New bill allows Illinois cities and towns to ban smoking
Smoking ban would extinguish small business
By Derek Strum
Commentary Editor
In a country that prides itself on people of freewill enjoying a free-market economy, smoking bans violate the right to own property free from government tampering.
Beginning Jan. 1, every city in the state of Illinois will have the power to enact its own smoking bans in restaurants and bars. Gov. Rod Blagojevich signed this into law on Aug. 10, a few weeks after expressing hesitation because of the possible economic burden it could create in some communities.
The law changes nothing in Chicago, one of the 21 Illinois cities that are currently allowed to adopt their own smoking regulations. Besides, the Chicago City Council Health Committee Chairman and 28th Ward Alderman Ed Smith had already donned a red cape and slapped an "S" across his chest when he unveiled a proposed anti-smoking ordinance on June 29-one that would eliminate smoking from not only every enclosed area in Chicago, but ban lighting up within 25 feet of such establishments as well.
There were immediate suggestions for a deal, such as possibly allowing smoking after a certain time or selling "smoking licenses." But in the wake of a $1.5 million campaign by the American Cancer Society to help get Smith's ordinance passed, the group's Illinois Division CEO, Steven M. Derks, told the Chicago Sun-Times, "We are not here to talk about any kind of compromise."
Small-business owners catering to their patronage hardly deserve to suffer the consequences of offering their customers what they want, much less the opportunity to enjoy a cigarette, cigar or pipe-which are all quite legal, recreational activities. As the Sun-Times reported, there are more than 2,000 smoke-free restaurants among the 6,700 in Chicago, and the number of seats in required non-smoking sections has increased by 90 percent over the past five years.
Anti-smoking advocates who dismiss the effects of bans on the hospitality industry as myths would be wise to look at the ongoing, heated debate occurring a few hours away in another Midwestern city: Madison, Wis.
Less than a week after Blagojevich restored power to the municipalities in Illinois, city council members in Madison were seeking ways to deal with the hardships suffered by their city's bars and restaurants since their smoking ban took effect in July. The Wisconsin State Journal reported smaller neighborhood establishments closer to city limits were struggling to compete with neighboring cities that allowed smoking. Reacting to the outcry from taverns citing business losses, council members proposed an April advisory referendum as well as an exemption for establishments that can prove they've hit hard times.
A day after officials offered the proposals, Madison's thedailypage.com reported that a "sizeable crowd" of demonstrators gathered downtown to protest the ordinance and voice concerns-not about their health, but about how they'd pay their bills. One of the city's former aldermen, Dorothy Borchardt, told the suddenly income-deprived crowd, "We can't wait for a referendum." Again, a compromise seems out of the question.
The unfortunate truth about tobacco is that beyond all the health risks and societal problems that it and its bans may cause, the tax money it generates seems to trump health concerns.
In a New York Times editorial last month, Howard Markel, a pediatrician and historian of medicine at the University of Michigan, called attention to the legal settlement made with each of the 50 states (including the District of Columbia) in the late 1990s in which the tobacco companies agreed to pay $246 billion over 25 years for tobacco prevention and cessation programs. However, only 5 percent of the $40.7 billion received so far has been dedicated to such causes.
Just as many other states opted to invest in everything but programs to help those who smoke or prevent others from starting, Markel noted Illinois put $315 million toward property tax relief and an earned-income tax rebate.
And it's still strapped for cash. The Tribune reported that the Illinois Department of Revenue is seeking more than $2.1 million in back taxes, penalties and interest from nearly 5,000 residents for cigarettes purchased via the Internet-as far back as two years ago.
That's an awful lot of dependable revenue coming from a group so frequently demonized.
Chicago's latest proposed ordinance won't be the final word in what will remain a matter of individual tolerance, as the harms caused by smoking have become a redundancy that's almost as addicting to its critics as the product is to its users. The hospitality industry should be able to continue accommodating both, since an acceptable compromise, after all, appears out of the question.
Email Derek Strum
http://www.ccchronicle.com/paper/opinions.php?id=1550
To smoke or not: It''s businesses'' choice
By the H&R Editorial Staff
August 16, 2005
Illinois cities now have the power to approve bans on smoking in all public buildings, including restaurants and taverns.
The power was given to them last week when Gov. Rod Blagojevich signed a bill allowing each Illinois community to make its own decision. The state bill is a good one; it should be clear that this sort of decision belongs at the local level.
But just because they have the power doesn''t mean communities should use it.
The debate against smoking is well-known and based on sound scientific evidence. There is no doubt smoking shortens lives. There also is little doubt about the damage done by prolonged exposure to secondhand smoke.
That''s why we appreciate those businesses that have set a smoke-free policy in their establishments. We especially applaud those restaurants that have decided they will be smoke-free.
The decision about smoking and nonsmoking should be made at the business level. Government should stay out of it.
There is little doubt that area communities eventually will come under pressure from well-intentioned anti-smoking groups to approve a ban on smoking in public buildings. The debate will most likely be framed around the health dangers of smoking.
But the debate should also be about the free enterprise system and letting the market decide which establishments will allow smoking and which will not.
In most communities, consumers have a wide choice of options when it comes to restaurants and taverns. Consumers can choose between elegant dining facilities and establishments that are more "down home." Food consumers can choose between fast food, sit down service, ethnic food, etc. And consumers can choose establishments that either don''t allow smoking or do a good job of separating the smoking and nonsmoking sections.
If consumers desire a smoke-free environment, they will visit those establishments more frequently. Businesses that allow smoking will then face a decision: cater to those who smoke and don''t mind the smoke or change their businesses to smoke-free.
When government intervenes in this system, it messes up the market. If, for example, Decatur were to enact a smoking ban, it could put businesses in Decatur at a competitive disadvantage because those who wanted to smoke would be enticed to visit establishments in surrounding communities. A ban on smoking can cause other problems: Cities that have enacted a ban have found smokers go outside to smoke, turning nearby gutters into giant ashtrays.
Those businesses, especially restaurants, that have chosen to go smoke-free or handle smoke effectively have made a wise decision. But the decision belongs at the business level. Community governments have many issues to address. This isn''t one of them.
http://www.herald-review.com/
New bill allows Illinois cities and towns to ban smoking
August 10, 2005
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. Illinois cities and towns will be free to ban smoking in bars and restaurants starting next year under a bill signed by Governor Rod Blagojevich (bluh-GOY''-uh-vitch) today.
Blagojevich signed the bill despite expressing concern over the potential economic drag on communities that ban smoking.
The new law gives each of Illinois'' 12-hundred cities, towns and villages the authority to enact local tobacco restrictions, starting January First. It overturns a 1989 law that barred local communities from adopting their own smoking bans.
The measure, passed by the legislature this spring, sparked a debate pitting public health advocates'' concerns over second hand smoke against the food and beverage industry. The business sector argued smoking bans would trample free enterprise and drain money from local economies.
http://www.kwqc.com/
Illinois is Only Second State to Restore Local Control for Smokefree Workplace Laws
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.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1462352/posts
|
