Free Republic

Illinois just passed the "Illinois Clean Air Act - Home Rule" amendment in August of 2005. It went into effect as of January 2006. That meant Illinois gave up its preemption from the 1989 Clean Indoor Act, whereby the state had the final word and no local law could be stronger, to allow every one of the 1200 municipalities in Illinois to pass their own smoking ban ordinances.

The original Indoor Clean Air Act banned smoking in public buildings where the public could be required to enter. This past summer two more Illinois amendments were passed by our General Assembly to allow counties to enact smoking bans in unincorporated areas and to ban smoking in college dormitories. Twenty-some cities. villages and Cook County have passed smoking ban ordinances, in various forms, to eliminate smoking in privately owned hospitality businesses. Now, those municipalities that have caved in to bans are screaming "foul" and want a state-wide ban to "level the economic playing field".

Obviously, the Home Rule amendment was just a stepping stone for the tobacco control industry.....as has been repeatedly illustrated in other states. The IL Home Rule Act has been in effect for less than a year....seems kind of fishy to already have smoke free activists demanding to change it again. Of course, this is the way tobacco control interests operate. Local bans first, then a more draconian state-wide ban. The Illinois State Assembly proposed both house and senate bills last session. The House passed theirs, but the Senate did not. So, the two could not resolve any differences. The senate's proposed bill was also less restrictive.

This senate hearing is to determine the demand for a state-wide ban. Though it is being held in Chicago, prior to the reconvening of the Illinois General Assembly, this hearing is very important. That is why She-Lion posted my Action Alert.....so that members of this forum would be informed.

The ACS, AHA, ALA, CDC, IL Dept of Health, high school kids and other Anti-Smoking activists will be testifying, in addition to representatives from the ILBA and IRA. Illinois Smokers Rights and Forces Illinois will also be represented by Jim Blogg and me, along with the Illinois Riverboat interests, Restaurant Associations and Bowling Associations. This upcoming meeting at 100 West Washington Street, Rm 16-503 is not a joke. The Senate wants our input and Illinois residents should not fail to take advantage of being represented when we have the opportunity! The speakers have been selected by invitation and are to keep their talks to approximately five minutes each.

The ACS has already tried to influence the upcoming hearing by calling it a Smoke Free Public Hearing in their newsletter and begging antis to pack the room. Pro-choice advocates, smokers and non-smokers alike, need to attend also. It's your choice, if you care one way or the other.
______________________________
Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.com
Illinois Smokers Rights - http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/
Respect Freedom of Choice!

Glad to help! The Antis are trying to institute bans everywhere in Illinois, one municipality at a time.... Illinois Smokers Rights

Chicago 12/05: Restaurant smoking ban effective January 16, 2006. Smoking will be allowed in free-standing bars and taverns and within 15 feet of a restaurant bar until July 1, 2008. Establishments that install air cleaning equipment that significantly improve air quality by venting smoke will be able to apply for an exemption to the smoking ban. (But Chicago aldermen are currently attempting to eliminate ventilation loophole)

Cook County 03/06: Cook County approved a smoking ban that will impact bars, restaurants and many other indoor public places in more than 100 suburban communities. It takes effect March 15, 2007, and: impacts any Cook County town that doesn't have some kind of smoking ordinance. (Municipalities can pass less restrictive laws until 03/07)

This may very well have an impact on the outcome of the proposed Springfield smoking ban. The council members will know that, if a ban is passed, smokers will move to the suburbs with their dining and drinking dollars.

Strom's ordinance was presented to the council at the Nov. 1st council meeting.
http://www.sj-r.com/Sections/News/Stories/70301.asp

However, Edwards now changed his position and is proposing a compromise.

The contacts are all forms, I'm afraid. The next meeting scheduled on the council calendar is December 6th.
http://www.springfield.il.us/cityclerk/Council%20Calendar.htm

Mayor Tim Davlin's position, which has shifted as the debate has gone on, is irrelevant. Davlin, a Democrat, votes only if there is a tie on the 10-member council.
http://www.springfield.il.us/MAYOR/Mayor.htm - (form)

Support Ban
Ward 5 Ald. Joe Bartolomucci http://www.springfield.il.us/city_gov/council/members/ald5.htm - form
Ward 6 Ald. Mark Mahoney (negative, but plans to listen to both sides at the hearings)
http://www.springfield.il.us/city_gov/council/members/ald6.htm - form
Ward 7 Ald. Judy Yeager
http://www.springfield.il.us/city_gov/council/members/ald7.htm - form
Ward 8 Ald. Irv Smith http://www.springfield.il.us/city_gov/council/members/ald8.htm - form
Ward 10 Ald. Bruce Strom (Strom has yet to introduce the ordinance.)
http://www.springfield.il.us/city_gov/council/members/ald10.htm - form

Possibly undecided
Ward 1 Ald. Frank Edwards hedged his support, causing majority for ban to be lost
http://www.springfield.il.us/city_gov/council/members/ald1.htm - form
Ward 2 Ald. Frank McNeil (will listen)
http://www.springfield.il.us/city_gov/council/members/ald2.htm - form
Ward 3 Ald. Frank Kunz opposes a smoking ban of any kind
http://www.springfield.il.us/city_gov/council/members/ald3.htm - form
Ward 4 Ald. Chuck Redpath (ban restaurants)
http://www.springfield.il.us/city_gov/council/members/ald4.htm - form
Ward 9 Ald. Tom Selinger said he hasn't made up his mind either way
http://www.springfield.il.us/city_gov/council/members/ald9.htm - form

http://www.sj-r.com/Sections/News/Stories/69202.asp

It's funny how She Lion and I came to the same conclusions, only I was blaming Tobacco Free Kids, the ACS and ALA instead of the RWJF and big pharma. They are all begninning to look the same.

When I recently learned this story was on Free Republic, I wanted to make some belated comments. "Where Has All the Tobacco Money Gone?" seems to me to be simply more anti propaganda from ABC, the star promoter for Tobacco Control recently. ABC is also the network running the "Quit to Live" anti-smoking special series all month long, as part of their antismoking campaign.

This so-called "news" story was only written to rehash what everyone already knows....the MSA money has been spent to support states' pet projects and budgets all across the country. The main purpose seems to be to supply another platform for further whining on the part of Anti-tobacco activists, to remind everyone how desperately they still need money and how Antis feel they were robbed of the '98 MSA settlement funds.

ABC, as a mouthpiece for the antis, only issued this story so that the Anti Health Organizations can continue to vocalize their greed for a share of the spoils from the still pending RICO trial and to keep the ball rolling for more tobacco tax hikes.

The series "Quit to Live" continues on "World News Tonight."

______________________________
Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.com
Illinois Smokers Rights - http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/
mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!

Hi, I was published in the University of IL's Newspaper last week and I never knew it......
______________________________
Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.com
Illinois Smokers Rights - http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/
mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.chicagoflame.com/media/paper519/news/2005/10/17/Opinions/Letters.To.The.Editor-1022176.shtml

A fair playing field
Michaelia Fosses' editorial, "If you can't take the smoke get out of the bar" was excellent. In addition, the restaurateurs in Chicago who are promoting a smoking ban because they are already smoke-free and claim business is booming, will loose their competitive advantage if a city-wide hospitality smoking ban becomes reality. Chicago will loose overall local resident business, tourist trade and conventions till these clueless entrepreneurs find their profits nose-diving, along with all the other restaurants and bars in the city. The Health Industry lobby's next approach will have to be to propose a state-wide smoking ban. Can't Chicago smoke-free proponents read the news and learn from recent New York, Wisconsin and Minnesota hospitality tragedies from smoking bans? Level playing field arguments clearly support why governmental regulation of smoking policies in the hospitality industry do not work.

It's illegal and we all know it. If the reasoning behind all this is supposed to be for "the children", a legal nightmare is in the making. They've opened a can-of-worms that will eventually get out of control. I would like to know how a State Attorney General has the authority to negotiate or mandate policies on behalf of our Federal government with the United Parcel Service, an international company. I notice that no mention has yet been given to this new national US policy on the three websites referenced at the bottom of this story. I checked them thoroughly before posting.

On the Net:
Attorney General's Office: http://www.oag.state.ny.us
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives: http://www.atf.gov
UPS: http://www.ups.com

What kind of negotiation has taken place, or are our new Federal "agreements" now just made up as we go along? What documents are supposed to substantiate this new policy, since this announcement has already been released to the national press? Are we to believe UPS has based this change upon a handshake agreement with Spitzer? One more minor detail, how can this agreement be reconciled with our Constitution?

Of course UPS hasn't been able to deliver cigarettes to Illinois, as far as I know, for about a year now. The list of states requiring delivery via "USPS Priority Mail" grows longer every time I order cigarettes. Looks like the states are running D.C. right now...... Garnet Dawn

Great post about the relative (NON)toxicology of cigarette smoke! Too bad we haven't yet been able to find a way to promote Lynda's study to a larger audience.

By the way, I noticed the contact/author given for "Illinois is Only Second State to Restore Local Control for Smokefree Workplace Laws" is Bronson Frick of the ANR. He is the fanatical anti who wrote an almost hysterical and unfounded attack against the Chicago Hyatt Regency after the 2005 National Conference on Tobacco and Health last May. Far be it from him to let the truth get in the way, if there is a chance for him to grandstand!

I wrote an angry rebuttal to his letter back then (and cc'd him). It still should be on Smokers Club, Inc. and Forces...even published a Soapbox Alert about it on Congress.org. Still, I didn't not have access to a widely known anti-tobacco news website as my private publisher. His letter was printed on Tobacco.org with no URL reference!

He raved their lobby was full of smoke, including violent accusations that they had endangered the health of the conference attendees. However, the Hyatt had made their lobby smoke free out of consideration for the conference. I was there. I saw it! There were "no smoking" signs everywhere in the lobby....just like the Sheraton, but the Sheraton had also made all their restaurants smoke free for three days. The Hyatt stated that they had continued to allow smoking in their off-the-lobby restaurants (wish I'd known that, at the time...sigh!)

So, we need to "consider the source" for the biased tone of his gloating piece of anti-tobacco propaganda!

Hi,

Here is more news on proposed Chicago smoking ban. I am so happy Mike Ditka finally is taking a stand again!!! Way to go! We need to remind the Chicago aldermen that they will be violating our Constitution and Bill of Rights, just like all the other cities with current bans have done, if they pass a smoking ban. Restaurant owners, just like every citizen in this country, are supposed to be guaranteed the Right to Private Property.

As pointed out by Maureen Martin (senior fellow for legal affairs for the Heartland Institute) this past Monday, "In a U.S. Supreme court decision during the early 1970's involving leafletting Vietnam War protesters turned away from a shopping mall, the Supreme Court said a place of business does not become public property just because the public is invited in. By that same reasoning, a restaurant or bar is not public property."

We are adults making a choice to use a legal product. Maybe others don't like it.....maybe it is not a healthy choice, but it is our choice....that's the way it needs to remain in the USA if we are to remain an icon of freedom for the rest of the world. Our image has suffered serious tarnishing over the last several years....let's not make it worse!

This is not about unproven junk science health theories from Extremist Special Interest Groups (like the ACS) who lobby on dangers from SHS, it is about freedom!!

Garnet Dawn
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/local_story_193125107.html
Jul 12, 2005 11:50 am US/Central

Ban Would Snuff Out Smoking
Ditka, Restaurant Owners Speak Against Proposal

Mike Parker Reporting

(CBS) CHICAGO Before the smoke cleared Tuesday, Coach Mike Ditka tried to clear the air over a sweeping plan to ban smoking in virtually every indoor public building in Chicago.

Ditka was one of many restaurant owners who engaged in a heated debate Tuesday morning about the city’s proposed smoking ban. Some restaurant and bar owners are worried the proposed ban could snuff out business.

The debate raged at City Hall as public hearings on the proposed ban were held.

If the measure is approved, Chicago will have the most restrictive anti-smoking ordinance in the nation, tougher even than New York City and Los Angeles.

Various health experts also came to City Hall to testify on behalf of the ordinance as restaurant and bar owners called for its defeat.

“All you are trying to do is really hurt the restaurant business and the rest of the businesses’ business, really,” Ditka said. “And that bothers me a lot.”

But Ald. Ed Smith is a believer in the ban.

“I’m here to trying to do my job. I’m here to try to make sure people are healthy,” said Smith, who proposed the ban. “That’s all this is about. I am not trying to browbeat anyone.”

The Health Committee is hearing testimony on the proposal to totally outlaw smoking in restaurants, bars, malls, sports stadiums and train platforms in the city.

But that proposal did not browbeat Mike Ditka. He showed up without his usual cigar to tell the aldermen it will hurt not only restaurants, but cripple the convention business here.

“Now, I drove down Michigan Avenue yesterday, and I bring this up as a point. I got behind a CTA bus, and I thought I would be asphyxiated,” Ditka said. “Are we going to outlaw CTA buses?”

“When we drop our business down and lay off people, where will they work?” asked Billy Goat Tavern owner Sam Sianis.

The American Cancer Society is prepared to testify that the danger of secondhand smoke can be controlled.

“It’s important for everyone who does not smoke to not be exposed to secondhand smoke,” said Mary Maryland with the cancer society. “All of the other major cities have stepped up and passed an ordinance. Now it’s important for Chicago to step up and do the same.”

Ald. William Beavers, who is a renowned cigarette smoker, says this proposal will never pass without compromises. Ald. Smith says he’ll be willing to listen.

(© MMV, CBS Broadcasting, Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

Here is the Tribune link to the poll again, if you are having any trouble accessing it. Ditka tackles ban on smoking . Thanks!!

Here is the Tribune link to the poll again, if you are having any trouble accessing it. Ditka tackles ban on smoking . Thanks!!

Hi,

Hooray for Ditka!!!! Please also vote on the poll whether smoking in Chicago restaurants should be allowed!!!

We need smokers to participate....here are the results at 7:45 p.m. Central Daylite Time. Go to the bottom left side of the story, under the Ditka quotes. We need to hear from more smokers!!!! I don't know how much longer this poll will be open for votes.....help us fight them!!!
______________________________
Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.com
Illinois Smokers Rights - http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com
mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!
________________________________________________________

Ditka tackles ban on smoking - Proposal's foes bring in Da Coach

By Delroy Alexander Tribune staff reporter Published July 13, 2005

Former Chicago Bears coach Mike Ditka on Tuesday became the public face of the opposition to a sweeping new measure that would ban smoking inside almost all public places in Chicago, from bars and restaurants to train platforms.

Ditka, the founder of Mike Ditka's restaurant downtown, appeared at a City Council hearing to speak against the proposal on behalf of the hospitality, restaurant and liquor industries.

"Don't impose the will of the few on the lives of the many," said Ditka, who drew a strong reaction from the audience when he used an expletive to describe the proposed smoking ban.

Ditka's testimony stretched more than 30 minutes during a nearly 3-hour session, the first in a series of public hearings to discuss the latest anti-smoking moves that could result in some of the toughest prohibitions in the nation.

The former coach suggested the City Council should push to ban smoking entirely if it seriously wanted to address the health concerns related to lighting up a cigar or cigarette.

Later in the hearing, a Chicago woman who said second-hand smoke gave her throat cancer at the age of 37 spoke in favor of banning smoking in public places.

Ditka, who is often pictured smoking a big cigar, said any new measures restricting smoking in public places would hurt his business and other city establishments because high-paying customers who like to drink and smoke at the same time would avoid eating out altogether. A ban also would impinge on customers' right to choose what they do when they go out to eat, he said.

"If you take this revenue away from restaurants, you are going to lose a lot of jobs," Ditka said.

The anti-smoking lobby, which supports the strict new guidelines, was represented by Mary Rondoni, 39, a former Chicago bartender and waitress of 20 years. She said she believes second-hand smoke led her to being diagnosed two years ago with late-stage throat cancer, often seen in aging long-term smokers.

"I am a young non-smoker and had no risk factors in my family history," said Rondoni, who has had three surgeries so far during cancer treatment. "It is very likely my exposure to years of second-hand smoke brought this disease to me, and it will be years before I know if I am to survive."

Rondoni, now a spokeswoman for the American Cancer Society, called it shameful that, in her view, businesses continue to put profit before the growing amount of evidence of the harmful effect of second-hand smoke.

Rondoni's and Ditka's comments came after Ald. Ed Smith (28th), chairman of the City Council's Health Committee, introduced legislation that would ban smoking inside public spaces. The legislation also would force smokers who gather outside office doorways to be at least 25 feet away from any area where smoking is banned.

The only exceptions spelled out in the measure are for private homes, hotels and motels and retail tobacco stores.

Mayor Richard Daley has not taken a stand on the legislation. He has so far preferred to wait and see what, if any, proposals finally emerge from the City Council.

Critics have charged that the proposed legislation, as currently constituted, has little chance of winning the 26 votes needed to pass. Even some aldermen on the committee who support the legislation appear willing to look at fresh options.

"I think it's a little early for talk of compromise," said Ald. Joe Moore (49th). "But I am a realist, and three-quarters of a loaf is better than none at all."

The anti-smoking debate has been heated in several Chicago suburbs in recent years, with Evanston, Skokie, Wilmette and Highland Park among more than 1,900 municipalities nationwide that have some type of restrictions on smoking. Seven states, including California, Massachusetts and New York, ban smoking in bars and restaurants.

Proposals to tighten the prohibitions in Chicago as a whole over the years have failed to win council approval, including a broad ban, similar to the measure discussed Tuesday, which was proposed by Ald. Edward Burke (14th) in 2002.

In 1988, the City Council prohibited smoking in many indoor public places. But it permitted creation of designated smoking areas in buildings, including restaurants, and left bars untouched.

Ald. Tom Tunney (44th), owner of Ann Sather Restaurants and former chairman of the Illinois Restaurant Association, has been touting a restaurant-only smoking ban until 9 p.m., after which customers could smoke freely. Another idea being floated is a ban that would cover all restaurants, except establishments that obtain a special smoking permit.

Illinois Restaurant Association President Colleen McShane said her group opposes any new measures but is open to a compromise. McShane would not endorse any potential alternative until she had a chance to check with her members.

McShane said the restaurant business is too important to risk jeopardizing with new smoking restrictions.

With about 210,000 workers employed in 6,000 eateries in the city, restaurant owners are Chicago's largest private employers, McShane said. "A $1 million loss in a hospitality establishment directly results in the loss of 34 jobs," McShane said.

Andrew Hyland, an associate professor at the University of Buffalo's Roswell Park Cancer Institute, said studies of New York's ban on smoking in restaurants and bars, first imposed in 1995, showed that 22,000 more employees now work in restaurants in that city, an 18 percent increase. He said his research was geared primarily toward the true economic impact of a smoking ban.

"Data from multiple, objective sources all indicate that the law worked--the air got cleaner, people supported it, and it was not bad for the hospitality economy," he said

dalexander@tribune.com
-------------------------------------------------------

His greatest hits

Mike Ditka sounded off on the smoking ban Tuesday. Here's what he had to say:

On the effects of a ban: "You're going to erode the whole basis of your business. People are going to say, 'You know what, I can save $500. Let me cook a couple steaks on the grill, get my own bottle of wine for $49, and I'll smoke a cigar wherever I want to.' "

On the hypocrisy of the idea: "If it's a non-smoking ban, ban all smoking everywhere. In the house, on the street, everywhere. Get rid of it all ... let's go get 'em! If you want to do it, do it right."

On government intrusion: "I wouldn't impose my will on anybody, believe me. I can give up smoking cigars tomorrow ... today if I wanted to. But when I want to smoke one, I want to smoke one. That really bugs me when someone says, 'God darn you're in America, but you can't do this stuff.' ... These laws are laws that have been implemented after the fact by man, they're not naturally laws of God."

--Jimmy Greenfield, RedEye

Hot issue

Should smoking be banned in restaurants and bars?

58.9% Yes (10451 responses)

41.1% No (7307 responses)

17758 total responses (Poll results not scientific)

I'm so sorry!

I thought the states were turning away from these tobacco "user" taxes this year. Great posts all. I hope Sen. Peggy Rotundo, and all the other who passed the bill, have just issued the "kiss of death" to the Maine state budget and you can reduce their anticipated revenue to zero!

I also hope you get out your check books and order from Sovereign Indian retailers or roll your own the way SheLion suggested. There are a lot of smokers who will be happy to supply you with "safe" retailers, who will continue to keep your ordering records private.

I wonder who the new Al Capone of tobacco distribution in Main will be?

What a trip to read some people's initial takes on Councilwoman Schwartz' bill! That's what I meant about our ignorant multitudes in my post about the Tabacco Free Kids' petition. It's frightening to think we have to deal with these people every day, and no one even makes them wear a sign.

I swear, I didn't know it was already on FR when I saw the story among my Alerts and posted it to the groups, but it really grabbed me! What a fight she's putting up. She is absolutely terrific!! Too bad we can't get her to run for President. Looks like she could beat any of the competition hands down. What an improvement over Bush she'd be!!

(I like your evil laugh!)

If you live "just over" from Highland Park, what are you doing to protect smokers rights?

Hi Bernard, Take a look at IL Smokers Rights at http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/. You will see we are trying to fight back, but we need more people. We have collected a lot of useful information.

It can't happen in McHenry, unless the Governor signs the "Illinois Clean Air Act - Home Rule". On the site, click on the link for the Illinois Smokers Group and consider joining. You will be very welcome on the forum!!

That is my opinion of her posts. She beats the same dead horse over and over and over... She is also inclined to ridiculous posting strategies that include rainbow colors, obnoxious .gifs and huge fonts. In short, her posts are rambling and incoherent. That is not an attack, it's an opinion. I came to the thread to state that opinion. I'm sorry you don't like it.

------------------------------------------

Seems like you follow SheLion's threads faithfully. She must be doing something right, even in your eyes!

Of course she keeps beating on the same subject. It is one of the most important subjects any of us can choose. She is trying to protect our Freedom of Choice, which is what the Antis want to eliminate....that, and keeping the smokers' money rolling in to pad their payrolls and promote more grants so that they can keep raking in their fat paychecks.

There are too many people who just don't care. SheLion does. I personally like her .gifs and .jpgs. They break up the monotony...and they say something. Ever heard "A picture is worth a thousand words"? Colors, cartoons and comic strips have been around for a long time...See you've been missing something!

Maybe you should find something more constructive to do with your time, rather than criticizing people who have strong beliefs. You must be a sad person because you give the impression that you completely lack creativity and a sense of humor.

Smokers Rights Advocates are going to keep harping on the same subjects until anti-smokers give up. Get used to it if you are going to follow the topics on this forum. Be glad! Maybe we will keep the Anti Nazis so busy, they will leave you alone and not try to take away any more of YOUR basic rights to choice!!!

"There are many rules/regulations/laws a small business must adhere to - but I've got a problem with them being changed AFTER the business has already established it's clientele. That is EXACTLY what smoking bans do.There are many rules/regulations/laws a small business must adhere to - but I've got a problem with them being changed AFTER the business has already established it's clientele. That is EXACTLY what smoking bans do."

----------------------------------

Right on target!!!

The number of people allowed in a closed space at one time is based on the size of the space, the same as elevators, to avoid people being hurt, trampled or having a floor cave in due to overcrowding. I have personally seen where this law isn't always enforced. Sprinklers make sense, but a lot of places still don't have them. Checking a kitchen to prevent food poisoning and protecting diners from being served rancid food makes sense. Bathrooms are not "designed" by the state, but it does prevent contageous diseases to require a bathroom to have running water and a toilet that flushes. All the licensing, taxing and fees are just a little more greed and control from the government, but they do keep track of legitimate businesses to enforce guidelines against disease and illegal activities. The handicapped modifications are not always observed either, but do have a humane goal. (I just wish there weren't so many rude handicapped people who expect everyone else to jump out of their way and use their wheelchairs like battering rams on the unsuspecting.)

At any rate, many restaurant regulations do make sense. Smoking bans do not. If you don't like smoke, go somewhere else! Non-smoking restaurants were already in the majority in Highland Park, but the Antis just couldn't stand not having complete control.

"Bull. As I heard someone say recently, having a smoking section in a restaurant makes as much sense as having a peeing section in a pool."

-------------------------------

Have other smokers noticed that non-smokers and Antis seem to take exceptional pleasure in bathroom/potty humor? The Antis have always been so eager to coin statements that get attention with short childish shock slogans.

Anyone with half a brain knows that a pool with millions of gallons of water is only completely replaced with fresh water a couple of times a year, while the most basic indoor ventilation system changes over the air every few hours. That is, unless they have gone smoke-free and can reduce the amount of fresh air introduced by their system...just recycle the stale stuff.

Good example: The airlines!

Here is another good link from forces.... "53,000 Deaths Annually from SHS!" How WAS that number determined? http://forces.org/research/files/acs.htm.

For an real eye opener about Dr. Stanton Glantz read this too! This is the man who determined SHS is a health threat! http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/stanton_glantz_doctor_of_what.html