My fellow Illinoisians, welcome to the nanny state.

So, Roddy Boy is going to sign the bill that just passed the general assembly, banning smoking in almost all public places, including college residency halls (which, to my knowledge, are not public places). Thanks, Chicago, for exporting your brand of stupidity to the rest of the state. Take all of your senators and representatives (especially House Speaker Michael Madigan and that corrupt gasbag we have for a Senate president, Emil Jones), as well as Governor Blago, and form your own fucking state before you start trying to export your foie gras ban to the rest of Illinois.

Seriously, though, I believe in personal rights. The owner of a bar should be able to determine whether or not his business should allow smoking. If a non-smoker doesn't like smelling like cigarette smoke, find a bar that doesn't allow it (there is at least one in Rockford, and there's another one that has "smoking hours").


Seriously, self-righteous non-smokers complain more than anyone I've encountered, except maybe civil rights "leaders" like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Look, it's called a free market. If you want to have a place to go where there is no smoking, start a business yourself. If there is a demand for that type of place, your business will thrive. If not, then it will fail. So far, it looks like there is no demand. So why are we smokers being subjected to the will of the minority? A minority that blows the risks of the secondhand smoke they are being exposed to way out of proportion (as in, they aren't being exposed to enough of it to do any damage).

So, fellow Illinois barflys, we have until 1 January 2008 to smoke 'em if we've got 'em. I only hope that we can convince Chicago to form its own state, or for a more sensible state to come and annex everything that isn't Chicagoland.

is it really that much of a pain in the ass to go outside to smoke? really?

i mean, it's pretty rude to smoke around large groups of people, anyway.

Yes, it is. It's a huge pain in the ass because it interrupts conversations, and it gets fucking cold in the winter. I live in Rockford. It's considerably further north than LA. We get quite a bit of snow in the winter.

Um, no, it isn't. Not here. It's rude to be insensitive to the people around you, however.

blowing (inarguabley) dangerous and smelly smoke in an enclosed area around people who may be super sensitive or allergic to it isn't insensitive?


this is a law in tons of places around the country. some bars ignore it, some don't. you'll get used to it like everyone else has.

I really highly doubt that non-smokers are the minority.

I'm crying for you. Really, I am.

Not when you include everyone, but I was only talking about bar patrons.

But think about what this does to businesses, especially ones in cities like Rockford. I can be in Wisconsin in 20 minutes, and they haven't banned indoor smoking yet.

I don't entirely disagree with indoor smoking bans. I disagree with legislating something like that on the state level, though. It should be up to local governments, because local governments know better that state governments how it will affect area businesses.

You have clearly not met any self-righteous smok--- oh, wait.

Where is this free market? There are no free markets in the US; we have a heavily regulated economy.

Actually, that is in response to self-righteous non-smokers.

Point taken. But, still, it should be left up to the market to decide, especially in border areas like Rockford, the Quad Cities, the Northwestern Suburbs, et cetera.

this can really be argued exactly the same way both directions.
"If you're sensitive to smoke, fucking go to another bar." Well, if you don't like not being able to smoke in bars, either go to bars that ignore the regulation or stay home.

either that, or quit being such a baby, ya walkin' lung tumor.

whoosh.

And again.

Go G-Rod!

Actually, it's more like "ignore the law and get kicked out of bars and/or a fine". It can't be argued in both directions because it is no longer left up to the market.

No, I got it. I return self-righteousness for self-righteousness.

Um, no. I said "point taken". This is a case of individual freedoms being taken away, though, isn't it? Isn't the best way to address this issue through the markets, especially when it could put businesses in border regions out of business?

And then merrily argued along on exactly the same line. Point clearly not taken, eh?

Don't believe the hype. I have lived in four different cities that have had this crucial civil right stolen from their citizenry and have not yet heard of a business closing because people had to go stand outside to smoke. If this were instituted in Alaska, maybe you'd have a point, but everybody else just puts on a coat or skips that cigarette.

Almost too good to be true.

I'm still not sure how I feel about the smoking ban, but this argument is bogus. There are dozens and dozens of testimonials from bar and restaurant owners who said their business skyrocketed after the smoking bans went into place. Mainly because people who avoid bars because of the smoke suddenly start to come out. And I get the feeling there are a lot more of those people than there are smokers who are willing to drive out of state just to avoid walking outside a few times a night.

I actually enjoy stepping outside to smoke. Cold or not. It has certainly come in handy when I've found myself trapped by some asshat's boring conversation. So its gonna come in REALLY handy when I'm in Illinois.

lots of bars in the city had put the ban into effect months and months ago - and the only thing it's changed from my perspective is a much more pleasurable atmosphere in the bar - and you don't go home from the show reeking of smoke anymore. i don't buy the arguments that it will hurt business at all. it's a smart move that really is making the place more enjoyable for the majority of the people.

and this is coming from a VERY regular patron of bars and music venues throughout Chicago - i never really complained about the smoke before (hell, i used to contribute to it), so it's not like i was anxious for it to happen. i wasn't sure what its effect would be either. but all i can tell you is that it's been either negligible or an improvement.

yep. it also might drive me to smoke a bit less, which couldn't be a bad thing.

right now the smoking ban in indy excludes bars, but i wouldn't balk at them being included.

Fucked up my reply, and too tired to fix it. Will do it all over again later.

Domo_Kun: what about the fact that employees have to deal with the effects of smoking in bars? Fuck patrons, it's the employees that suffer.

I've lived in 2 other states that had smoking bans and it worked out for the bars in the fact they increased there business after they got everyone adjusted to it.

Only if you lack reading comprehension skills. I conceded that we do not have a free market economy. That really didn't change my belief that smoking bans should be left up to the market,

You completely fail to address my point, and I have evidence to back my point up.

Smoking bans have a better chance of working with local governments because local politicians are better able to know what the mood is in their city concerning any given subject. But on a statewide level? Chicago is Chicago. Peoria is Peoria. Moline is Moline. Dekalb is Dekalb. Champagne is Champagne. Normal is Normal. Rockford is Rockford. Every city in Illinois is different. What works anywhere else will not work in Rockford, because Rockford is not anywhere else. People in Rockford will go to Beloit to drink, up until Wisconsin passes a smoking ban.

"Out of state" isn't that far for people in Rockford. I go into Wisconsin roughly twice a week without even thinking about it.

Also, I would love to see how many of these testimonials come from state line regions after statewide smoking bans have been enacted... Aside from that, Rockford is a different city. It's not like most other cities I've ever been to.

If these people all avoid the bars because of the smoke, then why don't they come out in force when bars flirt with banning smoking? We've had several bars here do it and their business plummeted.

No one is forcing the employees to work there. If you have a problem with cigarette smoke, don't work in a place that allows smoking. If I was Muslim, do you think I'd work in a pork processing facility?

There are plenty of jobs for the taking. Even in a place like Rockford, which refuses to embrace the new economy. These jobs pay at least as well as serving jobs (when you factor in tips, of course), and they offer better benefits.

did you just call being able to smoke indoors a "civil right"?