I was happy to read that a nonsmoking bill has been passed in the Illinois state senate, and if would pass the house and get the governor's approval, it would ban smoking indoors in all virtually all public places and businesses in Illinois on January 1, 2008.
As a concession to smokers, I should say that a universal nonsmoking ban is too draconian. Why not set aside some smoking bars and nightclubs, though doubtless the exact number and "fair" percent of them would be cause for controversy. Otherwise, it seems like the tables are turned completely against smokers, and I can understand why they would be upset.
Personally, smoking bothers me when I occasionally go out to concerts, bars, or nightclubs, because first, I am forced to wash my clothes and hair after being exposed to it; and, second, sometimes, it prevents me from going out to such places or going out altogether, for most other casual social gathering places, like cafes, close at 9 or 10 PM.
A sizable minority, up to a third of people, it seems, are unhappy with the possibility of statewide smoking ban because they feel their right to smoke is being unfairly curtailed. They admit that though their activity may be harmful to themselves and others, others can simply choose not to expose themselves to their smoke, just as they can choose to not expose themselves to any other activity they dislike.
This argument, however, operates on a mistaken assumption in defining free choice because there are so few, only a handful of nonsmoking bars, nightclubs and concert venues. Thus, there really isn’t much freedom to choose a different casual gathering place that stays open late at night.
For now even if a businesses owner of a bar, nightclub, and concert venues with a bar would like to make it a non-smoking place, he or she is compelled to allow smoking as long as their competitors do so, otherwise he or she may go out of business or lose a lot of business. Thus, one could say that even owners of night spots don't really have the freedom to make their establishment smoke free given the fiercely competitive environment!
A problem I see with the argument that you can avoid any activity you dislike is that smoking is different from say, playing music loudly or people drinking alcohol to excess, both of which occur at bars and nightclubs. However, if you dislike loud music, you can wear earplugs, and if you are uncomfortable with loud and silly drunk people, you can move away from them. But you cannot move away from the smoke inside a room.
Finally, let me conclude by considering the health issue of second hand smoke. The scientific evidence is incontrovertible that prolonged exposure is harmful to your health, causing disease and death in some cases. Thus, the health of people who work in smoky workplace is put at risk. Is this a choice too, putting your health at risk on the job? Though it can be argued, and I concede, correctly that you can choose to work elsewhere, I would respond that it may be difficult for people who work late in the evenings and usually on weekends to find comparable evening and late hours that would fit their schedule, especially since most already work at a regular job during the week. But more importantly, no one at any work place should be subjected to any well known and documented health hazard.
Note on image: This is the international symbol for a non smoking area. See the comment for the AP news release.
6 comments:
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) - All restaurants and bars across Illinois would have to go smoke-free under legislation approved Thursday by the state Senate.The measure would replace the patchwork of local smoking ordinances across Illinois with a single policy meant to protect people from secondhand smoke in the workplace.Working eight hours in a smoky bar or restaurant is the equivalent of smoking 16 cigarettes, the American Cancer Society says. It estimates secondhand smoke contributes to the deaths of 2,900 Illinoisans a year - about eight a day.The bill passed 34-23 and now goes to the House. "We spend billions of dollars of taxpayers' money in health care," said the sponsor, Sen. Terry Link, D-Vernon Hills. "This is our time to remedy this problem." Also Thursday, the House overwhelmingly rejected legislation prohibiting people from smoking in cars if any passenger is 8 or younger. The measure got 18 "yes" votes and 91 "no" votes. Sixteen other states already have similar smoking restrictions.
Opponents said decisions about smoking bans should be left to city and county officials. Forty-four Illinois communities have approved restrictions on smoking in public places, according to the Cancer Society. "They're the ones who are best equipped in order to make this decision," said Sen. Dale Righter, R-Mattoon.But some business owners object to letting each city make the decision. Bars and restaurants covered by bans are put at a disadvantage against their competitors just outside city limits, they argue.An association representing bars and other businesses that serve alcohol argued that a smoking ban would be devastating to their bottom-line, especially for small businesses. "What you're going to have left is a homogenous TGI Friday entertainment industry, because they're the ones with deep pockets. Mom-and-pop places, there's no way they can withstand this," said Steve Riedl, executive director of the Illinois Licensed Beverage Association. Riedl said bars in Springfield and other cities with smoking bans have seen business drop sharply.
If it becomes law, the statewide smoking ban would take effect in January 2008 and apply to nearly all businesses. Tobacco stores would be exempt, as would private rooms in nursing homes. Hotels and motels would be able to allow smoking in 25 percent of their rooms. Smoking also would be prohibited within 15 feet of entrances to businesses. People violating the ban could be fined $100 to $250. Businesses that allow violations could be fined $250 a day.Dr. Clement Rose, president of the Cancer Society's Illinois division, called Thursday's vote "a giant step forward in making sure everyone has the right to breathe clean, smoke-free air."
(Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
According to an AP news story, the smoking ban in Illinois will likely come on January 1, 2007:
Illinois lawmakers vote to ban smoking in bars, restaurants
May 2, 2007 SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - Get ready to snuff out those cigarettes. Illinois lawmakers have voted to ban smoking in bars, restaurants and other public workplaces. Gov. Rod Blagojevich said Tuesday he "enthusiastically" supports the idea. If he signs it into law, the restrictions would take effect Jan. 1 and make Illinois the 19th state to impose such a ban.
Anti-smoking activists described the legislation as an important step in protecting people, especially waiters and bartenders who are constantly around cigarettes, from secondhand smoke. They estimate secondhand smoke contributes to 2,900 deaths in Illinois each year -- about eight a day. "Do it for the children. Do it for the elderly. Do it for the people who work in these places," Rep. Karen Yarbrough, D-Chicago, said as she urged colleagues to support her legislation. The House approved the measure 73-42, a much larger margin than expected. "I'm shaking from head to foot," said a thrilled Kathy Drea, director of public policy for the American Lung Association of Illinois-Iowa. "I just never expected 73 votes."
Opponents portrayed the vote as a defeat for business owners and for local government. They said businesses should be free to respond to the marketplace and allow smoking if their customers want it -- or ban it if they don't. Rep. Bill Black, R-Danville, who voted against the measure, rejected the argument that state law should not only protect customers who can choose where to spend their time but also the waiters and bartenders who work amid clouds of smoke. "Let me tell you something: The service industry is the place to be right now," Black said. "If you want to find a job as a service person in a non-smoking environment, there are hundreds of them, thousands of them, out there. They will bid for your services."
The bar and restaurant industry has argued smoking bans result in some customers just staying home. That won't put the big chains out of business, but it could force some small, local places to go under, they say. If smoking must be regulated, some lawmakers argued, it should be done at the local level. For the last two years, Illinois law has let each city set its own smoking policy. Forty-four Illinois communities have approved restrictions on smoking in public places, according to the American Cancer Society. Critics complain that this arrangement hurts business in cities with smoking bans, because smokers going out for dinner or a drink simply visit neighboring towns. A statewide policy would level the playing field, they say.
If it becomes law, the statewide smoking ban would take effect in January 2008 and apply to nearly all businesses. Tobacco stores would be exempt, as would private rooms in nursing homes. Hotels and motels would be able to allow smoking in 25 percent of their rooms. Smoking also would be prohibited within 15 feet of entrances to businesses. People violating the ban could be fined $100 to $250. Businesses that allow violations could be fined $250 a day.
Blagojevich said he would review the legislation before making a final decision but would be "shocked" to find anything that keeps him from signing it. "It sure sounds to me like that would be something that I would enthusiastically sign," he said. The bill is SB500.
It's simple. Anyone has the right to smoke, or do anything for that matter, until it infringes on the rights of another. So smokers can all go into an airtignt room and smoke to their hearts' content, or demise, as the case may be. Where they get the idea that they can polute others' air, is beyond me. If it's so wonderful, why do they blow it out of their cars, hold their cigs away from their tables, closer to others'? And, while we're at it, why doesn't anybody talk about how they litter everyone's environment with their butts? Why is it ok to just throw their trash whereever they like? Those who think restaurants and bars will lose business - they already have, because so many non-smokers choose not to go to places to endanger their health and come home smelling like an old ashtray. Long overdue.
The issue comes down to the government's role in people's personal lives. Cigarettes are not illegal; yet it is now illegal to smoke them in most places. Guns are not illegal. Yet it is illegal to own one in the City of Chicago. When are you folks going to wake up? These issues have NO business being legislated. I cannot be an American AND live in the State of Illinois any longer. There are traffic cameras everywhere; my movements are traceable via this sham called I-PASS (and no, traffic is NOT any lighter as a result); I cannot own a handgun for self-protection within the city limits of Chicago; and now, apparently, nobody can smoke in this state either.
Please stop with the transparent argument of the dangers of second-hand smoke to the workers in these places. They know when they apply that this is the deal and they proceed anyway. I always love the folks who cough as they walk by a smoker and, with nary a thought, step out onto the street behind a cross-town bus pulling away from the curb spewing out God only knows how much carcinogen. Note also the NO SMOKING signs all over Union Station - ever been in that place at 5 pm? There's a blue haze that permeates the entire lower floors - it's from the deisel smoke.
You also have no right to tell a private business what policy they can employ. The fix to this is going to be private clubs. It will be the morality police who are left out in the cold and unwelcome....then you'll know how it feels to be a smoker living in Illinois.
PS - I can't wait for the day (and it's coming, believe me) that what you eat is going to be regulated, because obesity has just surpassed lung disease in healthcare costs. Your choices are affecting my insurance rates...therefore, I think it's equally reasonable that I should not have to tolerate such selfishness on your part and will petition for legislation to monitor your calorie and fat intake from this day forward. So when you go out to your favorite non-smoking restaurant, watch for the menu to consist of hospital food.
I understand people have the right to go into a non-smoking bar or restaurant. I understand the second hand smoke issue. What i don't understand is the fact that as of january 1, 2008 you don't have a choice. If non-smokers don't like the smoking bars/taverns there are plenty of places that don't allow smoking. These places have been around for awhile, there was no reason to make it a law. The people who enjoy a cigarette with their drink can go in a smoking establishment. I would suggest to smokers who pay very high taxes on cigarettes in Illinois with the county, city and state tax to take a nice ride into adjoining state to purchase their cigarettes. The smoker is asked to pay these outrageous taxes but then not allowed to enjoy their purchase. Maybe the governor can figure out another way to make up for this missed income by taxing smokers and nonsmokers alike in another way.
To Anonymous, July 25 --
You say, ". . . what you eat is going to be regulated, because obesity has just surpassed lung disease in healthcare costs."
The day I can get cancer, asthma and stinky clothes from you sitting next to me eating your greasy cheeseburger and fries is the day I’ll worry about a junk food ban. I think the faulty logic in your analogy is pretty obvious.
You also say, "You also have no right to tell a private business what policy they can employ."
Can a restaurant owner serve rotten food laced with salmonella? Can a restaurant owner force his employees to work 60 hours a week for a dollar an hour? Can a restaurant owner choose to serve only people of a certain race, ethnic group or gender? Can a restaurant owner choose to host pistol duels as the Friday-night entertainment? Can a restaurant owner stab someone with a kitchen knife because they are a cheap tipper?
No, of course not. There are plenty of examples of the law telling “a private business what policy they can employ.” I’m not saying we should have a socialist state, and I agree that often local, state and the federal government go too far with their interference, but I believe most people will agree that one of the responsibilities of government is to protect the public good. I am not looking for a debate here over the proper balance between individual rights and the well-being of the group — or where your rights end and mine begin. Those issues are far too deep and complex to resolve on a blog. But we need to remember that living in a “free country” requires some boundaries on those freedoms.
And Andrea, thanks for starting the thread . . . less than 36 hours until B-Day (a.k.a. Breathing Day). Happy New Year!
Post a Comment