House OKs smoking ban

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 2 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   

House OKs smoking ban


www.chicagotribune.com< br />

The Illinois House overwhelmingly approved a statewide smoking ban in public places Tuesday that would eliminate a confusing patchwork of local laws and leave smokers in every community with one place in common to light up—outside.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 2 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Thank God, I live in down-state IL and cannot stand smoking and smokers even though my wife smokes from time to time. I think that it is about time that someone has stood up for the rights of non-smokers. I am so sick of the smokers that whine that it is their right to smoke where and when they want. Well, its my right to not have to breath in smoke when I want to go out to eat or have a drink. Three cheers for Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

www.chicagotribune.com< br /> (visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   
I think it's disgusting. There are people who smoke, and people who don't smoke. Why not cater to both?

Drinking is bad for you too you know:


Alcohol contributes to 100,000 deaths annually, making it the third leading cause of preventable mortality in the U.S., after tobacco and diet/activity patterns.

Source.


You say drinking doesn't hurt anyone else but yourself? I beg to differ:


Alcohol is routinely thought to be a major cause of violence and disorder in the UK. Media coverage1 of the issue would certainly lead us to this conclusion, along with police statistics which regularly purport to show that between 60% and 80% of all violent crime is alcohol-related. In addition, a recent survey conducted by Alcohol Concern and Police Review indicated that 70% of police officers viewed alcohol as causing them greater problems than drug misuse.

Source.


If "they" gave a damn about clean air, then surely some alternative to fossil fuels would by now be available to power our transport, industry etc.

No, this is a war on choice.



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   
its ok, im just going to smoke infront of your house.

i remember when they started the smoking ban in NY and pushed all the smokers outside... guess what, now we smoke infront of the door to your apartment and outside your stores. we also buy less alcohol at your bars and crowd the doorways because we spend less time in your establishment. enjoy the pay cut and the annoyance. im going to continue to smoke and when i walk down the street ill blow it in your face. it just pisses off a normal benign part of the population. when people ask me not to blow smoke toards them, i say "go sit in a bar".

[edit on 5/2/2007 by bokinsmowl]



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Great, smoke in front of my house, in a doorway, whatever. I think that if you want to slowly kill yourself by smoking that is your choice. No one is telling you that you can't. Just don't do it around those that would rather live a little longer and breath a little easier. I knew there would be a couple of you that turn this into some sort of conspiracy to take away your rights as a smoker. Gimme a break man, smoke all you want. Just don't do it around me.

Sure, alcohol is bad, I think that it should be illegal and pot be legal but I don't think that will ever happen.

Actually, I've got a better idea, quit smoking and save some money and get healthy.

[edit on 2-5-2007 by scooler1]



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   
I personally don't believe the Government has the right to intrude on the American people's "choice" making.

I smoke, but that's not my basis for opposing this action. I would respect you enough not to smoke in your home, in your doorway, or in your place of business... if that's what you chose to do with your "private" property. The Federal Government, nor the States Government, have any right what so ever to direct you on your "habits". That's just way overboard on controlling the masses. America is the land of the free... free willed people. These types of control measures bring us closer and close to a police state, along with other measures taken by all types of our Government.

I live in SW Kansas. There was recently a smoking ban in a town 30 miles east of where I live, of which I frequent that town quite often. I opposed their smoking ban (not in businesses nor within 50ft of entrances) due to the fact that "personal business owners" have lost a right to run their establishment how they see fit, regardless if they smoke or not.

What's next? Where do the infringements stop?



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 04:09 PM
link   
This law went into effect here in Louisiana this past January. Though in some areas, it might not have mattered much, the New Orleans restauarants have taken a direct hit.

I don't smoke anymore, but I am still against these laws. If a restaurant allows smoking, and you don't like it, go somewhere else that doesn't allow smoking. And for all those that are for this law, would you please stop driving your cars, you're polluting my air/lungs.



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 04:50 PM
link   
I just have some advice that my grandma always told me.

Don't start smoking early in your teens because you're not going to grow very tall, and if when you grow up and decide to smoke take it easy because, your chest and upper back are gonna get real thin because of the compression of your lungs, and your winnie is gonna shrink as well.

That always scared the hell out of me. aaaaaaaaaahhhh!!!

I support the ban on smoking in public places.


[edit on 2-5-2007 by bartholomeo]



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Why should the non-smoker be the one to have to go to another place because we choose not to pollute our bodies with something that is clearly unhealthy? I think that is BS, if you want to do something harmful to your body, go ahead, but don't subject me to your poor choices.

Oh, and niteboy, driving cars and smoking are not even related. Don't get mad at those of us for choosing to live a healthy life. According to your signature man has no right to kill his brother but here in IL 8 people die every day from second-hand smoke related illnesses. Is that right?

[edit on 2-5-2007 by scooler1]

[edit on 2-5-2007 by scooler1]



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by scooler1
Why should the non-smoker be the one to have to go to another place because we choose not to pollute our bodies with something that is clearly unhealthy?


Because you are a consumer living in a capitalist system (if you're in the US.) Therefore, you take your complaints to the owner of the establishment and tell them that you won't come back if they allow smoking. I have a feeling that if they care enough about your business and worry enough about you leaving, they'll change their policy.



I think that is BS, if you want to do something harmful to your body, go ahead, but don't subject me to your poor choices.


I am not smoking, but I am not the ex-smoker that gives hell on earth to everyone that smokes around me. Call me silly, but I am more concerned about being stuck behind a vehicle that is blowing black smoke out of his exhaust than the dude next to me puffing on a cigarette.


"The effects of airborne pollutants on the immune system have been most widely studied in the respiratory tract. An airborne pollutant may enter the respiratory tract as a volatile gas (e.g., ozone, benzene), as liquid droplets (e.g., sulfuric acid, nitrogen dioxide), or as particulate matter (e.g., components of diesel exhaust, aromatic hydrocarbons). These pollutants interact with the immune system and may cause local and systemic responses ranging from overactive immune responses to immunosuppression. Most airborne pollutants are small molecular weight chemicals that must be coupled with other substances (e.g., proteins or conjugates) before they can be recognized by the immune system and cause an effect. Some disorders which may occur because of pollutants in the respiratory system are the following:

Immunosuppression can be demonstrated following exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (e.g., 2,3,7,8-tetrachlordibenzo-p-dioxin). source


Hmm.. now lets see how many cars there are compared to smokers?



The table below shows the status of each chemical in the reregistration review process, and provides links to a chemical's Web page and any decision documents or fact sheets that are available. Information that may be available on a chemical Web page include the Chemical Review Manager contact information, Docket ID number, decision and fact sheet documents, Federal Register notices, and related documents.Source


Go through all those chemicals and tell me what's scarier.

Here is a thread on the recent Pet Food Problems and the possibility that human food could, and I stress could be next.

Yet we worry about smoking.



Oh, and niteboy, driving cars and smoking are not even related. Don't get mad at those of us for choosing to live a healthy life. According to your signature man has no right to kill his brother but here in IL 8 people die every day from second-hand smoke related illnesses. Is that right?


I think first off that I have shown how dangerous car exhaust can be, but you want to drive right, and don't want me interfering with my bike riding breathing in your pollutants?


Give me that source with 8 people in Illinois dying each day, and then let's compare the number of people that die from other preventable causes, and we'll go from there.


*Edit, my grammar is not the greatest tonight.*

[edit on 5/2/07 by niteboy82]



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Don't get me wrong, I tend to avoid the truly smoky places around town but I don't feel that I should have to be subjected to smoke when my family and I go out to eat.

You can quote all of the bad things about exhaust all day long but motor vehicles and smoking do not even compare. Smoking is a choice for certain individuals but driving a motor vehicle is something that will not go away. I'm sure you would not be very happy if there was nothing at the grocery store because 18-wheelers were banned due to their pollution.


Health Effects of Secondhand Smoke Exposure

Secondhand smoke exposure causes heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmoking adults.2

Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their heart disease risk by 25–30% and their lung cancer risk by 20–30%.2

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.2

Secondhand smoke exposure causes respiratory symptoms in children and slows their lung growth.2

Secondhand smoke causes sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute
respiratory infections, ear problems, and more frequent and severe asthma attacks in children.2

There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure. Even brief exposure can be dangerous.2


I can quote facts all day long too. The bottom line is that the dangers of smoking and second-hand smoke are preventable. It just floors me that someone will fight so hard to damage their body and blow their money.

I just hope that this ban will make some people to choose to stop smoking and get healthy because the healthcare costs related to smoking are out of control.



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 10:46 PM
link   
@ scooler1


First, driving a car is a lifestyle choice just as smoking is. I'm not talking about big rigs, I'm talking about cars. I always live within 1 mile of where I work and I walk there. If I can do it I don't see what everyone else's problems is. And as shown above there is NO QUESTION that car exhaust is toxic.

Second. You say "I can quote facts all day long too." But all I see in some information that has "external quote" at the top. Where is link? See, right here I have a paper my roomate wrote about the medical affects of second hand smoke. He got and A and the paper argues from a medical perspective that second hand smoke can't harm you in any significant way.

There is more I wanted to say, but I think I will fall back on Heinlein's thought that "85% of all wisdom is knowing when to mind your own business."

Vas


[edit on 2-5-2007 by Vasilis Azoth]

[edit on 2-5-2007 by Vasilis Azoth]

mod edit, to remove huge quote

[edit on 3-5-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 10:59 PM
link   
I got a ticket for smoking in a non smoking establishment
when I went to court I plead not guilty and requested a trial
by jury of my peers, the prosecutor said and I quote
"you know most people just pay the ticket and move on"
to which I replied " I guess I am not most people, and I would like a
jury trial" the judge grinned from ear to ear and dismissed the case

So I guess my point is if you request a jury trial they may get their $100
dollars but they are going to spend thousands to get it and I think it serves them right
if you impose on peoples rights be prepared to pay the $$$ it may cost you to enforce.


P.S. I have since quit smoking!! (I don't really feel any better and I am usually grumpy now!)


Later
GEO



posted on May, 3 2007 @ 12:11 AM
link   
Ah, I see at least one person has started the 'sexond hand smoke' argument. Oh, I am happy it has begun.

Second hand smoke has not been proven to cause cancer and heart disease. And, if you plan on using studies which say otherwise please make sure that they do not cite the EPA's 1993 study on second hand smoke. A study which was thrown out by a federal court in 1998 because it intentionally ignored data that contradicted their predetermined conclusion and cherry picked/manipulated data. Furthermore, it showed no significant link between second hand smoke and cancer.

Please make sure that it does not cite the study by the World Health Orginization. The press release states that "Passive smoking does cause lung cancer, do not let them fool you". When the actual report is read it turns out that it states that childhood exposure offers no risk to cancer and adult exposure's increased risk was so minute as to be statistically insignificant.

The two main citations for anti-smoking advocacy are either proven to be false or are proven to state that the connection is not there.

Hmm, it now seems like some people believe that their life-style choice should trump over anothers. If there is no real health risk then the argument seems to be one of 'I do not like it so it should not be around!'.

So I ask: Why should we cater to your personal distate of smoking? I myself am not a fan of people talking on walki-talkie cell phones in public. Let us ban that as well.



posted on May, 3 2007 @ 12:15 AM
link   
What most people don't seem to pay attention to is the fact that in general, a lot of the anti-smoking legislation is for those of us non-smokers who work in an environment such as a bar or restaurant.

Oh yes, we all have the right to 'choose' to work in a non-smoking environment.. that's if you can find a job in one..

Complaining customers generally doesn't do anything. It doesn't change policy, it just gets you moved around the restaurant, or occasionally some freebie or whatever..

The company still does what they wish to.



posted on May, 3 2007 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Inannamute
Oh yes, we all have the right to 'choose' to work in a non-smoking environment.. that's if you can find a job in one...


In my experience, as short as it may be, most work areas are not smoking friendly...ban on smoking on not. Unless you are working in a bar or restaurant.


Originally posted by Inannamute
Complaining customers generally doesn't do anything. It doesn't change policy, it just gets you moved around the restaurant, or occasionally some freebie or whatever..


If there is smoking in a bar...do not go to that bar. If there is smoking in a restaurant...ask for the non-smoking area (trust me, they will accommodate you). If the restaurant does not have a non-smoking area...then go to another restaurant.

I do not see what the big issue with that is. If you are put in a smoking area and you ask to not be they will move you. If there is no space available in the non-smoking they will apologize and ask if you would mind waiting until a table becomes available.


Originally posted by Inannamute
The company still does what they wish to.


That is their right. They own and operate the buisness.



posted on May, 3 2007 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Sure, alcohol is bad, I think that it should be illegal and pot be legal but I don't think that will ever happen.


What? haha, illegilize alcohol, but legalize pot. That comment speaks for itself.

No matter what comes out of this thread, you just need to mind your own damn business. If a private owner wants to allow smoking in his bar, or resturant, then that's to bad for you, don't support him. If a private owner wants to ban smoking in his resturant, great, I don't have to support him(not saying I wouldn't).

See it's plain and simple, you and no one else has the right to tell me what I can and can't do in my house, so why should you have the right to tell me what I can and can't do in my own bar, or resturant. You don't. It's much more than smoking. You give them an inch, and they go a mile. What are they going to tell me I can't do in my own business next?

This is destroying small business people, and destroying the little freedom we had left in america.



posted on May, 3 2007 @ 01:29 AM
link   
They ban smoking in Columbus OH and there are many more people at clubs and bars now. Smokers are a dying breed. I voted for the ban and I love it. No more smelling like a dirty ash tray or having to breath rotten smoke just because I wanted to go out for the night. The ban is working great. The vast majority of people I know are very happy with it. Our city overwhelmingly voted for it. 70% to 30%.



[edit on 3-5-2007 by zerotime]



posted on May, 3 2007 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by zerotime
Smokers are a dying breed.


It is a shame that moral chauvinism is not a breed on the decline.

That comment is not directly aimed at zerotime. I am, however, aiming it more broadly at those who feel that their lifestyle is one which should trump anothers.

It is not an attempt to force the regulation of the two opposing viewpoints (mandatory smoking sections and non-smoking sections within public establishments; a resolution which caters to both sides and which the majority of smokers, that I know personally, are for). Rather, it is a startingly successful attempt to block one choice out over another.


Originally posted by zerotime
The vast majority of people I know are very happy with it. Our city overwhelmingly voted for it. 70% to 30%.


Yes, damn the minority and let us ignore their voice. The minority within a viewpoint, even if they offer up reasonable compromise, should be ignored because, after all, there are less of them...right?



posted on May, 3 2007 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by spines

It is a shame that moral chauvinism is not a breed on the decline.

That comment is not directly aimed at zerotime. I am, however, aiming it more broadly at those who feel that their lifestyle is one which should trump anothers.

It is not an attempt to force the regulation of the two opposing viewpoints (mandatory smoking sections and non-smoking sections within public establishments; a resolution which caters to both sides and which the majority of smokers, that I know personally, are for). Rather, it is a startingly successful attempt to block one choice out over another.

Yes, damn the minority and let us ignore their voice. The minority within a viewpoint, even if they offer up reasonable compromise, should be ignored because, after all, there are less of them...right?



I'm sorry, but I'm not going to feel bad for smokers. For to long smokers have been some of the rudest people I have ever known. I love how now smokers are complaining that their "freedom" to blow smoke in my face at a restaurant is being taken away. If they could make a cigarette that doesn't smell like garbage then it wouldn't be a problem. There is nothing more appetizing then someone lighting up a cigarette or seeing a dirty ashtray sitting on the table. Maybe if restaurants had two separate rooms closed from each other but that has never been the case. Smoking and non-smoking is always divided by some imaginary line down the middle of the room. I am certainly not going to cry for smokers. The overwhelming majority of people in society do not smoke and do not want to breath smoke as they enjoy a public place. Non smokers have had enough of smokers and we are telling them it is time to go. Smoke in your own house all you want but not in public.

[edit on 3-5-2007 by zerotime]





top topics
 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join