No link, just a discussion thread. Resolution passed 5-4, and will go into effect if Urbana passes a similar ordinance. No exceptions for bowling alleys or private clubs.
I wonder how Savoy will respond.
Champaign goes smoke free
Posted May 17th, 2006 at 01:28 PM by redstatewannabe
Wall of Shame:
Pirok
Bruno
Dodds
Rosales
Jackson
BTW, they said at the meeting last night that the ban would be enforced by the health department. That should be effective (not).
Did I hear that Rosalas said he was running for mayor on WDWS?
Big win for C-A. Big loss for the freedom of the business owner.
The Health Department? The same health department that hides (or simply doesn't list) the inspection scores of local restaurants on their website?
I sent an email to them and asked about it. No response at all.
As consumers, shouldn't we be able to easily find out who is doing a good job and who isn't? Out in Phoenix, they put restaurants who fail their health inspections on the 6 o'clock news.
(If someone out there KNOWS where this info is availabile, please pass it on. The CUPHD apparently doesn't have the time to respond to simple inquiries).
I expect to see a massive drop in the local cancer rates over the next five years, as has happened in every other place that voted to protect stupid/lazy/careless people from secondhand smoke.
Oh, wait. No I don't.
OK, smokers - where will you be for your last smoking night in town? I don't smoke, but may join you out of sympathy for your plight.
It was fun to watch last night. I don't think anyone expected it to pass, including everyone on the council. Personally, I am very happy that indoor air will now be breathable across the cities (presuming Urbana passes a ban, which I expect they will). I am also interested to see what happens with the market for downtown 'nightlife' in Champaign, and how this change will affect that (if at all). It's quite a social experiment.
"as has happened in every other place that voted to protect stupid/lazy/careless people from
secondhand smoke."
Wait...the people inhaling the secondhand smoke are stupid/lazy/careless? Or do you mean the ones actually smoking?
wow, bars and the works? i really expected a compromise that knocked out bars. i mourn the loss of freedom. But i'll graciously accept the fact that i can now eat at taffies. of course, on the negative side, i imagine there will be a lot more smoke on the sidewalks of champaign now, which will make walking around there less pleasant. ironically, you might get fresher air inside bars than in the beer gardens. what does the ordinance say about beer gardens? sidewalks? etc.
I hope I'm wrong, but I anticipate every special interest group to be emboldened by this, and i expect to see the Council lobbied a lot more by our more liberal neighbors to the east.
Curious, I thought that Chris Knigh (Bling Pig guy) made a good point last night when he said that his core business, e.g., people out in the bar on a Tuesday night, are either smokers or "smoke tolerant" patrons, which makes sense.
I just don't see all the wilting lilies who can't be around smoking going out on Tuesday night for a few toddies, now that the awful smokers will be confined to the sidewalk.
Now, of course, there will be a throng of smokers hanging just outside the door, making sort of a gauntlet for everyone to run through on the way inside the door. And every outdoor beer garden is going to look like the haze at a Led Zeppelin concert.
I feel badly for the small busines owners this will hurt, and hope the voting public wreaks vengeance (at the polls, anyway) on the commies that voted Aye.
"Wait”¦the people inhaling the secondhand smoke are stupid/lazy/careless?"
They are if they walked into a place that allows smoking and are now upset.
"Wait”¦the people inhaling the secondhand smoke are stupid/lazy/careless? Or do you mean the ones actually smoking?"
Sorry I wasn't clear. The people who want to avoid secondhand smoke but cannot do so without government action are either stupid, lazy, careless, or some combination of the three.
Do counties now have the authority to impose bans also? If so, is this on the county board agenda?
I'm not for banning smoking in bars because anyone who has ever walked into a bar knows whats up.
However, from your logic every non-smoker who wants to eat at Chili's (or any similar restaurant) is stupid/lazy/careless. I go and wait the additional amount of time to sit in non-smoking only to end up sitting 5 ft away from someone chain smoking on the other side of a 3 ft wall that doesn't prohibit smoke from wafting right into my face.
I'm not stupid/lazy/careless, but I appreciate the ban as far as restaurants are concerned. Would I have initiated gov. action over it; no, thats a little extreme. Bar owners, I feel your pain and I don't agree with the ban on that side. However, I think they would have had an impossible time differentiating between what is considered a true bar and what is considered a true restaurant.
Now is the time for all scofflaws to unite!
It is encouraging to me that a majority of the elected officials of Champaign, that I am now a part of, passed this smoking ban. It is difficult to go against the "popular" habit but sometimes necessary. At a higher level, elected officials enacted the "Seat Belt" use requirement. This was also against the "popular" habit but necessary.
Opportunity knocks for Savoy to become the new smoker/student destination. Of course, that would give MTD an excuse to include Savoy in the tram plans.
Pretty soon, Savoy residents may not need to pay property taxes (except to MTD) due to all the potential businesses...unless the CB bans smoking everywhere.
With the nannystaters in charge of both C and U, the merged city of Chambana can now happen and it can try to compete with Savoy for business.
Wow, I am shocked at the outrage some posters have at us non-smokers who have thus far been under-protected. Smokers make up what percent of the population? I would be curious to know if any statistics were shared about the percent of income generated by 'smokers' and 'non-smokers' at area venues. I'd imagine that if anyone seriously cared for keeping smoking they would have documented that the smokers generated more (or as a %) income - or is that also stupid/lazy/careless? Perhaps the merchants wanted to go smoke-free, but didn't want to face the wrath of the 'crazy' smokers that would be ticked at them for going smoke-free - and thus led to the government doing it to save face? Maybe there was even a conspiracy behind it that the merchants would complain about it in public, but be happy and back it to the council behind the scenes?? I don't know, but, I'm happy with the ban. I think that once the non-smokers realize what the bar experience can be without smoke, the bars will be much busier. I, my wife, and numerous friends of ours, have avoided bars because we don't feel like having sore throats and stinking clothes/hair. I hope the city bans smoking on public property within 15 feet of entrances to buildings included in the current ban - next!
I should have put "from your INITIAL logic" instead. I see your point. Anyone who needs gov. interaction to avoid smoke inhalation in a public place is more than likely stupid/lazy/careless.
I also agree with annexed, it is encouraging to see officials not buckle to the habit.
I'm still wondering if there is a legal argument for those business owners who were already in business. It seems logical to be able to enact this on all new businesses from this point on, but to stick it on existing businesses without a gradual step down approach is pretty overreaching.
Using the "you're free to swing as long as your fist doesn't hit my nose" logic, this is like a guy in a room swinging punches. The room is labeled "danger, guy throwing punches in this room", and some other guy walks in, right up to him (it's his "right"), and then the guy who is punching has to stop so he doesn't hit the guy who walked up to him, with full knowledge that it is dangerous to be within arms length of a guy throwing punches.
Basically the smoke free people are saying they have a "right" to walk into a moving fist - and the other person has the responsibility of making sure they don't hit them.
As far as the "safe workplace" argument is concerned - working in a smoky bar is probably one of the safest jobs around as far as health is concerned.
Yah, YummyPizza, I bet you'll be hunkered down at the bar at Huber's on any given Tuesday afternoon. What you don't get is that the core business of bars comes from "regulars" who smoke in disproportionate numbers.
I would not be at all surprised to see a future ballot question which would seek to overturn the ban.
Ballot referendums are non-binding and have no legal significance.
I'm really quite surprised that this passed.
From a political/philosophical standpoint, I don't like the government involvement and I'd prefer to have seen the market work things out. From a personal responsibility standpoint, I can't defend the "right" of an individual to go to a public place and engage in conduct which they know is harmful to their neighbors. I guess it's over now and we'll just have to see what happens. I predict that neither the dire predictions of the anti-ban faction or the rosy predictions of the pro-ban faction will come to pass. In other places that have enacted bans, it doesn't seem to have had much of an economic impact either way.
very interesting.
like David Copperfield making things disappear.
it's magic.
It is encouraging to me that a majority of the elected officials of Champaign, that I am now a part of, passed this smoking ban. It is difficult to go against the “popular” habit but sometimes necessary. At a higher level, elected officials enacted the “Seat Belt” use requirement. This was also against the “popular” habit but necessary.
Yes, very encouraging. We can't just let the common folk make decisions for themselves. I just hope that soon the city council will ban SUV's, homosexuality, and McDonald's, as they are all hazards to our health and incur a cost on the public.
Best arguments for a ban. UI students and young people won't pick up the smoking habit by having just a cigarette or two while at the bars. That's how I started smoking (I quit years 18 years ago). Second, bar and restaurant employees won't have constant exposure to second-hand smoke, which IS a health hazard despite goofy claims to the contrary. Third, all the community leaders want Champaign-Urbana to be seen as a cutting-edge town. You aren't cutting edge if you have smoke-filled bars and restaurants.
What!? The best argument for the ban is that teenagers won't start smoking while they are at the bars DRINKING? Maybe the smoke kept some of them away from the bars, now we might have more alcohol problems on campus. Maybe the smoking slowed down their drinking?
Private clubs are exempt? If so, I will be looking for numerous bars to start charging a $1 club membership fee and going "private".
And the path to ban smoking in residences is on the horizon. The state of Michigan is considering a bill to fine adults who smoke in cars with children under 12. Why 12? Don't know. If this passes it won't be long before you won't be able to smoke in your own home per government edict. Just a thought.
This smoking ban will make it much easier to manage and operate a Bar/Food establishment as it eliminates the various sectioning currently required to accomodate both smokers and non-smokers. It will also be more economical for the owner as it eliminates the need for those very expensive "Smoke Eaters" which require constant maintenance. Cleaning costs will also be reduced.
As for loss of business due to this ban, I seriously doubt it. If your business is providing what the public wants, as most are here in CU, there will be no impact or maybe a positive impact. I will conceed that the small neighborhood bars, without food, that do not cater to non-smokers, could see some negative impact but it will probably be short term, not terminal.
"However, from your logic every non-smoker who wants to eat at Chili's (or any similar restaurant) is stupid/lazy/careless."
Wrong - that's not my logic. Logic tells me that any non-smoker who wants to avoid secondhand smoke but still eats at smoking restaurants is either stupid/lazy/careless or doesn't really care all that much about avoiding smoke.
You've got feet: use 'em. You've got choices about where to spend your money: use 'em. If 75 percent of people really cared that strongly about avoiding smoke, businesses would cater to them - but they didn't. So either business owners are stupid and don't know their customers very well, or the number of people for whom this was a deciding factor in where to spend their money was small enough to ignore.
Couldn't the health department shut them down for allowing smokers?
Will smokers start protesting by puffing at the lunch counter?
Not even smoking in private smoking clubs? Cigar shop customers have to step outside to test the products? How about heated outdoor smoke shacks with some open airflow along the ground, so it's considered being outdoors?
How about personal homes where the owner hosts a smoking party for "friends," kind of like tupperware (if you don't buy you may not be invited back)? Different homes host parties once a week with an open door to "invited guests" all day, so there's a place to visit all week. Hey, it's just "friends" getting together at someone's home with no formal obligation to buy. Did they ban that or has a loophole been found?
The problem with bans is some entreprenuer will search hard for any potential loophole. If the ban is absolute and total it will just go underground because demand will find entreprenuerial suppliers, as happened during prohibition, but disrespect for the law and violence got worse because prime motivators: more money (greed) and jail time (freedom) were at risk.
Our government should always strive to find the least invasive ways to get desired outcomes and there are so many options before total bans. Most Supreme Court decisions on Constitutional rights revolve heavily on how to find alternatives to avoid government intrusion into people's lives because it's fundamental to our individual rights and freedom.
The mayor just said private clubs are not exempt - so much for Hubers going private - bummer.
Outdoor seating downtown will now be a premium - all those cutting edge folks who are walking around will have to wade past all the smokers sitting outside. Unintended consequence, or a potential spot for amendment?
"That government is best which governs least." - - Thomas Paine
Gordy, there were plenty of restaurants going smoke free. the market would have handled this. but that's not enough for nanny staters.
What I find remarkable are the people who can't understand the conservative position about property rights. it's almost as if any "problem" that they see that could be solved by government intrusion, ought to be solved. I agree with one poster, where does this stop? Why should it stop if i adopt the nanny state crowd. Just curious why we allow bars at all? How many people died from alcoholism and alcohol related traffic accidents this year compared to those dying from second hand smoke?
I would have liked to seen this on a city-wide ballot. That outcome would have really determined who did/did not want smoking. Whether it's binding or not, I don't know; it still would have been interesting.
Ideally, those smokefree folks would have petitioned the businesses individually and this whole mess would have been avoided on a large scale.
I bet Savoy stays out of this. They always want to be different it seems. Once urbana & champaign go smoke free they'll be the closest smoking destination. It will make them feel special...which they obviously deem themselves.
"Gordy, there were plenty of restaurants going smoke free. the market would have handled this. but that's not enough for nanny staters."
You're exactly right.
Oh man now we can look forward to a parade of self-righteous hippy-types bringing their toddlers out on the town.
These people miss the fact that going out is *supposed* to be self-destructive. You drink, you smoke, you listen to music that's probably too loud, you wind up in conversations (and sometime "relationships") where you probably shouldn't be. A certain amount of unhealthyness is part of the point.
Well, maybe loud music will keep the post-hippies at bay from some places, until they ban that too.
I'm not a smoker myself but alas, I have seen the future, and it is not all that exciting.
"So either business owners are stupid and don't know their customers very well, or the number of people for whom this was a deciding factor in where to spend their money was small enough to ignore."
You got it wrong. Businesses are like government, slow-moving, frequently conservative. Established businesses are risk-averse, and will generally stick with the status quo if it is generating a reliable profit. The options for where non-smokers could spend their money to demonstrate the viability for non-smoking-only wasn't sufficient to overcome the risk-averse businesses... Ask them. Similarly, bars on campus were in a tight-spot to not change as if you have a group of friends, and 1/4 of them are smokers who need a fix every 30 min to hour - there is a good chance that the group will visit the 'smoking' establishment. If there is no 'smoking' establishment, then (in theory) the smoker will find another way to get their fix, and their group is still going to go out.
By the way, to avoid the misinformation above:
http://www.cuphd.org/documents/press_release/2006/05-2006_Smoke_Ban_Bill.pdf
Sec. 16-8. Exemptions-Where smoking is not regulated.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this article to the contrary, it shall not be a violation of this article to smoke or permit smoking in the following places:
1. Outdoor service areas of all the following: licensed food service establishments; establishments holding licenses for the sale of alcoholic liquor; or private clubs.
2. Outdoor cafes licensed under Chapter 30 of the Champaign Municipal Code.
3. Retail tobacco shops, provided that smoke from these places does not infiltrate into areas where smoking is prohibited under the provisions of any section of the Champaign Clean Indoor Air Ordinance.
...continued.
I do think that the businesses would have eventually (5-15 yrs out) caught on. Should Gov't stayed out of it? Perhaps. But, I sure am happy about it. Should it be repealed eventually, probably. By then, most of the smokers will be dead, though, so it won't matter too much. But, it would have been good to put an end-date on the bill... Push the businesses along, then, see if the free market will keep them smoke-free or not. That would be interesting to watch.
by the end of this fall people will be complaining about all the smokers sitting outside downtown
"its just unsightly"
"why do I have to walk the gauntlet just to go to Guido's?"
"is this the kind of image we want to show to visitors of our community?"
I think that we need to concentrate on how this happened and why. If this isn't yet another example of Champaign City government going left, I don't know what is. So far, this year, we've placed items on the next ballot to impeach a war-time president; had SEction 8 shoved down our throats (along with several lectures about what bad people we are); and now the smoking ban, without any exemptions. I thought the compromise would be to ban smoking in restaurants and allow it in bars and bowling alleys.
Who will enforce this and how will it be done? I don't see the cops giving out tickets, so are left then with the Health Department who already has a lot on its p late? Why would Ken Pirok support this since the business community doesn't? Doesn't his company advise businesses, and after this vote, why would any business use his services?
My point is that several years ago, you would not have seen this in Champaign, although we have come to expect it from urbana. Where is the leadership for this City? If it's true that Rosales intends to run for mayor, then God help us conservatives.
My Roman Catholic heritage has now been trumped by my love for the supreme god of the Roman pantheon: Jupiter. I will continue to exercise my right of religious expression at Jupiters on Fridays and Saturdays (which includes ingestion of Jack Daniels with various combinations of tobacco products). I'm sure Jupiters Temple may also look forward to their new tax exempt status.
Sec. 16-8. Exemptions-Where smoking is not regulated.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this article to the contrary, it shall not be a
violation of this article to smoke or permit smoking in the following places:
9. Smoking as part of a bona fide religious ceremony.
bona fide being the key term. Good luck with that.
Wait until the busybodies decide that your religion annoys them.
Where is Dan McCollum when you need him? Although he was more left, you didn't see this kind of nonsense when he was Mayor.
RSW (and others) "by the end of this fall people will be complaining about all the smokers sitting outside downtown"
Exactly. Where does it stop? Only when tobacco is completely outlawed/banned. I for one plan on smoking outside and puffing straight at anyone that gives a foul look.
Smokey,
"I for one plan on smoking outside and puffing straight at anyone that gives a foul look."
Are you a jerk? Plan on puffing at the asthmatic kids walking by? How about your own children (grand children? nieces, nephews, etc.) who can't run as far as the other kids because you've destroyed their lung tissue?
I guess we shouldn't require handicapped accessibility in businesses either, because it costs money to implement and who cares if they can enter since they don't significantly impact the bottom line... WTF?
and if we want to actually control the border we are racist........
Find us a real conservative to run next time, not people like Bruno who never met a spending bill he didn't like, and Pirok, who talks a good game but never delivers. As for Dodds, voters in her district need to wake up.
"And the path to ban smoking in residences is on the horizon. The state of Michigan is considering a bill to fine adults who smoke in cars with children under 12. Why 12? Don't know. If this passes it won't be long before you won't be able to smoke in your own home per government edict. Just a thought."
I'm not so sure this is a bad idea... my niece and nephew, 8 and 6 respectively, both had to be hospitalized (and have their tonsils removed) because of complications due to the incessant smoke they have been surrounded by since birth. Yes, there were other factors, but the smoke was definitely a major contributor/complication according to the Dr.'s. Was it from smoke at restaurants, not much, but it's still BS that you smokers can't see the positive aspects of eliminating smoking.
Would outright outlawing tobacco be appropriate? No, then there would be illegal trade, impossible enforcement, etc. just like with other drugs... It certainly seems like this argument is going to end with one hypothetical slippery slope issue or another. The fact is, smoking is unhealthy - very unhealthy. It is physically aggravating to many people. Those people have been an underclass to the smokers. Now the tide has turned. Does government belong here - are you libertarian, conservative, or liberal? Libertarial - kill the kids' lungs, it's my choice. Conservative - status quo, hasn't killed me yet so it's ok with me. Liberal - evidence points to smoking being bad, stop the smoking here there and everywhere. How about somewhere in between?
Picked up in Chicago ”“
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/smoke17.html
Dan McCullom hasn't been mayor in 7 years. When he left office there were no cities and many fewer states which had gone smoke free.
Jerry didn't cause this when he threw Deb Feinan under the wheels of the bus to hand-pick Marcy Dodds for the council, but that wasn't his finest hour.
As far as the the enforcement goes, who now enforces the ban on spitting in restaurants? Or do people just refrain from spitting?
Why should we stop with the government telling us what to do? Why not have the government just make it official and be our masters?
It's obvious us commonfolk are too stupid to handle our own business.
Could someone refresh my mind, but does the Mayor of Champaign have any veto power?
Anon--the mayor doesn't have any veto power, and apparently he doesn't have any pull with the council either.
I think there IS an exemption for bona fide private clubs, because the ordinance provides an exemption for private clubs, to wit:
**
Sec. 16-8. Exemptions-Where smoking is not regulated.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this article to the contrary, it shall not be a violation of this article to smoke or permit smoking in the following places:
1. Outdoor service areas of all the following: licensed food service establishments; establishments holding licenses for the sale of alcoholic liquor; or private clubs.
**
BTW, a 'private club' must be tax-exempt, which would rule out Huber's, etc.
Perhaps a silver lining from this mess is that it wil foment a much keener interest in City of CP governance, which, hopefully, would mean the end of the terms of clowns like Bruno, Pirok, and Dodds. Rosales and Jackson are in a different category entirely, as you don't expect them to promote sane governance.
"Rosales and Jackson are in a different category entirely, as you don't expect them to promote sane governance."
LOL
The "private club" is not exempt Big E if they are licensed to serve food or liquor.
Who is up for re-election, and what can we do to correct the travesty that is now the City of Champaign council? I heard that the Democratic party insisted that Pirok vote to support the ban--does anyone know if that is true?
It is time for business owners to support the local GOP, and the local GOP to run credible candidates that support business (and taxpayers). Section 8, smoking ban, $5 million surplus, and the tram issue lingers - local issues do matter.
I wish the smoking ban would have cleared the air, but now it's filled with the smell of BS. Most of you "freedom of choice" people couldn't give a rat's ass about freedom. You're all in favor of government intervention when it suits your purposes.
Regulating smoking in places where food is served is no different than all the other regulations: food temperature, sanitizing, hair nets, etc. Where's your "freedom of choice" argument when it comes to how hot your hamburger has to be cooked?
In 5 years, when no businesses have closed because of this (like CA and NY), no one will even care about this except the smokers.
Dodds, Bruno, Rosales and Ennen are up for re-election in 2007. Surely the GOP and the business community can find sane people to run against them and pick up a couple of seats.
I am generally an independent / right-leaning voter. Yet, this thread has highlighted one of main problems the GOP faces right now. They can spout off on principles, but can't speak in practical terms, can't balance competing principles (free choice for business versus free choice of consumers versus equal protection concepts), and everything gets carried to the end of a long slippery slope - ignoring rational discussion. Redstatewannabe, Champaigndweller, Big E, John Bombanek - anyone care to address some of the serious questions/concerns posted by myself or others above? Or has the discussion devolved to, throw out the hacks, where are the real GOP? There are real reasons to eliminate smoking and I'm not sure how it comes out as a democrat / GOP voting issue, really.
Dweller, Ennen is leaving. Schweighart is also up for re-election and based on his health and his total loss of control and idiotic things he's been saying (i.e. "blacks need to know how to act" etc.) and the promises he's been making that he can't keep (stopping section 8, and promising to stop a smoking ban), I think he's an extremely weak incumbent and would be easily tossed out in favor of a strong conservative or even a moderate Dem.
Please. Let's not associate this smoking ban with any serious "left" politics. This not a living wage law or an ordinance to provide health care, etc. There are plenty of progressives around who dislike authoritarian governmental solutions, whether "speech codes" or laws like this that promise to give their backers pleasantly smoker-free evenings by encouraging smokers to stay and smoke with their kids.
Score one here for the Puritans, not the left, or the kids.
...speak in practical terms, can't balance competing principles
two words: private property
Maybe the reason conservatives and libertarians don't give concrete suggestions about what should be done is that we believe we should let people do what they want. Socialists are great at coming up with concrete plans to control people's lives, that doesn't mean socialist arguments are better, does it?
What are your "serious" concerns? That you should have a right to go to someone's bar without breathing any smoke? That the teenagers at the bars will develop a smoking habit? If a bar cannot compel you to patronize them, why is it your "right" to go to that bar... and if that wasnt enough, to start making demands about what they do in the bar?
There are lots of laws pertaining to what property owners can and cannot do on their own property. Private businesses who profit from operating in the public sphere are certainly subject to regulation by the public (government).
Really what's being argued is where the line is that government should or shouldn't cross. Pro-ban people are giving legitimate health reasons for where they feel the line should be. Anti-ban people can only come up with "private property" and "nanny staters".
what about people with peanut allergies? they stopped serving peanuts on planes because of that. maybe we ought to ban peanuts in restaurants
Not the same thing at all. That's an individual risk. Smoking is a hazard to everybody, not just a few. But nice try.
Whether or not they are legitimate is sort of an opinion. I would consider them illegitimate.
The question is - Is the smoke easily avoidable? The answer is clearly yes. You may not know if meat was handled appropriately, but you certainly know if smoking is allowed at a bar or restaurant - therefore there is no need for "protection", just don't go in the place! If meat that was not handled correctly had a label on it that said "BAD MEAT", then we wouldn't need those government regulations either.
are you talking about me healthy? it seems that someone with a peanut allergy can't go into the esquire because peanuts are everywhere. how is that fair?
"Regulating smoking in places where food is served is no different than all the other regulations: food temperature, sanitizing, hair nets, etc. Where's your “freedom of choice” argument when it comes to how hot your hamburger has to be cooked?"
Failures in these area can lead to an immediate health effect - smoking SOMETIMES leads to problems. The risks related to food are also often impossible to see. And finally, there is also some implied warranty that food is fit for consumption.
We have had numerous cases that say patrons to golf courses, ball games, and hockey games assume the risk of being struck by a ball or puck when they enter the venue. I see entering a smoky bar the same way. You know the risk - you choose.
YummyPizza--at least for me, it's a private property rights, free market issue. I really think that had the no-smoking crowd lobbied the various restaurants, that they would have gotten more of them to go
smoke-free voluntarily, which is what I prefer, rather than the government coming in and imposing it. If the next argument is what about bartenders who work in bars, then the answer is that they are free to get jobs in smoke-free environments, and if enough people do that, then the bars will go smoke-free as well. I would have been happy with a compromise of no-smoking in restaurants, and smoking allowed in bowling alleys and bars, but apparently enough of the no-smoking crowd wanted to take their kids to bars (sarcasm intended) so that compromise wasn't acceptable. I see this as a Democrat-GOP issue because of the free market issue--I thought I saw some restaurants already going that way, but again, nothing less than 100% would satisfy the no-smoking crowd. I suspect that the next issue will be a fat tax on fast food.
The effect of smoke on heart disease is well documented. Seems pretty legitimate to me.
I guess you're right, I do appear socialist in this regard. So, the approach you are taking is that the businesses are private property... they can do as they please on their property.
That sounds good, in principle. However, smoking is a serious (though slow-acting) health hazard presented to employees and patrons - and it is an acute hazard presented to some (asthmatics, etc.)... Let's approximate that the acute hazard people represent 1% of the population, smokers represent about 20%, goal is 12% by 2010. Big assumption here, assume 10% of people will try to avoid smoking establishment. Do you as a business, A. ignore those 1%? B. ignore those 20% ? C. ignore those 10% You choose A and C. You understand that as the smokers decrease and the 10% increase, you'll switch. However, the bottom line is the dictating factor. To hell with what's good for society, right, because who am I to judge?
So, now let's address the 'cannot compel you to patronize, why is it your right'... This is a legitimate argument, however, the question I have is, "tell me when there is a legitimate right to regulate"? Health? Equal protection? Anything, Nothing? Separate by equal (we know this is impossible)...? Health - meaning contaminated food - won't know I've been poisoned until after I visit, or I read media, etc.? OK, smoke, how's it different - well, you know going in... so, when can you regulate fairly? So far, I can't find a sufficient explanation about why it is my right. I'll keep thinking.
Anonymous=--I guess I meant to say that Ennen's set is up in 2007. I know she's leaving--I haven't heard anything about who they would suggest to replace her.
Pirok is quoted in the News-Gazette as follows:
"This is not about the rights of business owners and smokers, this is about the rights of non-smokers."
Apparently so, Ken. It's so easy to decide thorny issues when you decide to consider only the interests of one constituency.
The world certainly isn't coming to an end because of this, but hopefully the council terms of the do-gooders are.
Champaigndweller, I think we're pretty well in agreement. I do think that less than 100% would be appropriate (although, smoke-free bars and bowling (especially) would be much appreciated by me, my wife, and kids - my son loves bowling). There's something to be said for free markets. The unfortunate thing is that the market is much slower to respond - meanwhile people are being hurt... hmm, no easy answer.
I am so excited that I now have the "choice" to go hear live music in the bars in downtown Champaign!!! What a lot of whining and silliness is being posted on this site by the losers. Now the 85% of us who do not want to inhale poisonous gases will not have the will of a minority imposed on us and they can no longer block us from enjoying going to a bar with a wall of Class A carcinogenic smoke. YEAH!!! Hurrah!!!!
Private property rights are a hallmark of our freedoms, and are used to settle numerous disputes among citizens of this nation. These rights are treaded on in great frequency, but that does not mean it should be done with reckless abandon. Is there a solution that doesn't involve gov't interference? In this case, many would say there is. Obviously others don't think so.
This isn't strictly a liberal thought process, although i think the reflex to look for the gov't solution first is more widely seen among libs than cons.
(Cultural conservatives want to force cable companies to offer a-la-carte options - is there a solution that doesn't involve gov't interference?)
Participant, I'm just curious: In the last month, how many times did you frequent bars with live music? How many times do you expect to go in the next month?
Although I consider myself a conservative, I also don't want government interference to impose my will--the tv chanel is a good example of that. I assume that if enough people complain, or don't watch, then the business will voluntarily change. I don't expect everyone to agree with me or to tailor their lives to suit me.
As for Pirok, well I think we all now understand where he stands. I had thought he was more strongly in support of business, but now I wonder if he just doesn't fall into the category of listening to those who yell the loudest.
Property rights... why can I go in, why can I force it non-smoking? Why can't I drink from this fountain? Not really a fair comparison - but, similar. Would the businesses have eventually let minorities in? Certainly. Did it tick off some patrons? Certainly. So, how does it parallel? Well, all of us non-smokers (majority) haven't really had a lot of free choice (just like the minorities in the example), but the smokers have had more-or-less free-reign. Why haven't non-smokers had a lot of free choice? Because of institutional/market lag, risk-aversion, etc. Pretty similar in that regard. I don't know. Toy with this concept.
Now the 85% of us who do not want to inhale poisonous gases will not have the will of a minority imposed on us and they can no longer block us from enjoying going to a bar with a wall of Class A carcinogenic smoke.
Oh man, this is what I was afraid of. Looks like whenever I go out I'll have to bring my depleted uranium air freshener to keep these people at bay.
"Well, all of us non-smokers (majority) haven't really had a lot of free choice"
And now you have replace it with smokers not having any options, thru the force of gov't. You have replaced one set of "victims" with another.
YummyPizza: The reason non-smokers don't have more clout in the marketplace is that (in the case of bars, not restaurants), the smokers ARE the majority.
In other words, even if only 21% of the general poplulation is non-smoking (hence your "majority"), that percentage pretty obviously doesn't hold true for the universe of bar patrons.
If anyone thinks bars will be overflowing with grateful ("majority") patrons after August 1, I have some coastal property north of Mahomet to sell you.
Yummy,
While I personally appreciate the end with a smoke-free result, I can't support the means because it flies in the face of our Constitution. In other words, it's not just about me and what I want. There are civil libertarian conservatives, who don't like bans or government spying.
Have you ever studies Supreme Court Constitutional decisions? Time after time, the key themes are whether (and if so how) essential is the end goal and how can it be achieved with the least government intrusion. Too strong an intrusion often gets overturned when other viable alternatives are available.
Did the city council explore both the need and whether less intrusive means would obtain similar results? While I question the "need" to control people, other methods such as tobacco licenses would be far less intrusive and almost certainly as effective as the current loopholes. A sunset clause would also make it somewhat less intrusive.
Agree or disagree with the ban....Anyone who is lobbying or even trying to degrade the health risks smoking (second hand or firing up a cig. yourself) has is extremely unintelligent. I wish those of you on this post would quit acting like smoking MIGHT or SOMETIMES have health effects. It may be slow acting (most times), but it quite obviously is a health issue. I'm more against the ban than for it, and I understand both sides. Please try to keep the facts straight, and don't let partisan/personal feelings destroy the medical/scientifically proven truth.
Yummypizza--I think that the civil rights argument doesn't work. The Constitution states that all men are created equal, so I think I hang my hat on that for this issue--the Constitution also gurantees private property rights. I don't think it guarntees any of us particular choices or freedom from smoke, unless you think that it falls somewhere in the penumbra of privacy rights that the Warren Court found.
all of us non-smokers (majority) haven't really had a lot of free choice (just like the minorities in the example), but the smokers have had more-or-less free-reign.
Umm. Since when do you speak for all non-smokers? I guess I might smoke a cigarette every couple of months just out of principle, but really I don't smoke and I still find this policy annoying. Not everybody is as fastidious and smoking averse as the average anti-smoking activist, you know. I choose to frequent smoking establishments all the time.
Someone should make a bet with the Varb-ster: If the incidence of lung cancer drops by 5% or more in the next three years, he wins five grand. If they stay the same, he leaves town and never shows his face again.
Think he'd take it?
Or how about this? If none or one of the smaller bars goes out of business in the next three years, Varb wins the dough. If two or more go under, he leaves town. Who thinks he'd take that one?
"I wish those of you on this post would quit acting like smoking MIGHT or SOMETIMES have health effects."
J-dub, lifetime smokers have died of old age - it has happened. And likewise, the spouses of lifetime smokers have died of old age.
Some skydivers die on impact, and many enjoy the thrill jump after jump.
I don't think anyone has contended smoking was a healthy activity, but walking into a smoky bar is not the same thing as eating salmonella-filled raw beef.
Now Kenny, I could be mistaken, but I believe the Boulder study was debunked as bad science. I don't know about Helena's...
Big E, I seriously doubt that truth about smokers being the majority in bars. Some bars, yes, most bars, no. And - this may be a big and, maybe that shows that permitting smoking in bars may be contributing to smoking addiction. One theory I have is that smokers make up a bigger percent of the population in bars/restaurants than the rest of the population (don't know this is true) because they don't smoke in their own home - so they find a comfortable place to do it. Where-as, non-smokers go out less because of the smoke in these establishments.... Could be wrong...
redstate,
correct, many lifetime smokers have died from old age. Just like there are many people who can't breathe if they catch even a slight whiff of smoke. I'm not arguing who dies from what. Also correct that they are not one in the same (smoking and raw beef). I'm not contesting that, but there are several posts that have inferred smoking isn't a health issue.
One Ex. "smoking SOMETIMES leads to problems." - redstatewannabe
It would seem wise to stick to the political ramifications of this resolution and leave the science/health issues to the scientists and doctors.
"correct, many lifetime smokers have died from old age. Just like there are many people who can't breathe if they catch even a slight whiff of smoke."
that sounds a lot like SOMETIMES to me
Well, since we have no statistical data to prove the number of lifetime smokers who died of natural causes or who cannot tolerate smoke inhalation; I guess we can't classify SOMETIMES correctly on either side.
I'm looking at this and saying to myself..."how many businesses are really going to close up shop over this?" My guess, a handful if that so it doesn't bother me one way or the other.
Chances are those businesses sucked anyways if it takes a pack of cigs to get your clientel in the establishment in the first place. I'm sorry but if a smoking haven is all you are offering and that's enough to put you out of business, than you deserve it. You obviously aren't a very effective business owner.
I think this will only improve the quality of life for everyone in the area.
There are plenty of things that are bad for us. I don't really want to debate that--I think the real issue is whether we, as a society, can be trusted to make these decisions ourselves, and let the market deal with them, or are we content to have our government tell us, increasingly, what we can and cannot do. I myself prefer less government intervention in life, but I understand that there are those who want the government to make these decisions.
(Somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but also kind of a serious question...)
Assume because of smoking bans, everyone lives longer.... Obviously, this means they will collect more Social Security over their longer lifetimes. I wonder if anyone has done an analysis comparing "one-time" health care costs of a smoker dying at an early age, to the costs of a healthy person receiving longer-term Social Security??
Things that make me go "hmmmmmm....."
the risk involved is pertinent to the discussion, J-dub. If 1 of every 2 people who smoked for 1 year died of lung cancer, smoking would be illegal and we wouldn't be having this discussion. (Of if smoke was invisible and odorless, and caused an immediate violent reaction from some % of the public)
Kenny, from your own link:
"Results showed that heart attack rates among Pueblo city residents decreased by nearly 30 percent after implementation of the city's Smokefree Indoor Air Act. By contrast, heart attack hospitalizations for individuals living outside the city limits ”“ and unaffected by the smoke-free air law ”“ increased by 26 percent during the same time period, according to the study."
So the good people of Pueblo were rewarded by their virtuous decision while their neighbors suffered more heart attacks by, well, doing nothing at all.
Do you still not see the problem? I'll spell it out: If doing nothing increases the risk of heart attack by 26% each year, then after three years, there should be double the number of heart attacks. After five years, it should over three times. (After seven years, everyone is dead and the study concludes.)
That's Ig Nobel Prize-worthy research. "Junk," in other words.
To me, the risk is pertinent because this has been sold has "public health" necessity, even though the public health impact will be so minimal as to be immeasurable. Why? Because the vast majority of secondhand smoke exposure for children, asthmatics, people with lung conditions occurs in their residence, because they happen to live with smokers. And this ban does nothing to address that.
The entire "public health" rationale is convenient, but not the real reason for the ban - the real reason is that some people are annoyed by smokers, and so they passed a bill to stop someone else's annoying behavior. That's it.
That said, it's remarkable that this has generated so much activity and discussion. Of all the things to spend thousands of dollars and hours to get passed, this meaningless piece of tripe just doesn't seem worth it, especially given the non-existant health benefits. Just goes to show the lengths to which people will go when they want to stop someone else's annoying behavior.
j-dub: I know that I wouldn't want to be the guy who puts even a "handful" of local pubs out of business.
You and your pals on the council should outlaw french fries next. After all, any fast food joint that can't adapt must have "sucked anwways."
Gordy,
Glad to know that you are aware of the thoughts and motives of people supporting the ban. It must be a burden for you to be so clairvoyant.
My personal favorite moment from last night was the little old guy who came up carrying an oxygen bottle and wheezed out his opposition to a smoking ban. That coupled with a mayor whose chest wound is still raw from removing one-third of his lung, made an impressive display.
The warm up act was Jim "clearing my phlegm" Cross and Gene "raspy" Gladney both pointing out that smoking never hurt anyone.
Quite a night for democracy, but democracy hurts when you are in the minority.
Louis Gossett, Jr. (City Council): That's it, Mayo. You're out. No more smoking.
Richard Gere (Smokers): (sobbing hysterically) Don't you do it! Don't you do it! I got nowhere else to go! I got nowhere else to go! I got nothin' else.....
Wow - 98 posts so far...blather blather.....
The real question is this: how in the world do you ban something that is LEGAL and the state taxes for revenue??
the effects of smoking vary from person to person and the debate shouldn't be about the severity of smoking as it relates to body count. Sure you can classify certain groups, but I'm sure if it was easy science we would have eliminated these problems already.
dweller hit it on the head:
"the real issue is whether we, as a society, can be trusted to make these decisions ourselves, and let the market deal with them, or are we content to have our government tell us, increasingly, what we can and cannot do."
Instead of desensitizing the health factors, lets talk about the real issues here. I happen to agree with dweller, less government is better in my eyes. I just wish we all had a say and not just 9 people. I'm all for majority rules. I don't like the fact that a handful of people get to dictate policy on anything. I also think you would find a pretty even split amongst voters.
I'm real sure everyone went through all this trouble becaue of "annoying smokers". Give me a break. That is ridiculous and somewhat of a stereotype; are smokers somehow annoying? If anything cell phones would be way up my annoying list over smokers.
Gordy you have a tendency to blanket everyone with an opposing view as stupid, annoying, etc. Maybe you should open your eyes and see that maybe they have a valid argument and have an intellectual conversation instead of saying "you guys are stupid" all the time; even in cases where that could possibly be the case. Is Judy a smoker?
Big E, I'm not saying I WANT to put those people out of business. I'm just stating the facts. If you can't survive this resolution (a.k.a. "this meaningless piece of tripe"); then you deserve to go out of business. A successful entreprenuer would deal with it and embrace it and maybe even go out of their way to make it a positive effect on their business. Whether they agree with it or not.
Let's predict one thing: The next restaurant or bar that closes in Champaign will say they closed because of the smoking ban.
Sadly, the hundreds who have closed before today had to find other excuses.
Want an interesting exercise? Find a ten year old phone book for CU and see how many restaurants are no longer around. Had the smoking ban failed, all local restaurants would have survived indefinitely.
Is a cigarette the only legal thing that cannot now be used inside a restaurant? Or perhaps are there other things that are "perfectly legal" as they say, which cannot be used inside a public restaurant?
"Glad to know that you are aware of the thoughts and motives of people supporting the ban. It must be a burden for you to be so clairvoyant."
It's actually not much of a burden at all, although it annoys my wife sometimes.
I think ther will be 3 hooka bars closed soon It is hard to do that without smoking. But im sure Julian Simon will blame that on poor managment.
The one thing that I have noticed from recent City council developments is their increasing willingness to take on more issues, regulate more, and involve themselves more in our day-to-day lives. Will anyone be surprised if there is now some kind of user fee, or increased license fee to restaurants because the health district can't enforce this without more staff and more money?
I would rather that the City of Champaign do a few things well, such as provide streets, police, fire protection, and other things that the private sector can't do, rather than try to be all things to all people and do everything in a mediocre fashion.
I realize that the City won't implode tomorrow because of this ban, but I'm disappointed that when there are so many things that the City needs to be doing, that they are spending valuable time and money on this, when the market can easily take care of it, if allowed to.
The callousness of those who dismiss the real impact of the ban on long-time small business owners in this community is sickening.
These people were here a hell of a long time before a lot of us, and could lose their livelihood because of a handful of self-righteous, holier-than-thou do-gooders.
Hmm. Remarkably, I agree almost eniterly with Gordy Hulten's observations on this isssue. Most of my friends support this ban, and they always talk about how much they hate the smell of smoke in their hair, and so on. Nobody says, "Oh whenever I go out I am forced to confront the unhealthy habits of my fellow men and women, and moved to change those habits," or voices a fear of lung cancer from passive smoke, or sympathy for suffering bar workers.
At bottom this is imho mostly about not wanting to smell icky, and legislating the behavior of others so that you don't have to. If this is really about workplace saftey, we'll soon see the anti-smoking activists go on to advocate a range of other workplace saftey laws now that they've finished with this one. But I won't hold my breath.
"If this is really about workplace saftey, we'll soon see the anti-smoking activists go on to advocate a range of other workplace saftey laws now that they've finished with this one."
The Alliance used to openly state this very goal on their website - no smoking in any workplaces. I am holding my breath that workers in factories and retail won't be able to go to a break room for a smoke during their workday.
Varble, of course, is insufferable on his blog. Wonder if Dodds, Bruno and Pirok will ultimately realize that they were manipulated by a carpetbagger.
"Participant, I'm just curious: In the last month, how many times did you frequent bars with live music? How many times do you expect to go in the next month?"
I do not frequent bars now nor will I in the next month as there will still be smoking. Come August I will be thrilled to be able to regularly enjoy the local music scene. I have friends who play in bands and I belong to groups that meet regularly for happy hour and I cannot go because I cannot breath. Now I will be able to go and I expect to do so regularly.
"Oh man, this is what I was afraid of. Looks like whenever I go out I'll have to bring my depleted uranium air freshener to keep these people at bay."
I will ask you to dance;-)
One thing that I think is interesting is that I believe Bruno, Dodds and Pirok forget that not too long ago, Varble was in front of the City Council yelling about how some thing they were considering offended him down to his very Republican bones. We now see how deep that went--when he couldn't get his way, and Jerry upset him, he changed parties, I believe, although I don't know what he considers himself to be now.
Healthylungs, you concede that smoking is a health risk and assuming arguendo, a substantial state interest, justifying the ban. Would you concede that alcohol is also a health risk and, following the logic of the smoke ban, is similarly worthy of a ban?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_consumption_and_health
I think he discovered that NY Republican and Champaign, IL Republican were 2 different things.
I want to be able to attend a Catholic Mass without having to breath incense smoke, which is a lot worse than cigarette smoke. There oughta be a law.... Throw the Priests in jail.
I want to be able to use a public restroom without inhaling human waste particles that are always present in the air of public bathrooms. There oughta be a law....
I want to be able to walk into a government school without having to inhale mold spores, dead skin cells, cleaning chemicals, bleach from paper, or bacteria and viruses that cause sickness. There oughta be a law....
Get over the Varble bashing already--his house is already on the market. Ironically, he will probably not be living in Champaign by the time the smoking ban goes into effect.
If you hadn't been so mean to him, maybe he would have stayed. :-)
Alex,
Not all alcohol is harmful at all levels. ALL cigarette smoke is harmful at ALL levels. Another red herring....
It's over.
Pick a new topic.
"ALL cigarette smoke is harmful at ALL levels."
nothing is harmful at ALL levels - let's not get carried away
"It's over.
Pick a new topic. "
Oh no, haven't you been reading all of the above posts. Next, the bad people are not going to let me smoke in my own house. Then they're coming for our french fries. It's a slippery slope man! Wake up before it's too late!
RSW,
Do you know of any level of cigarette smoke which is safe?
First - no smoking in airplanes. Then, mandatory smoking sections in restaurants. Then no smoking in gov't public buildings. Now no smoking in privately owned public buildings.
Kind of looks like a slope to me, but maybe I'm just paranoid.
RSW,
Do you know of any level of cigarette smoke which is safe?
Healthy lungs, we have arsenic in our water. At certain levels it will kill you. At certail levels it harmless. Same with radiation.
If you tell me 1 puff a day on a cig is not safe, how about 1 puff every other day? How about a waft of smoke from a guy 1 room over who just took a single puff? I can always get a smaller dose - at some point even you would have to conclude that at that level it is not harmful.
Cigarette smoke introduces free radicals into the body. Free radicals are what are believed to cause cancer. One drag/breath is all it takes. Some people are more resistant than others to free radical damage, which is why not every person who breathes smoke gets cancer. Nonetheless, there is NO safe level of cigarette smoke.
Participant writes:
I will ask you to dance;-)
Alright! I knew that depleted uranium air freshener would be good for something!
“the real issue is whether we, as a society, can be trusted to make these decisions ourselves..."
Sounds to me lkike we just (finally) did.
"Kind of looks like a slope to me, but maybe I'm just paranoid. "
I'm tellin' ya, you'd better eat those fries while you can.
From Wikipedia:
"Controversially, smoking can also allegedly prevent and in some cases 'cure' asthma as the smoke particulates have a tendency to desensitise the bronchia therefore preventing the onset of bronchiospasms when around allergenic substances or asthmatic attack causing environs. This topic is hotly argued between doctors and laymen alike, having a widespread reputation via word of mouth is the primary basis of the allegations, whilst scientific testing is inconclusive or alternately aligned depending on sources."
"Tobacco has sometimes been reported to have some positive health effects, presumably due to the effects of nicotine on the nervous system. Most notably, some studies have found that patients with Alzheimer's Disease are more likely not to have smoked than the general population, which has been interpreted to suggest that smoking offers some protection against Alzheimers."
Be afraid: Get a brain. You sitting next to me eating fries (or peanuts or salmonella-covered steak) does not affect my health. You sitting next to me smoking DOES affect my health. Is that so hard to comprehend?
They can pry my french fries from my cold, dead, cholesterol-stained fingers.
"Sounds to me lkike we just (finally) did."
According to the property rights argument, the city council members are just a bunch of nanny-staters. They couldn't possibly simply be representing the wishes of the people who elected them. Cause the rights of the business owners should always outweigh the rights of the common folk. If you don't like smoke, just stay home you big babies!
"If you don't like smoke, just stay home you big babies!"
Or you and the (reputed) 75% of you who don't like smoke could tell each business owner that you'd spend more money there if they went non-smoking on their own.
But that was too hard.
OF,
Dude, learn how to recognize sarcasm. It's not that hard to comprehend.
Gordy,
Do you think the manager of the local Applebys, or any other national chain, has the authority to yield to customer demand in Champaign to go smoke free? Do you think maybe that might be more of a corporate decision? Do you think if I complained to the 21-year-old manager at Burger King that he would remove the ash trays? Sometimes (hopefully rarely) it is necessary for government to get involved.
I have to admit I was mildly (or wildly) amused at Mike LaDue's vote AGAINST the ban. Finally he's talking out of the right side of his mouth instead of the left side. He's never had any problem imposing his left wingnut will on businesses before. Remember the garbage haulers or the farmers in Homer who were going to loose there land to the ISWDA landfill. Mike had NO PROBLEM putting them out of business. Now it's his ox that's getting gored and he puffing a different tune.
But hey, he is to the city council what Diane Chambers was to Cheers--an intellectual wannabe, with a resume' of an eighth grader who drones on and on and on hoping someone thinks he's really worth listening to.
I agree with his vote on this issue, but what goes around, comes around and now it's his "business of choice" and his "vice of choice" that his liberal buddies are comming after. Now it a whole different story.
"Cigarette smoke introduces free radicals into the body."
Breathing fresh air also introduces free radicals into the body. Believe it or not, all of the regulations in the world will not prevent you from dying.
Don't forget to tune in tonight to Channel 5 on the CU cable system.
The replay started at 7, just like Tuesday's meeting; so around about 10:30 the public comment will wind up and you can hear Jerry and Vic explain to Rosales why he is going to lose, and you can hear Rosales explain why he will bring it back again. Its the final 45 minutes from 10:30 to 11:15 that will surpass Leno and Letterman tonight. Set those VCR's.
Watch Ennen's jaw drop open. The Piland-like political genius of this group shines through.
So are there any decent bars in Savoy? The only one I know about is (I think) called the Senator's Inn off 45.
Those who think the health issues are clear ought to look at the studies summarized on this website:
http://www.forces.org/evidence/study_list.htm
Since the studies are identified, I'm assuming whoever summarized them just didn't make up the information. Most fail to show much, if any, statistically signifincant linkage between second hand smoke and diseases linked to smoking. Facts are stubborn things.
In Florida flight attendants exposed to smoke during the period when airlines allowed smoking have been permitted to sue the tobacco companies. When I last checked 11 cases have been tried to juries who've heard evidence on this issue presented by good lawyers who are permitted to cross-examine each other's experts on this issue. In 10 of the cases, juries found for the tobacco companies. The only case won by a flight attendant produced a verdict of only about $200,000, which probably didn't cover the costs of the expert witnesses. Sorry I lost the link to this information.
The Senator's Inn. Now there's a fun party spot. You may be able to smoke, but you are forced to go to Savoy. Its a net-negative.
This "voting with your feet" will have the same dramatic effect as the boycott of Unit 4 schools by the two angry moms of trouble-maker kids over the SRO issue.
There WILL be more bars in Savoy, etc., you can bet on that. Downtown Champaign doesn't have a lock on the bar crowd.
One final thought before trying to get some real work done.
How long will it be before one of the major political parties tries to take advantage of what is becoming a discriminated against minority. Smokers and those who oppose draconian smoking regulations make up a larger group than Afro-Americans or Hispanics, who politicians constantly pander to. It could be a larger group than theocratic Christians. Could one of the parties promise legislation to require "reasonable accomodation" of smokers without offending the majority of non-smokers? Perhaps coupled with a promise to increase research on ways to break nicotine addiction (there are some anti-nicotine vaccines in trials now which may be an effective way to treat this problem; certainly more effective than government regulations).
It's amazing to see the differences in realistic, common sense attitudes on this issue. Dare I say that all these pro-ban types have NO CLUE as to what real small business ownership is like, and what it really means to serve the public or your constituency. They are so used to big government handing out thier "sustanance" they can't get their small minds around a free market concept.
Alright, I have posted a few sarcastic messages that were precieved as real. In reality. Comparing a smoking ban to fire escapes is incorrect. Providing fire escapes don't inhibit anyone. They don't keep anyone from doing anything they could do with out a fire escape. Over all health? If you don't want smoke around you, don't go to an establishment dedicated to serving poisonous drinks to people. I really don't give a shit if people are smoking while I'm on my 12th bud (not bud light, I'm no pussy). If someone is truely concerened about their health then they should not be at bar to begin with. Bars (who's goal is to serve as much alcohol as possible to every patron) aren't possitive environments to begin with. The peer influence at bars to drink is far greater than the peer influence to smoke. Just go to a bar, almost EVERYONE is drinking. Maybe 25% are smoking at a time. The bottom line is, most people who go to bars are going to drink an excessive, unhealthy amount of alcohol. It isn't like that bars are some sort of pristine places of worship that need to be made safe for everyone.
Come on down to Savoy. They're pro business rights. Let the establishments decide their clientele and vice versa.
We need an office pool to quess when the county will be pressured by the same crowd.
Well, having watched much of the replay, I have to say that the folks opposed to the ban came across as a bunch of yahoos, for the most part. The idea that waitresses and staff are exposed to the second-hand smoke seemed like the winning argument to me, but who knows.
Before watching the broadcast I was pretty strongly against this ban. After watching this I think they did the right thing.
Just my two cents.
The arguments of the pro-smoking crowd were fairly transparent. You could tell that most of the folks who spoke about "business rights" were actually smokers themselves.
You didn't hear from the Cochrane family or from Carlos Nieto, the biggest players in the liquor industry in Campus and downtown respectively.
You didn't hear about "business rights" from the owners of a single establishment that already prohibits indoor smoking.
Not a single chain or national franchise sent a representative to talk about "business rights".
You didn't hear from anyone from the Chamber of Commerce, or any bankers who had loans extended to any of these businesses.
You didn't hear from bar owner Cody Sokolski, but his wife did cast a vote.
You didn't hear from any other downtown investors, like Dr. Youngerman, about how all this loss of business was going to hurt the buildings he owns, since Youngerman is the landlord for Tracks, Radio Maria, Jupiter and High Dive.
No, instead you heard from chain-smoking Jim Cross and a guy with an oxygen bottle. And the three vocal opponents on the city council were the two chain-smokers, Jerry (yes, he still smokes) and Vic; and Ladue (regular champion of business rights)
The problem for the right is that talking about business rights is completely ineffective with activists. If you don't understand the language of the other side, you simply can't communicate effectively, which is a problem if you're in the minority, such as smokers.
However, if you start talking about the Constitution and the Supreme Court's dedication to minimizing government intrusion into private lives then you start gaining understanding and acknowledgements that perhaps the smoking ban went too far and less severe measures were possible that would sufficiently achieve desired ends without resorting to oppressive means. A big part of the Constitution is designed to protect minorities against popular opinion and the left understands that very well.
While I like the end result of the ban, the means are too severe when many less extreme alternatives would have sufficed. What I want isn't as important as our Constitution's committment to minimally instrusive government.
For example, most non-smokers like myself are far more concerned about restaurants and to a lesser extent music venues, unlike bars where children are rare and we expect smoke. Obviously, a narrower ban is less intrusive government. Why not tax businesses that want to allow smoking by selling permits? Mandatory health insurance (probably more costly in smoking establishments) for all employees is another less intrusive alternative than a ban. Smokers might end up paying higher prices, but that's fair for the extra health costs.
I like the idea about government permits.
Can I buy one to keep out handicapped people instead of pesky ADA compliance?
The race-banning permits could be higher-priced.
Ah, free enterprise!
So now non-smokers are a Federally protected class, like racial minorities and persons with disabilities? Could you be any more ridiculous?
It's not that ridiculous... People with asthma, allergies, and other respiratory ailments are handicapped in respect to air quality.
It seems plausible that this insult to her pomposity will be all it takes for Ennen to refuse to resign and to pull a "Maggie Mattingly" by moving away but keeping her city paycheck.
That's really better for all of us than having the dems on the council select her replacement. By my count, even with Ennen absent there are only 3 registered Republicans, Bruno, McIntosh and Schweighart, and they are outnumbered by the 5 registered Democrats who would remain, Pirok, Rosales, Jackson, LaDue and Dodds.
There is no way Feinen stands a chance of getting a vote from any of those Dems.
A Side Benefit--I don't think it matters whether the Council members are registered Republicans or not, if you are expecting some conservative votes out of them. Bruno keeps supporting more spending, and more taxes or user fees, and he supported the smoking ban. As for Feinen, while she's a registered Republican, you can't really call her conservative, and based on some of her previous positions, I don't think you can automatically assume she would have voted against the ban.
So why haven't people with asthma/allergies used the ADA to sue restaurants and bars for allowing smoking? How about sueing city buses for spewing black smoke? Maybe oil companies for causing toxic ozone? How about farmers for planting pollenating crops and spraying chemicals?
I watched the rerun of the council meeting last night. Like seeing a movie twice, it was fun watching, knowing the outcome.
It was a political disaster by Jerry, Vic, and Kathy. They complained about Giraldo not coming to the other council members first to discuss a compromise.
Vic spoke and said that when this comes up again, maybe a compromise could be made, but he didn't have enough sense to make a motion to amend the proposed ordinance, which would have either caused a compromise to occur, or stalled the passage. Same with Jerry and with Kathy. So sure of themselves, they called the question for a vote, and lost.
A compromise was offered months ago at the study session, which J-V-K rejected. Gina and Marci were for the compromise then, as was Pirok. IF Jerry, or Vic, or Mike, or Kathy had been willing to offer a compromise (restaurants, not bars) THAT compromise would have passed Tuesday.
Because of Jerry, Vic, and Kathy, and their (ahem..."hubris") NO compromise was offered, none could be voted on, and it went down in flames.
Jerry tossing his pen in disgust and Kathy sighing so loudly was just plain tacky, but not as tacky as trying to adjourn and then getting voted down on the adjounment.
Just like the AWARE knuckleheads who outmanuvered Jerry on their idiotic impeach Bush referendum, so too was Jerry outmanuvered by Giraldo.
Thanks Jerry (and Vic and Kathy) your political skills only continue to grow. Not.
I absolutely won't support Giraldo for election to anything, but Jerry has shown that he is no longer the leader we need in the Mayor's office. If I was Eric Meyer or Jim Cross (mostly drinks, little food) I would start finding a good candidate for mayor who supports business.
"At least I have principles. All you'll have is better smelling clothing if you ever actually step foot into a tavern or restaurant and don't get thrown out for being an insufferable gloater."
Can we e-mail that to every member of the Smoke Free Alliance.
Good stuff.
Will they shut down my favorite pizza place because cheese is fattening?
Will they shut down all restaurants who sell products that have been produced/raised with anything artificial?
Will they shut down bars because beer causes liver problems ... or limit bar owners to only selling 3 per customer per night?
What's next?