Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear urges legislature to enact workplace smoking ban

[Bill Godshall]

Gov. Steve Beshear wants to protect Kentuckians from secondhand smoke

Governor Beshear has urged the KY legislature to enact a smokefree workplace law.

But previous (and likely forthcoming) KY legislation that would have banned smoking in workplaces also falsely defined e-cigarette use as "smoking" to ban e-cig use as well as smoking.

So we'll need to once again urge KY legislators to remove the e-cigarette usage ban from the smokefree workplace legislation.

Also, just because the KY Governor advocates a smoking ban doesn't mean that legislation to do so will be approved by KY legislature (but its likely to generate more votes this year).

 

[FloridaNoob]

I am wondering. If E-cigarettes are not *smoking* why has no one ever challenged these bans in court?

 

[sonicdsl]

Gov. Steve Beshear wants to protect Kentuckians from secondhand smoke

Governor Beshear has urged the KY legislature to enact a smokefree workplace law.

But previous (and likely forthcoming) KY legislation that would have banned smoking in workplaces also falsely defined e-cigarette use as "smoking" to ban e-cig use as well as smoking.

So we'll need to once again urge KY legislators to remove the e-cigarette usage ban from the smokefree workplace legislation.

Also, just because the KY Governor advocates a smoking ban doesn't mean that legislation to do so will be approved by KY legislature (but its likely to generate more votes this year).

I look forward to the CTA from CASAA on whom and where to write about this!

 

[kristin]

The CASAA Call to Action for Kentucky may be found here: CASAA: Kentucky Call to Action!

We are also working on CTAs for New Mexico, Maryland and Hawaii.

 

[VapApe]

I am wondering. If E-cigarettes are not *smoking* why has no one ever challenged these bans in court?

Even if you win you lose they would just ban all tobacco use. So your back to square one.

Better to fight for their removal from or inclusion to a ban.

This how I see it.

 

[kristin]

I am wondering. If E-cigarettes are not *smoking* why has no one ever challenged these bans in court?

Money and incentive. Who would want to challenged it so much that they'd be willing spend that kind of money? Bars and restaurants already deal with smoking bans, so adding e-cigarettes to it doesn't bother them much. E-cigarette users (who seem to be mostly broke, lol) can't sue on behalf of a business and there is no "right" to vape in public. Most bricks & mortar stores are small business owners who don't have the funds to hire a lawyer for a court challenge.

It all comes down to lack of money and/or incentive.

Most likely (if at all) it will be a vaper in a community where they've banned vaping in private residences (condos, apartments, government housing) because they are directly affected (right to make a claim) and the onus could finally be back on the legislators to prove that the person vaping in their apartment is a health threat to others. Once they are shown to have no proof of harm to bystanders, then there will be more ammunition for fighting public use bans. Right now, the claim "of better safe than sorry" is working for them.

 

[Littlewing]

I just find it amusing how states do not 'ban' tobacco usage in their own house (gambling). Here in Rhode Island, our state run Twin River gambling casino allows smoking. If I were a bar owner within a 10 mile radius of, I would attempt a lawsuit so dam fast... Why go to (fill in bar name here), when I can go to twin river and drink and smoke at the bar. It is an unfair business advantage.

 

[Insignificance]

I just find it amusing how states do not 'ban' tobacco usage in their own house (gambling). Here in Rhode Island, our state run Twin River gambling casino allows smoking. If I were a bar owner within a 10 mile radius of, I would attempt a lawsuit so dam fast... Why go to (fill in bar name here), when I can go to twin river and drink and smoke at the bar. It is an unfair business advantage.

It is illogical.......but I think they get away with it by sticking to existing ordinances (no smoking in restaurants and bars) and having carve-outs for their own (smoking on a certain percentage of the gaming floor). In NJ, smoking is allowed on 25% of the gaming floors. All but one of the casinos in NJ allow smoking on the gaming floor. Here in Pennsylvania they allow smoking on 50% of the gaming floor and the casino operators will tell you that they generate more revenue from the smoking-permissible slot machines than the other ones (I guess smokers toss more coins into the machines).
What's more, there is little enforcement going on. That's not to say that there's smoking going on everywhere, but the last time I was at the casino there were smokers in non-smoking areas. As long as people are gambling the casino wasn't chasing anyone down.

But anyway I completely agree.....if I owned a bar I would want the right to allow or deny smokers as I chose. I know the arguments about second-hand smoke but in the end I would put a sign up in the window if I chose a smoking establishment and those who didn't want to be in that environment could go elsewhere. There is no need for the government to step in and mandate this crap on private businesses.