37 Comments - Squideshi - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 9:20 am: I would prefer a statewide smoking ban in public places. This is just good public health policy. Anyone suggesting that this will hurt business is not grounding their argument in reality–all one needs to do is look to other jurisdictions that have banned smoking in public places in order to know that this does not hurt business; but I guess big tobacco, and some addicts, will continue to raise the emotional specter of hurting business. - Levois - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 9:45 am: I just found out that the state house has passed a law requiring CPS students to wash their hands. I would prefer no bans on smoking anywhere, however, I’d rather there would be local bans on smoking rather than a statewide ban. The state has better things to do than this. If people were dying because they took in second hand smoke and it was proven, this law would actually have a purpose. - He Makes Ryan look like a saint - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 9:46 am: I am for the statewide ban. Here in Springpatch, the problem they are having with it is the smaller areas (Jerome, Southern View, etc.) has not implemented a ban, therefore their bars and establishments can cater to smokers, thus making it an unlevel playing field. While I have struggled with the more restrictive government on Business, I do believe the data shows that second hand smoke does cause major health problems, and those workers should be protected. It should be statewide or nothing - Jeff Trigg - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 9:50 am: The flu contributes to more deaths per year than second-hand smoke. If this was really about public health and not an anti-smoker hate crusade, they would be banning sick people from public first. No smoking bans are needed, especially in bars. - Rich Miller - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 9:50 am: Levois, the House has passed no such “law,” but a bill may have advanced to the floor. Not sure of its actual status, but I do know it’s not yet a law. - NW burbs - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 9:51 am: Make it statewide. And enough of the “taking away rights” red herring. Folks can still puff up all they want in their personal sphere (private car, private home, etc). The conservatives and libertarians who cry about “taking away smokers’ rights” never seem to care about the majority of people: non-smokers who prefer prefer cleaner air. - Papa Legba - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 10:00 am: Leave it up to individual municipalities. They can tailor the laws to their town better than a broad based, complete smoking ban. Enough Nanny Government already. On one hand they want to ban smoking and on the other they tax the crud out of cigarettes. Strange logic. - VanillaMan - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 10:08 am: Make it statewide. Smoking should be done as far removed from other living things as possible. Bangor Maine has already taken the step of banning smoking in cars when children are present. That is next. I sat speaking on my cell phone in a parking lot when another car pulled into the spot next to me. A young couple were in the car with their newborn sleeping in a car seat behind them. While the guy entered the store in front of us, she lit up and filled the car with cigarette smoke, gassing their newborn. Morons like these will need to be led by their plugged noses into doing the right thing. You don’t gas other people because you are an addict. No sympathy. Ban it! - The Federalist - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 10:15 am: Leave it up to the market place for retail establishments. We do have choices. Second choice would be leave decision to ban to local municipalities. How much more big brother do we need? - Fan of the Game - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 10:16 am: Again, if the State of Illinois were really serious and really saw this as a public health issue, it would ban the manufacture and sale of tobacco products in Illinois. If they did that, I could wholly support a statewide ban on smoking in “public places” (Still think restaurants and bars are privately owned pieces of real estate). However, the state wants its tax revenue from the sale of tobacco products, so that will never happen and the hypocrisy will continue. Therefore, such smoking bans should be left to inidividual municipalities, and they should be put to the voters. - Jeff Trigg - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 10:16 am: Rich, the hand-washing bill did pass in the House. 100-14 without debate. HB382. NWburbs you fail to mention property (bars) owners’ rights, which is what conservatives and libertarians actually make a point of. Majority rule only means two foxes and chicken deciding what’s for dinner. Who cares about the chicken’s rights when the majority rules? So when do you start clamoring for a law to ban sick people from public since you are so concerned with what’s in the air on someone else’s property that people can freely choose to visit or not? - Robbie - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 10:25 am: Just ban it. It is inevitably coming. Might as well get it out of the way now. Smoking is no longer cool. It will soon be a thing of the past. Can anyone name a positive effect of smoking? Well I guess it does support the tobacco industry, I am sure the people of the Carolina’s thank us for buying their product just to kill ourselves. - Carl Nyberg - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 10:30 am: From a health point of view, doesn’t it seem like it should be a higher priority to ban smoking in cars with children than to ban smoking at bars where everyone is there voluntarily? I’d like to see a law where smoking is banned in restaurants, but allowed in some bars. The municipalities would have to ensure at least half the bars are non-smoking, so non-smoking options would be available. Maybe municipalities would sell smoking licenses (e.g. ten small bar licenses, four medium-sized bar licenses and one large bar license). Also, smoking bars would have to pay for cleaning the clothes of employees or provide uniforms. - Larry Mulholland - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 10:35 am: Make it statewide. It is clearly in the best interest of the employees & patrons health. It also appears the impact to business is minimal at best. Despite all those crying wolf. - Jeff Trigg - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 10:35 am: “Can anyone name a positive effect of smoking?” Actually, nicotine has been shown to reduce the risk of Parkinsons Disease (by 40%) and to slow the disease’s progression for those who have it. Seeing as nicotine water and nicotine lollipops and just about all nicotine products that are not inhaled have been banned, it seems like the government wants to force Parkinsons sufferers to smoke or chew. They can’t use the patch or gum since those are not designed for long-term use. The only option other than smoking is chew. Nicotine has also been shown to help other diseases where dopamine levels are affected, such a schizophrenia. - Carl Nyberg - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 10:37 am: Jeff, IMO the reason the ban has advanced as far as it has is, in part, due to the absolutist property rights arguments made by its opponents. These arguments may be “right” from an ideological perspective, but they are not supported in current legal interpretations, nor do they hold sway with voters or legislatures. If the smoker-rights advocates would focus more on being reasonable and finding common ground then it would be easier to beat back a complete ban. But sometimes it seems the self-proclaimed “smokers rights” crowd wants to lose on the issue and nurture a grudge over the ideological point. I’d prefer a compromise that works for the largest number of people and is the least intrusive. - A thought - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 10:53 am: Let’s not call Boland “goofy.” The Disney character deserves more respect than that. - Rich Miller - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 11:01 am: LOL But I didn’t use it as a personal pronoun, so no offense to the Disney character was intended. - BBpolNut - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 11:27 am: Go ahaed with the ban but leave bars and casinos out of it. If there is such a demand for a non-smoking bar then someone can open one. Let the market dictate. Maybe require beefed up ventilation/ filters. - Jeff Trigg - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 12:09 pm: I don’t know that that is true Carl. It’s not like the smoking banners are making any compromises. That’s the job of politicians not issue advocates. If property rights advocates started in the middle, they wouldn’t fare any better I don’t believe. The big money is obviously on the side of the banning crowd. Tobacco companies aren’t involved and most bars barely get by as it is. Smoking bans are an easy target to score political points. Banning people with the flu from public would actually do more good for the “public health”, using their logic, but you won’t see that proposed any time soon because it would affect everyone. This is nothing but selective social engineering for feel good politics. Smokers and bar owners are hypocritically being targetted. - C$ - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 12:14 pm: The state is in dire need of money and we are trying to take tax revenue away???? This just seems silly. Ban it all you want on publicly owned properties, but otherwise, leave it up to privately owned businesses and residences to decide. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 12:27 pm: Jeff - Can you please direct me to a website where I can find more Smoking-is-good-for-you facts? - Carl Nyberg - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 12:55 pm: Jeff, the writing is on the wall. The pro-smoking side is going to get steamrolled if they just dig in their heals. If the pro-smoking people don’t modify their tactics and their position then they lose. Why isn’t is better from a Libertarian perspective to create a system that has both smoking and non-smoking bars? Isn’t it better to allow more choices to bar patrons? - Jeff Trigg - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 1:11 pm: YDD, Probably not for smoking, but for nicotine you can just search Parkinsons or Alzheimers or schizophrenia and nicotine, that should lead you to the studies. One study often cited was done at the U of Chicago if I remember correctly. I don’t have any bookmarked or remebered off hand. - Truthful James - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 1:38 pm: Actually they are taking rights away — property rights of the business owner. He Makes Ryan look like a saint — If a municipality wants to be so stupid as to give up sales taxes and property tax revenues by ordinance, then they should be allowed to do so. But do not require other municipalities to go along with the gag. We are starting to exist in the land of the single issue zealots who get a ecstatic high from forcing us all to kowtow to them. We formed into cities to have local self government. Let’s keep it that way. I am not and never have been a smoker. I would not go into an establishment where the level of smoke disturbed me. Who would? If the proprieter’s business fails, it fails on its own merits and rules. He doesn’t need zealotstelling him what to do. - Papa Legba - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 2:49 pm: Ban smoking because it is bad for you and those around you. Sort of makes sense. Perhaps we should ban alcohol also. It is bad for the user and it is bad for other people when a drunk gets behind the wheel of a car. Acetaminophen is bad for you, and even will kill you - quickly, in doses greater than suggested and especially when mixed with alcohol. Are more people killed by drunk drivers or second hand smoke? I don’t know. Maybe we should try an alcohol ban again. Maybe it will work better this time. - La Gloria Cubana - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 3:08 pm: Why doesn’t a restaurant have the “right” to allow smoking at their establishment? It should be up to the individual establishments to decide, not government. Non-smokers who prefer clean air can eat outside on their back porch, or choose not to eat at an establishment that allows smoking. It’s also funny that the all these towns want smoking bans, but yet everytime they’re faced with a fiscal crisis, they want to tax smokers…so let’s get real, the State doesn’t want this ban. - Squideshi - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 3:09 pm: “So when do you start clamoring for a law to ban sick people from public since you are so concerned with what’s in the air on someone else’s property that people can freely choose to visit or not?” Actually, I think there’s already a case to be made there–if someone is sick with the flu, don’t they have a duty to take certain precautions to avoid infecting others who may be unaware? Consider Japan. Haven’t you seen people there wearing surgical masks in public when sick? Also, air is a common–it does not simply remain on one person’s property. Besides, where did you ever get the idea that property owners should be able to control all aspects of their property, anyway? It’s not like they hold allodial title–most people only have a fee simple interest. Just because I own a knife, that doesn’t mean that I am allowed to jam it into other people’s chests–I am limited as to what I can do with my property when it causes harm to others. - Larry Mulholland - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 3:20 pm: To Papa Legba, Same tired story…Alcohol, Acetaminophen that you reference may be bad for YOUR health if you consume it. However, the significant difference is that it does not effect the cook, the waitress or the hot bartender’s health. So drink away ol’ buddy. This one’s on Rich - 105th Blues - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 3:28 pm: You can’t even buy cough medicine without a huge hassle and we’re worked up about a statewide smoking ban? I say make those folks go outside to smoke and pass the bill. Most of the polls show 2/3 of the public wants this to happen and I am sick and tired of accomodating somebody else’s bad habit when I’m trying to enjoy my meal or my drink. - zatoichi - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 3:49 pm: Let each town decide on their policy. Read about the old resort town up north (Fox Lake?) which is based on tourism and never intends to become smoke free because they feel it would hurt business and their tax base. Their overwhelming local choice. Why shouldn’t they have that choice? No one has to go there and the people who do go know the local situation. - Jeff Trigg - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 4:22 pm: “Just because I own a knife, that doesn’t mean that I am allowed to jam it into other people’s chests–I am limited as to what I can do with my property when it causes harm to others.” But what if you were simply holding the knife minding your own business and someone purposefully ran straight into the knife fully aware of what the knife would do to them. That is the proper analogy you are looking for. Non-smokers going into a bar that allows smoking are fully aware what they are doing, unlike your knife example where the “victim” is not aware. And of course there is a case to made about banning people with the flu. It contributes to more deaths than 2nd smoke, not to mention costing us for drugs, doctor visits, time off work, etc. Thus the hypocrisy of those calling for smoking bans and not calling for sick people bans, in my opinion. - Matt - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 4:33 pm: I was at a hearing Tuesday night in Palatine. There were 100 people with the majority being opposed to teh local law. The overwhelming comments from the evening were that there needs to be a statewide smoke-free law. This addresses the health concern and the level playing field. - Janet - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 4:55 pm: Enacting a statewide law does not exclude local communities enacting a local law - it just creates a floor to allow local towns, counties to enact something stronger. The oppposition is in fact opposed to ANY clean indoor air law. When they testify at local hearings they say they want a level playing field - if all places were smokefree then a bar patron could not go acorss the street or to another town. But when they show up to state hearings they say want exemptions and dont care about a level playing field. They also say business is bad and this law hurts them. But when we point out it is about worker health, they say the worker can get a job somewhere else. Well if business is bad THERE ARE NO OTHER JOBS. You have to love their lack of knowledge and logic. Illinois has got to get into the 21st century. Secondhand smoke is harmful, workers need protection from unhealthy work environents. Lets get this done already. - Lovie's Leather - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 5:56 pm: Yes, Janet. Why don’t we ban everything bad for workers? Like management. Heck, why don’t we get rid of everything that you find an inconvenience? God, annoying people raise my blood-pressure. Rich, could you ban them for me??? - The Conservative - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 6:33 pm: Smoking in public buildings needs to be outlawed. I don’t care if someone smokes all they want, I do care when it is in my space. As a former pipe smoker, I have to say we where not allowed to smoke in resturants when others could. Waiting a few minutes until I got outside made no difference. Public smoking is not a rite it is a privlage.Driving a car is not a rite but a privilage. I can only drive where the law says I can. - Squideshi - Saturday, Feb 24, 07 @ 8:43 am: “But what if you were simply holding the knife minding your own business and someone purposefully ran straight into the knife fully aware of what the knife would do to them. That is the proper analogy you are looking for. Non-smokers going into a bar that allows smoking are fully aware what they are doing, unlike your knife example where the “victim” is not aware.” That depends. Do you have a reasonable expectation that someone will run straight into the knife? If so, I would argue that you have a duty not to hold the knife in that fashion. For example, you can’t dig a hole on a well-traveled path and leave it there unmarked, without the reasonable expectation that someone will fall in. Even if the victim should have been more careful or more aware, you would have been a significant contributor to their harm with your own negligence. I think that the owners of establishments open to the public should reasonably expect that someone will “run straight into their knife” and be harmed by second-hand smoke; therefore, they are negligent if they “hold the knife in that way”. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.