Absolutely right.  If you don't wish to be in a bar that allows smoking, go to one that doesdn't allow it.  I think bar and tavern owners should have the right to choose.  However, I do think that limiting those smoking licenses to establishments that only allow the over 21 crowd.  

I don't agree with the logic that people who work in bars should have to endure the health effects of second hand smoke. I work with a lot of industries, and they all have to have certain provisions in place to protect workers hearing in loud areas, prevent toxic fumes from chemical baths from hurting workers, etc. Maybe we should let these industries do whatever they want, let the employees suffer from hearing loss, let the employees develop lung cancer. Maybe contractors should just hire whomever to tear out asbestos building materials without any safety provisions. It's their choice to work there. (Sense the sarcasm?) In no other industry can you have such blatant disregard for the health of your cutomers and employees.

On another note, did any of these barkeepers stop to think that maybe people in Elkhart are spending less overall due to the economy and that accounts for their loss in revenue?

comtns,

Maybe bar owners should provide gas masks for those employees that are offended by the smoke and obviously can't get a job at any of the non-smoking bars...or any other respectable fresh air environment for that matter.

You're absolutely correct. It should be left up to the individual bar. Put a sign in the window - "Smoking Establishment" or "No Smoking Allowed".

Steve 1159650; thats the sanest and most effective-sounding suggestion I have ever heard. If that type of thinking were applied more often maybe we wouldn't have all these endless circular arguments over laws that seem restrictive or "victimless". Could it be possible for logic to win just once?

Tom in Illinois

The smoking ban has worked terrifically in Washington, D.C. I don't know what's wrong with Illinois, but I would say the ECONOMY is more to blame than anything. Smokers just smoke outside, then come back inside, why is that so hard for them?

Why can't they simply step outside to smoke?

I don't smell like smoke after hitting the bars, I don't have smoke filled snot, and watery eyes either. It's great.

p.s. how many of you know of a bar that doesn't allow smoking in your areas? Didn't think so, ever wonder why?

The whole smoking thing should be a matter of choice, but the gov't sticks their nose in again where it shouldn't be. They say that the loss of business in taverns is a temporary one but how do they know this? I can tell you for a fact that I haven't set foot in a bar since the ban went into effect because I figure that if I can't go there to enjoy an (overpriced) Scotch and a cigar while watching a game with my friends then why bother? I'll just watch a game on my big screen with my own Scotch, smoke as many cigars as i wish, and have friends over with me. It used to be that one could go to a tavern for an escape from the mundane lifestyle and enjoy himself with friends, which included having a smoke if you wished. So what's next, cutting out the fatty and unhealthy bar food?

By the way, why couldn't it be a choice for the owners to decide whether or not they want a smoke free environment? If people don't like smoking in bars then they don't have to go, right? Nobody is twisting their arms to go to a bar that is smoke friendly. I see this whole thing being eventually overturned just like prohibition was because isn't this just another variation of that stupid law?

What if the bar only allowed: white guys who are smokers. Under your rules, is that allowed?

James:

Why not? If I use my own money to build a bar or home or any kind of a business, why can I not decide who I will serve? If you are black and non smoking, you can spend your own money, build your own bar/business/home and let in or not let in whoever you want! Then, if you or I make a go of the business, it's our own money - not state funds. And if I go broke because I have restricted my clientele, that's also my business. Sounds to me like basic freedom - although I realize that the American govenment in all its arrogant wisdom, has decided it should be able to tell me how to run my business.

Next, they will extent this inclusiveness to your home - why should you be able to restrict who comes in - plenty of homeless people would like to enjoy the air conditioning and facilities you have provided. It's really unfair and prejudiced that you should keep people out of your home simply because you built it with your own money.

I personally am not a smoker, and do agree with the smoking ban. While each passing day I grow more and more tired of each excuse brought up by the bar owners in my hometown I have to wonder if this is worth dragging them deeper into holes they can already not afford to climb out.

I think the largest problem that we have in Elkhart with this ban is that first off, not ever bar in the city is enforcing the law and simply said a tattletale system for reporting is not going to work, second only the city limits is obligated to follow the law, the entire county must be forced to follow the law or none of the bars should be required to, finally we need to look down towards Indianapolis where we have a very "health conscious" governor, this ban should be followed by each and every public building in the entire state, enforce a 15 foot ban around the door and help each person live a clean life and remove the ability for the bar owners to complain about patrons going to other establishments.

Mitch please do your job.

A private business is not a public place. The "law" is unconstitutional. A public place is a place people have to go to and they are funded by government, such as your local court house. In states where the ban has been implemented across the board, significant numbers of bars have still gone out of business. If you want to help your fellow citizens live a "clean" life, get rid of your car - number one source of polution in our country today.

JDubya, you can answer your own questions:

"Smokers just smoke outside, then come back inside, why is that so hard for them? Why can't they simply step outside to smoke?"

with this little experiment.

Pretend for a year that butter is beer and bread is tobacco. Now for a year, whenever you go out to a restaurant, you can have bread, and you can have butter, but you can't have both at the same time. You can sit and eat the butter (without any bread) at the table, but you have to take the bread outside and stay at least 15 feet from the door to eat it. NO, you can't take the butter with you! That would be cheating. Bread and butter at the same time is not allowed. If it were the law, you'd have no complaint about having to have your bread, dry, standing, 15 feet or more from the door. Even in the rain. Or even in January.

Wouldn't be a thing to complain about, now would there?

Do you understand the word, "unreasonable"?

you tell'em steve and as a man who just stoped smokeing agian it's just to expencive. ill back you up. drinking and smoking go hand in hand like bread and butter,cake and ice cream,eggs and bacon,hambugers and fries. rock on steve.

Pretend-I am in a restaurant-one cigarette after dinner with my coffee.

man(or woman) next table over getting sloshed--they got a new job (whatever) kept ordering celebatory drinks. We leave. He gets lung cancer 20 years later and says it was THAT woman( me) in the restaurant(or bar) and her 2nd hand smoke that is now killing me--

on the other hand, as I leave that restaurant, his drunk self gets in his car and backs over me. He kills me that night. Let me see--Who comes out ahead?

The smoking ban has done wonders for my wallet. I now entertain at home instead.

Our freedom is dying the death of a thousand knives and all you do-gooders think it's great. Each little surrender pleases some, benefits others, but each option we lose, good or bad, tends to encourage more surrenders. What fools we mortals be! How hard to turn this tide!

In Atlanta, bar/restaurant owners were given a choice. Allow smoking and no one under the age of eighteen may enter your establishment. Eighteen is the age at which one may buy cigarettes, by the way. The response from the industry was mixed and I'm happy to say there are plenty of places for both smokers and non smokers to frequent. I am a smoker but I have no problem going to a non smoking restaurant. I don't like to smoke when I eat anyway. But when it's Friday night and I'm going out to drink there are enough destinations that allow smoking to sate me, and guess what, they're packed with non-smokers as well.

And whoever was talking about building codes and food handeling laws and stoplights needs to wisen up. A fire raging through a building whose occupants are trapped inside, floors collapsing, ecoli and salmonella poisoning and cars t-boning one another is not the same as standing in a smokey room. Cigarette smoke can be fatal over a long term of exposure, much like gasoline vapors. Maybe your argument should be "quit filling up your gas tank."

Cigarette smoke causes cancer, even second hand smoke....period. Why do smokers always believe their rights trump everyone else's? They say, go somewhere else, work somewhere else, eat somewhere else, drink, dance, talk.....somewhere else. Another excuse is that drinking causes deaths, when a person drinks and drives. Have they all forgotten that there are ALREADY laws in place to fight this activity? Another rationalization is that all bad food should be banned. There is NO one bad food that will kill you, it's the overeating of solid fats and junk food, to the exclusion of any other foods that will kill you and, oh yeah, it doesn't take anyone else with you...you kill yourself, not your neighbor. These are all just excuses made by people who refuse to change their unhealthy livestyles. It's pretty sad when a huge city like New York can successfully ban smoking but smaller towns and cities can't. I do agree with the idea of a more widespread ban, either county or statewide; it would be much more fair to businesses. I live in NE PA and there is a smoking ban in effect now that has not altered the attendance in bars or restaurants; there was a small decrease in the beginning of the ban but it was much more than made up by the non-smokers who now felt safe in venturing out of their homes. If patronage is down now it is more the economy's fault than anything else. It's funny though, no matter how tight money is; smokers will always find the money to keep up their habit.

I am a smoker, a bar owner and live in NY, which has successfully implemented the smoking ban for a few years now. I was at first all against the ban, but now I am not. My business was hurting the first year, but it has tripled after the first year of the ban. Hate to say it smokers, but there are a lot more NON smokers in this country than smokers and they all started coming out to drink many months after the ban was started. There are a few issues many can not seem to understand.

Just because you own a business, does not make that business private if you open your doors to the public, like a restaurant, etc. However, there are a few ways around the smoking ban. You can turn the bar into a "social club" that does not open its doors to the public and will only allow registered members to enter and in bars where the owner is the operator as well. In other words, you CAN have smoking in a bar, as long as the owner is the only employee. So some smaller bars can still have smoking in their bars. If you need to hire workers, then you can not discriminate by only hiring workers that are smokers. That is a form of discrimination PERIOD!

2) People that associate the smoking ban with prohibition need to get a life. The smoking ban was created mainly for the safety of the employees. No one said you can't smoke, just not in a bar that opens their doors to the "public". It is unconstitutional to pick your workers by what they drink and smoke. That is discrimination.

So then, what so called freedoms do we loose as smokers? Can you be serious to say our "freedoms" revolve around the ability to smoke in a bar? That is pretty shallow and as a smoker myself, I do not want my true freedoms grouped into the same category as this. You can still buy cigarettes, no? You can still smoke cigarettes, no? How is this anything like prohibition? Is that the big argument? You can see why the ban will never be reversed with arguments like this.

What about the NON smokers, who for decades could not go out to a bar without getting hammered with second hand smoke from every direction. Is it fair that our cancerous smoke was prohibiting NONsmokers from entering bars to pound a few back? Oh, how the tables have turned.

If you want to put it to a vote. Do you honestly think that smokers will win the vote? Think again, we are out numbered by a HUGE margin.

Thanks, NYMTB! I had heard similar things from other bar owners in places where smoking has been banned for some time, and I can report from my own experience that I go to bars much more frequently in places where smoking is not allowed. In places where smoking is allowed, I hear restaurant and bar owners and managers complain that a smoking ban will affect a "majority" of their customers and have to respond that if a "majority" of your customers are smokers in a country where smokers are a minority, then obviously you have already BEEN losing customers: non-smokers!

Hey - we all live in a free market society. You are right - Consumers speak with their dollars as well as their mouths and their votes. Consumes did speak up about smoke filled bars and eateries. As a result smoking and non-smoking sections were established and air purification systems installed - at a cost to the owners of the establishment.

Some owners went further and invested capital to add outdoor spaces (patios) for smokers or where smokers and non-smokers could co-exist in relative comfort for both. This also was done with their own dollar and in an effort to appeal to all of their customes.

In spite of these actions and expenses taking place, because the consumer driver economy had asked for them, the legislatures of many states have insisted on total bans on smoking - both inside the building and outside on the open-air patios. Is the consumer being heard or are we being TOLD?

This is a freedom and a choice that we are losing because of legislation - not because of what we as consumers and voters have said. That is not how our government is suppose to work and it is not what we sent them to our Statehouses or DC to do.

How many such freedoms are you all willing to allow to be lost? Maybe you don't smoke (I don't) so this didn't bother you. It should bother you a lot. It sure does me!!! The next little freedom that is lost may be one that is important to you and you may find that so many little freedoms have already been lost that there is little ground to stand on to stop such actions in the future and to retain such freedoms anymore. Look at the big picture - not just the little one.

(First, this topic has been discussed over and over and over. There is no new information here on either side. This should just say: see what everyone said last time.)

So if I own a business, I should be able to do whatever I want? What if I want to allow only white customers, or only black customers, or christians or jews or catholics...

Freedom does not mean doing whatever you want. As the saying goes "your right to swing your fist stops at my nose."

Personally, I'm mad that I have to subsidize tobacco growers. Leave them to the free market. I have to subsidize health care for smokers. Leave them to pay for their choices. Where is my freedom to keep my tax dollars and put them towards things that I think are appropriate?

James, I don't think you subsidize smokers health care any more than they subsidize yours. Heart ailments, diabetes, alzheimers, psychological disorders. I think SMOKERS pay the same taxes YOU do as well as the extra tax burden imposed on cigarettes. OLD AGE people (NON SMOKERS) probably cost much more to take care of than SMOKERS for ALL the extra years you think you will live. :-)

You missed my point... ALL of us, smokers and non-smokers, subsidize that healthcare. See Wikipedia (and yes, the sources are cited):

(1) Among male smokers, the lifetime risk of developing lung cancer is 17.2%; among female smokers, the risk is 11.6%. This risk is significantly lower in nonsmokers: 1.3% in men and 1.4% in women

(2) Per the Lung Association, Smoking cost the United States over $193 billion in 2004, including $97 billion in lost productivity and $96 billion in direct health care expenditures, or an average of $4,260 per adult smoker

So the cost of that healthcare is substantial. ALL of us pay for this.

According to the American Heart Association, 21 % of US adults smoke. The CDC says 20%.

Do the math.

Supposedly radon gas is to blame for 21,000 of these deaths per year. In addition, asbestos exposure is accountable for some.

I'm not sure how you figure we all pay for the $4,260 in healthcare expenses per adult smoker. Some have private insurance. If our population is about 300,000,000 and 21% are smokers, that means that 63,000,000 are smokers, right? 63,000,000 X $4,260 = $268,380,000,000. That is not the right number according to your stats.

Do the math.

Sue-- Actually, your number comes out about 70 billion (give or take a few) above what James quoted. Without looking up any statistics or numbers whatsoever (lol, lazy is I), I would assume the discrepancy could be accounted for by either A) your use of an estimated population figure to begin with; or B) the difference in population between 2004 and 2009.

But I believe the main point James was making was that even though there are smokers who have private insurance, there are just as many, if not more, who are relying on tax funded health care of some kind. The exact number of $4,260 was not the fact that was important, it was the fact that there is a higher cost for health care for smokers than non, due to a choice they make, which in some cases is paid for by the rest of us.

If no one smoked, that amount of money (approximately) would be saved by all.

As to the comparing smoking laws to prohibition, this seems like an invalid argument to me. Drinking is just putting poison into your own body, which hurts only you (assuming you don't drink and drive). When you smoke, you're making the decision for everyone around you.

My favorite saying on the subject will always be "Don't blow smoke in my face, and I won't piss in yours, okay?"

Thread Hijacker, not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer and not everyone who gets lung cancer smokes. So you would have to pull out some of those cases in order to be objective. Also, I'm wondering how valid your point is that most smokers don't have health insurance. Non-smokers also contribute to health care costs through their "bad" habits (drinking, over eating). Not many people are living a perfect life. Gastro intestinal cancer is quickly taking over lung cancer on morbidity statistics.

If no one did anything bad (smoking, drinking, overeating, not getting exercise, etc.), health care costs might go down, but as people live longer those costs will rise due to the fact that individuals will receive care for more years.

Drinking - right, they only put poison in their own bodies. Never kill or injure anyone when driving drunk, never go home and beat their spouses or children, never cause any kind of disturbances. Never cost a community money by involving law enforcement, the court systems, etc.

I would quess that most smokers wouldn't want you around when they smoke. And yes, you are lazy when it comes to this issue. The major source of polution in our country comes from vehicles. Perhaps we should address that. And I still contend that it is unconstitutional to put this restriction on a privately owned business.

So you drinkers are too cheap to help the sick, huh?

TheFlyingDutchman

Two wrongs do not make a right; therefore, not curbing tobacco use because of the abuse of alcohol is ludicrous.

Sorry, i disagree; as I said, I think that serving food changes the equation; but if the owner of a beer-and-a-shot establishment chooses to allow smoking in their establishment, I believe that they should be able to make that choice. The customers, then, themselves would need to choose whether they want to patronize a tavern that permits smoking, or whether they want to go to one that is smoke-free.

For the record, I make this argument as a non-smoker who prefers to patronize non-smoking saloons.

What about the workers there? Under normal circumstances, exposing workers to harmful environments is illegal. (Yes, there are exceptions for extreme conditions. But working in a bar is hardly one of those situations.)

The workers can also choose to work in a non-smoking or a smoking establishment. That's a no-brainer. Maybe I'm a smoker, and I would like to have a smoke in the back room on my break. A private business has the right to allow smoking or not. It's a personal property issue.

So I can use my personal property to cook dangerous chemicals? Can I use my garage to create a meth lab? Of course not. Some mixtures of chemicals are toxic.

So are cigarettes.

Aw, James, that's just a stupid comparison-cookin' meth is ILLEGAL. Smoking is legal. Adults can make their own decision. I'm a smoker who can do with or without (steppin' out which is not comfortable in January!), depending if the food is enticing or not! And if you're going to a non-smoking bar, eating all that deep-fried bar food, then I am supporting your health care for all that cholestral medicine! And any Elkhartans who want to have a smoke after their meal, go on over to St. Joe County - even many of the chain restaurants have an enclosed smoking section! We stopped eating out in Elkhart a year ago. The biggest gripe smokers, myself included, have is the choice is gone.

Once again, the typical reply by a smoker; "Don't infringe on MY rights, go somewhere else". If a smoker thinks stepping outside to have a smoke in January is not pleasant, try sitting next to you, puffing away, or leaving your cigarette to burn in the ashtray next to someone with asthma. Oh, that's right, asthmatices, STAY HOME. You don't have the right to bring your weak lungs around our god given right to ingest smoke into our lungs. And to all of you residents of Elkhart, it's real nice that you would abandon your neighborhood restaurants and taverns just to suck on a smoke. These are your neighbors and friends that you are turning your back on in order to satisfy a craving. If hometown folks won't show loyalty to their own businesses, why should outsiders come in and spend money? It's just a downward spiral, if businesses must close, putting more people out of work and leaving more empty storefronts in your town. But, hey, don't DARE step on your rights to have that smoke!

Very succinctly said! Bravo!!!

I'm with you, friend!!!!

AMEN!!!!

You f****Idiot its not about you filling your pockets, its about real people who don;t want to breath the poison, why do you think everone should beath your stink and cancer causing poison?? jerks like you should be hung

I think Jerrio sound like a fairy-o.

Smokers suck but...

if you don't like the smell of toilets, don't be a janitor.

If you don't like toxic fumes, don't be a welder.

If you don't like being called fairy-o, don't name yourself Jerrio.

If you don't like cigarette smoke, don't work in a smokey bar. (or visit one for that matter.)

This entire debate is soooo! simple. If a bar owner wants to allow smoking then let that particular bar allow smoking. Smokers can smoke at that bar and smoking employees can work at those bars. Non-smoking customers and non-smoking employees can go to the NOW VERY MANY NON-SMOKING ESTABLISHMENTS. That is such a simple solution, but the hypocritical, self-righteousness of the non-smokers have turned it into absurd non-sense. I 100% agree that smoking should NOT be allowed in the majority of public places. But there are exceptions to every rule and this is one of them. No one goes into a bar to do ANYTHING HEALTHY. Again, smoking and non-smoking bars should be allowed. That gives everyone the right to make their own choices. The government and certain special interest groups and activists should NOT be allowed to make our choices for us. Every adult has the right to make their own decisions without others enforcing laws that they perceive to be "FOR OWN GOOD". It's called "FREEDOM".

Right on! And what about these electrical and building codes? Who needs these pansies saying we need safe food handling laws too. Business should have the FREEDOM to expose people to smoke.

Hell these morons probably like stop lights too.

I have been trying to find a way to say exactly what you just said! THANK YOU bram-1 !!!

I feel just like Jerrio, but about another drug that kills, religion. Religion has killed more people over the last 4000 years than smoking will ever come close to killing, but I have people telling me it's good for me. That's as much BS as telling me smoking is good for me, which they did a few decades ago. Ban smoking? Only if a far more deadly drug, religion, is included.

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!

Bram-1,

No one is telling you to stop smoking. Your argument is the same as saying, if someone walks into a bar and sits next to me, I am going to force them to drink shots of tequila with me and if they don't like it "Stay the Hell out, you morons!" Well, isn't that what us smokers do when a non smoker sits in the same bar we're smoking in?

I don't know about where you're from, but before the ban there was NO such thing as a smoke free bar in NYC. What about non smokers freedoms? If your bar is open to the public, then it has no right to say "Stay the Hell out, you morons!" to customers that do not like smoking.

Your freedom to smoke yourself to oblivion has not been removed. Your just a cry baby, boo hoo hoo, that is too much of a pansy to walk his fat butt a few steps outside the door to smoke a freaking cigarette!

I own a bar in NYC and I am a smoker that is happy to see smoking gone from my establishment. And you know what, my business has never been better. I still smoke my pack a day, just not behind the bar, I smoke it outside where I can look at hot women walking past my pub. No one wants to get into "YOUR DAMN BUSINESS". You can keep on doing whatever your little mind wishes to do. You just can't force that onto anyone else around you anymore. That is true freedom!

I quit going to bars if i cant smoke, and i pay for my own damned insurance. I am with you, if they dont like my smoke, stAY the hell away from me!

No one goes into a bar to do ANYTHING HEALTHY.

Actually, if your town is anything like where I live (middle-of-nowhere, Iowa ;D), bars are the only places to go to dance!

Just what are the duties of city and county councils? I believe most

were bullied in school, and getting elected to a position of responsibility is there way of payback. Now they can micromanage all our lives, and make us as misrable as they are.

Lordy, Jim, I've had the same thought, just never voiced it before! Think your on to something there.

We are slowly turning into what was left behind... What does that mean? What was left behind that we're loosing.

Do you want England back?

It's clueless and pointless posts that make forums just a waste of time. If you have something thoughtful to say, then make a resonable point. Otherwise, save the pointless shouting for the wind.

who am I to make decisions for another adult?

But isn't that exactly what smokers do when they smoke next to someone who doesn't smoke?

Dee is an absolute retard. I guess it's okay by you Dee to force children and non-smokers to breathe cancer air. But, oh my god, how dare you try to take away my freedoms to force cancer on unwilling victims.

PCB Say No wrote "Dee is an absolute retard. I guess it's okay by you Dee to force children and non-smokers to breathe cancer air. But, oh my god, how dare you try to take away my freedoms to force cancer on unwilling victims."

Apparently you can't read since Dee did not say anything about forcing anyone to do anything. What Dee did mention was about making decisions for another adult. In other words letting the business decide to either risk losing their customers by allowing smoking, or placing their own smoking ban and gain customers. Either way it allows for choice and the majority have chosen to support smoke-free businesses, even in cities with no government imposed smoking bans.

Steve 29376.. they cant fine or take away everyones licenses?? Ever hear of Nazi Germany, or Stalinist Russia, or Mao's China? They can indeed do that and more, in fact they can do whatever they want to, if we let them. Not saying we are there yet, but legislating morality is one gigantic step in the wrong direction. It should indeed be left up to the business owner and the customers and the employees, who all have the right to hang out or work wherever they want to: until, that is, the government decides what is best for them. Its coming, if you continue to ignore the warning signs!!

Tom

Yep, only in Elkhart can't even go to the outdoor sitting area - feel like a fugitive in my own town.

Debbe P-may I suggest to you that none of you idiotic yankees move to California and other STATE-WIDE cigaratte banned areas.....your kind is no longer tolerated.  You throw lit cigarettes out your car windows.  You are rude, ignorant and oblivious to the unbelievable stench that cigarette smoke causes, not to mention diseases.  I know, I am an ex-smoker.  I had no idea how offensive my pathetic habit was.  All you smokers are losers....just because it's 'legal' doesn't give you carte blanche to try to kill the rest of the world because you don't have the stones to break your habit.

Hey idiot who said: "All you smokers are losers....just because it's 'legal' doesn't give you carte blanche to try to kill the rest of the world because you don't have the stones to break your habit." Did you give up your car? Cars cause more air pollution, even more deaths via accidents, tie us to foreign oil, etc. etc. Ever see those contrails behind a US Airways flight? Do you realize some of that is unburnt jet fuel, an extremely toxic substance that will eventually fall to earth to poison all of us. Do you have the stones to give up your deadly habits? You are rude, ignorant and oblivious to reality.

You non-smokers delight in rationalizing (it's for their own good, etc., ad infinitum, ad naseum) your pestering and annoyance of everybody about what heros you all are for giving up smoking. You're like erstwhile repentant sinners who've traded the usual repertoire of sins for the sin of pride. Smoke or don't smoke but keep your preening in the zoo with the peacocks and let others live their lives.

The author smoked heavily for many years and then quit to please others. The inflated cost of cigarets keeps me from smoking now, but every so often, like scotch, like gambling, like ilicit sex, like tons of ice cream, I sure remember smoking as a pleasant part of my zany youth.

Actually, Tom, non-smokers never gave up smoking, hence the term "non." It is ex-smokers you are refering to. The only sin with smoking is forcing cancer air on unwilling non- and ex-smokers. There is nothing prideful in asking a bunch of selfish absorbed addicts to please stop littering the earth with cigarette butts and our lungs cancer.

But it would violate one of the whiners contitutional rights because they'll claim that now that the economy is in shambles they were forced to take a job in the den of evil smokers and they did not provide them with adeqate saftey measure to protect them from the evils of second hand smoke at the place of business that they begged to get into because they were unemployed. They did not know that this was a smoking establishment despite the 6 foot sign across the door and the two hundred and fifty people with smoldering embers in their hands and the seven hundred ash trays plus the line at the bottom of the application in two inch bold letters written in english, spanish,portugese, latin, somolian, greek chinese, french and esperonto. They had no idea that this was a smoking establishment.

LMAO at fge00!! Well done and SO true!

Carla, I am with you there, seems like almost all the laws that fine insignificant social behavior are designed to increase revenues and fill coffers with easy money. What will they do next, a breath tax?

Tom

Maybe not a breath tax, but...

a SODA TAX! (Yep, it's in the works)

a "JUNK FOOD" TAX! (Yep, that's in the works too...)

And, if that don't salt yer wounds, how about a NATIONAL SALES TAX!!!! (And YES, that's in the works too!)

What, you think all this "Bailout Bullcrap" came for free? HAH! think again! Welcome to the Government's version of Creative Financing...

Oh, and we're due for our round of banishments too. Such wonderful timing- we're already watching business fade away in droves... now comes the real business killer. Soon, there won't be anything left of the state but stray dogs and bible-thumpers...

Carla, you say that you're from Houston, TX. I live in Portland, Oregon. The 2nd most liberal city in the U.S. Need I say more? I want to leave this area so bad but my financial situation won't allow it. I would do anything to move away from here. This smoking ban is only a tip of the iceburg. At this point, all I can do is hope that people start waking up before "PORTLANDISM" spreads throughout the country. I know that sounds overly-dramatic but I witness this B.S. everyday and it continues to get worse with no end in sight.

I feel your pain, CJG1220!

LOL! We've already joked about all the things they can tax us on - you're followng my train of thought! But it's really not a joke - this a.m. on the news (CNN) said this administration wants to enforce a20-year old law for employers to tax employees for personal calls made on company cell phones. Huh?!?!?!?!? Anyone scared yet that what you never thought could happen already is happening? Oh, and it's not even going to be an issue if the federal government pushes through a tax for beer, wine, alcohol, purchases that the state of Indiana shot down. Sorry bar owners, I'm looking for hops and barley to plant during the summer months. Course then I'll probably get hit with a harvest tax.

They imposed a law in Delaware a few years ago.........NO SMOKING IN RESTAURANTS OR BARS OR RESTAURANTS WITH BARS. But i'm sure they pass around an ashtray or 2 in the places. But I smoke, so I stopped going to those places. instead I party in the parking lot of my choice and smoke when I want, if I'm around those who don't , I leave!!!!!!!!!!!

Rebecca, I have been saying this all along. "Sin" products. They abhor them, vilify those who practice them, but tax the hell out of it for their own profits. I am an ex smoker who quit cause I couldn't stand it anymore, but I firmly support the right to smoke for those that do it responsibly, and I think this hyper taxation of "sin" items such as cigarettes and booze is discriminatory. What if they taxed golf gear and boats and hunting equipment ( or even that most pervasive obsession of all, sex) at the same rate? Those are definitely "obsessions" for many? Ever think of that, government ghouls??

I don't have any statistics on this, but I am quite sure that not only would the government suffer if tobacco products were not available to tax but think of all the profits the health industry, whether funded by insurance, govt., etc, would loose and the untold number of jobs that would be lost due to the lack of "smoking related illnesses". Again I don't have the numbers, but I did have to manage my mother's finances when she was dying of lung cancer. She had excellent insurance and when I saw the EOB's, just one round of chemo cost anywhere between 5,000 and 10,000 dollars, and she got those every three weeks, and that was just the medication. The ecomony would suffer greatly if everyone was forced to quit. Think of all the cancer hospitals, clinics, and the pharmaceuticals (sp?). I know cigarretes are killers, and if the gov't really was concerned about health, they would make them illegal. It's not about our rights, it about the economy stupid! Isn't it always? These bans are just to pacifiy the voters and divert our attention away from the real issues. It is so scary to think what we don't really know.

How beautifully stated! I am a non-smoker, was not around for WWII but my parents were and I know how they felt about the govt interferring with our personal rights...we are paying dearly and our children will suffer even more. Freedom is having the right to make our own decisions in life....do not kid yourself and believe the govt can do a better job at this!!!!!

Ummm, the cigarette companies gave cigarettes free or at low cost to the military during WWII . . . knowing how powerfully addictive nicotine is.

Yes they are But they built nascar, paid for some of the largest hospitals here in north carolina. They also paid thr best wages here,which in turn built better cities

what good is the better cities and hospitals to the poor sucker dying of cancer from smokes???? Are you ready to trade a Nascar race or fancy building for your life???

VINCE — AMEN!!! Very well said.

Ok, was I the only person to bust out laughing when I read this (and the subsequent praise for it)?

I'm with hippiejohn with this one: I certainly hope the original author was making his comment tongue-in-cheek, because otherwise it would have been absolutely idiotic. For now, I'm choosing to give him the benefit of the doubt and conclude that he was joking.

I don't. It's been working in NY for awhile, and I can't imagine ever going back. Those of us who are old enough to know better than to smoke and young enough to care about our health much prefer going out to eat and to a bar without walking through a wall of smoke.

They're growing pains...eventually all of the areas feeling the impact of the new smoking ban will bounce back, and if they don't, then they weren't a solid establishment anyway.

The idea that someone should not work in a smoke-filled bar if they don't like smoke is just ridiculous. If your choice is between no job and working in a smoke-infested one, you're going to choose the job simply because you have a responsbility to your family, or to yourself, to pay some bills.

Public areas are just that- places where people can gather together and share the same things- generally, these places are restaurants and taverns. They aren't smoking rooms and cigarette halls- if you want to have one of those places, then make one. Or smoke at home. Or in your car. Those are not public places, and if you want to harm yourself, your spouse, and your children, then you are free to do so in that setting. Don't come and interrupt my meal and make it taste like smoke just because you have this crazy idea that smoking is your right and you have the right to do it wherever you want.

GrlDisappearing, public places are not just that as you stated above. A public place is not a private business. A public place is an institution like the local town hall, court house, etc. You don't have a choice about the need to go to these places and they are funded by government. A private business is not funded by government. The owner of a private business, according to our constitution and our Supreme Court, has the right to refuse service to other private individuals. Do you get the difference? That is key to understanding this issue. A PRIVATE BUSINESS IS NOT A PUBLIC PLACE - PERIOD!

Oh Sue, I'm sorry to say that you are wrong.

A public place is generally an indoor or outdoor area, whether privately or publicly owned, to which the public have access by right or by invitation, expressed or implied, whether by payment of money or not, but not a place when used exclusively by one or more individuals for a private gathering or other personal purpose.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/public-place/

THAT is the key to understanding this issue.

Not according to our constitution. And the US Supreme Court has upheld my understanding of our constitution with respect to access to a business. According to your interpretation of the above law, your home is a public place. Is that right? Using that definition, what is a "private" place? If you ever invite anyone to your home, does that make it a public place? Who is the public?

That is about the most convoluted statement I have ever read in my life. US legal.com, huh? Sounds like a business. Great source.

Excuse me? That definition of a public place is not at all convoluted, and it obviously excludes private homes (did you finish reading it?), and I would love to have a reference to a place in the Constitution that says differently — I have not been able to find it… And I'm not sure what Supreme Court decision you're referring to, so I would very much appreciate the name of that case, as well. A business that is privately owned but open to the "public" to sell goods and/or services is without doubt a public place.

Yes, Sue, it is a business that works to help people understand the law and provide legal forms for personal use (leases, etc). They are run by several lawyers who make a living on helping people to understand the law, so they put it in simple terms for people like you who think that things that are covered in the Constitution but simply are not.

Ask any business owner, particularly in NY, and they will tell you that, without a doubt, a restaurant is a public place. As nipper2012 said, if it is privately owned by open to the public to sell goods and/or services, it is a public place. Your home, however, is your home. What is so difficult for you to understand about this?

it was a Supreme Court case that involved access to a business in a strip mall. The business did not have accommodations for a disabled person. The state said they must have access. The case was taken to the Supreme Court who determined that a private business did not have to provide access of this type.

The point is that the states can do what they want. When this argument (privately owned versus public) was challenged and taken to the Supreme Court, they found differently. I'm sure you and Nipper are intellectually gifted, but I believe you are wrong. How is your home your home? How is it different? There are public places that don't sell goods/services. Also, if your home is your home, how can a city in California tell owners of condominiums that they can't smoke in their condo?

I will find your reference. Please enlighten me regarding how "homes" were obviously excluded in the text of the 1:20 posting.

From the US Constitution, Bill of Rights

Amendment 5
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This looks pretty straight forward to me. Rationalize away! Say that even though a private individual bought the property, built the dwelling, pays all the bills, etc., it is public property. It is not public property, you don't own restaurants, bars, etc. Your state does not own them either. The person whose name is on the deed owns them.

Please be aware also that in the state of Illinois, if an individual runs a business out of their "home", they are under the constraints of the smoking ban. It doesn't matter if you only run an office out of your home or not. You might not have anyone (public) in your home except for 4 or 5 times a year, but your home is public and you have to abide by the smoking ban.

Now, tell me again how simple this is. The smoking ban written by the state of Illinois, lists all of the places they deem to be public places, like movie houses, restaurants, on and on and on. At the end of that paragraph, they state that private residences are exempt. Do you know exactly what the ban in your state reads like? Do you know what you can and can't do in your home if you run a private business out of the home? I doubt it. Check with you .com lawyers. You may be surprised.

Then tell me what the major pollutant in our country is. Tell me what the 2nd leading cause of cancer deaths is (and it is gaining rapidly on lung cancer - should actually overtake it in the next 5 years or so). Tell me what portion of lung cancers are related to radon gas and asbestos. Tell me if everyone who gets lung cancer is a smoker. Tell me if every smoker gets lung canger. Tell me how smokers don't contribute anything to our society and how they must be morally corrupt. Tell me why we are losing species of animals in our country. Tell me about global warming. Then tell me why a private individual can't make the decision about whether or not the bar he owns (and has owned for 35 years) can be a smoking or non-smoking establishment.

Here you go Nipper and GrlDisappearing. Just because I've taken this side on this argument, doesn't mean I can't read or understand things. Here's your chance to understand my side. It ain't legal.com or whatever, but it is a pretty good source of info.

U.S. Supreme Court

Lloyd Corp., Ltd. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (1972)

Lloyd Corp., Ltd. v. Tanner

No. 71-492

I for one feel that an incessant cascade if inane laws and rules is the product of a full-time government, bth state and federal, which has so run out of things to make sensible, useful laws abouty, that they start dissecting the smallest aspects of society and making endless legislation for those. Lets make government a poart-time social obligation, without pay or remuneration of any kind to the participants, and we will definitely do away with a lot of this garbage.

one reason I dont do independence day........independence from what !!!!!!!!!!.......Freedom!!!!!!!........face it folks, this country is going down the tubes real quick, in a 2 years we will be in total collapse!!!!

Tim, what a wonderful idea! Because that is what is really about, the almighty dollar! If anyone thinks any government entity is really concerned about your personal health, you need to find real estate in that place called Utopia. CHOICE, people!

Alaska does it every month, i'm told from the production and sale of the oil they pump out of the ground in Alaska, wealth sharing i think it is called. It's kind of like a royalty check!!!!!!!!!

Governments around the World through time have always promoted prejudice. You first are introduced to it in the earliest years of education. Subliminally of course. If the World wasn't prejudice, what in hell would we need politicians for? And consider how much money The People Of Earth would save if we didn't have the expense of paying their salaries, health care and pensions.

That's a joke. I live in Illinois and I will tell you for a fact that many of the bars continued to allow smoking. These were small bars and you can find one that allows smoking without looking too hard at all. Bars, etc., are private businesses. No one has to go there. Until a private business is given funding by government, it should remain a private business. When they first passed this no-smoking law in one part of the state (Springfield, IL), many mom/pop bars went out of business. Also, look again at your financial information - increases in business occurred at a significantly slower rate after smoking bans - even in California. You can't take numbers out of context just to suit your cause. If a non-smoking establishment would have been so profitable, why weren't there a whole bunch of non-smoking bars before the ban? And the tobacco industry isn't the only one screwing us. You need to do your homework before making these statements.

The non-smoking in IL is working only because there are many bars that still allow smoking (with regulars only mind you) so although there is a great impact on many bars, there are quite a few that just let it happen anyway. The responsibility to monitor this has been taken over by the health department and they work pretty standard hours so not too great of risk is taken to smoke 'em if you got 'em

In Ontario, Canada where I live...before the ban, bars had smoking rooms.

I'm a bartender in Illinois, and I know that not only has the business suffered, my pocket has suffered since the smoking ban. One of the only reasons we are still alive is because we are an older bar and there is no mortgage on our building...We don't have the bills some other 's do. And, we still allow our regulars to smoke. It isn't to bad in the summer, people would rather be outside anyway, but it is brutal in the winter. I have regulars that would rather just stay home & have people over, so they can smoke & drink in the same room (never mind the fact that it's cheaper). Our numbers this past winter tanked! I can't really say that any smoker I know actually supports this sham of a public health concern. It's not about public health, if it were we'd be looking at prohibition again, becuase drunk driving is out of control...this is about the government telling a private business owner what they can & cannot do. It is a legal practice for those of age. This is just another instance where Americans seem to be happy as hell to hand over their rights. I don't get it, that is not the America I though I lived in. And just another little caviate my non-smoking friends...us smokers paid $15.26 billion dollars (2007) in tobabcco taxes, where do you think the states are gonna get that money if we keep being persecuted and eventually quit? It will come out of your pockets, mark my words. I'm not advocating for smoking, I know it is a bad habit, and bad for me...but isn't that my choice? As a business owner, isn't my choice to decide what happens with in my walls?

so what are you smoking? Its gotto be some good stuff, the resturant owners love the ban because it moves customers out faster, but every bar owner I have talked to has hated it and has tried to find ways to accomadate within the stupid law. A business owner should have the right to control his/her business, Smoking is still a legal vice

Tell me how smart the people of Ill. are!!!!they stuck us with Obamie

Our Smoke Free Illinois Law is working extremely well and the vast majority of bar owners are satisfied with not allowing smoking in their businesses. The Elkhart bar owners are just using an idea put forth by the Tobacco Industry to try to weaken an existing Smoking Ban with lies about business profit decline when, in reality, studies have repeatedly shown that anu decline is only temporary. Eventually, in fact, profits increase over what they were previously in many cases!

I live in an area of Ohio that is not all that different from Elkhart. Several bars, restaurants and a bowling alley have all closed up shop with nothing to replace them. Economy is partly to blame, but even in tough economic times, people still want to recreate and unwind, even if less than their norm. With disposable income at a low, further restricting businesses access to that over smoking issues has done far worse damage than some of you care to admit or believe. The non-smokers are NOT replacing the business lost. They stayed away and continue to stay away. Their reasons for not supporting a bar or restaurant have not changed and has nothing to do with smoking or not.

I am a non-smoker but am pro-business. Smokers are still smoking, but doing it at home. If businesses want to choose to cater to smokers, then make it cost them by putting in filtering systems so that it makes it enjoyable for all. To some businesses, that may be a small price to pay for the increased traffic that has been lost due to this crazy regulating of private businesses. There has to be a better compromise than a outright and total ban. It is strangling an already limited cash flow.

Since you're from Illinois, I'm guessing you don't know many bar owners in Elkhart. I do. I talk to them. I talk to their servers. And trust me son, they are suffering! Volume is down, and volume is their bread and butter. If the chain restaurants and such want to go non, fine. But a person who has put every minute and dime and drop of sweat of his life into his business has the right to say what goes on there. There are couple of establishments who were ready and willing to enclose the smoking area; but our illustrious powers that be didn't even give them that choice. Freedom? Choice? Are these words only going to be in history books?

there you go with the children. who raises yours the cigarette company or you?

Yes, this is America and as an American, I and everyone else should be free to work, shop, patronize businesses and visit Public areas and not be forced to breathe in filthy, stinking, disgusting and health-damaging secondhand tobacco smoke! I am also a life-long Republican Conservative and I, as well as many other Conservatives, demand smoke free air. The time has come for Indiana to join Illinois and the 25 other States that have done something about secondhand smoke. Most bar owners prefer a State Smoking Ban and not just local piecemeal.

Bill, you have always had the right to go any place you wanted to go to - it is not mandated by law that you go to a bar, restaurant or any other privately owned business that allows smoking. By the way, how do you feel about the major cause of polution in this country - cars? And what do you say to the restaurant owner who spent a signficant amount of their own money to have a totally (windows, ventilation, etc.) self-contained smoking area put in and then to lose those customers to a law that hasn't even been put to a general vote?

to Bill, RIGHT ON! Why should we have to think when the State can do it much better than we? Let's look thru history and ask the former soviets (didn't Stalin make our lives much easier, not to mention safer?), or how about the former nazis (didn't Hitler make our lives much easier, not to mention safer?), ad nauseum, ad infinitum... Seems this supposedly free, independent State (known as the United States of America) has gotten it into their thick skulls that EVERYTHING from Europe is better than what we can come up with! Heaven knows, I'm not smart enough to figure out what is good for me and what is bad! Independence, hmmm... Free enterprise, hmmm... Why not just bag it now and return to the countries most of our ancestors fled from?

Guess you're driving yourself home after having that beer, sure seems like the immediate danger of being on the same road with you is much worse than the few puffs of second-hand smoke you may pick up. Oh, and how about that cologne you're wearing that you poured all over yourself in the bathroom. Talk about offensive, but that's ok, right?

It is so nice to go into an establishment that does not allow smoking! One does not come out of those bars that ban smoking with hair and clothes stinking of smoke. Think of sitting there and inhaling all those carcinogens. Baning smoking in bars, restaurants and hotel rooms is a no brainer. It's against the law to cause someone's death. And blowing into one's face with dangerous nicotine should be against the law. If you want to smoke do it in your own home or space and kill yourself not me. AAA

Now the Health Nazis are targeting beef and pork, and soda, for the next jihad.  Livestock causes pollution, and soda causes obesity and juvenile diabetes - and who wants to be around a bunch of sloppy, smelly fat people???

If there was a demand for non-smoking bars, they would already be plentiful.  Why does it take laws to make this happen???  Because the idea is a loser.  In the college town where I live, there have been several "smoke-free" establishments to open over the years; one lasted almost eight months.

Now smoking has been banned, and two years later, the bar traffic is still about half what it was before, but the Fundamentalists are delighted - people shouldn't be drinking anyway; they should be home reading their Bibles.

I'll stay home, drink my Scotch, and smoke my $15 cigars, thank you very much - and avoid the self-righteous cry babies that cannot bear to live in a free society; and when your meat, candy bars, sodas, gasoline, perfume, doughnuts, etc. is banned next don't come to the smokers for help, you deserve nothing.

One quarter of all Americans are being descriminated against by the politically correct, whiney, cry babies who don't have the brains to realize that they, and their choices, will be next...

Al - Drinking gives you the right to kill your liver so keep drinking and SHUT UP.

"Now the Health Nazis are targeting beef and pork, and soda, for the next jihad. Livestock causes pollution, and soda causes obesity and juvenile diabetes - and who wants to be around a bunch of sloppy, smelly fat people???"

Um, hate to bring this up again, but what you thought would never happen already is. Check out the tax on cows, steer, pigs, for their, um, for lack of a better words, fart-tax. So all you people who are gripping about wanting to go everywhere without the cig. smoke around you, do not, I repeat, DO NOT drive through the country roads! Let's put all them dang farmers out of business for letting their lifestock smell up the fresh, country air! My NFIB rep let me know about this one - but I have a seriuos question: why is a steer charged a larger "fart-tax" than a cow?

Please drive faster.

Take to the streets and protest? Good idea except we nonsmokers here in Illinois are way ahead of you pro tobacco, pro smoking knuckleheads! We marched by the thousands on the Springfield, Illinois Capitol in May of 2007. The Illinois Legislature did an about face and withdrew any significant opposition to the then pending Smoke Free Illinois bill and the Law was soon signed by the Governor with strong support in the Illinois Congress and senate. Now, the Smoke Free Illinois Law enjoys broad, strong support from our Citizens, including most smokers. It is time for ban opponents to grow up and quit whining about not being able to smoke around their co-workers and other people in offices, restaurants, bars ect..

Incidentially, I have come to realize over the years that most ban opponents are the same folks who smoke at home around their nonsmoking family members and in the car when infants and youngsters are there also. They are a shameful group.

Bill, you could not be further from the truth. I smoke, but have not one time smoked around my kids, in my house, in my car, etc. I have the freedom to choose. You are a complete hypocrite.....you dont want smokers to force themselves on you, but you have no problem forcing your wills, thoughts, desires on others. You keep stating so-called "facts", but I have yet to see any statistical data backing your claim. And by the way we did have a choice, last November. This whole country got caught up in Obamamania, so remember to vote with your brain, not your emotions next time. Let me ask this, people like you who think free enterprise and capitalism is bad, govt. is the same thing, but more inept with more politics and good 'ol boy system. Our govt is far worse than any CEO, they just cover it up and play the political bs that has always happened....your a clinton, good youre in, kennedy, youre in, Bush, youre in. Thats right both sides of the aisle are corrupt. Unless you have a whole lot of money you have no chance in politics....also isnt that Blago guy the one you are talking about who passed this legislation in IL, very morally guided guy, let me tell you. He is about as smart as you appear to be, and you both do a wonderful job of pushing your agendas on others. If you dont like smoke go else where, it is too hypocritical to say you cant force a smokers right on non-smokers, but yes non-smokers can force their beliefs on others. This nation is a nation of morons.

See...people like Bill CAN march and protest. They are liberals without a job so they have plenty of time to march and tell everyone what to do. They hate capitalism so they really don't want a job anyway. Gives them more time to push their agenda onto others. OH...and they love to throw statistics around like they know what they are talking about. Except...BillyBoy's stats are bogus. Broad and strong support from Illinois smokers, Bill? I think not. But, I will believe you when you show me the unbiased study and poll you are quoting from. And where did you get the statistical results of your claim that "ban opponents smoke around their kids and in the car with them..." etc? People like you make me sick. You are nothing but a self righteous socialist with no job waiting for BO to make your life free and easy. Like THAT'S gonna happen. In the meantime, you just like to make others around you as miserable as you are.

Dang, Bill, there you go - lumping a whole group of people into one category without one bit of proof to back you up. My hubby and I are smokers. 3-1/2 years ago, we found out we would be grandparents. Before he was born, we immediately made a back-room enclosed area with windows our "smoking room" - IN OUR OWN HOME. See, we had a CHOICE on what we were going to do since there would be a little one at our house a lot. Same goes for my car - I CHOOSE to not smoke in it since I haul my little darlin' around many times during the week. I have been seated in a smoking area in a restaurant where the dingy server sits a family with young children right next to us- and I CHOSE not to smoke while the pee-wees were close by. Getting the point yet? FREEDOM. CHOICE.

A growing number of smokers are realizing the danger of second-hand smoke and do not smoke around their children, but a shocking number still smoke around children or even in a car with children inside! Not only that, but strong recent pediatric studies have demonstrated the danger of third-hand smoke. How many parents, grandparents, friends and relatives launder their clothes and take a shower before being around children after smoking? Children are seriously endangered by smoking, and the "rights" of their parents or other adults to engage in a habit with no redeeming benefits cannot be more important than the health of those children.