Smoking ban in Chicago coming soon!!

[Kyyle23]

I guess no one wanted to take on the workplace safety implications

 

The "Stop Smoking in Chicago" coalition has taken care of that. I just saw a commercial where a former waitress explains how she got throat cancer and never smoked a day in her life. Then some stats on how second hand smoke is 16X more dangerous than inhaled smoke pop up. Its covered

[Mercy!]

Talk about an idea whose time has come. I don’t even find the same tired, discredited arguments in this thread that one usually hears – that second-hand smoke isn’t dangerous; that everyone in the city would just up and drive to the suburbs and stop patronizing their neighborhood taverns; that it’s socialism run amuck (well, maybe a couple keep trying that out); and my favorite – if you don’t like to work in a toxic environment, just go find another job, all the many thousands of you mopes trying to make a living in the hospitality industry.

 

I’m sorry to hear Mayor Daley supporting “compromises” and making that ridiculous statement that we don’t want to antagonize any industry. He doesn’t even have to be out in front on this. New York City has already led the way with no economic disaster resulting.

 

Yesterday I called my alderman, O’Connor, to give him my opinion and see where he stood; I called the sponsoring alderman, Smith, just to put in my “atta’boy” for all his work; and I phoned to check out a club where I’d really like to go hear some music, but they allow smoking. Maybe next year I’ll be able to go spend my money at that club.

[Reddy]

The government has no business telling private entities like bars or restaurants or bowling alleys or whatever that people cant smoke inside their establishments.

 

but it has the right to tell people how to live their lives? (ie gay marriage)

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

but it has the right to tell people how to live their lives?  (ie gay marriage)

 

 

No, those are the people saying that........as in the 11 states that passed anti-gay marriage statuates through referendum.

[Chisoxfn]

Talk about an idea whose time has come.  I don’t even find the same tired, discredited arguments in this thread that one usually hears – that second-hand smoke isn’t dangerous; that everyone in the city would just up and drive to the suburbs and stop patronizing their neighborhood taverns; that it’s socialism run amuck (well, maybe a couple keep trying that out); and my favorite – if you don’t like to work in a toxic environment, just go find another job, all the many thousands of you mopes trying to make a living in the hospitality industry.

 

I’m sorry to hear Mayor Daley supporting “compromises” and making that ridiculous statement that we don’t want to antagonize any industry.  He doesn’t even have to be out in front on this.  New York City has already led the way with no economic disaster resulting.

 

Yesterday I called my alderman, O’Connor, to give him my opinion and see where he stood; I called the sponsoring alderman, Smith, just to put in my “atta’boy” for all his work; and I phoned to check out a club where I’d really like to go hear some music, but they allow smoking.  Maybe next year I’ll be able to go spend my money at that club.

New York didn't lead the way. Its been illegal out in Cali for what seems like 7 or 8 years. Its been a long long time since I ever had to ask for something non-smoking. From hotels to restaurants to bars, hell, even strip clubs, everything is smoke free.

[Mercy!]

New York didn't lead the way.  Its been illegal out in Cali for what seems like 7 or 8 years. Its been a long long time since I ever had to ask for something non-smoking.  From hotels to restaurants to bars, hell, even strip clubs, everything is smoke free.

You’re right, of course. It was seven years ago in California. I was just trying to contrast these two particular large cities.

 

And since I see no one has thrown up that old saying here yet, I’ll go ahead and do it:

 

A non-smoking section in a restaurant is like a non-urinating section in a swimming pool

[kapkomet]

but it has the right to tell people how to live their lives?  (ie gay marriage)

I'll jump on that one, since I was another leading the don't mess with us government charge.

 

 

HELL NO they don't.

 

Bush is DEAD WRONG about that issue.

[Rex Kickass]

No,  those are the people saying that........as in the 11 states that passed anti-gay marriage statuates through referendum.

 

I wonder how you'd feel about the people's opinion if they put your right to bear arms up to referendum.

[Rex Kickass]

I don't like governments requiring an establishment to be non-smoking. If the employees are really concerned, they should insist to their owners to make the place non-smoking.

 

If you don't like smoking in restaurants, go to smoke free restaurants. It's pretty simple really.

 

But stop making businesses cut out what they don't want to cut out because some people who work in a government office think its wrong.

 

Here's a question: why is it ok to prohibit smoking in a bar because of the long term health effects of cancer, but it isn't ok to prohibit drinking in a bar because of the short term health effects of drunk driving?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I wonder how you'd feel about the people's opinion if they put your right to bear arms up to referendum.

 

Pretty good since it'd be approved overwhelmingly.

[Rex Kickass]

And if it wasn't?

 

How about your right to free speech? Your right to free religion?

 

What if those were up for debate?

 

It's easy to support decisions that don't materially affect you.

[Queen Prawn]

If you don't like smoking in restaurants, go to smoke free restaurants. It's pretty simple really.

 

LOL! That is sort of what Brian and I do, but instead, we avoid restaurants altogether (partially because we are cheap, partially because we have a total of maybe an hr a week together and also because when we do have time we would rather be at home so I can cook and we can relax)..

[Balance]

The smoking ban is long overdue. My fiancee and I just don't go out to bars anymore because there is no way to avoid being overwhelmed by cigarette smoke. It really sucks to have to come home smelling like an ashtray because some people are nicotine addicts.

 

Smokers, as far as I'm concerned, you can smoke all you want. You can give yourself cancer 'til your heart's content. But you have no right to impose your addiction on me. If it were possible to limit the smoke to yourselves alone, there wouldn't be a need to prohibit smoking in public places. However, you are ruining those places for the rest of us.

 

I've traveled to San Fransisco, to New York City, and even to Ireland. All those destinations have smoking bans in place. And believe it or not, all of those destinations have thriving bar scenes. Only there, it's possible to go out to a bar and come back without smelling like smoke.

[Rex Hudler]

Im happy its going to be banned from restaurants and bowling alleys because those are family places and we shouldnt have to deal with the smoking.  I dont see while it has to be banned from bars but I guess since I dont smoke its all good for me.

 

That is a legit question, but one with an easy answer. Tell me what is a bar and what is a restaurant?

 

It is not easy to differentiate between the two in many cases. Does the neighborhood bar which also does a good portion of its business in food sales escape the ban while a corporate restaurant (which also has a bar area) has to comply?

 

To classify as a bar would a business have to stop serving food? There are way too many cases where bar and restaurant is one and the same. To try and come up with a regulated definition of a bar vs. a restaurant would be a nightmare and impossible.

 

The concept here is that if all places are affected equally, then the effects should be spread across the board. Of course, some would be more affected than others, but that happens any time public policy is implemented. We as a society adapt.

[Rex Hudler]

I don't like governments requiring an establishment to be non-smoking. If the employees are really concerned, they should insist to their owners to make the place non-smoking.

 

If you don't like smoking in restaurants, go to smoke free restaurants. It's pretty simple really.

 

But stop making businesses cut out what they don't want to cut out because some people who work in a government office think its wrong.

 

Here's a question: why is it ok to prohibit smoking in a bar because of the long term health effects of cancer, but it isn't ok to prohibit drinking in a bar because of the short term health effects of drunk driving?

 

I really hope that you answered that question yourself not long after posting it. Read it again and think a bit and you will understand there is no logic there. In case it isn't so obvious:

 

1. Not everyone drinks in a bar

2. Not everyone drinks to excess in a bar

3. Not everyone drives after drinking to excess

 

Drinking and driving IS regulated. Drinking to excess IS regualted. Both are instances where drinking can affect others around them.

 

Drinking a beer or a glass of wine is not because it shouldn't be.

 

The bottom line is that public health policies have existed ever since government has. We many not agree with every one of them, but at some point it IS goverment's job to regulate the health of its citizens when others are affected. That is not even taking into account the reality of the cost to local/state/federal governments from smoking.

 

Think about it. People will crow about governments banning smoking. They will also crow about public healthcare and the concept of a hospital turning down sick patients that do not have insurance. Yet no one seems to care if those doing the smoking have health insurance or not. The bill has to be paid somewhere so it is indeed a public health policy manner.

[Mercy!]

Rex, you're kidding, right? “Insist to their owners to make the place non-smoking”? I regret being rude, but that statement is just immature beyond belief. “stop making businesses cut out what they don't want to cut out because some people who work in a government office think its wrong”? I think you (as well as a couple of other posters) are willfully ignoring the evidence here.

 

Food service workers in the U.S. account for the fourth highest number of employees in the workforce. Many thousands of them work where they are forced to risk their health because others pollute the air around them. Why should your job be a death sentence? How wacky would it be if I went around to everyone at a place of employment and every day poured a legally-obtained toxic chemical in your coffee or water and required you to drink it as a condition of continued employment? Could you respond directly to this point?

 

Cigarette smoke is not only a health problem because of “long term health effects of cancer.” Respiratory diseases; cardiovascular diseases; reproductive effects; how about something as common as it being the number one cause of asthma attacks? The litany of adverse effects is well-established. As I said earlier, 400,000 Americans will die this year, next year, and for many years into the future because of cigarette smoke. You don’t think the government has the right to regulate a legal product that causes death and illness on such a grand scale and costs us billions of dollars annually? Could you respond directly to this point?

 

So you think government has no right to regulate public accommodations at all? Issues of food purity and safe storage; building and electrical codes; culpability for underage and excessive alcohol consumption? Just caveat emptor? That’s silly. Or do you acknowledge that governmental entities have the right, but you just don’t like it? Could you respond directly to this point?

 

I’ll climb off my high horse now. I’d be glad to continue, but don’t want to waste my time if you’re not going to give a serious response. BTW, since someone dropped the “gay marriage” issue into this thread (gee, what a surprise, huh?), I’ve just got to ask. Have you ever heard of a smoke-free gay bar where it isn’t legally mandated?

Edited October 3, 2005 by Mercy!

[Rex Kickass]

I really hope that you answered that question yourself not long after posting it.  Read it again and think a bit and you will understand there is no logic there.  In case it isn't so obvious:

 

1. Not everyone drinks in a bar

2. Not everyone drinks to excess in a bar

3. Not everyone drives after drinking to excess

 

Drinking and driving IS regulated.  Drinking to excess IS regualted.  Both are instances where drinking can affect others around them.

 

Drinking a beer or a glass of wine is not because it shouldn't be.

 

The bottom line is that public health policies have existed ever since government has.  We many not agree with every one of them, but at some point it IS goverment's job to regulate the health of its citizens when others are affected.  That is not even taking into account the reality of the cost to local/state/federal governments from smoking. 

 

Think about it.  People will crow about governments banning smoking.  They will also crow about public healthcare and the concept of a hospital turning down sick patients that do not have insurance.  Yet no one seems to care if those doing the smoking have health insurance or not.  The bill has to be paid somewhere so it is indeed a public health policy manner.

 

You know there aren't many bars that I've been to that often set a three drink maximum. Not everyone smokes in a bar either. Not everyone is even bothered by smoke in a bar. But some people are.

 

Not everyone drinks in a bar. Not everyone gets trashed and drives in a bar. But I know, from personal experience, that some do.

[Kyyle23]

You know there aren't many bars that I've been to that often set a three drink maximum. Not everyone smokes in a bar either. Not everyone is even bothered by smoke in a bar. But some people are.

 

Not everyone drinks in a bar. Not everyone gets trashed and drives in a bar. But I know, from personal experience, that some do.

 

Not everyone smokes in a bar, yet they are all forced to inhale the same air.

[Rex Kickass]

Sorry, the little conservative living inside of me came out here.

 

And yeah, I've been to a smoke-free gay bar. In a town where there wasn't a ban on smoking in bars.

[SleepyWhiteSox]

If you don't like smoking in restaurants, go to smoke free restaurants. It's pretty simple really.

 

 

I've never even seen one, to be honest.

 

I'm fine with smoking in bars, but I still don't see why smoking is even allowed inside of restaurants. I was in a family restaurant with my parents and brothers, and one of my brothers is 2 years old. The place was crowded, so we were seated in a non-smoking area directly adjacent to the smoking area. It really did piss me off that my baby brother had to be anywhere near cigarette smoke. We did end up moving...

 

Put the damn cigarette down and eat your food!

 

Maybe it's just a pet peeve of mine, but the fact that it's as unhealthy and dangerous as it is makes it logical to ban it in places for eating food, in my opinion.

[Rex Kickass]

You've never seen a McDonalds? Or Wendy's? Or Burger King? Or Panera Bread, Atlanta Bread?

[mr_genius]

Yes but when you take a drink not everyone else is forced to do so.

 

if you hate smoke only frequent smoke free bars.

[mr_genius]

Talk about an idea whose time has come.  I don’t even find the same tired, discredited arguments in this thread that one usually hears – that second-hand smoke isn’t dangerous; that everyone in the city would just up and drive to the suburbs and stop patronizing their neighborhood taverns; that it’s socialism run amuck (well, maybe a couple keep trying that out); and my favorite – if you don’t like to work in a toxic environment, just go find another job, all the many thousands of you mopes trying to make a living in the hospitality industry.

 

I’m sorry to hear Mayor Daley supporting “compromises” and making that ridiculous statement that we don’t want to antagonize any industry.  He doesn’t even have to be out in front on this.  New York City has already led the way with no economic disaster resulting.

 

Yesterday I called my alderman, O’Connor, to give him my opinion and see where he stood; I called the sponsoring alderman, Smith, just to put in my “atta’boy” for all his work; and I phoned to check out a club where I’d really like to go hear some music, but they allow smoking.  Maybe next year I’ll be able to go spend my money at that club.

 

 

actually it is basically a socialist style legislation, sorry.

 

As far as the club that you won't attend because of smoking, good for you. You should show use your ecenomic power to change what bars do and don't allow smoking. I think that is a better solution than imposing your will over everyone else. Actuall, I hate when people talk on cell phones around me, but I wouldn't suggest banning them everywhere I go.

[SleepyWhiteSox]

You've never seen a McDonalds? Or Wendy's? Or Burger King? Or Panera Bread, Atlanta Bread?

 

In my opinion, the general health of the majority has greater importance over the rights of individuals. The whole point of rights is that they not infringe on the rights and safety of others.

 

That's essentially my point.

 

And that would be a no to those bread places you mentioned...

[mr_genius]

In my opinion, the general health of the majority has greater importance over the rights of individuals.  The whole point of rights is that they not infringe on the rights and safety of others.

 

That's essentially my point.

 

 

So in that sense you would agree with madatory maximums on energy usage per household (ruining the enviroment so you can run your TV 20 hours a day is bad for my health), mandatory gas mile usage (banning SUV's, they cause global warming), banning alcahol (it didn't work before but we can handle it now, drunks are dangerous), mandatory healthy meals enforced by the government (obesity is a HUGE drain on society), ect... I think you probably get what I am trying to say.

Edited October 3, 2005 by mr_genius