Smoke ban often defied Downstate

OMG no. These idiots idiots think they are free people who can smoke in a bar..WTH!! What a shame that Illinois and Chicago have become Nazi mini nanny states. Nonsmokers can stay out of the bars if it bothers them so much. I'm a nonsmoker but I enjoy the bars..a little smoke in the air only makes it seem like a little better party...never bothered me. It's amazing to me how the ignorant among us, which seems to be a majorority, keep allowiing our rights and freedoms to be slowly stripped away. You may not like the smell of cigarettes, but are you so stupid as to not realize this only leads down a road to oppression? Somebody, someday, may not like the fact that that you have picnics in parks. They might claim that it draws bugs, or rodents to the garbage cans filled with picnic waste. Then they will push for a picnic ban. This country was founded on the concept that the majority could not bury the rights of the minority..founded on the concept of freedom, yet we sit here and watch it erode while doing nothing.

The stuffy Tribune leaving Chicago to report on this? lol Light news day huh?

Land of the free?

Sounds like those down staters got a whole lot of common sense. Good for them. This is just another "Chicago" law forced on the rest of the state.

All Chicago bars comply? Get real LOL. The big places downtown do because they don't know the customers.

I think it's called "civil disobedience."

If it were a case of muslims defying a ban on footwashing in bathroom sinks, leftist nanny staters would be heralding it as the second coming of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

Maybe it's time to pull some State Police off the scott, er Drew Peterson case, and get back to fighting crime.....

I gotta drive to Philo for $3.80 gas, AND to smoke inside? Roadtrip!

Good for Taylorville! The smoking ban law is BS.

i see we made the law for the american cancer society? can i get a law made for me? how much money do i need?

If non-smoking bars were such a great idea, someone would have opened them several hundred years ago. The perfect example of the nanny state gone wild: "I don't smoke, and I don't want you to either."

It is interesting when the tobacco company slaves talk about freedom and civil disobedience. LOL.

We all know that it is the nicotine talking.

Smoking is not an “adult choice”; it is an addiction with a high price tag.

Edward wrote:

Land of the free?

Yup.

Free to pollute the air I breathe.

Bunch of whiney smokers without the common courtesy to not inflict their habits, their addiction, on others.

Pelon wrote:

Bunch of stinky Hillbillies with a dirty and nasty habit!
Pull the owners business licenses! That will make them comply!

If it wasn't for people standing up for their rights. We'd still have the Queen on our money.

What is the harm of having an area that is not completely enclosed, but is somewhat enclosed, allowing people to smoke outdoors?

The Cancer Society needs to spend money on curing cancer instead of passing laws. How much does it spend on research to seek cures for lung cancer, instead of on lobbying and PR campaigns?

It smacks of nanny when, instead of trying to keep non-smokers informed so they can avoid establishments which allow smoking if they wish, the Cancer Society tries to use the whole argument to force people to quit smoking.

It should be up to the owner of the establishment. If they want smokers - okay - if they want to take away the smoking - okay!
There would be both - smoking and smoke free bars and restaurants. That is okay! Let the public decide which bar or restaurant they would want to eat or drink.

This law is not just designed to keep non-smokers away from secondhand smoke. It is designed to make smoking as difficult as possible when the weather is bad. Thus, the proponents of the law get upset when people are able to smoke in bad weather without getting hurt.

More specifically, suppose there is a bad thunderstorm, with lightning. Where does the new law require smokers to smoke?

Suppose it's raining or hailing? Is a roof overhead with three-quarter walls permissible to shield the smokers from the storm?

Suppose it's 12 below zero outside. How can the smokers be made more comfortable?

This all goes to show, this law is a function of a nanny state, not just a protection of some from others.

Watch out fat people, drinkers, meat eaters etc. The libs will come after you next because it's all about control.

This is SO SIMPLE. The issue is how can a drinker-smoker COMFORTABLY have an alcoholic beverage and smoke a cigarette at the same time?

If no non-smoker is around, there is no secondhand smoke. There is no harm in having these areas adjacent to taverns where only the smokers are supposed to go.

Anti-smokers.. anti-abortionists.. prohibitionists.. they are all the same. I agre with Kathy - being overweight is next; it's already started in Oklahoma and Mississippi.