Wednesday, December 07, 2005

Victory in Chicago

While the Springfield City Council is too gutless to take a smoking ban seriously (the latest idiotic proposal is to have the ban in effect only from 3:00 AM to 8:00 PM), Chicago today did pass a comprehensive ban.

After an all-night bargaining session, the City Council today agreed to ban smoking on Jan. 16 in virtually all of indoor Chicago, but give taverns and restaurant bars a 2 1/2-year reprieve — or “stay of execution” as one alderman called it.

“Chicago will be smoke-free,” said Health Committee chairman Ed Smith (28th), who received a standing ovation for championing an ordinance that ended a $4 million crusade by the American Cancer Society.

There are some silly provisions in the new Chicago ordinance too but it is basically a comprehensive ban. So, I guess we can now anticipate the imminent demise of all restaurants and bars in Chi Town. Soon you’ll have to do all your dining at the carts of street vendors. So sad, if only those big city people were as smart as we are here.


Anonymous said...

I was against the smoking ban, but I don't understand why Strom wanted to table an ordinance that gave a good chunk of what he wanted. It's not as if people wouldn't have brought it up in the next municipal election and probably made it an issue. It could certainly be extended then. It seems to me that perfect was the enemy of good here, at least if one supported the ban. Want to ban smoking in restaurants? No, I want to ban it everywhere or nowhere. I just don't understand that attitude.

"So, I guess we can now anticipate the imminent demise of all restaurants and bars in Chi Town."

Once again this straw man rears its ugly head. Nobody that I know of has suggested that all restaurants and bars will close if smoking is banned. The Tribune's study suggested that locally owned places tend to be hurt, but that the national chains do well with bans in place.

A straw man is when "The author attacks an argument which is different from, and
usually weaker than, the opposition's argument." My arguments may be stupid; they may be wrong, but they are most certainly not straw men. :)

All the best,


Dave said...

Ummm, it's called sarcasm. But the fact is, business in Chicago will not be hurt in the least by the smoking ban any more then it will be here. Claiming it will is the straw man.

Anonymous said...

That compromise did not give a good chunk of what Strom wanted. The majority of people who want smoking banned want it banned in restaurants where we are trying to eat. The compromise allowed any 'restaurant' with a bar to still allow smoking on premises. That pretty much covers every restaurant except fast food joints. Most restaurants with bars don't have adequate venitlation systems and many do not have them segregated by walls, etc.

The compromise wasn't really one at all.