Shop Talk
smoking ban in IL: good or bad?
as of 1/1/08, there is no smoking in IL for the most part, legislated by the wonderful gov't. too much intervention into private lives by gov't, mandating health by law, or accurate public safety concern?
or others... discuss
or others... discuss
...
it was against the law everywhere... i hate the smell of it and what it does to my eyes... and it makes me cough.... my whole family smokes... its nasty!!
...
but what about gov't mandating what a person does? I'm all for healthy, but personal choice and responsibility has to play a role somewhere; I can see restrictions on indoor public places in some cases, but the ban and harsh penalties ($500 for 1st offense, $1500 for 2nd, $2500 for third) and that's to the business owner, not the person commiting the offense.
flawed system.
flawed system.
...
i agree, its taken the lifes of alot of people b/c its so addicting. I realize its the persons choice for choosing to start but its def a hard habit to kick. And what about all the crazy stuff they put in it? I def think they should ban smoking!!
...
i agree with the fact that ppl shouldnt do it in restuarants and other public places BUT ... i dont agree with the gov. say that they cant do it but are loving the taxes ppl pay on the smokes
...
So the government can dictate to a private business what kind of patrons they can and can not serve?
Call me crazy, but I always thought people were free to choose if they wanted to go to restaurant (or the like) that permitted smoking.
I never realized they were being forced to patronize such businesses.
Call me crazy, but I always thought people were free to choose if they wanted to go to restaurant (or the like) that permitted smoking.
I never realized they were being forced to patronize such businesses.
...
i think your wrong, i wouldn't say such a thing, i actually voted for the first tax to be added to cigarettes in california. my thought was, well if it cost more, people won't do it. WRONG, then i started smoking in IL when i was in the navy. and guess what. i still smoke. and if you make it illegal like drugs, you'll have drug dealers and what not selling cigarettes and having people locked up for stupid offenses like having contraband, cigarettes as a contraband.. now thats a strange thought unless your in prison. that i kinda understand, but telling people what they can and cannot do when it affects personal choice is more than just a flawed system, its someone with too much money and power.,
...
it is a drug, but to many, it's a way of life. to me, the gov't shouldn't be able to tell me not to do it at all. Kinda like speeding. You'll get busted eventually, and there are also natural consequences for speeding, but people still do it, it's their choice. now in IL, it's still a choice, but gramma jones at the senior living center must either choose to quit smoking or stand 15' away from the building in this weather b/c someone somewhere has legislative power.
...
Yeah, because our current War on Drugs has been so successful. It hasn't wasted billions of dollars or anything.
We should continue to lock up lawful users of drugs in states were the law permits simply because the Federal government says so.
Would your little Puritan ban include caffeine, alcohol, food additives, and other such nonsense?
We should continue to lock up lawful users of drugs in states were the law permits simply because the Federal government says so.
Would your little Puritan ban include caffeine, alcohol, food additives, and other such nonsense?
...
Yes, along with dancing, Music, TV and all books exceptthe King James Version Bible!!!!
MUWAHAHAHAHAAAAAAaaaaahhh!!!!
MUWAHAHAHAHAAAAAAaaaaahhh!!!!
...
I live in Washington, and it is illegal to smoke indoors (except in private residences) or with in 20 feet of a public entrance for anybody other than pedestrians (as they will not within the area long enough to produce an abundance of "pollution").
When this was first implemented a few years back there was a big fiasco about, mostly caused by people who frequent bars often. However it has blown over and we have found it to be rather satisfactory (unless you are a smoker and it is raining or snowing outside). I smoke and feel I have the right to, however I also feel that my decision to do so should not negatively impact another's health.
Now if you wanna get into the government, and right to a private life as set under the Jefferson Id...
(continues)
When this was first implemented a few years back there was a big fiasco about, mostly caused by people who frequent bars often. However it has blown over and we have found it to be rather satisfactory (unless you are a smoker and it is raining or snowing outside). I smoke and feel I have the right to, however I also feel that my decision to do so should not negatively impact another's health.
Now if you wanna get into the government, and right to a private life as set under the Jefferson Id...
(continues)
...
I'm an Illinois resident myself. I know a few bar owners. The ban has been in place in bigger cities in the state for a while. All the bar owners I know still let ppl smoke...they have their ways around it. When they get a complaint (which, has to be recorded, can't be anonymous) she always goes to court. Last time she got written up, she had heard from a bar down the street he was coming. She hid all the ash trays, and dumped them in the trash can. He came in, saw no ash trays, but opened the lid on her trash can and wrote her up. She went to court, told the judge she had just swept the sidewalk outside her front door... Case dismissed. She's gotten away with it 3 times now.
And, last I heard... the county I live in couldn't p...
(continues)
And, last I heard... the county I live in couldn't p...
(continues)
...
i occassonaly smoke... and i hate going into places that smell like smoke. its gross.i have no problem going outside to smoke if i need to. why subject other people to smoke. i think that its good. its been a law here on the west coast for a while now. the bars seem some much cleaner.
...
It's nice that this happens to suit your preferences, but what happens when the government tries to protect you and citizens from making your own decisions that don't suit your preferences?
...
Let me start of by saying that I used to smoke. I quit over a year ago. I quit because it's unhealthy, and I never noticed it until after I quit, but I STANK of smoke. So do the majority of smokers.
Should they ban it? No. Should they regulate it and tax the hell out of it? YES.
I bet there's alot of people out there who think this is a good idea. But honestly... do you think the money the government got from taxing them in the first place will just go away? Do you honestly think the government will just let the income brought in by smokes to just vanish? I bet they're going to slowly raise other taxes to make up for it.
In my opinion what they should be doing is raising the cost of cigs higher with taxes. Because, as you all kno...
(continues)
Should they ban it? No. Should they regulate it and tax the hell out of it? YES.
I bet there's alot of people out there who think this is a good idea. But honestly... do you think the money the government got from taxing them in the first place will just go away? Do you honestly think the government will just let the income brought in by smokes to just vanish? I bet they're going to slowly raise other taxes to make up for it.
In my opinion what they should be doing is raising the cost of cigs higher with taxes. Because, as you all kno...
(continues)
...
i dunno about all the streets bein clean in IL, not the last time i was there. back in 98 - 2000.. but the ban , is balongne , i agree with the tax thing though, and im a smoker
...
sorry about the rotten mood...
the principle behind both actions (banning and taxing b/c "it's bad for you") is the same: regulation externally. a prohibition era situation would be interesting to see. Arguably, coffee is bad for you as well, same with fast food, sniffing carbon monoxide 😉 , and a plethora of other innocuous activities. What I don't see as fair is that one habit that people know is bad but still choose to do is being demonized, whereas the same thing could and arguably should be done for MC-D's and BK and Hardee's and all the rest of 'em. their "low carb" options are a laugh. if you choose to kill yourself slowly with carbs, you could also take out other people "second-hand" when your heart finally explodes fr...
(continues)
the principle behind both actions (banning and taxing b/c "it's bad for you") is the same: regulation externally. a prohibition era situation would be interesting to see. Arguably, coffee is bad for you as well, same with fast food, sniffing carbon monoxide 😉 , and a plethora of other innocuous activities. What I don't see as fair is that one habit that people know is bad but still choose to do is being demonized, whereas the same thing could and arguably should be done for MC-D's and BK and Hardee's and all the rest of 'em. their "low carb" options are a laugh. if you choose to kill yourself slowly with carbs, you could also take out other people "second-hand" when your heart finally explodes fr...
(continues)
...
in any public place; the only safe places are in your car or at home, so long as the home isn't used as a place of business.
www.smoke-free.illinois.gov is the website.
www.smoke-free.illinois.gov is the website.
...
They did this many years ago here in NY. Being a smoker at first I was upset BUT now I like it. I still smoke but I definitely smoke 1/2 or less now b/c I have to go outside. I don't wake up the next morning feeling like crap and I like leaving a place without smelling of it too. My sister lived in NC for a little while and when I visited her it was weird that they asked which section and I really didn't like eating at places that the smoking section wasn't completely blocked off.
Yeah it sucks that the gov't is involved in this but in the end it is much better for everyone, smokers and non-smokers.
Yeah it sucks that the gov't is involved in this but in the end it is much better for everyone, smokers and non-smokers.
...
my problem is that the IL gov't can tell certain places like casinos and restaurants to axe it. ALOT of business at Denny's, Perkins, and some casinos is tied to their patrons being able to smoke; and in such places as the Quad Cities, two being in IL and two in IA, those restaurants on the IL side will suffer simply b/c of their location. that's what burns me. I don't want the gov't telling business owners who choose to solicit business from smokers that they can no longer do so.
...
OK, I am a smoker and I have been for 5 years. I live in Washington State and we have a smoking ban here which really isnt that bad, unless you are in Seattle. You cannot smoke inside any public place or within 25 feet of a building entrance or air vent. Basically keep it out side. And outside is where it should be. I dont smoke in my house, I smoke on the porch, I do however smoke in my car, because its mine and I can.
Banning smoking in any publice place.... now that is extreme, and cigs have high enough tax on them already, at least here they do. Its bad when it is $6 to get one pack here, but I can go to any midwestern state and get 2 packs for that price. Its insane, but its also addicting and people will pay for it.
Banning smoking in any publice place.... now that is extreme, and cigs have high enough tax on them already, at least here they do. Its bad when it is $6 to get one pack here, but I can go to any midwestern state and get 2 packs for that price. Its insane, but its also addicting and people will pay for it.
...
Before the first here you could get almost 2 packs for six bucks
But as of Jan. 1st they raised our prices to almost 5 a pack ... and it will go up again I'm sure.
But as of Jan. 1st they raised our prices to almost 5 a pack ... and it will go up again I'm sure.
...
So basically you are happy with the law because it helps you to exert self control over yourself, that you otherwise would not be able to.
That is depressing on so many levels.
That is depressing on so many levels.
...
No I am happy about the law b/c I can go out and not choke on secondhand smoke. My friends and family who don't smoke can enjoy themselves too. Another added benefit is I smoke less.
...
Sure doesn't sound that way based on your original post.
What other facets of your life do you need the government's assistance in reigning in?
What other facets of your life do you need the government's assistance in reigning in?
...
It's a red herring plain and simple.
The government (under the influence of insurance lobbyist I would imagine) bans smoking in public places yet does nothing to tighten emission standards for cars, manufacturing facility pollution, food additives, and the like.
We can be poisoned to our hearts content, as long as it's not easily noticeable and tastes nice.
Non-smokers shouldn't be inundated with smoke, but at the same time, the government has no right to tell a private business that their patrons can't smoke.
The government (under the influence of insurance lobbyist I would imagine) bans smoking in public places yet does nothing to tighten emission standards for cars, manufacturing facility pollution, food additives, and the like.
We can be poisoned to our hearts content, as long as it's not easily noticeable and tastes nice.
Non-smokers shouldn't be inundated with smoke, but at the same time, the government has no right to tell a private business that their patrons can't smoke.
...
For the first time in the two years I've been on these forums, I have to say I agree with captainplooky.
Apparently Hell really has frozen over.
But the government should be ok with that, since that means less smoke.
🤣
Apparently Hell really has frozen over.
But the government should be ok with that, since that means less smoke.
🤣
...
captainplooky said:
It's a red herring plain and simple.
The government (under the influence of insurance lobbyist I would imagine) bans smoking in public places yet does nothing to tighten emission standards for cars, manufacturing facility pollution, food additives, and the like.
We can be poisoned to our hearts content, as long as it's not easily noticeable and tastes nice.
Non-smokers shouldn't be inundated with smoke, but at the same time, the government has no right to tell a private business that their patrons can't smoke.
The notion that smoking in public places is meaningless as a health hazard, because there's other sources of pollution that people are exposed to, and reduction in that l...
(continues)
...
Common public places is one thing Webb, but these type of bans also intrude into private businesses.
If I want to have a restaurant or other business that allows smoking - are you honestly saying the government should have the power to prevent me from doing that.
The government has to protect people from making the choice for themselves whether or not they would like to patronize or work for the establishment?
Additionally, the bans are not solely implemented to prevent health hazards to non smokers. They are to "encourage" smokers to quit. They are to "prevent" kids from starting to smoke, and a myriad of other excuses depending on who you are trying to convince at the time.
Alcohol is far more dangerous a drug - yet why isn...
(continues)
If I want to have a restaurant or other business that allows smoking - are you honestly saying the government should have the power to prevent me from doing that.
The government has to protect people from making the choice for themselves whether or not they would like to patronize or work for the establishment?
Additionally, the bans are not solely implemented to prevent health hazards to non smokers. They are to "encourage" smokers to quit. They are to "prevent" kids from starting to smoke, and a myriad of other excuses depending on who you are trying to convince at the time.
Alcohol is far more dangerous a drug - yet why isn...
(continues)
...
You know what, Plooky, I'm throwing in the towel. You're sooooo right.
It's their business. If they want to damage the health of their employees via second-hand smoke, the government shouldn't be able to say or do anything about that.
Hell, if I wanted to run a business where my employees were subjected to a steady exposure to asbestos in the air they breathed, that should be just plain spiffy too.
Because those whiners who want to keep breathing just want the big bad government to hold their hands and oppress all of you rugged individualists.
You got us.
It's their business. If they want to damage the health of their employees via second-hand smoke, the government shouldn't be able to say or do anything about that.
Hell, if I wanted to run a business where my employees were subjected to a steady exposure to asbestos in the air they breathed, that should be just plain spiffy too.
Because those whiners who want to keep breathing just want the big bad government to hold their hands and oppress all of you rugged individualists.
You got us.
...
Webb, less emotion please.
Where does it end and why hasn't it begun with other things?
What about those employees or customers who are killed by drunk drivers on the ride home?
What about those employees or customers who eat poorly and are unhealthy?
What about those employees or customers loaded on prescription drugs with serious side effects?
I understand the issue you are trying to raise with worker safety and I agree there does need to be some standards.
However, I do not understand why if someone can choose to work or patron a business environment they know smoking will take place - the government feels it necessary to intervene with arbitrary bans instead of outlawing it outright.
Where does it end and why hasn't it begun with other things?
What about those employees or customers who are killed by drunk drivers on the ride home?
What about those employees or customers who eat poorly and are unhealthy?
What about those employees or customers loaded on prescription drugs with serious side effects?
I understand the issue you are trying to raise with worker safety and I agree there does need to be some standards.
However, I do not understand why if someone can choose to work or patron a business environment they know smoking will take place - the government feels it necessary to intervene with arbitrary bans instead of outlawing it outright.
...
captainplooky said:...
Webb, less emotion please.
Where does it end and why hasn't it begun with other things?
What about those employees or customers who are killed by drunk drivers on the ride home?
What about those employees or customers who eat poorly and are unhealthy?
What about those employees or customers loaded on prescription drugs with serious side effects?
I understand the issue you are trying to raise with worker safety and I agree there does need to be some standards.
However, I do not understand why if someone can choose to work or patron a business environment they know smoking will take place - the government feels it necessary to intervene with arbitrary bans instead of outlawing it outrig
(continues)
...
They did that here over a year ago, after awhile you get used to it and it becomes the way things are.
You may think it sucks at first but it's not so bad.
You may think it sucks at first but it's not so bad.
...
california banned smoking in resturaunts and bars way back in 98...but when iwas in chicago in 99, i remember lookin around at the ashtrays on the tables inside of a robins or something like that and was like wtf.. then i saw people lighting up inside the resturaunt and flipped.. i kept thinking it wasn't allowed but, then i realized i wasn't in cali no more.. an got home sick. =[
...
Yea what's funny is here there's about 5 different cities kind of all intertwined and ours is the only one that doesn't allow smoking in public places. So I could go a couple miles down the road and be in a different city and be able to smoke in a restaurant if I chose to. Feels odd now....
Now I actually prefer going to bars (when I actually go) where there isn't smoking cause you aren't hacking up a lung or smelling all funky when you go home.
Granted I am a smoker and it really ticked me off when they first did it, but I've learned to accept it and it's not so bad now.
Now I actually prefer going to bars (when I actually go) where there isn't smoking cause you aren't hacking up a lung or smelling all funky when you go home.
Granted I am a smoker and it really ticked me off when they first did it, but I've learned to accept it and it's not so bad now.
...
i was in reno last month on the weekend of the 15th, and i actually went outside a few times on accident to go and smoke.. and when i was just arriving and stayed in the cold and finished my smoke before going into the casino. im so trained now, that its hard to realize your allowed to smoke inside there... its weird
...
Jennyboo said:
Yea what's funny is here there's about 5 different cities kind of all intertwined and ours is the only one that doesn't allow smoking in public places. So I could go a couple miles down the road and be in a different city and be able to smoke in a restaurant if I chose to. Feels odd now....
Now I actually prefer going to bars (when I actually go) where there isn't smoking cause you aren't hacking up a lung or smelling all funky when you go home.
Granted I am a smoker and it really ticked me off when they first did it, but I've learned to accept it and it's not so bad now.
Probably a lot nicer for the folks who work in a bar and don't want to die young, too.
...
captainplooky said:
So jobs are rights or mandatory now and not privileges?
You're right, Plook. Workplace safety is for communists.
...
It is funny you mention communism when one of the tenants of communism is common ownership.
Which is actually what you are endorsing when you support the government's attempt to dictate to private businesses who they can and can not cater to.
Which is actually what you are endorsing when you support the government's attempt to dictate to private businesses who they can and can not cater to.
...
captainplooky said:
It is funny you mention communism when one of the tenants of communism is common ownership.
Which is actually what you are endorsing when you support the government's attempt to dictate to private businesses who they can and can not cater to.
No I'm not. He gets to hold title to the business. He gets to realise the profits from it. He just has to maintain certain safety standards in it. It is no more 'common ownership' than subjecting his business to health inspections and fire safety regulations, or dictating that he can only have that kind of business on certain lots by way of zoning laws, or requiring him to have a liscence if he's going to sell alcohol. If this fits some kind of ...
(continues)
...
