Today by a vote of 34-23 the Illinois Senate passed a bill that would ban smoking in indoor public places statewide.
Somewhere, Matt Varble is dancing.
I think we've been through the whole debate locally...but let me ask you this. Now that Champaign and The People's Republic of Urbana have passed smoking bans, would a statewide ban help even the playing field?
Here's the text of the bill, just in case you're interested.
And, the three Senators that represent Champaign County. Mike Frerichs, Dale Righter, and Dan Rutherford, all voted "no."
fabulous! any idea if the house will follow suit? what about the guv?
The AP news release was interesting. Statement from the American Cancer Society:, "Working eight hours in a smoky bar or restaurant is the equivalent of smoking 16 cigarettes." Wow. I smoke 10 cigarettes during an 8 hour period. I could stop buying cigarettes and work in a bar. This propaganda is just so absurd. The scary thing is that it seems the majority of the public is buying it.
If cigarettes are deadly poison, why isn't there a push for making cigarettes illegal to make or sell? Can you say excise taxes to the tune of $3/4 billion a year into the Illinois treasury? And that's in addition to sales tax. If cigarettes are a health issue, ban them totally.
Any politician first in line for this one?
Using excise tax revenue gereration and legality in defense of an addiction seems like an interesting approach.
Eggs ackley : Very few people are so abysmally stupid as to believe the absurd ACS propaganda and in any case unimpeachable sources beg to differ.
But nonsmokers outnumber smokers 4 to 1 and therefore enjoy the ego trip of bullying smokers. It's called mob rule.They're paving the way for a nanny state that will pull their own plug.
A government can claim anything as a 'health issue" and cigarettes ARE
on the way to being illegal. If you think that's the way it should be, why do you smoke a pack a day?
Its hard to believe that you folks are still seriously debating whether cigarettes are unhealthy.
Those of us who are non-smokers see you smokers arguing that cigarettes are not unhealthy, and we cannot help but come to the conclusion that since your logic is flawed for this it is probably flawed for the other conclusions you reach.
What does the GOP "Business rights" crowd have to say about Christine Radogno's sponsorship of SB500?
Christine would have been fine as Treasurer, where her liberal social positions would not have been relevant.
"Very few people are so abysmally stupid as to believe the absurd ACS propaganda and in any case unimpeachable sources beg to differ."
Your Relay-For-Life dollars at work.
Your Relay-For-Life dollars at work.
Yeah, and that is really sad too. I know people that really get fired up over the Relay - it is a great event. And then ACS skims away research money to lobby.
"ACS skims away research money to lobby. "
Can you name any sizable research group that is not doing exactly the same thing? I'll take guesses even.
http://jimmyv.org/
the home page does mention "advocacy", but I am not sure of specifics
Also, as an aside - the bill that passed the State Senate specifically exempts casinos for a number of years, because it would hurt their business and cause their smoking patrons to gamble in other states' casinos.
But I thought banning smoking was good for business?
Isn't there going to be an influx of healthy busybody non-smokers into the casinos to enjoy their gambling vice?
Surely the casino owners must be lying about a smoking ban hurting their business, right?
OK, so the state cares about their business, casinos, and the money they make, but doesn't care about anyone elses.
"Isn't that precious"
I read the synopsis of the state smoking ban bill, and if I understand correctly, the state ban supercedes all local bans. It appears that home-rule units of government can pass bans that are tighter than the state ban, but not pass ordinances that allow smoking in places banned by the state law. In light of that, what does it mean for the Champaign city council elections? Reading the comments from an early posting to this blog, it appears that many were hoping that electing certain people to the council, that is Feinan, Foster, and Bruno, would result a majority willing to modify or recind the city ordinance. Now that there will be a state law, I have no doubt the governor will sign it, prohibiting smoking in so-called public places, it appears all that scheming is now moot. At least in regards to smoking ordinances. I will likely still vote for those three, but now it will have to be for other reasons, such as, keeping those who believe the scope of government should be universal off the council.
Never mind - an emailer alerted me that the amendment exempting casinos was tabled.
I'd read yesterday that was a done deal, but I'm sorry for the error.
"...the state ban supercedes all local bans."
Unless a court decides that it violates Article VII, Section 6 of the Illinois Constitution, which spells out home-rule protections.
Eggs, your a hoot. You lump together politics and science like you know what your talking about. Your smoking has obviously biased (or clouded) your head. Do you personally know of any doctor that recommends smoking? That is the beauty and entertaining aspect of this site. Ignorant people are allowed to express their opinions.
Here's a tidbit: Hawaii is considering amending their ban to exempt bars and restaurants.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessioncurrent/Bills/HB792_.htm
"Ignorant people are allowed to express their opinions."
As far as I can tell, ignorant people are allowed to express their opinions in a variety of places - have you listened to Penny or read the NG's Letters recently?
I'm thinking about using that as our new motto, though: "Ignorant people are allowed to express their opinions." I like that.
:-)
"Ignorant people are allowed to express their opinions."
Well, you seem like quite a lovely anonymous frightened person. I guess I must be ignorant, because I have no idea to what you refer. I see you don't communicate well, so in the future it would sure help us ignerunt peeple if you would start your ranting with a quote or reference to a statement. And maybe you could enlighten me on the interpretation of the Home Rule Article. HOOOOT
But it looks like they've already found that out, IP.
From the synopsis of the bill text...
"Prohibits smoking within a minimum distance of 15 feet from entrances, exits, windows that open, and ventilation intakes that serve an enclosed area where smoking is prohibited."
Would this mean an end to smoking in the outdoor patios and sidewalk cafe areas? I find this distressing...
Would this mean an end to smoking in the outdoor patios and sidewalk cafe areas? I find this distressing...
That would be typical of the disdain for business owners. First, allow cities to ban smoking, as they see fit. Then, give business owners a little time to adjust, by creating outdoor patios, sidewalk cafes, investing in tables, heaters, structure, etc. Then, change the rules again.
Great business climate here in Illinois.
IP, I'm trying to send you a smoke signal and that is this: You guys better stop blowing smoke over this cigarette issue all the time or this blog's popularity is going up in smoke. It's a hazy issue and no one really cares to hear the same old smoke and mirrors about an outdated, disgusting habit anyway.
"IP, I'm trying to send you a smoke signal and that is this: You guys better stop blowing smoke over this cigarette issue all the time or this blog's popularity is going up in smoke. It's a hazy issue and no one really cares to hear the same old smoke and mirrors about an outdated, disgusting habit anyway. "
If you don't like an article's topic, then don't read it! As for the rest of us, we'll choose to read and post on whatever subject piques our interest.
"IP, I'm trying to send you a smoke signal and that is this: You guys better stop blowing smoke over this cigarette issue all the time or this blog's popularity is going up in smoke. It's a hazy issue and no one really cares to hear the same old smoke and mirrors about an outdated, disgusting habit anyway. "
I'm fascinated by your views, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
This topic wasn't posted by me, anyway. It's been months since I've posted a smoking-related story, I think.
IMHO, it's been a moot point for a while, as I think that the state is going to have a ban that takes effect on July 1 anyway. And I've said so repeatedly, only to be accused of being dinengenuous in some sort of effort to sneak in some pro-smoking candidates onto the Council without anyone knowing where they stand on the issue.
If people talk about, I get blasted. If people don't talk about it, people accuse me of being part of some underhanded plot.
I think I'll just continue to talk about whatever I'd like, and let the chips fall where they may.
I'm not a smoker so the smoking ban doesn't necessarily affect me. I only go out to bars rarely and the restaurants I frequent either did not allow smoking anyway or there was rarely anyone smoking in these particular establishments.
I think the approach taken with the smoking ban might be the wrong way to go. The way I see it, we should simply set a deadline and cuttoff payments for treatment of smoking related diseases. Medicaid/Medicare and insurance companies could be allowed to simply stop covering these expenses. The point being, smoke if you like, but you are on your own. Don't come begging at the public trough and expect the taxpayers or other insured to help pay for the consequences of your poor choice. That is, to start smoking. For those that already smoke, there should be provisions to reinstate coverage after a period of time for those who quit. I believe once people watch a family member die a horrible, suffocating, miserable death, the idea will get around as to how unhealthy a habit smoking is, regardless of how long it takes someone to succumb.
Idealistic-I don't think that anyone can prove conclusively that cigarette smoking can cause a specific persons illness. People who have never smoked have died from lung cancer at a young age as have people who have smoked all their lives have lived 70 or 80 years.
"IP, I'm trying to send you a smoke signal and that is this: You guys better stop blowing smoke over this cigarette issue all the time or this blog's popularity is going up in smoke. It's a hazy issue and no one really cares to hear the same old smoke and mirrors about an outdated, disgusting habit anyway. “*****For an issue no one really cares about their sure seems to be quite a few people posting about it.
"If you think that's the way it should be, why do you smoke a pack a day?"
Because I enjoy it.
"If cigarettes are outlawed, only outlaws will have cigarettes."
"Don't come begging at the public trough and expect the taxpayers or other insured to help pay for the consequences of your poor choice."
I'm stunned by the brilliance and utter simplicity of this plan. This would saves billions in taxes. Especially if we cut off aid to everyone who is dying of a disease from a poor choice they made, not just smokers, but the obese, alcoholics, drug addicts, people who didn't wear a seat belt, speeding drivers, people who tanned in the sun too long, drank unbottled water in a foreign country, didn't put fire detectors in their homes, didn't eat enough vegetables, anyone in prison, or simply anyone who contracted a disease or had an accident as a result of a poor choice they made. The government could form a national "Committee for Judgement of Poor Choices," which would be composed of a group of people who never made a poor choice, and when a person filed an insurance claim, the committee could decide whether that person contracted the disease or had the accident because they made a poor choice. If they decided thumbs down, they would force the person to die a lingering death with no medical attention. There could even be a reality TV show showing these people dying to make an example out of them. That would teach them. I'll bet within a couple of years poor choices would be down to zero.
Vote for me:
Here's my recommendation:
1) Fine tobacco companies and those involved with distribution heavily for every minor who becomes addicted to smoking.
2) Sell smoking licenses for public smoking areas with a long-list of regulations. Offer loans and subsidies to businesses which need help with adjusting their venues to comply. Included on this list would be the option for workers to work non-smoking areas without threat of reprisal. This would naturally create a type of "combat pay" for those who sign up to work in the smoking area. (I realize their are some logistics here which require bars to change, but hey, it's a compromise.)
3) Create designated outdoor smoking areas as exist in other countries. Exact heavy littering fines for those who discard used cigarette butts and enforce them.
4) A comprehensive health care plan would be nice, but short of that get local business owners and artists together to provide health care for musicians.
I would welcome civil and constructive criticism.