" One attempt at a smoking license" LOL "

" The decision to allow or ban smoking from any business should be strictly up to the owner(s) or to whoever the owner gives that decision to and not the government. "

" I'm happy the Republicans haven't been able to repeal this law.

It's great that those folks with breathing problems can now go into any restaurant and not have to breath nasty second hand smoke. Our children benefited from this law greatly too. "

" Jim1969

Since I own my car, should it also be my right not to carry insurance? "

" a agree with Jim. If you don't lke smoke then don't go to an establishment that allows smoking. it's really that simple. I wouldn't go to Stix because it was always packed full of people smoking. Granted, it wasn't the smoking that bothered me, it was the cigarette burns in my clothes left by drunken dancers. "

" Tell me pj1983

Which Bar, Nightclub or Restaurant in this area didn't allow smoking?

In all my years (to many of them) of dancing at clubs, I have yet to have had one burn on my clothes. In fact, I have yet to see someone dancing while smoking, must be different these days. "

" Why should the non-smokers have to be the ones to limit their activities and limit the places they can go? If smoking only jeopardized the health of the person smoking, that would be another matter, but their decision risks the health of anyone around them. Smoking sections and ventilation only work to limit the cosmetic effects on the air -- making it less stinky, but the carginogens linger. And think of the health of the workers of any establishment that allowed smoking. . . . One of the best decisions our state government has ever made! "

" I don't really have an opinion about the smoking ban. But since the ban was enacted because non-smokers were being exposed to second hand smoke, then I would recommend that the state look into banning fragranced produts in pulic places. Most cheap perfumes contain volatile organic compounds that can adversly affect the central nervous system. I get horrible headaches from some of the stinking crap people slather on themselves... to the point that I've had to leave restaurants and other public places. I'd rather be in a smoke-filled room than in a room with some clod wearing Polo or some other horrible, bug-spray smelling chemical concoction. "

" I wonder if it's true, what they say about dried banana peels?

Eh, nevermind....

Somebody would 6itch, then it would get banned too.

LOL! "

" Rotty, Naw it don't work tried it once.lol "

" LOL @ jw!

Darn it!
LOL! "

" Drea said bring on any lawsuit because 25 states ban smoking altogether.

Banned altogether? I hadn't heard that one. lol! "

" we apparently frequented different bars, medic57. when Stix was still around i had that problem all the time.

"Why should the non-smokers have to be the ones to limit their activities and limit the places they can go?" well...why should SMOKERS? that's what the ban effectively does. it keeps smokers from frequenting an establishment. i say let the business decide. if you want to cater to non-smokers then go ahead. if you don't mind the smoke then serve the smokers too. as for people working in a smoked filled environment....DON"T. If you you're allergic to book dust you shouldn't work in a library or a bookstore. but to ban books in public places is dumb. therefore if you don't like smoke you shouldn't work somewhere where you can be exposed to it. "

" It is supposed to be around a hundred bucks for a carton of cigarettes, in the chicago area. Won't be long before marlburl, cammel, and whenstins end up in a kids back pack, in a locker search, possibly even omitting the surgeon general warnings placements.

Now they want to tax soda, frivolous lawsuits to follow, and then proceding to ban them from even more places than just schools.

Before long, since you have to face one hassle after another to smoke a cigarette, drink a pepsi, or eat fast food, folks will just fire up a fatty, swig moonshine from a flask, and use that gas turkey fryer on everything year round.

Mcdonalds fries don't taste good anymore, but if they did, a grown up should be able to order a supersize fries. Erosion of rights, is increasing at every turn. If pet peevs keep getting added to the regulated limitation or restriction of legal actions list, people who have a trunk load of kids misbehaving in public, needs to fall in there somewhere. If the kid gets in trouble, their parents get the consequences, no more juvenile judicial system.

Shouldn't be a problem with the get off of my lawn croud. "

" pj1983, why is this concept so hard for you to grasp? In America we have personal freedoms -- UNTIL exercising those freedoms harms others. Second-hand smoke KILLS!!!! There is no denying that. In fact, the most recent study by the American Medical Association concludes that previous studies had UNDER-estimated the health risks of second hand smoke. This isn't a case of others merely being allergic to smoke or not liking to be around it (as someone else likened it to being around perfume). Second hand smoke KILLS people by causing cancer, heart disease, and emphysema, among other diseases, and it also causes non-life-threatening illnesses like bronchitis, asthma attacks, ear infections, etc.

If you want to smoke, go right ahead; it's your life -- so long as you are not doing it in an enclosed public space. If you're smoking indoors in public, then you are endangering all those around you. You have the right to risk your own life, but you DO NOT have the right to expose me to elements that can kill me. It's as simple as that!!!! "

" Here's another example, pj1983, that might help explain what I'm talking about.

It's perfectly legal to drink in America if you're 21 or older, but it's not legal to drink and drive? Why not? Because to drink and drive risks the lives of everyone else on the road.

No one tells non-drinkers to just stay home if they want to avoid being killed by a drunk driver; we tell the drinkers that they are not allowed to drive after imbibing, and law enforcement tries to enforce this law as much as possible to protect the lives of the public.

It's the same thing with smoking. The smoker is the one who is endangering others, so he or she logically should be the one who has limits imposed regarding that behavior. Smoke all you want in your home or the homes of consenting friends, in the outdoors, etc. But don't smoke in an enclosed building where you're endangering the lives of everyone who enters. "

" Mike,

Here's the difference between the smoking ban and proposed limits on fried foods, trans fats, french fries, soda, etc.

If you sit and gorge yourself to the point of explosion on french fries, fried chicken, sugary sodas, a Krispy Kremes heck, even a bucket of lard if you want to, it doesn't affect my health. But if you sit next to me and smoke, it DOES affect my health. That's a huge and important difference.

I agree that we don't need a nanny state and that adults should have the right to make those decisions for themselves. But I DON'T believe that you should be able to exercise your personal choices when you affect the health of someone else -- hence the ban on indoor public smoking and drunk driving. "

" Why should the non-smokers have to be the ones to limit their activities and limit the places they can go?" well...why should SMOKERS? that's what the ban effectively does.

So tell me pj1983, how does a smoking ban keep you from going into a bar or rastaurant? "

" The states that have decided to ignore the health risk of second hand smoke are in for a rude awakening. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is currently drafting legislation protecting all workers in America from second hand smoke. Like usual Illinois is just ahead of the curve. Second hand smoke is a health risk, if this bothers you take up chewing tobacco. Unless you live in Kentucky, Tennessee or West Virginia you're probably not going to get cancer from second hand spit. "

" Erosion of rights is not the same thing as protecting others right to be as healthy as possible. "

" People who think they should be allowed to smoke in public areas and expose others to their poison are truly selfish people.

You people CHOOSE to kill yourselves with the poison of cigarettes. It is not to be forced upon those of us who CHOOSE to remain free of such poison.

Are you the same people that I see driving around with young children and babies in their cars, smoking with the windows up? Oh yes, you are exercising your right to poison yourselves, I forgot. Nevermind that those poor children cannot exercise their right not to get into the car.

Along with making it illegal to smoke in restaurants, etc., it should be illegal to smoke in your car if you have young children, and you should be ARRESTED and JAILED if you do. "

" Car exhaust, is more of a hazzard and at higher volumes, and most people are exposed to various levels of it daily. Some sit in traffic jams 2 or more times a day, when its hot and humid, and more likely to bond or linger with the surrounding air.

Many things contribute to heath issues. Pinpointing the impact of one, to any accuracy is near impossible, because people aren't a control group of lab rats. Nail polish remover is a health hazzard, most things in kitchen bottom cabinets, around the bathroom, garage and workplaces, can contribute to health issues.

We are often walking chemistry sets, combining various fumes, dust, and chemicals in our bodies. If we banned or restricted all the stuff some people could have an adverse reaction to, store shelves would be pretty bare. Many plants, animals, and insects, would also need to be eliminated.

Most smoking sections weren't designed to the letter of the law. No one enforced the law, to any extent. Some smoking sections were placed poorly, even for things built after the rules went in place. I do agree that nonsmokers should have the ability to be in public without smoke in their midst. Bars should have had proper designated smoking areas, and smoke free areas. But they went to far with the outright ban, and should have done their job a long time ago when they made the rules for smoking sections and areas in public places in the first place. Now its just imposing on a different segment of society rather than getting an equitable solution.

Most affected places had to be inspected by the health department on a regular basis. Part of their pass fail inspections, should have put greater emphasis on smoking sections than they did. If the section didn't pass, the place should have been restricted from allowing smoking.

If a business wanted to allow smoking, they needed to follow the rules. Just putting in some small exhaust vents, and a half wall, passed the test. Sometimes just an aisle seperated the sections. Didn't matter if it was in the path to the restrooms, by the cashier, or next to the buffet. The state could have effectively handled the issue, but failed miserably, as they often do.

If only we had a common sense test or commitee, that looked at laws, we might thin the stack by huge quantaties. Its usually much less complicated than they legislate it into being. Legislating just for the sake of it, has tied up a lot of the part time jobs time. Smokers aren't going to fill the gaps they created with their ban. More base taxs, than the actual retail cost of the product, is additionaly pushing the envelope. This is a poor precident, and either destined for further use, or a complete eventual overturn in court. Either way we all loose, because they don't have a clue again. "

" do smokers ever really realize how badly they smell?

and much worse, how their children smell although they're totally innocent and made to sit in a carcinogenic fog. "

" All smokers smell badly? Really? I smoked for three months before my husband ever had a clue and he only noticed when I lit one around him. Hmmmm.... "

" Just an opinion wrote on Apr 28, 2009 3:11 PM:
" All smokers smell badly? Really? I smoked for three months before my husband ever had a clue and he only noticed when I lit one around him. Hmmmm.... """"

maybe you just normally smell bad. "

" maybe we should allow heroin users to shoot up in public places and around children.

after all, it's the same type of addiction. "

" there are plenty of people who refuse to go places because they can't smoke there medic.

i understand your point perfectly, hahvahd. but i also believe that we're infringing on smokers rights by telling them where and when they can light up. i also believe that business owners should have the choice of smoking/nonsmoking establishment. as for your statement "No one tells non-drinkers to just stay home if they want to avoid being killed by a drunk driver" ....i tell people that and i do that myself. by avoiding times of hte day when drunks are out and especially holidays that seem to revolve around drinking like new years and memorial day and the like "

" maybe you just normally smell bad.


I was thinking the same thing, fb. lol! "

" Potter and Father Bob, your ability and DESIRE to smack down on "Just an Opinion" regarding her thoughts and written word was shameful

I'm guessing both of you got the tar beat out you when you both were young. I think the rest of us can clearly see why!! I would love to help you both relive a bad memory. Let me know fellows...any time ..I'm there. "

" PJ, but our legal system doesn't tell the non-drinkers they should stay home (even if you choose to do so); they try to protect people, just as the smoking ban tries to protect. Smoking isn't a right -- and I'll scream it from the top of my lungs again: IN OUR COUNTRY, YOUR FREEDOM GETS RESTRICTED IF EXERCISING IT HARMS OTHERS!!! Second hand smoke KILLS!!! I just can't understand why you're defending the rights of smokers to kill innocent people who have chosen not to smoke! "

" Mike P, even well-designed smoking sections won't protect non-smokers from the health risks of second hand smoke. The smoke -- and its carcinogens and other toxins -- enters the ventilation system and gets distributed to the whole building. The odor gets filtered out, but not the elements that cause cancer and heart disease.

And just because we're exposed to other health hazards such as car exhaust, that doesn't mean it's acceptable to be exposed to second-hand smoke! If anything, that means we should be trying to reduce our exposure to health hazards whenever possible.

Medic, you've had some good posts on here! Father Bob, too! "

" And PJ, drunk drivers are on the road 24/7. Just ask the family of the young woman killed on I-74 in Champaign in the middle of the afternoon following a shopping trip. "

" oldschool wrote on Apr 28, 2009 4:56 PM:
"I would love to help you both relive a bad memory. Let me know fellows...any time ..I'm there. """""

easy now!....don't get your pantyhose in a bunch! sounds like you may have personal hygiene issues.....ROFLMAO! "

" hey old school....i'm all for smokers stinking to high heaven. but i'm also amazed that they are so appalled when someone comments on it. also amazing is the fact they expose their loved ones, people most near and dear to them to toxic carcinogenic substances. telling them "i love you" on one hand but telling them "i really don't love you" through their actions.

talk about hypocrites. "

" The only other thing I will say is remember this when the government tells you what you can and can not eat, tells restaurant owners that any meal they serve must not be more that 500 calories and must be no more than 3% fat and no cholesterol. When they tell you what color car you can own. When they tell you what kind and size of TV you can have. When they tell you what temp to keep your home, and so on and so forth.

If you think I am joking take a look at some of the things the California Air Resource Board is trying to get made into law. They are trying to ban all dark colored cars because they use too much extra gas to cool. They are trying to ban all TV's over 40 inches because they use too much electricity. They are trying to outlaw all incandescent light bulbs. They have already banned semi trucks from idling their engines regardless of temperatures making drivers trying to rest endure temps that would get a person arrested in they left an animal in the same vehicle. It all has or is being done in the name of the public good, just like taking away the right of business owners to decide if they want to allow smoking in their establishments or not.

A lot of this big brother is going to tell everyone how to live BS starts in California first and then goes to other states.

Yes I am a smoker, but my issue with the smoking ban has nothing to do with being able to smoke in public. It has to an individuals rights in general and also about where the line will get drawn. Personally I think it is already too late. We have already allowed the mouse to have a cookie, now it is after the entire gallon of our milk. "

" I am not a smoker never picked up the habit, I also have asthma however, I don't understand why there cannot be a compromise of some sort. As for me I do enjoy the smoking ban for the reasons stated above, as a non-smoker I hate the smell of cigarette and cigar smoke, I don't want to risk cancer and emphasema and the like, but I also know many people who smoke and hate the fact that they have to get up and go outside in freezing weather, or the rain just to light up a cigarette. There are ways to satisfy both smokers and non smokers, exhuast vents can be utilized, bathrooms can be added to both sides of a resturant or a bar one side of a business can be for smokers and one for non-smokers. There was a resturant in Galesburg that has long since been torn down that was exactly like this. The bathrooms were smack in the middle of the resturant but one side was smoking and one side was non smoking. the grill, and the kitchen faced the non smoking side and no one ever complained of smokey taste in their food. I loved the place espcially as a kid because my dad smoked and my mom didn't, my dad would sit down and eat with us, finish and go to the other side of the resturant to smoke, the smoking side had numerous exhaust fans so none of us ever had to cope with dad smelling like smoke. Jim 1969 I had read about the goverment wanting to ban the incandecesant lightbulbs but I have yet to read about the bans on certain colors of cars or sizes of tv's or anything. I will definatly need to look into those things. "

" There is no point in arguing with people like PJ and Mike, as they do not care for others. They only care about their own comfort and convenience.
The only problem with the anti-smoking law we have in IL is that it is a state law and not a federal law! This issue is far more than comfort or the mythical "right to smoke" (nothing in the constitution provides smoking rights). Workers who worked with asbestos and other harmful substances have died or live with debilitating diseases and we have taken steps to prevent this from continuing. The same goes for those who work around second hand smoke. Do you think a waitress working for 30 years in a smoky diner, who has never smoked, yet comes up with lung cancer can't sue their employer?? This is to protect not only patrons of businesses but also employees who work for greedy business owners that would choose to allow smoking, for strictly economic purposes, while ignoring the health and well being of their employees and non-smoking customers.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I havent seen a single business in Coles county (restaurant, bar, etc) shut down because of the smoking ban! This is a done deal and will never change...get used to it! "

" Devilishangel, if the building you described shared a common ventilation system, having it divided didn't solve anything other than making the air smell better. Ventilation, exhaust fans, etc., only serve to remove the smoke's odor and irritants from the air, not the carcinogens. "

" Hahvahd, Im not sure if that building had a common ventilation system or not.. my bad for not realizing that exhaust fans wouldn't take out the carcenogans.. I thought exhaust fans sucked out everything! Shows Im just not mechanically inclined lol. Thanks for the correction btw. =) "

" Thank you, old school, for pointing out the juvenile postings of certain posters here. I stink? What is this? Junior high? And since you also pointed out that we can all play that game, if you need help with that reminder, give me a call! LOL Hygiene issues.... Really? "

" jason said : "There is no point in arguing with people like PJ and Mike, as they do not care for others. They only care about their own comfort and convenience.".........I'm a NON-SMOKER so put that in your pipe and smoke it :)

as for smokers stinking, it's on a case by case basis. most of my employees smoke but most of them don't smell like it. two in particular i knew for months before i found out they were smokers. my mom has smoked for years but no one knew because she never smoked in the house. which kept her clothes from reeking of the smell.

i understand the reasoning behind the smoking ban. i can even agree with it for the most part. however, i still feel that if a business owner wishes to allow smoking in his privately owned, tax paying establishment they should be allowed to. nothing says a person has to visit that establishment if they don't want to. "

" PJ...I'm glad to hear you're a non-smoker! But busing the following logic: "i still feel that if a business owner wishes to allow smoking in his privately owned, tax paying establishment they should be allowed to. nothing says a person has to visit that establishment if they don't want to"...how about we drop all health codes since restaurants are privately owned businesses, then eliminate all OSHA laws and regulations so factory workers can be exposed to unsafe conditions, and finally get rid of unions, the minimum wage and all other reasonable laws so that "business owners/the Nobles" aren't inconvenienced by us peasant folk. C'mon man...I know you are obviously against regulation but hasn't the current economic crisis taught us that sometimes less regulation is a bad thing? "

" pj, if we give business owners the say as to who they want to enter their establishments, what's to keep some business owners from saying, "I don't like blacks, so I'm creating an environment that will appeal only to whites," or "It's too much trouble to cater to the handicapped, so my privately owned business with be filled with barriers to those who need wheelchairs." "

" do you guys have anything other than slippery slope arguments? so far you haven't convinced me. "

" pj, if the deaths caused by second hand smoke won't convince you, you're beyond convincing on this issue. And my argument wasn't a slippery slope, btw. "

" There are plenty of people who refuse to go places because they can't smoke there medic.


Not a problem anymore, luckily, you can't smoke indoors anywhere in Illinois now. It's a lot more fair, banning smoking than not banning it.

Some states already ban smoking in your car with children in it.

Sarah Bush Lincoln Hospital bans smoking while on the clock, if you are a courier and you use your own car, you cannot smoke in it while on delivery. "

" In debate or rhetoric, a slippery slope (also the thin edge of the wedge or the camel's nose) is a classical informal fallacy. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact.

so your argument that a smoking establishment would lead to "white only" is exactly that. "

" Amazing..Somehow the smoking ban can be compared to racial division? Kind of a far stretch isnt it? As some of you know, I have been a bartender for years. I have yet to see the parking lot flooded with cars of non-smokers now that the smoking ban is in effect. I do however see alot of cigarette butts in the bathrooms, so the non-smokers may want to eliminate outside from now on. You could get cancer in the bathroom now. Burnholes in clothing from the dance floor? That made me laugh. Thank you for that one. By the way, YES, I am a smoker. Stay away from me, I may give you cancer. "

" Did you enjoy eating your Red Lobster meal while the ciggy head in the booth next to you blew a couple Marborals? "

" Um...Julio. What Red Lobster did you go to that still allows smoking? I was to the understanding that smoking was no longer allowed in Illinois. (?) My friendly advice if you are dining in Missouri, would be to request the NON-smoking area. Then the "ciggy heads" won't pollute your area. "

" I am more worried about being run over by a drunk driver than I am about health issues from smoking or the dangers of second hand smoke. If the gooberment really wants to do something to protect people's lives then they need to ban the sale of liquor at any location where the booze is meant to be consumed where it is purchased. "