Illinois Smoking Ban Passes House

[Texsox]

OK, fair enough. I thought I was addressing your question. I believe that the government is allowed to regulate smoking like they do alcohol and other products. There are places where drinking alcohol is allowed, and places that are not. We license and regulate all sorts of businesses. This is no different. Bars are legal but many places have laws against locating one near a school. You can drink inside the bar, but not outside. You can drink inside the bar at 1:59 am but not 2:01 am. All of these are examples of the government regulating when and where a business owner can allow legal activities.

 

I will concede that of all the indoor places to allow smoking, bars would be the first one.

[BobDylan]

I'm a smoker. I'm a drinker. I live in Chicago. I'm pissed.

 

There are ways around everything though. Just wait until the businesses find loopholes. For instance, make the bar a club. Pay a buck, become a lifetime member and you can smoke your ass off in the place.

Edited May 3, 2007 by BobDylan

[Flash Tizzle]

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.

As a non-smoker I have no objections to the upcoming state-wide smoking band, but if I were to find one benefit (aside from monetary concerns), it would be this.

 

It's hilarious you bring this up because within five minutes of where I live is a dive called "Jordans." Located right on the northern limit of Orland Park. When I went in there several months ago, you could smell the acrid stench of spilt beer mixing with a dirty floor, spilt beer mixing with ash tray contents, and the body odor of whichever people decide drinking doesn't end before 2:00am. Enough to vomit with rage.

[GoodAsGould]

I'm a smoker. I'm a drinker. I live in Chicago. I'm pissed.

 

There are ways around everything though. Just wait until the businesses find loopholes. For instance, make the bar a club. Pay a buck, become a lifetime member and you can smoke your ass off in the place.

 

How would that work? It doesnt matter what the place is, you cant smoke in it.

[BobDylan]

How would that work? It doesnt matter what the place is, you cant smoke in it.

 

This is pure speculation based on nothing, but they can make it a "members only" bar. Walk in, pay a buck, you're a lifetime member. If people agree to pay, then they agree to breathe in smoke. The beauty of it all is probably that nobody will keep tabs. After awhile, the "members only" club becomes just a regular bar with people filling their lungs with smoke. But since it's members only and people agree to their rules, nobody can complain.

[witesoxfan]

How would that work? It doesnt matter what the place is, you cant smoke in it.

 

Public establishments have to listen to the law because anybody and everybody is allowed in. Private establishments essentially rule themselves.

 

For example, I can't smoke in Wal-Mart, but I can in my house. However, in my house, I have the right to tell you not to smoke. That's exactly what he's talking about.

[Texsox]

It will depend on how the law is written. Private Clubs, for example, still have to follow liquor laws, etc. Some states ban them everywhere.

 

 

Link

Published Wednesday, May 02, 2007

 

 

 

The Illinois House voted 73-42 Tuesday to stamp out smoking in indoor public places, sending the legislation to Gov. Rod Blagojevich for what he predicted would be an "enthusiastic" signature.

 

Senate Bill 500, the Smoke-Free Illinois Act, would ban smoking in almost all indoor public places, including bars, restaurants and private clubs, beginning Jan. 1.

 

If Blagojevich does sign the plan into law, Illinois will be the 19th state to adopt a comprehensive ban on smoking in indoor public places, according to the Web site nosmoking.org.

[southsider2k5]

I have asked this everytime that this subject has come up, but why is there no health concerns for the employees in establishments? Every other occupation has OSHA breathing down their necks about dangerous working conditions, and they are forced to make adaptations to make the enviornment as safe as possible for the people who work there. Its almost sad, but why hasn't OSHA stepped to the forefront and made this a workplace safety issue?

[Texsox]

Some articles mentioned the health issues to employees.

 

I also noticed in an article that Hookah bars will be exempt if 80% of their revenues are from the sale of tobacco. I imagine that "cigar bars" would have the same exemption.

[Balance]

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

The problem with this is no one has truly been able to test that assumption. Partly because of the usual arguments against a smoking ban, bar owners are afraid to go non-smoking. They believe, whether accurately or not, that they must allow smoking to be competitive. This lack of complete information results in a market failure.

 

The evidence suggests, however, that a smoking ban won't be bad for business. There are smoking bans in New York, California, Boston, even Ireland. And their bars are still going strong.

 

I predict that there will be some griping for a short while, then everything will go on as before. Just without the smoking.

[Rex Kickass]

I have asked this everytime that this subject has come up, but why is there no health concerns for the employees in establishments? Every other occupation has OSHA breathing down their necks about dangerous working conditions, and they are forced to make adaptations to make the enviornment as safe as possible for the people who work there. Its almost sad, but why hasn't OSHA stepped to the forefront and made this a workplace safety issue?

 

I think that making a tax incentive for being smoke free would be a much better way to help enforce this. People who choose to work in nightclubs, bars and casinos should have a basic understanding of the atmosphere of the environment they work in. i.e. smoke filled, drunk sometimes belligerent people....

 

I personally find it unreasonable to limit the practice of legally acceptable behavior in public - this includes drinking IMO.

[southsider2k5]

I think that making a tax incentive for being smoke free would be a much better way to help enforce this. People who choose to work in nightclubs, bars and casinos should have a basic understanding of the atmosphere of the environment they work in. i.e. smoke filled, drunk sometimes belligerent people....

 

I personally find it unreasonable to limit the practice of legally acceptable behavior in public - this includes drinking IMO.

 

By that token, steelworkers should have a basic understanding that they work with extremely dangerous matierials, so should the mills quit giving them things like steeltoed boots and heat resistant materials?

 

Coal workers should understand that coal dust will kill them, so should the mines quit giving them things like breathing masks?

 

To me I see it as the same sort of vein. These are workplace conditions which kill employees. I don't know why it isn't looked at in the same light.

[Texsox]

Sometimes it is not about right and wrong, but about who is more right than the other. One person is polluting the air, the other is not. In that equation it seems easy to me who to side with. If they want to pollute their own air, inside their homes, I have no problem and I don't think society should, Once you leave your home, and come into the public, that's a different story.

[Balta1701]

To me I see it as the same sort of vein. These are workplace conditions which kill employees. I don't know why it isn't looked at in the same light.

So, your solution would be to have everyone in a non-smoke-free bar required to wear breathing apparatus?

 

You know, that sort of makes sense to me.

 

[Steve9347]

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.

 

OK, tell you what... if you are going to compare the two. That's like every person who buys a drink in there forcing their piss down your throat... bc thats what we as non-smokers get... the left over s*** that no one wants.

 

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.

 

or you can take your ass outside to get your sweet breath of toxic air, and come back in and breathe normally and happily...

 

we can go outside and get a breath of fresh air... but doesnt the other way around make a whole hell of a lot more sense?

[Controlled Chaos]

Question.

 

I have a friend who's dad owns a body shop. My friend and almost all the workers there smoke in the garage. Would a place like that have to ban smoking?

[Steve9347]

Question.

 

I have a friend who's dad owns a body shop. My friend and almost all the workers there smoke in the garage. Would a place like that have to ban smoking?

 

Depends... do your customers like the interiors of their cars reaking when they are returned?

 

It's not like people can't still step outside for a smoke, I don't see what the big deal is.

[Controlled Chaos]

Depends... do your customers like the interiors of their cars reaking when they are returned?

 

It's not like people can't still step outside for a smoke, I don't see what the big deal is.

They dont smoke in the cars. It's a big ass garage. Most of the repairs are done on the outside and most of those guys smoke while they work. I was just wondering in a case like that would it be illegal?

[Texsox]

Question.

 

I have a friend who's dad owns a body shop. My friend and almost all the workers there smoke in the garage. Would a place like that have to ban smoking?

 

Probably. Enforcement would be the issue. We can make all the laws in the world, but without enforcement, they are meaningless. In other words, if no one objects at work, it will probably be business as usual. If one person complains, there will probably be a problem.

 

Here is an interesting question that no one has brought up., Certainly there will be smokers who can't go a few hours without a cigarette, and will have to stay home and avoid bars. Will there now be non smokers who will want to go to bars who may offset the business lost?

[Balta1701]

Probably. Enforcement would be the issue. We can make all the laws in the world, but without enforcement, they are meaningless. In other words, if no one objects at work, it will probably be business as usual. If one person complains, there will probably be a problem.

 

Here is an interesting question that no one has brought up., Certainly there will be smokers who can't go a few hours without a cigarette, and will have to stay home and avoid bars. Will there now be non smokers who will want to go to bars who may offset the business lost?

If someone did complain, you could probably also come up with debates about the size of the area, the amount of air in it, and the ventilation in the area. If it genuinely becomes a problem where someone complains...go buy an extra fan.

 

And on your 2nd point Tex, at least in other cities, the effect seems to be almost minimal in most cases, or at the very worst fairly small. There are always some places that wind up shut down, and there are plenty of places and news sources that will make an issue of those, because this does fundamentally shift the demographics of the people coming out and spending money. Here's one study on NY saying the effect is small, Here's the counter-point.

 

Some places are going to be hurt, some places are going to prosper, and eventually, a new equilibrium will be established. But interestingly, and in a very good development for both public health and for those who pay for Medicare (i.e. taxpayers)...NY also saw a significant reduction in its smoking rates with the beginning of this ban.

[southsider2k5]

So, your solution would be to have everyone in a non-smoke-free bar required to wear breathing apparatus?

 

You know, that sort of makes sense to me.

 

 

Well at least then there would be an OSHA presence. They have pretty much neglected anyone who works in a restaraunt or bar.

[whitesoxfan101]

Legally, I'm not sure I like the idea of being able to ban smoking basically anywhere in public like this, but i'll be a hypocrite since I hate smoking and the smell of cigs and say this is great news. When I was in Cali, the difference in air quality at restaurants and bars and all of those places was just astounding.

[Steve9347]

Here is an interesting question that no one has brought up., Certainly there will be smokers who can't go a few hours without a cigarette, and will have to stay home and avoid bars. Will there now be non smokers who will want to go to bars who may offset the business lost?

 

Dude, I know that I and many friends have decided to stay home on various nights instead of hitting the bars, especially in the winter, bc we didnt want our clothes/coats reeking of cigarrette smoke... so yes.

[Texsox]

And the problem with the bar business and giving credit to or blame for their success after a ban is how many fail anyways. It isn't like bars are the blue chip business prospect. Anyone been to a Snuggery lately

[Balta1701]

And the problem with the bar business and giving credit to or blame for their success after a ban is how many fail anyways. It isn't like bars are the blue chip business prospect. Anyone been to a Snuggery lately

No, and I don't know what that is. But like I said, this will put some bars out of business. But it will create other opportunities for other bars to serve a different clientele. New York's experience suggests that if it does do harm, it doesn't do enough harm to overwhelm other factors, and getting 100000 people to quit smoking is probably more than worth changing some bar-going demographics.