Thank You Rich Miller / Smoking and Pot
All of the BO here sure was starting to smell. You'd think Illinois stopped stinking since BO is going on to take over America. But yet, Illinois isn't anywhere near perfect. Otherwise, why would we need all that legislation being introduced in Springfield. So let this be the first of, hopefully, several posts to come that open the discussion on legislation that may or may not rule our lives in the near future.
I'll start with two pieces from my State Senator John Cullerton (D-6, Chicago). One I like. One I don't.
Senate Bill 500 - Smoke Free Illinois Act
Synopsis As Introduced
Creates the Smoke Free Illinois Act. Sets forth the findings of the General Assembly. Creates several definitions. Prohibits smoking in public places, places of employment, and governmental vehicles. Requires "No Smoking" signs to be posted in each public place and place of employment where smoking is prohibited. Requires ashtrays to be removed from any area where smoking is prohibited. Prohibits smoking in student dormitories, including, but not limited to, sleeping rooms, dining areas, restrooms, laundry areas, lobbies, and hallways, of a building used in whole or in part as a student dormitory that is owned and operated or otherwise utilized by a public or private institution of higher education. Provides that the Department of Public Health, State-certified local public health departments, and local law enforcement agencies shall enforce the provisions of the Act. Sets forth fines for violations of the Act. Provides that the Department, a State-certified local public health department, local law enforcement agency, or any individual personally affected by repeated violations may institute, in a circuit court, an action to enjoin violations of the Act. Prohibits discrimination against individuals who exercise their rights afforded by the Act. Provides that a home rule unit may regulate smoking in public places, but that regulation must be no less restrictive than the provisions in the Act. Prohibits smoking within a minimum distance of 15 feet from entrances, exits, windows that open, and ventilation intakes that serve an enclosed area where smoking is prohibited. Amends the State Mandates Act to require implementation without reimbursement. Repeals the Illinois Clean Indoor Air Act.
Senate Bill 650 - Cannabis-Medical Use
Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Cannabis Control Act. Provides that when a person has been diagnosed by a physician as having a debilitating medical condition, the person and the person's primary caregiver may be issued a registry identification card by the Department of Public Health that permits the person or the person's primary caregiver to legally possess no more than 12 cannabis plants and 2.5 ounces of usable cannabis which must be grown in an indoor locked facility. Provides that within 30 days after the effective date of the amendatory Act, the Department shall adopt emergency rules to implement these provisions. Creates a task force to implement permanent rules. Provides that if the Department fails to adopt rules to implement these provisions within 6 months, a qualifying patient may commence an action in a court of competent jurisdiction to compel the Department to perform the actions mandated pursuant to these provisions. Provides that a municipality may not prevent a registered organization from operating in accordance with the amendatory Act in an area where zoning permits retail businesses. Limits home rule powers. Effective immediately.
Smoking bans are popular for comment arguments, so how about at least some thoughtful comments about medical marijuana and why people battling diseases should be locked in cages, or not. These two bills seem to point out that freedom has become largely a trivial and ignored matter. We do need educational reforms. We are considering locking people up for allowing smoking on their own property where others can choose to go, while at the same time contemplating ending the practice of locking people up for doing something that gives relief without harming anyone else. Remember, the only way to enforce a law is with the deadly end of gun.
21 comments:
"These two bills seem to point out that freedom has become largely a trivial and ignored matter."
Jeff,
We should never forget that Freedom comes in two flavors: a) Freedom to ____, and b) Freedom from ____.
Legislation banning smoking in public places is an exercise in and securing of the majority's right to be free from polluted and poisonous air.
That said, I'm a big fan of the "citizen's home is his castle" theory and believe that an adult should be able to smoke any damn thing he wants in the privacy of his own abode.
As you can imagine, I fully support the decriminalization of medical use of cannabis.
"Smoke 'em if you got (a prescription for) 'em."
-- SCAM
SCAM - Thank you. Let me pose this question concerning public health then. The flu and AIDS both kill many, many more people than second-hand smoke. Every expert would agree with that. Shouldn't there be a ban on people with the flu going to public places and a ban on people with AIDS having sex or engaging in any risky activity? Don't I then have the right to take the bus or eat in a restaurant or ... and not be subjected to other people's viruses? Even if I don't die from the flu, I am still being harmed by other people's germs, such as the loss of income, doctor and medicine costs. Should we all enjoy the right to be free from other people's germs?
We have different views of freedom from _____ when a person is free to make a choice whether to go into that environment or not.
We already have freedom from second-hand tobacco smoke in the form of personal choice. We don't have freedom from the much deadlier and costlier to society flu. Why is that if public health is the primary motivation for these laws?
Actually, employees of restaurants have no more "personal choice" to avoid the smoke than a mine worker would have to avoid black lung if we abolished laws relating to breathing apparatus. I don't see you expressing outrage over mine safety laws though.
Why is that?
You may want to work on the analogy. When you can get AIDS from casual contact, you may have a point.
Also, there have been lawsuits and criminal prosecutions of AIDS patients who knowingly pass on the disease.
So your AIDS analogy is not really on point and your "personal choice" argument is a complete failure unless you also want to abolish all other work place safety regulations.
Hey Jeff, can you post those flu and aids stats in relation to second hand smoke?
As always the more information the better.
I'm always shocked that the free market has not opened more smoke free bars. I just got back from a weekend in DC, and going out to the bars and what not was a serious improvement.
Worried about the flu and civil liberties? Here's Illinois's plan sponsered by some familiar names. From the CDC,
This week, we offer a real piece of legislation from Illinois, House Bill 5164. H.B. 5164 was sponsored by State Representative Sara Feigenholtz (D-Chicago) and Senator Barack Obama (D-Chicago). Governor Rod R. Blagojevich signed the bill into law on July 28, 2004 as Illinois Public Act 93-829. The new law expanded the power of the Illinois state government to respond to public health crises. Specifically, the bill authorized the state to: order isolation or quarantine, or close facilities, without an advance court order if the action is required to protect the public; have emergency access to medical records; expand the authority of licensed professions to provide medical services during declared disasters; share information among public health and law enforcement authorities; and several other provisions. The legislation included due process protections, such the right to notice, the right to counsel, and an explicit right to refuse certain examinations, testing or treatments.
Full text of the law here.
I'm ok with it.
Legalize Pot! Illegalize Tobacco!
Bah. Legalize it all. And tax the hell out of it. Let the junkies pay for roads.
On a more serious note, there are now efforts to illegalize smoking in apartment complexes and condos.
So much for your home is your castle.
And Crash Dev, the free market clearly does not demand smoke free bars. Otherwise you would have them. So goes the right wing logic. Or could it be that the free market is inefficient in allocating resources, that is smokey bars and smoke-free bars...
I just think smoking bans are pretty absurd.
Skeeter, no one forces anyone to work anywhere. My analogy is valid. I'm sorry you don't seem to care at all about people dying from AIDS or the flu. That's your problem if you don't think the spread of AIDS is more of a concern for public health than second-hand smoke is. You evidently think it is ok for two consenting adults to engage in risky activities even if one of them has AIDs, but it's not ok for a consenting adult to walk into a bar that allows smoking. It's an honest and logical question. What about medical marijuana, skeeter? You want to keep locking up people with chronic and dibillitating diseases?
Well, crash-dev, actually there is only anecdotal evidence as to the direct relationship between second-hand smoke and cancer deaths. It's impossible to factor out car exhaust, carpet fibers, paint flakes, human skin, regular dust, paper dust, ink traces, plastic fumes, clothing fibers, cleaning chemicals, and everything else in the air, so there is no accurate statistic since thousands of things may contribute to lung cancer.
AIDS deaths number between 15,000 and 20,000 a year in the US. The flu is responsible for about 36,000 deaths. The guess is second-hand smoke contributes to around 3,000 lung cancer deaths a year, with most of those probably being people living with a smoker. It's never been shown that someone has developed lung cancer from hanging out in bars. Many smokers never get lung cancer while many non-smokers do get lung cancer without considerable exposure.
There is a large element of faith in our guesses that second-hand is the biggest causation of however many deaths. I'm just trying to balance that out with what we positively know about AIDS and flu as two examples. Science would seem to dictate that public policy hold AIDS and the flu as a higher priority, but I believe, as skeeter illustrates, there is more of an element to these smoking bans caused by simple hatred of smokers rather than science. If that's the case it should be acceptable to ask if we are doing this legitimately for health reasons or if it's based more from emotions that lend to discrimination.
When you quit smoking, you do hate smokers.
I'd appreciate a smoke free ban. I think smoking will go the way of spittoons and chewing (banned because of spreading TB I think)...
I guess I'd prefer to see the banning done locally rather than state wide.
I certainly don't think there is a constitutional right to smoke where ever you like.
Trigg,
You danced around the question.
Do you support abolishing all workplace safety restrictions or not?
Moreover, you also ignored the facts about transmission of disease and about the current state of the law.
1. People ARE prosecuted for knowingly passing on AIDS. That is a fact.
2. Casual contact will NOT cause AIDS, unlike smoking which will cause cancer to those in the same room.
Find a new analogy.
Václav Klaus (one smart Bohemian) quoting Sowell via SISU: Václav Klaus takes no prisoners. He should have given fellow country women JBT a hand with speeches.
There is always a limiting (or constraining) of human freedom, there is always ambitious social engineering, there is always an immodest ‘enforcement of a good’ by those who are anointed (T. Sowell) on others against their will, there is always the crowding out of standard democratic methods by alternative political procedures, and there is always the feeling of superiority of intellectuals and of their ambitions.”
As substitutes of socialism, Václav Klaus cited [among other isms] “environmentalism (with its Earth First, not Freedom First principle).
Skeeter, no one has ever been prosecuted for transmitting AIDs between consenting adults. Ever. Is that what you would like to happen? That would seem to be consistent. The question I raised was should we ban risky activity between consenting adults when one has AIDs and the other one knows it. Who's dancing around questions now skeeter?
Smoking does not give someone cancer for sitting it a room with it. There is some evidence to suggest that after years and years and years of sitting in a room with it, it is one of many contributors to lung cancer.
Sure, some safety and health restrictions seem like good ideas when there is sufficient evidence to warrant it, such as banning people with the flu from public places. Do you support banning people with the flu from leaving their homes since the flu causes more deaths than second-hand smoke? Your example of black lung is a good one that luckily the unions pushed for long before the laws followed. But there is simply not the same level of evidence between black lung and tobacco smoke. In fact, black lung is more similar to the flu as a direct cause of death than second-hand smoke is. So without more dancing by you, why are we not banning people with the flu from workplaces if this is really about public health and not social engineering? Why are smoking bans more important than flu bans or risky activity bans on people with AIDs, STDs, etc? If you don't have a logically consistent answer, then move along and read some Václav Klaus to better understand why you have such a need to control some people's risky behavior, but not others or your own.
Skeeter, If you think smoking bans are necessary for public health then Should people with the flu be banned from public and should people with AIDs be banned from risky activity? Yes or no and why? If you won't answer that, skeeter, go away since you have absolutely nothing to add of substance. If all you want to do argue without civility, this thread is done for you.
Trigg,
I want to know if this is about "freedom." Everything else is a digression. As you wrote, "These two bills seem to point out that freedom has become largely a trivial and ignored matter." Especially by you, apparently.
I did answer a question. You deleted it. So much for your version "freedom."
You are the one who said that this is about "freedom." And then you tried to distinguish a smoking ban from mine restrictions based on "evidence" rather than on "freedom."
If your thought process is incoherent, don't blame me.
Is this about evidence of causation or about freedom?
Are restrictions that impinge freedom valid if they are based on "evidence"?
It is your post. Defend it or admit that you are mistaken.
And don't lecture anyone about "freedom" while you delete responses.
Talk about lack of substance -- your entire "argument" lacks substance which is clear because you are completely terrified of trying to defend your own post.
Go ahead and delete the post. But we both know your real view of "freedom" if you do delete. Pretty trivial, isn't it?
Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death. Patrick Henry
Now we hear conseratives saying, Freedom is not free.
It is Free or give me Death!: Anon! unless homeland security can find me.
skeeter, you haven't raised a single credible argument to contradict mine and you haven't answered any legitimate questions.
Since you failed to notice, I'm trying to assume there is a health concern, for the sake of argument, that would warrant the smoking ban and I am comparing the public health assumptions to other public health assumptions which you are doing a bad job of avoiding. I haven't strayed in the least bit from my position that consenting adults should be free to make their own decisions about the risks they take.
Notice, skeeter, coal dust is not illegal and mining for coal is not illegal. The regulations are in place to reduce the harm of coal dust. The smoking ban does not put regulations in place to reduce the assumed harm of tobacco smoke, it outlaws tobacco smoke, completely different than coal dust and coal mining. People are still free to mine coal and create coal dust.
My comparisons between second-hand smoke and AIDs and the flu are entirely appropriate, so I'll assume you have no response.
I'll leave that comment up to show how uncivil and confrontational you are and that you still refuse to address the similarities between protecting people from AIDs and the flu etc. and second-hand smoke. It could be a legitimate discussion without your personal attacks. I will certainly delete your comments that are rude, uncivil, and uncalled for and it has nothing to do with locking you in a jail or taking your property. Deleting those types of comments has nothing to do with freedom, which proves my initial point even more. People don't understand what freedom is, starting with you.
Trigg,
Be a man and delete all my comments. Don't pick and choose. Go all the way with your little attack on freedom.
And next time you talk about freedom, listen closely and you will hear the snickering.
Has anyone ever had a civil discussion with skeeter? Ever?
Attacking freedom? Hmmmm, I'm snickering right now. So you believe you can go anywhere you want and say whatever you want without regard for property rights and without responsiblity or accountability. So Rich is attacking freedom also for declaring an Obama-free zone. Yup, people are snickering all right.
So yes, skeeter, I will delete any further comments that don't civilly address the topic.
Smoking out a Stroger sibling by Neil Steinberg over at the ST,
"I knocked on the door. I waited for the person to come out," said Collins. "There was smoke in there."
When the puffer emerged -- after 20 minutes -- it was Yonnie Lynn Clark, Todd Stroger's sister.
"She started yelling at me, 'I know what this is about!'" said Collins. "And I said, 'You tell me what this is about, other than you smoking in the bathroom.'"
Smoking is banned in public buildings in Cook County. Even if you're related to Todd Stroger.
Post a Comment