Chris / January 30, 2006 2:02 AM

It sucks.

mike / January 30, 2006 2:13 AM

it's hilariously awesome.

i don't smoke.

so my clothes don't smell like smoke when i go home suckas.

amyc / January 30, 2006 6:26 AM

I love it. There's a greasy-spoon diner near my office, and I went there last friday for lunch -- I got to sit in a window booth (in the former smoking section) instead of in the back room by the kitchen and toilets. And I didn't have to stand in a cloud of smoke at the register while I paid my bill.

I'm looking forward to trying some of the other good restaurants I used to avoid because of the smoke. I can't wait until the bars and nightclubs go smoke-free so I can see more shows at the Metro and Empty Bottle.

j / January 30, 2006 7:39 AM

Like a breath of fresh air... get it...ha...fresh...air...ha

It's fantastic to not be forced to inhale second hand smoke while eating. Suddenly this city seems so civilized.

I hope the next move is to raise the tax on cigarettes and other tobacco products by another $1 or $2

MC High Life / January 30, 2006 7:49 AM

So far, so good. I went to the Brew & View on Saturday night and wondered where all the ashtrays were. Then I remembered the ban. It was so nice to get home and not have to throw my sweatshirt to the wolves.

Shasta MacNasty / January 30, 2006 7:52 AM

I haven't really noticed anything yet. Then again, maybe if I went out more...

I'm waiting for when the nightclubs and bars have to comply. That was my biggest complaint about cigarette smoke. I'm looking forward to going out and not smelling like a cigarette.

Pedro / January 30, 2006 7:58 AM

What smoking ban?

Unenforceable laws / January 30, 2006 8:34 AM

What?

Oh, I'm sorry, I was too busy driving and talking on my cell phone.

slb / January 30, 2006 8:39 AM

bars and nightclubs smell even worse, in my opinion, when they don't smell like smoke. i saw a show at schuba's this weekend (has it always been smoke free in the music room? i can't remember) and it reeked of beer sweat. so consider that, all you people who are wishing for smoke-free bars.

though it does make it easier to resist smoking, which is nice since i quit right about the time the ban started. and i do have to admit my skin didn't feel so gross on sunday morning.

charleston / January 30, 2006 8:40 AM

not so good for the Charleston. The one bar that actually took nonsmokers at their word that they "would go out more if places were smokefree" is really suffering. Thank goodness freedom of choice will be obliterated in 2 yrs. so we -hopefully- won't loose another great neiborhood bar. All hail middle-class WASP mentality!

Carrie / January 30, 2006 9:21 AM

Like MC, I had forgotten and was kinda distressed on Saturday morning when I went to Melrose Diner and the host was leading me to the left after I had clearly said "non-smoking"...until I realized I could sit on either side now. The servers were all pretty busy, but I would've like to hear their opinion on it. I suspect they enjoy a better work environment, but were they missing some of their smoking regulars? Probably both.

Paula / January 30, 2006 9:22 AM

So far for me there's been no impact since I resolved to not eat out for all of January, but February is right around the corner and I'm looking forward to eating out and being able to sit anywhere in the restaurant. I too am looking forward to when bars have to comply so I can go anywhere and not reek.

I was under the impression that music venues had to comply now - I haven't been to Metro (or any other music venue for that matter) since the ban went into place but I wonder how it's working out for them and how good of a job they are doing with enforcement.

olive / January 30, 2006 9:46 AM

like highlife, so far, so good. i noticed the lack of ashtrays during an outing to small bar on saturday. after a friend was repremanded by staff for trying to smoke, i realized the ban was in full effect. i then proceeded to bask in smokeless glory. also quite pleased that my clothes and hair didn't smell like garbage the next morning.

Baltimore / January 30, 2006 10:06 AM

It seems to also be having a residual effect of rasing the over all I.Q levels at many none smoking establishments as most people that smoke, are proud of it and didn't want the smoking band are pretty stupid.

Avril / January 30, 2006 10:08 AM

It's not going far enough. I sat next two smokers at the Green Mill last weekend. It was horrible. I can usually deal with secondhand smoke, but this couple's annoying habit of 'lightining up' at the same time almost ruined my evening.

hench / January 30, 2006 10:19 AM

it's helping me out with the whole "i quit smoking three weeks ago & after two drinks in a bar i'm a twitchy grouchy exposed nerve" thing.

at least one bar that still allows smoking inside should really play up the sneaky highschool experience & redecorate as a smoker's alley.

sarah / January 30, 2006 10:29 AM

i love it. i realize it's a pain for smokers, but honestly, i really don't think they have any right to complain. it seems bizarre to me how much public tolerance smokers have enjoyed in the past. smoking, as we all know, is harmful, annoying, smelly, and uncomfortable for those around you. public urination would be healthier and less intrusive, but everyone seems to be able to agree that if you need to urinate, you should take care of that in an appropriate place, such as the bathroom, where you will not offend others. if you must smoke, why compain that you have to do it outside? isn't that just common decency?

matty / January 30, 2006 10:44 AM

Maybe it's a northside thing, but here in WP nothing has changed at all. Which I don't really mind - *shrug*

Scrilla / January 30, 2006 10:46 AM

amyc: Metro went smoke-free when the ban came into effect. Smartbar to follow eventually.

Rudiger / January 30, 2006 10:47 AM

So well I'm already thinking about what other rights can be done away with.

lacey / January 30, 2006 10:48 AM

Sofar it's alright...I was at a club last weekend, though, and it was INSANELY smokey. I'm with Shasta on this one--can't wait for 2008 (right?).

Oketo / January 30, 2006 10:52 AM

I really wish smokers would take the hint and stop the nasty, invasive, destructive habit all together. Can't wait for 2008!

Mikhail / January 30, 2006 10:57 AM

Just to balance thing's out:

Bar's would volunteer to be smoke-free if it was cost effective. To force this rule on them is Fascism.

Bar owners should have the right to decide what is allowed in their own establishment. Non-smokers and smokers alike can choose where they go and spend money. If the non-smokers create a demand for smoke free establishments the market would provide them.

The fact is that a bar is a place were people do drugs. Alcohol is a drug. Nicotine is a drug. If you are not interested in drugs then don't go. OR, band together and create smoke -free bars.

Of course, none of this matters now. Americans seem more willing than ever to give away their freedoms and liberties. One day we might wake up and realize that we have lost something very valuable along the way.

Kevin / January 30, 2006 11:16 AM

I'll get right on that, Oketo.

I believe / January 30, 2006 11:23 AM

There will be a loophole. This is not NYC or LA, thank goodness.

paul / January 30, 2006 11:23 AM

I haven't noticed it in effect yet. Although for some reason I seem to notice smokers more.

I somehow expect thousands of smokers commuting to the bars in Evanston for a legal toke.

amyc / January 30, 2006 11:50 AM

Mikhail, smoking bans are not fascism. Jeez, settle down. Smokers do not have the right to smoke in public, therefore their rights are not being infringed by the ban.

Bar owners do not have -- and never have had -- the right to decide which laws they want to follow. Being a business owner means complying with all kinds of regulations -- health codes, fire exits, maximum capacity regulations, liquor laws, minimum wage rules, etc. I know people like to think that owning your own business means you can do whatever the hell you want, but it has never been thus, even before the smoking ban.

Also, bars are not JUST places where people do drugs. Opium dens are places where people only go to do drugs. Bars and taverns and pubs are places people also go to eat, hang out with friends, see live music, shoot pool, play darts, etc. To assert that these places only exist for crusty old alcoholics to drink and smoke themselves to death is ridiculous.

SG / January 30, 2006 11:52 AM

It's a joke. I was at the Leona's on Elston last night, and was surprised to have them ask the old "smoking or non?" question when we stepped up for a table. I asked the waitress about it since I could see no bar area, and she pointed to a spot that was nothing more than a bus station with a shelf of liquor above it. Some "bar".

LoadZone / January 30, 2006 11:53 AM

i smoke salems. recreationally. the ban has done nothing to curb my craving for the once-in-a-while sweet smooth taste of a salem. As for enforcing the ban in formerly smoky-ass bars...let the witch hunt begin (pun intended). it is nice to come home with the dry beer smell on me rather than the cigarette smell...emcee highlife's wolves won't touch that.

e_five / January 30, 2006 11:57 AM

Now we can begin work on banning cologne, pets, alcohol and cell phones.

It's a health issue-- not a majority with nothing better to do enforcing their idea of proper behavior on others. Nope, purely a health issue.

So I'm allergic to colognes. It gets on my clothes whenever I go out somewhere.

Pets have dander that irritates my alergies. They shit on the sidewalk, which attracts vermin that spread disease.

Drunk drivers kill thousands of people every year. Eliminate alcohol and quadruple the taxes on it to fund our public schools.

Cell phones are a distraction. Several times I've nearly been hit by cars or run into by people on their cell phones. Pedestrians talking on cell phones don't pay attention to crosswalk signs.

I don't wear cologne, I don't have a pet, and I don't have a cell phone. But it's not me trying to mandate the behavior of others out of a perverted desire to make others act as I desire. It's purely a health issue. Yep. That's it-- a health issue.

Steve / January 30, 2006 12:02 PM

As I understand it, a fascist policy would be one that the bar owners and tobacco companies forced down the city government's throat. Or, I dunno, a national energy policy drafted by the oil companies.

Emerson Dameron / January 30, 2006 12:11 PM

Try going to Germany and throwing around the word "facist." I haven't noticed it much yet, and I still think we'll adjust. I do feel bad for the Charleston, now that all the pious ban-supporters who said they'd go out more have found new excuses to sit around watching TV. Regardless of how you feel about smoking, remember that neighborhoods die unless you explore them.

spiraljetty / January 30, 2006 12:22 PM

Music and drinking culture go hand in hand with smoking. Even though we're adults, a lot of us still believe in the "smoking-looks-cool" thing because we see a lot of imagery that makes us think it's the way of classy Euro people and cool musicians.
We like to see old blues guitarists with hand-rolled cigarettes dangling from their mouths and all the pretty girls in new wave films batting their eyelashes while they chain-smoking unfiltered cigarettes. So although it's be better for everyone's health to not be smoking in a public space, I find it bizarre that so many complain of smokey bars and music venues. And it's true, if you take away the smoke, you'll be getting the smell of rank beer and occasional piss up your nose.

With that said, I'm a smoke-while-drinking person, but I wouldn't mind going to a show or something where no one drinks or smokes. You also get to see how socially awkward people are when they aren't drunk!

Lennie Briscoe / January 30, 2006 12:29 PM

This is just one more law for me to enforce. Maybe I should ask Lt. Van Buren for a raise, heh-heh. As a sworn officer of the law, I will enforce this law with just as much zeal as other laws. You light up in a restaurant and I'm taking your ass DOWN. Detective Green, where's my heater?

leah / January 30, 2006 12:32 PM

As a smoker, I don't really give a rip. So I have to go outside or to the bar area, big whoop.

What's most annoying is the nanner-nanner stuff from the non-smokers. Like it's so totally radical to finally sit on the smoking side of the restaurant. Praise jebus for the smoking ban! Like that's where the dancing bears and free candy is or something. Fuh.

Everyone wins with the smoking ban, even if some do consider it a minor inconvenience.

Leroy / January 30, 2006 12:45 PM

So now can we finally ban smoking in private homes where children are present?

They can't just leave, and the long term health effects on them are staggering.

mike / January 30, 2006 1:21 PM

I totally agree with you, leah.

Kris / January 30, 2006 1:22 PM

I had a whole cadre of smoking customers in my bar this weekend who said they were former Big Chicks regulars, looking for a new bar after Big Chicks went smoke-free. They also claimed that business at Big Chicks had taken a nosedive, and staff there were looking for new jobs.

On the other hand, Big Chicks' owner was in the Free Press last week saying their ban was popular and the staff was happy. So I guess everyone sees what they want to see.

I think the half-assedness of the city's ban is causing a lot of resentment on both sides. Should've just done it all at once.

Col. Klink / January 30, 2006 1:26 PM

First they came for the smokers. Then they came for the guys who peed in the corner instead of going to the men's room. Then they came for the guys who grabbed women's tits and laughed. And when there was no more liberty and no one left to protest...They *still* didn't go spend their money at the Charleston! THE DAMNED, DIRTY LIARS!

M / January 30, 2006 1:38 PM

I'm with Leah on this one. I'm a smoker, and it really doesn't bother me THAT much having to go outside, seeing as I smoke outside at home, too. Sure, it's an inconvenience, but whatever. Listening to loud-mouth obnoxious jags go on and on about how evil smokers are when I'm in a non-smoking bar not smoking is inconvenient, too, and that's just another thing I have no control over. My point is, holier-than-thou non-smokers, relax. Yes, second hand smoke is bad, and it has been dealt with accordingly. But stop all your hatin'. Now that you don't have to deal with smoke in bars and restaurants, it's no longer any of your business what I do with my body. All that crap about taxing tobacco. Do you really think you will see a dime of that in any meaningful way? You just want to hurt smokers out of vengeance because you hate them. It's funny how people act so liberal and tolerant when it comes to race and religion or whatnot, but they're still full of hate. Give it up, people.

That only applies to the haters, of course. Plenty of you non-smokers are good in my book...

cory / January 30, 2006 2:06 PM

It sucks that they delayed implementation for bars. I am soooo eager for the day when we can go to a local tap and my wife doesn't have to start using her asthma inhaler inside of 30 minutes, and we don't need to red-bag our clothing when we get home.

No hatred from me; smokers are not evil, just addicted. But their right to smoke ends at my nostrils, bubbeleh.

Stephen / January 30, 2006 2:10 PM

The thing I fear is that places like the Charleston are inadvertently proving pro-smoking arguments that going no-smoking is bad for business. I've always believed that a total ban is the only way to guarantee that competition/business between taverns and bars is not affected... I'm really afraid that this 2-year compliance thing is going to backfire as a result.

Having said that, I really haven't noticed much of a difference. It's only on my way home from a few places that I've realized that, "Hey! I don't smell like smoke! Woohoo!"

steven / January 30, 2006 2:14 PM

Not only do I not smell like smoke, which is fucking fantastic, I also don't have that heavy feeling in my chest the next morning. Woohoo for me!

mike-ts / January 30, 2006 2:34 PM

In exchange for banning smoking, they should bring back the public spitoon.

Especially on L platforms - I empathise with the smoker waiting ten plus minutes for the next train, outside dammit, with no chance for a quick fire-up. Miss the train? Bite off some Beechnut, munch, then when the next one comes, hurry and spit in the pot or on the tracks.

Baltimore / January 30, 2006 3:01 PM

I want to thank all the Anti Smoking "Nazis", Anti Smoking "Fascists", Anti Smoking Radicals and Activist, Smoker haters, etc. Its because of Your work and dedication, less people will die form second hand smoke. Workers at restaurants are much safer from lung cancer, and one day (hopefully) all bar workers and patrons will be safe from second hand smoke. Clearly if it were not for your years of work , toil, agitation, and dedication the "law" would be the same. Yes and there is some thing very wrong with people who continue to think its there right to pollute any ones air with toxic smoke.

And forgive these Goo Goo WBEZ lake front liberals who while enjoying the fruit of your struggle have the nerve to complain about your passion. These are the same people that have never done any work for the collective benefit of any one besides themselves or their friends. The world would be a much better place it if were less of them and more of you. And of course we would not have this President who is destroying our world, if there were more fighters like you and less of these liberal fence sitting playing both sides when its clear what is wrong and what is right.
I know its o.k for the republicans to go all out and fight for what they believe in,( which is why they are going to have a brand new shinny Supreme Court Justice) but heaven forbid you do it least you be called a hater, fascist, and Nazi. Thank you and keep fighting for us!

p.s great comment Col. Klink, You were da man in Hogan's Hero's and I loved the way Gen Bulkhauser said your name!
and the Charleston kinda sucked any way with its cloistered, incestuous, unfriendly hippie Birkenstock crowd. Maybe I should try it again, now they are off demonstrating their "rights" by smoking in some hole.

Disssssmmisssssed!

got a light / January 30, 2006 3:24 PM

the best part of this ban will be seeing the smokers laughing and talking and making new friends over a couple of cigs outside a atmosphere free place full of people wondering if they should have gotten their rum and coke with Diet. Smokers are what makes bars great! Now the sidewalks are going to be the party place, even in the winter. It will just be one more thing to talk about.

The Handmaid / January 30, 2006 3:39 PM

you bet leroy!!! and pregnant women who eat poorly effect their fetuses, so let's bust dorito eatin moms to be as well

gotta wonder how these smug smoker hatin psuedofeministas will feel when fundies use the supposed legality of banning smoking in private places as a precedent and talking point to further erode a woman's right to choose? probably awesome, cause their clothes will smell great!

gotta run, it's time to play scrabble

MC High Life / January 30, 2006 3:47 PM

I see a lot of flak directed towards "holier-than-thou" non-smokers but what about those that view smoking as some sort of God-given right? Get over yourselves. The same jag-off comments related to "the loss of Liberty" have been made throught history whenever the winds of change blew contrary to the status quo: Women owning property, blacks having the same rights as whites, "parental advisory" labels on Paul Wall albums, etc.

Now is the time to uphold the values of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Viginia Slims at rock-bottom prices [eyeroll motion].

Trixie McEverywhere / January 30, 2006 3:48 PM

God forbid a fetus have the same rights as my scarf!

Heathier than thou / January 30, 2006 3:50 PM

I think it's well-known that people go to bars for their health.

MC High Life? / January 30, 2006 3:55 PM

MC High Life:

You're absolutely right the examples you give are great for showing the expansion of rights and liberty, just like the BAN on smoking. Nothing like taking away the freedom of choice from businesses and their customers. Real astute.

Grandpa Joe / January 30, 2006 4:06 PM

They smoked on Night Court. NUFF SAID LIL DOOGIE

vote brian stanger for Big Brain '06

MC High Life / January 30, 2006 4:17 PM

Don't like my examples, eh? Yes, they are way out of line with those comparing a smoking ban to Nazi occupation [double eyeroll motion].

I'll leave you with this question:

"What the hell is that? And whose blood is this on the damn window?"

M / January 30, 2006 4:36 PM

MC High Life,
I wasn't saying I had a god given right to smoke around anyone I please and in enclosed spaces, but do I have a right to smoke in the privacy of my own home and in wide open outdoor spaces? You're damn right I do. And why you ask? Because cigarrettes are legal. You wanna change that, go for it. When cigarrettes are illegal, I'll quit smoking. But while they are legal, I do have the right to partake in them. And when I talk about holier-than-thou non-smokers, I'm talking about the jags who condemn smokers for smoking at all anywhere period. See reasons above. You and everyone else have the right to hate for whatever reason, but I have the right to think haters are hypocrites. I think drinking alcohol is a filthy habit, too, and leads to LOADS of deaths due to drunk driving, but I don't hate people who drink alcohol. Because it's legal. As for the words fascist and nazi, yeah, that's going overboard, but hate is hate no matter how entitled you feel toward ANYTHING.

carrie, too / January 30, 2006 4:51 PM

Sheesh, I didn't realize how passionate people were about their smoking. I mean, I know people who smoke like to do it, but I didn't realize that this could, in some minds, lead to a ban on everything else in our lives. Why are some smokers crying about this? Non-smokers have put up with secondhand smoke for quite a while, why can't smokers put up with smoke-free bars now? Seems like a fair trade.

Anyway, can't you still smoke walking down the street? In your house? In your car? Big deal, you can't have a cigarette with your drink. Buy the candy cigarettes so you'll have something to hold. They make your breath nicer than regular cigarettes anyway.

And yes Leah, we all know that the smoking section is where the clowns hand out candy and the dancing bears dance in their tutus.

e_five / January 30, 2006 5:14 PM

Non-smokers have put up with secondhand smoke for quite a while, why can't smokers put up with smoke-free bars now? Seems like a fair trade.
I am a non-driver. Why do I have to put up with assholes nearly running me over with their cars? Why do I have to put up with the exhaust from those cars?

Why do I have to walk so far to get to the El station? Because there are entire city blocks in this town full of 10-story parking garages.

While smoking has declined drastically and factories have cut down on emissions, the only thing that matches the increase in asthma is vehicle miles traveled and oil consumption. And since gasoline is taxed by the gallon and not the cost, as gas goes up the percentage of taxation actually goes down.

People who drive everywhere are getting fatter, which we as a nation have to pay for in increased health-care costs. Metropolitan areas are spreading farther out because of the car, and it's draining our resources.

To sum up... tremendous health costs, undertaxed, dangerous, spews polution into the air, smells, is a drain on resources. Sound like a familiar argument?

Dan ZP / January 30, 2006 5:49 PM

i think mc high life has a good point, though i offer a tiny alteration: the anti-banners aren't even the status-quo in this scenario. the real force that's getting rocked by this wind of change is the tobacco industry. it's a shame (sincerely; as an ex-smoker i feel for them) that active smokers are caught in the crossfire, but i can't help but think that the ultimate end is a good thing.

alisa / January 30, 2006 5:58 PM

I think the real tragedy we're overlooking here is that smoking sections in restaurants and pubs that allowed smoking were/are the last bastions of child-free zones. There are times that no one in my dinner party smokes, by my friends and I will opt for the smoking section just so we won't have to listen to overly proud parents coo over little fudgepants jr.'s every sloppy gobble. Now everywhere is virtually open for the children, and that messes with my meal more often than a little smoke.

Jaye / January 30, 2006 7:19 PM

i can not wait for the full ban to go into effect. I abhor cigarette smoke and everything that goes along with it.

the smokers complain about not having anywhere to smoke but boo hooo...

where the hell do i have to go when i have to walk down the street behind your trails of toxic waste and when you crowd into the bus shelters with your smokes and damn all the rest of us!!

it just seems to me that the majority of smokers are the most inconsiderate beings on the face of the earth.

if you want to kill yourself i could think of less disgusting ways of doing it than by bringing flaming sh** up to your lips and inhaling!!

yuck!!

MC High Life / January 30, 2006 7:33 PM

M: My comments were more directed towards people on the extreme ends of both sides of the debate. You know, those that claim smoking is going to kill every living thing and should be destroyed in all its form or the other side of the coin, those that claim facism and extrapolate a smoking ban into every aspect of life (i.e. banning cars). A happy medium can certainly be reached.

Smoking ban in your house or car? Stupid.

Forcing mom-and-pop beer and a shot joints to go smoke free? Also stupid.

Sitting in a smoking section to avoid kids and then lambasting the smoking ban? Beyond stupid [half eyeroll, half winking motion].

MJN / January 30, 2006 10:25 PM

I was at an old school southside restaurant last weekend (don't want to incriminate anyone), and folks were lighting up in the restaurant section close to the bar. No one said anything. I was surprised

Erik / January 30, 2006 11:09 PM

someone please post a list of the music venues that no longer allow smoking. So I know which ones to avoid. Thanks.

Jeremy / January 31, 2006 2:09 AM

someone please post a list of the music venues that no longer allow smoking. So I know which ones to visit. Thanks.

Leelah / January 31, 2006 6:52 AM

"Abortions for all!"
"BOOOO"
"Abortions for none!"
"BOOOO"
"Abortions for some... tIny American flags for all!"
"YAAAAY!"

The Simpsons always knows how to solve the tough issues.

Jaye / January 31, 2006 8:05 AM

MJN - FYI - you can currently smoke within 15 feet of the bar in a bar/restaurant until 2008. they should have had a sign listed to this effect as per the new legislation.

em / January 31, 2006 9:52 AM

I predict that the "Taste of Heaven effect" will be very noticeable once the full ban goes into effect. It is already happening in places I will not name. I frequent a divey tavernish place with a back room that is smoke-free until 9:00 p.m. Recently people have begun showing up with their little kids, letting them run around. The waitstaff and ownership doesn't know what to do. This will happen even more starting in 2008. People will be bringing their children to places that are essentially bars and giving people like me dirty looks when I swear, because they think they're at Charlie's Ale House or Applebee's.

miss ellen / January 31, 2006 1:55 PM

house of blues is now entirely smoke-free; saw the signs posted when i went to pick up tickets at the box office.

it really isn't that suprising, as they've always erred on the side of being sympathetic to artists requests. i can remember seeing other acts there over the years in which the artists asked & were granted a smoke-free environment.

cheers!

dubkat / February 17, 2006 2:02 PM

Opinions are great, but we lose sight of some basic facts:

Cigarette smoke is proven to be deadly. The EPA says there’s no safe level of exposure. Cologne, pet dander/poop, and the smell of urine may be unpleasant, but they won’t kill you. Secondhand smoke kills 60,000 people a year. That’s why it is being regulated in the workplace. Ultimately, this is a workplace health issue. Workplace health hazards like asbestos and DDT have become regulated over time as we learn of the dangers they pose to the health of workers.

The boundaries of our personal liberties have always been limited to the point at which they infringe upon the health and safety of our neighbors:
- Drinking is legal, drinking and driving is illegal.

Yes, there’s gray areas: right or wrong, some things are illegal because society deems them detrimental upon everyone. The use of heroin and child pornography come to mind. The gray areas are ripe for debate.

It’s never been a Constitutional right to act in a way that puts other citizens in danger. Smokers are completely at liberty to smoke in their own personal space where nobody else is exposed to the dangers.

- Smoking is legal, smoking that endangers others is illegal.

Peace.

CRAZYRANDY / March 14, 2006 1:41 AM

Hello far left and far right liberalist vs. conservatives, republicans vs. democrats, lakefront vs. inland(and any other oppositions stated above) Grow up. I smoke, and to be blunt, it is not that big of a deal to step out. I went to Rainforest Cafe this evening, and the food tasted so much better when you weren't breathing smokey air! I was more than happy to oblige my cigarette outside! I have to admit that I disagree with not smoking at bars. A lot of people only smoke when they drink, some can only drink if they smoke, so they cannot smoke in the immediation of their jack and coke, oh well. We can walk outside. I agree with a comment above, the na na na na non-smokers do not need to blow it up in our faces like babies because it is really not a big deal. You had a victory, congratulations to you! Jeeze. Man, some people put way too much thought into their arguements. Seriously, WE DON'T CARE IF WE HAVE TO GO OUTSIDE for a 10 minute smoke. You know why? Because 10 mins isn't even long enough to freeze your a** off. Well, have a wonderful time smoking or not smoking, I give you all props! Peace!