Pantagraph.com | Letters | Smoking bans are getting out of hand

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

bobfm wrote on Nov 22, 2006 2:40 AM:

" Reading through all the comments one thing stands out as usual and that is the Anti Smoking cannot engage in rationale debate without insulting others. I note that not one anti smoker attempted to counter my earlier post about Ventilation etc. There really is no validity in the arguement that because Smoking Kills, Passive Smoking must also kill. The reality is the quantities of smoking particles in ETS measure in the nangrams (1x1billionth of 1 gram). It is not a coincidence that the EPA suddenly changed the measuring standard for ets particles from 10PM to 2.5PM, the smaller the particle the less effective ventilation/filtration. So what are they going to do now that ventilation/filtration systems can remove particles as small as .25PM. "

Registered voter wrote on Nov 21, 2006 11:58 PM:

" Smoking is a stupid choice. You pay money to destroy your health. How is that anything but dumb? "

thomas Laprade(snowbird) wrote on Nov 21, 2006 9:49 PM:

" Some people claim that second-hand smoke is harmful to your health. If a person thinks it is a health problem, then it is a health problem to him--and only to him. He has a choice to enter or not to enter. If he enters then, he enters at his own risk. The vast majority of non-smokers do not think it is a health problem, otherwise they wouldn't be there in the first place. "

JimB to Judith wrote on Nov 21, 2006 9:11 PM:

" Well said and keep up the good work! Lets not let the witch-hunters take over the country! "

JimB to BLM Business Owner wrote on Nov 21, 2006 9:04 PM:

" Fortunately for you, there are business owners like myself who do more than say "I don't like it" and are working very hard to prevent excessive and unecessary goverment regulation in businesses. Now that you no longer have the right to decide your own smoking policies in Bloomington, expect the city to decide what kinds of foods you can serve your customers. After that, they may limit the number of bars and restaurants to only what they feel is needed. Since you're so complacent, you may be one of the first to get your license pulled. Stand up and fight now or wind up being governed by your inferiors! "

Santa speaks wrote on Nov 21, 2006 6:37 PM:

" All you boys and girls who post hostile comments are getting a lump of coal from me. Now, pretend that you respect one another and try to get along. "

Respect our lungs wrote on Nov 21, 2006 6:24 PM:

" I think the author missed the point. It shows when she says that she is treated "like [she is] carrying a lethal weapon." Well you are!!! That stick you smoke is deadly to you and to the people around you. I don't want to make your life difficult, but why is it so hard to understand that it's YOUR habit, not ours. Sure, you can do what you want with your life, but not everyone wants to make the same choice with their health that you do. Saying that non-smokers should just stay home is puts the blame other people. No, its your habit. Smoke outside or in your home, not where 100 other people have to breathe your smoke along with you. "

gary d wrote on Nov 21, 2006 4:49 PM:

" For many decades players in the National Hockey League did not wear helmets. Vanity, an edge in peripheral vision, and many other possibilities can explain this dangerous individual choice. Injuries were frequent and severe. In 1969 one player had this to say about wearing or not wearing a helmet: “It’s foolish not to wear a helmet. But I don’t–because the other guys don’t . . . But if the league made us do it, though, we’d all wear them and nobody would mind.” A number of secret polls among players confirmed this observation. In 1979 the National Hockey League instituted Helmet Rule 22. OK. That’s a long way to go in order to underline the obvious–second hand smoke is very bad for your health. It’s wrong and should be illegal to expose people to this smoke in facilities that serve the public. Local government officials should step up and do their duty. They should take action to protect the public’s health. "

X wrote on Nov 21, 2006 4:25 PM:

" Amen sister! Excellent letter and thank you. This county, this country for that matter, could sure use their time more wisely, spent on the education system, the crack and meth labs that we know are simmering around town, and what else can I mention? None of anything else matters though because God forbid, the smokers must be discriminated against. God forbid, people spend their time raising heck about more important issues. I swear on Bluehair's Holy Army that this smoking thing is just plain nuts and indeed getting way out of hand. Smoking is a right, just as non smoking is. I'd like to spy on some of these non-smokers that are raising a fuss. What bad things are YOU doing? Sure, ya might not be a smoker, but I'll betcha ya'll are doing other things that, God forbid, you wouldn't want your neighbors getting wind of. Let the smokers be! Smokers unite! "

Bo Peep wrote on Nov 21, 2006 2:39 PM:

" to: Blm Business Owner: Nice try, butt (pun intended), the difference it that the smoking environment that is created in a bar or restaurant is not a product or a commodity that you provide. The ban is a regulation after the fact, against a certain behavior that is only harmful to people who choose to expose themselves to it. It's a by-product of your patrons who chose to frequent your establish- ment. Patrons who choose not to frequent your establishment are not affected. If you can't distinguish between serving rancid meat to everyone, or letting your customers and potential customers make a choice to be exposed to smoke, you're just a sheep like the rest of these folks. "

Scarlett wrote on Nov 21, 2006 2:19 PM:

" Can someone out there tell me who is forcing people to patronize privately owned bars and restaurants that allow smoking? Are they forcibly removing them from their homes? Are they pulling them out of their cars? Are there gangs of thugs involved or just one individual? Have the authorities been notified? This is tragic, no...it's more than tragic, it's an injustice. Please someone tell me who is doing this? "

Blm Business Owner wrote on Nov 21, 2006 10:30 AM:

" First, the lack of intelligent arguements on these forums is incredible. Second, until you have owned and operated a business that serves the public, your point about taking choices out of the business owners hands is moot. I am already told the hours of which I may sell liquor, the type of lighting that I must use, the temperature that my food must be stored at and sold at. I am regulated as to the type of signing that I can use, the insulation, type of paint, distance between outdoor seating and the curb, how to wash my dishes, amount of bleach that is allowed in a bucket of water and the type/quality of equipment that I must buy. And as a business owner, I can tell you that the vast majority is done for the health, safety and benefit of the public that I serve, as well as my employees. Because of that, while I may not particularly like it, I can't come up with a valid arguement against it. And no, "I don't like it." is not a valid arguement. "

to Judith wrote on Nov 21, 2006 7:57 AM:

" Our holier-than-thou attitudes are a pain in your backside? Your disgusting habit is a pain in my backside. Thanks. "

TO: You just don't get it wrote on Nov 21, 2006 7:51 AM:

" I think you finally did get it and it was within your own post. You wrote the following statement: "IF YOU OWN THE PLACE, YOU DECIDE WHAT GOES ON INSIDE, AS LONG AS IT IS LEGAL. Well, as of January 1st, 2007, it will be ILLEGAL to smoke inside any public building, therefore, the bar owner will not be able to allow smoking inside his/her business. "

Hey Josh wrote on Nov 21, 2006 7:26 AM:

" You say you want some evidence of bar patrons, how about some proof that second hand smoke causes cancer? You are merely spewing liberal rhetoric with no sound research to back it up. Oh unless you are counting the study that concluded that one certain activity if repeated, can make you go blind. "

I am not a smoker wrote on Nov 21, 2006 6:58 AM:

" I have never been a smoker. I don't like smoke. That said I also don't like rights being taken away (the right of the bar owner) because the next thing you know something I'm doing will be attacked. My husband has a big truck that uses a lot of gas, so we must be horrible people. Are you arrogant do gooders going to outlaw my truck? It's all well and fine until YOU'RE the one being attacked. You can't sterilize the world. The do gooders scare me. To you it's all or nothing. Your way or the highway. And of course you're right and no one else could possibly have a point. You think: they smoke = they are stupid, so that invalidates anything they might say. What you give will return to you ten fold so you would be wise to live and let live. "

Bobfm wrote on Nov 21, 2006 1:01 AM:

" I am from England, I am a lifelong never smoker. I have researched Passive Smoking. The truth is a simple one. Environemental Tobacco Smoke is an irritant, not an inducer of chronic illness as the anti smoking lobby claim. They simply lie. But even if ETS was an issue the smoke and it's contents can be neutralised by Plasmaclust Ion Techonology(PCI). Look it up Bans do not improve air quality 100%/probably at best 30%. PCI removes 99.75% of ALL air borne particulates. That is cleaner than outside. Smoking does kill some but only 8% not the 50% always claimed. Many die of natural morbidity at age ranges from 65 to 90. However the stats say smoking related. "

TO Normal Resident wrote on Nov 20, 2006 9:01 PM:

" Please explain why health related illnesses to smoking has drastically increased over the last three decades when in fact smokers have decreased. That is, if you're so smart. The research has been done, the question has been answered, look it up and maybe you'll learn something or even save a life with this new info. "

TO Buckwheat Josh wrote on Nov 20, 2006 8:58 PM:

" My my my my my my my...dude, you are so like dancing around your own issues...your question was answered and you went off on some other tangenst. You said that "...half the people don't go to bars/restaurants..." I did the comaprison on approximate population of B-N...guess you missed it, huh lil bucky? "

Normal resident wrote on Nov 20, 2006 5:34 PM:

" to "you just don't get it" Yes i am for this ban. And yes I have trouble with the goverment telling a businees owner how to run his business. But on that same line of thought... if there were not laws to limit how old you have to be to go into the bar.. I am sure the bar owners would serve anyone who could pay for a beer or reach the bar. The same with occupancy limits... if there weren't laws to limit the amount of people in a bar... they would just let more people in.. no matter what the fire risk. Society has rules so that too many people in a certain area is against the law and selling of booze to a minor is against the law. The bar owners have to abide by these and other rules to have a liqour license. Times change. This isn't like the old days where most of the people smoked. It's down to 20 some percent now. Seems like to me that the bar owners should work on the 80% (that dont smoke) and make them happy. "

A nonsmoker's opinion wrote on Nov 20, 2006 4:43 PM:

" My workplace banned smoking. I was delighted, at first. Then the smokers started sucking smokeless tobacco. If you think smoking is disgusting, hang around people who use that smokeless tobacco. Now I'm begging management to let them smoke again. I'd rather take my chances with Second Hand Smoke, then have to watch these idiots spit all day long. "

You Just Don't Get It wrote on Nov 20, 2006 3:07 PM:

" All of you non-smokers making comments, just don't get it, do you? It is NOT about having a right to smoke.......it IS about independent business owners (such as those that own bars/taverns) having a right to allow smoking if that is their wish. It is THE OWNER'S RIGHT. Not the non-smoker vs. the non-smoker issues. iF YOU OWN THE PLACE, YOU DECIDE WHAT GOES ON INSIDE, AS LONG AS IT IS LEGAL. And cigarettes are legal. Why is that so hard for non-smokers to understand? You want a non-smoking establishment, go buy one! "

D man wrote on Nov 20, 2006 2:57 PM:

" What a pathetic attempt to validate your weakness. Wave your stinky, nicotene stained, freedom of choice flag somewhere else. At least you recognize your disgusting habit, although to weak or stupid to try and remedy your addiction. I would'nt worry about a "pain in the backside", your problem areas will be heart, lungs, and throat. You obviously hav'nt "come a long way baby" "

Deal wrote on Nov 20, 2006 2:16 PM:

" Your objection to the smoking ban is valid, but it is still going to happen. Sorry, but it is sad that your addiction has such a hold on your life. You would rather harm others just so you can smoke. "

to: over18 wrote on Nov 20, 2006 2:15 PM:

" It gets tiring having to rebut this old argument all the time but here goes... being overweight is a health hazard to that person. However, his/her obesity poses no hazard to anyone else. Conversely, smoking affects not only the smoker but also all others who inhale the smoke. That really is an easy concept to grasp if you try. "

Josh wrote on Nov 20, 2006 2:02 PM:

" To whoever called me buckwheet, nice answer, twinkletoes. Keep dancing around the issues why don't cha. Do you realize how many restaurants and bars do we have in Bloomington-Normal? Have you been to these places on nights when they're packed? Obviously not. You're telling me that the majority of people who go to these places are smokers?? Give me a break. Come back when you have a better answer "

over18! wrote on Nov 20, 2006 12:38 PM:

" is this still AMERICA??? Are you sure?? Illegal Aliens DO have more rights than an AMERICAN who smokes!! whats next? Ban over-weight people from food at the stores? Isnt being over weight a "health hazzard"? All these years "smoking" is OK, NOW its NOT. OF course, but of course TELL US WHAT TO DO. I WORK, I PAY TAXES, I SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO SMOKE IN PLACES OTHER THAN MY HOME. CELL PHONES USERS?? HAZZARD WHILE DRIVING!?!? I guess people cant "control" their own lives, so WHY not go control OTHERS!!!! What people need to remember, is that while you put down SMOKERS, you need to look in your back yard, because IM sure you DO things OTHERS dont like!!! Its so GRADE SCHOOL!! "

Ty Webb wrote on Nov 20, 2006 12:07 PM:

" "Enough with all the laws!!! I'm going to start speeding, taking free money out of my bank, go through the buffet line with the same plate and I'm going to run with scissors!! Watch out, no one is going to stop me!!!" "

Common Sense wrote on Nov 20, 2006 12:02 PM:

" I don't smoke, but I will take the smoking ban more seriously when they ban Cell phone use while driving. It is a far greater and more immediate threat to my life. I can not go to bars, and I don't have issues any restuarants here. But I do have to go to work, pick up my kids, and get groceries. These cell phone users are out of control and dangerous. SHS is the least of my concerns. "

Another Smoker wrote on Nov 20, 2006 10:28 AM:

" Great Letter Judith. You are so right about the holier than thou crowd and the fact that many of these pillars of society probably never set foot into a bar. These nay sayers should stick to saving the whales or living in trees they want to protect. Leave the bar patrons with their cigarettes alone already. "

poor smokers wrote on Nov 20, 2006 10:11 AM:

" pitiful emotions from smokers blow your smoke into your own face in your own residence and pay for your own portion of your healthcare costs and increase to products due to smoking related loss of production "

TO Josh... wrote on Nov 20, 2006 9:35 AM:

" ...here is the answer to your challenge buckwheat. There are approximately 100,000 people in this town. Imagine the traffic generated if 50,000 of those people went to the bars every night or even 3 times a week. Current capacity levels couln't handle it, or you would need to build a couple hunded or so more bars. "

Another reader wrote on Nov 20, 2006 9:09 AM:

" Great letter! Thank you Judith. "

Woodford Pundit wrote on Nov 20, 2006 8:58 AM:

" Everyone made fun of the "slippery slope"ers around here, but a town in California (Belmont, Ca) recently banned smoking EVERYWHERE, except single family, non-atached residences. That means condos, apartments, cars, parks, parking lots, the town dump . . . you name it. "

Josh wrote on Nov 20, 2006 8:11 AM:

" You may be aware of the risks to yourself, but you're obviously don't understand the risks to others from the second-hand smoke and the damage it does. At least you say it's a choice, and not a right, like other misguided people. Also, I challenge the statement that half the people don't go to bars and restaurants. Please show me some evidence to support that. For example, 'm a non-smoker who used to go out to bars and restaurants; I have asthma-smoking makes it hard for me to breath and causes me to cough & hack. I had to stop going because it was so hard for me to breathe. "

Sad day wrote on Nov 20, 2006 7:53 AM:

" It is a sad day when we let these extremist take over our government and decide for the masses. "

Reader wrote on Nov 20, 2006 6:28 AM:

" And Judy those Non-Smokers that are getting into your business are doing it to be BUSY BODIRES its not because they care. They are being Plain Jerks about it. "

DLC wrote on Nov 20, 2006 6:26 AM:

" I'm not a smoker, but I agree they shouldn't ban it from the bars. What are they going to do next, ban alcohol from the bars too, if they think it's such a health hazard? "

In This Country... wrote on Nov 20, 2006 3:34 AM:

" ...smokers have less rights than illegal aliens. "

ChrisB wrote on Nov 20, 2006 2:23 AM:

" A great letter that calmly gives a smokers opimion. We know there is a health aspect to smoking damage but anti-smoking activists do not care that the coercive nature of their demands are a form of legalised hatred. Smoking kills but so does social exclusion and associated depression. A democracy unable to allow a large legal group any indoor meeting place cannot call itself a democracy. A group with only 51% of the votes can claim that damage to 2.5 people in 100,000, yes that's the claimed deaths from secondhand smoke, is ample justification for imposing their wishes upon 49,000 out of each 100,000. "

Hey Judith! wrote on Nov 20, 2006 2:10 AM:

" BlowItOutTheOtherEndItMightSmellBetterAsSmokingStinks! "

Ads by Yahoo!

Los Angeles Limousine Service

LAX Limousine Service

Los Angeles - 24Hr Production Catering