Red-Light Cameras Not So Special?
Cubs Combat Casino
PHOTOS: Peaches And Amanda Blank At Metro
County Sales Tax Rollback Vetoed - Here We Go Again
The Return of The Chicagoist Reader Meet-Up
Smokers, meet Winter. Winter, smokers. Timed perfectly with a bone-chilling cold, Illinois's smoking ban went into effect at midnight, Jan. 1.
Not surprisingly, some are thrilled. The Sun-Times checks in with bartenders and finds that—shock!—they are happy to be able to work in a smoke-free environment. The Trib wonders if there will be an adverse effect on bars and restaurants, while querying if smoking bans even have an effect on the number of adults who smoke. From the Trib:
Little evidence exists to conclusively link smoking bans to changes in adult smoking rates, although research shows the incidence declined in places where high cigarette taxes and anti-tobacco advertising accompanied such restrictions. California, for instance, saw its smoking rate dip from 17.5 percent in 1998 to 13.3 percent in 2006 after a two-tiered ban took effect in 1995 and 1998, the state's health department reports.
Whether it does or doesn't have a huge impact on the number of adults who smoke, we can't argue that a smoke-free Illinois won't be better for all of our lungs. We remember when our favorite watering hole in college was found to be so smoky, that if it was outside, it would have been labeled a hazardous site by the EPA (it had 95 times more pollutants than the average non-smoking setting.) So we're excited those who work in bars, or frequent bars on a regular basis, can expect to breathe easier now (and do less laundry too, after a night on the town.)
Of course, what Chicagoist is most concerned about, is that smokers be properly dressed to brave the cold when enjoying their cigarettes. To this end, we cannot recommend highly enough, the glitten. Keeps your hands warm, while still allowing you to hold on, daintily, to your Marlboro. Genius.
Image via Fig and Plum.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
'The study found Jimmy's to have the smokiest air of all these places, with 195 times more pollutants than the average non-smoking setting.'
It was nice to be out on New Year's Day without smoke in the bars. The smoke usually gets to me after a few hours, but I won't have to worry about that any more.
The ban will just make people really good about being sneaky smokers in bars. This is something I am already great at, so I am not that worried. Best performed in crowded bars while seated at a high table away from the bar.
Hey Spav1, I hope I run into you, because I'm gonna report your A$$, but actually I'm sure I want be the only person dialing as the clear majority don't want to breath your toxic smoke
I like how you don't give a sh*t about the fact that the owner will have to pay a fine
This ban will be loosely enforced at best. Don't people have more important things to worry about?
I'm looking forward to hitting the casinos without all the smoke. There were signs up about the ban coming soon the last time I was there.
Also, Gap had glittens at Christmastime. I was thisclose to buying a pair for myself; they look very warm and comfy.
It will be enforced by the nonsmoking patrons. I was in New York recently, where they have had a ban for a while. No one was smoking in the bar I hung out at for about 3 hours.
Loosely enforced? maybe for the first few weeks but once bars start piling up fines they'll come down hard. Does anyone know how the fines work for individuals? Who comes in to investigate the smoker/bar. I was very happy when I stopped by my favorite local, extremely smoky bar and saw all the smokers standing outside. w00t!
I'm still lost as to when this debate became about whether or not second-hand smoke is bad for you, and stopped being about whether the gov't should infringe the rights of free association protected under the first amendment.
The Public Health Department will inspect and fine a bar if they are too stupid to obey this very important law that will save lives. Spav good lock with getting help with your addiction
Yea! Now the bars will be smoke free, and I'll have to walk through clouds of the crap go get where I'm going on a public sidewalk.
smokers have to be 15 feet from a door or open window, so you won't have to walk through any clouds of smoke either. that one might not be enforced as much as no smoking in bars.
Enough with the slippery slope hysteria already. It's the equivalent of a noise ordinance. Consider it a stink ordinance.
Mike_Thoms - I'm guessing the 15 feet part of the ordinance won't be enforced. I've spent time in CA and NY, and in neither state did it seem like people cared how far you were from the door, as long as you weren't inside.
Sorry, that was intended for #9.
@Mory:
I am from downstate where there has been a smoking ban for about a year. Let me tell you, drunken brawls in front have bars have increased 100%, although this is just an estimate. It must be related to crazy drunk smokers all huddled together on the streets. And then chaos ensues.
@Spook: Thanks for the good luck wishes but only 2/3 of smokers die from smoking related illnesses, and also I am really young so I am going to play the odds and hope I am in the surviving 1/3 or that by the time I am older, there will be like, artifical lungs. In any case, I like smoking so I will prolly continue to do it any place I want. I plan on relying on the face that I am a girl to keep me out of any serious trouble on that count. But, seriously. Thanks.
Spav...where is this "drunken brawl" statistic coming from? As Homer Simpson would say, you can use statistics to prove anything...57% of people know that. It sounds like a made-up stat. Maybe drunken brawls have increased because everyone downstate is a hick? If we're making crazy, broad generalizations and claims I'm just throwing that one out there. This is great. As a liberal who doesn't think the government should tell us what we can and can't do to ourselves, I love this law. It's not a law telling us what we can't do to ourselves but what we can't do to others. that's the whole point of laws, what you can and can't do to other people.
Let me tell you, drunken brawls in front have bars have increased 100%, although this is just an estimate. It must be related to crazy drunk smokers all huddled together on the streets. And then chaos ensues.
Yeah, because you never see dozens of drunk people packed like sardines inside the freakin' bar!!!
It is possible that downstaters fight in the street more than people from Chicago. I don't really know. I did post-logue my statistic with "just an estimate", but seriously, there has been a clear (albeit anecdotal) increase in fights outside bars in Springfield since the ban went into effect. Also, more puke outside.
In any case, I just feel this law is hypocritical for us as like, Americans as in this country was built on tobacco and how much everyone loved it. And now we are just turning our backs on it. It feels wrong. Also, smoking makes you thinner. And aren't we in the middle of some obesity epidemic?
Slaphappy: People fight in bars less because they will get kicked out and this sucks, especially if you have paid a cover. Or still have a drink. If you are already OUTSIDE and then there are no consequences, then fighting seems like an immediate, viable reaction, instead of something you might rule out based on aforementioned reasons.
America was built on tobacco and slavery...let's bring back slavery too! repeal the smoking bans and bring back slavery! and take away a woman's right to vote too. let's get back to basics.
"this country was built on tobacco"
That's a wild statement. I thought only Virginia was built on tobacco.
Yeah, you're definitely not a Rhodes scholar. LOL
Virginia was totally the start of America. As far as I understand it, the economic impact of tobacco sales was imperative in keeping the colonies viable in the early years. It is like, what if everyone back then was like "Smoking kills" and then the colony would have collapsed and everyone would have died just like in that one lost colony where no one knows what happened except there are now some blue eyed Indians. Roanoke? I am just saying that if there had been no tobacco, then there would be no colony and no America. And I don't think the slaves came until later, which is still not cool, but they didn't cultivate the first, AMERICA-MAKING tobacco.
Virginia was totally the start of America. As far as I understand it, the economic impact of tobacco sales was imperative in keeping the colonies viable in the early years. It is like, what if everyone back then was like "Smoking kills" and then the colony would have collapsed and everyone would have died just like in that one lost colony where no one knows what happened except there are now some blue eyed Indians. Roanoke? I am just saying that if there had been no tobacco, then there would be no colony and no America. And I don't think the slaves came until later, which is still not cool, but they didn't cultivate the first, AMERICA-MAKING tobacco.
Virginia was totally the start of America. As far as I understand it, the economic impact of tobacco sales was imperative in keeping the colonies viable in the early years. It is like, what if everyone back then was like "Smoking kills" and then the colony would have collapsed and everyone would have died just like in that one lost colony where no one knows what happened except there are now some blue eyed Indians. Roanoke? I am just saying that if there had been no tobacco, then there would be no colony and no America. And I don't think the slaves came until later, which is still not cool, but they didn't cultivate the first, AMERICA-MAKING tobacco.
Tobacco WAS the economic driver in the Chesapeake Bay colonies and King George, who hated the stuff for all the reasons nonsmokers hate it today, made a lot of money off of it. Virginia existed to make England money. However, the economy diversified well before the American Revolution. To say nothing would be here today without tobacco is saying a lot.
Even if tobacco were essential to America's early survival, that has no bearing on what we do today. Stealing from Indians made America what it is today, literally, but it doesn't mean we should still do it. Give back Manhattan!
Spav: I suggest you take a deeper look at history and economics.
While you are accurate, to a point, you ignore the points the other posters have made, and ignore the fact that economies change all the time in such a large, powerful country. Steel helped build the USA starting in the mid-to-late 19th century--should we then buy only those products with steel (not other metals, nor plastics) as some sort of shout-out to American economic heritage? What about indigo or hemp, two other big crops during early parts of our history?
I've seem some desperate attempts by smokers to justify their addications and the cost of those addictions to non-smokers, but yours really takes today's prize.
If you want to indulge your addictions, be my guest. The world needs losers, I guess, if only to make the winners look better. But don't make me pay choke on your smoke.
Have fun freezing.
Does smoking really make someone a loser?
See: The Rat Pack. Winston Churchill.
Spav1 for you its the loser combo package, the smoking combined with a Red Eye Reader's under standing of history and ability to think logically. With that said, happy new year to you and your man Drew Peterson!
I would prefer to think of it as an ability to think outside the box.
And on Drew: why hasn't he been arrested yet? Maybe because I am right? And he is innocent?
I know I'm joining the discussion late, but I thought I might redirect it a little. Regardless of what anyone assumes, no one has a "right" to go to any particular private establishment. All of these bars are owned by citizens of the United States and should be able to allow or ban smoking based on their own desires. Conservatives make the argument that strip clubs, pornography, rated R movies, etc lead to a break down in society. They want to pass laws limiting personal behavior, and they're called "religious nuts" who want to force their beliefs on others. Liberals, on the other, engage in the same practice, and call themselves enlightened. If you don't like the smell of smoke: GO ELSEWHERE. No one has the right to force the owners of any establishment to modify their policy simply because they don't like second hand smoke. I don't like second hand smoke either. Its disgusting. Therefore, I modify MY BEHAVIOR, realizing that I don't have a right to tell people how to run their businesses.
look smoking in a bar is akin to me walking in said bar with a can of Raid and spraying it in the air, because its what I wanna do.
OakPark...if you believe second-hand smoke causes cancer, then it's harming other people, people who have chosen not to smoke. Therefore, the government, I believe, has the right to ban smoking in bars or restaurants or other enclosed spaces. A proper government should never infringe on the rights of the people it governs, unless those rights cause harm to other people. I believe second-hand smoke causes harm to other people, therefore smoking should be banned. If you don't believe that then there's a whole other debate and really what this thing is about.
It's like having health codes for restaurants or holding landlords liable if they don't have smoke detectors of don't prevent preventable injuries on their property.
look smoking in a bar is akin to me walking in said bar with a can of Raid and spraying it in the air, because its what I wanna do.
How about a ban on cologne and perfume? I'm down.
"A proper government should never infringe on the rights of the people it governs, unless those rights cause harm to other people."
Your definition is wrongheaded. Where you say, "harm" you should say "infringe on the rights of others." I really do believe that strip clubs demean women, break up marriages, cause men to view women as objects, etc. To me, strip clubs "harm" other people. However, not wanting to force my beliefs on others I wouldn't think of not allowing people to freely associate. A liberal going into a bar and demanding the right to guzzle gin and tonics free from the smell of smoke is like a conservative going into a strip club and demanding the right guzzle coca cola free from the view of naked women.
A liberal going into a bar and demanding the right to guzzle gin and tonics free from the smell of smoke is like a conservative going into a strip club and demanding the right guzzle coca cola free from the view of naked women.
That is the stupidest thing I've ever read.
That piss-poor analogy would only be correct if the bar were a tobacco shop, which happens to one of the exceptions to the indoor smoking ban.
I think there are good faith arguments to be made on both sides of this issue, but ultimately, it's a stink ordinance. And I'm absolutely fine with that.
The case of strip clubs is an interesting one--all presumably consenting adults are parties to this venture. I doubt anyone who believes as you do or who doesn't have preconceived notions about women and sex that align with those of the strip club would go into one. So who exactly is being harmed against their will?
But what about a nonsmoker like me who wants to see James McMurtry and must risk my health in a bar to do so. Believe me, I've opted out of concerts I would have liked to have seen because I didn't want to end up not being able to talk at the end of the evening. Is that right? A smoker can take a smoke break between sets; I cannot.
If you believe that second hand smoke causes harm then you should be able to see the point of this law.
I do believe it causes harm. However, I don't believe that Ferdy has a right to see James McMurtry perform at someone's privately owned club or bar or whatever. It does suck, I agree. I think it should change. However, I don't think people should be compelled to change, against their will. We should step up and do this outside of the law. If there is a high enough demand for smoke free bars and clubs, then surely, club owners would follow suit. I have a problem with laws that limit freedom based upon the personal beliefs of others. That's why even though I think that strip clubs are "socially harmful" I wouldn't think of banning adults from freely consenting on going into such an establishment.
Oh, and about the strip club anology, get real. The strippers, just like a band, or a comedian, or a noisy smoke filled atmosphere, get the people in through the door. The cover charge or ticket price will pay for said entertainment. The real money is made off of drinks and food, etc. 4 dollars for a mixed drink with hardly any alcohol in it makes people lots of money. Many of these bars, and I'm guessing a bar like "Jimmy's" which was mentioned in the first post, is in fact, "selling" that smoke filled atmosphere. Believe it or not, but many people like being in smoke filled bars. Anyways, my point is that the analogy does fit.
OakParkian - You never addressed my point about consenting adults at strip clubs.
And do you really think business does much voluntarily these days? Why do you think the neocons have been jutting business regulation? Not because regulation isn't needed, but because businesses don't want to cut into their profits to comply with all those pesky regs. They will be good citizens ALL BY THEMSELVES. Yeah, right.
You've got to compromise somewhere between unfettered freedom and dictatorship. We need laws for everyone's protection just as much as we need freedom.
Most people do not want to be in smoke filled bars as most people don't smoke, but like to drink including yours truely, so why should I have to put up with a small minority of creeps who desire to poison the shared pubic air? If you wanna spew toxins in the air, spew that poison in your own house!
Somewhere, "some asshole" quietly seethes
There is a demand for smoke-free bars, that's why this law came to be. People demanded smoke-free everything because that's what they wanted.
What I would rather see is business allowed to permit smoking, subject to regulation, and somking outdoor banned entirely.
Business that wish to allow smoking can get a permit, like a liquor license. In order to get the permit you have to provide for air filtration, and long-term health care for your employees.
I'm willing to bet that most businesses would find it cheaper to not allow smoking. And I could choose to go to a business based on if they allow smoking or not.
Very sensible, Morydd.
well yall can pout and shout all you want, but it comes down to this and this alone,
Smoker's!
Bust Out Your Glittens!
That's right,Spook. Glitten wearers unite!
At bars with loud music and people smokers will surely be joined by those addicted to the cell phone as well.
Actually, I think that's the next movement, not including the Anti Red- Stupid- Eye Movement.
"Stop Second Hand Yack", Yea ya heard it here
first! And actually, I think Glittens are too cool for dirty smokers and should not be associated with them.
I owned a pair of Glittens and they were my favorite pair of "gloves"
I actually have one Glitten left, saved in honor of the noble invention.It misses its mate lost on the train last winter
Anyways, my point is that the analogy does fit.
No, it doesn't, you fucking dolt. Here's your analogy again:
A liberal going into a bar and demanding the right to guzzle gin and tonics free from the smell of smoke is like a conservative going into a strip club and demanding the right guzzle coca cola free from the view of naked women.
The point of a strip club is to see naked women. The point of a bar is to drink alcohol, not smoke cigarettes. What don't you understand about that?
Sheesh, where's Matilda when you need her?
Congrats,
You're *both* being disingenuous.
I have one comment to make - re: going to shows as a smoker.
I have *no problem* going outside to smoke at shows. I'll even admit it's kind of cool to be able to see the stage (you know, not through a haze of smoke).
But what chaps my ass is when I pay a premium for a ticket, get there in time to see *all* the bands... and then discover that there are no pass outs, and there is no where I can pop outside to have a quick smoke between sets. Seriously annoying. Especially when it's going to be a long, long night.
I'm a smoker, have been for YEARS. I go out of my way to be polite about it. Someone asks me to please step back, I do. I don't smoke around my friends who it seriously bothers. Not a problem. When I was somewhere I couldn't smoke, I go outside... if I want to smoke, I figure I can suffer for it. *shrugs* But the above was something that always irritated me to no end. (Heck, even UIC Arena or whatever had a TINY patio that we could pack into like sardines for a smoke).
THAT said, I'm off to the Dr for Chantix on Friday. If I can't pop into my local for a smoke and a whiskey anymore, I might as well save my money on the cigarettes. I can buy more books that way, anyway.