Posted on 04/19/2005 4:54:44 AM PDT by SheLion
SPRINGFIELD -- Health groups won a key battle in the state Senate Monday as lawmakers voted to allow all Illinois towns, rather than a select few, to decide where to allow smoking.
Since 1989, when the state approved the Clean Indoor Air Act that permitted smoking only in designated areas, 20 municipalities were allowed to keep their stricter no-smoking laws that were enacted previously. The rest of the state functioned under the milder state law written partly by the tobacco industry.
Though opposed by retailers, restaurants and gas station operators, the measure backed on Monday in the Senate vote would give all towns the license to ban smoking entirely in all public places. The bill passed 41-13, well beyond the 30 votes needed for approval. It now moves to the House.
"This is a simple matter of fairness and local control. There's no compelling reason for state, top-down control on smoking regulations," said Sen. John Cullerton (D-Chicago), lead sponsor of Senate Bill 254.
Critics complained that the measure could create hardships for businesses, such as casinos where smoking and plunking quarters in slot machines often go hand in hand. Others said the state's existing no-smoking law provides enough safeguards.
"There's adequate protection for those people who desire to be separated from the secondhand smoke issue," said Senate Minority Leader Frank Watson (R-Greenville), who voted against the bill.
"There's adequate protection for those people who desire to be separated from the secondhand smoke issue," said Senate Minority Leader Frank Watson (R-Greenville), who voted against the bill.
View your tobacco taxes, a comparison of state excise taxes on cigarettes to state excise taxes on beer and wine, MSA payments to date, State laws, and links to other state-specific information.
Alabama Information / Alaska Information / Arizona Information / Arkansas Information / California Information / Colorado Information / Connecticut Information / Delaware Information / DC Information / Florida Information / Georgia Information / Hawaii Information / Idaho Information / Illinois Information / Indiana Information / Iowa Information / Kansas Information / Kentucky Information / Louisiana Information / Maine Information / Maryland Information / Massachusetts Information / Michigan Information / Minnesota Information / Mississippi Information / Missouri Information / Montana Information / Nebraska Information / Nevada Information / New Hampshire Information / New Jersey Information / New Mexico Information / New York Information / North Carolina Information / North Dakota Information / Ohio Information / Oklahoma Information / Oregon Information / Pennsylvania Information / Rhode Island Information / South Carolina Information / South Dakota Information / Tennessee Information / Texas Information / United States Information / Utah Information / Vermont Information / Virginia Information / Washington Information / West Virginia Information / Wisconsin Information / Wyoming Information
\"This is a simple matter of fairness and local control. There's no compelling reason for state, top-down control on smoking regulations," said Sen. John Cullerton (D-Chicago), lead sponsor of Senate Bill 254.
Should actually read:
"This is a simple matter of fairness and local control. There's no compelling reason for smoking regulations," said Sen. John Cullerton (D-Chicago), lead sponsor of Senate Bill 254.
Much better.
Much better
I agree! 
Good move, the guy cares about his career..
Our governor and state legislators continue to pass laws and policies that restrict individuals and businesses.
I've had enough. My wife and I are seriously considering just getting out of here.
Texas is looking better and better.
To paraphrase Jerry Lee Lewis, Illinois can just kiss my a$$.
And about his economy, that's for sure! (He might own his own business there and knows about the impact a total smoking ban would have on it and the others).
This is bad law all the way around - but mostly because it is EXACTLY what the antis want.
They will now move from town to town to work their evil and pit businesses against businesses. I have seen it happen hundreds of times before.
I hate to tell you this, but Texas anti's are working hard to ban smoking in the whole state. San Antonio now is smoke-free as well some other cities and towns.
"Towns could get more control over smoking"
This statement alone makes it clear that no one even recognizes that the "control" should be with the property owner. The assumption of private property rights is long gone.
They actually tried the anti-smoker crapola here this past Legislative session...........it died an ugly death (pun intended) by being defeated nearly 2-1 in the Senate!!!!
February 5, 2005
By Leanne Libby Caller-Times
On Friday morning, Jacques Triplett, general manager of Greyhound Racing on Leopard Street, called the Corpus Christi-Nueces County Public Health District to make sure he was up to speed on the city's new smoking ordinance.
"I thought they'd come out and say, 'you can have smoking here but no smoking here,' " Triplett said about his facility.
Instead, he learned that the racetrack, which offers a buffet Fridays and Saturdays, and concessions the rest of the week, cannot allow smoking in any areas any time the track is open to the public.
Triplett estimated about 500 to 600 people come to the racetrack on Fridays and Saturdays, with about 300 in attendance the rest of the time.
"It's rough, when they allow it in bingo halls, pool halls and bowling alleys," Triplett said. "They said 75 percent of my sales would have to come from the bars but 75 percent doesn't even come from food. It's mainly from racing."
Larry Jones, environmental and consumer health manager for the district, confirmed the racetrack would need to ban smoking, citing the passage in the city's smoking ordinance barring smoking in any place where food is prepared and intended for individual portion service. The phrase does not apply to family meals in private homes.
Jones said there might be other businesses facing such unexpected news.
"We believe situations will come up where there is a real question," Jones said. "I will refer them to the city's legal department."
City Manager Skip Noe said he expects a lot of questions to come up over the next week or two.
"That's one reason we had that public meeting, to solicit questions," he said. "The more of this stuff we can get on the table and work through, the better."
The fight for a smoking ban began in November, when a group called Smoke Free Rights Now marked the annual Great American Smoke Out by calling on the city to ban smoking in area restaurants and bars. The group said secondhand smoke posed a pressing public health issue.
Opponents, including the group Citizens for Choice and Common Sense and some restaurant owners, fought back, saying restaurant owners have a right to run their businesses as they see fit.
City Council members passed the ban with a 9-0 vote on Jan. 11 and set Feb. 1 as the effective date. On Jan. 31, litigation began.
A temporary restraining order was issued this past Monday but lifted Wednesday, leading the city to announce it would begin enforcing the ban next Monday. The next step in the legal battle is a pretrial hearing set for March 23 in federal court.
Triplett, who describes smoking as very popular at the track, said the racetrack will comply with the ban when it opens its doors Tuesday. The racetrack is closed on Mondays. Triplett said he would wait to see what impact the ban has before considering further action. Meanwhile, he'll work on making sure everyone who visits the track knows why puffing is prohibited.
"We'll put tent signs on all the tables," he said, adding the signs will explain the ordinance rules and refer all questions to the health district.
"I'm afraid it's going to bite into us pretty good," he said.
Contact Leanne Libby at 886-3618 or libbyl@caller.com
http://www.caller.com/
| People Ban: IL Highland Park Posted on Friday, April 15 @ 08:37:37 EDT by samantha |
||
 |
 |
|
 Highland Park UpdateThey're back!! Highland Park beat this initiative last year. Here we go again. Colleen McShane, president of the IL Restaurant Association, was also instrumental in fighting the recently defeated smoking ban in Oak Park. "Colleen McShane... spoke on behalf of seven local restaurant owners who asked her to appear. She said she had asked the city for information about complaints received about smoking and found that none had been filed. "Is this a solution looking for a problem?" she said. McShane argued that owners should be permitted to set policies for their customers, especially in a community where about 90 percent of the restaurants have chosen to be smoke-free. To impose the new law will hurt their business." ______________________________ |
Council poised to pass smoking ban
April 14, 2005
BY KENNETH L R. PATCHEN
STAFF WRITER
Smoking in all public spaces of Highland Park -- restaurants and office buildings included -- could be banned if the Highland Park City Council approves a proposed ordinance April 25.
Almost two dozen residents testified at Monday night's Highland Park City Council meeting in favor of a ban. A baker's dozen argued against adoption.
"This kind of ban is just too oppressive," said Fred London, of Highland Park, a local resident speaking against smoking prohibition.
Elm Place Middle School students Otis Heyman, Genevra Higginson and Karly Brint testified about the impact cigarette smoke has on their ability to enjoy restaurants or public areas.
Dr. Mark Hill, a surgeon who lives in Highland Park, favors a ban.
"I have seen too many things we can not prevent," Dr. Hill said. He urged the council to protect public health from the impact of cigarette smoke. Disease from smoking is one thing people can choose to prevent, he said.
A proposal for Highland Park to join a small number of Illinois communities that do not allow smoking has been working its way through the city council for many years, said Council Member Steven Mandel. Hearings on the proposal have been held by the Business and Economic Development Commission, which then recommended the city not adopt a ban. The Healthy Highland Park Task Force, however, recommended a ban be adopted.
The city currently bans smoking but allows it in designated areas.
The council listened to testimony from more than 30 people for about 90 minutes Monday and then voted unanimously to consider adoption of a ban at their April 25 council meeting.
"I want a complete smoking ban in public places," said Council member Scott Levenfeld. Jim Kirsch, Michael Brenner, Mayor Michael D. Belsky and Mandel agreed. Only four votes will be needed to pass the ban.
"I'm quite torn on this issue," said Mari Barnes, a business owner and liaison to the Highland Park Chamber of Commerce.
She asked for further consideration to allow late-night smoking in restaurants. Council colleague Larry Silberman also urged consideration of a ban that would permit late night smoking rather than adoption of a total ban that would place businesses in jeopardy.
There was no support for the incremental ban.
"We are the stewards of the community," said Brenner. "Health has to come first."
Resident Paul Rubenstein, a smoker for 27 years who had cancer surgery three years ago, said he could not understand how business owners could argue in favor of smoking given the health risks.
"The fact is, smoking bans increase business," Rubenstein said.
Resident Marliss Levin, who is allergic to smoke, praised Timbers Charhouse Restaurant, 295 Route 41, for becoming smoke-free.
The lingering effect of smoke is dangerous too, said resident Mortimer Gross, even if smoking is allowed only part of the time.
"If you can smell smoke," he said, "you are breathing it."
Kathryn Govas, owner of the Metropolitan Café, 1791 St. Johns Ave., said she had to switch her policies to allow late night smoking in order to compete with other restaurants that allow it.
"Unless this is a state mandate, this is something that should be left to the business owner," she said.
Colleen McShane, president of the Illinois Restaurant Association, spoke on behalf of seven local restaurant owners who asked her to appear. She said she had asked the city for information about complaints received about smoking and found that none had been filed.
"Is this a solution looking for a problem?" she said.
McShane argued that owners should be permitted to set policies for their customers, especially in a community where about 90 percent of the restaurants have chosen to be smoke-free. To impose the new law will hurt their business.
Bluegrass Restaurant owner Jim Lederer said he has a late night clientele who want to smoke.
"We attract people from all over," he said about his Old Deerfield Road location. "There is an opportunity for a late-night menu."
He asked the council not to eliminate the opportunity for some area restaurants to meet the needs of the late-night dining community.
http://www.pioneerlocal.com/
"Towns could get more control over smoking"
This statement alone makes it clear that no one even recognizes that the "control" should be with the property owner. The assumption of private property rights is long gone.
If it isn't the board of health coalitions or the lawmakers and the city councils all fighting for complete control to enforce complete smoking bans, it's hard to fight them all. The City Councils are becoming the worst for this.
The "right" to pollute (with tobacco smoke) the air that others have to breathe is on it's way out. Please enjoy your tobacco smoke in non public areas.
The "right" to pollute (with fascist sentiments) the freedom of America and its private property rights is getting tiresome. Please enjoy your Marxist pollution in North Korea.
A restaurant is not public property.......it's a private enterprise.
O.K. Let's carry your example a bit further- What about funeral homes, churches, busses to transport T-ball teams? Would it be reasonable to light up some carcinogenic material in any of these settings? What has happened is that the pendulum has slowly swung to where we are now- the case being that tobacco smokers can (at will) light up their air polluting substance in close quarters with those who had rather not breathe it. So, what is a person who want's to breathe clean air to do- quickly depart the area?
O.K. What if my choice in combustible materials were oak or sycamore leaves or pine needles? Should I have the right to light up "my choice" of smoke producing substances in "smoking allowed" areas?
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.