2008 Woodie Awards
Illini Media
WPGU
buzz
Illio
TechnographStatewide smoking ban raises questions
By Dailly Illini Editorial Board
Posted: 4/10/07 Section: Editorials
- Page 1 of 1
It looks like the smoking ban bandwagon just got a lot bigger.
Following the nationwide trend, the Illinois State Senate passed the Smoke Free Illinois Act last week, which could make all enclosed public places including bars and restaurants 100 percent smoke free. Urbana has had similar regulations since August 2006 and Champaign since January 2007.
Whether or not we agree with the notion of a smoking ban, we believe that this issue should be determined on a local level by municipal governments. For us, the Smoke Free Act is just another example of the state dictating a Chicago-oriented policy to those living in smaller communities downstate. It may also be much more divisive or beyond enforcement, being up to business owners to keep patrons from smoking and municipal governments to police public places.
One concern with allowing local governments to vote on a smoking ban is that many will simply not enact one.
That would mean smokers would take their business from cities where smoking is banned to places where it is not. Locally, this has largely come true as smokers have relocated to Savoy and Mahomet since the local bans were enacted.
While this is a problem, it does highlight the fact that in creating a blanket smoking ban, the State Senate is not addressing business-owners who are willing to cater to smokers, nor addressing the smokers themselves. The state legislature will instead be superseding municipal governments by stripping away their rights and those of business owners.
For some, a smoking ban harkens back to the Prohibition era, when between 1920 and 1933, the sale, manufacture and transportation of alcohol was outlawed, though possession and consumption were never made illegal. That it was appealed after it proved to be unpopular and unenforceable calls into question whether a state smoking ban would be effective.
By enacting a ban, the state is infringing on the rights of the individual. While second-hand smoke is a big concern, customers do have a right to choose where they go. If they do not like public places that allow patrons to smoke they can go somewhere else.
All these criticisms might be in vain as more states ratify similar smoking restrictions, but the question remains: What are states going to do to protect business owners who cater to smokers, and what about the smokers themselves?
We just hope their rights do not get overlooked as Illinois takes its seat on the smoking ban bandwagon.
Following the nationwide trend, the Illinois State Senate passed the Smoke Free Illinois Act last week, which could make all enclosed public places including bars and restaurants 100 percent smoke free. Urbana has had similar regulations since August 2006 and Champaign since January 2007.
Whether or not we agree with the notion of a smoking ban, we believe that this issue should be determined on a local level by municipal governments. For us, the Smoke Free Act is just another example of the state dictating a Chicago-oriented policy to those living in smaller communities downstate. It may also be much more divisive or beyond enforcement, being up to business owners to keep patrons from smoking and municipal governments to police public places.
One concern with allowing local governments to vote on a smoking ban is that many will simply not enact one.
That would mean smokers would take their business from cities where smoking is banned to places where it is not. Locally, this has largely come true as smokers have relocated to Savoy and Mahomet since the local bans were enacted.
While this is a problem, it does highlight the fact that in creating a blanket smoking ban, the State Senate is not addressing business-owners who are willing to cater to smokers, nor addressing the smokers themselves. The state legislature will instead be superseding municipal governments by stripping away their rights and those of business owners.
For some, a smoking ban harkens back to the Prohibition era, when between 1920 and 1933, the sale, manufacture and transportation of alcohol was outlawed, though possession and consumption were never made illegal. That it was appealed after it proved to be unpopular and unenforceable calls into question whether a state smoking ban would be effective.
By enacting a ban, the state is infringing on the rights of the individual. While second-hand smoke is a big concern, customers do have a right to choose where they go. If they do not like public places that allow patrons to smoke they can go somewhere else.
All these criticisms might be in vain as more states ratify similar smoking restrictions, but the question remains: What are states going to do to protect business owners who cater to smokers, and what about the smokers themselves?
We just hope their rights do not get overlooked as Illinois takes its seat on the smoking ban bandwagon.
The Daily Illini encourages on-topic discussion through article commenting on its articles and blogs. It is our policy not to delete any comments based upon political or ideological point of view. However, we reserve the right to remove comments that are abusive, off-topic or use excessive foul language.
The posting of copyrighted material, including any and all content for which you are not the author, is illegal under Federal intellectual property laws. Such activity will not be tolerated. Comments containing copyrighted material will be removed, and continued violation of copyright law is grounds for being banned completely from commenting on DailyIllini.com.
If you feel any post meets these conditions or merits review, please e-mail our editors at meonline@dailyillini.com.
Viewing Comments 1 - 7 of 9
Yuri Tsushin
posted 4/10/07 @ 7:32 AM CST
Why does business always come first in these arguments? This is _not_ primarily a matter of business but one of public health. It is far too easy to turn this into issues of personal choice and personal rights (in keeping with the tenor of so many discussions in this country) in order to distract from the fact that this is a far-reaching issue of public health. (Continued…)
faculty member
posted 4/10/07 @ 7:58 AM CST
You miss the point of this being a public health issue. It is a public health issue FOR EMPLOYEES. If this was just dealing with customers, they could stay away or take their business elsewhere. (Continued…)
Josh
posted 4/10/07 @ 8:28 AM CST
Interesting article set up.
Ban enacted in CU communities... next paragraph, This is clearly Chicago trying to take over the state. That makes no sense by your own writing, nice try. (Continued…)
Adam
posted 4/10/07 @ 8:49 AM CST
Faculty member,
Obviously you don't think the risks of freedom outweigh the benefits.
Let's look at your doomsday scenario of no work-safety regulations. (Continued…)
Taxpayer Guy
posted 4/10/07 @ 9:50 AM CST
No surprises. This is the next logical step in the move to socialism. First you convince the entire group of plebes that the government is responsible for your health care. (Continued…)
Rochelle Weber
posted 4/10/07 @ 12:49 PM CST
First, it would help to get your facts straight. The Urbana Clean Indoor Air Ordinance did not take effect until January, 2007, and Champaign's ordinance took effect 30 days later. (Continued…)
Adam
posted 4/10/07 @ 1:55 PM CST
Rochelle,
You cited the quote "My right to [smoke] ends at the other man's nose." to summarize your view.
People are not following you everywhere you go and blowing smoke in your face; rather, you have sought out the few places where people gather and smoke, stuck your nose in their smoke, and then complained about it. (Continued…)
Post a Comment