Illinois to target smokers.....

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jeff White

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
37,926
Location
Alma Illinois
Well here we go. And it would figure that handgun banning Wilmette bans smoking in public places. The state is facing a fiscal crisis rivalling California's in fact it may be worse, because we are losing jobs right and left...but I'll bet the legislature wastes most of the session debating stupid, politically correct anti-freedom legislation....Unlike California, we have no recall provisions or other way to show our displeasure with the leadership.

Jeff


Restrictions on tobacco are offered in Illinois
By BRIAN WALLHEIMER
Post-Dispatch
01/14/2004

Cities may be allowed
to regulate smoking
in public places


SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - Tobacco will have a target on it in the Legislature's session starting today.

Several bills would make it more difficult to smoke.

One of the most far-reaching ideas would be to allow municipalities to make their own laws regarding smoking in public places - a power that could lead to outright bans in some communities.

Spokeswomen for the American Cancer Society and the American Lung Association said their organizations are backing bills promoting local regulation.

"Illinois has some of the weakest laws in regulating and frankly for keeping smoke out of air," said Margaret Farina, government relations director of the American Cancer Society. "We just want to make sure everybody has the opportunity to breathe clean air."
Philip Morris USA spokeswoman Jamie Drogin said the tobacco company is not against allowing municipalities to make their own clean air laws, but worries that some communities might get carried away with that power.

"Business owners should be allowed some discretion as to what they want in their establishments," Drogin said. "We believe that outright bans go too far."

Bars and restaurants stand to lose business if cities were to ban smoking in their establishments, some say.

"About 95 percent of my customers smoke cigarettes," said Paul Schuerbaum, owner of the Fifth Quarter, a Collinsville bar. "It would affect me a lot."

Under the Illinois Clean Indoor Air Act, only municipalities that had clean-air laws in place before 1990 can make and enforce clean-air laws. There are 19 cities allowed to make such laws in the state, none in the Metro East area. Currently, only Skokie and Wilmette have laws banning smoking in public places. The cities have bans on smoking in all public places, though Skokie allows smoking at taverns.

Kathy Drea, American Lung Association public policy director for Illinois and Iowa, said Illinois ranks near the bottom when it comes to smoking and tobacco laws. The association gave Illinois mostly failing grades on its annual report card last week.

"We rank 31st in (tobacco prevention) spending in the United States," Drea said. "What's funny is we rank fifth in the amount of money we receive from the tobacco settlement."

Drea and Farina said their organizations support bills that would tighten smoking and tobacco restrictions, including: raising the age to buy tobacco to 19 from 18 unless the person has a military identification card, forcing tobacco sellers to be licensed by the state and banning smoking from all stadiums, health facilities and restaurants in the state.

Farina said the only bill the American Cancer Society does not support is one that would make it illegal for minors to possess tobacco. Right now Illinois law bars minors from buying tobacco, but possession by a minor is legal. Farina said minors should not be fined for having tobacco since adults are responsible for restricting youth access to it.

Drogin said Philip Morris USA also supports bills for licensing tobacco sellers and preventing youth smoking.

Reporter Brian Wallheimer
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: 217-782-4912
 
...raising the age to buy tobacco to 19 from 18 unless the person has a military identification card...
Oooookay... :confused:

If you're 18 and in the military, it's okay to smoke, but you have to be 19 if you're a civilian? Anybody want to explain this one?
 
arina said the only bill the American Cancer Society does not support is one that would make it illegal for minors to possess tobacco.
Why not just lock 'em up? Works for other drugs, no?
 
I respect the fact some persons have an aversion to smoke. I respect those with allergies and asthma...

Jeff White, you noted the unemployment situation...*DING*...

In the mindset folks people have rights, and folks are gonna do what they are gonna do..."Port a Smoker"

Like having the Canteen show up outside for coffee, food and all...A portable smoking hut complete with ventilation, TV and a coffee pot...

Let 'em put that in their "pipe and smoke it" :D

This idea will probably take off and make a bunch of money...and once again I will look at my checkbook, a paperclip, and "Post It" note and think I coulda ,I shoulda, but didn't...
 
Illinazi Smokers

That's an interesting concept El Tejon! 18 year old cigarette smokers can be sent to jail and fined, while pot and crack smokers get probation. And those with a smoking gun? Oh, wait, that's a different thread. Chicago and the rest of illinois must be suffering under the dilusion that you can legislate and regulate every form of behavior known to man, and pretty soon, when they have "enough" regulations they can start expanding their horizons to "save" the rest of the country. Seems to me that's been done elsewhere, like maybe around 1933 or 34, somewhere on the European continent? Not to mention any names, but it was East of Poland and South of the Netherlands. Oh yeah, that's why we call that state Illinazi!
 
say it ain't so wolf...

here in Santa Monica CA...(two, count em two) green party members are on the city council:

NO SMOKING
-in any public place
-in any public park
-on any beach
-500 ft from any school

wait,,,that ain't quite enough...Neighbor City, West Hollywood (San Francisco south) wont let you smoke in your own Condo..because its attached to other residents..

In a beach city not far from me..if you are applying for a sheriff's deputy job..you cant smoke on or OFF the job.

It wont be long before you cant smoke in your own home (unattached).

Of course not one word of protest from even the most Pro-Smoking corners.

smoke today--gone tomorrow

wolf
 
In a beach city not far from me..if you are applying for a sheriff's deputy job..you cant smoke on or OFF the job.

That is just because they want healthier employees. Not really a bad thing when they are supposed to be in good enough shape to run after criminals.
 
That is just because they want healthier employees. Not really a bad thing when they are supposed to be in good enough shape to run after criminals.

So, you'd be OK if that city mandated no-alcohol-ever? Only low-fat food in the home? Daily PT (even on off days)? Mandatory prophylactics and no sexual encounters unless it is with your faithful spouse (if the spouse is suspected of cheating, no sex until he or she passes a test for STDs)? No lifting anything above 50 lbs? A minimum of 6 hours a night sleep, no exceptions? No chainsaws or knives or log splitters? After all, these measures would make for healthier employees...

Where do YOU draw the line, or is it OK because it's only cigarettes? :confused:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I forget if it was Crook County or just @%#$%^#@ Chicago that wants a $1/pack tax increase, to pay for services such as ensuring that nobody smokes. They don't want people to stop BUYING cigarettes, just stop SMOKING them... :banghead:
 
Daily PT (even on off days)?

Most firestations have this one while you are on your duty days

The rest of them that you have listed have limited if any relation to health that can be proven. It would also be impossible to monitor. I am all in favor of mandating a level of health to become a public servent if I am the one who is paying for their medical insurance. It isnt any different than keeping the obese out of the military.

I think smokers are just getting pissed that the rest of us who have tolerated your rudeness for years are finally getting fed up. I have no problem with smoking as long as it is away from me. I see smoking as another form of natural selection for the stupid eventhough my grandfather and 2 uncles died of lung cancer.
 
jeeper said:

I think smokers are just getting pissed that the rest of us who have tolerated your rudeness for years are finally getting fed up.

I started this thread, and I've never smoked in my life. Was fortunate enough to have a very bad experience with a cigarette when I was about 6 and they remain disgusting to me.

However there are some things the government has no business being involved in. Regulating smoking is one of them. If you don't want to be around people who are smoking, don't go around them..it's as simple as that. Existing laws already establish smoking areas in resturants etc. In the meantime, if people want to use tobacco, it's their business not mine and definately not the state legislatures...

Jeff
 
Jeff,

I agree with you to an extent. The problem is that there are a lot of areas where people have no choice but to walk through smoke. Outside most buildings entrances is where people smoke. Designated areas are fine if they dont interfere with others. I hate it when I have to walk through a bunch of smokers at the front of a building and then I stink the rest of the day. As far as the police go. If I have to talk to a policeman then I shouldnt have to have him spewing toxic waste in my face. Their own private time is another matter except for the fitness requirements that police should have like the military. I really dont mind smoke all that much in social situations(Bars etc). I just understand how the shoe is finally on the other foot with smokers. For years eveyone had to tolerate smoke whether they liked it or not. Now it is the opposite. Both extremes are bad. The middle might be impossible.
 
Jeeper-the middle is not impossible, just harder to get to because you are asking both sides to give a little.
 
I think smokers are just getting pissed that the rest of us who have tolerated your rudeness
Mighty presumtuous of you. As I live in IL, I find it interesting that the politicians want to stamp out smoking, but are attempting to balance a good part of the state budget on CIGARETTE taxes and TOBACCO settlement money. If tobacco is so bad, why isn't it banned? Could it be that the tax revenue outweights the "social" costs?

Most firestations have this one while you are on your duty days
That's why I specified OFF days.

The rest of them that you have listed have limited if any relation to health that can be proven.
In order:
Alcohol: beer= beer belly :D Wine may have some medicinal value but JD or JB or Captain Morgan don't.
Low-fat food: allegedly healthier diet. No donuts for the coppers= no donut belly.
Daily exercise: is healthier than not exercising, everyone can agree with that.
Foolin' around: could get you an STD ranging from irritating to dead.
Lifting: improperly= muscle strain to total debilitation.
Chainsaws/knives/etc: you could poke out an eye or lose a body part.

No motorcycles? No loud music? No hunting? No swimming unless it is job related?

If police can't smoke because it's unhealthy (yet somehow enforceable off-duty) then surely one can enforce a prohibition on all "unhealthy" behaviors for public servants; then you can force it on the general population as well.
I am all in favor of mandating a level of health to become a public servent if I am the one who is paying for their medical insurance.
By your logic, I should be in favor of mandating a level of health for everyone if I am paying (through taxes) for their medical insurance and/or they are "polluting" my insurance risk pool. :neener:
 
Illinois Smokers

OK. Cellar Dweller. Now you've really done it. MY doughnuts? No way. You can have my doughnuts when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.

BTW, I gotta quit watching the Chicago news. Tonight, the next thing on the list of stuff they're banning is certain breeds of DOG! I didn't catch it all as I was putting some of my toys back in the safe, but Rots and Pits were both mentioned. Next it'll be Bow Ties, (Well, Paul Simon is gone, now) and blue eyed people, and how much longer before he starts building gas chambers? Sounds like he's taking a page from the gun grabbers book. Little steps.
 
People, even those who do not smoke, should fight these ordinances and stall them for as long as they possibly can. Once they are finished with their attack on smoking, they will take up some other cause. The best that can be done is to delay them because there is no stopping them.
 
It seems like there must be some competition between a few states (CA, IL, MA, NY) to see who is able to take the most freewill and personal accountability.

It is only going to get worse this year. It is a big election year, and politicians want to make the sheeple think that they are doing something.
 
here in Santa Monica CA...(two, count em two) green party members are on the city council:

NO SMOKING
-in any public place
-in any public park
-on any beach
-500 ft from any school

wait,,,that ain't quite enough...Neighbor City, West Hollywood (San Francisco south) wont let you smoke in your own Condo..because its attached to other residents..

Land of the free....
 
The problem is that there are a lot of areas where people have no choice but to walk through smoke.
I hate it when I have to walk through a bunch of smokers at the front of a building and then I stink the rest of the day.

What about the woman at my office who wears so much perfume I can't stand to be around her? It makes me sneeze and my eyes water. I can't avoid her, part of my job. Can we legislate away annoying perfume too?

I'm an ex-smoker. I quit about five or six years ago. Smoke stinks, but not so bad that I'll inconvenience myself to avoid it.

If we try to make things illegal because it might annoy someone, everything will end up illegal!
 
Here in southern NH, a restaurant is running TV ads that include the words, "all in a non-smoking environment." At first I was put off, but then it occured to me: that's exactly the way things should be! Let the consumer decide which restaurant to visit.

Honestly, unless you're in a GP medium where everyone is smoking (or have asthma) I don't see what the big deal is. There are many worse smells out there.

Then again, I have a problem with people who, sitting in a smoky bar, turn around and complain about my pipe smoke! :scrutiny:
 
That is just because they want healthier employees. Not really a bad thing when they are supposed to be in good enough shape to run after criminals.
My last year in HS, I smoked about a pack a day, and ran the mile in a little over six and a half minutes. Might not be a great time, but not too many non-smokers could do that. I also had the third fastest time (out of 20 students) in the 100 yrd dash, in a class primarily for school atheletes. When the football players who could press 300lbs were struggling at 40 pushups, out of 50, I could keep going, to their amzement, to 100 (I'd start struggling in the mid-80s). A LEO (regular at the same range I go to) that smokes as much as I do is one of the fastest guys on the force.

Just because we're smokers, doesnt mean we're outta shape.
 
Just because we're smokers, doesnt mean we're outta shape.

Zach,

Everyone can find the rare instance of this not being true but you cant tell me that you honestly think that smoking isnt extremely bad for you.

By your logic, I should be in favor of mandating a level of health for everyone if I am paying (through taxes) for their medical insurance and/or they are "polluting" my insurance risk pool.

I think that all insurance and such should be dictated by your level of health. If you want to eat krispy kreams and burger king everyday then your fat ??? should pay for your own heart bypass surgery. NOT ME!!! Everyone here always talkes about individual responsibility except when they want to violate others rights. Me having to walk through a cloud of smoke to get into a public building violates my rights. It is so funny when people here saw one thing about one subject and the revers on another subject. I think smoking shouldnt be illegal. I think that making me be around it where I have no choice should be.
 
Well Illinois has mangled the budget and made the state one big hostile environment for businesses. They've already screwed things up with the major issues. It's time to move on to day-to-day activitites that people enjoy.

The cluster of smokers outside of a building is a problem. If a bunch of kids were hanging around a 7-11 they'd be shooed away for loitering. I smoke cigars, but I would never stand in front of a doorway and smoke it so that the maximum number of people would have to breathe it because it's rude. The questions is: how can you write a law to prevent this? I don't think you can. It's too complicated. How do you make it legal at a bar, but illegal at a bank? What about the Phillip Morris offices? Should it be illegal there too? These buildings are private property. If the building owners determine it to be a problem, they should ask the smokers to go away not the police.

While I have no problem with a smoker wandering around in public with a lit cigarette, I do have a problem with a group of them or if they're outside in public and I'm stuck in line behind them. What if your walking through the park on a narrow trail and the three people walking in front of you are all smoking? Asking them to stop isn't going to work most of the time. So you can make it illegal for them to smoke there, yet if they're along in that part of the park, who cares?

This is an issue of manners instead of criminality, and a difficult one at that.
 
Ill targets Smokers

First, they came for the Jews, but, not being Jewish, I did nothing. Then they came for Catholics, but still, I did nothing. After all, it's not me they were after. Then they started on the Blacks, and while I had nothing against them, personally, I'm not black, so it really didn't affect me, so why should I get involved? Now, they've come for me. Oh, God, won't somebody, please, do something?

Ok, now let's substitute a few names. (I know, I know, I've liberally substituted already). First the cigarettes, then the dogs, then the guns. Then in a really grand sweep, its not just the cigarettes, but the smokers.

Next, not just the dogs, but the owners and trainers , and after that, the shooters and collectors. Then, oh what the hell, look at how much GOOD we've already done. Let's just go after the Republicans! That way, we can still be seen a s a Democracy but there's no one left to run against us. Hey, we can't lose!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top