Pantagraph.com | Letters | Government shouldn't interfere with smoking

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.

Freedom To Choose wrote on Aug 2, 2007 11:42 AM:

" I am enjoying my new expanded freedom of choice. Before I had to choose between going to a smoking or nonsmoking establishment. Now I can choose ANY establishment because they are ALL nonsmoking. This has expanded my choices of nonsmoking establishments. Now, why would anyone who wanted to smoke go to a place that prohibits smoking? Shouldn’t they be smart enough to go where smoking is permitted? It seems so obvious; if you want to smoke, don’t go to places that prohibit it or just don’t smoke while there. Why is this so difficult to understand? Nonsmokers used to be told not to go to smoking places if they didn’t like smoke. Maybe smokers don’t like having their choices limited? They didn’t have any problem telling nonsmokers to go somewhere else. Why can’t they understand being told the same thing? It is the same logic, just now they are the ones with the limited choice. I fully support the concept that everyone has the freedom to choose. In the past, nonsmokers were free to choose whether to patronize a smoking establishment. Today, smokers can decide whether to patronize a smoke-free establishment. The choice is theirs. "

jake wrote on Aug 1, 2007 6:38 AM:

" to CLawts: Yes you do hve a choice, don't go where there is smoke. I don't go where there is poison ivy. Also there are more things that affect your asthma than cigarette smoke,. Should we ban them also? Where does it stop? "

CLawts wrote on Jul 31, 2007 2:49 PM:

" Thank goodness the government is stepping in and doing something about smoking in public. One of my close friends has a child with a disease in which everytime she is around smoke, her lifespan is cut down by years. Where they live, there is 1 sit-down restaurant that is non-smoking, so Bloomington-Normal is now like a little haven for them, where they can go to eat without worrying about their child dying prematurely because of someone else's "right to smoke". I have asthma...I didn't ask for it...I just have it. Before this ban, when we were in a restaurant with the sections only separated by partitions, I would have an asthma attack. People like me and my friend's child don't have a choice...smokers do! "

Ken wrote on Jul 31, 2007 1:36 PM:

" Yes, I am sorry but obese people are an health risk for me as they themselves gobble up health care cost (just like they do fast food) which leaves less health care benefits for the rest of us. So, yes they are like smokers. Also, they sometimes require larger caskets, burial vaults, etc that cost there loved ones increased financial burdens for burial. "

To: to To: to would not hire wrote on Jul 31, 2007 11:22 AM:

" enjoying a smoke with a drink in the evenings seems in control to me. It's the same as enjoying a fine cuban cigar. It's a pleasure. I suppose since you have no sin you can cast the first stone. "

To: to To: to would not hire wrote on Jul 31, 2007 9:23 AM:

" Yeah, right. Bragging about your income here on an intarwebnet board really means a lot. I make eleventy billion dollars, so I am not riff raff either. Money has nothign to do with riff raff. Drug addicted smokers like you are riff raff. You can't control your vices. That's riff raff. "

To: To: to SAZ wrote on Jul 31, 2007 9:21 AM:

" Try to keep up here....MY eating at McDonalds does not affect YOUR health. Sheesh...This isn't hard to figure out for us non-smokers...why do you smokers have a hard time figuring this out? "

IL Ain't Your Ashtray wrote on Jul 30, 2007 10:12 PM:

" Smokers, you've done it to yourselves. Your smoke can't be controlled when around others, but you don't seem to care. You think it is your right to be able to smoke where ever you want to, but you can't. And you seem to think any place you walk or drive your car is a stinking ashtray, well it isn't. You've done it to yourselves smokers. Disregard for others health, comfort and concern for a well kept, clean environment. Too late, it's going away. Go smoke in your car out in the country, or in the basement of your home, but don't blow any of your smoke on others, including your family! Oh, and by the way, the next step to enforce will be for you smokers to pay your fair share of healthcare insurance and expense. I'm tired or picking that up along with you lousy butts! "

yay! wrote on Jul 30, 2007 9:25 PM:

" smokers shouldnt interfere with my clean air "

To: To Saz wrote on Jul 30, 2007 9:14 PM:

" You eating at McDonalds may not be harmful to my health, but it is harmful to the taxes and premiums I pay in to take care of your high blood pressure and obesity. I mean, wasn't that coming from the tears of nonsmokers . . . stopping indoor smoking will reduce in health premiums and taxes? So stop eating at fast food restaurants. And for the nonsmokers who actually thought this act would better the lives in Illinois, in turn, reduce insurance premiums . . . you are MORE gullible than I originally thought. "

JimB FORCES Illinois wrote on Jul 30, 2007 8:30 PM:

" Don't blame Blago for this ban. Don't blame Cullerton, Link, or any other legislator who voted for it. They are who they are. In fighting the ban, I talked to a lot of legislators and asked them how many phone calls they got from those who oppsed it. The answer was unanimously "Not that many." The ban would never have happned if a sufficient number of opposers would have taken a couple minutes and called their senators and reps. Since it was so easy to inflict tyranny on us, the same legislators are now pushing for a $.90 smoke tax increase. If they get that, do you think they're going to leave us alone? Tyranny doesn't sleep. How much are you going to take before you finally get on the phone and fight these fanatics? "

To: would not hire wrote on Jul 30, 2007 5:30 PM:

" What is the name of your business? I want to be the first to apply and then have my opportunity to sue you when we find out that my qualifications outweigh the people YOU did hire. Please tell me the name of your business. Lets test the waters together! "

Enlighted One wrote on Jul 30, 2007 5:25 PM:

" Am I the only one who finds this issue amusing? In one corner you have the militant non-smokers who want smoking banned from all bars and all restaurants, rather than letting the free market solve the problem. In the other corner, you have the smokers who think their right to suck down products of combustion is somewhere in the Bill of Rights. You're both goofy, but I have to admit that it's a hoot to read your comments. "

to: "to To: to would not hire" wrote on Jul 30, 2007 5:14 PM:

" I cannot believe that one hand you profess to be intelligent and then on the other you argue for your right to smoke. You ask posters (and I am sure those around you) to allow you to commit slow-motion (and sometimes not necessarily slow) suicide as though nothing is wrong. I hope there are people in your life that love and care for you. On the other hand, if there are, why would you do this to them? You obviously are so addicted you cannot see the flawed logic in your "legal" rights. I feel sorry for you. "

Get over yourselves wrote on Jul 30, 2007 5:10 PM:

" I totally agree with eric, he has very valid points. Personally i think this town if full of self absorbed people! Give it a rest and think about others for once. Wether you are a smoker or a non smoker! If it is so horrible to be around stay out of the beer gardens! "

to To: to would not hire wrote on Jul 30, 2007 4:24 PM:

" don't be so sure that you can tell. My teeth are clean, I smoke only in teh evenings and on weekends. If I didn't tell some co-wokers that I smoke, they wouldn't believe it. Rif Raff? If you define Rif Raf as college educated 6 figure plus contributing member of society, then I guess I'm guilty as charged. Occupation discrimination is defined as "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit." I'd love to see you fire someone that knew the law and they could make a wonderful example of you. "

To: to SAZ wrote on Jul 30, 2007 4:07 PM:

" No, eating at McDonald's directly harms your health and I thought the smoking ban was all about getting healthy. "

To SAZ wrote on Jul 30, 2007 2:45 PM:

" Nice try, but me eating McDonalds doesn't directly harm your health. your chemical dependence to your drug addiction harms me directly in the form of second hand smoke. Allergies, sensitivity, to name just a few. Your analogy is apples to oranges, but I wouldn't expect anything different from someone who's smoking has killed who knows how many brain cells. "

Kevin wrote on Jul 30, 2007 2:44 PM:

" "The smoking ban presumably attempts to protect us non-smokers from secondhand smoke. The overprotective governor wants us to live longer. But there are a great many senior citizens who can't afford the high prices of gasoline, food, public transportation, electricity, medicine and hospitalization in the state. And our inept governor is at his wit's end to help them cope with the serious problems." Are you seriously advocating smokers rights so we would have fewer old people? I guess that would help with the future of social security "

To: to would not hire... wrote on Jul 30, 2007 1:46 PM:

" We non-smokers can tell smokers very easily. It's not difficult. your teeth are stained, your clothes stink, and your voice is gravelly. Very easy to weed out the Riff Raff that are smokers. "

No. wrote on Jul 30, 2007 1:43 PM:

" Eric, as a non-smoking conservative, Shut the heck up. "

SAZ wrote on Jul 30, 2007 1:28 PM:

" Who goes to a bar to "be healthy?" The non-smokers on this blog keep talking about the health issues.........has anyone seen "Super Size Me?" In less than ONE month, the doctor told the "narrator" to STOP eating McDonald's due to the drastic health risks he would encounter if he didn't stop eating there (let alone the problems he had already begun to experience).........how many of you non-smokers eat at McDonald's or Hardee's three or four times a week? In fact, let's have a challenge!! I'll smoke a pack a day for a month and you eat at McDonald's for every meal for a month and we'll see who's doing better. Any one? Give me something other than "health" as a reason for a smoking ban. "

HEY,HEY,HEY wrote on Jul 30, 2007 1:25 PM:

" Where is the ACLU at anyway. "

hank wrote on Jul 30, 2007 12:11 PM:

" Mr. Lin : Smokers may be treated like second citizens, but what they really are are First-class taxpayers! "

jon wrote on Jul 30, 2007 11:14 AM:

" Mr Lin, lets add the following to "bars & restaurants", that being garage sales. It is a "private place which serves the public". Ever go to one? A bunch of these are smokers who visit & hold these sales. Do they fall under the same regulation? "

to would not hire... wrote on Jul 30, 2007 11:13 AM:

" assuming that by the interview you could tell. Once hired, it would be fun to see the wrongful termination suit. I know that if I worked for you adn you fired me based on the fact I smoke, we'd have a lot of fun. At the end of the day, maybe I should apply for a job. "

Fatso wrote on Jul 30, 2007 11:10 AM:

" To: "To What's going to be Funny" : O.K.: how about a Law permitting smoking? "

To: Whats going to be Funny wrote on Jul 30, 2007 10:45 AM:

" I have a little challenge for you: Give me just one example of a law that only non-smokers would not like. Then ask yourself; Would they ever really pass that law? I won't be holding my breath for your response, in fact, I'll just sit back and laugh now. "

Whats going to be Funny wrote on Jul 30, 2007 8:55 AM:

" Is when they pass a law that the "non-smokers"don't like and they start whineing about goverment control over there right,you know its going to happen sometime,an i'll be one that just sits back and laugh, "

Would not hire a smoker... wrote on Jul 30, 2007 8:46 AM:

" I would never hire a smoker. If, given all the clear dangers associated with smoking, a person still smokes, that speaks to poor decision-making, lack of long-term thinking and/or plain stupidity. These are the traits of someone I would not employ. Yes, you have the right to smoke. You also have the right to make poor decisions, but not at my business. I don't want you here taking excessive breaks to satisfy your chemical dependence, being ill more than the non-smoking workers and just plain and simple - smelling like an ashtray. Argue for your stupidity and you own it. "

kjk wrote on Jul 30, 2007 8:10 AM:

" the govt. bans drugs that give there users the runs. smoking kills millions each year. it is the most addictive legal drug known. it should be illegal to buy. but with all that tax $$ coming in, banning it in bars is the first step towards an all out ban. "

To: Who knows wrote on Jul 30, 2007 8:07 AM:

" We're talking about the business owners rights; not the smoker's rights. The business owner should have the right to decide whether he allows smoking in his establishment. In addition, the non-smoker has no obligation to go into a smoking establishment. You don't have to breathe the smoke.....it's your choice. I say, bars and casinos should have an exception made.....patrons only over 21. Since there are so many non-smokers there should be plenty of choices as far as places to go. Don't you agree? "

Life is Good Re: to 10:59 wrote on Jul 30, 2007 8:07 AM:

" Just so you understand....the difference is even though they "own" their "private" business, they are inviting the public in AND they charge for services rendered.....that leads to a whole different set of rules and guidelines. Now when you invite someone to your home, that is not the case......or maybe it is, but not under a business heading and reporting to the IRS. "

To Eric Lin of Normal wrote on Jul 30, 2007 5:23 AM:

" Has your employer seen this example of your logic and decision-making skills? Your knowledge of medical science (danger is "much exaggerated") and government (the governor should "rescind" the law)? Your consideration for others and the value of human life ("Why would he try to increase the population of old folks to aggravate the situation?" Why would an "overprotective" governor want us to "live longer")? Your implication that your company policy is wrong (my employer "used to do")? Your tact ("inept" and "tyrannical" governor)? Good luck. "

The right to smoke anywhere is inalienable? wrote on Jul 30, 2007 4:49 AM:

" Apparently not. "

To" To the rest of the list wrote on Jul 30, 2007 4:44 AM:

" You must look at the bigger picture. The examples given illustrate that government regulation of people's property (including that of business owners) is, and has been for centuries, well-accepted by society. I presume that you wouldn't be in favor of allowing a bar owner to chain shut his emergency exit doors. He might have a reason for doing so - maybe people are slipping in without paying a cover charge or slipping out without paying their bar tab. He could argue that nobody has died yet from his practice, the additional revenues will keep him in business, and that he changed the “exit” signs to read, "no exit", so people have fair notice. Of course, we know that he is playing with the lives of his customers, and we wouldn't allow that. So, why would we allow him to risk customer's lives for smoking? To increase his revenues? Because universities and doctors don't know what they are talking about and nobody’s ever died from smoke? Because smoking customers should only consider their own desires, and shouldn't be concerned about risking others’ lives? Our society is full of examples of control of our own wants for the well-being of others. "

MRS. wrote on Jul 30, 2007 3:07 AM:

" TO:Way to go, Mr. Lin!!!!!: Really. Open up you house to the public, sell alcohol and food. Don't get a license, don’t follow guidelines for handling, storing and serving food. I will wager a very large sum of money it won't be long before you find yourself in deep doodoo. More than likely, by the time the health department state and federal surveyors are through with you, you won't even own your home anymore. These places have regulations to follow. If they want to refuse someone that is their choice. Unless someone is causing a problem a proprietor would have to be crazy to deny service but that is their right. You know, I just had a thought. What if this ban didn’t take affect but people like me would start suing owners that allow smokers to blow smoke in my face? Do you think they would like that better? "

Scott McDonnell wrote on Jul 30, 2007 2:55 AM:

" Josh, Yep. (you realize the actual air you breathe in comes from only a few feet around you, right - and that physics show that particules heavier than air fall to the ground very quickly, right? In other words, you are just SMELLING smoke, not inhaling chemicals unless the person were to be standing directly in front of you blowing it in your face. BTW, since when does YOUR right trump MINE or the business owner's? Find or start up a bar that is non-smoking, from the sounds of it, you will have a pretty hopping place in no time. "

Scott McDonnell wrote on Jul 30, 2007 2:48 AM:

" Actually, diabetes and obesity are the number one causes of higher medical costs in America. I suppose none of you morons have a problem with the government 'protecting' you and our pocket-books, by regulating what you are allowed to eat? "

YadaYada wrote on Jul 30, 2007 1:38 AM:

" Most all bars are privately-owned businesses on private property. A bar patron may enjoy the PRIVILEGE of patronizing a privately owned business, but has no RIGHT to be there, except to the extent that such patrons may not be discriminated against by reason of age, sex, race, etc., etc. That said, the owner reserves the right to refuse service to anyone for any other reason; no shoes, no shirt, , no coat and tie, no service. If a bar owner were to refuse to serve all non-smokers and demand they leave the bar because he does not like non-smokers, then they have no recourse but to leave the premises. All you self-indulgent snobs keep that in mind. "

whoknows wrote on Jul 29, 2007 11:47 PM:

" This is not about rights. This is about health. People who think secondhand smoke isn't harmful are delusional and ignorant. I mean, how delusional can you be when you be when you think blowing carbon monoxide, nirtrogen oxide, hydrogen cyanide, and ammonia in someone's face is okay? You think blowing toxic chemicals in people's faces like this is okay? "

Way to go, Mr. Lin!!!!! wrote on Jul 29, 2007 10:59 PM:

" I know a lot of non-smokers who feel the same as you do and as I do. Restaurants and taverns ARE private places which the owner is basically inviting people to visit - just like our homes are. If we don't want people to come in, we still have the right (so far) not to let them in and vice versa. When the government starts paying my house payments, taxes, etc. THEN it can tell me who can come to my private property. Business owners OWN or ARE BUYING their establishments - it's their private property. "

Smokers' Logic wrote on Jul 29, 2007 7:50 PM:

" I'm tired of hearing about the "right" to smoke, and it's hardly an inalienable one. I certainly don't have the right to punch a smoker in the gut if his SHS is bothering me. Sure, my punch may cause some minor discomfort, but it's not my fault, because he has the choice to smoke somewhere else. "

Howie to: to Big Steve wrote on Jul 29, 2007 7:05 PM:

" The right to abortion, according to the Supreme Court, is inherent under the right to privacy. But, you ask, where in the Constitution does it guarantee the right to privacy? I dunno, but John Roberts (GWB's successful nominee for Chief Justice) said in his confirmation hearing that the right to privacy is a "fundamental part" of the Constitution. And, if GWB's nominee says it's so, then it's so. "

Big Steve wrote on Jul 29, 2007 6:06 PM:

" This issue has nothing to do with abortion. I predict in two years the United States Congress will pass smoking legislation similar to B/N and Illinois. The American culture is changing in its position of enabling smokers at the expense of the 75% of us that don't smoke. This is not big brother as some of you claim, but the government "promoting the general welfare." By the way I am a pro-life, libertarian who supports Ron Paul. Smoking in public places goes against the golden rule. Case closed... "

to: "Big Steve" wrote on Jul 29, 2007 4:31 PM:

" Where in the Cinstitution does it say a woman can have an abortion? "

YadaYada wrote on Jul 29, 2007 3:18 PM:

" "Adam", the federal government first collected an excise tax on cigarettes in 1862. U.S. Government officials tell the American people the tax is for a fund to make-up for the added healthcare costs of smoking. All states also tax cigarettes, some as much as $2.50 per pack. Counties also tax cigarettes, as do many municipalities. With all these taxes, it should be clear that smokers are paying plenty for the additional premiums attributed to the added healthcare costs created by smoking related illnesses. Where's the huge taxes on booze? Booze results in huge added costs to our healthcare and hospital system. Where's the big tax on sugar products? Sugar's killing us; 25% of us are diabetics. How about a big taxes on fats, triglycerides, low density lipoproteins and other unhealthy consumption items to pay for heart and artery problems, the biggest healthcare problem in America? Don't just pick on the smokers. Let's spread the cost of healthcare among the various risk factors and behavior. BTW, I'm not a smoker. "

to more right wrote on Jul 29, 2007 2:40 PM:

" Excellent comment. "

To: The rest of the list.... wrote on Jul 29, 2007 2:06 PM:

" I think you're a little confused on the writer's intent and meaning behind his letter. First, he was not referring to rules of the road and using that as a comparison makes no sense at all. Secondly.......breeding hogs and chaining an emergency exit for patrons??? what are you talking about. Reic was simply stating his non-biased opinion that a business owner should be able to determine wheter his/her establishment should allow smoking. In addition, it is also the right of each individual to make their own adult decision whehter they choose to give their business to a smoking or non-smoking establishment (especially bars/taverns, where everyone should be 21 and able to make their own choices without big brother babysitting them and taking care of them). It's all about choice and personal responsibility. I don't smoke, but I sure don't want the government interferring a business owners freedoms. That just opens the gate to many more freedoms and rights being taken away for all americans. Yes, I know smoking may seem like a "small thing", but you just watch......there will be more to come. "

Josh wrote on Jul 29, 2007 1:55 PM:

" I have to take issue with this letter. Eric, where, oh where, did you come up with "Their inalienable rights to smoke"? When did smoking become a right for anybody? Most bars and restaurants are not private places; the Elk's Club is a private place-not places like Pub II, the Cellar and Fat Jacks. Also you bring up the choice issue. What you fail to mention is that there are many of us out here who don't get a choice-because we are allergic to cigarette smoke and the various carcinogens that are present. The "smoker's" choice to smoke ends when it comes in contact with my nose and lungs. We don't have a choice of whether to patronize these places, we medically can't. What about our choice? Shouldn't we get to choose? Also, you say the danger of secondhand smoke is exaggerated. PROVE IT. Got any facts to support your theory? "

More rights! wrote on Jul 29, 2007 1:44 PM:

" I too would like to speak for the rights of smokers: they have the right to peaceful assembly, they have the right to free speech, they have the right to freedom of religion... "

Adam wrote on Jul 29, 2007 12:19 PM:

" I look at it this way...Healthcare is an area into which the government pumps a tremendous amount of money (Medicare and Medicaid, primarily). It has been shown that smoking does tend to drastically increase one's susceptibility to any number of diseases. Therefore, when you get sick and require treatment, partly because you're a smoker, it's the taxpayers that flip the bill. We could then conclude that this is only fair. This is decidedly unfortunate for me, considering how much tobacco I use in a day, but it's the truth. And, by the way, the right to smoke has NEVER been enumerated as an inalienable right. Inhumane? Uncivilized? Treated like animals? A bit of hyperbole there, dontcha think? "

Big Steve wrote on Jul 29, 2007 12:11 PM:

" 1. Where in the constitution can I find the "right to smoke"? 2. Regarding government regulation of private property consider the following: Can a bar owners determine their own seating capacity? These limits force them to turn away business. How about bar owners having slot and video poker machines? Imagine the additional revenue from these sources. While were on the freedom bandwagon we might as let bar owners run prostitution in back rooms of their property too. 3. Why have smokers had the priviledge to frequent and polute bars while I must choose to stay away if it bothers me? The culture of acceptance towards smokers has changed. I think for te better... "

Nobody Seems to Get It wrote on Jul 29, 2007 11:55 AM:

" Eric, I think that "The rest of the list" has put your argument where it belongs. The smoking ban isn't about personal rights and freedom of choice, it's about doing something that is harmful to another human being and that human being having no say in the matter. I remember working in offices where people were allowed to smoke at their desks. If you didn't smoke, you sure smelled like it and inhaled secondhand smoke whether you wanted to or not. My college roommate, selected by the university, smoked and I couldn't do anythng about it. I stank, my clothes stank and my lungs didn't thank me. This is about public health, not your personal freedom. "

non-emotional argument wrote on Jul 29, 2007 11:40 AM:

" I agree with the earlier writer who was incredulous that someone calling himself a liberal could employ non-emotional and logical reasoning. What is this world coming to? "

it's all about money wrote on Jul 29, 2007 11:38 AM:

" These politicians wouldn't give a hoot about smoking if they couldn't tax it What hypocrites. The rage they inspire in me is far more risky to my health than a lifetime of inhaling second hand smoke. "

Life is Good wrote on Jul 29, 2007 11:09 AM:

" Why would try and increase the population of old folks???? You really didn't say that, did you Eric???? That one statement makes the whole letter look idiotic. Find another cause, because gee....why would we want to try and grow older? I mean what's the sense, if they take smoking away? Yessiree.....I'm....nah, I'd better not say anymore.... "

So, government interferes with what you want to do... wrote on Jul 29, 2007 10:50 AM:

" The very meaning of government, or governing, means controlling, organizing, and restraining the behavior of people. Name one time in history when people got together and there wasn't some form of government. Ancient tribes had government, stranded survivors of remote plane crashes had government, medieval manors had government (often with much more control over everyday lives than we have today). As we discover more about our environment and our human body, as we depend more on interaction with others in a civilized society, and as we see new technologies such as cars and airplanes, it is inevitable that there will be new rules. In today’s society, with so many people thinking, “it’s all about me, and what I want to do”, some resentment of control is expected. If indoor smoking was just a matter of preference and convenience, I could buy the government interference argument. But, it's really a matter of public health unless you believe that universities and doctors are all about junk science. Since we all live longer today, everyone who is older than about 35 years should feel lucky we have regulation and medical science. Without those advances of civilization, you'd likely not be around to complain. "

Big Government Control wrote on Jul 29, 2007 9:00 AM:

" The Smoking Ban is not really about smoking or providing a friendly environment for our health from the effects of smoking and cancer. The real issue here is that the smoking ban is one piece of government control over our lives. Each regulation whether the ban on smoking, adding regulations to go Green for Global Warming, regulations to tax cars entering big cities such as New York (already in force in Britain) or whatever other regulations adds to the pie of Big Government which means government controlling every aspect of our lives. Be aware Big Government is here to control you. Get involved and oppose the implementation of more regulation! "

Puff-Puff wrote on Jul 29, 2007 7:27 AM:

" It feels good now, coming home and not smelling like an ash tray. "

I hereby speak . . . wrote on Jul 29, 2007 7:04 AM:

" Oh Eric, your letter made me laugh; starting with your first paragraph. You make the statement that “I hereby speak up for the rights of smokers’ as if we are all supposed to suddenly quite down because ERIC LIN is about to speak! Yes . . . THE Eric Lin! "

I agree wrote on Jul 29, 2007 7:01 AM:

" And the government shouldn't interfere with medical pot (or un-medical pot use). There are better uses for our tax dollars than overpaying a bunch of cowboy cops to chase down smokers and pot heads. If the truth be known, most arrests for selling pot are sell outs by the last guy busted. As for smoking cigarettes, or pot, as long as you don’t do it around me, or in the same room I am in, or aircraft, or bus, or car, or restaurant, or tavern, or public building, I could care less how much you smoke. "

The nonsmokers don't wrote on Jul 29, 2007 6:58 AM:

" see the smoking laws as taking rights and freedoms from people, they are on a witch hunt and can't see pass their noses. They are blinded by propaganda. The man made chemicals in our foods, and man made prescription drugs are killing more people per year than cigarettes, yet smoking is their taget, while alot of these same people are all for legalizing marijauna "

Non-Smoking Conservative wrote on Jul 29, 2007 6:45 AM:

" Eric, your letter is a factual, non-emotional, rational argument in favor of your position. Are you sure you are a liberal? "

American wrote on Jul 29, 2007 4:31 AM:

" I am not a smoker. I can't understand why anyone would volunteer to put those fatal toxins into their bodies. I would be devestated if any of my kids started smoking cigaretts. However, whenever the politicians start passing laws that, interfere with legal, personal choices, watch out. I'm not saying that banning smoking in public establishments is going to be a "slipery slope" but, it certainly has the potential for more laws that intrude into our personal lives. This law does not just intrude into the lives of smokers. It also intrudes into the lives of business owners who, have always allowed smoking in their place of business (i.e. tavern owners). Every (legal) American citizen should take notice and be concerned. "

The rest of the list... wrote on Jul 29, 2007 4:12 AM:

" And, there should be no speed limits for MY car (just stay off the roads if you feel unsafe), I should be allowed to chain shut the emergency exits of MY bar (just post a "no exit" sign), and I should be able to breed hogs in MY yard next door (just move if you don't like the noise and odor). Libertarians say that government shouldn't have any rules that control their property, no matter how strong the reasons (check out their websites). Just do whatever YOU want. But, the power to protect the general welfare was recognized by the framers of the Constitution long ago. Yes, we need to balance in some respect for individual rights, but we're not banning smoking altogether. If this is an overstep by government, it could be challenged in the courts, but my guess is that we won't see any serious challenges, because anybody in the know realizes that it is reasonable and wouldn't waste their time and money. Fortunately, I think that we are in the last chapter of this story, as it has been decided in Illinois. "

Ads by Yahoo!

Bloomington Activities

CD Rates in Illinois

Illinois Community Colleges