Posted on 07/23/2005 1:04:54 PM PDT by SheLion
CHICAGO - Gov. Rod Blagojevich says he's "grappling" with whether to sign legislation allowing strict smoking bans across Illinois - contradicting earlier signals he and his administration gave to the bill's supporters that it would become law.
Blagojevich said he's "carefully" weighing concerns about public health against the effect on local economies if he lets city governments outlaw smoking at bars and restaurants. Currently, only Chicago and 20 other cities, mostly suburbs, can impose those kinds of restrictions.
A bill that hit the governor's desk on June 15 would revise the Illinois Clean Indoor Air Act of 1989, which covers the rest of the state. At present, it generally requires that smoking be contained in designated areas at public locations and workplaces.
The prospect of stronger prohibitions has met with fierce resistance from the hospitality industry and liquor and tobacco interests. Opponents of the measure predict smokers would avoid towns that forbid lighting up in bars or restaurants, thus harming businesses there.
"I go back and forth," Blagojevich said July 11 after a Chicago news conference. "One day I wake up with the decision on one area, then I go back on the other side. There's an economic-impact argument that's very compelling, especially in small towns, and so we have to weigh all of that with some of the public health issues as well."
Asked about the measure on Thursday, the Democratic governor said he is still "grappling" with it. He had not acted Friday and has until mid-August to make a decision, spokeswoman Abby Ottenhoff said.
Blagojevich's on-the-fence position about House Bill 672 conflicts with a statement his administration made last month, in an Associated Press report, that the governor would sign the bill.
The governor's hesitancy baffles Ermilo Barrera, board president of the American Cancer Society of Illinois. Barrera said he talked with the governor about the bill as the two traveled together on July 6, when Blagojevich signed healthcare-related legislation in Chicago and Peoria.
"My understanding of our conversation is that his plan was to sign the bill," Barrera said.
Another bill supporter, Kathy Drea of the American Lung Association of Illinois, said she was "shocked" to hear about Blagojevich's misgivings. She said her organization's communications with high-level staff in the Blagojevich administration indicated the bill's prospects were good.
Meanwhile, Rep. Karen Yarbrough, a Maywood Democrat who sponsored the legislation, said she has been calling the governor's office weekly to determine Blagojevich's plans, to no avail. She said Blagojevich spoke favorably about her bill when she talked to him at the end of the spring legislative session, during a social event at the Executive Mansion.
"I asked him in passing, and he indicated that he supported it. 'I support that' - those were his words," Yarbrough said.
Ottenhoff said the governor is "taking a closer look" at the legislation.
"The governor, on his initial read, thought it looked favorable," she said. "He's taken some time to do some additional review and will continue to do that. When he makes his decision, we'll let you and the public know."
Yarbrough said the legislation is first and foremost about letting communities make their own decisions about smoking.
"People call this the anti-smoking bill. That's not what it is," she said.
Rep. Jay Hoffman, a Collinsville Democrat who has been characterized as an adviser to Blagojevich, sees it differently. He said local smoking bans could hurt Illinois towns near the Missouri border.
"If I'm a restaurant in Illinois, 15 minutes from St. Louis, and I'm competing with St. Louis and they don't have a smoking ban, I think it could potentially put you at a competitive disadvantage," Hoffman said Thursday after he appeared at a news event with Blagojevich. "That's why I voted against it."
Similar attempts to change the Clean Indoor Air Act failed in previous legislative sessions. Sen. John Cullerton, a Chicago Democrat who sponsored the latest version in his chamber, said the timing was right in 2005, a year when the Illinois Senate finally banned smoking on the chamber floor.
The bill passed the House and Senate but in margins that are not veto-proof if Blagojevich rejects it.
If the governor signs the legislation, Springfield's Ward 10 Alderman Bruce Strom said he'll introduce a local ordinance that would prohibit smoking in all enclosed workplaces. He acknowledges the plan faces an uphill battle in the Springfield City Council because support appears limited.
"If the governor chooses not to sign this, he's taking away the opportunity of the public to have an influence on this issue," Strom said. "I would remind the governor that statistically, 78 percent of the population are non-smokers. ... There's a lot of demand for this."
Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis said he would not be disappointed if Blagojevich vetoes the smoking bill, leaving current state standards the norm. The former restaurant owner said he would prefer that his city council not interfere with the local marketplace.
"Philosophically, I think it's an overstep," Ardis said. "I hate to see government go that direction. I hate to see it given that authority to regulate an area or a behavior that's not illegal."
A handful of suburbs that aren't subject to the Clean Indoor Air Act have imposed smoking bans. Chicago leaders recently revived debate about whether they want to do the same in the Windy City.
Eateries say smoking ban hurts
Businesses harmed by the smoking ban across the United States:
(click on images to read The Facts)
Read what IL smokers contribute to the economy. Yet, the state wants to ban smokers! The lawmakers should be thanking them!!
Maybe we are making a difference!
""Philosophically, I think it's an overstep," Ardis said. "I hate to see government go that direction. I hate to see it given that authority to regulate an area or a behavior that's not illegal."
Kathy Drea of the American Lung Association of Illinois is quite upset. LOL! She just SWEARS he said he would SUPPORT it. haha!
What's this? A politician who actually legislates based on facts and economic impact? What the hell kind of Socialist utopia is this, anyway???
We sure don't have the big funds that the anti-smoking lobby has, so we have to try to reason with the lawmakers to show them that smoking bans in a private business is choking the economy.
2nd time I've been tempted to wax optimistic today, but I think so!
One can only hope that! However, I see these lovely quotes from the American Cancer Society guy and the others as trying to apply pressure to the governor "to keep his word", so to speak.
Perhaps they think that if they keep saying "He said he supported it!" in public often enough that he'll feel the need to back it up with action favorable to them.
I also liked the comment about how statistically 78% of the population are non-smokers. I'd like to know how he came up with that number (his source), though I don't think he's far off. That being said, just because one is a non-smoker doesn't mean that that someone will automatically support these bans. I think it's pretty stupid to think so, anyway.
Big mistake. This is war. You can't negotiate with terrorists. I like slamming the idea of slamming them with the adverse economic impact. If they were prone to listening to reason, these bans would never make it past the discussion stage.
In Illinois, you may soon need a license for CCT (concealed carry of tobacco).
Yarbrough said the legislation is first and foremost about letting communities make their own decisions about smoking.
"People call this the anti-smoking bill. That's not what it is," she said.
I also liked the comment about how statistically 78% of the population are non-smokers. I'd like to know how he came up with that number (his source), though I don't think he's far off.
Politicians must be born with a 'nanny' gene which makes them feel compelled to control every facet of everyone's life. If smoking in public is truly a problem, then the public will take care of it WITHOUT THE HELP OF THE NANNIES. We don't need a law to permit smoking bans. Private businesses can prohibit smoking in their establishment IF THEY WANT TO. It's called private property rights. Tobacco is NOT ILLEGAL. If a waitress is opposed to second hand smoke SHE DOESN'T HAVE TO WORK THERE. If patrons object to second hand smoke THEY DON'T HAVE TO EAT THERE. Patrons who enjoy a cigarette after dinner DON'T HAVE TO PATRONIZE A NON-SMOKING RESTAURANT. This isn't rocket science.
We have been round and round with some "FReepers" in here about just what you have said.
But the anti-smoking FReepers tell us that our rights end at their nose and they are all for smoking bans. We try to point out that it should be left up to the business owners and NOT big government. But, since these anti-smoking FReepers can't stand smoking and/or smokers, they think that this government intrusion into our lives is just peachy.
They have no clue about the loss of jobs. Loss of revenue and the closures. Also, the trickle down effect to include vendors that deliver supplies to the business. When a business has to cut back, the owner no longer needs so much in supplies.
But the anti-smoking FReepers still think this is a wonderful thing.
It's hard to win with our own kind against us.
Wow, I didn't know about those articles. Sheds some intersting light on the subject, that's for sure.
Then again, it's not a big surprise that these folks would use questionable statistics, polls, ect to advance their agenda. I just feel a bit foolish (lol) for just accepting that the 25% figure was correct.
Thanks for the info!
Blagojevich said he's "carefully" weighing concerns about public health against the effect on local economies if he lets city governments outlaw smoking at bars and restaurants.
Oh he really needs to sign this into law! Because we are just to dumb to stay out of places that allow smoking. And owners of bars & restaurants are out to kill their customers, that's why they all demand their customers smoke.
That's what I keep telling people. It's all about control.
"We sure don't have the big funds that the anti-smoking lobby has, so we have to try to reason with the lawmakers to show them that smoking bans in a private business is choking the economy."
Thanks for your work. I don't smoke-- never have, never will-- but I find the intrusion into our personal lives and the economic effect it has on private business owners reprehensible.
That's all we want to do in here. Make the general non-smoking FReepers realize what is going on. How the war on smokers (their fellow FReepers) has turned into a demon project.
If the government wanted state free of smoking, you KNOW they would ban all tobacco products. They won't and haven't. What does that tell you?
The lawmakers think they have found willing patsy's to ban, control and restrict. Some how someway we have to turn the tides on the state government.
A major loss of revenue will be the proliferation of private clubs. Restaurants which now pay taxes will become nonprofit private clubs. This will be a boon for Elks, Eagles, VFW, Moose clubs, etc., etc. whose memberships have been declining in recent years. Once the nannies figure this out they will no doubt pass legislation restricting private clubs, and the cat and mouse game will continue. The bureaucracy will always be with us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.