Chicago proposes smoking ban!

[scordelia]

Chicago Alderman Ed Smith has proposed to ban smoking from all restaurants and bars.

Chicago Smoking Ban

Personally, I feel that this issue should be left to the individual bar and restaurant owners. Charlie Trotter's and North Pond have never allowed smkoing, but Iron Mike's not only allows smoking but sells cigars in the bar. Owners have choices and so do patrons.

But here is the list of Chicago aldermen. If you are from Chicago, please e-mail them and let them know how you stand on this issue.

I would rather have this be settled "by the people" than a bunch of do-gooder pols looking for PR.

ward01@cityofchicago.org, mhaithcock@cityofchicago.org, dtillman@cityofchicago.org, tpreckwinkle@cityofchicago.org, LHairston@cityofchicago.org, Ward06@cityofchicago.org, wbeavers@cityofchicago.org, Ward08@cityofchicago.org, abeale@cityofchicago.org, ward10@cityofchicago.org, jbalcer@cityofchicago.org, ward12@cityofchicago.org, folivo@cityofchicago.org, eburke@cityofchicago.org, ttthomas@cityofchicago.org, sacoleman@cityofchicago.org, ward17@cityofchicago.org, tmurphy@cityofchicago.org, vrugai@cityofchicago.org, atroutman@cityofchicago.org, ward21@cityofchicago.org, rmunoz@cityofchicago.org, mzalewski@cityofchicago.org, mchandler@cityofchicago.org, dsolis@cityofchicago.org, bocasio@cityofchicago.org, wburnett@cityofchicago.org, ehsmith@cityofchicago.org, ward30@cityofchicago.org, ward29@cityofchicago.org, rsuarez@cityofchicago.org, tmatlak@cityofchicago.org, rmell@cityofchicago.org, caustin34@cityofchicago.org, ward35@cityofchicago.org, wbanks@cityofchicago.org, emitts@cityofchicago.org, tallen@cityofchicago.org, ward39@cityofchicago.org, ward40@cityofchicago.org, bdoherty@cityofchicago.org, bnatarus@cityofchicago.org, vdaley@cityofchicago.org, ward44@cityofchicago.org, ward45@cityofchicago.org, ward46@cityofchicago.org, ward47@cityofchicago.org, maryann@masmith48.org, jmoore@cityofchicago.org, bstone@cityofchicago.org

Edited July 1, 2005 by scordelia (log)

[Pan]

Get used to these bans. One place after another is putting them into effect, whereas I know of no place that repealed such a ban. I will withhold further comment, because I think that previous threads arguing pro and con on bans in New York and various other places have covered all that ground, and the only thing that's changed since then is that time has passed and more and more places are proposing and instituting these bans. Meanwhile, people still go to bars and restaurants in droves.

[anzu]

I'm not in Chicago. However, I think a ban on smoking in restaurants is a great idea.

Try living in a place like here, where about 75% (allegedly) of the entire population smokes and seeing children as young as 12 or 13 smoking in public is quite common.

Not only is smoking in restaurants the norm, I used to live near a shopping mall where smoking was banned (in itself a wondrous and rare thing for here). In the food area, however, was a large sign telling patrons that, although the rest of the place was non-smoking of course they could smoke in the food area (their italics).

I know of only two non-smoking restaurants in the whole of Berlin, and both of these serve only vegetarian food - if you don't want to inhale the equivalent of a pack of cigarettes while eating, then you must be a hippy, granola-eating, vegetarian type, right?

Nothing wrong with the food in those two restaurants, but personally I'd like to have a little more choice, and I'm dammed if I'm going to spend an entire restaurant meal trying to avoid the cigarette smoke from every single adjoining table when people are lighting up while waiting for the food to arrive, between each course AND after the meal. The last restaurant meal I ate here, there were over forty cigarettes smoked in the time for us to walk into the restaurant, and order and eat one course. And this was from an occupancy of five tables including our own non-smoking table. And no, we did not linger for dessert or coffee, though we probably would have otherwise.

I've given up entirely eating in restaurants in Germany except during the height of summer when one can sit outside (and even then you're still likely to get lungfuls of other peoples' smoke), and after Italy has just instituted a nation-wide ban on smoking in all eating establishments, it has shot to the top of my list for places I want to visit for eating purposes.

I truly don't believe I'm alone in avoiding all restaurants because of intolerable amounts of smoke. And I don't believe that smokers are going to stop eating out if they can't smoke inside restaurants. (If there were some places which were forced to ban smoking on their premises, while others were not, that would be unfair, and yes those restaurateurs would maybe lose out. On the other hand, they might acutally get an increased clientele because of customers like me).

I don't think banning smoking in restaurants is an indication of a nanny state. If cigarette smoking were banned altogether, perhaps, but that would be a different issue.

I'm not telling other people that they're not allowed to smoke, but doing it where it's interfering big time with my eating pleasure is highly inconsiderate. Hey, why not just come up to my table and sneeze or spit in my food while you're at it?

What the law is doing is preventing smokers who are inconsiderate enough to smoke in a confined space from engaging in this habit. Sounds fair enough to me.

[sparrowgrass]

Anzu, I am with you. Once they invent a ciggie that keeps all smoke inside the smoker, they can smoke anyplace they want, but in the meantime, I would like to be able to smell and taste something besides tobacco smoke.

I can't even imagine why anyone would think it was ok to smoke near other people who are not smoking--it is just beyond my comprehension. You wouldn't tolerate someone sitting at the next table spraying perfume or air freshener at you--why is smoke ok?

[scordelia]

Chicago already requires that restaurants must have separate smoking sections with independent ventiliation systems. If this is not possible to install due to the size and configuration of the space, then the restaurant must be smoke-free. Most restaurants that allow smoking have separate rooms or a separate bar, so it is pretty civil. Currently, bars are unregulated, and I do not think it would be draconian to require bars to comply with the same measures that restaurants do.

Bans do not solve problems. Take a look at New York. New York is now full of illegal smoking bars, many in abandoned speakeasys from Prohibition days. They are operating without liquor liscences or health, code and fire inspections.

[therese]

Bans do not solve problems. Take a look at New York. New York is now full of illegal smoking bars, many in abandoned speakeasys from Prohibition days. They are operating without liquor liscences or health, code and fire inspections.

←

Are there? Those are some dedicated smokers.

A local community here in the Atlanta area, Decatur (actually swallowed up by Atlanta long ago---it's considered "in town", not a suburb), instituted a smoking ban in all inside areas of all restaurants and bars some time ago. There are lots of them, as Decatur's sort of a laid back nightlife sort of destination, and so far as I can tell it hasn't hurt business a bit: restaurants and bars remain packed (actually busier, it seems), and smokers either sit outside or go outside. We have an advantage over Chicago and New York in that it's not nearly so unpleasant to go outside (or even dine outside) most of the year.

Lots of controversy (and confusion) here over a state-wide smoking ban that's supposed to go into effect July 1.

[scordelia]

Bans do not solve problems. Take a look at New York. New York is now full of illegal smoking bars, many in abandoned speakeasys from Prohibition days. They are operating without liquor liscences or health, code and fire inspections.

←

Are there? Those are some dedicated smokers.

←

Yeah, I was in New York on business and my clients found out about one and wanted to go. It was like the movies. We had to go down an alley to a service entrance, know a password, go through the basement to a sub-basement until we reached a real 20's speakeasy. Supposedly, this place was left untouched and just sat there until the smoking ban when it was reopened. I've heard that there are quite a few in NYC.

[Jensen]

I truly don't believe I'm alone in avoiding all restaurants because of intolerable amounts of smoke.  And I don't believe that smokers are going to stop eating out if they can't smoke inside restaurants. (If there were some places which were forced to ban smoking on their premises, while others were not, that would be unfair, and yes those restaurateurs would maybe lose out. On the other hand, they might acutally get an increased clientele because of customers like me).

←

The only thing that bans are doing is shifting the "balance of power" from the smokers to the non-smokers. For years and years, non-smokers have had to put up with second-hand smoke (no matter how many air recovery systems are installed, the smoke and odour still goes everywhere). Now the shoe is on the other foot...the smokers can put up with a little inconvenience and step outside for their fag.

I moved from one non-smoking area (Vancouver) to another (California) and I love it. Long live the smoking bans!

[chile_peppa]

There's a smoke-free club called Rhythm on Randolph Street in Chicago. The voluntary smoking ban doesn't seem to have an adverse effect on the crowd there. Smokers politely go outside; nonsmokers can breathe and avoid smelling like an ashtray from the second-hand smoke. It works pretty well for all, and it's one of the friendliest places around.

Edited July 1, 2005 by chile_peppa (log)

[scordelia]

There's a smoke-free club called Rhythm on Randolph Street in Chicago. The voluntary smoking ban doesn't seem to have an adverse effect on the crowd there.

←

The operative word is voluntary. As I stated in the first post, there are regulations in Chicago that work and are quite strict, and whether an establishment in Chicago is smoke-free or not should be left up to the owners.

[Jensen]

The operative word is voluntary. As I stated in the first post, there are regulations in Chicago that work and are quite strict,

←

Well, obviously they don't work or there wouldn't be support for a change to more comprehensive restrictions!

You smokers have had the air, so to speak, for the past 100 years or so. Now it's our turn. Come back in 2105 and we can talk about it being your turn again...

[eje]

Personally, I'm all for the smoking ban in restaurants for a bunch of reasons.

I'm a bit more ambivalent about the bar smoking ban. We have one here, and frankly, a lot of bars smelled better with the stale tobacco smell covering up the stale beer and restroom sanitizer (among other) smells.

Erik

[therese]

Yeah, I was in New York on business and my clients found out about one and wanted to go. It was like the movies. We had to go down an alley to a service entrance, know a password, go through the basement to a sub-basement until we reached a real 20's speakeasy. Supposedly, this place was left untouched and just sat there until the smoking ban when it was reopened. I've heard that there are quite a few in NYC.

←

Sounds like there's consider appeal to the "forbidden" aspect of the enterprise. Good thing that smoking's now sufficient reason to do something that feels so glam and cutting edge.

[Brad Ballinger]

What often gets lost in these discussions is that this is a workplace health issue, and not a consumer ambience issue. The bans are usually proposed for the sake of the workers.

Keeping in mind that context, there are alternatives to a ban -- such as higher health insurance rates. But not all restaurants and bars will offer very good health plans to begin with, and bans seem to be a better "equalizer."

In Minnesota this past year, several smoking bans were enacted at the municipality and county levels. Nothing statewide yet. The most ridiculous law happens to be in the county in which I live. A bar or restaurant can still be a place to light up if less than 50% of the revenue is from food. Some places have since cut back their menu offerings, kitchen hours, whatever, to get the food-related revenue below 50% so they can put the ashtrays out once again.

[Tess]

What often gets lost in these discussions is that this is a workplace health issue, and not a consumer ambience issue.  The bans are usually proposed for the sake of the workers.

Keeping in mind that context, there are alternatives to a ban -- such as higher health insurance rates.  But not all restaurants and bars will offer very good health plans to begin with, and bans seem to be a better "equalizer."

Yes, thanks for saying that. Customers can vote with their feet but not all workers have that luxury.

[Jensen]

Keeping in mind that context, there are alternatives to a ban -- such as higher health insurance rates.  But not all restaurants and bars will offer very good health plans to begin with, and bans seem to be a better "equalizer."

←

Or mandatory hazard pay for employees of those establishments that allow smoking. Then, as the pro-smoking folk say, the decision could be left up to the owners. I wonder how many would be so quick to maintain their smoking sections if it meant their HR costs would double.

[fiftydollars]

I am a strong proponent of smoking and resist any and all attempts to curtail the practice.

I wish we could turn back the clock to the days when smoking was allowed in hospitals and churches. Smoking builds character, toughens up the lungs, and generally makes you a whole lot more cool.

I lost this fight along time ago. San Luis Obispo, CA, the first city in the US, and possibly the world, to ban public smoking indoors and now in most public places, forced me to adapt to lawful drinking in bars and restaurants without the benefit of smoking. However, I never quite felt right about it.

I have tried smoking and, during one particularly rebellious stretch in high school, have tried to get into the habit, but it just didn’t work out for me. It seems I lack the focus and dedication required to smoke full time, but I would certainly categorize myself as a smoking enthusiast and in such capacity, I would really like to smoke in hospitals, churches, and all domestic and international flights.

I like smokers. I think smokers are cool people (not just because they look cool as most smokers do) while most non-smokers are decidedly less cool. I don’t mind people that don’t smoke, mind you. But I tend to dislike the people that strongly identify with this group (Non-smokers). For the most part, they are just not cool.

I have resigned myself to the fact that smoking is an activity one should engage in privately or else in a group of other cool, like-minded individuals. And I have long accepted the fact that smoking could possibly be injurious to one’s health. But I will always love tobacco and smoking and you will never convince me that it’s not cool.

[Angela Alaimo]

I am a strong proponent of smoking and resist any and all attempts to curtail the practice.

I wish we could turn back the clock to the days when smoking was allowed in hospitals and churches. Smoking builds character, toughens up the lungs, and generally makes you a whole lot more cool.

I lost this fight along time ago. San Luis Obispo, CA, the first city in the US, and possibly the world, to ban public smoking indoors and now in most public places, forced me to adapt to lawful drinking in bars and restaurants without the benefit of smoking. However, I never quite felt right about it.

I have tried smoking and, during one particularly rebellious stretch in high school, have tried to get into the habit, but it just didn’t work out for me. It seems I lack the focus and dedication required to smoke full time, but I would certainly categorize myself as a smoking enthusiast and in such capacity, I would really like to smoke in hospitals, churches, and all domestic and international flights.

I like smokers. I think smokers are cool people (not just because they look cool as most smokers do) while most non-smokers are decidedly less cool. I don’t mind people that don’t smoke, mind you. But I tend to dislike the people that strongly identify with this group (Non-smokers). For the most part, they are just not cool.

I have resigned myself to the fact that smoking is an activity one should engage in privately or else in a group of other cool, like-minded individuals. And I have long accepted the fact that smoking could possibly be injurious to one’s health. But I will always love tobacco and smoking and you will never convince me that it’s not cool.

←

ROFL. ROFL. ROFL. Oops, let me ROFL one more time 'til I'm rightside up again.

[Bux]

. . . .

Bans do not solve problems. Take a look at New York. New York is now full of illegal smoking bars, many in abandoned speakeasys from Prohibition days. They are operating without liquor liscences or health, code and fire inspections.

←

Yeah, I was in New York on business and my clients found out about one and wanted to go. It was like the movies. We had to go down an alley to a service entrance, know a password, go through the basement to a sub-basement until we reached a real 20's speakeasy. Supposedly, this place was left untouched and just sat there until the smoking ban when it was reopened. I've heard that there are quite a few in NYC.

←

Just exactly how full is NY of these places? I didn't trip over any on my way to the subway this morning, nor have any hit me over the head. That you found one is hardly proof that there are many, nor proof that illegal bars not paying taxes wouldn't find some reason to exist. I suppose we should repeal the cigarette taxes since there are so many bootleggers smuggling cigarettes into the city. What I do notice on my way to the subway is the cover of an old issue of New York Magazine with a headline foretelling the death of NY's bar and restaurant scene. The magazine is in the window because the issue featured the wares of the shop in whose window the cover is posted along with a cut of the article mentioning the shop. Anyway, without getting into the ethics or morality, such dire predictions have hardly come true. Bars seem to be thriving in the city. Illegal activity and attempts at tax evasion are probably also doing well as they always have. All lwas are not bad, but all laws that make it a crime to do something, will inevtiably produce more law breakers. Arguments against smoking bans have to be more logical than just that people will break the law. If murder is no longer a crime we are likely to have less crime, but no less killing.

[Bux]

. . . . But I will always love tobacco and smoking and you will never convince me that it’s not cool.

←

Sadly they went out of style late in the middle of the century, but the 20th century never produced anything cooler than a silver cigarette case. A very close second was the red tin that pckaged Engllish Benson and Hedges cigarettes. In the late sixties, I actually started smoking again, just so I could carry these around after buying a couple of cartons in England. The soft paper pack of Camels I thought was so cool in college suddenly seemed so common that I quit for the second time when I ran out of Benson and Hedges.

Movies by the way, are not what they used to be and the characters are not as cool as when they smoked cigarettes. Show me a great movie and I'll show you someone with a silver cigarette case. On the other hand, some people say it's Technicolor that changed everything. Wine labels have never been, and will never be, as cool as cigar bands either.

[godito]

What often gets lost in these discussions is that this is a workplace health issue, and not a consumer ambience issue.  The bans are usually proposed for the sake of the workers.

←

Yup, that's exactly the point. Not to make this personal, but I'm a non-smoker in Santiago, Chile. Here, you can't walk into a bar or a restaurant without running into smokers. But I can always avoid those places. Restaurants do have non-smoking areas and even though the bar-smoke in unavoidable, there are some with better ventilation. However, the servers and barkeeps can't really decide whether they want to go to work. I mean, is it so hard to go outside for a smoke? are we that selfish? Don't we want to stop to think about the people working there every day, six days a week? Even if they smoke themselves, it's not right to make them work in such am unhealthy workplace.

As for the speakeasies... there are legal smoking rooms, where people go to somke cigars. I agree that this is only an attempt to avoid paying taxes. We have many such places here in Santiago, and yet we don't have any kind of drinking or smoking ban.

[scordelia]

Or mandatory hazard pay for employees of those establishments that allow smoking. Then, as the pro-smoking folk say, the decision could be left up to the owners. I wonder how many would be so quick to maintain their smoking sections if it meant their HR costs would double.

←

That would be the better way in Chicago. Levy special taxes on places that want to allow smoking, make it part of the cost of doing business. Then I think a lot of places would opt to be smoke free, but some places, in spite of the added cost, would opt to allow smoking which would indicate that lost clientele would be more detrimental than the extra HR costs.

It's better to give people an economic incentive to change behavior. Where I used to live in Maine, almost 100% of the population recycled their trash. It was not mandatory, and this was not a village full of tree-huggers doing it to save the earth. Instead, you had to buy stickers and put them on your trash bags in order to have your garbage taken away ($1 a bag), but recyclables, if properly sorted, were hauled for free. Well, almost everyone did everything possible to reduce their trash--recycled, composted, cloth diapers, etc. It was less expensive to do the "right thing."

[plantdetective]

I think that either a ban or an incentive (disincentive) are all fine. Just so long as I can go out to enjoy my drink or food without having to smell someone elses habit. There is no more sure way to ruin a meal. I also think that everyone should be able to work without dealing with that kind of health risk.

[slkinsey]

Here is a thread on the NYC and NYS smoking bans that touches on most of the important subjects. A few thoughts:

1. I have a number of friends in the bar/lounge/nightclub business. None of them are having any trouble with business -- and, indeed, business is booming. While it may be true that some bars that offered little more than a place to smoke while being served a stale beer and a watered down shot experienced economic difficulties or even closed as a result of the bans, this kind of business is typically very fragile anyway. All it takes is something like having the nearby factory or worksite move the exit over to the next block for this kind of bar will suffer and/or close.

2. scordelia, I don't know where you're getting the idea that NYC is covered with illegal "smoking bar speakeasies," but this is simply not the case. There are some illegal clubs and bars (most of which allow smoking) and there are some regular bars that allow smoking after hours, but this is not a widespread phenomenon and I don't sense that it's any more prevalent now than it was before the bans.

3. Brad is absolutely correct: this is a workplace safety issue, not a consumer freedom issue. It is reasonable to tell consumers that they can simply move on to the next bar if they don't like cigarette smoke, it is not reasonable to tell a bartenders and waitstaff that they have to choose another profession if they don't want to inhale secondhand smoke. The law is 100% clear that the government can enact laws to protect workers from undue hazards in the workplace, and it is without doubt that secondhand smoke is a significant workplace hazard. Tobacco smoke is no more a necessary component of the bar or restaurant workplace than it is in an office building or airplane -- both places from which smoking has been banned for years. This post from the NYC/NYS ban thread contains good information on the health issues, and you can read the whole study here (pdf).

4. Although it sounds like a nice compromise, air filtration systems of the type that are typically (and can economically be) installed in restaurants and bars simply don't do an adequate job of cleaning the air. It is pretty much impossible to protect workers from secondhand smoke with filtration.