Smoking ban poll on WHMS

Could that possibly be because the majority of the population prefers a smoke-free public environment?  I wish you'd stop referring to them (us) as "anti-smoking"....the public smoking ban isn't about telling you to quit smoking, it's about telling you that if you want to slowly kill yourself, do it in the privacy of your own home and leave me out of it.  I could give two ***** about whether or not you smoke, just do it somewhere else.

EDITED BY IP TO REMOVE PROFANITY.

I have to agree with Arvid on this point.  Bars and clubs are one of the most regulated businesses, yet there were no complaints until the smoking ban.  If the argument is truly about owners rights, why not fight to remove other city restrictions? (i.e. limits on hours of operation (especially Huber's and Ice House), limits on percentage of liquor to food sales based on the type of license, entry age, restrictions on beer gardens, restrictions on noise levels, restrictions on types of entertainment aka erotic dancers).  I remember a few years back a local businessman made his plans known to open a strip club in the former Mabel's location.  The city acted swiftly to impose all types of restrictions which make it virtually impossible for the that specific type of venture to get off the ground.  Where was support for private property rights then?

"The majority of the population in bars either enjoys smoking, or doesn't mind if other patrons smoke."

eggs - Your statement is a pretty presumptuous.  I've spent a lot of time in bars over the last 20 years and while I admit I never complained about the smoke, I also didn't realize what I was putting up with until the smoking ban when into effect.  Now that I know what it is like without the constant cloud of smoke, I would patronize Urbana bars if Champaign repeals their ordinance.

You might want to pass that along to Urbana council, as they have already shown they are unwilling to enact a ban unilaterally. Maybe words like yours would give them courage.

Wrote a letter to each member of the Urbana council on whatever day the News-Gazette was preaching about the doom and gloom and the dangers of an indoor smoking ban...

Then they need to show that somehow, some way, the danger that was so apparent that we needed a ban is no longer present.

If they can't, they have no business overturning the ban. It's not just about winning the seat; it's about executing the office responsibly.

Let's say I ran with a platform that I'd eliminate all taxes and dump $50,000 in city money on the crowd the first Saturday night of every month. I'd probably win with that platform, but carrying it off would be less than beneficial.

Paul Maul:

Great name. Great post.

My wife and I started smoking just for this election, yet you didn't vote for us.  Thanks. Now for sure I won't move to Champaign.

Sorry.  That anon poster is me.  I'm an Illinois resident, but I'm not from the C-U area.  I'm from the Windy City.  But I did visit U of I in Champaign once.

That same argument can be applied to nonsmokers who hate smoking-permitted bars.  Stay at home and buy your beer at stores.  Unless you intend on visiting bars as often as smokers do.

i know some people who think they cant survive without going into bars to drink. I think they have more serious things to worry about then second hand smoke

"The same argument can't be applied to my asthma". I am sorry you have asthma but we can't "asthma" proof the world for you. There are allot of other things beside cigarette smoke that will set off your asthma. We can't close down all the bars and fire all the employees because you might walk into one and possibly have an attack. Maybe you should just go to bars were they don't smoke. Do you expect us to close down all the perfume shops also?

I'm sorry smokers can't go a couple of hours without a cigarette while they're in public and sharing the same air supply as those who choose not to smoke, but it is not up to the public to accomodate your "problem", especially when allowing your problem infringes on the rights of others. You can do what you want to your body so long as I don't have to share in it.

I expect that when I walk into a perfume store, there will be perfume and I will leave smelling as such, and run the risk of an asthma attack because of that. However, a bar is not a "smoke shop", it is a "beer and liquor shop". I should not expect to have to be surrounded with cigarette smoke simply because a minority of the population believes that "it's the thing to do when you drink" or "other vices are allowed, and we're all adults". If that is an argument you wish to make, then I point you to my previous comment about why I can't bring my wife to the bar with me to enjoy the refreshing and exciting feeling that comes from a good roll in the hay.

Look, if you want to wave the property rights banner, then you need to jump on the bandwagon full-force. I expect to see those who oppose this business regulation on the grounds that it infringes on property rights to be mandating that the bar hours be modified to be open at all times, alcohol available for purchase at all times, open containers permitted in vehicles and while walking down the street, adult entertainment venues to be established wherever the owner sees fit, no restrictions on who can obtain a liquor license, repeal of the health codes, etc.

Otherwise, just admit that you're more concerned with your individual desire (not a right, but a desire) to smoke where you see fit, regardless of the consequences to those around you. I'd actually be impressed if any of you had the stones (gender-neutral, of course :) to go on record saying either of these two options. I'd certainly have a lot more respect for any of you if you did.

Arvid:

That rocked.

If a bar is a beer and liquor shop, then why do we have stores that sell liquor?  One of those places needs to close down because we don't need several beer and liquor shopa.   And if a bar is supposedly a beer and liquor shop, I oughta find cases of beer in there I could buy, just like I'd find in a store.

A bar is a place for people to relax while having a drink.   If it's a shop, there would be no seats in there to sit down at.  You would just buy drinks, and leave.  

You're more concerned with your own individual desires if you honestly think a bar is a beer and liquor shop.   And I hope you can explain to me these consequences of smoking around others with evidence.   I'm sure you'll use the excuse of "There's plenty of evidence online."  Yeah, that's biased evidence.   And none of that online evidence can explain why smoking was never considered to be a consequence to others until 2 decades ago. 

Even to this day, I still haven't heard of someone inhaling SHS in public, collapsing, and dying on the spot.   If SHS kills for real, people would be dying after walking past smokers outside.   If that's stupid thinking on my part, then that confirms there are no consequences to smoking around others.  I never said SHS kills.  Antismokers have said that for years.   But where's the evidence at?

Anonymous: It's not that you're choosing to do something that you enjoy and I disagree with, it's that your choice to enjoy it in public infringes on my right to enjoy not indulging. How is it that your rights are more important than mine? It's funny how people forget that this goes both ways. I'm not telling you not to smoke. I'm telling you to keep it in the privacy of your own home. How simple is it to show some common courtesy? Apparently it's quite difficult....

Please show me evidence of smoking around others being "consequences" for others. And please include evidence not provided by antismoking organizations such as the ACS.

You can't possibly be this stupid. If inhaling it through a filter is proven to have long-term health consequences, how does inhaling it when it is slightly dissipated through the air WITHOUT a filter somehow not unhealthy? Do the chemicals and toxins and carcinogens just "magically" disappear upon contact with the air?

As for sources, it is well documented that smoking is bad for you. Surgeon General's report should suffice, but I can tell that you are clinging to your vice (that's certainly your right to cling to it, just not force me to share it), so I know you won't be dissuaded by something as blatantly obvious as the facts so I won't bother responding to your troll bait much other than pointing out that the EPA states "Secondhand smoke affects everyone". How about this: I challenge you to provide evidence supporting your position that there is no consequence for others that is not funded by the tobacco industry AND within the last 7 years.

If smoking is a "consequence for others" now, how come people weren't complaining about these "consequences" before anntismokers became more popular?

People have been complaining about smoking for quite a long time, it takes a while for the right decision to become the popular one.

A shop is a place where you purchase goods/services. A bar is essentially a beer, wine and liquor shop with (usually) comfy seats. It's all this government regulation that makes it so you can't take it out with you. Where's the argument to allow bottle service in all establishments? Why don't grocery stores all force the liquor stores out of business because you can buy your booze there? The flaws with your arguments are too numerous to point out, and you wouldn't listen anyway and just come back with tired, repeatedly refuted and disproven talking points.

Yeah, that's biased evidence.

Apparently the only evidence out there, as fart as you're concerned, is either a) What you want to hear, or b) clearly biased because you don't agree with it. Are you a member of the Flat-Earth Society, too? I refer you to the previous comment: How can it possibly not be bad for you to breathe it second-hand if it is bad for you to breathe in first-hand? Show me the science that supports this magical action. Look to the EPA and the Surgeon General for some unbiased sources, but I'm sure you'll dismiss it because clearly they both have a rabid agenda to rid the world of smokers (sarcasm).

It was, I occasionally fail to attribute my name. I might actually create an account at some point in the future...

Now there was a streak of illogic.

First, I have no desire to go to any of those places you named.

B, I don't need everyone to quit smoking everywhere. Just in public, indoor places.

And laws shape mores all the time.

You lost him with the second sentence.

That information has been public for years. Probably decades.

The smokers stick their cigarettes in their ears and mumble to avoid hearing it.

BTW, did anyone ever see a great Dilbert where he and Wally invent an eargarette so they can go on more breaks? Classic.

Speaking of the Constitution, I've heard the argument before of "The Constitution doesn't say 'Freedom to smoke tobaco.'  Therefore, smoking is not a right."   Well, if I apply that same logic, the Constitution doesn't say "Freedom of tobacco smoke-free air" either.   Meaning  forcing every single adults-only businesses (such as bars) and every single private business to all become smoke-free isn't a  right .   

Making  a business smoke-free should be up to the owner.  Not the govt.    If the owner feels he/she can still have a sucessful business by voluntarily having nonsmoking customers only in the bar, then that's understandable.  

If there are private property rights in the Constitution, that means the owners of the private properties have the right to make their own rules.  Because if you have the freedom to own private property, that means you theroetically make your own rules for your property  Since you pay for your property taxes (among other things accosciated with ow.ning private property) The govt shouldn't make the rules for them.  

Now if the govt wants to pay for that private property owner's taxes and expenses assosciated with his/her business, then I could cee the govt having the right to make rules for the private owners then.

And if anyone can't see we're slowly headed to a Tobacco Prohibition, that ain't my problem.

-Aside from the common smoking bans, some states have also made it illegal to smoke in your own car with kids

-More apartments in some cities are becoming smoke-free.  And although these decisions are voluntary, I'm sure the antismokers will wanna see all apartments and even all houses smoke-free.  I bet some of them are even using the logic of "If this landlord made his apartments smoke-free, how come you can't make YOUR apartments smoke-free for the kids' sake?"

-More nursing homes are becoming smoke-free.  Which means even if it's -30 degrees outside, the elderly smokers have to go outside and run the increased risk of the extremely cold weather putting an end to their lives.   And I actually heard about an elderly smoker from Canada who died this winter while simply smoking outside.  This incident could've been avoided if the person could've smoked inside in a room designated for smoking.    I do recall reading about a worker at that nursing home getting fired afterwards.   And the smoker's family filed a lawsuit against the nursing home.

- If places with outdoor smoking bans isn't a sign of a possible tobacco prohibition down the line, then that person has vague thinking.   If cities with outdoor smoking expect smokers to buy tobacco and support the state with paying tobacco taxes, then banning smoking outside is stupid. It would make better sense to not sell tobacco at all if you gonna ban smoking indoors AND outdoors.  In the case of someone living in a smoke-free apartment and with no car, where would that person smoke in a city with an outdoor smoking ban as well?

Even if a Tobacco Prohibition DOES happen, it will fail just like the first Prohibition.   There will be increased black markets for cigs (since millions of people smoke nationwide), and there would be an increased number of smokers ignoring the bans when it comes to smoking in  public.

What I don't understand about the current society is antis whining about people smoking near doorways outside.  The antis got their wish of smoke-free places.  If they don't want people smoking in doorways,that's tough luck.   Either smokers smoke inside, or outside near entrances/exits.   Antismokers can't have it both ways.

Most nonsmokers actually respect smokers.  Some of those nons even recognize "Freedom of Choice."  An antismoker to me is someone who's against smoking.   A normal nonsmoker wouldn't say something to the extent that I read within the first message on top of this page.  "I don't care if you smoke in your home.  Just don't smoke around me or in public."    I'd make it a point to not smoke around you.  But that doesn't mean I can't smoke in other public areas.