A View From the Sears Tower's Ledge
Illinois Is Getting Fatter
Mayor Blames Violent Holiday Weekend On Booze, Heat
Kuma's Pats Itself On Back With Block Party
Chicagoan Involved In Mount Rushmore Ruckus
So it's week three of the Statewide smoking ban. How's everyone holding up? Apparently well, since there has been a shockingly low number of violations, 54, in the city so far. We suspect that's partially due to the fact that it takes a number of complaints before the city will actually send someone out to issue a citation, but mostly we think it's because people are quick to adapt and have just moved the party outdoors. At some point things will loosen up, and much like New York, some bars will begin to quietly allow smoking. Certain establishments with covered patios have already begun allowing folks to smoke in those spaces since they're technically outdoors. So look for more loosening of the rules along those lines.
Overall though, people have just taken the change in stride. Personally, we've found we smoke just as much, but are now meeting far more people by standing out front than we ever did trying to shout over the DJ in a crowded bar. So, socially, this ban has been a bit of a boon. On the other hand, while we're smoking just as much, we're actually drinking less. This is primarily because no one really wants to leave a drink unattended at the bar while they step out front to smoke, so one tends to finish the one they have, and space out the alcohol intake to keep in pace with the smoke breaks. In fact, the only real annoyance we've encountered is with certain 4 a.m. bars that force smokers to wait in line to get outside, because the line to get inside is so out of control. So we're searching out less popular late-night bars so we can get our smoke on whenever we feel like it.
Sure, it can be a hassle from time to time, but it seems as if almost no one wants to be the total tool to get a bar or restaurant slapped with a fine. So there you have it, despite all the griping and grumbling leading up to the ban, it appears life has changed very little since its implementation.
Photo by fotofill
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
Just wait until the summer when the rate of date-rapes skyrockets thanks to drunk girls leaving their drinks unattended to go smoke. It will be roofie-palooza.
And I still smoke inside.
Well very little, except the bars are way less smokey. So I would say a lot has changed.
I would also say 54 violations in 2 weeks is a way more than I expected. Have they even had 54 violations for the cell phone while driving law yet?
I was at Richard's the night of the 5th, smoking like normal was going on. It was really gross after experiencing the nice smoke free bars in the week leading up to that.
Yeah, because drunk girls never leave their drinks unattended to go to the bathroom.
Yeah, because the amount of date rapes due to the smoking ban has increased so dramatically, Spav. How 'bout this: just don't be stupid, finish your drink (or, oh, gosh, have a friend watch it) and smoke outside.
And 25,000 people have been ticketed because of the cell phone ban in Chicago, according to stats.
I wonder how the BAN is going to affect the bottom line of restaurant and bar\club owners?
I know several who are saying that it is hurting their business.
There are stats from other cities that have shown that restaurants and bars/clubs are affected at first, but things settle down. Do keep in mind that Chicago has had a smoking ban in restaurants for some time now, so this is nothing new to them.
Thunderbelly, Next time inform them of THE LAW. That's what I did at Streetside with two dudes smoking. They just apologized, said they forgot and snuffed their butts.
And if its alot of people then snitch on the bar later. Oh yea I'm leading the "Start Snitching" movement.
But If you see Spav1 out on the town becareful! Because this means that Drew Peterson is either sitting next to her or in the bathroom or at the bar buying another round. And word on the street is that he is still armed with a gun, and we know he's dangerous, freak'n killer!
It's too bad that bar owners could not choose whether to be smoke free or not.
Bar owners can choose to be a sports bar, show bands, invite DJ's...even have strippers if they choose.
But the Man will, once again, tell us the vices we can consume, and where to consume them.
I guess it is your everyday feel-good legislation so that jack-ass politicians can reminisce about it in their retirement speech…all the while these same politicians are doing nothing to improve the everyday infrastructure of its citizens they represent.
Spook:
Drew and I only go out in Wisconsin where he is less well-known and they don't frown on alleged killings or indoor smoking. We have a great time.
"I know several who are saying that it is hurting their business."
Which ones?
How much hurt?
Irishman: Do you support zoning laws? Health inspectors? Legal drugs?
Just curious how pure your convictions are in this area.
But you are right about the credit the jack-ass politicians will take on this one.
@Irishman
I agree on your point of each individual business determining whether or not they are to be a smoking or smoke-free establishment.
It just makes sense to me. They would know their cliental and whether moving one way or the other would affect their business.
People would know and either continue to patron, or move on.
Maybe the state should work on passing a Douchebag Free law? I'd vote for that! Ha ha.
Matilda...first, let me tell you what I do support.
I support a bar owner wanting to allow his/her patrons to smoke a cigarette if they choose.
I also support a bar owner NOT allowing his/her patrons to smoke cigarettes.
I will answer your questions, but before I take your bait...what is the correlation between my post and your questions?
:-)
I ask, Irishman, because when people say business owners should be allowed to do whatever they want, I wonder what means in terms of issues such as health inspections, or zoning, or other laws sold as benefiting the public good.
I support the smoking ban because I see it as a public health issue--one person's behavior having a negative effect on others who are not taking part in the activity. That is why I ask people who express the same views as you do how deep these convications run, if you are willing to go further or if your view is anchored to smoking in public. I see that a lot of people who oppose the smoking ban are in favor of other public health measures, and I find it curious that people can hold a dose of libertarian thought on this issue but not on other, perhaps less personal issues. To me, such views generally defy logic, and instead rely on emotion. That is why I ask.
It's an honest question, not a trap, and I am not assuming anything about your smoking or bar habits.
It has been great to go to bars and restaurants and not come out stinking like smoke.
The only thing we should ask is "What took us so long?"
Hi Matilda…great question.
You said, “I ask, Irishman, because when people say business owners should be allowed to do whatever they want…”.
In all fairness, that is not what I said.
I said that business owners should be able to declare if they want smoking permitted in their place of business or not…that’s it. I am not giving them a green light to stop paying taxes or do whatever they want. Let’s keep some sort of sophistication to the issue.
Giving the bar owners a choice will create non-smoking environments…let’s remember that.
Nobody is forcing you to go to that smoking bar. The politicians want you to think it is a health issue, but if it were a health issue then they would outlaw smoking. Oh, wait! Tax dollars come from people buying cigarettes!!
So, I guess the health issue to politicians goes as far as the dollar goes. There is no way they will ban cigarettes altogether, so the politicians will cover it up as a “health issue” when it really is a “moral issue” of them telling us how to live our lives.
Our government cannot even balance a checkbook, yet they come off as if they are the moral compass in my life? I…think…not.
I think that we can all agree what is acceptable Health Standards without varying more than about 2%. I don’t think allowing bar owners to decide if they want smoking will give them more elbow room when it comes to zoning, as well.
So I do hold separate the health issue (which there is none) and the moral issue (which I think it is……let bar owners choose, there WILL be smoke-free bars).
You said, “I support the smoking ban because I see it as a public health issue--one person's behavior having a negative effect on others who are not taking part in the activity.”
Okay, what about cars and buses? You inhale their exhaust everyday…even more so in the loop. Should we be allowed to drive cars only when the government says it is okay? Can we only ride buses when the government says it is okay?
Further, there are plenty of bars out there who have already banned smoking, even without a state law. And if another person tells me about how their favorite bar sucked b/c there was smoking…then I would say that it wasn’t your favorite bar to begin with!
Irish: Sorry if I misquoted you. I did not mean to, and was making a general comment. No offense.
That said, there is a documented health claim regarding second hand smoke. Go talk to cancer researchers.
As for cars and buses, I think that is a good point, up to a point. I fully support tougher anti-pollution standards and greatly expanding mass transit. I would be willing to pay for it, as well. That said, it is easier to tackle the smaller health issue--smoking--than the larger issue of pollution from cars. Small steps. I find this line of argument less than persuasive, as we have, over the decades, tightened polllution standards for vehicles, and continue to do so. As well, no is keeping residents of legal age from smoking all the time. You just cannot do it in public, enclosed places. There are many things we cannot do in public because of concerns about effects on public health. Some concers are reasonable, and some probably are not. This, I think, is reasonable, based on the science (don't tell me second hand smoke is not harmful--it is, and I know this not only from the science, but from personal experience).
I am not sure government is trying to be a moral compass on this issue, though I share some of your frustrations. Rather, I see government doing two related things here: 1) Responding to a health concern that, despite the views of many, is a very well documented, scientific concern--feel free to talk to actual cancer researchers if you do not believe me; 2) Responding to majority opinion about the smoking ban, as often happens in representative democracy, aka a republic.
I hope they do not ban cigs, and not because of the taxes. People should be free to smoke cigs--just not pollute other's people's air with substances that have been proven harmful. I also think people should be allowed to snort coke as long as they do not sell to kids, drive, steal or any of the other things that would negatively affect others. If people want to be drunks, I don't care, either. Just don't fuck with me while you are drunk, or get in a car, or give it to kids, or be loud at 2 am, etc.
Irish: Sorry if I misquoted you. I did not mean to, and was making a general comment. No offense.
That said, there is a documented health claim regarding second hand smoke. Go talk to cancer researchers.
As for cars and buses, I think that is a good point, up to a point. I fully support tougher anti-pollution standards and greatly expanding mass transit. I would be willing to pay for it, as well. That said, it is easier to tackle the smaller health issue--smoking--than the larger issue of pollution from cars. Small steps. I find this line of argument less than persuasive, as we have, over the decades, tightened polllution standards for vehicles, and continue to do so. As well, no is keeping residents of legal age from smoking all the time. You just cannot do it in public, enclosed places. There are many things we cannot do in public because of concerns about effects on public health. Some concers are reasonable, and some probably are not. This, I think, is reasonable, based on the science (don't tell me second hand smoke is not harmful--it is, and I know this not only from the science, but from personal experience).
I am not sure government is trying to be a moral compass on this issue, though I share some of your frustrations. Rather, I see government doing two related things here: 1) Responding to a health concern that, despite the views of many, is a very well documented, scientific concern--feel free to talk to actual cancer researchers if you do not believe me; 2) Responding to majority opinion about the smoking ban, as often happens in representative democracy, aka a republic.
I hope they do not ban cigs, and not because of the taxes. People should be free to smoke cigs--just not pollute other's people's air with substances that have been proven harmful. I also think people should be allowed to snort coke as long as they do not sell to kids, drive, steal or any of the other things that would negatively affect others. If people want to be drunks, I don't care, either. Just don't fuck with me while you are drunk, or get in a car, or give it to kids, or be loud at 2 am, etc.
Fair enough. Good post.
"That said, there is a documented health claim regarding second hand smoke. Go talk to cancer researchers."
Is there any research on how one inhales second hand smoke if they are not in a smokey bar?
You make it sound like I am in favor of requiring smoking in every bar. If we allow the owners to choose to have smoking or not, there are bar owners who will be non-smoking.
If you do not want to inhale second hand smoke, then don't go to a smoking bar, go to a smoke-free bar.
People voluntarily go to bars and taverns. If they don't carry a beer you like then you go to a bar that does. Same thing with smoking...if you are afraid of second hand smoke, then go to a smoke-free bar.
But let the individual make the CHOICE! Both bar owner and patron.
P.S. Yes, I do know that second hand smoke is harmful. But I am smart enough to know that if I take myself out of the smoking environment I will not inhale second hand smoke.
But before the ban bars *did* have the choice to be smoke free -- and when was the last time you were in one that was?
"But before the ban bars *did* have the choice to be smoke free -- and when was the last time you were in one that was?"
All the time.
I do not like to self-promote in posts so I do not want to give a name of a place, but how about this...did we just come up with the phrase "no smoking please" in the last couple of months?
I...think...not.
It's been around for awhile for a reason. The reason is that there were places that had "no smoking"..."please".
:-)
Well stated, Matilda.
Irishman, you're right. One does not "inhale" second hand smoke, but you are talking about semantics here. Perhaps "exposure" is a better term.
For a few articles about the second hand smoke:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18041691?ordinalpos=5&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17564745?ordinalpos=17&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
A non-linear correlation has been found between smokiness and side effects in regard to cardiovascular disease. So, there are consequences even in a less smokey bar. Furthermore, research has found that even small exposure can be dangerous.
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/6/396?ijkey%25C3%25804f81b1dafea80e78f47af275ea414b52311959&keytype2=_ipsecsha
This one is a good link because it states that sidestream smoke, something you are exposed to regularly at a bar, is dangerous.
And while air pollution is a public health concern, a person’s relative risk due to air pollution is small compared with the impact of cardiovascular risk factors such as smoking. And a small study found that air pollution from smoking is 10 times greater than diesel car exhaust.
I wish that this didn't have to be madated by the government. But, second hand smoke is a public health concern, which has direct consequences on the public, unlike obesity, which has indirect consequences on the public--insurance costs, etc. I can't get fat because you are, but I can get cancer because you smoke. Alcohol has a direct effect on the public when someone gets behind the wheel, that's why it is illegal to drink and drive. Understand where I am coming from?
And can you tell me some bars that were non-smoking before? If so, I would like to visit them, just to give them business for doing something for the benefit of public health without govenment mandates. Seriously.
Irishman, I'm not sure what city you live in, but I can't think of a single bar in the Chicago city limits (and yes, I frequent many of them) that was smoke free BEFORE the ban. Maybe there were a couple here or there, but it definitely was not widespread by any means. I'd say we're talking 1%. Not exactly much of a choice for bar patrons.
It's possible you're confusing bars with bars that are also restaurants. Many of the later have been smoke free for some time, but that wasn't by choice, rather a result of the city wide smoking ban on restaurants.
I think everyone makes a great point.
Just to be clear, my original point was that it should be up to the owner of the bar whether to allow smoking or not.
I understand the negative effects of second hand smoke, whether inhaled or exposed. Fair enough.
Right now, we have no choice. Zero.
Choice? Compared to No-Choice?
I take Choice.
Funny...I don't even smoke.
:-)
Great posts everyone.
Uncommon Ground was smoke free before the ban took place. There are others, I just cant think of them off the top of my head. All entertainment venues were mandated smoke free awhile ago, but I am pretty sure House of Blues took the step before the law took effect.
I don't know if you remember the article, but Big Chicks decided to go smoke free before the ban. What happend? They lost a ton of business, according to the owner.I think making everyone smoke free levels the playing field, and does not "punish" those that chose to be smoke-free. I also think this is a better option than the ones laid out by the city. If I recall (I could be wrong), before it was state law, in Chicago you would have had to be smoke free unless you had special ventilation, etc. There were all of these rules which would allow bard to have smoking if they could afford the expensive equipment, but the corner taps who couldn't afford it would be SOL.
I thought the law was going to far and taking away the feedom of the bar owner, but now I enjoy not stinking like smoke when waking up the next morning.
I think Matilda and Irishman should go out on a date (followed by a Chicagoist photographer and reporter).
That's awful, that bar owners are forced into a choice of, "Well, now nobody has to face smoking of any kind. What will I do?" Instead of, "Well, I can't be no-smoking, because every other bar is, so I'll lose out in every way."
So, the "choice" has went from, "Smoking & all business" vs "No-smoking & limited business"...to, "No smoking and running an actual business" vs. "No smoking and running a sub-par business". Now everybody is on equal footing, a really awful thing has been banned for everybody, and things are great. How can you hate no smoking? It's good for everybody...
We went through this same cycle here in Austin. When the ban went in, we endured endless complaints from business owners for the first 3-6 weeks. Guess what - after that, everybody stopped complaining. Businesses with patios turned them into smoking areas (and advertised that). Businesses without patios modified their door policies to make it easy to smoke outside. I don't think anybody went out of business because of this...if so, they were businesses "on the edge" regardless.