Smoking Banned in State of Illinois

[carriehart]

Smoking Banned in State of Illinois

As of Jan 1, from what I understand smoking out side your home is a crime in Illinois, I know it's not good for you, but come on it's ok to breath exaust fumes, and all the rest of the crap in the air, but your afraid of a little cigarette. I can understand banning it inside building's, but outside?
What's next, someone going to tell us we should wipe our ass's with our left hand because it's healthier than with our right?


Please someone tell me I'm mistaken and it's not really true.


Screw Ban's

 

[TMSTKSBK]

You got "it's" right twice, but you're far too apostrophe-happy.

 

[hungry4knowhow]

posting from chicago, illinois here. And it is very very true. People can call the health department and complain with penalties to business owners ranging from $250-$2500 a pop.

Did i mention its also below zero windchill right now? Sucks to be a smoker.

You can however still smoke in your private residence. WHOOPY!

You can still smoke outside as well but you must be 15ft from a business entrance

 

[A_Li_N]

Good riddance. I walk outside to get fresh air, not have disgusting cigarette smoke drifting up my nose. And, yeah, I'd prefer to suck on a car exhaust pipe before a cigarette. I'm glad I live in a town that has banned smoking in all public buildings. Bars, restaurants, everywhere. I can enjoy myself with my friends without fear of getting sick for a week from second hand smoke.

You smokers have it ruff having to deal with all these laws. pfft. Fuck off and make better choices for your life and the life of the people around you.

 

[carriehart]

comas to.
Pretty long sentence for a smoker.

Problem with banning stuff is unless you have wool and go bah, you won't always be in the majority.

Yet another chip off the old freedom block.

How about a ban on assholes, asshole!!

 

[hungry4knowhow]

How about a ban on assholes, asshole!!

FTW, gotta say im with carrie on that one.

Just because you choose not to doesnt mean we are some kind of people killing devils. Lol. Settle down and be easy. And btw, im not responsible for anybody around me so Im really not to concerned with them. If you dont like my smoke for all i care you can walk away.

 

[Drakhan]

Good riddance. I walk outside to get fresh air, not have disgusting cigarette smoke drifting up my nose. And, yeah, I'd prefer to suck on a car exhaust pipe before a cigarette. I'm glad I live in a town that has banned smoking in all public buildings. Bars, restaurants, everywhere. I can enjoy myself with my friends without fear of getting sick for a week from second hand smoke.

You smokers have it ruff having to deal with all these laws. pfft. Fuck off and make better choices for your life and the life of the people around you.

Either your joking or your a complete idiot. You honestly think a car exhaust pipe is more healthy than a cigarette?
Been sick for a week from second hand smoke? What the hell? I never touched a cigarette myself but I have never ever been even close to sick from second hand smoke.....rofl.

I completely agree that smoking should be banned inside but comlaining about peóple smoking outside while you drive around in your polution machine (aka car) is the most retarded thing I ever heard.

 

[PappaSmurf]

Good riddance. I walk outside to get fresh air, not have disgusting cigarette smoke drifting up my nose. And, yeah, I'd prefer to suck on a car exhaust pipe before a cigarette. I'm glad I live in a town that has banned smoking in all public buildings. Bars, restaurants, everywhere. I can enjoy myself with my friends without fear of getting sick for a week from second hand smoke.

You smokers have it ruff having to deal with all these laws. pfft. Fuck off and make better choices for your life and the life of the people around you.

Compensate for all the lost tax money the state will lose as the number of smokers decreases, better yet how about you write all the states that have done this and offer to pick up the net difference in taxes from tobacco sales as part of their population becomes non-smokers.

Smokers carry a much higher tax burden in the various states, so don't complain when all the other taxes start going up to compensate. I posted here once in the past a rough figure of how much more the smokers in the US Pay out over non-smokers as a whole here in the US and it wasn't a small sum, even though there are many more non-smokers.

I don't think if states are going to ban smoking they should lower their taxes on tabacco, it is only fair.


On a side note they won't be able to enforce that everywhere. Bars, and what not will just reorganize into private clubs with low membership fees so they are declared private property and not public access so they can still allow smokers...same thing happened in Ohio.

 

[Radwen]

from what I understand smoking out side your home is a crime in Illinois
...
Please someone tell me I'm mistaken and it's not really true.

You can still smoke outside as well but you must be 15ft from a business entrance

Why are people still complaining?

 

[Lysdexic]

Why are people still complaining?

Because it's our given rights, just like smoking is. If a public business chooses to allow smoking, the non-smokers can go somewhere else. These laws are beyond discriminatory.

 

[Radwen]

Smoking is pollution. So you'd be saying that every law against pollution that deals with the public sector is discriminatory?

The reason that its banned is not because of the act but because of the consequence.
You can be arrested for disturbing public peace right? Is that discriminatory too?


+lol I'm not saying that you're not allowed to complain. I'm just wondering why you were because the main issue was said to be wrong.
If you want to turn this into a smoking shouldn't be banned in public business's debate, go ahead.

 

[Behringer]

I live in Illinois.

First of all, this ban is almost identical to the bans in twenty other states. Those states have adjusted and some including New York and California have actually show statistical proof of increase in resurant revenue since the smoking bans were put in place. Half of Europe have smoking bans now as well.

I will agree about the pollution aspect of cars and stuff. However, transportation is a requirement, smoking is not. Emmissions from cars is gradually improving over time though. From the switch to unleaded from diesel, and to ethenal and hybrid electric cars moving more and more into the near future, transit polution is hopefully going to get better. I'd say that is a seperate fight. Smoking is not an essential function in life by any means. Any smoker that thinks that non-smokers have a choice can just walk away are wrong. WIth smokers in every direction in a major city environment the options are very limited. Social life in general gets cut in half because all the places to hang out allow smoking.

Here is something I don't like about a good majority of smokers that this ban doesn't do anything about. I will be at a street corner waiting for signals so I can cross and I always get a smoker outside where it is still legal taking a big puff and then blowing out smoke that I can't help to breathe. I can't choose to cross the street faster because I don't want to get run over of course. Oh, and the other thing that smokers think they are above littering by just throwing cigarettes on the ground when they are done is horribly disgusting by itself. If cities like Chicago really want to make revenue, they could just stand at busy intersections and fine people for littering when they see that.

I tend to be one for rights not being taken away, but this is a case where people can't and don't control themselves. I don't know very many smokers that are very considerate out in public when it comes to where they smoke and who they smoke around. I don't smoke, and I don't want to be around cigarette smoke. I can't just stay home and do nothing. I have to get out and work and live in society as a whole. It's not like people ask if it's ok, or will it bother people if they smoke out in public. If people around me can't be courtious enough to not smoke near me, then I say ban it. Seriously, why put people at risk? Is it really worth it?

Can someone tell me where the benefit to smoking is?

 

[Behringer]

Because it's our given rights, just like smoking is. If a public business chooses to allow smoking, the non-smokers can go somewhere else. These laws are beyond discriminatory.

Show me in the Constitution where it says you have a right to smoke. As previously mentioned as well, smokers are unavoidable in an urban area. It is impossible to just go somewhere else. Just walking into my building I work in, I have to walk through groups of smokers.

Smokers saying they are being discrimiated against are not reasonable. WHen you affect people around you without giving them a choice, you are taking away there rights.

 

[Lysdexic]

Don't get offended anyone, I have every right to smoke, whether you like it or not. I don't tell you that you can't do something, I don't tell you how to live your life, and I don't force anything upon any of you. I go where smoking is allowed and if a restaurant owner decides they want to cater to smokers, they have every right to. Now if the owner says non-smokers are banned, you guys would throw a conniption fit and demand entry. It's a two way street and banning is not the answer. If you ask me to go outside, I will. If you ask me to go to smoking restaurants, I will. If the owner of a property says no smoking on their premises, I will go elsewhere. If I own the building, fuck off! If you demand that right to be revoked, fuck off!

Show me in the Constitution where it says you have a right to smoke.

Right after you show me where it says I can't.

Those states have adjusted and some including New York and California have actually show statistical proof of increase in resurant revenue since the smoking bans were put in place

I call bullshit, none of the states have shown any recovery from revenue's and/or tax nullification. This was the main reason why Illinois barely passed the vote.

+lol I'm not saying that you're not allowed to complain. I'm just wondering why you were because the main issue was said to be wrong.
If you want to turn this into a smoking shouldn't be banned in public business's debate, go ahead.

Don't worry Rad, but I've learned this topic isn't debatable. People can't seem to realize that life is a huge gray area, not black and white.

 

[WarAngel]

I don't tell you that you can't do something, I don't tell you how to live your life, and I don't force anything upon any of you.

Other than your English-only rants and tirades, of course. Forget that one?

Now if the owner says non-smokers are banned, you guys would throw a conniption fit and demand entry.

"You guys" being who exactly? Or is this just something you know about us?

If I own the building, fuck off! If you demand that right to be revoked, fuck off!

You own the building, not the people and air and other shit that may be inside of your building.

Right after you show me where it says I can't.

Rights are negative in this country (as in, you have every right to do whatever you feel like until it is specifically denied). We have a specific group of explicit rights which cannot be denied (bill of rights). Other than that, your other rights are limited only by legislation, which is how negative rights work. If it isn't an explicit right, it can be banned/limited/whatever. Groups can however push for help from the courts, but so far, that's failed for smoking.

 

[Behringer]

Don't get offended anyone, I have every right to smoke, whether you like it or not...I don't force anything upon any of you.


Right after you show me where it says I can't.

First off, there is no non-smoking section in a restaurant if they allow smoking. I stopped going to a lot of mainstream restaurants because even in the non-smoking section, I could still smell the smoke from the bar or smoking section. Smoker's don't seem to understand thatjust the act of smoking when there are non-smokers around forces it upon them. Let me make a more general statement. Anything you do in a public place affects anyone else in that place. So great, a smoker lights up in a public place. Sure I have the right to walk away, but that doesn't mean I wasn't already exposed to it.

Second point I quoted you on is exactly my point. The Constitution does not say anything about smoking. There isn't anything gauranteeing the right to smoke.

Third point that everyone dismisses, smoking is hazardous to everyone's health. If you decide to smoke that's fine. I'm just saying don't do it in a public place. You are putting other people in danger they they don't need by smoking around them. I would think public safety definitely overides a non-essential desire to smoke.

 

[TheRockstar2253]

I'm with Lysdexic. If non smokers have a problem with us Smokers smoking, then either go back inside where you cant smell it, Or take a walk down the street.

Behsides..Smokers Raise Hell when they can't have their Cigs. I mean I know I do when I can't.

 

[Behringer]

I need to throw something additional in here.

Are people defending smoking, or the general right to do what they want? Do people seriously think that we should all be able to whatever, wherever, and whenever we want with no consequences? Why don't we just give some hardcore drugs to everyone. Why don't we take age limits off pornography and gambling. Why don't we just everyone concealed weapons to do with as they please. Why bother having a legal and justice system. Why not just let everyone out of all the prisons and just say it's all good, they were just doing what they wanted to do? I know that is extreme a bit, but seriously.

Other than money(that can always be obtained in other ways) and the idea of something being regulated, can anyone actually justify smoking to me?

 

[Behringer]

I'm with Lysdexic. If non smokers have a problem with us Smokers smoking, then either go back inside where you cant smell it, Or take a walk down the street.

Behsides..Smokers Raise Hell when they can't have their Cigs. I mean I know I do when I can't.

Well that's the point here. No smoking inside so that people can go inside a public location and not be confined to breathing smoke. As far as taking a walk down the street, I don't know where you live but in my area the smokers walk down the same streets. It's not like there is just one smoker, and I can walk anywhere else but the vicinity of that one person. They are everywhere.

Among other reasons, I have an allergy to cigarette smoke.

 

[Lysdexic]

Other than your English-only rants and tirades, of course. Forget that one?

Are you expecting a [SIZE=-1]touché? Wrong again, I wouldn't dream of forcing it upon immigrants unwillingly. If they don't want to learn it, go fucking home. If I can't smoke on someone else's property, then I can go home. But no one, and I repeat no one, has the right to do this with any public or private property they do not own.[/SIZE]

"You guys" being who exactly? Or is this just something you know about us?

Tit for tat, at it again. It's called a generalization, I don't point fingers and say "all non-smokers are evil want to take my rights", since that isn't true by a long shot. Would you prefer I say "all of those who want these laws to go into effect"? Don't worry WA, you aren't one of the "You guys", I'll exclude the ignorant assholes just to keep you out.

You own the building, not the people and air and other shit that may be inside of your building.

Then they can get the fuck out of my building, is it time to break out the crayons again???

Rights are negative in this country (as in, you have every right to do whatever you feel like until it is specifically denied). We have a specific group of explicit rights which cannot be denied (bill of rights). Other than that, your other rights are limited only by legislation, which is how negative rights work. If it isn't an explicit right, it can be banned/limited/whatever. Groups can however push for help from the courts, but so far, that's failed for smoking.

Rights aren't negative, nor are they exclusive. If that were the case, then they would be banned until they are deemed a right.