The legislation is not stalled in the house as the smoking ban bill was passed out of the Illinois House Environmental Committee today (10 Representatives voting yes and 2 voting against) and is headed to the Illinois House floor for a vote.

Also it's interesting you quote Vic McIntosh now saying he wants to look at a compromise to exempt class A liquor license holders and private clubs, which is exactly what was before him during a study session on September 13, 2005 and he voted no to that very same compromise and a total ban was passed in May of 2006. Vic is a smoker and all he desires to do is to repeal the ordinance in order to suit his own habits as opposed to what is desired by the majority of the public.

If they want to look at economic analysis data a minimum time frame of 1 year must past and then it would be compared to the 2 prior years in order for the study to be valid. Maybe somebody should tell Vic to go talk to an economist.

Posted by mattvarbl on April 26, 2007 at 1:07 PM Suggest Removal

Let's get to the central core of this issue,which every anti smoker is trying to ignore. The 4th amendmendment clearly stipulates that a ban in a private enterprise is unconstitutional. You cannot tell that buisness how to go about it's work,especially when it is allowing a legal product to be enjoyed on those premises. Excercise a little personal responsibility and go somewhere that doesn't cater to smoker's,it's that simple!

Posted by mycroft74 on April 26, 2007 at 2:37 PM Suggest Removal

Uh, that argument is incoherent because there are already many health and sanitary regulations that are applied to businesses. Those establishements aren't private the minute they allow the general public to come in the door.

Posted by mattvarbl on April 26, 2007 at 2:55 PM Suggest Removal

Um, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution doesn't say anything -- clearly or otherwise -- that a ban in a private enterprise is unconstitutional. Businesses aren't mentioned at all.

It says: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You're arguing that a business is a private place AND that banning smoking would be an unreasonable search (? not a chance) or seizure. First off, how is a bar private? Nothing is seized unless somebody is smoking something that has been banned. If somebody waved a gun at someone in that same business, would it be unreasonable to seize it? The argument is that smoking can be just as deadly.

You might as well call smoking free speech and invoke the First Amendment. Or the Second Amendment and make cigarettes equivalent to guns and say we have the right to bear them wherever we want.

Give me a break.

Posted by bretj on April 26, 2007 at 4:10 PM Suggest Removal

The main objection to the smoking ban in the nightclub/bar establishments seems to be the loss of revenue to the point of terminating workers and shorter opening times. If the non-smokers who proposed and want this ordinance to continue would flock to the establishments to make up for the lost renevue from smokers going to places they can smoke, this would be a moot point. Most non-smokers, however, are not in the habit of frequenting nightclubs/bars to the point of spending enough money for the profit of the clubs to stay in business.

The "anti-smoking coalition" does not care about the fiscal health of the businesses most affected by their non-smoking ordinance, they just can't stand the thought of someone smoking, even if they personally are not directly affected.

If the "anti-smoking coalition" were truly concerned about everyone's health (as they suggest)they would be working to ban tobacco sales and consumption in the whole world. That will never happen because of the exhorbanant taxes collected from tobacco sales. Government is more addicted to the tax revenue than the smokers are to nicotene.

It seems to me that Vic McIntosh is trying to represent some of his constituants (the bar owners and smokers)who want this ordinance repealed or revised to where the bar owners could choose to be smoke-free or not. The recent election seemed to be focused on the non-smoking issue and the people who were elected ran on the fact they would reevaluate the issue. I think they should.

Posted by FReRydr on April 26, 2007 at 4:28 PM Suggest Removal

so if the general public comes to my door,then my home is no longer private property? sounds like you are on very shaky ground right there. Also, what about all the chemicals used for cleaning with fumes that are detrimental to ones health,not to mention all the carcinogens released into the air when alcohol evaporates,one shot of liquor is equal to about 100,000 cigarettes,but yet the health codes do not close them down for being un sanitary! personal responsibility,if you don't like it go someplace else.

Posted by mycroft74 on April 27, 2007 at 12:16 PM Suggest Removal