72°F
Severe
sponsored by:
FIND IT WITH OUR NEW DIRECTORY!
Click to activate search window!
Top    Subscribe to our feeds    Add to My Yahoo!
Advertisement

Advertising Info

Article Options

Comments (5 comment(s))  |  Email this story
Print this story  |  Discuss  |  Big Text  |  Normal Text
Current Rating:
0
   Number of Votes:
0
Rate:  |  |  | 
Save and Share  add to yahoo add delicious add to digg add to facebook add to reddit add to newsvine  
   How do I share?
Statewide smoking ban clears House committee
BY Mike Riopell, THE SOUTHERN SPRINGFIELD BUREAU
Friday, April 27, 2007 7:03 AM CDT
SPRINGFIELD - The Illinois House is set for a final showdown in the coming weeks over whether smoking should be banned in almost all the state's indoor public places, including bars and restaurants.

A House panel voted 10-2 Thursday to move the proposed smoking ban to the full House, which has yet to debate it.

Health groups say bartenders and other workers who have to deal with secondhand smoke and its potential health effects need to be protected.

"The more we delay this action, the more people that are probably going to die," said American Cancer Society spokeswoman Shayne Squires.

But opponents have said people have a right to smoke if they want and a ban could hurt businesses such as bars and casinos.

State Rep. Bob Pritchard, R-Hinckley, voted for the ban, but said balancing those concerns made the decision difficult.

"That's where I have been really deliberating," he said.

This year, health concerns have so far guided the ban through the Senate, and House lawmakers could vote by the end of May. A House vote would be the last step before the measure would go to Gov. Rod Blagojevich for a final decision.

State Rep. Mike Boland, D-East Moline, said he wished there were more exceptions to the ban. He worries about towns on the Illinois border that could lose business to bars or casinos on the other side.

"I wish there'd been more flexibility," he said.

While bars, restaurants and casinos get the most attention in the debate, the union representing the state's prison guards worries absence of cigarettes in prison buildings could trigger violence and create a black market among inmates.

"You are going to create contraband," said Joanna Webb-Gauvin, a spokeswoman for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

Not all prison guards feel that way, though. At least two Illinois guards have established Web sites pushing for a smoking ban in state prisons, saying the hazy hallways are bad for their health.

The legislation is Senate Bill 500.

mike.riopell@lee.net

(217) 789-0865

Add Your Own Comments

No account? Register here!

Terms & Conditions

If you already have, sign in below:
*Member ID:
*Password:
  Forgot Your Password?
 

 

tommy wrote on Feb 1, 2008 9:09 AM:

" i think the ban is rediculous. so many people will be trying to quit, making a lot of extremely grumpy people. taxes are big tobacco makes a lot of money for the government. "

Report Abuse

Allan wrote on Apr 28, 2007 12:02 PM:

" I don't smoke, but this ban is just stupid. And frankly, I don't either like going to restaurants that allow smoking, unless the smoking and non-smoking areas are actually well seperated from each other, and/or have ventilation systems or smoke-eaters in use, though I don't have a problem with bars and adult establishments allowing smoking. That all said, unlike many nonsmokers, I actually do acknowledge and respect the rights of businesses to cater to smokers(and evenso in restaurants, too), and feel the proposed statewide smoking ban goes way too far. Not to mention, I choose to go to completely nonsmoking restaurants, or ones that have TRUE SEPERATION between non-smoking and smoking areas, whenever possible. That all said, I feel the proposed statewide ban is NOTHING more than an attempt to use junk science to bully businesses into eliminating smoking against their will. I feel, if the anti-smoking lobby thinks tobacco is as dangerous as they allege, they should campaign instead for an OUTRIGHT BAN on the sale of tobacco statewide, instead of just incrementally banning smoking in more establishments, outdoor areas of colleges, and outdoor areas(a la California) over a period of time. It still boggles my mind why these same anti-smoking groups, such as the American Cancer Society, testified against such a proposed ban on the sale of tobacco in North Dakota a few years back. I'll finish by saying I don't blame AFSCME for opposing a smoking ban in state prisons, since it would only cause greater problems there. "

Report Abuse

Bill wrote on Apr 27, 2007 3:35 PM:

" Speaking as a correctional officer I fully support a ban on smoking in State prisons. Afscme is not representing the members on this one. As for contraband we already fight that on a daily basis. In many cases management gives the "contraband" right back to the inmates when we take it. As for a black market in the prisons, it is already there. Everything from drugs to tobacco to food item and nasty books. They can by it all by using their commisary. "

Report Abuse

Wife of a smoker wrote on Apr 27, 2007 11:35 AM:

" Second hand smoke is very dangerous. If not -why do many non-smokers get lung cancer from living with a smoker. Children need to be protected when in public since some parents do not care if their child lungs are damaged. My husband is a smoker and he can not walk or do any strenous work without stopping for breaths, can not get the full enjoyment of food, and smells to high heaven of smoke due to smoking a cheaper brand. I am a non-smoker and it gets bad when we are in the car and my throat,eyes, and lungs start to burn from his smoke. It's bad when the windows are down and it's freezing outside. But he does not smoke in the house. That is a blessing. I can see his future of oxygen and a wheelchair but he does not care. I am in complete agreement with the ban. Let them go outside to smoke if they have to. It's time the non-smokers have their rights upheld. "

Report Abuse

Gregory wrote on Apr 27, 2007 10:07 AM:

" THEY SAY: Health groups say bartenders and other workers who have to deal with secondhand smoke and its potential health effects need to be protected. This is a red herring being used to take away peoples right to choose. Many employees prefer to work in a Smoking-Permitted environment. There are many jobs in America that have much more hazard than second hand smoke - and yet we allow people to choose to work in these environments. There are also policies and technology that are readily available that can easily enable a non-smoker in a smoke-permitted environment to not encounter ANY hazard from second hand smoke. To take it to the extreme, you could easily offer any employee the option of wearing a respirator mask or hermtically sealing their particular work area and provide separate ventillation. In fact, what if a businessman wanted to cater only to Smoke-Tolerant patrons and required all workers to wear respiratory protection? Should we still take away that owners right to serve a significant population of people that enjoy smoking? Since second hand smoke is much less dangerous than many other odors and fumes in manufacturing environments, this seems extreme....but shouldn't we let the businesses dicide their policy? "

Report Abuse