Illinois Smoking Ban
 

I'm not too happy about it. I've actually been driving the 10 minutes to the Wisconsin border so I can enjoy a smoke with my burger. Regardless of if you smoke or not, I think everyone has to agree that this law is right on that "personal freedoms" line. The first link at the bottom goes to the law, the second is the story below



Smoking is no longer allowed in Illinois--at least, not in public.

On July 23, Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) signed a statewide public smoking ban. As of January 1, smoking will be illegal in restaurants, bars, nightclubs, workplaces, and all public buildings. Smoking will also be banned within 15 feet of building entrances, exits, and windows.

Illinois is the 19th state to pass such a law. American Medical Association President Ron Davis, M.D. called it "the strongest clean indoor air law in the country." Sherrill Keefe, tobacco projects manager at the American Lung Association of Greater Chicago, agreed.

"A lot of other states threw in a lot of exceptions," Keefe explained. "We were very stringent in how we decided to allocate exceptions. An example of that is the exception that is granted to nursing homes.

"Although it is a public place, it is also people's private homes," Keefe said. "Other states granted the same exception to gaming facilities and restaurants. Illinois didn't."


First Amendment Violation

Others say the law violates the First Amendment's protection of Americans' right of assembly.

"This is an issue of violating our Bill of Rights," said Garnet Dawn Scheuer, president of Illinois Smokers' Rights. "We are dealing with the First Amendment right to peaceably assemble. Under this law, smokers can't peaceably assemble unless it's outside." Casinos, bowling alleys, private clubs, and bars are traditionally havens where smokers have gathered.

Many restaurant and bar owners are concerned about the ban's effect on their businesses. The Illinois Licensed Beverage Association, which represents retail businesses that sell alcohol, released a statement saying, "All-out smoking bans have a severe negative economic impact on hospitality venues that serve beverage alcohol for consumption on-premise."

"Of particular concern are independent, small, family-owned businesses," Scheuer noted. "These businesses will fold first. If hospitality industry businesses lose revenue, cities will also lose revenue. On average in Illinois, hospitality businesses generate one of every eight sales tax dollars. Can cities, towns, and villages really afford to lose this revenue?"


Non-Smokers' Concerns

Anti-smoking crusaders say those arguments are baseless.

"We did a lot of research in this area," said Keefe. "There were a lot of studies done that saw business improve for a lot of restaurants when smoking bans took effect. Sometimes it's not the food that's bringing people in, it's the atmosphere.

"Twenty-two percent of people in Illinois are smokers," Keefe continued. "That leaves well over 70 percent of people who are non-smokers. Some of those people don't come out because of health problems that are aggravated by smoke--now they can."


Junk Science Accusation

According to the American Medical Association, secondhand smoke kills approximately 3,000 Illinoisans annually.

Scheuer disagrees with that conclusion.

"I don't believe secondhand smoke health claims are valid," Scheuer said. "It's feel-good legislation and based on junk science. There are too many studies out there questioning the belief that secondhand smoke is dangerous.

"I do not believe that secondhand smoke or smoking by itself causes cancer," Scheuer continued. "It hasn't been proven, and the idea that you tell a lie enough times until it becomes the truth is the case in this instance."


Hefty Fines

Individuals who violate the ban will be fined $100 to $250 per instance. Businesses could be fined at least $250 for the first violation of allowing smoking on their premises. A minimum fine of $2,500 would be doled out to businesses that violated the law three times within one year.

Scheuer vowed to fight the law by arguing for personal rights.

"I'm not saying smoking is the best choice to make," Scheuer said. "But if you look at a lot of other lifestyle choices out there, it is by far not the most harmful."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aricka Flowers (atflowers@hotmail.com) writes from Chicago.




http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publ...?Name=095-0017

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22149

Riiiiiiight :rolleyes:

Well I guess he'd have to make this idiotic argument since it's the only way that his argument that the smoking ban violates his "personal freedoms" can stand - as soon as he accepts that fact that second hand smoke and smoking cause cancer then he has no legs to stand on legally.

NY has had a smoking ban for awhile now. I'm a smoker, and sometimes I miss being able to just smoke inside, but really it just makes sense. Smoking is becoming taboo, and really for good reason.

If they tried to stop us from smoking in our cars or for those that smoke in their homes (I don't) then I would have a problem (but I feel weird smoking in my car while driving and I see a police officer, but I do that no matter what I'm doing lol)

That's coming up next.

At least they didn't give the casinos a pass (which is what they were going to do in Pgh, which is part of the reason it was overturned).

I hope that wasn't referring to me Cooper, since I didn't write the article.

Let me ask you a question. Do you think it's right that if someone builds a business putting much of their personal money into it, they are not allowed to smoke in their own office?

Illinois already had legislation that let businesses have the choice to become smoke-free, which many did. Why force the ones that did not? People can choose to go wherever they want. If they don't like being in a smokey bar they can just walk across the street to a bar that chose to go smoke-free.

Bar and restaurant owners are not stupid. They know what their patrons want. Why let government interfere and decide for them?

I'm thrilled. Springfield has been smoke free for a year-ish now, and surprisingly an INCREASE in business despite messages of gloom and doom. Illinois will do just fine from the change and many people will be happier.

I don't think many smokers realize how crappy it is to be stuck too close to them when it's time to eat, or how dangerous to an asthmatic's health that can be. I don't even have asthma and I'm thrilled that I won't cough all the time anymore.

Alright, I'm taking off for work *please don't let me get robbed*. Just remember, I originally posted this to spark an intelligent debate between adults. I shouldn't have to say it but don't let this digress into a name calling match. Remember the golden rule and always respect the opinion of others, even if you don't agree.

AlethiaSI,
That is coming next. My boss was telling me that the anti-smoking lobbyists are trying to push that through congress. From what I understand *and don't quote me on this...rumors* it's already illegal in Cali. That is, it's illegal to smoke in your car if you have kids in there....kinda common sense anyways. No one should be doing that in the first place.

Let me leave you with this thought. You may not remember but back in the day there was a website offering quite a bit of money, 1000 i think, for a picture of Obama smoking. Why is it that the worst thing you can be these days is a smoker? Dubya did coke and got a DUI and he still made it to the Office....is smoking cigarettes worse than that?

I don't agree with passing the law, but despite the fact that it's common sense, there are a lot of people lacking sense in this world.
I suspect it's because he's trying to quit smoking. Someone just wants to catch him falling off the wagon. If he'd been an alcoholic it'd be a drink. Obama's admitted to much harder stuff than cigarettes in his past.

Well, as someone who believes wholeheartedly in reducing government interference in our lives, I don't have a problem with the last sentence . . . but the first might be demonstrably false, and indeed your entire argument that relies on "market forces" really doesn't carry too much weight either.

First, for market effects to really push non-smoking bars into the fore, you're relying on the owner to somehow realize the potential for increased profits to an extent that would allow him/her to take the risk of cutting off smokers.

Second, the status quo is a powerful market force in and of itself.

Combining these two, we can see that it would actually be exorbitantly difficult for market forces to drive bar owners to go non-smoking - and that's assuming the bar owners behave rationally (in an economic sense, not literally), and there's really no guarantee there.

How many bar owners have you met? Are they mostly hands-on, or hands-off? It's not like the requirement for owning a bar is a degree in economics.

The real problem here is the thick-line issues related to the government's role in public health. For instance, we assume the government will inspect meat - this is because we don't trust "the market" to weed out companies who deal in tainted meat, or because the forces that would weed them out would require injury to individuals. Currently, every Democratic candidate for President thinks it is the government's responsibility to provide universal health care - and while I don't want to debate the merits of socialized medicine, it's another example of the extent to which the government is explicitly tied to public health.

We have a CDC, we have a Surgeon General - state governments often have similar, as well as health inspectors etc. for bars and restaurants. Banning smoking should likely be viewed as an extension of those services, and not solely as quashing personal freedoms.

It does limit freedoms in one way, but not to the extent that banning smoking in homes would, because of the public health nuisance aspect - by the way, I believe the bans I've seen there are purely for homes with children, which makes the entire issue much more dicey.

Even to a libertarian these laws make sense.

Your right to swing your fist begins at my nose.

Similarly, your right to smoke ends where it affects my right to breath smoke free air. You have no right to cause me harm. I have a right to go anywhere public and not have you cause me harm.

I've never seen a smoking ban I didn't like.

These bans are going to get more common over the next couple of years as more and more states move to ban smoking in public places. Even many of the European countries have begun to ban smoking in restaurants and bars which I never thought would happen since smoking seems to be more common there than in the U.S.

Personally, I love the bans. You have a right to smoke but I have a right not to have to breathe it in.

Hawaii's smoking laws went into effect November 16, 2006. From reading jmagnus' post, it's pretty much the same as Illinois', except one has to be 20 feet from a public entrance. The fines, I believe, are the same as well.

A lot of bar and restaurant owners did lose money and they even tried to fight it, but they eventually lost. People made a big stink about having to go outside bars to smoke, but you know what? They eventually got used to it and some even enjoy being outside. Of course I live in Hawaii where it doesn't get cold, so....

As a lifelong asthmatic, I support any and every public smoking ban.

I think it all depends on the kind of establishment you're running.

Upscale bar with vegan menu, attracts health conscious people: nonsmoking probably a good idea and will increase revenue.

Shot-and-beer bar frequented by 60 year old former steelworkers: nonsmoking v. v. bad idea and will decrease revenue.

It's not rocket science to know who your clientele is and what will piss them off. To me, smoking bans in privately owned establishments are the equivalent of saying every restaurant should have the same menu and every jukebox should have the same songs on it.

Washington state has had an inside smoking ban (and 20 feet from a building entrance) for a couple years now, and most of the feedback has been really positive. At first restaurants and bars were afraid they'd lose money, but if I recall correctly, I think findings now two years later have indicated that they actually MADE money. Their patrons didn't leave...after all, when every bar has a smoking ban, there's nowhere else for them to go, except outside if they really need a smoke. And thanks to the now smoke-free environment, people who couldn't handle the smoke before are spending more time out.

The main business "haters" of our legislation has been more upscale restaurants and bars that had cigar lounges. They had to close those, too, and find some other purpose for those rooms.

I love being in an indoor clean air state.

COOL, how much more morality are we going to regulated in?:mad:

Oh, remember the Government professes that the NON Smokers will not pay for tax increases and the tobacco banners say it will help us.

Did anyone ever think of when all of us SINNERS quit this horribal adiction and the Billions of $$$$ are not collected where in teh hell is the tax money going to come from to make up for the loss of tobacco tax money?

How many thousands of people will lose their jobs and how in the hell do they pay for living?

Da, sorry dumb asses, YOU!:rolleyes:

I cannot afford to retire and if I do, my employee cannot work, he cannot pay his rent and buy food! He and his family starve as I have to kick them out of where they live!:rolleyes:

The thing I love most is do rightous people!

They are going to save me! Oh maybe save me from you all cause you are good!:D

This may be true (or also may not be), but it really has no effect on the overall 'market force' argument - it's simply not explicitly true to say that, if most people wanted bars to be smoke-free, they would already be smoke free.

There's no doubt your iron workers' local hang-out will be adversely affected, but that's not really relevant to the point I was making.

When I say "realize potential" for what would happen w/out smoking, I mean it in the sense that almost no bar owners have any reliable way to measure the effects of going to a non-smoking establishment, and as such the 'market' (as it were) can't really drive that way. You provide two exceptionally extreme examples, and even there only the iron workers example gives much surety.

Don't you think this amount might be, y'know, offset by:

a.) the fact that smoking will still occur, just not in bars or restaurants (see: smoking in NYC and Boston has not exactly ended)
b.) lowered public burden for smoking-related illnesses, especially in non-smokers or children of smokers?

Seriously, there's more to this argument than some nebulous economic hit to "the industry" or your store, Tommy - people die.

The issue I had when this came up in Pgh were all the people saying "OMG I will SO go out to bars all the time when the smoking ban comes along." For some people that's true, but for a lot of people, not so much. Once the ban is passed, they'll say they don't go out because of parking, or because it's too expensive, or because of the music, or blah blah blah.

A lot of people are just big party poopers, and like to blame their lameness on things that aren't their fault.

Heroin and other such drugs weren't always illegal - they lost their legal status when it was shown that their negatives were greater than their positives. If tobacco is such a horrible drug, why hasn't it become illegal as well? (Yes I know - tobacco lobby blah blah blah.) You can't demonize something and continue to profit from it.

Uhhh what about my personal freedom to not have to inhale YOUR second-hand smoke while I enjoy my burger?

Be happy that you don't live in Texas, where it is WAY more than 10 minutes to get to a state border :)

The "high end" clubs and restaurants can just declare themselves private clubs can't they? Pretty much every region with a smoking ban has a legislative provision for the establishment of private clubs with private memberships in which smoking is permissible - most of the Men's Clubs or higher end places catering to the cigar crowd went that way up here when the ban hit years ago...

PS> For the OP - no the quoted bit by me was directed at the guy in the article and not you, which is why your name wasn't at the top of the quote ;)

So you agree that you shouldn't be allowed to smoke in you car with your kids because of health concerns.........but you think it's ok to smoke indoors in businesses, bars, restaurants, etc. where your second hand smoke is unhealthy to everyone within your vicinity?

Not sure if Illinois left a provision for private clubs or not. Arguably the employees still have to work there...

ETA: according to a google news search: Private Clubs are NOT exempt.

Pulmonary Grand Rounds
 

Here is your healthy lung:

http://library.thinkquest.org/trio/T...althy-lung.jpg


and here is your lung on smoking tobacco:

http://medicineworld.org/images/blog...lung-22312.jpg


Here is your cancerous lips and mouth caused by smoking tobacco:

http://library.thinkquest.org/trio/T...pcancer_cr.jpg

http://library.thinkquest.org/trio/T..._cancer_cr.jpg


Now as a taxpayer, should I have to foot this kind of health treatment when I can attempt to prevent it by longterm cheaper cessation program?

Dr. AKA_Monet
Chief of GC Hospital

Idiopathic Interstitial Pneumonia; Cryptogenic Fibrosing Alveolitis
 

More photos for the smokers! YAAY smokers!!!

http://www.pathology.vcu.edu/educati...mages/2i-e.jpg

We are almost ready to start Case Conference for those studying for the USMLE! :)

I didn't even catch that from the OP.

That makes absolutely no sense at all.

And AKA_Monet, I <3 U!

If smoking and nonsmoking sections are created PROPERLY in restaurants...and if common sense is followed (i.e., not walking thru the smoking section to get to the nonsmoking) this isn't an issue.

I never said you shouldn't be allowed to smoke in your car with kids...I meant any responsible parent should know not to do it. A 10 year old kid doesn't have a choice to ride in a car with their parent or not, people do have a choice of what establishments support.

Fiscal Note (Dept. of Revenue)
The Department of Revenue estimates that SB 500 would reduce tax revenues collected under the Cigarette Tax Act and the Cigarette Use Tax Act by approximately $24 million to $60 million per year and would reduce Retailers' Occupation Tax and Use Tax Revenues by approximately $3.5 million to $8.5 million per year.

Taken from: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/Bill...51&LegID=28191

Monet,
This is not a personal attack but your post reminds me of PETA. Taken to the extreme and showing the worst-case-scenario.

And Texas,
You are right, I am lucky. Where I live is 10 miles away from Wisconsin and where I go to school is about 10 miles away from Kentucky...places where personal freedoms are still respected.

I didn't quote it but to whoever asked how many bar owners I've met...I've met quite a few. Actually, I deliver for Miller beer so I've met most of the bar owners in Northern Illinois. Yes, many are not the smartest but they don't last. They make bad business decisions and close down. It's not the big "nightlife" type bars and clubs that we are worried about either. It's the small neighborhood bars that are in danger. It's only been a few days but we have already had 3 bars close down. It was the ones that were barley hanging on to begin with and the ban was the straw that broke the camel's back.

I'm lucky that I only have one semester left here before I move back to school. We had a meeting at work yesterday and my manager told us that if the trend continues with bars closing, layoffs will start next month. Business has already slowed considerably. I went from working 60 hours a week to working 35. I can no longer afford to live in my apartment and at the end of the month, lucky me, get to move back in with my mom. So for all of you that think the ban only inconveniences smokers, guess again. It goes a lot deeper than you think. A lot of good people are going to be standing in the unemployment line quite soon.

http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com...uldyoutell.jpg

http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com...notwelcome.jpg

^^^Having family members lost to lung cancer I'm not going anywhere near this smoking discussion, but jmag, I just noticed your signature link and clicked in. Watching your brothers do the *shimmy clap* to "Thriller" cracked me up!

I'm glad you liked it. At least you got someting good out of this thread.

Everyone looks at the ban differently, but to me, smoking bans in privately owned establishments are the equivalent of saying every restaurant should meet the same health department codes. It's an issue of health, not one of culinary preferences or ambiance.

Obviously, I'm a supporter of smoking bans. I wish every state had them. Actually, I guess I wish the government would just make smoking illegal altogether. But we all know that won't happen.

This is totally hilarious - I would doubt most patrons would even KNOW within a few days' time. If these bars are that poorly off, it's specious at best to blame a law for their ultimate demise, and probably impossible to dissociate cause and effect here. How many bars only carry enough money for a few days' nut (including rent, power, etc.)? There's not a single business that operates this way on Earth, at least no successful one - do they pay utilities by the week or day?

Did you not read my point to Earp? Or my point on market forces and their inapplicability?

I seriously doubt this will result in a long-term loss in the total number of beers drank - and any loss in cigarette revenue will almost assuredly be made back by public health gains. After all, that's why cigarettes are taxed in the first place.

Anecdotes do not equal evidence.

This might sound stupid, but they should have bars apply for a smoking license in the same way you apply for a liquor license or topless dancing permit. just limit them so you have a few bars that allow smoking(which the cigar, cigarette, hookah smokers can patron) while the rest can be smoke free.

That's a good idea, but it won't happen. The way it is now, if you get 80% of your sales from tobacco products, smoking is allowed. So hookah and cigar bars are fine, as long as they don't serve alcohol.


KSig,
I've been working in the beer industry for a while now. There is no reason we should be as slow as we are right now. From the same time last year we are doing roughly 50% less buisness now...what other reason can you come up with for this? I would love to hear it.

For starters, the economy isn't doing so hot right now which means people aren't spending on entertainment type activities.

That may very well depend on the jurisdiction that you're in. I've been to hookah bars here in NYC, where the public smoking ban has been around for a while, that serve liquor AND food. I doubt that the hookah would account for 80% of the total sales of a place like that.

Okay fine. Lets outlaw tobacco altogether.

The Federal and State Governments profess a smoking ban and higher taxes on tobacco.

This will cure everything!

The only people who will have to pay the higher taxes will be smokers and the non smokers will not have to worry about a thing!

So, let us progress into the future!

No tobacco sales. Farms closed, manufactures, closed, wholesalers, closed, and last retailers closed.

Oh, lest we forget all of the people who work for them whether drivers or clerks.

So none of the Billions in taxes collected from the sinful smokers.

So, now, where is that money going to come from? You guessed it! You! The non smoker or chewers!

Where will that money come from? Relastate, alchahol, gasoline, food, sales tax, and god knows where else that will effect your pocket.

If you do not want to go where smokers go, do not go. Smokers do not go where they are not wanted. I will not spend my money there!:p

That's interesting, but the ban didn't go into effect this time last year, did it?

A smoking ban might be one piece, but people can drink in their homes as well - I'm not sure why this would result in a 50% drop for a distributor, and it doesn't pass the smell test. However, a flatlining economy may very well result in a severe shortage of entertainment dollars, not to mention the market share Miller and A/B are losing to craft brews and other alcoholic beverages . . .

It's likely much more complex than a smoking ban.

And how AlphaFrog is glad of this...:D