Pantagraph.com | News | Statewide smoking ban clears House committee

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.

KOOL wrote on Jan 20, 2008 10:19 PM:

" DONT BELIVE WHAT THE NONE SMOKERS SAY THE RESTAURANTS AND BARS ARE SLOW THE RESTAURANT GRAND GRILL AT 6001 W GRAND IS CLOSEING BECUSE OF THE SMOKING BAN MOST OF OUR PEOPLE WERE SMOKERS I USE TO MAKE $ 80.00 A DAY NOW I MAKE $20.00 A DAY THIS SMOKING BAN HURTS EVERY ONE AND WHAT ABOUT THE TAXES WHERE IS THE CITY GOING TO FIND THE MONEY OH YEA TAX THE NONE SMOKERS AFTER ALL THE SMOKERS PAYED SO MUCH ANYWAY OR "

Mike wrote on Jan 7, 2008 2:24 PM:

" Call to complain about smoking ban. The bars around my house are empty. Where are they going to make up for the lost revenue? That's right, higher taxes.

Call gov office at (217) 782-2000 to complain about the smoking ban! "

Smokin 18 Years cont. wrote on Jan 4, 2008 9:10 AM:

" If we are just adding more and more 'regulations' that are there to improve our health and quality of life, then why are there more and more kids being born with rare allergies, new diseases and mutated strains of old diseases. Now they say broccoli has the potential to be a cancer-causing agent. In this day and age, what isn't a cancer-causing agent? And because we've let ourselves be strong-armed into a 'healthier' lifestyle, our immune systems aren't capable of handling all the new and improved health risks out there. In my eyes, it's just another "left turn arrow" law- 'People as a whole are too stupid to know when it's safe to turn left, so instead, we'll create an arrow so that we can tell them when it's safe.' "

Smokin 18 Years wrote on Jan 4, 2008 9:10 AM:

" I could care less about the ban. I'll smoke in my home, in my car; and at work, I don't have a problem stepping 20 feet away from the door. I don't go to bars, cuz drunk people suck and it's cheaper and tastier for me to cook than to pay 20$ for peice of leather no bigger than the sole of a 2 year old's shoe. What bothers me is that with all the problems we have in this country, the government moves on this. They want us to believe they're making progress, but since they don't know how to fix the bigger issues, they subdue us with the ones they actually can control, like a ban. Where's the solution to illegal immigrants and welfare? How about drunk driving? Maybe they should ban the consumption of alcohol in public places to alleviate the risk of killing someone on the road? How about the mother of 6 who doesn't have to work cause we pay for them. And she just keeps having more kids... "

banjo wrote on Jan 3, 2008 7:36 PM:

" i heard the comment once that the people were tired of catering to smokers.
when was that? now we are tired of catering to non smoking whiners.
my father never smoked or went to bars and died of cancer at 70.
my uncle smoked like a furnace and drank like a fish. he lived to be 90. "

Abraham Lincoln wrote on Jan 3, 2008 6:53 PM:

" Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. "

Wrong wrote on May 11, 2007 8:15 PM:

" It is so wrong for us to call this country free. It is not. Who are they to play God and tell us what we can and can not do? Who are they anway? They are just a bunch of middle aged, overpayed idiots who sit by their laptops and play card games while "working". I remember taking a trip to the wonderful capitol when I was in 8th grade. All they were doing was playing solitare. They make all of this money and do absolutely nothing. "

A Friend wrote on May 11, 2007 6:12 PM:

" Juvinile Delinquent: It has NOTHING to do with choice. It is about health PERIOD. It is the law! "

to JD wrote on May 11, 2007 5:36 PM:

" OH,,,,,,,WHAT,,,,,,ever,,,,,,nit pick,,,,,nit pick,,,,,,nit pick,,,, It's a done deal anyway,,,, get over it,, and move on.. non smokers did not create these bans,, it has EVERYTHING to do about the bad crap that comes from smoking...... "

Re: wrote on May 11, 2007 2:15 PM:

" It is always a "choice".....no one's "rights" are being taken away. Get over it or move out of this country if it's so bad for you "righteous people". Geez. "

Related wrote on May 11, 2007 1:56 PM:

" To those that said the bars would go out of business or lose business after the smoking ban... drive by the Pub II! Obviously they should have put the outdoor "smoking" area in long ago because they have got to be making a killing. That entire area is packed every day after about 5:00. I don't know if the inside is also packed or if everyone is just outside, but I'll bet the owners are kicking themselves for not adding the beer garden long ago! "

JD wrote on May 11, 2007 1:11 PM:

" You speak of choice, but were is the responsibility for the choice that people made to go into smoking establishments knowing there was smoke there. Smokers were responsible, and did not smoke in non-smoking establishments by choosing smoking establishments. Many non-smokers though, felt that smokers should cater their actions because a non-smoker chose to go into an establishment that allowed smoking, thus shifting responsibility for their choice of where to go onto the smokers, but saying they were responsible to not smoke while the non-smoker was here. Let's not talk about "choice". "

to JD wrote on May 11, 2007 12:35 PM:

" Is smoking one of the "things" that you "hold dear?" Smoking, JD, is not a right, it's a choice. The only "right" associated with smoking, is that if you are 18 or over, you have a "right" to purchase cigarettes. You can still enjoy smoking a full pack if you so choose, sitting at a public place. Just not inside of that public place. So how is the government infringing on your "choice?", to smoke? It's not telling you you can't go to a public place. Why do you think there are law's and regulations for citizen's to live and abide by? Do ya think that just maybe it might be to keep order amongst society? Do you find fault with our government for doing that? We have ALWAYS lived in a land of law's and regulations. If you and others that are complaining about having to live by laws think it's bad here, maybe you need to move to the soviet union. "

to the mad ranter wrote on May 11, 2007 12:06 PM:

" just in case you DO read more. The one thing that you fail to speak of, is that NO ONE'S RIGHT'S are being taken away.. Smoker's can still smoke, it's just that they are being relocated to a different spot, where they can enjoy each other's company, and each other's smoke. I can't see where the government is telling anyone to not do something that they want to do. Your point's are weak, as are some of the other smoke defender's posting here. And as stated before,, your life is governed by law's, period. If you can't stand to live by the law of the land, set forth by the government, it seems that you might serve yourself well, to pack up and move into the great outdoors, like a Grizzly Adam's type person, with no address, and no life. "

JD wrote on May 11, 2007 10:20 AM:

" No drama at all. There are those who fight to hold onto their rights and freedoms, treating them like the precious treasures they are..and there are those who accept the nanny government with open arms wanting it to take care of them. Many just do not understand just how precious they are until the government gets around to targeting their things they hold dear, but by then they are unable to stop it because of the animosity held by those already affected, and the precedence that has been set. Think I am kidding? Take a look at all the "regulations" the government has recently passed. "

Life is Good Re: to mad ranter wrote on May 11, 2007 9:59 AM:

" Not once have I called you any "name", just my point of view. Not everyone is going to agree with me, or you for that matter....it's just a point of view/opinion. I don't view all things as you and JD do....no problem...doesn't make me 100% right, nor either of you. We have always been under different sorts of regulation for hundreds of years, that's the way it is. Conformity doesn't mean you agree with everything, it means you are trying to make things work, even if you disagree with them....that is not a bad thing. People tend to pick their battles knowing that they are not going to win everyone of them. In this matter, the majority won the battle, and it will take effect at the latest Jan. 1st.....so be it. Have a great day! "

JD - stop the drama wrote on May 11, 2007 9:06 AM:

" Get real JD. It’s not as dramatic as you would have us believe - "turning your life over to the government to be regulated". You have been regulated, as you put it long before anyone ever talked about banning smoking in public. You can not legally work, drive or vote with out subjecting your self to "intense regulation". Teachers must have proper certification (regulation), bar owners must have a liquor license (regulation). This is not a new phenomenon that is tied to smoking only. Society demands rules and from time to time, society determines rules need to be changed or amended. "

Again theMad Ranter wrote on May 11, 2007 8:11 AM:

" Its to bad that we can not type more then 200 words, because I would have asked you yesterday not to go into the whole "governed by laws every day" speech. We have already been there and done that. Being a "good" American does not mean just accepting everything the government tells you to! You should talk to Rosa Park about that. Oh and I think that was a big reason we all settled to Americas in the first place. Its not about smoking or not, its about our right to choice as Americans. To Life is good... So I guess its the smokers fault then that they can't smoke in bars now? Hummmm that makes perfect since doesn't it? I am done with article. All you two have left is name calling and spinning the same thing over and over. Congrats, your side has won. We get to make 1 less adult decision for our selfs. "

JD wrote on May 11, 2007 1:07 AM:

" I hate to disagree, but being a "good" American does not include turning your life over to the government to be regulated. Many of our forefathers fled their homelands because the government, under the guise of the church, attempted to regulate people lives to the point of they had no life. The most patriotic thing a person can do is question the actions of the government, and do what it can to prevent the government encroachment beyond the powers it should have. To blindly want and accept government regulation is tantamount suicide. "

once again to Mad Ranter wrote on May 10, 2007 5:55 PM:

" GUESS WHAT?! Your life is governed by laws every day. Like it or not. some examples. you must pay taxes, you must obey the red lights, you must pay your bills, you must abide by deed restrictions in certain neighborhoods, and on, and on, and on..Being a "good" American means that you respect your country, and the laws it is run by, by the government, which means, local, state, and federal. So quit your mamby pamby whining about this upcoming change, which does no good anyway. This is happening worldwide, not just in this tiny little speck on the map. Look beyond Blm/Nrml, and you will find that where this change took place, it's life as usual, only without the indoor tobacco pollution, which makes EVERY public place an even playing ground for ALL ppl. I bet you were a real rebellious child, that didn't like being told what to do. And grew up to be the same type of adult. "

Life is Good Re: to mad ranter wrote on May 10, 2007 2:46 PM:

" Hahaha....RANT all you want, it will be the law Jan. 1st and if you think it was the non smokers that got this passed into law....you my friend are sadly mistaken. "

Back wrote on May 10, 2007 2:33 PM:

" Been away for a while, but all I have to say is HA! That's right...its happening just as your nightmare was scripted. Now its not a city issue, its a state issue. I would find it quite humorous if the city councils struck down the smoking bans now, effective December 31st. "

Again the Mad Ranter wrote on May 10, 2007 2:27 PM:

" Also... You are 100% correct that I am angry about this! I am an AMERICAN adult and I do not need the government telling me what to do all the time! WE all know the "risk" of SHS smoke. It should be my choice to CHOSE to go into a smoking establishment. You can bet your your last dollar that this absolutely the non-smokers fault. It was the non-smoking mommy and daddy that had a gun to the back of their head and forced into Chillis for dinner. Tell ya what... Why don't you stop worrying about my health and take care of yourself. If you don't like smoking don't go in! Get it? Yet??? The use of SCRUB FREE IN YOUR BATHROOM DESTROYS YOUR HEALTH! It just happens to smell good. Also, I don't smoke. "

Again the Mad Ranter wrote on May 10, 2007 2:01 PM:

" Yawn... You must be new here. I am not going to go over all this AGAIN. Cowboys comments were about "help protect the health of bar workers" and if that was your true worry, then you would be going after the tings that have been PROVEN to kill you. Then you decided to to make the case that air inside is clean and outside air is bad (which is joke in itself). Also, I am sad to see that all you had nothing intelligent left to say so you resorted to try and insult me. "

also to the mad ranter wrote on May 10, 2007 1:25 PM:

" your comment "if "only" ppl who don't smoke would not have chosen to go into a smoking bar, these bans wouldn't have come about, (or something to that affect) is really comical. Do you REALLY believe that non smoker's are responsible for these ban's?? What about the information that has come from the health community. What about the revelation's that have been revealed regarding the negative affects of smoking? What about the ppl that KNOW that their smoking habit ruined their health? DO YOU THINK THESE THINGS ARE ALL LIES?!, just to piss off smoker's? Do you truly believe this is some sort of sick conspiracy against ppl that smoke!!? You really need to come into the realm of reality. THE USE OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS DESTROYS HEALTH! grow up!! "

to again the Mad Ranter wrote on May 10, 2007 1:12 PM:

" Are you the Grim Reaper?? you sure sound like it. We all know that there are "things" in the very air that we breathe everyday! JUST WHAT DO YOU SUGGEST WE DO ABOUT ALL OF THOSE "thing's?" There ARE certain laws in place to rid the air of as much pollution as possible, which covers a wide variety of items. To many to list, of course. But then, once again, you choose to shift the subject away from what we are supposed to be discussing. SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES, and banning it.! Your post's reveal your frustration and anger about this, and how you just can't STAND to know this is going to happen. Also your imbecile responses aren't even worth the time to bother to have a sensible discussion with. Why don't you and cowboy ride off into the "polluted" sunset together to the ranch, and see who can smoke the fastest, breathe the deepest, and cough and hack the hardest, cause you won't be doing it in an indoor public place. "

Hmm wrote on May 10, 2007 12:52 PM:

" Pot is not chemically addictive, while it may be habitual for some, as video games are for others, it is not addictive. There is no withdrawal. Some (esp youths) use it as an outlet to escape life and responsibility....while that is no good for anyone, you are blaming the symptom rather than the cause. I don't use and don't think young ones should use it, but I say legalize it. If you do your homework it is the lesser evil compared to cigs or alcohol. "

Again the mad ranter to Life is Good wrote on May 10, 2007 11:45 AM:

" LOL the air outside is the SAME AIR INSIDE!!! Do you really think that just because you go inside you are safe? Sure sure, there are filters and such, but don't think that just because you go inside the air is clean. Just ask anyone that lives in a LA for example. Years and years of toxins don't magically disappear into the air, they only build up. Anyhow, if you would have "only" made the choice not to go into a smoky bar, this would have been a non issue. Nice try at totally spinning "cowboys" point and moving away from the fact that we should start to ban other toxins that ARE proven to kill you and I (they just don't smell so bad). "

Life is Good Re: to mad ranter wrote on May 10, 2007 10:16 AM:

" You know, the argument will be a non factor as of Jan. 1st....people will finally be able to not inhale some else's spewing of smoke....if only they wouldn't exhale, then it wouldn't be a problem for anyone else. The air indoors will be as clean as it can be....the air outside, well, it's the air outside, full of whatever contaminents it may have, but controlled as much as they can be controlled. Get over it....the law will be here soon. "

Again the Mad Ranter wrote on May 10, 2007 7:44 AM:

" No, its not my job to answer for "cowboy", but when I read your ridiculous post, I just had to respond. So you are going to "stand by everything you said" eh? Hummmmm seems all Cowboy was pointing out was there are other global air pollutants you should be worrying about. Then you try to somehow tell all of us that those pollutants just magically "dissolve" into the air. (or at least don't get into your precious building) You just keep thinking that "out of doors" pollutants just stay outside and they don't get into your nice and clean non-smoking buildings. I bet thats kind of like when they dump toxic waste into the ocean, the sea mermaids come and use their magical beach sand and sprinkle it over the toxic waste so it dissolves magically away. HAHA, you might want to rethink your post... again. "

to again the mad ranter wrote on May 9, 2007 1:33 PM:

" well, I responded to cowboy's post, but I guess it's your job to answer for him. anyway, I stand by everything that I said, because it's true. there are already emission's laws in affect in an effort to protect our air from exaust from motor vehicles. As far as noise pollution is concerned, just what would you suggest be done?! do away with all forms of air transportation? how about the lawn mower issue, are you going to buy a goat for each homeowner to keep their grass trimmed?! The issue at hand is to rid the indoor air of public places of tobacco smoke.. seems as though that is a step in the right direction to clear the air of just one more nasty pollutant. "

Again the Mad Ranter to HEY COWBOY wrote on May 9, 2007 12:57 PM:

" Yeah, cause all the polluted air stays outside the buildings and 15 feet away from the doors of buildings. Ensuring that non-smokers only breath in clean air... You may need to rethink your post there. What a joke! "

HEY COWBOY wrote on May 9, 2007 8:41 AM:

" COME DOWN OFF OF YOU HIGH HORSE! lol. even though alot of the examples you gave may have merit in some way shape or form, we are no longer living in the dark ages. Every one of the things that you referred to take place in the out of doors. This is an environment, where any exposure is "dissolved" into the air. Not so with being inside of a building where smoke has nowhere to escape, and is a strong carcinogen that an innocent bystander would be exposed to. Sorry, there is NO comparison. So pack up your saddlebag's, and head back to the wide open spaces of your ranch, where you can smoke, smoke, smoke. "

Cowboy wrote on May 7, 2007 1:56 PM:

" The smoking ban is on to help protect the health of bar workers and patrons. Why stop there ? Pollution and global warming is a health risk so how about a ban on lawn mowers that spew out blue smoke. Thats pollution and a health risk. How about a ban on the high pitched whine of weed wackers and weed blowers. High pitched sounds are pollution and a health risk. How about mandatory testing of all vehicles each year not only for safe operating but for emissions. Exhaust is pollution and a health risk. How about telling CIRA not to close one of the runways that allow the booming jet noise all the way to uptown-downtown Bloomington rattling windows. Thats noise pollution and a major health risk. If laws are going to be used to protect our health and well being then they shouldn't be half assed...they should go all the way. "

concerned wrote on May 7, 2007 1:46 PM:

" They banned smoking in bars I can handle it. Makes playing my games more enjoyable. I hope they dont ban the pay outs from the bar. I would quit going out. "

to oldgoat wrote on May 7, 2007 1:08 PM:

" as much as I agree with you about pollutants in our air, and also agree with our veterans being exposed to nasty things that were used during the wars, these things should be set aside for a separate albeit, important discussion. This discussion is about banning smoking in public places, period. The alcohol issue, already has laws in place, put there to protect the public, i.e. legal and illegal alcohol levels, d.w.i. laws, etc. Unfortunately, smoker's or non smoker's that are over served regularly slip below the radar, and are a danger on our street's. Standing in a room with other ppl that are drinking, does not affect anyone elses breathing, standing in a room filled with smoke, does. The smoking population is depleting more and more every day, the statistics show this. It is a sign of the times. "

Ken wrote on May 7, 2007 12:19 PM:

" I think that a ban on the SALE of tobacco should be attached to this ban. "

JD wrote on May 7, 2007 12:15 PM:

" I have been a student for a few years, and yes, I live out of town and own my own house. It is called commuting, in case you did not know. I do not see how one is inclusive of the other. Not all students are 19 and live in the dorms. And I never said that I refused to drive to B-N, I said I refuse to patronize the businesses in B-N, and to date (since the inception of the smoking ban and outside of ISU) I have not spent a penny in B-N. Why should I when there are many places between to accept my money without totalitarian rules? "

A new JD? wrote on May 7, 2007 9:27 AM:

" I find it funny that JD suddenly became a "student" that is "completing his degree". Weren't you living out of town in your own home refusing to drive into Bloomington / Normal late last year? Really, honey, if you just quit smoking you'll make more sense and you'll be happier, too. "

oldgoat wrote on May 7, 2007 9:22 AM:

" just a thought, the her2 hereditary gene is thought to be cause of some cancers, 5 people in my family have or had cancer. My father fought in war and won purple heart along with other medals, was also exposed to chemical explosions etc, many people living in areas where these things happened had premature births and returning soldiers developed several different ailments. Is it possible that the effects of bombing, shooting , exposure to all kinds of fumes leaves a hereditary trait far more encompassing than anyone has bothered to research, such as how many people who have cancer had desendants who fought in wars and were ustto such dangers. they say that many in NY have developed illnesses because of fallout from 911. Just curious . "

oldgoat wrote on May 7, 2007 9:06 AM:

" i am sorry about four posts, it kept telling me too many words, so i tried again, it lied cause it took all them. also i read where many non-smokers will now frequent the bars and casinos now, so there might be many people who won't have to worry about cancer induced death, they just have to think about all the increased cost of lives because of alcoholic drivers behind the wheel and increased hostility induced by alcohol killing one of your loved ones. "

to oldgoat/h.may wrote on May 7, 2007 5:56 AM:

" guess what???? the MAJORITY of the country DOES NOT smoke any longer!! alot of ppl have wised up to the dangers of smoking. It is only those,like you, that continue to deny what bad things taking this substance laced with chemicals into their bodies, that proclaim these kind of statements. Your just another smoker wearing blinders, and trying to convince yourself that there is nothing wrong with this habit. P.S. (DO YOU THINK YOU GOT YOUR POINT ACROSS? with four post's that say the same thing?!?!),, by the way,, what DID the doctor's say your cancer was caused from?? ,,and did they tell you to just go ahead and keep puffing away?? "

to "o.g." & "h.may" wrote on May 6, 2007 11:43 PM:

" I just ca'nt say it enough, "I agree". "I agree" "I agree" and as an encore, "I agreeeeeeeee". "

h.may wrote on May 6, 2007 5:55 PM:

" smoking does not add up to cause of cancer, but knowing, as news online said all our food supply and even our water has been contaminated with a component used to make rocket fuel and it is also found in fireworks, leads me to think our own government is responsible for cancer and many other problems, like animals now being born deformed and many in lakes and rivers dying off by hundreds "

h.may wrote on May 6, 2007 5:48 PM:

" it is ridiculous to outlaw smoking and smokers citing the dangers of secondhand smoke when most americans have worked in factories with dangerous fumes all around and now that news online said we have all been exposed to the toxic contaminate in rocket fuel in our food supply and water(i can figure out how) the dust from firing the rockets settles back on earth in the plants and vegetation and the cows, etc, eat it, also it is in fireworks as per the online computer reports, and the government is not publicising that or can do nothing to stop what has already affected many, including many animals being born deformed and fishes and mammals dying off and still ignorant, people want to blame and ban cigarettes as the cause of cancer, Ridiculous! control freaks care more about depriving american citizen of rights, than they do of thousands of women, children, elderly and innocent civillians being killed in wars not of their chosing either "

oldgoat wrote on May 6, 2007 5:44 PM:

oldgoat wrote on May 6, 2007 5:10 PM:

" it is ridiculous to outlaw smoking and smokers citing the dangers of secondhand smoke when most americans have worked in factories with dangerous fumes all around and now that news online said we have all been exposed to the toxic contaminate in rocket fuel in our food supply and water(i can figure out how) the dust from firing the rockets settles back on earth in the plants and vegetation and the cows, etc, eat it, also it is in fireworks as per the online computer reports, and the government is not publicising that or can do nothing to stop what has already affected many, including many animals being born deformed and fishes and mammals dying off and still ignorant, people want to blame and ban cigarettes as the cause of cancer, Ridiculous! I am a breast cancer survivor. I smoke, and it was not caused by smoking, also, even if it would have been, the majority of the country smokes and should have the freedom of choice to do so. "

??? wrote on May 5, 2007 8:36 PM:

" When they ban smoking what will they tax next to pay for our children's education??? I don't smoke but I know that if I go into a bar someone will more than likely be smoking. If I didn't want to be around smoke I shouldn't go in. That is your freedom of choice. What has happened to our freedom in Illinois??? "

A Friend wrote on May 3, 2007 10:43 PM:

" Can't wait to say "It Is The Law" Way to go JD "

Tina wrote on May 2, 2007 12:03 PM:

" I don't understand - you can have a private room in a nursing home and still smoke. What happens to our personal choices. Government moved fast on this issue - I think they should now try to address the high cost of medical insurance, high taxes, gas prices, etc. This decision will hurt a lot of people. Don't worry about the bartenders there will be no need for them anymore "

Smoking Ban wrote on May 2, 2007 8:33 AM:

" I understand the non-smokers concerns but I would think that the Government could better utilize their time by addressing the Ilegal Immigrant issues. There are over 12,000,00 illegal aliens in this country. They get free healthcare, food stamps while Americans pay taxes and obsurb the cost for them. Don't you think our government should concentrate on bigger issues than banning smoking. The American Lung Cancer Assoc. estimates that 170,000 people will die of Lung cancer yet we have over 12 million illegal aliens contributing to higher healthcare costs that Amerian are paying for. "

DEDICATED SMOKER wrote on May 2, 2007 7:26 AM:

" As a smoker I have always been considerate of the non-smoker, if I'm some where with a non-smoker and it bothers them I refrain. I can't say the same for some non-smokers, they are rude and obnoxious. If everyone quits smoking, what are the states and counties going do with out the all that tax they are collecting. I guess they will have to raise taxes for everyone including the non-smokers. So actually the smokers are doing the non-smokers a favor, we pay the taxes. How are they going to like it when they have to pay more taxes, start whinning and crying about that. 32 young lives were taken a couple of weeks ago becasue of poor gun control laws, people are dying every day from starvation, AIDS, Drugs, drunk drivers. Breast Cancer, just to name a few. There are driver still driving vehicles who have had multiple DUI's, is it easier to target the smoker than address bigger and deadlier issues? Think about it. "

dt wrote on May 1, 2007 9:28 PM:

" The same people who complain about second hand smoke are the same people who roast hot dogs on a smoking open pit fire. the same people who burn leaves in their back yard. The same people who will stand at a bus stop and suck up the diesel fumes and think nothing of it until someone walks up with a cigerette in their hand then start coughing. I hope the revenue from casinos in illinois drop off big time. Owning my own airplane casinos in neighboring states will get all my money. "

Gladly wrote on May 1, 2007 6:44 PM:

" will I travel in from Towanda to drink at the bars/restaurants that are now smoke-free, since our local bar business' owners want to satisfy their own need to smoke over the general public. Please hurry up and come statewide ban, we can't wait! "

Second-Hand? wrote on May 1, 2007 3:03 PM:

" The woman on the commercial saying she's diseased from second-hand smoke - how can she prove that her disease was caused by smoke and not some other environmental factor, such as pesticides, food contaminants, or bus fumes? If she's right, then why isn't the same thing happening to so many others? Have the smokers who worked with her been inflicted with the same disease? It just doesn't add up. "

Phd wrote on May 1, 2007 2:07 PM:

" Well, JD has done it this time. He went too far when he trashed the community. Now his credibility is zilch and he his being run out on a rail. By the way, I always liked Ginger better. Sour grapes on Marianne’s part (she couldn’t even spell her name). The smoking ban is here to stay. Bye Bye Juvenile Delinquents. "

Re: JD wrote on May 1, 2007 10:13 AM:

" Couldn't you find a university "outside" of this little ol' farming community worthy enough to meet your standards? These "farming" communities you are alluding to have long been the very foundation of our country. We are pleased that you are going back to "the city", we ol' poor folk just might make it here in these farming communities without you....barely. Wow, can your head get any bigger? "

Mairianne wrote on May 1, 2007 9:23 AM:

" Actually the professor is just an actor. Just like me. We read from scripts to make you believe that we are someone that we are not. We are only playing a role. We left on a three hour tour, and then all of a sudden "poof." "

(("them")) wrote on May 1, 2007 4:11 AM:

" (hmmm,,,"move out",,,"leave",,,"if ""you"" do'nt like it",,,"you"/"them",,"them",,a.k.a. "they"),,,,,(deep)... "

JD to: re JD wrote on Apr 30, 2007 6:43 PM:

" Trust me, next year I will most assuredly be out of this state again. The only reason I returned was to complete my degree, and am glad to be completing it as the population of Illinois spiral into ignorance barely surpassed them the law makers who represent them (and are laughed at by the rest of the country). This mentality of the "twin cities" shows just how delusional the people of the area are. B-N is just one step above the farming communities it serves. Most B-N residents would be terrified in a real city. "

inevitable wrote on Apr 30, 2007 12:11 PM:

" Come on Jay Jansen. Surely you can find a worker or even a Patron from the Paradise who has been damaged by the continuous cloud of smoke. Word is, that they have ozone generators to cover the smell. Is ozone EPA certified? These types of lawsuits are coming. Pretty soon the question of a ban will be moot. No business owner will not be able to afford to allow smoking. "

Re: JD wrote on Apr 30, 2007 10:38 AM:

" Ok then, if you live in the twin cities....please move to someplace worthy of your worldlyness.....we are humbled by your greatness....so leave. You are a very negative person who only can find faults with others if they don't agree with your thinking.....you are the master race, in your eyes. Please stop indulging us with your babble. "

JD to Professor wrote on Apr 29, 2007 4:47 PM:

" I see, you must be an English professor. It would explain your total lack of understanding of Economics. Then again, basic Economics is required by most degree programs, so it is still more that you lack anything more than a high school diploma or GED. This is one of the reasons Central Illinois is going down the toilet. Too many people THINK they are educated enough to form an opinion on the matter, when in actuality, they know little or nothing of the topic. I guess it is to be expected though, as many B-N residents also feel they live in a city. "

down state wrote on Apr 29, 2007 9:20 AM:

" I hope they ban all smoking in Illinois, I hope they ban all firearms,I hope gas hits a hundred dollars a drop,I hope electric triples, also lets do away with all deer hunting, thats fifteen dollars a permit that we dont need,outfitters 500 hundred dollars each per year the state dont need. I also hope they pass his g.r. t., lets get ride of these jobs as fast as we can. Then I can say,vote them in again "

Professor wrote on Apr 29, 2007 7:20 AM:

" The correct grammar is "and that government regulations are counter intuitive of the free market". It is obvious you have a thesaurus, but not a clue. You flunked again. See you in summer school. Class dismissed. It is too easy to bait you. "

JD wrote on Apr 28, 2007 5:40 PM:

" One of the very fundamental laws of free market economics is that the market is intuitive of demand, and that government regulations is counter intuitive of the free market. Heck, that is something taught at the very foundation levels of economics. Thusly, it is doubtful that the individual calling themselves a professor is a professor, or if they are, they have no root in economics. I lean towards them not being a professor, as the most they have achieved is repeating propaganda lines. "

To:Keeping my B/N made money wrote on Apr 28, 2007 2:16 PM:

" Your economic boycott will not work. Smokers are a minority. The loss of your business is negligible. Many claims have been made on both sides about the economic impact of the ordinance, but it is still too soon to tell. There is precedent in hundreds of other cities where smoking restrictions resulted in an overall economic gain. A few places closed, but if others survived and prospered, then the fault lies on the management, not the ordinance. I can’t say we’ll miss you or your money. Your negative attitude probably brings people down wherever you go. By the way; the correct spelling is “restaurant”. It might be a question on your GED exam. Study hard. Class dismissed. "

Keeping my B/N made money out of your cities wrote on Apr 28, 2007 11:32 AM:

" I keep hearing about your resteraunts being busier now that B/N has passed a ban, but what about your bars? A lot of us smokers from out of town who work in your unfair city used to come to B/N to hang out and listen to the bands on weekends or we would stop to relax and unwind after work. Not anymore! Now take our money (made in your cities) home with us. We no longer shop your stores, eat in your resteraunts or go to your bars. We prefer to go to towns that still believe it's the business owner's choice. No impressionable young kids to see me smoke or drink in the bar, what about at the resteraunt bar you're sitting at? Can kids see you drink? Uh, oh, better ban alcohol. "

The Old Professor wrote on Apr 28, 2007 10:22 AM:

" TO: To: A Friend who wrote on April 27, 2007 9:13 PM: If you are an economics major, I strongly suggest you switch immediately. The economy of Bloomington/Normal does not depend upon smoking. B/N is not going to fail economically because people can not smoke in public. If that was the case, 12 states and hundreds of municipalities in the US would have gone under. People are still going to smoke, just not in public. I liked your reference to A Friend as the “messiah of nonsmokers”. I know him and he will be pleased with the moniker. Sorry pal, you failed this class. It’s summer school for you. "

Life is Good Re: to post @5:48p wrote on Apr 28, 2007 8:53 AM:

" I was just using the phrase that the previous poster used as the example. I frequent many places, along Veterans and not....business is not down the places I frequent and have frequented for many years. The jist of my post was that friends of mine (and others) have no problem with the ban....and they are smokers....how hard is it? "

Former Prison Guard wrote on Apr 28, 2007 12:02 AM:

" If you think that prisons are for punishment and reform, then you have a lot more to worry about than cigarettes. Perhaps you should lobby to have their free cable cut, or have their "state loaned" color television taken away, or even go so far as to close the commissary closed where they buy their soda and candy. It is easy to make judgments when you are not going to be the one getting burned by scalding hot baby oil or stabbed with a "shank" made from Plexiglas. The inmates have been babied to the point that something like this is going to costs some guards their lives. "

P.S. wrote on Apr 27, 2007 9:49 PM:

" Reminder: Prisons are supposed to be a punishment and reformitory; a place where new, healthy, functional habits are taught and reinforced. Smoking is part of the dysfunctional behavior that contributes to being a criminal. (no, i'm not saying that all smokers are criminals) I am saying that prisoners have no business smoking, or having amy other luxury for that matter. They are there to focus on their self-defeating behaviors and change them. Smoking is a self-defeating behavior. "

therapist wrote on Apr 27, 2007 9:43 PM:

" 1) We live in a "border town" with a casino. We currently stay away from the casino's due to the smoke. When the ban is enacted we will go to the casinos, bars, and restaurants much more often. Businesses will be seeing many new customers that have been avoiding them due to the smoke. Our gas prices are much higher in Illinois than across the bridge in Iowa, but we do not drive over to Iowa just to get gas. Most people will not drive to another state just to have a cigarette with dinner, but if they do, we thank them for leaving. "

A Friend wrote on Apr 27, 2007 9:35 PM:

" To Tis: Your idea has some merit. Creating a private place for smokers is not a bad idea. Smokers and their sympathetic friends could enjoy themselves in peace and the public’s right to smoke free establishments would not be threatened. I don’t condone smoking, but I do believe you have the right to do it in a private place. The current laws have strict restrictions about what constitutes a private club, but if you’re resourceful, maybe you can establish one within the framework of the ordinance. I compliment you on approaching the problem with a rational solution. You are the first smoker in recent memory on these posts who is actually trying to find a solution rather than bemoan your fate or blame someone else for the situation. Once more, I do not condone smoking, but you are free to explore creating your own private club. It will be a challenge because the laws are designed to prevent clubs from being organized as a “front” for the sole purpose of allowing smoking, but maybe you can pull it off. I’d much rather see you quit, but it is your choice, so I wish you good luck. "

To: A Friend wrote on Apr 27, 2007 9:13 PM:

" You have not won anything. As an economics major, the only thing you have caused was a very slow death to many of the businesses within Bloomington not to mention the phase of taxes to be implemented once this becomes law. Although I am sure you are not the "messiah of nonsmokers", it is people like you who have not thoroughly thought of what this can do to a thriving community as Bloomington. As I said before, how are going to retrieve the taxes when cigarette purchases becomes less? It is these purchases that help fund many of the programs Illinois has today. So, do tell, what do you intend to heavily tax next . . . "

Tis wrote on Apr 27, 2007 7:57 PM:

" Isn't it time for business to get together and make their own little mall just for smokers. Making it private would keep the government out and the Hitler Health out. Guess what, I bet it would go over great. I don't smoke but I'd go, and I bet there are others like me out there because they cherish their right of choice. "

The Truth wrote on Apr 27, 2007 7:46 PM:

" Want to know what Philip Morris USA (the largest tobacco company in the US) thinks of smoker’s rights? They say on their own website: “Secondhand smoke from cigarettes causes disease, including lung cancer and heart disease, in non-smoking adults, as well as causes conditions in children such as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, otitis media (middle ear infection) and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Philip Morris USA believes that the public should be guided by the conclusions of public health officials regarding the health effects of secondhand smoke. We also believe that the conclusions of public health officials concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant measures that regulate smoking in public places.” These are the people that supply cigarettes. They support regulating smoking. That is the last nail in the coffin (pun intended). Nothing any pro smoker can concoct can refute the fact that the manufacturer admits the product is harmful. All your cockamamie theories and positions are moot. You can belittle and deride government studies and medical reports, but you can’t possible ignore the findings of the manufacturer. If they admit it, why can’t you accept it? It’s over. "

Poor Smokers wrote on Apr 27, 2007 6:09 PM:

" (Source:) U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Typical non-smokers' net worth is roughly 50 percent higher than that of light smokers and about twice the level of that of heavy smokers. And that wealth gap grows by about $410, or 4 percent, each year that a person continues to smoke. Since the typical family in the United States currently has relatively little wealth and saves relatively little money, the financial implications are clear - if you smoke and want to increase your wealth, stop smoking. Do the math: businesses will make more money from non-smokers than smokers. Gives new meaning to the phrase "pity the poor smoker". "

Get real wrote on Apr 27, 2007 6:05 PM:

" Oh, and to Challenge, that is your one good reason. "

Get real wrote on Apr 27, 2007 6:01 PM:

" None of these arguments for or against matter. The truth is this is a further step toward the government taking full control over our lives. For you non-smokers, you are all happy joy joy, but the next step may be taking away something from you for the "good of the cummunity". This is the true slippery slope toward the slow fascism of public concern. "

A Friend wrote on Apr 27, 2007 5:57 PM:

" For all the posturing and prima facie evidence put forth by the pro smoking factions, they totally ignore the singular most important fact. The smoking ban is the law! They dance around this fact with psycho babble about rights and the responsibility of non-smokers to not go into smoking establishments. Smokers; get it through your thick skulls, smoking is controlled and it’s going to get more restrictive. If you don’t like it; exercise your freedom of choice and find a place where it is not controlled (good luck). I worked hard to get these laws passed in both communities. I was successful and I am working hard to get the statewide ban enacted. I am winning and you are whining. Hallelujah, it is the law!!! "

To: Life is good wrote on Apr 27, 2007 5:48 PM:

" What about the businesses away from Veterans? How about the bars which serve the local populace? According to those owners, sales and profits are down. Are they lieing because they are making MORE money than before? What you observe on your limited time at an establishmet is not a true indication of how a business is doing, their overall profits, according to many businesses, are down. You really need to look beyond your own selfish desires to exterminate smoking, and look at the bigger picture. "

JD to: to JD wrote on Apr 27, 2007 5:42 PM:

" Wow, you mean to tell me that you missed ALL the establishments that CHOSE to be non-smoking prior to the ban? There was a plethora of non-smoking facilities. I am from out of B-N, and had NO problem finding them with minimal effort. In order to not be able to find them, one would have to either be incredibly lazy, or lack the mental capacity to use a phone and call around. Just think, minimal effort on your part could have help to avoid the "deadly" SHS. "

Could we please.... wrote on Apr 27, 2007 5:40 PM:

" hear from some bar owners or restaurants on the status of their business since the ban went into effect??? It would be interesting to hear. You should know the monies lost by now? "

Go blow your smoke where no else is... wrote on Apr 27, 2007 4:47 PM:

" Keep your smoking in a private enclosed place, like an outhouse. And IL is not an ashtray. Stop throwing your butts just anywhere. Show a little courtesy and dispose of them with some respect and maturity. "

Roni wrote on Apr 27, 2007 4:27 PM:

" Smokers have no regard for thier own health so why would they care about a non smokers health! Since we can't protect them from themselves we can protect the non smoking public from their bad habit.Can't wait for the state smoking ban! "

Life is Good Re: wrote on Apr 27, 2007 4:18 PM:

" Not an expression of concern in the least....don't misconstrue that....just amazed, that's all. I tried in vain, until it was too late, to get my own parents to stop smoking, but they did not until their final years (after years of fighting cancer related diseases caused from smoking). No lie telling on this front, even though life is good...it's far to short to lie.....and there is no need to anyway. No problems here....just keep driving. Have a great day! "

To: Pontiac Guard wrote on Apr 27, 2007 3:21 PM:

" I don't mind if you want to chew Skoal and spit it everywhere. You deserve it after having to watch the drop the soap game up there. You can spit your Skoal wherever you like and I was just step over it. Just don't swallow, it will make you sick. "

To Life Is Good . . . wrote on Apr 27, 2007 3:19 PM:

" If what you are saying is true, why express your concern about us driving miles out of town to go to a restaurant? Unless you are not telling the truth . . . hmmm. "

Life is Good wrote on Apr 27, 2007 2:51 PM:

" And the beat goes on......drive miles out of town (with $3.00 gallon gas) just to smoke.....that's nice and intelligent....keep doing it, please. I am sooooo glad those of you making "your choice" to do just that, are truly doing it for the good of us all.....thank you. The restaurants along Veterans are busier than ever. As I've said before, I have many friends who smoke....they are having zero problems adjusting to the change....zero. They still go out to places that do not allow smoking just as much as they go out to those that do allow it. They are amazed at how people are acting in regards to this situation. Grown up decisions..... "

To: JD wrote on Apr 27, 2007 2:41 PM:

" And before this where were the non-smokers supposed to go? Smoking was allowed almost everywhere. B/N cant be doing that bad at restaurants. I rememebr I had to wait 25 minutes to be seated in non-smoking but could be seating in the smoking section asap. Now there is only one section for all!!! If anything it allows people to get in and out of a place quicker which in turn generates more money. "

JD to :to smokers... wrote on Apr 27, 2007 2:11 PM:

" Actually, to smokers is doing the right thing, and the same thing that I and many others are doing. We are taking our money elsewhere. While it may not shut businesses down in B-N, every dollar spent elsewhere reduces the growth of the B-N economy, while bolstering the surrounding economies. It is something that the pro-banner were just not bright enough to do, make an effort to find places that we enjoy, and supporting those places with our money. In other words, we are being adult, and accepting responsibility for making our lives enjoyable. "

RE smokers go elsewhere wrote on Apr 27, 2007 2:05 PM:

" I'm not going to whine but I will tell you if I stilled smoked I wouldn't in public places. There is too much information about how bad it is in the second hand form. Its just the mature and polite thing to do. Look at it this way you are looking out for your fellow citizens health. Unfortunatly not everyone is respectful so there need to be laws in place to protect the citizens. "

Another thing wrote on Apr 27, 2007 2:00 PM:

" 75% of the people at the bar are smoking. That is why the bars are loosing their buisness. There are people who dont smoke that will actually have a cigarette when they are out drinking. I can understand the resturants, but the bars??? "

to "Challange" from Observer wrote on Apr 27, 2007 1:56 PM:

" Read what I wrote earlier ""My Representative is worried that the ban with no exceptions for bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, casinos,, etc. will exceed $100 million dollars in lost revenue for the state. I believe she's mainly worried about losing the casino money, a very large sum. Ok, banners, how are you going to come up with the over $100 million that will be lost when the casinos leave?" Are you going to come up with this money? "

A happy median PLEASE wrote on Apr 27, 2007 1:51 PM:

" My only question is this........Whats next??? Are they going to make it so that if you are caught walking down the street smoking a cigarette you will be fined, ticketed, or go to jail???? And then what, the people who rent will all say "If you smoke, we cant rent to you". "

To all Smokers wrote on Apr 27, 2007 1:49 PM:

" None of you can come up with a guarantee. And your arguments do more to support the non-smokers. So quit crying all the time and take your c-sticks out in the cold. "

From the American Lung Association wrote on Apr 27, 2007 1:45 PM:

" "According to this study of 500,000 people in 116 American cities, long-term exposure to air that is polluted with tiny particles of soot raises the risk of dying of lung cancer or other diseases associated with it." This includes exhaust fumes from automobiles. I just want to know, how many of you power-crazed nonsmokers drives a car and what should we do about this? "

To: Smokers..Go elsewhere wrote on Apr 27, 2007 1:11 PM:

" You're a genious!!! waste $3/gallon gas so you can smoke while you eat! Great idea. You must be smoking some of the left handed tobacco if you think any of the restaurants on Veterens are going to close because you and a few of your pals go elsewhere!!! Those places are packed nightly and the smoke issue doesn't seem to bother them or the tons of people waiting in line to get a seat!!! "

SMOKERS . . . Go Elsewhere wrote on Apr 27, 2007 12:38 PM:

" Smokers, do what I do . . . Since the ban was brought to Bloomington, I refuse to eat or drink there. I prefer to spend my hundreds of dollars per month to a smaller community where "whiners" don't hang out. Collectively this can be done. Go to Cooksville, Lexington, McLean, and so on to wine and dine. Watch the restaurants on Verterans Parkway slowly disappear. Sooner or later, it will catch up to these whiners. Unless of course these nonsmokers want to pass a bill to restrict WHERE I can eat. "

Adolph Allerbush wrote on Apr 27, 2007 12:13 PM:

" Let me quess, after the state bans smoking, they will build a nother Judy Dome in springfield, right!!! Then the whole state can be as wonderful as B/N residents!!!! Boo hoo...smoke these!!!!! "

Tis wrote on Apr 27, 2007 11:36 AM:

" Non-smoker who is against the ban. I like freedom of choice, too bad other Americans are so willing to let government (who's getting pockets padded by health lobbist) make it for them. As for, "The smoker can go outside to smoke." If true, then the non-smoker can go outside to eat, or whatever they are doing indoors if smoking is allowed. Or, here's a great plan, which is the way it is now, smokers go to smoking places and the non-smoker go to non-smoking places. "

JD to: to Gregory wrote on Apr 27, 2007 11:32 AM:

" Anyone with any ability to think knows that going into an establishment that allows smoking means that there is a chance you will be exposed to the smoke, non-smoking section or not. Now if a person knows this, and still chooses to go into the smoking establishment versus going to a non-smoking one down the street, who is at fault for their exposure? If they go into the non-smoking establishment, then obviously the risks, to them, are not enough to prevent them from going in. Their "right" to clean air was never breeched, except for what they allowed it to be. "

jimmy wrote on Apr 27, 2007 11:25 AM:

" i wish they would focus half as much attention on AFFORDABLE healthcare and insurance... the hacks. "

RE: Re: Emily wrote on Apr 27, 2007 11:24 AM:

" So you are telling me that you can choose not to inhale the pollution in the air from vehicles and other assorted polluters, besides smoke? Nice try buddy, I would like to see it happen! Smoke from cigarettes wafts just as much as perfume, car exhaust, etc. Lets just face it folks, this is an attack on smokers because people view them as bad people or criminals when really all we want is to smoke our ciggies in peace! Again, let's spend our money on something a little more useful in this country, eh? "

To Pontiac guard wrote on Apr 27, 2007 11:22 AM:

" YOur comment about Spitting puddles of Skol is gross. I do feel that they should ban smoking inside prison buildings. Smoking is a privlige by commiting a crime the people in prison are there to serve not be given special rights. They should have made better choices and kept their sorry butt out of prison. My brother works in Pontiac and I would hate to see anything happen to put him or any other guard, inmate, or worker injured. But by giving prisoners comfortable enviroment and rights to smoke we make prison a pretty comfy place. "

RE: Re: Emily wrote on Apr 27, 2007 11:16 AM:

Exempt prisons? wrote on Apr 27, 2007 10:47 AM:

" If you exempt prisons you'll have lazy smokers who'll get arrested just so they can get 3 hots and a cot AND be able to smoke. "

To Gregory wrote on Apr 27, 2007 10:46 AM:

" Currently, there is no proven ventilation system to remove carcinogens from the air. The smoke can be removed, but not the carcinogens. When are smokers going to get it? It is not about the right to smoke. No one is taking away your right to smoke. It is about the non-smokers' (who are the majority) right to breath air without carcinogens from cigarette smoke. Someday, future generations will not believe that smoking was ever allowed in public places. This is about a better environment, not about the right to smoke. "

To: Pontiac Guard wrote on Apr 27, 2007 10:44 AM:

" Now what? How about we'll ban your nasty skoal? "

Gregory wrote on Apr 27, 2007 10:12 AM:

" For the Health OF THE WORKERS - WHAT A LIE !!! This is a red herring being used to take away peoples right to choose. Many employees prefer to work in a Smoking-Permitted environment. There are many jobs in America that have much more hazard than second hand smoke - and yet we allow people to choose to work in these environments. There are also policies and technology that are readily available that can easily enable a non-smoker in a smoke-permitted environment to not encounter ANY hazard from second hand smoke. To take it to the extreme, you could easily offer any employee the option of wearing a respirator mask or hermtically sealing their particular work area and provide separate ventillation. In fact, what if a businessman wanted to cater only to Smoke-Tolerant patrons and required all workers to wear respiratory protection? Should we still take away that owners right to serve a significant population of people that enjoy smoking? Since second hand smoke is much less dangerous than many other odors and fumes in manufacturing environments, this seems extreme....but shouldn't we let the businesses dicide their policy? "

Food for Thought wrote on Apr 27, 2007 10:06 AM:

" There have been many comments regarding the pros and cons of making a law banning smoking. One of the comments much earlier in the debate was what's next and many people bashed the person stating that. I was reading an article regarding obesity today and the comment in the article said and I quote, "Environmental interventions to counter the obesity epidemic, similar to tobacco and alcohol policy, would be needed." Now we know what may be next...bye, bye freedom!!! "

Fromer B/N Resident wrote on Apr 27, 2007 9:11 AM:

" I am a former resident of B/N and now live in the metro east area of St Louis. The area I live in will be harshly impacted by a state wide smoking ban. The casino 15 miles from me will need to stop their new construction because you can drive across the river and smoke. Living less than 20 miles from Missouri allows for smokers to smoke and Illinois, expecially the metro east will lose millions of dollars a year in revenue for bars and casinos. Ban smokign in restaurants if you want, that is fine. Leave everything else alone. I have refused to enter any establishment in B/N since they passed their bans, and will do the same where I live if the state does the same. As for directly effecting me, my wife is a bartender who will lose at least half her income if a ban is passed. That will really help in raising my 2 children "

RE: Emily wrote on Apr 27, 2007 8:25 AM:

" You may not blow your cancer smoke in my face intentionally (thank you), but it wafts, oh yes, it wafts. And people can voluntarily avoid those other material things; however, smoke in public areas is unavoidable. Unless you're a hermit. I can choose to not eat fast food, watch violent TV, use a cell phone, drive a car, and read a magazine; however I CANNOT choose whether or not I breathe in smoke in a public area to which I frequent. And I refuse to stay out of public areas and forfeit my own enjoyment of such places just to appease smokers so that they may pollute the air we all have to breathe. "

Todd From Danville wrote on Apr 27, 2007 8:16 AM:

" I sure hope this passes. it sure will be nice to go out to dinner and not come out of there smelling of smoke. It doesn't matter if you are in the non smoking area you still smell it. Half the time the difference between smoking/non smoking is a couple feet. If you want to smoke Go Outside and away from the door. "

Hey, Challange wrote on Apr 27, 2007 7:23 AM:

" Got a question for you. If a smoker (or non-smoker) accepts your challenge and they can't say the Government shouldn't get into our business, then you can't whine and say the Government SHOULD get into our business and ban smoking. Same coin, different side. I have a friend whose a bar owner in downstate Illinois where they're still allowed to smoke (for now) & I think this should be his decision. He don't force people to work for him or come into his establishment. If they don't like the smoke they can always patronize or work for someone else. That's their decision, not his, not mine & it shouldn't be the Government's either. If they can't say it's their right to smoke, then you can't cry and say it's your right to force them not to smoke. As a non-smoker myself, I would rather confine them to certain bars and keep them inside where they're not throwing their dirty butts on the streets & sidewalks, inside where I can walk down the sidewalk and not pass a whole group huddled together blowing their smoke at me and my family. Let's see you answer your own challenge. "

Rick wrote on Apr 27, 2007 7:13 AM:

" Removing cigarette smoke from public places has nothing to do with "rights". It is a dangerous air pollution (like asbestos) and business owners have an obligation to provide a safe work environment for their employees. I don't want my grandchild having to work in a polluted environment and I hope by the time he is working age that cigarette smoke is one more pollutant he will not have to endure. Cigarette smoke kills 53,000 non-smoking Citizens every year - it is the 3rd. leading cause of preventable death in the U.S (2006 Surgeon General's Report). If that isn't reason to remove it from where people work 8 hours a day, we should have no laws. Business owners are the LAST people that should decide how much pollution to fill the air with, because they will get away with as much as they can to make an extra buck. The health of their employees should come first. I would like to know how ANYONE can justify putting the health of their employees second. "

TO When did nonsmoking wrote on Apr 27, 2007 7:12 AM:

" Poor example.... "I know I am blowing it out of proportion but I was wondering what you "whiners" are going to attack next . . . Big Macs, Mountain Dew . . . the list goes on and on." Big Macs, Mountain Dew...the rest of the list...they dont affect me. If you want to kill yourself by eating Big Macs (by the way contain cow eyeballs as McD. is the LARGEST buyer of cow eyeballs), drinking Mt. Dew and finishing off the list...by all means feel free. One less ignorant person we have to live w/. YOU were not intended to live forever. Face your fear and move on . . . GEEZ! What mundane lives you must lead." "

TO My View wrote on Apr 27, 2007 7:09 AM:

" ....."However, as a law-abiding citizen, don't take away my rights!" smoke at your home...nobody is stopping you there. Dont take away my right to be able to breathe and live a healthly life. Kill yourself...not me. "

HaHa! wrote on Apr 27, 2007 7:02 AM:

" Soon you won't be immune Leroy,Illinois ,no escape! "

to "get real people" wrote on Apr 27, 2007 6:52 AM:

" You're right. Health care costs are up. But this is also in part because of the joint pains, diabetes & other problems associated with being morbidly obese. I say we ban fatty foods & make these people lose weight so my healthcare costs will go down. Do you see how stupid this sounds? Almost as stupid as blaming rising healthcare costs on smokers. By the way . . . .I'm a non-smoker but I don't believe I or anyone else have the right to tell a business owner how to run their business. "

Choice wrote on Apr 27, 2007 6:51 AM:

" Soon, smokers will be able to enjoy the same privileges non-smokers have always had. Non-smokers have always had the freedom to choose whether or not to enter an establishment that permitted smoking. Now smokers will have the right to choose whether to enter establishments where smoking is prohibited. It is only right that smokers be given the choice. A person going into an establishment that prohibits smoking does so knowing they will not be permitted to smoke. So common courtesy would dictate that if a person was that worried about not being able to smoke, they would not go into the establishment, thus forcing an issue. "

Mahalo wrote on Apr 27, 2007 6:46 AM:

" The Legislature needs to check facts. And the fact is, in California after the total statewide smoking ban, business in bars as well as restaurants went up. What they discovered was that a lot of people with smoke allergies, health concerns, and aversion to smelling like an old ash tray, were suddenly able to go into bars and enjoy a drink. And that is a fact that is supported by data from the California Liquor Control Commission...check it out. "

Golffan wrote on Apr 27, 2007 6:04 AM:

" "A Friend" is right. Soon neither smokers nor non-smokers will have to choose where to go. Smokers can simply stay home. Which, of course, is a good thing. It's make it easier for the Hysterics to find them. As their next Crusade builds steam. The one which will regulate what folks may do in their own homes. An interesting irony. Since soon smokers, Muslims and homosexuals will, in one respect at least, make strange bedfellows. So to speak, of course. The good Lord must have genuinely loved well meaning boobs and Hysterics. He certainly made more than enough of them. "

A Friend wrote on Apr 27, 2007 5:34 AM:

" This bill has strong support in the Illinois House. I predict it will pass easily and signed into law. The probable effective date will be January 1, 2008. Soon the words "It is the Law" will have statewide meaning. No longer will non-smokers be forced to choose where to go; smokers will have to choose. It is the Law!!! "

Our government~~~ wrote on Apr 27, 2007 5:09 AM:

" should not take the smokers rights away anymore than the non smokers rights. It should be up to each establishments rights as to what they want. If you banned alcohol what would those politicians do for an excuse to rush to re-hab?? What excuse would they have to swim to shore and run home before calling police and let them know someone drowned in your car but you only saved yourself? Would it be like prohibition?? Moonshine for politicians? Alcohol will NEVER be banned anywhere for that very reason, politicians. Just take a look at the Pantagraph front page 7-10 days ago. The booze was flowing, but not a smoke in sight. They all drink so that's ok, but put out that smoke. Well they can all kiss my A*** because I don't drink and I can walk straight and don't slur my words. "

former smoker wrote on Apr 27, 2007 5:05 AM:

" To all current smokers. I really believe this ban could help you do it. I use to be just like you. I hated the fact that there places I couldn't smoke just because there were some people who didn't like it. These are the facts and they are irrefutable: smoking causes diseases, second hand smoke causes diseases, chewing tobacco is not a good alternative to smoking cigaretts, kicking the habit is only hard for the first few days, people have the right to eat their meal without having to be around the smoke. should you choose not to quit, you can still smoke you will just need to do it outside. As far as the alcohol ban argument is concerned, you really can't use it. We have had laws against drunk driving, being drunk in public, and underage drinking for years. People who break those laws go to jail. I feel 110% better since I gave up the smokes 2 years ago, and I know I will be around longer for my family. It can be done folks!!! 3 days, will power, and plenty of water is all ya need. Good luck!!!! "

to: "normal resident" wrote on Apr 27, 2007 4:45 AM:

" I am grown up. I work, pay taxes, and everything else that comes with being grown up. The fact remains nobody has the right to tell me I can't smoke. I'm sure you have 1 or 2 bad habits, do I have the right to tell you you can't have those? In addition, it is a well known fact that people smoke in bars. I saw a commercial on t.v. last night pushing the smoking ban in Illinois, the lady talking said she was a bar tender and blamed second hand smoke on her cancer. She went on to say "nobody should have to risk their health for a paycheck." However, when we Correctional Officers start talking about lack of staff, and staff being assaulted by inmates, everyone wants to start in with "You knew it was a dangerous place when you took the job"? I don't see any difference. If you don't want to be around the smoke, find a different job, go to a different resturant, etc... I am still waiting for someone to tell me where the bans are going to stop? "

Not Losing Rights wrote on Apr 27, 2007 4:31 AM:

" I'm married, it's legal for my spouse and I to have sex in our home, it's not legal for us to have sex in public places, how many people are complaining about this law? Why is this less a restriction of our rights than a public smoking ban? The restriction are for the common good. "

OGS High Health Care Costs wrote on Apr 27, 2007 2:39 AM:

" are due to the greed of health care administrators and their bottom line of profit. Even if everyone quit smoking tomorrow, health care

Ads by Yahoo!

Relocating to Bloomington IL?

Life Is Good

Build a Sunroom