Jeff Ruby Culinary Entertainment

Opticare Vision/Express Mobile Transport

Friday, January 27, 2017

OPINION: Say Yes To Smoke Free, No To Protected Class

Brent Cooper. Provided. 
By Brent Cooper





First, with the exception of Northern Kentucky, every major urban area in the state of Kentucky already has a smoke free law in place.   Of course Lexington and Louisville are smoke free, but places like Morehead, KY & London, KY are now smoke free.

Second, the previous arguments made by pro smoking groups that smoke free laws would kill bars and restaurants has been completely debunked.

Finally, and perhaps the biggest reason I think it is inevitable, is that the majority of you want it.  Yes, even in Northern Kentucky, the majority of folks want smoke free environments and recognize we shouldn’t force employees to breathe toxic fumes.

At Chambers of Commerce around the state, the issue of a smoke free law generally polls at 80%-90% in favor.  It is true that there is a minority of folks that are willing to cancel their membership over the issue, (they feel that strongly about it), but it has gotten to the place that another minority will quit if smoke free policies aren’t adopted.

Many of those who disagree with smoke free laws feel it is a decision for the business owner. I respectfully disagree.  Worker safety shouldn’t be a choice.  Not when it is possible to make the workplace environment safe at a reasonable cost.   Sure, we argue the economic benefits, but at the end of the day, the reason to support smoke free is worker safety.

There are some jobs that come with inherent health risks.  Mining, police work, etc.  But second hand smoke is a risk that can be completely prevented.  Most of us believe employees in bars and restaurants shouldn’t have to needlessly suffer.

Regardless of how you feel about smoke free laws, it is baffling that the state of Kentucky also has a law defining “smokers as a protected class.”

That’s right, in the state of Kentucky, we elevated the rights of smokers to that of race and religion.
As a business owner in the state of Kentucky, it is illegal for me to ask someone if they smoke during the interview process.

Knowing full well that a smoker costs an average of $6,000 per year more than a non-smoker (Ohio State Study -

I can consider whether or not someone has a visible tattoo.  I can consider their choice of green hair or whether they are bald (where are the bald guy protections?).  I can consider where they went to school, (I don’t hire Duke basketball fans). I can consider an answer to pretty much any question I ask.  But it is illegal for me to consider whether or not they smoke?  Really?

At my company, we hire the most talented people, so statistically we would continue to hire smokers whether this law was in place or not.  And for the record, I don’t think smoking in and of itself should be a disqualifier.

But I do feel strongly that smokers should pay higher insurance costs for their choice.  This law prohibits that.  It’s true we can charge non-smokers less as a "reward", but most folks don’t know that, and it can be problematic.

Regardless, I think laws should reflect what we value.  Do we really want smoking elevated to the same level as race and religion?  We’re one of the unhealthiest states in the country, largely due to the number of smokers we have, and we value that?

I hope you will vocally support a smoke free law for businesses.

Even if you don’t support a smoke free law, I hope you will support the elimination of smokers as a protected class.    We shouldn’t have big tobacco HR policies.

Brent Cooper is President & owner of C-Forward, one of the top I.T. service firms in Ohio and Kentucky.  He lives in Fort Thomas with his wife Lisa and his daughters Sydney and Emma.


  1. I support this wholeheartedly! It is shameful that smokers are given more rights than nonsmokers, to the detriment of our health. This is a huge issue.

  2. I'm a non-smoker but pose these questions:
    As to paying a higher insurance rate? Should that also apply to overweight people? People who choose to drink alcohol or do drugs? People who ride motorcycles, horses, ATVs? People who choose to participate in "extreme sports" or skiing, rock climbing, skydiving? You can't delineate risky behavior.
    And secondly, isn't this exactly what GOP/Republicans decry -- big government? Or should that also be a pick and choose issue and apply only to the circumstances that some people deem offensive or unhealthy?

  3. Being stubborn and non-conforming to the overwhelming majority of societal views is not good economic policy and is a foolish way to run a business. If we need to meet in the middle ban smoking in all establishments and let owners apply for a variance, which should be liberally granted after a 30-60 day waiting period. If smoking is necessary for their business, they'll get a permit but at least they'll experience a smoke free environment for a period of time and see the benefits. My guess is that more urban establishments will remain smoke free and more rural businesses will elect for a permit. But if owners are going to freely allow people to be exposed to carcinogens, requiring a permit isn't too much to ask. Did you know you need a permit in Fort Thomas to have a garage sale or block party?