|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Feature
|
|
Announcement :: Drugs : Elections & Legislation : Environment : Health : Labor |
|
Champaign City Council voted 5-4 to Go Smokefree |
Current rating: 0 |
by IMCista
(No verified email address) |
16 May 2006
|
Champaign City Council voted 5-4 to go smoke-free in restaurants, bars, and a number of public places. The ordinance goes into effect August 1st, 2006 and is dependent on Urbana doing the same. Urbana will very likely vote to go smoke-free this Monday, May 22nd. Urbana has already said it will go smoke-free if Champaign does.
Voting yes in Champaign: Giraldo Rosales (who led the charge), Gina Jackson, Marci Dobbs, Tom Bruno, Ken Pirok (the swing vote). Voting no: Kathy Ennen, Mike LaDue, Vic McIntosh, Mayor Schweighart. Note: everyone but Kathy who voted "no" is a smoker. |
"Last night around 11:10 p.m. the Champaign City Council after about surely 1 1/2 hrs. of public input, and in the presence of a strong turn-out of bar owners and their constituents, passed a smoking ordinance by a 5-4 vote. Ken Pirok proved to be the "swing" vote. Most of the discussion on the Champaign City Council before the vote seemed to prepare the audience for a defeat of the ordinance. Giraldo Rosales ended with a daring speech to pursue the smoking ban at all costs." - quote from Dennis Roberts
Chicago papers are covering it:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/smoke17.html |
See also:
http://www.cu-smokefree.org/
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/smoke17.html
|
Related stories on this site:
Surgeon General Warns of Secondhand Smoke
| 
This work is in the public domain. |
Comments
|
Re: Champaign City Council voted 5-4 to Go Smokefree |
by Daniel Lewart
lewart (nospam) cu-smokefree.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
17 May 2006
|
Marci's last name is Dodds.
There was an even larger turnout of smokefree supporters, who were less vociferous.
Actually, Giraldo said that even if the ordinance were
voted down, he would continue to bring it up every
six months, and that if voters didn't like that, they could
vote him out of office. I took it as implying that people
should vote the pro-tobacco folks out, which may
yet happen.
It was a great night for the City of Champaign!
C-U Smokefree! |
|
Re: Champaign City Council voted 5-4 to Go Smokefree |
by Lucero
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
18 May 2006
|
|
I support the smoking ban and believe that it should have been more extensive and included all public spaces, indoors and out, but my question is this: If alcohol contributes to so many health problems (including that of children born to mothers who were drinking during pregnancy) and accidents and deaths, why are we not talking about banning alcohol (i. e. prohibition, or making Champaign a "dry" county)? |
|
Re: Champaign City Council voted 5-4 to Go Smokefree |
by anon
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 May 2006
|
|
Hey, why not? After all, the war on drugs has been such a great idea, and been so successful so far, why not add another drug to the list? |
|
Re: Champaign City Council voted 5-4 to Go Smokefree |
by james
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 May 2006
|
|
Well, I definitely agree that it was a great night in Champaign. My question is, is anyone aware of any local politician willing to expand the ban to flowers? See, every time I'm around flowers, my eyes start to itch, I start sneezing, and my throat closes up. Every time I go to a local greenhouse or nursery it happens. Oh sure, people are always asking my why I keep GOING to places where the things that go on affect me so badly. But it's my right, isn't it? Why should people be allowed to pollute my airspace with their pollen just because my airspace happens to be within the confines of the business that they own and that I entered of my own free will? |
|
Re: Champaign City Council voted 5-4 to Go Smokefree |
by Allergic
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 May 2006
|
|
And I'm allergic to grass pollen -- including corn. I'm currently circulating a petition to present to Champaign City Council banning the cultivation of corn and other types of grass -- such as lawns -- anywhere within city limits. |
|
Re: Champaign City Council voted 5-4 to Go Smokefree |
by Lucero
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 May 2006
|
|
Alcohol is the obvious "elephant in the living room" that people are choosing to ignore. I repeat: If alcohol contributes to so many health problems (including that of children born to mothers who were drinking during pregnancy) and accidents and deaths, why are we not talking about banning alcohol (i. e. prohibition, or making Champaign a "dry" county)? Please don't give sarcastic comments about grass pollen, etc. I'm asking about alcohol, and I'm asking the same people who pushed for the smoking ban. Thanks. |
|
Re: Champaign City Council voted 5-4 to Go Smokefree |
by anon
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 May 2006
|
Well, who says people aren't talking about it? Seems to me that they tried that once already though, didn't they? I can't remember. Maybe something really bad happened as a result. Or, maybe the teacher's pets of the world were forced to realize that the majority of people who drink alcohol DON'T cause any serious health problems to themselves or others, so it's really not anyone else's business, now is it?
It's a lesson people keep forgetting, for some reason. |
|
Re: Champaign City Council voted 5-4 to Go Smokefree |
by Lucero
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 May 2006
|
anon, are you someone who supported the smoking ban? If so, then tell me how alcohol is different. Do more people get ill or die from second-hand smoke or from alcohol-related illnesses/accidents? Can people avoid drunk drivers or being in an alcoholic mother's womb as easily as they can avoid second-hand smoke?
Here's some CDC websites to help you out:
Alcohol: http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/factsheets/general_information.htm
Tobacco: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/hlthcon.htm |
|
Bad Analogies Make Bad Policy |
by historian
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 May 2006
|
Pollen, huh? That sounds a lot like a retread of the infamously stupid Reagan assertion that trees cause more pollution than human activity. And it's still a bad analogy. Trees -- and pollen -- are part of the natural environment. Pollution -- and cigarrette smoke -- are entirely human-caused activities. Law tends to apply to human-initiated activity. That is why when your dog gets loose and bites someone, it's the owner who is charged with a crime, not the dog (even though the dog may still suffer the death penalty.) Law can regulate human activity, but it can't change nature. To expect it to is to be naive, if not simply stupid.
As for alcohol, it is entirely possible -- and as anon notes, it is the norm -- that alcohol does not cause others around you to suffer. Granted, alcohol can lead to people doing stupid things, but typically they don't.
If you really want to use that argument, tell me why marijuana is still illegal. It is entirely possible to die from overcomsumption of alcohol, just like you can die from ingesting more than a couple oif cigarrettes. Yet it is a physical impossibility to die from an overdose of marijuana. With a safety factor like that, then the question should be why isn't marijuana legal, rather than it serving as an excuse for why we don't we make tobacco illegal, too.
On the other hand, smoking always, 100% of the time leads to smokers imposing on the rights of those around them.
Prohibiting alcohol will not work. That's been estbalished as both a historic and a practical fact. Pardon me, but it's asinine to assert that alcohol prohibition is a workable model for dealing with smoking. AFAIK, no one with any sense thinks that cigarrette prohibition would be any different. But a smoking ban in public spaces to prevent impositions by smokers on the rights of others to breathe relatively pure air simply is not the same thing as prohibition, so Lucero's analogy is crippled by lack of commensurability, i.e. you're comparing apples to oranges. |
|
Re: Champaign City Council voted 5-4 to Go Smokefree |
by Lucero
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 May 2006
|
Hello, Historian. I disagree with your statement that "alcohol does not cause others around you to suffer." Maybe you haven't been in an accident involving a drunk driver, or been the victim of family abuse by an alcoholic parent, or been assaulted by an inebriated person. I have been in all three situations, and I consider these things far more harmful than the exposure to second-hand smoke that I receive. If I want to avoid second-hand smoke, I don't go to smoking venues. I couldn't have avoided the other situations that I mentioned.
The intention of my posts is not necessarily to advocate for prohibition of alcohol, although I support it. My intention is to point out the hypocrisy of people who want to restrict second-hand smoke, and yet maintain that alcohol and marijuana use should remain legal. Alcohol and marijuana use are not "victimless crimes." They have an impact that goes far beyond the user, resulting in the deaths and injury of others, and broken families and ruined lives. |
|
What Is Inevitable Is Different from What Is Possible |
by historian
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 May 2006
|
Lucero,
I didn't say that alcohol does not have the possibility of causing problems. I just was saying that such outcomes are hardly inevitable, despite your own unfortunate personal history.
Smoke is inevitable with smoking, unlike the occasional bad outcomes connected to alcohol.
To assert that simply drinking in and of itself will turn anyone who drinks into a reckless driving criminal abuser is simply not true. That kind of logic also leads to people blaming the substance, rather than themselves, for their own bad choices. I think the whole personal responsibility mantra is pretty half-baked, but this is one place where I think those who think they are helping are really hurting someone who has trouble with any substance. You're enabling them to displace blame to a substance, when you should be encouraging them to take ownership of their own bad behavior and responsibility for changing it. Granted, that may include choosing sobriety, but that is a different matter from whose responsibility it is to do so. It ain't the dope, it's YOU! when you do stupid things.
Now, I'm no conservative, but I do find it disquieting how some people really want a nanny state. IMHO, having a smoking ban in public places is NOT a nanny state action, but most of what you're proposing about tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana certainly is such an imposition.
Some things need regulation, but only in very rare cases is prohibition a practical, effective response. The indoor smoking ban is reasonable regulation; tobacco (and most other) prohibitions are simply unacceptable and largely impractical (do you really think marijuana being illegal keeps ANYONE from getting it?) in a free society, as long as they are all used in a manner that does not impose on the rights of others. If you do so, then you should suffer a penalty. You should not suffer a penalty merely for responsible use of any substance. Smoking where it won't bother others -- outdoors, in the privacy of your home, in your car, etc -- is a case where you shouldn't suffer a penalty and I've heard not a single supporter of the ban propose anything that would prohibit any of that. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.
Finally, I'd like you to cite the case where marijuana killed someone. People may do stupid things that are associated with marijuana, just as they do stupid things with cars, loud music, iPods, etc, but marijuana definitely does NOT have any lethal dose. Eat bales of it and you still won't die -- but you also really shouldn't drive, either. Please don't hand me any BS about this -- "Reefer Madness" occurs far more often in the minds of those seeking to prohibit it than it does in those using it. |
|
Re: Champaign City Council voted 5-4 to Go Smokefree |
by John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
19 May 2006
|
Plants with showy flowers don't produce pollen that is dispersed by the wind; their pollen is sticky so that it is carried by insects from one flower to the next. Some people may have allergic reactions when they find themselves in proximity to plants with showy flowers, however this is a psychosomatic reaction that derives from the false belief that such plants have air-borne pollen.
The plants that send their pollen into the high winds include ragweed, turf grass, and most lawn trees. However, turf grass and lawn trees will never be banned because the people with wealth and power (the middle & upper classes) are the biggest offenders when it comes to planting trees and grass in their yards.
If only members of the lower class planted turf grass and lawn trees in their yards, then these plants would probably be banned by the middle and upper classes as a "public health risk."
Consumption of alcohol won't be banned because too many middle and upper class people are heavy consumers of booze. In the case of tobacco consumption, at one time the middle and upper classes were as likely to smoke as the lower classes, therefore no restrictions were imposed in spite of the health risks. However, for the past several decades, smoking has steadily declined among the college-educated middle classes and upper classes. At the present time, the majority of smokers are in the lower lower working class or poverty class, and they aren't influential in economic and political circles. As a result, it has become popular among the middle and upper classes to ban smoking in public places.
And yes, this disprepancy in the treatment of public vices is quite hypocritical, as Lucero has already indicated. |
|
Re: Champaign City Council voted 5-4 to Go Smokefree |
by james
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 May 2006
|
OK, you guys are right. However, historian, you sort of answered your own question when you asked why marijuania is illegal and alcohol isn't when you pointed out that smoking, 100% of the time, imposes on the rights of others. If you have the right to breathe relatively pure air with regards to cigarette smoke, why not the rights of people to breathe relatively pure air with regards to marijuana smoke.
Personally, I don't like marijuana. I spent so much time with so many annoying roommates in college that I get sick at the very smell of it. Psychosomatic? Probably. But it's still my head.
Anyway, even though I don't smoke marijuana, I wouldn't DREAM of telling someone else that they couldn't on their own property. Suppose, for example, that you were having a party, and you and all your friends were smoking a bong and having a great time. I decided to wander in and ask, in my most polite, reserved tone, if you guys wouldn't mind just putting it out. That stuff really gets to me.
Well, if you had any sense, you'd show me the door. Why would I go to a party if I knew that all that was going on there was a bunch of pot-smoking? That's all the analogy with the flowers was about (I swear. Sometimes I think that, if you took the sense of humor of everyone on this site, added it together, and gave it to one person, that person would be the guy whose job it is to tell people that their children died in car accidents.). Like it or not, the bar you happen to be attending is not YOUR property.
If it were up to me, which it clearly isn't, we'd have hash bars just like they have in Amsterdam and Vancouver, right here in Champaign. I wouldn't go there PERSONALLY, but if people wanted to, taht should be up to them. The only regulation we'd need would be to ensure that, should some poor, misguided soul happen to wander in, the exit doors would be clear and unobstructed.
I have no problem at all with banning smoking in restaurants. People bring little kids to restaurants, and they can't decide whether or not to be there. But in bars, everyone is of the age of consent, and is there because, for whatever reason, he or she wants to be.
So how about this for a compromise. What about private smoker's clubs? People who wanted to come in and smoke cigarettes would be able to pay a fee for membership and a member's card (or, perhaps, a smaller fee for a one-night membership, that would be stamped onto the back of the smoker's hand), and would be able to smoke to their hearts' content. They might serve drinks and small snacks, like peanuts and beef jerky, that tend to go well with smoking, and perhaps even live music to entertain the smokers. Would that be the kind of thing you could go for?
It seems like an OK deal to me. |
|
Re: Champaign City Council voted 5-4 to Go Smokefree |
by james
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 May 2006
|
Oh, and Lucero, to say that they should ban alcohol because of car accidents, abuse, and personal attacks is a little bit like saying they should ban sex because of AIDS, unwanted pregnancies, and rape. Sexual intercourse is hardly necessary for the procreation of the species anymore, what with the wonderful advances in artificial insemination. So what good is it? Oh sure, most people really ENJOY it, and don't do it irresponsibly, but nuts to them! SOME people might get hurt because of it, and that's all I need to know!
There I go with my bad analogies again. I could point out, though, that no analogy is perfect, and how easy it is to shoot an analogy down tends to be directly proportional to how much of a point you have to prove. ;) |
|
Re: Champaign City Council voted 5-4 to Go Smokefree |
by james
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 May 2006
|
And historian, it may be true that you've not heard of anyone who wants to ban smoking " outdoors, in the privacy of your home, in your car, etc", but if so, you must not have been reading the news about Calabasas, California.
http://www.theacorn.com/news/2006/0126/Front_Page/003.html
People always say they don't want to ban smoking where it won't bother others, but the thing is, there is almost always going to be SOMEONE around. And as long as the most sensitive people get to make all the rules, it's going to keep getting more restrictive. |
|
Re: Champaign City Council voted 5-4 to Go Smokefree |
by Allergic
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 May 2006
|
|
My point to Lucero is that it's fine to regulate the ways in which people impose their personal behavior on others. No smoking in public places. No alcohol when driving. But I want the government to keep out of my goddamn personal life -- if I want to smoke, drink, get high, have diverse sexual experiences, etc, then so long as I'm not imposing this on any unwilling fellow beings, then KEEP OUT OF MY PERSONAL LIFE. |
|
Re: Champaign City Council voted 5-4 to Go Smokefree |
by Mink!
mink (nospam) tcp.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
19 May 2006
|
Uh... private clubs are specifically exempted from the ban, in the proposed ordinance.
The first time this came up there was discussion about clubs such as VFW, and due to that, private clubs are exempted. So, the people with reservations about that voted for this ordinance.
I wonder what is the health harm of second-hand smoke coming off of burning straw men? |
|
Re: Champaign City Council voted 5-4 to Go Smokefree |
by Anony-mouse
hotti (nospam) gmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
20 May 2006
|
There is nothing in the Champaign ordinace that exempts any club.
It will apply to the VFW, Legion and the Country Club. On the other hand, it does not apply to offices open to the public. There is a list of included places, and that list includes food service establishments, licensed liquor establishments, retail stores, bowling centers and many other places. |
|
Re: Champaign City Council voted 5-4 to Go Smokefree |
by Mink!
mink (nospam) tcp.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
20 May 2006
|
What's the source for it applying to the VFW?
Serious question here - because during the arguments over the ordinance starting last September, Gina Jackson was against it specifically because of worries over the VFW and like places, and SHE changed her vote.
The N-G article from Wednesday has a quick summary, I see now a semi-colon I misread at the beginning there. That plus knowing about Jackson though made sense.
But now I see she got lots of communications from people all in favor of the ban, so maybe she really did decide she was okay with no smoking for the VFW and flip on that.
Anyone know where the exact text of the ordinance can be found?
I will say I don't see this as leading to an exodus from Champaign-Urbana bars. People will talk about it, about sticking it to the man and all that, but in the end, it's just easier to keep going to your favorite local hangout than drive half an hour out of town. I honestly don't see people who are currently going to the Champaign bar scene as all of a sudden going to Rantoul and Philo (despite hopes in the paper this morning). |
|
What the Paper Printed |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 May 2006
|
The interpretation that private clubs are exempt comes in part from what the News-Gazette printed about the ordianance itself. Here's what was in the Wednesday paper and online:
>>>>>>
A LOOK AT THE NEW ORDINANCE
Where smoking would be prohibited: Restaurants, bars, grocery stores, supermarkets, retail stores, restrooms, movie theaters, health care facilities, polling places, bowling alleys, places where public meetings are held, buses and storage warehouses where merchandise is displayed.
Effective date: Aug. 1.
Exemptions: Outdoor service areas of restaurants, bars or private clubs; outdoor cafes; retail tobacco shops; hotel and motel sleeping rooms that are designated as smoking rooms; private vehicles; private residences, except when used as a licensed child care facility, adult care facility, health care facility, or any other home-based business open to the public; private and semiprivate rooms in nursing homes where the occupants are smokers and have requested in writing to be placed in a room where smoking is allowed; smoking as part of a bona fide religious ceremony; smoking in a health care facility where smoking is part of any therapeutic treatment plan; smoking by a cast member as part of a theatrical performance.
Fines: Violation is punishable by a $145 fine. Businesses that knowingly permit smoking, do not post no-smoking signs and do not remove ashtrays could be fined $195.
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2006/05/17/champaign_city_council_oks_smoking_ban
>>>>>>
You'll note that nowhere in the prohibited places are private clubs mentioned. As an exemption, outdoor smoking areas at private clubs are mentioned. Combined with Gina Jackson's previous reservations about having an ordinance apply to private clubs, like the VFW, then based on what the N-G printed, it does look like such clubs are exempt.
Maybe the N-G's reporting is unclear, It could also be that, given the N-G's editorial stance against the smoking ban, it may be just that they chose to leave this ambiguous in their reporting to continue stirring the pot by leaving the sector of their readership obsessed with the primacy of property rights over all others (strange, there is nothing in the Constitution about that, but I digress) with this uncertain bone to chew on and knash their teeth over. It would be good if they clarified this, as there is an important legal distinction between property that the public is invited to and private clubs. |
|
Re: Champaign City Council voted 5-4 to Go Smokefree |
by james
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 May 2006
|
OK. So private clubs are exempt. Does that mean that, like I said, if you call your bar a "private club", and only allow members to enter, while at the same time granting membership to basically anyone who asks for it, people would be allowed to smoke there? If so, well then fine. If not, why not?
I have a feeling that might be why they didn't list "private clubs" on either list. Because they know perfectly well that that's what bar owners would do.
You can say that there's an important legal distinction between my "private club" and a business that's open to the public, and I'm sure there is. There's no shortage of legalistic hair-splitting in the world. But is there really an ethical one? I can't see how.
As far as the primacy of property rights over all others, you don't think that at least there's a case to be made there? Should I be able to tell you not to smoke in your own home? What about a garage or shed I happen to own? If I decided to let friends come over to my home, and bring their friends, who in turn brought their friends to my property, what then? I'm not forcing anyone to be there. What if I own a bar and let people just wander in? You have every right in the world not to be exposed to the smoke inside already. Just don't come in. What right is it that you think takes precedence over my right to do what I please and make my own rules for what goes on in my property? The right not to be the slightest bit inconvenienced by anything, regardless of where you happen to impose yourself? Because I don't see that in the Constitution either. |
|
Re: Champaign City Council voted 5-4 to Go Smokefree |
by Lucero
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 May 2006
|
Where do you get the idea that private clubs are exempt? The only mention I can find for private clubs is in this part:
"Exemptions: Outdoor service areas of restaurants, bars or private clubs;"
The exemption is clearly for the OUTSIDE SERVICE AREAS of restaurants, bars, and private clubs. Private clubs aren't any more exempt than restaurants and bars, at least based on the published information. It's only the outside service areas that are exempt. Now they could be exempted in some other part of the ordinance, but if they are, that's not what appeared in the News-Gazette.
That said, this conversation has been very illuminating. It all goes to show that we get the kind of community that we deserve. We can do a lot better than this. |
|
Works for Me |
by trying to stay healthy
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 May 2006
|
Lucero bloviates:
"It all goes to show that we get the kind of community that we deserve. We can do a lot better than this."
Personally, I kind of like the idea that, in the name of public health, anyplace that advertised itself as a public facility will also guarantee that me and my children will not be exposed to the documented hazards of second-hand smoke.
If you really can't afford the time to step outside for a cigarette, maybe your karma (*cough*) is trying to tell you something.
Who knows? If Mayor Schweighart had not found cogenial places to smoke on duty and off over his years of service to the city, he might not have the health concerns he has now. He still could've smoked as much as he probably would have otherwise done under a smoke ban ordinance, if he really wanted to.
But it's just possible that if he'd have had to think about it every time he reached for that pack, he'd be in the kind of shape it's going to take to run for mayor again. It sounds like he already wants to throw down that gauntlet because of one council person's support for the ban. The irony would be if the Mayor couldn't follow through because of his smoking. I sure hope this doesn't happen to him, but you've also got to consider his fitness to serve if a huge wake-up call like he has personally had in thinking about the consequnces of smoking. He does seem to be a bit too thick-headed to be fully qualified to serve the best interests of the city, but if we can have a president like that, why not a mayor? |
|
Re: Champaign City Council voted 5-4 to Go Smokefree |
by james
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 May 2006
|
Maybe that's the problem. Maybe bars should stop advertising themselves as public places for you and your children. Maybe there should be a sign outside that says "This is a place for grownups. It's full of cigarette smoke, which can cause all kinds of horrible health problems. If you don't want to come in, you have that right. If you choose to WAIVE that right, by all means, come in. But keep in mind, YOU are taking an active step to expose yourself to a harmful substance, just as much as the smokers are, which makes it a bit tricky to even call it "second-hand smoke". If you don't like it, go to the public library or something." Would that be OK?
Anyway, I think Lucero may actually be onto something with the comment about the kind of community we deserve. If people genuinely can't be trusted to protect their own health by staying away from smoky bars, if that's what they really want to do, then maybe they really DO need nannies to tell them what to do after all. |
|
Re: Champaign City Council voted 5-4 to Go Smokefree |
by Lucero
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 May 2006
|
"Bloviates," huh? That's cute, I like it :-). You prove my point, though, "trying to stay healthy." We can definitely do better than gloating over the ill health of political leaders we disagree with.
James, well, even though we might disagree on the issue at hand, at least you got my point. These people don't need nannies, though. They need God. God bless you both. |
|
Re: Champaign City Council voted 5-4 to Go Smokefree |
by Mink!
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 May 2006
|
"This is a place for grownups. It's full of cigarette smoke, which can cause all kinds of horrible health problems."
Well, heck. It's just as easy to pass the ban and have a sign saying "This is a place for grownups. That means that they understand that they may be requested to forgo feeding certain addictions for the time that they are inside the establishment. Those not able to abide by such a policy may wish to stay home or congregate in the park, instead."
I mean, if we're going there. People do manage to keep their pants on in restaurants...
Or are we now assuming that adults are smokers or at least okay with stinky clothing? |
|
Re: Champaign City Council voted 5-4 to Go Smokefree |
by james
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 May 2006
|
You're right. They may be requested to forego feeding certain addictions while in the establishment. If the owner of the place requests it, that's perfectly OK with me. The only thing I have a problem with is the owner being threatened with fines and possible closure of his business if he decides the way that the city council doesn't like. I really and truly don't see what's so hard to understand here.
People manage to keep their pants on in restaurants, it's true. They also manage not to drink whiskey at health clubs or just start playing the trombone in the middle of a coffee shop. They don't generally need a law to prevent them from doing these things. The people who run those businesses have rules against them, and those work surprisingly well most of the time. The owners of bars and jazz clubs have different rules. Just because something is inappropriate in one place, does that mean that a different establishment shouldn't be able to make different rules?
And the "adults" comment was meant primarily because trying to be healthy brought up the issue of protecting the health of children. Like I said before, I don't really have a problem with a ban in places children might go. If they card you at the door, making sure that you're over the age of 21 (or 19, depending), then I can only assume you're there because you want to be. |
|
Listen Punks |
by trying to stay healthy
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 May 2006
|
For the record, my daughter works in one of these bars and my son plays in a band. Both have suffered at times with the ill-effects of being exposed to second-hand smoking. Myself, I enjoy the occasional band, but the smoke is often enough to discourage this. Like was often noted by supporters of the ban, for every smoker who goes to Savoy or Rantoul, there will likely be two or three non-smokers who show up to patronize an establisment because they can now breathe clean air.
Should my children have to suffer in trying to make ends meet to stay in school becuase some fool who has no concern for their own health also feels the need to undermine someone else's in the bargain? I do not think so. Should they have to give up being out with their friends in public or working because a distinct minority think they somehow have the right -- like the idiot author of yet another letter in the Sunday News-Gazette claiming they have such a right -- to pollute the air that others breathe. I don't think so. Finally James, Jack Ryan, or whoever you really are, if it's the law, why don't you think you need to obey it like any other law? |
|
Re: Champaign City Council voted 5-4 to Go Smokefree |
by james
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 May 2006
|
Look. They should definitely not have to give up being in public. I'm not saying that bars shouldn't be ALLOWED to declare themselves non-smoking if they choose to do so. Of course they should! If it were up to me, there'd be bars that allowed smoking, bars that allowed smoking of marijuana, bars where you could shoot up heroin, and bars where everyone just sits around smiling at each other, not smoking or drinking or engaging in any other vices.
Why not petition the owners of the bars? If it's true (as I really think it is) that bars will do increased business, then why wouldn't they go for it? It's perfectly doable. Notice that in the ordnance, it says that grocery stores and department stores are now prohibited from allowing smoking. Does that mean that they were legally allowed to permit smoking before? Because I don't think I've ever seen anyone smoking in a grocery store before.
And why? Because the owners of those places know that people don't want to be surrounded by cigarette smoke when they go to the grocery store. If you could convince bar owners that bars would be the same way, there would be no need for a ban. You'd go to non-smoking bars, I'd go to smoking ones, and everyone's happy.
So did people try that? Did people consider a possibilty of a limited number of smoking permits that businesses could apply for? Or did they just go straight to a ban?
As far as your children, I apologize for my misunderstanding earlier. I thought you meant young children. Should your daughter have to suffer because people around her smoke? Perhaps not. Should I have to suffer at my job because my boss is a jerk? Perhaps not. But I'm assuming she knew what she was getting into when she signed up for the job, right?
What if, on her application, it asked her if she has a problem working around cigarette smoke? Would that be OK? If only smokers worked in bars, would it be a problem? If someone lied on his/her application, would it be OK to dismiss them?
But OK. You say she needs the job to live. Why not treat cigarette smoke just like any other toxin people are exposed to at their jobs, by providing the worker with protective equipment? How about if her employer offered her a gas mask that removed all particulate matter from the air she was breathing? Would that be good enough? Or would you be asking me next why SHE should have to be wearing the gas mask just because it's her job to accommodate the customer, rather than the other way around?
If it's the law, why do I think I don't need to obey it like any other law? I guess that's hard to say. In a sense, I don't think I NEED to obey any law, if I'm willing to put up with the consequences. On the other hand, are you basically asking that, since the law has been made, I should just grin and bear it? Well, I don't know. There used to be laws that prohibited African-Americans from being on the street after sundown. If that's the law, why should they feel they didn't need to obey that like any other law? If abortion is illegal, why should people bother changing it? Why shouldn't they just agree that they needed to obey the law? |
|
Re: Champaign City Council voted 5-4 to Go Smokefree |
by Joe Futrelle
futrelle (nospam) shout.net (verified) |
Current rating: 0
21 May 2006
|
I support the smoking ban and here's why. Second-hand smoke is a carcinogenic environmental pollutant and people need to be protected from it the same way we protect people from asbestos or lead paint.
Most of the arguments comparing smoking to other "vices" that we regulate in various ways make specious analogies to activities that don't produce environmental pollution in public places.
For instance, DUI, domestic violence, and other problems associated with alcohol have criminal and civil penalties that we use to deal with the problem behaviors without banning alcohol.
Marijuana laws are a good example of bad drug policy, because there's basically zero evidence that private marijuana use harms anyone other than the user in a way that is substantively different than any of a number of other perflectly legal but dangerous activities, like skiing. I support the smoking ban, but I wouldn't support a marijuana-style ban on tobacco possession.
In general, the safest, cheapest (in the long run), and most effective way to protect people from environmental pollution is to stop the activity that produces the pollution. In cases where the activity provides significant benefits at a cost below that of mitigating the effects of the pollution, it makes sense to consider paying for the mitigation. It's unclear to me what the benefit is of allowing smokers to pollute public places, beyond their own convenience, and the costs I think have been explained fairly clearly already. |
|
WTF |
by trying to stay healthy
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 May 2006
|
James writes:
"As far as your children, I apologize for my misunderstanding earlier. I thought you meant young children. Should your daughter have to suffer because people around her smoke? Perhaps not..."
WTF do you mean, perhaps not? _Absolutely_ not, no more than she shoiuld have to put up with asbestos, fire hazards, sexual harrassment, and a number of other things that our society clearly recognizes have no place in places of commerce when she gets a job.
Listen, buddy, don't give me that smarmy libertarian crap. I don't care who you hire or fire, but you damn straight are taking advantage of the machinations of government everyday at your business. Government comes when someone rips you off, your employees get education, roads are built to carry customers to your door, most of the time these days government will cooperate with you if you want to bust a union, etc.
You get plenty from government, buddy. All workers and consumers are asking for here is a healthly environment. If you aren't willing to provide that, then you should be compelled to provide it by government -- there is no excuse for your BS that seeks to override that standard.
It's not a matter of choice once you as person have entered the stream of commerce, whether it's my daughter looking for a job, my son looking for a gig, or you looking for a worker. There are reasonable rules and laws to be followed and nothing you've said yet convinces me that a smoking ban in public places is unreasonable. And nothing you've said convinces me you are anything except an imbecelic exploiter who wants to quibble around with the health of those around you.
Poison yourself in private, but leave the rest of us out of it. |
|
Re: Champaign City Council voted 5-4 to Go Smokefree |
by james
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 May 2006
|
You don't support a ban on tobacco. Just its use in public.
So you wouldn't have a problem with me smoking in my own home. I assume you wouldn't have a problem if I invited my friends, smokers all, into my home, and they smoked with me. What if we all had parties where everyone there was a tremendous fan of smoking, and loved to smoke all day long, if they had the chance?
Well, what if I had a thousand friends? What if our parties got so big that my house couldn't contain them? What if I rented a big building somewhere, and we had our parties there? What if I charged people a small fee in order to help pay the rent? What if word got out about how awesome our parties are, and people started inviting their friends, and they invited their friends, and eventually it got to the point, after the whole six degrees of separation business, that everyone in the entire state of Illinois realized that there was a standing invitation to attend the most rockin' smoking party in all the world?
But then one person shows up, who doesn't actually want to be at a smoking party at all, but just enjoys ruining everyone else's fun. This is a person who doesn't really WANT to be protected from this particular environmental hazard. If he did, he'd stay out. If he doesn't really want the protection you're offering, why pass a law? |
|
Re: Champaign City Council voted 5-4 to Go Smokefree |
by james
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 May 2006
|
trying to be healthy,
I understand what you're saying. Really, I do.
Suppose there were a mixture of smoking and non-smoking bars in this town, OK? What if the bars that allowed smoking only agreed to hire smokers? People who clearly wanted to be there? Those employees wouldn't be asking for a smoke-free workplace at all. I've talked to some bartenders before. Some of them have told me that one of the things they enjoy about working at a bar is that they're allowed to smoke there when things are slow. In other words, there are people out there who are asking for a smoking-permitted workplace. If there were a mixture of bars around, that would be an option. The smokers would tend to gravitate towards bars where smoking was allowed and the non-smokers to the non-smoking ones.
Is it a perfect system? No, it is not. However, my point is, there's nothing INHERENT in allowing smoking that means that people's rights to the kind of workplace they desire is impossible.
Like my private smoker's club plan. What if I only staffed it with members, in other words, people who enjoy smoking? That's certainly possible for me to do, isn't it? But under the ban, I still wouldn't be allowed to. Why is that? |
|
Re: Champaign City Council voted 5-4 to Go Smokefree |
by james
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 May 2006
|
And again, why wouldn't the gas mask be sufficient?
What makes you think I own a business, anyway? I work for about nine dollars an hour. One of the things I like is sitting in a bar with a beer and a cigarette.
I really think john hilty was right earlier. I can't say it any better, so here it is again.
"Consumption of alcohol won't be banned because too many middle and upper class people are heavy consumers of booze. In the case of tobacco consumption, at one time the middle and upper classes were as likely to smoke as the lower classes, therefore no restrictions were imposed in spite of the health risks. However, for the past several decades, smoking has steadily declined among the college-educated middle classes and upper classes. At the present time, the majority of smokers are in the lower lower working class or poverty class, and they aren't influential in economic and political circles. As a result, it has become popular among the middle and upper classes to ban smoking in public places." |
|
Re: Champaign City Council voted 5-4 to Go Smokefree |
by Michelle
blackdove (nospam) redjellyfish.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
23 May 2006
|
This argument is getting ridiculous. Are you all adults? Have you really read your own posts? You sound like a bunch of quibbling four-year-olds. Can it be so hard to state your own opinions while still respecting other people's opinions? Because really, I think it's okay that we all have different opinions. What I don't think is okay is full-grown adults who resort to sarcasm and name-calling every time someone disagrees with them.
Personally, I'm glad the ban passed, and I hope it succeeds. It's not that I want to go to bars and breathe fresh air. I realize bars are places where people smoke and drink, and I do neither, so going to bars has never been my habit. It's not that I think the government should force people not to smoke, either. I think people shouldn't smoke, but we can't outlaw everything that's a bad idea. I'm just glad the ban passed because it means I can see my brother's shows again. He is playing in a local band now called The Greytones. They've been getting gigs wherever they can. They probably shouldn't ever have played in bars--after all, my brother's asthmatic and should avoid smoke at all costs--but I guess a band that's just starting out can't really afford to be picky. It seems like most of their gigs have ended up being at the Iron Post. I can't go to see them there because I can't be around cigarette smoke. It triggers migraines for me, and it takes me days in many cases to get over a migraine once it starts. I have also been told that since I have endometriosis (an extremely painful and sometimes debilitating disease which is affected by a lot of different chemicals), I should avoid environmental toxins as much as possible. It's impossible to avoid all toxins, but a smoke-filled room is a no-brainer. It really bugs me that I can't go out and support my younger brother's band as often as I would like. In this particular case, I really feel that the people who want to smoke in bars are infringing on my rights, not me on theirs. I have to choose between damaging my health or seeing my brother play in front of an audience. The people who wish to smoke in the bar can choose between smoking somewhere else or, if the ban passes, putting out their cigarettes for an hour while they go and watch a band play. If smoking is what they value most, they can do that at home. I can't watch my brother's band play at home--there's not enough room!
I think that is something you may have overlooked, James. A lot of people can accept that you shouldn't go to a bar if you don't like to smoke. There are plenty of other places to hang out. But if you want to see a band play and they are only playing at a bar, doesn't it kind of suck that people who can't be around cigarette smoke can't go to see them? I mean, smokers don't HAVE to be smoking all the time. They can abstain enough to go see whatever play, movie, or concert they wish to see. But for some people, any amount of time around cigarette smoke is too long. I am sure a lot of us would have been happy with a compromise. I don't think a total ban should have been necessary, but there didn't seem to be any bar owners volunteering to start a no-smoking bar or to ban smoking at special events so anyone can come. It seems like the only way non-smokers can go where they want is if we have an all-out ban on smoking in public places. Maybe it does infringe on the rights of smokers, but it's a battle between the right to preserve your health and the right to destroy your health. Ideally we should have been able to come up with a way for us all to do whatever we want with our health, but when people can't work out a compromise I guess the most fair thing is to side with the people who want to preserve their health. Maybe someday a compromise will be reached and everyone will be happy, but for now I'm glad we have the ban. Anyone who doesn't like the ban and thinks they have a better idea for how to solve the problem should be bringing it up at city council meetings.
That is my personal opinion, and I will appreciate it greatly if those of you who disagree can say so respectfully without calling me names. |
|
Let's Rehabilitate Ourselves |
by Local Yocal
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
23 May 2006
|
LOOKING AT A BIGGER PICTURE, I WAS AMUSED TO WATCH A SPEECH GIVEN BY A RESIDENT OF URBANA AT LAST NIGHT'S URBANA CITY COUNCIL MEETING REGARDING THE SMOKING BAN. IF THE DRUG WAR WAS ACTUALLY ABOUT PREVENTING THE CITIZENS FROM CONSUMING HARMFUL SUBSTANCES, THEN THIS RESIDENT'S "CONFESSION" FOLLOWS THE LOGIC OF THE DRUG WAR, I WOULD THINK.....
"I address this City Council tonight to make the following confession:
At approximately 8:36p.m. last night,
and there was a witness to this,
I ingested approximately 2.5 grams of a controlled substance known to be the leading cause of preventable death in the United States.
This substance kills 440,000 americans every year.
Yes, I confess to you now, I smoked two tobacco cigarettes and
was in possession of 3 more tobacco cigarettes in my left front shirt pocket.
Not only did I smoke two tabacco cigarettes and had direct possession of the aformentioned 3 additional tobacco cigarettes, located in the aformentioned front left shirt pocket,
but I also,
I'm sad to say,.....
ingested approximately 8 ounces of the second deadliest controlled substance in the United States.
Yes, I admit it,
not only was I doing some tobacco last night,
I was also drinking beer.
Ice cold beer at that too.
A thorough search of the refrigerator,
where this incident took place,
would have located another 16 ounces of the aformentioned second-most deadliest substance.
This substance was contained in an unopened bottle with the words, Corona, neatly typefaced on it.
This I did, all on the evening of Sunday, May 21, 2006
at the aformentioned time of 8:36p.m.
within the city limits of Urbana, Illinois.
And
there is a witness who could be subpoened to testify to these facts.
On behalf of the people of Urbana and the State of Illinois,
I now make this confession and submit to the Urbana police arresting me here tonight
if that's their discretion;
My crime:
ingesting and being in possession of the two aformentioned most deadly controlled substances in the United States of America.
Perhaps taking me to jail tonight
and eventually putting me in a State Prison for numerous years
will rehabilitate me from my possible drug addiction to these deadly drugs.
Perhaps spending the next 3 to 5 years in a 9 foot BY 12 foot cinderblock cell
with total strangers who have committed similiar crimes or even very violent crimes
will help me get my life back together.
And then, after I have returned from the Department of Corrections a few years from now,
Perhaps if I had a felony criminal conviction associated with my name forevermore,
perhaps that record on my future applications will assist me,
in finding a good job and a nice place to live
where I can raise a family and stay out of trouble.
Just maybe, just maybe
if I did some hard time in prison,
I might learn the lesson to not smoke tobacco cigarettes or drink alcoholic beer.
Who knows? I could be, afterall, selling the stuff to underage children to support my own personal habit.
If I were swept off the streets for years
beginning in a few moments,
wouldn't that send a message to the children and families
THAT HERE IN URBANA,
WE DON'T TOLERATE PEOPLE KILLING THEMSELVES ON DANGEROUS DRUGS?
And shouldn't we do whatever it takes to stamp these deadly drugs out of our community once and for all?
Yes, I confess I use deadly drugs and I know I deserve prison.
And I now waive my right to remain silent,
and I know my confession
can now be used against me in a court of law." |
|
Re: Champaign City Council voted 5-4 to Go Smokefree |
by james
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
23 May 2006
|
I don't like name-calling either, Michelle. That's why I don't go around calling people "imbecilic exploiters" or "Jack Ryan" (I have to say, that's the first time I've ever LITERALLY been called a name).
I'm glad someone else here is OK with compromises, though. I've been saying all along that it's fine with me to ban smoking in restaurants and even some bars, but it seems like nothing except a total ban would be enough. See, I agree. YOU aren't infringing on anyone's rights. It's the government who's infringing on the rights of the bar owners by telling them what they can and can't allow on their own property. You say that, when people can't work out a compromise, the fair thing to do is to side with the people who want to preserve their health. Why is that? Do you own the bar? Did you pay to open it, and are you responsible for it's fiscal success or failure? It may be the nice thing to do, or the generous thing to do to side with the non-smokers, but what about it is exactly fair?
Because are there REALLY a lot of other places to hang out? It seems like, if there really were, this wouldn't really be much of an issue.
So how about the idea of the city council allowing a limited number of smoking permits, that bar owners could bid on? Or, and I know this is likely to get shouted down around here, as it relies on a market idea rather than a governmental force one, but what about the idea of tradable smoking permits?
You say you didn't see many bar owners volunteering to go non-smoking. Did you ask them? Did you petition them to show them that it wouldn't mean lost business after all?
See, the thing is, I didn't notice anyone really TRYING to make a compromise. Look at the non-smokers you see. Are they really going to be willing to compromise? Do people who gloat over the ill health of others tend to be willing to compromise?
Yet look at smokers. You used to be able to smoke in just about every restaurant (it's funny. If you ever go to Charleston, there's a McDonald's where you can still smoke, believe it or not), office building, waiting room, movie theater, and coffee shop around. All of those places were given up, and I haven't seen too many riots. Bars were pretty much the last place you COULD smoke, actually. And yet smokers are the ones who are being demonized and called inflexible.
Besides, there's never going to be a compromise now. Laws that are on the books tend to stay on the books, and it's pretty hard to get them revoked. People had their chance, but they went straight for the jugular. |
|
Re: Champaign City Council voted 5-4 to Go Smokefree |
by rose
rose at posterchildren.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
24 May 2006
|
My grandmother, grandfather, and 2 of my friends died of lung cancer.
Only two of the above people smoked.
I have never understand why people want to hurt themselves and others. Also don't understand why people want to adopt a lifestyle / self-image that has been fed to them by a large corporation.
And man, I can't wait to play a rock show in a bar with no smoking. |
|
Re: Champaign City Council voted 5-4 to Go Smokefree |
by james
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
24 May 2006
|
See? I think it's great that you can play in a non-smoking bar! Absolutely fantastic! I'm not asking that I be allowed to smoke EVERYWHERE. Why can't we just have a few horrible, filthy dives that nobody in his right mind would ever go to? Where would the career of Tom Waits be without places like that?
Though you may not understand why people want to destroy their health, people do. I don't understand why people get into S&M and cause themselves immediate physical pain. But hey, to each his own, right? Or should we go ahead and ban that too? If people want to have clubs where they do that kind of stuff to each other, by all means, they should be allowed to. It's not up to me to understand everything.
But you do realize that there are lots of things besides cigarettes that cause lung cancer, right? Radon, for example. And all kinds of smoke contain carcinogens, whether it's from wood or marijuana or even incense (.http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1100). Sawdust is a carcinogen. Why would someone want to have carpentry as a hobby when it can destroy their health?
Would it be OK if I adopted the lifestyle fed to me by the hippies, and went off to Amsterdam to hang out in a hash bar? Plenty of carcinogens there too, you know. |
|
Re: Champaign City Council voted 5-4 to Go Smokefree |
by james
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
24 May 2006
|
Of course, I don't really like rock shows anyway, you know. That kind of music can seriously and permanently damage your hearing when you listen to it that loud. I'll never understand what makes people want to hurt their ears and the ears of others just because they think it's "cool" and "fun".
If there's one thing I can't stand, it's when I'm sitting there, calmly and reflectively smoking a cigarette, and some jerk whips out a guitar, and his friend gets out a drum set, and the two of them set out to completely wreck my ears and give me a headache. I don't know why they let them play so loud, just because the owner thinks it's OK.
Just a couple of months ago, I went to go see Waco Jesus, and they were seriously rockin'. I couldn't stand it. Why should MY hearing get ruined just because everyone else there seemed to be having a great time and shouting for them to play louder? I was like "Um. Would you guys mind turning it down just a bit? I'm really starting to get a headache.". But do you think they listened? Of course not. Rock musicians are so inconsiderate. Well, if they won't listen (or, more likely, just CAN'T anymore), maybe the city council should step in here. |
|
Try This |
by trying to stay healthy
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
24 May 2006
|
You might want to check out a set of earplugs. Many musicians wear them. They're a lot more convenient than the gas mask you suggested my daughter wear.
Speaking of wearing things to help, have you ever considered the patch? It will help with the nicotine cravings, but probably won't solve your whining problem unless you seal your lips with it. |
|
Re: Champaign City Council voted 5-4 to Go Smokefree |
by james
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
25 May 2006
|
Yeah, earplugs are more convenient. I suppose they should hand them out to all the poor people who have to work at the bar and don't want their hearing damaged. Granted, it'll make it sort of difficult for them to take drink orders, but hey. What can you do?
Besides, why should I have to take any steps at all to protect my own health? Why can't the government do that for me? |
|
Re: Champaign City Council voted 5-4 to Go Smokefree |
by John Hilty
jhilty (nospam) shout.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
25 May 2006
|
"Just maybe, just maybe
if I did some hard time in prison,
I might learn the lesson to not smoke tobacco cigarettes or drink alcoholic beer."
The above comment was extracted from LOCAL YOCAL'S post.
Back in the days when the work-release program was still functioning in Urbana, the ex-felons would wait for the same MTD bus that I was accustomed to riding. And I can tell you that they were heavy consumers of tobacco products, even though they were recently released from prison. And so we can forget about prison reforming smokers -- if anything, they'll pick up even worse habits than they already have.
And now to the main topic of this thread . . . .
---------------------------
James is badly outnumbered by the people who support the anti-smoking ordinance, therefore I will attempt to bolster his position with some additional arguments.
Generally, I find the arguments in favor of a TOTAL BAN on tobacco-smoking in public places to be inadequate and one-sided, as they consider only the rights of non-smokers, while totally disregarding the rights of smokers. In a diverse democratic society, I like to think that we can make reasonable accomodations to each other's differences without using the government as a bully pulpit to micromanage the affairs of individuals and private property owners.
No one is being forced to visit a bar where smoking occurs, nor has anyone been prevented from starting a non-smoking bar, assuming that a market for such an entity even exists. In general, it is always possible to "vote with one's feet" and not patronize any business that allows the smoking of tobacco products.
I'm a life-long non-smoker and I have yet to enter a business establishment in Champaign-Urbana where I encountered large clouds of tobacco smoke. Undoubtedly I could encounter such tobacco smoke at some of the local bars, however I avoid them because I also abstain from alcohol and I dislike the kinds of music that are performed in bars.
If NONE of the bars in town are smoke-free, then I suppose the proponents of the anti-smoking ordinance have a minor justification for their complaint. This problem can be adequately addressed by requiring each city to sell a certain percentage of their liquor-licenses to bar owners who agree to maintain a smoke-free environment. In this regard, I think James has made a perfectly reasonable proposal. For others kinds of businesses, I see no need to impose any restrictions, as it is very easy to find smoke-free grocery stores, smoke-free restaurants, and other smoke-free environments in the community. The territorial dominance of tobacco smoke has been in decline for quite some time.
Our constitution guarantees the pursuit of individual liberty -- this applies to smokers as much as non-smokers. In a just society, we should strive to accomodate each other's differences and arrive at a reasonable compromise when conflicts of interest arise. There should be no permanent second-class citizens in a just society.
I assume that smokers would not smoke unless they derived some kind of pleasure from it that exceeded their perception of its costs and health risks. While it is true that tobacco smoke imposes significant costs and health risks, I fear authoritarian government and the tyranny of the majority even more. Therefore, I am against a total ban of smoking in public places.
Some people have made the argument that the anti-smoking ordinance is justified because the use of tobacco products can kill people. However, stress, poverty, automobiles, consumption of red meat, lawn herbicides, alcohol, and wars can kill people or make them seriously ill, and so far there has been little progress in banning any of these. Another problem with this argument is that it can be used to impose a total ban of tobacco products -- even when they are used inside one's own home. However, as the failed drug war has already revealed, a total ban of this nature has little chance of success.
Personally, I don't want to live in a hyper-regulated society just to make it a little bit safer and healthier . . . . If someone wants to climb cliffs at the risk of breaking their necks, or if someone wants to smoke at the risk of ruining their lungs, then they should be allowed to do this. There is no such thing as freedom without risks. As the 18th century English poet, William Blake, stated: "When we chase away the devils, the angels will go with them." |
|
Way to go, smoke-free activists!!! |
by PM
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
26 May 2006
|
It's great to see what a committed group of activists can do. U-C is definitely a better place thanks to the smoking ban. If only it could apply to everyplace where people need to work...
Thank you! |
|
