The Chicago Legislature: How is the rest of Illinois represented?

Posted May 2nd, 2007 at 03:58 PM by eggs ackley
in

The total vote in both houses for SB500, Smoke Free Illinois was 107 Yes, 65 No.

North of I-80 the vote was 99 Yes, 23 No.

South of I-80 the vote was 8 Yes, 42 No.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
redstatewannabe's picture
On May 2nd, 2007 at 04:00 PM, redstatewannabe said:

Without Chicago, Illinois would be Iowa - maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing :-)

On May 2nd, 2007 at 04:10 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:

Wah wah wah, the part of the state that has the largest percentage of the population controls how things are decided. if you don't like it, move to some place that cares about your minority opinion.

Glock21's picture
On May 2nd, 2007 at 04:11 PM, Glock21 said:

Wow... that's one heck of a graphic.  I don't know whether to be amazed or just really ticked off.

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

Glock21's picture
On May 2nd, 2007 at 04:14 PM, Glock21 said:

anonymous 4:10... here's a novel idea considering the regional differences on this issue:  Let people who live in those areas decide for themselves how to run those areas.  That almost sounds *gasp* more democratic! 

 

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

On May 2nd, 2007 at 04:21 PM, DaveM said:

Just so you know, RSW, the Iowa senate passed a smoking ban earlier this year, and one made it out of committee in the Iowa house.  Gov. Culver also said he wanted to sign a smoking ban.

http://www.muscatinejournal.com/articles/2007/04/12/news/doc461e7614afed3060775979.txt

They couldn't agree on details, so the bill died.

They won't be back in session until next January.  There's something very appealing about that - there's only 4 months for them to do their legislating.  Keeps 'em on task and out of unnecessary entanglements.

 

eggs ackley's picture
On May 2nd, 2007 at 04:22 PM, eggs ackley said:

"Wah wah wah, the part of the state that has the largest percentage of the population controls how things are decided. if you don't like it, move to some place that cares about your minority opinion."

Amazing. This is the second time I've seen, "Love it or Leave It," on this board from a liberal. How things have gone topsy-turvy.

On May 2nd, 2007 at 04:24 PM, Anonymous 4:10 (not verified) said:

Then put forth a petition to secede from the northern part of the state, or quit your whining, or move. I'm tired of your belly-aching and crying about how you have to respect the rest of the people in the state who don't want to share your vice.

eggs ackley's picture
On May 2nd, 2007 at 04:29 PM, eggs ackley said:

Wow. And they're using terms like, "belly-aching, whining, and I'm tired of." Can "nattering nabobs of negativism" be far off?

On May 2nd, 2007 at 04:31 PM, DaveM said:

Hey Glock -

I think you should start the movement!  All you need to do is get it through the ILGA and then Congress, and you're all set :-)  Sadly, it hasn't worked out for the NoCa secessionists trying to get out of the grip of San Fran and LA...

Article IV, Section 3:

Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this
union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the
jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the
junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the
consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well
as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all
needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other
property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this
Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims
of the United States, or of any particular state.

IlliniPundit's picture
On May 2nd, 2007 at 04:37 PM, IlliniPundit said:

No offense to everyone's raging sense of regionalism, but if Downstate seceded from Chicago, we'd be a bankrupt version of Arkansas.

redstatewannabe's picture
On May 2nd, 2007 at 05:12 PM, redstatewannabe said:

Dave M, I am not surprised.  The anti-smoking campaign is a strong one - and Iowa is far from a conservative fortress.

I too like the idea of a 4-month legislative calendar.  Or better yet, how about meeting only every other year :-)

Glock21's picture
On May 2nd, 2007 at 05:30 PM, Glock21 said:

I'm NOT suggesting that we secede from the rest of the State... I'm merely arguing that this issue should have been left to the localities considering the apparently strong difference of opinion from area to area.  More people would be happy and better represented by their government that way.

 

I don't think it should take secession to get our Chi-Town overlords to recognize that what works for them isn't what necessarily flies with the rest of us.

 

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

On May 2nd, 2007 at 05:48 PM, Wenalway (not verified) said:

Based on recent discussion, though, it doesn't seem as if local government can handle it.

If Champaign repeals this ban even with the knowledge there will be a state ban, it will be one of the most irresponsible acts of government possible.

IlliniPundit's picture
On May 2nd, 2007 at 05:52 PM, IlliniPundit said:

"If Champaign repeals this ban even with the knowledge there will be a state ban, it will be one of the most irresponsible acts of government possible."

Irresponsible?  Nah.

Irrelevant?  Most definitely.

But it's not irresponsible - it's not as if the world will come to an end if smoking is allowed in Champaign for the next seven months.

That said, I don't see any reason to repeal the ban now - I just don't see any upside.  I don't really see any downside, either. 

I just don't think the issue matters much any more, as a local issue.

Glock21's picture
On May 2nd, 2007 at 05:55 PM, Glock21 said:

I suppose that would be true if you agree with it.  For those who disagree with it, it'd be reversing prior irresponsible legislation. 

 

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

redstatewannabe's picture
On May 2nd, 2007 at 06:14 PM, redstatewannabe said:

I just don't think the issue matters much any more, as a local issue.... I just don't see any upside.

I think repealing the ban, even for 7 months, would be the fulfillment of a campaign promise, or at least campaign platform, and should be done.

On May 2nd, 2007 at 06:17 PM, xian said:

Amazing. This is the second time I've seen, "Love it or Leave It," on this board from a liberal. How things have gone topsy-turvy.

Why is it "amazing" that there are boorish fools on any spot in the political spectrum?

Glock21's picture
On May 2nd, 2007 at 06:39 PM, Glock21 said:

"And, by God, I am that fool!" 

 

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

On May 2nd, 2007 at 06:48 PM, PropertyRights said:

If the City doesn't repeal the ban, would that mean that someone breaking the ban would be subject to both State and City penalties? That seems a bit harsh.

On May 2nd, 2007 at 07:23 PM, Wenalway (not verified) said:

Reversing it for less than eight months. What an accomplishment.

On May 2nd, 2007 at 11:34 PM, xian said:

I don't get it, are you trying to say that we should abort the democratic process just because Springfield might hand down some proclaimation at a later date?

eggs ackley's picture
On May 3rd, 2007 at 12:00 AM, eggs ackley said:

One of the things that really toasts my oats is that two years ago same IL legislature gave municipalities the right to enact their own ordinances. Bar owners collectively spent millions of dollars retrofitting their businesses to accomodate their clientele in accordance with individual local ordinances, only to have the IL legislature repeal that law and enact or much more restrictive one.  It was the Chicago caucus that committed this action, which borders on illegal and unconstitutional, and at the very least is extremely bad form and erodes the confidence of IL residents.

I don't own a bar, but if I did, I'd be pretty damned pissed off if my business was in jeopardy because of this political nonsense ostensibly based on health issues which are unsubstantiated, (yes, I know...the Surgeon Generals's report) and other false statements propagated by a hysterical mob of people who are unable to make rational decisions for themselves.

 

On May 3rd, 2007 at 12:21 AM, Anonymous (not verified) said:

Eggs:

But, of course, you wouldn't be pretty damned pissed if someone told you how to handle food or clean your establishment or refrigerate things properly.... Health codes is health codes is health codes. Non-smoking laws are just another health code.

Dan Fielding's picture
On May 3rd, 2007 at 02:37 AM, Dan Fielding said:

Seven months for bar revenues to rebound.  Irrelevant?  Not to bar owners or first time voters.

On May 3rd, 2007 at 08:35 AM, Champaign Dweller said:

Anonymous--your opinion about the minority view on this is rather interesting.  Do you take the same love it or leave it approach with other minority opinions, or is it just smoking that raises your dander?

On May 3rd, 2007 at 08:48 AM, mahometman said:

Eggs, you really have to let it go.  It is nothing against you, it is just right.  Didn't the big central illinois counties (including Champaign) have a yes vote?  When the state goes smoke free, it will be interesting to see what your next irrational argument will be,

Oil Man's picture
On May 3rd, 2007 at 09:28 AM, Oil Man said:

"I think repealing the ban, even for 7 months, would be the fulfillment of a campaign promise, or at least campaign platform, and should be done."

Yes, do RIGHT things for the WRONG reasons.  Fulfilling a campaign promises by both the Dems. and Reps. is the BIGGEST farce in American politics.

redstatewannabe's picture
On May 3rd, 2007 at 10:04 AM, redstatewannabe said:

Huh?

eggs ackley's picture
On May 3rd, 2007 at 10:32 AM, eggs ackley said:

The yes votes in the "big central illinois counties" were 60%-40%. One of those votes (Naomi) was predictable. Two of those counties already had cities with bans in place. None of the smaller towns in those counties have a ban.

When (and if) the state goes smoke free (by smoke free I mean in what the state has newly deemed as public places), my position will be the same. Private business rights and individual freedom of choice take precedence over the intolerance of the more vocal anti-rights forces.

And as far as the people of Illinois speaking, the yes and no votes are evenly split in this Sun-Times poll.

 

On May 3rd, 2007 at 10:42 AM, Wenalway (not verified) said:

You mean like the right to breathe clean air? That right?

And it's just stunning that people who live in areas that have already seen the benefits of this would vote to make it statewide. Absolutely shocking.

It's time to say it: There are people who get it and people who don't get it. The people who get it realize there's going to be a statewide ban and are preparing. The people who don't get want to go back to "the way we were."

 

On May 3rd, 2007 at 11:30 AM, mcsey (not verified) said:

A statetwide ban that will be ignored in the greater part of Illinois (geographically speaking).

On May 3rd, 2007 at 12:24 PM, ractivist said:

Smoking is an extremely poor choice to make.  It is proven to cause lung cancer and a host of other afflictions.  We have known this for years.  The addiction is a hard one to beat, much like Alcoholism. 

The issue is not about health, it is about freedom to make choices in this country.  Smoke free bars is an interesting concept from a heath standpoint.  Smoke free living is a good choice, I highly recommend it.  Making it a law that bars become smoke free is an attack on the rights of the business owners.  That is the issue.  Most every bar, outside of clubs are privately owned businesses that make there own rules and policies to profit in business.  How many vegitarian restaurants are there in Champaign.  Why, so few or none, because they would go out of business.  When people go out to eat they want meat, more often than not.  When people go out to drink many like to smoke, its part of the scene.  It should be an individual market driven decision, not regulated by state government.

Remember it is illegal to drink and drive, when will driving to bars be under attack.  When those extremists decide to go after the drunk drivers at there starting point.  The day will come, as we continue to bow down to the politically correct movements of the day.

I like to peolpe watch at bars, ok ,check out chicks, perhaps there should be a standard of beauty to go into public.  I hate to see ugly chicks in bars.  I find it makes me drink more.  Lets outlaw ugly chicks at bars.  Some might find this offensive since beauty is in the eyes of the beholder and what about inner beauty......  Yea this is facicious and stupid, but who ever thought of the day smoking would be illegal in dens of ill repute.

Why do the minority factions rule this country, it is assanine.  No offense to the not so pretties.....

 

On May 3rd, 2007 at 12:26 PM, xian said:

Wow, those are great analogies--I surrender!

On May 3rd, 2007 at 01:12 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:

DaveM wrote:  "Sadly, it hasn't worked out for the NoCa secessionists trying to get out of the grip of San Fran and LA..."

Have you ever been to NorCal?  All they do is smoke reefer, make granola, and play hackeysack up there.  It makes L.A. look traditional.

On May 3rd, 2007 at 01:16 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:

Eggs wrote:  "Private business rights and individual freedom of choice take precedence over the intolerance of the more vocal anti-rights forces."

Eggs, in view of this statement, would you tell us how you felt about that dirty bookstore that was going to open in St. Joseph a couple years ago? 

eggs ackley's picture
On May 3rd, 2007 at 03:10 PM, eggs ackley said:

"Eggs, in view of this statement, would you tell us how you felt about that dirty bookstore that was going to open in St. Joseph a couple years ago?"

Explain a little more clearly what you want to know. I'm not familiar with that situation.

Dan Fielding's picture
On May 3rd, 2007 at 03:32 PM, Dan Fielding said:

"You mean like the right to breathe clean air? That right?"

That isn't a right.  Neither is three square meals a day.

On May 3rd, 2007 at 03:44 PM, ractivist said:

One down, eighteen to go.  Any other ready to surrender?

On May 3rd, 2007 at 03:53 PM, renegadelady said:

Very well put ractivist!

On May 3rd, 2007 at 04:43 PM, Wenalway (not verified) said:

If breathing clean air isn't a right, then smoking most certainly is not one. So, give it up, smokers! According to Dan Fielding, no one is taking away your rights.

Again: There are people who get it, and people who don't. The people who want to "go back to the way we were" don't get it.

eggs ackley's picture
On May 3rd, 2007 at 04:58 PM, eggs ackley said:

I suppose there's the right way, and there's the Wenalway.

On May 3rd, 2007 at 05:09 PM, ractivist said:

There are people who bend over and there are people who fight back as well.  Clean air is very abudant, in fact if you know it isn't clean in a particular place, don't go there.  If I smoked and you were my friend, would you try to make me quit or just never come visit.  It would be my choice followed by your choice.  Why does a building owner have to adjust his philosophy of business for some one.  The way I see it, he may loose some business if you are offended, his loss, right?  You do not have to go there, and if you think it is so wrong, open your own smoke free bar.  That is how America works, when it works right. 

On May 3rd, 2007 at 06:10 PM, Wenalway (not verified) said:

Just as there's an argument waged eloquently, and an argument waged ackley.

On May 3rd, 2007 at 07:00 PM, xian said:

Smoking is just like peeing on infants or running over small kittens with your car. You kitten haters! Why do you hate America?

On May 3rd, 2007 at 07:09 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:

I'm planning to open up a chain of dirty bookstores in Mahomet, Tolono, Monticello, and St. Joe (we will also sell "novelties").  I'm glad to see so many conservatives standing up for my right to operate my business the way I see fit, and if people don't like, then don't come to my stores.  After all, as Eggs put it, "Private business rights and individual freedom of choice take precedence over the intolerance of the more vocal anti-rights forces."  I look forward to catering to all the local husbands as well as interstate traffic.

On May 3rd, 2007 at 07:11 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:

Xian, aren't all kittens small and so-on, so-forth, etc. ....

-- Dept. of Redundancy Dept.

eggs ackley's picture
On May 3rd, 2007 at 07:54 PM, eggs ackley said:

So what's the problem? Evidently the free market dictates that the public likes them, because there's one in Champaign and Urbana. I don't agree with your market demos, though. I'd bag the idea of the small towns and put just one in the new retail development at the SW interstate interchange.

I'd check your stores out, but I have a charge account at Buckley. You going to take AMEX? Will you have inflatable sheep? I'm rather partial to sheep after reading many of the anon posts on this board.

IlliniPundit's picture
On May 3rd, 2007 at 07:50 PM, IlliniPundit said:

"I'm planning to open up a chain of dirty bookstores in Mahomet, Tolono, Monticello, and St. Joe (we will also sell "novelties").  I'm glad to see so many conservatives standing up for my right to operate my business the way I see fit, and if people don't like, then don't come to my stores."

Won't bother me a bit.  But I live in Urbana, and we've already got at least one "adult" store.  Believe it or not, I'm pretty conservative, but I've yet to spend any of my time picketing outside of it.

On May 3rd, 2007 at 09:35 PM, wayward said:

But I live in Urbana, and we've already got at least one "adult" store.  Believe it or not, I'm pretty conservative, but I've yet to spend any of my time picketing outside of it.

Realistically, it's pretty easy to ignore - it's not like it's located right across the street from a grade school or something.  In fact, I'm not even sure if I knew what it was the first time I drove by it.

Glock21's picture
On May 3rd, 2007 at 09:45 PM, Glock21 said:

I walk by an I-Block XXX place on my way to downtown fairly often.  Never had a problem with the place.  Don't think the local or State gov't should do anything absurd to hurt its business either.

 

Did you post that comment on opening up a dirty book store figuring people would scream "Oh noes, Nekid People!" or something?

 

 

--

Glock21 Op/Ed

IlliniPundit's picture
On May 3rd, 2007 at 10:04 PM, IlliniPundit said:

"Did you post that comment on opening up a dirty book store figuring people would scream "Oh noes, Nekid People!" or something?"

Heh.

On May 3rd, 2007 at 10:42 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:

The pattern of voting merely demonstrates where intelligent people live in Illinois.

QueenOfMemphis's picture
On May 3rd, 2007 at 11:16 PM, QueenOfMemphis said:

Smoking is just like peeing on infants or running over small kittens with your car. You kitten haters! Why do you hate America?

Kittens are evil.

Oh, sure, they look so cute and loving and harmless and irresistable so you can't help but want to take care of them.

So you feed them and love them and what do they turn into?

Cats!!

Forgive me... I just channeled one of our bartenders....

I actually love cats.

G'night

On May 4th, 2007 at 02:19 PM, ractivist said:

"Intelligent people"  those that know what is best for you?  Those that are more than willing to take care of you through government regulations imposed  upon, not agreed upon.   NO THANK YOU. 

Xian, you surrendered

QueenOfMemphis's picture
On May 4th, 2007 at 02:45 PM, QueenOfMemphis said:

Intelligent people"  those that know what is best for you? 

Funny... I interpreted that post as saying that the "intelligent people" live downstate. 

On May 5th, 2007 at 01:46 PM, Vern (not verified) said:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. --C.S. Lewis

On May 6th, 2007 at 06:30 AM, Anonymous (not verified) said:

If bars can't stay profitable because they lose their smoking business, do we really want them littering our town anyway?  How much do pissed off smokers really drink?

On May 6th, 2007 at 10:48 AM, Wenalway (not verified) said:

Great point, Anon. There are too many bars in C-U, and it wouldn't hurt to lose some of them.

Of course, then the mayor/liquor commissioner would have less power to wield. Convenient, that his stance fits in with that agenda.

Who's the tyrant here?

On May 6th, 2007 at 12:34 PM, xian said:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. --C.S. Lewis

I like the Lewis quote, but I'd question if it would fit the context here. We are not talking about a benevolent dictator here, but rather democratic societal regulation reached by consensus. The two are pretty much polar opposites.

I don't think Lewis is attacking social conventions or consensuses on public health, etc...