For once, your editorial on this matter is fairly well reasoned. The only thing that's missing is an opinion about Mayor Schweighart's proposal to repeal the Champaign smoking ban on May 15th. It clearly is a waste of time and resources of the Public and Champaign City staff to go through all this turmoil again for a policy change that will be irrelevant in 7 months. Additionally there is no data to back up the proposal from the Mayor either, which isn't surprising considering that he still publicly states that 2nd hand smoke isn't harmful. Anyone else see his actions being based out of personal animosity, his personal smoking habit, and his desire for a petty form of revenge? Absent any data, that's all his actions are based upon. What a sound policy decision...sheesh

Posted by mattvarbl on May 4, 2007 at 1:26 PM Suggest Removal

Apparently, mattvarbl doesn't realize that the council members who won their respective elections were running on the platform of revisiting the "smoking ban" to revise it to the benefit of their constituents who also helped to get them elected. He (mvarbl) must be harboring animosity toward the fine mayor of Champaign as noted by his venomous attacks.

As far as being a waste of time, effort, etc., couldn't the same be said of the original smoking ban ordinance since the state has now changed it's collective mind and has now passed a state-wide public smoking ban over the original bill that allowed local communities to decide for themselves? What about all the lobbying, time, and arguments both in the state legislature and then locally to get the original bills and ordinances passed? Are they not also a "waste of time and resourses" of five or more years?

God speed to Champaign's mayor and city council to do what they were elected to do.

By the way, I am a non-smoker of over 23 years that doesn't like the smell of cigarette smoke any more than other non-smokers. That is not what this is about... this is about control over private businesses that are open to patrons some of which prefer to smoke a legal substance.

Posted by FReRydr on May 4, 2007 at 2:16 PM Suggest Removal

FreRydr, I have stated facts about past actions and statements of the Mayor and he has not presented any data or facts to back up his actions, absent that it lends itself to the logical conclusion that his decision is based upon personal animosity and vindictiveness. Did the City Council members Feinen and McIntosh not state that they "wanted to look at data" before making a decision on this issue? Wasn't Vic McIntosh quoted in an editorial approximately one week ago claiming they wanted to wait until June to begin examining the data? The number of flip flops here is too many to keep track of and it's an interesting double standard of how the Council demanded input, data, and a study session after study session before making this policy, but now all of a sudden it's going to be reversed without the same standards imposed before the ban was voted on in the first place?

Posted by mattvarbl on May 4, 2007 at 2:56 PM Suggest Removal

Sec. 2-75. Study sessions.

(b) Regular study sessions of the Council shall be held on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. If possible, all major items of legislation shall be discussed in a study session prior to their being included as agenda items for a regular Council meeting. Because the study session is an important part of the overall decision making process, it is essential that all such sessions proceed in an orderly and efficient manner.

(C.B. No. 2006-272, § 1, 11-7-06)

Posted by mattvarbl on May 4, 2007 at 3:05 PM Suggest Removal

Perhaps after all the study sessions previously undertaken, and since the ban has been in effect and the businesses have lost the patrons who smoke(and not gained the non-smoking patrons that were said would flock to the now non-smoking establishments to support the businesses)the mayor is being pressured to revisit the ban ordinance to try to have it overturned. Businesses can only support so much loss before they can no longer cover their bills and enough profit to make it worthwhile. When businesses close there is a loss of tax revenue, which leads to empty buildings, etc.

If someone does not like to be around smoke, sacond hand or othwise, they do not have to patronize a business that allows smoking. They have the perogitive to open a business that caters to a non-smoking public since there is such a demand for such businesses, and put their money on the line, rather than forcing existing businesses (that have allowed smoking since their opening) to go smoke-free and lose the patrons they had.

This "smoke-free" ordinance is a "big-brother" control legislation, because the people of the "smoke-free alliance" don't like someone else's habits, period. That is obvious from the fact that they have not patronized the businesses since the ban has taken effect they supposedly they were eager to that the only thing holding them back was the smoking issue!

Posted by FReRydr on May 4, 2007 at 4:40 PM Suggest Removal

FReRydr:

I don't agree with the often-stated argument that it's inherently wrong for govermnent to regulate private businesses open to the public.

There are plenty of examples of regulation of private businesses, particularly where the health and safety of the public is involved. The longstanding regulations on food safety are a prime example. Likewise, various levels of government regulate medications and those who practice medicine. Government regulates the disposal of hazardous wastes and the use and transportation of flammable or otherwise hazardous substances.

Those who proclaim the unfairness of a law prohibiting smoking within a private business ignore the long precedent on private businesses where the health and safety of the public is at risk, and ignore historical evidence that the marketplace alone does not always adequately represent the public interest.

I favor neither excessive regulation nor a pure laissez-faire stance. However, the dangers posed by second-hand carcinogens are just as legitimate a target for regulation as regulations prohibiting the sale of tainted meat.

The opponents of public smoking restrictions would have us believe we're prohibitionists because (at long last) society has finally recognized the harm smoking causes to non-smokers who have to share space with those who smoke. Smokers remain free to exercise their habit in private.

Posted by JRR on May 4, 2007 at 4:57 PM Suggest Removal

jrr,

The Whole point is that non-smokers do not "have to" patronize a business that allows smoking!!! Smoking and consuming tobacco products is NOT against the law (yet)! Non-smokers, or for that matter smokers, can just as easily open a business that caters to non-smokers by disallowing smoking in their establishment and let established businesses choose to allow smoking if they choose to!

Where is your "nanny state" mentality going to stop? Fatty foods and McDonalds is probably next on your agenda, then what? Regulating the ammount of exersize individuals must do each day no matter how tired they are after their normal daily activities? Then what, bicycle powered cars to remove the SUV's from the road? Where does your nanny state stop?

Why can't you people create your own establishments and keep them non-smoking as you wish and stop forcing your laws/ordinces on people who prefer to go to a smoking allowable establishment????!!!!!

Posted by FReRydr on May 4, 2007 at 9:37 PM Suggest Removal

FReRydr:

Equating prohibitions on fatty foods and mandating exercise regimens have nothing to do with smoking restrictions. Nice try, but your "nanny state" comparison is faulty.

I've never heard of people contracting second-hand heart disease from sitting in a McDonalds next to people chowing down on Big Macs and Egg McMuffins. I defend your right to eat an unhealthy diet or to not exercise, because the only person at risk through your chosen activity is yourself.

While cigarette smoking has long been proven a health hazard. I'm perfectly happy for those who enjoy this habit to continue to do so  what you do with your body is up to you, after all.

However, my tolerance for your freedom ends when your habit affects my body and my health and that of other people who don't share your affinity for habit, but who have to breathe the same air you do.

As far as me not "having to" patronize a business that allows smoking, why should *I* have to stay at home to avoid other people's noxious habit?

My preference to not smoke causes no one any ill health effects, and I think it's high time that those whose habits *do* have direct, proven harmful effects on others be the ones who have to be inconvenienced by keeping their habits from affecting others who choose to go out in public.

I'm sorry you choose to look at this as creeping Big Brotherism. I view it as societal attitudes finally shifting to understand the dangers of second-hand smoke, and deciding that someone's right to smoke shouldn't force others to have to choose between breathing your smoke and staying at home.

Posted by JRR on May 5, 2007 at 1:48 AM Suggest Removal

jrr

The whole point is you do not have to frequent businesses that allow smoking!!! You do not "have to" stay home (wa wa I can't go anywhere because of the mean ol smokers). If there is a demand for non-smoking establishments frequent them or create them! Do not impose your "nanny state" laws on businesses that do not want them and then turn around and not frequent them basicly driving them out of business!!!!!

Your intention seems to be to drive the smokers away from someplace that you might want to go to sometime and don't want to smell their smoke, with no intention to frequent the business after you have destroyed their customer base.

Yours is exactly a "nanny state" mentality that imposes your will on businesses you probably would never go to anyway with laws that destroy income and livelihoods.

BTW.. I was not equating fatty foods and fast foods with your anti-smoking laws, only pointing out that that is your next phase of "nanny state" health laws.

Posted by FReRydr on May 5, 2007 at 9:37 AM Suggest Removal

Here is a simple suggestion for the 80% of Champaign residents who do not smoke: take your business to Urbana. Don't let a dictatorial minority keep you from having your night out! Since the 20% of C-U residents who smoke seem to be the only thing keeping Champaign bars and restaurants afloat, they won't miss the 80% who don't smoke if you take your business to Urbana. And Urbana will love you for it!

Bar owners seem to think smokers will go elsewhere if smoking is outlawed. Perhaps nonsmokers should go elsewhere. If they can survive with 20% of the population, more power to them!

Posted by DEB on May 5, 2007 at 11:21 AM Suggest Removal

It always amazes me so much how anti-smokers want the government to dictate people's lives, and what legal products business owners are allowed to use/have in their establishments. Not to mention, the earlier comment that likened anti-smoking laws to food safety laws is ridiculous, because you're comparing apples and oranges here. Businesses would always comply with upholding food safety practices, even if there weren't food safety laws, since they realize that if this were the case, they would be sued and taken to court for selling unsafe food to the public. Not to mention, a business' reputation would be completely hurt, if they did such a thing.

As for all you anti-smoking advocates on this board, including JRR and mattvarbl, if you truly believe smoking is that much of a dangerous habit to the user and to others, why should our state government ONLY just stop at banning smoking in almost all enclosed places? If smoking IS SO DANGEROUS, as all you anti-smoking advocates like to harp, why don't you campaign for the complete prohibition of tobacco products? That's the only true and fair way to call for a ban of the use of tobacco in any enclosed public places, IMO. Otherwards, the position both of you posters have is ONLY hypocritical, since after the statewide ban kicks in in 2008, our state and local governments will continue to profit off of the sale of a product that's allegedly as dangerous as both of you claim it is. Not to mention, anti-smoking groups, such as the American Cancer Society, and the American Lung Association, were caught being disingenuous a few years back, when a North Dakota state legislator called for a complete ban on the sale of all tobacco products, and these groups both testified against a North Dakota ban on tobacco sales!

Anyway, to get past that subject, I feel that it wouldn't be a bad idea for Champaign to repeal the smoking ban for 7 months, if they wanted to. Since even if they did, many establishments on their own accord would STILL continue to be smoke-free(and not revert back to allowing smoking at all, period). Such a law would address the concerns of bar owners losing customers, not to mention every place anyway, theoreticaly, would again be smoke-free, as of 2008(nevermind that I disagree with the statewide smoking ban).

One more question, why is it so important for you anti-smoking advocates to force your preference on all bar owners anyway, besides in restaurants and other workplaces? Not to mention, it HAS been proven repeatedly in studies that most people who go to bars, AND who voluntarily choose to work at such establishments, are smokers? If going to smoke-free bars was so important to you nonsmokers all this time, even before the smoking bans in Champaign and Urbana took effect, why didn't you all vote with your pocketbook, and only patronize bars that barred smoking, or had at least some smoke-free nights and/or hours? Not to mention, you could've tried to encourage them to go smokefree. Better yet, why didn't you anti-smokers try to open up a smoke-free bar all this time, or find ones that DID ban smoking before the smoking ban took effect?

Finally, as for FReRydr, I agree with you that smoking ban laws impose a "nanny-state" mentality that only hurts lawful businesses. And as the saying goes, if you give the enemy an inch, they take a mile. That's what occurred, sadly, with the vote to ban smoking statewide this week.

Posted by wtesoxfan3 on May 5, 2007 at 2:39 PM Suggest Removal

The myth of second hand smoke being dangerous to non-smokers has been debunked in research conducted by none other than The American Cancer Society. A 39 year study in California on secondhand smoke was started by the cancer society but they stopped the study after the results were not going in their favor. Read the report @...http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/1057.pdf or another report @...http://gasdetection.com/news2/health_news_digest6.html

The whole premis of the "smoke free" ordinance is based on lies for pure political reasons and therefore is truly a "nanny state" endevor!

Posted by FReRydr on May 5, 2007 at 4:19 PM Suggest Removal

FReRydr, you wrote that "you don't have to frequent businesses that allow smoking". Why don't the smokers just not frequent places where smoking's prohibited?

You also wrote that "Do not impose your 'nanny state' laws on businesses that do not want them and then turn around and not frequent them basicly driving them out of business!!!!!"

First, why don't we repeal food safety laws? After all, these pesky laws cut into businesses' profits. How dare they! People that don't like rotting meat or mouse feces in their hamburgers can just buy their meat elsewhere. And how dare we tell lawful bar owners that they can't sell booze to sixteen-year-olds so they can't maximize their profits?

As far as the whole argument about driving bars out of business. I've heard a lot of bleating about this, but have yet to see a shred of evidence. The smoking ban in Champaign's been in place a scarce three months, so the long term-effects aren't known, and even if they are, the business owners' rights to income and livelihood aren't absolute.

I don't know what's going on everywhere, but I'm frequenting my favorite bars even more often than before the smoking ordinance, and I seem not to see much lost patronage. Every business is regulated to some extent, and we're not entitled to a profit at the expense of our employees and customers.

You've been responding a lot to what you think I believe and very little of what I've actually written. It may disappoint you to learn that I wasn't one of the anti-smoking advocates who pressed this issue in Urbana and Champaign, but I am certainly appreciative of the change. Also, you are wrong to assume that I support creeping nannyism like outlawing fatty foods or a complete prohibition on tobacco.

I am an advocate of people being free to smoke, drink, or eat anything they damn well please (be it tobacco, marijuana, crack cocaine, alcohol, cheeseburgers, or foie gras). What you do with your body is your own problem, but unless you and your cigarette are isolated from my eyes, throat, lungs, and clothes, your habit becomes my problem, and society's problem.

Your comments about the "myth" of second-hand smoke show the reality distortion behind your arguments, and suggests that I am wasting my time "debating" you here. I've made my point and you've made yours, so it's pointless to take this further.

Posted by JRR on May 5, 2007 at 10:21 PM Suggest Removal

jrr

Apparently you have not paid attention to my statements above. For one I have not smoked for the past 23 plus years and I too do not like the smell of smoke.

My whole premis is that there were non-smoking businesses before this ban took effect and more could have been opened and declared to be non-smoking establishments and catered to the non-smoking patrons without imposing "nanny state" laws/ordinances (based on lies) on existing businesses.

You keep trying to bring up food service regulations as a counter to not initiating this smoking ban is ludicris because smoking was legal before the ban and is still legal. What part of serving bad food was ever legal (or wise) if you were trying to run a business and wanted repeat business? Where would the profits be if you didn't have repeat business or the word got out that everyone that ate your food became sick?

If you don't like the (smoking) atmosphere in a business, why would you want to patronize it? There was no ban on opening a non-smoking business, why inpose a nanny state ban on a business that wants to allow smoking for their patrons when you don't "have to" go there if you don't like the atmosphere?

It is pointless to continue this discussion because you can't seem to comprehend when nanny state legislation is not needed.

Posted by FReRydr on May 6, 2007 at 2:32 AM Suggest Removal

FReRydr, I did notice in your earlier posts that you've given up smoking. In the interest of full disclosure, I am an occasional cigar smoker. But like you, that hasn't changed my stance on the issue at hand.

I keep bringing up food regulations because I am trying to make the point that, at one time, no laws existed like the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act. Serving what we would now call unsafe food certainly was perfectly legal at one time in the past before these acts became law.

Perhaps if you can smell or taste rotten food, you might push your plate away, but when you contract a case of food poisoning many hours after the fact, how do you know what caused it? It's even harder to pinpoint some illness that develops long in the future because of long-term effects on additives that you weren't aware of at the time you chose your meal.

These century-old laws arose because of public pressure on government as a result of public education about the unsafe practices which were then the norm and which were then perfectly legal. (Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" -- even if one dislikes Sinclair's socialism -- was significant in terms of its role in establishment of laws that we now take for granted.)

These laws from the early twentieth century are certainly NOT exact parallels with today's anti-smoking legislation. However, there are some similarities: today's no-public-smoking laws have arisen because of public education about second-hand smoke's long-term effects on both patrons and employees, and the resulting pressure on government. (I recognize that you disagree with the facts regarding second-hand smoke.)

Though you and I disagree on whether the laws are a good thing or not, the News-Gazette editorial acknowledges that the laws sweeping the nation about public smoking are a result of changes in public attitudes toward a habit that was once considered acceptable anywhere and everywhere.

As with a century ago when the food safety laws mentioned above were passed, much of society has asked for a change from what was previously considered legal. Then as now, the people's elected representatives have chosen to do what they believe in the public's interest. I suppose some accused Congress of being a nanny in 1906, but over time, most of us have come to appreciate these laws and others like them.

There's a large body of laws on the books that already regulate when, where, and how I can enjoy a variety of otherwise legal activities. Telling tobacco smokers that they can't light up in a public place isn't that much different.

In my mind -- even though I haven't been among those who lobbied for this change -- I believe public no-smoking laws as a valid and constitutionally-proper role for government intervention. If, however, government were to try to make it illegal to consume tobacco or bacon cheeseburgers, I would probably be on the same side as you in opposition to regulating what people can do with their own bodies in private.

Posted by JRR on May 6, 2007 at 12:18 PM Suggest Removal

jrr

Your premis is still based on bogus information as far as secondhand smoke is concerned. Secondhand smoke does not kill people and offers a minimum health risk for most everyone. Those who cannot tolerate it and feel it is a health risk to themselves do not "have to" patronize places that allow smoking!

Bars and restaraunts are private businesses that cater to the public for their patronage. If there is so much demand for non-smoking bars and restaraunts they will cater to the public demands WITHOUT "nanny state" laws/ordinances!

The advertisment running on television now promoting this "Smoke Free Illinois" agenda, states that 'in Illinois 8 people die every day from secondhand smoke'. How about telling me the names of the 8 people that died yesterday? or maybe the information is not up to date yet, how about naming the 8 that died last year on todays date? It is bogus lies because there were not 8 people that died from secondhand smoke in the whole of last year let alone the 2920 (8x365) purported to have passed away from secondhand smoke!

This law and the agenda are based on lies! You still mention the food service laws that do not pertain to this argument. pftttt.

Posted by FReRydr on May 6, 2007 at 3:37 PM Suggest Removal

I feel as if I'm talking to a brick wall. You keep arguing that the marketplace should decide; I am repeatedly maintaining that the marketplace is NOT the sole metric by which the effects an activity on the public should be judged.

The marketplace didn't protect farmers from being gouged by the railroad robber barons in the 1870s, nor did it prevent people from unknowingly consuming adulterated food in the 1890s. Likewise, the free market didn't prevent people from losing their life savings through no fault of their own in the Depression bank closings. It didn't prevent unsafe vehicles like the Corvair or Pinto from being sold to unsuspecting consumers, or prevent Enron from bilking its investors more recently.

In the areas cited above (and numerous others), the public benefits from the government stepping in and telling private enterprise what it can and can not do. In many cases the public good was NOT well served by relying entirely on market forces to make the call.

You apparently don't believe regulation is ever appropriate. I believe it is -- to a point (which I have already enumerated). I doubt I can say anything further to help you see my point.

Posted by JRR on May 6, 2007 at 5:02 PM Suggest Removal

jrr

just how many of the examples you stated above were justified by lies? Laws based on lies are not good law. Where are the examples of death caused directly from second hand smoke? All these years at 8 deaths per day in Illinois alone, let alone more populated areas such as New York and California.

This law/ordinance is just a "nanny state" law for the "dictatorial minority" that dosn't want smoking around them when they could just as easily not patronize businesses that allow smoking. Where there is not a non-smoking establishment they want to frequent, they can open one catering to the non-smoking crowd. There were no laws forbidding the creation of a smoke-free business. In fact there were businesses that were smoke free. Apparently they would make money hand over fist since there is such a demand for it.

PLEASE keep butting your head against the brick wall you mentioned, it might reduce your "point", in the meantime, please wear a tall hat so we dont have to see your point!

Posted by FReRydr on May 6, 2007 at 8:31 PM Suggest Removal

Surely if you have something legitimate to say, you could try to state your case without repeating yourself or resorting to insults.

You can continue to believe that second-hand smoke is perfectly safe if you care to.

And when I hear your complaints about the "dictatorial minority" alongside the N-G's figures that "the number of smokers has fallen to roughly 20 percent of the population", I laugh.

Guess what? The majority has now spoken.

Since smoking in public isn't one of the inviolable rights enshrined in the Constitution, the state's public smoking legislation is a perfectly legal expression of the majority's will. This is democracy in action!

Posted by JRR on May 6, 2007 at 10:38 PM Suggest Removal

jrr (aka pointhd)

Now that the the city of Champaign has voted in people who campaigned on, and were supported by the constitutents, that wanted this ordinance overturned then you will be happy to see it overturned since they now constitute the MAJORITY of the city counsil!!!

I repeat my same arguments: The ordinance was not needed to create non-smoking businesses, non-smokers did not "have to" patronize smoking establishments, this is a "nanny state" law based on lies.

I have not stated that "secondhand smoke is perfectly safe", it is not the health hazzard that it is purported to be (8 deaths per day in Illinois alone!) by the "smoke-free alliance"! It is no more than an irritant to the majority of people!

LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS!!! (unless you are an unborn child whose mother finds his/her {not "its"} life INCONVENIENT)

GUESS WHAT the MAJORITY might decide to overturn this ordinance!!

Posted by FReRydr on May 7, 2007 at 10:05 AM Suggest Removal

I can see by your latest that you're not interested in debating the issues like an adult, and have regressed into calling names and shouting. Congratulations on proving your intellectual maturity.

Posted by JRR on May 7, 2007 at 5:41 PM Suggest Removal

jrr (aka pointhd)

PLEASEPLEASEPLEASE: take what marbles you have left (between your ears) and stay home on election day. This great country does not need socio-comm (socialist/communist) influences or politicians such as yours creating "nanny state" laws/ordinances based on lies.

MAY GOD BLESS AMERICA, LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, OUR FINE BRAVE TROOPS AND THEIR FINE COMMANDER IN CHIEF KEEPING US SAFE FROM ISLAMIC HEADCHOPPER MURDERERS AND KEEP US SAFE FROM ISLAMOFASCIEST SYMPATHIZERS SUCH AS HARRY("THEWARISLOST")REID!

Posted by FReRydr on May 8, 2007 at 8:14 AM Suggest Removal

sorry to shout (shhhhh) I'm just passionate in my beliefs.

Posted by FReRydr on May 8, 2007 at 8:19 AM Suggest Removal