Pass the Cigs II

|

And Chicago is playing catch-up with New York.

A proposal under consideration there "calls for a ban on smoking in restaurants, offices, banks, bingo halls, movie theaters, lobbies, gymnasiums, shopping malls, pool halls, bowling alleys, waiting areas of public transit stations, grocery stores and sporting arenas, among other venues.

"Among the few exceptions? Homes (as long as they don't double as licensed child care, adult care or health care facilities), cars (as long as they're not owned by the city) and bars (as long as they're not attached to a restaurant)."

Another version would extend the ban to all bars.

Advertisement

NEXT: Cardinal Law Death Watch

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. More silly legislation, most of the places mentioned already ban smoking on their own.

    The best though is “waiting areas of public transit stations.” The CTA already has signage up indicating that you will be arrested by the police if you are smoking on CTA property (this is implied by the pictures used, not the actual words.) If this is the case, service will go down the toilet as the largest group of people violating this policy are CTA employees.

  2. A law very similar to the one described in the article just went into effect in Delaware. Stay tuned…

  3. While it seems ridiculous to govern whether or not you may smoke in a privately owned institution (leave at up to the owner, thank you), i see no moral problem with banning it in public places. I think too often you see people advocating that we should be able to smoke wherever we want. No, we should be able to smoke wherever the owner says we can. If said owner is the public, well, we’re just screwed. That’s one of the problems with public property.

  4. If you mean public as government owned land, i would agree.

    But the problem is the majority of the new laws dont target government land, they target private property such as restruants, and other businesses.

    So if i understood your wording right, im basicly saying i agree with you (todd).

  5. You liberal nannynaggers don’t want to give us the choice option to smoke a cigarette , yet you demand the choice option to KILL unborn human beings with no restrictions.

    Hypocrites one and all.

  6. Recently, the small and oh so very conservative city of West Bend, Wi. tried to pass their own ban on smoking in bars and resturants. It was stuck down twice so far. So much for the idea that right-wingers want limited government.

  7. Rob,
    Sounds like we are agreed, then.

    JtD,
    That’s not the case. Us “liberal nannynaggers” do think you should be able to smoke a ciggarette. Many even think you should be able to smoke other things as well; however, in both cases, you should not be able to put others at risk who have not accepted said risk.
    Also, as i recently noted here, there is still a debate on the abortion issue.

  8. And now Boston has joined the tobacco prohibitionist movement.

  9. JtD: If abortionists left discarded fetuses laying around in the streets and performed the operations in public, then I’m sure there would be lots of complaints from the Left.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.