The original article, which included a poll for or against a regional 3 county Northern Kentucky(commonly abbreviated NKY, and includes Kenton, Campbell, and Boone County, for those who don't know) ban proposal:
First one I'll highlight, from HDGREG:
I would like to point out the economics of this issue. Ohio has spent tens of millions of tax payers dollars to attract entertainment dollars to their shores. They have two professional teams, minor league hockey, Kings Island, and soon a casino. They have subsidized upscale department stores to stay in the downtown area; and they have finally got the Banks going. Still NKY gets a lot of Ohio customers because they can't smoke over there and be comfortable. Furthermore, Indiana has three casinos and smoking to boot. What is NKY's niche? We're close to the action in Cincinnati and you can buy cheap booze and cigarettes; plus smoke in the comfort of heating and ac. If we end the indoor smoking, what does NKY have......Nothin! All this that we lifelong NKYers have built to make it so attractive to live and play here will be gone. Then the reason all these folks left the high taxes and crime to live here will be gone. They will have created the same armpit they moved away from. Think!
So true, the same thing essentially happened in North Carolina over time in regards to a state smoking ban there. People from other parts of the country who didn't share property rights concerns with natives who've lived there for much longer and/or their whole life have increasingly moved into that state, changing the political culture enough that a smoking ban was no longer impossible. And IIRC, the first bill proposing a state smoking ban in North Carolina was debated in like 2003 or 2005, and it had a much more limited scope(restaurants), versus the bill that passed in 2009 and took effect this past January(covered restaurants and bars, + only exempted certain workplaces and private clubs/country clubs from the ban). I'll end my response by mentioning this great smokers rights site for North and South Carolina that mentions much more about what's occurring there, if you're interested: http://www.smokerpower.info/Home.html
Second one was Ken Moellman(who leads NKY Choice, the main group leading the fight against the anti-smoking groups that want the fiscal courts in Kenton County, Campbell County, and Boone County, Kentucky to each approve a strict smoking ban) responding to an anti:
So are you planning to ban everything that may pose a danger to your health?
You're not forced to enter a smoking establishment; no one is. Smoking establishments are the overwhelming minority. The only category where there are still more venues which are smoking (vs. non-smoking) is bars, and we've seen that trend begin in the past couple of years.
The free market is already resolving this, at no cost to the taxpayers.
And make no mistake - enforcement will cost the taxpayers dearly. Ohio has lost $2M in the past 3 years, enforcing their ban. A "workplace" ban requires that every single employer in NKY be monitored by the government; and that agency be available at 2AM. That's not done today by anyone, so it'll require a new bureaucracy to do this.
Well said! In so many states with strict smoking bans(Ken should've mentioned this), they all have 800 number snitch lines(for people who want to rat out businesses looking the other way and allowing smoking) that must be very costly to maintain, on top of having health department employees do checks on bars to make sure they comply with these unnecessarily forced indoor smoking bans. Health departments should just stick to the kitchen and make sure food sanitation and safety codes are enforced, and NOT worry whether someone wants to smoke say(theoretical example) inside in an out-of-the way roadhouse bar that serves food, and doesn't attract many patrons beyond a smoking clientele. But of course, if that same out-of-the-way roadhouse bar wanted to go completely non-smoking, or institute limited smoke-free hours(i.e. lunchtime), shouldn't that be up to the business owner to make that choice? Last time I checked, secondhand smoke hasn't killed a single person. And as much as I sympathize with those who are sensitive to smoke, that person should be WISE ENOUGH to patronize and/or apply for a job instead at businesses that choose a voluntary 100% smoke-free policy, and their preferences shouldn't rule over entrepreneurs and/or patrons that want to gather in indoor private businesses(not only bars, clubs, and casinos) catering to smokers! (as is the case unfortunately in all places under a strict smoking ban, including Illinois)
I'll end this with one last comment that sums up my thoughts very well(jennsw9c, her response to a stupid anti-smoker who said that government should impose a smoking ban on all businesses, even those in the minority catering to smokers):
Please tell me WHY you would WANT to patronize or work for any of the evil business owners that allow smoking in their establishments? It seems very simple to me that if you find second hand smoke offensive, you avoid places that allow smoking. It's just not that tough these days to find even non-chain restaurants and some bars that are voluntarily smoke free. Instead of pushing for an all-out ban, why not get out there and support the business owners who have CHOSEN to be smoke free? Sounds like a win-win solution to me.
Beautiful! You'd think anti-smokers would want to patronize all the businesses in Ohio that've been hurt by their 3-year-old smoking ban, instead of pretending to claim that they will show up once smoking is banned. When those same people in actuality don't show up, of course you can guess what'll happen which is documented here(businesses must look the other way on the smoking ban, just to keep their smoking clientele from leaving to competing businesses on the free side of the river, Kentucky, or they'll completely stay home):
Alrighty, time for me to create an account on cincinnati.com, and join in the fun on that comment thread. Not to mention, go out for the day and enjoy the weather.