Illinois Smoking Ban Passes House

[Texsox]

Snuggery was a chain of hot bars in the Chicago suburbs. IIRC they had four or five locations, including one near Motorola on Algonquin is Schaumburg. Last time I was there it became The Alumni Club. I used them as an example of how fickle the club business is.

[southsider2k5]

Snuggery was a chain of hot bars in the Chicago suburbs. IIRC they had four or five locations, including one near Motorola on Algonquin is Schaumburg. Last time I was there it became The Alumni Club. I used them as an example of how fickle the club business is.

 

There is still a Snuggery in Union Station...

[Texsox]

There is still a Snuggery in Union Station...

 

Really? Across from Adam's Rib?

[StrangeSox]

Snuggery was a chain of hot bars in the Chicago suburbs. IIRC they had four or five locations, including one near Motorola on Algonquin is Schaumburg. Last time I was there it became The Alumni Club. I used them as an example of how fickle the club business is.

 

Alumni club's still there. I just saw it last week.

[Rex Kickass]

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.

 

I really don't. Do you also think that bars shouldn't be allowed to serve peanuts in case someone with a rabid peanut allergy should happen to walk in the door?

 

There's a big difference between working with 2000 degree metal and hazardous material and some dude smoking while drinking his beer. This is a Nanny State law at its most restrictive. It sucks - and yeah, it does hurt business after implementation.

[southsider2k5]

Really? Across from Adam's Rib?

 

Its in the Great Hall there in the old part of the building. There is nothing else over there today, or even in the last 5 years, except a convience store.

 

I really don't. Do you also think that bars shouldn't be allowed to serve peanuts in case someone with a rabid peanut allergy should happen to walk in the door?

 

There's a big difference between working with 2000 degree metal and hazardous material and some dude smoking while drinking his beer. This is a Nanny State law at its most restrictive. It sucks - and yeah, it does hurt business after implementation.

 

Why? They both cause conditions at work that could kill the employee through no fault of their own. Someone eating peanuts is a different story, because they are hurting no one but themselves, well unless someone has the hobby of searching out people alergic to them and shoving them down their throats.

[Soxfest]

They should work on Jessica's Law for kids as fast as they passed this measure!

[BobDylan]

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.

 

You're one person...or at least no more than 20. Is that enough to off-set the damages? Most, if not all smokers will not go into a non-smoking bar. That much is already known. The question isn't whether the smoke free people will make up for those losses, but whether the smokers will bite the bullet.

 

A smoker loves his booze. Besides coffee, nothing goes better with a smoke than booze.

 

The city should not restrict every bar possible. They should make zoning areas. "You can smoke here, but not here." Just because the non-smokers don't want to breathe the s***, doesn't mean the smokers should suffer for it.

[Texsox]

You're one person...or at least no more than 20. Is that enough to off-set the damages? Most, if not all smokers will not go into a non-smoking bar. That much is already known. The question isn't whether the smoke free people will make up for those losses, but whether the smokers will bite the bullet.

 

A smoker loves his booze. Besides coffee, nothing goes better with a smoke than booze.

 

The city should not restrict every bar possible. They should make zoning areas. "You can smoke here, but not here." Just because the non-smokers don't want to breathe the s***, doesn't mean the smokers should suffer for it.

 

Interesting idea, but if it is bad there, how could it be ok over there?

[mr_genius]

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?

 

your post makes absolutely no sense. so i am supposed 'take my ass' outside to breathe toxic air, but the air inside is clean? but when you go outside the air is clean?

 

i think you were trying to think of tell me in a clever and insulting way to go outside and smoke. i don't smoke, steve. and for your analogy of "peeing down someones throat..." all anologies break down and fail at some point. yours does instantly.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 2, 2007 -> 06:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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

You can't do those things only because it's the store's policy.

 

Blockbuster doesn't need a liquor license because they are not serving alcohol, and Wal-Mart's only dress code requires shoes and shirts. It's not against the law to enter a store with no shirts or shoes, but most stores will refuse your service.

 

The government should stay out of private businesses policies.

 

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ May 3, 2007 -> 01:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

I agree completely. San Diego was awesome as my shirt didn't have ANY odor the next day.

 

Here's some advice for these people talking about how the smoke masks the smell of piss, vomit and spilled drinks; go to a better bar and stop going to KAM's.

Edited May 3, 2007 by santo=dorf

[BobDylan]

Interesting idea, but if it is bad there, how could it be ok over there?

 

The way I figure it, if they have enough balls to say it's bad EVERYWHERE, they'd have enough balls to say it's bad HERE, but okay THERE. There's no perfect solution to this (the problem started when tobacco started), but I don't think they should speak for everyone by banning smoking in every bar, restaurant possible. The people should have a choice whether they want to be in a smoking environment or not. It is sort of like that now, but as already brought up, most bars are smoking because it bring in extra revenue (or so it appears.)

 

They could do it through a process of selection. Bar/restaurant owners apply to be a smoking bar--with only a select number getting the approval--and do it on a first come first serve basis, or they can have owners show administrators (whoever is in charge) that their revenue will take a big hit by banning smoking.

[Balance]

There's a big difference between working with 2000 degree metal and hazardous material and some dude smoking while drinking his beer. This is a Nanny State law at its most restrictive. It sucks - and yeah, it does hurt business after implementation.

Two things:

 

First, it's only a "nanny state" if the sole purpose of the ban is to protect smokers from themselves. That's not the case with the ban. It's to protect non-smokers from smokers, many (note that I did not say "all") of whom don't care that there may be other people who would prefer not to breathe smoke.

 

Second, as far as hurting business, I'm interested to see what you're basing that on, as opposed to your opinion and belief.

 

(waiting for the obligatory, "well, don't go to a bar, then" response.....)

Edited May 4, 2007 by Balance

[mr_genius]

(waiting for the obligatory, "well, don't go to a bar, then" response.....)

 

 

well, don't go to that bar.

 

[mmmmmbeeer]

Sooo...exactly what study are these guys using to deem second hand smoke so destructive? Or is it just the smell? I'm just not seeing the basis of this law. I suppose if you spent 4 hours a day in a 400sqft bar which is always packed with smokers, well, you may face a true quality of life violation...but the average person hitting the bar once or twice a week for a few hours, often in very large buildings with ventilation, doesn't exactly sound like a grave, even minuscule, danger.

 

It's hilarious to me, you see a town a few years back claim that they were going smoke-free. Since that time, it's been a freakin' contest to see what town/city/state can come up with the newest "safety law" (blatantly abusing the constitution) to make the news and get their name on the map. And the sad part is that some of you selfish people are applauding this blatantly political move.

[Texsox]

Sooo...exactly what study are these guys using to deem second hand smoke so destructive? Or is it just the smell? I'm just not seeing the basis of this law. I suppose if you spent 4 hours a day in a 400sqft bar which is always packed with smokers, well, you may face a true quality of life violation...but the average person hitting the bar once or twice a week for a few hours, often in very large buildings with ventilation, doesn't exactly sound like a grave, even minuscule, danger.

 

It's hilarious to me, you see a town a few years back claim that they were going smoke-free. Since that time, it's been a freakin' contest to see what town/city/state can come up with the newest "safety law" (blatantly abusing the constitution) to make the news and get their name on the map. And the sad part is that some of you selfish people are applauding this blatantly political move.

 

Workers. They are there that often. And there have been lots and lots of studies, going back a few decades that show the negative effects.

 

You are correct, it's the same people who make you wear a seatbelt, not speed, inspect elevators, inspect restaurants for health violations, enforce building codes, tell you what drugs will require a prescription, and all those other "safety laws". And of course it's the same people who wrote laws to keep you from playing your stereo loud enough for the whole neighborhood to enjoy at 3am, who stop you from painting a billboard on the side of your house, make you mow your lawn, and all that other b.s.

 

I wonder why no one brings up the Constitutional right to cigarettes? Maybe it is because there isn't one? There is plenty of legal precedent that polluting the air isn't protected, but the right to clean air is? We generally protect the rights of the person who isn't harming anyone or anything over the rights of the person creating the nuisance.

[southsider2k5]

Sooo...exactly what study are these guys using to deem second hand smoke so destructive? Or is it just the smell? I'm just not seeing the basis of this law. I suppose if you spent 4 hours a day in a 400sqft bar which is always packed with smokers, well, you may face a true quality of life violation...but the average person hitting the bar once or twice a week for a few hours, often in very large buildings with ventilation, doesn't exactly sound like a grave, even minuscule, danger.

 

It's hilarious to me, you see a town a few years back claim that they were going smoke-free. Since that time, it's been a freakin' contest to see what town/city/state can come up with the newest "safety law" (blatantly abusing the constitution) to make the news and get their name on the map. And the sad part is that some of you selfish people are applauding this blatantly political move.

 

So I take it you'd have no problem having something like a Waste Transfer station located next to your home?

[mr_genius]

So I take it you'd have no problem having something like a Waste Transfer station located next to your home?

 

If he bought the home knowing it was there, would he have anyone to blame but himself?

 

If you go to a cigar bar, and hate cigar smoke, who should you blame for your situation?

 

 

meh, doesn't matter. It passed and it will be nice for me because I don't like cigarette smoke but I do enjoy a few beers and the bar.

 

Now they need to ban cell phones on public transportation, restaurants and baseball games. offenders served with jail time.

Edited May 7, 2007 by mr_genius

[Rex Kickass]

So I take it you'd have no problem having something like a Waste Transfer station located next to your home?

 

Last time I checked, I don't live in a bar.

[Texsox]

Last time I checked, I don't live in a bar.

 

Cheers!

[southsider2k5]

Last time I checked, I don't live in a bar.

 

So nobody still cares about the people who practically do... IE the employees?

[Texsox]

So nobody still cares about the people who practically do... IE the employees?

 

I do. But most are probably illegals, so who cares?

 

BTW, that is the best argument I've heard for smoking bans, it is where people work.

[Y2HH]

I don't smoke and never have, and I don't like this law.

 

Every freedom they take, even if they are freedoms we don't all agree with, is one we never get back.

 

Think of it like the dominos of freedom falling.

 

Next they will ban beer at the ballpark. Oh, and hotdogs are bad for you, too, let's ban those while we're at it.

 

Meh.

[Texsox]

I don't smoke and never have, and I don't like this law.

 

Every freedom they take, even if they are freedoms we don't all agree with, is one we never get back.

 

Think of it like the dominos of freedom falling.

 

Next they will ban beer at the ballpark. Oh, and hotdogs are bad for you, too, let's ban those while we're at it.

 

Meh.

 

Don't we have a right to clean air? Did we take away the "freedom" of car owners to drive cars with poor emissions? Many parks already have non drinking sections. We have health inspectors to keep that hotdog safe. Should we have the freedom to make unsafe hotdogs?

 

I don't understand the right to smoke anywhere, where is that in our constitution?

[Y2HH]

Don't we have a right to clean air? Did we take away the "freedom" of car owners to drive cars with poor emissions? Many parks already have non drinking sections. We have health inspectors to keep that hotdog safe. Should we have the freedom to make unsafe hotdogs?

 

I don't understand the right to smoke anywhere, where is that in our constitution?

 

First, hiding behind the 'literal' intrepretation of the constitution is a weak way to argue. Does the consitution tell us we have the right to eat food? And since it doesn't, should we be eating at all?! See the way that works? There are things that don't need to be in our "constitution" that are simply "human rights". Like breathing, eating and sleeping -- because nowhere in the constituion does it give us explicit rights to do those things.

 

And if you have the right to clean air, shouldn't I have the inverse right to dirty air, if I so choose?

 

Oh, wait...I need to be more open minded, right? And as long as I agree with everything you say, then I'm free to do it?

 

That's not how freedom works.

 

Oh, and before you say something insane to counterpoint me like, "Ok then, should I have the right to shoot people randomly on the streets", let me clear something up. I have no problem with them banning smoking outdoors or in publically owned places...but telling a privatly owned establishment, like a bar, that smoking is banned is, IMO, unconstituational. Tobacco is a LEGAL product. You don't have to go there if you don't like smoke...but passing by this establishment, say to get from point A to point B, on public property, that is absolutly your right, and in that right you shouldn't have to deal with smoke. If that is the case, I agree with you. There is a time and a place for certain things. Drinking in bars, not on the streets. Smoking in bars, not on the streets. I can deal with that. But when the government begins to tell us, yes, although this product is LEGAL, it's ILLEGAL for you to use it in your own private establishment...then I have to question freedom as a whole.

Edited May 8, 2007 by Y2HH