After reading the Tribune today I am confused about the smoking ban. There was an article about council members Price, Bennedetti, and Messer visiting the 40 & 8 club to discuss the ban.
It was my impression that private clubs would be exempt from the ban. When did this change?
I was reluctant to write about this issue because as a non-smoker I didn't think it was my place to do so. But after hearing both sides I am inclined to agree with the opposition. While I agree that smoking should be banned in restaurants and work places in general, I think that bars and private clubs should be exempt.
Private clubs are just that, private property. If the members choose to smoke, that should be their right. And bars? As the article said, 90% of people who go to bars to drink will smoke also. I have seen people who do not normally smoke do so in bars.
Well, that is my opinion for whatever it's worth.
The next council meeting is next week. Readers, will you attend the meeting and do you plan to speak?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
40 comments:
I think it is a choice issue!
I agree with Councilman Price: It's private property - leave it alone.
Love your blog, thanks for dealing with the real issues of New Albany.
WE NEED THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE MORE THAN EVER NOW, AS THE COUNCIL AND THE mAYOR HAS PROVEN TO US TIME AND AGAIN THAT THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT ANYBODY UNLESS THEY MAKE A RUCKUS.
IT'S TIME TO MAKE A RUCKUS. IT'S TIME TO BE AS ANNOYING AND IN-YOUR-FACE AS THE ANTI SMOKING CROWD.
This isn't about smoking. This is about freedom and rights. This is about the right of a person to choose their own path. It's about the right of a business owner to run their business as they want.
Everybody is correct about the rights involved in this. The problem is, once it is voted into law, your rights go out the windows, and the law takes pecedence.
Most of the people that vote these bans into law simply see this as a chance to "stick it" to smokers, whom they view as second class citizens,and it's personal.
People are more than willing to give up a few rights, if they get a chance to screw over some filthy smokers.
Legal beagle
I am a professional in all fields of restuarant and foodservice, chef in ten different areas, manage 3 B&B's. And I firmly believe that when tasting my food you should not be subjected to any unpleasent impositions such as smoke or unsanitary conditions.
Your experience should be pure.
If I was told I had to allow smokers I would be just as upset as the guy with the biker bar that said he couldn't have smokers.
No one FORCES you to go into a bar or resturant. It isn't your Constitutional right to go out for a beer, or to stop by a bar and grill for a hamburger.
It should be the decision of the business owner. If people don't like establishments were smoking is permitted then they shouldn't go.
How's that for healthy?
If cigarettes are so bad, which they are, why in the hey doesn't the government outlaw them?
Why tell business owners how to run their establishments?
It is the business owner's right to make the decisions. No problem with banning in government buildings, it already exists.
There are some restaurants in Louisville you can still smoke at -- outside.
All bars, private or not, should be able to make their own decisions. Thanks for letting us voice our opinions.
Welcome back Legal Beagle. I agree that it should be up to the establishment, especially bars and private clubs.
As far as resturaunts, if they are smoke free the customers would probably eat there before they would a place where smoking was allowed. I think we should let the customers decide.
"Most of the people that vote these bans into law simply see this as a chance to "stick it" to smokers, whom they view as second class citizens,and it's personal."
That's a very good point, LB.
When the topic of exceptions and exemptions comes up, as it is now, remember that the root of the anti-smoking lobby's argument is that indoor smoking in any workplace is not an issue of customer choice. It is an issue of workplace safety.
I've always found it odd that if this is the case, OSHA does not purport to regulate workplace smoking.
My argument goes like this: The council now will be asked to decide which employee is more deserving of protection -- the waiter in the dining room, or the bartender? As such, it's an impossible distinction to make, and as such, shouldn't it then be left up to the market to decide?
We have smoking and non-smoking areas at the pub. Because of customer demand, the non-smoking area has gotten larger. Customers seem satisfied by the arrangement, and although we've yet to have an employee complain about being forced to work in smoke, we'll try to accommodate any who do.
Doesn't the council have more important things to deal with?
Public health is an important issue.
But, it's OUR health and you have a CHOICE whether to enter the business establishment or not.
I, too, am tired of being treated as if I have to be sent to the "sinner's corner" simply because I choose to smoke.
And, yes, doesn't the Council have more important things to do, LIKE ENFORCEMENT THE BUILDING CODES ALREADY ON THE BOOKS and eliminate the health problems associated with people living in these slum houses? We do not need new "BUILDING ENFORCEMENT CODES", we simply need enforcement of the ones on the books.
As the Audit shows, the Building Commssioner's office decides who, what, when, where, and why; nothing to do with the laws already on the books.
It's ALWAYS been selective enforcement on about every issue you could touch upon within this City.
This City is simply for sale to anyone with the dollars to help fill the political coffers. As the Audit shows for the Building Commissioner's office just because they got their fees waived (which is against the law) I bet you will find some GREAT donations from same.
Don't forget the code enforcement program was proposed under Overton. ALL of the people who own properties have already united and have an Attorney ready to go. This is why it failed under Overton, too much favoritism and lack of enforcement could be proved in a Court of Law.
There truly needs to be a "Tenant's Association" formed to help EVERYONE, an idea floated A LONG TIME AGO to the City Council when SOME OF US started working on these issues.
Thanks for letting me spout off.
Nobody has a right to contaminate the public air. Major cities around the world have realized this. But is New Albany a major city? People say that New Albany is behind the times. If the smoking ban fails, that will show it to be more true than ever.
klaus,
Your right, But...are you willing to also park your car? For clean air? No I didn't think so!
The more we allow them to take away, the more we lose in the long run. Is this the future that we really want? Folks it's called choice to smoke or not.
Secondhand smoke contains more than 4,000 chemicals, including 69 carcinogens.
Have you heard this one?
I don't want to hear about biased coalitions who want to see the abolition of smoking. There's no objectiveity to these people.
If they are going to slap us with Council laws and infringe this severely on our rights and freedoms, I want objective data. No opinions. No personal vendettas against smoking or smokers.
Sign the petitions floating around by the Concerned Citizens for Accountability -- they're every where.
Sign the petitions floating around by the Concerned Citizens for Accountability -- they're every where.
It's not that non smokers are against second hand smoke, they just don't want to smell it.
You hit the nail right on the head, it isn't about smoking, it is about the government taking ovewr peoples everyday lives.
No compromises gives us a perfect example of our current council.
Let 'em take away our cigs, and the next thing you know, they'll want to take away our guns.
A guy who considers himself too good to drink a bud light calling others elitists? That's rich. Talk about hypocrisy!
Let's take a slightly different approach to the absurdity of this ban. The ban has been brought in on alleged hralth grounds and to prevent deaths. Once you are born, the only natural conclusion to the living process is Death.
A smoking ban is an outrageous and unjustified invasion of adults personal freedom. Smokers smoke because it's a pleasurable pursuit, a relaxing social activity.
I smoke, and I don't feel miserable or guility. I enjoy a cigarette. Passive smoke has never been proven.
If a bar owner wants smoking customers that's their choice.
THE KEY ISSUE AT STAKE HERE, AS THERE, IS THE NEW ASSERTION BY OUR CITY THAT IT NOW HAS A SUPERIOR RIGHT TO INFORM ADULT CITIZENS, BE THAT SMOKER (OR NON-SMOKER) OR PROPERTY/BUSINESS OWNER, CONCERNING THE PERSONAL USE OF A LEGAL PRODUCT. THAT IT IS PREPARED TO USE LEGISLATIVE MUSCLE AND TO FOCUS THE LAW ON ORDINARY LAW-ABIDING INDIVIDUALS.
The whole basis of the passive smoking case is founded on highly debateable scientific data. Dr. James LeFanu wrote about this in "Panic Nation" and I have never seen any counter-argument to this. No doubt many non-smokers find tobacco smoking unpleasant but, until it is made completely illegal, there should be a choice between smoking and non-smoking enivronments for everyone. I am more concerned about the damage to my health caused by the emissions from diesel fuelled vehicles as I walk to work. When is that going to be banned?
The whole basis of the passive smoking case is founded on highly debateable scientific data. Dr. James LeFanu wrote about this in "Panic Nation" and I have never seen any counter-argument to this. No doubt many non-smokers find tobacco smoking unpleasant but, until it is made completely illegal, there should be a choice between smoking and non-smoking enivronments for everyone. I am more concerned about the damage to my health caused by the emissions from diesel fuelled vehicles as I walk to work. When is that going to be banned?
I am dismayed - though not surprised - by the preceding comments by smokers. Why do they think it is acceptable to poison the rest of us when they succumb to their weakness?
Love your blog
I have to agree with anonymous above, a smoker has the same right to smoke, as a non smoker has the right to smoke-free air. That is why there are places for non smokers to go and places for smokers to go, and that includes bars, but there are less people who use the non-smoking areas. Smokers may be in the minority, but they are in the majority of people who go out. Surely if the majority of people who go out our non-smokers, and there is money to be made from them, then why is it that there aren't more places for them to go so that they can live out their right to a smoke free atmosphpere? At this moment in time we all have the right to choose whether we go into a place that allows smoking or doesn't allow smoking. Senying a smoker their right to smoke is discrimination.
Diane
Concerned citizens for accountability
I do back the ban of smoking, because I think of the non smoking people that have suffered during years and years of second hand smoke.
I think banning smoking in public is a good thing. Statistics and medical research has proven without a doubt smoking is hazerdous to the smoker as well as the unfortunate second hand recipients who happen to be around you when you smoke.
The taxes generated from smokers does not offset the medical expenses that are continually increasing as the majority of the population ages. Maybe it will be a trigger for more to quit. I hope so for all our health's sake.
IF IT IS SO BAD, LET THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OUTLAW IT, OR ILLEGALIZE IT, AND MAYBE SOME OF US COULD TALK ABOUT IT RATIONALLY.
Until I am able to quit smoking (which I aspire to do one day) -- I pay good monies and am conscientious about people I smoke around and STILL do not feel it is the GOVERNMENT's RIGHT (any GOVERNMENT) to say WHERE or WHEN I do it...until the VERY GOVERNMENT we are speaking of outlaws this product...which in the LONG run would really help the people who do not want anyone to smoke...for ALL THE RIGHT REASONS.
THANKS for your blog.
I suggest we all light up at the next council meeting. What they going to do, arrest us all?
I suggest we all light up at the next council meeting. What they going to do, arrest us all?
That's a great idea anonymous!
Why don't you all just eat a can of pork & beans an hour prior to the meeting, and then pass gas as loudly as you can while the meeting is taking place? That would be more polite than lighting up in a public place, and you certainly wouldn't get arrested for that.
One of dozens of anonymous wrote:
A guy who considers himself too good to drink a bud light calling others elitists? That's rich. Talk about hypocrisy!
I choose not to drink Bud Light because there is no flavor, not because I'm too good to drink it.
Besides, I try to refrain from supporting multinationals whenever possible.
Do any of you see the possibility of legal challenges to the ordinance if passed?
Do you think it will be enforced if passed? Few other ordinances are enforced.
This all may be much to do about nothing. It will be extremely difficult to enforce this ordinance if it does pass, and the Mayor may veto this anyway.
Shirley.
Our sources tell us, they have the votes to pass the smoking ban this coming thursdays 2nd and 3rd reading. Now they are trying to get the 6 votes to over ride an England veto!
Stay tough McCartin - keeping telling them Noooooo Wayyyyyy!
Keep fighting the good fight New Albany.
GrEaT BlOg.
Dougie is now between a rock and a hard place. He has no choice but to VETO the smoking ban. Good job citizens of New Albany.
Post a Comment