CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Question of the day

Re: Question of the day

A Non-Smoker in Joliet — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:08:16 -0000

Just thing - if we were SMOKE FREE - how many non-smokers would be able to go out in public and enjoy what the smoker's already do - like casinos - maybe I would go - spend (lose) my money just like a smoker does - and enjoy it!

Re: Question of the day

Illinois voter — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 10:05:45 -0000

Cancer is a horrific disease that takes lives and causes great pain & suffering. 1 in 2 men & 1 in 3 women are affected! Smoke-free can change those numbers enormously!!!!! Is that not enough reason?!!! Add the tremendous finanical costs and this turns into a no brainer. It is past due. WE NEED TO TAKE ACTION NOW.

Re: Question of the day

Skeeter — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 09:45:31 -0000

Fan,

You claim that mining and construction are somehow different from restaurants when it comes to mine safety?

Other than the obvious (i.e. they are in different businesses), why are they different? Why is worker safety more important in one than in the other.

With regard to Kelo:
I have no strong opinions. Bad facts make bad law. Can a town take four feet of your front lawn to widen a road if you are compensated? Most people would say that is reasonable. Take your home to build a shopping mall? I would not favor that.

That being said, there is a difference between saying "We are taking your home to build a mall" and "No business can force their employees to breath foul air without proper breathing apparatus."

Re: Question of the day

Supporter of the Ban — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 09:35:06 -0000

I am a firm supporter of the smoking ban. Habits that harm others around you should be illegal (i.e. drinking and driving).

Re: Question of the day

CountryGirl — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 09:32:02 -0000

I support the non-smoking ban in public places because it just makes sense. Several restaurants in my town have gone smoke-free and their business has remained constant. It's a pleasure to go out and not have to smell like someone else's cigarette when I go home, much less having inhaled their smoke. I also agree that the employees at the restaurants have had no choice, but to work in a smoke-filled envoronment. They deserve a break!

Re: Question of the day

Fan of the Game — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 09:21:40 -0000

Skeeter,

The questions remain unanswered because 1) I went to bed and 2)because restaurants are neither mines nor construction sites. Straw men blow away.

Having "smoking" restaurants is never my goal. I wish the state would ban the sale and consumption of tobacco altogether just as it has other deadly drugs. Government doesn't even have the fortitude to make smoking among minors. It's a shamless grab for tobacco tax dollars--we don't want smoking , but we don't want to lose the revenue, either.

I guess what I am arguing more than smoking is property rights. As a property owner, I should have a say in the legal activities that take place there, and employees and patrons have no right to my property.

Since we're tossing straw men to the wind, what is your opinion on _Kelo v. New London_?

Re: Question of the day

Brutalina — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 08:24:33 -0000

For those of us who do not smoke, clean air is a priority, especially when eating. Even in restaurants with non-smoking sections, unless they are two separate rooms with great ventilation, you can still smell the cigarette smoke. I'm all for smoke-free Illinois! Let's set the example.

Re: Question of the day

Skeeter — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 08:10:49 -0000

Fan of the Game:
You still have not really addressed the issue.

You support repeal of OSHA and also of all mine safety laws.

Is that correct?

You seem to have strong views on the subject. I'm not sure why you don't want to answer that question.

Re: Question of the day

steve — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 01:25:19 -0000

there is a lot of emotion about smoke free out there and sometimes i think it gets in the way of the facts. yes i can choose to onluy go to smoke free businesses and yes i can choose to not expose myself to smoky place. but the problem is not that i can choose as a patron it is the work environment that the employee or the child who is in the company of the adult that is exposed to the smoke. if i ran a large company and i emited the sme polutants that are in the second hand smoke that is dumped on workers and patrons the IEPA and the EPA, not to mention OSHA would be all over me about pollution and protecting my workers. each day in ILlinois alone 8 PEOPLE, fellow citizens, DIE rom second hand smoking related illnesses. how long do you think that OSHA, the Unions, or the government would allow me or anyone else to run a busines were 8 employees a day would lose their lifes?you see it is not about your or my right to smoke but it is about you and i having respect for others right to a safe and health environment to work or play in. smoke free is not the politicaly correct thing to do it is the morally right thing to do. it is the obligation that government must accept for it is governments responsibility to protect the citizens in this state and this country.

Re: Question of the day

Gimmie some Kodiak — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 00:03:01 -0000

Hell, I can still dip indoors right? About time, really. After working in bars for 20 years I don't have to breathe your exhalent(s). Just don't drink my half filled spit bottle.

Re: Question of the day

Skipper — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 23:58:28 -0000

The Surgeon General has confirmed that 50,000 americans die each year because of being exposed to secondhand smoke. It is a NO BRAINER that Illinois should go smoke-free just like the other states who have leaders that really care about customers and employees being killed by exposure to secondhand smoke Restuarants, bars and bowling alleys. Too bad though, most of our politicians worry more about the minority bar and bowling alley owners plus the people who are receiving $$$'s from the tobacco companies to stop any action that would clean up our state.

Re: Question of the day

Political Insider — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 23:35:04 -0000

Is wish I could remember the original person who said this.. "Your right to swing your arm ends at my nose."

If you want to smoke, go right ahead. Just don't do it in a public (defined as a place that is open to the general public at large, not simply owned by a public entity) place where I might breath it.

Yeah, as a former smoker, going to a bar where everyone is smoking is hard. I have given-up on that.

I don't agree with seat-belt laws since it's my own damn life I'm risking. I don't agree with most drug laws for the very same reason. I do agree with DUI laws and with a smoking ban.

Why not allow DUI roads? It's you're own choice to drive there knowing that the car passing you is out of control. The reasons for not allowing this can apply directly to the reasons to support a smoking ban.

Re: Question of the day

mrsb — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 22:56:17 -0000

Why should we breath in someone else's second hand smoke, we have a right to go into public places and come out not smelling like smoke or have a smoke hangover the next day. Smokers have the outdoors to pollute as well as their insides. My mother died of lung cancer and my father and uncle of emphysema, had I been a smoker, I would have quit once I'd watched their painful deaths.
Please think of others before you light up.

Re: Question of the day

Fan of the Game — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 22:48:58 -0000

Skeeter,

I don't make anyone work anywhere. They work where they work of their own accord. They are rational creatures who can make decisions for themseleves. Again, no one is forced at gun point and no one is "coerced economically" to work in a restaurant that allows smoking.

People choose to work in such places. If the smoke is that much of a problem, they should seek employment elsewhere. Again, what gives patrons or employees a right to the owner's property?

Re: Question of the day

Skeeter — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 22:43:10 -0000

Fan of the Game:

You talk about "the restaurant owners property."

How about the construction developers property?
Should we say that since the property owner has rights that we should not require scaffolds? That we should not enforce OSHA?

How about the poor innocent mine owners who just want to send mine workers into THEIR MINES without adequate breating apparatus. Who are we to tell those mine owners what they can do with THEIR MINES?

And how about the slaughter houses. Can we tell an slaughter house owner about health and safety regulations for THEIR SLAUGHTER HOUSE?

Answer those questions, Fan.

Re: Question of the day

Skeeter — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 22:39:35 -0000

Fan of the Game:
I could not care less about the patrons. That is their problem.

The employees matter.

Nobody should be coerced economically in any way to work with known carcinogens when there is as simple method of removing those carcinogens.

You don't tell mine workers to work in mines with bad air, and you should not make waitresses work in restaurants with bad air.

Re: Question of the day

Fan of the Game — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 22:25:16 -0000

Skeeter,

My argument remains that you can choose not to patronize establishments that allow smoking. No one puts a gun to your head and forces you inside. Many smoking-ban advocates seem to believe that they have a right to the restaurant owner's property. I don't understand that.

Re: Question of the day

Skeeter — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 21:56:20 -0000

Fan of the Game:
Under your logic, working in a mine without proper breathing apparatus does not cause cancer. It is the decision to breath in while in the mine.

Is that really your argument?
You have to do better than that.

Re: Question of the day

Steve @ ILBA — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 21:52:25 -0000

It is unfortunate that people stoop to personal attacks because of their feelings on an issue. That said, neither the ILBA nor I have distorted anything on this issue. We have consistently stated that we feared a negative economic impact on liquor-pouring establishments.

I sincerely hoped our predictions would be wrong; however, early sales data from Springfield establishments bears out our fears to date.
I did not post the data on the blog; however I did provide it to a number of people, one of whom elected to post it. The data is accurate. Just as accurate is the dramatic increase in busienss at some of our member locations in towns that border Springfield.

The Curve Inn in Southern View is now the hotspot. Every night the parking lot is at capacity and folks are parking at the church. Same story at Sherman bars. I urge those of you that don't believe this data to take a ride and look at the customer traffic we are now dealing with in Springfield. Its not pretty.

There is no reason for these business owners to "fake" the impact on their operations from the smoking ban. Please feel free to contact any of the owners of the businesses listed or me directly.

These people are worried about their future ability to make a living and put food on the table for their families. Please employ empathy and put yourself in their position. It is easy to make statements that these busiesses will not suffer under a ban when there is no danger to yourself.

These are real people with real families. A few contacted a realtor to explore selling their business since the ban went into effect. They have been informed that the value of their business has dropped by 50% and will not increase in the forseeable future absent a dramatic bounceback in business.

This is a scary time for these folks. Reality in the hospitality industry isn't as rosy as many folks are trying to paint it. I hope the pundits take the time to go to a non-smoking bar and buy a few cocktails.

Re: Question of the day

Fan of the Game — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 21:49:08 -0000

Skeeter,

My smoking (if I smoked) does not give you cancer. Your breathing smoke might give you cancer. Might I suggest not patronizing establishments that allow smoking?

The little town in which I live has one restaurant that has a smoking section. At the urging of the local health department, all the others have voluntarily gone smoke-free. Why? Because that is what people wanted. It didn't have to be legislated. The market drove the decision.

In a state that doesn't mind if kids under 18 to smoke cigarettes but doesn't let them buy cigarettes, it seems disingenuous that the state wants to ban smoking. If it really cared about people's health, it would outlaw smoking and cigarettes altogether (I would be in favor of that). But then, it would lose so much tax revenue.

Re: Question of the day

Eagle I — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 21:34:15 -0000

Having a no smoking section of a restaurant is like having a no peeing section in your pool.

Re: Question of the day

Buck Flagojevich — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 21:31:19 -0000

How about balancing the budget first?

I smoke, but I also support regulation, and a partial ban. Only allow bars and liquor only establishments to have an optional smoking allowance. Have individual establishments purchase an annual license that permits smoking on their premises. Make the license expensive enough to make the proprietors think about their actions. No license, no smoking. If there is smoking at a nonsmoking establishment issue a big fine.

Re: Question of the day

Skeeter — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 21:17:01 -0000

Crunchy and Fan:

When YOU eating give ME cancer, then your analogy carries some weight. Until then, your points are irrelevant.

Lovie's Leather:

Your last post was fascinating.

It included no new arguments.

It failed to respond to my arguments (i.e. should we say that if you want a safe mine, buy a mine?).

It included an attempt at an insult to me.

LL you really need to stop with the insults. I've been called worse. Trust me on that one. Your insults make you look weak and pathetic and have no impact on me.

That being said, let me toss one out.

You, LL, are a coward. You've heard the argument, but you are too much the coward to respond.

Tell us, Lovie: Do you support repeal of all mine safety rules? Do you support repeal of OSHA?
Is a construction company obligated to provide a safe work place?

Answer those, LL. Until you do, I am just going to assume that you are either a coward or all those leather chemicals have caused some real damage.

Re: Question of the day

CrunchyCon — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 21:10:04 -0000

I thought obesity was THE health crisis facing our nation. So, maybe we should ban all-you-can-eat buffets?

Re: Question of the day

Fan of the Game — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 21:05:11 -0000

Interesting that a smoking ban may lead to another ban in NYC:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/...

"NYC mulls ban on trans fats in eateries"

Chicago is already considering this (though only for companies that earn more than $20 million per annum--it's okay to clog your arteries at a small, poor restaurant because if we sue them, they don't have any money to take).

Where does such action end? People off-handedly dismiss slippery slopes, but this seems to be the case where we just keep sliding downhill.