A sour stomach coming for Peoria restaurant owners
June 29, 2006 in The Wire
There are two developments that might be causing headaches for area restaurateurs in the near future.
First: The folks who brought the smoking bans in Champaign, Urbana, Bloomington are beginning efforts to do the same here in Peoria. I’ll have more details tomorrow, but “Smoke Free Peoria” people are planning a campaign to get folks to sign a petition that would require smoke free bars and restaurants. There’s some question as to the tactics they are using to convince people that this would enjoy wide support.
Second: The Peoria City/County Health Department is telling restaurant owners that they have until mid July to stop the practice of cooking outside on grills. The rationale is that the current codes do not address cooking out of doors, so it must not be allowed. Since this practice has been going on for years, I’m wondering what caused this sudden decision. Also, how does this address the pushcarts in downtown Peoria, which often cook their food out in the open. More details tomorrow.
Feed
June 29th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
What a bunch of B.S.
Can’t wait to hear the details…
June 30th, 2006 at 5:11 am
Finally, what I have said for years, the Peo. County Health dept is full of idiots. I know that sounds harsh but there is no logic to their system of checks and balances.
June 30th, 2006 at 6:58 am
Wow! Our local Government has found away to legislate “grilling outside”. Great!! Can’t wait for more details on this one.
June 30th, 2006 at 7:40 am
I hate smoking, but I also hate to see government involvement in this issue. I would like to see some totally non-smoking bars in the city, but I would prefer they be non-smoking as a matter of choice and not mandated by law. I applaud the fact that One World has severely curtailed the times when smoking is allowed. I hope more places follow suit.
June 30th, 2006 at 7:49 am
Just roll your tebacky in paper flag, then they can’t touch you
June 30th, 2006 at 7:53 am
Good points Conrad. I too am a devout non-smoker, I think it is disgusting. But, mandating that all establishments go smoke free is a complete overreach of government. If the place wants to do it on their own, more power too them, but they should not be forced. And lets face it, you don’t go to a bar because you are concerned about your health. Give me a break.
As for the Peoria City/County Health Dept, my experiences with them have been favorable. Their sanitarians come out to inspect fundraisers that I have been involved in and they ALWAYS either waive the fee on the spot or sent the check back to us in the mail at a later date. The $30 fee I believe goes directly to the inspector to compensate for their time (coming in on a weekend). This shows a good attitude towards the community.
That being said, this whole cooking outside thing is BS. I agree with Billy-boy’s conclusion, it seems like they are banning it just because they didn’t have any rules on it. While I am a fan of safe cooking practices, I am also a fan of a good grilled pork chop. Can’t we have both?
June 30th, 2006 at 8:18 am
I agree with you all. After all, there’s no proof that second hand smoke is really bad for you (wait a minute, didn’t Bush’s surgeon general just say something about that?) and people can just go someplace else if they want (never mind that some people are EMPLOYEES and NEED to work to support their families). It ought to be a matter of choice, after all, we don’t require companies to pay for safety equipment at caterpillar or abate asbestos in buildings to protect employees and patrons…I say we ought to have seperate but equal bars and restraunts. ater all, its MY business and I don’t have to serve anybody I don’t want, blacks, gays or non-smokers
June 30th, 2006 at 8:22 am
On the other hand, unless the health department DOES actually regulate an activity, pursuant to their authority to do so, I thought we lived in a world of limited government. Things were permissible until they weren’t (officially) not the other way around. This may sound contradictory, but the point is that there is currently NO evidence that grilling outside is inherently dangerous, unlike second hand smoking.
June 30th, 2006 at 8:45 am
Let free markets decide what establishments are smoke-free; not the government. If you don’t like the smoke, you don’t have to go in. If smoke free restaurants and bars are in such demand, someone will open one to satisfy that demand. It’s called a free market. Somehow, I don’t see Peoria, IL have that strong of demand.
Next they’ll want to ban the smoke from the push cart grills. Oops, maybe that’s what they’re already trying to do.
June 30th, 2006 at 8:51 am
I reiterate my position that rather than banning smoking, the city should institute smoking licenses - like alcohol licenses - of unlimited number, and any bar or restaurant that wants to allow smoking can buy a license to help offset the increased cost to the city/county health department of smokers.
That way we’ll preserve the rights of the smokers, get some revenue for the city, provide non-smokers (both workers and patrons) more options for where to eat, and have an interesting experiment about bar income where smoking is and isn’t allowed. If smoking really brings in that much more money to a bar, then paying for a license should be no hardship.
June 30th, 2006 at 8:55 am
Anyone who applies for a job at a bar or restaurant where smoking is permitted is fully aware of the risk. I can tell you from experience that 80-90% of the employees at restaurants and bars are smokers themselves. If they don’t want to be around smoke, there are plenty of other workplaces where smoking is not permitted, i.e. retail stores, most high-end restaurants, fast food restaurants, gas stations, manufacturing and warehousing facilities, sales offices, advertising firms, classrooms, mortgage brokers, insurance offices, law firms, etc. It is not the government’s place to legislate personal choice.
Comparing smoking and non-smoking restaurants to the separate but equal policies is downright irresponsible.
June 30th, 2006 at 10:02 am
Does anybody think the..uh..blue collar bars like those on Laramie will really ban smoking??
June 30th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
perhaps since 80-90% of patrons are heteosexual or caucasian your personal choice argument should apply to other government imposed restrictions. Would any of you argue that we ought to tolerate some restraunts with exposed asbestos, even if the employees knew it was there? even if we allowed the restraunt to pay a higher license fee? public places, not homes, not private clubs, but places OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, have an obligation not to do so in a way that is harmful to the PUBLIC. I would never support regulation of a legal substance in a private home, but taking money from the public makes it different. And arguing that government regulation of public places in spite of the wishes of the owner, e.g. equal protection, is not irresponsible. The same arguments espoused in opposition to a smoke ban HAVE been used in those contexts.
June 30th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
No one would CHOSE to expose themselves to asbestos. People DO however chose to accept the risk of exposing themselves to cigarette smoke.
June 30th, 2006 at 2:21 pm
Ooops. “Choose” Argh!
June 30th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
Vonster: It depends on which side of Laramie you are on!
Most of the bars are on the County side (good for them).
June 30th, 2006 at 4:08 pm
Vonster, like no one would choose to work in a coal mine subjecting them to black lung disease? Like no one would choose to live in a house with lead paint? Sometimes economics (like needing that waitress job to support yourself and your kids), means choosing to risk your health. It shouldn’t have to be a choice. You focus soley on the patrons. Where did the smoker’s right to harm himself become transformed into his right to harm me. It has been argued by some that alcohol can be harmful too. The difference is that consuming alcohol creates only a direct causal harm to the drinker whereas smoking causes harm to everyone in the vicinity. My father used to say that one man’s rights ended where anothers began. From where I sit, if your smoke harms me, and we are in a public place, then your rights end at the edge of your cigarette.
July 2nd, 2006 at 11:30 pm
Sorry, Modest. Your rights ended when you decided to go into a public place that allows smoking. You know that there is a chance that you might come in contact with cigarette smoke, but you choose to chance it, ignore it, etc. You don’t have to go in. When you or I go into an establishment and it wreaks of cigarette smoke, you damned well know it is the ongoing acceptable nature of the place and nobody is going to stop just because you or I don’t like it.
July 3rd, 2006 at 10:24 am
Interesting chef….my rights end because I’m on notice that someone elses activities might hurt me. What about where their rights end. remember, this is a public place, not a private one. I don’t have to go into a restraunt with sanitation practices, but I have a right to expect that if it is open to the public, then they are abiding by public health safety rules. If a bar had a big sign that said “fecal matter on premises” is that the same kind of fair warning? I guess all I’m looking for is some consistency (yes I know, the hobgoblin of small minds). People love to smoke. In their own homes, it is their right to harm themselves and their families. (yes I grew up in a family where my dad smoked) But in a public place, I shouldn’t have to cower away because someone else wants to create a polluted environment. It is MY right to go anywhere that the public is allowed, without risk to myself for excercising that right. I don’t go to smokey bars now, any more than I drive down some gangridden streets, because I know that there are risks I am not interested in taking. But to tell me that because I’m on notice of the risks, that we shouldn’t expect to be able to go into a public place, or drive down a public street, because “you damned well know it is the ongoing acceptable nature of the place and nobody is going to stop just because you or I don’t like it.” We should never accept it because “that’s the way it is.” OK I’m done now, I’m tired of this circular debate. We too often blur the line between public and private thinking that our personal bubble extends out into our public lives. e.g. I find the window stickers of the kid peeing on someting to be offensive. If people want that inside their homes, GREAT, but you are also on my public road showing it to MY child. You want adult material in your own home FINE, but broadcast TV has become far to graphic. As I said before, my rights end where they intersect with yours, be it civility or business or health. I’ll try to respect your personal rights, I hope at least you’ll consider mine.
July 7th, 2006 at 10:33 am
ARRGHH! It really isn’t my right or your right. It is the restaurant or bar owners right to offer what they want to offer in a place where they have invested their time, sweat, tears and probably of busload of money. What if all the vegetarians in Peoria banned together, proved the evils of red meat clogging your arteries and got the council to ban beef in Peoria? (Kind of as silly as feces on the bar, but….) Is it really your right to get the government to force a business to change their leagl operations just because you don’t like it? I seriously don’t get it. If Big Al’s was non smoking would you go? How about Club Equator? The Eagle’s Nest? The Recovery Room? If you don’t drink, smoke, play video games or catch the occasional local band at The Red Barn, why would you go there? Or dozens of other places in Peoria just like it? There is nothing really to do, see, eat (except Butch’s pizza) at the “Barn”. There are lots of old style bars where like people do 3 things: drink, smoke and BS. The owners provide this medium for people who want to do those things. And I don’t consider a restaurant or bar a public place. It is owned by someone, just like you own your house. It is a private place that is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC as a business and what they offer is what they offer, not what you want them to offer. Glen Oak Park is a public place. As long as smoking isn’t illegal, the people who put their blood sweat, tears and cash into a privately owned place, as long as what they are doing is legal, it should be the owners call. I know this sounds backwards from a non smoker, but I’m more concerned about too much government moreso than I am about the little second hand smoke I inhale for the very few times I go to places that allow smoking. In other words, if you don’t like it, don’t go. Personally, I think that most non smoking proponents are just unhappy because they “can’t” go to “nicer” places that allow smoking and don’t really care whether or not “not-as-nice places”, that they would never go anyway, ban smoking or not.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
Modest, you are confused about rights. You don’t have rights in the workplace. Your rights, as defined by the Constitution and it’s amendments, are directed at Government. The Bill of Rights limits the power of government, not of a private employer.
July 7th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
I just don’t “get” the restaurant industry.
Check the wait time at a restaurant for smoking s non-smoking. If non-smokers would INSIST on the non-smoking section, I think you’d see the smoking section size grow much smaller if not go away altogether in some places.
And for us non-smokers, I think we agree that drawing an imaginary line, or even building a low wall, between two tables and calling one the smoking section and the other non-smoking is just silly. Use fans, full walls, filters or whatever you have to do to keep my non-smoking section smoke free or I won’t be visiting again.
I don’t “get” where the cost of the employee salary is expected to be born directly from the customer and not included in the price of the meal. That’s not tipping. Tipping is above and beyond. Can I bring my own private waiter to the restaurant? Oh yeah, I went to a “cook your own” steak place once. I had the salad bar, then picked out my own raw meat, cooked and seasoned it, got my own baked potato, toasted and buttered my own Texas toast. The waiter brought me my beverage and then asked what type of steak I had eaten and my bill. He (and his employer and the IRS) expect 15% for that?
Soem day I also want someone to explain why gas stations are allowed to charge me by the 1,000th of a dollar for something. $2.979 per gallon?