Illinois Smoking Ban

[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.

[amycat412]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

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

ME TOO!

CA has had it for YEARS and it is WONDERFUL!! I was in Salt Lake City last week and after an hour in a smoke filled bar, my wheezing self needed to be outside in the 20 degree weather gulping fresh air.

Didn't Dana Reeves die of lung cancer due to second hand smoke? I feel like I remember reading she was never a smoker...

[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.

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

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.

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

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by RACooper

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

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.

[AKA_Monet]

Here is your healthy lung:




and here is your lung on smoking tobacco:




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






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

[AKA_Monet]

More photos for the smokers! YAAY smokers!!!



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

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by 33girl

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.

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.