Repeal the smoking ban (to rent, house, tenants)

[grapico]

Originally Posted by cubssoxfan

Yes you have the right to smoke. I also have the right to NOT inhale your 2nd hand smoke. The restaurant workers have the right to a safe workplace where they are not subjected to the 2nd hand smoke. So you view it as smoker's rights and I view it as a personal right to breathe clean air.
So it's really nothing against your choice to smoke. It's the uncontrolled 2nd hand smoke that is objectionable. Heck, even when I smoked, I hated 2nd hand smoke. It's noxious and unfiltered.

It's also your right to not go to a certain establishment.
Public spaces is one thing, outlawing something that is perfectly legal INSIDE bars is an entirely different story and should be up to the personal owners. It is a PRIVATE establishment.
I'm all for outlawing smoking in public parks and beaches which are paid for with public tax dollars. But don't infringe on somebodies right to legally cater to their clientele.
Most of your more upscale places catering to many non smokers already had state of the art filtration systems long before these laws were passed...they have been around for at least a decade.

[Avengerfire]

Originally Posted by cohdane

Secondhand smoke causes cancer and triggers heart attacks. CDC says it causes 50,000+ deaths a year. Any other product that-- when used appropriately-- caused that much death in non-users would be banned flat out.

Sorry. Go somewhere non-public when you want to light up.

Lets ban the gasoline and the vehicle internal combustion engine then.

I bet you though you were pretty smart making your statement.

[Swampmonster]

I own a diner/grocery in southern IL and high dollar filtration systems were installed just weeks before the ban.My wife and I both are smokers,the majority of our customers are too but we do not allow smoking.You can see in the books how it has cost us money.You can't imagine how bad it pisses me of to have to go outside of my own buildings that I paid for with zero help from the state and I pay property tax on to smoke,then turn several thousand dollars a month into the state for the retail sales tax that we've collected for them.Commie BS if you ask me.

[cubssoxfan]

OK, it's a private establishment. But if I stretch that argument, I can own rental property and discriminate in who I choose to rent the apartment as you would discriminate against a non-smoker's right to breath non-smoky air. I cannot discriminate against prospective tenants and you acn not discriminate against non-smokers. This argument always goes into the "your discriminating against smokers" spiel; when I see it as discriminating against non-smokers.So this is a slippery slope. IF the majority of establishments would have spent the money for proper filtration systems, kept them clean and in proper working order AND put up real physical seperations between smoking & non-smoking sections, maybe it wouldn't have come to this.
It's simply a case of majority rule backed with a strong, health related reason.
Here is a solution. Invent a completely enclosed smokers helmet, like an astronaut helmet. HAve it exhaust directly outside. Smokers can wear helmet and keep smoke all enclosed close to them without having it spill out to non-smokers. Probably too costly, embarrassing to wear and the 2nd hand smoke would bring the user to tears-literally.
Another real solution is to turn the establishment into a club. That's what places up here have done. They sell cigars and serve beverages and allow smoking because it is a club.

[Avengerfire]

Originally Posted by Avengerfire

Lets ban the gasoline and the vehicle internal combustion engine then.

I bet you though you were pretty smart making your statement.

He where did my "t" at the end of though go?

[Swampmonster]

Originally Posted by cubssoxfan

OK, it's a private establishment. But if I stretch that argument, I can own rental property and discriminate in who I choose to rent the apartment as you would discriminate against a non-smoker's right to breath non-smoky air. I cannot discriminate against prospective tenants and you acn not discriminate against non-smokers. This argument always goes into the "your discriminating against smokers" spiel; when I see it as discriminating against non-smokers.So this is a slippery slope. IF the majority of establishments would have spent the money for proper filtration systems, kept them clean and in proper working order AND put up real physical seperations between smoking & non-smoking sections, maybe it wouldn't have come to this.
It's simply a case of majority rule backed with a strong, health related reason.
Here is a solution. Invent a completely enclosed smokers helmet, like an astronaut helmet. HAve it exhaust directly outside. Smokers can wear helmet and keep smoke all enclosed close to them without having it spill out to non-smokers. Probably too costly, embarrassing to wear and the 2nd hand smoke would bring the user to tears-literally.
Another real solution is to turn the establishment into a club. That's what places up here have done. They sell cigars and serve beverages and allow smoking because it is a club.

I do not want to "discriminate" against anyone.....I just think it's a lousy law for business people who lose money due to it.We don't make a lot of money as is and just scrape by,but for the law to take more money away from us hurts.Now with it being winter it's even worse because nobody wants to go outside and freeze while they are smoking and then come back inside and buy something else...as soon as they wolf their food down,they fly out the door to their vehicles where they can smoke and leave instead of hanging out for awhile and maybe purchasing something else like they used to.Most bars and diners around here have completely ignored it anyway,but we just don't have the extra money to play the game in case we lost and got fined for it.

[aragx6]

Originally Posted by cubssoxfan

It's simply a case of majority rule

Oh really? I must have missed voting for that. Weird.

[Avengerfire]

Originally Posted by Drover

I appreciate that I have caused some confusion about whether I believe any or every public setting should be smoke-free. That's fair enough because on the one hand I believe it's an issue that the free market can sort out; and on the other hand I understand and appreciate the public policy basis behind making many public settings smoke-free. So let me try to clarify my position.

My position is this: I believe the free market can fundamentally sort out the issue. For instance:

Most workplaces in Illinois had already banished smoking in common areas long before this piece of legislation was even considered. Why? Because they did not want to exclude valuable people like you from the workplace.

Many restaurants had already gone non-smoking before this law was passed. In Chicago Proper alone, there were already more than 500 smoke-free restaurants before this ordinance was passed. Why? Because they valued customers like you.

Many bars have heretofore refused to go non-smoking. Why? Because when they tried to go non-smoking, non-smoking customers like you didn't show up. You (collectively, not you personally) told them that you did not value a non-smoking tavern environment enough to maintain a non-smoking business model. You all must have found other places to socialize.

These are the reasons why I have conceded that smoking should be banned in most public places: not because I believe that government must legislate these details, but rather because government is simply codifying what society has already basically codified for itself. That said, I still have a hard time accepting that government must codify that taverns and restaurants must be non-smoking environments. It honks me off that non-smokers could not be troubled to seek out and avail themselves of the several hundred non-smoking restaurants that already existed in Chicago alone before the ban was passed, nor to avail themselves of non-smoking bars in sufficient numbers to keep them non-smoking when given an option. No, several hundred smoke-free restaurants was not good enough. They must have all of them. I'm sorry, but I just cannot get on board with that kind of zealotry.

I felt the need to show a post that Drover made about a year and a half ago that is excellent on the subject.

[Chinolala]

Establishments that want to allow smoking should be able to purchase a special license, much like a liquor license. Then the business owners can determine if they are getting more business being non-smoking or would be better off paying for the license and allowing smoking. Then adults who work in bars and night clubs, can decide if they want to work in a smoking or non-smoking establishment. Seeing the only 20-25% of the population smokes, each municipality can sell the licenses to 20-25% of the establishments, leaving 75-80% of them smoke free. I think this is the most fair and reasonable solution that would cater to both groups equally and also give municipalities some revenue by selling the smoking licenses.

[cubssoxfan]

Chinolala, interesting concept. I do feel bad for Muleskiner's loss of business and revenue. I get a tad stubborn because of all the compromise years of being subjected to 2nd hand smoke even though I was in a "non-smoking" section. Can the establishments post large signs so I can see their status from the parking lot? And include their status in their ad's, so I know before I schlep out there? Drover's old post has merit except for the fact that almost all restaurants in the NW suburbs had both smokers & non-smokers and did a lousy job of keeping 2nd hand smoke away from my lungs. Same issue traveling downstate and it got worse in the small town diners. So, in my experience, restaurants only became smoke free when the local government legislated it.