Northern Kentucky, You’re Next

[STRIKE3]

If you allow it, then they will all do it. Where are people supposed to go then?

 

"Sorry people, you can't go out to eat anymore. The smokers need to feed their fix."

I don't like smoke either, but like forced mandated can/can't, even less.

 

I've smelled some colognes and perfumes, that were more obnoxious than some smoke. We can't regulate what fragrance we choose.

 

When I go into a restaurant, I always ask for non and not an issue with me. I simply don't partake of those, who smell like smoke, before the door is open.

[Ram]

RTS, I'm with you on this one....:sssh: I'm no smoker either and even allergic to it, in some instances. I've seen a concerted effort, to have a smoking/non-smoking section, in many if not most restaurants.

 

More and more rights, are being taken away from the entrepreneur, by "the man" and let them make a choice, just like we patrons make a choice, of where we go.

 

By the way, doesn't bars and smoking, go hand in hand.

 

:thumb:

Indeed, bears and smoking go hand in hand.

You are 100% correct, more and more rights are being taken away, but not just from the entrepreneur, they're being taken away from the "Average Joe" as well.

Absolutely, right are becoming a thing of history. I would love to see a government law that prohibited anyone from eating anything unhealthy (not really), no alcohol, because it has been linked to serosis, hepitis, and is the number one cause of drunk driving. Let see how those goes over. Talk about toxic wast, no more Taco Bell, McDonald's, Burger King, KFC, Budweiser, Miller.

 

The simple fact is that we don't need the government dictating a healthy life. If you want to smoke, eat fried food, drink till your pickled, good luck. These government imposed life style laws always makes me think of "Judge Dredd", in the future your not allowed to do things that are bad for you. How fictional was it?

[Habib]

Absolutely, right are becoming a thing of history. I would love to see a government law that prohibited anyone from eating anything unhealthy (not really), no alcohol, because it has been linked to serosis, hepitis, and is the number one cause of drunk driving. Let see how those goes over. Talk about toxic wast, no more Taco Bell, McDonald's, Burger King, KFC, Budweiser, Miller.

 

The simple fact is that we don't need the government dictating a healthy life. If you want to smoke, eat fried food, drink till your pickled, good luck. These government imposed life style laws always makes me think of "Judge Dredd", in the future your not allowed to do things that are bad for you. How fictional was it?

 

A classical understanding of freedom is making our own decisions so long as they do not interfere with the freedom of others. Smoking, by its nature, interferes with others. Food for thought.

[Theoldguy]

Sorry, but I think you're off base here. Do the smokers have no rights? What about the owners of the establishment, shouldn't they be allowed to make the decision considering it's their livelihood and their investment at stake?

 

But then why do we have health code, building codes, and such other laws to protect the public from business owners? Easy answer, it's because the businesses will do only what they have to! Beverly Hills Supper Club comes to mind real quick!

 

Laws are made to protect the general public and indeed the percentage of non-smokers in NKy is huge compared to the number of smokers and the number of smokers is falling and falling quickly.

 

I really haven't meet a person who is glad that they started smoking and most I know who smoke, wish they could quit, if for only the money they could save due to the cost of smoking these day's!

[Birdsfan]

The simple fact is that we don't need the government dictating a healthy life. If you want to smoke, eat fried food, drink till your pickled, good luck. These government imposed life style laws always makes me think of "Judge Dredd", in the future your not allowed to do things that are bad for you. How fictional was it?

Of course, this has zero to do with what people do to themselves. It cracks me up when people try to turn this into an issue of personal choice. It's not about personal choice; it's about imposing those destructive choices on other people.

[Run To State]

This guy???

 

I thought Smokey tried to stop fires.

:creepy:

[Run To State]

Thank goodness right thinking people that believe in the right to breathe and the freedom from other people's toxic waste are winning the day! Hopefully, these bans will be as broad as possible. Keep your poisons to yourself.

 

We don't have the right to dump hazardous waste in each other's yards, or beat people on the street just because we feel like it. So we shouldn't have the "right" (and I use the term loosely ) to poison innocent people.

 

The only place I would think about allowing it is in places where it has always been part of the culture -- like bars.

Well gee, BF, if you want to put it that way then I guess you feel we should ban peanuts, cologne, perfume...

[gametime]

Of course, this has zero to do with what people do to themselves. It cracks me up when people try to turn this into an issue of personal choice. It's not about personal choice; it's about imposing those destructive choices on other people.

You have the choice not to go in smoking establishments. Funny that no bars and restaurants were closing across the river before the ban...

[Run To State]

A classical understanding of freedom is making our own decisions so long as they do not interfere with the freedom of others. Smoking, by its nature, interferes with others. Food for thought.

So does whiny political correctness. More food for thought.

[Run To State]

If you allow it, then they will all do it. Where are people supposed to go then?

"Sorry people, you can't go out to eat anymore. The smokers need to feed their fix."

Exactly where they go now. There is no shortage of restaurants with no smoking policies. It only makes good sense to let the business owners make the decision.

[Run To State]

But then why do we have health code, building codes, and such other laws to protect the public from business owners? Easy answer, it's because the businesses will do only what they have to! Beverly Hills Supper Club comes to mind real quick!

 

Laws are made to protect the general public and indeed the percentage of non-smokers in NKy is huge compared to the number of smokers and the number of smokers is falling and falling quickly.

 

I really haven't meet a person who is glad that they started smoking and most I know who smoke, wish they could quit, if for only the money they could save due to the cost of smoking these day's!

And if there are more non-smokers wanting to go to an establishment than smokers the non-smokers will win out as any owner with a lick of common sense will rule in favor of what will bring in the most money. That's precisely why it should be up to the owner.

[malachicrunch]

The Florence city council just voted to oppose a smoking ban, and it appears the Boone fiscal court isn't looking to enact one any time soon.

 

Pat Crowley

 

If all 3 counties don't do it, none will.

[Run To State]

Of course, this has zero to do with what people do to themselves. It cracks me up when people try to turn this into an issue of personal choice. It's not about personal choice; it's about imposing those destructive choices on other people.

You have the choice now to go to a smoking or non-smoking establishment. You also have smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants.

[gametime]

And if there are more non-smokers wanting to go to an establishment than smokers the non-smokers will win out as any owner with a lick of common sense will rule in favor of what will bring in the most money. That's precisely why it should be up to the owner.

Which is exactly the opposite result at a lot of places across the river...

[Birdsfan]

Well gee, BF, if you want to put it that way then I guess you feel we should ban peanuts, cologne, perfume...

Blatantly irrelevant.