Illinois to Pass Statewide Smoking Ban

This is where the Libertarian argument for smoking fails--smoking infringes on the rights of others. Sure, a non-smoking customer can leave if another customer starts smoking, but already that non-smoking customer has been exposed to second-hand smoke. I'm still a little iffy on whether the government should be banning land owners from doing certain things and forcing them to do other things, though.

Banning smoking in public would be easier. Since the government/public owns most public land, they have the right to ban smoking in public if the people vote for it.

^Smokers do hurt others when they smoke in public - 'secondhand smoke' is bad for your health. I also agree that smoking/non-smoking sections are useless. Depending on the number of smokers present, I can't sit in such a restaurant without having trouble breathing.

If this could be dealt with without regulation, fine - but 'the market' doesn't solve this, as most owners of restaurants or pubs don't want to alienate smoking customers. I'm glad smoking is forbidden in all public buildings here, and I look forward to the ban on smoking in pubs and restaurants that is in the works here.

I think there are many more non-smoking customers that they alienate (such as myself).

I often get itchy red eyes, nausea, shortness of breath, and a really bad cough whenever I get within 30 feet of someone smoking, so I too am glad that smoking is banned in buildings where I live.

These type of laws started being phased in while I worked at the casino and almost every smoker would act offended when it was pointed out, regardless of the fact that it was a legal obligation on our part to not let people smoke at gaming tables.

Others would say that it's easy to see those ashtrays outside doors, and you can easily find out if a venue allows smoking by calling ahead, how hard is it to just go somewhere else?

NOOOOOOOOOOO...... Not salt!!!!

No, that's not the argument. Of course smoking isn't it a right. The con to this legislation is that the government is taking away the right of the owner of the establishment to permit smoking or not.

The argument wouldn't be at all dissimilar if legislation was passed to force bar owners to stop stocking a particular brand of beer or banning greasy potato thumps.

Since this post raised the ire of the usual suspects, I'll explain it a bit more. Maybe give a bigger target for the negs.

Most activities are and should be completely up to the owner of the location where they occur. Some things have external consequences, though. To the extent that they do, external society gets a say. Bars are an example of this concept -- people are served alcohol, people leave the bar still under the influence of the alcohol. The bar owner's rights do not extend beyond the door, but his actions have real consequences on the other side of it. This is one of the best examples of why regulatory authority must reside with the community.

I guess this means that my favorite cigar bar is doomed.

Someone smoking on private property does not interfere with your right to breathe smoke-free, BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE ANY AUTOMATIC "RIGHT" TO ACCESS THAT BAR IN THE FIRST PLACE!



If I can boot you outta my bar because I don't like the look on your face, I can boot you for being a whiny pain in the ass about smoking. And if you're so fucking sensitive about it, why are you visiting places that allow smoking in the first place? Do you expect owners of private establishments and free individuals in general to all bend to your needs? Who the fuck do you think you are? Find a voluntarily non-smoking bar at your own inconvenience, or stay the fuck home.

Depends on how the law is written. Most laws of this sort allow smoking if tobacco products constitute more than a certain percentage of sales. It's an exclusion just for such establishments.

Not necessarily. This law will exempt any establishment that garners 80% or more of its revenue from cigarette sales. So business owners are free to set up "smoking bars".

Same here....
I have a 7 y/o that is so allergic to smoke, she can't go into a room where someone has smoked,... even if it were like days before.

The burden is on you to limit your movements and visitations to serve your child's special needs. It should not grant you any control over the actions of others on private property.

Not with the exemption...

All of this is predicated on the idea that the market always self-regulates, but there is clearly a failure here. When 80% of the population doesn't smoke and 95% of bars allow smoking (where there is no ban, of course), clearly there is a disconnect. And this is not some unique phenomena to one city or town, it exists everywhere. Tell me why that is?

I agree. When it's a private establishment. I don't take her to my families homes where they smoke. I see no difference in a restaurant or any other privately owned establishment.
BUT,...a public place,...totally different story! I don't hesitate to tell anyone to put it out!

So the fuck what? There's no required correlation. If the owner wants to sabotage himself by ignorning the demands of his customer base, that is his right.

What do you mean by "public place"? Smoking is already banned in most government buildings, and it's more than a little bit fucking retarded to whine about cig smoke outdoors in an urban setting while commuter buses and dump trucks are belching black smoke in your face. So what does that leave?

That there are those who are exempt doesn't change the fact there are those who aren't.

A failure according to your viewpoint.

What anyone prefers is irrelevant. None of that changes the fact that you're telling the owner of an establishment what people are permitted to do on his or her property. If you can't change the business practice of the owners, then you have the right to discontinue frequenting their places of business and creating your own smoke-free enterprise.

Yes, yes, the stock answer I was expecting that does not jive with reality and does not answer my question. The market simply fails here, plain and simple.

Also, business owners already have to meet several standards that are imposed on them by gov't, whether it's zoning regulations, building codes, handicap access, fire safety, business hours, liquor licenses, etc, etc. Yes, this is another restriction on them, but it is hardly unique among the numerous other ones.

I hope this isn't going to become a habit. Me having to give you meaning of words.

–adjective 1.of, pertaining to, or affecting a population or a community as a whole: public funds; a public nuisance. 2.done, made, acting, etc., for the community as a whole: public prosecution. 3.open to all persons: a public meeting. 4.of, pertaining to, or being in the service of a community or nation, esp. as a government officer: a public official. 5.maintained at the public expense and under public control: a public library; a public road. 6.generally known: The fact became public. 7.familiar to the public; prominent: public figures. 8.open to the view of all; existing or conducted in public: a public dispute. 9.pertaining or devoted to the welfare or well-being of the community: public spirit. 10.of or pertaining to all humankind; universal. –noun 11.the people constituting a community, state, or nation. 12.a particular group of people with a common interest, aim, etc.: the book-buying public. 13.British Informal. a tavern; public house.

In the first place I don't live in a place like that. Second,.. even a 'fucking retard' knows the cigarette smoking only adds to the stink & problem.

But all of that is an abomination! Fire codes should be eliminated and patrons seeking safety will self select bars that maintain a safer standard. Tell that to 100 people who died at the Station Night Club.

Only if you define "success" as "total submission to market forces," which is retarded. I say it's a success so long as the "free" part of "free market" is intact, meaning everyone, including the proprietor, still has a choice. But choice allows for people to disagree with you and act on it. Can't have that.

Illogical. The existence of one regulation does not justify the existence of them all, nor is a total absence of other, unrelated regulations a requirement of resisting this one. Total non-argument there.

Don't get condescending with me, princess. Some people define "public places" as anywhere the "public" might venture, including private establishments.

But if it's not significant by comparison, there's no reasonable purpose in fixating on cig smoke alone.

It's not even about the market. It's about government sticking its nose into people's lives and telling them what they can and can't do on property that they own.

Perhaps if it wasn't for all those pain in the ass impositions, it'd be a lot easier for entrepreneurs to set up businesses that requests its customers to refrain from lighting up.

They should be eliminated otherwise you are imposing on people's right to die in an establishment!

Sophistry.

The best part of this argument is watching people argue that they should have a smoke free place to go and pour poison into their bodies. Nothing healthy happens in bars. If you're so concerned about public safety, then outlaw the bars entirely and you'll save a lot more lives.

But you won't do that. Cause you like to drink. You like it so much that you'll walk into a smoke filled bar to do it. Then you'll bitch about it while you knock back your 4th vodka martini. Your liver says "smoke a dick, asshole!".

I was going to start a thread on this the other day but decided against it.

edit, forgot link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6625687.stm

As the article points out, the smoking ban is only one of a couple of reasons for the decline. However from personal experience I know that when Fl. instituted it's smoking ban, I switched Mexican restraunts to one in Al. Now, does the loss of my business mean that the place went over, of course not. But considering I ate there about once a week, that does mean a loss of at least some difference. Who knows how many others switched?

First, even if I accept your premise (I don't), how does that lead to authority for smoking ban indoors? The most you could possibly make an argument for using that is regulation of alcohol within the bar.

Second, I reject your premise. Each individual is responsible for their own actions. A completely sober man can go to a supermarket and buy a bottle of Jack Daniels, drink it all, and then wreak havoc in the neighborhood. Should the supermarket owner be responsible? How about the manager? Or the cashier? And if any of them, why the fuck not the actual drinker!?! And if not any of them, then why the bar owner?