Pantagraph.com | News | Economist: State will lose money from 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.

Syhemia wrote on Jan 30, 2008 1:05 PM:

" come n smokers just think of all the peple you harm just because of your selfish bad habit! "

Cary wrote on May 12, 2007 2:04 PM:

" I enjoy how it is always the tobacco lobby or some "crazy smoker" who is blamed for reports such as this. The New England Journal of Medicine published a paper which said the exact same thing some years ago and as far as i could tell those authors were quite against smoking. In the long run smokers cost less, because they die before they get to the age that they would require major medical expenditures. Also, taxes both direct and indirect (Taxes accrued when eating out etc.) have been shown to decline after bans are passed. If you don't believe this last point do a search for illinois smoking ban and read the article about Champaign-Urbana. "

CHICAGO RESTAURANT OWNER wrote on May 11, 2007 2:44 AM:

" IF THE STATE & LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE SO WORRIED ABOUT THE PUBLIC'S HEALTH AND SAFETY PERHAPS THEY SHOULD BAN THE SALE OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS ALTOGETHER. OH, I FORGOT, WITHOUT THAT TAX REVENUE AS A FINANCIAL CRUTCH HOW COULD THEY TRY TO BALANCE THEIR RIDICULOUSLY INEFICIENT BUDGET. PLEASE DO NOT COVER UP AN OBVIOUS POLITICAL DECISION UNDER THE GUISE OF IT BEING FOR THE PUBLIC'S SAFETY & WELL BEING. "

HA! wrote on May 10, 2007 4:42 PM:

" You pro-smokers can certainly put your spin on just about everything can't you? Wow....how dillusional it must be in that cloud of smoke you all are standing in. Please come "in" to the non smoke filled air of my bar/restaurant. "

JD: to CarolAnn wrote on May 4, 2007 9:18 AM:

" If you would like a better example, red meat when it is cooked, not only releases airborne carcinogens, but causes carcinogens to be created on the outside of the meat. So when a person orders a hamburger or a streak, they are forcing everyone else in the establishment to be subjected to carcinogens regards of if they wanted to or not. Not to mention risking exposure to carcinogens themselves. (sound familiar?) Now knowing this, I wonder how many pro-banners are willing to have the cooking or red meat banned in public places for "public safety"? "

To CarolAnn wrote on May 3, 2007 11:26 PM:

" You stated, "No one is pumping auto exhaust fumes into a building where people work." I am assuming you work in an environment that allows smoking. Lets see . . . I am a correctional officer and knew the risk to my life working in such environment as a prison. You KNEW smoking was allowed where you worked and was aware of the risk of SHS. Do you see the similarity? I am surprise you need someone to tell you to find another job. As for exhaust fumes . . . Does it really matter if it is indoors or out? I highly suggest you do some reading of the study performed by the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health regarding this matter. No mention about being outside or inside. I guess you just don't want to give up your PT Cruiser convertible. "

CarolAnn wrote on May 3, 2007 10:28 PM:

" I wish prosmokers would stop making comparisons between SHS and automobile exhaust fumes. No one is pumping auto exhaust fumes into a building where people work. "

To: Voice of Reason wrote on May 3, 2007 5:59 PM:

" You sure know how to use that "copy and paste". And once again I ask you . . . it has been studied that exhaust fumes are a contributor to cancer. Does that give me the honor to form a group to ban people from driving any type of vehicle? Why haven't you folks done that yet? And don't give me that emission control stuff. Do your research and you will be amazed. The bottom line is, unless we find a cure for cancer, this deadly disease will always be around . . . regardless if it is from smoking, exhaust fumes, Big Macs . . . you name it. Here is a hint . . . with this ban you paranoid people have invoke, DOES NOT exclude you from having cancer in the future. "

Voice of Reason wrote on May 3, 2007 5:07 PM:

" "There is really no such thing as 'smokers rights'. Smokers have the same rights as the rest of us. We all have rights. Our behaviors are rights when they do not interfere with other's rights. Smoking in public is not a right. When a smoker smokes in public he exposes others to a substance that they may not want to be exposed to. This is why we have a government that regulates our behaviors so that they do not unreasonably interfear with the rights of others. There are many behaviors that we cannot do in public but can do in private. Think about it. As a non-smoker I have had to walk through clouds of smoke when smokers congregated around the entrance of a non-smoking building to smoke. These smokers were more concerned with their comfort of standing by the door in the shade than with my rights not to breath or have my clothing smell like their tobacco. This is just one of many examples. Smokers are addicts. When you try to regulate or change an addicts behavior you will meet resistance, denial and unreasonable logic. Much of which you can read below. " "

Question for the Nonsmoker . . . wrote on May 3, 2007 5:03 PM:

" Now that you had your way in passing this bill, who do I contact to have my HMO premiums reduced? I mean, you claim health costs will not be so high. Can someone tell me where I should go . . . or was all that a joke? "

Hey Nonsmokers . . . wrote on May 3, 2007 5:02 PM:

Come on wrote on May 3, 2007 1:39 PM:

" Everyone needs to stop the name calling. This is a health and an economic issue. America is all about choices. In this case, there should be some form of exemption to taverns and casinos. You must be 21 to enter and are making that choice to go there. Now, as a free market person, if there is such a high demand for non smoking facilities let someone open one up. If this non smoking facility starts to take business from the smoking, then that business owner will need to make a choice. It is the same thing with groceries. If store A is cheaper than B your are going to go to store A. There is something to be said for the lost tax revenue. You can't tell me you aren't somewhat concerned there is at least a plan in place if there is a dramatic loss in tax revenue because of the ban. "

Dig Deeper wrote on May 3, 2007 1:29 PM:

" I figured that the "Tax Foundation" had some ties to the tobacco companies and I was right. Check out this link and that will explain why they claim that Illinois will "lose money because of the ban". Typical big tobacco trick to use front groups.....check it out www.tobacco.org/resources/documents/010205taxfoundation.html "

Ha! wrote on May 3, 2007 1:01 PM:

" Dave and Here is what they will tax, I love your comments!!! "

Hoot wrote on May 3, 2007 12:31 PM:

" To: Mr. Fleenor and Mr. Gofffan: It's obvious to me that, even with these silly numbers you spout, you don't have a clue. Here is the truth. People will not lose their jobs or businesses due to this smoking ban, and the state will not lose tax revenues from bars, restaurants or casinos either. Just the opposite. There will be an economic boom. We know this because...well, we just do. And besides, if we lose revenues, we will just raise the tax on cigarettes, and we'll keep raising it until we get the revenue we need. Simple. Wait until Chicago gets the Olympics. We will all share in the fun and the economic blessings. Except for you nasty smokers...you're not invited. So take that...Na, Na, Na, Naaa, Naaa. "

To JD wrote on May 3, 2007 12:16 PM:

" you are so caught up in your addiction. You worry about losing your rights. but you do not care about others rights. You are dismissive of anyone who disagrees with you. I hate to break this to you but the smoking issue is a HEALTH ISSUE, not an economy issue. "

Do you think wrote on May 3, 2007 12:16 PM:

" $30 milliom here $40million there, where is it going to stop? You non-smokers can pony up the money for higher taxes if you want, but I surely don't want to. What is going to happen to the economy of this great state? Wasn't California having difficulties with their buget no to long ago? I think they need to worry about our schools, health care {and no, it isn't high just because of the smokers} gas prices energy prices and a whole lot more than just smoking. Of course the ordinary person won't beable to stop him signing the bill, but at least we have a forum to vent our frustrations. Personally I think the whole idea sucks. Tennessee is looking better and better. "

JD to: Smokers Choice wrote on May 3, 2007 11:52 AM:

" I stand behind my assertions I made in other threads about the majority of people in Central Illinois being ignorant to the point it should be a crime. Just look at the number of people who want to say that the economists are wrong, who have no understanding of even the basics of economics. They has focused their hatred of smoking to the point that they can not see the forest for the trees, and argue without truly seeing the true causality that this ban will incur. They want to try and look at each individual picture, and justify it, instead of looking at the big picture. Talk about small minded. "

Economist? wrote on May 3, 2007 11:23 AM:

" Spoken like a true smoker. Not so sure about the economist part. "

Ultimately, wrote on May 3, 2007 11:14 AM:

" it was the loss of federal excise tax revenue that doomed liquor prohibition, with income tax revenue precipitously declining in the early years of the Depression. As behavior control, of course, Prohibition had long since failed, and it never did increase productivity, as promised. "

To: who cares wrote on May 3, 2007 10:53 AM:

" You said it right.. Thanks... That is what i wanted to say too.. "

Fat tax wrote on May 3, 2007 10:32 AM:

" I think it's time to get a little more creative with our "sin" taxes. For starters, let's slap fast food with a 5% additional tax. Right there, we'd raise a ton of money and save lives. Pop would come next, 5 cents/serving. Red meat, maybe 5 cents/ounce. Margarine, 25 cents/stick. Chips, fatty snacks, twinkies, ho-hos, etc, all at least 5%. Then maybe we'd find out how many people REALLY care about people's health, and how many are just hypocrites when it comes to smoking. "

Smokers choice wrote on May 3, 2007 9:58 AM:

" It is a person's choice to smoke and that is a choice everyone has. It is not their choice to poison other people who choose not to smoke. So do your smoking in your car, in your house, in your yard and anywhere else you don't contaminate other people (than your family that you supposedly love). The amount of cigarette sales is not going to decrease because of the smoking ban, the amount of alcohol might decrease to begin with but will level out and be about the same in sales. People who drink will drink, people who smoke will smoke but not in public places. I'm all for smokers lighting up in their cars and keeping the filth in there with them & they can get double the contamination and not share it. People are not going to move to another state because eventually almost all the states are going to be non-smoking. And I am sure that Rod does not read these blogs so all the threats of moving, smoking/drinking at home, etc are not even being noted. Go puff one and cough some more. "

dave wrote on May 3, 2007 9:12 AM:

" It slays me that the issue of smoking was to better the world for our children and to save lives of all the stupid people that poison themselves every day. So we allow smoking in the parks where children are, but not in the bars where children should not be. We do this for the good of all man kind, and when the small businesses go from a full house to an empty group of tables, no one listens. Even all the non smokers that said they would be there for those small businesses empty tables,,, not,,, But hold on now, lost tax revenue,, did no one think of this. I am a smoker, some day I will quit, God knows i have been trying. But I am weak. It will happen though. Now as for your other taxes going up due to the across the board loss in revenue,, other taxes will be increased,,, that will be forever,, Good Morning IL. Go ahead pass the law,, Be carefull what you wish for... "

Losing our freedom???? wrote on May 3, 2007 9:00 AM:

" When will this stop?????? Where is our freedom of choice going? I believe if a person owns his/her own building, his/her business, and his/her own land they should have the decision of allowing smoking or not!!!!! The democrats and their "leader" Rod are a disgrace!!!!!! "

honestly wrote on May 3, 2007 8:33 AM:

" I honestly wonder if the people who post here have ever been out to a bar. If you say it will have no effect on the amount of cigerrettes bought you really have no idea what you are talking about. Those of us who have worked in bars or frequent them know that it is a FACT that people smoke more when they are in the bars and also that is the only time some people smoke at all. It is also a FACT that if people cannot smoke in the bar that they do not stay as long thus they spend less money. You can say what you will but if you dispute these facts then you are wrong and anyone who goes out knows this. So argue away and I will keep laughing at your nonsense. "

To: duh ok wrote on May 3, 2007 8:30 AM:

" You answered your own question about what gives them the right to regulate your business - quote "...they gave me the permit to start in the first place." That permit gives them the right to regulate you. Just like max capacity, health inspections, enforcing drinking age, regulating what you can sell, etc. etc. etc. Heck, they even regulate what you can use for insulation in your own building. This is just one more item on that very long list. "

To: ol smokey wrote on May 3, 2007 8:28 AM:

" First of all, that's pretty sad if you'd move states just to appease your habit. However, it won't do you much good in Indiana, they're fast on the heals of Illinois on this issue. www.smokefreeworld.com/indiana.shtml Several towns already have indoor bans, and that momentum is sure to carry over to the state level eventually. "

The Slippery Slope! wrote on May 3, 2007 8:27 AM:

" If we allow smoking just because it generates tax revenue, what will be next? Will we next legalize prostitution, marajuana, or something more sinsister. Oh noes! "

to "ET" wrote on May 3, 2007 8:24 AM:

" No, ET, YOU are the one missing the point! The revenue from the casinos (which will be GREATLY reduced) gives huge amounts of money to our SCHOOLS. Remember, so much of your smoking ban was to "benefit" the children and families. Are you going to make up the $!1m that goes to my local school - out of your "healthy, non-smelly" pocket? NO! "

to all the no revenue loss believers wrote on May 3, 2007 8:18 AM:

" The Herald News - Joliet this morning: "In its 2007 budget, Joliet expects to collect more than $35 million from riverboat gaming. Officials use that money to fund community agencies and improvement projects. The concern in Illinois is that gamblers will visit casinos in neighboring states like Missouri, Iowa and Indiana where smoking is not restricted." "We estimate that it will probably reduce revenue across the state by 20 percent," said Tom Swoik, executive director of the Illinois Casino Gaming Association that represents the majority of the state's casinos." 20% of $35M is a major reduction for our area! THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH!! "

////// wrote on May 3, 2007 8:16 AM:

" are you telling me if i stop smoking this state will go under i agree with smokey raise the sales tax i like my freedom to smoke and have a ice cold beer remember this is still the USA "

so ... wrote on May 3, 2007 8:15 AM:

" where do they plan to make up the money loss from us non smokers? "

Golffan wrote on May 3, 2007 7:59 AM:

" The CDC currently recommends that the State of Illinois spend between $64.9 million and $179 million a year on a comprehensive tobacco prevention program. Illinois currently spends 0.9% of the $913.4 million in tobacco generated revenue the state collects in tobacco settlement payments and tobacco taxes. The $8.5 million in Blago's budget for tobacco prevention is actually a DECREASE from FY2006 and FY2005. In 2000, George Ryan chose to use most of the state's initial tobacco settlement payments for one time tax rebates and refunds to Illinois residents. So much sof 'Health" concerns. The Hysterics and their minions continue to preach to the simple minded the Health benefits of all the tobacco cessation programs. And the deadly effects of secondhand smoke. Claims which, on close examination, evaporate in a cloud of smoke. So to speak. As tobacco users continue to subsidize Illinois programs which have nothing to do with tobacco cessation. One smoke cloud substituted for another. Illinois can't balance a budget WITH tobacco money. Which would lead all but the most obtuse to believe that they'll be able to balance it WITHOUT the tobacco funds. Patrick Fleenor is correct. Except that he has understated this boobery. "

SH wrote on May 3, 2007 7:46 AM:

" Now we're paying the government to run our personal lives for us. That's the part I'm not happy about. If we allow them to run our lives like they do the government, we're doomed to a life of poverty and servatude. Isn't that a socialist society? It should be up to the business owner to allow or not. It should be our right to decide if we go into a business or not and smoke or not. We're giving our rights away and paying the government to take them. I'm an ex-smoker. The only part of the ban I agree with is not smoking with children in your vehicle. Everything else, we should make our own decisions. We're supposed to be a free country. Why aren't we putting more pressure on government to regulate utilities and gas prices instead of regulating our personal lives? We're going in the wrong direction! "

to ol smokey wrote on May 3, 2007 7:42 AM:

" Can you take your all your ashtray smelling friends with you....please???? "

Economist - not Psychologist wrote on May 3, 2007 7:40 AM:

" He may be a good economist, but he doesn't understand addiction. There won't be reduced sale of cigarettes. Addiction doesn't work that way. People will still buy and smoke as many cigarettes, they'll just be doing it outside or at home. The healthcare savings will come from less NON smokers getting sick. "

illinois sucks... wrote on May 3, 2007 7:30 AM:

" i am a non smoker and illinois has got to become insane and caring nothing literally nothing but keping the rich man happy and blago happy himself we all know he will sign it what does he care he is already fi;thy rich he could careless! he acts like he smokes more than a cigerette maybe this ban will help him kick his habit because he surely cant be reached in springfield! !!! "

Hogwash wrote on May 3, 2007 7:05 AM:

" Smokers support the state? Smokers will quit smoking if there is a ban? Sounds like hogwash to me. If the smokers are so concerned about our state's revenue (smokers are so thoughtful looking out for us non-smokers) Then why not just increase the tax on cigarettes to compensate the state? "

hank wrote on May 3, 2007 6:44 AM:

" Tax fat people and the eateries that make them that way...after all obesity is now the number 1 killer!!!!! "

Ex Smoker wrote on May 3, 2007 6:30 AM:

" I am so excited about this smoking ban. I quit smoking seven years ago and it was the best thing I've ever done. I hate being around other's smoke and find it offensive. Just QUIT !!! and you don't have to worry about the smoking ban......you will feel better, smell better and have a longer life. This is the best thing that Rod has done for our state. "

to all wrote on May 3, 2007 6:12 AM:

" The whole point behind this bill is that they point the finger at the smoker for cancer in a non-smoker!! Look around you smell that bad odor coming from the vehicle beside you. Does it cause cancer too!! Any studies on it? How about that chemical you put on your lawn to make it look nice. The overspray from that and the wind carrying the chemical to the next door neihbors yard where kids are playing and sucking this stuff in their lungs. Does this cause cancer? You can't point the finger and say that causes cancer in everybody let's put a ban on it then it will go away. There are more cancer causing problems out there in the public area than you know about!! And your breathing it in!! "

a reader wrote on May 3, 2007 5:49 AM:

" I'm so glad we have such smart people who can figure these things out! "

John K. wrote on May 3, 2007 3:59 AM:

" And the latest from the UK... "A BAN on smokers and the obese getting certain treatments on the NHS in some parts of the country has been defended by Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt. " If you don't think they're coming for you next... you aren't thinking. "

Too bad you people.... wrote on May 3, 2007 2:11 AM:

" don't live closer to OK where the Indian Smoke Shops sell cigarettes dirt cheap; like $26.50 a carton for premium brands. OK left it up to individual businesses to have smoking or non-smoking. To have smoking, a business must have a separate room with a proper ventilation system - there are quite a few businesses here who made the smoking room. Their business is GREAT! With a tax of 98 cents, I think Illinois is going to lose revenue that will have to be made up elsewhere - good luck to all of you pro-ban people when your taxes get raised. "

ol smokey wrote on May 2, 2007 10:53 PM:

" Well i have 8 months left to relocate to indiana where they dont even have an issue with smoking ...Thanks illinois for running me out... "

Smokey wrote on May 2, 2007 10:51 PM:

" I say raise the state income tax, that way everyone, including non smokers can get in on the action of supporting our wonderful state government when revenues go down. "

Hoosier Daddy wrote on May 2, 2007 10:09 PM:

" I drive for a living, and I can tell you for a fact that there are a bunch of Indiana and Missouri businesses who love our cigarette taxes. You'd be surprised how many people will drive 100 miles (or 50), and buy 3-4 cartons to save 10 bucks. Oh, and while they're there, they fill up their gas tank, and save another couple bucks. Illinois must be some native American word for sucker. "

to: huh? wrote on May 2, 2007 9:55 PM:

" I am sure you are right, and the high ranking economists are wrong. After all, they are just educated in the way the economy works and observe it. I am sure you are better qualified to make judgments on the economy. The pro-ban supported got their agenda passed, and are either still in denial that there will be ramifications, or attempting to come up with new ideas to raise the money they claimed would not be lost in the first place. "

duh ok wrote on May 2, 2007 9:53 PM:

" let me say one word...prohibition ! Did it work ? why ? First the state loses revenue the supposed cost stay and people still do it, some importantant people get caught and guess what time for change again. Furthermore what gives a state the right to say what i can do with a business they gave me the permit to start in the first place. "BOTTOMLINE IF YOU DONT LIKE SMOKE STAY AWAY FROM IT" YOU DONT HAVE TO COME HERE GO TO THE OTHER PLACE THAT HATES SMOKE WE ALL HAVE THAT RIGHT UNLESS YOU WANT TO TAKE THAT AWAY AS WELL. TO MANY RULES... I QUIT TRYING TO PLEASE EVERYONE A LONG TIME AGO . DONT LIKE IT DO YOUR OWN THING "

Farmer to JD wrote on May 2, 2007 9:52 PM:

" You said, "They would better spend their time listening to the surrounding farmers, and B-N townies, many of whom have never left Illinois, when it comes to economics" This farmer graduated magna c*m laude with a B.S. in economics from one of your "local" universities. Learn a little humility. It'll serve you well in life. "

ummm JD wrote on May 2, 2007 9:51 PM:

" do you really ever read your posts yourself? There are some great drugs out there, and the stigma for taking them is all but gone. "

Blagojevich wrote on May 2, 2007 9:44 PM:

" Mr. Blagojevich, I never really cared for you because you dont spend much time in the actual capital city of Illinois and seem to only care about Chicago, but if you sign this ban into law, I will let the other stuff slide. Thanks buddy. "

Have You Noticed . . . wrote on May 2, 2007 9:44 PM:

" When these nonsmokers write their opinions, they sound like the nagging next door neighbor that always thought their viewpoint was best for you. For some odd reason, they think they have right to control your life. It is their annoying "paternal" instincts that cause me to smoke more just to calm my nerves. "

IBC wrote on May 2, 2007 9:42 PM:

" This is so funny. IBC is right by the law and justice center or whatever they call it right? so, if you go there you can smoke if you want to even though they do NOT have a smoking extension. The staff says "We allow everyone to smoke untill someone complains about it." They even put out ashtrays. What a complete joke. Someone please bust this place and show everyone else that this ban is real and people are going to have to abide by it. Thank you. "

to huh? wrote on May 2, 2007 9:38 PM:

" Thank you for making that very true point. Some people will quit, thank God, but not enough to make a huge dent. And Blm Nml does not have to worry about losing business, I dont think Joe Blow is going to drive 2 hours to go to a bar in Indiana, if he does go for it, he will at least buy gas in IL. to make the trip. "

ET wrote on May 2, 2007 9:35 PM:

" It appears that many are missing the real point. FIrst of all, I doubt that there will be that kind of revenue loss. Even if there is, it will be well worth it. The point that everyone seems to be missing is that saving lives and improving health is worth a few bucks. If (and that is a big if), this ban produces a negative imapct on tax revenue, I will gladly pay more in some other tax in order to be able to go into any public palce and not be accosted by some unconsiderate person's second hand smoke. I will consider it money well spent. "

to smokers wrote on May 2, 2007 9:34 PM:

" isnt it a wake up call when if you try to buy life insurance, you either cannot find any because you smoke, or it is sky high. Why is that? Because the life insurance companies know its a bad investment. You are going to die alot sooner. Duh people, lets use some common sense, just stop smoking! Smoking doesnt make you a bad person, just someone that makes bad life decisions. "

huh? wrote on May 2, 2007 9:29 PM:

" So, if there is a ban on smoking, people will stop buying cigarettes all together? I don't think so. The same amount of people will buy the same amount of cigarettes, they just have to find other places to smoke them. "

Lose money, save lives wrote on May 2, 2007 9:28 PM:

" come on people, what is more important? I am sorry you are losing one of your rights, but guess what, it is for the better no matter what you say. Sure the government is taking away your right, but every once in awhile the government actually does something good, and this is one example. "

Here Is What They Will Tax wrote on May 2, 2007 9:23 PM:

" Sodas . . . one of the most sought after drink in Illinois. Be prepared to pay $3 to $5 for one soda! What do the nonsmoking advocates have to say now . Did you know the American Medical Association claims that soda is causing a major rise in diabetes? Oh my, more medical expense issues in Illinois. I am sure there is advocate group out there that will push for the ban of this sweet water. Stock up before they arrest you!!! "

30 Million wrote on May 2, 2007 9:19 PM:

" Well worth it to save so many lives. Just make it 8 dollars per pack and that will even it out. Boohoo for smokers. "

OGS the Health Industry wrote on May 2, 2007 9:11 PM:

" Anyone who believes that healthcare costs will decrease is a fool. Ignorance is bliss. "

Confused wrote on May 2, 2007 8:59 PM:

" This sure doesn't sound very scientific to me. What have been the results in those states that have already passed a smoking ban? Wouldn't knowing those results be more meaningful than merely assuming that fewer cigarettes will be purchased? People are going to be doing something in the bar so if they can't smoke might they not be spending more on food and drink? Will people really smoke a lot less or just step outside to light up? But in the end, isn't it more about peoples' rights not to be exposed to cigarette smoke than it is about economics? It is very hard to establish an economic value for a life unnecessarially snuffed out. "

Sad Day wrote on May 2, 2007 8:44 PM:

" People against the ban have been raising the alarm about the lost revenue from the beginning, but too many people are so focus on their personal agendas that they blind to reality. They are seriously so delusional that they feel they can have their cake and eat it too. It is short sighted and ignorant to think one can apply serious restrictions to one of the biggest tax generators in Illinois without decreasing that revenue. Combining this with the business tax Blago is proposing, and you have a situation where the workers and the business both do not want to be here. It is a stroke of genius, eh? "

well.......... wrote on May 2, 2007 8:06 PM:

" This could get interesting. I agree, what is the plan to replace this tax? I bet they wouldn't be so skippy about taxing beer instead? We better open a smoke-free casino and soon. "

Do you think: wrote on May 2, 2007 8:02 PM:

" I just thought of something else. HOP ALL YOU NON-SMOKERS ARE HAPPY NOW. We all get to pay higher taxes before much longer. "

Do you think! wrote on May 2, 2007 7:57 PM:

" Of course they'll taxes. How do you think they'll recoup there loss? I'll tell you what, Illinois if getting to high for me to continue living here. We've lived here for 42 years and I hate to leave, but I can't afford it on a fixed income. Think I'll move to Tennesse where the people are friendlier and you can still light up in your favorite restauraunt and bar!!!!!!!!!!! See you Blago. "

The Revenue Loss wrote on May 2, 2007 7:35 PM:

" may be made up by the state having to provide fewer medical payments for people and the state will save money that way. "

JD wrote on May 2, 2007 7:04 PM:

" What do these guys know anyway? They would better spend their time listening to the surrounding farmers, and B-N townies, many of whom have never left Illinois, when it comes to economics. According to the "locals", B-N will be washing in money, the streets will be lined with gold, and everyone will have socialized medical, once this ban goes into effect!! (glad I am leaving the state before the taxes go through the roof) "

DA wrote on May 2, 2007 6:25 PM:

" they will make up for the loss in cig taxes by raising sales and property taxes. "

Thank You wrote on May 2, 2007 6:18 PM:

" For providing an objective, emotionless side to this story without name calling and other childish antics. It is also supported with research and not just stating "money will be saved." This is something that advocates of this ban need to take into account. That $30 million will have to be made up somewhere. "

Ads by Yahoo!