As of today, if you smoke, you can't in restaurants and bars in Lake County. Several county towns --- like Libertyville and Lindenhurst --- had already banned smoking in public establishments before the state law took effect. Instead of smoking sections, there will be smokers outdoors, shivering in the cold, at least until summer.
The Hound has polled smokers he knows and they will continue to smoke. They just won't enjoy it as much while having a drink or dinner. Smoking seems to be an enjoyable pastime. Why else would a quarter of the nation continue to smoke after hearing of the effects on one's health? Perhaps many Illinois smokers will resort to a chew and spittoons may return to taverns. Talk about your back to the future.
And, doesn't our government, as usual, send a mixed message here. We continue, nationally, to subsidize tobacco farmers. Our state officials rub their hands with glee over increased taxes on tobacco.
The Hound has been in other states where smoking has been banned and most add an outdoor "patio" to their establishments catering to smokers. That's fine and dandy in warm-weather states. Try that today in Lake County and smokers will get frostbite --- not only on their fingers --- and that is another health danger for puffers lawmakers didn't take into account.
I really think this is silly and unfair. I feel bad for businesses, restaurants and bars I do think this will affect their business. Why can't establishments post on their door that they allow smoking, if a non-smoker wants to go in to that establishment, that is their choice.
Why are we so against smokers? Why can't we ban excessive perfume?
There are people ( myself included that are highly allergic to fragrances) yet I am continually assaulted by people wearing an overbearing amount of perfume. I'm sure I am not the only person who has this problem.
Lighten up on the smokers.
THE HOUND SEZ: Why should we lighten up on smokers? The diseases they contract from their filthy habit raise our health insurance rates and hospital costs, which no where near is offset from taxes on tobacco products. Most businesses were ahead of the state and banned smoking indoors years ago. In fact, you can't even smoke on property owned by Abbott Laboratories. You're allergic to fragrances, but can tolerate secondhand smoke? You must use the fetching Eau de Marlboro fragrance, I take it.
I agree with kate,if you think smoking is bad drinking is the most filthy habit,nothing is as bad as drinking but every one will defend its use.What about trying to have a nice dinner with your family and you have loud,disgusting,smelly drunks next to your table.Or may be try taking a flight somewhere and you are next to a drunk why should I be subject to that,in public places they should have a section for drinkers and they must stay in there area,also drinking kills more lives then smoking,I think our insurace rates also go up becauses of this filthy habit.Who has the right to say what habit is worst,belive me there are alot of filthy habits on the list not just smoking.How about chewing tobbaco and spitting on the sidewalk or in a cup while your eating, ect.
THE HOUND SEZ: Don't know what eateries you hang out in, but If there was a bunch of drunks next to my table I'd call management had have them moved. However, sitting next to a drunk on an airplane or spitting on the sidewalk doesn't cause serious health problems, as secondhand smoke. It may be impolite to spit in a cup while you're eating, but it can only make you sick to your stomach, if you get my drift.
I do not have a drinking addiction which I guess they think is a disablity, I have a smoking addiction so I guess I have a disablity. Please comment on this one.
THE HOUND SAYS: A drinking addiction is considered by some a disease, not a disability. What you will end up with if you smoke will be a disease. You're disability will be you will be on oxygen and cannot breathe. Besides, drinking usually doesn't effect the person you're sitting next to, unless you're allergic to beer or spirits.
Well if I have a addiction to smoking,and now I have disease due to smoking .I think your wrong people who drink have a addiction that also turns into deadly diasese also.I want to be able to go to court and get my benifits and back pay and pension I really dont think thats going to happen but the drunks can, please tell me the difference.If there are smoking rooms in a bar I will not be bothering your air,only the air in that room with other smokers if you want to come in thats your choice people need to look at both sides and quit being so dramatic about smells and air ect.This is the land of the free. We all know fried chicken,fries big macs are far worse than SHS.There is proof of drinking kills innocent people and all the fat people eat. SHS is still not proven to justify this stupid ban.
THE HOUND SEZ: This isn't the land of the free, this is the land of laws, because we are a nation of laws, not men. Some places have put in "smoking" tents for customers who want to smoke. The law is here, it's staying here and Illinois isn't the only state to have it. I suggest you spend your time and energy seeking to quit smoking rather than complaining about it. As for people eating Big Macs, fried chicken, etc. They may be next!
I rather put my energy,towards drinkers who may kill me and my children and family,If we are a land of laws lets get rid of drinking,grant there are laws about drinkig and driving if you get caught but my concern is the drinker that did not get caught and killed a innocent driver,should I quit driving just because people drink and drive I think the police need to be looking for drunk drivers not a person who lights up.I also know how non smokers are they will get on there cells and make sure they call me in for breaking the law, but I wish they would do the same when they are in a bar and they know that someone is to drunk to drive but they wont. As far as me quiting smoking,thats my one vice I enjoy and everyone Has at least one vice hope the laws take someting you enjoy away and make it a law.May be then you could look at both sides.
THE HOUND SAYS: Wait a minute. If you're arguing for smoking in taverns, aren't you also drinking there? Aren't you one of the ones the cops should be looking for behind the wheel?
I am a non drinker but do go to bars to eat and have a soda, so no I am not one of thoes that the police have to worry about getting behid the wheel,but they may have to have a tape measure to make sure I am 15 feet away from the bar, God fobid I should only be 10 feet away.
THE HOUND SAYS: If you are 10 feet away you should be arrested, taken to a police station, forced to undergo waterboarding and given a piece of Nicorette gum to soothe your withdrawal symptoms.
I think the police have better things to do then to watch smokers to see if they are 15 feet away,I feel sorry for the police dept who has to watch for smokers being 15 feet away from a building,not counting the paper work court time.The courts are so back up as it is with inportant crimes.The non smoking ban is just plain stupid and I rather my tax dollars go to fighting crime not people smoking,I guess we will have to hire more police,so the non smokers can have there way and we all will pay more taxes for this?Give me a break.
THE HOUND SAYS: No they don't. Crime is down in Illinois. Smokers are easy prey and easy money for communities to shore up their revenue base. Smokers pay more in taxes for cigarettes and tobacco products and now they'll be paying fines. We should all be thanking smokers for adding to the treasury.
"Why lighten up on smokers?" states the Hound. I say let the government start clamping down on irresponsible and shoddy journalists and their employers. Of course the Hound would say "But it's my 1st amendment right" and besides it's OK for him to cry NIMBY when it's his own backyard!
And by the way Hound, please show us some figures when you state that increased insurance and hospitals costs are not offset by tobacco taxws. You surely had these figures at the ready when you made that statement.
And lastly, please show us one instance where the cause of death was listed as secondary smoke.
THE HOUND SAYS: Whoa, partner. "Shoddy journalists and their employers." Whoa, doggie. There is no constitutional guarantee to smoke in public places. There are constitutional guarantees for freedom of speech, including if it's stupid --- like listing the cause of death as secondary smoke. Here's the Centers for Disease Control Web site which tells you all about secondhand smoke: www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/Factsheets/SecondhandSmoke.htm
Here's some basics from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Secondhand smoke contains at least 250 chemicals known to be toxic, including more than 50 that can cause cancer. Secondhand smoke exposure causes heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmoking adults. Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their heart disease risk by 25 to 30% and their lung cancer risk by 20 to 30%.
Breathing secondhand smoke has immediate harmful effects on the cardiovascular system that can increase the risk of heart attack. People who already have heart disease are at especially high risk. Secondhand smoke exposure causes respiratory symptoms in children and slows their lung growth. Secondhand smoke causes sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more frequent and severe asthma attacks in children. There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure. Even brief exposure can be dangerous.
Now, Einstein, here's some facts, once again from Centers for Disease Control (if, in fact you trust your government), on insurance costs:
For 1997–2001, cigarette smoking was estimated to be responsible for $167 billion in annual health-related economic losses in the United States ($75 billion in direct medical costs, and $92 billion in lost productivity), or about $3,561 per adult smoker. The total economic costs associated with cigarette smoking are estimated at $7.18 per pack of cigarettes sold in the United States. Cigarette smoking results in 5.5 million years of potential life lost in the United States annually.
Looks to me like you should be paying about $7 for a pack of cigarettes to make up for the health costs associated with smoking.
You're defending a losing battle. Just use those outside, heated tents bars are offering their smokers. And keep seeing your doctor on a regular basis.
Spittoons were banned years ago. I'm sure there were many "lifelong spitters" who complained back in the 1910's that their "freedoms" were abridged because of "flimsy" evidence linking spittoons to the spread of cholera, tuberculosis, and influenza. See some anti-spitting posters from those do-gooders who put out the Christmas Seals here. Yet the taverns survived.
Yes the state does like to shake down smokers for tax money. It's just like lotto: a tax on stupidity.
THE HOUND SAYS: The French have even banned smoking in public places. You know there isn't "flimsy" evidence about secondhand smoke if the French, notorious smokers as they are, start paying attention. Sacre bleu!
This law, together with the seat belt law, is the start of a downward spiral for personal freedoms. I am a smoker, but whether or not I am should not matter. What should matter is that any owner of a business - tavern, restaurant, retail - if an activity is legal and does not require a license to offer it in your establishment, you, as a free American, should be able to make up your own mind whether or not to allow that activity (and that includes smoking). Making a success of a bar or restaurant is hard enough without adding more hoops to jump through. As long as there is free America, I will defend a property owner's right to do what they want with their property, as long as it is legal. It is not illegal to smoke. The taxes paid for cigarettes are still being collected and budgets set with that money in mind. So why all this villianism of smokers and smoking? If the government wants to get really health conscious, perhaps they can start taxing fatty foods (which contribute to obesity), or taxing folks that work stressful jobs (because that contributes to heart attacks). The truth is, you can't outlaw everything that is a health risk, although this government may try to. I say let's nip it in the bud - if the owner of a business wants to allows smoking in his or her establishment, then let there be smoke!!!!!
THE HOUND SAYS: Linda, Linda, you've just given the government two more ideas on how to infiltrate your life. Taxing fatty foods and stressful jobs. You forgot to mention high-risk jobs. This is all fine and good about letting there be smoke, but the bottom line is the Illinois Legislature believes second-hand smoke is bad for restaurant and tavern patrons and employees. Case closed unless you want to smoke in a smoking tent or this summer al fresco at outdoor smoking pits.
Then they should change the laws. Perhaps they could learn a lesson from the Memphis International Airport about making an indoor space okay for smokers and non-smokers alike. The airport offers two restaurant/bars in which to smoke. The exhaust system is so strong that there is no lingering smoke at all. Perhaps if restaurants and bars install similar "super-exhaust" systems, we can open the door back up to freedom of choice in Illinois.
THE HOUND SAYS: You lost your freedoms about the time two jets hit the Twin Towers in New York. Smoking indoors is the least of your worries.