Louisville Mojo: How to Oppose the Smoking Ban

After the initial flurry of rebellion in the face of Louisville's smoking ban of questionable constitutionality, most establishments seem to have wearily acquiesced to what Porter Wagoner called "The Cold, Hard Facts of Life."

Bars, restaurants and even bingo halls were, for a time, openly flouting the smoking ban. This gave my heart hope that the American spirit hadn't completely been beaten into serflike submission by too much MSG, HFCS, Nutrasweet, Splenda, electromagnetic fields, and an increasingly common docile acceptance that "government knows best."

I spoke to the operators of several Louisville establishments today - all of whom declined to be named on the record - and inquired about the current state of the battle between pro-smokers and anti-smokers. Universally, the answer across the board was that the battle is over - and that the Empire has won.

How did it happen? According to several of the businessmen I contacted, the city has changed its tactics on enforcing the ordinance. "At first, some guy would come around like the gestapo, looking around and making sure everyone was being good. But then it started to be the ABC [Alcoholic Beverage Control] people showing up, suddenly nitpicking every little reason to harass us over other things."

Another proprietor agreed: "If the smoking patrol doesn't succeed, they send real cops. And if that doesn't work, they send the ABC to find any reason they can to try to put you out of business. It's like the mafia - either you play ball with them or they will find a way to get rid of you."

But the battle isn't over, my fellow patriots. There are a number of options still yet untried, legal waters yet untested. All we need are a few dedicated soldiers willing to stand up and explore the possibilities:

The religious issue. Usage of tobacco is a sacred part of several religions, especially Native American traditions. If someone raised an objection to the smoking ban on religious grounds, I'd be very interested to see what happened. How about an exemption for any establishment that is authentically Native American-themed? All of this is their land in the first place, you know.

Hotels and motels. A lot of people don't realize it, but the language of the ordinance gives a specific exemption to hotels and motels. The recent success of Wayside Christian Mission in redefining a homeless shelter as a hotel gets some gears turning in my mind. How about a "Smoker's Hotel" with short-duration room rentals that cost, coincidentally, about the same as a common cover charge? Does a Bed & Breakfast legally count as a hotel? And if so, what legally defines a Bed & Breakfast, and how hard would it be to turn a restaurant into one?

Uneven enforcement. Rumor has it that complaints called in about someone smoking in certain establishments do not meet with the same immediate and enthusiastic response as complaints about certain other establishments. If someone can verify and document this arbitrary and capricious use of the ordinance, it could be gravy.

Indoor vs. Outdoor. Smoking outdoors is legal, so what about smoking outdoors under a canopy? And if you add one plastic-sheeting wall to keep the wind off? What about two walls? If you're in an entire tent-like structure that is outdoors, is that indoors or outdoors? What if one entire wall of a brick-and-mortar building could raise up, like a garage door or one of those chain-link walls you see when they close mall shops at night? A three-walled building could be argued to be "outdoors," since the ordinance specifies structures with 80% or more of its perimeter enclosed.

The Ashtray Affair. Probably the most bizarre aspect of the ordinance is the insistence that ashtrays are forbidden on the premises of, well, anywhere. The city's smoking-ban FAQ actually states the ashtray policy as tougher than it really is: "the law states that all ashtrays shall be removed and applicable signage must be posted in order for facilities to be in compliance with the ordinance." The actual ordinance at first seems to specify a somewhat saner stance, by noting that they mean ashtrays intended for use on the premises, so as to hopefully disinclude ashtrays for sale in a flea market or a store. But then it follows with a truly goofy piece of legislation:

"Any permanent structure that functioned or was used as an ashtray shall be disabled or altered to prevent its use as an ashtray."

That would, by definition, include toilets. Who among us has never flushed a cigarette butt in a bar restroom, or flicked ashes into its sink? I don't see any bars and restaurants disabling their toilets to prevent ashing into them. (And as we all know, public restrooms are the new smoking parlors these days.)

Tobacco. Though the ordinance is inconsistent in its language, it defines "smoking" as practices involving "combustible tobacco." Problem is, there are plenty of other legal things to smoke besides tobacco - some places are offering "herbal mixtures" to smoke. And then there's clove cigarettes, which as far as I know, are still legal to smoke in bars. This just drives home how ridiculous the ban on ashtrays is, since there are other kinds of smokers besides tobacco smokers - and they need ashtrays too.

ADD A COMMENT

rob sat nov 28 2009 at 2:18 am ·


	Many good points, although clove cigarettes have been OUTLAWED. Now only outlaws ssell cloves. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/22/cloves-banned-fda-bans-fr_n_295113.html

(dismembered) sat nov 28 2009 at 4:06 am ·


	Being limited to only 1500 characters, I am going to keep my response short and sweet. The overwhelming majority of people in this town have voiced that they would prefer smokers to smoke outside. You can argue the technicalities of the legislation all you want, but if any of these "options" are tried in court they will only result in closed loopholes, as they should be.

GameBoy sat nov 28 2009 at 4:56 am ·


	If smoking didnt tax those that didnt smoke,IE health care and dont start w/ private insurance because that raises MY premiums, this would be even less of an issue. W/ that said how can ANY grown adult look at the data and even come close to saying that smoking is ok on any level. It kills, POINT blank. If you want to argue the ban then go for it but the ignorance of any argument for smoking is just that, ignorant. As the comment below says, the overwhelming majority has spoken and the loop holes would and should be tighten. A few different points made but you get the over all view of what I am saying.

Z_Murphy sat nov 28 2009 at 10:07 am ·


	Yes, I would push it as being "rebellious", "Patriots." I am sure that the ghosts of cigarette execs would nod in agreement. It worked in helping to hook them to this addictive behavior. Push that button again. At the same time, ignore the reason for the ban. Your "rights" must be more important than all those around you. Smoking outside doesn't seem rebellious enough. Rebellion should be combined with convenience. So many injustices in the world and THIS is your cause? "sigh"

yak sat nov 28 2009 at 10:43 am ·


	"Who among us has never flushed a cigarette butt in a bar restroom, or flicked ashes into its sink?" Me - because I was never dumb enough to start smoking in the first place. Sorry smokers... you are losers on this battle and rightfully so. Those of us that don't want to breathe nasty smelling cigarette smoke have just as much right as you. Get over this smoking ban thing... no one is making you stop being ridiculous(buying $5 pack of cancer sticks to ruin your health) they are just telling you to keep it at home or in your own car... and away from people that care about their health.

chuck sat nov 28 2009 at 10:50 am ·


	Smokes are worth fighting for, and even a patriotic fight at that, but CFL bulbs are a toxic enemy. What is going on around here? :P

J.S. Holland sat nov 28 2009 at 12:47 pm ·


	Actually, aside from an occasional fine cigar after a good meal, I don't smoke. The issue is about freedom of choice for individual businesses to set their own policies for themselves on their own property. It's not about what I - or what any of you - think about the actual practice of smoking.

Ed Springston sat nov 28 2009 at 12:57 pm ·


	Well said Holland. That is the point. If we start going after every behavior we do not agree with based on someone's choice then we have serious problems. Freedom of choice is the one ting we cannot continue to allow to be degraded into non existence. The real problem is no one wants to accept responsibility for their choices.

GameBoy sat nov 28 2009 at 2:07 pm ·


	If its about freedom of choice then I would have the write to choose who I wanted as a partner in this life. Guess what I dont. And yes I am fighting for that right but fighting for love seems a little different that fighting for something that kills you. Just sayin ....

dennisc83 sat nov 28 2009 at 4:10 pm ·


	Good points. However, I would add that many of the other comments in this post are completely ridiculous.Though I can see both sides of the arguement, the fact remains that regardless of whether or not the general public recognizes it, banning smoking in any establishment is in fact a form of discrimination, and infringes upon the whole "freedom of choice" - which last I checked was supposed to be granted to ALL citizens by the constitution. If you don't smoke, that's your own choice, just as it is the choice of people who do. Simple fact is, this battle will continue on with no end in sight. Welcome to the USSA (United Socialist States of America), bitches.

brad_nielan sat nov 28 2009 at 6:30 pm ·


	I noticed a few weeks back that, when I came home from the bars, I didn't need to immediately chuck all of my clothes into the washing machine. I didn't smell like an ashtray!!! If you want fight for a liberty, fight for something that matters for the good. Clean water for all would be a great place to start.

FunkyPumpkin sat nov 28 2009 at 6:44 pm ·


	The smokers have lost. The vast majority of your fellow citizens have made it known that we do not want to ingest your smoke. This is NOT a civil rights issue. Please stop whining.

mickmoo sat nov 28 2009 at 11:33 pm ·


	second hand smoking causes cancer, the world is getting warmer because humans breathe, obama will bring the troops home, the lottery will take care of kentucky's educational system...hmmm what am i leaving out?

chuck sun nov 29 2009 at 7:52 am ·


	I'm an ex-smoker and you won't find any hypocrisy here. I do believe it should be the business owners right to allow or not allow smoking, just as it is with alcohol, which food, etc. The most troubling part of this trend is that once the cat's out of the bag, it's impossible to put it back in. It's probably only a matter of time until smoking outside and on sidewalks is banned as well. It's a slippery slope. Best, - C

FFEMT85 sun nov 29 2009 at 8:57 am ·


	Theres no reason why we shouldn't be allowed to smoke at our own free will. I'm a smoker trying to quit but the fact of the matter is it's our god given right to have freedom of choice to smoke. All that second hand crap, get over yourself smoking nazis! I'm sure 99% of people who smoke are typically going to walk to a area to where they don't impede on your so called healthy habits, such as constant consumption of mcdonalds or soft drinks that kill you just as slowly through cholesterol build-up and MI's (heart attacks). If you go to a bar, and consume alchohol, your normally want a cigarette to go along with that. With that being said FREEDOM OF CHOICE! It's amazing how people can abort unborn children but find it more time worthy of bitching about people smoking in bars, bowling alleys, bingo halls, etc. And I will argue all day over this issue, you go tell a veteran whose put their self at risk or lost a part of their body for the freedoms people take for granite, but you want to tell them they can't fire up a camel inside a bar because you want to be a coughing cry baby and all of a sudden be all environment friendly? HAH! I should probably stop my babble though. KMK ANARCHY THROUGH CAPITALISM - WE THE PEOPLE!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILYGgmDI4NQ

FFEMT85 sun nov 29 2009 at 9:02 am ·


	the war on cigarettes is almost as bad as the war on pot, how much money does the government spend a year on anti-smoking propaganda? it's a plant and freedom of choice, LEGALIZE IT! (both of them)

chuck sun nov 29 2009 at 9:12 am ·


	>>>It's amazing how people can abort unborn children but find it more time worthy of bitching about people smoking in bars... I for one am not bitching about anyone smoking in a bar. However, I do disagree with your anti-choice rhetoric. Freakonomics showed the correlation between unwanted children (primarily males) and the crime rate (especially violent crime). The dramatic fall in violent crime that occurred in the early to mid nineties, and indeed stays with us to this day, was found to be directly responsible to the dramatic fall in unwanted children due to abortion rights becoming legal in '74 (I believe that was the year). It wasn't the economy, it wasn't police on the street, it wasn't any of that. There were basically a couple of million less poorly-adjusted and unwanted kids roaming the streets in the prime vioent crime-committing age range of 18 to 24. Just sayin' ... Best, - C

FFEMT85 sun nov 29 2009 at 9:15 am ·


	I have a bad habit of babbling lol. But you get the jist of it right?

chuck sun nov 29 2009 at 9:33 am ·


	I most certainly did. And I agree with Holland's premise (I think) that this should be the choice of the business owners. The people that believe everywhere should be smoke free are ignoring the fact that it's always been their choice as to whether or not to patronize an establishment. They have in effect removed some rights to simply make life more convenient for themselves. It just seems like a tyranny of the masses sort of thing to me. I'm not a smoker anymore (too much money and coughing) so I don't really have a dog in this fight any longer. I still disagree with it though. Best, - C

FFEMT85 sun nov 29 2009 at 9:43 am ·


	Yeah like I stated before, I'm making a effort to quit, but it makes people feel like freedoms no matter how small or large they may be, are being taken away from American citizens.

teknosk8ter04 sun nov 29 2009 at 5:11 pm ·


	there isn't really anyway of getting around the smoking ban....although the electronic cigarettes they have now gives us a loop hole to that ban...there isn't any smell, no tar, but lots of nicotene..was looking into it they start off at like 90$ but i think their worth it cause u can smoke it anywhere there is a "no smoking" sign..another way is to petition the release of the ban...but there are more non smokers here then smokers so thats kind of a waste of time.. i think bars should have designated smoking areas...me personally would smoke in a designated area then to step outside in 10 degree weather just for a puff

fnnyworld sun nov 29 2009 at 5:39 pm ·


	I just firmly believe that the owner of any establishment should get a erpmit (if they have to) and be allowed to own and operate a smoking or non-smoking establishment. This is still f-ing America. If they are going to sell cigs at every corner, then I think people operating businesses and providing jobs and services in this town, should have that right to choose what type of establishment that they would like to open!!

GeorgeTheThird sun nov 29 2009 at 7:13 pm ·


	What about us (the people who are allergic to tobacco smoke)? Let me tell you. If I am in a room where just one person is smoking, it makes me sick. I'm not a pussy (even though our band is the "Pussyfucs") but I am for real. I used to not be able to go into any bars....(it starts off with a head ache and then your whole body gets the "jitters" then you get nauseous) that is how it feels for a lot of non smokers. Don't get me wrong, I believe in freedom! I wouldn't fire up a joint in front of somebody (even if only one) wasn't comfortable with it. I respect everybody and I won't let my freedom walk upon there freedom.

fnnyworld sun nov 29 2009 at 8:58 pm ·


	I also agree that non-smokers have a right to go to non-smoking establishments. BUT, the owners should have a choice of what type of place they open, and the clients have a right to choose where to go! If you are allergic, or nauseated by the smell of cigarettes; (and lets all get this straight, the smell of smoke is not the same as breathing second hand smoke) you guys would probably patronize a non-smoking establishment. Now that is freedom of choice.

Z_Murphy mon nov 30 2009 at 6:45 am ·


	Interesting.....so you are telling me that all business owners have a right to sell alcohol on their premises?? No, that's not correct. Bars are allowed to serve alcohol at anytime?? No, that's not correct. A business owner can open a business on any land they own?? No, that's not correct. Business owners can sell alcohol to anyone they wish?? No, that's not correct. What about food inspections, code violation, fire exits??? Come on, this is all about freedom and doing what one wants on one's property, right? Why aren't you protesting all of the other laws that have been in place much longer? Aren't they all a restriction on "freedom"?

fnnyworld mon nov 30 2009 at 8:15 am ·


	Uh, because through the "permit" process they can control the laws of use, without banning a still perfectly legal substance. I never said, nor do I approve in any of the out of control usage you mentioned.

Shylockfox mon nov 30 2009 at 11:07 am ·


	No matter what is said or done, WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SMOKE IF WE PLEASE !! It is not illegal to smoke YET! Why not make it illegal to smoke, drink, and breathe ? What is going to take to get you people who don't smoke to realize that if I want to smoke, I will!! Regardless of big brother, or laws. I moved out of Klingon county to get away from the idiocy of the ruling clan ! I can smoke any where I go now, and do not fear the ban. Hell I even take my own ashtray with me. Nuyah ! Muwhaaaaaaaaaha.

Z_Murphy mon nov 30 2009 at 11:40 am ·


	fnnyworld, Sorry, but that comment wasn't directed specifically at your post. I just find it strange that people talk about how this violates "freedom", but acknowledge that freedoms are allowed to be controlled in many circumstances for the benefit of all and those laws are ok. Alcohol is not illegal, but controlled for the better of all. Cigarettes are not illegal, but controlled for the better of all. When smoking was not controlled, many smokers gave little heed to other's health or comfort and abused their freedom (note the medical facts that indicate how unhealthy smoking is indoors-and this smoke will kill more people prematurely than fires!), so laws were passed to control its use. People do not like restrictive laws. But this is far from being the only law that businesses are controlled by and the indoor smoking one is supported by the majority of citizens. Since many of you claim that your main concern is freedom (and not simply the continuation of smoking indoors), it appears you are not being honest. Those who are honest and think indoor smoking is important, I respectfully disagree but at least I appreciate your honesty.

Eponymous Kyle mon nov 30 2009 at 12:39 pm ·


	Smokers might deserve the freedom to smoke indoors, as per the Constitution, but why are we forgetting courtesy and common sense? Second-hand smoke is harmful. Why should non-smokers be subjected to it when smokers can just step outside?

photog mon nov 30 2009 at 1:12 pm ·


	For decades, government has regulated businesses in the interest of public safety - for very good reasons. Food establishments are regularly inspected for sanitary conditions. Every public business has to have a fire department inspection to make sure people have a way out in case of fire. ADA compliance makes it so businesses can't set up spaces that are inaccessible or hazardous to people with disabilities. OSHA makes sure people who work in various businesses are not forced to work in conditions hazardous to their health. In each of the examples, you could make the same ridiculous, simplistic argument: It should be up to the business what to do, and it should be up to the employee as to whether they should work there. It just does not work that way. We tried it that way for decades, and we ended up with people dying from food poisoning, fires, and sweatshop labor conditions. Before, smoking was allowed because there was no real scientific evidence being allowed out regarding the hazards of smoke and smoking. Now there is overwhelming evidence. Smoking is a hazard to both the participant and bystanders. It is no longer a debatable fact. In all workplaces, smoking needs to be treated like any other environmental hazard. They tried ventilation - it didn't work. The simplest, fairest and most effective way to prevent it from being an issue is to ban it from all interior public spaces. But hey, I respect your right to try keep Lou

photog mon nov 30 2009 at 1:13 pm ·


	...Louisville in the dark ages....(bug in the comment posting tool).

fnnyworld mon nov 30 2009 at 1:19 pm ·


	Okay Z_murphy, I get your statistical data and facts, because the truth was VERY late to be supported by the evidence. We were already conveniently addicted. Your last remark does not address the outlawing of even outdoor smoking....common sense and common courtesy in mixed crowds would dictate that a well mannered person, smoke outside. Owners of establishments and public agencies have also outlawed outdoor smoking on their property. Now where do they get that right? This not a joint, it's a cigarette. You can buy and pay the f-ing taxes on them most anywhere! THIS is the right I am referring to. Hoe can a place choose to sell liquor, cigarettes, beer, whatever...and not choose to let you smoke one of them?

Z_Murphy mon nov 30 2009 at 3:45 pm ·


	fnnyworld, even though I am not a smoker and never have smoked and never will, I am actually with you regarding outdoor smoking. I think its going a bit far when that is restricted. But secondhand smoke stinks. I see smokers usually directing it in a manner so it doesn't blow in their face or their friends. (sometimes bad if you're not a friend and are in the wrong direction :-) ) I don't hate smokers. A lot of them are good friends of mine. I really am thankful that people are going outside to smoke. I have been able to go places I haven't gone for awhile and I really appreciate that.

FFEMT85 tue dec 01 2009 at 12:04 am ·


	I like the whole idea of how Pheonix Hill for example has their gig set up. the "outdoor deck bar" or whatnot is a great idea. There are other areas and if it bothers you that much to be around smokers, you have the right to remove yourself from that area. but just because you don't smoke and buy into the whole overly advertised anti-smoking media, doesn't mean you have the right to march around and demand that we go outside to smoke so you can be in that area. Most people who drink at a bar, would love to smoke, or bowling alleys, hell even bingo halls. I believe that rules that were in place before the all out smoking ban was great. Granite some people threw a fit about smoking in restaraunts was pretty goofy because I smoke and it kind of bugs me when someones blowing in my face while I'm eating (unless your drunk at waffle house then it's expected). I think the old rules should be put back in place though

Gojera tue dec 01 2009 at 4:39 pm ·


	Right, because causing easily preventable harm to other people is some sort of basic right. If you emjoy this disgusting addiction, please do so where you can keep your smoke out of my lungs.

FFEMT85 tue dec 01 2009 at 5:51 pm ·


	yeah because when you go to bars your considering your personal health right? or while your woofing down double cheeseburgers from mcdonalds? It's amazing how when some people dont like something or it's not one of their personal unhealthy habits it turns into attack the smokers and "it's so bad for my health". Bunch of damn crybaby's!

Shylockfox wed dec 02 2009 at 9:59 am ·


	I do respect others rights, but when it infringes on my rights, what is there to do ? Who is right and who is wrong ? I think that there should be NON smoking venues, instead of a ban ! A ban is infringement on rights for the purpose of pleasing a certain group.. No matter the health consequences, or distaste in the odor, or breathing in of second hand smoke, why don't You just step outside ? Why does the smoker have to do the stepping, just go somewhere that does not allow smoking and leave the rest of us alone !! At least that would please both groups!! And I heartily agree with a Holland type of solution, for ciggarettes, cigars, and marijuana !! The legalization of pot would take MILLIONS out of the annual budget of enforcement, and it could then be used elsewhere, such as in HEALTH CARE, and LOWERING THE NATIONAL DEBT!! THUS INCREASING THE POWER OF THE AMERICAN DOLLAR!! Stepping on ones toes to please another is just not right no matter what.... we all have rights, and certain freedoms, but WE the people did not vote for all of the laws in existence, nor did WE THE PEOPLE vote for a lot of things, but they exist !! The only way to fight the ban is to speak out, write your congressman, state representative, see how far that gets ya, LOL.. The current situation is that the gov. is going to do what it wants regardless of what the people want, so vote those a-holes out of office, and vote for those who would listen to the people if ever one runs who will.

fnnyworld wed dec 02 2009 at 10:51 am ·


	Hell that's how I vote everytime; the key is that I DO VOTE... I try to vote for people with the same values and beliefs that I have. Problem is they can tell you anything, since there is no fucking way to get rid of them when they are found to be liars after that! If there were more voters, "we the people" would have more power. Percentage wise (compared to when our country began) "the people" hardly exicst outside of politics. SHOW UP NEXT TIME IT'S ON THE BALLOT!

fnnyworld wed dec 02 2009 at 10:54 am ·


	off topic comment~ As an example of taking back power from politicians, imagine this: Everybody in the US stope their car at 12:00 EST and gets out and walks away until gas prices come down. It's a peaceful protest.

GeorgeTheThird thu dec 03 2009 at 9:20 pm ·


	Consider this...If you harm yourself with eating fatty foods it doesn't affect anybody but yourself, your friends and family. But when you "release" the harmful fumes of tobacco, it affects every body around you. Like if one guy can fart a stinker at will, will make everybody around him say phew! The proper social action is for him to "step aside" and release his gas. It's common etiquette. Farting is legal.

ADD A COMMENT

blogs: J.S. Holland