My concern is if secondhand smoke issues are as serious as anti-smoking activist claim then why ban smoking, make it illegal! I don't understand. That's right, the government wants the money from the tax on tobacco. So it seems more like a money issue.
Why do you think only the small local businesses have been voicing their views so strongly and not the larger corporate chains? It's simple; the large corporate chains can afford the loss of revenue due to a smoking ban, most of the small local businesses cannot.
Bottom line, I do not know if secondhand smoke is harmful, maybe it is. However tobacco is legal and I thought I lived in America, the land of the free and the freedom of choice - keyword "choice."
I have attended all meetings on the smoking ban. The female singer at the Normal council meeting complained that the smoke-filled bars affected her singing voice. She has no choice? Come on, she choose to join a band that plays in bars. Maybe she should book her band at a non-smoking establishment or join a Christian band. Duh! The gentleman that loves Mugsy's wings said that his throat was sore from waiting inside for a to-go order. He had no choice; Mugsy's has been delivering for nine years.
Protect employees from secondhand smoke? First of all, I do not force anyone to work for me. They are the ones applying for a position. They know this is a smoking environment. If someone wants to work in a smoke-free environment there are plenty of places to apply.
Please let free enterprise work. Do not shut our locally owned businesses down. A smoking ban will.
Glenn D. Corkhill