Illinois Smoking Ban Passes House

[Texsox]

First, hiding behind the 'literal' intrepretation of the constitution is a weak way to argue. Does the consitution tell us what's safe or unsafe to eat? And since it doesn't, do we have no right to eat anything? See the way that works?

 

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. You don't have to go there if you don't like smoke...but walking out in front of it to get from point A to point B is something different, entirely. I agree in that case you shouldn't have to deal with it...but nobody is forcing you to go inside, either.

 

We protect workers and the public all the time from unsafe conditions. Asbestos, lead paint, lead in gas, auto emissions, etc. Why is smoking different? The evidence of health risks from second hand smoke has reached a critical mass where society can not ignore it anymore.

 

Hiding behind a literal interpretation is weak? Objective evidence is far stronger than inference and freedoms by omission . And where in the Constitution is the right to smoke?

[Y2HH]

We protect workers and the public all the time from unsafe conditions. Asbestos, lead paint, lead in gas, auto emissions, etc. Why is smoking different? The evidence of health risks from second hand smoke has reached a critical mass where society can not ignore it anymore.

 

Hiding behind a literal interpretation is weak? Objective evidence is far stronger than inference and freedoms by omission . And where in the Constitution is the right to smoke?

 

You still haven't told me where in the Constitution is our right to eat. Comes to my attention that some of us need to be told how much we have the right to eat because some obese people are clearly over-eating and killing themselves in about the same life shortening way as smokers...

 

In a private establishment, the government shouldn't interfear with the use of LEGAL products, that is the fundamental problem with this.

 

You are choosing to ignore the fact that tobacco is LEGAL, and you seem content/ok with the government telling you when you can and cannot use said legal product in your OWN ***private*** establishment. I'm not buying what you're selling me here.

 

Next thing we know, the government will tell us what times of the day or night we can eat LEGAL foods in our own homes.

 

You may be ok with that...but I'm not.

 

Because that's called Communism.

Edited May 8, 2007 by Y2HH

[Texsox]

You still haven't told me where in the Constitution is our right to eat. Comes to my attention that some of us need to be told how much we have the right to eat because some obese people are clearly over-eating and killing themselves in about the same life shortening way as smokers...

 

In a private establishment, the government shouldn't interfear with the use of LEGAL products, that is the fundamental problem with this.

 

You are choosing to ignore the fact that tobacco is LEGAL, and you seem content/ok with the government telling you when you can and cannot use said legal product in your OWN ***private*** establishment. I'm not buying what you're selling me here.

 

Next thing we know, the government will tell us what times of the day or night we can eat LEGAL foods in our own homes.

 

You may be ok with that...but I'm not.

 

Because that's called Communism.

 

*YOU* called it unconstitutional (sic) I thought for it to be Unconstitutional, it would have to actually be in the Constitution.

 

but telling a privatly owned establishment, like a bar, that smoking is banned is, IMO, unconstituational.

 

We regulate legal products all the time. Liquor is legal, but you can't drink in your car. Guns are legal, but you can't take them into banks. Private airplanes are legal, but there is restricted airspace. Playing music is legal but you can't blare it at 3 am. Taking a crap is legal, but you can't take a dump in the middle of a bar. Well, at least not the bars I go to. Driving 65 is legal in some places, not allowed in others. Nude dancing is legal in some bars, not others.

 

Just because a business is private, doesn't mean it can ignore laws. I'm not ignoring it's legal, I've pointed out we regulate legal products all the time.

 

And where do your freedoms and rights come from? Are they different than the freedoms and rights of someone who lives in Canada or Cuba?

[Y2HH]

*YOU* called it unconstitutional (sic) I thought for it to be Unconstitutional, it would have to actually be in the Constitution.

We regulate legal products all the time. Liquor is legal, but you can't drink in your car. Guns are legal, but you can't take them into banks. Private airplanes are legal, but there is restricted airspace. Playing music is legal but you can't blare it at 3 am. Taking a crap is legal, but you can't take a dump in the middle of a bar. Well, at least not the bars I go to. Driving 65 is legal in some places, not allowed in others. Nude dancing is legal in some bars, not others.

 

Just because a business is private, doesn't mean it can ignore laws. I'm not ignoring it's legal, I've pointed out we regulate legal products all the time.

 

And where do your freedoms and rights come from? Are they different than the freedoms and rights of someone who lives in Canada or Cuba?

 

Regulating legal products in terms of drinking and driving is one thing...telling me I can no longer drink at MY home or MY business is another entirely. And that's exactly what they are doing with smoking. And I don't like it.

 

You are arguing apples and oranges to make your point now.

[BigSqwert]

Regulating legal products in terms of drinking and driving is one thing...telling me I can no longer drink at MY home or MY business is another entirely. And that's exactly what they are doing with smoking. And I don't like it.

"MY business"? Are you referring to a business that you frequent or one that you actually own? And if it is a business that you actually own that doesn't to give you the right to do whatever you want.

[southsider2k5]

Regulating legal products in terms of drinking and driving is one thing...telling me I can no longer drink at MY home or MY business is another entirely. And that's exactly what they are doing with smoking. And I don't like it.

 

You are arguing apples and oranges to make your point now.

 

And even if it is "your business" you still have provide reasonable working conditions to your employees. Introducing known cancer-causing agents into the enviornment isn't tolerated anywhere else, I don't know why smoking is supposed to be different.

[Texsox]

Regulating legal products in terms of drinking and driving is one thing...telling me I can no longer drink at MY home or MY business is another entirely. And that's exactly what they are doing with smoking. And I don't like it.

 

You are arguing apples and oranges to make your point now.

 

Drinking *and then* driving with a blood alcohol level under .08 is legal. Drinking *while* driving, regardless of BAC, is illegal.

 

Apples and oranges? You said I was ignoring the fact that cigarettes are legal. I pointed out when and where we regulate legal products. Seems very point on. Your business must be safe for your employees. Or should you be allowed an unsafe workplace because it's private and people can choose to work there, or not?

 

No one is arguing if you are over 18, that you can not smoke at home. YOUR business has to comply with US laws. YOUR business, must comply with ADA requirements, all license and regulatory issues. Why should smoking be different?

[Y2HH]

And even if it is "your business" you still have provide reasonable working conditions to your employees. Introducing known cancer-causing agents into the enviornment isn't tolerated anywhere else, I don't know why smoking is supposed to be different.

 

Our cars introduce known cancer-causing agents into the environment everyday, and it IS tolerated to certain sustainable levels. So I feel we should ban cars, too...because I shouldn't have to breath their exhaust because I choose to ride bikes.

 

Oh wait...that's different, right, because you don't agree with it?

 

Just because YOU don't agree with something, doesn't make it right or wrong. Nobody is forcing you to go to a privatly owned bar/establishment, just as nobody is forcing employees to have to work at one.

 

These are weak sauce arguements.

 

Drinking *and then* driving with a blood alcohol level under .08 is legal. Drinking *while* driving, regardless of BAC, is illegal.

 

Apples and oranges? You said I was ignoring the fact that cigarettes are legal. I pointed out when and where we regulate legal products. Seems very point on. Your business must be safe for your employees. Or should you be allowed an unsafe workplace because it's private and people can choose to work there, or not?

 

No one is arguing if you are over 18, that you can not smoke at home. YOUR business has to comply with US laws. YOUR business, must comply with ADA requirements, all license and regulatory issues. Why should smoking be different?

 

Right.

 

Work somewhere else.

 

We still have coal miners, and breathing the air in such mines is hazerdous, but people still choose to do these things. Maybe we should ban coal mines.

 

Oh wait, let's ban all fossil fuels, including charcoal used for BBQ's, becuase that spews chemicals I have to breath, too.

 

The point is...where do we draw the line between freedom and lack thereof?

 

You ARE arguing apples and oranges, you simply disregard doing so because you disagree with me.

 

I know how to solve this.

 

I agree with everything you said.

 

So now I'm right, right?

 

Wrong.

 

The issue with this arguement stems from political debate. I'm wrong until I agree with your view. And you're wrong until you agree with mine.

 

Only I'm not saying you have to agree with me. I'm simply saying I disagree with you.

 

That's kinda my right.

Edited May 8, 2007 by Y2HH

[Texsox]

We've been reducing emissions in cars. We've greatly improved mine safety. Both through government regulations.

 

No one is forcing someone in a wheelchair to work someplace, yet the ADA regulates that most businesses must comply.

 

You bring up unconstitutional (sic), I reply it isn't even in the Constitution, you say apples and oranges

 

You say the products are legal and should be allowed everywhere, I show where we regulate legal products all the time, you say apples and oranges.

 

You say you should be allowed to have smoking in *your business*, I show where your business is already regulated and must have safe working conditions, you say apples and oranges.

 

We draw the line when your freedom causes harm to others.

[southsider2k5]

Our cars introduce known cancer-causing agents into the environment everyday, and it IS tolerated to certain sustainable levels. So I feel we should ban cars, too...because I shouldn't have to breath their exhaust because I choose to ride bikes.

 

Oh wait...that's different, right, because you don't agree with it?

 

Just because YOU don't agree with something, doesn't make it right or wrong. Nobody is forcing you to go to a privatly owned bar/establishment, just as nobody is forcing employees to have to work at one.

 

These are weak sauce arguements.

Right.

 

Work somewhere else.

 

Pollution standards on cars are regulated by the local, state, and federal governments. Bad choice of arguement if you want to say legal things shouldn't be regulated. I guess we should get rid of all of the regulations that make business run safely then? No pollution controls on steelmills, no protections against unsafe working conditions for people etc? After all they chose to work there. Heck while we are at it, let's put asbestos back into schools, along with lead paint, because people choose to go to school, right. Talk about a weak arguement.

 

We still have coal miners, and breathing the air in such mines is hazerdous, but people still choose to do these things. Maybe we should ban coal mines.

 

OSHA regulated

Oh wait, let's ban all fossil fuels, including charcoal used for BBQ's, becuase that spews chemicals I have to breath, too.

 

OSHA regulated

 

The point is...where do we draw the line between freedom and lack thereof?

 

The right to swing your arms, ends at the tip of my nose.

 

You ARE arguing apples and oranges, you simply disregard doing so because you disagree with me.

 

Nah, your arguement has bigger holes than the Titanic. That's why people disagree with you.

 

I know how to solve this.

 

I agree with everything you said.

 

So now I'm right, right?

 

Wrong.

 

So are you taking your ball and going home now?

 

The issue with this arguement stems from political debate. I'm wrong until I agree with your view. And you're wrong until you agree with mine.

 

Only I'm not saying you have to agree with me. I'm simply saying I disagree with you.

 

That's kinda my right.

 

Then by all means disagree, but don't get mad when people don't agree with you.

[Y2HH]

We've been reducing emissions in cars. We've greatly improved mine safety. Both through government regulations.

 

No one is forcing someone in a wheelchair to work someplace, yet the ADA regulates that most businesses must comply.

 

You bring up unconstitutional (sic), I reply it isn't even in the Constitution, you say apples and oranges

 

You say the products are legal and should be allowed everywhere, I show where we regulate legal products all the time, you say apples and oranges.

 

You say you should be allowed to have smoking in *your business*, I show where your business is already regulated and must have safe working conditions, you say apples and oranges.

 

We draw the line when your freedom causes harm to others.

 

I never said products are legal and should be allowed *everywhere*. I said they are legal and should be legal in private homes/establishments. So again, apples and oranges.

 

My business is mine. You don't have to come there nor do you have to work there. Apples and oranges again.

 

I know...you want it your way, right away...so go work at Burger King.

 

The world doesn't revolve around you and what you want.

 

If you don't like smoking, don't go to places that allow it.

 

But force banning them from allowing it is, as Penn and Tellar may say...is bulls***.

[Texsox]

You are wrong when you misstate facts. (Unconstitutional)

You are wrong when your analogies are inaccurate. (Legal here should be legal everywhere)

You are wrong when there is objective evidence. (Your business doesn't need to conform with laws)

 

You are not wrong by stating an opinion or conclusion drawn from facts, laws, accurate observations, etc.

[Y2HH]

Pollution standards on cars are regulated by the local, state, and federal governments. Bad choice of arguement if you want to say legal things shouldn't be regulated. I guess we should get rid of all of the regulations that make business run safely then? No pollution controls on steelmills, no protections against unsafe working conditions for people etc? After all they chose to work there. Heck while we are at it, let's put asbestos back into schools, along with lead paint, because people choose to go to school, right. Talk about a weak arguement.

OSHA regulated

OSHA regulated

The right to swing your arms, ends at the tip of my nose.

Nah, your arguement has bigger holes than the Titanic. That's why people disagree with you.

So are you taking your ball and going home now?

Then by all means disagree, but don't get mad when people don't agree with you.

 

You misunderstand me, in everyway possible.

 

I'm not mad in the least.

 

I simply don't agree with the law they passed.

 

They also passed the Patriot Act...which I don't agree with. Just because a law or bill is passed doesn't mean I have to agree with it or like it, even if you do.

 

You are wrong when you misstate facts. (Unconstitutional)

You are wrong when your analogies are inaccurate. (Legal here should be legal everywhere)

You are wrong when there is objective evidence. (Your business doesn't need to conform with laws)

 

You are not wrong by stating an opinion or conclusion drawn from facts, laws, accurate observations, etc.

 

You are wrong for claiming I said things that are legal should be legal everywhere. I never said that. I said that legal products should be allowed in private businesses/residences. That I said. Everywhere...I did not.

 

I never said businesses don't have to conform to laws. Ever. I simply said and I disagree with the law they passed. Going back to my original point, one less right we have, even if we don't all like it.

 

Perhaps I did misstated the unconstituional thing...for that I apologize.

 

Forgive me for not wanting/liking the idea of big brother government regulating everything and anything that is legal but prooven to be bad for us. I like a big mac once in a while, and I don't want them telling me I can't eat one when I want too.

Edited May 8, 2007 by Y2HH

[Texsox]

I never said products are legal and should be allowed *everywhere*. I said they are legal and should be legal in private homes/establishments. So again, apples and oranges.

 

My business is mine. You don't have to come there nor do you have to work there. Apples and oranges again.

 

I know...you want it your way, right away...so go work at Burger King.

 

The world doesn't revolve around you and what you want.

 

If you don't like smoking, don't go to places that allow it.

 

But force banning them from allowing it is, as Penn and Tellar may say...is bulls***.

 

Private homes, fine. No one disagrees with that.

 

Private businesses have to comply with laws. You keep making this statement. Why should laws be suspended because it's private? Every business in America is regulated. Labor laws are everywhere.

 

And OK, I will agree that private clubs should be exempt. But public bars should not. And they must be true private clubs, not public bars masquerading as private.

 

And the world doesn't revolve around you and your cigarette, at least not anymore.

[StrangeSox]

My business is mine. You don't have to come there nor do you have to work there. Apples and oranges again.

 

Your business is still heavily regulated by federal organizations like OSHA and the EPA. Your workers are still afforded some amount of protection and workplace rights.

[Texsox]

You misunderstand me, in everyway possible.

 

I'm not mad in the least.

 

I simply don't agree with the law they passed.

 

They also passed the Patriot Act...which I don't agree with. Just because a law or bill is passed doesn't mean I have to agree with it or like it, even if you do.

 

 

 

You are wrong for claiming I said things that are legal should be legal everywhere. I never said that. I said that legal products should be allowed in private businesses/residences. That I said. Everywhere...I did not.

 

So the fact it is legal has no bearing on this argument? That even though it is legal, the government does have the right to regulate when and where a legal product can be used? I thought you claimed that because it's legal, it should be allowed in the bar.

[Y2HH]

And allow me to reiterate. I do not, nor have I EVER smoked.

 

I just don't like being told that because something is bad for me that it's banned. I hate the word banned. Alcohol is bad for me but I like my beer, and someone drinking until they can barely see is just as hazerdous to your life as someone else smoking, perhaps even moreso.

 

They banned books back in the day due to the messages or stories in them. I disagreed with that, too. Because in the wrong hands, knowledge is even more dangerous as second-hand smoke.

 

So the fact it is legal has no bearing on this argument? That even though it is legal, the government does have the right to regulate when and where a legal product can be used? I thought you claimed that because it's legal, it should be allowed in the bar.

 

I feel smoking and drinking go hand in hand. Bars aren't the place to be if you're looking for good health, if that's what you looking to do, go work at a health club or go work out at one. It's like baseball and hot dogs and beer...not always the best/most healthy combination, but they belong together...IMO.

 

I just don't like big brother interfearance on things like this...it hurts the businesses, badly, and these smoking bans in the suburban areas have prooven that.

[Texsox]

And allow me to reiterate. I do not, nor have I EVER smoked.

 

I just don't like being told that because something is bad for me that it's banned. I hate the word banned. Alcohol is bad for me but I like my beer, and someone drinking until they can barely see is just as hazerdous to your life as someone else smoking, perhaps even moreso.

 

They banned books back in the day due to the messages or stories in them. I disagreed with that, too. Because in the wrong hands, knowledge is even more dangerous as second-hand smoke.

 

 

That is called a straw argument. No one is banning cigarettes. No one is stopping anyone from smoking in their homes, in their cars, etc.

 

I believe:

The government has an obligation to protect workers and regulate workplaces.

The government has an obligation to protect the public health and safety

 

Drinking? We regulate when, where, and how much you can drink.

Books? We also regulate content in books, we regulate who can buy certain books and magazines.

[Y2HH]

That is called a straw argument. No one is banning cigarettes. No one is stopping anyone from smoking in their homes, in their cars, etc.

 

I believe:

The government has an obligation to protect workers and regulate workplaces.

The government has an obligation to protect the public health and safety

 

Drinking? We regulate when, where, and how much you can drink.

Books? We also regulate content in books, we regulate who can buy certain books and magazines.

 

Doesn't mean I have to agree with it. In some cases, such as public health and safety, I do agree...but in others, it just comes across as over-protection. Nobody is forcing you to go to a bar, and just because you choose to do so, doesn't mean you should have the right to press your opinions on the owners.

 

And although we regulate where and when and how much we drink...almost nobody enforces most of these until it's too late...which is why drunk driving is *still* a common occurance. So...so much for public protection, since it's such a HUGE killer of innocents.

Edited May 8, 2007 by Y2HH

[Texsox]

I just don't like big brother interfearance on things like this...it hurts the businesses, badly, and these smoking bans in the suburban areas have prooven that.

 

I'm certain you can google some studies that show it hurts business badly. There are also studies that show larger bans are better than localized ones.

 

For business, a citywide ban is better than a neighborhood ban. A county wide ban is better than a city wide ban. A statewide is better than a county wide. Best of all is a nationwide ban.

 

Now that bar patrons do not have a choice, it becomes drink in a bar or not. Not between smoking and non smoking bars. All establishments in Illinois are now playing by the same rules. Will this discourage some people from drinking? Possibly, and wouldn't that be a good thing? Less drunk drivers on the roads.

[BigSqwert]

And although we regulate where and when and how much we drink...almost nobody enforces most of these until it's too late...which is why drunk driving is *still* a common occurance. So...so much for public protection, since it's such a HUGE killer of innocents.

Smoking and drinking are very different. Standing in a room filled with drinkers is not the same as standing in a room full of people smoking. The smoking WILL affect your health. Standing in a room filled with people drinking will not affect your health.

[Y2HH]

I'm certain you can google some studies that show it hurts business badly. There are also studies that show larger bans are better than localized ones.

 

For business, a citywide ban is better than a neighborhood ban. A county wide ban is better than a city wide ban. A statewide is better than a county wide. Best of all is a nationwide ban.

 

Now that bar patrons do not have a choice, it becomes drink in a bar or not. Not between smoking and non smoking bars. All establishments in Illinois are now playing by the same rules. Will this discourage some people from drinking? Possibly, and wouldn't that be a good thing? Less drunk drivers on the roads.

 

That would be nice, but I don't see it cutting down on drunk driving accidents...at all.

 

Considering bars are places we commonly have to drive too, in order to drink, the entire establishment is flawed in that when we leave...we're probably going to drive.

 

Maybe they need to fix that fundamental flaw with "bars" too.

[Texsox]

Doesn't mean I have to agree with it. In some cases, such as public health and safety, I do agree...but in others, it just comes across as over-protection. Nobody is forcing you to go to a bar, and just because you choose to do so, doesn't mean you should have the right to press your opinions on the owners.

 

And although we regulate where and when and how much we drink...almost nobody enforces most of these until it's too late...which is why drunk driving is *still* a common occurance. So...so much for public protection, since it's such a HUGE killer of innocents.

 

Bars have closing times. Bars are stopped from offering happy hour drink prices. Beers have alcohol content limits. So we do regulate before the fact.

 

It is not an opinion that second hand smoke carries health risks, it is fact. Again, in America we draw the line when someones actions harm others, regardless of venue.

 

You keep mentioning that the public *chooses* to go in bars. Are you claiming then that companies should not be required to have a safe workplace? That businesses should not be required to have a safe environment for customers?

 

 

 

That would be nice, but I don't see it cutting down on drunk driving accidents...at all.

 

Considering bars are places we commonly have to drive too, in order to drink, the entire establishment is flawed in that when we leave...we're probably going to drive.

 

Maybe they need to fix that fundamental flaw with "bars" too.

 

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

 

Wow. You don't see it cutting down on drunk driving? You are kidding right?

[Y2HH]

Bars have closing times. Bars are stopped from offering happy hour drink prices. Beers have alcohol content limits. So we do regulate before the fact.

 

It is not an opinion that second hand smoke carries health risks, it is fact. Again, in America we draw the line when someones actions harm others, regardless of venue.

 

You keep mentioning that the public *chooses* to go in bars. Are you claiming then that companies should not be required to have a safe workplace? That businesses should not be required to have a safe environment for customers?

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

 

Wow. You don't see it cutting down on drunk driving? You are kidding right?

 

90% of baseball is half mental, too.

 

90% of stastics are made up or fixed to proove a point. Statistics are the easiest thing in the world to manipulate, depending on whos taking them. A person that wants to proove that drunk driving related accidents are down can do a number of things to support his or her viewpoint. Also, cars are simply SAFER now than they were in the 80's, so although drunk driving related deaths have fallen, which I take with a grain of salt, it may not be because less people are driving drunk, but simply because survival of car crashes is better now than back then.

 

You can regulate how much alcohol is in a beer, but you can't regulate the fact I can simply drink more. And bars not having happy hour prices?! That's the BIGGEST load of crap I've EVER heard...because bars do it all the time here in Chicago...and other places I've been too. And closing times?! Another joke. People simply show up earlier to counteract such things.

 

And depending on the study you read, second hand smoke does nothing...or something -- like I said, based on which study you choose to believe. There was an entire episode of Penn & Tellar on this very subject, where they exposed the second-hand smoke myth, since it's based on an EPA study that the EPA admits is completely fabricated, yet doesn't pull...

 

I just did a quick search on second hand smoke, and a ton of website says its BS while a ton of others say that the websites that say it's BS are BS.

 

The world is full of lies. So color me cynical for questioning you or these "stats" or "studies"...since for every one, there is one that argues counter.

 

In the 70's it was global cooling, now it's global warming.

 

Smoking bans and studies on them mean you can get funding for your science projects, weather they actually be about second hand smoke or not...same goes for the hype surrounding global warming. So of course there are a billion studies supporting these things -- they're being funded with endless amounts of cash to do so.

Edited May 8, 2007 by Y2HH

[vandy125]

The discussion seems to be narrowing it down to just bars. Isn't it more than just bars that are affected by this? Won't it also affect places like bowling alleys? I would love to be able to go out for a night of bowling and not have to breathe in that stuff as well as not end up smelling like smoke when I get home.

 

It is not just the places that serve alcohol that are affected.