InDOOR smoking ban. OutDOOR smoking shelters in demand. DOORs not allowed.

Again (I know, I'm repeating myself, but this issue kinda bothers me) the problem I have specifically with the ban here in Illinois is how it treats completely private, not open-to-the-public clubs. Some people I've talked to have dismissed that, saying, "Ahh, well there aren't that many people directly impacted by that part of it, and it's a good law overall, so... so what?" A good portion of the below came from my response to somebody who wrote basically that...

In and of itself it may not have an effect on that many people. But the precedent it sets is a big deal, and could have unintended effects on a lot of people... And I don't believe that "bah, it's a good for people overall... so what if a few people have some of their most important rights screwed with?" is anything less than dangerously shortsighted and glib.

I don't have a problem with the sentiment of the law, necessarily; it's more the reckless manner in which it was crafted with regard to entirely private (not open to the public in any way) facilities that sets off alarm bells in my head; there was ample opportunity and more than enough reason to include very narrow exemptions to the law on the basis of private property rights. The fact that those opportunities were not taken speaks very loudly about what the priorities of this bill's backers were, and disconcerts me greatly: I know that the "slippery slope" argument is a logical fallacy, but the fact that private property rights were in several ways largely disregarded (and subsequently, in my view, not insignificantly eroded) in the course of crafting the law leads me to believe that there are few barriers remaining to the possibility of eventually extending the ban to homes. And that, to me, would be absolutely unforgivable; it's no more valid in my mind than the old sodomy laws, for example. And without that very important check in place, it could very well happen:

Say I'm a smoker (I'm not... anymore) and I need to have a plumber or electrician or HVAC person come by to do some work on my house. What's to stop the same folks who supported this ban from making the same "worker's rights" argument about them? If (as was presumably the case with this bill vis a vis private clubs) those workers' rights trump property owners' rights -- or those property and privacy rights are completely disregarded -- what's to stop somebody from applying the very same logic used in the current law and applying it to people's homes? Alarmist and melodramatic? Maybe. But the fact that nobody appeared to stop and raise that issue is sincerely frightening to me.

Again, overall, I understand and support (grudgingly, to be honest) the ban in facilities that are open to the public. But when we start messing around with telling people what they can or can't do on completely private property, we start treading on very dangerous ground. And my fear -- and, frankly, the source of my slight anger -- is that most people seemed to just skip happily along during the whole process, saying, "Dirty smokers! Ban it!" and not asking some of these very important questions.

Edit: Sorry for possibly taking this thread dangerously close to SZ territory... This particular thing just gets my goat a little bit. Sorry! :redface:
 
Last edited:
gprellwitz said:
Nick, you keep talking about how many of the people in the bars smoke, and I won't deny that. However, is it possible that it is because all the non-smokers have just stopped going to the bars? I know I avoid going there because the smoke gives me a headache and my clothes always smell like doo-doo (don't want to be filtered :)) when I leave.

And I'm part of the minority. I don't smoke. I don't shoot. I don't ride motorcycles. :)
Click to expand...
There is some truth to that. California, Vancouver BC, Washington State were the only places I would go out to a bar. All the bars elsewhere is where the smokers would hang out. That has just changed in Illinois and now I'll stop in and have a refreshing adult beverage.

As for restaurants, if they smelled like smoke I stopped going. Our breakfast place changed from having a smoking are to all non smoking far in advance of the law banning them. Their business increased. But that is what the public demanded. I think most of these laws are not so much about that customer as they are about the workers and providing them with a safer working environment.
 
Some very logical responses (and a bunch of childish "HATE THE DIRTY SMOKER" responses too). Things would be better if there were at least some bars in which smokers could smoke. Then y'all get your bars, and we get our bars. But the problem is that if one of our bars happens to be more fun, y'all would start complaining because its too smoky to come into our bars.

How do I know? Albuquerque has had non-smoking bars for years. No one went there. We even had a few non-smoking dance clubs. No one went there.

I suspect most cities had non-smoking establishments before, but no one knew about them because no one went there.

I hate being abused because I am addicted to a legal substance. If I were an alcoholic, I doubt I'd be so easily called the names and dragged through some of the mud I get put through. Alas, its the cause du jour to make fun on, ridicule, and oppress smokers. Someday, remember, something you enjoy doing will be next. Maybe it'll be hiking ("IT DESTROYS OUR PRECIOUS LAND!") or Golfing ("DAMN CLUBS RIP THE GRASS OUT, PLUS THE BALLS KEEP HITTING OUR WINDOWS!"), or gun ownership ("2ND AMENDMENT WAS INTERPRETED INCORRECTLY. GIVE ME YOUR GUNS!").

But y'all won't care then either, will ya? :rolleyes:
 
A more apt example, I thoght of as I walked away. We're all pilots here. We have to admit that flying puts some noise on other people. I take it y'all would sit back and say "You know, they are right, just because we enjoy flying doesn't mean that they have to hear us do it. Lets ban flying over residential areas."

Because remember: 2nd Hand Nosie is more dangerous than first hand noise. As a pilot, we may be closer to the source of the sound, but we chose to be that close, and either way, a single decibal of sound is more damaging that the barrage we take that close anyways. Its logical (somehow), here's some crackassed study that shows how: "insert link to some worthless study that actually makes people believe that's possible."

So - next time noise complaints come around, I don't expect any of you to respond with anything negative about the complainer. Remember, your right to fly ends where their ears' range begins.
 
That is precisely what I was saying. The "your annoying and nobody likes you" was mostly in jest. I suppose I should have put a smiley there.
 
SkyHog said:
A more apt example, I thoght of as I walked away. We're all pilots here. We have to admit that flying puts some noise on other people. I take it y'all would sit back and say "You know, they are right, just because we enjoy flying doesn't mean that they have to hear us do it. Lets ban flying over residential areas."

Because remember: 2nd Hand Nosie is more dangerous than first hand noise. As a pilot, we may be closer to the source of the sound, but we chose to be that close, and either way, a single decibal of sound is more damaging that the barrage we take that close anyways. Its logical (somehow), here's some crackassed study that shows how: "insert link to some worthless study that actually makes people believe that's possible."

So - next time noise complaints come around, I don't expect any of you to respond with anything negative about the complainer. Remember, your right to fly ends where their ears' range begins.
Click to expand...

I will be all for it when we ban: lawn mowers, motorcycles, loud exhausts, chain saws, four wheelers...and a myriad of OTHER items that are louder than a typical recip GA airplane, even on takeoff.

BTW..I actually agree with Rev on the completely private, membership-only types of places. They SHOULD be allowed to determine whether or not they want smoking.
 
ReverendSlappy said:
Again (I know, I'm repeating myself, but this issue kinda bothers me) the problem I have specifically with the ban here in Illinois is how it treats completely private, not open-to-the-public clubs. ...

In and of itself it may not have an effect on that many people. But the precedent it sets is a big deal, and could have unintended effects on a lot of people...

I don't have a problem with the sentiment of the law, necessarily; it's more the reckless manner in which it was crafted with regard to entirely private (not open to the public in any way) facilities that sets off alarm bells in my head;

Say I'm a smoker (I'm not... anymore) and I need to have a plumber or electrician or HVAC person come by to do some work on my house. What's to stop the same folks who supported this ban from making the same "worker's rights" argument about them? If (as was presumably the case with this bill vis a vis private clubs) those workers' rights trump property owners' rights -- or those property and privacy rights are completely disregarded -- what's to stop somebody from applying the very same logic used in the current law and applying it to people's homes? Alarmist and melodramatic? Maybe. But the fact that nobody appeared to stop and raise that issue is sincerely frightening to me.
...
Click to expand...

You nailed it, Rev. The attitude of the guy in Schaumburg who said the outside smoking facility can't be too nice, shows it. That they can't have doors shows it. This is supposed to be PUNISHMENT for those who do not comply with group think.

So you can't have workers at risk. So if there's a room for smokers only with no employee access or voluntary acess (Oh! No! There would be too much pressure from the boss!) that would be bad.

There were some VFW clubs that wanted to be exempt because the vets smoke and they were sure that the ban would kill the clubs. You know. Soldiers had cigarettes in their rations back when they were good for your health. No exemption.

California DID ban smoking in your own car if a child is present. You just KNOW that they want to ban it in all cases just because there's a chance they might see you enjoying a smoke and that can't happen. Maybe find someone who says even the sight makes them sick.

It's short leap to banning smoking in your private home in a multi-unit residential buildings because the smoke can and has leaked out to bother other residents. Then in your private home, because why should one form of residence be exempt? That would be discriminatory.

Then you can't just step outside to smoke because how can you be sure that a molecule of your exhaled pollution won't float down to the poor young mother pushing the stroller on the sidewalk miles away?

Smoking only allowed in specific $250,000 open outdoor enclosures with roaring powered vents with air scrubbers.

As I always remember: When the law mandating wearing seats belts was passed it was "Don't worry! Cops cannot pull you over for merely not having the seat belt on!" Then, thanks to the public's dependable short attention span theater a small law was passed that said the cops could pull you over for no other reason. Then they could have roadblocks specifically for seat belt enforcement.

A few more quietly passed little laws and I'll be moving out of state.
 
mikea said:
You nailed it, Rev. The attitude of the guy in Schaumburg who said the outside smoking facility can't be too nice, shows it. That they can't have doors shows it. This is supposed to be PUNISHMENT for those who do not comply with group think.

So you can't have workers at risk. So if there's a room for smokers only with no employee access or voluntary acess (Oh! No! There would be too much pressure from the boss!) that would be bad.

There were some VFW clubs that wanted to be exempt because the vets smoke and they were sure that the ban would kill the clubs. You know. Soldiers had cigarettes in their rations back when they were good for your health. No exemption.

California DID ban smoking in your own car if a child is present. You just KNOW that they want to ban it in all cases just because there's a chance they might see you enjoying a smoke and that can't happen. Maybe find someone who says even the sight makes them sick.

It's short leap to banning smoking in your private home in a multi-unit residential buildings because the smoke can and has leaked out to bother other residents. Then in your private home, because why should one form of residence be exempt? That would be discriminatory.

Then you can't just step outside to smoke because how can you be sure that a molecule of your exhaled pollution won't float down to the poor young mother pushing the stroller on the sidewalk miles away?

Smoking only allowed in specific $250,000 open outdoor enclosures with roaring powered vents with air scrubbers.

As I always remember: When the law mandating wearing seats belts was passed it was "Don't worry! Cops cannot pull you over for merely not having the seat belt on!" Then, thanks to the public's dependable short attention span theater a small law was passed that said the cops could pull you over for no other reason. Then they could have roadblocks specifically for seat belt enforcement.
Click to expand...

The other thing that galls me about this whole thing is that if you talk to just about anybody honest, they'll tell you pretty openly that they didn't really care about the health aspects of 2nd hand smoke in bars anyway; they just found it annoying. And that has to be true: if 2nd hand smoke is such an OUTRAGEOUSLY!!! dangerous phenomenon, it's had to be that there a lot of incredibly stupid people who kept bars in business by making the catastrophically irresponsible choice of going to bars before the ban. Either that, or nobody actually really gave a crap about the health aspects (of somebody else's smoke while they sat their guzzling down apple-tinis and Jaeger-bombs...), but always found it annoying.

But golly, mere annoyance isn't quite enough reason to enact a law, now, is it? So what to do? Find some scientific data, massage it a bit, manufacture some outrage ("What about the workers? For GOD'S SAKE, the workers!!!!!"), and wham-o, you've suddenly got the necessary funding and requisite political cachet to pass a law that mandates what people do with their lives on private property. And you're right: why stop with bars, anyway? There seems to be a bunch of people similarly annoyed with the fact that people smoke at all, so just follow the same formula. Supposed 2nd-hand health risk + manufactured outrage = more bans + less annoyance.

Lather, rinse, repeat, and eventually every middle-class suburban nannyistic hand-wringer can eliminate every single perceived source of their annoyance, wherever it might occur. And with that last remaining barrier of rights to privacy and property tossed by the wayside, there's little left stopping them.

Here's my thing: If you want to pass a law, I'll at least respect ya for being honest about why, even if I disagree with it. Start dressing it up with feigned indignation, self-righteous judgementalism and pseudo-moral outrage, and I'll call you what you are: A coward.

Edit: It's little different from the folks who live near an airport and, annoyed with the noise, start wailing about the "safety" aspects of the airport. It's a convenient sham to get what they want -- and what they know to be, generally speaking, completely selfish.

mikea said:
A few more quietly passed little laws and I'll be moving out of state.
Click to expand...

Good luck. It's only a matter of time before every state enacts it or it's done federally. God bless America.
 
Last edited:
SkyHog said:
How do I know? Albuquerque has had non-smoking bars for years. No one went there.
Click to expand...

Uhhh... Then how have they been there for years? :dunno:

I suspect most cities had non-smoking establishments before, but no one knew about them because no one went there.
Click to expand...

If there was such a thing, it was poorly marketed. I'd have been all over it but I've never heard of such a thing. :no:
 
ReverendSlappy said:
The other thing that galls me about this whole thing is that if you talk to just about anybody honest, they'll tell you pretty openly that they didn't really care about the health aspects of 2nd hand smoke in bars anyway; they just found it annoying. And that has to be true: if 2nd hand smoke is such an OUTRAGEOUSLY!!! dangerous phenomenon, it's had to be that there a lot of incredibly stupid people who kept bars in business by making the catastrophically irresponsible choice of going to bars before the ban. Either that, or nobody actually really gave a crap about the health aspects (of somebody else's smoke while they sat their guzzling down apple-tinis and Jaeger-bombs...), but always found it annoying.
Click to expand...

Did(/do) I care? Yeah, somewhat... But since the health effects are a long-term gamble for me (might I someday die of all that secondhand smoke I've ingested? Maybe, but maybe not) while in the short term I'd really like to spend time with my friends who are going into the bar, so I'm gonna take the gamble and go in.

Now, just like how I went in when smoking was allowed because I'd rather have been with my friends than home alone, I bet smokers will still be at the bars with their non-smoking friends for the same reason. I doubt it'll change much, except the non-smokers might die of something else now. (And maybe the smokers, if this provides a few of them with incentive to quit...)

As for the private club ban... THAT is bogus. What if I want to create a smoking club?
 
SkyHog said:
How do I know? Albuquerque has had non-smoking bars for years. No one went there. We even had a few non-smoking dance clubs. No one went there.

I suspect most cities had non-smoking establishments before, but no one knew about them because no one went there.
Click to expand...

flyingcheesehead said:
Uhhh... Then how have they been there for years? :dunno:

If there was such a thing, it was poorly marketed. I'd have been all over it but I've never heard of such a thing. :no:
Click to expand...

Yogi Berra: Nobody went there. It was too crowded.
 
ReverendSlappy said:
And that has to be true: if 2nd hand smoke is such an OUTRAGEOUSLY!!! dangerous phenomenon, it's had to be that there a lot of incredibly stupid people who kept bars in business by making the catastrophically irresponsible choice of going to bars before the ban. Either that, or nobody actually really gave a crap about the health aspects (of somebody else's smoke while they sat their guzzling down apple-tinis and Jaeger-bombs...), but always found it annoying.
Click to expand...

And that is the crux of the problem Rev, the heart of the struggle.

People ARE incredibly STUPID about many, many choices in their lives. Just look at the obesity epidemic. People seem to make most decisions based in instant gratification and not long term consequences. Toss in busy workdays and kiddie time, many people just have no desire to educate themselves and put forth the effort to make the tough, but good choices.

So long as society has to pick up the tab for most of these poor choices, society will get a say in them.
 
I want to point out that this solution isn't just in IL, or even the US. FRANCE enacted similar laws that included substantial fines!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6319649.stm
The BBC Paris correspondent says 70% of people in France say they favour the ban as do half of all smokers.
France is the latest in a long line of European countries - including Italy and Ireland - to introduce complete or partial bans on smoking in public.
Click to expand...
However, they do have exemptions for indoor smoking in some instances:
Employees at private companies will be allowed to smoke but only if sealed smoking rooms have been set up for them.
Click to expand...
Also, an article at MSNBC indicates that it doesn't include restaurants yet. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16921417/
France’s 15 million smokers will be banned from lighting up in workplaces, schools, airports, hospitals and other “closed and covered” public places. More than 175,000 agents are to enforce the ban, handing out fines of $88 for smokers and $174 for employers who look the other way.In a year, the ban will extend to cafes and restaurants — sure to be the moment of truth for a certain image of France, where writers like Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre are remembered with cigarettes dangling from their mouths.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
SkyHog said:
Someday, remember, something you enjoy doing will be next. Maybe it'll be hiking ("IT DESTROYS OUR PRECIOUS LAND!") or Golfing ("DAMN CLUBS RIP THE GRASS OUT, PLUS THE BALLS KEEP HITTING OUR WINDOWS!"), or gun ownership ("2ND AMENDMENT WAS INTERPRETED INCORRECTLY. GIVE ME YOUR GUNS!").

But y'all won't care then either, will ya? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
The whole premise of civilized society is that people agree to be bound by the limitations imposed by the society in exchange for the benefits therein. As a consequence, everything we do affects other members of the society to some degree. The continuing challenge is to figure out where to draw the line defining when one person's actions intrude unreasonably upon another.

In a way, the current vogue of smoking bans are like motorcycle helmet laws 20 years ago. The vast majority of states had a law requiring helmets. Then a populist movement arose: "Let those who ride decide." The argument in favor of rescinding helmet laws was that helmets unreasonably restricted hearing and vision, and that I should feel free to expose my brain to lethal injury if I want. Against, of course, was the cost to society of having orphaned kids and brain-damaged ex-bikers lying around. At the same time, mandatory seat belts were passed all over the place. So clearly logic is not the determining factor here, but politics.

As pilots are too aware, it's easy to become a pariah through no fault of your own. When a line is drawn in the sand with which you don't agree, you just cope the best you can while formulating a plan to re-draw the line. And also as pilots know all too well, bitching about it on the internet doesn't do a whole lot of good.
 
mikea said:
Your mistake was not being da guys who sponsored Duh Mare's trips to Paris.

As I understand it, after Daley said, "I want dese," Chicago signed a no-bid contract for $2-$3 million a year. These tings only bring in $850 million over da 20 years? Whatta deal!

Too bad Chicago taxpayers just got another huge tax bill increase.
Click to expand...

wsuffa said:
Mike,

It wasn't a no-bid contract. What da Mare wanted was way too rich for our blood. We did bid in one round, but weren't willing to put up the $$$ and guarantees that JCD did. Likewise the New York contract, which went to another party.

Part of the difference is that JCD was using a lower cost of money than we did - and part was their typical "denegotiation" of a contract after it was signed. The way that worked was a reduction in payment for every delay, lack of approval, or impeded permit that affected revenue.

Our folks in the Outdoor division felt they could make more money with other investments, and who was I to disagree?
Click to expand...

... Daley's advice to Laski to use what are called "buffers." ...

"Yeah, that's what he told me, whispering it to me, asking if I'd heard anything from the guys down the street (the feds). And about buffers. He said I had to have buffers. You know, like the buffers Michael Corleone used in 'The Godfather,'" Laski said.

Except Michael Daley is the smart brother. The one at City Hall is Mayor Fredo.

...The mayor's buffers are well known to anyone with eyes to see. They roll in money, they're included in multimillion-dollar zoning deals, they're paid off as consultants on bus shelter contracts, or through real estate developments. The Tribune's series on zoning -- Neighborhoods For Sale -- underscores this again and again.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-kass_15feb15,0,722031.column
Click to expand...

We can hope. So far Mayor Fredo has been lucky. It would be sweet if the feds got him. I think Patrick Fitzgerald (Yeah. That one.) is getting close. After one interview with Fitzgerald's staff last year, Daley was very shaken.
 
Smokers could be forced to pay for a Government tobacco licence in order to carry on buying cigarettes under draconian proposals being considered...

Although a licence could cost as little as £10 a year, forms would be made deliberately complex to deter people from applying.

Smokers could also be forced to obtain a doctor's signature, declaring their health was not at "massive risk" from their habit.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=514753&in_page_id=1770
Click to expand...

It's for your own good.
 
About 200 people including bar owners, VFW members and patrons filled Fat's on Monday night for a tavern-hall meeting to discuss overturning or amending Illinois' statewide smoking ban established this year.

And as speaker after speaker insisted that people's rights were being stripped away, the crowd smoked. Inside.

On Jan. 1, Illinois became the 22nd state to pass a statewide indoor smoking ban, which prohibits smoking inside or within 15 feet of most public buildings. Boog Walker, owner of Fat's, stopped allowing smoking when the ban took effect, but it cut into business. Now if customers ask for an ashtray, he'll slip them one.

...

Rob Alexander, owner of Industrial Tavern in Centralia, suggested that bars encourage smoking. That way, if someone gets ticketed, a large group could show up in court.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...2C1890F16A943ED4862573F4001441E6?OpenDocument
Click to expand...

Civil disobedience. Damn hippies. :rolleyes:
 
mikea said:
We can hope. So far Mayor Fredo has been lucky. It would be sweet if the feds got him. I think Patrick Fitzgerald (Yeah. That one.) is getting close. After one interview with Fitzgerald's staff last year, Daley was very shaken.
Click to expand...

Oh, Mike, Chicago might be the "big leagues", but Washington, DC is quite close behind:

Washington Post said:
Federal authorities think that nearly $50 million was stolen in an embezzlement scheme run out of the D.C. tax office, more than double the amount they had previously uncovered, four sources close to the investigation said.

The corruption at the D.C. Office of Tax and Revenue went undetected much longer than initially thought, the sources said, extending back almost 20 years. In addition to tracking the missing money, authorities are looking into gifts suspected of being provided to co-workers and others by the woman accused of leading the scam, former tax office manager Harriette Walters.
......
Security guards got cash, office mates got free meals and virtually anyone who made a request got something, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.

Two of the sources, who are familiar with the accounts of witnesses, said the gifts included $35,000 to a co-worker who wanted to remodel her house, $25,000 in cash and luxury gifts to an assistant whom Walters began mentoring and $15,000 each to help two co-workers' daughters pay for renovations and credit card bills.
Click to expand...

Full Story
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top