But you see, later in my life, I did go to work for companies that didn't allow smoking. I haven't worked at a company since 1976 that has allowed it's employees to smoke at the work site.

 

Oh I do like that "Thewiseoldguy" tag, but you almost made my wife and daughter fall to the ground laughing, when I pointed it out to them! :thumb::lol:

 

And that's the way it should be. You exercised your right to work for an institution that banned smoking. And if there are workers that want to work for institutions that permit smoking, so be it for them.

 

Glad I brought some levity to the "Guy" household. :thumb:

If by "they" you mean smokers, you're right, they do have a choice to harm themselves with smoking. Not other people who have chosen not to smoke.

That sums it up perfectly! :thumb:

If by "they" you mean smokers, you're right, they do have a choice to harm themselves with smoking. Not other people who have chosen not to smoke.

Totally ridiculous. They have the choice to eat at smoke free establishments or those with good smoking/non-smoking sections. You're acting as if smokers are radioactive or something. Do you grill? You know studies show that breathing smoke from grills can cause cancer, better stop grilling.

Totally ridiculous. They have the choice to eat at smoke free establishments or those with good smoking/non-smoking sections. You're acting as if smokers are radioactive or something. Do you grill? You know studies show that breathing smoke from grills can cause cancer, better stop grilling.

 

Which effects more people: The one time a month I grill, or the 3 or 4 cigs someone else lights up everytime while at dinner?

Why would this not be an issue that is voted on?

Why would this not be an issue that is voted on?

If I am not mistaken, I read where this was not allowed by law to be placed on a ballot, it had to be enacted by the governing body of the municipality involved. I saw that when Ashland enacted a smoking ban, because there was an outcry from the public and business owners to place it on the ballot.

If I am not mistaken, I read where this was not allowed by law to be placed on a ballot, it had to be enacted by the governing body of the municipality involved. I saw that when Ashland enacted a smoking ban, because there was an outcry from the public and business owners to place it on the ballot.

 

Why not vote on it?

Why not vote on it?

 

Probably because smokers think it's unfair because there are far more non-smokers than smokers.

Why not vote on it?

The way that I understand it is, it is a matter of law that this type of thing can not be placed on a ballot for public vote, it can only be enacted by the governing body of a municipality. I believe it is a state constitution thing.

What would stop individuals to just create memberships to their establishments, call it a club, and people could smoke?

What would stop individuals to just create memberships to their establishments, call it a club, and people could smoke?

As a matter of fact, the municipality can exclude clubs from the ban or include them in the ban. Ashland had a push from bingo halls and clubs like the Elks and Moose to allow exemptions for private clubs, but they did not.

As a matter of fact, the municipality can exclude clubs from the ban. Ashland had a push from bingo halls and clubs like the Elks and Moose to allow exemptions for private clubs, but they did not.

 

If a club is not public how could a smoking ban be enforced in them?

I haven't read through this thread but I am torn on the topic. Normally any other regulation like this I would be against because it infringes on the rights of the business owner but because smoking falls into the realm of public health the it becomes a much more complicated debate. Personally as a social smoker I don't mind the ban here in Louisville whatsoever and actually I think I like it better that way but that's just my personal opinion.

 

On a side note, the ban in Louisville has not affected business in anyway for bars/restaurants/the downs etc. as far as I can tell. The nightlife is still hopping and businesses are still going as strong as they were before.

Dip will be next. Can't dip, spit etc.

 

Doubtful, pretty hard to enforce that. Other than people just not caring for it, there's no reason to forbid it. Alot of the reason for not permitting smoking is due to health related risks for those in the proximity of a smoker. Tell me how someone dipping poses a health risk to someone that's 5 feet away.....

 

It doesn't, which is why it's highl unlikely it'll be passed, atleast not as a city wide ordinance or anything like that.

Danville has a Smoking ban starting in August' I believe...Another city In The Good old USA Pushing Communism!..I wouldn't have a problem with a ban if the WE THE PEOPLE got to vote...I just don't like it when a few city counsel memers become God for our Cities...:fire:

 

BTW...Last I checked Tobacco is Legal...