The Smoke-Free Illinois Act has now made it through the Illinois General Assembly by an overwhelming margin. The vote was 73-42, far more than most supporters of the bill expected. When asked about the bill, Governor Blagojevich said it was likely something he would “enthusiastically sign.”
If Blagojevich does sign the bill, Illinois will become the 19th state to pass a comprehensive public smoking ban, finally guaranteeing non-smokers the right to breath smoke-free air in bars, restaurants and other public places. The law will take effect on January 1, 2008.
Representative Mike Smith is now on my “bad” list for voting against the ban, but local politicians can now breath easier. They won’t have me on their case to put local bans in place.
13 responses so far ↓
1
jenjw4
// May 3, 2007 at 9:04 am
I am hoping this will go through.
It will be a good thing for our kids and for employees at the affected establishments.
Jennifer
2
C. J. Summers
// May 3, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Wow, this is really a victory. Congratulations.
Instead of smokers going out to bars and restaurants to smoke with their friends, and where everyone has a choice of whether or not to be there, they’ll all be forced to go to their homes and smoke there instead, around their kids, who have no choice of whether to be there.
Also, I find it humorous that you recently chastised Vonster for “advocating government monitoring and control of sales in a private enterprise,” yet this act does just that for retail tobacco stores (Sections 10 & 35/2):
This is a bad bill. If you want to outlaw smoking, then outlaw smoking. Don’t trample on private property rights as a means to another end. There are always unintended consequences when you do.
3
knightindragonland
// May 3, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Hmmm … so someone has guns pointed to the smokers’ heads, forcing them to smoke at home in front of their children??? Don’t you hate it when your own words come back to bite you?
This is about the public health and the personal liberties of non-smokers – THE MAJORITY. Private property rights are secondary to the public interest, and the public has clearly made their will known in this matter. The special privileges accorded to smokers will now end. There is no “right” to befoul the air in public places.
I can chastise Vonster all I want. I’m a moonbat leftie … of course I want government interference, right? I was simply pointing out yet another example of Vonster’s hypocrisy.
4
Kate
// May 3, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Oh, holy crap. I don’t even know where to begin!
“Instead of smokers going out to bars and restaurants to smoke with their friends, and where everyone has a choice of whether or not to be there, they’ll all be forced to go to their homes and smoke there instead, around their kids, who have no choice of whether to be there.”
Are you friggin’ KIDDING me!?! First of all, how many parents do you know still go out to bars drinking with their friends? You’re supposed to go through the bar phase before you bring children into the damn picture. Do you actually know any smoker who smokes in no other situation other than when they go out to a bar?
And as for children being “forced” to be around smoke, just because restaurants shouldn’t (and hopefully soon won’t be able to) let people smoke in restuarants? What? What? WTF? What kind of parents do you know? What kind of selfish asses smoke around their kids anyway? Because you’re 17 and you can’t control the urge enough to go outside to spare… what was that again? Your kids LIFE? Grow up. Stomp your feet and throw a tantrum all you want about a LOSS OF REVENUE, but don’t blame it on a psuedo-plea for the “children who don’t have a choice whether to be around it or not.” If someone is an ass enough to smoke inside with their children anyway, they shouldn’t be parents in the first place. Guess what? I’m a parent. Guess what else? I’m a smoker, and have been for 15 years. I also don’t… and by don’t I mean never, ever, not once, have smoked inside of the house or car with the children. Or inside of the house at all. EVER. I am a smoker and am all for the smoking ban. Some of us can’t quit an addiction on our own, and I would gladly accept making them illegal to make it impossible to do altogether. If the first step is banning it in public places, then that’s a good start. A good stepping stone. Hopefully just one of the first of many.
This is not like the prohibition of alcohol. Alcohol has been proven to be good for some in small amounts. Smoking is never good for you, in any amount. Alcohol will only kill you in large quantities or if you are irresponsible in your drinking. Smoking will kill you whether you smoke 50 or 5 a day. Second-hand smoke kills innocent people. Sitting next to someone in a restaurant who is having a beer with their dinner will not affect your health at all. Unless, again, someone imbibes and is irresponsible in their drinking.
Can you actually claim that a business owner’s possible loss of revenue is worth the lives of innocent people?
5
C. J. Summers
// May 3, 2007 at 3:57 pm
I think Knight should pass a law against smoke coming out of commenters’ ears. It’s threatening everyone’s virtual health.
By the way, I’m a non-smoker. Never smoked anything, even to experiment. I have eaten smoked sausage, but that doesn’t count.
My only reason for bringing up the kiddies is that Knight is a pediatrician, and I would assume the bigger issue for him is second-hand smoke around those who have no choice rather than smoking around those who *do* have a choice. I’ve never quite figured out why he’s against a complete ban, since that would be best way to save everyone’s life — parents, kids, workers, etc. If it’s such a killer (and I’m not saying it isn’t), and if it’s nothing like prohibition, then why don’t we outlaw it outright? Why only outlaw it in restaurants where I presume grownups can choose not to subject themselves to the secondhand smoke if they find it offensive?
6
knightindragonland
// May 3, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Yes, of course … smoking in the home is a much bigger health issue for most of the population.
The primary population protected by the public smoking ban would be bar & restaurant workers. I think that’s certainly worth it (1) because that’s a large population of Americans and (2) those low-paid workers are frequently uninsured, under-insured or on public aid, so it’s in all our interests to improve their health.
Would I like to see a complete ban on tobacco products? Yes. Do I think it’s feasible? No, so I’ll take what I can get. I also worry that prohibition might serve as welfare for the underworld – fueling a massive expansion of organized crime, just as alchohol prohibition did.
7
chef Kevin
// May 3, 2007 at 11:05 pm
“Hmmm … so someone has guns pointed to the smokers’ heads, forcing them to smoke at home in front of their children??? Don’t you hate it when your own words come back to bite you? The primary population protected by the public smoking ban would be bar & restaurant workers. I think that’s certainly worth it (1) because that’s a large population of Americans and (2) those low-paid workers are frequently uninsured, under-insured or on public aid, so it’s in all our interests to improve their health.”
Lots of guns to peoples’ heads FORCING them to eat or work at places that allow smoking. I’d like to see statistics a year from now to see how many restaurant and bar workers quit smoking. Bet it doesn’t go down 2%. I know people who work in non smoking places that smoke like they are on fire. Not being allowed to smoke inside isn’t and hasn’t stopped them. So, why will it now? Sorry, its not a good argument. You can’t protect those who won’t protect themselves.
But I’m glad the statewide ban passed even though for TRUE bars I think it kinda of silly.
8
knightindragonland
// May 4, 2007 at 7:31 am
Other workplace smoking bans have been very effective in reducing smoking rates, and the bar & restaurant workers will have to cut down their consumption to a certain extent just to comply with the ordinance. Every little bit helps.
As far guns to peoples’ heads forcing them to eat or work at places that allow smoking – that’s the point C.J. made in an earlier post. I was just pointing out that the same reasoning applies in the home – no one is forcing smokers to smoke in front of their children. They shouldn’t, and I tell all my smoking parents that.
No – I wasn’t forced to enter places that allow smoking, and I didn’t. That significantly restricted my local restaurant choices. Tazewell County doesn’t have anywhere near the number of non-smoking establishments that Peoria has, and most non-smoking places here are chains or fast food.
Why should smokers – the minority – get to eat wherever the heck they want (even if they didn’t get to smoke in places that were non-smoking, they could still eat there), and non-smokers – the majority – have to restrict their choices because of the rude habit of the smokers?
Smoking in public is a rude, inconsiderate assault. If you’re a smoker, you shouldn’t inflict your habit on others in any setting, no matter what the official rules might be.
9
Jeff H. (a.k.a.) B.H.
// May 4, 2007 at 9:42 am
first, thanks to you and your relentless comments on smoking it sunk in and i have been smoke free for 5 weeks. feel alot better and can run a little faster too. i just hope this doesnt start a trend on banning other things like i think it will.
10
knightindragonland
// May 4, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Congrats, Jeff. How did you go about doing it? It’s quite an accomplishment – only 5% of smokers are able to quit on any given attempt, and the best smoking cessation aids only improve that to a 20-25% chance in the long run. It’s a very tenacious addiction.
A lot of people see ordinances like this one and envision a slippery slope. I see a pendulum. If similar ordinances go too far, you’ll see a public backlash and the pendulum will start to swing the other way. We’re already seeing that with the uproar over trans fat bans in some cities.
I think smoking is clearly different because it effects the people around the smoker, not just the smoker. Smoking’s status as the number cause of preventable death and disability in this country also sets it apart.
11
Emtronics
// May 6, 2007 at 8:48 pm
If all the bars in Peoria fail to renew their retail tobacco licenses (and why should they if you can’t smoke in their place?)then Peoria alone stands to lose about $26,000 in tax revenue from that act alone.
In Springfield where a city ban has been in effect, 15 bars have closed.
As for people with small children done with the bar scene? I wish that were true as a bar I like to go to for dinner, people bring their small children all the time and this place is full of smoke.
I am sorry most of you think the state needs to regulate our lives. If they were really concerned, then why not ban cigarettes and all tobacco completely? Declare it a health hazzard and say it is as bad for you as pot and just as illegal. Instead of crack sales, we’ll have Pall Mall sales.
This law may help some people but really, smoking has been around for years and years and fewer people smoke today than ever before so wouldn’t spending some money on education for people and how they can quit be better?
Otherwise, our taxes will go up as the revenue from tobacco, licenses, and other related tobacco products will disappear.
Since the state is going to regulate where smokers smoke, then will the taxpayers be rquired to offer at state expense patches and gum to help these people kick their drug habit?
12
A Knight in Dragonland » Blog Archive » Smokescreens
// May 6, 2007 at 11:32 pm
[...] a comment to my recent post about the imminent passage of the Smoke-Free Illinois Act, local blogger [...]
13
dismayed
// May 15, 2007 at 2:12 pm
I am a non-smoker!!!!
how many rights of freedom will the goverment take away from it’s citizen.
I love this country but as i am almost of retirement age, i will consider living in another country.
For the People, by the people and lets #$%& on the people. USA
Leave a Comment