In the Illinois General Assembly, House Bill 4338, a proposed amendment to the Illinois Clean Indoor Air Act, has already passed the Illinois House and is headed for the Illinois Senate. It would, in effect, ban smoking in all public places, including bars, taverns and bowling alleys. It's endorsed by several medical boards and other health-related groups.
Chicago and Springfield already have comprehensive laws banning smoking, although, I've heard the Springfield law has plenty of loopholes and is not a restrictive as the language of HB 4338. It must be controversial, otherwise Brian Byers wouldn't harp on it so much.
So, Decatur, what do you think about a comprehensive smoking ban in all public places?
10 comments:
I'm more in favor of an approach where smoking is banned, but X amount of Smoking licenses can be purchased from the proper authority, that authority being most easiest, the liquor control board. That way if people really do want to smoke some place, they have some place to go, people who don't want to smoke won't go there, and more money for the government, which could hopefully alleviate budget woes. Win Win. Wrong, right, what do you think?
Elephino.
Sounds reasonable. Would you think there should be limits on these licenses, or let anyone who wants to buy one buy one?
I don't know what the right thing to do is. On one side the health concerns are obvious (my Mom suffers from a form of COPD brought on by Dad's 40+ years of second-hand smoke), but the other side is that many businesses depend on customers who traditionally smoke.
For me, I would LOVE to be able to go to a bowling alley or a pool hall and be able to play without having to deal with the horrible smoke that sets off my allergies/asthma. I do not patronize these businesses (and there a great deal of people just like me who likewise do not) because of the health hazards for myself.
I guess we'll have to see what happens.
I say smoke em if ya got em.
And listen to this
Funny.
It has nothing to do with banning smoking, but funny.
On a more serious note, I wonder how a smoking ban has changed businesses in the cities that have implemented a ban? Has there been a study done?
These are the things that our lawmakers may need to review before voting on the issue.
I don't get the smoke 'em if ya got 'em argument. If I want to go to a public place to enjoy myself, why should my quality of life allowed to be lessened because of the decision of others? If I brought a boombox into a restraunt and started playing it at my own desire that would be a no go, but I can go in and well help you die, and that should be allowed?
These decisions should be left to the business owners. If you do not choose to frequent the business, let the business owner know why. If there is a need and a market, then the free market will provide it. If that means "no smoking allowed" businesses gain market share, then the other businesses will suffer, or deal with the loss of business in some other way, perhaps even specializing in "smoker friendly" businesses with better than adequate ventilation.
I am more offended by smokers who litter than I am with second hand smoke. Many smokers are considerate around non-smokers, some are not. Courtesy and common sense are also part of the smoking/non-smoking issue.
This is not a job for government.
I may be wrong in a small respect on the last comment.
This IS a perfect job, for the politicians and bureaucrats, but our government and constitution was not designed for this.
The same government that profits greatly on tobacco taxation? Cutting off the tax dollars? The story of the wolf guarding the henhouse comes to mind.
This is a social, health, education, and economic issue.
Don't leave it to government to save you from yourself. Take personal responsibility in your life. Make your own decisions and sink or swim. Education is one of the keys.
So far, VP, the business owners have made their decision. There are a few businesses that are smoke-free, and many others that would rather die before they would want to go smoke-free.
My point (and I think PFC agrees with me) is that there are very few if any alternatives to a bowling alley or pool hall (or a tavern, for that matter) for the non-smoker. I love to bowl, and if I can actually catch a day when the lanes aren't too busy, I might get a spot 10 or 20 lanes away from someone else. Those times are few and far between. Likewise, I don't go to Starship Billiards, even though I love to play pool. My asthma would go into overdrive.
Bottom-line, I don't go bowling or play pool or visit taverns, but I might go on a fairly regular basis if they were smoke-free.
One comment on PFC's boombox analogy. This isn't just an annoyance issue; it's a health issue with other people. If there was a way to confine someone's cigarette smoke to just that person's lungs, I would say let 'em smoke. When my lungs and therefore my health is affected, I steer clear of places where the smoke is.
Should the government get involved? Let's look back at history. Has the government ever got involved with one group's practices that adversely affects the health of others? Yes. Businesses have been closed down for leaking toxic chemicals (....except for ADM, for $ome intere$ting rea$on$) because these chemicals hurt people in the area. Shouldn't cigarette smoking be lumped into the same class?
A large corporation manufacturing products is a little different than the guy in the bowling alley, I know. SOmehow, I think that passing this ordinance is the right thing to do.
I do understand your reasoning for avoiding businesses that allow smoking. Please let those businesses know why you avoid them!
However, the big difference in the cases where some company polutes or does something that causes harm to the public is that there is no choice on the part of the affected. You DO HAVE the choice in which businesses you frequent. You mentioned Starship billiards as one example of a business you'd frequent if it had a no smoking policy. However, what if the current clientel that goes there with the intent of enjoying that this business allows them to smoke tobacco while they play pool decided that a non-smoking policy would ruin their evening or make it less enjoyable? Would they still go there if they weren't allowed to smoke? I don't know. It is not for ME or the government to decide. This seems to be an obvious situation between the owner and the customer. It's trading one person's choice for another's choice. If there was enough demand for a non-smoking pool hall, there would be one. It seems unamerican and almost socialist to dictate to society through government, the things that society needs to sort out on it's own.
VP, you have inspired me.
I see your point, and I agree with your logic. I only wish there were people out there with money who would be willing to offer some non-smoking competition for the bowling alleys and the pool halls.
Until that happens, I guess I'll watch TV.
Then again, I could get off my duff and actually exercise.
Post a Comment