Posted on 11/08/2005 11:37:13 AM PST by SheLion
If the Springfield City Council snuffs out smoking in restaurants and bars, local smokers shouldn't have much trouble finding somewhere else to light up and have a cold one.
Sangamon County officials don't have the authority to impose such a ban in the unincorporated area of the county, and none of the nearby towns contacted by The State Journal-Register plan to impose their own bans.
"It's not something I anticipate there would be a push for," said Frank Meredith, president of the Sherman Village Board. "We have two taverns (in Sherman), and we haven't had any complaints about smoking in them. I have spoken to the bar owners, and they are opposed to (a smoking ban)."
An ordinance was introduced to the Springfield City Council last week to ban smoking in virtually all indoor workplaces. Whether the ordinance has enough votes to pass remains to be seen, and some aldermen have voiced support for a compromise that would ban smoking in restaurants, but not bars and bowling alleys.
But the 29 people who sit on the Sangamon County Board will not be called upon to make a similar decision.
Assistant state's attorney Jim Grohne, who advises the county board on legal matters, said last week state statutes do not give Sangamon County the authority to impose a smoking ban similar to the proposal before Springfield council members.
According to the state law, the only governing bodies that can impose such a ban are home rule governments or municipalities. Municipalities include cities, villages or incorporated towns. Sangamon County is not a home rule government.
Information on the county's Web site says the county has issued 77 permanent liquor licenses. Included are eight gas stations/convenience stores. The rest are taverns, eating establishments, catering businesses, clubs and service lodges.
In addition to Sherman, officials in Jerome, Riverton, Rochester, New Berlin and Chatham also said there have been no pushes for smoking bans in their communities.
"There has not been any discussion at this point," said Tom Gray, president of the Chatham Village Board. "I don't have any position on it. I want to see what the restaurant owners think."
While there have been some casual conversations about Springfield's smoking ban in New Berlin, the issue hasn't officially come before that town's board of trustees, either.
"I don't see anything happening here," said Stephen Frank, president of the New Berlin Village Board. "I don't think there would be any support (for a smoking ban) in New Berlin."
Jerome Village Board President Harry Stirmell echoed Frank's comments.
"At this point, I don't see the issue coming up. ... One would think that if the city (Springfield) were to do something and we don't, it could increase the people going to (our restaurants.)"
One of the Jerome restaurants Stirmell was referring to was The Barrel Head, 1577 W. Wabash Ave.
Kevin Davlin, owner of the combination bar/restaurant, thinks a Springfield smoking ban would result in more business at his Jerome establishment, but he isn't pushing for the proposal. He also owns Chantilly Lace at 2660 S. Fifth St., a bar inside Springfield's city limits.
"It's a double-edged sword. I think business will increase (at The Barrel Head), but a ban would hurt at Chantilly Lace. I feel sorry for Springfield restaurants if the ban does pass as Ald. Bruce Strom proposes," Davlin said.
Kevin Davlin's brother is Springfield Mayor Tim Davlin. Mayor Davlin supports a smoking ban, but wants to consider possible exemptions for bars and taverns, said spokesman Ernie Slottag last week.
While Kevin Davlin speculated business could increase at The Barrel Head, not all business owners who live outside the city are as confident.
The Curve Inn, 3219 S. Sixth St., is in Southern View, which means it would not be affected by any Springfield City Council action. However, Don Thompson, one of the owners, doesn't think everyone realizes his establishment is outside of Springfield.
"I think the first effect will be that everybody will say they can't smoke in Springfield and they won't realize we aren't in Springfield," he said.
Even though the Sangamon County Board does not have the authority to impose a smoking ban, county board Chairman Andy Van Meter said that, personally, he likes the idea.
"If the county had the authority to act, I would take every reasonable measure to implement a responsible and comprehensive smoking ban," Van Meter said.
"I cannot speak for the board's position on this issue, but I can say that I personally support this measure in the strongest possible terms. The weight of the medical evidence overwhelmingly points to second-hand smoke as a danger to non-smokers.
"We restrict many of life's activities by time, place and manner to ensure public health or safety," Van Meter added. "In my opinion, smoking should be similarly restricted. One person's pleasure should not be another person's health risk."
John Reynolds can be reached at 788-1524 or john.reynolds@sj-r.com.
The city, county nor the state governments should have any right imposing no smoking prohibitions on any owner of a restaurant or bar. It's the owners property and they should set the rules. How about a restaurant make the rule that all chicken or pork must be eaten raw if you are to patronize their establishment.
If you don't want to get wet, don't go in the water.
Yet another way the gubmit is mommie and daddy for those of us who don't know what's best for us.
Washington, the whole state, I believe, is voting on this TODAY!
"I cannot speak for the board's position on this issue, but I can say that I personally support this measure in the strongest possible terms. The weight of the medical evidence overwhelmingly points to second-hand smoke as a danger to non-smokers.
"We restrict many of life's activities by time, place and manner to ensure public health or safety," Van Meter added. "In my opinion, smoking should be similarly restricted. One person's pleasure should not be another person's health risk."
Van Meter apparently is incapable of reading for himself and only parrots the anti-smoker talking points, he also needs to be seeking another line of work.
What about second hand drinking? Izzat dangerous too?
I predict that in the next few years, somewhere like San Francisco will ban meat products from all restaurants. It's not a matter of if, just when.
the Indian casino lands...which seem to be whereever they want to buy....are exempt from any rulings....so our tax paying restaurants and bars are being punished and some will not survive if they lose 10, 20, 30 % or more of their business....
...first, this state gave the okay for a tribe to buy land near the city to build its own casino and restaurants and entertainment facilities....
then the state when it had the chance to refused to allow simple slot machines in taverns or dance halls,etc....
and then the stupid voters decided we shouldn't have all those evil slots just anywhere so an initiative failed last year that would have allowed some slots at bars, etc away from the casino.....that initiative was defeated by Indian casino money.....
how far can a community go in giving away millions and millions of tax revenue to non-tax paying tribes and not have it affect every facet of government....and that means my property taxes and sales taxes keep going up and up and up.....
As many of you know, we have the no smoking law in Florida. It covers restaurants and bars serving less than 10% food. However, one can smoke to his or her hearts content in the Seminole Casinos. But, that's their rule, not the states. You can't smoke in their restaurants, however, anywhere. I have no problems with that. It's their rule. Again, it is my opinion that the owners make the rules and not the government. Sushi chicken, anyone?
In my opinion the evidence of second hand smoke being a serious health risk is dubious. However, if people feel that it is dangerous, they have the choice to not patronize places where smoking is allowed.
I'd be happier if people did not smoke in public places. However, I don't see any need for laws to force that on business owners.
I am quite capable of walking out of a resturant that I feel is too smoky. I've done it before and I'll likely do it again.
It's safe, as long as you're not mixing.
Do you feel the same about a state law that forces private employers to allow their employees to carry a firearm onto the employer's property? I only ask because to me the argument is the same in both situations, yet many Freepers who oppose govenment regulation of smoking on private property don't seem to have a problem when the issue concerns firearms.
Let's see. How many folks do you know who have died from second hand smoke? It's a bunch of BS! Guns don't kill, people do. Apparently, given your question or statement about carrying direarms to work, you don't think people should. Good for you! I hope the police in your community don't carry guns! One thing your argument lacks is, common sense!
Thanks for your honest, but incredibly stupid response. The issue is not whether second hand smoke causes cancer or cures cancer or whether guns or good or bad. The issue is government regulation of private property. If I own a private business that I operate on private property, then I should have the right to set my own rules. If you don't like cigarette smoke, then don't eat in my restaurant and don't ask me for a job. And if I want to ban firearms on my property -- or require you to carry a firearm on my property -- and you don't like my rules, then don't come to me for a paycheck. But I don't want government telling me what I can and cannot do on my property.
Thank you! I had to dumb down to get to your level!
If I had employees as stupid as you, I would ban them from carrying a firearms also. Too bad you can't think in the abstract and have a rational discussion about legal principles without getting hung up on the word "gun." The issue is I was trying to discuss is not smoking or firearms, specifically, but government regulation of business and the erosion of private property rights. Have a nice day and try not to hurt yourself.
The fact that personal property rights are being taken away by the government, whether it is a smoking ban or whatever, from the owners of establishment, is wrong and has always my premise. You brought the guns to this fight!
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.