Illinois Smoking Ban Passes House

[NorthSideSox72]

Since you asked how I respond to studies that show a significant health risk, I answer by researching it for myself, checking for counter studies that show little to no heath risk and then questioning both sides. Blindly following the one side that makes our life more convienent is NOT the answer, because it may be a decided inconvienence to others, even if you disagree with their stance. I don't smoke, but I still don't believe some cherry-picked data study that shows a clear agenda to ban smoking, researched and funded by people who hate smoke/smokers. A few questions you need to start asking are why were these studies made? Who made them? And is it possible that these "health risks" are only going to affect people who have a family history or faulty gene that allows it to affect them?! And furthermore, to get the data to support the arguement, did they flood the pool of people with those that show such a family history?!

 

I bet you believed every word Michael Moore said in his movies, too...because you never bothered to see if there was another side to the story. You see, I can do that to you too...you know, just make totally ignorant assumptions like you keep doing in response to me? I'd appreciate it if you'd stop if you want to have an intelligent conversation, whether we agree or not.

Because our government has nothing better to do than inspect the multitude of bars and other public places 24/7, nevermind the endless amounts of crime in the streets that they already don't have time for -- we have to make sure people are leaving the bars on time and not getting happy hour prices@!#$@!@! Yea...right. We all want to live in a utopian society, but that's not reality, nor will it ever be in our lifetimes.

There you go again, taking personal, and quite ignorant shots at "my convoluted logic" and "my world". Not the best way to argue a point.

 

Moving on.

 

When it comes to complex issues, it often takes multiple GOOD solutions working together to solve them, not just multiple solutions, even if those "solutions" aren't good ones. Yes, in my world eliminating restrictions on alcohol wouldn't make a difference...and why?! Because it HAS NOT. Since this was your second "shot" at me, time to return fire by prooving you wrong on this once again, just so you stop trying to lean on this WEAK arguement over and over.

 

Tex (the law) limits alcohol content in beer to 5%. Fine.

Y2HH (the drunk) drinks 4 beers instead of 2. So much for your 5% limit.

Y2HH (the drunk) drinks 4 shots of Everclear, completely EVADING your stupid beer law. So much for your 5% limit...again.

 

Now, do you see where YOUR convoluted, and frankly, short-sighted logic fails?!

 

First, the limit on alcohol content is only for imported and MACRO brew beer. Second, you can't limit how much a person can or will drink. PERIOD. For further proof, go to any brewhouse and you can get beer with 8+% alcohol content, so again...stop making up "facts" to support your bias, and frankly condescending method of argument, because you are simply WRONG in this case. These are not "good" solutions, they are stupid government mandated "bad" solutions so a bean-counter can sit behind a desk and say "we are doing all we can" when a mother asks WHY her son was killed by a drunk driver.

 

Also, you seem to be forgetting there is much more available in terms of alcohol than beer.

 

Tell me, since you seem so good at making up statistics on the spot -- whats the U.S. alcohol limit on Everclear? And since we all know the answer is NONE, because it's 100% pure grain alcohol...what stops me or someone else from going to a bar and drinking 5 shots of that, and then driving?

 

Answer? Nothing, other than my own self control to NOT. Takes that same self control to not walk into a privatly owned business where smoking is permitted.

 

Cool it, please. The ad hominem is pushing the limits here.

 

You are both pretty.

[Texsox]

Put up speed limit signs and people can still speed. That doesn't mean that speed limits are bad. Limit the hours and alcohol content and people can still get drunk. That doesn't mean limits on drinking are bad, or wrong.

 

You do need to question those studies. On both sides and analyze what happens. If second hand smoke is not a risk, all we've done is stopped a smelly nuisance. If second hand smoke is dangerous, we've helped everyone's health.

 

I am certain we all believe that cops no longer care about drunk driving laws.

 

Bottom line, nice arguments, I hope you find a nice smoke filled environment, too bad it won't be in Illinois public places.

 

[Y2HH]

Bottom line, nice arguments, I hope you find a nice smoke filled environment, too bad it won't be in Illinois public places.

 

[Texsox]

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 9, 2007 -> 06:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Aren't they all about the government knowing what is best for you and taking away your liberty? After all. no one is forcing you to work or play in an unsafe place at an unsafe job?

For a human to survive in this country he/she needs to

1. Drink water (EPA)

2. Eat (FDA for packaged food and health departments for served food)

3. Work (OSHA and health department)

 

People don't have to drive a car, and why should they wear their safety belts if they aren't concerned about their own health. That's their choice and they are not affecting anyone else on the road by not wearing their seatbelts.

 

When people are purchasing products I would assume almost 100% of them are expecting the product to work properly and safely. If people wanted to buy a product that wasn't safe and they knew it wasn't safe, let them buy it. (see gun owners and drug abusers)

[StrangeSox]

One argument for safety belt and motorcycle helmet laws is that when someone gets injured more because of not using one, insurances companies have to pay out more and it increases everyone's premiums overall.

[mr_genius]

Bottom line, nice arguments, I hope you find a nice smoke filled environment, too bad it won't be in Illinois public places.

 

looks like they won't be able to in a public or private place. a pub is not a public place.

[NorthSideSox72]

One argument for safety belt and motorcycle helmet laws is that when someone gets injured more because of not using one, insurances companies have to pay out more and it increases everyone's premiums overall.

Which has always made me wonder... if you are an insurance company, why not consider NOT paying out for life and limb if someone breaks the law? In other words, if some dumbass on a donor bike is maimed in a wreck and wasn't wearing his helmet... then don't pay the bills. You could write it into the policy - no helmet, no insurance money for medical. That would reduce everyone's rates. You could do the same for seat belts - if the police reports show that seat belts were not worn, then no payout.

[santo=dorf]

How come insurance companies don't offer different rates for those who wear their seatbelt or helmet and those who don't?

 

Health insurance companies do it with non-smokers and smokers.

[NorthSideSox72]

How come insurance companies don't offer different rates for those who wear their seatbelt or helmet and those who don't?

 

Health insurance companies do it with non-smokers and smokers.

well, the rate thing is unenforceable, so I can see why you wouldn't. Unless a person gets a ticket for a seat belt or helmet violation, there is never anyway to tell. EXCEPT, if there is an accident with injuries, and a police report. That's why I was thinking it would be more practical to do it as a threat against payment.

[StrangeSox]

How come insurance companies don't offer different rates for those who wear their seatbelt or helmet and those who don't?

 

Health insurance companies do it with non-smokers and smokers.

 

Hard to prove. I guess you can get the cheaper rates until you get a ticket for not wearing a belt or helmet. But what about states like IL, where there is no helmet law?

[Texsox]

In general you buy insurance for when you screw up and make a mistake. If your insurance will not pay off, then the other guys might have to. Also, if you aren't wearing a helmet, but the accident is not your fault, should you lose out? I do like the idea of a rate increase.

 

We have asked our government to keep us safe. We ask them for military protection, police and fire protection. We ask the government to check out our food production, keep us safe from fraud, test equipment to make certain it will not harm us. We ask them to regulate everyone from the local barber to our Doctors. We are the government. We ask companies to continuously improve safety, we ask auto manufacturers to reduce emissions. We demand stricter laws on behavior. We've dropped the definition of drunk to .08. That doesn't prevent someone from getting drunker, but it stops some people sooner from drinking and driving. So now we are asking them to keep us safe from cigarettes, cigars, and other tobacco.

[Balance]

looks like they won't be able to in a public or private place. a pub is not a public place.

 

A pub is not a public place? As in "Public House"? That is open to the public? Where the general public (over the age of 21) can come in as they please?

[mr_genius]

 

A pub is not a public place? As in "Public House"? That is open to the public? Where the general public (over the age of 21) can come in as they please?

 

no, it is not. the vast majority of them private property. the owner/employees can choose whom they will allow to enter or serve. the public may not come in as they please. you can be banned from a bar, you can be asked to leave a pub for being annoying, you can be turned away from a club for dressing poorly, ect.

 

i think you are confused about the idea of private ownership and what public property is.

Edited May 10, 2007 by mr_genius

[Texsox]

no, it is not. the vast majority of them private property. the owner/employees can choose whom they will allow to enter or serve. the public may not come in as they please. you can be banned from a bar, you can be asked to leave a pub for being annoying, you can be turned away from a club for dressing poorly, ect.

 

i think you are confused about the idea of private ownership and what public property is.

 

Can they discriminate on the basis of race? Can they have too few exits? Can they have too few bathrooms? Do they need to meet ADA guidelines? Are the buildings inspected for health and safety compliance? Can they serve someone who is obviously intoxicated? Can they paint swastikas on the walls and tell minorities to leave? Can you tell blacks to use that bathroom and whites that bathroom? Can they pay their employees less than minimum wage and tell them they have a choice to work there or not?

 

These are privately owner buildings open to the public and we have many laws about what can and can not happen in buildings that are open to the public. In fact we have many laws what can and can not happen in private homes as well.

 

I will say I believed they stepped over the line at a true private club. For example an equity country club where the members are owners,k there is a standing membership committee who approves memberships, etc. That was until Southsider brought up the worker safety concerns and now I am leaning towards that being correct as well. I will say the last place smoking should be banned would be Hookah bars, then truly private clubs, followed by bars.

[Balance]

i think you are confused about the idea of private ownership and what public property is.

 

(Emperor Palpatine Voice:) "It is you who are mistaken.... about a great many things."

 

Tex has addressed what I was going to say.

[mr_genius]

Can they discriminate on the basis of race? Can they have too few exits? Can they have too few bathrooms? Do they need to meet ADA guidelines? Are the buildings inspected for health and safety compliance? Can they serve someone who is obviously intoxicated? Can they paint swastikas on the walls and tell minorities to leave? Can you tell blacks to use that bathroom and whites that bathroom? Can they pay their employees less than minimum wage and tell them they have a choice to work there or not?

 

your analogies are so over the top it's hard for me to take them seriously.

 

do really think an illegal activity such as refusing service to minorities is the same as as legal one such as smoking a cigar?

 

(Emperor Palpatine Voice:) "It is you who are mistaken.... about a great many things."

 

 

 

i'm not the guy that thought a bar was public property.

Edited May 11, 2007 by mr_genius

[Texsox]

your analogies are so over the top it's hard for me to take them seriously.

 

do really think an illegal activity such as refusing service to minorities is the same as as legal one such as smoking a cigar?

 

 

 

 

 

i'm not the guy that thought a bar was public property.

 

I am pointing out the many ways that these "private" places are regulated. There is a difference in private ownership and a private residence. I just pointed out some of the differences. In a private home, you can refuse anyone permission to enter. If the bars are "private" then why can't they refuse service to select groups of people?

 

People keep making the statement that because it is private property, they should be exempt from smoking laws. I am just trying to show that they are public places that are privately owned and subject to probably hundreds of regulations on health and safety, the same as a smoking ban.

 

And soon, it will not be legal to smoke a cigar in these places, so my analogy holds.

[vandy125]

Pub Definition

[mr_genius]

And soon, it will not be legal to smoke a cigar in these places, so my analogy holds.

 

actually, you will still be able to smoke at 'cigar' bars and 'tobacco' bars, you can't ban all a certain race from any establishment. so the analogy doesn't exactly hold, but i understand your point.

 

Pub Definition

 

ok, they are owned by the public because of that definition. happy?

[Texsox]

actually, you will still be able to smoke at 'cigar' bars and 'tobacco' bars, you can't ban all a certain race from any establishment. so the analogy doesn't exactly hold, but i understand your point.

 

 

 

ok, they are owned by the public because of that definition. happy?

 

Hookah bars are already exempt, as well they should be.

 

I would also hope they will revisit the ban if and when technology produces cigarettes with lower emission (can't think of a better word) or produces a better "smoke eater".

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(Texsox @ May 12, 2007 -> 04:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hookah bars are already exempt, as well they should be.

 

I would also hope they will revisit the ban if and when technology produces cigarettes with lower emission (can't think of a better word) or produces a better "smoke eater".

Or how about businesses are required to install more/better ventilation systems to reduce the smoky atmosphere?

[Balance]

i'm not the guy that thought a bar was public property.

 

"Public place" does not mean "owned by the public." It means, "open to the public."

 

Get a more accurate screen name.

[Texsox]

I believe the word we should be suing is commercial property?

[StrangeSox]

While watching "Lockup" on MSNBC last night, a thought came to mind:

 

are prisoners now banned from smoking? I know that they have made exceptions for state-run nursing homes so that they can smoke in their own rooms still.