FeedSmoking out the nanny state do-gooders
January 6, 2007 in Overset
Chuck Grayeb should have waited until after the at-large races to decide to announce he was going to push for a vote to ban smoking in restaurants.
First, it’s a given that had Grayeb decided to seek a ban AND run for re-election to his at-large seat, he would have lost. Period. Had he waited until after the election, it’s possible he might have picked up a few votes from folks secure that they can’t get kicked out of office for at least a couple years.
Peoria is NOT a city of pansy-assed do-gooders. We do NOT like being told what we can and what we cannot do. Don’t like to breathe smoke in a restaurant? Then sit in the non-smoking section. Or more accurately, don’t chose to sit in the tiny little section restaurants set aside for smokers these days. For all intents and purposes, smoking is essentially banned in restaurants. What this will do it make it impossible to smoke in bars, of all places.
By the way, not to brag, but six months ago, I broke the story on behind-the-scenes efforts to force a Bloomington/Normal style smoking ban on Peorians. If legislation fails to pass at the city or county level, they will use a back door method and use health inspections to fine the Hell out of any bar or restaurant that has so much as an ashtray in public, regardless or how clean and pristine the establishment.
These anti-smoking zealots are nanny-staters at their worst. They don’t believe in representative Democracy. Oh, they will use the process to push their agenda, and if they fail, they will keep coming back to the well to get what they want. They are not local, although the have local allies. They are absolutely convinced the are Right with a capital “R” and will use other means if they fail before the council.
Perhaps it’s time to de-fund the Peoria County Health Department and for the city to hire their own health inspectors — with strict orders to pay no attention to dirty ashtrays.
January 6th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
(SIGH) Wow. Yeah, a smoking ban is the end of the world. (ROLLING EYES) Gosh, those damn “nanny state do-gooders” and their desire to not see people die unnecessarily. Curse them!
Why is the non-smoking majority held captive by the smoking minority? Why are we forced to breath in their poison if we want to go out to eat? Could it be the BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS of dollars spent by the tobacco companies every year?
Oh yeah … if we don’t want to deal with it, we should just stay home. What a load of crap! Smoking isn’t a RIGHT.
You’re not a crusader against the Nanny State, Bill. You’re a stooge to the propaganda of Big Tobacco, those folks who kill nearly half a million Americans every year with their addictive poison.
January 6th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
(SIGH) Sorry. You’re not a stooge. My back is bugging me and the kids are insane today.
BUT … your post is WAY overblown. Smoking bans are hardly the next step to the police state that you make them out to be, Bill. It’s a public health measure. As I said … smoking is a luxury, not a right. Unlike things like drinking or consuming trans fat, OTHERS are exposed to the effects of smoking. Why should my liberty be constrained so that a minority can enjoy an unnecessary luxury while they eat???
January 6th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Sorry Knight, but Bill is right. Isn’t smoking still legal in the United States?
We can argue smoking’s dangers, whether tobacco is more addictive than some illegal drugs, etc, but the fact is it is still legal.
I for one thing smoking is the most filthy dirty gross habit in the world. As many people have, I have tried smoking and have never even been able to finish a cigarette. It is gross.
But I support the rights of those who do want to smoke. Better yet, I support the rights of a business owner to decide whether or not they want smoking in their establishment.
January 6th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Ah, Knight and I will never agree on this subject. I’ve spoke my piece many times. I still think it is wrong to force a business owner to comply if that is what his business centers around (which is more the bar trade than restaurant). Personally, I still think Peoria should grandfather smoking to those establishments that want it, but from 2008 on, all eateries\bars\etc. are NS. Eventually, the dinosaur smoking places will fade away on their own or change over because they “see the light”, but at least they are not forced out by government. I just don’t see the little mom & pop “true” bars (booze, BS, TV, smoking, some to little food) surviving long in Peoria after a forced ban if Peoria Heights, Dunlap, Bartonville, West Peoria, Norwood, East Peoria, etc. don’t ban smoking, also. There is something very wrong with that. Knight, I know you’d never be in this situation as you would never have a smoking joint, but if you did, how would you feel if your clientle that you spend years or decades building drove another mile east to a different establishment because they allowed smoking and you could not? I bet you’d be pissed. How long would you survive? One may argue they have to adapt. How? How to get years of smoke out of the walls, furniture, etc. at what expense. How long to build a different clientle before going broke?
PS I went out recently, inhaled more smoke than I had in years and it physically made me sick. But that was my (bad) choice. Am I upset? Yes..hacking stuff up the next day with my head aching wasn’t fun. Do I wish the place I went was non smoking? No. I don’t go there enough and won’t go back for a long time. Even if it was non smoking, there is nothing that really draws me there to want to go.
January 6th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Here’s my suggestion right out of an old issue of Mad Magazine - businesses must have a clear, bell shaped dome that drops down over a person when smoking. It’s an old Al Jaffe invention.
But seriously, most restaurants I’ve been in with smoking and non-smoking do a lousy job of air control. Often times the only boundry is just a placard on a table. And then you think of the employee that has to breath that stuff in (Billy’s answer - don’t work there. What a solution.)
Still, by his comments on this issue, you can tell Billy has no children. Besides the issue of keeping kids and their young lungs away from smoking, I suggest he pick up the book Fast Food Nation and read about food, the brain and building life long food customers. The understanding of the pleasure centers of the brain and the relationship to food would allow him to get a bead on how these places are really screwing themselves out of future customers by stopping families from going to smoking restaurants.
January 7th, 2007 at 3:02 am
I don’t believe the City Government should regulate this. It should be up the the owners of the resturants. And they are doing a fine job of it. Many resturants have gone to non-smoking. At times I frequent them as I like the food, and at times, I’d like to have a cigarette after dinner with my coffee. One thing that non -smoking in resturants does do, is stop the poeple that do smoke from sitcking around and spending more money on drinks, snacks and converstation. Maybe that’s what they want. My take, if you don’t like it, don’t go there. I do respect those that don’t smoke. I for one don’t like smoke when I am eating. it is discusting and I don’t like it going into my lungs, makes the food taste horrid…but when I am done eating and I see no one around me eating, I will light up. But this is just my opinion. I’m sure not worth much on this subect.
January 7th, 2007 at 7:52 am
I am not jumping in on this either way other than to say it should be people who decide which is right and not the government. (ie. Bar is smokey, don’t like smoke? Don’t go there) I do have something to say about what KNIGHT said: “Unlike things like drinking or consuming trans fat, OTHERS are exposed to the effects of smoking.”
I think if you talk to someone who has had a loved one killed or injured by a drunk driver, they will defer on your opinion of it’s effects. So drinking has an effect on others. I haven’t figured out how transfat affects others, unless you sit on someone.
January 9th, 2007 at 12:04 am
Very true, Em … irresponsible drinking can have horrible consequences. A large portion of motor vehicle crashes occur because at least one drive was under the influence. A large percentage of homicides and suicides are committed under the influence of alcohol.
However, there are laws to address the consequences of irresponsible alcohol use. Drinking and driving is illegal. If you kill someone while you’re doing it, then you’re in it really deep … unless you’re a Congressman or a professional football player.
What are the legal consequences to a smoker for exposing others to a witches brew of toxic chemicals???
…
Zip … nada … zero. Yet if the current statistics are correct, second hand smoke kills 2-3 times the number of people that are killed by drunk drivers every year.
If someone wants to invent a magic force field that keeps a smoker’s smoke to themselves (Scotty’s Mad Magazine glass bell would work, too), then I have no problem with them smoking wherever they want. Until that time … it’s frankly an assault, and it should be banned in all public places.
That said, I do have a realist streak. If the council wants to make an exclusion for places that are exclusively bars, I’d accept that for the time being.
The reason I think bars SHOULD be included is not entirely because of the customers, but also - as Scotty indicated - because of the employees. A recent medical study looked at bar workers - I believe in Scotland - before and after a smoking ban went into place. Their lung function improved significantly after the ban and they had fewer respiratory infections and higher quality of life, irrespective of whether they themselves were smokers or not. Unfiltered slipstream smoke off the burning end of the cigarette has been shown to be much more dangerous ounce for ounce than filtered mainstream smoke. Smokers just take in a hell of a lot more mainstream smoke, and much deeper into their lungs.
And sorry, Tony … as far as smoking being legal, that’s a ludicrous argument. Swinging my fists around is perfectly legal, too … until I connect with someone else’s face! Then it’s assault. Secondhand smoke is assault with toxic chemicals. I don’t ASK to be assaulted just because I want to eat out at a restaurant.
January 9th, 2007 at 8:14 am
Smoking, assault… Bad example really.
You don’t have to eat at an establishment that allows smoking, but some dude could go crazy and punch you in Walmart or wherever you go.
I will say that establishments that have smoking/non-smoking sections should do better with keeping them separate. A stub-wall coming down from the ceiling 18 inches between the smoking and non smoking sections would do wonders for keeping the smoke on one side.
Either way, the owner should decide, not the government.
January 9th, 2007 at 10:17 am
As much as I hate to be around cigarette smoke, the arguements by Chef Kev are really pretty solid.
If this were an important enough issue with enough people, then there would be more non-smoking establishments and those that allowed smoking would go out of business.
Now, there is an excellent example of all smoking vs. non-smoking I witnessed. In Bloomington/Normal, Denny’s Doughnuts competed against the Bakery Banc.
The Bakery Banc advertised the fact they were smoke-free.
Denny’s Doughnuts had designated smoking and non-smoking areas. The non-smoking areas were usually quite empty.
I believe there were folks who went to the Bakery Banc specifically because it was smoke free. Mostly, though, I think it was not important enough for people to care.
For what, I suspect, are a variety of reasons beyond smoking vs smoke-free, the Bakery Banc is now closed.
January 12th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Boy, all of you do-gooder control freak non-smoking advocates are missing out on a gold mine when you pass non-smoking bans. You should open a non-smoking bar and sit back and wait for all your fellow non-smoking control freaks to flock to it. I bet they will be lined up out the door (HAR DE HAR HAR). Let the business owner decide how to run his own business.
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Here is my thought in a nutshell, the non-smoking ban is based on safety and health precautions. Well stress, acoholism, obesity to name a few, our major killers every year also. Does the government have authority to give us paid “mental health days” for stress? Or how about tell anyone overweight that they have to join Jenny Craig? For all non-smokers that have feel smokers are so irritating in restaurants and public places, try this out . . nothing is more irritating than a hollering baby and uncontrollable child(ren) during dinner. Now can we ban parents that do not have babysitters?? Business owners should have the right to run their own business.
April 9th, 2007 at 7:46 am
Jeff Prochnow (formerly of the Bakery Banc) is in the realty business. One of the BB employees went to Grove Street Bakery, also in Bloomington.
September 30th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Hello All,
I was reading around some of the posts here and I found interesting things that you guys talk about, I just made a blog about quitting smoking resources and ideas that you might want to check out.
If someone is interested in this topic just go to; http://endthehabitnow.blogspot.com and let me know what you think. Your honest feedback would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
October 14th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Smoking is still legal.
http://www.smokersclubinc.com
http://www.freerepublic.com
http://www.forces.org