It's hard to imagine that come Jan. 1 it will be illegal to light up in a bar in Naperville. But that's what the City Council decided April 18. Have we really heard the last of the smoking ordinance?
Probably not. For starters, the entire issue of outdoor smoking is unresolved, because the state bill that Naperville mirrored doesn't address that. So the sticky issue of bars with outdoor seating vs. those without and the whole "level playing field" debate is still hanging out there.
My father died of heart disease and COPD, presumably from heavy smoking for most of his life. My brother died at age 64 from bladder cancer. The only known risk factor was his heavy smoking.
If you want to kill yourself for cigarettes, be my guest but others should not be subjected to secondhand smoke.
My college town did this. It is a good idea, however I hope everyone realizes that instead of walking into a bar and smelling cigarette smoke, you will walk in to the smell of beer, vomit and body odor. I guess that beats second hand smoke, but it's not a good thing either!
The frustrating part of the long-running smoking debate is that both sides have just been talking past each other with neither really listening to what the other is saying. Smokers are quick to assert their individual rights to smoke while ignoring the effect their actions have on others. The Supreme Court has generally established that you only have personal rights as far as they don't infringe on the rights of others. If you believe the research on secondhand smoke, it seems pretty clear that smoking in closed public areas causes harm to others and thus you don't have that right. What if I walked around firing a gun in the air claiming a constitutional right to bear arms? You could correctly argue that those bullets could end up hitting someone and thus it is dangerous and I don't deserve that right. Most of those bullets won't hit anything, but one might, and one is too many. The same is the case with secondhand smoke. Most people probably won't be harmed, but one person might, they just won't know it for a long time. These laws aren't meant to protect smokers, they are meant to protect the people who have to be around them.
On the other hand, the numbers from other towns with smoking bans seem to indicate that such a ban will severely damage businesses. Even though a small percentage of the population smokes, a disproportionate number of them seem to go to bars and restaurants and they apparently are passionate enough about their smoking that they will stop going to a place that doesn't allow it. There are also people like myself who don't go to bars specifically because we don't like the smoke, but apparently the numbers don't even out. The system we have now has worked for a long time. No one forces people to go into that environment. They know the risk when they go there and they accept that risk. Even the workers at such places know what they are getting into, and if they really are bothered by it, they can go elsewhere. I have a feeling that most of the people who are complaining the loudest about smoky bars and restaurants rarely frequent them anyway because of their objections, so it could be a case of taking a place to smoke and have fun away from people who are happy to have such a place in order to reward people who won't go to the smokeless bars anyway because it's not their thing.
There are good arguments on both sides. Personally I hate being around people smoking, but I just don't put myself in that situation. I think other people are capable of the same decision. We need a statewide ban or no ban at all to protect the businesses. I don't understand why Naperville had to suddenly jump into this when the state was already discussing it. If the state ban passes, Naperville's will be unnecessary, and if it doesn't, Naperville's may prove to be a really bad idea. Bragging rights is the only possible reason, and that's never a good reason to pass a law.
Chris, you post some very insightful comments. I generally agree with smoking restrictions for all the reasons you mentioned. I think smokers have accepted the reality that they're going to have to stand outdoors in all kinds of weather at least 15 feet away from building entrances -- that's where all this is headed. But I'm puzzled that DuPage County wants to levy a tax on cigarettes. I think that Aurora alderman is onto something when he says if that city passes smoking restrictions, the town should also ban the sale of cigarettes.
I used to live in Naperville, and I do miss it. Now we live in Florida. Florida is smoke free in all restaurants and bars where a certain percentage of their profit comes from food. So the bars that wanted to keep smoking in place stopped serving food. I can say, as a nonsmoker, it is wonderful!! I like being able to go into a place knowing I won't be smelling of smoke when I leave. The person that posted about the places smelling like beer, vomit and body oder? Don't know what kind of places they are going into. I just know it is nice. Naperville is just the right town to be the front runner on this.