by Elexis Marie

Created on: October 29, 2008

The Smoking Ban that's been in effect in Illinois since the beginning of this year has been proven to be utterly unenforceable. A single patron can "call in" a violation, the business owner can be visited by officials, but without proof of the incident the officials can do nothing.

In more general terms, this ban has hurt businesses. Many bars and pubs are opting to accept the fines as a cost of doing business. The number of receipts per bar has not declined, as many Ban Supporters will tell you. However, the average ticket amount has decreased, resulting in lower income for the owners. Bottom line : Patrons are spending less times in bars and pubs than they did before the ban went into effect.

Now, should Sangamon County, an area with not one, but two laws prohibiting smoking in public places, enforce the law? If it were possible to enforce, I would say yes. Any law that exists, whether right or wrong, should be enforced to the extent possible, as long as it remains a law.

Why, then, do I hold the opinion that the Sangamon County Health Department should not enforce the law? Because, to the dismay of most Illinois politicians, the law cannot actually be enforced as written. They can respond to possible reports, but in our legal system, someone saying "They did it!" isn't basis for a conviction - or, in this case, a fine.

The enforceability of the law isn't a major issue to many health departments, anyway. After all, for the most part, officials in our state view businesses as adult enterprises, capable of making self-determining decisions. It is the unique perspective of Springfield and Chicago that leads us to view businesses as adolescents in need of constant government supervision.

It may seem like a semantic argument if the law can be "enforced", then enforce it; if not, don't. Looking back on some history of the law, specifically taking note of those who supported it and what they said, it's plain to see that this was intended to be an unenforceable front for a bit of extra revenue from the beginning.

There were many comments from the beginning, most of which revolved around "decreasing smoking" at the same time the state increased revenues from violations. The revenues from the violations, as well as the proposed increase in the per pack tax, were to directly fund the governor's new baby AllKids. Don't get me wrong, AllKids is a great program, at its core. Blagoyavich wanted it to be more expansive than necessary and therefore needed a new way to bring in

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>