Ads by Yahoo!

"
The American Cancer Society said, "“There is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke,”

This is a a meaningless but very effective soundbite that antismoking fanatics use all the time. It's just as true to say "There is no safe level of exposure to sunshine" and then go on to use that fact to argue that the government has to ban outdoor patio dining "for the health of the workers" who would be forced to service such areas with only the "partial protection" afforded by sunscreen.

America is a free country and government-imposed smoking bans do not belong here. Whatever microscopic level of harm that could be argued for exposures to smoke in well-ventilated bars and restaurants is more than offset by the level of harm to our social fabric created by social engineering schemes.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
"

" It is very simple. I don't like cigarette smoke. I supported the ban on indoor smoking. I got what I wanted. In their nicotine-induced stupor, smokers didn't realize they were going to lose their privilege. Now it is gone. It will NEVER come back. Keep thinning the herd. "

" Hey non-smokers: why do you want to support a smoking ban for bars, which are places you've never stepped foot in? We've all been waiting for you meddlers to take the place of the smokers, who were the large majority of bar customers who now have vanished without any sign of coming back. You said that you'd come out in droves to enjoy the fresh, clean air in taverns. The situation in Chicago taverns is dire after only 10 weeks. Fortunately, the city and the metro area are on the Indiana and Wisconsin borders. Both states very recently shot down smoking bans in bars, so for many, the night out involves a short trip and a designated driver. We'll be glad to contribute tens of millions of dollars to their tax coffers in upcoming years while Blagojevich sweats bullets about a major increase in IL income taxes. Fools. If this ban isn't amended, we will find a way to stick it to you idiots, one way or another, in the most painful way possible. "

" The mule's mama has sung. It is over. "

" TO: DAVE your bill of Rights was never violated. It gave you the right to life (see my prev. post) happiness (you were unhappy because you chose to enter a smoking establishment-sounds like a personal problem.) and liberty (which you feel should be compromised?). All 3 of those have always been there, yet you CHOSE to enter an establishment that you KNEW the owner was trying to secure the same freedoms you were granted. But now you've stripped the owner of his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness just so you can go into ANY establishment regardless of the want of the owner. So, in all seriousness, what would the difference of this ban and me pushing through a law banning restaurants from serving red meat be? Sounds to me like it was truly you (ban proponents, not you personally) that have failed to compromise and smile gladly as you strip American's of there God given freedoms. "

" DAve, Dave, Dave...Where have you been? These "undisputed reports" of which you speak have been under nothing but dispute since they've been released. The results of the reports you are talking about were releases 3 months before the actually studies were done, then the margin of error was doubled (to meet there previously released numbers), then that result was doubled-doesn't sound very proven to me. It's a shame we live in a society were it's considered "proof" if you quote a sound byte as opposed to actually doing research. You state smokers refuse to compromise? How about smoke free establishments and smoking establishments? Sounds like a compromise to me, but that's the way it's always been so you (the ban proponents) took that choice away (I'm assuming since you can't make your own choice of patronizing a non smoking establishment) so where's the compromise? "

" The bill of rights guaranteed me the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..
Someone blowing smoke in my face interferes on my right to life since it is a none disputed fact second hand smoke causes cancer.
It also interferes with my pursuit of happiness since it makes me very unhappy.
Liberty should be negotiated. All of us should be doing everything possible to guarantee each other the right of liberty. It takes compromise to do this.
Now the problem is this. Very few smokers are willing to compromise.
I realize smoking is an addiction and addictions need fed. Also addictions cause normal people to become hard to deal with at times.
I am addicted to breathing. I believe my right to breath super exceeds anyone's right to pollute the air with nicotine laced smoke.
My wife and I went to the casino last weekend. It was wonderful to be in a smoke free place.
NOTE: The Pantagraph word police would not let me use the word CONS***ution because it contained inappropriate words. LOL "

" ML, I agree, I hate smoke around me when I dine too. Why do you assume I am a smoker? We all have rights and liberties, I just don't understand why anti smokers feel compelled to take an all or nothing approach? If a restaurant or bar wants to allow smoking, then I have the liberty not to enter the door of the bar or restaurant and inflict my desires to have everybody accomodate my need for clean air. It seems that anti smoker will allow for no compromises its all about the non smokerd wants or desires.....seems very selfish. "

" To: superba.....And I enjoy the liberty to enjoy clean air (and not inhale your disgusting secondhand smoke) while I dine out. Thanks, House committee!!! :) "

" To The Cats the right to smoke can not be specifically found in the Constitution, nor can the right to an abortion or the right to privacy. Indirectly smoking rights can be found in the nineth ammendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
In essence this gives US citizens rights not directly found in the Bill of Rights. Your argument pretty much fall flat on its face in so much as its not about rights but about basic Liberty. We enjoy liberties that allow us to be free from government intervention. The government can create law to protect the public safety, but the government can not create laws that takes away basic liberties.

"

" All smokers buy your own seeds and grow your own, purchase your smokes out of this country hit em all where it hurts the most, their wallets.
They will sorely miss all the tax revenue as we smoker ban together and move our money to other nations that welcome our life styles.
I truly hope we smokers find a way to raise their taxes to pinch their life styles to. Oh it's coming, soon the bans will begin and your freedoms will be gone.
This is just the begining....
"

" You fought the battle, won the war, but you can't smoke at the vfw anymore. "

" Please tell me where in the constitution "the right to smoke" is listed. "

" Go Whine Smokers. It is here to stay. Notice how the lobby-ridden republicans are against it? As Gomer would say Surprise, Surprise, Surprise. "

" Here again, a right is still taken away from the people of this country. To me this is not about smoking or not smoking - it is about the freedom of the people to CHOOSE in this country. Gee - this is twice in the same day. Wonder what tomorrow will bring? Maybe restrictions on whether we can drive a car on Sunday? How about prohibiting the sale of alcohol on Sunday? I remember when one could not buy anything on Sunday. Let's go back to those days - I would vote YES for that. P.S. FYI-I'm not a bible thumper at all - I don't even go to church. I'm just an ordinary citizen of the United States. "