Illinois Smoking Ban Passes House

[Balance]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/366451,...smoke02.article

 

Blagojevich says he's likely to sign it into law. As of January 1, 2008, Illinois goes smoke-free.

 

I'm excited about this. I'll be able to go out and have a drink without having to breathe second-hand smoke and without coming home smelling like an ashtray.

[RockRaines]

thank god. Second hand smoke is the worst thing ever. I used to be a smoker, I quit, and then realized how freaking horrible the s*** was.

[StrangeSox]

Smoking is terrible.

 

But have you ever been in a bar that's recently smoke-free? The bars in Orland smelled so bad during that month-long ban. The smoke masks everything else.

[RockRaines]

Smoking is terrible.

 

But have you ever been in a bar that's recently smoke-free? The bars in Orland smelled so bad during that month-long ban. The smoke masks everything else.

but my clothes and my closet dont smell terrible when i get home.

[StrangeSox]

but my clothes and my closet dont smell terrible when i get home.

 

Meh, that's what Febreeze and washing machines are for.

 

My mom has smoked my entire life and a good number of my friends do too, so I don't even notice the smell of it any more.

 

 

I guess I'm more for people and businesses being able to choose instead of the government forcing mandates.

Edited May 2, 2007 by StrangeSox

[Balance]

I guess I'm more for people and businesses being able to choose instead of the government forcing mandates.

Thing is, the non-smokers effectively had no real choice. We could either go out and breathe it all in, while coming home smelling like smoke. Or else we could not go out at all.

 

That's not a real choice.

 

Everyone should be able to go out to a bar and breathe non-smoky air. Smokers can choose not to smoke. Non-smokers can't choose not to breathe.

[StrangeSox]

Thing is, the non-smokers effectively had no real choice. We could either go out and breathe it all in, while coming home smelling like smoke. Or else we could not go out at all.

 

That's not a real choice.

 

Everyone should be able to go out to a bar and breathe non-smoky air. Smokers can choose not to smoke. Non-smokers can't choose not to breathe.

 

If there was a large enough market for a smoke-free bar, they'd exist without laws requiring them.

 

At least this will be state-wide, though. Orland's ban just moved all of the business from Orland to neighboring cities without the ban.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ May 2, 2007 -> 04:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Meh, that's what Febreeze and washing machines are for.

 

My mom has smoked my entire life and a good number of my friends do too, so I don't even notice the smell of it any more.

I guess I'm more for people and businesses being able to choose instead of the government forcing mandates.

I bet every nonsmoker notices the smell when you are around them. So when should I expect my bottle of Febreeze? I'm not going to pay to rid the smell of something use caused.

 

I think the Government should stay out of private businesses' decisions, but I really can't stand the smell of burning tobacco and it's really unattractive when a cute girl pulls out a cancer stick.

[StrangeSox]

I bet every nonsmoker notices the smell when you are around them. So when should I expect my bottle of Febreeze? I'm not going to pay to rid the smell of something use caused.

 

I think the Government should stay out of private businesses' decisions, but I really can't stand the smell of burning tobacco and it's really unattractive when a cute girl pulls out a cancer stick.

 

I don't smoke.

 

And I agree, the least attractive thing a girl can do is smoke.

 

I will say that I have enjoyed the smoking bans in restaurants. If I'm going out to a bar though, I don't mind it. Maybe its because many of my friends smoke, so whenever I'm out, be it at a bar or a party, there's a lot of smokers.

Edited May 2, 2007 by StrangeSox

[danman31]

If there was a large enough market for a smoke-free bar, they'd exist without laws requiring them.

Without the government enforcement no bar would do that because they are losing business and not enough people would go to a bar just because it was smoke free anyway.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

If there was a large enough market for a smoke-free bar, they'd exist without laws requiring them.

 

At least this will be state-wide, though. Orland's ban just moved all of the business from Orland to neighboring cities without the ban.

Exactly.

 

Let them make non-smoking bars if there is such a big clamoring for them. But no, it is okay to use and abuse one legal drug but not another in the same establishment.

 

I don't even smoke but I know well enough that if I go to a bar, I expect to have certain things there. You still have to wash the clothes anyways and odds are that the stench of piss, vomit and deep-fry will seep into your clothes as well. Sometimes fun costs you. The people who are for drinking in bars but against smoking are some of the largest hypocrites -- yes, cigarettes cause cancer but I never saw a person who came out of a bar and killed somebody else or themselves because they were driving while smoking.

 

Quick quiz: A person is at a party, show etc. and is loud, obnoxious, belligerent. Is he smoking or is he drinking? The only possible answer and A1: Drinking. The defense when it is said that smoking causes cancer is even more ludicrous. Alcohol can too -- cirrhosis, fatty liver acidosis, et al.

 

It is just the chic latte liberal thing to do so they can go to a bar and sip on some fruit drink when they show up from time to time leaving people who actually frequent the establishments on a regular basis as a pissed off clientel who can't have a single smoke with a drink after working a 8-10 hr. shift.

 

Why let individual businesses decide and the business market flourish with the idea of smoke free bars when we can have the government come down from on high and tell people when and where they can and cannot ingest dangerous poisons that can harm oneself and others.

[StrangeSox]

Without the government enforcement no bar would do that because they are losing business and not enough people would go to a bar just because it was smoke free anyway.

 

Uh, exactly. Demand isn't big enough so there isn't supply. If enough people want it, it will exist. Market forces are very strong.

 

Demand for smoking bars > demand for smokeless bars

Edited May 2, 2007 by StrangeSox

[mr_genius]

i don't like smoking bans. if you own a bar and want to have it be "smoke-free" than good. i would probably go to that bar.

 

if own a bar and want it to be "smoking". than that sould be your decision.

 

if cigarettes are so dangerous why are they legal? because they are a HUGE tax source.

[santo=dorf]

I read Aurora is trying to take it one step further and ban sales of cigarettes in city limits. That's insane.

 

QUOTE(mr_genius @ May 2, 2007 -> 05:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

if cigarettes are so dangerous why are they legal? because they are a HUGE tax source.

You'd think the government would figure that out already with the drugs they are spending BILLIONS of dollars to fight against

[mr_genius]

I read Aurora is trying to take it one step further and ban sales of cigarettes in city limits. That's insane.

 

if they make tobacco illegal throughout the country, crime outfits will rejoice. prohibition causes more problems than it solves. it's also really expensive (having to put a obscene amount of people in prisons for prohibition violations costs a lot of money).

 

I read Aurora is trying to take it one step further and ban sales of cigarettes in city limits. That's insane.

You'd think the government would figure that out already with the drugs they are spending BILLIONS of dollars to fight against

 

 

i agree

[NorthSideSox72]

i don't like smoking bans. if you own a bar and want to have it be "smoke-free" than good. i would probably go to that bar.

 

if own a bar and want it to be "smoking". than that sould be your decision.

 

if cigarettes are so dangerous why are they legal? because they are a HUGE tax source.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

If its legal, then these smoking bans are the worst kind of paternalistic political posturing. This is the opposite of letting the market decide.

[Texsox]

If you own a car dealership and want to open on Sunday you should be able to. Why do we have these laws? Because industry likes them. If all the bars are smoke free, the bars save the money on smoking related issues. Since people would have to drive to Wisconsin or Indiana for a smoke and a shot, it probably won't effect their bottom line.

 

Just because something is legal, doesn't mean you can do it anywhere you want. Try stripping at WalMart or drinking at Blockbuster.

 

What is Illinois doing about Hookah bars?

[StrangeSox]

If you own a car dealership and want to open on Sunday you should be able to. Why do we have these laws? Because industry likes them. If all the bars are smoke free, the bars save the money on smoking related issues. Since people would have to drive to Wisconsin or Indiana for a smoke and a shot, it probably won't effect their bottom line.

 

Just because something is legal, doesn't mean you can do it anywhere you want. Try stripping at WalMart or drinking at Blockbuster.

 

What is Illinois doing about Hookah bars?

 

Industry didn't like the Orland bans and got them overturned quickly (Superbowl business loses were a big part of that).

[mr_genius]

Just because something is legal, doesn't mean you can do it anywhere you want. Try stripping at WalMart or drinking at Blockbuster.

 

if you owned a department store and wanted to make it "clothes optional" you could. if you owned a video rental store you could allow drinking in it. Walmart and Blockbuster have decided they do not want either activities in their store. that is their right as a business.

 

it's not a question of "people have the right to do whatever they want, whenever they want". it's a question of letting a business decide what reasonable and legal activities they can have in their establishment.

[Texsox]

if you owned a department store and wanted to make it "clothes optional" you could. if you owned a video rental store you could allow drinking in it. Walmart and Blockbuster have decided they do not want either activities in their store. that is their right as a business.

 

it's not a question of "people have the right to do whatever they want, whenever they want". it's a question of letting a business decide what reasonable and legal activities they can have in their establishment.

 

I believe in most locations you would need a liquor license to have alcohol in your video store. Carrying a gun is legal, yet the state has banned it in many locations like schools, banks, bars, etc. Should they have a choice? You can drive 55 in some places but not others. You can go fishing in this water, but not there. You can park here, but not there. There are so many examples of restricting legal activities to specific locations, times, etc. You can bet on horses here, but not there.

 

Actually I'm not certain you can have a nudist shop open to the public. Since you can't have clothing optional bars without special permits, I'm not so certain you could have a clothing optional department store.

[mr_genius]

I believe in most locations you would need a liquor license to have alcohol in your video store. Carrying a gun is legal, yet the state has banned it in many locations like schools, banks, bars, etc. Should they have a choice? You can drive 55 in some places but not others. You can go fishing in this water, but not there. You can park here, but not there. There are so many examples of restricting legal activities to specific locations, times, etc. You can bet on horses here, but not there.

 

Actually I'm not certain you can have a nudist shop open to the public. Since you can't have clothing optional bars without special permits, I'm not so certain you could have a clothing optional department store.

 

i said reasonable. people have been smoking in bars for a long long time. it has precedent. it's not "outrageous" to have people smoking in bars IMO. but i don't support the notion of the "nanny" state protecting me from smoking, drinking, or whatever. yea, i'm one of those crazy idiots that believe in self responsibility.

 

oh, i also think you could have a clothes option store with a permit. if there was demand for such stores than so be it. you could definitely have a BYOB video store. There is a BYOB movie theatre in Chicago.

Edited May 3, 2007 by mr_genius

[Texsox]

i said reasonable. people have been smoking in bars for a long long time. it has precedent. it's not "outrageous" to have people smoking in bars IMO. but don't support the notion of the "nanny" state protecting me from smoking, drinking, or whatever. yea, i'm one of those crazy idiots that believe in self responsibility.

 

Of course this becomes a "your right to swing your arm ends at my nose" situation.

 

yes, we have been smoking for centuries. We are also just beginning, on that time line, to understand the health ramifications of smoking and second hand smoke. So here is the "my nose" part of the debate. A smoker takes clean air and turns it potentially into a health risk for everyone.

 

Should anyone have the right to alter a basic necessity of life? Whose rights trump the other? The polluters right to smoke, or the non polluters right to keep the air clean?

 

I'm also for personal responsibility. I don't wish to breath polluted air. Why should the polluter be protected?

[mr_genius]

Of course this becomes a "your right to swing your arm ends at my nose" situation.

 

yes, we have been smoking for centuries. We are also just beginning, on that time line, to understand the health ramifications of smoking and second hand smoke. So here is the "my nose" part of the debate. A smoker takes clean air and turns it potentially into a health risk for everyone.

 

Should anyone have the right to alter a basic necessity of life? Whose rights trump the other? The polluters right to smoke, or the non polluters right to keep the air clean?

 

I'm also for personal responsibility. I don't wish to breath polluted air. Why should the polluter be protected?

 

do i have the right to swing my arms at your nose? i guess if you came over to my house knowing i like to do that, than yea you should expect it (assuming i do not hit you, which would be illegal, than you would have no one to blame but yourself).

 

no one forces people to go to a bar. if you don't want to breathe smoke, don't go. it's a simple solution.

 

there is a big difference to polluting the air outside which everyone is forced to breathe or you DECIDING YOU WANT TO go into a bar and it is a smoking bar.

Edited May 3, 2007 by mr_genius

[Texsox]

Of course you have the right to swing your arms in public.

 

Smokers are fouling the air, why should their rights trump the non polluter? You are saying that because smoking is legal in some places, it should be legal everywhere. Alcohol is legal, but we regulate where it can be served, how it can be served, etc. Spitting is legal, but we regulate where you can spit. Cell phones are legal, but we restrict where you can use them. I don't see a difference in these laws.

 

If our society didn't demand new laws for new times, we could have shut down national elections after the first congressional congress.

 

[mr_genius]

Smokers are fouling the air, why should their rights trump the non polluter? You are saying that because smoking is legal in some places, it should be legal everywhere. Alcohol is legal, but we regulate where it can be served, how it can be served, etc. Spitting is legal, but we regulate where you can spit. Cell phones are legal, but we restrict where you can use them. I don't see a difference in these laws.

 

outdoor smoking does basically nothing to cause air pollution. it's so minimal.

 

you are missing my entire point, texsox. it's a question of whether the owner of a private institution may allow smoking. not that you have the right to smoke wherever you want. i have stated this repeatedly but you seem to keep coming back tooo "why do you think people should be able to smoke wherever they want?"