Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Illinois is Only Second State to Restore Local Control for Smokefree Workplace Laws
US News ^ | 8/12/05

Posted on 08/12/2005 4:25:28 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection

With the stroke of a pen, Illinois communities regained the ability to consider smoking regulations for workplaces on Wednesday, August 10th.

In a major victory for public health, Illinois Governor Blagojevich signed legislation making Illinois only the second state to repeal a tobacco industry law that banned cities from enacting smoking regulations.

When the Illinois Clean Indoor Air Act passed in 1989, tobacco industry interests added a "preemption" provision to the bill, which stripped communities of their right to pass local smokefree workplace ordinances. For the past sixteen years, Illinois residents have struggled with a weak law that offers little protection from secondhand smoke and no opportunity to enact a stronger law.

"We know from tobacco industry documents that stripping away local control on smokefree air is the tobacco industry's top legislative priority," said Annie Tegen, Program Manager for Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights. "Tobacco companies prefer fighting smokefree workplace policies at the state level, where they have more lobbying influence and are more likely to succeed in killing good health proposals."

While numerous other states from Idaho to Maine and hundreds of other cities took action since 1989 to protect residents from secondhand smoke in the workplace, Illinois communities were left with their hands tied. In the ensuing years, the body of scientific evidence proving the health hazards of both short term and long term secondhand smoke exposure has grown exponentially.

In addition to causing lung cancer, heart disease, and other long term diseases in nonsmokers, secondhand smoke is now known to increase the risk of heart attack with as little as thirty minutes of exposure.

The Governor's signature of House Bill 672 returns control of the issue to the local level by allowing municipalities the option to pursue a smokefree air ordinance without requiring that they do so.

A handful of communities were exempt from the preemptive 1989 law. Several, including Evanston, Skokie, Highland Park, Chicago and Wilmette, took advantage of their ability to consider or enact strong smokefree policies. Lawmakers and groups in other cities throughout the state, such as Springfield, are expected to consider smokefree policies now that their local control has been restored.

"I commend Governor Blagojevich for signing HB 672 to allow cities within the State of Illinois to determine how they treat the health of their residents in regards to exposure to second hand smoke. The Governor's decision to sign is consistent with his priority for healthcare," said Springfield Alderman Bruce Strom. "The residents of Springfield are eager to have this opportunity and have responded favorably to the prospects of having a smokefree ordinance to eliminate exposure to secondhand smoke in public places."

"Local communities deserve the right to consider smokefree workplace protections if that is what those communities choose to do. Cities across the country, from New York City to Minneapolis to Dallas, have passed strong smokefree laws to protect workers and residents from secondhand smoke," said Cynthia Hallett, Executive Director of Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights. "Illinois is behind the curve on these health protections, and now local communities can take action to protect public health."

"Repealing a preemptive law is extremely difficult in the face of tobacco industry opposition. The Illinois Legislature and Governor should be commended for their leadership in restoring cities' ability to protect public health," Hallett added. "A community's public health laws should be determined by public support and local policymakers, not by tobacco industry lobbyists in backrooms of the state legislature."

Nationally, over 4,900 municipalities now have smokefree workplaces by local or statewide law. Currently 36 percent of the U.S. population lives in an area with a smokefree workplace law, often including restaurants and bars. Illinois is considered one of the smokiest states in the U.S., with less than two percent of the state's population having the right to smokefree workplaces.

Twenty other states still have preemption laws similar to the one repealed in Illinois.

Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights is a national grassroots member-based, non-profit organization based in Berkeley, CA dedicated to helping nonsmokers breathe smokefree air in enclosed public places and workplaces.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: news
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

1 posted on 08/12/2005 4:25:28 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection; Just another Joe; Madame Dufarge; MeeknMing; steve50; Cantiloper; metesky; ..

2 posted on 08/12/2005 4:29:26 PM PDT by SheLion (Trying to make a life in the BLUE state of Maine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
If it were my land and my restaurant, I would not be happy
3 posted on 08/12/2005 4:35:43 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection (I urge Roberts to support all sections of the Constitution which uphold abortion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights is a national grassroots member-based, non-profit organization based in Berkeley, CA dedicated to helping nonsmokers breathe smokefree air in enclosed public places and workplaces.

Can someone please post the Smoker's Rights links?
I can't seem to find my set...

You know? the means to prevent the abuse and perversion of perceived remedy?

Like not allowing "smoking only" restaurants and bars, and prohibiting smoking in public spaces outdoors (paid for by everyone), regardless of whether the victim is upwind or downwind?

4 posted on 08/12/2005 4:36:57 PM PDT by Publius6961 (Liberal level playing field: If the Islamics win we are their slaves..if we win they are our equals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
I think those rights are somewhere close to the Emanate Domain property rights.
5 posted on 08/12/2005 4:40:01 PM PDT by Snoopers-868th
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Trout-Mouth

Emanate = eminent, sorry.


6 posted on 08/12/2005 4:44:47 PM PDT by Snoopers-868th
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
...secondhand smoke is now known to increase the risk of heart attack with as little as thirty minutes of exposure.

Wouldn't you love to see the documentation backing up that assertion?

7 posted on 08/12/2005 4:45:19 PM PDT by DumpsterDiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
In addition to causing lung cancer, heart disease, and other long term diseases in nonsmokers, secondhand smoke is now known to increase the risk of heart attack with as little as thirty minutes of exposure.

Wah! Say anything! Wah! Me no like smoke! Wah!

Geez, they get more rediculous all the time.

Good to see ya back, sweetheart.

8 posted on 08/12/2005 4:50:13 PM PDT by metesky (This land was your land, this land is MY land; I bought the rights from a town selectman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
In a major victory for public health, Illinois Governor Blagojevich signed legislation making Illinois only the second state to repeal a tobacco industry law that banned cities from enacting smoking regulations.

Wow, I didn't know the tobacco industry made laws!

9 posted on 08/12/2005 5:00:32 PM PDT by thoughtomator (Free Michael Graham!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion; All
I have now made it a point that I will not frequent establishments where smokers are not welcome. As of right now it is a non-issue here in Michigan but as the socialists become more and more brazen, they have starting talking about banning smokers from privately owned businesses.

Since restaurants and bars are merely diversions for me and not necessities, when and if such a ban takes place, then any establishment that bans smoking will not get any revenues from me........

Of all the bans going into effect across this country, the MSM has conveniently neglected to post any articles relevant to businesses losing money and/or going out of business completely. Nor have they printed any articles about the uppity non-smokers who complained about the smoking atmospheres, increasing their visits to the adversely affected businesses in an attempt to help make up for the revenues these establishments have lost due to the smoking bans........

10 posted on 08/12/2005 5:09:28 PM PDT by Hot Tabasco (What is a homosexual Islamic Jihadist going to do with 72 virgins? Can he give them away?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SheLion

"secondhand smoke is now known to increase the risk of heart attack with as little as thirty minutes of exposure."




Oh puhleeze! Soon they will be saying all of the GI's that died during WWII died of heart attacks due to smoking,not combat.

God almighty!!!!


11 posted on 08/12/2005 5:19:05 PM PDT by Mears (Keep the government out of my face!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
Toxicology studies absent in smoking theories August 08, 2005

Re: Data Supports Ban, July 30.

What I find interesting is that the Canadian Cancer Society only references epidemiological studies as their proof that second-hand smoke is a health hazard.

Epidemiology can only show the relative strength of possible relationships. In order to show the cause of a disease, it is required that there be toxicology studies.

Using a simple survey given out to cancer patients asking them to recall exposure to a substance as they are being diagnosed isn't realistic science. This isn't proof, it is conjecture -- at best a biased guess, not proof of cause.

The statistics-based theory that second-hand smoke is a cause of cancer ignores the real science called toxicology.

Dose relationships recognizes safe levels of exposure to potentially hazardous substances. This well-established science allows uranium to be mined, cars to be painted and toll booth workers to survive high levels of exhaust thanks to adequate ventilation, monitoring and compliance to established limits of exposure.

There are only five unique chemicals released in tobacco smoke. All of the other substances in second-hand smoke cited as being of concern occur in far greater quantities and concentrations in everyday life. Sources like candles, cooking fumes, vehicle exhaust, welding fumes and most domestic and industrial processes cause the release into the air of formaldehyde, benzene, Benzo-a-pyrene and thousands of other chemicals in amounts measured in tons as compared to the micrograms released by burning tobacco.

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) says "in normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS."

The anti-tobacco campaign is all about fear-mongering, has no real scientific basis, and is just plain wrong. The real data and real science does not support the ban.

It should be the business owners' decision to allow smoking in his business, not a decision made by extremist tobacco control groups. It's better to be safe then sorry, but please, base regulations on real science.

The economy shouldn't suffer when there's no proof of danger.

Lynda Duguay

Allenford, Ont

http://www.canada.com/

References:

As an example of the overstated risks and how they create false phobias, a list of chemicals in tobacco smoke is listed below and how many cigarettes burning at the same time it would take to reach the lower threshold of danger in a room 20x20 with 9 foot ceilings at standard temperature and air pressure with no ventilation.

2-Toluidine................229,000 Benzene.......................1290 Acetone...................118,700 Benzo {a} Pyrene......222,000 Cadmium......................1430 Formic acid...................1790 Methylchloride.............11170 Phenol..........................7600

As you can see from this example, thousands to hundreds of thousands of cigarettes would have to be smoked at once to create a hazard, even in a un-ventilated room! This list was compiled by the Public and Health Policy Research group Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Texas in 1999 for OSHA.

Toxicology studies absent in smoking theories

12 posted on 08/12/2005 6:11:31 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All
Someone wrote: "...secondhand smoke is now known to increase the risk of heart attack with as little as thirty minutes of exposure."

Ya gotta love the way the Antis are able to distort things. The assertion above is based upon a study by a fellow name Ryo Otsuka, and I've just put together a little criticism of it that I'll paste here. Comments welcome of course!

=========

Otsuka¡¦s 30 Minute Heart Attack Study (Otsuka, R. et al. Acute Effects of Passive Smoking¡K. JAMA. Vol 286. #4. 2001)



In July of 2001, Ryo Otsuka supposedly showed that simply sharing a room with a smoker for 30 minutes could kill you. The news flashed around the world with the same sort of hype that would later greet Helena, but once again the hype was fraud, not fact. Unless you actually read the study rather than just the news headlines you¡¦d never know that:

ƒæ The level of smoke of smoke exposure (CO = 6ppm) was more than four times the levels in smoking sections of pressurized airplanes. This was not simply ¡§a room with a smoker¡¨ or anything comparable to a well ventilated hospitality venue. And the subjects were moved into that room directly from a near zero CO environment.

ƒæ The nonsmokers chosen for the study were extreme nonsmokers who normally totally avoided contact with smoke. They were forced to sign a ¡§protocol¡¨ acknowledging potentially dangerous conditions and then stuck in a smoke-choked room for 30 minutes. The result? A small change in blood chemistry comparable to what¡¦s seen after a meal. The amazing thing is there were no heart attacks just from the stress!

ƒæ There was no control. Even a high school science project would have included a sham model and ¡§protocol signing¡¨ while subjecting control subjects to a room filled with harmless but eye-stinging levels of skunk scent and fog. The control results would probably have been identical.

ƒæ Why wasn¡¦t such a control set up? Could it be simply that the results would have negated the point of the study and the Antismoking grant money would have dried up? Perhaps¡K I actually can¡¦t think of any other reason. Otsuka¡¦s study didn¡¦t show a physical reaction to smoke: it showed a physical reaction to fear and stress¡K conditions promoted more by Antismokers than by smoke.

Otsuka is at fault for deliberately avoiding reasonable controls to balance extreme experimental conditions. The media is at fault in not acknowledging those conditions or the likely reaction of extreme nonsmokers. And Smoking Prohibitionists are at fault for using this study to frighten people with the idea that simply being near smokers for short periods causes heart attacks. This study and its use is an example of fear-mongering in its most classic sense.

==========

Michael J. McFadden

Author of Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

http://cantiloper.tripod.com

Cantiloper@aol.com
13 posted on 08/12/2005 6:51:16 PM PDT by Cantiloper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper; SheLion; All

Great post about the relative (NON)toxicology of cigarette smoke! Too bad we haven't yet been able to find a way to promote Lynda's study to a larger audience.

By the way, I noticed the contact/author given for "Illinois is Only Second State to Restore Local Control for Smokefree Workplace Laws" is Bronson Frick of the ANR. He is the fanatical anti who wrote an almost hysterical and unfounded attack against the Chicago Hyatt Regency after the 2005 National Conference on Tobacco and Health last May. Far be it from him to let the truth get in the way, if there is a chance for him to grandstand!

I wrote an angry rebuttal to his letter back then (and cc'd him). It still should be on Smokers Club, Inc. and Forces...even published a Soapbox Alert about it on Congress.org. Still, I didn't not have access to a widely known anti-tobacco news website as my private publisher. His letter was printed on Tobacco.org with no URL reference!

He raved their lobby was full of smoke, including violent accusations that they had endangered the health of the conference attendees. However, the Hyatt had made their lobby smoke free out of consideration for the conference. I was there. I saw it! There were "no smoking" signs everywhere in the lobby....just like the Sheraton, but the Sheraton had also made all their restaurants smoke free for three days. The Hyatt stated that they had continued to allow smoking in their off-the-lobby restaurants (wish I'd known that, at the time...sigh!)

So, we need to "consider the source" for the biased tone of his gloating piece of anti-tobacco propaganda!


14 posted on 08/12/2005 7:01:50 PM PDT by Garnet Dawn (""A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." --Bertrand de Jouvenel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mears

Annie Tegen, Program Manager for Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights.




Ah. Yet ANOTHER "Grass-Roots" organization. Follow the money.


15 posted on 08/12/2005 7:43:27 PM PDT by The Foolkiller ( Why......That sounds.....FOOLish!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961

In addition to causing lung cancer, heart disease, and other long term diseases in nonsmokers, secondhand smoke is now known to increase the risk of heart attack with as little as thirty minutes of exposure.




That one sentence above is both the most ridiculous statement I've ever seen, and the biggest lie. It'll never be questioned by anybody other than us, though.


16 posted on 08/12/2005 7:49:06 PM PDT by The Foolkiller ( Why......That sounds.....FOOLish!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DumpsterDiver

There is none!


17 posted on 08/12/2005 7:55:44 PM PDT by justkillingtime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mears

Yeah its getting nuts thats for sure.

The other day my wife had on one of those makeover shows. The show had the woman getting a face lift and was showing her where he had fixed her wrinkles. All the Doctor could talk about is "If you ever smoke again, the wrinkles will come back"

I nearly fell out of my chair laughing.

Next anti tobacco ad will be.

"If you smoke your brain will explode.. don't smoke" It's almost comical now. Even the young kids laugh at this sillyness now.

I have never in my life seen something so "deadly" that was sold legally. lol


18 posted on 08/12/2005 8:51:45 PM PDT by eXe (Si vis pacem, para bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: eXe

My all time favorite "study" was the one that showed that children of smokers are more likely to become delinquents.

Can you believe it?


19 posted on 08/13/2005 9:32:07 AM PDT by Mears (Keep the government out of my face!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Mears
I can believe it.

Here's a letter to the editor from the Bangor Daily News in response to an interview with some smokers:

Rose Kouroyen said in the article, "Tax hike angers smokers/Critics say increase hits poor Mainers hardest" (BDN June 27) that she has been smoking for 47 years, and says her doctor said she"...obviously takes good care of herself.

The letter in response to the interview

"I was surprised to read that.

All of the massive university scientists' research reports on tobacco that I have read in my 32 years in the anti-tobacco movement, including the Surgeon General's Report, have led me to believe that tobacco use leads to insanity, blindness and paralysis, among all the other things thought to happen to tobaccoholics.

How could I be so dumb as to believe that?

I would like to know the name of Kouroyen's doctor: Maybe his "smoke two cigarettes and call me in the morning" philosophy would work for me.'

Ray Perkins is a professional anti-smoking Nazi.

For the past 32 years.

20 posted on 08/13/2005 5:41:57 PM PDT by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson