than it is, and likes to follow suit with other metropolitans. When you've got most of the big cities in the state with smoking bans, it will only be a matter of time here. Paducah's takes effect soon, and as soon as it's proven to be a huge success (insert spin here) we will follow suit with our noses raised high.

[HillBillyFiveO]

So the citizens that don't mind going to a smoking bar/business, I guess their rights don't matter. Somehow, their rights can be taken away. Hmmm, what next?! :mad:

Floyd T.

[Art]

Get out the popcorn!! The smoking ban here in Lexington was one of the greatest things to ever hit this city.

[raven_over_easy]

They be ban crazy! Failed on the Gun ban now they just got to ban somethin'!

[quackrstackr]

Banning smoking outside of a building except for a designated zone is insane.

[Ky mustang]

Didn't Murray have a seat belt law before the state law was put in place ?

[PhilpotHunter]

The designated outside zone is crazy.....

But the best thing to happen in Owensboro was the ban. After it happened and the initial shock went away, restaurants say the bottom dollar is actually UP from before....

The only thing that would make it better is for a more comprehensive ban in bars, IMO

someone pass the popcorn:D

[mossyhorns]

Do-gooders, folks. Do-gooders.

[GSP]

I am just happy the local goverments steps in and thinks for me during the few times the state and federal goverment has missed something. God only knows what may of happened to me if I had been left to think on my own....
If I can only get some help to make me stop eating fast food.......my life will be complete.

[Xi Bowhunter]

The designated outside zone is crazy.....

But the best thing to happen in Owensboro was the ban. After it happened and the initial shock went away, restaurants say the bottom dollar is actually UP from before....

The only thing that would make it better is for a more comprehensive ban in bars, IMO

someone pass the popcorn:D
I think they should ban it in bars as well. The few times a year I go in one for a brithday or promotion celebration I come out smelling like an ashtray and all stuffed up. I think the ban was also the best thing to hit Owensboro in a long time, people can finally enjoy a meal without choking to death or getting a steak flavored with cigarette smoke. I'm sure people wouldn't like it if a spit a mouthful of grizzly mint on your plate:eek:

[Art]

Banning smoking outside of a building except for a designated zone is insane.


I don't think it is as long as they give the smokers a designated area with a roof. Many factories and businesses around here have such little "smoke shacks" outside of the building. Otherwise, every door becomes jammed with smokers and you literally have to walk through a cloud to get into the building. There's nothing like being all clean walking into work in the morning only to have to swim through an ashtray as you enter. I respect the right of others who wish to smell like a turd and they should respect my wishes that I do not. I think all a designated area means is NOT right next to the doors where other are coming and going..

[quackrstackr]

I guess I just haven't been to the right building that has a smoker's blockade outside the entrance.

They have a set number of entrances at work with the cigarette butt receptacles but there's never over two people standing there smoking. I can brave the two second's worth of smoke to get inside.

I do have to admit that being able to eat at some places without wanting to burn your clothes after you leave would be kind of nice.

[Manzanita]

Just another baby step toward the nanny-state that the socialists would love to see.

Sigh.

I can understand not liking the smell. I smoke. I don't, however, smoke in restaurants because I also believe it's obnoxious and inconsiderate to light up with other people sitting close by that don't smoke. It's been a long time since I've been in a bar but, shoot, bars and smoking go together like... well... like peas and carrots. I also don't smoke in the house because it makes my house stink.

But, to pass a law that forces a business owner to ban smoking (a legal activity, btw) within his own establishment is ridiculous.

Just makes me shake my head in wonder at some of the busybody laws we have. What do you think the founding fathers of this country would think?

[westkybanded]

We'll have the smoking ban within a year... Then it'll be Trans-fats (ala New York City). From there we'll probably lean heavily towards nose picking (can cause nose bleeds and brain damage).

[aceoky]

... Then it'll be Trans-fats (ala New York City). From there we'll probably lean heavily towards nose picking (can cause nose bleeds and brain damage)..

Wouldn't doubt it at all, and it makes about as much sense IMO as this does.....:rolleyes:

[PhilpotHunter]

What do you think the founding fathers of this country would think?

I think they would approve, being as such a ban would help protect the innocent from having to breath in someone elses unhealthy crap.

[plowboy]

Just y'all wait, it's coming soon! Maybe next year even, just don't even think about lighting up while sitting around the campfire at deer camp, especially if it happens to be on public land. That is if you're even allowed to have a camp fire.

[quackrstackr]

It's already against the law to drink in LBL..... ;)

If they catch you, campground or not... you're going to get a pretty healthy ticket. We saw that firsthand last year when they rolled in on a bunch of folks at a primitive campsite. Wrote every last one of them up.

[plowboy]

Don't I know it. Two years ago a friend of my sons decided to stay in camp while everybody else went fishing. They were in a primitive camp "alone", he wound up with $200 + in tickets.

[cephus]

Get out the popcorn!! The smoking ban here in Lexington was one of the greatest things to ever hit this city.


Folks, as hunters we should be against a ban of this nature in any form. Whether you smoke or not. There are politicians everywhere working diligently to strip us from our individual rights everyday. Be it smoking, dog ownership, or gun rights. If you think I am kidding check out HB 1022.

As gun owners we are the prime target consistently. We should be against any other movements leading us down the path of socialism.

[Xi Bowhunter]

Folks, as hunters we should be against a ban of this nature in any form. Whether you smoke or not. There are politicians everywhere working diligently to strip us from our individual rights everyday. Be it smoking, dog ownership, or gun rights. If you think I am kidding check out HB 1022.

As gun owners we are the prime target consistently. We should be against any other movements leading us down the path of socialism.
This is not about gun rights, so don't drag that into it. This is about someones health and the right to breath fresh air. I think I have the right to have fresh air to breath, and I should be protected from potentially fatal gases from cigarette smoke. If you smoke that is your choice, but smoke travels and finds it's way to non-smokers. Non-smokers should have a choice not to have to breath toxic chemicals in public settings. I dip, but should I have the right to spit on a person who doesn't dip? Of course not! I also think smokers have the right to have a designated area, out of the weather, but away from the main entrance of a public building, to smoke if that is their choice.

[WildmanWilson]

I don't see anywhere in the constitution about the right to blow smoke all over the people next to you while they eat. If some smokers where not so dang rude then this law wouldn't have to be put in place in the first place. I'm not asking for anyone to stop smoking or to stop eating at their favorite restaurant. Just wait until your done and smoke outside. Is that so hard. Plus smokers would set at the table for 20 minutes smoking while I'm waiting to get a table to eat. The restaurant can seat more customers if they just get up and smoke elsewhere and let the table be used for someone wanting to eat.

A restaurant is a place to go eat and enjoy food with my wife and kids. We shouldn't have to try and eat and hold our nose at the same time. I have a right to eat there and so do you. I shouldn't have to give up a good place to eat just so a smoker can set around and smoke.

Now as far as a bar...A bar is for adults only and I don't care either way but as long as it's a family environment where kids can enter then I'm all for a ban on smoking. Some parents could care less if their child is in a place where they are subjected to smoke so at least this way someone is watching out for them.

[stanmanhale]

I don't see anywhere in the constitution about the right to blow smoke all over the people next to you while they eat. If some smokers where not so dang rude then this law wouldn't have to be put in place in the first place. I'm not asking for anyone to stop smoking or to stop eating at their favorite restaurant. Just wait until your done and smoke outside. Is that so hard. Plus smokers would set at the table for 20 minutes smoking while I'm waiting to get a table to eat. The restaurant can seat more customers if they just get up and smoke elsewhere and let the table be used for someone wanting to eat.

A restaurant is a place to go eat and enjoy food with my wife and kids. We shouldn't have to try and eat and hold our nose at the same time. I have a right to eat there and so do you. I shouldn't have to give up a good place to eat just so a smoker can set around and smoke.

Now as far as a bar...A bar is for adults only and I don't care either way but as long as it's a family environment where kids can enter then I'm all for a ban on smoking. Some parents could care less if their child is in a place where they are subjected to smoke so at least this way someone is watching out for them.
hey i am a smoker, and i understand that people don't like the smell. I my self try to not smoke especially around kids, i figure if i can not go without a cig. for an hour then i am in bad trouble. But if i have read this right they are wanting to ban smoking outside. I think that a place outside out of resonible weather would suffice. Now why just cigs.? I think it should range through all tobacco use. Fair is Fair, i personally wouldn't be able to eat watching the person next to me spit in a bottle or on the floor(and i have seen that done) so everyone up to this?
The only problem i have ever had with the ban is that if a business owner wants to cater to smokers and advertises so, why can't he do that?????I am all for most resturants to go smoke free, but why cant there be some thats for the smokers???

[cephus]

This is not about gun rights, so don't drag that into it. This is about someones health and the right to breath fresh air. I think I have the right to have fresh air to breath, and I should be protected from potentially fatal gases from cigarette smoke. If you smoke that is your choice, but smoke travels and finds it's way to non-smokers. Non-smokers should have a choice not to have to breath toxic chemicals in public settings. I dip, but should I have the right to spit on a person who doesn't dip? Of course not! I also think smokers have the right to have a designated area, out of the weather, but away from the main entrance of a public building, to smoke if that is their choice.

Your right it isnt about gun rights. That was just an example. Its about FREEDOM. I have no problem with individual establishments deciding whether or not they will allow smoking. Leave the government out of it.

If your favorite place decides to allow smoking, then you can always go somewhere else. If it hurts the pocket book enough then the owner will be forced to re-evaluate the decision.

My whole point here, in which you missed, was we are losing freedoms everyday. Everyone should stand against the loss of freedoms. Sometimes it may benefit us sometimes it may not. But then I guess we can pick and choose and wonder what went wrong.

[Xi Bowhunter]

Your right it isnt about gun rights. That was just an example. Its about FREEDOM. I have no problem with individual establishments deciding whether or not they will allow smoking. Leave the government out of it.
It's not that simple. If you smoke, you are infringing on my right not to smoke because the smoke travles. Now, if it stayed in your lungs and didn't waft over to mine, that would be fine, but it doesn't. Smokers don't have the right IMHO, to smoke around people who don't want to smoke or smell the smell. Just because I am in a restruant drinking a beer, doesn't mean I should make you drink one if you want tea. Smokers don't have the right to infringe on others.

[Xi Bowhunter]

Cephus, I see your point on freedom, but this isn't about freedom. This is a health issue of innocent non-smokers and their FREEDOM to be able to say we don't want to breath your smoke anymore. It is proven unhealthy, and even deadly in some cases, and it's not your right to make people breath it that don't want to just because you want to light up.

[aceoky]

Smokers don't have the right IMHO, to smoke around people who don't want to smoke or smell the smell. Just because I am in a restruant drinking a beer, doesn't mean I should make you drink one if you want tea. Smokers don't have the right to infringe on others.

You have the Right to eat there where I'm smoking or elsewhere that I'm not don't ya ? :D

Maybe someone doesn't want to smell the beer on your breath what about their "rights"?? (see how things we all do affect others????)

WHY do some think we NEED the government to "regulate" otherwise legal things?? Shouldn't the OWNER of each establishment have the RIGHT to decide which crowd(s) they "cater to"???

Really the MAIN problem for ME is they want to include it for OUTSIDE....of buildings that IS going way too far imho and there can be NO good reason for that besides the "flexing of gov muscle" ........NOT a good thing IMHO

[cephus]

your right to make people breath it that don't want to just because you want to light up

I do not smoke. Any time the government is proposing a ban of any sorts it is about freedom.

[cephus]

You have the Right to eat there where I'm smoking or elsewhere that I'm not don't ya ? :D

Maybe someone doesn't want to smell the beer on your breath what about their "rights"?? (see how things we all do affect others????)

WHY do some think we NEED the government to "regulate" otherwise legal things?? Shouldn't the OWNER of each establishment have the RIGHT to decide which crowd(s) they "cater to"???

Really the MAIN problem for ME is they want to include it for OUTSIDE....of buildings that IS going way too far imho and there can be NO good reason for that besides the "flexing of gov muscle" ........NOT a good thing IMHO

Glad to see someone else is looking at the bigger picture.

[newshooter05]

u know when i was a young man i had a old fellow tell me he had lived in a free united states but i would not. i thought he was nuts but i understand him now.seat belts, gun control, smoking, ect. ect.we want a government to protect us so we allow them to pass laws we think will protect us. we give up our freedoms in the name of safety.what is scary we allow politicians to make the laws that govern us. name one program politicians started that works.the irs don't count they need that so they let it alone.

the same people who want laws passed to protect them also want more laws to control guns because THEY feel unsafe or threatened.

how about letting business owners who gambled on starting a business decide if they want smokers or not, ain't that a weird idea:rolleyes: .

any time u allow the government control u lose control . to get u gotta give.

we as a people are gonna lose our freedoms not in a great war but a small piece at a time and some are gonna be dumb enough to smile while they lose em cause they got things there way.

politicians compromise well. it is what they do and when u compromise freedoms u lose cause no one has ever replaced one taken.
david

[cephus]

u know when i was a young man i had a old fellow tell me he had lived in a free united states but i would not. i thought he was nuts but i understand him now.seat belts, gun control, smoking, ect. ect.we want a government to protect us so we allow them to pass laws we think will protect us. we give up our freedoms in the name of safety.what is scary we allow politicians to make the laws that govern us. name one program politicians started that works.the irs don't count they need that so they let it alone.

the same people who want laws passed to protect them also want more laws to control guns because THEY feel unsafe or threatened.

how about letting business owners who gambled on starting a business decide if they want smokers or not, ain't that a weird idea:rolleyes: .

any time u allow the government control u lose control . to get u gotta give.

we as a people are gonna lose our freedoms not in a great war but a small piece at a time and some are gonna be dumb enough to smile while they lose em cause they got things there way.

politicians compromise well. it is what they do and when u compromise freedoms u lose cause no one has ever replaced one taken.
david


As I was saying....AMEN!

[WildmanWilson]

I think some of you are getting "rights" and "privileges" confused. Smoking in public is not a right. Driving a car in not a right. Boarding an air plane is not a right. Even hunting and trapping is not a right.

We are guaranteed certain rights according to our constitution. We can't place every thing we do as "our right."

[aceoky]

IF I OWN a bar for example do I NOT have the right as the owner of the property and the establishment to decide whether OR NOT smoking IS or isn't allowed in a FREE society??

When I purchase a pack of LEGAL smokes from a business, why shouldn't I have the RIGHT to smoke them as an adult.....they ARE legal to buy, possess, and use.....are they not?? I'm paying an awful lot of taxes on that legal purchase....:D

It seems to me on such things as this issue the law of supply and demand ARE enough, IF enough people are REALLY upset about smoking in YOUR or MY place of business, they'll quit coming and let US know why.......then we can decide to change it without any Gov interference?

IF they are NOT "that upset" and continue to frequent our place, that IS their choice is it not???

I simply do not understand any such legislation, AS IF we are not capable of thinking on our own..(so we NEED them to think for us).....and what's worse NOW it seems they want to control smoking "outside"........that is insane no matter how badly someone's smoking bothers you or me or whomever......

[Ky mustang]

Are you old enough to buy smokes Ace ? :D :D :D . I agree with you 100%

[AteUp]

Guns, tobacco, trans-fats, pets, seat belts, where does it end?:confused::mad:

[aceoky]

Are you old enough to buy smokes Ace ? :D :D :D . I agree with you 100%

Just "barely" :D :D

[cephus]

Guns, tobacco, trans-fats, pets, seat belts, where does it end?:confused::mad:


It doesnt end. But though, according to some on this site, we really dont have those "rights" anyways. So it would seem that those also dont have the right to breathe clean air, as that would be a privelidge as well. I guess we need more government intervention to tell us what we really need. We are not smart enough to handle such tasks.

[WildmanWilson]

Heck cephus...lets just break away from all government intrusion. First lets do away with the speed limit. Who are they to tell me how I should drive. It's my car and gas i put into it...I should be able to do as i wish. If you don't like it you can get off the road and walk.

Next lets make all drugs legal. Its my body I should be able to put what ever I want in it. Why should it matter that after I become hooked on drugs I will be a burden on society.

Next lets have food companies put what ever they want into our food. Why should the government have any say in what private companies do.

Also I should be able to burn an open fire on my property any time I want. Why should they be able to regulate when fire season is? Who do they think their fooling.

I'm glad I now see the light...down with all government...freedom to the people.

[cephus]

Heck cephus...lets just break away from all government intrusion. First lets do away with the speed limit. Who are they to tell me how I should drive. It's my car and gas i put into it...I should be able to do as i wish. If you don't like it you can get off the road and walk.

Next lets make all drugs legal. Its my body I should be able to put what ever I want in it. Why should it matter that after I become hooked on drugs I will be a burden on society.

Next lets have food companies put what ever they want into our food. Why should the government have any say in what private companies do.

Also I should be able to burn an open fire on my property any time I want. Why should they be able to regulate when fire season is? Who do they think their fooling.

I'm glad I now see the light...down with all government...freedom to the people.


It is your body, if you become too big of a burden someone will probably take care of the problem anyways.

You dont have to buy there food. You can always grow your own.

Its your property right?

You know something, your absolutely right!

[aceoky]

WW we're on totally different "pages" here.....

Speed limits and everything else you mentioned are in many ways different than the Local Governments telling (or even wanting to tell) a Private Business Owner whether he CAN allow smoking in his place of business.....

One can hardly choose to NOT drive on the roads they need to use, they CAN (and easily) choose whether or not to eat or drink or shop in My store or YOUR store, because smoking is allowed there.......shouldn't the business owner have the RIGHT to run his legal business as he sees fit, and for his own best interests???

NOW let's get to the "heart" of this matter, I said already inside is one thing (though I still don' think they NEED to force any businesses to keep smoking out )or anything that may affect the businesses ability to turn a profit......
IF again business drops due to smoking I'm betting they'll stop it on their own.....IF people stop by anyway it is simply NOT the problem some say it is or was.....but these "super-intelligent people" want to ban it on the outside of buildings as well.........hard to argue on their side with that "thinking"

Some things will take care of themselves when given the chance......for decades smoking wasn't an issue either you did it or didn't people usually got along pretty well without the Government telling the owner how to operate and what they can and can't allow ........That should be the owners call and their RIGHT......

[JDMiller]

Guys..... I dont smoke & lost my dad a few years ago to lung cancer. I dont condone smoking and a ban here in Murray doesnt really effect me. However .....I have a problem with citywide bans on smoking.

The MSU side of the issue .....state owned buildings banned smoking several years ago. If they were to ban it on state owned property(being outside) I guess thats their perogative... they own the property. If the city administration bans smoking in city/county owned buildings and property....well that again is their perogative ..they again own the buildings / property.

Where I have a problem with it is ...when the city dictates to its business owners....no one can smoke in the building they own, license and pay property taxes on. I say this should be the decision of the person that owns the business / property. Its pretty much the same thing if they told you as a home owner... you cant do certain things inside your own home(not talking about iliegal drugs...more like owning a gun , having alcohol or telling you that you cant shoot your bow in your backyard). Regardless if you did'nt do it....its just the fact a ordinance says you cant. It's a fine line as a business /property owner and a home / property owner.

I know some will disagree but as patrons of those business......well your business is what keeps their doors open. If you dont do business there and others feel the same..... that business owner has the perogative to not allow smoking. This just leaves the decision where it belongs....with the person who has the financial responsibillty to make their business successful. Not local government.

[WildmanWilson]

Ace even if a business is privately owned it's still a public place. If its only for people 21 and older or a private club for members only then I'll go with you that it's up to them. However, if its a restaurant for the general public then i think we should not allow smoking. The smokers argument is I can go somewhere else to eat. Why should I have to give up my favorite place to eat just so a smoker can have free run of the place. We can both share the great food there and can both go about our merry way.

Yes the government may intrude into our lives but many times its needed. Where would we be if they hadn't intruded and set hunting laws that we have now? Most of the animals we hunt now would be gone from the face of the earth. The air and water wouldn't be fit to use without the environment laws we have now. And what about all the inconveniences at the airport. Like it or not the government must step in sometimes and do whats best for us all.

Like I said there's a difference in our "rights" and our "privileges".

[aceoky]

Ace even if a business is privately owned it's still a public place. If its only for people 21 and older or a private club for members only then I'll go with you that it's up to them. However, if its a restaurant for the general public then i think we should not allow smoking. The smokers argument is I can go somewhere else to eat. Why should I have to give up my favorite place to eat just so a smoker can have free run of the place. We can both share the great food there and can both go about our merry way.

Well, "your way" asks government to do it (make the choices/decisions for us) MY way allows US to make the decisions...... :)

I've seen some good eateries suspend smoking on their own, for some it worked , others changed their minds VERY quickly (they lost too much trade) ;) I say it should be up to the one who's life savings may be invested in the business to make ALL decisions that just may mean whether they survive or not....

Would it be "better" for the customers to be in a smoke free environment? Probably...........do we NEED the government to "think" for us though?? NO I don't think so it reminds me of Hillary saying the Government NEEDED to do what was best for the people for they were far to stupid to do what's best on their own........:mad: (IIRC that was in reference to her failed Heath care plan)

Seriously when was the last time you seen the Government "fix" anything? Throw tons of $$$ at it yes, "fix" it hardly....
Remember the AWB (which is trying to get re-instated by the "smarter than us" :rolleyes:

How about the "War on Drugs" how is that REALLY going??

How about the mandatorry long sentences for drug dealers they promised would END the "War on Drugs" ;)

Anyone NOT know that drug use has Risen since the "War on Drugs"

As a result of that some 70% of our prison population are non-violent drug offenders.(at OUR expense and it's a HUGE expense too).....many of the rest are a direct result of the "three strikes you're out" government policy.....two strikes steal a snickers bar (anyone remember that) and you get LIFE........yeah that's much "smarter" than I am....

I could continue, but this is long enough as it is, and I'd think it's not too hard to see the Government's involvement isn't always such a 'great thing' after all

[Xi Bowhunter]

Heck cephus...lets just break away from all government intrusion. First lets do away with the speed limit. Who are they to tell me how I should drive. It's my car and gas i put into it...I should be able to do as i wish. If you don't like it you can get off the road and walk.

Next lets make all drugs legal. Its my body I should be able to put what ever I want in it. Why should it matter that after I become hooked on drugs I will be a burden on society.

Next lets have food companies put what ever they want into our food. Why should the government have any say in what private companies do.

Also I should be able to burn an open fire on my property any time I want. Why should they be able to regulate when fire season is? Who do they think their fooling.

I'm glad I now see the light...down with all government...freedom to the people.

Very good point! Kudos to you, someone gets it:)

[cephus]

Ace even if a business is privately owned it's still a public place.

And most of these same places have a little sign that starts with these all important words " we reserve the right...." which makes them private. Maybe we need a law to stop people from smoking in thier own homes, I mean they do vent to the atmosphere dont they, they must affect the enviroment.


You owning a home, thats a priviledge

Taking the bus to work, thats a priviledge.

Smoking in your own business or on your own yard, Thats a right!

You walking down the streets of the free United States, Thats a right!

Get real.

[Rob]

I come from a family of smokers. My wife does, too. One of my earliest memories is of my dad holding me & lighting his cigarettes. My favorite uncle, who was almost like a father to me, was a heavy smoker. The funny thing about it all is that all of the men who smoke, and who I loved so much, are now dead. My uncle died of lung cancer. He was a big man - 6'2" & muscled up. He weighed 70 pounds when he died. His wife could lift him. Not a pleasant sight. My dad died from a stroke. He was active, ate a good diet, didn't have high blood pressure. My wife's dad died during open heart surgery, after he had had a major heart attack. All three major coronary arteries were completely blocked. He was thin, athletic, and had just turned 40 years old. He left a wife and 4 little children. Smoking killed them all. Don't try to give me a bunch of BS that it was somthing else - It was smoking. I'm not looking for sympathy for them. Hell, I don't even have sympathy for them. Every one of them were intellegent men who knew the risks and took them anyway, because they liked to smoke. But, if they could see the pain that smoking caused the people that loved them the most, they might have done different. My wife might have had a daddy when she was growing up. My little girl might have had her grandaddies. The truth is that the only people smoking is good for is the people that sell smokes. I am all for personal choice. I wish companies, schools, resturants, etc. would all build nice, heated/cooled, comfortable plexiglass shelters were smokers could smoke. Then nonsmokers wouldn't have to subjected to unwanted smoke. Because I really don't want my family to be forced to breathe unhealthy smoke. You see, smoke has already hurt us enough.

[Xi Bowhunter]

I come from a family of smokers. My wife does, too. One of my earliest memories is of my dad holding me & lighting his cigarettes. My favorite uncle, who was almost like a father to me, was a heavy smoker. The funny thing about it all is that all of the men who smoke, and who I loved so much, are now dead. My uncle died of lung cancer. He was a big man - 6'2" & muscled up. He weighed 70 pounds when he died. His wife could lift him. Not a pleasant sight. My dad died from a stroke. He was active, ate a good diet, didn't have high blood pressure. My wife's dad died during open heart surgery, after he had had a major heart attack. All three major coronary arteries were completely blocked. He was thin, athletic, and had just turned 40 years old. He left a wife and 4 little children. Smoking killed them all. Don't try to give me a bunch of BS that it was somthing else - It was smoking. I'm not looking for sympathy for them. Hell, I don't even have sympathy for them. Every one of them were intellegent men who knew the risks and took them anyway, because they liked to smoke. But, if they could see the pain that smoking caused the people that loved them the most, they might have done different. My wife might have had a daddy when she was growing up. My little girl might have had her grandaddies. The truth is that the only people smoking is good for is the people that sell smokes. I am all for personal choice. I wish companies, schools, resturants, etc. would all build nice, heated/cooled, comfortable plexiglass shelters were smokers could smoke. Then nonsmokers wouldn't have to subjected to unwanted smoke. Because I really don't want my family to be forced to breathe unhealthy smoke. You see, smoke has already hurt us enough.
I hear exactly what you are saying, I guess that is why I am so against it. Both my grandfathers died from lung cancer due to smoking. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

[naturalelite]

How many people does second hand smoke kill in a year???Looks to me like with the failure of medicare and social security the goverment would want more people to die instead of living long enough to TRY and benifit from these programs.

I don't really know which side I am on.

I hate smoking in public although before 2 weeks ago I did dip in public. I am sure I probably offended several people by throwing in a dip after meal but at least I was only killing myself. Although I don't like the thought of the goverment controlling any more of my life than they already do. So I am up in the air on this one at the moment.

[Xi Bowhunter]

So I am up in the air on this one at the moment.

Just be careful where you fall;):D

[aceoky]

Rob , I understand and agree with a great deal of what you have said......

I have REAL problems though when any government starts trying to "dictate" to others ......the business owner who I believe should be allowed to operate the business in any legal way he/she sees fit....it's their savings on the line after all.....

The Government is trying to end smoking for our own good.......HOW? By raising the price so many will not be able to , by imposing smoking bans "everywhere" (as in this on to include "outside of buildings in Murray").....as a smoker who wishes I'd never started, I agree it's a bad habit.......however why should the Government be allowed to dictate MY actions to such an extent? MUCH less the Owners of businesses......(including some bars.....OH yeah go ahead and damage your liver, stomach all you want........just don't dare "light up"...which WILL damage the owners Income in a big way......smoking and drinking go together like ham and eggs etc.)

Also I have to think that IF it were in so much demand many business owners would provide a smoke free eatery (or whatever) to "cash in " on those who want one........FREE Enterprise at it's best and THAT way the owners who KNOW they need smoker's business can benefit without being punished in their wallets......

IT is hard enough with today's economy with all the Globalizations taking place, outsourcing etc. for anyone to survive .......WHY on Earth would we support making it even harder for some to keep what they've worked for?? (and HOW can anyone support banning the "smoking outside of buildings").......

[Feedman]

Well I don't smoke. Years ago smoking in bars and resturants did not bother me. After i had surgery on my nose, I have become real sensitive to smoke (the doctor told me this would happen before the operation). I had lunch last week on my way to atlanta in a resturant. Due to time I took a seat in smoking. I could not eat fast enough and get out of there. 3 women on my left and 2 at the table in front of me were smoking like freight trains. What was sad was the 2 in front of me had small children with them (under 2 yrs old). I did not like breathing their smoke and I am sure those kids did not like it either.

I don't understand why someone cannot go into a resturant order food, drink and eat without lighting up a cigarette. A lot of times you are only in there for an hour or less.

I guess to each his own because people are different and they want to do as the please where ever they go and do not care for the people around them

[aceoky]

I agree Feedman there ARE people who don't care about others, smokers are far from alone in that though....

Would you agree then with Murray's "idea" that smoking should also be banned "on the outside of buildings" (which is my real problem with this btw)

[Redlined]

I don't smoke,and don't care for it,but I do think its your right to do so where you please.That being said,I feel for the smokers out there.In Elizabethtown,they first banned it in restaurants,then banned it in all businesses.Now you can only smoke outside of public bussinesses within so many feet of an entrance (like 20').You guys are getting regulated to death.

[yote hunter]

i have a right to hawk up a gober and spit it dont i?and if a smoker is in the way of my spit it shouldnt bother him just like his smoke doesn't bother anybody else.i use to think smokeing bans were just another liberal cause select but i have changed my mine on most smokers in general.they seem to think that the whole world is thier personel ashtray.they throw their buts everywhere else instead of the garbage can.or the think its all right to just dump out the ashtay in any parking lot.and tell me this why do they think its ok to throw a but into an urinal?it wont flush and some poor guy has to clean it out.smokers are their own worst enemies.

[Feedman]

Would you agree then with Murray's "idea" that smoking should also be banned "on the outside of buildings" (which is my real problem with this btw)

I agree.

What makes me real nervous is to be pumping gas and have someone start to put gas in their car while smoking.

[cephus]

What makes me real nervous is to be pumping gas and have someone start to put gas in their car while smoking.

There have been signs in place on that for years.

There is another thread on here about WD-40. I didnt realize how bad that stuff was. We need to push for a ban on that, banning use and sales.

See how this starts.

[Xi Bowhunter]

There have been signs in place on that for years.

There is another thread on here about WD-40. I didnt realize how bad that stuff was. We need to push for a ban on that, banning use and sales.

See how this starts.
Ok, lets go over the top on everything, throw all common sense out the window! Do you hear yourself?:rolleyes:

[stanmanhale]

Ok, lets go over the top on everything, throw all common sense out the window! Do you hear yourself?:rolleyes:
he is no more over the top with his statements than any others, the toxic gases from second hand smoke, i am not gonna argue that there is none, but how much? I would think that it wouldn't compair to the toxic gasses coming from a gasoline motor, lawn mower, boat, car or truck. now should we not also ban these?

[Xi Bowhunter]

he is no more over the top with his statements than any others, the toxic gases from second hand smoke, i am not gonna argue that there is none, but how much? I would think that it wouldn't compair to the toxic gasses coming from a gasoline motor, lawn mower, boat, car or truck. now should we not also ban these?
Guess what? Automobiles and other forms of engines are a vital part to the American economy. Smoking IS NOT. Without engines, our society would fail. Without cigarettes, all you get is a more healthy society. Think about that.

[AteUp]

Lots of people would argue that tobacco is a vital part of their economy. I'm not for people having to breathe second hand smoke if they don't want to. But I do believe a business owner should have the right to choose whether they want to allow smoking or not.

[cephus]

Guess what? Automobiles and other forms of engines are a vital part to the American economy. Smoking IS NOT. Without engines, our society would fail. Without cigarettes, all you get is a more healthy society. Think about that.

Do you know how much money tobacco produces?

Other than you just hit on my point. Someone is going to determine what we need. Should it be me or you, or should it be the government. Since it appears quality travel is important to you, I think we need to ban internal combustion engines, they are killing the ozone.

[buckdroppings]

Lots of people would argue that tobacco is a vital part of their economy. I'm not for people having to breathe second hand smoke if they don't want to. But I do believe a business owner should have the right to choose whether they want to allow smoking or not.

I'm not for having second hand smoke around me but I believe more strongly that a private business should make the decision on who they want their customers to be. No one forces a nonsmoker to go into a place that allows smoking.

[JDMiller]

Guess what? Automobiles and other forms of engines are a vital part to the American economy. Smoking IS NOT. Without engines, our society would fail. Without cigarettes, all you get is a more healthy society. Think about that.

Xi.... I'm not going to argue health concerns over tobacco. I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt there are. However.... the tobacco industry played a major roll in a lot of states economy....like Kentucky.

There are a lot of things out there that all of us are around every day. Asbestos & lead are found in places you dont normally think about. 9 by 9 floor tiles....plaster dating pre 1960's.....ceiling tile ...pipe insullation and other building materials....contain asbestos. Heck even a lot of municipal water systems have A.C. pipe ( asbestos cement) in their mains. As far as lead.... think about that every time you get a drink. Lead solders were not banned until the early 90's and most drinking fountains contained lead tanks prior to this date. You cant really get away from things that are bad for you and are known cancer causing agents.

[stanmanhale]

Guess what? Automobiles and other forms of engines are a vital part to the American economy. Smoking IS NOT. Without engines, our society would fail. Without cigarettes, all you get is a more healthy society. Think about that.
Well correct me if i am wrong(i am sure you will)but tobacco is KY's no.1 cash crop. Most farmers will grow tobacco to help thier farm to stay afloat. Without this revenue alot of the smaller farmers would go under. I guess the farmers are not a vital part of the american economy..

[buckdroppings]

I think it makes for a poor argument to discuss whether tabacco is good or bad for you. It is no different than alcohol. I would think that drunk drivers kill as many people as second hand smoke. That being said, what I think is the issue is the government telling private businesses in a private building who and what their customers can do with a legal substance. Again with the alcohol analogy. We know for a fact that drinking in bars kills people. Leave the bar or restauraunt drunk to drive yourself home will most like get someone killed. Since that is the case why don't we just stop allowing any business to sell alcohol for open drinking. It could only be drank at home.

[Xi Bowhunter]

Well correct me if i am wrong(i am sure you will)but tobacco is KY's no.1 cash crop. Most farmers will grow tobacco to help thier farm to stay afloat. Without this revenue alot of the smaller farmers would go under. I guess the farmers are not a vital part of the american economy..
It's apples to oranges on this one. If tobacco dyed out the American economy would not crash IMHO, but if transportation got haulted by a ban on internal combustion engines, it would destroy this nation. You can't even begin to compare the two. If tobacco got banned, the farmers would find something else to grow, and they would move on, they are survivors in that way. Farmers have been changing stragities like that for generations.

[cephus]

It's apples to oranges on this one. If tobacco dyed out the American economy would not crash IMHO, but if transportation got haulted by a ban on internal combustion engines, it would destroy this nation. You can't even begin to compare the two. If tobacco got banned, the farmers would find something else to grow, and they would move on, they are survivors in that way. Farmers have been changing stragities like that for generations.

You posted something earlier about common sense. Do you have any? No one here is doubting the ill effects of smoking. All these examples about wd-40 and internal combustion engines were thrown out there to try to make a point. You didnt get it. You have made it painfully clear that you are fine with government interference if it gets you what you want. Its that kind of thinking that are stripping rights everyday. But you dont get that. Wake up!

[aceoky]

I think it makes for a poor argument to discuss whether tabacco is good or bad for you. It is no different than alcohol. I would think that drunk drivers kill as many people as second hand smoke.

That being said, what I think is the issue is the government telling private businesses in a private building who and what their customers can do with a legal substance.

Again with the alcohol analogy. We know for a fact that drinking in bars kills people. Leave the bar or restauraunt drunk to drive yourself home will most like get someone killed. Since that is the case why don't we just stop allowing any business to sell alcohol for open drinking. It could only be drank at home.

Exactly ........and whether a business owner deserves to rule their own place OR the Government should do it for him/her

[Xi Bowhunter]

You posted something earlier about common sense. Do you have any? No one here is doubting the ill effects of smoking. All these examples about wd-40 and internal combustion engines were thrown out there to try to make a point. You didnt get it. You have made it painfully clear that you are fine with government interference if it gets you what you want. Its that kind of thinking that are stripping rights everyday. But you dont get that. Wake up!
So I guess you just think it should be a free for all don't you? You have to have regulations for the greater good. Say we just dumped all the waste from our toilets straight into the creeks, don't you think that would be a bad thing? Common sense tells you to regulate where you can dump human waste for the safety of the environment and humans wanting to drink that water. That is an example of where they aren't stripping rights, but protecting the public. You my friend are the one lacking the common sense.

[Rob]

As an agricultural crop, tobacco is quite unique by the combination of its attributes: it grows better in KY than anywhere else, it produces very high revenue per acre, and it is labor intensive. That means that an individual or family with only a few acres of tillable ground & an old Farmall tractor can, thru hard work, bring in a significant amount of money. This is especially important in rural areas where the standard of living of many folks is marginal at best. Unfortunatly, there is no other currently legal cash crop that can be easily substituted for tobacco in most of these areas. Without this important subsidy, many of those same folks may resort to government assistance. As a result, they no longer pay money to the government (in the form of taxes) but rather draw money from the government. That is why tobacco occupies such an economically important niche in our state.

My dad, uncle, & both grandfathers raised tobacco. It put shoes on their kids feet & shirts on their backs. While Kentuckians have been fortunate to have tobacco we have also been seriously hampered by our reliance on it. I suspect this reliance will lessen over time due to the nature of the evolution of our society. Buggy manufacturing used to be one of the major industries in a community near the area where I was raised. Now, one probably would have to go to Pa. to find a buggy factory.

[cephus]

So I guess you just think it should be a free for all don't you? You have to have regulations for the greater good. Say we just dumped all the waste from our toilets straight into the creeks, don't you think that would be a bad thing? Common sense tells you to regulate where you can dump human waste for the safety of the environment and humans wanting to drink that water. That is an example of where they aren't stripping rights, but protecting the public. You my friend are the one lacking the common sense.

Funny thing is when I question your common sense you throw out examples of INDUSTRIAL capacities. This is about a private business owner running his/her business the way they see fit. Your really not on the same page, but I guess that the only way you can make your case.

BTW, if your so worried about the enviroment why arent you taking the WD-40 comment more seriously? Its a non-soluble in water, oil based chemical that people are using for 1001 reasons, including spraying on their fishing bait. How come your not more serious about the engines that are damaging the enviroment and ozone at a unbelievable level? Surely you are for the soy and biodesiel forms of fuel being mandated to us by the government. After all, its better for us. Is it not?

Your post make one believe tat your not really after "whats good for the people" just whats good and convienant!

[Art]

I'm still pissed that the govt. took away my right to get in my car and drive drunk. If others don't like it then they just need to stay off the roads.:mad: Next thing you know they will be telling me when I can take a shower.

[GSP]

So I guess you just think it should be a free for all don't you? You have to have regulations for the greater good. Say we just dumped all the waste from our toilets straight into the creeks, don't you think that would be a bad thing? Common sense tells you to regulate where you can dump human waste for the safety of the environment and humans wanting to drink that water. That is an example of where they aren't stripping rights, but protecting the public. You my friend are the one lacking the common sense.

Uh, I believe that waterway is owned by the goverment. They should/do have the right to regulate for pulic protection. Same as speed limits on a goverment owned highway. Not really a apple/apple arguement.

If you open a buisness up to the public consumer, you have to provide access (handicap etc), I have no problem with that, you can't discriminate serving these folks either, again goverment intervention and a good one. But now, the goverment wants to ban the use of a legal product within a private buisness? Good example in Lexington, a bar sells only alcohol and cigars. You can go in, buy a Makers and water, a nice cigar and the goverment says no,no, no. You Have to take that cigar home. Remember this is a CIGAR & Bourbon Bar and you can not smoke.
That is the goverment at is finest!:rolleyes:

[aceoky]

I'm still pissed that the govt. took away my right to get in my car and drive drunk. If others don't like it then they just need to stay off the roads.:mad: Next thing you know they will be telling me when I can take a shower.

Art; I know you must be joking........

You can CHOOSE whether or not to go into a smoke filled room, pretty hard to choose NOT to drive home or work every day...... ;)

Also I think the Owner of a business should be allowed to choose which customers they cater to (in this case smokers /non smokers)...IF I put my life savings into a business I would NOT appreciate being told suddenly I have to comply with "X" law , knowing it may well cost me all that I've worked for..... :)

BTW Art please take a shower now.....just in case :D :D :D

[Xi Bowhunter]

Funny thing is when I question your common sense you throw out examples of INDUSTRIAL capacities. This is about a private business owner running his/her business the way they see fit. Your really not on the same page, but I guess that the only way you can make your case.

BTW, if your so worried about the enviroment why arent you taking the WD-40 comment more seriously? Its a non-soluble in water, oil based chemical that people are using for 1001 reasons, including spraying on their fishing bait. How come your not more serious about the engines that are damaging the enviroment and ozone at a unbelievable level? Surely you are for the soy and biodesiel forms of fuel being mandated to us by the government. After all, its better for us. Is it not?

Your post make one believe tat your not really after "whats good for the people" just whats good and convienant!
This is a health issue, and when the public is invited into a business they should be able to conduct business in a healthy enviroment. That is what it boils down to. Just because you have the right to smoke, it doesn't mean you have the right to do it around others who don't. And I'm sorry, but smoke travles, and no one can help it.

[Xi Bowhunter]

Art; I know you must be joking........

You can CHOOSE whether or not to go into a smoke filled room, pretty hard to choose NOT to drive home or work every day...... ;)

Also I think the Owner of a business should be allowed to choose which customers they cater to (in this case smokers /non smokers)...IF I put my life savings into a business I would NOT appreciate being told suddenly I have to comply with "X" law , knowing it may well cost me all that I've worked for..... :)

BTW Art please take a shower now.....just in case :D :D :D
Art was just trying to make a point, I'm sure you know, but he makes a good one. It's a health and safety issue.

[Art]

I will just never understand the argument that some smokers make about their right to put others at risk.. I understand the right to smoke, but why do some people feel that they should be able to do it wherever they want?

A non-smoker should be able to sit in a restaurant and eat without having to subject themselves and their family to someone elses nasty habit of consuming poison and blowing it out for others to inhale. Why do smokers feel that their poor judgment should override the wishes of others who choose not to kill themselves? What about the people that HAVE to work there?

The smokers are the ones that need to sacrifice, not the non-smokers...To even suggest otherwise is selfish and ignorant IMO.

A person should be able to go to eat and go to work in America without having to be subjected to a cancer causing agent that stems directly from someones drug addiction.

[GSP]

I will just never understand the argument that some smokers make about their right to put others at risk.. I understand the right to smoke, but why do some people feel that they should be able to do it wherever they want?

A non-smoker should be able to sit in a restaurant and eat without having to subject themselves and their family to someone elses nasty habit of consuming poison and blowing it out for others to inhale. Why do smokers feel that their poor judgment should override the wishes of others who choose not to kill themselves? What about the people that HAVE to work there?

The smokers are the ones that need to sacrifice, not the non-smokers...To even suggest otherwise is selfish and ignorant IMO.

A person should be able to go to eat and go to work in America without having to be subjected to a cancer causing agent that stems directly from someones drug addiction.

I actually agree.
But, what if I want to open a beer and stoggy bar? Run it myself and allow customers to come in, drink and smoke? Should I not be allowed the same?

[Art]

I actually agree.
But, what if I want to open a beer and stoggy bar? Run it myself and allow customers to come in, drink and smoke? Should I not be allowed the same?

Yeah, I thought that was a bad part of the ban but that opens a loop hole somewhat. That would in effect let the owner override the law, which means the ban would just be a joke.. If you are operating a licensed business under the guidelines of the city then you need to follow the laws they create.

[Swampthing]

If there is such a demand for it then non-smoking bars and resturants ought to be a sure thing investment.

[GSP]

Yeah, I thought that was a bad part of the ban but that opens a loop hole somewhat. That would in effect let the owner override the law, which means the ban would just be a joke.. If you are operating a licensed business under the guidelines of the city then you need to follow the laws they create.

I know, that makes my point too. It is just me, running my buisness that I pay the city taxes. I want to just allow beer and stoggies. Bad law.

[Art]

If there is such a demand for it then non-smoking bars and resturants ought to be a sure thing investment.


That, or you could just buy a barn outside of city limits and only allow smokers to eat there. You could serve the food in ashtrays and menthols as a side dish.:D

[Art]

I know, that makes my point too. It is just me, running my buisness that I pay the city taxes. I want to just allow beer and stoggies. Bad law.

I know what your saying, but before you open that business you agree to obey the laws of the city and you also agree to obey them if they change. At first I thought it was just plain wrong to outlaw smoking in bars, but it's so darn nice without all the smoke that I rather enjoy it now.

Doesn't the law allow for smoking in "private clubs"? At any rate, there's still plenty of places you can fire up one in Lexington and nobody is really going to care. It's the places like Applebee's where the ban makes the most sense. However, once you allow that door to open by separating smoking vs. non-smoking it really just ruins the whole deal.

[Swampthing]

That, or you could just buy a barn outside of city limits and only allow smokers to eat there. You could serve the food in ashtrays and menthols as a side dish.

Never thought of treating them like animals...but that's just me. Whenever we go into a resturant and they try to seat us near the smoking section we ask to be seated somewhere else or we leave. If enough people did that there would be no need for more government regulation.

[Art]

Never thought of treating them like animals...but that's just me. Whenever we go into a resturant and they try to seat us near the smoking section we ask to be seated somewhere else or we leave. If enough people did that there would be no need for more government regulation.

No, I wouldn't treat them like animals either but I've seen some cool restaurants that were made from barns and that's probably all zoning would allow around here...:D

[slickhead slayer]

I haven't read the whole thread. But I don't know how you justify telling an owner of a private establishment that he can't allow a LEGAL activity in his place of establishement.
I have never smoked, and I do enjoy going some places now where I don't come out smelling like smoke. But i would never endorse something that was wrong just because it fit my preference.
You have a choice to go or not to go to places.
If you want to go to a bar with no smoking, super, start your own, but don't tell me no smoking in my bar because it might fit certain people.

Its my establishment, I should be able to allow any legal activity.

[slickhead slayer]

This is about someones health and the right to breath fresh air. I think I have the right to have fresh air to breath, and I should be protected from potentially fatal gases from cigarette smoke. If you smoke that is your choice, but smoke travels and finds it's way to non-smokers. Non-smokers should have a choice not to have to breath toxic chemicals in public settings. .

Nobody is enfringing on your right to fresh air. Restaurants, and bars are PRIVATE places, owned by individuals. You don't have the right to dictate what a person does and doesn't do in his or her bar or restaurant, as long as its a legal activity.
What gives some of you the belief that if I open a bar, you have ANY rights once your inside. Its MY bar, I opened it, I pay for it, I run it,I pay the taxes etc etc. Why do have a say in what goes on in it????

You don't like smelling smoke in a bar THEN DON"T GO. There is no god given right of going into a bar and having the air please you. Smoking is a LEGAL activity folks.
I am 100% for smoking bans in public property, not private, thats ludicrous.

You guys want to go to a restaurant without smelling smoke, then open one.

[slickhead slayer]

It is proven unhealthy, and even deadly in some cases, and it's not your right to make people breath it that don't want to just because you want to light up.

NOBODY is "making" you breath it. YOU made the choice of entering that establishment, YOU, not anybody else.

[slickhead slayer]

I think some of you are getting "rights" and "privileges" confused. Smoking in public is not a right. Driving a car in not a right. Boarding an air plane is not a right. Even hunting and trapping is not a right.

We are guaranteed certain rights according to our constitution. We can't place every thing we do as "our right."

Your confusing "public" with "private". I am all for 100% ban in public places. I am 100% against band in private places.
I just don't know how you can tell a bar owner that he can't allow people to do a LEGAL avtivity in his privately owned bar.

[Xi Bowhunter]

NOBODY is "making" you breath it. YOU made the choice of entering that establishment, YOU, not anybody else.
No, that's where you are wrong. I can't help but breath it if i'm in a place where smokers are. And it's just as much my right to breath fresh air as it is for people to smoke. And I have just as much right to be in a public establishment as smokers do.

[aceoky]

I know what your saying, but before you open that business you agree to obey the laws of the city and you also agree to obey them if they change. At first I thought it was just plain wrong to outlaw smoking in bars, but it's so darn nice without all the smoke that I rather enjoy it now.

.

I don't think so, MOST laws have "grandfather clauses" why not these, I'd sure hate to sink my life savings in a bar (or whatever) get business built up good and strong then the local Gov come in and say you can't do "X" any more...which is ten times more wrong, IF "X" impacts my bottom line in a major way........FREE Enterprise needs to remain free........it's simple IF the owner allows smoking and YOU don't like it don't go into it.......IF your job is there, and you don't like smoke, find another job that fits your "style" better, it's NOT the "end of the world" for owners to do as they wish with their own places........it's worked for centuries here in the US.....

Besides all of that MY main problem (and many others have said theirs as well) is the banning of outside smoking.....that's "over the top" doesn't matter how "anti-smoking" one is......

Allow that, pretty soon it will be ban smoking in cars (someone may crack a window can't have that.......then YOUR home will be mandated smoke free.......then.....who knows what goes next.....

It's the give 'em an inch rule.......they WILL take the mile almost every chance they get....... :)

[slickhead slayer]

No, that's where you are wrong. I can't help but breath it if i'm in a place where smokers are. And it's just as much my right to breath fresh air as it is for people to smoke. And I have just as much right to be in a public establishment as smokers do.

Thats what your missing, its PRIVATE not public. Public is owned by the public, private is owned by a private individual. I have no problem with smoking being banned in publicly owned places, but not private.

I don't see how you can say with a straight face that if a guy buys a bar, and opens a bar, that he can't allow people to do a LEGAL activity in his OWN bar because XI hunter doesn't approve. Thats ludicrous.

You want to drink a beer with no smoke, super, open your own bar and do as you please. But don't tell a bar owner what he can't do in HIS own bar.

[quackrstackr]

The thing about Murray is that they pretty well have a captive audience. We don't have "bars" per se' (liquor by the drink at restaurants) and unless you want to drive 30+ miles to the next eatery, you'll eat here. Paducah is also in the process of doing the same thing (sans the outside smoking deal) so that takes a huge chunk of possible would be competition out of the equation.

Smokers will still eat and still drink at the restaraunts where allowed. I don't see this having any substantial negative financial impact to the businesses it would effect.

Not saying there aren't numerous other arguments to be made but the financial one is pretty much a dead issue however, IMO.

[AteUp]

Just think of how popular a place would be if it were allowed to be "Smoking Only"? Heck I bet all the smokers would head for that place to toss a few back. What a goldmine.

[aceoky]

The thing about Murray is that they pretty well have a captive audience. We don't have "bars" per se' (liquor by the drink at restaurants) and unless you want to drive 30+ miles to the next eatery, you'll eat here. Paducah is also in the process of doing the same thing (sans the outside smoking deal) so that takes a huge chunk of possible would be competition out of the equation.

Smokers will still eat and still drink at the restaraunts where allowed. I don't see this having any substantial negative financial impact to the businesses it would effect.

Not saying there aren't numerous other arguments to be made but the financial one is pretty much a dead issue however, IMO.

WHY the "outside ban" as well, do you have any ideas???

THAT is what got my attention.....I find that "thinking" absurd.....IMO

[westkybanded]

WHY the "outside ban" as well, do you have any ideas???

THAT is what got my attention.....I find that "thinking" absurd.....IMO

Most of the resturants here in town that have bars also have (or could easily create) outdoor seating. Since the ban is proposed under the auspices of lowering smoking rates for the overall health and wellbeing of the public, the ban would want to encompass the entire resturant facility, and not just the inside of the building.

The idea is that if you stop people from smoking in public, then they will eventually be forced to quit smoking. I find this idea to be rather obsurd myself, but obviously the media buys into it:

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/state/16221068.htm

There is no way that a smoking ban in Lexington caused 26% of the smokers in town to stop... That's simply impossible....

Boy it sounds good tho!!!!

[aceoky]

Most of the restaurants here in town that have bars also have (or could easily create) outdoor seating. Since the ban is proposed under the auspices of lowering smoking rates for the overall health and wellbeing of the public, the ban would want to encompass the entire resturant facility, and not just the inside of the building.

The idea is that if you stop people from smoking in public, then they will eventually be forced to quit smoking. I find this idea to be rather obsurd myself, but obviously the media buys into it:

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/state/16221068.htm

There is no way that a smoking ban in Lexington caused 26% of the smokers in town to stop... That's simply impossible....

Boy it sounds good tho!!!!

OK that covers the restaurants part of it, but it doesn't just mention those????

[JDMiller]

The thing about Murray is that they pretty well have a captive audience. We don't have "bars" per se' (liquor by the drink at restaurants) and unless you want to drive 30+ miles to the next eatery, you'll eat here. Paducah is also in the process of doing the same thing (sans the outside smoking deal) so that takes a huge chunk of possible would be competition out of the equation.

Smokers will still eat and still drink at the restaraunts where allowed. I don't see this having any substantial negative financial impact to the businesses it would effect.

Not saying there aren't numerous other arguments to be made but the financial one is pretty much a dead issue however, IMO.

quack ....your probably right on Murrays situation. I guess theres really only three places that it would have the biggest impact on...the Apple , Nicks & possibly Applebees. These operations have a bar setting besides also having dining areas. I know the Apple's owners have shown their displeasure publicly on a future smoking ban. Honestly... their bar is the most disconnected from the dining area of the three.

I can see a lot of points made and as I stated before I dont smoke. I just think it should be the business owners decision. I think a better choice would be to enact better smoking & non-smoking designated areas with adequate HVAC / filtering of the smoking areas. The resturants could either comply or have to go smoke free. Cost of installation / compliance in some facillities would pretty much make the decision but they would at least have the option. To me the best argument for this would be a Cracker Barrel...their smoking areas are seperated by a piece of lattice. This is a joke. Solid walls / doors / in conjunction with seperate HVAC / exhaust filtering would solve 99% of the problem. It would be expensive but you would still cater to both markets of consumers. Combine this with annual inspections to make sure thing are in working order / compliance and would end a lot of the problems.

To me better / tougher stance on existing smoking is the big issue....it all boils down to compliance.

[cephus]

Originally Posted by cephus http://www.kentuckyhunting.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.kentuckyhunting.net/forums/showthread.php?p=386539#post386539)
Funny thing is when I question your common sense you throw out examples of INDUSTRIAL capacities. This is about a private business owner running his/her business the way they see fit. Your really not on the same page, but I guess that the only way you can make your case.

BTW, if your so worried about the enviroment why arent you taking the WD-40 comment more seriously? Its a non-soluble in water, oil based chemical that people are using for 1001 reasons, including spraying on their fishing bait. How come your not more serious about the engines that are damaging the enviroment and ozone at a unbelievable level? Surely you are for the soy and biodesiel forms of fuel being mandated to us by the government. After all, its better for us. Is it not?

Your post make one believe tat your not really after "whats good for the people" just whats good and convienant!
This is a health issue, and when the public is invited into a business they should be able to conduct business in a healthy enviroment. That is what it boils down to. Just because you have the right to smoke, it doesn't mean you have the right to do it around others who don't. And I'm sorry, but smoke travles, and no one can help it

The above mentioned are not health issues? Quit dodging and answer the question.

[Buford]

Im sure someone has already mentioned this but I'll risk stating it....Noone cares about the smokers wanting to smoke. The reason smoking has to be banned is because its an employee issue...you cant ask someone to work in that environment.
There is just no way around that.

[JDMiller]

Im sure someone has already mentioned this but I'll risk stating it....Noone cares about the smokers wanting to smoke. The reason smoking has to be banned is because its an employee issue...you cant ask someone to work in that environment.
There is just no way around that.

I agree to the extent some occupations have their hazzard. I'm a plumber / pipefitter /welder for a state owned university. Between asbestos , lead and who knows what...... I've breathed more than my share of stuff thats bad for you....even with abatements & osha safeguards in place. I've always had a choice...change careers.

Whats funny....I have a big NO SMOKING on the shop doors. You walk in....torches , welders , grinders going and fog you cant see through. Sure wouldnt want someone to smoke a cigarette in there...it might be bad for us.

[aceoky]

Im sure someone has already mentioned this but I'll risk stating it....Noone cares about the smokers wanting to smoke. The reason smoking has to be banned is because its an employee issue...you cant ask someone to work in that environment.
There is just no way around that.

Sorry, I'm not buying that at all....

WHERE are all these people "forced" to work there?
They can't work elsewhere .....I don't buy that for a second, most of the workers around here that work around eateries etc. ARE smokers (maybe because of the fact they're working in the environment, and have no problem as smokers doing so??? (IOW the "non-smokers" who are bothered already are not working there) :)

I can guarantee you IF I worked at a job , where smoking was allowed and it bothered me, I'd not be there for long......and everyone else has the same option IF that IS the issue.....

As for the "outside of any buildings" ,(which is MY main gripe about this....as I said let this pass, then cars then your homes..so much for FREEDOMS)... that IS NOT a employee problem that I can see......the yard workers may get a "whiff" of smoke from time to time, but I seriously doubt it's a huge health risk ;)

[quackrstackr]

quack ....your probably right on Murrays situation. I guess theres really only three places that it would have the biggest impact on...the Apple , Nicks & possibly Applebees. These operations have a bar setting besides also having dining areas. I know the Apple's owners have shown their displeasure publicly on a future smoking ban. Honestly... their bar is the most disconnected from the dining area of the three.

I can see a lot of points made and as I stated before I dont smoke. I just think it should be the business owners decision. I think a better choice would be to enact better smoking & non-smoking designated areas with adequate HVAC / filtering of the smoking areas. The resturants could either comply or have to go smoke free. Cost of installation / compliance in some facillities would pretty much make the decision but they would at least have the option. To me the best argument for this would be a Cracker Barrel...their smoking areas are seperated by a piece of lattice. This is a joke. Solid walls / doors / in conjunction with seperate HVAC / exhaust filtering would solve 99% of the problem. It would be expensive but you would still cater to both markets of consumers. Combine this with annual inspections to make sure thing are in working order / compliance and would end a lot of the problems.

To me better / tougher stance on existing smoking is the big issue....it all boils down to compliance.

110% agreement with you on that JD.

I don't smoke either and sitting 5 feet from the smoking area in a restaurant that uses the "invisible wall" approach to seperation when I have my 2 year old in tow isn't cutting it anymore.

I saw the argument made earlier to just leave and go somewhere else but that's not normally a viable option on the weekends when it takes over 30 minutes to get a seat to begin with and your kid is screaming that she's hungry.

I know the advanced filtration works because I have been in establishments that had it. It works very well actually.

[Art]

Really all that matters is that you guys may not like it but you better learn to love it because it's going around. If you live in a decent sized city, your days of smoking in a public place are numbered. You can argue until you're blue in the face but that's just how it's going to be.

Some of you guys need to look up the difference between "public" and "private". If people can walk in off the street to your establishment, then you my friend own a public place. You may be the owner, but it's not "private".. There's not too many private businesses that do a great deal of business.;)

[AteUp]

What if I charge a one-time, lifetime membership to my private club? Say, $10?

[Art]

What if I charge a one-time, lifetime membership to my private club? Say, $10?


That's one thing that was brought up around here, and to be honest I don't know what has happened with that. I do know of some organized clubs that only allow members in still allow smoking but I'm not sure if it's legal or not.

We don't have a tactical force that goes around writing tickets for smoking. You have to be pretty bold and ignorant to get fined IMO. MOST smokers realize it's easier to just get off their butt and walk outside as opposed to making a big scene.

[WildmanWilson]

Nobody is enfringing on your right to fresh air. Restaurants, and bars are PRIVATE places, owned by individuals. You don't have the right to dictate what a person does and doesn't do in his or her bar or restaurant, as long as its a legal activity.
What gives some of you the belief that if I open a bar, you have ANY rights once your inside. Its MY bar, I opened it, I pay for it, I run it,I pay the taxes etc etc. Why do have a say in what goes on in it????

You don't like smelling smoke in a bar THEN DON"T GO. There is no god given right of going into a bar and having the air please you. Smoking is a LEGAL activity folks.
I am 100% for smoking bans in public property, not private, thats ludicrous.

You guys want to go to a restaurant without smelling smoke, then open one.

Well you answered your own argument. If a law has been passed to not allow smoking then its not a legal option. End of story. Just like you cant say women aren't allowed or minorities. Just because you own it doesn't mean you can do everything you want.

If you go into a gas station some one owns to use the bathroom it's called a public restroom. Not a private restroom. Same with a restaurant. It's a public restaurant. If the general public is free to come and go then it's a public place. Doesnt matter if one person owns it or a corporation.

[cephus]

If you go into a gas station some one owns to use the bathroom it's called a public restroom. Not a private restroom.

Wrong. There are plenty of gas staions around with signs up "sorry, no public restroom." Pretty sure that means PRIVATE. I guess you can try to push your way through because you think it is public property. But hey, look on the brightside, you will end up in a public place.

[WildmanWilson]

Wrong. There are plenty of gas staions around with signs up "sorry, no public restroom." Pretty sure that means PRIVATE. I guess you can try to push your way through because you think it is public property. But hey, look on the brightside, you will end up in a public place.

You can have a private bathroom just for employees but if you have one for the customers then its a public restroom. The gas station was just an example. They are not required by law to have a bathroom for customers. Any place that serves food must have a public restroom. Go to any of your restaurants and they have public restrooms. You cant tell your customers they can't use it. Just because you own it doesn't mean you have the right to do what you want. Same with the smoking law.

[westkybanded]

The next question to this I suppose would be if the issue will go to a public vote?

Do we allow the city council to make the decision for us? Are they to tell us what's best for us as individuals?

If it does go to a public vote, will the MSU students be allowd to vote as they were for the alcahol refferendum?

[KYCatBirdHunter]

Actually, he was right. These are PRIVATE establishments. They have the right to refuse service to anyone at anytime for any reason. Likewise, you have the right to not go if you don't like the air. This is a free market, so if there is enough REAL demand for smoke-free restaurants (and not just do-gooders trying to make waves), then smoke-free restaurants will open up. Lexington was a prime example of this. People started raising a stink, and several Lexington area restaurants went smoke-free. Was that enough for these people? NO! They wanted their cake, and yours, and then they ate 'em both.

[GSP]

Actually, he was right. These are PRIVATE establishments. They have the right to refuse service to anyone at anytime for any reason. Likewise, you have the right to not go if you don't like the air. This is a free market, so if there is enough REAL demand for smoke-free restaurants (and not just do-gooders trying to make waves), then smoke-free restaurants will open up. Lexington was a prime example of this. People started raising a stink, and several Lexington area restaurants went smoke-free. Was that enough for these people? NO! They wanted their cake, and yours, and then they ate 'em both.

BINGO!;) ,,,,,

[WildmanWilson]

Actually, he was right. These are PRIVATE establishments. They have the right to refuse service to anyone at anytime for any reason. Likewise, you have the right to not go if you don't like the air. This is a free market, so if there is enough REAL demand for smoke-free restaurants (and not just do-gooders trying to make waves), then smoke-free restaurants will open up. Lexington was a prime example of this. People started raising a stink, and several Lexington area restaurants went smoke-free. Was that enough for these people? NO! They wanted their cake, and yours, and then they ate 'em both.

Boy are you wrong...remember when blacks couldn't eat in a restaurant? Try are not serve a black man or someone who is gay on those grounds and see what happens. You can not refuse service to anyone for any reason. If they are disorderly or not dressed properly then yes but you must have a good reason.

[GSP]

Boy are you wrong...remember when blacks couldn't eat in a restaurant? Try are not serve a black man or someone who is gay on those grounds and see what happens. You can not refuse service to anyone for any reason. If they are disorderly or not dressed properly then yes but you must have a good reason.

I think what he refered to was covered about post 79. You have the right to refuse service as long as it is not based on the race, creed,etc.
Actually you are required to refuse service in times. If you have a person that is drunk, you are liable if you serve them.

[WildmanWilson]

These are PRIVATE establishments. They have the right to refuse service to anyone at anytime for any reason.

Read what he said again....he is 100% wrong.

[cephus]

Originally Posted by KYCatBirdHunter http://www.kentuckyhunting.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.kentuckyhunting.net/forums/showthread.php?p=386934#post386934)
These are PRIVATE establishments. They have the right to refuse service to anyone at anytime for any reason.
Read what he said again....he is 100% wrong.

I guess that would make you a law expert and me illiterate. I am pretty sure that I read that sign correctly. It said "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone at anytime", maybe you could shed some light on this.

[WildmanWilson]

I guess that would make you a law expert and me illiterate. I am pretty sure that I read that sign correctly. It said "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone at anytime", maybe you could shed some light on this.


Does a Restaurant Have the Unrestricted Right to Refuse Service to Specific Patrons?


No. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Civil_Rights_Act) explicitly prohibits restaurants from refusing service to patrons on the basis of race, color, religion, or natural origin. In addition, most courts don’t allow restaurants to refuse service to patrons based on extremely arbitrary conditions. For example, a person likely can’t be refused service due to having a lazy eye.

But Aren’t Restaurants Considered Private Property?


Yes, however they are also considered places of public accommodation. In other words, the primary purpose of a restaurant is to sell food to the general public, which necessarily requires susceptibility to equal protection laws (http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/constitutional-laws.html). Therefore, a restaurant’s existence as private property does not excuse an unjustified refusal of service. This can be contrasted to a nightclub, which usually caters itself to a specific group of clientele based on age and social status.

So Are “We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone” Signs in Restaurants Legal?


Yes, however they still do not give a restaurant the power to refuse service on the basis of race, color, religion, or natural origin. These signs also do not preclude a court from finding other arbitrary refusals of service to be discriminatory. Simply put, restaurants that carry a “Right to Refuse Service” sign are subject to the same laws as restaurants without one.

What Conditions Allow a Restaurant to Refuse Service?


There a number of legitimate reasons for a restaurant to refuse service, some of which include:

Patrons who are unreasonably rowdy or causing trouble
Patrons that may overfill capacity if let in
Patrons who come in just before closing time or when the kitchen is closed
Patrons accompanied by large groups of non-customers looking to sit in
Patrons lacking adequate hygiene (e.g. excess dirt, extreme body odor, etc.)In most cases, refusal of service is warranted where a customer’s presence in the restaurant detracts from the safety, welfare, and well-being of other patrons and the restaurant itself.

[cephus]

race, color, religion, or natural origin

Out of all you posted, the above written is the only reasons they CAN NOT refuse service. Still does not make them public, the above written also goes for government buildings and property as well. So you really didnt post anything that makes my business a public place.

Better yet, I run a business from my home, is that now public property too?

[WildmanWilson]

Out of all you posted, the above written is the only reasons they CAN NOT refuse service. Still does not make them public, the above written also goes for government buildings and property as well. So you really didnt post anything that makes my business a public place.

Better yet, I run a business from my home, is that now public property too?

So...it seems you were wrong doesn't it.

I'll print this one again for you.
But Aren’t Restaurants Considered Private Property?


Yes, however they are also considered places of public accommodation. In other words, the primary purpose of a restaurant is to sell food to the general public, which necessarily requires susceptibility to equal protection laws (http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/constitutional-laws.html). Therefore, a restaurant’s existence as private property does not excuse an unjustified refusal of service. This can be contrasted to a nightclub, which usually caters itself to a specific group of clientele based on age and social status.

If you run a business from your home it would depend on the type of business you ran and how it was zoned I suppose. If you ran a bed and breakfast or a restaurant it would apply to the rule above. If however you ran a boat repair shop from your home it may not.

[stanmanhale]

So...it seems you were wrong doesn't it.

I'll print this one again for you.
But Aren’t Restaurants Considered Private Property?


Yes, however they are also considered places of public accommodation. In other words, the primary purpose of a restaurant is to sell food to the general public, which necessarily requires susceptibility to equal protection laws (http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/constitutional-laws.html). Therefore, a restaurant’s existence as private property does not excuse an unjustified refusal of service. This can be contrasted to a nightclub, which usually caters itself to a specific group of clientele based on age and social status.

If you run a business from your home it would depend on the type of business you ran and how it was zoned I suppose. If you ran a bed and breakfast or a restaurant it would apply to the rule above. If however you ran a boat repair shop from your home it may not.
this can be contrasted to a nightclub, which caters itself to a specific group of clientele based on age and social status....is this not saying that you can cater to one group????

[cephus]

So...it seems you were wrong doesn't it.

I'll print this one again for you.
But Aren’t Restaurants Considered Private Property?


Yes, however they are also considered places of public accommodation. In other words, the primary purpose of a restaurant is to sell food to the general public, which necessarily requires susceptibility to equal protection laws (http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/constitutional-laws.html). Therefore, a restaurant’s existence as private property does not excuse an unjustified refusal of service. This can be contrasted to a nightclub, which usually caters itself to a specific group of clientele based on age and social status.

If you run a business from your home it would depend on the type of business you ran and how it was zoned I suppose. If you ran a bed and breakfast or a restaurant it would apply to the rule above. If however you ran a boat repair shop from your home it may not.

You keep posting bullets that would lead us to believe that this is open to interpretation. A business is a business is a business. No more no less. You are stating civil rights laws. Which is quite a bit different than if I have the right to smoke in a place of business. Why you keep focusing on the restuarant business, I dont know. The ban mentioned here would ban smoking in all businesses. Not just eateries.

Again, If I allow smoking in my business, you have the right to decide to shop there or not. Same goes if I do not allow smoking. Which again is quite different than civil rights laws you are focusing on, at that time the minorities did NOT have that right. As of right now YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE!

And I have the right to choose whether or not I do business with you. While I can not base my decision not to do business with you on your race, ethinicity, or gender. Those same three do not grant you the the inalienable right of my business either. Again, I DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHETHER OR NOT I WANT TO DO BUSINESS WITH YOU.

[Art]

Wildman is the only one here that is correct. You run a business under the guildlines of the govt if you open it within the cities boundries, not what you deem to be legal yourself. That's your only option if you want to open a business.

[Art]

You keep posting bullets that would lead us to believe that this is open to interpretation. A business is a business is a business. No more no less. You are stating civil rights laws. Which is quite a bit different than if I have the right to smoke in a place of business. Why you keep focusing on the restuarant business, I dont know. The ban mentioned here would ban smoking in all businesses. Not just eateries.

Again, If I allow smoking in my business, you have the right to decide to shop there or not. Same goes if I do not allow smoking. Which again is quite different than civil rights laws you are focusing on, at that time the minorities did NOT have that right. As of right now YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE!

You could open such a business and you could smoke all you wanted to in there. As long as no one complains or there's nobody there that would report you then you are fine.. Most intelligent business owners around here realize that it's smarter to just go to the back door and smoke and not even have to worry about it.

[Buford]

Well I hate to have to admit this but I apparently needs to be said to make the case crystal clear.
I belong to a private club. WE have alot of smokers. Im one of them.
The metro smoking ban will be in affect at our private club.
WHY you ask? Because there are non smokers who work there.
Because we rely on the services of 36 employees. Were we to flaunt the ban and one of those employees get anything related to smoke, we would be liable for huge damages which could bankrupt the club.
This is different than hanging around a shop where welders are used. This is TOBACCO, the holy grail of workplace hazards.
This is not a civil rights issue, it's an employee rights issue. Noone is telling you you cant smoke. theyre just telling you you cant smoke where someone else chooses to work.

[Art]

Well I hate to have to admit this but I apparently needs to be said to make the case crystal clear.
I belong to a private club. WE have alot of smokers. Im one of them.
The metro smoking ban will be in affect at our private club.
WHY you ask? Because there are non smokers who work there.
Because we rely on the services of 36 employees. Were we to flaunt the ban and one of those employees get anything related to smoke, we would be liable for huge damages which could bankrupt the club.
This is different than hanging around a shop where welders are used. This is TOBACCO, the holy grail of workplace hazards.
This is not a civil rights issue, it's an employee rights issue. Noone is telling you you cant smoke. theyre just telling you you cant smoke where someone else chooses to work.


Well said. I think a lot of people want to make this worse than what it is.

[aceoky]

Wildman is the only one here that is correct. You run a business under the guildlines of the govt if you open it within the cities boundries, not what you deem to be legal yourself. That's your only option if you want to open a business.

That's true, but not 100% correct, because if *I* had just opened a business in Murray, and THEN the law said I could decide, whether or not to allow smoking (and let's just say THAT was a major issue in my businesses ability to thrive), then I went into business and risked MY money on one certain situation..

NOW some want to change the laws for everyone (including my "new" business).......see that's not "right or fair", which is why MOST laws have a grandfather clause NO good reason for ANY law to not have one, at least that way the existing businesses are NOT punished or harmed for having "good faith" in the laws that were in place when they decided to take the very real risks as it was........

No one is seeming to be concerned with the "outside of buildings" clause...that in NO way affects employee's health......or anything else...other than the smoker....

Again that is MY main gripe, and I not only think it's foolish to say Yeah we'll sell you smokes as legal, but we'll also soon legislate their use to the point that you'll NOT be allowed to even smoke them in YOUR car or HOME......:mad:

I have NO problem with someone not wanting to eat in a smoke filled place, in fact our McDonald's here has been smoke free (by choice) for quite some time, but when I'm told, while outside, hey you can't smoke here THAT is when I'll draw the line ........that idea is so absurd and in NO way do I think it can hold up in any courts either....when any smoker can easily point to any big truck and say want to compare MY smoke to that..... ;)

We have (somehow) managed to NOT have to legislate these type things here (so far), yet we have several smoke free restaurants (choice of the owner/operators) and I have to believe that is the "best way" for everyone including the owners, I can tell you IF it's important enough to the customers and the owners know that it is, it's going to happen, and Without being forced to do it..I've seen it happen enough to not question that fact....maybe they all won't go "smoke free", but enough of them will that those who REALLY want to go there they can.....and those who don't care OR want to smoke can too.

[WildmanWilson]

Ace ...I agree 100 % on smoking outdoors. I think it stupid to not allow someone to smoke outdoors. As long as they are not huddled up around the door. I don't even mind smoking indoors if they can keep it separated.

The one thing that has really bothered me is some smokers saying that I can just go somewhere else if I don't like it. To me that just shows the selfishness of those smokers. Most times I can't just leave the smoking business and go to another smoke free business just like it because another one doesn't exist( like my favorite restaurant).

If I was a smoker I wouldn't want to smoke around other people knowing it was so offensive to them and some don't. Some don't care however because the world revolves around them and their smokes.

[aceoky]

Ace ...I agree 100 % on smoking outdoors. I think it stupid to not allow someone to smoke outdoors. As long as they are not huddled up around the door. I don't even mind smoking indoors if they can keep it separated.

The one thing that has really bothered me is some smokers saying that I can just go somewhere else if I don't like it. To me that just shows the selfishness of those smokers. Most times I can't just leave the smoking business and go to another smoke free business just like it because another one doesn't exist( like my favorite restaurant).

If I was a smoker I wouldn't want to smoke around other people knowing it was so offensive to them and some don't. Some don't care however because the world revolves around them and their smokes.

I agree with all of that, sometimes every group of people (no matter what the issue) thinks their rights (or perceived rights) 'trump" others......even though that is rarely the truth..

I can't see how anyone could support this knowing the "outside of buildings" part is there, and I am for the owners being able to decide their own fate in all business decisions........other than those two points the issue is just what some think about such stuff..

Those two things IMHO are very important to all of us, whether we realize it or not, when business owners start losing any control over their businesses, we all stand to lose, I've seen too many forced out of business in my lifetime, many were great places but for one reason or another they just couldn't survive....to me that's sad that in the US where we're supposed to be FREE, some people are legislated out of their life savings, "for their own good".....:eek:

I agree with the concept of giving the restaurants a choice of either ventilate properly OR go smoke free, at least that way those who can afford to (and really need to keep the smokers business) can do so...... seems a win-win to me..

[Art]

I don't think they should ban smoking outdoors either, and I think we are a long way from that. I think when they mean outside, they are refering to a cluster of smokers who huddle around the door or the sidewalk to an entry point.

I think one needs to look at alcohol laws and compare them to smoking. They are much tougher. Drinking is also a legal activity but you can't do that outside of a designated eating area at restaurants and you sure as heck can't do it at work or in your car. Why is it that people are not making the same argument about the alcohol laws, since afterall it is "legal"? The laws were developed not only from common sense but also out of concern for the health and safety of others.

[aceoky]

I don't think they should ban smoking outdoors either, and I think we are a long way from that. I think when they mean outside, they are refering to a cluster of smokers who huddle around the door or the sidewalk to an entry point.

I think one needs to look at alcohol laws and compare them to smoking. They are much tougher. Drinking is also a legal activity but you can't do that outside of a designated eating area at restaurants and you sure as heck can't do it at work or in your car. Why is it that people are not making the same argument about the alcohol laws, since afterall it is "legal"? The laws were developed not only from common sense but also out of concern for the health and safety of others.

NO we're not " a long way from that", the Murray proposed ban simply says "outside of buildings" as I understand it, thus it CAN be used if you are 10 yards from a doorway, you're still "outside of a building"..... ;)

Speaking for myself, *I* am not making those same arguments NOW because the laws on alcohol have been around and pretty much the same, thus they don't pose the same amount of danger/risk IMHO for a new business owner as some of these NEW smoking laws do (and IF they would "grandfather" the NEW smoking laws into the deal, I'd have MUCH less concern on that front as well) :)

[Art]

Why do you need to be within 30 feet of a door to get your fix? You should be able to walk 30 feet without running out of breath, I hope.:D

[aceoky]

Why do you need to be within 30 feet of a door to get your fix? You should be able to walk 30 feet without running out of breath, I hope.:D

Why? Maybe (just perhaps) it's RAINING........:eek:
Or it's really cold and windy (ever try to smoke in Cold high wind.........NOT good)
Why shouldn't I be allowed SOME shelter from the elements.....See some not only don't want smokers around them inside, they now want them to be exposed to the elements even more than is reasonable........:rolleyes:

MY point is, that it is absurd that I can be 30 feet away from a building and OUTSIDE and still not be "legal" IF some get their way......."outside of buildings" is TOO broad IMHO......IF it said Less than 10 feet or something ......maybe I could see the "reasoning" behind it.......NOT "on the outside of buildings".......

[slickhead slayer]

Wildman is the only one here that is correct. You run a business under the guildlines of the govt if you open it within the cities boundries, not what you deem to be legal yourself. That's your only option if you want to open a business.

Thats why people are objecting to the ordinance Art. Smoking is a LEGAL activity. Should the government tell private business owners that their patrons can't partake in a legal activity?

[JDMiller]

Lyle wants to create no smoking zones around those buildings.




The issue on MSU campus is "outside".... this same group is pushing the same thing with the city council. So......yes...this is being proposed as ...no smoking outside of a building. What we need to remember....the ordinance is not written or even proposed at this point. However ...as stated before....we tried the designated 30"ft from campus building ...it just did'nt work. Enforcement in these matters is next to impossible ...it was then....it would be now.

[slickhead slayer]

The one thing that has really bothered me is some smokers saying that I can just go somewhere else if I don't like it. To me that just shows the selfishness of those smokers. Most times I can't just leave the smoking business and go to another smoke free business just like it because another one doesn't exist( like my favorite restaurant).

.

Let me clear something up since I am the one who says non-smokers can go elsewhere. I am NOT a smoker, never have been. Think its a terrible habit, and wonder why people do it. I also have enjoyed going out to a few places and not smelling like smoke when I get home.
But I refuse to have rights eroded just because it might benefit me in this instance.

[Art]

Why? Maybe (just perhaps) it's RAINING........:eek:
Or it's really cold and windy (ever try to smoke in Cold high wind.........NOT good)
Why shouldn't I be allowed SOME shelter from the elements.....See some not only don't want smokers around them inside, they now want them to be exposed to the elements even more than is reasonable........:rolleyes:

MY point is, that it is absurd that I can be 30 feet away from a building and OUTSIDE and still not be "legal" IF some get their way......."outside of buildings" is TOO broad IMHO......IF it said Less than 10 feet or something ......maybe I could see the "reasoning" behind it.......NOT "on the outside of buildings".......

So what you are saying is that you don't want to get wet or or cold but you don't have a problem with ingesting poison?:D :D J/K...

This issue doens't really concern me because I'm not a smoker and I pretty much know which side of the law I'm going to be on as it relates..Basically, this isn't my problem.

[BigDaddy]

I smell Socialism.....and it makes me sick! :mad:

[Josh7.62x54]

Let me clear something up since I am the one who says non-smokers can go elsewhere. I am NOT a smoker, never have been. Think its a terrible habit, and wonder why people do it. I also have enjoyed going out to a few places and not smelling like smoke when I get home.
But I refuse to have rights eroded just because it might benefit me in this instance.

Smoking may be legal, but second hand smoke is proven to cause lung cancer in nonsmokers. Second hand smoke contains a number of Class A carcinogens, classified by the EPA, to be down right posionus. I hate seeing people's rights being eroded too, but with facts like this how can you not be in support of a smoking ban?

[JDMiller]

Thats why people are objecting to the ordinance Art.

Agree 100%. Again dont smoke or live in the city limits but I feel its a fine line between residential & business concerning city ordinances. Most of the time its spills over both directions.

I know we debated the public & private thing but to just throw my two cents worth. Certain areas of government jurisdiction makes businesses public. Plumbing codes , electrical codes , gas codes....building codes. Federally ...ADA , civil rights and such take effect. The list goes on ....but.... unless its owned by the federal, state , county or city.....its private property. Owners of business that serve the public or provide a public service.....have to adhere to certain things or restrictions but at the end of the day....they own the building & property and have certain rights as well. Ordinances as this are just a stepping stone to more control of what you can or can not do.... its just hidden in the cloak of health concerns. Its easy to get people on board with this and be justified.

If we agree or not on this subject..it wont be long before city ordinances control every area of our lives. They will tell us how many we can have in attendance to a "superbowl party" or your childs birthday party. How many firearms we can own and must meet certain criteria. How many and what kind of pets we can own. What type of lawn mower to mow are yards and when we can do it. The list is endless and regardless of your take on smoking.....tell me this is not where things are headed.

Sorry to get on a soapbox.

[BigDaddy]

First of all show me the bodies folks, show me the bodies....

Second, if everyone knows that SHS is such a bad thing then why do you all continue to patron resturants and bars that allow such behaivor. Why would you knowingly expose yourself to such toxins? Is the food or booze really that good?

This is plain and simple an outright invasion on private property rights. Has nothing to do with protecting people from second hand smoke. Give an inch folks and they will take a mile. We are heading down a slippery slope, my friends. We need to proceed w/ caution becuase this will not stop @ so-called "protecting the innocent from the dangers of SHS".

[quackrstackr]

First of all show me the bodies folks, show me the bodies....

On that note and as a person who has lost their father to smoking related lung cancer as well as a few friends... I am officially out of this thread.

I find that statement both ignorant and downright offensive.

Enjoy your cancer.

[Xi Bowhunter]

On that note and as a person who has lost their father to smoking related lung cancer as well as a few friends... I am officially out of this thread.

I find that statement both ignorant and downright offensive.

Enjoy your cancer.
I'm with you on that statement, I take offense to that too. I lost both grandfathers to lung cancer due to a life of smoking. That is a very insensitive statement.

[aceoky]

Second, if everyone knows that SHS is such a bad thing then why do you all continue to patron resturants and bars that allow such behaivor. Why would you knowingly expose yourself to such toxins? Is the food or booze really that good?

This is plain and simple an outright invasion on private property rights. Has nothing to do with protecting people from second hand smoke. Give an inch folks and they will take a mile. We are heading down a slippery slope, my friends. We need to proceed w/ caution becuase this will not stop @ so-called "protecting the innocent from the dangers of SHS".

EXACTLY.........that is "it in a nutshell" IMHO

They "say" SHS is so dangerous, I hardly think it's EVER been "proven"......if so please Cite the court ruling(s) to back that claim up with ;)

I've seen it reported that second hand smoke is "X" time more dangerous than it the smoker is exposed to.....:rolleyes:

NOW with that in mind......please answer me this, HOW is the "smoker" NOT breathing the same smoke as the non-smoker in the same room :D

Claims are not "proof", and I've NEVER seen actual factual proof that SHS is anywhere near as harmful as some claim, NOW I don't think it's "good for you", I just don't happen to believe it's anywhere as bad as some try to claim....

IF it were btw, there would be OSHA rules in effect to protect workers from it......That little "fact" should be a "sign" to everyone who believes that it is "SO BAD".....

Just wait and see, when WE allow for a business owner to lose control over such an issue, see where it leads to after that.....some thing are NOT worth the price for everyone to end up paying........IMHO

[WBBP]

Sorry about your loss Quackr and Rob. It is ridiculous for anyone to deny the affects of smoking or second hand smoke. If a person thinks smoking is good for your body or inhaling secondhand smoke is healthy, it is impossible to have a reasonable conversation with them.

Like JD pointed out, many activities on private property are regulated and most are related to what is in the best interest of the public.

I general, I don't like the government telling us how to operate on a day to day basis, but I do support limited laws to protect the general welfare of the public.

I support a full ban on smoking in private business's and even within 30' of the door. In all honesty, if the smokers would regulate themselves a little, we wouldn't even need to address this issue.

K

[Josh7.62x54]

First of all show me the bodies folks, show me the bodies.....

After having 2 grandfathers, one grandmother, 2 uncles, one aunt die from lung cancer, you have 6 bodies now. Happy?

[aceoky]

Sorry about your loss Quackr and Rob. It is ridiculous for anyone to deny the affects of smoking or second hand smoke. If a person thinks smoking is good for your body or inhaling secondhand smoke is healthy, it is impossible to have a reasonable conversation with them.

Like JD pointed out, many activities on private property are regulated and most are related to what is in the best interest of the public.

I general, I don't like the government telling us how to operate on a day to day basis, but I do support limited laws to protect the general welfare of the public.

I support a full ban on smoking in private business's and even within 30' of the door. In all honesty, if the smokers would regulate themselves a little, we wouldn't even need to address this issue.

K

Now K, I never said it was "healthy" (SHS)........I simply stated I don't believe it's half as bad as some try to make it out to be.......
And I don't........IS it "good for you" NO.....but c'mon WE all breath so much bad stuff in the air HOW do you "prove" any of it's second hand smoking related???

How many die from lung cancer who have Never smoked OR been around smokers.........see my point, while I agree it's not good for you, and some smokers have NO respect for others..........(NOT all smokers are that way btw) ;) I cant be convinced it is as bad as some try to claim.......and with some of the downright foolish claims I've heard, let's just say those don't help the issue at all........

As for the government and "our own good" I'll ask again when WAS the last time anything they did for "our own good" actually "worked" like it was supposed to .......???? I've listed some good example some pages back fwiw

OH and BTW the 30 feet is a number *I* pulled out of the air saying that IF I'm 10 yards away (30 feet) I'd still be in violation because I'm "outside of buildings" which IS absurd........period

WHAT is the limit you'd see as "reasonable" K?? Sixty feet, a Hundred??? :D :D

Don't even pretend that "outside smoking" is a risk to Anyone other than the smoker.......first that's not wise for many reasons, secondly IF you "fall for that", they'll see an easy mark for other just as foolish laws to enact.......

Inside IS one thing........Outside is absurd.......not just my opinion .......in reality it makes NO sense 0....nadda zilch

[Buford]

EXACTLY.........that is "it in a nutshell" IMHO

They "say" SHS is so dangerous, I hardly think it's EVER been "proven"......if so please Cite the court ruling(s) to back that claim up with ;)

I've seen it reported that second hand smoke is "X" time more dangerous than it the smoker is exposed to.....:rolleyes:

NOW with that in mind......please answer me this, HOW is the "smoker" NOT breathing the same smoke as the non-smoker in the same room :D

Claims are not "proof", and I've NEVER seen actual factual proof that SHS is anywhere near as harmful as some claim, NOW I don't think it's "good for you", I just don't happen to believe it's anywhere as bad as some try to claim....

IF it were btw, there would be OSHA rules in effect to protect workers from it......That little "fact" should be a "sign" to everyone who believes that it is "SO BAD".....

Just wait and see, when WE allow for a business owner to lose control over such an issue, see where it leads to after that.....some thing are NOT worth the price for everyone to end up paying........IMHO

Smoke yourself silly ace, they wont hurt you I promise.

[aceoky]

Smoke yourself silly ace, they wont hurt you I promise.

I don't believe that either.......

What I DO believe is IF I'm outside smoking there are much worse things out there than my smoke :D

[WBBP]

Ace, as smart as you are, you can look it up yourself, then choose to believe half of it and it is still convincing.

Plenty of programs that have plenty of good in them. Not all parts are good, but some are good.

EPA has plenty, I bet you would be screaming if AteUp's plant wanted to build next to your house or a new landfill wanted to be put in next door to your house. Everybody is fine with most sources of pollution until they are next door, then the miraculously they become and environmental supporter over night.

Do you think the Health Department regs are bad, what about OSHA.

I have an idea, go read the book "The Jungle" and then come back and tell me all government programs are bad.

You are smarter than this.

K

[BigDaddy]

We all know the dangers of smoking! We know that smoking can lead to or cause lung cancer. Nobody wants to argue that point. I am deeply sorry for anyone's loss in relation to lung cancer. There was no attempt on my part to be insensitive to those that have lost loved ones to lung cancer. The statement was in reference to SHS only. I just do not see the empirical evidence that proves SHS is such a great danger to the welfare of the people of this state or country. I am not saying there is NO danger to those that have exposure to SHS. The point is we are heading down a very slippery slope. I do not want to be regulated to the point that the gov't tells me what, how, and when I can do something because it is in the "best interest of the public".

What is "best interest of the public"? I sure as heck don't want a handful of elected officials deciding this for me. I want the government to protect my individual liberties and freedoms and grant me these rights as defined by the constitution of this great country….

[aceoky]

K, first of all this in NO way affects me now in any way, I'm far enough away from any city that it may Never affect ME......

IF I ever make it out to Murray and this passes (which I doubt), then I'll be affected...... :)

So thus this is Not about "me" at all.....

When they start saying that shs IS worse on the people in the room than the smoker I have to call BS.......big time! First the smoker IS breathing not only the same air, but also what he/she is smoking.......don't have to be a rocket scientist to see how full of holes that is...

I support the rights of the owners of businesses to decide whether to allow smoking or not.........period, it's their livelihood's that is on the line after all and often their life savings as well....

I can't support in any way ANY ban for smoking outside......that in my view is 100% absurd AND serves NO good or useful purpose for anyone.....

I do NOT support smokers being around and smoking around those who don't like smoke, I don't do it ( I will go outside......but I DO draw the line there)........and I would hope that more smokers would do the same.....

I wish I'd never started, but like so many things , they're easy to start, very hard to quit.......and I may soon decide to quit, until then though I pay enough for them and in taxes on them to be able to use them without so much Government interference as does every smoker.....IMHO

I think we ALL could stand to be more courteous to each other on many issues....... ;)

[KYCatBirdHunter]

I propose a farting ban.

[BigDaddy]

I propose a farting ban.


I'll second that!

[aceoky]

I propose a farting ban.

I guess you'll want that to include outdoors also???

[Josh7.62x54]

haha ban the soup beans

[WBBP]

Ace, I am fine with the 30' number.

I am on my way down to see Big Daddy right now. I will probably light up a few cigs and cigars and maybe even my peace pipe in his office.......wait a minute, there is no smoking in his building. Dang! :D

Maybe Big Daddy's company will get more business if he encourages smoking :confused: .

K

[BigDaddy]

Ace, I am fine with the 30' number.

I am on my way down to see Big Daddy right now. I will probably light up a few cigs and cigars and maybe even my peace pipe in his office.......wait a minute, there is no smoking in his building. Dang! :D

Maybe Big Daddy's company will get more business if he encourages smoking :confused: .

K

Come on down. You can't light up in my office, but we can go over to the bar and light up over a beer. At least for a few more months anyway.

Because I work at one of the local funeral homes...you got me there! :D

[WildmanWilson]

Years ago I worked with an old guy that was a heavy smoker. He would think it was funny blowing smoke in my direction. He knew I couldn't stand the smell of it so it made it funny to him.

Well the guy finally gave up smoking and one day out of the blue he came up to me and gave me a heart felt apology. He said since he quit smoking he could tell how bad it smelled and couldn't stand to be around it himself now. Believe it or not the guy was almost crying.

So in this case it wasn't about the effects of second hand smoke. We never knew it was any. It was about courtesy for another person. Just for arguments sake....lets say it isn't detrimental to your health at all. Isn't the fact that it smells so bad to someone else enough to not do it around them. I'm afraid the answer is no to many because it's more important that they exercise their "right" and screw anyone else.

[Art]

On that note and as a person who has lost their father to smoking related lung cancer as well as a few friends... I am officially out of this thread.

I find that statement both ignorant and downright offensive.

Enjoy your cancer.


That's me too. Well said.