Pantagraph.com Weather forecast, local radar and more
NewsMonday, July 23, 2007 7:41 PM CDT
Comments Comments (706) | E-mail this page E-mail this page | Print this page Print this page | Enlarge type Enlarge type | Reduce type Reduce type | Search archives Search archives | RSS RSS feeds | Add to My Yahoo! Add to My Yahoo!
Governor signs bill banning smoking in state
By Associated Press with Pantagraph staff
Advertisement

CHICAGO -- Tim Main worked Monday tossing out beer bottles and beer-soaked cigarette butts from a lounge in the Mississippi River city of Alton. To Main, there was ample room in the trash bin for something else -- the statewide smoking ban Gov. Rod Blagojevich signed into law that same day.

A nonsmoker, Main said the new smoking ban oversteps on folks like his wife, a smoker whose habit doesn’t bother him in the least.

“I feel like it’s the Nazi regime coming in here, talking away all of our rights. It should be a smoker’s business” when and where they light up, said Main, who cleans Mike’s Ten-Pin Lounge. “First they make it so you have to wear seat belts, and now they want to put a stop to smoking. What’s next?”

The new law, which goes into effect Jan. 1, means smokers like Main’s wife will have to take their butts outside because the new Smoke-Free Illinois Act bans smoking in public places -- including bars, restaurants and work places. Illinois is one of 19 states with a comprehensive smoking ban, according to the state.

The new law trumps local ordinances that are weaker, including those that allowed smoking bans to be phased in later or exempted businesses with air filtration systems. More than 40 communities, including Chicago, have approved restrictions on smoking in public places and a local ordinance must be as strong, or stronger, than the state ban to remain in place, said Illinois Department of Public Health spokeswoman Melaney Arnold.

“This law will save lives,” said Blagojevich, who was joined by lawmakers and anti-smoking advocates at the bill signing at Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago.

Still, bar owner Dennis McCarthy is concerned the ban will kill business. McCarthy owns Rossi’s, a small, smoky watering hole off a downtown Chicago alley, and he estimates that 70 percent of his customers smoke.

“If people don’t like the atmosphere in my bar they can go somewhere else. That’s what life is all about,” he said.

Under the law, people still will be allowed to smoke in their homes, cars, at retail tobacco shops, in certain hotel or motel rooms and outdoors.

“It looks like I’ll be spending a lot of time outside,” said Chicago carpenter Rob Nelson.

Smokers who violate the law could be fined between $100 and $250. And businesses that repeatedly violate the law could be fined at least $2,500.

Sarah Younger of Chicago predicted smokers like her would pretty rapidly adjust to the new rules, but she doubted whether the hassle of having fewer places to smoke would make people quit.

Sandy Corona, 55, a nanny in Chicago, said she hopes to kick the habit by the end of the year, but that doesn’t make her any less annoyed about the new ban.

“We’re supposed to live in a free democracy and we don’t live in a police state,” she said as she stopped along crowded Michigan Avenue for a smoke.

Anti-smoking advocates say that freedom means they shouldn’t have to be smoked out in public places.

Lisa Cristia of Chicago blames her years working in bars and restaurants for the “smoker’s cancer” of the tongue and throat that she survived. She uses makeup to cover a scar that runs from her ear to her chin and she said people often wonder who brutalized her.

“I am a victim, a victim of second-hand smoke,” said Cristia, 38, who now works as a massage therapist and who has used her story to draw attention to efforts to pass the statewide ban.

Catty-corner from the Ten-Pin in Alton, Phil Barboro took a drag from his cigarette hanging from his mouth as he toted a tea set into an antique shop. A 47-year-old who figures he has smoked about three decades now, these days a pack a day, Barboro said he understands and accepts what lawmakers -- and the ban -- have in mind.

“I think people who don’t smoke but are paying good money at a restaurant have a right to enjoy their meal without smoke,” while nonsmokers should accept that bars historically have been refuges for adults who smoke, he said.

“It depends on the place,” Barboro said.

Still, he favors anything that discourages young people from smoking.

“It’s a bad, nasty habit,” he said.

Local ban

The Twin Cities’ ban on smoking indoors in public places will be a year old by the time the state’s ban begins. The local ban includes taverns and restaurants.

The McLean County Board approved a similar ban, but exempted taverns and restaurants that have liquor licenses.

The ban started Jan. 1, but the city of Bloomington gave a temporary exemption to liquor license holders who wanted to build outdoor patios. That exemption ended July 1 with only three license holders receiving building permits from the city.

The state’s ban will be stricter than the ones approved by Bloomington and Normal in May 2006. The primary difference is that the state ban will prohibit smoking within 15 feet of entrances, exits, windows that open and ventilation intakes for public places.

The Bloomington and Normal bans restrict smoking only within 15 feet of the primary entrance.

Several patios built in Bloomington will be nearly useless as smoking areas under the state ban because of their distance from the door.

Lee Statehouse Bureau Chief Kurt Erickson and Pantagraph reporter M.K. Guetersloh contributed to this report.

Take a look
Kyle Sutton, right, and Malio Alvarez, left, take their smoke out on the patio at Times Past Wednesday afternoon. (Pantagraph/LORI ANN COOK) June, 7, 2007)
Video
Most commented stories
Browse online archives
Recent issues:
Reader comments on this story - 706 total

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.

re: to gOMER FROM gom wrote on Sep 10, 2007 8:40 AM:

" I don't know if you will read this but I have actually taken actions. I have contacted my "elected" officials. Not only about the smoking ban but also about the popcorn ban. So I don't know where you get your info (other than pulling it out of your a..ear) but I hate to tell you your wrong AGAIN! (actual I don't hate telling you that, it just reminds me of the ban proponents intelligence.) "

I Will . . . wrote on Sep 5, 2007 4:51 PM:

" Call the police if any nonsmokers get near 15 feet of me while they are eating microwave popcorn. I don't want to die and believe Illinois should put a ban on this. As a matter of speaking, ALL popcorn should be ban until the studies prove otherwise. STOP THE SALE OF POPCORN NOW! "

to Gov. op mule wrote on Sep 5, 2007 4:17 PM:

" I too just read that article, in this paper... and I read some of the post's ppl made about the article.. of course some had to chime in and spout off about the smoking ban,,,,making snide remarks....Now come on,,,,,I didn't expect that YOU of all ppl would write something here to attempt to stir up the pot again..... shame on you.... "

To Gomer wrote on Sep 5, 2007 1:51 PM:

" This suspected problem is linked to artificially flavored butter microwave popcorn. Are you going to do anything about it? Or are you merely going to complain? Over 100 posts and not one single action to back up the words. "

Gov't Opressed Mule wrote on Sep 5, 2007 1:25 PM:

" Sorry, y'all I thought I was done on here, but i just read an article about popcorn causing a disease known as "popcorn lung." Since this causes health problems for everyone who is withing smelling range of it and I (and others with me) get sick at the smell of it can we ban it from all public places? Would this not be fair? "

to Pilot wrote on Sep 5, 2007 6:01 AM:

" THANK YOU.....it seem's that a certain poster here is the know all, see all, guru,,as to what happens on airplanes,,because he/she saw it on a t.v. show... "

mile high club, wrote on Sep 5, 2007 12:11 AM:

" ..i heard today of the plan to add yet an additional 90 cents per pack tax increase. You non-smokers say "yippie" not taking into consideration your own fuel tax, phone tax, property tax, food tax, whoppie cushion tax and every other tax you've yet to imagine keeps going up up up and away, (from your pocket into "theirs"). These new "green" taxes (hoax/scam) alone are bringing in (taking) additional billions. I predict soon, that citizens will finally recover from their sublime hypnosis, timidity, begin to unite, and seriously begin to question those that take without blinking. "

Pilot wrote on Sep 4, 2007 9:43 PM:

" it is simply not possible to smoke on an airplane. As soon as one is lit, a tornado drill like alarm goes off for all to hear. The suggestion that pilots smoke in planes is as tin hat as it gets. Come on, get real. "

RE: to had to chuckle wrote on Sep 4, 2007 4:41 PM:

" I couldn't agree more. You believe I am someone "making things up" and I feel you are putting your head in the sand and marching, like a good little soldier, to gov't propoganda. So best to part ways as you will never believe this (unless you saw it for yourself) and I know what I've seen. Have a good day. "

To to had to chuckle wrote on Sep 4, 2007 4:00 PM:

" WHATEVER, you want to believe................. no need for further exchanges on this subject... "

RE: TO to had to chuckle wrote on Sep 4, 2007 2:56 PM:

" I understand cabin pressure, but what you fail to realize is that the majority of our "understanding" of cabin pressure is inaccurate. I also watched a Mythbusters were they busted the myth of a breech in cabin pressure causing the "Hollywood" effects of the plane being destroyed. A breech in cabin pressue will only cause the pilot a little difficulty in manuevering (a little may be a relative term, as well as how much of a breech-giant hole-massive problems, small "leak" no biggie, so let's not split hairs). It wasn't an urban myth program, but an expose on flight attendants, where they followed several flight attendants around to get the behind the scenes of what happens behind that curtain. Believe your son, but don't think his "experiences" are the only ones out there. My brother worked in fast food and would tell me how all employees wore protective gloves while preparing food, and yet I go into Fastfood restaurants all the time and witness this not taking place. Point of that is, just because your son doesn't do this, does not mean it doesn't happen. "

To. to had to chuckle wrote on Sep 4, 2007 2:26 PM:

" Let's see...this was aired in 2003, that's 4 years ago,, and you can't remember the program.. maybe it was the BBC's version of urban legends....I choose to believe my son,, the pilot....and as a footnote,, there is such a thing that is called cabin pressure,.. and if you breech that pressure by opening a door or window...well,,,scary things can happen.. you have been watching too many sci fi movies. "

RE: TO..to had to chuckle. wrote on Sep 4, 2007 12:43 PM:

" It was aired on BBC (sorry don't have the actual program name-it aired in April of 2003.) and yes you can open a cockpit window at 35,000 feet. And to a "friend" how can this be false? It does what it is supposed to do (causes the runs) so how can any website (or person for that matter) claim that it isn't being done? "

To..to had to chuckle wrote on Sep 4, 2007 11:35 AM:

" smoke in the cockpit!!!??? with the side window cracked??? at 35,000 feet???!!!, a jet airline is NOT like a car!!!!! what channel were you watching???? cartoon network????? or maybe it was propaganda,, created by unreliable sources!!!!!!!! now of course, if it was on TV,,,,,,,we ALL know that had to be TRUE.....give me a break!!!!! "

A Friend wrote on Sep 4, 2007 10:54 AM:

" The Visine story is an urban hoax (see snopes.com - a reputable source for debunking urban legends). The poster also cites an unnamed "behind the scenes" documentary on flight attendants smoking. Since one fact was blatantly false the other claim is suspect too. Unless they provide specific authentication i.e. the actual program name, don’t believe it. Unsubstantiated claims are rampant here. If they don’t have the proof, don’t believe them (either side). People are welcome to their opinion, but purporting their views as fact is misleading. "

Gov't Opressed Mule wrote on Sep 4, 2007 9:16 AM:

" Come on!!! ALMOST 700 POSTS! WE CAN DO IT! "

RE: TO had to chuckle wrote on Sep 4, 2007 8:57 AM:

" Sorry to tell you your son is wrong or blind. I watched an espisode on behind the scenes of flight attendants and they will either smoke in the cockpit with the side window cracked or will remove the tray on the soda machine as the drain has a constant air flowing out and blow the smoke into that. This from the same people who if mad at you, will put 2 drops of visine into your water to give you "the runs." So commendable on your son's part for following the rules, but this isn't everyone. "

Re: wrote on Sep 3, 2007 4:56 PM:

" Waaaaa! Waaaa! Waaaa! Come on smokers give everyone a break and stop the crying.....or better yet, go stand in a corner of your own home and smoke your coffin nails. This has reached almost 700 posts....it will be the law as of Jan. 1....GET OVER IT! "

seesr wrote on Sep 3, 2007 12:22 PM:

" Where is the government going to come up with the extra finances to keep the state going if everyone quits smoking. They are already into the state pension funds, not contibuting as much to the schools (pre lottery days percentage) and less state employees to run our parks. The government just wants to keep raising fees, or stealing from other budgets because they can not run the state on a budget.I encourage everyone to quit smoking to see where the funding we smokers provide to the state through extra taxes for cigarettes. By the way, what happenened to the money the state got from the tobacco companies? "

Sad Day to PG wrote on Sep 2, 2007 8:50 PM:

" People are subjected to thousands of carcinogens each and every day, yet it is the carcinogens in smoke which have been targeted. One has to ask why just one instead of all carcinogens. Big pharmaceutical seems to be replacing big tobacco as the primary lobbyist in government. Big pharmaceutical companies are banking that cigarette bans will cause people to spend upwards of $400 on quit smoking patches, but do not want tobacco banned because then smokers could not relapse. The ban has nothing to do with health, it seems. "

PG wrote on Sep 2, 2007 3:40 PM:

" They say it will save lives? Well what about when it is 115 degrees outside and people have to go outside to smoke? Or when it is -20 wow, that is safe to be outside! Where are our rights? Guess what? we are loosing them. I can't stand to go out to a resteraunt and hear kids screaming, but I can't stop that, or can we? I think next they will ban bars, because people leave there drunk and drive and they could kill someone. What about the fertilizer they are putting on our foods, and antibotics, and other crap? I think that is where the cancer is coming from, not second hand smoke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "

to had to chuckle wrote on Sep 1, 2007 7:07 AM:

" I thought I was done with this subject, but when I read posts like yours, in which you make statements that you seem so sure about, I just HAD to respond..(flight attendants and pilots smoking on planes). You are SO far from being correct on this subject it is almost laughable. My son is a pilot for a major airlines, and when I questioned him on this, he was ADAMENT about the fact that this is NOT true..I cannot go into all of the repercussions that could occur if this was found to be evident, but please do not make accusations without facts to back them up. "

never will work wrote on Aug 31, 2007 6:21 PM:

" cops have more important things to do than give smoking tickets. this law will never be enforced just wait and see "

Gov't Opressed Mule wrote on Aug 30, 2007 8:47 AM:

" WHOO HOO!!! 100!!! I thought it was only 99. Thanks for keeping track for me! "

gom... wrote on Aug 29, 2007 5:23 PM:

" congrats, you made it to 100 posts. i was hoping all this counting wouldn't go to waste. "

RE: To had to chuckle wrote on Aug 29, 2007 3:01 PM:

" Same way that flight attendants get "busted" smoking on planes? Many people don't realize where you and I would be arrested and fined 1000.00 for smoking on a plane flight attendants and crews do it all the time, but no one notices. "

to to had to chuckle wrote on Aug 29, 2007 2:34 PM:

" so our taxes and under resourced police will serve as undercovers in bars to watch for smokers? I'm sorry but I can imgaine that we would be better served if they were looking for drugs or gang activity. I don't spend a lot of time in Bloomington but just have to wonder if that is the best allocation of our limited resources "

to had to chuckle wrote on Aug 29, 2007 1:53 PM:

" great,,, wait until the undercovers, see the bartenders, the same way that you did,, the fines will fly.. hhahahahaha , it would serve them right...they will find that they are NOT above the law.. and by the way,, there WILL be undercovers posted around these places.. hide and watch "

had to chuckle wrote on Aug 28, 2007 4:11 PM:

" I went out for the first time in a long time this weekend. I was first off amazed by a couple of things. I actually heard someone complaining to a smoker about them smoking outside on someones way to the front door. The second thing I found interesting was inside I saw the bartenders sneaking off to smoke inside. Just thought I'd share how seriously some folks are taking this "ban" "

Other options wrote on Aug 28, 2007 12:18 PM:

" Why couldnt the government not banned smoking, but offered tax incentives for those businesses who decide to become non-smoking establishments on their own. I am not a smoker, and I dont like being around smoke, but a private business owner has the right to allow certain things and smoking should be one of them. "

other options wrote on Aug 28, 2007 12:14 PM:

" Why couldn't the government just offered tax breaks to bar owners who willingly banned smoking from their bar instead of putting a state-wide ban on private businesses. I am not a smoker. I dont like being around smokers, so i choose to go to places that have better ventilation. Give an incentive for private business to become non-smoking, but dont force it on everyone. "

RE: TO Gomer from GOM wrote on Aug 28, 2007 8:53 AM:

" I feel it is alright to ask them to leave as it was first posted to me. So speaking of double standars, why is itr ok for a non smoker to ask me to leave this room, but I as a smoker am condemned for the same thing? Ain't that calling the kettle black. "

Re: To The Mule from Gov't Opresed Mule wrote on Aug 28, 2007 8:52 AM:

" Who says it was this article from which I derived my name? If you check other articles relating to gov't opression, I also post there. How am I "spitting in the face" of those who fought and died for our "freedoms"? This is what upsets me the most, I fought for our freedom (close to 5 years) and I come back to find "our" gov't systematically stripping our citizens rights. This smoking ban is not the issue, but instead a side effect of the issue of GOV'T OPRESSION. First the strip us of our rights via the DEA, then the Patriot Act, then more constrictive gov't, where does this end? I did not put my life on the line to watch our gov't become a totalitarian fascit state. But I am glad to see you soaking up the gov't propoganda, like a good little robot. Maybe when the "death squads" are brought back you can lead them. HEIL THE 4TH REICH! "

To: The Mule wrote on Aug 27, 2007 8:33 PM:

" First off your posts have no legitimacy due to the following reasons: You live in the greatest, most free country on this planet. Most free country in the history of this planet. Cavemen had fewer rules. And yet you call yourself "government oppressed". I recall an Ayan Hirsi Ali quote. She said "you have lived your entire life in freedom, so you can spit on freedom I (she) knows what it is like not to be free." Put in context, aren't we a little over the top with the "government oppressed?" YOU are the one who does not appreciate the blessings of freedom you so invoke. Ask any woman living in a Muslim society. She wishes it was her worst fate to be asked to smoke outdoors. The slope is not nearly slippery enough vis a vis the "ban" to cry oppression. It insults those who have known real oppression and those who have fought to deliver we Americans from it. I dub thee merely the "mule", by any other name... "

To Gomer wrote on Aug 27, 2007 7:46 PM:

" Why do you think it is OK to ask a poster to leave, but it is not OK to ask a smoker to step outside? Seems like a double standard. Can't wait until you yell "Citizen's arrest, Citizen's arrest". Whoever thought of that moniker for him deserves an award. It is so fitting. "

To; So long from Gov't Opressed Mule wrote on Aug 27, 2007 3:48 PM:

" Sorry to rain on your parade, but this "gom"er will not leave so quietly, after all I wouldn't want you self appointed messengers of "good" to get to cozy in here patting each other on the bu..backs. After all, if it wasn't for JD, myself, and others who disagree w/ you, what would be left to discuss? Seems that you are not in control of that self control that "all" non-smokers possess and look down upon us for "not having." If you were in control you would go to an article were everyone agrees with you and the world is perfect. But like you lacked the willpower to go to establishments that catered to your needs and forced everyone to do as you please has proven, you have the same lack of willpower to leave an article that you don't agree w/ the posters. So instead of trying to ban anyone who doesn't agree w/ you, why don't YOU leave? "

RE: TO GOM from Gov't Opressed Mule wrote on Aug 27, 2007 3:42 PM:

" I actually have to hand it to you, I believe you've stated it better than ANYONE (friends or mules alike) could have stated it. No one is wrong and No one is right. We have all been trying to convince each other that they are wrong and we are right (whatever side you may be on.) While I do not agree w/ your laws, I will abide by them. As long as you may not agree w/ my free choice to smoke, but I ask that you live with it. (most have and will, but there are a few who heckel on the streets and I will not be held liable for my actions against such). So thank you for being reasonable and (although I feel wrong :) calm enough to state your point without childish name calling. "

So Long wrote on Aug 27, 2007 1:32 PM:

" I am happy to see him finally go away, but I don't believe he will stay away. He lied before; he is probably lying now. I don't trust fanatics. He was a mean spirited individual that could not accept the new law. He harped about freedom to choose, but would not acknowledge the pragmatic need to regulate certain activities for the overall good of all. There are fundamental rights and there are practical application of those rights. We regulate airline safety, but no sane person would consider that an infringement. I don't have the right to choose whether or not to bring a gun onto an aircraft. The libertarian view of absolute personal freedom is not practical. No, I won't miss him. He used to attack me personally and was rude to others. He could dish it out, but not take it. Be forewarned; he will be back. When he returns, we will all know him to be a man of his word.Now if we could just get Gomer to follow suite "

to Gov't opressed Mule wrote on Aug 27, 2007 12:59 PM:

" With all due respect, let's throw this question back to you, for YOU to tell us where in that "sacred piece of paper" known as the constitution, or the bill of rights, does it say that you have the RIGHT to intentionally pollute the very air that ALL ppl breathe? In answer to your question, we all know that nowhere in either document, there is nothing mentioned about rights of non smokers, or smokers. But we all know that amendments, (changes and additions) came into play in regards to the Constitution, when it was determined the changes needed to be done. And in addition, we all know that new laws, are voted on and passed or vetoed all the time, in present day. Unfortunately, to the schagrin, of all ppl, some laws that pass personally affect certain groups, as they see it, negatively. As is, with this smoking ban. Even so, it is an event that for now needs to be accepted. No one is right, and no one is wrong, it is just the way it is for now. The hatchet needs to be buried. "

RE: TO JD from Gov't Opressed Mule wrote on Aug 27, 2007 9:26 AM:

" I know, there have been alot of to: JD's but they all say pretty much the same tyhing "the patriot act is good and we have the right to breathe free air." Can one person point out where in the constitution or bill of rights it says you have a right to breathe air w/out smoke? And where does this place exist? Not in B/N as we have how many thousands of cars and factories? Where on the sacred piece of paper, that my fellow brothers have fought and died to protect, does it say that you have the right to dictate everyone else's life. JD has, in fact, hit the nail on the head: You have a RIGHT to CHOOSE which establishment you patronize, you have taken personal resonsibility and made it a gov't duty. It's bad enough it's Mc'D's fault some lady can't put a lid on her coffee, now it's MY fault because you walked into an establishment that allows smoking? People say lawyers are the end of the country and freedom, you've just proven it. "

Re: JD wrote on Aug 27, 2007 8:02 AM:

" We are not worthy, we are not worthy, we are not worthy.....please show us the enlightened way JD. On second thought, please just leave....the State, as you mentioned......pour your paranoic thoughts on other unfortunate souls, in another unfortunate state. "

Sad Day wrote on Aug 27, 2007 6:50 AM:

" I do not know why people want to attack JD personally. He/She made some interesting points which people here did not even consider. Instead, they wanted to ridicule and harass him/her. While I do not necessarily agree with JD on many points, he/she did give me items to think about, and pointed out things which I probably would not have though of at all. It is closed minded people which are dragging the US into the decadence we see around us, and from the posts here, I see many post to these comments. "

to JD wrote on Aug 27, 2007 5:44 AM:

" of course we know that your still reading these posts. so it needs to be said that it's obvious by your last post, that you are throwing a ball back into a corner that isn't there. when it comes to smoking and the constitution, the two, have no business being in the same sentence. The argument for smoking in public places is now a dead issue. There are no other words left to say on the subject, other than when you move to another state, it won't be long before (if it's not already there) the smoking ban follows you there too. "

uncle guido wrote on Aug 27, 2007 5:25 AM:

" back east, they have same thing, no smoking but some places you can go and smoke anyway they would throw out the health nuts! Owners pay enough in taxes and dont need the bull of mr. gov telling them anything > things are very strange here "

Pity party for JD wrote on Aug 26, 2007 10:25 PM:

" He's taking his ball and going home. Awwwwww. He'll be back. Welcome back, JD, we love your lefty paranoia. Hey, psst, tell us about the "false flag" ops again, that's always a good one... Don't go away MAD, just..... "

JD wrote on Aug 26, 2007 7:32 PM:

" I am done with this thread. Those that are left keep spouting the same speel about their rights to clean air, when neither side has the right to either thing. You guys really need to start thinking for yourselves instead of spouting the same things you have read, just because it fits your agenda. If the 'majority' of people in Illinois knew anything, they would not have re-elected a corrupt idiot to office. It is because of these so called 'enlightened' people that Illinois is the cesspool it has become. Enjoy your ban, I am happy I will be out of state before it starts. "

to to JD wrote on Aug 26, 2007 6:33 PM:

" breathing the clean air?? it's found in the same area of the constitution ,, where it say's YOU have a "right" to smoke inside of a business and expose other ppl to your bad habit!!!!! DUH? get over it!!!!!!!!!!! The ban is a R-E-A-L-I-T-Y..... get it????? "

Oh, and JD... wrote on Aug 26, 2007 4:17 PM:

" Check out the other headline "Bars maintain stranglehold...". Hmmm, same bars that no longer allow smoking? How could that be? Get it straight people.... at the end of the day, people don't go to bars to smoke. They go there to drink and socialize. You 4 people who have declared a boycott of the bars due to the ban probably didn't contribute to the atmosphere much anyway and won't be missed. Personally or economically. Buh-bye. "

To: JD wrote on Aug 26, 2007 4:05 PM:

" Ned Kelly's corporation closed, had nothing to do with the local store. B-N's Ned's was the last to close because it was so popular. And as far as constitutional rights? I never mentioned such a weak argument. But I will play along. It also does not guarantee you the right to smoke. Done and.... done. You are getting sloppy, JD distracted by some online "hottest anime' babe" poll? I'll let you get back to it. "

uncle guido wrote on Aug 26, 2007 4:01 PM:

" He needs to be impeached! "

To: To JD wrote on Aug 26, 2007 1:53 PM:

" Your rights, the businesses in B-N are thriving. Downtown has some many people in it, they have to beat people away with the stick. Ned Kelly's closing is just a rumor. Please, the ban has had a negative impact, and when combined with other factors is causing even more economic problems. B-N is trying desperately to find ways to attract consumers because the town is failing, outside of the Veteran's Parkway area. Oh, and so where in the Constitution does it grant the right to breath clean air anywhere you choose to go. Yet another ignorant assumption. "

To: JD wrote on Aug 26, 2007 8:37 AM:

" I never said government was in business to "level the playing field". The "field" is inherently level when the enitirety of the ban takes effect and the economic equilibreum is reestablished. So far, the ban seems to have little negative economic impact. You and your cronies would have us believe less than a year ago that the downtown bars would be a ghost town. This has clearly not happened. God knows why, but there are still long lines to get into Fat Jack's. Praise commerce. As for the "invoking the Patriot Act". That is a simple one. These are obviously the stories the (cough) left wing mainstream media (in cahoots with the Bush Administration)(cough) are hiding from us. Bottom line, sources like prisonplanet and Alex whatshisname are not going to be acknowledged as true in the carbon based, oxygen breathing world. Call Michael Moore. He likes a good story to build a "documentary" around. "

to JD wrote on Aug 26, 2007 6:09 AM:

" you keep mentioning reporters, as being singled out as being "looked" at under the Patriot Act. OK, well let's figure this, a reporter, is doing a job. He is gathering information to reveal to the public. Unless you were, in a room of OFFICIALS who converse among themselves about subjects that reporters might be getting into that may reveal some sort vital information, that could prove to be related to the security of our country, what right do you have to second guess the reasoning behind the actions of the officials.? Everyday, people, just "living" are not being targeted for such activity. I don't care WHAT the gov. knows about me? Do you? After all they already know all there is to know now. Through our SS #s, etc. And just for the record, smoking is not a RIGHT, it is a personal choice. PPl have a "right" to breathe non polluted air, ANYWHERE they "choose" to go. "

To: To JD wrote on Aug 26, 2007 12:00 AM:

" If non-smoking areas are so vital and important, why do governments feel the need to 'level the playing field'? The only reason this would need to be done is because it does not have the effects you mention unless it is forced upon everyone. If not, then it will actually have the opposite effect as people go elsewhere. Lastly, since you obviously have not read the information posted here already, there are already a plethora of cases in the courts where the government has invoked the Patriot Act to tap, record, and trace calls made my people like reporters. Are you saying they were suspected of terrorism? "

To: JD wrote on Aug 25, 2007 9:19 PM:

" Your alarmism is hilarious on one hand and sadly simple minded on the other. Your predecessors of "chickenlittleism" have been tooting the horn of big brother ever since they made it illegal for farmers to bugger their sheep. Public indoor smoking (that is what we are talking about here, right) bans are simply an evolution of awareness and arguably are market driven. Like it or not, a smoke free metro area has a better chance of attracting commerce, than one which still embraces the filth of yesteryear. Elected officials with an eye on progress enact these laws and it has little to do with "power" or "control". By the way, the government (via the Patriot Act) has no intrest in listening to your phone conversations (about pwning noobs, or anime, or whatever you "types" talk about) they are interested in people who wish to commit acts of terror. "

to Life is good wrote on Aug 25, 2007 12:38 PM:

" You are so right. ppl like Pro Patriot, have to have the last word on a subject that ppl on both sides will never agree with. I think I'll find another room to share post's with those that don't think they know it all. Long live the patriot act and the smoking ban....... "

Life is Good wrote on Aug 25, 2007 11:31 AM:

" Geez....at ease people....stand down. Again, this article is about a smoking ban....don't go off on other tangents. Now this is really getting over the top. "

to Pro Patriot (cont2) wrote on Aug 25, 2007 9:14 AM:

" The Patriot Act takes away rights from EVERYONE. By doing that, we disrespect those that have fought for, still fighting for, and died for, your freedom to not like in a country like Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, or under an Islamo-fascist leader. By being so willing to throw away your right and freedoms, the ones that gave their lives for, you dishonor their memory and their deaths. You dishonor the grief felt by their friends and families. If you are so worried about your freedom, why are YOU not fighting to protect it instead of wanting the government to put everyone into bubbles to protect you? "

to Pro Patriot (cont) wrote on Aug 25, 2007 8:47 AM:

" The smoking ban removes people freedoms, not their rights. Just like you do not have the 'right' to have every place non-smoking according to the Constitution. Non-smokers think they have a 'right' to not be subjected to smoke, which they do not. They have the FREEDOM to go elsewhere, and the RIGHT to make the choice. It is because ignorant Americans lack the responsibility to chose wisely, and be responsible for their choice, that a section of the population has to have their freedoms restricted to protect those to ignorant and irresponsible Americans from themselves. "

to Pro Patriot wrote on Aug 25, 2007 8:41 AM:

" You are so determined to be right, that you totally ignore facts put in front of you. Government agencies have ALREADY abused the Patriot Act, using it to gather information on reporters and a slew of other people. FBI agents have already admitted to using the Patriot Act against American citizens in cases not remotely associated to terrorism because it was easier than getting a warrant where they would have to show just cause. There are also American citizens currently imprisoned under the act who have not been charged, not allowed their day in court. If you do not think that is having their rights violated, you are part of the problem..a big part. "

to to pro patriot wrote on Aug 25, 2007 7:53 AM:

" WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?.. NO ones rights are being taken away, with any Patriot Act, or smoking ban. With the Patriot Act, the only ppl that are being affected are those that deserve to be put under a microscope. NOT law abiding, everyday, upstanding citizens! And you need to explain what rights and freedoms have been taken away from soldiers and their families. How you can not comprehend the importance of protecting our country with ANY tools we can, is BEYOND comprehension! With the smoking ban, ppl that smoke can STILL smoke! The post's that I see here that differ with these FACTS are akin to communicating with someone that justs wants to keep the fires stoked. "

Saluki wrote on Aug 25, 2007 6:33 AM:

" Who cares; I quit smoking years ago. If our all-wise Gov Blago thinks we should not smoke, then who am i to disagree? "

to Pro Patriot wrote on Aug 24, 2007 6:57 PM:

" I agree, the deaths on 9-11 were tragic, and I am sure hard on the family and friends of those people. You can not seriously think that those deaths justify over riding the million of deaths soldiers have incurred, and the effect that has had on their friends and families, and the disrespect shows to those soldiers by willingly handing over the rights and freedoms they fought and died for, just because a fraction of that number of civilians died. You call yourself a patriot? You dishonor our forefathers, our soldiers, and our Constitution with your fear and ignorance. "

MJ wrote on Aug 24, 2007 11:53 AM:

" Hey, its all a big fraud, if the state was so concerned about public safety they would ban the sale of cigarettes, but they like that 913.4 MILLION bucks, worth of revenue coming in every year. If we could see who contributes to Gov. Blagojevich campaign fund I bet you would find serveral anti-smoking organizations. So, he's setting in his office, laughing at the scam he but over on the people of Illinois. He's reaping in the bucks and probably smoking a cuban cigar. "

Estaban Colberto wrote on Aug 24, 2007 9:03 AM:

" hey all you tobacco friends and lovers of freedom. Start chewing tobacco. If you think that is gross now you know what we think of your smoking. I mean heck tobacco is tobacco. The high is the same, right and think you will not be poisoning anyone else but yourself. So buy a can of Copenhagen, take a pinch and shut the * up. "

to/ to pro patriot wrote on Aug 24, 2007 6:41 AM:

" Hit a nerve? What kind of nerve would it hit with you, if one of your family members were a victim of a terriorist act? i.e. bombing, hostage, shooting, etc. A child, spouse, parent, etc.. I bet if you asked these questions to survivors of those murdered in the twin towers, the plane, or the Pentagon, on 9/11/01, they could explain clearly what nerves it hit. And I would also bet that if you asked the same ppl what they think of the Patriot Act, they would Loudly express that they feel safer with it in place then they did on 9/10/01. I do,, my nephew was on the 20th floor, I never got to say goodbye. This event changed the course of many lives, until the day they die, hopefully of natural causes. "

To: Pro Patriot wrote on Aug 23, 2007 7:04 PM:

" Seems I hit a nerve. You seem to be one of those people who are blissfully ignorant that people have died, and are still dieing, for you to be able to live how you do today. Being the free police for the government, reporting your neighbor for things the government considers wrong, is the act of a person being a good citizen in China under Mao, or in Germany under Hitler. Your 'activity' does not make you a patriot, nor does it give you the right to give away my rights. Lastly, legislation passed by a representative government does not make it a will of the majority. If it was truly majority rule, the US would be alot different, and people like you would be afraid. "

Pro Patriot wrote on Aug 23, 2007 5:44 PM:

" I serve my country everyday by being a good citizen. I vote. I pay attention to my community and most of all I stand up for my rights. I have the right to further MY agenda; just as YOU do. How dare you say I haven’t served my country. You don’t know anything about my service to our country. You can’t stand the fact that the majority rules and your not in the majority. I work for what I believe in. You blame others for your failure. You attacked me personally out of your frustration with your inadequacies. I bet you drive a Hummer to make up for your other shortcomings. Don’t ever address a post to me again. "

cont'd from GOM wrote on Aug 23, 2007 4:13 PM:

" Not because the majority wanted it, but because the majority HAD the faith in our gov't to do what they wanted, not what the politician wanted. GOD BLESS THESE FASCIST STATES OF AMERICA. (for the person keeping count, is this 95 or 96?) "

To: Pro patriot from Gov't Opressed Mule wrote on Aug 23, 2007 4:13 PM:

" I am unsure why you keep mentioning Libertarians, unless it's in response to JD, as I am a republican (even though it disgusts me to identify myself as such with this regime.) I know you are truly concerned so I will inform you that I have been contacting my legislatures about these unjust laws. But that is one of the problems I have been talking about. We vote someone into office based upon their promises. Then we find out, to late, that they lied. Then we are stuck with them until next election, then IF enough people remember the lies they told, we get another liar into office. That is why we need to allow each citizen a vote as opposed to one person for many. And the ONLY reason this ban passed in B/N was we (ban opponents) took it for a joke. We thought their was NO WAY the gov't would openly rape our rights in this manner. Were we ever wrong. We were actually laughing about this prior to the councils decision. That is the only reason it passed. to be cont'd... "

To: Pro Patriot wrote on Aug 23, 2007 3:51 PM:

" Actually, Libertarian actions fail because of conditioned Americans who have no problem giving their rights away, and the rights of others. It is people, like you seem to be, that feel that because YOU do not have any problem with it, no one else does either, and you feel you can speak for them. Maybe you just take your rights and freedoms for granted, since it seems you have not served your country, or maybe you just have not seen the effects that corrupt governments have around the world. Libertarian ideas fail because of Americans with socialist agendas, their heads up their arses, and their hands in others wallets. "

Pro Patriot wrote on Aug 23, 2007 2:12 PM:

" As I stated before, I have read the Patriot Act completely and I support it completely. If you don't like it, why don't you work to get it repealed? Since you believe so strongly that is wrong, what are you doing about it? You seem to have strong views, but never offer any feasible solutions. Exercise your precious right to choose. Choose to DO something. Anyone can criticize, but unless you DO something, you must accept the consequences. The smoking ban passed because proponents were well organized and got their choice implemented into law. Typical Libertarian causes never succeed because the proponents scream about the problem and never back up their ideas with action. Posting on a newspaper forum won’t further your cause. It highlights the fact that you can type (but not spell). Your comments are a source of amusement and not taken seriously. Laws are enacted because people with backbone support them. Libertarians want to something for nothing and that is exactly what they get and deserve. No one takes them seriously (except themselves). Keep posting, I let my subscription to joke of the day expire. "

re: patriot act wrote on Aug 23, 2007 1:25 PM:

" "A law enforcement agency may intercept content only persuant to a court order issued upon FINDINGS OF PROBABLE CAUSE, to believe that, an individual is committing one of a list of specifically enumerated CRIMES." Those that have done nothing wrong (and who don't plan to do wrong), have nothing to worry about. Those who protest the loudest are often those with the most to hide. "

Sad Day wrote on Aug 23, 2007 11:45 AM:

" Things like this ban and the Patriot Act would be great, if not for the governments inherent nature to abuse power it is given by checks and balances. The Patriot Act, while having good intentions, has been abused by the government by using it to circumvent Constitutional rights of Americans. Just like the ban is being used as a staging point to encroach into privately owned vehicles and homes. While many feel the ban is a good thing, and they are safe, I believe others are attempting to show that the government has intentions of eventually being able to regulate everything for everyone "for the public good" "

DM wrote on Aug 23, 2007 11:36 AM:

" I'm a nonsmoker but i know alot of nonsmokers and when they start complaining about the high cost of everything i will tell them start smoking what did they think paid for everything "

TO: Small Town from Gov't Opressed Mule wrote on Aug 23, 2007 11:08 AM:

" I hope this is the case and this may be how we can beat this unconstitutional ban. I was in an accident a few months ago out by Moraine View State park. The county officers responded really quickly and then went on to inform us that we were lucky as they are the only officers on duty from Heyworth to Saybrook. Without small town bars certain communities would certainly crumble (i.e. Merna) and I guarantee you that eventually these small communities will thumb their nose at the ban (as many small communities in Ireland did the same) without any REAL reprucussions. STAND UP AND FIGHT! SHOW Gov. "Hot Rod" that while we may be from IL we are not Chicago and he can't force Chicago's laws on us just to protect Chicago's loss of revenue from their not thought through ban. "

TO: Pro Patriot Act from Gov't Opressed Mule wrote on Aug 23, 2007 11:03 AM:

" How about sect. 210, 211, 212, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 222, 223 ,224, 225, 814, and 815. The problems with these sections are too numerous to list so I encourage you to investigate yourself and read these sections. I may be making an assumption here, but I am ASSUMING you haven't read these (you may have, but they are long and I can only assume your backing of these is based on gov'rt propoganda and not actually on your own judgement). If You have read these and STILL feel the gov't hasn't crossed their bounds then the country is worse off than I thought. "

Pro Patriot Act wrote on Aug 23, 2007 8:12 AM:

" I support the Patriot Act. I've read it. I understand it. The claims made on posts here that deride it never cite the section they disagree with. Why? Because their claims are unfounded. Unless they can back up their statements with reference to the specific section that is the object of their criticism; ignore them. It would be in a terrorist’s best interest to have the Patriot Act repealed. Linking the Patriot Act to the smoking ban is smoke screen propaganda. None of the anti-Patriot Act posters can back up their claims with proof. If they could, they would cite the Patriot Act section. They are using the same scare tactics all terrorists use. They will deride this post, but they won't be able to refute it. Now that you know they are blowing hot air; join me inside for cool one in the air-conditioned smoke free comfort of any bar or restaurant in B/N while they step outside and call their conspiracy theorists “friends” on speed dial. You don’t have to go to Iraq to fight terrorism, just find the local chapter of the Libertarian Party and expose it. "

Life is Good wrote on Aug 23, 2007 8:10 AM:

" Treasonous regime??? Now that's a good one.....political party backing aside, that is almost laughable. Paranoia will destroyia. "

to OGS wrote on Aug 23, 2007 6:16 AM:

" What do you suggest the solution IS to your claims? "

OGS the Patriot Act wrote on Aug 23, 2007 12:50 AM:

" JD is right. Before you dispute the claim, read the Patriot Act. Anyone can be defined as an "enemy combatant" and thus be deprived of the writ of habeus corpus (rights if arrested). Further Homeland (Non)Security has been issuing training manuals to metro police forces encouraging them to do same. Yes, may God Bless America, but if more of us don't wake up to the treasonous regime that currently occupies the White House then may God Help Us ALL! "

small town wrote on Aug 22, 2007 10:24 PM:

" I do business in several small towns of 1000 or less and most of these people didn't even know about the smoking ban and still say it wont effect us ... How will they ever enforce it , especially when their is only 1 or 2 cops on duty in the whole county ... Plus how about the little business with 2 or 3 employees and they all smoke ... GOOD luck with that.... "

To: RE wrote on Aug 22, 2007 8:23 PM:

" Define what would rouse government suspicion. Is it being vocal against the current President? How about lobbying against a political party? Having Middle Eastern friends? Being the wrong religion? You see, without having the be accountable for it's actions, the government can deem whatever it wants as 'suspicious'. Our forefather saw what happened when the government had that kid of power, and fled from it, leaving behind people who were incarcerated for being of the wrong religion. With the whackos that get into power, do you really want to trust that one of them will not find something suspicious about you? "

to JD wrote on Aug 22, 2007 7:58 PM:

" It's so sad that you feel this way. Do you have time to find true happiness in your life? Due to the fact that you compare our country to a communist one.. I think that is pretty far fetched. I really would rather not share thoughts with you or GOM any longer. Your negativity is a real downer, and I will continue to feel the way that I do, as the two of you will do. Have a nice forever. God Bless America. "

to Re wrote on Aug 22, 2007 7:50 PM:

" Thank you for your input. My words seem to fall on deaf ears. What you said is exactly the points I have been trying to make. I can't believe that we have come to this point from talking about a stinking smoking ban..I do not choose to live the "I'll be constantly looking over my shoulder" lifestyle.. What a terrible way that would have to be.... "

Re wrote on Aug 22, 2007 7:21 PM:

" I really doubt that the everyday, normal Joe, is having the Gov watching over him like a terrorist....thus he will not be affected. Now if that everday Joe is/has been doing something to arouse any kind of suspicion......hmmmm? "

JD (cont) wrote on Aug 22, 2007 7:06 PM:

" You say that you lead a life the Patriot can not touch. You do not realize that they do not have to PROVE you are a terrorist of sympathizer under the Patriot Act. The government currently has the right to detain you without giving reason for as long as they deem fit. They do not have to charge you, take you to court, or even allow you a phone call. They can just snatch you out of your bed and make you disappear. It is the same power the KGB had in the USSR. I am sure many of the Russians that vanished thought they had never done anything wrong either. You are naive if you think the government will not eventually turn this power onto people they want to make go away. "

JD wrote on Aug 22, 2007 7:02 PM:

" I know that no matter how many rights and freedoms that are taken from Americans, if someone wants to hit US soil, they will find a way. Look at the USSR, they stripped all the rights and freedoms from the people, policed everyone with ruthless aggression, and still had insurrection and terrorist attacks. The government can not even police the borders to stop illegals from coming in, do you really think they could stop a trained combatant with a dirty nuke? People are no more safe now than on 9-10. Sure, they have less rights, but are no more safe. "

to JD wrote on Aug 22, 2007 5:55 PM:

" Although I respect your service to our country, and respect the constitution for what it stands for, it suprised me that you, being a service person that fought to defend our country, does not agree that our government should do everything that it can to protect us from more attacks, from other countries that develop and harbor those that want to attack and take control of the very soil that we walk on. The first thing that they would do, when they take control, would be to burn our constitution, and you know it. I respect our government, and what steps it needs to take to protect me and my family. I lead a life that the Patriot Act will never touch, as does my family and friends. If the Patriot Act affects someone, I have to believe, as I said before, there would have to be a reason for it. "

JD wrote on Aug 22, 2007 4:01 PM:

" The lives of those that died on 9-11 do not outweigh the lives of those who have died, and are still dieing, to protect the Constitution and our freedoms. The Constitution may not mean much to you, but I and others have not only risked our own lives protecting it, but have lost many comrades in arms protecting it also. Our Constitution is what protects us from the government, and just because you trust it, people like myself, and our forefathers, know that government can not be trusted, and must be regulated itself. "

Condescending Arrogant Guy wrote on Aug 22, 2007 3:01 PM:

" Personally, I like the Patriot Act!!! I think it's a fine thing!!! Anyone who disagrees with it is either a dirty commie or a terrorist!!! I've got no problem waterboarding anyone who dares to question it or me!!! I know I'm right because God told me so!!! How long can you hold your breath, Mule??? Let's find out!!! Maybe some cigarette burns to the tender bits will change your opinions about the smoking ban!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! "

To Thomas wrote on Aug 22, 2007 3:00 PM:

" Are you saying the tax revenue from cigarettes outweighs the social and health costs? "

Thomas wrote on Aug 22, 2007 2:17 PM:

" Wouldn't it be something if we all quit smoking and thus quit paying all that tax to the state. Where do you suppose that money would come from if not from us? Of course, that is not going to happen. But maybe we should stop shoving smokers into corners (outside corners) and take a minute to pat a smoker on the back and say, "thanks for smoking buddy! Kepp up the good work!" "

to GOM and JD wrote on Aug 22, 2007 1:07 PM:

" I'm addressing you both at the same time, because of you both being of the same opinion. First, times have DRASTICALLY changed since our constitution was written, resulting in being forced to make adjustments when dealing with the technology, terriorists, etc. As I stated earlier, life as we knew it to be, changed on 9-11-2001. I bet that if either of you had relatives or friends that perished in the collapse of the twin towers, or the Pentagon, or on the plane that was destroyed in Pennsylvania on that day,, your opinions might be different in regards to our government doing EVERYTHING it feels necessary to STOP anyone from being allowed to go as far as these ppl were able to go. You ask, where do you draw the line? You CAN'T draw a line. If ANYONE becomes suspect, I don't have a problem with them being studied under a microscope. Including the show of rebellion against our standing government. Our country never had to be on different levels of "security" when the constitution was written. I personally think that it is time to refresh the constitution to coincide with the high tech world that we live in today. "

RE: TO Life is good from GOM wrote on Aug 22, 2007 9:06 AM:

" I understand your point and our conversation may have seemed to take a turn for a different subject, but everything is related. We were asked for examples of how the has infringed upon rights. The patriot act and smoking ban are the same thing. Just with a different title and different type of gov't intrusion. But as CAP'T pointed out, it's just another stripping of rights that the citizens look upon and smile without any fore thought of potential negative side effects (much like the Patriot Act.) I do agree w/ you that everyone (even "friends") are allowed to their opinion and I welcome yours, but much like the non-smokers I will not change my stance on my feelings that the gov't has again taken a giant leap towards a fascist totalitarian state. Long live the FSA! "

RE: TO GOM and JD from GOM wrote on Aug 22, 2007 9:01 AM:

" You stated you had no fear from gov't intrusions as you had nothing to hide. I myself have nothing to hide in reality, HOWEVER (big however) where does the line get drawn? As you can tell in my posts I have some, let's say, different views about the effectivness and/or honesty of our gov't. Who's to say they feel my thoughts and speech (which again is protected under the constitution) are "terrorist" thoughts, thereby landing me in jail for over 2 years w/out a lawyer or even a ph call. Seem far-fetched? Maybe, but it has already happened to over 50 US citizens (people who were born and raised in the US). There was a reason the constitution was written, but our gov't has long since stopped following it. "

Life is Good wrote on Aug 22, 2007 8:34 AM:

" I think JD and/or GOM, respectively, should write a letter to the Pantagraph about the Patriot Act and it's content, on how it affects everyone....how about it? This particular article is on a smoking ban in B/N, written by the Pantagraph staff. They put their name on it and many others have also written in to speak their peace (me included). If you want to discuss government espionage on it's civilians....the by all means do it, on that subject. You both make good arguments...let it be on the subject at hand. No need to call anyone dense, idiotic, narrow-minded, or any other slang for not thinking as you. Everyone has their opinion, which by the way, doesn't make them automatically wrong if it isn't the same as yours. If we blindly accepted what you are saying, it works the very same way as the examples you've stated.....everyone thinks for themselves.....they make up their own minds what they think is right. Who would of thought all this mindpower going to waste over a simple, silly, smoking ban, when no one's...... zero....rights have been violated. There are many more worthwhile subjects to discuss. How about the homeless????? "

to: to JD wrote on Aug 22, 2007 8:21 AM:

" While I can not say that I have been effected, if I was, I would never know unless they found something. You seem think I was naive, but did you know that reporter phone records were seized utilizing the Patriot Act? The only thing these reporters did wrong, was disagreeing with the current President. So dissent with the 'status quo' is now an offense worthy is covert federal actions? These people were targeted for how they thought, not what that they were any threat. I believe you are the one who is naive that the government cares a whit about you, your rights, and your freedoms. "

to JD wrote on Aug 22, 2007 5:50 AM:

" If I am doing something that warrants regulation, i.e. exposing other innocent ppl to a product that could harm them, as a respectable citizen, I will accept my fate. Surveillence by the government is not installed into someone's private residence, unless the person/people living there have drawn enough attention to themselves to show just cause. Are you SO naive to believe that for NO APPARENT reason, one day, the FEDS are going to burst through someone's front door, and start to install wire taps, hidden cameras, etc? FOR WHAT? This is how you make it sound in your post! I have not personally been affected by the Patriot Act, and I would feel that it would be a good bet to say that you have not been either, and most likely never will. But I sleep better at night knowing that my government is doing all it can to protect me and my family. "

JD: To GOM and JD wrote on Aug 21, 2007 9:12 PM:

" So you are all for regulations which you feel do not affect you, in order for you to be safe? You are against a camera in your house, because of your privacy, but are for your neighbor being monitored in case they are doing something wrong? You see the link between your reasoning and the ban? You are for a smoking ban, because it will not affect you, but will be against regulating the stuff that does affect you. Your concern is not health, but your desire to make sure others are regulated to your way to thinking. What happens when your actions become the target for regulation? "

to Sad Day wrote on Aug 21, 2007 7:22 PM:

" This room started out talking about a smoking ban. Now it has become the government taking over our lives. I do not feel that the government has taken ANY rights away from me. You , as everyone else here are entitled to your OWN opinion. "

Sad Day wrote on Aug 21, 2007 6:21 PM:

" I think this is what JD meant when he stressed for people to think about things for themselves, and in the long run. It seems that many only know what they have been told by the government propaganda machine concerning the Patriot Act. The comments for it, have been almost word for word what the government has said about it. If people took the time to actually see all the rights and freedoms they surrendered in the Patriot Act, they might have a bit of a different perspective. It is a sad day when America, once prided for it's spirit, give into being non-thinking sheep waiting to be fleeced. "

To GOM and JD wrote on Aug 21, 2007 5:39 PM:

" Life as we knew it changed after the events of 911. We let our guard down, and the massive loss of lives, and demolition of important buildings, was the result of that. Everyone was in shock. Noone trusted ppl that they didn't know. Our government NEEDED to do what it could to PROTECT our country. I am a common everyday, working, taxpaying citizen, that has nothing to hide. I do not feel threatened by any "Patriot Act." I don't know any of you. Maybe some of you don't agree with it, because you might not live your lives as I do. If my neighbor next door is building bombs in the basement though, it would be nice to know that those that can stop it, will do whatever it takes to do that. Wire tap, surveillance, etc.. not a problem for me. If the Patriot Act personally affects a citizen, or alien in our country, there is probably a good reason for it to do that. "

only... wrote on Aug 21, 2007 5:28 PM:

" 10 more posts until we hit the big 100. don't stop now. "

cont'd from GOM wrote on Aug 21, 2007 4:03 PM:

" sorry if I sound riled up about the Patriot act, but like I said the Capt was DEAD ON! It is terrorism w/ a smiley face on it so you feel safe. Maybe I'm so bitter about it because I voted for that fool twice and have finally run out of excuses for him. It sounds like a quote Hitler said "We must do anything neccesary to purge us from the evil w/in." Like good ole Ben Franklion said "Those that give up liberties for safety, deserve neither liberty or saftey." "

RE: TO GOM From Gov't Oppressed Mule wrote on Aug 21, 2007 4:00 PM:

" The Capt. is accurate. The patriot act has taken away all due process. Previously when a gov't body (police dpt, FBI, NSA, etc...) felt a need to "watch you" they would have to get a court order. That is no longer the case. ANY gov't official for ANY reason can wiretap (or worse) your ph. w/out showing ANY just caused to a court. It also allows the gov't to hold U.S. CITIZENS w/out allowing them to see an attorney or receiving the writ of Habeous Corpeus (which according to OUR constitution MUST be given w/in 24 hrs.)This has happened countless times since 9-11 where citizens were held w/out cause for over 2 years w/out seeing an attorney or speaking to their families. Can you please explain to me HOW this is not a violation of our rights and HOW it's a good thing? "

to: to GOM wrote on Aug 21, 2007 3:48 PM:

" The Patriot Act allows for illegal search and seizure, a blatant Constitutional violation. The guise that it is to 'protect against terrorism' has been blown by FBI agents who have invoked the Patriot Act to circumvent the need for a warrant in operations that were not linked to terrorism in any way. The agents just did not want to have to do it by the book. The CIA has a program named Carnivore which sits on Internet routers, and scans packets for key words and copies those that trip it. Your right to privacy is gone, just like those of the Russians to the KGB. "

JD wrote on Aug 21, 2007 3:44 PM:

" How can someone who has nothing to hide support the Patriot Act, but not support cameras in their homes? After all, under your logic, if you have nothing to hide, both would protect Americans. The difference is one of perspective. People view their homes as their castles, and do not want government encroachment there. People want everyone else regulated, but themselves. If it would somehow affect them, then they want to yell about their rights. By disregarding other rights and freedoms, you weaken your own, as the precedence is set that private property is no longer private. "

to the Cap't. wrote on Aug 21, 2007 3:40 PM:

" hahahahahahahhaa your sooooooo misinformed..... "

Cap'n Nuke-Yew-Lur wrote on Aug 21, 2007 3:24 PM:

" You've got to be kidding me! Forget al Quaida--the Patriot Act is the single greatest threat facing American society today. It is terrorism from within, stamped with a happy face to make fools feel nice and "safe." No wonder you support the smoking ban! "

to GOM wrote on Aug 21, 2007 1:38 PM:

" You keep referring to the Patriot Act as being something bad for our country and our citizens. The Patriot Act was passed after we were attacked on 9-1-1. Unless someone has something to hide that would be a threat to our country, I would think that one should not have a problem with it. I personally feel safer knowing that if our government suspects an individual, or individuals are planning to harm to our country, the information that could be gathered about these ppl from the use of the Patriot Act should be welcomed. It is not big brother. If you are a law abiding citizen and has given no law inforcement agency a reason to have suspicion about you, this act should have no affect on you. And your idea of the country being run, "by the people" sounds pretty scary. That could prove to be the downfall of America, i.e. too many chiefs and not enough Indians, so to speak. "

Sorry all wrote on Aug 21, 2007 11:23 AM:

" I waited for 2 hours for my post to show then resubmitted it. Don't mean to be redundant. "

RE: TO GOM FROM Gov't Opressed Mule wrote on Aug 21, 2007 11:22 AM:

" First off I do have to comment on a "friends" post. This is the most polite post from her and I feel we are finally making progress. As to the question "what type of gov't would I have it be?" I would lobby to have an actual gov't "Of the people, By the people, and For the People" as opposed to the quid pro quo gov't we have (favors for favors by the few). And my ideas are on a new gov't are to numerous to list here. You also asked for examples of our "Doom and Gloom" having actually happened. I ask that you investigate 2 incidents. In Ireland after the smoking ban went into place 1/2 of the COUNTRIES bars closed (as well as 3,500 healthcare workers made unemployed). I ask you to look at 1930's Germany when Hitler outlawed smoking, enough on that subject. These are minor examples of potential negative effects from non-thought through blanket bans. Will these happen? I don't know (I hope not) are they possible, YES (especially with the way our country is turning i.e. Patriot Act). I hope these answered your questions. "

RE: TO GOM wrote on Aug 21, 2007 9:13 AM:

" Before I respond I do have to say that was the politest I've ever heard "friend" be, seems we are making progress. To answer your question, It can be a gov't truly "OF the People, by the People, For the People." As opposed to the quid pro quo gov't we have now. "

JD wrote on Aug 21, 2007 8:57 AM:

" I have been doing something about it for years. I am an active member of the Libertarian Party. A party which support maximum freedom for individuals, but also maximum responsibility. Like in this case, it is a persons responsibility to choose where to eat, and to be responsible for that choice. You do not hold the entire society to blame for the bad choices of a few, you hold those few to blame. But as is the start of everything, education is the answer, and that is what I attempt to do here as it is not a political venue. "

to GOM wrote on Aug 21, 2007 5:30 AM:

" When you say this is our government, "BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE." What would you suggest it should become? "

to GOM wrote on Aug 21, 2007 5:26 AM:

" Although some of the wording sounds harsh, the latest post from a Friend, made some good points. If you truly believe, as JD does that the government will swoop down upon us and completely control every move we make, including watching us, via surveillance in our homes, then gather up other believers of this, march to Washington, and make your mark. I personally feel that these "predictions" that you all are making are over the edge. Look around the world where these bans have been in place for years, and then come back and tell us if that phenomenon has followed behind a "smoking ban." That, sir, is what I am referring to as your "gloom and doom" cenario. "

A Friend wrote on Aug 20, 2007 11:41 PM:

" Here is a very simple civics lesson. You are the government. You have the right and responsibility to participate in it. If you don’t like something, work to change it. I didn’t like smoking in public places. I worked within the system to change it. I encourage others to do the same. Posting your views here is a start, but how many of you actually do anything constructive to further your views. I would venture; not many. Your spout cockamamie rhetoric about rights and government intrusion, but you don’t actually do anything. You bicker amongst yourselves and moan about something you won’t work to change. There was a saying from the 60’s that applies to you. If your not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. In my eyes you are the problem; you are apathetic complainers (AKA losers). When you start offering realistic solutions, then you will be taken seriously. Until then, you are just fodder for my amusement. Thanks for the laughs. Good bye. "

al wrote on Aug 20, 2007 10:58 PM:

" the answer is simple...i can take my family to uptown for ice cream..i would never consider downtown....let the collgege kids and thugs have that part of town..as the cops obviously have..and let us have ours... "

JD wrote on Aug 20, 2007 6:14 PM:

" Just like businesses and vehicles are private property, so is your home. You do not think they government will regulate things in your home, with with precedence being set on other private properties, it is not a big step to take it into your home 'for your safety'. The government is making huge strides across the line into private lives. There has already been an attempt to regulate smoking in Massachusetts in private homes, because people started complaining they could smell smoke from the homes, 100 meters away, with the windows closed. If you think the government will stay out of your home, you are mistaken. "

RE: TO GOM from GOM wrote on Aug 20, 2007 5:03 PM:

" I don't understand how you are unable to have a conversation w/ me as we are right now :) I understand your opinion, respect it, and can even see from where you are coming. Just because our opinions on future events (from a current event) may differ, I don't see how either side is wrong. I understand this is our gov't ,BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE! I believe it was Abe Lincoln who said that it is the citizen's DUTY to revolt in the case their gov't got corrupt. (I'll look this up in more detail tomorrow as I am leaving for the night). So while it MAY be our gov't we do not have to sit back and idly let them strip us of our rights. You say the gov't isn't all bad? Could you please name 1 good thing they have done since Regan? I agree w/ the basis of our gov't, but not the corrupt pile of self interest parties into which it has become. Sorry if u take this as Gloom and Doom. in an attempt at an olive branch, have a good night. "

to Gov. opressed mule wrote on Aug 20, 2007 4:02 PM:

" Your continuous negativity does not allow someone that does not believe the way that you do have a conversation with you.