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 how's the smoking ban going so far? Y'know, other than cold? Well, Helen's Two Way Lounge on Fullerton nabbed the coveted title of First Bar to be Cited by a City Inspector. (The bar owner got off on a technicality.) But maybe people would be more willing to step outside if bars has "smoking shelters."
Companies across our fine state are putting up these bus stop–like structures, where smokers can huddle together with a little protection from the elements. One manufacturer of such huts estimates his business has doubled in the state, and other distributors agree that business is increasing. The shelters can't have doors, because that would make them "enclosed" (and you can't smoke in enclosed spaces), and they have to be free-standing. We can sort of imagine these outside corporate HQs in the burbs and stuff, but we doubt there's room for them on most Chicago sidewalks.
Shelters, no shelters, frostbite, cancer, etc--can we all at least agree that bars should be doing a little something to control the butt population? Get a bucket, and ask patrons to put out their ciggies in there. The number of cigarette butts on the sidewalk has increased nine million-fold since January 1. [S-T, Trib, image via Duo Guard, who build smoking shelters]
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
There was a huge smoking shelter at State Farm Corporate HQ when I worked there a billion years ago. It was pretty depressing.
"Shelters, no shelters, frostbite, cancer, etc--can we all at least agree that bars should be doing a little something to control the butt population?"
Uh, no.
Why should anyone do anything for addicts? It's not my fault addicts can't control their vices and are weak-- and if you can't go a few hours without braving the wind chill to suck down a cig, you are an addict.
Can't smokers assume personal responsibility and do this themselves? If there is no can around, snuff out the butt and put it into a bag or container and throw away later. I never understood why many smokers think littering laws don't apply to them. I guess these smokers think it is alright to 1) let other people such as building janitors do the clean up (what an elite attitude); 2) or, simply, contribute to trashing the environment.
A sizeable number of smokers havent' assumed this personal responsibility, as evidenced by the mountains of cigarette butts accumulating outside bars.
Don't think of this as "doing anything for addicts" but instead doing something for the neighborhood/environment/etc. If the patrons aren't going to clean up after themselves, then unfortunately it becomes the business' problem to deal with. Like shoveling and sweeping your sidewalk, providing trash receptacles/cans/something for those butts is (in my opinion) the right thing for a business to do.
i can't wait to run into someone who refuses to put their cigarette out.
It so weird when laws are passed with little thought and then have crazy, unintended consequences. Like, excessive littering, or fights resulting from groups of intoxicated people out on the sidewalks.
And Mike: good luck MAKING me put out my cigarette. My New Years Resolution was to willfully ignore the ban and I have done so.
The beauty part of the ban is that no one except a health inspector can write me a violation for smoking in a bar. The worst that will happen is that the bar asks me to put out my cigarette or leave (at which point I play dumb and politely apologize) and then someone reports the BAR for having smokers, and then the following day or week, the bar is given a citation, but only if there is another smoker at that time.
So basically this law is unenforcable, retarded, causes litter and also every bar to smell like to inside of a bowling shoe, will contribute to a spike in rapes and robberies this summer and is ignored by me EVERY DAY.
So what are you gonna do about it, tough guy?
i quit smoking nearly three years ago *and* believe in personal freedom, so i don't really care one way or the other .... but, a spike in rapes and robberies this summer?
HUH?
what on earth are you talking about? maybe there'll be *less* violent crime because there'll be MORE people on the streets and standing outside with eyes on the streets. anyway, i think it's taking it a little far to suggest people are going to get mugged because they have to go outside to smoke.
now, if anyone has a little disposable capital, i have a *great* idea for a business venture around this whole smoking ban.
I will bet anyone here that Chicago has more violent crime this summer than last summer.
Girls will be getting roofied left and right and a result of leaving drinks unattended to go smoke. More people on the street equals more muggings etc.
MARK MY WORDS
Spav: Smokers littered before the ban, and drunk people bent on fighting usually find all kinds of silly reasons to fight anyway, so I am not sure what your point is regarding the unintended consequences of the smoking ban.
You would be amazed how many of us would make you put out your cig. There are people in Chicago who don't fear confrontation, especially when one's personal health is the issue. And there are many ways to win with resorting to violence, either.
Unenforcable, you say? Uh, why do most bars seem to be enforcing no-smoking policies, then, according to news accounts and anecdotes related here and elsewhere? Do you have different information?
Spike in rapes and robberies? Are you basing this on data from other places that have a smoking ban? On warnings from local cops or from worries among large groups of bar customers? You are not merely speculating, are you?
Finally, the ban passed with little thought you say? I would argue the smoking ban was debated and argued about more than many other laws--it recieved more debate than, say, the recently passed federal effort to stimulate the economy, an effort that carries more immediate importance to a far greater number of people. As well, Illinois could look at the experiences in other areas with the smoking ban. We had ample information and input on this issue, and citizens had plenty of time to contact lawmakers on the proposed ban. As well, the media was all over this issue, as it made good (easy) copy and good (easy) TV.
I think the only honesty present in your post is your strange, cheerful attitude at being able to break the law, and your brave dare to all your close Internet buddies to make you put out that cig. Way to stick it to The Man, you brave soldier-ette of freedom!
Feel free to try again, though. This is all a learning experience.
And if there is less violent crime, it will prove that the ban reduces crime!
Ugh.
It is speculation. Totally. But I think it is not far-fetched. And I am willing to wait and see.
If the smoking ban is being widely enforced, why were there only 50-odd citations in the first few weeks? And why have I been able to smoke in every bar I have been to since January 1st with nothing said by anyone, patrons and bartenders a like?
And in a hypothetical confrontation over my smoking, if I refuse to put out the cigarette and you insist, it seems to me that we are at an impasse unless some type of authority figure gets involved. At which time my position will shift considerably.
Spav: Tell me how existing crime stats differ in January than they do in July and/or August.
As well, list other potential factors for possible changes in crime rates throughout the year. Feel free to talk to some actual law-enforcement professionals to supplement your research.
I don't smoke, and am actually pretty happy about the ban, but if there's one thing worse than having to breath someone's second-hand smoke, it's listening to the smug, self-rightous crap spewed by its supporters.
@JAH:
Amen, it's only hardened my resolve.
JAH: Come here ANY OTHER DAY and the smugness from the non-smokers (i.e. that smokers are weak etc) is vomitatious.
Matilda: I have emailed some of my college professors on this. I don't want to have to do any actual research. But common-sense tells me that the economy is a big factor, as are laws concerning gun-control and incarceration. I would also throw in demographic shifts, and policing efforts both by citizens and the municipality.
Also, crime rates spike in the summer (more daylight, more people on the streets etc) so to compare rates of crime for January and July would be unfair. It will be better to wait for full year statistics in a year.
Spav: I would guess you visit more bars than I, but in the half-dozen or so bars I've been in since 1 Jan, no one was smoking, and these bars ranged from true old man dives to places where yuppies like to roam.
I am happy to hear you still can practice your addiction in bars, but should I ever come across someone like you, I would firmly, but politely, ask that the smoking stop, and should it not, I would make sure the bartender/manager knew this revenue-starved city likely would send out its inspectors as soon as possible.
And for good measure, I likely would sit next to you and make you endure my boring, arrogant rants until that cig was put out, perhaps "accidently" spilling my beer onto your pants/skirt/boxers as a bonus. I doubt either you, or any of your friends, would be big enough to stop me.
Spav1: just to clarify, when I said "its supporters," I ment supporters of the ban. They're beginning to irritate the crap out of me.
that's way too complicated. germans have figured this one out some time ago. Smoking Points! is the way to go!!! Check out this link:
Smoking Points!
It's in Polish, but there is no need to read it.
Andrzej
Matilda: Thanks for NOT complimenting my reasonable and intelligent post regarding crime rates.
If by being "big enough to stop you" you mean, am I willing to punch you in the face, the answer is "it depends on a number of factors" such as age, height, how you are dressed, what you are drinking, how much of a douche I judge you to be, how drunk I am and the ratio of my friends to your friends, also, if it is clear that you have a boyfriend/husband that could beat up my boyfriend, and it looks like me punching you would get him involved, I would probably demure, you are correct.
"I have emailed some of my college professors on this. I don't want to have to do any actual research."
I am sorry , Spav1. I did not realize you were actually joking about all this. Tone is hard to read in blogs. My apologies.
Spav!
You'd better avoid Logan Square because I'm gonna ask you to put said smoke out and if you( or any one ignore me) I'm gonna accidentally spill a glass of ice water on you/them!
And at the bars that I hang out at, the bartender will just assume it was just a mistake and of course I will be extremely apologetic! :-)
But I do like the other side problems- as oppose to plain inconsiderate mean spirited fools like Spav1.
Last Friday after work I strolled into one of my favorite haunts where the living is easy and the booze flows freely, to find the whole bar empty! So, as I grabbed a seat and gazed deeply into the sea of bottled possibilities before me, I saw numerous full drinks on the bar and realize that the whole bar was outside smoking! The drinks were place holders! Then a woman came back and apologized for not buying a drink to save her space, and being civil and polite- unlike Spav1, I turned over my seat to the smoker. Like Lincoln said, but only after vanquishing the south on the battle field, with malice toward none! But we must suppress any rebels for the good of the nation!
Spilling a drink on someone is battery and may rise to the level of assault under the Illinois Criminal Code. I would rather recieve a fine for smoking than have to hire a lawyer and go to court for battery. Just saying.
JAH: Got it, thanks. ME TOO.
Matilda: I was a Criminal Justice/Pre Law major, and while I am being a bit tongue in cheek about all this, it wouldn't suprise me if muggings and assaults rise a little next summer. Is there a correlation with the ban? I am not sure, but controlling for other factors, I think it may have a slight effect.
Spav: Well, I guess we will see, but I am skeptical.
I would love to see the cop that arrests a person for spilling a drink in a bar over a smoking "fight." I am skeptical that will happen in the real world. Also, it would not cost much--or even anything--to contest a spilled drink (believe me, what you learn in pre law is hardly a reflection of the real world).
As well, were that to happen, you would face more than a fine--if the defendent played his/her cards right--and it would be easy to do so--the smoker would find him- or herself the target of some rude media attention. That is how the real word works, too. The same goes for the bartender who declined to enforce the ban.
What is likely to happen is a short fight with the winner escaping before the cops came, and someone with a broken nose or worse.
You are a pre law student, yet you take joy in disobeying a law that will debated on and passed by your elected reps, and which the majority of your fellow citizens support? Rather selfish, especially given the health risks are well documented.
Then again, you have the makings of a great Chicago lawyer. May I suggest zoning law?
If one were to get arrested for said battery, then bail and court costs alone would be higher than a fine.
How one defines oneself is probably one of the hardest questions to answer. Do I identify as a woman, or as a student or what have you? I would say currently, dealing with radical anti-smokers, I would identify (at least in this forum and when I am drunk) as a smoker and that means that I am pretty much going to smoke if I want to. But I am definitely willing to discuss it.
But, points taken. Let's revisit in 2009.
If people have a problem with cig butts on the street, it's the laws problem. The new smoking law pushed smokers out into the street. So really, if we want to throw our cig butts on the ground we can. Please don't ever go up to a smoker outside and tell them to put their cig out. YOU F'ING WIN!!! You made us go outside and we do. And if you want more then that, that's just asking for trouble.
You know, fat people make me sick. I think looking at fat people is bad for my health. I think we should ban sweets. ie cake and cookies. Actually, there should be a weight machine at checkouts in supermarkets. If you're over the average body weight of someone of your size, the machine will go off and you can not buy that item.
PS If you argue that then it's pretty clear YOU ARE OVER WEIGHT. If you feel it takes away peoples right to choice, welcome to the smoking world.
Uh, Jamesss, smokers littered before the ban. Did you miss that somehow?
Poor, poor smokers--must be hard not to be able to legally blow smoke in other's people faces. When will the suffering end?
And you fat person example doesn't match up with smoking for reasons various people have pointed out in various blogs and publications. Are you that uninformed? Or lacking in logical thought?
I recently quit (which had nothing to do with the ban, btw) and I've just now realized I have two things to be happy about: Better and better health, and the knowledge that I'll never, ever be the kind of smarmy, contemptible douche you are, matilda. Thanks for brightening my day!
No prob, Rev. I aim to please, especially when other posters drag out tired points that are illogical. Glad you were strong enough to conquer your addiction. Maybe others can as well.
Thanks. Hopefully -- for the sake of all of us -- you can find the same requisite strength to overcome the affliction of acting like an undeservedly arrogant asshole.
But I'm not holding my breath.
Doubtful, Rev. Especially with so many idiots around.
Seriously, you defend an asshole who thinks eating a Big Mac has the same effects on others as second-hand smoke? That makes no sense logically. One does not equal the other, and the argument was crap. It deserved scorn.
As well, can you tell me what a deservedly arrogant asshole might be? That, too, seems to lack sense.
A story about rape and the smoking ban.
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2006/07/27/smoking/index.html?source=search&aim=/mwt/broadsheet
Uh, could a woman get raped after drinking a spiked drink when going for a smoke, sure. But, how about some common sense, ladies? Never leave a drink unattended, whether it is to go to the bathroom or to have a smoke. Watch your drink. Craving a cig is not worth the emotional or physical trauma of rape.
And Jamess, here is the public health difference between smoking and being overweight. Getting sick from looking at fat people? Sure. If you smoke, and I am in your presence, I have the risk of getting cancer or having cardiac issues or exacerbation of asthma. If you are fat, I cannot get fat or get cancer, have cardiac issues or exacerbation of asthma by you sitting at a bar next to me. It is called direct vs. indirect consequences. And, through labeling, transfat bans, higher insurance premiums, etc., the government is making fat people pay the price.
And the argument that when you step outside you are exposed to more harmful toxins is a poor one. Yes, there are toxins, and I do my part by not contributing to the pollution (I do not have a car, for example), but it has been scientifically shown that air pollution does not carry the same risk as second hand smoke.
Spav, speculation is different than evidence. As a prelaw student, you should have learned that by now.
Worse than all those regular idiots are the ones who think they aren't idiots at all. Worse still are the ones who adopt self-righteous attitudes.
Um, I wasn't defending anybody. I was pointing out -- quite accurately -- that you're a pompous asshole. That fact can be easily seen "logically" by having a modicum of skill in reading comprehension. (See above about idiots who think they aren't idiots.)
Some people can afford to cop a bit of a haughty attitude. You're not one of them.I understand the difference. There has been very little research into this compelling issue. I think that common sense says that more people on the streets equals more crimes. Period. The girls getting raped thing may seem far fetched but I can totally see it happening based on how careless girls are with their drinks now.
Just because the ban is in effect, doesn't mean its merits don't deserve to be debated. We've gotten it wrong before people. See: Slavery, Prohibition.
Well, Rev, I've done pretty good so far with my attitude, unless you think losing a popularity contest on a blog counts as a life failure.
But hey, if you want to argue like some neutered wuss, be my guest.
And I remained puzzled by people who think being a pompous asshole is supposed to be a bad thing. Huh. Because being nice and civil to assholes who can't think factually or logically has done so much for our society, hasn't it?
So, your argument is less about substance than style--you mainly have problems with tone that come through on a fucking blog. That's another winning thought, cowboy. What are you, some wanna-be kindergarten teacher?
Well, at least you are not some weak addict anymore, so that's something.
Wow. I love it when I'm right.
I know the study, Rev. Did you actually read it? The article suggests that obesity is socially contagious; that is, if your friends are fat, you may gain weight as well by hanging around in their social circle. What I was talking about is sitting next to a fat stranger at the bar and getting fat. You won't. If you sit next to a stranger that smokes at a bar, you can get sick. Huge difference. Do you understand?
Do you understand? Since you apparently don't:
Obviously there's a distinct difference between one's circle of friends and wider society. But as obesity continues to become more and more the social norm, it's not absurd to postulate that the phenomenon could extend beyond one's acquaintances to the point that, yes, sitting next to some fat guy at the bar can get you sick.
But again, I wasn't arguing with you; the analogy you correctly attacked doesn't hold up at all. But I was pointing out that the difference between direct and indirect consequences isn't always as distinct and absolute as you made it sound.
You've convinced me Matilda. I'm going to embrace my inner asshole by lighting up in bars and blowing smoke in people's faces. Screw civility!
JAH: Wanna tag team?
The other day, I was on the Brown Line, and the woman next to me began coughing -- she practically coughed up a lung. Her phone rang and she began talking very loudly (of course). To the caller, she said that she was having trouble getting over her bronchitis and that her doctor friend was afraid that it might actually be pneumonia or mono. Then she spit a huge phlegm globber into a kleenex, crumpled it up and tossed it on the floor.
People who knowingly go to any crowded place (work, public transpo, mall, etc.) when they are sick and contagious endanger the health of everyone around them -- elderly people and small children can die from a case of the flu or pneumonia.
So I think that's the next logical step. Let's ban sick people. They should be placed under house arrest until a doctor can confirm that they are fully recovered.
=======================================
It should be up to the individual businesses whether or not they want to ban smoking. Then all the pompous smokers and the pompous non-smokers can choose where they want to go according to their preferences. No one has given me any valid argument to refute this solution.
"it's not absurd to postulate that the phenomenon could extend beyond one's acquaintances to the point that, yes, sitting next to some fat guy at the bar can get you sick."
Yes, that is absolutely absurd. How will that get you sick? Please, with your vast knowledge of public health, tell me.
And, Bonita, people that are sick and contagious should stay at home. They are banned in places like hospitals (if you have a fever or are not feeling well, and you are at the hospital to visit someone, you will not be allowed in or will have to wear protective masks), airports (remember SARS? Or the guy that flew that had TB?), and where I work. If I am sick and contagious, I need to stay at home, or else I can endanger everyone around me. If more people stayed home instead of spreading their germs, we may be better off. Unfortunately, many do not have the luxury of sick days.
Now, we do not stick smokers under house arrest, so sticking sick people under house arrest isn't a good analogy.
I wish that businesses would have made the decision. However, the businesses that do when there is not a smoking ban lose out (Big Chicks is an example of a bar that did this). When there is a smoking ban, that equalizes the playing field economically. Furthermore, the workers also benefit from not working in that environment. And sure, you can tell me it's their choice to work at a bar. But it's nice that the risk of cancer and heart disease will drop for them, isn't it?
go smoke in your hut!
For anybody with even a passing understanding of sociology and economics, it's not absurd; it's entirely logical. Clearly you're not one of those people.
As the number of obese people continues to climb, the social stigma associated with obesity decreases. As the stigma ebbs, that one social incentive to maintain a normal weight also declines, which on a wide scale will almost certainly cause the trend of increased obesity to expand. It's the same logic involved in the (quite absolutely and thoroughly proven) phenomenon observed among small social circles; the only difference vis a vis wider society is in scale.
So, will the fat guy at the bar "make you sick"? Not in the most narrow-minded sense of the notion, no. But if 5 years from now you were to be even, say, .15lbs heavier, it's perfectly reasonable to attribute -- at least in part -- that change to the fat people you see on the street.
Any other pieces of my vast knowledge that I can help you with?
How about: smoking makes a lot of people sick. How is banning smoking bad?
I didn't say it was, now did I?
I didn't say it was, now did I?
Um...going through the whole argument of, "sitting next to fat people might make you sick" and all, I'll say: I guess you didn't. But, um, banning smoking in enclosed public places is a good thing. Or is it not? I can't see the drawbacks of this..
From a health perspective, sure, there aren't any downsides.
The real issue comes in with private property rights. Banning smoking in bars and restaurants that are open to the public is one thing, and doesn't raise too many red flags in my mind. But banning smoking in properly formed, properly registered, properly operated, not-for-pecuniary-gain, completely private (i.e. not open to the public) clubs is quite another, and that particular aspect of it smacks of government overreaching in my view.
That seems like an extremely small sample, to begin with. Is this really that big of a deal? Smoking in your own (private) home isn't outlawed. Smoking on the freakin sidewalk right in front of the places you can't smoke in isn't even against the law. It's a good law that benefits a lot of people..
That seems like an extremely small sample, to begin with. Is this really that big of a deal? Smoking in your own (private) home isn't outlawed. Smoking on the freakin sidewalk right in front of the places you can't smoke in isn't even against the law. It's a good law that benefits a lot of people..
In and of itself it may not be a big deal and might not have an effect on that many people. But the precedent it sets is a big deal, and could have unintended effects on a lot of people... And I don't believe that "bah, it's a good for people overall... so what if a few people have some of their most important rights screwed with?" is anything less than dangerously shortsighted and glib.
I don't have a problem with the sentiment of the law, necessarily; it's more the reckless manner in which it was crafted with regard to entirely private (not open to the public in any way) facilities that sets off alarm bells in my head; there was ample opportunity and more than enough reason to include very narrow exemptions to the law on the basis of private property rights. The fact that those opportunities were not taken speaks very loudly about what the priorities of this bill's backers were, and disconcerts me greatly: I know that the "slippery slope" argument is a logical fallacy, but the fact that private property rights were in several ways largely disregarded (and subsequently, in my view, not insignificantly eroded) in the course of crafting the law leads me to believe that there are few barriers remaining to the possibility of eventually extending the ban to homes. And that, to me, would be absolutely unforgivable; it's no more valid in my mind than the old sodomy laws, for example. And without that very important check in place, it could very well happen:
Say I'm a smoker (I'm not... anymore) and I need to have a plumber or electrician or HVAC person come by to do some work on my house. What's to stop the same folks who supported this ban from making the same "worker's rights" argument about them? If (as was presumably the case with this bill vis a vis private clubs) those workers' rights trump property owners' rights -- or those property and privacy rights are completely disregarded -- what's to stop somebody from applying the very same logic used in the current bill and applying it to people's homes? Alarmist and melodramatic? Maybe. But the fact that nobody appeared to stop and raise that issue is sincerely frightening to me.
Again, overall, I understand and support (grudgingly, to be honest) the ban in facilities that are open to the public. But when we start messing around with telling people what they can or can't do on their private property (and private clubs are almost always just that), we start treading on very dangerous ground. And my fear -- and, frankly, the source of my slight anger -- is that most people seemed to just skip happily along during the whole process, saying, "Dirty smokers! Ban it!" and not asking some of these very important questions.
Spav 1
Smoke anywhere you want - as long as you wear a
deep sea helmet. The core issue is
employees of smoking places health.
You have to audacity to dare some one to
"make you stop"?
Don't be suprised when someone does.
The "private home" argument -- so far-- is stupid. If you need a plumber, don't smoke in front of him if he doesn't want it. If he wants to smoke while working in your home, and you don't want it, don't let him. Neither should have the right to do it if either one doesn't want it. The fact is smoking is harmful to a large number of people, and should *never* have been allowed in public places. It was always a matter of allowing an asshole to impose his will on anyone who didn't like it -- and his will was to create a toxic environment that was harmful to people, both in general (second-hand smoke, long-term effects), and immediate (allergic reaction to smoke, penetrating clothing). And don't discount the allergic reaction to smoke -- it's prevalent, and ridiculously bad. Why were the assholes allowed to force their will on everyone for years? It makes more sense the other way. So, when I see smokers on the sidewalk...that's where they should have always been..