137 Comments - Speedy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 8:59 am: 54% support the ban…well, you can’t argue with that many people. Unless it is Blago’s approval rating, in which case they are all looney - Anonymous - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 9:24 am: Oh no, now we know that the General Assembly will be taking up this measure come next Session. They will just not be able to resist taking action with these poll numbers. - Newbie - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 9:32 am: A statewide ban would give members the cover they have been looking for….no more squirming between the health nuts and the merchants of death. Besides, isn’t it about time Illinois caught up with NY, CA, FL and all the other “major” states. - Wumpus - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 9:32 am: I suggest that each residence has to pay for a restaurant license. Then, people can do what they please with their own personal eateries. Until then, shut up and if you don’t want to patronize a smoking restaurant, don’t. This is as silly as the Foie Gras ban. Here is a suggestion to all those who favor a public ban. Open your own restaurants, businesses and bars. Until then, work, eat and drink elsewhere! I don’t smoke. - MsBloom - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 9:34 am: The state needs to take action now! All they have to do is look at the new surgeon general’s report and his statement “there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke” to make their decision. - ChiDem1 - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 9:37 am: Springfield, Chicago, Oak Park, Bloomington, Champaign, suburban Cook County and on and on. It is time for the state just do the right thing. - Anonymous #2 - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 9:38 am: With this much support, isn’t it time we took a state-wide stand and made all Illinois workplaces smoke-free? we don’t want to be one of the last states to protect our citizens. If CA, FL, NY, and others can make the hard decisions we should, too. - PRL - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 9:42 am: The support is there. It is time for the state to step up and pass a comprehensive smoke free law. This is a public health issue they cannot ignore. We’ll all breathe easier for it. - ChicagoCynic - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 9:42 am: Would love to see a real smoking ban, unlike the nonsense pseudo-ban in Chicago. But I’m not holding my breath… - EP Mom - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 9:44 am: It’s not about where you or I go to eat. It’s about every person who works and deserves a safe place to earn a paycheck. You tell us who deserves anything less? - clavie - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 9:48 am: It’s time to consider the health of ALL people — not just the patrons of restaurants and bars, but of the workers in these establishments as well as other workplaces. Let’s add Illinois to the growing list of those states that consider the health of their citizens to be truly important! It’s a no-brainer, really. - WTF! - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 9:50 am: The claim that this ban does not adversely affect bars is utter B.S. - Here’s a little recap of last week D.H. Browns—business down more than 50% The last time Brown’s had a Monday as low as the first Monday of the ban was 8 years ago during a snowstorm. Brown’s will likely have to lay off their doormen—on top of the lost employment, this will increase the chances of underage drinkers violating the law. Two (2) waitresses informed management that they will have to give their notice and try to get a job in one of the neighboring communities that permit smoking because they are no longer making any money. Track Shack—business down 42% For the first time, the owner had to draw money out of his personal funds to pay Track Shack’s bills. American Legion Post # 32—business down more than 50% JW’s Lounge—business down over 40% Stadium—business down 40% 10 people in bar, 43 in Beer Garden on Wednesday night, numbers similar on the other nights. Cheers—business down more than 50% $400 to $500 previous average daily sales—haven’t had one night over $200 since the ban went into effect. Bernie & Betty’s—business down 40% Knuckleheads—business down 40% Mac’s Lounge—business down more than 25% Customers who were regulars prior to the ban have been calling Mac’s to tell them what a great time they were having at the Curve Inn in Southern View where smoking is permitted. VFW Northender—business down, but percentage is unknown Waitress made a total of $14 in tips during her shift on Monday, and $17 on Tuesday—substantially lower than past experience. Spillway Lanes—bar business is down more than 25% Lost 10 bowling teams since ban, gained only 1. Black Dog Saloon, Winner’s Circle & Teasers had to close over 2 hours early this week due to lack of customers Snapshot of Smoking Ban Impact on Bars in Incorporated Sangamon County Outside of Springfield Business up about 80% at bars in Sherman Business up more than 80% at bars in Southern View Business up more than 75% at bars in Chatham - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 9:58 am: Business was way down Sunday night at Brewhaus. Way, way down. - Newbie - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 9:58 am: Hey WTF!, I would be interested to know how you compiled those stats so quickly? What were they based on, what research methods were used? Kind of odd, since the Springfield ban has only been in effect for two weeks. Also, re: the waitresses, why can’t they get a job in a restaurant??? Do you think business has been hurting at say…Olive Garden? Or Perkins? Last time I checked, those places employed waitresses too! - Barbara - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 10:07 am: When smoke-free laws take effect, smokers can still go to all the places they normally go; they just step outside for a smoke. When businesses allow smoking, however, there are many people who can’t go there at all… people with allergies, respiratory illness, cancer, who are pregnant, or who simply have a problem being exposed to cancer-causing chemicals. And don’t forget the workers who are there for 8 hour shifts, increasing their risk of cancer 20-30%! - WTF! - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 10:11 am: Newbie - I got these from the association that represents bars in Illinois. He contacted his Springfield members directly. - Lobster - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 10:14 am: Wow, I never thought I’d say this but I actually look forward to session in Springfield! I will be able to go out at night and have the same access to legislators as fellow lobbyists who smoke and/or those who don’t mind wading through a blue smoke haze to represent their clients. Frequerntly, legislators tell us to catch them here or there at night for a drink, etc. What am I supposed to do, tell them I can’t because of second hand smoke? Some would laugh. I know a couple who would actually hold it against you. It never really seemed like a “free choice” to me. Now, I can do my job AND spend some money for food and drinks in places I would never want to go into before. And, I can still protect my health! Thank you Springfield! Now, on to Smoke-Free Illinois! - Lobster - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 10:21 am: WTF, seems the time frame you mention also tracks with some really bad rainly weather, the start of school when parents have to be around for their kids activities, etc. How about a more objective source? Do you really think the health groups and thousands of municipalities and over a dozen states are all lying when they say business has not been hurt? - Doola - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 10:27 am: WTF - Steve Riedl we know its you! And as always spreading more of your rumors and untruths. All you’re reporting is heresay - nothing based on actual sales tax facts - of that I’m sure cause that is what you always do! - Anon from BB - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 10:32 am: Let’s just get down to it. Instead of all these bans on smoking, let the feds just ban cigarettes, or get the FDA to regulate them like a drug. That is, if we are truly concerned with peoples’ health and welfare. Oh, that’s right, no politician in their right mind would do that because of all the tax revenue that would be lost. Smoking: damned if you do, damned if you don’t! - Breathing Easy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 10:33 am: I am totally for a statewide ban. It would level the playing field for all businesses in Illinois instead of pockets here and there. But more important, it would make for a safe workplace for employees of restuarants and bars. And I would be able to go out and enjoy a meal or live music where ever I want without having to take meds first, shower later, and be miserable in between! Fanstatic! - Ban Supporter - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 10:38 am: To WTF I’m with Doola. Steve Riedl loves to spout vague statistics with absolutely no supporting information. Once its in print, its hard to keep it from getting spread all over the web. So thank you WTF for perpetuating the lies that Steve Riedl spreads. I’m not even sure its possible to get those kind of statistics this quickly. Unless of course Steve was working with the bars and customers to discourage everyone from going on last weekend. Nah, that wouldn’t happen right? When you hear these statistics keep in mind that there were tornado warnings out for Friday and the Route 66 Festival was limiting access to downtown bars. I was in several bars on Friday and they all had good crowds. Except of course for Sammy’s where the owner is “tight” with Steve Riedl. Coincidence? - Informed Participant - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 10:43 am: WTF- Thanks for providing the ILBA spin. I needed a good laugh! I especially like the part where all of your stats seem to be in nice round numbers! Clearly that information was carefully compiled… Smoke Free is coming to Illinois, and its a good thing. The Surgeon General and the accumulated research of the scientific community make it clear that the only way to protect non-smokers from the cancer risk of second hand smoke is to ban smoking at indoor workplaces. Why is that so hard to understand? - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 10:43 am: I suffered horribly growing up in the pre-non-smoking US in the 60s-70s. I had to take a number of prescription drugs to keep my lungs open while they were being assaulted by tobacco smoke. Not only were smokers killing themselves, they were killing me too. In restaurants, schools, cars, buses, airplanes, even freakin hospitals, one had to endure the deadly stench of death. As Joe Camel puffed away, I had to clench my inhaler around my blue lips and fight to breath. Thank God those days are finally coming to an end. I don’t care about “legal rights” to commit slow suicide, you have no right to slowly kill me because you need a nicotine fix. Public smoking should have never been accepted by society. The idea of people walking around with individual fire hazards hanging from their yellow fingers is stupid. Smoking should have always been banned. I don’t care about businesses “losing” customers. I don’t give a flying fig or shed a tear. I dare anyone complaining about the smoking ban to spend 5 hours lying on your side, unable to breath, wheezing and coughing as you swear you’re going to die this time because Auntie needed a puff and you are just a 5 year old in the way. It is time to bury smoking right along with it’s victims. - Newbie - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 10:44 am: WTF!: The point is, those stats were not based on tax revenues, but were purely anecdotal. Truth be told, some places have seen revenues drop right after a smoking ban takes effect. What has happened is that they come back up pretty quickly to the same or higher levels. This is because some smokers stay home initially, then realize that they didn’t go out to smoke, but to drink and most importantly, to socialize. Yes, you can smoke and drink at home alone, but eventually people realize that isn’t a lot of fun, and return to the bars, restaurants they have always gone to. And they start going outside for a cigarette. - WTF! - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 10:44 am: Tough Crowd Ban supporter - You’re welcome Doola - Try again Lobster - Margaret Vaughn is that you? - To Anon BB - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 10:47 am: The reason the legislators don’t outlaw tobacco or put more stringent controls on it is ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. But not the money you’re talking about. They get big bucks from the Tobacco Lobbyists and Tobacco Companies to keep that from happening. Since it doesn’t look good to take money from tobacco, they use front groups such as the Illinois Licensed Beverage Association (quoted on above post)to do it for them. Wake up! - WTF! - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 10:51 am: All I was trying to say was it appears that this is just what the industry said would happen - a loss in customers. I gave you information that was given to me by the ILBA. I know Riedl and he doesn’t cook numbers. Unlike the John Dunn’s of the world, Riedl actually has some integrity and I consider him a friend. Will attendance go up? Sure eventually. Will people continue to drink? Absolutely. However, just like when the alcoholic beverage tax went up in 1999, it will take some time and some neighborhood bars will not survive. - Pickle - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 10:53 am: I am twelve years old and my parents do not smoke and I don’t want to smoke. I hate walking in crowds and breathing smoke and then going home and getting our car all smokey and gagging. I would not accept a job in a smoking building because I know the secondhand smoke can kill you. I think that the people who don’t want to smoke shouldn’t have to suffer with secondhand smoke because either you smoke or you don’t want to breathe smoke at all. I hope your kids will not have to suffer with the smoking and they can enjoy their grandchildren. - Urbana Dan - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 10:58 am: I support a Smokefree Illinois! Most everyone from California, New York City, and other smokefree places loves it, and their restaurants and bars are thriving. - Petunia - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 11:01 am: Going smoke-free is good for Illinois business and taxpayers! Consider these facts: $3.78 billion in annual health care costs directly caused by smoking $1.40 billion portion covered by Medicaid $637 per household spent towards state & federal tax burden from smoking-caused government expenditures $4.09 billion smoking-caused productivity losses in Illinois - Lucy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 11:01 am: Everyone deserves to breathe clean air! Secondhand smoke has had a devastating toll on the health and safety of our country. More than 65,000 Americans die each year from exposure to secondhand smoke. In Illinois, 8 people die a day from exposure to secondhand smoke. Illinois needs to pass a 100% Comprehensive Smokefree Ordinance! - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 11:05 am: OK, that’s more than enough Riedl bashing for one day. Move on or be deleted. - Susan Williamson - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 11:06 am: I am for Smoke Free Illinois!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Daisy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 11:10 am: It is amazing that the non-smoking section is always full with a line waiting to set there. Nobody likes to smoke while they eat or otherwise! Smoke Free for Life! - mormorar - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 11:10 am: I am all FOR a statewide smoking ban and would like this to happen quickly. Not only is it stinky but it ruins everyone’s health, the smokers and non-smokers alike. What we really need is a useful product using tobacco so that the farmers wouldn’t lose out - how about plastic made from tobacco??? - Unreasoned Support - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 11:18 am: If anyone really cares to find out the actual effect of the smoking ban on bars in California all you have to do is go check out the state’s own website. Do not listen to either the pro or anti smoker groups as they all have their own agendas to promote. Although sales revenue stayed predominantly the same in California after the smoking ban the number of renewed liquor licenses dropped by over 25 percent. Now to be in the business of selling liquor one must have a license. The fact that these license renewals dropped by over 25 percent proves that a full quarter of the businesses went under. Sales revenue remained the same but that is attributed to the fact many places were forced to raise prices in order to stay in business. Higher prices plus fewer customers equals stagnant sales receipts. The state of California keeps these statistics and they are easily verifiable. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 11:20 am: We’re getting inundated with comments supporting the ban from one particular IP address. New comments from that IP address are now being held in the moderation que. - Health Minded - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 11:26 am: For crying out loud, even New Jersey is smoke-free now! How is this for a campaign slogan: Can’t we be as healthy and progressive as New Jersey? - Terry's sister - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 11:28 am: My sister died from lung cancer after being around second hand smoke. She did not smoke. She was 40 and left 2 children. It is long past time to stop the devastation left by second hand smoke. Make Illinois smoke free NOW, before someone else is left without a sister, mother or daughter. - Da Godfather - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 11:29 am: Ban smoking and legalize pot.. But they have to do it outside. - Nonsmokering - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 11:33 am: I support Illinois going somkefree. That will help all of us breath easyer. - Wumpus - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 11:33 am: I am pro choice! Let the busines owners choose the smoking rules for their business and let customers choose to go there or not! - Smoke-Free Libertarian - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 11:39 am: The science is absolutely unrefutable, secondhand smoke kills. Read the Surgeon General’s report, talk to Heart & Lung, talk to the American Cancer Society, visit no-smoke.org. You cannot debate the relative health risks of smoking or simply being around those who smoke, it kills, plain and simple. All data I’ve read shows that smoke-free ordinances have no ill-effect on business and can actually increase revenues in the hospitality and entertainment industries. Even here in Illinois, Highland Park has seen increased sales tax revenues since adopting a smoke-free ordinance. Employees shouldn’t have to choose between their job and their health. Smoke-free lungs and a healthy heart shouldn’t be a privilage held only for white-collar employees. Anybody who tries to compare this issue with fois gras bans or alcohol prohibition is making a weak analogy. Alcohol may have obvious negative health consequences, but unless you’re driving drunk or operating heavy machinery(we have laws against both I might add) you won’t be killing the guy next to you simply by drinking a beer in his presence. And really, are you actively poisoning another human being by eating fois gras. Give me a break… People should have the right to smoke if they so choose, just not at the expense of public health. - Skeeter - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 11:45 am: Wumpus, Do you feel the same about mining? Per Wumpus: “Want to breath clean air in a mine — open your own mine.” Is that how you feel? Or do you just not care about waitreses? - Snuff - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 11:48 am: Why should the 75% of non-smokers have to put up with the ill effects of second hand smoke? Smoking is certainly a right and anyone can do it. However, when it interferes with my right to clean air, take it outside! I can’t imagine people are not eating and drinking because they can’t smoke. The statewide ban is actually a bonus for cities that are currently smoke free, there will be no benefit to go somewhere else, it will all be smokefree! Encourage your lawmakers to take the next step!!!! - Low Sugar Lisa - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 11:50 am: Why in the world would anyone with common sense oppose the no smoking ban? Tobacco kills whether you smoke it, chew it or smell it!! Pro Ban !!! - Political Insider - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 11:58 am: I, also am pro-choice and a former smoker. We never smoked in our house because we have children that do not need another toxin in their systems. I also never ate in the smoking section. Even though I was addicted to cigs, I didn’t like the smell or the effect it would have on my kids. When I smoked, I did it where it didn’t affect other people. This should be the basis of the laws regulating smoking. If you want to smoke, go ahead. But only do it where those who don’t are not subject to your toxins. Smoking is toxic. If our country won’t (and shouldn’t) ban it outright, then there needs to be laws in place to protect those who don’t want to smoke. I’m glad to see that the poll numbers were as high as they are. I have a bit more faith in my fellow citizens after that. A ban on a city by city basis probably can hurt joints in restricted cities. A statewide ban would level the playing field. I only hope that our representatives are as enlightened as the populus. (but probably not). - Gordon - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 11:58 am: Several of the submissions opposed to a state-wide ban seem to be relying on an “economic” argument. Since when are dollars more important than people’s lives?? Tobbaco farmers have successfully converted to other crops. Seems to me retailers have some ethical and business choices to make to minimize any possible negative economic impact. I say go for the ban! Lets make Illinois a safe and healthy place to live and work! - Coughing and Hacking - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 12:02 pm: Smoking is the #1 cause of disease and death on America. This is a serious public health problem that the Surgeon General’s June report clearly defines as “no acceptable safe level” of second hand smoke. 75% of all people don’t smoke. Why should this majority be subject to disease ladden smoke. We legislate seat belts, FDA approved drugs and inspection of eateries for safety … why not legislate air free from cancer causing tobacco? - SpanProf - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 12:07 pm: Evidently, in Pueblo, Colorado, where a ban is in effect, heart attacks are way down. Bottom line–it’s a question of health, and all other issues are secondary! - Happy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 12:10 pm: Once there is a state-wide ban on smoking on all indoor smoking, patrons will return to their favorite bars and restaurants. Until then, smokers might choose businesses that still allow smoking. The ban will level the playing field. The ban is the right thing to do. I want to socialize with my smoking friends, but I can’t do it if it makes me sick. - Carl Nyberg - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 12:23 pm: There should be a mix of smoking and non-smoking establishments. I favor creating a number of smoking licenses that is less that the total number of facilities and letting them bid for the licenses. - Mindy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 12:24 pm: I am in support of state-wide ban. How can we know what we know about the effects of first- and second-hand smoke and still allow indoor smoking? - Jake from Elwood - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 12:30 pm: I support the smoking ban in restaurants but not in bars (i.e., taverns without kitchens). My reasoning is that children eat in restaurants and do not presumably drink in bars. Adults can make the choice whether they want to attend smoky nightlife at their own peril. You need to eat but you don’t need to smoke. BTW. . .VanillaMan–love the passion. - Lovie's Leather - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 12:31 pm: Skeeter, a democrat compares civil liberties to economic liberties. I was wrong about you… you aren’t a communist, you are a statist. So, go ahead, stand up for health in front of liberty. And when the government is powerful enough to take away your guns because they could kill you, and your cigarettes because they could kill you, when are they gonna start taking our cars away? It is a matter of principle, a matter of personal freedom. That is what created America and made it what it is today. Democracy isn’t just about majority rule, it is about constitutional freedoms. The government isn’t supposed to grant us life, liberty and property. The government is supposed to not restrict our rights of life, liberty, and property. This is just another issue that is blinded by the “we should ban something because we don’t like it” crowd. Unfortunately, that is 80% of America it seems. So government, stop trying to interfere in peoples’ lives and start building roads, balancing budgets, and all the other boring crap that you are supposed to do!!! - Smoke-Free IL - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 12:31 pm: This smoke-free initiative is a legislative tranistion that many other states in our nation have already adopted. This is an investment that would seek to better the quality of life for residents and visitors to the great state of IL. - Digger - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 12:39 pm: FOR, FOR, and FOR a statewide ban on smoking. In my profession, I have seen the effects of smoking not only for the smoker, but also their families. This includes the mental, emotional, and financial strain on all. As a non smoker, I do not want to be exposed to the 4000+ toxins emited from smoking–causing me to be at risk for the same diseases second hand smoke causes by being around people who smoke in public places. Even when I go into an eating establishment which have smoking and non smoking areas, I can still smell the smoke. I would rather smell the food than the smoke as smoke stinks and food smells good. Lastly, a state wide band on smoking would save lives. I’m not a great proponent of more laws, but just like wearing seat belts, it had to be legislated to require people to wear them to save more lives. That is the same way with this. We have to have the legislation for the same reason. - Rocky - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 12:42 pm: Long overdue. Model after CA laws. You can breathe indoors there. - Jack's Mom - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 12:43 pm: I am for the smoking ban. Why shouldn’t we make it inconvenient for people to harm themselves and other people? And to those who have said that non-smokers should just not frequent these establishments, think about this: when someone breaks the law, we remove them from society because they are the offending party. We don’t move everyone else away because they can’t behave properly. If smoking is the offending behavior, we should deal with the smokers, not the non-smokers. Just my opinion. - nikki - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 12:45 pm: Fourteen states - California, Delaware, New York, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Hawaii, Montana, Utah, New Jersey, Colorado - have enacted comprehensive indoor smoking bans, which include bars and restaurants. Florida bans smoking indoors except at bars where 90 percent of revenue comes from alcohol sales. Come on IL, get with it! It is not a “personal rights” issue, it’s a “HEALTH” issue!!! - Pattycake - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 12:59 pm: SmokeFreeIllinois is long past due! OSHA would never allow factory workers to be subjected to poison air. Why should hospitality workers have to put up with it? It’s a disgrace that people have to sacrifice their health to make a modest living. Get a comprehensive state law passed now, and enforce it! - Big Al - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 1:07 pm: I would really appreciate a serious smoking ban for all of Illinois. I travel a lot and I really enjoy visiting friends or doing business in cities such as Boston and New York, simply because I can enjoy a meal or a drink without having to choke down an unhealthy serving of smoke too. I think a statewide smoking ban is the best thing for Illinois because it does not put some businesses at an advantage over others that are just across city lines. I also support such a ban as a matter of worker rights. No one smokes in the offices of white collar workers! Enough is enough! - Fan of the Smoking Ban - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 1:22 pm: We all need to think of the health of ALL workers in Illinois. It is unfair for our law makers to continue to put the health of their constituants who work in the hospitatlity industry on the back burner. Its about time we protect the health of ALL workers! - Patriot - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 1:24 pm: Lovie’s Leather. To be frank, you are seriously confused about the meaning of freedom in this country and the intentions of our founding fathers. Any tenth grader knows that one’s liberty is only valid to the point that it interferes with the liberty of another human being. If you haven’t noticed, the government will indeed take away your gun, car and your life for that matter if you use these things to infringe on the freedom of others. You are correct; it is a matter of liberty. Secondhand smoke will kill you. When someone smokes in my face when I am in a public place my constitutional right to life is threatened. Believe me, the government does a lot worse things than try to protect public health; you’re fighting the wrong battle here. - public health practitioner - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 1:34 pm: I support a statewide indoor smoking ban. It is important that we protect everyone from the dangers of seceond hand smoke inhalation. This is a public health issue, not an issue of choice. Saying restaurants should be allowed to choose to be smoking or a non-smoking facility is discrimenatory much like saying it is perfectly OK to have racially segragated restaurants. Second Hand Smoke kills people…read the June 2006 surgeon general’s report. - Fan of the Game - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 1:38 pm: I am not a smoker, have never smoked, and hate smoking. My mother died of cancer after smoking for decades. I abhor it. I favor a smoking ban in state-owned facilities. These are true public buildings (owned by the people of the state, county, town) and should be as healthy and safe as possible. However, a restaurant or bar owner should have the ability to allow or ban smoking in his restaurant as he sees fit. It is not a public building. It is his business, his property, and his livelihood; and he should be able to run it as he sees fit. If you do not wish to eat where smoking is allowed, then choose a different restaurant or open your own that bans smoking. If you don’t want to work around second-hand smoke, get another job. We get to decide these issues for ourselves, and we shouldn’t force our issues on others in their private property. If enough people choose to patronize smoke-free establishments, those that allow smoking will lose business. They will have to change their practices or close. The market will drive the decision without the aid of more legislation. - Cancer survivor - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 1:44 pm: As a 4 year cancer survivor and as a volunteer for the American Cancer Society, I totally support Smoke Free Illinois!! Everyone deserves protection from the effects of second-hand smoke. - grand old partisan - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 1:47 pm: Actually, public health practitioner, it is a matter of choice, and is NOTHING like racial segregation. Blacks were barred from eating in certain restaurants because of an identifying characteristic over which they had no control. Non-smokers have a wide variety of smoke free eateries to choose from (including their own home) that are voluntarily smoke free. - Celebration Ambassador - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 1:53 pm: I just returned from Washington, DC to encourage my legislators to support additional funding for cancer research and to refund the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. The two Illinois Senators and Congressman Kirk support our initiatives and signed the Congressional Cancer Promise. Hurray! Now that I’m back, it is to fight for the smoke-free efforts trying to be made in Illinois. Some towns/villages in Lake County have gone smoke-free, but much more education and advocacy has to be done to make it a smoke-free county. I for one, despise smoke, and I resent the fact that I have to be subject to walk through a smoke-filled area while being led to a non-smoking area in Waukegan & Gurnee restaurants. Some non-smoking areas in local eateries are a joke! Smoke does not know to stop crossing an imaginary line because an area is designated non-smoking. Second-hand smoke is a killer, and the more the word gets out to the media and general public, the better. California has been a smoke-free state for a few years, and their state is doing well. If Illinois can go smoke-free, there probably would be more people that will patronize public places. Representative Eddie Washington supports smoke-free efforts, and I am prepared to remind him to push the matter further. Because smokers chose to smoke does not mean I want to breathe it! Come on Illinois, our health is at stake here–No Butts About It! - Marie - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 2:03 pm: Okay. No problem on a smoke ban. However, there may be unintended consequences. Don’t anybody freak out (especially you, Pickle - avert your eyes). People are bringing their MISBEHAVING CHILDREN into the formerly smoke filled taverns for PIZZAS, CHEESEBURGERS, COKES, AND SPORTS TV!!! I witnessed it myself in one of the aforementioned Springfield taverns and even had my foot run over by an unattended kid pushing a chair around like it was a Zamboni. Hey I’m not at all anti-kid. I have two of my own. But, do you think something can be done about this, too? Okay, Pickle. You can look now. - Smoke Free - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 2:14 pm: Yes I support smoke free. Springfield just went some free this past weekend and it was wonderful. I went to 5 places that normally allow smoking. It was wonderful being able to breath clean air! - Ivory-billed Woodpecker - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 2:21 pm: Yes, let’s have a uniform, statewide ban. And while we are thinking about indoor air and public health, let’s remember that exposure to naturally occurring radon gas is a cause of lung cancer second only to smoking. http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/pressreleases/sg01132005.html Test for radon: it’s easy and inexpensive. And if you find elevated radon, don’t panic: friendly state employees are available to help you find a licensed radon abatement contractor. http://www.state.il.us/iema/radon/radon.htm - Don't Stop There! - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 2:23 pm: I wouldn’t mind seeing a ban on: Crying kids Cell phones ringing Nose blowing Lips smacking Mouths opened while chewing. These things cause stress while patrons are enjoying their meal. Then, second-hand stress emits throughout the restaurant which leads to high blood pressure and eventaully can lead to congestive heart failure. - Denzel - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 2:39 pm: Illinois needs to go smoke-free for the benefit of all. - ND 70 - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 2:40 pm: I agree with those promoting a reduction in 2nd hand smoke exposure in IL - just as has happened in more than a dozen states, 3,000+ communities in the US and nearly 20 countries. The data (not anecdotal, unsubstantiated myths and tales) are undeniable about SHS’s risks and dangers - as well as the fact that very rarely are businesses hurt by smoke-free regulations. I’d also request that those so dead-set against SHS regulations look at the scientific evidence, rather than spout the distortions, manipulations and outright lies disseminated by the tobacco industry and their front groups - like the ILBA. - Tracy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 2:43 pm: Let’s get one thing straight. Banning of annoyances such as crying children, cell phones, nose blowing, lips smacking, mouth opening while chewing and whatever else consists of the “banning column” is just that- ANNOYANCE. Banning smokers in public places such as restaurants and enclosed rooms is for HEALTH ISSUES not for infringing on your amendment rights. I personally should not have to inhale second hand smoke because I want to enjoy a nice meal out, or go out dancing. So for those that want to say- then don’t go out at all, fortunately there are places that DO agree with my healthy way of life and are banning smokers. Look in a restaurant and see how many are smoking, not as much as non-smokers, so why are we catering to the minority? Step outside and inhale all the toxins you want smokers just don’t spread them or blow them in my breathing space. - Supporter - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 2:44 pm: I think a statewide ban is the only way to protect health AND address business oweners’ financial concerns. It truly makes for an even playing field, at least within the state borders. And whether anyone agrees with it or not, the momentum is there and a ban on smoking in public places will be here eventually. There is even a country (can’t remember which one) that bans smoking in cars when children are present. So it’s an issue that is not going away. - Scott - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 2:46 pm: One week ago, the city of Springfield enacted a law that banned all smoking in public buildings. From now on, if someone wants to smoke, they must be outside and not blocking an entrance to an establishment. I must say, it smells a lot better in Springfield. When the rule was enacted last Sunday, barricades were not built. There was no rioting in the streets. Members of the General Assembly and City Council were not burned in effigy. In fact, nothing happened. Life went on as normal. The only two things that can truly be connected to the smoking ban is that the request for “beer garden” licenses have increased and it is much easier to enjoy yourself at a restaurant or bar. In a world where each year 53,000 nonsmokers die and 26,000 children develop asthma due to second hand smoke, we must make a choice. When cigarettes contain 63 cancer causing chemicals, we must make a choice. When staying in a bar for two hours equals the intake of four cigarettes, we must make a choice. The choice is simple. As a society, we must tell smokers that they can do what they want with their bodies, but once it affects the health of nonsmokers, it becomes a public problem. That problem, in turn, must be solved by the public. You can smoke in your home, you can smoke in your car, you can smoke on the street, but once you enter an enclosed place with children, peers, and me, you better put the lighter away. I applaud the city of Springfield, and every other public group that decides it is time to make it a little easier to breathe. ~From http://scottbigmac.blogspot.com - Don't Stop There! - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 2:58 pm: Tracy - “Lighten up Francis.” It was a joke. Geez Hey Rich - Do you think the Lung Association sent out an e-mail blast on this one??? I haven’t seen this many posts on one subject in a long time. BTW - Do you folks do any push polling??? LMAO - Unreasoned Support - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 3:03 pm: Its really odd that statistics from the very same government most people state in polls that they don’t trust to run the country are immediately embraced when that same government publishes a statistic that backs up a persons own pet peeve. Someone stated that the proof of second hand smoke (also known as environmental smoke) causing death is irrefutable and any science to the contrary is just unfounded and is nothing more than a front for the smoking industry. Is the American Lung Association a shill for the tobacco industry? How about the California Department of Health? Because these two entities teamed up and studied the effect of second hand smoke over a 38 year period covering over 35,000 people in the state of California. When the study was finalized around 2000 and the results were becoming apparent the American Lung Association pulled their remaining funding so the results wouldn’t get published. Unfortunately for the Lung Association the results showed the correlation between second hand smoke and its effect of causing disease upon the non-smoker was so statistically insignificant that they couldn’t report a direct cause relationship. Eventually the British Journal of Medicine discovered this multi-decade study and published it in their journal and they were subsequently admonished by the American Lung Association because they never wanted these results to be made public. Is the World Health Organization a shill of the tobacco industry? They conducted their own study concerning second hand smoke covering numerous countries throughout the world and their results mirrored those of the California study. When the American Cancer Society and the American Lung Association discovered that the WHO was going to publish the results they made every attempt to kill that release. However, the WHO not being bound by the threats of the two American organizations publish the results through the United Nations anyway. Just remember don’t believe everything one reads, including this post by me. But please do your own further research and you just might be surprised by what you actually find when all information is gathered. It might just not support the assertion you are blindly making. - Lovie's Leather - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 3:05 pm: To you health advocates, my health is no concern of yours. And in bars that have smoking, don’t go. It is not your bar, it is not the governments bar. It is the owners bar. You just want to keep stopping people from doing what they do. It is sick. We need less laws in this country, not more. I don’t care if smoke is bad for me, you, or your children. The point is that bar owners should have the freedom to choose. But, I guess it is the classic politically-left mentallity of “people are too stupid to take care of themselves.” Here’s an idea, mind your own business. - enough is enough - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 3:06 pm: While to few the ban may seem like a very different issue, the issue itself is clear and simple, it is a HEALTH issue! People that choose NOT to smoke should NOT have to pay the consequences of a smoker. If restaurants get to choose to be smoke free or not, then we can choose to ban that too. - Jaded - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 3:07 pm: Let’s face it folks, if we quit doing everything that might be harmful to us, nobody would want to live to be 100 because it would suck! I don’t smoke (actually I think it is a filthy habit), and I don’t like smelling like smoke any more than any of the rest of you zealots, but I am with the business owners on this one. - BB - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 3:11 pm: I’m tired of coming out of a bar or restaurant smelling like a cigarette. Not to mention what is going into my lungs. The only businesses that will lose money by going smokefree are the drycleaners. IL must keep it residents safe - GO SMOKE-FREE!! - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 3:13 pm: “Don’t Stop There,” you’re just about right. The American Cancer Society sent out an e-mail about this post. For some reason, by clicking on the link in the Society’s e-mail they’re all showing up with the same IP address here. The Cancer Society people swear they’re not doing it in their offices, so I’ve decided to take them at their word. I released most of their comments from moderation. Also, we get a 100-comment post about every 10 days or so. We had one on Friday, so this one is a bit ahead of schedule. - Fan of the Game - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 3:21 pm: ND70, I oppose a ban, not on grounds of what the tobacco companies want. I know smoke kills. But restaurant owners have a right to run their private business as they see fit. As long as smoking is legal, they should be allowed to permit it in their establishments. Tracy, Restaurants are not “public” places. They are privately owned (except those in government-owned buildings). You, as a customer, enter that establishment under the permission and terms of the owner. It is not your “breathing space.” That, too belongs to the business owner. Furthermore, you ask, “Why are we catering to the minority [smokers]?” YOU are not catering to smokers. Restaurant owners may or may not cater to owners as they see fit. - Gertie - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 3:34 pm: Do any of the smokers notice that when they go to a resteraunt that they don’t have to wait for seating but nonsmokers do? Says something for the majority. No one is infringing on a smokers rights as much as they are infringing on nonsmokers rights to breathe clean air. Everyone has bad habits and as long as they are not harming others, do what you want to yourselves, but when you start harming others including children…they maybe the courteous thing to do would be to do it at home! Seems like smokers don’t really give a hoot about the health of others that they are destroying! - GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 3:35 pm: “Unreasoned Support” - GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!! It wasn’t an American Lung Association study! The study was done by James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat, and funded by the now defunct Center for Indoor Air Research, which was created/funded by several TOBACCO companies. The study was flawed because Enstrom & Kabat mis-used AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY data, partially becuase they only used a small hand selected portion of the data. The Enstrom & Kabat “study” is JUNK SCIENCE at it’s best! - Unreasoned Support - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 3:51 pm: Sorry ‘Get Your Facts Straight’ it was most absolutely an American Lung Association study all the way up to the point that the results did not agree with their preconceived conclusion. This fact is easily provable should one do a little investigating on their own and not accept what is hand fed to them. The Enstrom/Kabat connection was the fact that they eventually discovered this study and provided the funding so it could be published. There was no American Cancer Society data used in this study. The study was conducted by a researcher from California and another professor out of New York all with the original blessings of the American Lung Association and the health department of California. If one thinks this study is ‘junk science at its best’ then why would one choose to believe anything else backed by the Lung Association? Enstrom and Kabat may have put up the money so the test results could be published but they never put one dime into the study itself. I guess in some people’s view the British Medical Society must be in on this grand ruse then. - SmokeFree IL Supporter! - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 4:09 pm: I completely agree that it’s time all IL citizens are protected from the known carcinogens in secondhand smoke by making all indoor public places (including bars) smokefree. As the recent Surgeon General’s report proves, any exposure to secondhand smoke is harmful. All patrons and hospitality employees should be protected from secondhand smoke. It’s time IL join the other states who’ve chosen to place the health of their citizens over the interests of the tobacco industry (& of their campaign contributions). - Ken in Aurora - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 4:09 pm: “- Anonymous #2 - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 9:38 am: With this much support, isn’t it time we took a state-wide stand and made all Illinois workplaces smoke-free? we don’t want to be one of the last states to protect our citizens. If CA, FL, NY, and others can make the hard decisions we should, too.” Yeah, but IL has a history of not doing the right thing - look at CCW, one of only two states that deny their residents the right to defend themselves. I’m all for banning public smoking! - ND 70 - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 4:09 pm: To Fan of the Game, et al: Businesses don’t have carte blanche to do whatever they want, despite the results: that’s why we have food and sanitation inspections, and try to control for all sorts of bacteria and other contaminations. All of those inspections and “quality control” mechanisms are to protect the general public from others’ contaminations. Think of all the attention given to the recent “e-coli” contaminations and fresh spinach. Yet, the handful of deaths and illneses resulting from that problem are dwarfed by the numbers of deaths and illnesses IN AN HOUR from tobacco products. - Skeeter - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 4:12 pm: Lovie’s Leather: When a car operates exactly as it is designed to act and in strict compliance with all user’s manuals and the driver takes all precautions and the car still kills people — then we can outlaw cars. That is the problem with cigarettes. There is ZERO safe way to use them, and they kill innocent people. You can call me whatever names you can think up. I’ve been called far worse. But no matter what you say, I will be in favor of safe work places, whether that means OSHA or mine safety or banning cigarettes from restaurants and bars. You, on the other hand, believe that mine workers should have to buy mines if they want to breath safe air. So we differ on the issues. By the way, do you want to abolish all work safety rules? Or do you just not care about waitresses? Why is it that people like LL don’t care about waitresses? Is there a real sexism there? “We need to protect men’s work, but women are not worth protecting”? Is that the reasoning? - t-dud - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 4:13 pm: SMOKING KILLS PEOPLE! Both my Dad and my mother-in-law died from strokes brought on by smoking most of their lives. Yes they had a choice. My choice was to play in a band for 22 years where we were playing in smoky bars and halls. It would have been so nice not to have to play in so much SMOKE that I absorbed even though my choice was not to smoke. - Huckleberry - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 4:17 pm: Over the last two years the General Assembly and the Governor have given the authority to enact smoking bans in public places. That’s where the authority belongs. Let them decide, and let Springfield resist the temptation to do something just so they can feel better about themselves. - Breath Easy - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 4:25 pm: Smoke-Free Illinois is not about limiting the rights of restaurants but rather providing a healthy enviroment for both employees and patrons. You will never know how great it feels to go to a restaurant, bar or night club and not have to put up with the smell of cigarettes in your hair and clothing. And while restaurants are privately owned they are catering to the public, who have a right to breath clean air! Keep up the fight for Smoke-Free Illinois! - Confused - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 4:32 pm: Everyone keeps stating that they have a right to breathe clean air. We won’t even discuss where in the Bill of Rights that is granted. I want to know where this ‘clean’ air that everyone knows so much about is. Are they talking about the air within their city? Just look at many of the downtown buildings in Chicago. That ain’t cigarette smoke caking the upper floors of those high rise exteriors people that is pollution from vehicles. Even in the capitol city (that’s Springfield for all you Chicagoans) the air is polluted as a result of the internal combustion engine. So everyone go outside and breathe all that ‘clean’ air in deeply and feel good about yourselves. Oh by the way that ‘clean’ air contains many of the same carcinogens that you are all preaching about in the cigarette smoke. - Skeeter - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 4:36 pm: Confused, Let me get this right: According to you, since we cannot make air completely clean we should do nothng at all? Since we cannot make construction work completely safe, should we abolish OSHA? - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 4:38 pm: Not to take sides, “Confused,” but this is in our state Constitution: ===SECTION 1. PUBLIC POLICY - LEGISLATIVE RESPONSIBILITY The public policy of the State and the duty of each person is to provide and maintain a healthful environment for the benefit of this and future generations. The General Assembly shall provide by law for the implementation and enforcement of this public policy. SECTION 2. RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS Each person has the right to a healthful environment. Each person may enforce this right against any party, governmental or private, through appropriate legal proceedings subject to reasonable limitation and regulation as the General Assembly may provide by law.=== - Jaded - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 4:57 pm: I don’t know about Lovie’s Leather, but I care about waitresses. Especially the ones from Hooters. I care very deeply about them. Is that sexist? - ND 70 - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 4:59 pm: A couple of points: Huckleberry - Springfield passed their ordnc. to protect people from SHS and its’ dangers, not “feel good about themselves” AND Confused: R. Miller and Skeeter superbly responded to most of your comments - it’s just that I can’t resist “piling on”: one of government’s roles, as outlined int he very 1st line of the U.S. Constitution, is to “…promote the general welfare.” The Declaration of Independence talks of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Nice to know that the IL Constitution goes even further (as many states’ Constitutions do) in protecting people’s health and well-being. - Lovie's Leather - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 5:01 pm: Wow, Skeeter, “woman’s work.” I worked in a restaraunt. Man, half the people that wait tables are guys. Woman work… I mean, you should be ashamed. By the way, I usually did work the smoking section… it didn’t bother me. Also, about 3/4 of the employees of the restaraunt smoked, so they really weren’t bothered by it either. Also, nobody was forced to work in smoking. More over, there was a really good ventilation system. If nobody was smoking, you wouldn’t have even known it was a smoking section. Have you never had a job, known real people? Do you cash your welfare checks never knowing what in the world goes on, Skeet? And Gertie, because smokers are the minority, they shouldn’t have rights? Your good health is not my responsibility. If you want good health, stay away from me and the restaurants that I patronize. - Fan of the Game - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 5:04 pm: Rich, According to the second section, if a anti-smoking person comes to my home, and I smoke, the other person can sue me in a legitimate case. If someone who is allergic to peanuts (unknown to me) comes to my house, and I open a can of peanut butter in the same room, I can be sued? If someone allergic to bee stings is stung on my property, I can lose money? That’s what we’ve come to? Simply amazing! - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 5:05 pm: “as the General Assembly may provide by law” - huh? - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 5:09 pm: Just what we need - the Nanny State telling us what we can and cannot do with a legal product. It’s getting to the point in time that we will have to move to some other country to enjoy the life liberty and freedom that are written about the the US constitution. - DAurand - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 5:23 pm: As a cancer survivor for 8 years, I am currently working hard to adding my home community to the list of growing communities in Illinois that are smoke free. But it would be much more important if we could make Illinois a smoke free state when it comes to second hand in the workplace. - Relayman - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 5:24 pm: I Support the Ban. Smoking kills non smokers and smokers, I do not like breathing in other peoples smoke. I do relay for Life and this is one step to getting rid of cancer. GO NON-SMOKING ILLINOIS! - Anon - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 5:39 pm: Hey Rich, maybe you could hook this topic into the Chief debate and it would generate some comments. - shellwhit - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 5:39 pm: Please make illinois smoke free! - Skeeter - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 6:41 pm: Fan of the Game: You can sue for anything. Filing suit doesn’t mean much. The question is whether you can prevail. With regard to the questions: Bee sting — probably not. Peanuts: Assuming no knowledge, no. If your guest says to you: “Does this contain peanut” and you knowingly provide the wrong answer — there is a case. This has nothing to do with the smoking ordinance though. You are still free to cause yourself to get cancer in your own home. The law would provide that a business cannot force its employees to work without a gas mask where there are known carcinogens, just as we have mine safety laws that require breathing apparatus and we have OSHA that says construction companies must provide scaffolds. - BargeRat - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 7:39 pm: A state-wide ban on smoking indoors makes sense. Too many people have or had cancer already. - Fan of the Game - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 8:05 pm: Interesting that a smoking ban may lead to another ban in NYC: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060926/ap_on_he_me/diet_trans_fat_ban “NYC mulls ban on trans fats in eateries” Chicago is already considering this (though only for companies that earn more than $20 million per annum–it’s okay to clog your arteries at a small, poor restaurant because if we sue them, they don’t have any money to take). Where does such action end? People off-handedly dismiss slippery slopes, but this seems to be the case where we just keep sliding downhill. - CrunchyCon - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 8:10 pm: I thought obesity was THE health crisis facing our nation. So, maybe we should ban all-you-can-eat buffets? - Skeeter - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 8:17 pm: Crunchy and Fan: When YOU eating give ME cancer, then your analogy carries some weight. Until then, your points are irrelevant. Lovie’s Leather: Your last post was fascinating. It included no new arguments. It failed to respond to my arguments (i.e. should we say that if you want a safe mine, buy a mine?). It included an attempt at an insult to me. LL you really need to stop with the insults. I’ve been called worse. Trust me on that one. Your insults make you look weak and pathetic and have no impact on me. That being said, let me toss one out. You, LL, are a coward. You’ve heard the argument, but you are too much the coward to respond. Tell us, Lovie: Do you support repeal of all mine safety rules? Do you support repeal of OSHA? Is a construction company obligated to provide a safe work place? Answer those, LL. Until you do, I am just going to assume that you are either a coward or all those leather chemicals have caused some real damage. - Buck Flagojevich - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 8:31 pm: How about balancing the budget first? I smoke, but I also support regulation, and a partial ban. Only allow bars and liquor only establishments to have an optional smoking allowance. Have individual establishments purchase an annual license that permits smoking on their premises. Make the license expensive enough to make the proprietors think about their actions. No license, no smoking. If there is smoking at a nonsmoking establishment issue a big fine. - Eagle I - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 8:34 pm: Having a no smoking section of a restaurant is like having a no peeing section in your pool. - Fan of the Game - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 8:49 pm: Skeeter, My smoking (if I smoked) does not give you cancer. Your breathing smoke might give you cancer. Might I suggest not patronizing establishments that allow smoking? The little town in which I live has one restaurant that has a smoking section. At the urging of the local health department, all the others have voluntarily gone smoke-free. Why? Because that is what people wanted. It didn’t have to be legislated. The market drove the decision. In a state that doesn’t mind if kids under 18 to smoke cigarettes but doesn’t let them buy cigarettes, it seems disingenuous that the state wants to ban smoking. If it really cared about people’s health, it would outlaw smoking and cigarettes altogether (I would be in favor of that). But then, it would lose so much tax revenue. - Steve @ ILBA - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 8:52 pm: It is unfortunate that people stoop to personal attacks because of their feelings on an issue. That said, neither the ILBA nor I have distorted anything on this issue. We have consistently stated that we feared a negative economic impact on liquor-pouring establishments. I sincerely hoped our predictions would be wrong; however, early sales data from Springfield establishments bears out our fears to date. I did not post the data on the blog; however I did provide it to a number of people, one of whom elected to post it. The data is accurate. Just as accurate is the dramatic increase in busienss at some of our member locations in towns that border Springfield. The Curve Inn in Southern View is now the hotspot. Every night the parking lot is at capacity and folks are parking at the church. Same story at Sherman bars. I urge those of you that don’t believe this data to take a ride and look at the customer traffic we are now dealing with in Springfield. Its not pretty. There is no reason for these business owners to “fake” the impact on their operations from the smoking ban. Please feel free to contact any of the owners of the businesses listed or me directly. These people are worried about their future ability to make a living and put food on the table for their families. Please employ empathy and put yourself in their position. It is easy to make statements that these busiesses will not suffer under a ban when there is no danger to yourself. These are real people with real families. A few contacted a realtor to explore selling their business since the ban went into effect. They have been informed that the value of their business has dropped by 50% and will not increase in the forseeable future absent a dramatic bounceback in business. This is a scary time for these folks. Reality in the hospitality industry isn’t as rosy as many folks are trying to paint it. I hope the pundits take the time to go to a non-smoking bar and buy a few cocktails. - Skeeter - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 8:56 pm: Fan of the Game: Under your logic, working in a mine without proper breathing apparatus does not cause cancer. It is the decision to breath in while in the mine. Is that really your argument? You have to do better than that. - Fan of the Game - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 9:25 pm: Skeeter, My argument remains that you can choose not to patronize establishments that allow smoking. No one puts a gun to your head and forces you inside. Many smoking-ban advocates seem to believe that they have a right to the restaurant owner’s property. I don’t understand that. - Skeeter - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 9:39 pm: Fan of the Game: I could not care less about the patrons. That is their problem. The employees matter. Nobody should be coerced economically in any way to work with known carcinogens when there is as simple method of removing those carcinogens. You don’t tell mine workers to work in mines with bad air, and you should not make waitresses work in restaurants with bad air. - Skeeter - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 9:43 pm: Fan of the Game: You talk about “the restaurant owners property.” How about the construction developers property? Should we say that since the property owner has rights that we should not require scaffolds? That we should not enforce OSHA? How about the poor innocent mine owners who just want to send mine workers into THEIR MINES without adequate breating apparatus. Who are we to tell those mine owners what they can do with THEIR MINES? And how about the slaughter houses. Can we tell an slaughter house owner about health and safety regulations for THEIR SLAUGHTER HOUSE? Answer those questions, Fan. - Fan of the Game - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 9:48 pm: Skeeter, I don’t make anyone work anywhere. They work where they work of their own accord. They are rational creatures who can make decisions for themseleves. Again, no one is forced at gun point and no one is “coerced economically” to work in a restaurant that allows smoking. People choose to work in such places. If the smoke is that much of a problem, they should seek employment elsewhere. Again, what gives patrons or employees a right to the owner’s property? - mrsb - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 9:56 pm: Why should we breath in someone else’s second hand smoke, we have a right to go into public places and come out not smelling like smoke or have a smoke hangover the next day. Smokers have the outdoors to pollute as well as their insides. My mother died of lung cancer and my father and uncle of emphysema, had I been a smoker, I would have quit once I’d watched their painful deaths. Please think of others before you light up. - Political Insider - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 10:35 pm: Is wish I could remember the original person who said this.. “Your right to swing your arm ends at my nose.” If you want to smoke, go right ahead. Just don’t do it in a public (defined as a place that is open to the general public at large, not simply owned by a public entity) place where I might breath it. Yeah, as a former smoker, going to a bar where everyone is smoking is hard. I have given-up on that. I don’t agree with seat-belt laws since it’s my own damn life I’m risking. I don’t agree with most drug laws for the very same reason. I do agree with DUI laws and with a smoking ban. Why not allow DUI roads? It’s you’re own choice to drive there knowing that the car passing you is out of control. The reasons for not allowing this can apply directly to the reasons to support a smoking ban. - Skipper - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 10:58 pm: The Surgeon General has confirmed that 50,000 americans die each year because of being exposed to secondhand smoke. It is a NO BRAINER that Illinois should go smoke-free just like the other states who have leaders that really care about customers and employees being killed by exposure to secondhand smoke Restuarants, bars and bowling alleys. Too bad though, most of our politicians worry more about the minority bar and bowling alley owners plus the people who are receiving $$$’s from the tobacco companies to stop any action that would clean up our state. - Gimmie some Kodiak - Tuesday, Sep 26, 06 @ 11:03 pm: Hell, I can still dip indoors right? About time, really. After working in bars for 20 years I don’t have to breathe your exhalent(s). Just don’t drink my half filled spit bottle. - steve - Wednesday, Sep 27, 06 @ 12:25 am: there is a lot of emotion about smoke free out there and sometimes i think it gets in the way of the facts. yes i can choose to onluy go to smoke free businesses and yes i can choose to not expose myself to smoky place. but the problem is not that i can choose as a patron it is the work environment that the employee or the child who is in the company of the adult that is exposed to the smoke. if i ran a large company and i emited the sme polutants that are in the second hand smoke that is dumped on workers and patrons the IEPA and the EPA, not to mention OSHA would be all over me about pollution and protecting my workers. each day in ILlinois alone 8 PEOPLE, fellow citizens, DIE rom second hand smoking related illnesses. how long do you think that OSHA, the Unions, or the government would allow me or anyone else to run a busines were 8 employees a day would lose their lifes?you see it is not about your or my right to smoke but it is about you and i having respect for others right to a safe and health environment to work or play in. smoke free is not the politicaly correct thing to do it is the morally right thing to do. it is the obligation that government must accept for it is governments responsibility to protect the citizens in this state and this country. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Sep 27, 06 @ 7:10 am: Fan of the Game: You still have not really addressed the issue. You support repeal of OSHA and also of all mine safety laws. Is that correct? You seem to have strong views on the subject. I’m not sure why you don’t want to answer that question. - Brutalina - Wednesday, Sep 27, 06 @ 7:24 am: For those of us who do not smoke, clean air is a priority, especially when eating. Even in restaurants with non-smoking sections, unless they are two separate rooms with great ventilation, you can still smell the cigarette smoke. I’m all for smoke-free Illinois! Let’s set the example. - Fan of the Game - Wednesday, Sep 27, 06 @ 8:21 am: Skeeter, The questions remain unanswered because 1) I went to bed and 2)because restaurants are neither mines nor construction sites. Straw men blow away. Having “smoking” restaurants is never my goal. I wish the state would ban the sale and consumption of tobacco altogether just as it has other deadly drugs. Government doesn’t even have the fortitude to make smoking among minors. It’s a shamless grab for tobacco tax dollars–we don’t want smoking , but we don’t want to lose the revenue, either. I guess what I am arguing more than smoking is property rights. As a property owner, I should have a say in the legal activities that take place there, and employees and patrons have no right to my property. Since we’re tossing straw men to the wind, what is your opinion on _Kelo v. New London_? - CountryGirl - Wednesday, Sep 27, 06 @ 8:32 am: I support the non-smoking ban in public places because it just makes sense. Several restaurants in my town have gone smoke-free and their business has remained constant. It’s a pleasure to go out and not have to smell like someone else’s cigarette when I go home, much less having inhaled their smoke. I also agree that the employees at the restaurants have had no choice, but to work in a smoke-filled envoronment. They deserve a break! - Supporter of the Ban - Wednesday, Sep 27, 06 @ 8:35 am: I am a firm supporter of the smoking ban. Habits that harm others around you should be illegal (i.e. drinking and driving). - Skeeter - Wednesday, Sep 27, 06 @ 8:45 am: Fan, You claim that mining and construction are somehow different from restaurants when it comes to mine safety? Other than the obvious (i.e. they are in different businesses), why are they different? Why is worker safety more important in one than in the other. With regard to Kelo: I have no strong opinions. Bad facts make bad law. Can a town take four feet of your front lawn to widen a road if you are compensated? Most people would say that is reasonable. Take your home to build a shopping mall? I would not favor that. That being said, there is a difference between saying “We are taking your home to build a mall” and “No business can force their employees to breath foul air without proper breathing apparatus.” - Illinois voter - Wednesday, Sep 27, 06 @ 9:05 am: Cancer is a horrific disease that takes lives and causes great pain & suffering. 1 in 2 men & 1 in 3 women are affected! Smoke-free can change those numbers enormously!!!!! Is that not enough reason?!!! Add the tremendous finanical costs and this turns into a no brainer. It is past due. WE NEED TO TAKE ACTION NOW. - A Non-Smoker in Joliet - Wednesday, Sep 27, 06 @ 4:08 pm: Just thing - if we were SMOKE FREE - how many non-smokers would be able to go out in public and enjoy what the smoker’s already do - like casinos - maybe I would go - spend (lose) my money just like a smoker does - and enjoy it! Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.