Pantagraph.com | Letters | Support passage of state smoking ban

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.

Lisa wrote on Mar 29, 2007 7:50 PM:

" Haha, the Senate just passed a statewide ban. In your face...... "

Lisa wrote on Mar 27, 2007 9:51 PM:

" Oh please, all you smokers are just a burden on society and the healthcare system. All you're doing is committing suicide. Just very slowly. It's survival of the fittest. And if you had been keeping up with current events for the past fifteen year,s you would see countless news stories of people who have contracted lung cancer from secondhand smoke. I pity all you fools who believe otherwise. "

Lisa wrote on Mar 27, 2007 4:07 PM:

" So what? What matters is the fact that secondhand smoke DOES make people sick and can kill someone if there are given enough exposure. There is no denying that. I am a living example. I've had coughs that have lasted days after being in a smoky bar for a couple of hours. So, the ignorant people that still believe secondhand smoke isn't safe need to do some reading or just go to a bar. Easy to figure out. "

John Mies wrote on Mar 27, 2007 1:44 PM:

" "Everyday in Illinois eight people - about 2,900 a year - who have never smoked die from exposure to secondhand smoke." An inaccurate and misleading figure. That's almost five times the number of deaths from alcohol-related driving accidents and it seems that the 2,900 figure is highly questionable. We know the unfortunate number of alcohol-related driving deaths each year with some certainty, but I would challenge you find the support for the claim that there are 2,900 deaths each year from second-hand smoke in Illinois. I don't think there is any scientific support for such a figure. If you are going to cite justification to support a smoking ban, then that justification ought to be based on facts, not assertions. "

Dave wrote on Mar 27, 2007 12:32 AM:

" If I am a Non-smoker, and I want to go to a place that is not smoke free, (for whatever reason, good food, entertainment, friends). Am I being bullied by the smokers when I choose not to go there? And is this a decision I should have to make? "

John wrote on Mar 27, 2007 12:26 AM:

" It is true that us smokers do not have the constitutional right to smoke. But what we do have (like everybody else in this fine country) is the constitutional right of choice....or so I thought. It is quite unfortunate that when this Bill is passed I will be forced to become a criminal of society knowing that I will not be able to quit. What is even worse is that our local law enforcement agencies will be even more overburdened trying to enforce this. I must say though that I have grown tired of funding road repair projects that my cigarette tax dollars are geared towards. So my answer to this problem is to ban the sales of tobacco alltogether and let the non-smokers step up and foot the bill for these kinds of projects. With these tax dollars absent out of our local budget, what tax increase do you non-smokers propose to replace our dollar? "

Make No Small Bans wrote on Mar 26, 2007 11:43 PM:

" It's time for a worldwide ban on smoking. No smoking anywhere on Earth. Smoke free planet. No exceptions. "

to AWESOME!!! wrote on Mar 26, 2007 11:01 PM:

" when they get to something you do, you will cry louder than all the rest "

to Robert Marks from middle of the road dude wrote on Mar 26, 2007 11:00 PM:

" Ah another one that can see the big picture "

To: it's about science wrote on Mar 26, 2007 10:46 PM:

" If it were about science, there wouldn't be a smoking ban. You see, there's this little inconvenient thing called the scientific method. So far, no one has proven that shs causes any deaths, let alone 8/day in Illinois. So it's not about science. It's about you imposing your values and morals on me so that my smoke doesn't annoy you. And last time I checked, you don't have a constitutional right to not be annoyed. "

it's about science wrote on Mar 26, 2007 9:09 PM:

" okay...the smokers are demanding a study that proves that second hand smoke has caused a death. I don't know where you would come up with a study group that could statistically prove that. However, we can say that there are agents in cigarette smoke that without a doubt are carcinogens. Therefore it would be reasonable to assume that puffing them into the air of those that choose not to inhale them voluntarily, or demand to NOT ingest them involuntarily would be adding a known carcinogenic into their atmosphere. The burden of proof in this case is on the polluters. The most empirical data would be of flight attendants in the smoking days of air travel who have contracted lung cancer. Their unions are making payoffs for longterm healthcare as a result. By the way...there is a ban, and the burden of proof to have it lifted is now on you. I doubt you will ever see it. "

AWESOME!!! wrote on Mar 26, 2007 7:55 PM:

" There will be a State wide ban. And smokers are going to cry and cry and cry and cry and cry and cry about their little smoker rights. Smokers forget real quick that they can still smoke, just not in bars or diners or in cars with children, or in hospitals or in planes or in the mall or in the doctors office or in school. This is clearly a conspiracy to take away smoker rights. No way these laws pass to actually protect the health of patrons, patients, children and workers....no way. This is just a danged ole conspiracy against danged ole smokers. "

Tis wrote on Mar 26, 2007 6:53 PM:

" Find the addresses and write your government officials. Banning is wrong. I don't smoke but what is going on is wrong, wrong, wrong. I've been saying it for a long time. And you need to act now. Go visit Peoria Journal Star, they have an article where government is trying to ban things we eat!!! And for all you have supported the smoking ban, YOU let this happen!!! "

Are we a bunch of sheep? wrote on Mar 26, 2007 6:41 PM:

" I'm a non-smoker & I must admit that I feel like I'm listening to a bunch of sheep baahh, because they can't make the decision to stay away from places that might have shs. I did it for years before the ban and continue doing so now. These few people are the kind who need someone else to make the decisions for them. their bosses, their families, and now the people who want to take away all our freedom of choice. Do we need to be led around by our noses because we can't think for ourselves? I sure hope not. Don't let the few power hungry people waste our tax dollars tying up legislature with problems like this. I for one would rather see my money spent finding jobs, feeding & housing those who need them. This is just a trivial thing the power hungry are trying to turn into a bigger issue than it really is. Don't like shs? Then stay away. It's as simple as that. "

Robert Marks wrote on Mar 26, 2007 5:53 PM:

" I am not familiar with any particular wording in the constitution regarding a right to smoke cigarettes. Certainly the constitution was written specifically and in generalities. Related but off the smoking subject the constitution does not provide for citizens to pay income taxes. Although we all do because since 1913 with the Federal Researve Act "our" government illegally bullies us into paying these taxes. Pay or go to jail and have your assets seized. I pay, you pay. MY point, related to the enactment of more laws be it smoking or junk food or wearing spandex is that we as Americans need to stop encouraging government to pass more laws limiting our or our neighbors freedoms. I am just sick and tired of more laws from our government period. "

afraid wrote on Mar 26, 2007 4:24 PM:

" I had a heart attack last year. I guess it was because I went into that bar with the smoke once. Darn those smokers for all my problems. "

Tired wrote on Mar 26, 2007 4:22 PM:

" This is getting so tired. This ban craze is about power and control not about rights or even health. Fanatics are getting off on being able to deny something to someone else. It gives them a high. They need help. If you choose to go into a buisiness that allows smoking and die from it, it is your fault, no one elses. First you have to find the illusive SHS syndrome. "

Waffle of Justice wrote on Mar 26, 2007 3:49 PM:

" Everyday in Illinois eight people - about 2,900 a year - who have never smoked die from exposure to secondhand smoke. I for one would like to meet these people that live in a controled environment all their lives to die the first time they are exposed to 2nd hand smoke because we all know that the only thing harmful in the air is cigarette smoke. Until the smoke nazis can prove that one person has died directly related to 2nd hand cig smoke and not to the air they breathe on a daily basis I will continue to claim the research has tainted results. "

Mark Roberts wrote on Mar 26, 2007 3:47 PM:

" To "Robert Marks" Freedom?? Freedom?? Where in the Constitution does is say you have the right to inflict damage to another person's body with your SHS? Please.. show me what part of the Constitution has that and where? God given rights to freedom? I must have missed that. must have been the 11th Commandment....mmmmm. "

observer wrote on Mar 26, 2007 2:23 PM:

" I certainly hope all the people who are AGAINST these bans, whether because of being smokers or believing in freedom of choice, are letting their legislators,senators,representatives know how they feel. It doesn't do a lot of good talking here if the people who are "in charge" of our lives are not told - and LOUDLY! "

an idea.... wrote on Mar 26, 2007 1:23 PM:

" Maybe we should lebel it a drug and all of us smokers could then claim disability. LOL (it works for alcohol) "

Zak wrote on Mar 26, 2007 11:47 AM:

" We all have a choice. We can choose to smoke. We can choose not to smoke. We can choose to eat at a place that lets customers smoke and we can choose not to eat at those places. This is a matter of freedom of choice. I'm a non-smoker and I even disagree with this type of legislation. If I don't want to expose myself to shs, then I avoid places that let others smoke. If there is no such place, I stay home, I don't have to eat out. What right does the government have to tell a person who owns his/her own establishment that they can't let people smoke on their property? It just doesn't make sense. "

Easy wrote on Mar 26, 2007 9:45 AM:

" This is an easy one. No, not now, not tomorrow. If they want to make smoking illegal, or sales illegal, fine. Ban happy freaks need to be stopped. "

No wrote on Mar 26, 2007 9:43 AM:

" Just say no to needless and useless laws, proposed by lonely, pathetic people. Power is all they seek, and no common sense has been applied to these 'bans'. Just say no. "

Come on GC, like you said wrote on Mar 26, 2007 9:42 AM:

" we're all going to die of something....right? "

GC wrote on Mar 26, 2007 9:30 AM:

" To all you NON smokers please do us a great favor You talk about your right to go any where and not breath second hand smoke and that it kill's. So don't go there it your right not too. To people complaining about there reaction to smoke allergies and what not Don't expose your self to it that's your right. It's freedom of choice if you don't like don’t go. So you need the government making all your choices for you. Heck they can't even balance the budget cut spending. So you think there going to cut out a year money maker by banning cigarettes? As for freedom that was promised when the country was founded. Well they have already taken most of it way but I for one will defend the smokers right to smoke where ever they want inside out side. Were all going to die of something so if second hand smoke bothers you don’t go near it. But do me a great favor DON’T DRINK and DRIVE that kills more people. "

Polarizing issue wrote on Mar 26, 2007 9:24 AM:

" This issue seems to polarize people. Everyone needs to look at both sides and come to their own conclusion without name calling, etc. For those who support it, it is a health issue. However, those against it have issues such as freedom of choice, etc. I don't smoke but have issues with a total ban for a couple of reasons. One being, where is the tax money going to come from with fewer smokers? The $2 billion in tax dollars Illinois received alone from cig. tax is going to have to made up somewhere. Also, this is a capitalistic economy system. If there is such a desire for smoke free taverns and restaurants, let the consumers decide where they choose to spend their money and business owners decide on who they want to serve. If tobacco is such a detrimate to health, then it should be illegal. The problem is too much money from taxes is created from it. "

mmmm, wrote on Mar 26, 2007 8:23 AM:

" let me think about that, um, NO! "

ex-smoker wrote on Mar 26, 2007 8:18 AM:

" I have never heard of anyone dying from second hand smoke. The only time I see of this is in an article like this one. "Uncle Jeb died last month from second hand smoke, he apparently worked in the field next to Gilbert who smoked." Yeah, right! "

Woodford Pundit wrote on Mar 26, 2007 8:15 AM:

" Looks like there may be a need for an Illinois law pertaining to Second Hand Science. "

You all are so sad.. wrote on Mar 26, 2007 8:11 AM:

" YOu people on here saying nasty things about smokers, how old are you? Come on you all are being to rude and you are acting like kids... We are people too, just remember that smokers are not bad people... so people need to think before you open your mouth and say things that are uncalled for.. "

I Agree with real simple wrote on Mar 26, 2007 7:32 AM:

" Pass a law and ban tobacco sales in Illinois,But if they do pass Smoke-Free Illinois Act, otherwise known as Senate Bill 500 and House Bill 246.Wouldn't they have to do that??????If you can't smoke in Illinois you can't sell them in Illinois.........NEVER going to happen, Money talks and you know the rest of the saying..... "

From: Whatever wrote on Mar 26, 2007 7:25 AM:

" I am a bartender and have been for 19 years to date. (full-time). I'm also a non-drinker and a non-smoker. "

Viva Revolution!!! wrote on Mar 26, 2007 7:03 AM:

" The US government is becoming more and more like the country we originally broke away from. The government decides what you can and cannot do. They attempt to get laws passed that ban things that are LEGAL. They start wars that are not supported by the general public. This country is headed for another war...inside its own borders. Which side are you on? "

TO ALL SMOKERS wrote on Mar 26, 2007 5:08 AM:

" You need to keep your filthy habit to yourself and stop exposing SHS us non smokers. Another problem your filthy stench smoke causes is difficutlies in breathing for people with asthma and allergies. I see this first hand with my wife and children. What makes your freedom to smoke more important than my freedom to breathe clean air? "

Robert Marks wrote on Mar 25, 2007 10:52 PM:

" The arguement is about FREEDOM! Not SHS Mark! C'mon you can see SHS and easily avoid it. Smoke! There it is...see???...it's over there!!! Yeah, ok, I see it now, I will just walk around it. Wow, that was easy. Hmmm. But freedom, how do we avoid freedom? Can you see freedom? Well heck yes, you can see it, I mean, read it in the constitution. Is that what you mean? Well, yeah you can read it depending upon how YOU interpret it. But no you can't see it like you can see SHS. Anybody knows that. Oh yeah. Some people think they have freedom but they really don't because the government controls so much of it you really never know. It changes everyday. You have less everyday. It is slowly disappearing and someday freedom will be gone. And that is what worries me. The lessening of any of our God given rights to freedom. On the other subject, we can easily avoid SHS if we choose to. If we do not choose to, we should blame no one but ourselves. "

Yes Rights?, U R Right wrote on Mar 25, 2007 10:40 PM:

" ...to a certain extent. Seems like everything is regulated, so what's one more regulation? Well buddy, then it is one more, five more, 100 more, and then no one has any rights. That's the path that you clearly accept and that is the path that we clearly object to. You call it health, we call it freedom. And THAT is where we disagree! "

Rights? wrote on Mar 25, 2007 8:40 PM:

" There are laws/ordinances in force that affect every aspect of our daily life. From what speed we drive, to the minimum wage we must pay, to how close you can build a fence to your next door neighbor's yard. Non-smokers have been putting up with smokers bad manners long enough. How many times have you been sitting in a restaurant behind a smoker and they will turn their head to blow the smoke behind them? Yeah, right into my face. How many times have you gotten out of your car and stepped into a pile of cigarette butts where a smoker emptied their car ashtray? If smokers had thought of someone besides themselves all these years and shown some courtesy to others non of this would have been necessary. "

To bla bla bla wrote on Mar 25, 2007 7:33 PM:

" They are leaving you smokers alone, you can smoke, just not where you're going to be bothering the majority...non smokers. You stink and the rest of the world is sick of being affected by you. What is so difficult for you to understand? If you don't like it, stay at home or leave the State of Illinois. Or, God forbid, QUIT. "

Mark Roberts wrote on Mar 25, 2007 5:13 PM:

" Good letter Mandy. You can't teach some of these people Mandy.. so I just gave up trying. At least Mandy has the guts to put her name on her letter.. that's a lot more than the rest of you do...hiding behind such names as "Whatever" or "Bla bla bla". This argument is about SHS... not abortions or drunk drivers or guns. Stick to the issue at hand. Anything can kill...it's the things we can control is the issue. "

real simple wrote on Mar 25, 2007 3:47 PM:

" Instead of miles of restrictions on smokers, how about banning tobacco all together. Then there wouldn't be any problems. "

To Whatever: wrote on Mar 25, 2007 12:40 PM:

" The real numbers are non-existant. The actual effect in a smokey room is about six to eight cigarettes a year to the non-smoker. That would be to a bartender in a smoke filled bar. "

william wrote on Mar 25, 2007 9:51 AM:

" where did you get you facts Mindy? "

Bla Bla Bla wrote on Mar 25, 2007 8:13 AM:

" Why don't you leave us smokers alone and worry about some REAL BIG problems. You need a REAL job. "

Smoke Nazis wrote on Mar 25, 2007 7:30 AM:

" I am so sick of these smoke nazis trampeling on the rights of Americans. It is a choice to smoke and when it comes to the outdoors who do these people think they are? If this entire country went smoke free tomorrow what would be next? Oh you can bet it would be something because these liberal nazis stop at nothing to strip Americans of every freedom they can. Abortions kill more people each year than cigarettes, and people who die from smoking are making a conscious choice to smoke. Are aborted babies allowed a choice? I think not. So you smoke nazis just keep killing babies and then worry about yourselves with second hand smoke BS which still has no scientific evidence of existing. I will keep puffing away hurting no one but myself, and fight socialism at every corner. "

Golffan wrote on Mar 25, 2007 5:35 AM:

" "Every day in Illinois eight people-about 2,900 a year-who have never smoked die from exposure to shs". Well, Mindy, you may think your figures are impressive. And that you're simply trying to parrot the results of the latest shs 'science'. But The California EPA, according to the CDC website, estimates that 22,700 to 69,000 adult nonsmokers die from heart disease due to shs. Or course, if one chooses to play the estimate game, one could just as easily ‘prove’ that 22,700 to 69,000 folks die from breathing re-cycled air on jetliners. Or car exhaust while sitting at a stop light. Or, for that matter, just about anything. As long as correlation=causation, and no one has ever really known anyone who died from these exposures, one agency's wild guess is just as good as another. Presently, communities have the ability to decide which Hysterics’ moist dreams will prevail. And which will not. And what has really killed more American citizens: shs or Hysterics’ worries about shs. The latter is much more likely to ‘get’ Mindy Mangialardi than the former. And, I’d submit, smoker or not, a Bill to protect us from you is much more worthy of our support. "

nON sMOKER wrote on Mar 25, 2007 5:20 AM:

" A 'Smoke-Free ILLINOIS Web Site' for advise? Kind of like ONLY listening to the other side if you want to make your own mind up? "

8 people a day? wrote on Mar 25, 2007 3:44 AM:

" Seriously who do you or you or you know that has died from exposure to second hand smoke? If 8 people die everyday in the State of Illinois, then surely several of the readers of this post will know a least one, if not several people who have met this terrible fate. Heck, does anyone know of any soldiers that have die in Iraq? That number is just a little bit over 3000 in a five year period and all of us are much more aware of that! This writers claim is bogus. "

Whatever. wrote on Mar 25, 2007 1:08 AM:

" "Everyday in Illinois eight people - about 2,900 a year - who have never smoked die from exposure to secondhand smoke." This is all of this from cigertte smoke alone? How many people have been killed by drunk drivers who never drank? Let alone even lived long enough to get close to drinking age? How many people are killed by guns who have never owened a gun? How many people have died in a car who never had a license? "

Ads by Yahoo!

Learn Forex Trading

Scientific Graphing Software

Allheartchefs Discount Chef/Cooks Pants