What ever I did worked....No one has posted on this for almost a week...Another worthless commentary stopped!

It appears the schizophrenia may have kicked in on January 9th somewhere between 6:29 and 6:33. Southside Johnny/Kenny and whoever else you are, maybe it is YOU that should consider getting a life!! Or at the very least you should seek a good mental health professional!

The smoking ban stinks! I'm not a smoker, but I frequent places in Naperville like Bar Louie, Hugo's (great on Thursday's), etc. Since the smoking ban I have noticed a lot less hot women out in the bar's. I have had to go to Schamburg and Oak Brook to have a good time and find companionship. I think they should allow smoking in bars and not restaraunts.

I LOVE the non-smoking ban that was instituted last year. Now I can go to Hugo's and not be smoked out by the Putz's sucking on $10 cigar's and thinking they own the world.

Ken, Liz and Anonymous...GET A LIFE!

I'm not saying, I'm just saying, know what I'm saying?

Ok everyone be at Ken's place at 8 on Friday night. He is throwing a cheese and whine party. It is BYO cheese... but Ken is providing everything else...

Gee, anonymouse, since I am the only one not in agreement here, it is not hard to figure out. Add on to the fact that one of you anonymouses started the attacks on me and it just gets easier. None of it fits me, it just fits the agenda of those who are afraid of debating me.

Ken said: "The fact that you call me a neanderthal because you don't like my opinion just shows your inability to process more than one thought. To me, this shows your incapability to think above the neanderthal level."

Anonymouse said: "I recognize there are a few Neanderthals on Potluck who are clueless about their role and responsibilities in our society along with a few other jerks who argue every topic... mainly for the sake of arguing more than their ability to add anything even remotely intellectual to the discussion."

In fact Anonymouse didn't direct the post at anyone specifically so there was no name calling per say. It is interesting to note that Ken and only Ken responded assuming that Anonymous's post was directed at him. Gosh Ken, please tell us... what part of this post fit so well that you knew it had to be you?

Ken said "The lawmakers are happy to take tax money from the smokers while taking away their rights."

Not exactly true. There is a big difference between restricting rights and taking away rights.

Anonymous said:

"The good thing is most users of Potluck are starting to recognize who these clods are and the buzz words they use to start flame wars and simply refuse to acknowledge or respond to them directly. If you simply ignore them and respond only to those who are actually contributing something worthwhile to the discussion the comments made by the clods soon disappear from view and are quickly lost among all of prior posts. Give these clods an audience and they will rant forever. Ignore these clods and we can all make Potluck a better place to discuss issues that are important."

Laughing really really hard here. This coming from our resident (plural) troll.

Anonymouse 1/7/09 9:26am, why are you so afraid of other people's opinions? Your fear of others' opinions is reflected in your fear of people actually retaining the rights that this country was founded on. I find it amusing that the anonymouses of this board start the attacks and name calling, then act shocked when it is directed back at them. The fact that you call me a neanderthal because you don't like my opinion just shows your inability to process more than one thought. To me, this shows your incapability to think above the neanderthal level.

People start private businesses because they want to do things their way, and want like minded people for customers. Now, because people cannot accept personal responsibility, they are crying to the government to do what they can't do to protect themselves.

As one person here has already stated, and you seem to agree, many think that people have to many freedoms here. I find this viewpoint absolutely horrific considering the many people who have given up their lives to protect the very freedoms you all want to give away.

Keyboard Rambo, many smokers and business owners came out before the law passed, and were ignored because the lawmakers know there are more non-smoking people than smokers. They don't care about what is right, they care about the votes, and the vocal minority. I did email my representatives, as did many others, and it didn't make any difference. The lawmakers are happy to take tax money from the smokers while taking away their rights.

As I noted before, the other 49 states are passing the same laws, even the states that depend on tobacco crops. Because of spineless wonders that can't take any personal responsibility, the nanny state mentality is taking over the whole country.

Unlike the one person napergate cult, I do follow up on things that I think are wrong. That doesn't in any way guarantee victory for my viewpoints, but at least I know I have tried.

I love how all these angry smokers come out of the woodwork after the law has been passed. Where were all you marching on the foot steps of the Illinois capital building when this law was still under consideration? It kind of seems like little more than the ever-present culture in America of "do nothing; complain a lot."

The Illinois law makers represent the majority interests of the people of Illinois. Ken, if you can round up enough people to circulate petitions and generate interest for a law banning smelly fish, and the majority of the residents of Illinois agree with the law resulting in its passing... That's democracy in action and what makes this country great. If you disagree with the majority of the residents of Illinois and the decisions of their representatives, you can move to one of forty nine other states!

...Or just keep complaining without actually doing anything. That seems to work wonders for the Napergate crew.

The problem with the whiners complaining about the so-called erosion of personal liberties is that they mostly are selfish, arrogant clods with a self-serving right to do anything attitude propped up under the misguided application of what freedom, liberty, and rights really mean in this country.

Part of this overall problem has to do with the generally apathetic attitude of most people who subscribe to the do whatever you want to do because it is none of my business mantra. Then when your rights conflict with someone else's rights the gloves come off and everyone feels entitled to their point of view.

Living in our society brings with many responsibilities along with compromise, understanding, tolerance, and occasionally the necessity of relinquishing total and absolute freedom or liberty for the greater good of all.

I recognize there are a few Neanderthals on Potluck who are clueless about their role and responsibilities in our society along with a few other jerks who argue every topic... mainly for the sake of arguing more than their ability to add anything even remotely intellectual to the discussion.

The good thing is most users of Potluck are starting to recognize who these clods are and the buzz words they use to start flame wars and simply refuse to acknowledge or respond to them directly. If you simply ignore them and respond only to those who are actually contributing something worthwhile to the discussion the comments made by the clods soon disappear from view and are quickly lost among all of prior posts. Give these clods an audience and they will rant forever. Ignore these clods and we can all make Potluck a better place to discuss issues that are important.

I know it is hard at times to resist wanting to strike back, but if we support and remind each other and do our best to avoid being sucked into these silly, pointless, and time wasting forum games these jerks will eventually get bored and leave and go play their immature games on some other forum where they are better able to invoke the response they are looking for.

Ken on January 6, 2009 11:43 PM
my wife and I went out to dinner, and the smell of the fish the person at the next table was eating almost made her sick. We could not linger and enjoy a quiet dinner because of the inconsiderate person that ordered smelly fish.

_________________________________________

Ken, unless your doctor has diagnosed you with a fish smell disorder (like a peanut allergy) you probably have very little risk of developing cancer over it, unlike the wait staff who worked the former smoking sections in bars and restaurants.

Ken, I doubt it was the smelly fish at the next table that made your poor wife sick. Give her my deepest sympathies, will you?

John Q., when smoking was allowed in private businesses, it was your personal choice to go into that business. No one forced you. Your personal choice put you in that situation, and you don't want to take personal responsibility for that choice.

As for what the person at the next table eats not affecting you, I have to disagree. Last night, my wife and I went out to dinner, and the smell of the fish the person at the next table was eating almost made her sick. We could not linger and enjoy a quiet dinner because of the inconsiderate person that ordered smelly fish. But, since I realized that some people order smelly dinners before I stepped into that restaurant, I just left without vowing to make a law forbidding fish eaters from practicing their smelly, disgusting habits. I just hope I didn't expose myself to too much second hand mercury.

My comment was not in defense of smoking - it was more about the erosion of personal liberties in general. I don't have an issue with the smoking ban at all. But there are people who do advocate controlling what you can and can not eat. There are some who say that you should not be allowed to have a double cheese burger and fries for lunch because it will add to the potential for you to suffer from increased health problems which could then affect others economically through higher insurance costs, etc.

A Weight Watcher on January 6, 2009 9:27 PM said: "In fact, it is my opinion we have far too many freedoms that in the end are harmful to us and only through regulation by such agencies as the FDA, CDC, HHS and various medical societies of very intelligent people will we be able to achieve good health. People simply are not able to make wise decisions."

What concerns me is who gets to decide on who makes the decisions? Once you start down that road, what stops those making the decisions for the rest of us from deciding that people of lower intelligence should be sterilized? Or what books you should be able to read? Or who should be allowed to work in what job or live in which neighborhood? It smacks of totalitarianism. Reasonable regulation for the common good is one thing. Over regulation is a scary thought. Our personal freedoms are slowly and insidiously being eroded by political correctness and misguided legislation. We need to be extremely careful of what we ask for - we might just regret it later - when it is too late.

Anoni-mouse wrote:

"There comes a point (and I don't know exactly where that point is - it's different for almost everyone) when government regulation and intervention in our individual lives becomes too intrusive."

Maybe. But I'd say there comes a time when personal choices that are harmful to other people fall under the purview of government regulation and legal limits. You can eat all the read meat you want and it won't have any harmful effect on the person at the next table; the same is not true of smoking.

There you have it - someone finally said it - we have too many freedoms.

Surprised no one has mentioned it. Yesterday, NBC5.com, local news and on the web (google "third hand smoke report"). Third hand smoke found to be dangerous to children and the infirmed. It sent chills down my spine but makes perfect sense. You see, particulate matter from burning cigarettes has been found to adhere to people, clothing, furniture, floors and other surfaces. Cancer causing agents and radioactive material has been found to be on people and surfaces inside homes where smoking is conducted. Thus endangering those most near and dear to us. So if you think smoking is an individual right, in your own home and it doesn't hurt anyone, you had better think again. No one has the right to place anyone in danger regardless of property rights as some advocate here. If it were not for the government, just who do you suppose would take care of the people? Cigarettes, alcohol, processed and fast foods just to name a few things simply require government regulation and restriction. In fact, it is my opinion we have far too many freedoms that in the end are harmful to us and only through regulation by such agencies as the FDA, CDC, HHS and various medical societies of very intelligent people will we be able to achieve good health. People simply are not able to make wise decisions. If you think this is wrong, observe large groups of people at public events and just see how many are simply making horrible choices. If we could just have a panel of experts on various aspects of life setting out suggestions and guidelines, think how much better off we would all be from a health standpoint.

While not a "smoker", I do enjoy a nice cigar now and again. I respect that others may not enjoy my choice of activity and so take care to enjoy them outside and away from others. I include this information only to make sure I am putting my self out there honestly.

That being said, I do have concerns about the intrusion of the government into personal choices and our lives. Where does it stop? Fine - ban smoking in public establishments and place. What is next? Should there be a special tax or a ban on red meat? Fried foods? Should the government ban alcohol? ( Oh yeah - they tried that once.) What about smoke from fireplaces or barbecue grills? It is claimed that cell phones cause brain tumors - should cell phones be outlawed? Dunkin Donuts and Dairy Queen closed because of their products being bad for you?

There comes a point (and I don't know exactly where that point is - it's different for almost everyone) when government regulation and intervention in our individual lives becomes too intrusive. Suppose the government wanted to surgically implant RFID chips under the skin of every man, woman and child in America? Suppose you could no longer chose not to take certain medicines because of religious or philosophical beliefs? It is a slippery slope that I am am afraid of.

Well, anonymouse, since I never said that Illinois is a poor place to live, and I didn't negatively label it, your question is moot. I will however, answer your questions.

1.Every state has it's problems, and people without personal responsibility are turning almost all into nanny states, so...

2.There is no reason to move to another state unless I feel it is beneficial to me, ans that hasn't happened yet. Unlike others, I don't run away from problems, real or imagined.

Well Ken,

There are 50 states. If Illinois is such a poor place to live that you have to attack and negatively label a state because of what We the People want for laws in our state... then:

1. Tell us which of all the state would be the "gold standard" (in your opinion) for all of the other states to follow, and

2. If it is so bad here why you haven't done yourself (and us) a favor by moving to the state you identified in #1?

Well, Liz, since you claim to have facts on how second hand smoke in restaurants is dangerous, feel free to post them.

Anonymous Jan 6, 10:25 a.m.: You make some very valid points and offer a clear argument why it is necessary for government intervention when it comes to public health and safety issues. Intervention laws are needed when those who are unable to think rationally and with consideration to others adopts a 'to Hell with everyone else, I'll do whatever I please' sort of attitude. Despite their poor arguments, their actions DO effect others. Even when obvious potential health risks (be it to themselves or others) are clearly spelled out for them with real medical statistics (such as the effects of second-hand smoke), they will believe what they want and ignore the obvious. Just ask Ken. That's why we need the government to intervene on our behalf. Maybe I will be considered to be 'on a rant' or 'drunk and delusional', but I will be in good company and at least I know enough to weigh the facts and the sources and make a rational decision.

Kev, that is why I said to google it. While many links lead to smoker sites, there are also many other sites from waitstaff that back up what I said. You can't discount all the sources as smokers, as I knew the anti-smoking nazis would try to do.

Smoking bans have hit bars hard, and the state's casinos. Contrary to popular belief here, restaurant and bar owners know which customers spend the most, and smokers fall into the big spending category.

Anonymouse 8:22am, I gave Liz a very easy way to find the answer to her question, and she opted to call me a liar instead. Furthermore, it has been the pattern of one poster to post under multiple names with multiple views, as Chris showed in another thread. Chris has said that he is not here to trace IP numbers, but if he were to trace mine, he would find posts only under my name, not 50 names (With the exclusion of my inadvertent anonymous posts that I usually point out.) It seems to me that Liz was following the pattern of that poster. Just sayin'.

To both the anonymouse posts, your personal attacks mean nothing when you are to afraid to post under any made up name, and stick to it. While one anonymouse claims I wouldn't defend myself, he is to afraid to even post consistently under a trackable name as I do.

Spineless anonymouse 10:25am, your arguments fail because commonsense laws like fire regulations and food preparation are based on facts. When you can prove that you caught cancer from second hand smoke inhaled while eating in restaurants, get back to me. Using your arguments, we should ban all alcohol sales in restaurants because of the damage alcohol does to society. But since you need your drink to fortify yourself against the imagined dangers of the world, you and your ilk would fight that ban. Only a delusional drunk would make the arguments you do by saying that I would reject all safety laws.

By the way, if the terrorist do reach into our state, I will not legally be able to defend against them because our nanny state is one of the few that restricts concealed carry. When they get to my doorstep, it will be a different story, but by then it will be to late because of weak willed people like you, anonymouse 10:25am.

Ken,

The problem with your consistently faulty logic is that establishments that are open to and serve the general public are not a private business in the same sense as, say a private club or organization, regardless of how the ownership is structured... sole proprietor, partnership, incorporated, etc. When a business invites the general population into the establishment and based upon the type of commerce conducted... there simply are laws, rules, and regulations that must be followed.

Using your same logic we would not have any fire codes, public health, food and sanitation, or other such laws in these same establishments. The fact is that early on earlier generations of business proprietors, either through ignorance or callousness, created dangerous conditions where people died in fires. This caused the public to demand tougher fire codes. What we are seeing is a modern day backlash on public health.

Reality is that our form of government is here to protect us from poor delusional souls like you who don't understand or comprehend the role government plays in a modern society. It has nothing to do with a nanny state and in fact that same argument could be used for nearly every single law and regulation on the books. Using the same consistently faulty logic are we to believe Ken that all of our laws should be repealed and just let everyone fend for themselves? Seems like Ken wants to live in the wild, wild west more than he wants to live in a modern day, civilized society.

"If you are unable to take responsibility for your actions, you push for a nanny state. Obviously, there are many here that cannot care for themselves and need the government to do it for them." Yeah right on.... I'm sure Ken and those of his ilk are personally prepared to defend our country against modern day terrorists or are personally capable of protecting themselves and their own family from a world-wide epidemic. We all know people like Ken would be the first in line whining about the government not doing enough when it actually affected THEM personally.

Ok, I did what Ken suggested. I found several references that claimed that smokers are better tippers. But, I wouldn't call these verfications. Most were opinions from smokers. Others were claims on websites such as www.smokerslobby which hardly seems like a neutral source. The rationale was that smokers drink more than non-smokers, so they tip more generously. If you believe this, then a smoking ban would hurt bars tremendously.

To Ken: it looked like Liz had a valid question and you wouldn't answer it. And she asked you if you were Cal. Your comments sound more like Cal's than hers and you have the same POV. Just sayin'.

Liz, calling a rant a rant is not attacking the messenger. I have had many rants on this thread and am willing to call them what they are.

You wanted proof about smokers tipping habits; I told you a very simple way to verify it, a way that would leave my opinion out of it. Instead of doing a simple google search, using the keywords I provided for you, you instead decided to call me a liar. You lost all credibility at that point, and actually make me think that you are caroline et al. The same tactics are being used, just with another name.

By the way, is cal one of your many personalities? Really, you should seek help.

Ken, I figured you wouldn't have the facts to back up your claims. But... way to deflect by claiming I am lazy for not doing your work for you. Since you made the claim, I thought you could divulge your source. Sorry that was such a difficult request. I won't make the same mistake again. But I guess that's what self-appointed vigilantes do... spin and attack to suit their cause.

And to address your comment about "attacking the messenger", maybe you had better go back and reread this topic. In case your memory went up in smoke, YOU were the one who started attacking others who were simply stating their opinions. It seems an opinion that difers from yours is a 'rant'. You started the attack with Annonymous (Jan 4 8:12a.m.)and compared second-hand smoke to sitting near a patron eating a Big Mac.

This is my last comment to you. I won't waste time trying to reason with someone who is unable to comprehend. By the way, are you cal?

I see, Liz, you can't attack the message, so you attack the messenger.
How many links do you want from a simple google search that you are to lazy to do? It is much easier to call me a liar than admit the truth, especially when it proves you wrong. This puts you on the same level as the one person/many personalities naperville cult.

My concern and anger is directed at the encroachment of the government nanny state in places where it does not belong. If you didn't want to smell smoke, no one forced you to go into a restaurant with smoking. I know that my Dad could not stand smoke at all without losing his ability to breath, and he had no problems finding places to dine in Naprville.

My right to smoke matched the business owner's right to decide whether or not he wanted me to smoke. Your right not to smell smoke ended when you entered private businesses that allowed smoking. Now, because of spineless, weak willed whiners like you, business owners have lost another choice on how to run their businesses.

By the way, thanks for the compliment on my plethora of logic and facts.

Ken, I lack the time or interest to go on a wild goose chase after your tipping 'facts'. If you are unable to put your money where your mouth is, I will just take it for what it is... hot air.

So in your opinion, were all diners in a restaurant who desired not to partake in breathing smoke-filled air "whiners"? Do you know that cigarette smoke does not stay within a 'smoking section' when it is only divided from the non-smoking section by an aisle? Again, does your right to smoke invalidate the rights of all others who disagree with you? You seem awfully angry and defensive for someone who has supposedly read the act and who supposedly does not smoke.
If I am an "anti-smoking nazi", are you always such a ray of sunshine with a plethora of logic and facts?

Liz, if the whole restaurant was full, and there was no seating available, how hard is it to figure out what happened? A table in the smoking section came up first, and the whiners took that table. On less crowded nights, smoking section seats were harder to come by. I found this true after I quit smoking as I was almost always seated right away in the non-smoking section while smokers had to wait for a table, even when I asked for first available seating.

If it was such an expense for the business owners, why did so many fight against the law? If smokers only cost them money, why did they fight the law?

As for the tipping, I got my information from the many newspaper articles leading up to the smoking ban. Many waiters and waitresses said they worked the smoking sections for the better tips. Since you seem to doubt my word, google 'are smokers better tippers' and read the results.

I am familiar with the act, as I read it when it was made law. The opening statement is what brings my hypocrisy charge. If smoking is so dangerous, why not outlaw it completely? Because the hypocrites want the tax money. They have a vested interest in keeping smoking around, just as all you anti-smoking nazis do.

By the way, if all of you anti-smoking nazis were so worried about your health, why did you patronize businesses that obviously didn't care about you? As I have said many times, it comes down to personal responsibility.

If you are unable to take responsibility for your actions, you push for a nanny state. Obviously, there are many here that cannot care for themselves and need the government to do it for them.

Liz,

LOL.... Asking Ken to think before typing has been done before. He much prefers the style of ready, fire, aim. His ability to contradict himself is legendary.

Ken said, "Actually, Anonymous 1/5/09 12:07am, your trip down memory lane is a little hazy, just like the rest of your reasoning. I always had to wait longer for the smoking section, because smokers tend to linger and enjoy an after dinner cigarette and conversation. The only reason the anti-smoking whiners were in the smoking section was because they asked for first available on a crowded night. On other nights at the same restaurant, there was always non-smoking seating available, but usually a wait for smoking seating."

Actually Ken, your logic escapes me and you contadict yourself in your comment. You state that the smoking sections had a longer wait, yet in the next sentence you say that non-smokers are seated in the smoking section when they ask for 'next available'. What? Speaking for myself and my family, we always found the non-smoking section to have a longer wait.

And to say that smokers tip more than non-smokers? Where are you getting your 'facts'? I would be very interested to see where you came up with this.

If you honestly think it's not a health-related issue, and if you think it isn't a costly expense to establishment owners to deal with the effects of smoking in their place of business, then maybe you should familiarize yourself with the Act before commenting. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/fulltext.asp?Name=095-0017

Because smokers sit around for a long time after dinner wanting to just smoke and talk they darn well should tip much better than non-smokers because they are tying up the table longer and keeping other patrons waiting. BTW, I've yet to see any reliable studies, other than subjective and anecdotal reports, that smokers actually do tip better than non-smokers. Bottom line for a business owner is to turn tables as quickly as possible. Smokers sitting around talking and smoking are not running up a larger tab. Maybe the wait staff makes out a little better, maybe not... the business owner rarely gets any additional profit from letting smokers sit around after the meal is over.

"...it ceases to become a 'personal choice' when it can potentially effect the health of others. I don't think a smoker or a business owner has the right to make that decision for me, my family, or any other citizen. Period.

I agree that others don't have the "right" to make decisions that affect my health, but we can't control everything. I don't choose to have the foul, toxic crap that emits from firepits, when whatever is being burned in them creates smoke, in my house, air space, on my clothes or anywhere else near me. Yet, I'm surrounded by legal, within their rights to own and use them, well-meaning people who enjoy sitting around a fire outside. If you don't think wood smoke is toxic, do some research. It potentially effects the health of my family, and the best we can do is go inside, close the windows, and not enjoy our own property. Just because it's outside, doesn't mean it dissipates and isn't toxic. What about dryer sheets with perfume on them? Or just perfumes, lotions, etc.? What smells good to some may bring on asthma attacks or worse to others. The list, debate, and can opening can go on forever.

To the original topic, it's more pleasant to eat in a restaurant now that Illinois is smoke free.

Ken wrote:

"There were plenty of no smoking restaurants before the government stepped in."

This is true only if you consider fast food joints "restaurants". There were very few decent restaurants in Naperville that were smoke-free. And even some of those that were had a different idea of what smoke-free means than I do.

Case in point: My wife and I consulted a list of restaurants on the Smoke Free Naperville website a couple of years ago to find a nice restaurant where we could celebrate her birthday. We picked out one that had received good reviews for its food, and made a reservation. It turned out that they were only smoke-free in the eating area. The bar area allowed smoking, it was a fairly small restaurant, and there was no wall or anything separating the bar from the rest of the restaurant.

-JQP

Actually, Anonymous 1/5/09 12:07am, your trip down memory lane is a little hazy, just like the rest of your reasoning. I always had to wait longer for the smoking section, because smokers tend to linger and enjoy an after dinner cigarette and conversation. The only reason the anti-smoking whiners were in the smoking section was because they asked for first available on a crowded night. On other nights at the same restaurant, there was always non-smoking seating available, but usually a wait for smoking seating.

If, as you say and I agree, the business owners only motive is profit, and catering to non-smokers would bring in a better profit, as you claim, why didn't all the restaurants switch to non-smoking on their own? Because, as even the waiters and waitresses that cried about serving smokers acknowledged, smokers spent more and tipped better.

As I have said before, and AWW proved, using the public health issue argument is a dangerous path to go down. McDonald's has already had lawsuits filed against them by your ilk who are to weak to control themselves and want the government to do what you can't. As I also stated before, it took about twenty years for the anti-smoking movement to take away rights, what industry is next? MADD, with its insidious campaigns against drinking? People like AWW, who want to limit food content? People who want to take away the gasoline engine? It's all for your own good, after all, so who cares about your quality of life? You should eat bland food, not drink anything but water, and ride your bike to work, because the government decides it is what is best for you.

You may call this a ridiculous argument, but that's what business owners first said when weak willed people like you said the government should force them into non-smoking compliance. You may be willing to give up all your rights because you lack personal responsibility, but I am not.

Ken, it ceases to become a 'personal choice' when it can potentially effect the health of others. I don't think a smoker or a business owner has the right to make that decision for me, my family, or any other citizen. Period.

Again, wasn't the governments legislation designed around the second hand smoke issue - they are not outlawing smoking, just where you are allowed to smoke? Instead, the gov't shrouded their argument around the second hand smoke issue (particularly for service workers: wait staff, busboys, bartenders etc.) and did it to protect them. (At least this was the argument used for passage).

To Ken's point, smoking is legal and revenue producing for the government. To cut to the chase, I don't think the gov't cares if you smoke or not, you have that right. They are simply saying that when your smoking affects the health of others it is something they will legislate. The difference with food is that eating a cheeseburger doesn't cause the person in the table next to you to get fat.

I also think I remember hearing that smokers are actually less of a drain on the insurance industry than you would think. Smokers certainly have smoking related afflictions, but also die much sooner than a non smoker so the insurance payouts are less. (can't confirm this, but I think it is true).

I think smokers who cannot temporarily abstain from their vice for the duration of a meal out, and who have the expectation that other patrons are selfish (for not wanting to eat without the potential health hazard of cigarette smoke clinging to their clothing and spoiling the taste of the good food they paid for)are the true hypocrites here.

I think it's also a telling indicator that nicotine addiction truly has a stangle hold on it's users. While it is their choice to partake of an unhealthy habit, it is not their right to force that decision on others in the community. That's what the ban is about. Like Annonymous Jan 5 12:07 a.m. pointed out, why do you suppose the non-smoking sections were always filled and required waiting lists while there were always openings in the smoking sections? How long can a meal take? An hour, hour and half? It's sad that their willpower can't kick into action for that amount of time. It's too bad they feel their right to indulge in an unhealthy habit is more important than the rights of the majority in an establishment.

Yeah, real interesting to think back about the smoking vs non-smoking sections isn't it?

The non-smoking sections were always filled so non-smokers either had to wait or opt to sit in the smoking sections which usually always had some tables available. Just further proof that even before the ban that there was more actual demand for non-smoking than smoking.

Suggesting to put the decision in the hands of the business owner isn't realistic or practical. A business owners one single motivation is to make a profit. Period. Everything else comes far lower on the priority list. If it is a choice between my health and turning a buck the business owner is going to choose the buck first every time. This is a public health issue not a property rights issue and it is exactly why the decision should be in the hands of the government and not in the hands of the business or property owner.

Liz, my point is that the decision in a private business should be left to the business owner. There were plenty of no smoking restaurants before the government stepped in. It was personal choice, coupled with personal responsibility that was used in a decision where to eat.

The condom example wasn't mine, but to make it a true comparison, one would have to use this example. The government allows condom sales, but doesn't allow hotel owners to let people use condoms in their rooms. Either way, government officials have to enter a private room owned by a private citizen to enforce their ban. You have the choice not to enter the restaurant or the hotel, but with the new law, you are taking other people's choice away. You have forced your wishes on people who actually lose money from this law, the business owners.

By the way, Liz, I haven't smoked in over 10 years, so it is not my "smelly, annoying habit". I do remember going into restaurants and having people in front of me choose smoking because it was a shorter wait, and then those people complaining when the real smokers actually dared to smoke...in the smoking section.

Last, but not least, A Weight Watcher is making the very argument that I commented on. It does not surprise me, because people like AWW have been trying for a couple of years to mandate fat content and food portions. It took the anti-smoking nazis about twenty years to prevail; I wonder how long it will take the food nazis?

Actually, there is no reason on earth why some of these fast food products should contain upwards of 500 grams of fat in a single hamburger! We work with schools, hospitals, nursing homes and top Fortune 500 companies to assist them in the development of healthy foods for their customers or employees. We should work with politicians encouraging government action to combat unhealty, over weight America. Medicare will not be able to support health care costs for over weight people in this county and frankly, isn't it selfish to consume so much bad food that you actually burden our social services with an excessive drain on resources? You really have no right or liberty to consume excessive amounts of food and to be fat IF it adversely affects society as a whole. Just like you have no right to infect others with disease beacause you think you have some right to smoke or any other activity that is deemed by others to be dangerous.

Rambo, Ha ha, you are right. I guess I should have considered the source. Do you think Chis will provide us with a spread sheet so we can keep all the names straight?

Liz,

All that was missing from his post was labeling you as "Establishment" for the Potluck super-slam to be complete.

Cal, in my initial comment as well as my response to Ken I was referring to restaurants, not bars. Your sarcasm is greatly appreciated and really assists in proving your point. I love how those who are unable to grasp the concept that others have differing opinions have to go into attack mode in order to prove their point. How small of you.

To Anonymous who posted on Jan 2nd, the Tessa's comment was a joke.

To Liz... a lot of people agree restaurant smoking should be banned. So SMALL CHILDREN? What are you talking about? Because we're talking bars and nightclbus here. Places where GROWNUPS should feel free to make their own decisions.

I'm glad you feel the smoking ban has made people feel more free to bring their kids out to the bars with them at night. Thank goodness!

And smog and poor air quality also affect people with asthma should we ban driving? Or manufacturing? Because those things are also endangering a person with asthma's health. More laws, more legislation! People should not be allowed to think and do for themselves!

Ken, I think you are comparing apples to oranges.

Smoking inside a public establishment is completely different from a nearby diner eating a Big Mac or a condom machine in a public washroom. It cannot negatively directy impact the health of other patrons. What you refer to as "another anti-smoking nazi rant" is simply common sense and consideration for others.

Smoking inside an establishment can affect the health of all other patrons. It is no longer about the convenience to the smoker. What about small children, someone with asthma, the elderly? Should everyone have to be subjected to your smelly, annoying habit? Once it becomes a potential health hazard to others it should not be allowed. The smokers are welcome to go outside and smoke to the heart's (or lung's) desire. Their smoking outside will not affect other diners health or ruin the enjoyment of a meal by smoke wafting over to the table.

But Ken, then where is the personal responsibility for the smoker to make sure his/her actions are not effecting others in a detrimental way?

If I shoot arrows at a target for pleasure, have a campfire for pleasure, or drive a car fast on a track for pleasure, isn't it my personal responsibility to make sure my actions stay within my personal space, or the space laid out specifically for that recreationally activity, so as not to effect or harm someone that is not involved in my pleasurable activity of choice?

By Keyboard Commando on January 3, 2009 9:43 PM
Jerry, most people who are intelligent enough to not smoke also are intelligent enough to take taxis or use designated drivers.
-----------------------------------
Ever see the picture of Einstein smoking a cigar?

Yawn...another anti-smoking nazi rant. If you don't want your poor children exposed to the world and legal products, keep them at home. Next you will be asking for condom machines to be banned because your poor little children are exposed to them in the washrooms.

As I stated before, there is no personal responsibility, and it is clear that many people here expect the government to become even more of a nanny state since they can't make their own choices, or protect their own children.

There is absolutely nothing new about the government restricting legal activity in public places or privately owned businesses. The government actually has the authority to restrict your activity in your home under certain circumstances... curfew for minors, martial law, and quarantines just to name a few of such restrictions. Living in a free society brings certain responsibilities and restrictions. Freedom is not an absolute. Just because cigarettes are a legally sold product doesn't mean that they can be used any where at any time without restrictions. Vending machines in bathrooms of many bars legally sell condoms... that doesn't mean you can legally use that condom in the bar does it? Look at all of the restrictions on alcohol sales or firearms for similar restrictions. And there are no guarantees that additional restrictions will not be placed on cigarettes. While change is slow to come with all things political and especially in Illinois there is very likely a day in the future when cigarettes will no longer be sold... we can all agree to disagree on how far in the future that day will be.

For decades smokers have driven non-smokers out of and away from all kinds of establishments and the smokers were so self-absorbed in satisfying their own addiction that they didn't care or even think about who else they were inconveniencing or harming... other patrons, employees, or profits of the establishments not to mention the fires and physical damage they caused. So now the tide has turned and life goes on. This is called change not hypocrisy.

All of the rude, arrogant smokers who didn't care when or where they smoked, where they discarded their spent materials, where their smoke drifted, or who refused to move a little bit or put out a cigarette when politely asked can take a long hard look in the mirror and realize that they and their steadfast refusal to change or politely cooperate are directly responsible for the backlash that has come about.

When we boil smoking down to what it really is it is nothing more than a filthy, disgusting addiction. There is nothing pretty or glamourous about smoking; most certainly not from watching loved one die from lung or other forms of tobacco induced cancer. We would never stand for a bunch of heroin junkies standing around immediately outside the main entrance to an establishment and shooting up so why in the world do we continue to tolerate smokers getting their fix directly in the path we have to walk with our children to enter these same businesses? Personally I don't think the law went far enough and the 15 foot rule is mostly a joke... especially during the winter months... and not even close to being enforced by many businesses.

Ken on January 4, 2009 1:28 PM
What's next? Big Macs or other high calorie foods?

______________________________

If you sit next to someone eating a Big Mac and it caused you to get fat then yes I think the Government would step in. I agree with you, however, that if a private business chooses to allow smoking they run their own risk of losing customers who choose not to frequent their establishment. I think the government originally pursued the law on the fact that workers (not patrons) exposed to second hand smoke were the most at risk, and don't have a choice to leave as a patron would. (Of course they could always get another job, but I think the Government is stepping in to support the worker and viewing it as a workplace situation).

That's a nice rant, Anonymous 1/4/09 8:12am, until you realize that the government has restricted a legal activity in privately owned businesses. What's next? Big Macs or other high calorie foods? Is the government going to mandate portion size?

The problem is that no one wants to take personal responsibility for their actions. You had a choice to go into a restaurant that allowed smoking. Now you advocate taking away smoker's choices just because they inconvenience you. You and your rant show the true hypocrisy behind the smoking bans put on private businesses.

Smokers understand there are restrictions that come with their personal addiction these days. Long gone is even a token amount of social acceptability that unrestricted smoking should be permitted anywhere or anytime. Smokers are a shrinking minority and while most non-smokers are tolerant, up to a point, and even sympathetic of smokers the tolerance line in the sand has been drawn at the point where non-smokers are simply saying to smokers... go ahead and pursue your personal addiction... just don't expose me or my family or the people I care about to the harmful effects of your personal addiction. This is not an unreasonable expectation.

Smokers can still smoke. Smokers can still purchase smoking products. Smokers can still exercise the right to freedom of choice. The only thing that has changed is where they are legally permitted to smoke and possibly the total number of cigarettes that they might consume in a day may have decreased because of the newer restrictions. If smokers do not like the public place restrictions they are free to stay at home and pursue their personal addiction without any restrictions or limitations. If they want to mingle with the rest of society then smokers simply need to be prepared to exercise some temporary restraints on their personal addictions while mingling with the general population.

What is the worst thing that will come of these new restrictions... that smokers might spend a little less money on cigarettes... that they might live just a little bit longer from consuming fewer cigarettes before their addiction does them in... or maybe, just maybe, fewer of our children and friends will also become addicted to tobacco? Oh, and yeah... maybe some smokers will finally see the light and finally seek the professional help they need to overcome this addiction.

"Oh well in that case, let's make all kinds of sweeping generalizations! Clearly anyone who touches the devil's drink is a murderer."

If you change it to anyone who touches the devil's drink and drives, you have MADD's motto down pat.

Oh well in that case, let's make all kinds of sweeping generalizations! Clearly anyone who touches the devil's drink is a murderer.

As far as I know, the drunk driver who killed my daughter was a non smoker. Was he intelligent enough to take a taxi or use a designated driver? Apparently not. Hope this helps.

Anne E,

Riding a motorcycle without a helmet certainly can affect others. Road debris can knock a rider out or cause them to otherwise come at your vehicle and you swerve to avoid them (you get the idea) resulting in you getting into an accident because they were too stupid to wear a helmet. This may sound cruel, but I'm not putting my family in danger because someone else was 'too cool' to do the proper thing.

As for smoking, I can see both sides of the coin. I am happy to go to places and not come home smelling like an ashtray. As a former smoker, I can certainly empathize with the 'awesomeness' that it was to be able to smoke in certain places like bars and clubs while drinking, shooting a game of pool, etc. In a restaurant I am in full favor of the ban, but in places like bars I would have liked to have seen that left up to the individual owners to decide.

Jerry, most people who are intelligent enough to not smoke also are intelligent enough to take taxis or use designated drivers.

Hope this helps.

Have fun at your next MADD meeting.

You and your clique go to bars and stay longer? New people doing the same? The best law ever? I would be curious to know if 2nd hand smoke or drunk drivers cause more deaths. As you leave and pass the smoker outside, get behind the wheel after celebrating your long night at the bar, who is more dangerous?

I understand what you are saying Ken, but I also know that we don't make certain other dangerous activity illegal, such as riding a motorcycle without a helmet. This may be dangerous to the motorcycle driver, but hopefully if anything bad happens, it won't effect other people. It is hard for me to believe that an actual 40% drop in heart attacks occurred because smoking was banned in public places. I had no idea it could be that much of a risk for heart disease. It will be interesting to see if additional studies would have similar findings. I always thought the only threat would be a higher cancer risk, and that it would take being exposed to second hand smoke almost full time for that to be a factor.

The tax consequences are a large issue, no doubt. It would be prohibition issues and mob crime all over again, imagine what would happen to the cigarette trade if it was to be made illegal.

I have read the past few days that certain municipalities/states are thinking of taxing mileage driven now instead of an overall gas tax, as people are driving less or driving more efficient vehicles and gas tax revenues are dropping to a point that will not support high-way infrastructure. (I though we were way behind on that anyway.) So we would all have GPS units that would monitor our miles driven. so we could pay up? Imagine how people used to shut off the seat belt alarm in their cars, what kind of new business would crop up to mess with our brand new tracking devices! We wouldn't want to fail to mention how this would effect the push for people to buy more expensive energy efficient cars...removing a small advantage of owning such a vehicle.

I still think the law is hypocritical. If the state was so concerned about the effects of smoking, they should have outlawed it completely. Of course, this will never happen because of the enormous tax hit they would take. So while piously claiming to care about the people, the government is more than willing to make a profit off of those same people.

A new study finds that the heart attack rate in Colorado has dropped by 40% since it's smoking ban was put in place in 2006:

"The study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says a smoking ban in a Colorado city led to a dramatic drop in heart attack hospitalizations within three years...

One of the researchers says the study suggests that secondhand smoke may be a terrible and under-recognized cause of heart attack deaths in this country."

http://www.kwtx.com/medicaldirectory/headlines/36950309.html

Cal,
Tessa's went out of business because the food was bad and the service was even worse. Smoking ban had nothing to do with it. The remodel of that building couldn't have come at a worse time either.
The smoking ban is one of the few things the state government has done that they got right in the past decade.
I think the only business that has suffered is the dry-cleaners as I don't have to get everything cleaned after going out on the weekends!

Gee haven't you heard? Tessa's went out of business because of the smoking ban. But seriously I don't go out as much any more, that's for sure. Restaurants, I understand it. Pubs? Not good for business. Lots of entertaining elsewhere and the drinks tastier, stronger and the company is better. Non of the self righteous non-smokers.

I think its awesome, awesome, awesome. I find that me and my friends are staying out longer because the smoke isn't ruining all the fun. And I had some friends in from Milwaukee last month that thought it was just fantastic.

I understand that some people like to smoke, and I'd learned to live with it... but it's SO much better now that it's gone.

I think it is a great and progressive law. My family enjoys going to restaurants and now we can enjoy our meal without the annoyance and health hazards of cigarette or cigar smoke wafting through the restaurant. A lot of Naperville establishments are small, so when smoking was allowed it could make it quite unappealing for those who do not smoke. We avoided a lot of good restaurants for this very reason. Now, we are able to enjoy a nice meals locally.

If others have a vice that is potentially hazardous to the health of others, I think they can skip it while they have a meal or they can step outside if they feel overcome by the need to smoke. Hopefully, the inconvenience to those that smoke will make them think about their health and if it doesn't get them to quit maybe it will at least cut down on the amount they smoke. I think the ban is a win-win situation.

I don't mind no smoking in restaurants - makes perfect sense to me - but no smoking in bars or clubs? Ridiculous.

Love it Love it Love it!
I personally enjoy going out to dinner and being able to taste every bite of my food instead of the smoke wafting into the nonsmoking section from the smoking section!

Before the law, we had a few meals ruined at some of the restaurants downtown. Some of them are small enough that it just wasn't possible to have a completely smoke free nonsmoking section. Needless to say, those restaurants lost our business for a while. Now we are back and enjoying all of the restaurants downtown!

I love it, best law so far. It's so nice to be able to go out to bars and not come home feeling like a piece of smoked beef jerky. My entire clique of non-smoking friends have mentioned feeling the same way. I'd find it to be hard to believe that business is down, with entire groups of new people who regularly wouldn't want to deal with cigarette smoke not only going out more, but staying longer.

I'm curious if cigarette sales are down at all, or if the addiction overpowers the inconvenience of standing outside in the cold.