How is the smoking ban affecting you?

I think this will negatively impact the laundry and dry cleaning industry. They've had some nice regular customers who have wanted to rid themselves of the Ashtray-Cologne on a regular basis and now, won't have that need anymore.

There are some restaurants that my wife and I are excited about trying now that we won't have to worry about smoke spoiling our dining experience.

I predict that now that we smokers will have to go outside that the non-smokers will complain that they have to walk thru smoke as they walk along the sidewalks of Naperville.

Why do some people who smoke think they have a right to polute the air near me? To me it isn't rocket science: I approve their right to poison themselves any way they want as long as they don't take me with them.

I'll preface my comment by saying that I am a smoker and will continue to be. I think it's a shame that non-smokers have to have the government intervene rather than using their own minds to decide where they want to go. At a council meeting over a year ago, a 17 year old young man, whose parents were doctors, stated that he didn't see what the big deal was - each restaurant/bar/lounge could post a sign outside stating whether they were a smoking or non-smoking establishment. Out of the mouths of babes! So now we have government involved more in our lives because we can't make decisions for ourselves. Before my rights were infringed upon, I chose whether or not to go to a non-smoking restaurant. It was my decision and I did frequent non-smoking restaurants. It's a shame that the non-smokers couldn't make that decision on their own. Now, we have government telling us what to do BUT government and the non-smokers are still willing to use the taxes they choose to impose upon cigarettes to help with the budget or bail them out when necessary. Sounds to me like they are talking out of both sides of their mouths depending on what suits their needs at the time. This will hurt the bars and lounges in town but we fail to recognize that these businesses are privately owned; have put their hard earned money into the business and now are being told how to run them. And when they start closing because their business falls off, what then? Are the non-smokers going to pitch in to help them out of a situation that they didn't ask to be in in the first place? Are the workers that work in these establishments going to thank the non-smokers for their loss of employment? Saying that this is to protect the folks that work in a smoking environment is absurd. We all have a choice of where we work. I hope all the non-smokers step up when these folks need their help and I also hope they discontinue using the taxes that have been imposed upon cigarette purchases as it seems highly hypocritical to me.

To: Sue Ellen Stewart,

It all comes down to this: If you want to kill yourself, that's fine. You will now just have to do it outside or in your own home.

Also, I hope they work on banning smoking outside as well.

Don't worry about the bars etc going out of business. All the non-smokers will start going. I for one can't wait to go into a bar and have a drink, watch some tv, discuss the current affairs... all without the sick smell / taste of smoke!!!!!

Why would anyone smoke????? stupid, stupid stupid!!

I really wonder what kind of effect this will have on the smoking rates. It would be nice if enough people were driven to quit due to the sheer inconvenience to see a difference on what we as a country spend on Medicare and related programs for people who are too dumb to not inhale cancer causing carcinogens several times throughout the day.

I have to admit that I like the results such as not smelling like smoke when I leave a bar, but I hate that it had to come from a nanny-government running our lives.

I agree with Sue Ellen Stewart above and believe that our government leaders are being hypocritical by saying smoking is bad while they rake in millions from cigarette taxes.

It will be interesting to see what happens to the bar and restaurant crowds. Smoke Free Naperville always said that more people would come out to the bars and restaurants if they were smoke free, not less. Of course, The Red Door Tavern quietly closed recently and was pretty much the only smoke free bar in downtown (not counting the more restaurant-like establishments such as Front Street Cantina).

To all the non smoking drinkers instead of smoking poisen,your drinking it,but thats ok you can get in your car and kill someone because you have been drnking and the person you killed is a non drinker,If you want to drink go ahead ,but why should I let you kill or hurt my family and love ones or anybody else.It is a double blade on this debate,but lets be fair about it and tell all the facts I belive it should be a choice if you want to smoke go to a smoking bar or eatery,if you do not smoke or drink go to to one that bans it,the choice should be up to the person not the goverment or non smokers to make my choices.

Hey Ron, just where have you been living for the past several years? Had you bothered to do any investigation at all you would have known that there have been many bars/restaurants that have long ago prohibited smoking: about 500 in DuPage County prior to 1 January 2008. Free enterprise does in fact work doesn’t it. Let me guess, bars aren’t really your thing; you just delight in advocating the theft of other peoples rights.

Pay attention Ron, smoking materials currently remain legal to manufacture, legal to sell, legal to purchase, and legal to consume in this country. Your state government, the one you so champion, has just selectively stolen the property rights of many business owners as they pander to what they consider to be a politically correct contention. Ron, given your glee it is obvious you are an advocate of this theft since you apparently are not a business owner and have lost no rights.

If cigarettes are so deadly why is their manufacture still LEGAL? Apparently smoking is not equally as dangerous or at least as bad for everyone in every situation. Hotels, well, we'll have a set aside for you. Have a store that sells these "killers" exclusively and hey, you're ok. Being the intelligent person you are I’m sure you have pondered just why killer cigarettes are still legal and just why those exceptions have been permitted. Ya don’t think it could be the MONEY do ya? The state legislature has tried twice so far to permit casinos dispensation from the “the law”. We will see won’t we?

Bottom line Ron, this is not about smoking, it’s about RIGHTS! Customers have the RIGHT to not patronize an establishment that permits smoking. People have the RIGHT to choose to not work in an establishment that permits smoking. Why is it that the only person that has made a both a personal and financial investment in establishing a business has now become the lone person who NO LONGER has any decision-making rights?

If you celebrate the government rejection of property rights you are furthering the proverbial “nose under the tent”. I would suggest that the primary function of Government is clearly to PROTECT the rights and freedoms of the citizen, not to take them away. The fatuousness of this politically correct agenda has got to be addressed for what it is, the abrogation of our liberties. Ron, apparently you are a devotee of the “nanny state” of government and would advocate that it baby-sit the citizen. I honestly don't recall babysitting being mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, do you? Ron, because I am able to think for myself I am unequivocally opposed to that consideration.

Free enterprise had already created numerous smoke free bars and restaurants. I have been educated to wear a seat belt all the time but am adamantly opposed to the government ENTERING my car and ticketing me for non-use. Historically, free enterprise and education have been just two of the methods employed to effect change. I guess that approach has been amended and that now, going forward, government will just arbitrarily steal the rights of the individual as they see fit. Unfortunately, as long as there are pandering politicians, the voter must remain vigilant to the often-nonsensical abuse of their rights. To just sit back and watch this occur would be in your words, stupid, stupid stupid!!

Mark my words Ron, given its direction there will come a time when government, your champion, will decide that something you do or enjoy is BAD and annul one of your “cherished” rights. Remember, drivers traveling at 55 miles per hour on an expressway kill more people than does smoking. Consumption of fatty foods kills more people than does smoking. Fois gras, burning pits, right to bear arms: what will be the next issue that strikes the fancy of government? Just wait Ron, just wait.

Ron -

While not as adamant as Jim Strnad above, I bet there are many people who would consider something you do and enjoy as being "stupid, stupid, stupid". Drinking may be one of them as mentioned in ida's comments above.

My main dissagreement with the smoking ban is that I don't see non-smokers (such as myself) as some sort of victim. I take full responsibility for where I work, what I eat, what I drink, and whether or not I walk into smoke-filled bars. I don't need to be "saved" by the government from my own actions.

I would hope others would accept the same responsibility for their own actions.

I don't understand all the idiotic comments from smokers regarding their "right to smoke". Smoking causes cancer - proven scientific fact. I am excited to try places (like Frankies Blue Room, because I love jazz) that are now smoke free. I think many businesses will see an increase of customers who know how to take care of their health. Smoking is unhealthy, period. But then again, we are a nation of complainers!

Julie Kline -

I think what you missed about what Ron was writing was not that smokers have a right to smoke, but that business owners have a right to set their own rules for their private property. The argument is that the business owners have a good guage on their customers and what their customers want.

I have read time and again comments such as yours which state businesses will see an increase in customers after the smoking ban. I don't doubt that people such as yourselves will now go out to listen to jazz, but will there be a net gain after the dropoff from smokers?

The bottom line for me is that if there was such a demand for non-smoking bars before the ban, why didn't more of them try the concept? The only real bar or tavern in downtown which was smoke free was The Red Door Tavern and it closed. Obviously, people weren't beating a path to their red door.

This post is not on the same path as the post’s above, just an observation. The bars (Lantern, Features, & Jimmy's) were indeed much less smokey prior to the ban, Duh! But they now smell like my fraternity from college, yuk!! Yes, I believe the smoke from the past "dulled" the smell of stale, sour beer that was never completely cleaned in each of these bars. It might be time to scrub the bars clean, now that our sense of smell is not inhibited by all the former tobacco smoke!!! Just to clarify we are all for smoke-free bars! Please, just clean them thoroughly now!!!

Cheers!

TB, re: the Red Door ... their closing had absolutely nothing to do with their non-smoking policy, so please stop insinuating it closed because it didn't allow smoking. Their closure had everything to do with absentee ownership, poor management, failure to renew their liquor license due to absent minded and distracted ownership, and inability to train and retain a qualified chef.

When the Red Door was being run correctly in their first two years of operation, the place was packed.

By the way, went to Peanuts for dinner with the wife last night. Spoke to the bar manager who said for the first 3 days of January their food sales are up and alcohol sales are exactly the same as last year at this time. He said the smokers who sat at the bar are still coming in, albeit smoking outside now. Yes it's a small sample size, but I believe smokers will adjust and ultimately more people will patronize these places.

Did I ever say that I would go to a bar and have an alcoholic drink?? No I didn't. I don't drink alcohol.

Smoking is still stupid!!!!!!!!!

I have two parents who smoked while I was growing up and I remember how angry my mother would get when someone would ask her to not smoke in their home or around their children. She would go on about HER RIGHTS and how it was legal and how she didn't care what other people thought, etc.

Well, ya know what? *I* breathed in that smoke and it affected ME and I had NO CHOICE. As a child I had repeatedly respiratory infections and was constantly sick. Did this stop my parents from smoking around me? No. They did not make the correlation back then.

Today, I have a child (adult) with severe asthma and being around smoke affects her breathing. How wonderful for her now that she will be able to frequent many establishments she used to avoid due to the patrons being allowed to smoke.

To all the smokers out there, whether I personally feel it is healthy does not matter. You have every right to smoke. But you do not have the right to pollute the air I am breathing.

And for the poster who mentioned drinking: my one glass of wine with dinner does not affect you. Yes..if I drank to excess and then got in the car and drove, I would be endangering you and that would be wrong. But that is why there are laws against that. Same as there are now laws against your smoking endangering me.

Jim, thanks for the info on Red Door. I was there a few times (both lunch and after work hours) and it was never that crowded. In fact, we used to go there specifically because it wasn't packed. The food was just OK. Too bad they were poor owners. The article in The Sun after they opened made them sound like people fullfilling their life-long dreams, from some sob story about the red door, etc.

But I still stand by my theory that the bar owners would have capitalized on the non-smoking crowd if they thought they could make money form it. It's basic capitalism.

Kelly, let me say that your one glass of wine with dinner COULD affect me if you're driving after drinking it. It has been proven that drinking a minimum of one glass of wine, one glass of beer, etc. CAN impair one's senses based on a person's height, weight, etc. That being said, I've not heard any of you that are against smoking in public places comment on the taxes that are placed on cigarettes and then used by our City, County, State to your benefit. Why don't we have the government remove those taxes - are you ready to step up to the plate and make up the difference? All we hear about is the health issue, which even in our City council meetings it was brought up by smoking establishment owners that they've owned their businesses for years and have not experienced any health issues due to owning and working in a smoking environment. I go back to my original point - we're all adults - why do we need government dictating how we run our lives? Can't we decide that for ourselves? If you don't want to go into a smoking environment - DON'T. I decide if I want to go into a non-smoking environment, why aren't non-smokers capable of making that same decision when it comes to a smoking environment? It's a darn shame that we keep bringing the government into our lives because we can't make decisions on our own!

Ron -

Smoking may be stupid to you, but is an informed choice by others (no, I don't smoke). I was merely pointing out that there is probably something you like that others would find to be stupid.

I had no intention of offending you by accusing you of being a drinker; however, usually when one writes that "I for one can't wait to go into a bar and have a drink..." it is assumed they mean an alcoholic drink.

Sue Ellen S -

It's great to see someone else advocate for taking responsibility for one's own decisions.

Alright, I have a question only for those who smoke:

If you know that smoking can kill you, why do you still smoke?

Ron -

Good question, but then you also have to ask why people still eat fries, use salt with their meals, drive a car, ride a motorcycle, and a whole host of other things. We all do things which are bad for us but which we consider an indulgence. By the way, no, I do not smoke.

If we all worried about what is going to kill us then there is a long long list of things people do that are killing them not just smoking,as mention above drinking is a killer for sure have you ever seen a drinkers liver and brain? You can get killed going to your mail box or fall on ice I hope you get my point.Smoking is a terrible habit and yes it kills but so does a Big Mac and Fries.Could we all leave the smokers alone and I will leave all the drinkers alone and anyone who has a bad habit. The air we breath is already bad, fumes from filling your gas tank and breathing in thoes fumes.This debate could go on forever,but I do belive that here should be smoking bars and non smoking bars,just like there are Gay Bars and Straight Bars you have a choice so lets not take choices away,just use common sense and choose where you want to drink and eat.

It was a simple question...

It would seem that our smokers are afraid to answer.

So Iada, following your logic, if someone wanted to eat at Buffalo Wild Wings, that company should build a "smoking" building and a "non smoking" building!!???

Because before 01/01/08 I would never eat at that place because of all the smoking at the bar. Same goes for Chili's, Applebee's etc., see your smoking is limiting where I could eat.

BUT NOT ANYMORE!!!!!!!!!!!

Ron,

I'm a smoker, and I'm not afraid to answer your question.

I know smoking is bad for me and if I really set my mind to it, I would try to quit, again. I've quit maybe two dozen times, the longest for several months, but something always drives me to start again: perceived stress, drinking, whatever. I've tried the gum, patches, health department programs, you name it. Prescription meds gave me insomnia from which I have never quite recovered, which is why you sometimes see me posting entries on this blog at odd hours of the night. My wife also smokes, so sometimes when I've tried to quit that has made it harder, though I don't blame her because she of course quit when she was pregnant with our children. I don't smoke around my kids, in the car when they're with me, or in the house when they're around, though we go down into the basement when it's really cold like this.

Mainly I get really irritable when I'm not smoking, and if I was stronger mentally I would just work through that and give up smoking once and for all. I consider myself a courteous smoker and I would never smoke around anyone if I thought it would bother them. Though I do feel that smoking bans do restrict the right to use a legal product, and I agree with posters who see the logic in allowing establishments that wish to cater to smokers to do so.

That's the long answer. The short answer is, smoking is a powerful addiction, and I'm mentally weak. My advice to kids is don't ever start. Neither of my parents smoked, but I know my mom's father smoked and died of lung cancer and she saw firsthand what smoking does to people so she wisely never smoked. But I didn't experience the loss of a close loved one due to smoking so I didn't have that incentive to not smoke.

Ted:

I had a long comment for you but then I erased it and thought that the real reason you and your wife keep smoking is that you are addicted to it.

Plain and simple.

Quit, for your kids sake!

Ron I worked in a casino, and when we got our breaks and lunch hour they had a smoking room for smokers and if non smokers wanted to come into that room so be it,It woked out just fine for all,why cant we just have a room for smokers,do you remember when there was smoking and non smoking seats in airplanes,also you use to be able to smoke in your hospital room. Hotels have rooms for non smokers and smokers,so I am trying to understand your point in all this,Smokers are not out to kill you or you air we just want to keep our freedom of choice and not let any more of our freedoms be taken from us,trust me it will not stop at smoking there will be more freedom taken from all, it is just the begining,so enjoy your dinners and hope one of your bad habits are not banned and you freedom to choose is not taken away from you.

Ted I wish people could understand the addiction to smoking,people think we are weak and have no wiil power,we are not all alike I for one know what its like and I do understand it. It is to bad non smokers have no idea whats its like,just like I have no idea what a coke addict is going thru,but I do have compassion for people with all kinds of habits even for the over eaters who want to stop eating but cant,so dont give up trying to quit and dont be so hard on yourself may be the next time you try to quit it will work at least you can say you tried.

Well today I read that they are trying to prove that Acoholism is a disabilty, so I guess somking being a addiction is a disabilty also. I should quit my job go into rehab and plan on gettig paid plus benifits, plus pension. This all goes back that drinking is ok and they have there freedom,but when they get addicted its our problem,so who has the right to say what addiction is ok and you get paid for it. I have to look into it for my smoking addiction.To all who had something to say about smoking hope you have input on this stupid court case. Your tax dollars at work.

I've used the last few days as an experiment and the results really didn't surprise me. I've gone out to eat 3 times since Friday; once for breakfast and twice for dinner. It will be a long time before I go out again and I am used to going out to eat 5 times a week at least. With the no smoking law being imposed I didn't find it nearly as enjoyable. I found myself spending anywhere from $20 - $50 for a meal that I then left immediately after eating because I couldn't smoke and enjoy the final portion of my meal, that being having a soda, cigarette and conversation after eating. So, I basically went out to eat to have someone wash my dishes. Thanks, but no thanks. I'll do my own dishes and save the money. Sorry, Grandma Sally's, George's, Your Neighbors and Ruby Tuesdays, not to mention Baker's Square, Jin's, Jimmy's, Olive Garden, Applebees, Chili's and those are just a few of the places I used to go here in town - I won't be seeing much of you anymore. Jewel and Casey's will be getting more of my business.

Sue,

Places like that will be happy to know that people like me are now going out to places they did not before. I went to a place last night that I would not normally go to for some time out with friends. I dropped $65 at the place. People who wanted to smoke simply stepped outside and stood underneath a propane heater (which really wasn't even needed anyway because it was so unseasonably warm) but they came back inside just fine and continued their evening until the next smoke-fix was required.

The good part? I came home not smelling like an ashtray and everyone had a good time.

Well, Joe, I hope you continue to frequent the places you didn't used to go to. They're going to need your support in the long run. Because smokers I've spoken with aren't going to be going out nearly as often as they have in the past. They're talking about bringing back neighborhood dinner clubs and I think that's a perfect solution. It's just a shame that the non-smokers of the world had to turn to the government to accomplish what they couldn't on their own - choosing where to eat and where not to eat.

I, too, went out to a formerly smoky place this weekend. The place was packed, without the smoke, and the bartender was thrilled. As that economist who spoke to the city council last year predicted, it appears that the "pull in" effect was outweighing the mild "push out" effect.

Sue,

As the cost of smoking continues to rise, the neighborhood dinner club might be a good way to help defray those costs instead of the $20-$50 dinners. I quit 10 years ago when it was about $2.40 a pack at the convenience stores and after seeing them double in cost over that decade I'm happy everytime I think about the savings. We all have to do what we have to do.

Well, I just can’t take it anymore and am compelled to respond to all the whiners:

Comment: There are some restaurants that my wife and I are excited about trying now that we won't have to worry about smoke spoiling our dining experience.
Posted by: John Q. Public | January 1, 2008 11:32 PM

Response: John Q. Public – been denied access to those “exciting” restaurants huh. Have you already tried all the “smoke prohibited restaurants” available, approximately 100 of them prior to 1 January 2008 (excluding bars) just in Naperville, or do you covet only the ones that permitted smoking?

Comment: Why do some people who smoke think they have a right to polute the air near me? To me it isn't rocket science: I approve their right to poison themselves any way they want as long as they don't take me with them.
Posted by: kahunagadol27 | January 2, 2008 07:21 AM

Response: Hey kahunagadol27, I’m sure that those that smoke are glad that you approve of them doing so and I’m also sure that none want to take you with them ANYwhere.

Comment: It all comes down to this: If you want to kill yourself, that's fine. You will now just have to do it outside or in your own home. Also, I hope they work on banning smoking outside as well. Don't worry about the bars etc going out of business. All the non-smokers will start going. I for one can't wait to go into a bar and have a drink, watch some tv, discuss the current affairs... all without the sick smell / taste of smoke!!!!! Why would anyone smoke????? stupid, stupid stupid!!
Posted by: ron | January 2, 2008 12:44 PM

Response: Ron, Ron, Ron – you little fascist you. Given that the oh so perceptive “leaders” of the state of Illinois have now chosen to steal the rights of the business owner it is nice of you to suggest that people still have the right to participate in a legal activity, at least in their own homes. I don’t understand your need to watch TV and discuss current affairs in a bar though. Drunks kill lots of people Ron so I would suggest that the government should protect us by prohibiting alcohol being served in bars. Hey Ron, like a Whopper or a Big Mac periodically? Very unhealthy you know: those heart attacks on a bun kill more people than does smoking. Maybe the government should…………

Comment: I really wonder what kind of effect this will have on the smoking rates. It would be nice if enough people were driven to quit due to the sheer inconvenience to see a difference on what we as a country spend on Medicare and related programs for people who are too dumb to not inhale cancer causing carcinogens several times throughout the day.
Posted by: My tax dollars pay for your chemo. | January 2, 2008 01:21 PM

Response: Tax dollars person: I would suggest that the regressive taxes on cigarettes pay for many of the government services that you so happily utilize vice the education of the smoker for which they were intended. By the way tax dollar person, care to guess the cost for the treatment of cardiac disease, which is by far the number ONE killer of taxpayers? I demand my tax dollar be used more wisely and we no longer allow the sale of the Whopper and Big Mac, those veritable heart attacks on a bun. Gauging by the growing number of FAT children it would appear that both they and their parents are TOO DUMB to avoid those cardiac killers and thus must be prohibited their purchase.

Comment: I don't understand all the idiotic comments from smokers regarding their "right to smoke". Smoking causes cancer - proven scientific fact. I am excited to try places (like Frankies Blue Room, because I love jazz) that are now smoke free. I think many businesses will see an increase of customers who know how to take care of their health. Smoking is unhealthy, period. But then again, we are a nation of complainers!
Posted by: Julie Kline

Response: Ms. Kline, allow us to separate emotion from fact - smoking materials are manufactured, sold, bought, and can be consumed legally so logic dictates that yes, at this point it is a right. It was also a right for a business owner to determine what LEGAL activities could be exercised in the course of his business until our feckless state government abrogated that right. Let’s examine the second hand smoke thing right now – there is NO DEFINITIVE STUDY that demonstrates a causative relationship between second hand smoke and cancer. There was a UN study, now there’s a reputable source, which purported this relationship but was later dismissed due to incompetent technique. All the “evidence” so casually referred to is purely ANECDOTAL. That – is - fact! I do NOT think smoking is healthy nor would I ever suggest that my grandchildren start smoking, but I resent this state government or any government that would take away the rights of the citizen!

By the way, I resent being referred to as idiotic.

Comment: TB, re: the Red Door ... their closing had absolutely nothing to do with their non-smoking policy, so please stop insinuating it closed because it didn't allow smoking. Their closure had everything to do with absentee ownership, poor management, failure to renew their liquor license due to absent minded and distracted ownership, and inability to train and retain a qualified chef.
When the Red Door was being run correctly in their first two years of operation, the place was packed.
By the way, went to Peanuts for dinner with the wife last night. Spoke to the bar manager who said for the first 3 days of January their food sales are up and alcohol sales are exactly the same as last year at this time. He said the smokers who sat at the bar are still coming in, albeit smoking outside now. Yes it's a small sample size, but I believe smokers will adjust and ultimately more people will patronize these places.
Posted by: Jim | January 4, 2008 08:49 AM

Response: Jim – golly, Peanuts still being in business was never in doubt. Again, prior to 1 January 2008 there were many restaurant/bars that had on their OWN VOLITION already decided to prohibit smoking. Now that would be the correct way, the one determined by education, competition and free enterprise. Given that there are more non-smokers than smokers it makes economic sense for the owner to prohibit the use of smoking materials. The WRONG way is to empower our jack-booted government the consent to impose laws voiding the rights of the business owner. It is NOT about money, it is NOT about smoking, it IS about rights!

Comment; I have two parents who smoked while I was growing up and I remember how angry my mother would get when someone would ask her to not smoke in their home or around their children. She would go on about HER RIGHTS and how it was legal and how she didn't care what other people thought, etc. Well, ya know what? *I* breathed in that smoke and it affected ME and I had NO CHOICE. As a child I had repeatedly respiratory infections and was constantly sick. Did this stop my parents from smoking around me? No. They did not make the correlation back then. Today, I have a child (adult) with severe asthma and being around smoke affects her breathing. How wonderful for her now that she will be able to frequent many establishments she used to avoid due to the patrons being allowed to smoke. To all the smokers out there, whether I personally feel it is healthy does not matter. You have every right to smoke. But you do not have the right to pollute the air I am breathing. And for the poster who mentioned drinking: my one glass of wine with dinner does not affect you. Yes..if I drank to excess and then got in the car and drove, I would be endangering you and that would be wrong. But that is why there are laws against that. Same as there are now laws against your smoking endangering me.
Posted by: Kelly | January 4, 2008 09:26 AM

Response: Kelly, I can and do appreciate your Dr. Phil moment. Both my parents also smoked and I was unequivocally very healthy, so anecdotally I would guess that you were perhaps genetically predisposed to being sickly. The health-warning label has been a fixture on cigarette packages since 1962. Your mother was unfortunately terribly disrespectful of the RIGHTS of others in THEIR homes, particularly in light of the 1962 information. Back when I still smoked and my children were young I did refrain from smoking in all confined environments due to their request. Unfortunately for your daughter it appears that she has inherited your predisposition to illness. Make sure she also checks for other patrons using that asthma potentiating “smelly” perfume. By the way, does she eat a lot of cardiac burgers?

Comments: Alright, I have a question only for those who smoke: If you know that smoking can kill you, why do you still smoke?
Posted by: Ron | January 4, 2008 12:29 PM

It was a simple question... It would seem that our smokers are afraid to answer.
Posted by: ron | January 4, 2008 04:15 PM

I had a long comment for you but then I erased it and thought that the real reason you and your wife keep smoking is that you are addicted to it. Plain and simple. Quit, for your kids sake!
Posted by: ron | January 4, 2008 04:41 PM

Response: My old buddy Ron again – the last time I bought cigarettes I paid $5.00 per carton at the Navy Exchange – that would be sometime in the early 1980’s I believe. I, like Ted, am not afraid to respond to you Ron. Currently I will indulge myself in a cigar or two daily solely because I enjoy it. Hey Ron, omg, I also DRIVE! Statistically you and I are more likely to be killed in a vehicular accident than by smoking. Every day new things are discovered that may harm us and we are admonished to avoid them, but there is also something to be said for “living life” don’t ya think? Please Ron, as you preach to others, do not forget that heart disease is our GREATEST killer. For your children’s sake Ron, “plain and simple”, NO MORE burgers for them!

I have concern for all those that celebrate this new law that nullifies the rights of many. How many of you had bothered to make comment to the restaurant manager or owner about prohibiting smoking? How many of you even considered being proactive rather than thinking that those in government should take care of you? It won’t be today and it might not be tomorrow or the next day, but eventually government will decide that some group to which they pander must be obeyed and perhaps you will lose one of your rights. Today it was the business owner, who knows about tomorrow.

Read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and then explain to us what permits government this power.

“In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."”

While we're on the subject of polluted air, let's get a ban on those firepits! Cigarette smoke outside has never bothered me as much as being choked out of my own backyard by every neighbor who has to burn yard waste and lord knows what else in those things. It's nearly impossible to open the windows on some evenings, lest the entire house smell like toxic, chemical filled smoke. Yep, everyone has a right to enjoy a nice fire, but what about the right to enjoy sitting on your own patio and breathing fresh air? Or the right to open windows in your own home to enjoy a fresh breeze? Smoke isn't just from cigarettes, etc..

Bravo to Jim I guess there are still people that can see both sides of the coin. All non smokers should get there facts right about SHS they are so off base. I also am so tired of people talking about there clothes not smelling like nicotine,but they smell like stale beer or any other smells .We need to keep our Freedom and have non somking bars and eateries and smoking bars and eateries so we all have a choice I thought thats what living in America was all about Freedom. Non smokes give me proof that SHS is killing you and I will give you proof of the fat,salt,drinking ect that will kill you alot faster than my smoke and Please do not come up to me if you just ate onions or garlic or if you had a drink the smell is offensive to me and my clothes.

My old buddy, Jim:

Get a life!!!! Give it up, the smokers are on their way out!!!!!!

Oh and by the way, I don't eat burgers.

Smokers are not on there way out.I think this law wiil last maybe a year I am glad you dont eat burgers,I hope you only eat organic veggies because of the poisen they spray and I hope you dont eat any Meat its just full of hormones and steroids ,hope you dont barbaque out thats a big cancer getter.I think its time to live in a bubble.

Hey moderator, is there any reasonable way to keep the tone civil and on point? "Idiots" and rants about why governemnt should not have done what it already did are not appropraite responses to this blog title.
I am new to this form of communication, and imagine it is difficult to "regulate morals", but aren't there key words that can red flag an entry? On the other hand, maybe you have been blocking or not publishing even harsher or off-point remarks.(?)

Interested, but turned off

NaperDad.

NaperDad,

We do our best to jump in when discussions start to deteriorate. It's all or nothing with the posts, meaning we do not edit them in any way, we simply either publish them or we don't. So it's largely up to the participants to keep the discussion civil.

I am mystified by the comments of NaperDad. It appeared that his only reason to post was to denigrate other posts because they ostensibly disagreed with whatever it was that he didn’t say. Are there some posts off point – certainly. Could one construe some posts transcending civility (politeness)– possibly. I wonder just what the heck NaperDad expected – a group of bloggers getting together to celebrate a Kumbya moment? Although I have disagreed with many posts I certainly never saw anything posted here that could be in any way be considered immoral,

The last sentence of the posted “topic’ is - “What do you think of the statewide smoking ban, now that it's in effect?” I think it unequivocally exemplifies the erosion of our rights. I think the citizen must be made aware that this is only the beginning of government creating a “nanny state” which unfortunately some think is ok. Being a thinking person, I do not want nor condone some unknown government person making arbitrary decisions impinging my rights as they pander to some group, lobbyist, or for free press coverage. Seat belts are another example. I use them all the time because I have been EDUCATED about their importance, but for government to get inside my car and penalize me for their non-use is just wrong.

My old buddy Ron on the other hand is solely concerned with removing people’s ability to participate in a LEGAL activity. Is he uneducated and shortsighted about the direction of government, sure, but immoral or uncivil, not so much.

I appreciate the Naperville Sun blog site and only wish every community had this same opportunity. It permits me to become more educated to topic, it permits me a view into the thoughts and concerns of others, and it permits me an opportunity to voice my own concerns. Letters to the Editor are limited due to space considerations, blogs are not.

My thanks to Mr. Slowik and to Sun Publications.

I've been loving the last week in downtown Naperville. It's great going out without needing to make an emergency trip to the dry cleaner the next day because my coat smells like ashtray, and I've noticed substantially fewer cigarette butts laying all over the ground.

I have greatly enjoyed the strawman arguments that smokers have been making in this discussion. "Please do not come up to me if you just ate onions or garlic or if you had a drink the smell is offensive to me and my clothes."

...Gahahahahhah! It's like debate team in the back of the short bus!

To answer the question of how the ban is affecting me; it's great! We love it. And all of the smokers I personally know don't seem to really mind it - but they are courteous enough to know that smoking around non-smokers isn't polite.

Frankly, I don't care if you want to smoke, I just don't want to smell it around me or on me.

I can drink a bottle of water any where I want to, it doesn't affect anyone else. But if I pour it on the floor in a place of business or pour it over your head, I'm guessing I'll be asked to leave. It's common courtesy.

Question for NaperResident - isn't your analogy kind of like apples and oranges. And, why would you want to spill a bottle of water on the floor for, anyway. Somebody might trip.

Casimir,

All analogies are apples and oranges to some extent. But a bottle of drinking water and pack of smokes = both legal. Legal to produce, sell, buy, consume. I don't want to have your bottle of water poured on me - and I don't want to wear your smoke either.

Just saying... It's no worse than the analogies above concerning alcohol.

NaperResident -

To use your water analogy.... Say you stand in the middle of the Dandelion fountain under the running water. Would people blame the fountain, the city for turning on the water, or the person standing under the fountain?

T.B.

TB,

RE: standing in the middle of the fountain.

In one scenario, $10/hour private security guards would rush over and make a citizen's arrest for violating the Swimming/Wading provision of General Use Regulations Ordinance 133 that explicitly forbids such action. Police backup would arrive some time later after they finish up the 5 calls before this one.

Never fear though, the city will screw it all up and charge you with the wrong thing (failing to obtain a permit for your deck) and you will be victorious in court.

You may even decide to sue the city months later after being informed by your attorney that your clothes got wet. You may sue for the cost of the clothes and the public embarrassment that results from your own actions as well as the cost of your personal hobbies and pursuits for the entire year and a half leading up to the arrest.

...and now back to reality.

EXACTLY! No further comment necessary.

I personally think the ban is a bit hypocritical for a variety of reasons. The biggest being the revenue that is generated from cigarette taxes.

I do not smoke (although I have in the past) and firmly believe that it should be up to the individual establishments to set their own guidelines, ESPECIALLY bars. If a bar wants to be smoke free, more power to them. If a bar wants to allow people to smoke, they should be allowed to. I can't imagine walking into The Lantern without seeing a haze of smoke. It's part of its character and charm. I can understand eliminating smoking in restaurants. That makes complete sense to me.

While Ron may disagree with this, I'm guessing he hasn't spent a whole lot of time in bars. He admits that he doesn't drink, but states that he can't wait to walk into a smoke free bar, watch some TV and discuss current affairs. Seriously? Maybe you should be visiting Starbucks for these types of get togethers (TV and current affairs) rather than a bar. I'm guessing you'd also be offended if I (or any other bar patron) dropped the "F" bomb while watching a football game while you were discussing current affairs. I'm not trying to attack you, Ron, it just seems to me that you don't understand the bar culture. For the most part, bars are rooted in sin (drinking, smoking, cursing and in the old days gambling and sex).

Don't misunderstand my point. I am not an advocate of smoking rather I am an advocate of choice.

Neil you have hit the nail on the head,but the drinkers have all kind of excuses if they are a nom smoker but a drinker. If they want to drink they should only be allowed to do it in there own homes and invite there friends ito there non smoking home and talk about current affairs,just like us smokers must do now.

To Neil and Anonymous: Maybe I'm all wrong here, but isn't it possible to discuss "current events" without alcohol and tobacco? No offense, but it seems like a ridiculous exchange between you two guys.

To Jim: It certainly is possible. I guess my original thought was that I think the establishments (specifically bars) should be able to choose. Bars are places where people tend to go to blow off steam and "cut loose". I'd also add that in my bar hopping days (not that long ago) I can recall going into many bars where it was quite possible to get away from the smoke if you wanted to.

To: Jim Strnd,

Wow! I'm a whiner for saying I'm looking forward to trying out restaurants my wife and I were avoiding due to smoke? Please reread your entire post and then tell me who is whining. As for the 100 smoke-free restaurants in Naperville prior to January, take a closer look at that list and you'll see that a huge percentage of those are fast food restaurants; not my idea of a fine dining experience. Now I can go to any restaurant, and so can the smokers; they just have to go outside if they want to smoke. I admit that they may find this difficult, but it should be easier for them not to smoke than it was for me not to breathe.

Yes, smoking IS a legal activity, just like drinking. But drinking is also a heavily-regulated activity. We have laws that limit who can drink, when you can drink, where you can drink, what you can (or can't) do after you drink, and who can sell alcohol. For that matter, we also heavily "regulate" the operation of motor vehicles via speed limits, etc. And we have laws against public urination and spitting, but nobody ever complains about these infringments on their freedom. The smoking ban is very much in keeping with these kinds of regulations that most sane people readily accept because they promote the general welfare.

Could someone, anyone, please explain to me the justification for the state of Illinois telling a business owner that they must now prohibit a LEGAL activity in their business. If I chose to enter a bar that permits smoking and have a beer I have made that choice. If I apply for a job working in a bar that permits smoking, again I have made that choice. If I own the bar, having invested MY effort and MY money, why have I now lost my rights because some egocentric person wants me to run MY business the way that they, a non-principle, wants me to run it?

I keep reading about the legions of drunk drivers killing people on the roads but we continued to permit drinking in bars. I’m not sure but logic would dictate that the preponderance of these drunk drivers achieved that status while sitting in a bar, right? If I’m taking my kids to see a movie and we get hit by a non-smoking drunk driver I have certainly not been permitted any choice have I? Ya get my point?

Because some self-righteous person is not content to patronize the bars and restaurants with which they feel comfortable and begins to stomp their little feet affords no factual or rational argument for their demand that everyone else must change to accommodate their self-centered demands. What gives them that right? More importantly, why have the rights of the owner been so unquestionably abrogated? It is not about smoke, it’s about rights! Please, quit figuratively blowing smoke and just answer the damn question posed!

Addendum: Hey John Q.:

1. There are 500 restaurants in DuPage County, or do you only choose to “walk” to your eateries, plus the many more that didn’t bother to register. Had you wanted more like that, talking to the owners would have worked; the monetary rewards of free enterprise are truly a great incentive you know!
2. Smoking is comparably regulated to alcohol: age, where, when, etcetera, so what’s your point? You’re not really trying to employ some type analogy between smoking in a privately owned establishment and public urination are you?
3. The general welfare is already accommodated – no one demands that you enter someone’s private business. Those environments that must permit public access, libraries, Village, City, County, State, Federal buildings etcetera – are guess what, already absolutely smoke free. If one were truly sincere about promoting the “general welfare” the sale of smoking materials would have been prohibited vice this hypocritical pandering. I would suggest that you follow the money.

There are many people that do not like large crowds so how ‘bout we limit the number that can attend a Bears game so the demophobiacs can attend. The narcissistic never care about anybody else and their rights – they only care about THEMSELVES!

I would like to know why non smokers want to change the way thing were with just plain old non smoking section in bars and casions and restaurats.I have gone to many places where they have a non smoking section and I can not smell smoke in the non smoking area.I know in a bar thats kinda of hard to do and because they are small its hard not to smell the smoke,but I guess drinking and smoking kinda go hand and hand. I use to smoke a long time ago and I quit because I wanted to not because the goverment said so, It just wrong for the goverment to take freedom of choice away.I think the ban is going to hurt alot of bars and eateries and the casinos,I for one dont mind smokers, and I think its just plain wrong to ban something that the goverment made legal along time ago and after all these years they put a ban on it,I think it is just stupid.The goverment has alot more issues they should worry about rather than where people smoke.The medical reports are not clear enough about SHS and until they know for sure then make smoking illegal altogether.There are so many senrios in this debate,for one look at all the side effects of medacations has, and yes they can kill you but we all take that chance every time we take a new drug, let keep are freedoms and not let the goverment take anymore of them away and leave the smokers alone as long as it is still legal.

To Jim Strnad,

1. Not everybody in Naperville lives close to downtown. I don't live within walking distance of a restaurant in this city, let alone elsewhere in DuPage county. And, I'm willing to bet that the percentage of fast food restaurants that make up that list of 500 in DuPage is every bit as high as the percentage in Naperville.
2. My point about alcohol and other regulation is two-fold: First, some of the anti-ban posters have claimed that those of us who support the ban are ignoring other dangerous habits and activities, such as excessive drinking, drunk driving, etc., when in fact we ALREADY have laws that regulate those behaviours. Second, the new limitation on smoking is not some dangerous turn toward a fascist state, but is, rather, very much in keeping with other laws and regulations designed to protect public safety, health and hygiene.
3. A private business is not private in the same sense that a home is private. There are a ton of laws on the books that business owners must follow to protect the safety, health, and welfare of their customers and employees. The new smoking law is just one more. As for following the money, if anything, this law was passed in spite the opposition of the business community, etc. So what money are you talking about?

My, my, my. We are very passionate about our rights, and "rightly" so! I do enjoy reading this blog. Naperville is quite the opinionated town - and I'm proud to admit I live here. (and Jim, I didn't call you an idiot- I just said some of the comments about people's rights to smoke are idiotic) Please keep the blog going - it is quite amusing to read how passionate we are about our rights!! Everyone is entitled to your opinion.
Put some of that passion where it's REALLY needed!

John Q -

"There are a ton of laws on the books that business owners must follow to protect the safety, health, and welfare of their customers and employees."

True, but I object to the government protecting me from myself.

I can make a very educated and informed decision regarding what establishments to go to and which ones to avoid. I do not smoke and did frequent many smoking establishments; however, there were some places which were just too smokey for my liking. My choice was to avoid the very smokey places, not to go there and demand they cater to my desires.

T.B., we will have to agree to disagree about whether this is a legitimate function of government. I will tell you from experience, though, that many non-smokers like you will come to support this law once it has been in place a few years---especially when you travel someplace that still allows indoor smoking. The experience of walking into that cloud of smoke is a shock to the system once you've been away from it a while.

Are you a politician John Q.? Two hundred and twenty words and still no answer to my question! All right, by your numbers:

1. The point was: have you already tried all the other restaurants in DuPage County and felt compelled to now move on to those that neither conform to nor accommodate YOUR required ambiance? If the owner wants to permit smoking, again, a LEGAL activity, what confers you the right, or more importantly the state, to tell him no, “too bad”, change it! What about those people that enjoy that environment, where the bar OWNER finds it perfectly acceptable to permit people to smoke? I would guess that those people have “CHOSEN” to avoid the smoke free bars just as you have the right to “CHOSE” those that are smoke free. What is it that you don’t understand about choice Sir? Allow me, it goes this way; you can choose to not go to ANY restaurants. You can choose to NOT go to restaurants that permit smoking. Get it?

2. I am not now nor have I ever defended smoking but I do not apologize for it either. It is a regulated LEGAL activity; that would be an activity both acknowledged and permitted by law. Do not forget Mr. Public, there is no definitive causal study linking cancer to second hand smoke. By the way, smoking is also regulated as are the other things you mentioned, no smoking in public buildings, etcetera. Second, the act of dictating that a legal activity be prohibited in a private environment for no definitive reason by this or any state government is by definition Fascism. To conclude that this prohibition is in anyway designed to protect public safety, health and hygiene is ludicrous: smoking is already regulated and it is LEGAL! I would be more accepting of your concept if the state would declare any and all smoking materials and their use unlawful. Now this would unequivocally bring us to the slippery slope or permit the proverbial nose under the tent as it were. The selling of alcohol in an environment, other than the consumers home, where people are subsequently tempted or compelled to drive should be made illegal since we can’t seem to find a way to keep drunk drivers off the roads. I do have the “right” to drive on roads devoid of drunk drivers do I not? By the way, what is the greatest cause of illness and death in the U.S. – yup, cardiac disease. Given your logic to truly protect public health we should no longer permit the sale of things like Big Mac’s and Whoppers because they directly promote cardiac disease right?

3. Let us examine those “tons of laws”, more accurately called “codes” for the most part, that you mention. Most of these are local and are intended to safe guard the patron from a possible health or safety hazard they would not ordinarily anticipate as a patron. You know, stuff like the electrical service being up to “code”, sufficient method of egress that is well signed, handicapped bathroom facilities, procedures like that. These coupled with the state laws, must be eighteen to purchase cigarettes, must be twenty-one to purchase alcohol, and things like that comprise all those “tons of laws”. Those establishments that frown on smoking and having done so with no legal mandate, made that fact quite obvious to their customers didn’t they. Should you inadvertently have made a mistake and entered one allowing smoking it was quickly corrected wasn’t it Mr. Public. Now the MONEY! Think now John Q., think real hard, just where have many city and county governments, in addition to Cook County, as well as the state government, concentrated their sales tax increase efforts? Yup, the politicians made sure they employed something that would minimize potential objections. Increasing the so-called “sin tax” doesn’t receive many arguments does it John. The state did not, nor did it ever consider, stopping the sales of cigarettes because they really covet those HUGE sales tax dollars don’t they. When you heard DuPage County talk about increasing the sales tax on cigarettes you always heard that it would yield “X” MILLIONS of dollars didn’t you. Yeah, the business community complained but again, it is a “sin tax” so support for their outcry wasn’t too loud. The state pandered, got “good press” and still got to keep ALL THE MONEY! Hey Johnny, the state legislature has tried twice, SO FAR, to create a loophole permitting smoking for those Illinois Casinos located on the state borders, yeah, the ones that compete with the ones of neighboring states that continue to permit smoking. Golly, why do you think that’s happening? The bigger the dollar loss (20% projected), the harder they will work. I know that it’s cynical to say, but "I’m from the government and I’m here to help you" is most assuredly an oxymoron. Again Sir, it is ultimately about the money!

Now if you still don’t understand any of this I would suggest that you are either terribly naive, decidedly self-centered, or exceedingly illogical with no ability to be pragmatic. To promote the thought that to secure that which you want should require those that merely differ with you to suffer without exhibits a philosophy a little draconian don’t you think?

Please, take the time to read Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Good day Sir.

Thank you Jim for making this issue clear to the non smokers.If they still think that the ban on smoking is right there is no way any of us will be able to explain why the ban is just wrong.Alot of people have pointed out what you did, but the non smokers keep coming up with the same answers.I think they should all go on the show Are YOU Smarter Than A Fifth Grader.

Jim,

Wow! Such invective! And I'm really impressed with the way you resorted to ad hominems at the end, there.

You asked more than one question in your previous post. Which one did I fail to answer? On second thought, never mind. We are beating a dead horse, here. It's apparent that you and I will not come to any sort of agreement. I think you're arguing past the points I make, and you seem to feel the same way about me. I think this new law is very much in keeping with existing laws and regulations, and you don't. Fine. You think I'm illogical; I will exercise my right not to express an opinion about your thought processes. I am content with the legislation as it is; if you want to work to have it overturned on the grounds that it violates the Fourteenth Amendment, be my guest.

I WILL address one point in your post. When you suggested in an earlier post that "I follow the money," I assumed that you were implying that there were great moneyed interests that were in favor of the smoking ban. Apparently, though, you were referring instead to the money being raised by cigarette taxes and/or to efforts to create create exceptions in the smoking ban for casinos. I agree that it is not logical for the government to restrict smoking, on the one hand, and to try to increase cigarette taxes to fix a general funding deficit on the other; but it seems to me that if we "follow the money" in this conondrum, we'd find that the money would oppose the smoking ban because it would cut in to tax revenues. The same goes for the casino operators that want an exception for their businesses---if they couldn't get an exemption from the ban, I'm sure they'd "settle" for throwing out whole law. I doubt most people that are in favor of the smoking ban would also be in favor of the exemption for casinos. I also think that most of the pro-ban people who favor increasing cigarette taxes do so as a further discouragement of smoking, not as a means of generating more revenue for the government.

John Q -

We'll just have to make that agreement then.

You may notice that I posted on Jan 4th that I like not smelling like smoke now. I like the results, just not the process.

As for the shock factor, I lived in CA for a couple of years during their current smoking ban so I know what you mean. It hit me when I came back, but I adjusted just fine.

T.B.

Well John Q., you have now slipped into the insanity of those relegated to dwelling in the “big abyss”: we have “TO AGREE TO DISAGREE ABOUT WHETHER THIS IS A LEGITIMATE FUNCTON OF GOVERNMENT”? This is probably the most inane comment I have ever read on this site. I apologize for being so direct but I found your unexpected irrational comment totally preposterous, spurious, and infuriating. Yes, you and I can agree to disagree but I do believe that the government must be held to a MUCH HIGHER STANDARD don’t ya think! I’m going to take a deep breath now and try to regain my composure.

There, that’s better. Some of us consider our democratic form of government, even with all its faults and foibles, the best in the world. Some of us have spent many years in the military always prepared to defend our country and our FREEDOMS! Some of us value our rights and consistently take the time to be politically knowledgeable and exercise our franchise at every opportunity. We ARE lovers of this country. We also understand that government can make mistakes and does require constant monitoring to insure that it is the “people” who remain in charge. For you to so cavalierly suggest that we can “agree to disagree about whether this is a legitimate function of government” transcends all reasonableness and logic. The Declaration of Independence established the fundamental principle upon which our democratic government was founded. Governments in a democracy do NOT GRANT the fundamental freedoms; governments are created to PROTECT those freedoms that every individual possesses by virtue of his or her existence. (usinfo.state.gov) Given the recent actions of the state, there can be no other conclusion than it has appropriated individual freedoms rather than protect them.

Yes Johnny, it is your right to relinquish a freedom if you so choose. It is also both my right and my obligation, as it is the right and obligation of all reasonable citizens of the United States, to continue fighting for the individual inalienable rights protected by our Constitution.

I’m still waiting for you to FACTUALLY address and answer my question: Fifth line from the bottom of my post of January 6, 2008 10:06 PM , or, the first sentence of my post of January 10, 2008 01:21 AM. I trust that you are more than mere rhetoric and that there is indeed substance to your comments.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." –Edmund Burke

I was in the Lantern tonight and took a look at their Jan. calendar. At the beginning of the month, there was an apology to the smokers for rules which were beyond the Lantern's control. To the non-smokers, the Lantern said basically (paraphrasing), you must now have your dream come true because you can now go to any establishment on your known terms.

I think that summed it up nicely.

T.B.

Jim Strnad -

I chose to agree to disagree with John Q. I acknowledge the fact that not everyone thinks like me and can be persuaded to think like me. I think you should consider doing the same.

While I disagree with John Q's conclusions and agree with yours, I was disappointed that you said John Q's comments are "inane", "preposterous, spurious, and infuriating".

I thank you for your military service. But while honorable, this does not give you some special right to declare another person's beliefs to "transcend[s] all reasonableness and logic". You honorably protected their right to make their own decisions, now you have to let them make one whether you like the outcome or not.

Again, I agree with you but your attacks on John Q are out of bounds here.

T.B.

Jim,

T.B. has effectively addressed the tone of your post, so I will disregard it.

I will answer your question, though, now that I finally know to which question you were referring. You will, I hope, forgive me for "ignoring" the question until now. The post in which you raised the question was quite long, and most of it was not directed specifically at me.

Your question: Read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and then explain to us what permits government this power.

My response: I am not a constitutional scholar (and I doubt you are, either), but I actually did implicitly answer this question in an earlier post when I used the phrase "promote the general welfare." This, as you know, is one of the purposes of the U.S. Constitution as outlined in the preamble. I know you disagree that smoking bans fall under promoting the general welfare, so we're at an impasse on this point---unless you want to go ahead and point out case law that proves that I am blowing smoke with my interpretation.

Even if my interpretation of this phrase is wrong (and I am not agreeing with you here that it is wrong!), it doesn't mean that you are right about the Constitution in general. So rather than haggle over this, let me answer your question with another question. Something like twenty-one other states already had public smoking bans on the books before Illinois' law took effect. If, as you seem to think, any sane person would recognize the new law as an egregious violation of the U.S. Constitution, why haven't any of these other states' laws been overturned? I've already invited you to go ahead and launch a challenge on constitutional grounds. I'm sure it should be no problem convincing five justices of the U.S. Supreme Court of the justice of your cause if the case is the slam dunk you seem to think it is. If it's money you lack, I'd bet the tobacco companies and casino operators would be more than willing to ante up if they thought your case had a snowball's chance in hell.

First, I certainly do not mean to suggest that JQ is the sole source of my agitation; JQ is merely a representative of someone championing the loss of citizen rights, a direction with which I vehemently disagree.

Second, I’m sorry TB that you were disappointed in my choice of words. Given there being no acknowledgement to my cornerstone question inquiring just what permits government the power to take away a persons rights, I did think the responses received lacked substance, or were in fact inane. Comments such as “I am content with the legislation as is” I did find contrary to reason or were preposterous because all legislation should be correct as possible, not just acceptable to some. To submit that you “can go to any restaurant, and so can the smokers” is not true or is spurious because while you may be content the smoker is now no longer able to sit, have a beer and enjoy a cigarette (all legal and regulated activities) in an establishment that welcomed his business.

And yes, I am infuriated, as I still have a right to be, I think, as I watch another citizen’s right be trampled because it is politically the comfortable thing to do. Once you are able to distinguish smoking from the loss of a right you may then understand my point. By the way it does not require a constitutional scholar to understand the stripping a citizen’s right. You do not indicate having bothered to read the Bill of Rights but if perhaps you had you would better understand.

Because you agree with the results you elect to just roll over and acquiesce, I on the other hand look beyond what merely satisfies me and am more concerned with the “people” and their rights. Mark my words JQ, there will be a day and probably in the not too distance future, when something you covet will be deemed “politically” incorrect and will no longer be permissible. Just mark my words.

Jim S –

For sake of argument….

So, just which of the bill of rights protects smoking? The Constitution says nothing at all about driving, yet I was denied this right until I turned 16. I also like to drive extremely fast, yet I seem to have this right taken away even today.

The 10th Amendment states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” As I read this, the Constitution neither delegates the smoking issue to the US nor prohibits the issue from the States. So it would appear the issue is reserved for the States (or the people) and the State of Illinois has spoken. Perhaps the people should speak by way of referendum?

T.B.

Jim,

When you mentioned loss of rights in your earlier posts, I thought you were referring to the business owners' rights. But this most recent post leads me to believe that you are referring to smokers' supposed rights. Is that correct? If so, do you really think the Constitution and/or Bill of Rights confers some kind of right to smoke that is abrogated by this law? If so, please cite the article or amendment that contains this right.

Since I can’t fathom either of you two (John Q. or TB ) being that ignorant I must believe that you are either reading challenged or are attempting to mock my comments and in so doing continue to denigrate the rights of the individual. Just in case I am incorrect I will continue with the following.

“So, just which of the bill of rights protects smoking?”

IT IS NOT ABOUT SMOKING, IT IS ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF THE BUSINESS OWNER TO DETERMINE IF A LEGAL ACTIVITY WILL BE PERMITTED IN HIS ESTABLISHMENT! Please read this three times to insure comprehension.

( Let us not forget, there is NO recognized causative study linking second hand smoke to cancer or maybe one of you two scholars can site some for me. )

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

This protects both citizen and their property rights and as owner of the business, that business becomes his de facto property; he has the right to make decisions as they pertain to legal activities permitted in the performance of his business.

The driving analogy more correctly stated would be: the state will continue to permit your ability to legally drive just not on any city/village or county roads, only on federal ones. We all know that motor vehicle accidents kill more people than smoking so the roads will now be restricted for use by bicycle riders and walkers. Poof, now all the non-driving public can enjoy the roads unencumbered of all those darn irritating and murdering cars. Yup, the government is here to protect you.

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html).

If you indeed consider your selfish desires to habit a business more important than the rights of the owner to decide, or permitting the free market to determine the course taken, so be it. We can now add the business owner to the others who rights have been taken. There will be a time when it will be your turn to be denied some right that you covet

In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

Pastor Martin Niemöller

“You do not indicate having bothered to read the Bill of Rights but if perhaps you had you would better understand.”

--Jim Strnad | January 16, 2008 06:58 PM

Being neither ignorant nor reading challenged, I did just as you asked and again read the Bill of Rights which are the first TEN amendments to the Constitution. So your reliance on the 14th Amendment is a bit peculiar to me.

I also found it odd that you seem to think a business owner has the right to permit or restrict any legal activity on private property as the owner see fit. Private property is restricted often. One way is through the use of zoning laws. Zoning explicitly states what type of building and business is allowed on private property.

Are zoning laws unconstitutional? Can I buy your neighbor's house and turn it into a strip club? If not, wouldn't you be restricting my free use of my private property?

I’m no lawyer, but I don’t think you’re on strong Constitutional footing here.

I think that if you re-read my posts you will find that I have always advocated for the free market to run its course regarding this issue. I just don't like your insulting posts.

Good day. I’m done responding to you.

T.B.

Jim,

No I am not reading challenged, but I AM starting to wonder if you are writing challenged. Go back and re-read your 5:52 post from January 13 three or four times, then tell me that a reasonable person shouldn't think that you are talking about the smokers' rights being infringed. T.B. and I are the only two people to respond to the post, we are on different sides of the issue, and we BOTH got that impression.

Another point of agreement between T.B. and I is that "private property is restricted often." In an earlier post I mentioned existing laws ("codes", if you prefer---as if there's much of a difference) that business owners have to follow that are designed to protect employees and the public. You seem to think a law restricting smoking is somehow fundamentally different; I don't. If there is a difference, though, it's certainly not spelled out clearly and unequivocally in the Fourteenth Amendment or anywhere else in the Constitution. You can call this argument "inane", if you want, but that doesn't make it any less true.

As for the risks of second-hand smoke, I'm not sure what a "causative study" is, but the dangers of smoking and second-hand smoke have been established by scores of studies over the years, most recently in a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that was released in 2006. Here is what then U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona had to say when that report was released, "The debate is over. The science is clear. Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance but a serious health hazard."

Finally, I seriously doubt Martin Niemoller would have found common cause with you on this. In fact, he might even have taken offense at your continued use of his poem.

I have already been out to bars to watch sporting events more times in 2008 than in all of 2007. What great enjoyment now that smoking is not allowed. The places have been packed with patrons...so much for the loss of business. Wa wa wa smokers, keep on whining and enjoy the cold!

The circumstances do not permit, smoking and the rights of the establishment owner being separate issues - the establishment owner was FORBIDDEN under penalty of an arbitrary law to allow a legal activity and that activity would be smoking.

If one believes in the free market then IT should be allowed to dictate the outcome. It is not for the state to pick and choose in which venues a legal activity be permitted. If a bar is located next door to a smoke shop why is smoking still permitted in the smoke shop? People are allowed to decide to either enter or not enter regardless if they do or not smoke to perhaps purchase a pack of gum or a snack. Your logic would demand that no smoking be permitted in that smoke shop wouldn’t it? Your endangering the worker and all patrons are you not?

There were many non-smoking establishments already available and were continuing to grow in number – so why do we need big brother? Apparently you like the idea of the nanny state arbitrarily making decisions for you – I don’t! Why are 25% of hotel rooms exempt? If second hand smoke is so terrible, why are smoking materials permitted at all?

Zoning! Lisle had a situation where a property owner wanted to divide her parcel into two LEGAL lots, no variances required. The “government” still had to approve this action to insure its’ legality and guess what, they told her NO because it would change the feel of the neighborhood! Her property, HER PROPERTY, divided into two legal lots to permit her son to build a home and the “government told her NO! I’m guessing you would approve because zoning laws are not unconstitutional.

I requested that someone sight a recognized scientific study definitively relating secondhand smoke, a causative study if you will, to cancer, not just some anecdotal rhetoric.

I apologize I did misspeak. I was referring to Fourteenth Amendment vice one of the first ten. The Bill of Rights do not enumerate the rights of the citizen but were included to LIMIT the powers of the federal government thus protecting the rights of all citizens and residents. It was the Fourteenth Amendment that extended that limit to the states.

Look, I neither smoke cigarettes nor habit bars but I would never demand a restaurant or bar meet my imposed standards: that is not my right. To approach the owner or manager and tell them you are opposed to a smoking environment or to not patronize that establishment is what has worked successfully for a very, very long time. I can accept but do not approve of people just saying I want it my way regardless of someone else’s rights with no other justification. At least be consistent – no smoking materials or smoking anywhere or at any time.

Pastor Martin Niemollers’ poem is apropos. We are consistently allowing government or the courts to take away our rights and all to often it goes unchallenged. I say again, just wait until it comes to you house.

Businesses, not big government, should set the rules for their establishments. The point is not whether or not smoking is ok but rather the rights of the business owners to run their establishment as they see fit. If a business owner wants to open a smoke free bar, then there needs to be a market for it. Besides, it's a bar! Why aren't you having a hissy fit because they're serving alcohol??