From the Journal Star over the weekend:
Calling the city “behind the curve,” Councilman Chuck Grayeb says people in Peoria deserve the right to enjoy dinner without a side order of second-hand smoke.
I can suggest several options for Mr. Grayeb and the “people in Peoria” about whom he’s concerned. Here’s a list of smoke-free restaurants from the Illinois Department of Health. In addition, Mr. Grayeb is free to start his own smoke-free restaurant — he’ll certainly have time for a new venture now that he’s leaving the council.
Of course, neither of those options are Grayeb’s solution. He’d rather trample private property rights:
To that end, he plans to push for a referendum in the next few months banning smoking in Peoria restaurants.
I think this is focusing on the wrong problem. Instead, the council should be doing something to stop the gangs that are tying people up and forcing them to eat in restaurants that allow smoking!
Great link to smoke-free restaurants but most of the “restaurants” listed here aren’t exactly nice dining. Lots of fast-food establishments and food counters in malls – where smoking is not permitted at all anyways.
I say let the people decide what they want in town – smoking ban or no smoking ban – and the City Council members should vote to put it on the next election ballot as a referendum. It will be interesting to see how the candidates decide whether to allow the public to have a say or not.
And I don’t buy the Mayor’s extortions that the timing of this is bad due to the upcoming election. Hell, that’s about the ONLY time that you can get candidates to take a position and seems to me to be the perfect time to raise this issue. Bravo, to Grayeb. Let’s see some of them squirm a little deciding how to vote!
“…most of the ‘restaurants’ listed here aren’t exactly nice dining.”
I’ll let Avanti’s, Bistro 320, C’est Si Bon, Childers, Cinco de Mayo, Fairview Farms, Le Peep, Lindsay’s on Liberty, Ned Kelly’s, Panache, Rhythm Kitchen, and Weaver Ridge know that you don’t consider their “restaurants” very nice places to dine.
“I say let the people decide…”
Me, too. Already most restaurants that allow smoking have a small smoking section and a large non-smoking section. See? Market forces at work.
I wonder if George Jacob will abstain since he does business with virtually everyone who will be affected. If so, it’s another free pass on a highly emotional and sensitive issue, as Councilman Sandburg pointed out when Jacob was first appointed to the council. Look at the mess this has created in Bloomington now, with something like 36 bars applying for outdoor beer garden licenses so they can have smoking there. Surely that will make a considerable impact on neighborhoods, etc., if they are all granted. People have choices. I’m sure Knight in Dragonland will be all for a total ban, but you can choose to work and play in a smoke free environment.
C.J. — I did say “Most”…..count the restaurants and see the numbers. Angela’s Nuts, Auntie M’s pretzel shop, countless McDs, Arby’s, etc. There are some nice ones yes….but not exactly an indication that the market is “deciding this issue”.
I’m more in favor of letting the people decide through referendum.
Yes, all kinds of restaurants, from fast food to fine dining, are smoke free. Furthermore, almost all of the other restaurants have non-smoking sections. And people are free to individually choose to patronize these restaurants or not patronize them. So why do we need a referendum?
The City of Dallas went smoke-free in all restaurants a couple of years ago.
I’ve been sitting back and watching this issue and still don’t know what to say. But, of course, I do have some thoughts.
NYC has a something in process in their govt to ban transfats in all food made/sold in the City, or something like this. I reacted to that one at first with a similar “are you kidding? Gov’t overreaching, etc. Get out of my private life, etc.”
But then I wonder about the point supporters are making. The two top killers in this nation, in the world, are heart disease and cancer. Transfats cause heart disease. Period. Smoking will give you lung cancer (even if you aren’t smoking). Period. You can’t deny either of these facts. How bad you get it or if it kills you will vary based on genetics.
So, think about (and not that I’m for the ban, either one) – You can’t drink alcohol until you’re 21. So there’s thing most of us think is totally acceptable (and giggle when our two year olds sip a beer and make a yucky face) but the use of it is forbidden until you’re older. Yet we can pump transfats into our kiddies, no problemo. Just drive through. better to die of heart disease than drink yourself stupid?
Also, there are all sorts of drugs that are illegal, and/or highly regulated, in this country that when used in moderation won’t kill you.
And don’t tell me that transfatty foods aren’t addicting. Freakin’ Lays Chips, “You can’t eat just one.” ring a bell? I adore the taste of these foods myself. I have chosen to try really hard to avoid them, though. Like I’ve chosen not to smoke.
But I can live without smoking. I can’t live without eating. And I am unaware of folks who completely subsist by their own hand in terms of food. Do you grow your own veggies and fruit, raise your own cattle/pork/poultry? We gotta eat and we depend on food producers to supply it. Is it that incorrect a line of thinking to ban a harmful foodstuff? Is it that incorrect a line of thinking to ban the public use of a substance that can cause cancer in any one of us, even when we are the ones not using it? I’m sincerely asking this question. Not advocating the ban. What makes tobacco use any different than alcohol, marijuana, coal fired power plants, oxycontin and methamphetamines? Sure, it’s a slower death, but death nonetheless.
I agree we’re free to patronize those restaurants that we want, but as a community we also have the right to determine if we’d like to be smoke-free or not. I feel that it’s a decision that should be made by the voters either to do it or not. I would be against the City Council making the decision absent a referendum of the public. Majority rules in my mind.
While an occassional partaker in the nasty habit, I don’t partake when out to eat, won’t sit in smoking sections, and hate the smell of smoke. I go there to eat not to smoke.
I guess I don’t see the harm in letting the community decide which role they’d like to take. Again, I’ll state that Grayeb is really showing his political astuteness by bringin up the issue before an election. It’d be nice to see those running have to take positions on issues that have strong views on both sides.
I still say, the City Govenment should stay out of this. Permit the resturants, bars, etc. do what they wish. And they are doing that. More and more resturants are going to total smoke-free. It should be their choice. The City Council has enough to do without spending a night debating or madating smoking in resturants or anywhere else.
That sounds very egalitarian, but how would you feel if we had a referendum on whether you personally should be allowed to smoke in your own home? Should that be decided by majority rule of the city?
My point has always been these kinds of ordinances are all about trying to outlaw smoking. It’s a back-door effort to make smoking illegal everywhere. Now, I personally think that outlawing smoking is a worthy goal, and I support it. But I don’t support the means — i.e., trampling on property rights to accomplish it.
If you’re willing to sacrifice property rights in order to outlaw smoking, beware the law of unintended consequences once you’ve set that precedent. It’s a slippery slope. Already in New York they’ve also banned transfats at restaurants. What’s going to be next? Liquor? Seems like we already tried that once….
Anyone who is offended by smoke in restaurants is free to start their own smoke-free establishment. Even you, Peo Proud, if you don’t already own a restaurant, could start one and offer your patrons a glorious, smoke-free environment. If a majority of Peorians value that as much as Grayeb and others think they do, they will come to your establishment in droves.
Do we also have the right to be gun free? I’d vote for that before eliminating smoking.
Doing away with the right to bear arms would be a disaster of epic proportions … one need only review 20th century history to see what happened… (then review other historical periods and …..)
Guns do not kill people. People kill people whether with words, a variety of abuses, guns, knives, baseball bats, hands, and so on ……
Karrie: Just trying to determine where people are willing to draw the line. Since I don’t smoke and don’t hang out in places where people do, I’m much more likely to be harmed by a gun than smoking. So for me, getting rid of guns is a much higher priority. I know it won’t happen, but as a rights issue I think my right not to be shot is at least equal to someone else’s right not to breathe in smoke.
I have to say I consider this almost a moot point. The state will get around to banning it, possibly in the run-up to the next gubernatorial election. With it already banned in Chicago it’s a safe enough vote.
I just wanted to pop in and say thanks for that link to the smoke-free restaurants. Very nice!
I agree with everything C.J. says. Plus as I’ve said it on various blogs, many times: If Peoria bans smoking and the Heights, Bartonville, West Peoria, Norwood, East Peoria and Dunlap do not, we are going to see a lot of shuddered little independants, especially neighborhood bars, as it is a very short distance to these neighboring communities to be able to drink & light up. Who wants to be responsible for putting the little guys out of business? Go ahead, raise your hand.
And Observer, the day you figure out how to get all the illegal guns out of all the felons (who shouldn’t have guns), gangbangers, druggies and anyone else who shouldn’t have one’s hands and then collect them all, I’ll personally hand you my legally owned ones. No offense to you personally, but something tells me, I’ll never have to worry about that happening.
Like I mentioned, Dallas banned smoking and they have a huge metro area that hasn’t banned it within easy driving distance. Bars and restaurants didn’t die out in Dallas. A lot of them have gained business. I have seen it first-hand. First month or so, yes, but then…
Pep Proud: “I’m more in favor of letting the people decide through referendum.”
Wonderful idea.
I propose another referendum.
I say it should be put to a public vote whether or not Peo Proud’s home be seized and sold at auction, with the proceeds going toward adequate police protection.
Chef K: We’re on the same side of the argument. I’m just making the point that guns don’t kill people unless someone uses them and cigarettes don’t kill people unless someone uses them. From a personal freedoms standpoint I have a lot better chance of avoiding death by cigarette than death by gun-toting druggies.
C.J. your argument that “Anyone who is offended by smoke in restaurants is free to start their own smoke-free establishment” is unreasonable. I’m 60 years old and not in any position to start my own restaurant, but I think I should have the right to eat where ever I want without having my senses, not to mention allergies, assulted by sombody’s stinking cigerette. This issue might have been avoided if restaurants were reasonable about where they put the smoking area and how well it is ventilated. At Steak & Shake there is a one foot glass between the smoking and non-smoking section. Does anybody really think this helps? At Perkins the smoking section is in the back, open at both ends and the ventilation is so terrible that no matter where you sit you smell smoke. If we must share our air with these people why can’t they put them in a room with good ventilation and a door that shuts. Also, some places make you walk through the smoking section to get to the non-smoking section. How inconsiderate is this?
Do you think establishment’s rights are being violated by the American’s With Disability Act that REQUIRES places to provide handicapped toilets, parking spaces, ramps, flat curbs, etc.? The government mandated that so everyone had equal opportunity to patronize businesses at the expense of the business owners. How is that any different? By your reasoning those with disabilities ought to open their own restaurants if they want large toilet stalls and special parking places.
The problem is people are not considerate and won’t be unless they are required to be.
Very good points, Frequent Reader.
Ventilation systems and separate smoking areas do NOTHING about the problem. They are completely ineffective. Besides, what is more taxing to the restaurant owner … mandating that they install an expensive ventilation system, or mandating that they simply hang up a “no smoking” sign?
As I’ve said on the Pundit’s site in regards to the same issue, why should the MAJORITY (non-smokers) have their liberties hijacked by a minority who insist on partaking in their habit in public?
If smoking ONLY affected the individual who smoked, then I wouldn’t have as much of a problem. However, it DOES affect the people around the smoker … to the tune of 30 to 60 THOUSAND deaths every year. That’s 10-20 times the death toll on 9/11, and we went to war for that! It’s assault with toxic chemicals, and it should be banned in all public places.
Personally I’d like to see this instituted on a state or even national level so that we don’t have to worry about local concerns regarding competitive advantage … but it’s a public health issue, and I’ll take what I can get. If Peoria wants to institute a ban before the State gets around to it, then three cheers for them!
Frequent Reader: Being handicapped is not choice, dining where smoking is allowed is. If you should have the right to eat whereever you want without being assaulted by smoke, what other rights do you want to impose on the rest of us? I think I should have the right to eat in the restaurant of my choice without screaming kids nearby, but it happens all the time. My choice is to avoid those restaurants. But it’s certainly not a violation of my rights.
Knight, once you allow that, then the next thing to go (as it already has in New York) are trans fats. Now, that affects ONLY the person who eats them. Yet, because of the precedent set by the anti-smoking-section lobby, now they can start adding other spurious restrictions. You know, WebMD reports, “Americans eat an estimated 70 billion meals and snacks at fast-food and table-service restaurants each year. The study shows many may not be aware of the high fat, calorie, and sodium content found in what they’re eating.” As you know, this leads to obesity, heart disease, and many other maladies. Should the government legislate the fat, caloric, and sodium content of restaurant food, too? Should there be a police officer in every restaurant urging diners to eat their raw veggies?
I’ll say it again. I’m not arguing in favor of smoking. I’m arguing against property rights encroachment. I think it’s a slippery slope and, although banning smoking may be a good outcome, there are unintended consequences of voluntarily giving government more power over your property.
If you want to ban smoking, ban smoking — but ban it everywhere. The trouble with your argument is that you want to ban it where people have a choice, but not ban it in homes with children who do not have a choice. Who gets more exposure to second-hand smoke: the casual diner who goes to a smoking restaurant and sits in the no-smoking section once a week, or the child of a smoker who lives, eats, and sleeps in a smoke-filled house every day for 18 years? Don’t you think your crusade is misdirected?
Frequent Reader says, “I think I should have the right to eat where ever I want without having my senses…assulted by sombody’s stinking cigerette.”
On what do you base this supposed “right” over others’ private property? If you have a friend who smokes, and he or she invites you to their house for dinner, do you think you have a “right” — backed by the city or state — to require your friend to not smoke in their own house? Restaurant owners think they should have the right to decide whether they will allow smoking on their property.
I’ll say it one more time: I’m not against banning smoking. I personally don’t smoke — never have, never will. If they banned smoking tomorrow it wouldn’t affect me in the least. But if they encroach on property rights, that will affect me — it will affect all of us sooner or later. Beware the means of your crusade.
If you want to ban smoking, then ban smoking. But don’t encroach on property rights to do it. You’ll cut off your nose to spite your face.
C.J. –
There are attempts in NY City to have all the nutritional information put on the menus. That’s easy for the Chili’s and McDonald’s of the world. But imagine what that does to the little mom & pop joints and the places that change their menu weekly or even daily. If the law doesn’t let the owners use a recipe program like Mastercook that can print out a reasonable one,consulting R.D.s aren’t cheap.
What it comes down to is the right of the business owner to run and attract business as he\she feels is best for his\her business versus the right of the individual diner. I don’t like smoke when I eat at a restaurant. But as a former business owner, I think I hate worse the government telling me what I have to do with MY business and MY money, hard work, time and effort that keeps it afloat.
Since CJ has a far larger audience than I, I’m going to pose the question that I’ve asked before and have not received, what I think, is a reasonable response. I use the Red Barn near the corner of Glen and Sheridan as an example. This place is notorious for smoke. There are about 5 things to do there: drink, smoke, BS, watch a 19″ TV propped up in one corner while listening to the jukebox and video games. Occasionally they have open mic nights or bands. Food consists of bagged snacks or Butch’s pizza. This joint has a pretty big clientle. Now, ban smoking in Peoria. What is going to draw you, the non smoker to this place to help support the loss of business? Really, there is nothing and the place is going to smell like smoke for the next ten years as I’m sure everything in it is completely saturated. Gonna take the kids and wife there for Butch’s pizza? No, you’re not. Business meetings? Doubt it. Please don’t tell me they have to adapt or the smokers will come back and just be happy not to smoke. No, you will find them smoking, drinking, BS-ing, etc. at Olivers, Silver Bullet, Penquin in the Heights. You’re going to tell me I’m c-raaazy. No, I’m not. I’ve got friends who are already talking about how they won’t hang out at Cruzen’s on War near as much if they can’t smoke and will spend more time in the Heights….THAT is from where I get my c-raaazy notions. So, if now you can go to “The Barn” as there would be no smoking, what\why are you going there? Because I can due to no smoking doesn’t count.
I’m not against the ban so much in restaurants even though it screws with the business owners rights, but to ban it in places like the Red Barn makes no sense to me.
I still think the best route to go is tell every business owner by June 1, 2008 they have to decide on their own whether they are going to be a smoke free or smoking establishment..just not restaurants. Once defined, they are what they are: smoking or non smoking…no smoking\non-smoking sections. I think most are probably smart enough to realize what the trend is and go non smoking on their own. The smoking places will become dinosaurs on their own.
Billy,
There’s a slight difference in the public holding a referendum on a matter of public health (no smoking ban) and holding one on the seizing of personal property (my home). Perhaps you don’t see the distinction – but it’s really not that fine a one at all.
My point is and remains, that IF a smoking ban is instituted it should be done through the public decision making process and not by the elected officials. I firmly believe that a community has the right – and the obligation – to set the standards for the community. This includes the level of services provided by their government, the level of taxation they are willing to support to fund those services, and the community standards (such as smoking bans, strip clubs, types and locations of liquor sales allowable, etc.) that are acceptable to them as a group.
I’d be perfectly fine if the referendum failed based on community desires. I’d rather see that occur, then the City Council decide one way or the other, without that type of public input.
But, thanks for the response…I now, have an idea for my first submission to you. The role between public rights and private rights. I’ll work on it!
Prior to Summer of 2006, it was illegal for an ENTIRE restaurant/bar in Peoria to be “SMOKE FREE” without the Peoria Fire Department posting it thru the powers of the Fire Department as a fire concern. It was possible to have no smoking areas within a bar / restaurant but the whole establishment could not be SMOKE FREE. In the Summer of 2006 after the State of Illinois made it legal for municipalities to “ban smoking in bars & restaurants” the City Council changed our local ordinance to permit the business owner to determine whether their establishment would be “SMOKE FREE” or NOT.
It was a reasoned approach to allow the business “mechanics” to determine use and behavior. Since then, a number of restaurants and bars have determined they would be better off either SMOKE FREE, while others have not. The City of Peoria has much bigget issues to deal with than an outright ban when surrounding communities have NOT felt the need to develop local regulations. If the State eventually decides to BAN SMOKING, I am sure the City will see that the laws are enforced and I will hope that surrounding jurisdictions also enforce the State law if and when adopted, but until then our hands are full enough enforcing existing laws.
If we’re serious about the “public health,” it makes a lot more sense to ban smoking in EVERYONE’S homes, as opposed to businesses. You see, I don’t HAVE to eat at the Lariat, but a kid of 11 years old pretty much HAS to live at his/her home, even if the parent(s) is/are smoking. Now, is the public ready to outlaw smoking in people’s homes? Likely not, right?
So, let’s leave the “public health” out of this. My wife and I will choose not to go to a restaurant if the smoking there is bothersome. If enough people are like us, that will have the impact (possibly) to make the establishment do away with smoking. If the restaurant wants to be FILLED with smoke, then they will likely attract a smoking crowd. If you don’t like the smoke, don’t go there. No one is forcing you to.
As turnabout is fair play, I would hope that all of the Discount Smoke Shops will not allow eating or drinking in their establishments.
One has to inform management of the restaurant WHY they are no longer going to frequent their place. Don’t just avoid going – tell someone why. That gets their attention.
I don’t smoke. But I do see an opportunity to exploit a smoking ban. The creation of a smoking club that serves alcohol and/or food. If I’m not mistaken smoking clubs were prevalant at the turn of the century. How could a smoking club be illegal if it’s membership only? I need a lawyer.
Charge a $1 per year membership… Kinda like “clubs” in Dallas County used to be before they changed the alcohol sales laws. Then an enterprising group of “clubs” banded together and created a single membership card that allowed you to purchase alcohol at any of them with no extra fees.
Interesting to note that in Bloomington the ordinanc will be enforced by “complaint” only. Will there be roving bands of anti-smoking zealots trying to play “gotcha” with local establishments? How much time is it going to take to check out such complaints? How will someone prove after the fact that smoking was happening? Will police make a stop as soon as they get the complaint, pulling them off of other calls? Lots of things to ponder with this approach.
Ahh, leave it to C.J. to find a weakness in my argument. I certainly wasn’t going to point it out myself! I should have know it would be you.
Yes, of course … people are exposed to far more secondhand smoke in the home than they would be by spending an hour in a restaurant. That’s where the heavy duty exposure will happen. BUT … no, I don’t think my crusade is misplaced. There’s still the problem of the employees of bars and restaurants. Studies have looked at bar workers before and after smoking bans have gone into place and have seen substantial health benefits to reducing tobacco exposure. There are hundreds of such employees in Peoria alone, including adolescents. Such low-paid employees of small businesses are MUCH more likely to be on Medicaid or without insurance altogether – so we ALL pay for their over-utilization of healthcare resources because of their tobacco exposure.
The rights of non-smokers to keep their lungs free of tobacco smoke without having to avoid half or more of the restaurants in town also remains a valid issue. You champion the property rights of the restaurant and bar owners, C.J. I champion the individual rights of non-smokers – the MAJORITY – to enjoy clean air while they eat.
Why should the MAJORITY have to rearrange their lifestyle so that a few rude and ignorant folks can poison their neighbors with toxic spew??? Sorry smokers … that’s what you’re doing when you smoke around other people! Do you spray your friends & neighbors in the eyes with pepper spray and put raw sewage in their food, too? There’s no difference. Well … maybe a difference of degree. You just put a LITTLE raw sewage in their food. That’s OK, right?
It’s your bad habit, smokers … keep it to yourself!
I would LOVE to make one last gigantic bonfire and burn all the cigarettes and tobacco plants on earth and say goodbye to this health menace once and for all. First off, as a practical issue, it will NEVER happen. The tobacco lobby is still WAY too powerful. Secondly, given the example of alcohol prohibition in the 1920’s, I don’t want it. A blanket ban would criminalize tobacco and make it the same as marijuana, cocaine, heroine and other drugs … but with a market that includes over 1/5 of the United States population. You think crime is bad NOW? I don’t even want to think about violence and criminal profits such a ban would generate. I’m not a fan of the “war on drugs” as it is … I don’t want to EXPAND it!
What’s the solution? Make it a big pain in the ass. Make smokers go outside in the cold or withering summer heat to take their cigarette breaks. Ban it in all public places so that it becomes more and more and more inconvenient to smoke … but don’t ban it, so there’s no criminal profit to be made. We also need to take prevention efforts and education campaigns much more seriously and put a lot more effort into actively promoting smoking cessation.
Do I cringe every time I smell smoke on the parents of a young child? Of course! I counsel and advise and educate until my face turns blue. I try not to be judgmental in that circumstance because I know that most of these people started smoking when THEY were kids … about 85% of smokers start before age 18. By the time they reached the age of legal consent, they were already addicted. So I don’t demonize them – I offer them encouragement and assistance to quit if they want it. I also make it clear that this is poison for their child, and it should be kept COMPLETELY separate from them. That means outside … smoking in a different room is like letting people urinate in one corner of a swimming pool and then saying its OK to drink from the other side of the pool.
I do think that in certain cases of clear child endangerment, exposing one’s children to tobacco SHOULD be used against the parent. I’ve known BAD asthmatics that keep coming to the emergency room again and again and again whose parents continue to smoke around them. They end up in the PICU, sometimes (although thankfully rarely) even requiring intubation and mechanical ventilation. Thousands … MILLIONS of taxpayer dollars are wasted this way every year. A couple thousand asthmatic kids DIE every year across the country, and tobacco plays a big part in that. Thankfully I have yet to have that happen to one of my patients.
I want to strangle those parents who continue to smoke despite the fact that their child has a respiratory condition that is exacerbated by their habit. In such clear-cut cases, I think we should be able to test the child for tobacco exposure (by measuring a stable metabolite of nicotine called cotinine) and use persistent elevations on multiple occasions as grounds to establish medical neglect.
Sorry for taking up so much space. I would have made this a post on my own blog with a trackback attached … but my blog is down right now. AGAIN.
Ah, Knight, we meet again.
We know each others’ stance, neither will concede.
However, the comment about people working in restaurants and bars inhaling second hand smoke kinda strikes me funny, even though it is not a laughing matter. In my 25 years in the restaurant\bar biz, I bet I can’t name a dozen people I worked with that didn’t smoke. I’d be willing to bet that this industry has a much higher ratio of smokers to non smokers than any other industry. So, they need to start helping themselves first before I start to feel too sorry for them. Non smokers having to work in this medium, I do feel sorry for, but I’m sure with enough time and persistence they can find a restaurant job in a non smoking restaurant.
It’s a high turnover segment of the workforce that includes a lot of young people. I’ll respectfully disagree with you, Kevin. I don’t think it’s fair, even if a large fraction of restaurant and bar workers are smokers themselves. Maybe they’d find it easier to quit if they weren’t exposed to it constantly.