Smoke gets in fewer eyes

Hopefully, outdoor restaurants will help enforce the existing 15-foot city smoking ban ordinance so that people allergic to smoke also can enjoy the "al fresco" atmosphere. And yes, outdoor smoking is bothersome when the smoke is coming at you. Now, maybe there can be a state law about smokers-litterers throwing their cigarette butts on the sidewalks instead of in trash cans.

Agree with Addison. People who would NEVER dream of throwing trash out the car window don't think twice about tossing their cig butts out the window. It's disgusting, but how do you enforce since I always see cops in squadcars doing the same...

It would be interesting to examine the correlation, if any, between the decrease in smoking and the increase in states not being able to balance their budget. I believe that all of the voters who favor no smoking legislation should let their representatives know that they would approve of an increase in sales, real estate, and income taxes so that government services are not decreased.

It would be interesting to examine the correlation, if any, between the decrease in smoking and the increase in states not being able to balance their budget. I believe that all of the voters who favor no smoking legislation should let their representatives know that they would approve of an increase in sales, real estate, and income taxes so that government services are not decreased.

It would be interesting to examine the correlation, if any, between the decrease in smoking and the increase in states not being able to balance their budget. I believe that all of the voters who favor no smoking legislation should let their representatives know that they would approve of an increase in sales, real estate, and income taxes so that government services are not decreased.

It would be interesting to examine the correlation, if any, between the decrease in smoking and the increase in states not being able to balance their budget. I believe that all of the voters who favor no smoking legislation should let their representatives know that they would approve of an increase in sales, real estate, and income taxes so that government services are not decreased.

Addison, you'll have a hell of a time proving a smoke allergy in the breezy outdoors where it dissipates instantly.

You ignore automotive and industrial pollution and squawk about cigarette smoke; you ignore all litter except cigarette butts.

You have taken sides in the tobacco war like a soccer hooligan. The world is not a better place as long as your kind have the upper hand.

As a non-smoker I try to be as unbiased as possible. Yes I like the smoking ban. I don't like coughing because I am sitting downwind from a person that is spewing smoke, or even worse, an unattended cigarette smoking up the place. I would like to go out for a drink at an establishment of my choice and be able to go home not smelling of smoke. I also would enjoy not going out and seeing cigarette butts littering the sidewalks. However, not all smokers are litterbugs. Not all smokers blow their smoke in your direction instead up up into the air where it can rise and be much less bothersome. Not all smokers leave their mostly unsmoked cigarettes unattended to slowly burn down to the butt like some sort of cigarette incense. The businesses that do not want you to smoke in them have the freedom to prohibit smoking. It is overly controlling and a bit absurd to take that decision away from the business owner. They have the responsibility to listen to their workers and patrons and decide if they want smoking to be allowed to happen in their facility. Let democracy work, but perhaps on a smaller scale and let the business owners determine if they ahould allow smoking by taking a survey of their customers or a vote from their employees. Thank you.

One short, simple question...

Why are we letting our government make decisions on how a business should run, and what can be done, or not done in its business, while it is legal? Smoking is legal. If it is such a bad and terrible thing, ban the sale, distribution, and consumption of cigarettes all together...

I have been trying to quit smoking for a while now and I'm glad that this is going into place because it is so difficult to quit when someone sitting right next to you in a restaurant is smoking , it makes you want one again. Also, for smokers; drinking and smoking just go hand in hand with eachother. Now when I'm at a bar, people will not be able to smoke and that was always my weak point where I would start up smoking again.

"Why are we letting our government make decisions on how a business should run, and what can be done, or not done in its business, while it is legal?"

Simple answer- Second hand cigarette smoke is a health hazard for the employees of a buisness that allows smoking. Just as we regulate the exposure of employees to harmful items such as asbestos and other environmental factors that are a proven health risk, cigarette smoking in the workplace is regulated.

Just another example of how the Police State takes away our rights & tells us how we can live outr lives...

As a smoker for many years I thank Jimmy for his input, I personally try to avoid smoking around people that don’t smoke and never blow smoke in the direction of other people. But the fact of the matter is businesses should have the right to allow or not allow smoking in their establishments according to the preferences of their customers. I personally know two establishments that will most likely close when the smoking ban goes into affect, due to 95% of their customers are smokers. When someone puts many years into building a business not to mention their finances, it’s hard to believe a free society could pass laws to restrict their ability to conduct their businesses the way they see fit.
You know the next thing will be the fat police, I’ve seen news stories lately on how much it costs the healthcare system a year to treat people that are overweight, so you better be careful of the fat content of those hamburgers your serving your guests at your next BBQ.

Rory M-

If I choose to run my business in a way that allows botulism to flourish in my kitchen, should that be allowed?

Smokers, your right to poison yourself ends at the beginning of my air intake.

When you can figure out how to keep that from happening, have at it.

Now let us see if all the gloating anti-smoking fanatics are really that health conscious. The next group of air polluters who should be banned from public places are all of the whining parents who complained how smokers polluted the air for their kids - but they have no problem whatsoever dragging their little darlings into restaurants, theatres, libraries and every other public place when the little darlings are sneezing/coughing/hacking/vomiting/spewing out every conceivable kind of virus and germ. How about saving the clean air for the rest of us from these inconsiderate hypocrites? After all, fair is fair, isn't it?

As a former smoker there is no worse smell to me than smelling it in or outside. I do agree with Jimmy & Joseph:
1. A business should have a right to allow it or not. If you don't like it, don't visit the establishment and/or work there. It is a free country last time I looked.
2. Outlaw the sale of tobacco products...including cigars.

I smoked for a long time and I think this law is a good one that should have been enacted years ago. When I was in Sweden, they had the same law. The one thing I noticed (in some places) though, was air tight rooms for smokers in restaurants/airports etc. with powerful ventilation systems so people could grab a quick smoke inside without poisoning anyone. Perhaps the new law should have a provision (if it doesn't already include one) for certain establishments (bars etc) that are known for smoke so that they can maintain the social element that smoking involves.

Ho-hum, I am a non-smoker who happens to find all the anti-smoking hysteria to be just that. So yesterday the soon-to-be-indicted Boy Governor wannabe signs legislation banning smoking in just about every indoor place. But we also hear the state will probably pass another $1 a pack tax. That is total BS. It is not fair to keep taxing those who smoke or drink to cover government for the masses.

Anyway, smoking and nonsmoking sections worked pretty well and the technology and equipment is there to make it work even better.

As far as eating outdoors, sorry, but the fumes from the cars and buses on the road overtake any smoke from a cigarette.

I remember reading a Voice of the People a few years ago in which this anti-smoker wanted to ban smoking in cars because even when her windows were up she could smell the smoke from those smoking in nearby cars! Yeah, that actually happens.

However, knowing some people who suffer from asthma, I know smoking can be very bothersome to them. So indoor smoke can be an issue for some. But again, it doesn't have to be an all or nothing approach, there are solutions.

And, like Lochness said, perhaps banning smoking period is the solution if smoking is so bad. But then where would the politicians get the billions upon billions of dollars of tax money they get from smokers?

Hey Tony, do you drive a car ? Talk about poisoning the air. When you stop driving I’ll stop smoking, as for botulism, that would be considered a crime to intentionally poison people and as far as I know cigarette smoke my not be healthy but it’s not poisonous.

"Hey Tony, do you drive a car ? Talk about poisoning the air. When you stop driving I’ll stop smoking,"

Last time I checked Rory, I'm not allowed to run my car inside an enclosed restauraunt or bar, am I?

"and as far as I know cigarette smoke my not be healthy but it’s not poisonous."

Posted by: Rory M | July 25, 2007 4:22 PM

Lung cancer kills you pretty dead, doesn't it Rory?

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

Rory M-

If I choose to run my business in a way that allows botulism to flourish in my kitchen, should that be allowed?

Posted by: Tony | July 25, 2007 12:55 PM

Smoking is legal, intentionally poisoning someone with botulism isn't, you simple minded fool.

Smoking is legal,intentionally poisoning someone with botulism isn't, you simple minded fool.

Posted by: lisa | July 25, 2007 5:32 PM

Well why should it be illegal for me to have botulism in my kitchen? If you don't like it you can go eat or work somewhere else? Don't I have the absolute right to run my business as I see fit as the pro-smoking advocates here all claim?

Botulism kills you tomorrow, smoking in a few years. Why should it be illegal to have one in the workplace or bar and not the other?

The waitress who gets lung cancer from your second hand smoke is just as dead as a customer would be if I chose to run my kitchen in a way that promotes the growth of botulism.

Jeff, John D, Paulo,

Please start smoking! Three packs a day. It's harmless. There is NO scientific evidence that smoking cigs causes cancer.

None! It's all a PC plot to take away your freedom! YOUR FREEDOM.

Also, don't wear seat belts, or if you drive a motorcycle, don't wear a helmut! It's all a liberal plot to take away your freedom!

Remember the Alamo!
TippeCanoe and Tyler Too!
Never in the field of human conflict...
My only regret is that I have but one life...
Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes!

lisa,
Who intentionally poisoned someone with botulism?

Rory M,
Keep inhaling, deep deep deep.

"Well why should it be illegal for me to have botulism in my kitchen?"

Posted by: Tony | July 25, 2007 5:52 PM

Open 2 kitchens, in one give people botulism and advertise that fact. In the other, allow people to smoke (which is still legal). See what happens. Keep track of how the authorities and your patrons act.

Then come back and make some more illogical and stupid comparisons.

You're worried about the waitress who might be exposed to second hand smoke but think it's okay for her to handle poisoned food.

Great analogy Gump, and so very compasionate of you to look out for the 'little' people like that.

lisa,
Who intentionally poisoned someone with botulism?

Posted by: C.Morris | July 25, 2007 7:26 PM

No one yet, but according to Tony, it should be legal.

If he opens a restaurant, stay away!

Lisa,

You don't really think Tony want's to make botulism 'legal', do you?

Lisa-

No, I don't want anyone to get botulism. I also don't think the waitress should be forced to continually inhale a known carcinogen to keep her job. This is a workplace safety issue just like any other.

I think the cigarette smoke is clouding your thinking as well as the air around you.

C.M.

You tell me. I've quoted Tony's own words. Read them yourself.

I think Tony is equating a legal activity with an illegal activity. He says both are equal and they're not.

Tony seams to be saying people that make a choice to smoke or run a business that allows smoking is the same as poisoning someone He never says if the people at at his restaurant get to choose to be poisoned or if that's something Tony gets to decide for them.

It's a foolish comparison.

Tony,

I don't smoke, never have. It's I choice I made, not one I need anyone (including you) to make for me.

When I was in school I made money working as a waitress. No one forced me to work at a restaurant filled with smoke, so I didn't.

I don't think the waitresses of the world need you as their self-appointed protector.

Lisa, you must be new here. But you are finding out that C Morris and the rest of his demented gang are about as worthy as human beings as a gang of Jeffrey Dahmers and John Gacys. Remember, the Loony Left by far is the worst mankind has to offer!

Too bad we can't decide to smoke J if we want.
Guess that's not part of the free choice in this country.

One final post.

Tony, sweetheart, go out and get some pink tights (make sure to get them big enough to fit over your XXL Depends undergarments), a lavender top with WP (Waitress Protector) on the front, and a nice red cape. You can then go to all the smoke filled restaurants and bars in town and rescue all the poor waitresses that are too dumb not to work in those places.

You mention waitresses but not waiters, hmmm...

What would the women of the world do without he-men like you to protect us?

Lisa, do you believe in any workplace safety laws?

How about asbestos? Asbestos has NOT been outlawed in the United States, but there are legal limits to employee exposure to asbestos. Should employers be allowed to have a work place filled with loose asbestos fibers without making any provisions for the safety of the worker?

John D

Actually I'm more liberal than conservative.

What bothers me the most is people like Tony will throw fits if they believe the government is taking away their rights to protect us, and then say THEY can take away my rights to protect me!?!?!?!?

And Tony the issue is the CHOICE to smoke or not to smoke or go to places that allow smoking.

I don't need you (Tony) or any other facist controlling what I can and can't do. Mind your own business.

When smoking becomes illegal and you see me smoking or going into a place that allows smoking, then you can whine about it.

Quick question.

I live in Nashville, central time zone, and all my posts show up as being posted one hour later than they really are.

Chicago is central time zone also.

Anyone know why the times don't match?

Well Lisa, smoking in public indoor places is now illegal in Illinois. Learn to live with it.

Employers do not typically have a CHOICE to allow an unsafe working environment. Second hand smoke is a health hazard to all employees who face prolonged exposure. It's that simple.

"Employers do not typically have a CHOICE to allow an unsafe working environment."

Typically?? What unsafe practices are allowed? Botulism?

Try to stay on the subject. Reread the title of the article. It says 'Smoking'. Not Botulism, Radon, Asbestos, etc.

I was in Las Vegas last week. All the casinos allowed smoking even though Nevada has banned smoking in most public places.

Many municipalities allow smoking in bars that don't serve food.

Obviously some businesses DO have a choice.

You're sweet to worry about all the people that need your protection from a legal activity. But what's next? Are you going to tell me what books I'm allowed to read for my own good.

I just bought an old house, it probably has lead paint in it; are you going to make me move?

I drive an SUV, I bet that burns your butt and you'd like to force me to buy a Prius.

What other rights would you take away?

"Try to stay on the subject. Reread the title of the article. It says 'Smoking'. Not Botulism, Radon, Asbestos, etc"

Ahh, now I understand our misunderstanding. You don't believe second hand smoke is a health hazard. Well, there are ample studies that show it is a health hazard, just the same as asbestos and radon.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS

Why do you want to make an exception for exposing business employees to this health hazard and not others?

Tony,

You understand nothing.

I never said anything concerning the harmful effects of second hand smoke.

You took my comments on personal responsibility and choice and lied about what I said.

Do you always make stuff up to try and make your point?

You're the one that brought up botulism and other things that had nothing to do with smoking and therefore nothing to do with this discussion.

Answer my question from before, what unsafe conditions are employers ALLOWED to have in their work environments? Provide proof of the 'exceptions' that allow an employer to intentionally place an employee in danger.

Answer my question from before, what unsafe conditions are employers ALLOWED to have in their work environments? Provide proof of the 'exceptions' that allow an employer to intentionally place an employee in danger.

Posted by: lisa | July 26, 2007 4:43 PM

None. That's my point. Always has been.

YOU want to make an exception for employers allowing the unsafe condition of second hand smoke. You're the one complaining about regulations limiting employee's exposure to seciond hand smoke, a known health hazard.

"John D

Actually I'm more liberal than conservative."

You can give up on that project. To Crazy John D. you are a loony leftie.

All posts are entered under Eastern time according to the Swamp poobahs.

C.M.

Thanks for the info. I hope that John D. won't be too hard on me. Actually I consider myself a left-leaning Independent. And if Tony has his way, you won’t be able to smoke anything, including J. You’ll have to make special brownies. Hmmmm, brownies.....

Tony,

First you said:

'Employers do not typically have a CHOICE to allow an unsafe working environment.'

That implies, or actually states, that in certain circumstances some employers do have a choice.

When asked what choice employers have, you said:

'None. That's my point. Always has been.'

None, sounds pretty absolute to me.

You can't have it both ways, sweetheart.

Why is it legal for some establishments to allow smoking and not others. How can that be if NO unsafe conditions are allowed by law. Could it be because smoking is not illegal (and intentionally poisoning some with botulism IS illegal). That’s MY point, always has been.

You might want to loosen those pink tights and change those Depends. I think your brain is being squeezed to tight and it's affecting your reasoning

Lisa,

Give up on the cigs defense.

When Mrs. Morris became pregnant we decided to quit the J and cigs. Not a moral decision, but a legal (out of the mouths of babes) and health choice.

I put down the J and quit overnight. It took ten years to put down the cigs.

Let em have their smokes at home, not in public where it harms others.

PS:
Ditto the J...

C.M.

I'm glad I never smoked and don't want my kids to smoke.

But defending personal responsibility and choice isn't close to defending cigs.

I don't want Tony and his ilk to tell me I CAN'T smoke any more than I want the govt to tell what family planning practices I am allowed to use. Both are legal whether Tony likes it or not.

He has no right to tell me which LEGAL vices/procedures I am allowed to enjoy or use.

How was your choice to quit legal in any way? I never heard of the law that forces someone to quit smoking when they have a child.

ANyway, I'm glad you quit, your kids are probably healthier and you'll be around for your spouse and kids (maybe grandkids) a lot longer.

You made the right choice, but it was still a choice.

My god Lisa, answer the damn question:

If you accept that second hand smoke is a health hazard to employees of a business, why should it be allowed in any business establishment any more than any other health hazard to employees of a business?

Saying it is legal is not a reason why it SHOULD be legal.

As I've pointed out, possesing asbestos is, in fact, just as legal as smoking. However that does not mean it SHOULD be legal to expose my employees to asbestos.

Not to mention the fact that the reality is that in the state of illinois smoking in the a place of busines is now ILLEGAL, there by nmaking your entire arguement moot.

And to explain for the umpteenth time, i mentioned botulism as an analogy to try and get you to see the point that second hand smoke is a health hazard, just like botulism.

The legal angle would be in regard to the J, not cigs. Didn't want the little one catching wind of the illegal activities and blowing our cover!

C.M.

Got it, sorry, I had a blonde moment when I first read your post.

Tony,

Calm down there stud-muffin.

I know you were making an analogy. I was merely pointing out your analogies suck.

Go build a restaurant and fill it full of 'legal' asbestos, see how far you get passing a building inspection. Then list botulism on all your menus. When the health inspector comes by (probably because of multiple complaints of explosive diarrhea), you can tell him it's no problem because according to you it's legal.

Simply explain you did it because the bar or casino across the street (in many places OTHER than illinois) allows smoking, I'm sure the authorities will see everything your way and you will be allowed to keep running your flame-resistant, asbestos-filled, toilet of a restaurant.

You can name it the ‘Doo-Doo Drop In’, ‘Planet Dookywood’, or you could just go with Denny’s.

Lisa-

Still avoiding the question. Apparently you understand you're playing both sides of the fence.

You're against helath hazards in the workplace and in restraunts, except for second hand smoke. It's perfectly acceptable to you to expose people to that health hazard.

Have fun telling the WAITER who never smoked a single cigarette but is now dying of lung cancer, that it's no big deal, because some states still allow smoking in bars. I'm sure it will make his death seem so much more menaingful to him and his loved ones.

“You're against helath hazards in the workplace and in restraunts, except for second hand smoke. It's perfectly acceptable to you to expose people to that health hazard.”

I’m not for smoking or second-hand smoke, I’m against dumbass analogies and people like you that think you are so enlightened you can tell others what they can and can’t do.

“Have fun telling the WAITER who never smoked a single cigarette but is now dying of lung cancer, that it's no big deal, because some states still allow smoking in bars. I'm sure it will make his death seem so much more menaingful to him and his loved ones.”

Nice try. I’d tell the waiter he had a choice not to work there. Then I’d tell him to go work in your restaurant with the botulism and asbestos. That would be much safer.

And I notice in your rants you never mention protecting customers, just employees. Why is that Tony? Is that because in your tiny warped mind you realize customers have a CHOICE, or is it because you don’t care about them.

Tell me Tony, why do you hate the customers and their ability to CHOOSE?

Tony, I've never said I like smoking. It's just that I dislike you and your know-it-all attitude more.

live with it.

Lisa-

Make up your mind once and for all:

Should employees be legally protected from hazardous materials in the workplace or not?

It's a simple question, either yes or no.

“Make up your mind once and for all. It’s a simple question, either yes or no.”

Who the hell do you think you are giving me or anyone else an ultimatum and dictating how a questioned can be answered?

You’re a big man, aren’t you?

I've made up my mind.

You're a sad little man that uses poor analogies because you lack the real intellect to have an intelligent conversation.

You’re upset that you’ve said stupid things and I called you on it.

You get frustrated and try to bully an answer from someone that is acceptable to you.

The desperation begins to show when you take something someone has said, and accuse them of saying the exact opposite, “So and So, why do you hate (insert lame comment here)?

Your last posts have completely ignored every point I've made on the absurdities of your argument and the use of laughable analogies.

You can’t discuss personal responsibility and a person’s right to choice intelligently.

You want to have an intelligent conversation, pull your head out. Otherwise, hasta la vista, loser.