Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: “Misdirection and outright lies”
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
More on the proposed statewide smoking ban in today’s Sun-Times.
State Sen. John Cullerton (D-Chicago) said Thursday he’s going to push for a smoking ban in all Illinois workplaces — including bars and restaurants — to begin in January 2008. His bill, if passed, would supersede Chicago’s smoking ban, which currently gives bars until July 2008 to go smoke-free.
“There’s simply no reason why, in this year, hospitality workers such as waitresses, servers and bartenders shouldn’t have the same health protection that exists in office buildings where most of us work,” Cullerton said.
If lawmakers approve Cullerton’s proposal, Illinois would become the 17th state to pass a statewide smoking ban. “We need to play catch-up with the rest of the world and adopt a comprehensive law that protects everyone,” he said.
Cullerton was prompted to work for a smoke-free Illinois after learning of a June 2005 U.S. surgeon general’s report that concluded that any amount of secondhand smoke can cause health problems.
And the SJ-R has the other side of the story.
…Steve Riedl, executive director of the Illinois Licensed Beverage Association, said supporters of smoking bans have contended all along they would improve business, not hurt it, so there should be no reason to level the playing field.
“Obviously, they were lying,” he said.
A statewide ban “takes one wrong and multiplies it into a number of wrongs,” Riedl said, adding that banning smoking amounts to one group of people trying to force their beliefs on everyone else.
The same complaint came up during the debate over whether to Harry Kelley, a lobbyist for the Illinois Association of Tobacco and Candy Distributors, pointed to The Curve Inn, a bar in Southern View. Because it is not subject to the smoking ban, the bar is so busy it has started to impose a cover charge on Friday and Saturday nights, he said.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jan 12, 07 @ 8:50 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: “Misdirection and outright lies”
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
For all those anti-ban:
I would appreciate it if you would indicate if you simply deny that second-hand smoke has negative health impacts.
Further, assuming that you acknowledge the clear evidence that in fact, second hand smoke does cause health problems to innocent non-smokers, please advise as to whether you want to abolish all government clean air regulations and employment safety acts. As you oppose this, do you also support the repeal of OSHA, the mine safety acts, and the Clean Air Act?
It seems that it just comes down to the fact that the people who oppose this ban simply care more about the males who benefit from OSHA and the mine safety acts than the females who work in bars and restaurants. There’s nothing more to it than that.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jan 12, 07 @ 9:00 am
VM - Many of the local ordinances and the Cook County ordinance allow for smoking in tobacco retail establishments. This includes lounges set up in establishments (like that Marshall McGerty’s in Chicago)that primarily sell tobacco and hookah bars. If Cullerton’s bill mirrors this smokers will still have a place to gather.
As for the argument that servers and bartenders can just work somewhere else if their employer allows smoking, let’s get real. In most places, there just simply aren’t enough server job opportunities to make this point valid. And let me point out that even if the entire restaurant is non-smoking but the bar are is smoking, the server will still reek of smoke from picking up drinks for their tables.
Comment by Bluefish Friday, Jan 12, 07 @ 9:20 am
Skeeter -
I do not deny second hand smoke causes negative health impacts.
Which is why I’d like to see smoking banned from private residences where children live. And in automobiles where children are traveling.
We don’t need our children exposed to these poisons & toxins.
Do you support my position protecting the children?
Comment by Smush Friday, Jan 12, 07 @ 9:25 am
I love the Curve Inn!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by Bill Friday, Jan 12, 07 @ 9:31 am
Are nursing homes going to be exempt from this ban like they are in the Cook County ban? (which takes effect March 15, 2007, by the way)
The Cook County ban allows seniors & nursing staff to continue to be poisoned & slowly murdered on a daily basis due to the actions of others. Thanks, Stroger Sr and lobbyists!
Comment by Charles XX Friday, Jan 12, 07 @ 9:44 am
Hey Bill - for once I agree with you.
Comment by maggiemae Friday, Jan 12, 07 @ 9:48 am
Does anyone know if the ban would also apply to vfw, american legion and f.o.e. halls?
Comment by rachel Friday, Jan 12, 07 @ 10:00 am
Thank you..oh Thank you for, once again, saving me from myself. Another freedom we allow to be taken away from us by moron pols. You youngsters who weren’t required to read George Orwell’s 1984 in high school should read it. Seat belts, cameras at corners, and wait until you get that speeding ticket in the mail because you were clocked from I-pass to I-pass on the expressway. FYI I never smoked a cigarette in my life.
Comment by Chicago Lou Friday, Jan 12, 07 @ 10:25 am
Chicago Lou has a point.
I HATE it when those moron pols prevent people from spewing carcinogens in my workplace. Those idiots. What’s wrong with being forced to inhale somebody else’s smoke and in doing so, get lung cancer from their nasty habit? Who are they to tell ME that I can’t indulge in a habit that kills those around me?
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jan 12, 07 @ 10:30 am
A smoking ban in public places is fantastic!
The anti ban crowd regurgitates the same tired old argutment that its a free country and smokers “rights” are being taken away. It is a ridiculous argument.
Smoke kills. If anyone needs further information about the issue please read the recent surgeon general’s report on second hand smoke. It clearly states that there are “NO RISK FREE LEVELS OF EXPOSURE” to second hand smoke, period.
Yes yes yes… A customer can choose not to enter a smoking establishment bla bla bla. However, the the issue is really about the employees and the service people who must inhale second hand smoke. The employees deserve the right to breath clean air.
There was a recent air sampling conducted by the UofI (I it was think UofI) They took indoor air samples at the CURVE INN and various other smoking filled establishments. They determined that the air was toxic! Toxic air! The air sample was 5 times worse than the allowable emmissions standard set by the EPA.
So to make it clear, if a factory’s smokestack in your neighborhood was belching the smoke filled air from the inside the CURVE INN. It would be shut down for polluting our environment.
It is clear to me that any elected official interested in good public policy should support a state wide ban. The employees deserve clean air.
Comment by Larry Mullholland Friday, Jan 12, 07 @ 10:31 am
All private clubs would also be exempt. The newly elected national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars recently proclaimed that if the VFW is to modernize their image and expand their range of services, that all VFW halls should adopt a smoke-free policy. According to VFW Commander, Gary Kupris:
“We are a democratic organization that is letting 20 percent of the population tell us that the post will fail if people can’t smoke inside. That’s bunk. I know many VFW members and spouses who will not attend post meetings or events because of the smoke. I have read many articles about the VFW being the last building in town where indoor smoking is still permitted … and some members quoted in the newspaper are celebrating as if they just won a great battle against government and social interference. Comrades, that is not a victory, it is a sad commentary that unfortunately paints all of us with the same brush.â€
SB 500 would cover all workplaces exempting only private residences with separate ventilation in nursing homes. So if staff is still smoking in the lounges or at their desks in Cook County that’s illegal. You will need to call the health department for enforcement.
Comment by '85 Bears Friday, Jan 12, 07 @ 10:33 am
I’m surprised Ohio banned smoking before Illinois did. A referendum passed overwhelmingly in November (and voters also rejected a deceptively-worded alternative crafted by the tobacco industry) that went into effect 30 days after the election. The ban, for those who are curious, is posted at http://www.odh.ohio.gov/alerts/ohiosmokingban.aspx
Comment by Boone Logan Square Friday, Jan 12, 07 @ 10:54 am
One of the worst, most smoke-filled places that I have ever been was a VFW.
Comment by Squideshi Friday, Jan 12, 07 @ 11:07 am
I like the ban, and it’s nice to frequent bars in town and come home smelling like I did when I left my house. And I’m sorry, but the Curve Inn is disgusting. The only place dirtier and smellier was Mowie’s Cue.
However, there should possibly be a provision that allows municipalities to “auction” smoking licenses for bars. Such a move would allow local towns and the state to reap fees from auctioning a few licenses (determined, of course, by population). What would be wrong with that logic? People who do smoke and enjoy going to taverns - as well as bartenders and bouncers who either smoke or don’t mind working in a smoke-filled environment - would have the option of going to an establishment that allows smoking.
And for the people who say that smoking bothers all servers, bartenders, cooks, bouncers, etc.: keep in mind that many people who work in taverns and restaurants smoke. When smoking was allowed in Springfield bars and restaurants, many employees of those establishments (bars more so than restaurants) smoke while working. To me, it’s more of a health issue for patrons of a bar or a restaurant who don’t smoke than the workers, but that’s just my opinion. Notice that I said opinion…
Comment by Team Sleep Friday, Jan 12, 07 @ 11:13 am
It should be noted that recent bar/rest. closures in Springfield really had little to do with the smoking ban and everthing to do with their poor quality food and woefully poor service!!
Comment by Larry Mullholland Friday, Jan 12, 07 @ 11:23 am
Team Sleep:
I agree with your logic.
While we are at it, let’s auction off some licenses to steel erectors so that they don’t have to comply with OSHA.
And then we can auction off some licenses to mines so that they don’t have to comply with the mine safety regulations.
That way, we can get cheap coal and cheap buildings.
That would be a great way to raise revenue. And if a few ironworkers fall to their deaths, or a few mineworkers get caught in cave-ins or die from breathing bad air, well, those ironworkers or mine workers had the opportunity to work someplace else, so they only got what they had coming to them. This is about the cost of mining and the cost of construction, and not about worker safety.
You agree, don’t you Sleep?
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jan 12, 07 @ 11:26 am
If they level the playing field, then the smokers will either go back to their favorite bar, or stay home. Reidl is playing chicken little.
Comment by Where's the Leadership??? Friday, Jan 12, 07 @ 11:48 am
That’s not smoke, Squid….that’s sacrifice and honor.
Comment by Slash Friday, Jan 12, 07 @ 11:53 am
I think this way. If smoking is truly evil (harmful) then why not just make tobacco illegal? Just like other well know drugs. Stop all the cover up stories and pass the right law.
Comment by Just Because Friday, Jan 12, 07 @ 11:55 am
What about a provision that allows bar/restaurant owners who install exhaust fans that keep the level of smoke down to continue allowing smoking? Sucks to make the owners cough up the cash for the exhaust fans, but it also sucks to expose your employees to second-hand smoke. Do we have room for a compromise here?
Comment by grh45 Friday, Jan 12, 07 @ 12:25 pm
- Just Because - Friday, Jan 12, 07 @ 11:55 am:
I think this way. If smoking is truly evil (harmful) then why not just make tobacco illegal? Just like other well know drugs. Stop all the cover up stories and pass the right law.
In response:
The post above is typical of the self-centered nature of those who smoke. They think it is about them inhaling carcinogens.
In fact, those of us who don’t like smoking couldn’t possibly care less if you decide to smoke where the smoke doesn’t influence others. In fact, we like it. It thins the herd. Smoke all day long and get the cancer quicker for all we care. Just don’t smoke around me.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jan 12, 07 @ 12:33 pm
Mr. Mullholland is basing his opinion off of a Chris Britt editorial cartoon found in the State Journal Register.
What about Trans Fats??? You know I’m really starting to worry that I won’t be able to say ‘NO’ to those darn McDonald’s french fries.
And will someone please introduce legislation to protect me from ordering a Cafe Vanilla Latte with *GASP* whole milk at Starbucks!?!
Comment by Give me a break Friday, Jan 12, 07 @ 12:45 pm
Give Me A Break:
You don’t seem to understand.
This bill is NOT about protecting the smoker from the smoke. WE DON’T CARE. Keep smoking. Just don’t do it around me.
Frankly, if you are a smoker, I encourage you to eat those trans fats and drink that vanilla latte. Have a lot. We need to protect the gene pool, and if we could get rid of the smokers through increased smoking or trans fats or whatever other stupid thing they decide to ingest, we will be doing future generations a great service.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jan 12, 07 @ 12:53 pm
Fewer bars closed in Springfield since the ban took affect than did during the same period in 2006. That’s a fact.
Californians and New Yorkers haven’t stopped going to clubs, bars and restaurants…also a fact.
Non-smokers outnumber smokers 9-1, also a fact.
The tobacco lobby’s argument that fewer smokers will drink, or they will drink in bars less, is a dubious claim judging from the crowds of people standing outside bars smoking. But if we’re going to accept that claim, without any supporting empirical evidence, it’s also reasonable to assume that more non-smokers will drink and eat out, and I think you can assume that they’ll stay out drinking for longer and drink more. The reason is simple: smoking creates high levels of carbon monoxide, which makes people tire much more quickly. In fact it makes such a difference in people’s stamina that if I were a bar owner I’d go the extra mile, following in Vegas’s footsteps, and have pure oxygen pumped into the building.
The only losers under a smoking ban are cigarette manufacturers, dry cleaners, and cancer treatment centers.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Jan 12, 07 @ 1:12 pm
That last post wasn’t mine, as it clearly still doesn’t get the point.
I don’t care if you run.
I don’t care what you eat.
I couldn’t care less if you smoke by yourself.
What I care about is whether your smoke impacts me.
When your smoke makes me or some poor waitress get cancer, we’ve gone from merely your “personal choice” to a public safety hazard that impacts everyone else.
Read the posts. I ENCOURAGE you to seal yourself up in an air-tight box and smoke all day long. I think that’s a fine idea. Any cancer you get from that is your problem and if you are of reproductive age, helps us all by thinning the herd. We all know smoking causes cancer. If we can get rid of the people so dumb they they keep smoking despite the risks then we are helping the human species.
Keep making your “personal choice” as long as you can make “personal choices” that don’t cause tumors in my lungs.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jan 12, 07 @ 1:12 pm
The point I was trying to make is I simply do not like it when legislation is introduced because the legislator does not agree with my personal choices.
If I’m not mistaken, and I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong, the legislation would not even allow smoking in tarp covered beer gardens.
Comment by Give Me A Break Friday, Jan 12, 07 @ 1:15 pm
My post directly above referenced a now-deleted post under my name, and did not intend to reference the YDD post above.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jan 12, 07 @ 1:16 pm
Skeeter -
“I ENCOURAGE you to seal yourself up in an air-tight box and smoke all day long. I think that’s a fine idea.”
You may have just solved the issue. Smoking only allowed in rooms where beer is sold in vending machines. LOL
Well anyway, as always, I appreciate your posts.
Comment by Give Me A Break Friday, Jan 12, 07 @ 1:29 pm
Skeeter, I understand you want to ban smoking in public places. But do you really need to denigrate each poster with sarcasm and yelling others down with your keyboard?
My suggestion about the licenses is an idea, a concept…which is more than we can say for our fearless leaders in the Capitol. We’re always looking to raise revenues somehow and such licenses could help fund programs or at least cover some shortfalls.
Trans fats are a whole other issue…
Comment by Team Sleep Friday, Jan 12, 07 @ 1:47 pm
Skeeter -
One final post and then I’ll let this go.
Earlier you said “When your smoke makes me or some poor waitress get cancer, we’ve gone from merely your “personal choice†to a public safety hazard that impacts everyone else.”
What is your opinion on drivers using a cell phone? Or driving more than 5 hours at a time? Surely those are “public safety hazards” are they not?
Team Sleep -
Personally I believe your idea has merit. Unfortunately this concept was approached in Chicago during the smoking debate and the anti-smokers (or pro lungers) dissed the idea immediately.
Comment by Give Me A Break Friday, Jan 12, 07 @ 1:53 pm
Give me a break:
It is possible to drive more than five hours at at time without causing damage to others.
It is possible to drive using a cell phone without causing damage to others.
It is NOT possible to inhale cigarette smoke — first or second hand — without doing damage to those inhaling.
Nice try though. Keep though.
With regard to the “license”, Team Sleep:
Your post was interesting in that it did not respond to the merits.
I am still not clear as to why you only want bars and restaurants to have licenses to kill their workers.
I would appreciate it if you oould distinguish bars killing their workers and mines or steel erectors doing the same (other than the obvious — bars predominantly hire females, where mines and steel erection outfits hire mostly males).
If your license idea works for bars, why not expand it to all hazardous occupations?
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jan 12, 07 @ 2:01 pm
I still don’t see where this can’t be left to the municipality. Springfield, Chicago and others have already made this choice because their citizens care about it. If citizens of other towns or cities want a ban, why can’t they lobby their mayors, alderpeople, council members etc. to enact
bans within their area?
I support clean air but I also support the idea of strong local governments.
Comment by cermak_rd Friday, Jan 12, 07 @ 2:55 pm
For all those who claim smoking is their inalienable right, I would like to claim the right to NOT pay higher taxes for their higher health care costs, like when they get lung cancer or emphysema. We all pay, through Medicare and Medicad, for the health impacts of smoking. I say, if you smoke, then you should pay for your cancer treatment. I don’t begrudge paying taxes for the health care costs associated with other cancers diseases, just those resulting from poor lifestyle choices and ignoring the scientific evidence.
Comment by Doodle Friday, Jan 12, 07 @ 3:41 pm
- Slash - Friday, Jan 12, 07 @ 11:53 am:
That’s not smoke, Squid….that’s sacrifice and honor.
—
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States is a federally chartered corporation, with perpetual existence, governed by 36 USC CHAPTER 2301.
Comment by Squideshi Friday, Jan 12, 07 @ 4:49 pm
To Give me a Break.
Your post really make it clear that you are ignorant of the issues. The food you eat has no effect on my health. Your smoke mixed in my air however has a direct effect on my health. What part of that very basic fact do you not understand?
To the commenter who suggested smoke eaters as compromise….
The smoke eaters do not have the capacity to remove the carcinogens in the air.
Comment by Larry Mullholland Friday, Jan 12, 07 @ 7:24 pm
Can someone PLEASE tell me when the Ill. no-smoking ban will be voted on? I pray it passes…smoking is sooo nasty.
Comment by Jeff Sunday, Jan 14, 07 @ 9:15 am
Just Because-
If tobacco was made illegal, then gangs will get more power. Unless that’s what you want.
Skeeter-
I totally support you.
Comment by nayoung Monday, Jan 15, 07 @ 5:39 am
I am sick an tired of a few govenment people trying to force their laws on me. I don’t believe second hand smoke has ever killed anybody. I’ve been dealing with the public for 25 years and never heard of such a thing until the government decided to ban smoking. The pollution, carbon monoxide and the pcb’s do more damage than anything. Last time I took off from O’hare airport, the city was so clouded over with thick orange filth, I could’t even see any of the buildings. Try telling me again my little bit of cigarette smoke is killing people. It’s all propoganda. Just like 55 saves lives years ago. That didn’t work either. Not only that my father smoked four packs a day when I was growing up and we’re all perfectly healthy. So are the other kids I grew up with. Because we moved out of the city and away from the Pollution!!!
Comment by dustydog3 Friday, Jan 19, 07 @ 12:46 am
Excessive drinking is not healthy nor is excessive eating, but the law allows individuals to self regulate these habits.
We even pay mayors a bump in salary to be liquor commissioners of their respective towns.
If a person chooses not to go into a room where second hand smoke is present, I support their right to choose not to go in.
Cook County could publish a dree booklet on smoke free businesses and give each of these businesses a free listing.
They can also allow villages to impose a “smoking license” and fees can be used to pay for this free booklet that can be districuted to every household in Cook County or posted on the County website. Smoke free restaurants and pubs would get free advertising.
Looking to hear some pro-active ideas from the lawmakers than can benefit society by allowing more choices, and not by impending on our freedoms.
Comment by Paul Jasinevicius Monday, Jan 22, 07 @ 9:47 am
I HOPE THE STATE OF ILLINOIS PASSES A NO SMOKING BAN IN ALL RESAURANTS AND BARS.
Comment by Ron M Monday, Jan 22, 07 @ 12:12 pm
Dusty,
You and the United States Surgeon General can debate that point. He believes that second hand smoke does kill.
With regard to Paul’s comment:
For the last time, nobody gives a rat’s behind whether you engage in destructive behavior. Go ahead and do it. I encourage it. It thins the herd.
The concern is that people will be forced to get cancer from your bad habits.
Finally, if you are going to support licenses for “bars that kill employees” I assume you will also add licenses for “mines that kill” and “ironwork that kills.” Go all the way and do it right.
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Jan 23, 07 @ 5:35 am
Skeeter: It isn’t my bad habit, since I quit smoking 23 years ago. I support the businesses right to exist, especially along towns like mine that border Indiana and Will County, which is not adopting a smoking ban. By all means avoid going itno these smoking environments and please set your soap box up fifteen feet from the entrance of any of these businesses, so the smoke exitting from the doors when business patrons come and go, doesn’t drift in your direction.
Why not focus your efforts on global warming issues? Or world peace? Don’t you have bigger fish to fry?
Comment by Paul the non-smoker Sunday, Feb 4, 07 @ 6:58 am