Comments on: Local: City police still officially enforcing an unenforceable smoking ban (UPDATED)

By: Elaine Hopkins

Elaine Hopkins — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 14:50:41 +0000

The really weird story is in Macomb, Bushnell and McDonough County where the State’s Atty has allowed $50 contributions to the DARE program (proven to be ineffective) substitute for prosecution for smoking violations. How is any of this legal? If I rob a bank and contribute $100 to a medical charity I won’t be prosecuted? Amazing!

By: Cameron

Cameron — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:28:30 +0000

Like you, Billy, I don’t care one way or the other. I’m curious about Randy Ray’s comments though. I can’t imagine a smoking ticket as grounds to lose your liquor license. That sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.

What about businesses that don’t have liquor licenses…say a regular old factory? If they are caught with people smoking, what will happen? Will the city threaten to change their zoning?

I think Ray’s statement needs some reconsideration. Does anybody know how many, if any, tickets have been issued in Peoria thus far?

By: Ryan Johnson

Ryan Johnson — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:17:22 +0000

Didn’t the court just rule that the courts can’t enforce the ban? Couldn’t, if a city council would pass an oridnance, it still be enforced as an ordinance violation? The way I understood the ruling, the courts can’t rule on it because JCAR hasn’t gotten their thumbs out of their asses and wrote the rules on enforcement.

If I remember the Bureau County case correctly, the Spring Valley police department basically made up their own offense. There is no box to check on the PD’s citation for smoking ban violation, so theymade up their own ticket. In essence, they created their own rules for enforcement when the PD is only supposed to enforce the law. If they aren’t given the tools to enforce, then they can’t arbitrarily (sp?) make up their own tools.

I don’t live in Illinois anymore and I miss it everytime I go out to dinner. The state I moved to is trying to pass a smoking ban and I’m hoping they do it soon and do it right. Don’t exempt bars. Keep it how it is. It’s tough on the older people, but in the long run, it’s the right move.

By: RomanII

RomanII — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:58:41 +0000

dd is right,that decision is not even binding in its own circuit on another judge. Only Appellate Court decisions have any binding authority on other circuit courts. I learned this at Manual in my shop courses, which they no longer teach.

By: dd

dd — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:43:58 +0000

Morton, Sorry, but your wrong. The decision of a circuit court has no binding authority.

By: mortonmalaise

mortonmalaise — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:41:30 +0000

If it’s ruled unconstitutional in Bureau, it creates a precedent because it’s a ruling against a state law, and therefore can be cited in any case in the state.

By: postsimian

postsimian — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:15:33 +0000

Since this hasn’t garnered substantial compliance in bars, they ought to limit the smoking ban to restaurants, where bars are defined as establishments with over 50% of their income comes from alcohol, and restaurants as establishments with over 50% of their income coming from food or non-alcoholic beverages.

If people aren’t complying on a wide scale, it ought to be repealed, as it was with prohibition.

By: dd

dd — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:09:10 +0000

Are you serious? The Journal Star says the law is unenforceable. That a a couple of bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. The decision of the Associate Judge in Bureau County has no effect outside Bureau County (maybe not even there). Until the Applellate Court rules on whether the Bureau County court was correct, there is no law on the issue, and the cops in Peoria City are well within their authority to enforce the statute. Take civics 101, if they still teach it anywhere.

By: ollie

ollie — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:03:49 +0000

there is still a penalty: even if one goes to court, fights the ticket and wins, well, that is X amount of time and hassle.