Fact or Fiction

Dispelling popular myths, misperceptions, and urban legends with logic (and humor)

Identifying misleading arguments and statistics and searching for pragmatic solutions

The place for critical thinkers, skeptics, and political centrists

Politics                                        Business
Issues                                              Taxes
Life                                              Research
Health                                         Questions
Entertainment                               The Truth
Media                                The Whole Story

Council Enacts Smoking Ban for Selfish Reasons

Print the article

This entry was posted on 2/9/2007 12:43 AM and is filed under Politics.

Dear Mike Coulter: (and IlliniPundit)

I just want you to know that the City Councils did not necessarily enact the smoking bans to save you from the harms of tobacco.  Instead, we did so for purely selfish reasons:

Reason #1: We didn't want to be forced to inhale smoke while we were eating.  We didn't want to go home smelling like a chimney after visiting local bars.  (Notice that I'm not mentioning anything about the health effects of smoking.  Any who considered the health factor was only primarily worried about the effect on non-smokers.)  And, by the way, perhaps Champaign and Urbana Council Members do visit local bars.  They just don't always go to the same places as you, because those bars are hostile toward people who publicly supported the smoking bans.

Reason #2: We want to get reelected.  The majority of Champaign and Urbana voters support the smoking bans (See Reason #1.)

By the way, another benefit of the smoking ban issue is that it really riles people up.  This blog is not really about local issues, but I write about the smoking ban because doing so has literally brought hundreds of visitors to my websites.  I guess that's selfish too, isn't it?

 del.icio.us  Stumbleupon  Technorati  Digg 

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
Trackback specific URL for this entry
  • No trackbacks exist for this entry.
Comments
    Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

    • 2/9/2007 8:14 AM Craig wrote:
      Excellent response to a (by his own words) moronic article. Funny how in the last few days I've noticed an overwhelming number of people in the bars very happy for the new smoke free environment. I'm guessing it's only unpopular with the hardcore idiots (again, by his own words)who are truly selfish and insist that the majority (ie. NON smokers) must bend to the will and desires of the steamed minority.
      Way to go, Ken!!
      Reply to this
    • 2/9/2007 9:06 AM B is for Business wrote:
      I appreciate that you are honest and have confirmed what many suspected from the beginning. Do mind sharing what bars are hostile to you and what they are doing to be hostile? I am intrigued by this accusation.
      Reply to this
    • 2/9/2007 10:01 AM Anonymous wrote:
      I don't go to bars to eat....

      I still can't understand why you all feel the need to protect yourself from smoke while you pickle your liver by drinking poison. Don't you know alcohol is *bad* for you?
      Reply to this
    • 2/9/2007 2:08 PM Mattvarble wrote:
      Um, there was a restaurant only ordinance pending in September of 2005 but the Mayor of Champaign refused to compromise and wouldn't give an inch. Thus by doing so we have a complete ban today. So you can thank the Mayor of Champaign about this result as compromise was attempted from the outset.
      Reply to this
    • 2/9/2007 2:17 PM Anonymous wrote:
      OMG Ken, I've also realized you're being pragmatic about this! Shame on you!
      Reply to this
    • 2/9/2007 11:39 PM Anonymous wrote:
      I'll bet the bar owners are very happy you decided to buy yourself votes with their money. Way to have a backbone. I wonder how you would have voted on segregation 40 years ago.
      Reply to this
      1. 2/10/2007 12:29 PM Ken Pirok wrote:
        Wait, if bar owners donated money to my campaign, and I still voted against their issue...Does that not show that their money did NOT buy my vote and that I DO have a backbone?
        Reply to this
        1. 2/10/2007 2:44 PM Nice try wrote:
          it's funny, I used to consider you a sort of libertarian. I guess the key emphasis should now be on "sort of", rather than "libertarian". I was at the Blind Pig last night and it smelled of stale beer. Really disgusting. I was at Murphy's last week, and it smelled of bleach and stale beer. Disgusting. I guess the only solution using your contorted logic is to ban both beer and bleach so that people are not exposed to the disgusting odors of bleach and beer.

          I can't wait until people start bringing their kids into bars that do not serve food, purely because now little Mikey won't be exposed to smoke in his widdle lungs. They might as well just close all of the bars at that point.

          (Yes I realize that turned into a rant. Oh well)
          Reply to this
        2. 2/10/2007 3:31 PM Anonymous wrote:
          You misunderstood. By voting for the ban, you are taking money out of their pockets to buy yourself votes. And spineless because you bent to the will of the mob rather than defend private business's right of self-determination. You used to stand for such things....Section 8
          Reply to this
          1. 2/10/2007 7:03 PM Ken Pirok wrote:
            So, voting for the will of the majority (and my conscience) is undemocratic?
            Reply to this
            1. 2/10/2007 10:45 PM Anonymous wrote:
              So NOW it's your conscience. If I recall, you had everyone: Council, Mayor, the Citizenry, and even the Smoke Free Alliance, believing you were %100 against banning in bars. Then, without one word of defense or "conscience" you changed your mind. And then you dodged the press for at least two days. Was your conscience so strong that you couldn't say anything to anyone about it?

              Besides, you just said that it was your preference and with no concern for health that you voted, not that I believe that, but I don't see where conscience fits in there.

              Conscience guides what is right not what is desirable. Conscience and your usual defense of small business, should have led you to defend the rights of private business owners against the mob.

              Turncoats are always useful to the other side, they are often courted as heroes, but when it comes down to it, neither side respects them.
              Reply to this
              1. 2/11/2007 10:27 PM Ken Pirok wrote:
                Actually, the exact opposite of what you're saying is true. I was very clear in the News Gazette before the meeting that I was voting for whichever form of the smoking ban would pass.

                Also, I talked to the press extensively afterward. Check out the News Gazette, the DI, the Trib, the Sun Times, and the AP.

                Go back and look!
                Reply to this
    • 2/11/2007 11:29 AM gk wrote:
      two things do not get mentioned enough here: first, alcohol is not purely "bad" for you! doctors recommend a few glasses of red wine as actually being GOOD for you! second, what about people that like to play/listen to live music? 95% of it is at bars (earplugs make it harm -free as well).
      Reply to this
    • 2/14/2007 10:38 AM Jim Brandt wrote:
      I hope there are more people around town, like me who never voted before in local elections (honestly, previously I could of cared less what happened in this little town) but now are voting only to vote out everyone who voted for this fascist law. The thing is, if you fools had just made the law the bar and grills in town (and not the pubs) I would not have even bothered.
      Reply to this
    • 2/15/2007 8:48 AM mattvarbl wrote:
      Mr. Brandt we had a compromise proposal for restaurants only in 2005 but the Mayor refused to compromise which polarized the issue. So your frustration is misdirected. Instead look at the person who forced the issue as it wasn't something that was going away or to be ignored and the community wanted some version of this. The Mayors poor leadership and poor negotiation skills and stubborness are largely the reason for this being a complete ban.
      Reply to this
    • 2/15/2007 10:32 AM Craig wrote:
      Funny how its always the "anonymous" guy in a forum who accuses others of not having a backbone.

      And then there is always the fun guy who suddenly decides to get involved in the democratic process because there is some new law he doesnt like that suddenly wakes him up to what it means to be American.
      Funny, because its still the majority that wins elections.
      Sad because after his failed attempt to remove someone from office he'll probably go back to just bitching about how screwed up the system is.
      Reply to this
    • 2/18/2007 1:17 AM IlliniGrad wrote:
      How do you respond to the descreased business that bars have had since the ban has been passed? The Daily Illini wrote an article saying the bars were missing 30+% of their business. And do not blame the cold, the same article cited increased drunk driving and a UI7 broadcast reported 50% increase in patronage at Savoy establishments over the same period of time. While the ban may be helping Savoy business, do you support hurting Champaign business and support increasing drunk driving? After answering these previous questions, answer the most important one: has the ban actually helped the people? A recent DI article questioned the actual air quality in establishments. Why don't you spear head that investigation? Let's prove that air quality in a smoke free Kams is actually better than the air quality in a smoke filled Savoy Wild Wings. Having breathed air in both locations, I think I already know the result but I invite you to prove your point.
      Reply to this
      1. 2/18/2007 5:31 PM Ken Pirok wrote:
        I know you think you're a genius, but your argument has no merit. Look at my previous blog entry called Smoke and Mirrors. Click on the link to the temperatures. Something like the coldest seven days in at least the past three years have been this month. There was also a blizzard the likes of which we haven't seen in years. Did you miss that?

        I don't have to prove anything about the air quality; it is self-evident. That's a study I'll leave you to ponder or to initiate yourself. Kam's would probably volunteer for your study.
        Reply to this
    • 2/19/2007 8:24 AM mattvarbl wrote:
      Oh, all bars business is down 30% and a clear link to the smoking ban..really? Show the cause and effect there other than an opinion. I'm sure everybody got in their car to drive to Savoy in the white-out blizzard to smoke in -10 degrees with 30MPH winds. Besides some bars are openly ignoring (and bragging about ignoring) the smoking ban and continue to allow smoking in their establishments, so how can these same bars claim an economic loss as a result of the ban if they haven't followed the law and still allow that behavior to continue?
      Reply to this
    • 2/19/2007 7:27 PM Mattvarbl wrote:
      Apparently one of our supporters (of CU Smokefree) was verbally harassed and berated and yelled and screamed at by the owner of Memphis on Main (due to being identified as a supporter of the Smoking Ban) on Saturday February 17 th and the owner allegedly then took her pictures and said they would post them on their internet site and make fun of her. The Champaign Police were called to the establishment and they made them destroy the pictures, but no criminal charges were filed. I believe she will appear before City Council to describe what happened publicly and we have already gone to the press to disclose this incident.

      This again reaffirms the prior discussion we had been having about hostile behavior driving customers away from businesses downtown as opposed to the smoking ban causing a drop in business. Now Memphis on Main will get allot of bad press for their ignorant and terrible behavior which I believe will certainly hurt their business as now I wouldn't even consider going there at all (nor would I go to the Blind Pig anymore).
      Reply to this
    Leave a comment

    Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.

     Enter the above security code (required)

     Name

     Email (will not be published)

     Website

    Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.



      
    Copyright . http://FACTORFICTIONBLOG.COM. All rights reserved.