Illinois goes 'Smoke Free' (Thank God)

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Prof., Dec 30, 2007.

  1. Prof. macrumors 601

    Prof.

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago
    #1
    Tomorrow will be the last day in which Illinoisans will be able to 'light up' in bars and restaurants state wide. The law goes into affect at midnight January, 1, 2008. At midnight tomorrow, ash trays will be whisked away and smokers will be told to smoke outside at least fifteen feet away from the door to celebrate the New Year.

    I say, 'Kudos, it's about damn time'

    Prof. :apple:
     
  2. mikes63737 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    #2
    We've had this in CT for a little while... I'm really glad. It's annoying going into a restaurant and smelling smoke / having reactions (I have asthma) when you're sitting in the non-smoking section.

    I wish they had the policy about 15' away in CT, though - I work at a library and people smoke right outside of the door.
     
  3. wonga1127 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Location:
    Wishing for a magic bus.
  4. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #4
    Since I've been in CA all of my life not smoking in public places is pretty common. When I smoked it felt weird to smoke in Casinos; which you can still smoke in.

    Yay for Ill!
     
  5. Kashchei macrumors 65816

    Kashchei

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2002
    Location:
    Meat Space
    #5
    Does anyone know if there is a nation-wide map showing the various state smoking laws? I remember the recent trips I've taken to Kentucky, South Carolina and North Carolina were all marred by lax smoking laws (not surprisingly)
     
  6. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #6
    We have had this law in WA State for 2-3 years now, and the door rule is 50' for primary entrances. A bar owner can create a smoking area at their rear door (and many do), so that it does not violate the 50' rule. I was a smoker, but I never smoked inside my home, car, or any other confined area. I quit before the law went into effect, but it would not have bothered me.
     
  7. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #7
    Well, I for one will be going to more parties at friends' houses. Until of course, they outlaw smoking in your own home.

    http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=200299

    Welcome to the USA. How long before they dictate more of what we can and cannot do in our own homes? But it's a good thing right? And there's no such thing as the slippery slope, right?
     
  8. Chundles macrumors G4

    Chundles

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    #8
    They did that here in NSW in July - it is soooo much better now. You can go out, breathe the air in the pub without coughing, your clothes don't stink when you get home.

    So many people are getting back to the pubs and clubs now - hated it when they all reeked of smoke.
     
  9. iTeen macrumors 65816

    iTeen

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2007
    Location:
    Washington
    #9
    thats already in effect here in Washington St.:D
    i'm so glad.
     
  10. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #10
    Yeah it's wonderful isn't it :). I've not been to a pub so often before (wife is asthmatic). They are absolutely fantastic now they are smoke free. Now if only we can see away with the pokies.....

    How are you about noise regulations in multiblock apartments leek? Impinging on your freedom to play loud music/use power tools whenever you want? It's the same thing. You can still smoke in your own home as long as it doesn't impinge on other people's ability to have a smoke free home. That's apartment living. It's not the slippery slope you make it out to be at all. Remember smoking is your habitual recreational activity that is impinging on other people's health and well-being. You've no right to damage other people's health in their own home. That's the issue that the regulations appear to be addressing (or attempting to do so).
     
  11. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #11
    Wow. That law has been around in CA for more than ten years. Feels strange to hear about it "just starting" in some states. :eek:

    Lee I would normally share your sense of pessimism, but I think in this case it's perfectly acceptable. Most bar patrons (and bartenders and waitresses) probably don't smoke. Why should they have to deal with it because a minority does? Doesn't seem fair. If smokers want to smoke, there are plenty of other places for them to do it I think.

    Now, if you want the flip side, a new law out here in CA that's set to start on Tuesday morning is one which bans smoking in a car if there are children present. How's that for big brother?
     
  12. Big-TDI-Guy macrumors 68030

    Big-TDI-Guy

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2007
    #12
    Restaurants - maybe, but bars? I dunno. Smoking never bothered me that much, and if it did, I just moved, or didn't go there. I can't think of anywhere "amazing" that I was kept out of because of smokers.

    I only smoke sometimes - mainly to upset smokers. :D Then I stop. (which is what upsets them)

    Now on aircraft, DMV, Post Office, busses / subways - places you MUST be - or places you can't "step aside" - yeah, no smokin. But otherwise, live and let people have their vices.
     
  13. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #13
    It's sad that a law such as this are required to stop parents doing irreparable damage to their kid's respiratory systems. Surely the dangers of smoking around kids are so well known that no one is this irresponsible anyway?

    edit: Here's a paragraph for one of our patient hand outs about passive smoking and children. I am happy to forward the full pdf to those who would like it.
     
  14. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #14
    I doubt most parents smoke when their kids are around, and I doubt most parents smoke while they drive. However, this law is really more of a "most people don't do it, but just in case some do..." kind of law. Kind of like public nudity. Most people don't do it, but it's nice to have the law enumerated all the same.
     
  15. synth3tik macrumors 68040

    synth3tik

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    #15
    Regardless of my own or others views on smoking I think it is absolutely BS for the government to tell a private business owner what to do. If a bar owner wants to allow smoking they run the risk of losing non smoking customers, and visa versa. I suppose in the northern (colder) states it's even worse. We have had a county ban for over two years now, and a state wide ban since the summer. In that time I have seen 2 bars close. A friends coffee house close. A friends bar lose 40% of their business forcing her to sell her car and house to keep the bar open, and an internationally known night club that is now only open 1 day a week to try and stay alive as long as possible.

    I have always been supportive of laws that will help the health of the public, however I think these state wide smoking bans (23 states as of 01/01/08) is getting out of hand.
     
  16. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #16
    The trouble is, bars are public places too. It doesn't matter if they are privately owned (as most public places are privately owned).

    The law's intent is to protect those who are non-smokers and to deter future smoking. Both are admirable goals.

    If some particular group of people likes to smoke and drink at the same time, have it in a private place at someone's house.

    It's just like owning a gun. You can keep them however you want in your home, but the minute you go out in public, it's an entirely different ball game.
     
  17. synth3tik macrumors 68040

    synth3tik

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    #17
    That is illogical. A city bus, a city hall, a park. Those are public places. Just because people go out to a bar or what not does not make it public.

    If someone gets too drunk at a bar does the owner have to get a popular vote before throwing them out? No, of course not. It is their place of business.

    A lot of people think that noisy kids should not be aloud in some restaurants and such. Personally I would like that, but it is up to the business owner. Taking away the rights of business owners is not alright in my book.
     
  18. MikeTheC Guest

    MikeTheC

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Location:
    Gallifrey -- Capitol City, Prydonian Sector
    #18
    Florida enacted this kind of law I want to say somewhere around 2004.

    Considering this was a direct vote by the people, it is not a "slippery slope" in any kind of conventional sense.

    It's amazing the excuses smokers give regarding their ADDICTION TO NICOTINE problems. You'd think they'd go and get some help instead of continuing to re-intoxicate themselves and try to disassociate themselves from their own responsibility. Then again, just like cocaine and heroin addicts, maybe we should "feel some sense of pity" for them, since clearly they're in the same basic kind of addictive state. But then again, I'm still left wondering why I should feel pity, or a guilt-driven sense of obligation, to people who are knowingly and deliberately poisoning their own bodies.

    I definitely wonder, some days, what country it is I'm living in anymore.
     
  19. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #19
    Don't forget that a business owner that allows smoking is also taking away the rights of their staff to work in an environment that is safe for their health. That primary concern of the business owner should be to provide a safe working environment, long before before profits.
     
  20. scotthayes macrumors 68000

    scotthayes

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Location:
    Birmingham, England
    #20
    We got the smoking ban in July. Have to say it has made a difference, pubs don't stink of stale smoke anymore, they smell of stale beer and body oder :D

    Oh, and I smoke and have no issues popping outside for a smoke.
     
  21. synth3tik macrumors 68040

    synth3tik

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    #21
    Remember that staff has a choice to work there or not.
     
  22. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #22
    And smokers do try and quit/get help but it's really hard for the majority. Conversely some people don't want to quit and they should be free to smoke/do whatever they want to themselves. We just have to find a balance that allows them the freedom to take up their chosen recreational activity in a way that it doesn't impact on other people's health.
     
  23. MikeTheC Guest

    MikeTheC

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Location:
    Gallifrey -- Capitol City, Prydonian Sector
    #23
    It's funny, but it wasn't until this problem seemed to get out of hand, say about 10 years ago, that I fully understood the old adage "Children should be seen and not heard."

    It's not a matter of whether parents have the right to take their minor children with them out to a restaurant. It IS a matter of whether parents have an obligation or not to instill discipline in their minor children in the first place. My food isn't any cheaper just because junior wants to scream at the top of his f*****g lungs while I'm (trying to) peaceably eat my breakfast / lunch / dinner.
     
  24. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #24
    That's not how things work though. The employer has the legal obligation to provide a safe working environment for their staff. The staff cannot sign it away. To use the asbestos example that comes up in any thread about smoking, an employer cannot knowingly expose their workers to asbestos without ensuring their workers have the appropriate training in handling and the correct safety protection equipment to do the job. It's non-negotiable. If that safeguard was not in place the exploitation of low-skilled and low-socioeconomic workers would be absolutely disgusting.
     
  25. MikeTheC Guest

    MikeTheC

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Location:
    Gallifrey -- Capitol City, Prydonian Sector
    #25
    And so long as our society wants to go on thinking of addiction to nicotine as a "recreational activity" instead of what it is -- AN ADDICTION -- we'll never solve the problem.

    Tell me: what makes being addicted to nicotine acceptable, but addicted to cocaine, etc., unacceptable? They're all drugs.
     

Share This Page