Illinois Smoking Ban

[jmagnus]

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

[RACooper]

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."

Riiiiiiight

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.

[AlethiaSi]

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)

[33girl]

Originally Posted by AlethiaSi

If they tried to stop us from smoking in our cars or for those that smoke in their homes

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).

[jmagnus]

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?

[Drolefille]

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.

[jmagnus]

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?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by jmagnus

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.

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.

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 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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by jmagnus

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

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.

[Kevin]

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.

[ZTAngel]

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....

[Munchkin03]

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

[33girl]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

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.

[PeppyGPhiB]

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.