Illinois to Pass Statewide Smoking Ban

Source

Sorry, I can't say I'm choked up about this. Really, it doesn't matter to me either way, because I go to St Louis bars/clubs far more than I do the IL ones here, but it really is refreshing to be able to go to bar hopping for a night and not come away smelling like an 80 yr old grandma on an oxygen tank.

Yes, yes, cue all the "well, you should support bars that don't allow smoking and boycott the ones that do, blah, blah, blah", except it just never seems to work out that way. I can count on one hand the number of bars in this area that are smoke free. Ideally, both types of places should be able to coexist, but that never seems to happen. So I won't be shedding any tears. And I'll also be more inclined to frequent the IL side now as well.

Smoking in bars does seem to be an instance in which the market fails to self regulate. When Boston passed a smoking ban, patronage increased, to the disappointment of bordering suburbs. Since then, most of the suburbs have also gone smoke free. Why didn't the market conclude there was money to be made in smoke free bars? I'd say fear and ignorance on the part of bar owners. When a market is highly segmented, rationality is lost.

What do you care?! You don't hang out in public places.

It's harder to leave the state to patronize a bar you can smoke in, unless you live near the edge of it.

Well it only just started. Sheeesh!!

It probably depends a great deal on where the local ban is enacted. If it is a place with a big night life draw, people really don't have somewhere else to go other than their own living room. My guess is that the smokers in Boston were willing to put up with smoking on the sidewalk and the non-smokers started going out more often.

Another factor might be patron mobility. Most bar goers in Boston are used to taking the subway or cabs, but if they went to the suburbs instead, they'd have to drive.

In NYC, they saw that the patrons shifted. More non-smokers started hanging out. There was no real lose in business. There was so much hype and it was all proven to be BS.

It hasn't even been signed yet (but is expected to be by the Governor), but when it passes, it won't even take effect till Jan 1, 2008...

Unless you are talking about the ban in Chicago...

I've.....reexamined that policy recently, and actually gone out to the occasional bar or club. But I still don't smoke cigarettes, so you could say I have no direct stake in the argument. I don't care. I still object on the grounds that it is yet another unjustifiable interferance with the establishment owner's right to decide what takes place on his property.

Whether or not it's the most profitable thing to do, resulting in blissful socialization for non-smokers everywhere. If a smoking ban deserves to exist, you should be able to acheive it through voluntary means.

Smoking and salt, will soon be illegal.

Don't much care since I don't smoke and I truly hate other peoples' smoke.
But the closet libertarian in me rebels against making it a freakin law. People should have a choice.

Most of us would argue that citizens voting to regulate their environment represents a voluntary act. But then you don't believe in voting, since it no doubt abridges the freedom of somebody somewhere.

There is actually one MAJOR problem I have with this bill:

I think that that is ridiculous. One reason why I don't see smoking bans in bars as being all that bad is because I favor the outside patio areas of these bars as being for the smokers. But even that can't happen under this bill. The inclusion of this makes this a bad bill, IMO.

I also don't like the inclusion of restaurants under this bill either, because the smoking/non-smoking division in most restaurants seems to work out pretty well, but even that would go away under this. If I were the governor, I would reject the bill on these grounds and urge the legislature to rework the bill.

=

"My viewpoint didn't manifest itself in reality, so better to take away the choice completely by legislation so they'll have no choice but to make the right decision."

Could very well be a flaw. I should note regarding what I've said on Boston's ban -- I think it is quite accommodating for bars that want smoking patrons. They are allowed to chain off sections of sidewalk if they don't already have a patio, and they can even designate smoking rooms within the bar if they make some upgrades to the ventilation system.

Even the precious, conservative state of Texas is debating a comprehensive statewide smoking ban, with many TX cities already banning smoking. My, my, how did such a red, "pro-business" state get to this?

Only one person gets to claim a bar as their environment, and that is the owner. Everyone else is a guest, free to accept the owner's conditions or go elsewhere.

Oh, go fuck yourself. I believe in voting. Just not when it's an empty gesture of a "choice" from an alotted, cannibalistic pool of good old boys.

So you don't believe in voting.

Aw, someone needs a nap...

REGULATION IS FREEDOM!

Did you even bother reading that whole article? The Texas cities that it says have banned smoking (Houston, Austin and El Paso) are about as red as Oakland, San Francisco and Berkeley and the author of the statewide ban is a loony lefty with ties to wacked out groups like MoveOn.org.

Most of "us" are idiots then, if "we" believe that "our" environment extends to someone else's bar.

Nanny state, nanny state, nanny state!!!!!1!!

Libertarians, should I have the right to go into a bar and start burning styrofoam?

What's your point? Why should business owners be deprived of the decision of whether to allow smokers? I've never heard a good answer for this.

If the owner's okay with it, and you're doing it in public view (ie, not sitting by the ventilation intake in the back room), and you realize that doing such a thing in front of a bunch of drunks is likely to result in the shit getting beat out of you before the cops arrive, then sure. But mostly the first two parts, the first for obvious reasons, the second being for the same reason as why you can't put poison in their drinks without telling them.

I dunno.

I'm in the untenable situation of loathing laws like this, but also knowing firsthand what it's like to have something where even the smallest whiff of cigarette smoke can send you into a horrible spate of coughing and make it very difficult to breathe. I can't even go into a restraunt that has a smoking section, because that shit travels everywhere, whether it is obvious to healthy people or not.

It's actually in certain circumatances worse when they are outside on sidewalks....I can avoid the bar but even go by one becomes a problem when the chimneys are out there. Almost every place around here has an ashtray canister thingy outside stores for disposal before going inside...unfortunately it means going through smokers finishing up, or those who left a still burning piece of shit lying there like incense in order to enter the store.

Which gets precidence? Which should get precidence? My..and everyone else's ability to breathe unmolested or someone's right to suck on a cigarette? Because some say smokers aren't hurting anyone, but the fact I can't breathe for shit and sometimes cough uncontrollably until I hyperventilate disagrees.