GLASGOW Q: What is the concept of property rights viewpoint on the smoking ban issue? A: When the Le

GLASGOW Q: What is the concept of property rights renaissance westchester hotel viewpoint on the smoking ban issue? A: When the Lexington smoking ban was appealed to the Kentucky Supreme Court, the court ultimately ruled that the smoking ban there was constitutional. A lot of times you can get lots of insight on these issues from the dissenting opinion and the dissenting opinion in that case was Justice William Graves of Paducah. He said that in his opinion, use is an essential attribute of ownership. I think there sometimes is a disconnect in the minds of the average citizen between an issue like this and property rights. I think it is very important renaissance westchester hotel to bridge that gap and for people to realize that when government tells a private property owner, which a restaurant owner is a private property renaissance westchester hotel owner, what they can and cannot do with their property, based particularly on a legal activity that, we believe, is a direct threat to the constitutionally protected rights of private property ownership. In fact, the role of government is to protect our liberties and freedoms. Q: Is there a right to smoke? A: Smoking is a legal activity. If we were talking renaissance westchester hotel about an illegal renaissance westchester hotel activity, then we've got a different issue. It's a legal activity. People do actually renaissance westchester hotel have a right to smoke, unless, of course, that's made illegal. I believe there are some serious questions about some of the "science" of the damage of secondhand smoke. I believe it's a lot more difficult to prove that secondhand smoke, in and of itself, is the cause of so many health problems. I believe personally that it's not good to breath secondhand smoke. Q: Is it the role of government to protect people from the harms of things such as secondhand smoke? If not, whose role is it? A: No, it is not the role of government. In our statements about Bluegrass Institute, what we want to do is we want to analyze government policy or proposed policy and offer solutions renaissance westchester hotel in light of the ideals of our founders, which were economic prosperity, individual liberty, personal responsibility and respect for the life and property of others. This comes under the heading of personal responsibility and respect for the life and property of others. Whose role is it? It's a personal responsibility issue. renaissance westchester hotel If you look at it from that perspective, a government imposed smoking ban is unnecessary, because the marketplace is already working this issue out. Many restaurants have already gone smoke free voluntarily. Those that haven't, if they determine that they have to do this to survive, they'll do it in order to keep their doors open. Q: How do we balance the rights of those property owners, business owners, with their obligations as an employer and the public health issues of secondhand smoke in the workplace? A: An employer should make that decision on what happens on their property. They have taken the risk to build that company and it is private property, so for government to come in to their business and tell them that they cannot allow a legal activity in their business is a threat renaissance westchester hotel to their rights as private property owners. Now, to balance that out, I think we need to have education programs renaissance westchester hotel to educate people on the ills of smoking and the damage it can do to lungs. I think that would be much more effective anyhow in reducing smoking than some government coercion. It's politically correct to ban smoking; fine, a business owner can do that. It's fine to have smoking bans in publicly renaissance westchester hotel owned places. You have to go to these places for legal activity, such as the Department of Motor Vehicles to get your driver's license renewed. Q: How about employees who work in an environment where they have to be around smoke, not by their own choice, but due to economic circumstances where that's their job? A: This is a favorite argument of the other side, if I can say it that way. First of all, there is a basic principal of liberty here. It used to be that employees in restaurants did not have a choice. renaissance westchester hotel Every restaurant allowed smoking and there was a lot of smoking going on, there wasn't much choice. That has changed. A great number of restaurants have banned smoking as a matter of their own policy. The marketplace has worked this problem out. I think we have to get to the point where we say, "Where a person works to a large extent is their personal choice." No one should be made to work in a smoking environment. No one should be made to work in an environment that doesn't allow smoking if that is what they want. I don't think we can threaten private property rights in order to resolve that type of situation. Q: What is the balance between spending taxpayer dollars on the health care of smokers and the rights of the individual who chooses to smoke? A: We are going to have to carry that argument out to its logical conclusion. There are many people who have heart problems and other physical problems because they eat the wrong foods or they eat too much of the wrong foods, renaissance westchester hotel so what's next? Are we going to propose renaissance westchester hotel bans on Big Macs being sold or junk food? I don't think you can take the health issue and zero in specifically on smoking because we don't know when a person has a health problem if that can always be targeted at one specific issue. Again, this also comes back to personal responsibility. The fact that we have insurance policies that do differentiate and discriminate between smokers and non-smokers is an indication that the marketplace is the best place to allow these issues to be worked out. Q: What would be the most compelling argument that you would make today to the city council? A: I would say, "Do you believe in the Constitution? Do you believe in the private property rights of the people you represent and are you willing to abide by the oath that you took to defend the Constitution of the state of Kentucky and the United States and all that entails?" Their No. 1 job is to defend the liberty and freedom of the people they represent. There are two things that can be done that I think are reasonable compromises and I would tell the commission this. One is a smoking ban in publicly owned places is entirely acceptable, for the primary reason that you are not threatening anybody's private property rights and people are forced to go to those places. A much better idea, rather than fight about smoking bans and non-smoking bans, is to find some dollars to put on an aggressive campaign educating people on the health risks of smoking. Get your local health people involved renaissance westchester hotel to talk about what would be the most effective education campaign to reduce smoking. Some people think passing a smoking ban will be easier than educating people. It might be easier, but first of all it's not going to be as effective and second of all, it's not constitutionally right. The other thing I would tell the commission is to pass an ordinance that requires every public place to post their smoking policy. OUR VIEW Council members waffle in their duty Thomas Paine famously renaissance westchester hotel wrote "that government is best which governs least" during Colonial America's run up to the revolution from crown and king. We're not sure it was the action of the Glasgow City Council last May, when they tabled renaissance westchester hotel the smoking ordinance, that Mr. Paine had in mind. We don't think that was governing. It was waffling. In a representative democracy, we elect leaders to govern us. To set policy, to create laws by which we all are bound to abide and if we don't like how or what they do when they create those laws, or don't create them, they are subject to being voted out of office. The smoking in public places issue, renaissance westchester hotel by current Kentucky law, is an ordinance and as such not something requiring or even needing a referendum. We've all seen how well leading by referendum worked out for California. renaissance westchester hotel In May, when the Glasgow City Council voted 6-5 to table a smoking ordinance they effectively derailed the efforts of several well-intentioned citizens seeking to make a positive impact on the public health of our community. They also stymied the opportunity of those opposed to such measures to have further input. And most of all, the council did not go on record, by their voting the measure up or down, in a manner that the voters deserved. We're left to guess their intention renaissance westchester hotel by their vote on the parliamentary action—not the ordinance itself. With election day a month away, we think it appropriate to re-visit this issue in the hope that such an important public health and property rights discussion could be had and voters would know where their council renaissance westchester hotel members stand on this issue BEFORE they go to the polls Nov. 4. Some of Glasgow's finest people sit on the council and they do important, often thankless, work for all of us, but as much as we respect the people we dislike the process of how this ordinance and the discussion surrounding it was shut down by tabling the ordinance. It gave every appearance of the council not wanting to tackle renaissance westchester hotel a complex, emotional renaissance westchester hotel issue in an election year. And that's not what we elected them to do. This issue of a smoking prohibition in public places in the heart of tobacco country is a tough issue. It intersects personal rights with property rights and public health issues. There is a lot here to get our arms around and we get that it's a hot issue. But in the end, leaders solve the problems no one else can or will resolve. That's what we're calling on the council renaissance westchester hotel to do now: let's reopen this issue and declare your support or opposition of the ordinance so that voters may know where you stand.