* At first when I saw the excerpt, I thought this SouthtownStar editorial was supposed to be ironic…
Twenty-five years from now (heck, five years from now), we will be looking back and wondering how it could have been questioned, not unlike school segregation, women’s right to vote or discrimination based on skin color or religion.
What was the editorial referring to? The statewide smoking ban that took effect yesterday. And the editorial writer was not being ironic.
* This response from a smoker interviewed at Harrah’s casino in Joliet was equally over the top…
“It’s too much government regulation,” said Marlin Raddatz, of New Lenox, while he stood outside Harrah’s. “If I want to kill myself by smoking, let me.”
It ain’t about you. It’s about the employees.
* The SJ-R editorial was more reasoned…
Mark our words: The day will come — sooner than anyone now would ever guess, we believe — when we look back with curious wonder on the days when smokers were allowed to light up in restaurants, bars and bowling alleys. The idea that we demarcated “no smoking sections” within the same rooms as smoking sections will soon be recognized for the silliness it always was (at least to those who chose the no smoking side of the room).
Even more unbelievable in the near future will be how long the relatively few smokers managed to retain the upper hand in the clean air debate. It took years of battling by health groups and private citizens to get where we are today. This despite the vast majority of Illinoisans being non-smokers.
How was it, we will wonder someday, that smokers consistently prevailed with the argument that if you didn’t want to breathe others’ secondhand smoke, you should stay home?
With so much of society having given up cigarettes in the last few decades of the 20th century, why was it that the convenience of the 20 percent or so who chose to smoke took precedence over the ability of the nonsmoking majority to breathe clean air?
Mostly, though, we think the big question in the near future will be this: What was the big deal about asking smokers to take their habit outside?
* Tribune…
OK, that’s not so bold considering that starting today, smokers in Illinois who want to light up in most public places, including restaurants with bars and taverns, will have to do it outside. In the cold. You already know how we feel about this law. We’re enthusiastic supporters. It’s hard to imagine a law that carries so much potential to change lives — to save lives — than this one.
And now it’s your turn…
*** UPDATE 1 *** Is a statewide ban on leaf burning next?
Fresh off urging lawmakers to ban most indoor smoking in Illinois, the American Lung Association might turn its efforts toward pushing for a statewide ban on burning leaves next year.
American Lung Association of Illinois spokeswoman Kathy Drea said a ban on leaf burning is an issue they regularly think about. With a victory on their coveted smoking ban out of the way, she said the group might consider turning some attention to leaves.
Many Illinois communities, including most all of the state’s larger cities, already ban leaf burning. But several attempts to do the same statewide have failed.
Drea said she probably will look for a lawmaker to sponsor a leaf-burning ban soon. If someone agrees, they’re assured a tough fight, Drea said.
“It’s just so controversial,” she said.
- Pat collins - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 10:38 am:
About the employees
Well, if that were really so the law would have mandated no smoking EXCEPT in rooms like they have in Japan, with double entry doors and vented externally. It’s amazing how well they work.
- A Citizen - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 10:39 am:
Well good, now that the smoking thing is settled we can move on to the terrible scourge of obesity - it kills far more than tobacco through heart disease, strokes, diabetes etc.
- Wumpus - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 10:41 am:
I am not a smoker, but if people want to allow those to light up in a privately owned establishment, let them. Employees can find another job if they oppose…yes, they can.
But as people want goverment to foot more and more of the healthcare bill, the government has an interest in passing Draconian laws like this. They will have a legitimate right in telling us what we can eat, drink, etc.
I want someone to propose that we ban liquor because it causes alcoholism and people get in more accidents when they drink it. Be consistent!
- Justice - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 10:42 am:
I agree 100% with the smoker that it is now their right to smoke. If they choose the pain and suffering and ultimately a horrible death that accompanies smoking, that is their personal right, for now. We just don’t want them taking the rest of us with them. The smoking ban is a great law, and a win for all of us, including those who were/are having trouble kicking the habit. The only one who gains from smoking is the tobacco company. They have now exported this curse to other countries such as India and China. A huge market to exploit. We applaud the efforts of those who helped us kick the habit of abuse of the many by a few. Now, where is that Big Mac?
- capitol view - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 10:48 am:
state government is reliant on tobacco tax revenues — what was the fiscal note on this new law, in terms of revenue reduction predictions?
The savings to the state come years later, as there will be less lung cancer and other tobacco use health care treatment costs. But the fiscal loss this coming year(s) is significant.
I wonder why this long term gain / short term loss can be passed, but not a restructuring of the state pension plans…
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 10:50 am:
A Citizen,
Why do you keep with the same tired and easily rejected arguments?
Here’s the distinction: MY BEING FAT WILL NOT KILL YOU. My smoking might.
Nobody really give’s a rat’s behind about the health of people who smoke. Go ahead. Smoke all day. What is behind this law is the fact that nobody else should die from your bad habits.
The self-centered views of smokers is just amazing. They think this is about saving them. It isn’t. Nobody cares if smokers smoke themselves to death. We just care about whether smokers want to take the rest of us with them.
- Ivote - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 10:53 am:
LOOK people. . . if I am fat it doesn’t make YOU fat. If I drink it doesn’t make YOU drink (and their are plenty of strict laws that try to prohibit drunk driving). But if YOU smoke around me, it MAKES me “smoke” with the attendant damage to my health. This is about HEALTH! If you don’t think the government should be involved, fine. . . then we can get rid of local health departments that mandate clean kitchens in restaurants, get rid of the food and drug administration that protects us from contaminated food, etc., etc. I suggest you take your anger out at the tobacco companies that have succeeded in addicting millions of people to their product–a product that kills!
- A Citizen - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 10:57 am:
- Skeeter -
I did say that the smoking thing is settled, right? Now we must turn to more pressing health issues and that is what I referenced. The costs to the taxpayers of obesity and its related health problems are becoming pandemic in our society. Your condition may not affect my health but I think society should not have to pay for it. Pretty simple when you think about it!
- Ghost - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 11:00 am:
Capitol View touches upon the more interesting, and often neglected, issue from the ban, Revenue. The State gets money from the tobacco companies from the ettlement, it earns revenue on its high cigarette taxes, and it earns revenue from casinos where apparenlty losing ones rent check and food money goes hand in hand with smoking.
The State was already facing the problem that revenue for the budget had been over estimated. Those estimates did not take into account decreases in gambling and cig tax rev from the ban.
The State is looking at an even greater finacial downturn, with no one talking about how to replace these revenues.
I support the ban, but their are more critical points to address.
- countryboy - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 11:01 am:
“It ain’t about you. It’s about the employees.”
I’ve read that there isn’t any objective data on the health risks of secondhand smoke, that the whole issue is the triumph of politics over science.
“It’s hard to imagine a law that carries so much potential to change lives — to save lives — than this one.” It strikes me that the last, hardcore 20% have proved determined to continue their habit in the face of segregation, bad press, and impressive cost increases.
The junkies lighting up at the front door, like casino regulars, deserve our thanks for their contributions to the tax base.
If there’s anything the Social Security system DOESN’T need, its an additional increase in life expectancy…
One wonders what odor the nannies will move against next?
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 11:03 am:
A Citizen,
How is society paying for my being overweight? Society doesn’t pay for my being overweight any more than it pays for my being born with a bad heart valve. Both conditions are limited to me. Except in the most unusual circumstance, neither condition will impact anyone other than me.
Smoking is very different. If I smoked, that would impact those around me. It would kill them.
The two are not even close to the same.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 11:09 am:
Country Boy,
I suspect you are still looking for real, positive, proof that the earth is round.
And when you use terms like “segregation” with regard to smoking, it makes it seem like you really don’t understand the term. If you think barring people of color from a casino is that same as barring people from smoking from a casino, then you don’t have a clue in the world what real discrimination is all about.
- BigDog - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 11:10 am:
The attempt by smoking enthusiasts to turn the discussion to alternate topics (obesity) is the definitive signal that even they realize that their arguments hold no true merit. It’s a happy new year indeed!
- A Citizen - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 11:11 am:
- Skeeter -
Guess it depends on whose ox is being gored!
- DwightZinfandel - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 11:18 am:
I’m a smoker and I understand the ban.
But wait for the increase in noise complaints, drunk and disorderlies, and fights that result from having crowds of drunk people standing out in the street in front of bars. At least in Chicago. I’d be interested to hear how other cities handle this.
How many fights does it take to cancel out the public health benefit of reducing second hand smoke?
- budget watcher - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 11:21 am:
it seems that the entire state will suffer from one form or another from the smoking ban, because of the over estimate of the revenue and the decrease revenue not anticipated with more smokers quiting the stuff (myself included)…..but then again the next sin to be looked at should be alcohol. Why you ask? it doesnt fit the “it only affects me” scenerio. when alcohol is introduced into ones system it affects many people around that person…. i refer to things like bar fights, etc. but there is also a danger on the road….many people are killed by people who drink or people who drink cause lots of damage (like driving into a house, blowing a stop sign etc) So when are they going to ban alcohol?
- ZR - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 11:21 am:
Countryboy,
I’m not sure where you’ve read that there’s no objective data. Wikipedia’s article on the subject has a very long reference list of peer reviewed studies showing increased risk for various conditions (lung cancer, heart disease, asthma, etc) among non-smokers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_hand_smoke
Maybe you should read a few of those studies before claiming that there is no evidence.
- Snidely Whiplash - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 11:22 am:
The State of Illinois is not actually that concerned about the health of its citizens; if it WAS, it would ban the SALE of cigarettes in Illinois. BUT, the state and its money hungry legislature want the tax money that cigarette sales bring in.
There is a dual and symbion addiction at play here: smokers to nicotene, and government to cigarette taxes. This is a product with no scientifically-proven beneficial value whatsoever, but which has long been scientifically proven to kill hundreds of thousands (probably millions) of Americans.
So, a question: WHY is it LEGAL? Answer: Because the government taxes it. Secondary answer: Because the tobacco companies lobby (bribe in a “legal” way) congress and state legislators to keep it legal.
What gets me is the number of beneficial drugs that can save lives but cannot be legally sold because the FDA has yet to approve them. BUT, if you want to smoke, and pay the federal, state, county and local government suicide taxes, feel free.
Yes, cigarettes themselves should be banned. But if the government is taxing smokers to death faster than the toxins are killing them, then it should not tell them to smoke their tax dollars (uhm … cigarettes) out in the street in 10 below weather.
My $.02
- ZR - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 11:24 am:
budget watcher,
Drunk driving, assault, and damage to property are already illegal. You’re being silly.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 11:24 am:
BW,
You miss the point.
The smoking bill places a restriction on smoking.
The bill says “go ahead and smoke” but only in designated places.
Similar laws already exist for alcohol: “Go ahead and drink”, but only in designated places and not of you are going to operate a vehicle.
Seems pretty consistent to me.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 11:39 am:
A VanillaMan recognizes that staying healthy is their personal responsibility for their family’s success. We choose active lifestyles that prevent health care problems such as obesity and lung cancer. We have kids to raise and wives to love!
However, we understand those who recognize that the growth of the Nanny State regarding health care has not based on science, but on a generation of citizens who are more convenienced blaming society for their ills than themselves to lessen the financial burden their lifestyles have cost them. Every payday VanillaMen see how much money is taken from their families to feed inefficient government programs promising health care nirvana. This has to stop.
BUT, fortunately there is still enough thinking citizens who can recognize the difference between health care laws that focus on an issue that impacts everyone and on an issue that doesn’t.
When health care impacts an individual in a way that threatens an entire community, it is the community’s responsibility to control that individual. That has been the benchmark we have been comfortably, and legally meeting for the past century.
Smoking was seen as an individual health issue until credible scientific evidence demonstrated how it impacts non-smokers. At that moment, smoking became a traditional community health care issue that needed to be controlled.
Does this impact individual’s rights? Of course it does! On the other hand, we have a clear legal process of quarantine which restricts individual’s rights to leave their home when government health care professionals deem their movements to jeopardize the health and civil rights of non-infected citizens. We have continued to recognize the need to restrict individual rights when balanced against the safety of The Whole.
Will fatties be next? That would be for another posting. But obesity is not contagious until science proves otherwise, which does not look promising for those who prefer to blame others for their obesity.
However we continue to see successful politicians telling voters that their situations in life is not their fault. With 60% of Americans overweight, it is conceivable to believe that enough will fall for health care conspiracy theories to change that.
Genetics is not contangious. Lifestyles are not contagious either. No one is forcing you to eat a double cheeseburger enough to gain so much weight your health is at stake. And while you eat that burger, no passers-by are endangered of inhaling the fat calories you are consuming.
So until enough cry-babies force a governmental change, we will depend on you to feed yourself and to stop feeding yourself when you should stop.
Hint: If you have to choose between a Twinkie, a Marlboro or an apple - go for the apple.
- Pot calling kettle - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 11:50 am:
Driving home from our first New Years Eve outing in several years, my wife said, “I smell like smoke! That’s the last time we do that!” I would have agreed, but, instead, I pointed out that it would not be a problem next time.
Old Steve Martin joke:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QFSymUhbVMg
- Ghost - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 12:11 pm:
Why ban leaf burning but not trsh burning.
A lot of farmers just burn down the weeds on their property,lot of fires along the back roads in IL from the farms. Seems yah should ban all burning or leave it all alone.
- Michelle Flaherty - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 1:03 pm:
And then what’s next? A ban on lighting flatulence?
- plutocrat03 - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 1:07 pm:
Seems like everyone is interested in changing/controlling the behavior of the other guy(gal.)
I solved my problem with exposure to second hand smoke years ago (not health related, just don’t like the smell). If I found a place was smokier than I liked, I would have a conversation with the manager on duty. Sometime they would have to turn on the fan or sometimes they told me that this was as good as it got. If necessary I would then politely tell the manager that I would not be returning due to the smokiness. Problem solved.
No need for government. If enough people were to do as I did, the the businesses would chose to go smoke free on their own volition. As far as employees, perhaps a premium could be demanded for working in a poor environment. There are many occupations that get a pay stipend for bad working conditions. Working on one of the smoky places could evolve into a premium pay situation.
Unfortunately we elect many people into public office who are basically dim. They cannot distinguish a salesman’s pitch from a peer reviewed scientific report. The need to ‘do something’ clouds their judgement and goofy laws pass.
I predict that more attempts of taxing ‘bad’ behaviors will be forthcoming. The assault on ‘bad’ foods will intensify, perhaps the city will create a couch potato tax to encourage physical activity.
I can see it now… I pull into my favorite burger joint which is monitored by a double chin cam. I place my order and bam a SWAT team from the nanny police descend on me because I have exceeded my daily allotment of fat and salt according to the camera. As they haul me away I whimper that the food was not all for me……
Government needs to stay out of our lives to the greatest extent possible. As individuals we have control of our destiny. We do not need a surrogate to run interference for us.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 1:13 pm:
Pluto,
Sure. Higher wages will just “evolve.”
Who are you calling “dim”?
- Lake Tom - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 1:38 pm:
Once these zealots get their “leaf Ban”, watch them go after your fireplace logs. Nothing is ever good enough for these digbats.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 1:39 pm:
I agree, LT. I think that push is coming in one form or another.
- bankman - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 1:45 pm:
As my 60’s political science professor said - When we the people say “There should be a law —–” the politicians respond when there are enough of us screaming “There should be a Law” and our individual rights to live out our lives are infringed.
I am a non smoker, enjoying a smoke free work environment, with smoking co-workers and smoking colleagues. Would prefer a work environment that is smoke free for the smell of smoke offends me. I simply work to either avoid or restrict my exposure to second hand smoke because I respect the individuals right to chose to smoke.
I have noticed over the years that public buildings have been getting more smoke free over time. Restaurants have been getting “friendlier” to non smokers, and guess what there was no “law” that made this happen, just individual citizens and organizations making independent decisions that they felt were in their best interest.
I think this law was not needed for I do not need the nanny state to take care of myself.
- Anon from BB - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 1:49 pm:
There will be hell to pay if they come after barbecue grills.
- Pot calling kettle - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 1:51 pm:
Pluto: “They cannot distinguish a salesman’s pitch from a peer reviewed scientific report. The need to ‘do something’ clouds their judgement and goofy laws pass.”
I think you are oversimplifying. The lawmakers may wish to respond to the science, but are, ultimately, held responsible by the voters. I do not think this is a case of not understanding the science, but a combination of 1) pols not being willing (or sometimes able via conventional media) to explain a more rational & nuanced position; 2) the media’s oversimplification of everything; 3) a poorly educated & unengaged voting population that is used to simple stories & solutions; 4) cynical manipulation by the media, pols, and advocacy groups (made possible by a medai that looks for a simple story and a public that expects simple answers).
All of this (and more) results in many scientists turning away from the fray and not participating, which, of course, results in continued oversimplification, etc.
The discussion about second hand smoke is a great example. Cigarette smoke is clearly a health hazard. Determining the risk to smokers is difficult, determining the risk to non-smokers is probably impossible (although there is certainly some risk, any attempt at quantification is a fool’s errand). As a scientist, participating in the debate carries little if any benefit. The media wants to report the risk in 30 seconds or less. Ban advocates seize on the fact that there is a risk, tobacco use advocates seize on the lack of quantification. Politicians will go whichever direction they feel like (for whatever reason appeals to them). In this case, the smoke is irritating, most people don’t smoke, the ban passes.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 1:55 pm:
A couple reasons why this took so long to pass in Illinois:
One, most Baby Boomers grew up at a time when it was socially acceptable to smoke or not to smoke. Their elders prevailing culture at that time was to each his own, mind your own business.
But now, the most narcissistic, catered to, pampered generation in history is in power. This majority concensus of the microwave generation wants what it wants and it wants it now. Best exemplified by the Clintons and Gores, who want to control every waking moment of your life because they know what’s best for you.
- Carl Nyberg - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 2:02 pm:
Is there any reason the leaf burning issue can’t be handled at the local level?
Is the Lung Association worried that people are taking their leaves to rural counties to burn them?
Does the bad air quality move from county to county?
It sounds to me like some non-profit employees and some lobbyists are trying to keep the donors writing checks.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 2:06 pm:
Wordslinger,
You really believe that telling people to step outside to smoke is “control[ling] every waking moment of your life”?
Fascinating. I thought it was about “preventing bar waitresses from having to inhale something that will kill them in the long term, and in the short term, cause them to have pre-term or underweight babies.”
We see this differently.
- My Opinion - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 3:36 pm:
I smoke and I am a bartender on the weekends.The smoke does get to be too much even for a smoker. However, I chose to apply for the job and I assumed there would be smoking in the bar–because it is a bar! I haven’t met a patron yet that came into the establishment to get healthy, and I haven’t met a bartender that didn’t assume some risk from working in that environment.(The smoke is the last thing I thought of–I was worried about unruly drunks!) I think that a private business owner should have the right to decide what he wants to do about smoking. A bar owner pays property taxes, liquor license fees at a state and local level, and large insurance fees. Why can’t the owner make the decision? Resturants have been making that decision for a while on their own. . . the state needed to step out of the picture on this one, but our leaders haven’t gotten much right this year anyways.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 3:46 pm:
My Opinion,
Bar owners can’t make that decision for the same reason that construction company owners can’t decide to ignore fall protection and mine owners can’t decide to ignore air quality.
The short answer is “We are civilized and civilized countries don’t force people to work in unnecessarily unsafe conditions.”
- My Opinion - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 3:50 pm:
Who forced me to find a job in a bar, Skeeter?
- mr. burn barrel - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 4:56 pm:
Carl,
Leaf smoke moves from property to property and scientific studies show that it contains harmful chemicals, including cancer-causing substances.
If someone wants to burn leaves, it’s fine with me so long as the pollution stays on their property and doesn’t interfere with my right to a clean environment.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 5:06 pm:
My Opinion,
The same people who forced those miners and construction workers to work. When the option is “work in a mine” v. “don’t feed the wife and children” the answer is pretty easy and safety be damned. Working unsafe beats the heck out of not working at all, but it sure doesn’t make it right to force people to take unsafe jobs.
We live in a civilized society. We don’t force people for economic reasons to take unsafe jobs when we can reasonably make them safe.
- Levois - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 5:20 pm:
I’m not a smoker! I think this is just a convenient law on a convenient issue. Second hand smoke as far as I know hasn’t been proven. Just an excuse for politicians to look good and say that they’re getting something done.
- Pot calling kettle - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 8:32 pm:
Levois, see my comment above. It will probably never be “proven” that second hand smoke causes cancer. However, cigarette smoke contains carcinogens & causes cancer and other health problems in smokers. Based on its effects on smokers, the components present in the smoke, and the dose received by someone working in a smoky environment, it is highly likely that there are adverse heath effects for some 2nd hand recipients. That’s as good as the science is likely to get. That’s why countries around the world are doing just what Illinois is doing. (Even France!)
- Disgusted - Wednesday, Jan 2, 08 @ 9:27 pm:
As a non-smoker who believes to each his own, I have never understood why, despite the revenue stream, the government doesn’t forbid the production of tobacco, for any reason. If it’s not available, we all benefit. If we continue to make it harder and harder for people to smoke and they begin quitting in droves, the revenue stream disappears anyway. To all you bar-frequenting smokers, remember this little ditty - I think it was a Tom T. Hall song: “I never gargled, I never gambled, I never smoked at all. Until I met my two good amigos, Nick O. Teen and Al K. Hall.”
- changing the rules - Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 7:14 am:
Changing the rules in the middle of the game isnt really fair this smoking ban will probably cost me my business its just a neighborhood tavern but its all i have they doubled and even trippled my licensing fees in thd last 2 years this is whats going 2 happen. The state will attach a smoking permit bill for casinos rest. And bars for a nominal fee of course 2 the. CTA bill how else will they pay 4 it. Theres 63,000 licquor permits in illinois u do the math