By Kevin Hudson | @kykernel
A statewide ban on smoking in public places and enclosed workplaces was proposed by a legislative committee in Frankfort on Feb. 7.
If signed into law, the ban would essentially extend the smoking ban that currently exists in Lexington and several other cities in Kentucky to cover the entire state.
Statewide smoking bans have been proposed for Kentucky in the past few years, but none have been passed. Former UK and NBA basketball player Derek Anderson spoke out in support of the bill in Frankfort Thursday.
Kentucky is one of only 13 states that has no statewide smoking ban. Though Lexington has had a smoking ban for years, nearby Nicholasville has yet to pass such a ban. Kayla James, a psychology and sociology senior from Nicholasville, says that a smoking ban “wouldn’t dramatically change Nicholasville since most businesses are already smoke free.”
Not everyone is on board with the proposed ban though.
“I find it difficult to support a ban for a product which the contents of are a very profitable agricultural industry across the state,”agricultural communications junior Laura Kathryn Strader said. “I don’t feel the ban will affect smokers aside from causing anger and frustration. However, despite that, I see it benefitting their health and wallets if they kick the habit in consequence.”
UK law professor Scott Bauries mentioned potential legal objections to the bill, saying business owners argue that a ban on smoking will likely hurt their businesses since smokers may be less likely to visit. Bauries also said that some argue smoking is an individual liberty protected by the Kentucky Constitution.
Bauries said section two of the Kentucky state constitution states, “Absolute and arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority.”
Some argue that a smoking ban would violate this clause. When asked about whether he believed such a law would be constitutional, Bauries said, “under current precedent, I believe that a statewide smoking ban would survive a constitutional challenge pretty easily … given that the costs of tobacco-related illnesses are borne in large part by taxpayers, the state would seem to have a pretty strong interest in regulating the use of tobacco.”
“Polls consistently show that the public desires control of secondhand smoke,” said Dr. F. Douglas Scutchfield, a UK professor of Public Policy & Administration. “I believe we are close to public judgment on the issue of secondhand smoke.”
“Our lung cancer rates are the highest in the nation and that is not a place that the governor, legislature or any of us in Kentucky want to be,” Scutchfield said. “Lexington is a better, safer, healthier and nicer place to live with smoking banned. Let’s make the rest of Kentucky smoke free.”
A statewide ban has been proposed twice in the past two years, yet neither bill was passed.
Here in Chicago, the local politicians and police were happy that the state did the ban. They don’t have to get involved and can keep going after real crime.
Theyve lied to all of us about second hand smoke and even direct smoking for decades and the below proves just how insignificant second hand smoke is.
http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/28/16741714-lungs-from-pack-a-day-smokers-safe-for-transplant-study-finds?lite
Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.
By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.
Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.
What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.
“I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study………………………
Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!
The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:
Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.
146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY.
A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.
Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!