Ban on smoking bans OK'd

Lexington Herald-Leader ^ | Feb. 13, 2004 | Laura Yuen

[Republican Wildcat]

Invoking the words of Ronald Reagan and the Founding Fathers, members of the Senate agriculture committee said they were upholding personal freedoms by unanimously approving a bill that would outlaw local smoking bans.

By a 10-0 vote, lawmakers embraced Sen. Dan Seum's proposal, which would prohibit cities from banning public smoking in areas other than local government buildings. Under the bill, cities could require businesses to post entrance signs that state their smoking policies, giving adults the choice whether to walk into a smoky environment, the committee members said.

Several supporters described the bill as "common sense."

"It's a compromise, but it's what we need to do around here to keep bad ideas from becoming law," said Sen. Damon Thayer, R-Georgetown, referring to ordinances such as Lexington's ban, which would be invalidated under the legislation.

Thayer cited a quote from Reagan about lost freedoms, and then asked: "What's next? ... Cell phone usage? Fast food and the amount we intake? Driving SUVs?" A woman in the audience snickered. "You laugh, but there are movements in this country, and even in this state, to try and affect those freedoms."

The bill now moves to the full Senate, where even legislators who want to defeat it acknowledge they may have problems. "That just means ... we have to fight harder to protect the communities' rights to make their own decisions," said state Sen. Ernesto Scorsone, D-Lexington.

Lexington vice mayor and smoking-ban proponent Mike Scanlon rejected any notion that the bill was a compromise, calling it a "common-nonsense" measure and "political window dressing."

Businesses are already perfectly free to post signs, and the bill would do nothing to level the playing field, ban advocates argued.

"It's a sham," said Scanlon, a restaurant businessman. "They're pretending to do something so they can say they did something and really do nothing. It's the ultimate political magical trick."

Many committee members prefaced their votes by explaining they would normally support the decisions of local governments. But public smoking bans are "trampling on the private property rights" of business owners, said committee chairman Sen. Ernie Harris, R-Crestwood.

The bill's sponsor, Seum, R-Louisville, pointed to oversize examples of signs that businesses would purchase for less than $25. A green light indicated smoking was OK; a yellow light stood for designated areas; and a red light indicated no smoking.

The hearing at times bordered on theatrical. Public health advocates repeatedly cheered Scanlon.

Harris quieted the outbursts: "This is not the House of Commons."

Scanlon got a frostier reception from Thayer. Scanlon's Georgetown Applebee's restaurant, Thayer contended, was one of the smokiest restaurants he has ever set foot in. That led to a rapid-fire exchange.

Thayer: "I'm guessing you allow smoking in Georgetown because there's an O'Charley's across the street, right? Dictated by market factors?"

Scanlon: "Dictated by, 'I've got to be even with the competition, or I can't -- '"

Thayer: "So you as a private business owner are letting the marketplace dictate to you, your business policies? Yes or no?"

Scanlon: "I'm being trapped by --"

Thayer: "Yes or no? You're letting the marketplace decide."

Scanlon: "Your honor, I'm not going to let you trap me into an answer I don't mean."

Thayer: "Well, then you've answered my question."

Lexington's wide-ranging law, which was passed in July but has been put on hold by the Kentucky Supreme Court, would prohibit smokers from lighting up in bingo halls, bars, restaurants and other indoor places open to the public.

The court will hear arguments in the case March 10.

But legislators said Lexington's ban sounded too harsh and could hurt businesses. If a farm housed an office where the public was welcome, smoking would be prohibited in that office, testified Gene McLean, a lobbyist for a group of business owners suing the city.

Many local businesspeople fear customers will take their money elsewhere. A mid-size city like Lexington could lose out on groups looking to hold national conventions, said Gwen Hart, event manager for Marriott's Griffin Gate Resort.

Ellen Hahn, a tobacco-control expert at the University of Kentucky, was outraged by the vote. Over the past few years, agricultural and health forces have united for a common purpose: a federal tobacco buyout.

"And in return, we get this?" Hahn said. "If the agricultural community thinks they're going to get the public health community's support on a federal buyout, they'd better think twice."

McLean called her position "sick and vindictive."

Sen. Tom Buford, R-Nicholasville, who did not sit on the committee but represents southern Fayette County, is leaning against the bill. But he said he thought it would likely pass in the Senate if it comes up for a vote.

"I'm not getting really anxious to support the bill," Buford said. "I don't like dictating to private businesses, but we as Republicans have always taken the stand that local control is what we always strive for."

State Sen. Alice Forgy Kerr, R-Lexington, did not respond to a message left with her Senate office. A spokeswoman for her congressional campaign said she could not reach Kerr, who was at a dinner event, for comment.

Although the bill is several steps away from final passage, many observers already are looking to Gov. Ernie Fletcher, who has the power to make any passed bill moot.

Fletcher spokeswoman Jeannie Lausche said he has yet to review the bill that was debated yesterday.

"But generally, in the past, he has said decisions like this are best left at the local level," she said.

[MegaSilver]

What is idiotic about smoking bans? Yes illegalization of smoking would be better but bans are a good start to protect those that don't want to be killed by smokers.

I hate being around cigarette smoke, too, but if you're going to use that logic, then realistically speaking, you're going to have to endorse the Prohibition Amendment, as well. Alcohol is arguably at least as dangerous--and certainly takes a lot less longer to claim its victims--than tobacco.

[Republican Wildcat]

bttt

[Republican Wildcat]

Is that exchange not a classic? It's fabulous.

[flashbunny]

Then those people can exercise free will by not going to those places that allow smoking. But instead they wish to subvert the freedom of those who pay rent, pay salaries, insurance, taxes, etc, and make everything possible.

There's tons of proof to discount the claims that 'if they banned smoking in bars and restaurants then people who don't like to smoke will finally come out'. It's all BS. Patronage declines and the people who say they will support those businesses never do. And the business owners see their livelihood go down the drain because of feel-good laws enacted by people who get pleasure from controlling others.

[LanPB01]

I've applied for a faculty position at UK, and if I am offered and accept the position, I'm going to have to work with people like this woman every day. God help me.

[Republican Wildcat]

bttt

[tj005]

>>>>But since I don't own the restaurants, my only moral option is to choose not to patronize them, <<<<

I dont patronize smoking restaurants either. Having a smoking section in an open restaurant is like having a peeing section in the other side of the pool.

[Republican Wildcat]

bttt

[Republican Wildcat]

Are you sure you are 'diverse' enough to be hired?

[sarasmom]

I wish Florida had done this!
Private businesses have always been able to allow or ban smoking, drinking and other public behaviors they dont like, ie- no shirt, no shoes, no service.
Smoking is the issue today, what will be the next private decision that a vocal "offended" minority decides to make public policy?
I dont like the smell of burning charcoal.The smell makes me nauseous.Seriously, I get an instant headache, and feel sick to my stomache when I smell the fumes.I know how I came to be "allergic" to the fumes,but I consider it a personal problem, and the steps I must take to avoid becoming ill, are my business.
I often have to detour around cookouts in public parks, when groups are picnicing and grilling.
It would not occur to me to demand public charcoal usage be banned,just because I have a personal problem with the fumes.
I disslike smelling most perfumes and cologne scents.
I detest cigar smoke.
I adore pipe tobacco smoke.
My problem, my personal issue to deal with, not the governments, nor the public at large.

[Publius6961]

There is nothing in the Constitution that would prevent cities or states from issuing smoking bans.

There is nothing in the Constitution that would prevent cities or states from issuing blonde bans.
There is nothing in the Constitution that would prevent cities or states from issuing fat people bans.
There is nothing in the Constitution that would prevent cities or states from issuing dumb people bans.
There is nothing in the Constitution that would prevent cities or states from issuing seafood bans.
There is nothing in the Constitution that would prevent cities or states from issuing candy bans.
There is nothing in the Constitution that would prevent cities or states from issuing rock climbing equipment bans.
There is nothing in the Constitution that would prevent cities or states from issuing scuba equipment bans.
There is nothing in the Constitution that would prevent cities or states from issuing parachuting bans...

Let's not get silly here. Tobacco is still legal. Banning the use of a legal product is a bit nonsensical, no?
Arbitrarily allowing its sale while simultaneously prohibiting its use, or selectively tripling its price through taxation is similarly irrational and would at least violate the equal protection clause, and perhaps the due process clause too.

Just answer one question: if it is so beneficial to the public good, why isn't tobacco banned outright?

[Publius6961]

Yes illegalization of smoking would be better but bans are a good start to protect those that don't want to be killed by smokers.

Damn!
I didn't realize things were that bad where you live.
They got people putting guns to your head and forcing you to go into restaurants where *gasp* there might be smokers trying to kill you?

Now... that's downright rude!
I just love good huperbole!

[Publius6961]

Having a smoking section in an open restaurant is like having a peeing section in the other side of the pool.

I just love to see this second-grade logic return. Recycling at its finest.
Having a rational discussion with an anti-smoking taliban type is like... never mind. Just go into the non-peeing pool. Too complicated for you?

[tj005]

No, its not complicated to understand that smoking sections of restaurants although separated by distance does not effectively block off the dangerous second hand smoke, unless you find the statistics of second hand smoke to be just nothing but right wing propaganda?

I dont have a problem with ppl who choose to smoke.. perhaps there should be smoking restaurants for smokers? I could then choose not to eat there. You could choose to eat there if you like.

[CourtneyLeigh]

I personally use to be a smoker, but had to stop, because my mother became allergic to smoke. Not just cigarettes, but too strong of any smoke, perfumes, and room scents cause her lungs to tighten up, blood pressure to rise, and she gets migraines. It's not the fault of either her or the source of the smoke that this happens to her, but the fact is it does.
If it weren't for non smoking sections in restaurants and hotels, we'd never enjoy a day out of the house. I thank God for the rights of all people smokers and non.

In addition, I think that the recipe for cigerattes changed drastically about 30-40 years ago. There was a time smokers didn't die from cancer because they didn't bleach filters, have filters, or have nicotine in the cigarettes back then.

Why can't we have the old fashion recipe of Cigarettes back that were healthy and just plain good for you! Tobacco is a healthy plant God gave the world, we poisoned it with chemicals making it an addiction and a disease carrier for the lovers of it.

[CourtneyLeigh]

Plus

Why don't the manufacturers create a healthy cigarette, tobacco with minerals and vitamins, INSTEAD of nicotine and chemicals. If it's going to be a popular action people participate in all day, then make us healthy, don't kill us.

I bet back in the days of personally rolled tobacco, the only problem you had to worry about in cigarettes was the tobacco getting too humid or bugs in the leaves!

If there should be anykind of ban it should be against the drugs, chemicals, and filters placed in cigarettes, not to mention whatever the hell they put in them damn menthols (my fave) that causes people to cough up blood at times.

Okay, I think I've got all that off my chest now.

[boxfr]

Damn!
I didn't realize things were that bad where you live.
They got people putting guns to your head and forcing you to go into restaurants where *gasp* there might be smokers trying to kill you?

Now... that's downright rude!

////////////////////////////////

Brains ain't necessary to post here, but they would certainly be helpful to posting something that makes sense. Guess that excludes you, doesn't it?

[tj005]

well... I'm unsure that any smoke in the lungs would be 'good for you' whether it is tobacco, wood smoke or mariweenie, but I will agree that the Almighty PHillip Morris et al have placed some 'secret sauce' in the mix to make things a bit more 'desireable'... lol