My take is that business owners if not forced to do some things would never do them such as serving persons of color or follow ADA standards, unless they were forced to. Many have written saying that business owners should be able to choose do what they want to do, but I am saying, that many times in the past the only way to get business owners to change was to force them. I am not saying that all business owners don't do the right thing, but many don't in the name of, it's my business I will do what I want to do.

 

What really is a shame, is that this issue of smoking or non smoking in most of the USA is a non subject anymore as even here in Kentucky most of the larger cities are smoke free. If not today, then tomorrow it will happen in NKy.

 

BTW accessibility is a issue in a bar or restaurant that allows smoking if you are sicken by the smell of cigarette smoke.

The difference between the smoking ban and allowing persons of color and following the ADA standards is the latter was to be inclusive where the former is to be exclusive. Big difference in my book.

My take is that business owners if not forced to do some things would never do them such as serving persons of color or follow ADA standards, unless they were forced to. Many have written saying that business owners should be able to choose do what they want to do, but I am saying, that many times in the past the only way to get business owners to change was to force them. I am not saying that all business owners don't do the right thing, but many don't in the name of, it's my business I will do what I want to do.

 

What really is a shame, is that this issue of smoking or non smoking in most of the USA is a non subject anymore as even here in Kentucky most of the larger cities are smoke free. If not today, then tomorrow it will happen in NKy.

 

BTW accessibility is a issue in a bar or restaurant that allows smoking if you are sicken by the smell of cigarette smoke.

 

 

This is the most legitimate argument I've seen in these debates. :thumb:

 

From this perspective, I agree with the ability to limit the owners' rights here.

This is the most legitimate argument I've seen in these debates. :thumb:

 

From this perspective, I agree with the ability to limit the owners' rights here.

An argument for exclusion over inclusion isn't very good at all. It's also extremely self centered.

So, I have some questions here:

 

It was mentioned earlier that the Cincinnati establishments were experiencing huge drops in business because of the smoking ban. Now, could it be that because NKY doesn't currently have the ban, that when/if NKY does enact one, that will be evened out? What I mean is, currently Cincy/NKY smokers who want to go to a bar have a choice, no smoking in Cincy? Go to NKY. If there's no smoking in NKY, then really, it's a push, and you'll have to make your decision on something other than whether you can smoke or not. Plus, another issue could be that Cincy bars close @ 2, and NKY bars @ 4. I just think there could be other reasons than just the smoking ban that could be factoring into the losses in Cincy.

 

Here in Louisville, at the very beginning, I think there were some bars that experienced some downward turn, but I haven't heard anything recently to that effect. I also have the opportunity to observe on a daily/nightly basis the business in one of the most popular areas for bar hopping, and if all the lines and crowds I see in and outside of the pubs along Baxter/Bardstown Road are any indication, the people have either adapted, or the non-smokers are coming out in droves to replace the smokers who may be staying home? :lol:

 

I was totally against a ban for many reasons, including the owners' rights ones. I actually only recently began to consider that all the negative hoopla may have just been that...hoopla.

 

Honestly, I don't have a problem with smoking...I do it myself. But, I also don't have a problem with a place being non-smoking. I haven't had any problem finding a place to smoke, if that's what I choose to do.

 

I don't know... I just think that it will all even out in the end.

An argument for exclusion over inclusion isn't very good at all. It's also extremely self centered.

 

 

Self-centered? On my part?

An argument for exclusion over inclusion isn't very good at all. It's also extremely self centered.

 

 

Exclusion based on personal choice is different than exclusion based on factors one cannot change: race, disability, etc.

Self-centered? On my part?

Just saying the notion is self centered, not going after you here RM. You know you're one of my fav's.

Just saying the notion is self centered, not going after you here RM. You know you're one of my fav's.

 

 

....to pick on!

Exclusion based on personal choice is different than exclusion based on factors one cannot change: race, disability, etc.

Right, that's why I say it should be up to the owner/operator of the establishment.

....to pick on!

Never! :devil:

I don't smoke now (did for a long time) but I do not like the smoking bans. I don't care about the rights of smokers vs the rights of nonsmokers to me that is not the issue. To me it's about private property ownership and government intervention.

 

It is my opinion that the issue is not banning smoking, the issue is clean air standards in a building, or at least sections of a building. I don't have an issue with a law that calls for restaurants to maintain certain air standards in the building. I spent a good deal of my life in the restaurant business, and it is not that difficult to maintain clean quality air in different areas of a restaurant. There are costs involved, but they are not outrageous. Newly built and remodeled restaurants would be easy, older estabishments would need a certain grace period. If an owner deems that it is not worth the cost to maintain air standards then he can go nonsmoking but it is his choice to spend or not spend the money.

I don't smoke now (did for a long time) but I do not like the smoking bans. I don't care about the rights of smokers vs the rights of nonsmokers to me that is not the issue. To me it's about private property ownership and government intervention.

 

It is my opinion that the issue is not banning smoking, the issue is clean air standards in a building, or at least sections of a building. I don't have an issue with a law that calls for restaurants to maintain certain air standards in the building. I spent a good deal of my life in the restaurant business, and it is not that difficult to maintain clean quality air in different areas of a restaurant. There are costs involved, but they are not outrageous. Newly built and remodeled restaurants would be easy, older estabishments would need a certain grace period. If an owner deems that it is not worth the cost to maintain air standards then he can go nonsmoking but it is his choice to spend or not spend the money.

 

 

Here's a question, many owner's don't actually own their buildings, they lease the space. Does that change things? I mean, the "business" is owned by the owner, but they're doing business in space owned by someone else. Who's rights supercede in that case?

Here's a question, many owner's don't actually own their buildings, they lease the space. Does that change things? I mean, the "business" is owned by the owner, but they're doing business in space owned by someone else. Who's rights supercede in that case?

 

It would all be a matter of how the lease was done. If the property owner wants to lease the building as nonsmoking, that is his right as the owner. A leasee would also have the choice to lease or not lease based on how he wants to run his business. Both are owners and both have investment at risk. It wouldn't be any different then the already multitude of things that go into a business lease contract.

Here's a question, many owner's don't actually own their buildings, they lease the space. Does that change things? I mean, the "business" is owned by the owner, but they're doing business in space owned by someone else. Who's rights supercede in that case?

The business IMO. They're the one taking the risk with their money.

Here's a question, many owner's don't actually own their buildings, they lease the space. Does that change things? I mean, the "business" is owned by the owner, but they're doing business in space owned by someone else. Who's rights supercede in that case?

 

It would all be a matter of how the lease was done. If the property owner wants to lease the building as nonsmoking, that is his right as the owner. A leasee would also have the choice to lease or not lease based on how he wants to run his business. Both are owners and both have investment at risk. It wouldn't be any different then the already multitude of things that go into a business lease contract.

 

The business IMO. They're the one taking the risk with their money.

Property owner IMO.