2008 Woodie Awards
Illini Media
WPGU
buzz
Illio
TechnographSmoking ban repeal still controversial
By Patrick Wade
Posted: 8/29/07 Section: News
|
"I don't smoke myself, but some people can't handle being around it," she said.
After the city council's partial repeal of the smoking ban in May, Champaign bar-goers like Valsamis are going to have to handle the smoke for at least another four months.
"It doesn't bother me either way," Valsamis said. "But I do understand that there should be some sort of law about it."
The smoking ban that went into effect in Champaign last January no longer affects Class-A liquor license holders after the city council took a second vote on the Clean Indoor Air Ordinance in May.
The ordinance still prohibits smoking in public restaurants.
"Many of the councilmen felt that the restaurants, they liked the fact it was banned, and that they could live with it, and it wouldn't affect their business," said Champaign Mayor Gerald Schweighart, who voted in favor of the repeal.
Now, as University students flood campus bars, the decision is split as to whether or not the city's repeal is a positive action.
Abe Salinas, sophomore in AHS, said that while smoke-filled bars are uncomfortable, he does not mind if people want to smoke.
"I'm an adult," Salinas said. "I know where I'm going ahead of time, I know what is and isn't going to be there."
But others, like Engineering seniors Zach Zilbershatz and Patty Kaupie, said they cannot wait for the statewide ban to take effect.
"I'm not a smoker so I like to have a nice, clean bar," Zilbershatz said.
The local partial repeal came before Gov. Rod Blagojevich signed the highly anticipated Illinois Smoke Free Act in July. The law, which will go into effect Jan. 1, 2008, and supersede all local laws, prohibits smoking in all public bars and restaurants in Illinois.
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 - 10 of 13
Vince Harden
posted 8/29/07 @ 3:03 AM CST
There shouldn't be any smoking bans in the first place. Mr.Meyer is correct in his statement.The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a private business does not become public simply because the public is invited in. (Continued…)
Christopher Steiner
posted 8/29/07 @ 9:33 AM CST
I'm kind of sick of hearing about this issue. It doesn't even matter what the local councils decide because the state law will kick in in a few mos. anyway, and I don't feel that this is even a relevant or important issue. (Continued…)
Kevin Meier
posted 8/29/07 @ 9:57 AM CST
Seriously now, do people just not care about their health or the health of others? It is disgusting that in this day and age there are still people ignorant enough to smoke away their lives and not give a bleep about other people's health. (Continued…)
Factoid Man
posted 8/29/07 @ 10:28 AM CST
Actually, the original report that cites all this garbage about second hand smoke being dangerous was shown to be falsified. Although no one in their right mind would say that being around smoke is GOOD for your health, there is no substantial evidence proving that second hand smoke is detrimental to health. (Continued…)
Thomas Laprade
posted 8/29/07 @ 11:00 AM CST
I believe that non-smokers, like anyone else, have this right. But how far does that right extend? Should it take priority over someone else's rights? Court houses, publicly owned buildings and anywhere else an individual might be forced to go should properly be included in any smoking law. (Continued…)
snowbird
Thomas Laprade
posted 8/29/07 @ 11:04 AM CST
I believe that non-smokers, like anyone else, have this right. But how far does that right extend? Should it take priority over someone else's rights? Court houses, publicly owned buildings and anywhere else an individual might be forced to go should properly be included in any smoking law. (Continued…)
Old Illini
posted 8/29/07 @ 11:33 AM CST
And let us hope that the health fanatics are consistent in their zeal to protect everyone from harm. Now that smoking is verboten, I hope they will be equally as zealous in forcing the pretentious Yup parents with their coughing, sniffling, vomiting, nose-running, virus-spewing little brats that they insist on bringing into restaurants, theaters, and every other public place to be banned. (Continued…)
Thomas Laprade
posted 8/29/07 @ 7:42 PM CST
A small amount of smoke from a handfull of crushed leaves and some paper that is mixed with the air of a decently ventilated venue is harmful to your health??
If anybody believes that, then I have a bridge I would like to sell them. (Continued…)
snowbird
Thomas Laprade
posted 8/29/07 @ 7:51 PM CST
The bottom line on these smoking bans is:
To quarantine/isolate the smoker.
To denormalize smoking.
Passing no-smoking laws is a big step in that direction, unfortunatley the hospitality industry is caught in the cross-fire
Andrew
posted 8/29/07 @ 8:32 PM CST
Bars are inherently unhealthy, whether smoking is allowed or not. The main reason people go to bars is to drink alcohol, and in college bars like the ones near the U of I campus, people consume vast amounts of alcohol. (Continued…)
Post a Comment