The Normal City Council last night approved a smoking ban in just about all public places, including private businesses like restaurants and pubs. It’s set to take effect Jan. 1, 2007.
I’m a non-smoker. Never have smoked, probably never will. But I still think bans like these infringe on private property rights. If a business wants to let people smoke in its private establishment, why shouldn’t it be allowed? This seems like a blatant case of government overreaching — a back-door approach to prohibition.
Why don’t they outlaw alcohol as well? If people were only allowed to drink alcohol in their homes and not in public places, then you’d have fewer drunk drivers on the roads, and wouldn’t that improve public health and safety?
It’s very simple. Everyone knows the health risks of smoking with a minirig and second-hand smoke. If people don’t want to be subjected to it and don’t want their kids subjected to it, then they shouldn’t go to establishments that allow smoking. There are lots of restaurants that are smoke-free, so it’s not like there are no options for these people. If businesses that allow smoking discover they can get more business — make more money — by going smoke-free, they will.
Instead, we just keep chipping away at private property rights.
This is what happens when you have a town over-shadowed by a large university. Polictical Correctness. Wonder what is next? No outdoor BBQ’s, deposits on water bottles? Peoria will have to pry my smokes from my dead, nicotine stained fingers before they make smoking a crime. I guess Normal has all the gangs, drugs, and murders under control to have time to enforce a new law…
“There are lots of restaurants that are smoke-free”
Sadly, as someone who really can’t tolerate cigarette smoke very well, there really aren’t. I’m ambivalent about these bans on smoking — on the one hand, I LOVE being able to go anywhere I want and know I will not have an asthma attack that leaves me gasping on the sidewalk out front trying to get some fresh air. On the other hand, I’m against government overregulation. When I travelled in Ireland last year with my sister, we LOVED the country-wide smoking ban in pubs and restaurants. It made it a much more pleasant experience than the last time I had been, before the ban, and the pubs and restaurants were doing a better business, or so the owners and bartenders told us.
I wish the city would offer smoking licenses, the same way they do liquor licenses. The revenue would help the city; some bars and restaurants could choose to buy the licenses (and if they were good for business, many would); and others could choose not to, providing more places for those of us who prefer to avoid smoke.
According to the June 23, 2005, edition of the Journal Star: “Out of 274 surveyed restaurants [in Peoria County], 181 classified themselves as smoke-free. That’s about 66 percent non-smoking.” I would describe that as “lots of restaurants.”
Licenses would be better than an outright ban, but I still think it’s unnecessary intervention.
I agree that licenses would be a better alternative than an outright ban. I too like a smoke-free atmosphere just as much as the next non-smoker, but for me, I think the price (our freedom) is too high.
Like I said on a similar post at my blog, today it’s a smoking ban in public places, tomorrow it will be your private home. Think about it; how long until someone rants and raves that smokers are endangering children, guests and pets when they smoke in their own home?
I have a different take on the matter. I’m a smoker. When there are no kids with me, I smoke in my car. I smoke outside my house.
When I go to a restaurant, I always request non-smoking. Why? It stinks! There is nothing worse than a bunch of chainsmokers to ruin your lunch.
When in hotels, I often opt for non-smoking rooms. There’s nothing worse than cuddling up with a stinky comforter. Who knows what’s on the sheets anyway, much less having to smell it. When I do get a smoking room, I have to leave the window wide open, even in the winter, to keep some fresh air going.
Ever seen the designated smoking areas at an airport? NASTY. Sure, every desperate traveling smoker has been in there, but it’s a horrible thing.
Bars are different. Why? I’m not sure. Alcohol, Cigarettes, I guess they go together. I expect to be able to smoke in a bar, as selfish as that is. While in Boston, I found out they had a smoking ban- a liberal town with a smoking ban? Go figure. Mostly I was surprised to find out that I really didn’t mind stepping outside for a smoke. With that said, it was still a hassle. The clean-cut sports bar without smoking was nice. On the other hand, I’d have loved to be able to smoke at the dirty neighborhood bar (hey, it had character) without having to go outside in the rain.
I want to be able to smoke in a bar, but I try to be respectful about it. If the guy sitting next to me is eating his dinner, I’m not going to smoke, or at least not without asking, but I realize not everyone does this, and that is part of the problem. I firmly believe the bar or restaurant should be able to make the ultimate decision to decide what is best for his/her business.
I’m already taxed to death on my smokes (no pun intended) and now the businessman is losing the freedom to decide how best to run his business in an attempt to slowly force me to do what the government thinks is best for my health. They can’t ban them all together, so instead they’re doing everything they can to make it as difficult as possible, for my benefit.