Question of the day
Friday, May 4, 2007 - Posted by Rich Miller
* IlliniPundit looked at the smoking ban vote and came up with some interesting numbers and a great graphic…
The total vote in both houses for SB500, Smoke Free Illinois was 107 Yes, 65 No.
North of I-80 the vote was 99 Yes, 23 No.
South of I-80 the vote was 8 Yes, 42 No.
Notice how almost all downstate legislators representing districts that border other states voted “No.”
But that doesn’t have much to do with our question today. This article does. Legislators want to run another bill to lift the smoking ban for casinos…
State Sen. Mike Jacobs, D-East Moline, voted against the smoking ban and said he worries it will force gamblers out of casinos in his district and into casinos just minutes away in Iowa.
“What we are trying to do is put a little common sense into a bad bill that was recently passed,” Jacobs said. “I think that it would affect our bottom line in a very serious and negative way. We don’t want to lose our patrons to Iowa.”
State Rep. Lou Lang, D-Skokie, voted in favor of the ban, but agrees that exceptions should be made for casinos and tracks.
“The unintended consequence of the smoking ban, which I voted for, is to cost the state of Illinois significant amounts of money,” Lang said. “We ought to at least consider the notion that if we don’t allow…an exemption then we are in effect inviting casino customers to go across the river to Iowa and Missouri and gamble.”
And so does this column by the Peoria Journal-Star’s Phil Luciano…
But the ban also invades private clubs. That’s nuts.
Indeed, private clubs - veterans groups, marinas and the like - are often open to the public. But at their core, they are private: They exist to promote fraternal interests.
Most private clubs historically allow smoking. If outsiders enter a private club, they know they might sniff smoke.
It’s like a house. If you visit a friend who smokes in his private residence, you have to assume the risk of smoke.
Question: Should casinos bordering other states and private clubs be exempted from the statewide smoking ban? Why or why not?
- Informed Citizen - Friday, May 4, 07 @ 8:56 am:
Yes,yes,yes! No one is forcing anyone to go there. Create a uniform sign that can be used statewide that says “Smoking Allowed” to warn anyone going into a club or casino before they get a whiff.
- Undercover - Friday, May 4, 07 @ 9:00 am:
No, that’s completely ridiculous! This is a public health issue. Why should casino-goers have to be subjected to smoke while everyone else isn’t? Limit smoking to smoking lounges and let people congregate and kill themselves there amongst their own.
- gotta be anonymous - Friday, May 4, 07 @ 9:07 am:
When Arlington Heights enacted its smoking ban, the racetrack was exempted - I imagine for reasons just like those mentioned - it’s all about the $$$$.
- DeepFriedOnAStick - Friday, May 4, 07 @ 9:07 am:
Todd Sieben supported the ban, but there’s no dark green dot near Geneseo.
- GettingJonesed - Friday, May 4, 07 @ 9:09 am:
LOL
Rich: that is funny…the Dean of the Dopes, Sen. Mike Jacobs talks about common sense. Did he fall on his head during the night?
Did he ever hear of 2nd reading in the Senate?
- Mr. Ethics - Friday, May 4, 07 @ 9:28 am:
All the boats have an upper deck which allowed for a scenic ride when they used to have to cruise. Open the upper decks for smokers, but don’t allow smoking while at the machines or tables.
- Beerman - Friday, May 4, 07 @ 9:40 am:
I would agree with the proposed amendment. I belong to a club and we spent a small fortune converting a room to be used by members who enjoy a good cigar after a round of golf. This room can not be used by non-members. If club employees are not permitted to enter the room why not?
- Crimefighter - Friday, May 4, 07 @ 9:53 am:
Chicago is telling downstate what to do again…
- Tom - Friday, May 4, 07 @ 9:54 am:
When cigarette tax revenue declines after the public smoking ban they will raise taxes on alcohol. I’d prefer they make up the revenue with a tax on fat people. Anyone over 20% body fat would have to pay into a fund to cover the increased cost of health care from obesity-related diseases.
- Leroy - Friday, May 4, 07 @ 10:02 am:
I agree with Undercover.
With this legislation, the state is telling me that the life of a casino employee is worth less than a bar or restaurant employee.
I don’t agree.
- To Beerman - Friday, May 4, 07 @ 10:04 am:
The intent of the bill was that it only applied to areas open to the public. They specifically stated in the debate that a private office where the public does not generally have access to would NOT be covered under the ban as long as the smoke does not travel into public areas or where workers are present. I would think that a room like you describe - if in fact the public really can’t have access, it is properly ventilated and doesn’t involve any paid employees - would be exempt from the ban. That’s my thought…
- Skeeter - Friday, May 4, 07 @ 10:05 am:
Sometimes you have to be the leader.
Smoking is dangerous to the boat employees. Illinois needs to take the lead and protect them. Hopefully the neighboring states will follow our lead but if not, then too bad.
I note that I am not a big fan of gambling anyway, so the loss of the boats altogether wouldn’t bother me. I am not in favor of banning them, but if they can’t compete effectively, I don’t want to prop them up with special legislation.
One final note: Will this cause smokers to start gambling? If they can’t smoke at a regular bar, will this cause them to go to the casino to smoke? Is that really in the best interest of Illinois?
- Baltimoron - Friday, May 4, 07 @ 10:10 am:
Every casino employee deserves the same protection from secondhand smoke. Creating any exemption means the state is saying those workers are not as important. It’s not about the gambler - despite what their silly casino commercials say.
- Lady in Red - Friday, May 4, 07 @ 10:21 am:
Your map is incorrect. Rep. Wyvetter Younge voted Yes and there is no light green dot in her district.
- Rich Miller - Friday, May 4, 07 @ 10:23 am:
It ain’t my map.
- 312 - Friday, May 4, 07 @ 10:24 am:
Yes to the exemption as long as they can have smoking and non smoking areas in both. My last trip to Vegas they had non-smoking areas — and to my suprise, there was hardly anybody in them…
- rachel - Friday, May 4, 07 @ 10:24 am:
I think that private clubs should be exempt before casinos. Private clubs are not open to the public. Employees at private clubs are usually members that work there more because of the camaraderie than the paycheck, and they know that there will be smoking. I like the idea of smoking on the upper deck of casinos, except from November to March….it gets kind of cold in Illinois.
- annoyed all the time - Friday, May 4, 07 @ 10:34 am:
I was at the airport in miami and i thought their smoking area was very interesting - anyone seen this? from inside the airport you walk through this door into this glass house that had an open roof - these people looked ridiculous all bunched up ni this glass house they kindof looked like they were in a monkey house in a zoo - but have something like that a protected area for gamers to go to so they can smoke -
- playk8 - Friday, May 4, 07 @ 10:35 am:
While there is no viable argument on why smokers should be allowed to subject non-smokers to second hand smoke, I still can’t see how as a private business owner I can’t post a warning and allow it in MY establishment. Non-smokers would not have to enter or work there. This is just a politically correct way of bullying others and bending them to your will. What will the sanctimonious do-gooders think of next? Thankfully they all are looking out for my best interests and are protecting me from myself.
- The Horse - Friday, May 4, 07 @ 10:45 am:
The whole point of the ban is to protect the employees who work there. Everyone else already has a choice.
- The Horse - Friday, May 4, 07 @ 10:48 am:
How about a smoking ban in ALL state offices (including those of legislative leaders)!
- The Horse - Friday, May 4, 07 @ 10:49 am:
… or a smoking ban in all counties with a population greater than 1 million
- BT - Friday, May 4, 07 @ 10:52 am:
I have seen far too many people die as a result of smoking. People’s right to enjoy their cigarette doesn’t superceed other’s rights to work in a safe environment. Please stop making this an issue about money. It’s about health.
- i d - Friday, May 4, 07 @ 10:55 am:
I am for allowing private club members to use any legal substances they wish. If taverns may have beer gardens that allow smoking, then casinos that have outdoor areas should be allowed to also have smoking. I do not smoke but I am fat. When I smoked, I was skinny. Excuse me while I go have my midmorning snack that will not be raw fruits and vegetables.
- cermak_rd - Friday, May 4, 07 @ 11:09 am:
Hmmm, cause all the smokers to congregate in casinos so they can smoke there. Thus causing them to gamble, thus increasing the taxes smokers pay to IL! This sounds like a winner!
I don’t see why the casinos can’t be exempt from the ban. All of their current employees expect to be slowly poisoned by the smoke and new employees should be given warning when hired.
- Gene Parmesan - Friday, May 4, 07 @ 11:14 am:
They’re employees, not slaves. Nobody is forcing them to work in these environments.
- TomKat - Friday, May 4, 07 @ 12:41 pm:
That chart looks good, wish I had that much free time to goof off during the day.
- Keyser Soze - Friday, May 4, 07 @ 12:49 pm:
Any occasional visitor to the “boats” will observe that the smoke density is awful. This in turn leads to the observation that the gamblers sure are heavy smokers. That said, I believe that the boats should be allowed to have smoking areas, as large as may be necessary, provided that they also create credible non-smoking areas. Secondly, employees working in the smoking areas should do so voluntarily and be required to prove as much with a signed waiver. While as a non-smoker I don’t particularly like this idea, it may be a necessary evil in order to allow Illinois boats to compete with the boats that are located only a few miles away in smoking states. In the alternative, the gamblers (who tend to be heavy smokers) will simply cross the river and spend their money in other states. Did I say “smoking states”? Sounds like the civil war all over again.
- Squideshi - Friday, May 4, 07 @ 12:52 pm:
Casinos are currently loosing business from nonsmokers who may want to gamble but who do not want to breathe the second hand smoke. That is certainly the case for me–we didn’t even attend our high school reunion, because it was held in a smoky casino; and my wife is allergic to the smoke.
- Milorad - Friday, May 4, 07 @ 12:55 pm:
Don’t those buffoons in S’field have anything important to do? I know Emil does. He is counting his money and looking for a state job for his cat.
- Squideshi - Friday, May 4, 07 @ 12:57 pm:
Take a look at this anti-smoking advertisement currently playing in Singapore.
- zatoichi - Friday, May 4, 07 @ 2:09 pm:
As a non-smoker this whole issue means nothing to me. Seems like PC police simply expanding their role. No one is forcing the employees to work in smoking places. There are other jobs even if the pay is not as good. If you go to work at a casino where smoking exists, you know what you are stepping into. If I choose to go to a smoky bar/restaurant/club, I am making that choice. If an owner wished to allow smoking it is their choice, money, and business. If the issue is simply based only on health, make smokers pay more for insurance, eliminate all foods that are not healthy, and simply ban tobbacco in all forms. I can already hear the cries of not meeting revenue figures because tax on cigarette sales are down. Now pass me that donut.
- Rich Miller - Friday, May 4, 07 @ 2:24 pm:
Let’s stick to the question, please.
- Middle Majority - Friday, May 4, 07 @ 2:36 pm:
It is a terrible abuse of state authority to pass a smoking ban in privately-owned establishments. That said, once passed don’t go back and let all the big money and connected special interests get exemptions. You are destroying the life’s work of many independent small business owners on the grounds that you somehow know what is right and moral and have the authority to enforce your ideas, how can you then say that “Oh, this riverboat money is just too much to pass up”.
- Skeeter - Friday, May 4, 07 @ 2:39 pm:
Good point, Zatoichi.
Let’s abolish OSHA while we are at it.
Who is the government to tell employers how to run a safe business?
Actually, based on Miller’s comments, I am taking a revised position.
Sure the casinos (and bars and restaurants) should be allowed to have smoking sections.
However, they should be forced to provide proper breathing apparatus to any employee who makes the request, and further, an employer should be barred from screening potential employees about it before hiring.
That way, no employee is forced to work in an unhealthy environment, the bar (or casino) owner is obligated to make the work place safe, the customers can make their own choice.
Nobody really cares about the patrons or the bar/casino. If they want to inhale the second hand smoke, it is their option. However, nobody should be forced to inhale it just to make a living.
I do think it would be interesting to see the patron’s reaction when all the waitresses are wearing gear similiar to that used to remove asbestos. That might take some of the fun out of it for the patrons.
- zinged again - Friday, May 4, 07 @ 3:03 pm:
A smoking ban is foolishness. Like we do not have enough government intervention in our lives?
Does your favorite restaurant allow smoking and you don’t like it? GO ELSEWHERE! It is called the free-market system.
If smoking is so bad - make it illegal! If smoking is legal, allow the free-market system to work.
- Ashes to Ashes - Friday, May 4, 07 @ 4:32 pm:
Looking forward to clandestine Cigarette Dens in Chicago.
- Team Sleep - Friday, May 4, 07 @ 4:48 pm:
Yes, casinos and racetracks should be exempted. This is especially important in the Metro East where the riverboats WILL lose business to the boats, Harrah’s and the new/proposed landlocked casino on Laclede’s Landing. I’m sure the Alton and East St. Louis school districts would agree that lost revenue would be damaging. A lot of the employees at the riverboats smoke, including dealers and bartenders. In fact, all riverboats will lose business and our neighboring states will capitalize on our actions (or lack thereof). Missouri, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky and Wisconsin must all be looking at us and laughing.
- Skeeter - Friday, May 4, 07 @ 4:56 pm:
Team Sleep raises an interesting issue:
Is it OK to take action that will prevent employees from getting cancer, if that means neighboring states [the entire states — each and every person in that state, per TS] will laugh at us?
That’s a pretty strong argument he raises. Let me give that one some thought.
No cancer, but laughed at by Indiana residents.
No cancer, but laughed at by people from Iowa.
If we just allow Illinois employees to work in an environment that will cause them to die of cancer, we can stop those Indiana and Iowa people from laughing at us.
Decisions, decisions.
- Beowulf - Friday, May 4, 07 @ 5:01 pm:
Absolutely not. If these political prostitutes are allowed to pick and choose who gets to smoke and who doesn’t just because they feel that the dollar bill is more important than some poor schmuck winding up with lung cancer, where do we draw the line?
Do we allow out-of-state drivers that travel Illinois highways to “not wear” seat belts for fear that they may otherwise be upset and decide to avoid driving into Illinois and paying Illinois sales tax on their gasoline purchases? How about out-of-state motorcyclists no longer needing to wear helmuts for fear they may not motor back to Illinois in the future because they can’t feel the wind rush through their hair anymore while wearing a motorcycle helmut?
Senator Mike Jacobs-Democrat from East Moline and Representative Lou Lang-Democrat from Skokie certainly have told us a lot about themselves by taking the stance that they have chosen. They are showing us that they are men driven by self-enrichment and who choose the almighty dollar as their diety versus compassion and concern for their fellow man’s health and safety.
Way to go Mike and Lou! We knew we could count on you guys to make the “right decision”. Did you guys know that we could make a financial killing in Illinois if we simply legalized prostitution and drugs? Just something to think about guys. We could save the state from going under financially this way and yet you could manage to bring a lot of pork back home to your districts. I knew that you two guys would like it!
- NoGiftsPlease - Sunday, May 6, 07 @ 7:48 pm:
No. The wealthy casino set should suffer just as much as the diner owners, bar owners, and other groups who can’t hire high-paid lobbyists to get special consideration.