54 Comments - Wile Coyote - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 9:31 am: I don’t smoke cigarettes but do enjoy a cigar once a week or so. But, don’t the police have enough on their hands already than to watch out for this also? - JW - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 9:37 am: Too far- I am a non-smoker and yes I have seen vehicles with both parents puffing away with a baby in the vehicle that left me shaking my head. I have visited homes where there were multiple smokers who seemed oblivious to children around but the bottom line is you can’t legislate stupidty away and there are some parents that are just plain stupid. - grand old partisan - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 9:38 am: Slippery slope to banning smoking in the home? Absolutely. As a side note, I think that every bill that seeks to restrict or limit smoking should identify an alternative source of funding to make up for the resulting loss in tax revenue. - Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 9:39 am: Not far enough. Why stop there. We need the fat police, If you have a family history of heart problems, I would like everything you and your children eat monitored. The tv police. No violence. The alcohol police if you have a family history. I would like more government running my life because I have a family history of morons. More More More bring it on. While they’re at it can they monitor all my medication too? My doctors visits ? I have it, why don’t we sterilize smokers or anyone not living a healthy lifestyle. - the Other Anonymous - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 9:40 am: I have mixed thoughts on this. On the one hand, this seems to go too far. As JW said, you can’t legislate away stupidity. On the other hand, I support the ban on the use of hand held cell phones while driving. It seems to me that a lit cigarette is just as much of a hazard as holding a cell phone. Perhaps it’s the right idea for the wrong reason. - archpundit - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 9:41 am: GOP–part of the point is that if smoking decreases, so do the costs to government especially Medicaid. But to the point Rich makes, as someone who has a number of respiratory problems partially due to growing up with my mother smoking, this is a really overreaching law. Instead, the effort should be spent educating people about the dangers of smoking and helping people quit. - John Q - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 9:43 am: YES! Finally! Now please please please ban smoking in private residences where children are present. Children are too young to protect themselves, and when parents drop the ball, the government must be right there ready to pick it up to protect them. It is the moral thing to do. - Mr. Ethics - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 9:44 am: Enough already - if this is really about kid’s health and safety then ban them everywhere. But wait - how on earth will the politicians replace the lost tobacco tax revenue? Or who will support these kids when their parents are locked up for 30 days? Please think this through Mr Boland. - oldie opah - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 9:52 am: Another puff piece of legislation, unenforcable , a burdon to the police etc etc. You cannot legislate morality. Lets try try keep big brother in the corner puleeze - Avatar7 - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 10:00 am: Slippery slope to banning smoking in the home? “Slippery slope” seems to be implying banning it from people’s homes would be a bad thing? - Logical - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 10:15 am: Just another example of why we should insist that the legislature is part time. The more time these people spend in Springfield the more time to legislate idiotic ideas. I personally hate cigarette smoke, but it is not my responsibility to “save” smokers. I do not want to be crude but will they eventually outlaw flatuance in public places, or maybe BO. In my job it is on par with cigarette smoke. Send the pols home so they can get real jobs and understand real life again. - DOWNSTATE - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 10:18 am: I’m not a smoker but cell phones are far worse than cigarettes. - Sound Reasoning - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 10:19 am: This will eventually occur anyway as society increasingly turns to government to take care of them from the cradle to the grave. Why people feel that they should always turn to government for solutions is beyond me. Lets examine the government track record of taking care of their own responsibilites before putting them in charge of peoples personal responsibilities. Our state doesn’t pay their bills on time, they can’t balance a budget (which are two common tasks that regular families do every day with success), they do a poor job on crime control, they can’t secure our borders and the list can go on and on. But hey lets trust them with our lives and the lives of our children. - Trust Me - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 10:25 am: That’s great mike, you are consistently winning by the skin of your teeth and you want to make yourself “big brother” in one of the most “blue collar” districts in the state. Another stupid idea from Boland. When is this guy going to start addressing the jobs that are leaking out of the quad cities instead of dog bites and ciggarettes. Word to the wise, people in your district want jobs, not a baby sitter!!! - grand old partisan - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 10:27 am: Arch – Touche. That’s a fair point, but that raises an alarming prospect: The more fiscal responsibility over public health the state has, the more authority over everyday life decisions it will try to claim in the name of keeping those costs down. Comments about the “fat police” may seem snarky, but if eating unhealthy food will lead to increased burdens on Medicaid, Medicare, AllKids or “Cover Illinois,” then why shouldn’t the state start regulating the diets of those collecting benefits? This is what President Ford was talking about when he said that “a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have” - Robbie - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 10:36 am: A lot of you talk about taking away freedoms and decisions from people. But isn’t this law really about protecting those who cannot protect themselves? I grew up with a smoking mother and resent it to this day. (no I don’t resent her, just that she subjugated me to that) I am not sure I am in support of this specific law because of its enforceability, but who can really object to a law that keeps people healthy??? Then again I am still arguing that I shouldn’t have to wear my seat belt because I don’t like it… So maybe it is a bit more hazy than I thought. - He Makes Ryan Look Like A Saint - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 10:42 am: First off, I lived in a house with two parents that smoked like a chimney, that included in the car. I now have respiratory problems most likely by the second hand smoke. While I love the fact they are trying to help kids, I feel the Police have much more to do than to bust people smoking in their cars. I think it would be better for some sort of education to the parents that are doing this, either through PSA or some other type of add campaign. I think the ban in public places is great, but going further than that will be to intrusive. - U of I Dem - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 11:17 am: @grand old partisan… Funny/Disappointing side note about restricting diets of those collecting benefits: When I was in grade school, underprivileged kids would go to the convenience store after school with their family’s LINK cards and use them to buy as much chips and candy as humanly possible. While I certainly wouldn’t want the government snooping on what I eat, etc. why can’t the LINK program be like the WIC program, where “staples” are the primary food purchased using gov’t funds: milk, bread, beans, etc. Just some quick thoughts. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 11:44 am: For over forty years we have had OFFICIAL medical information confirming 100 years of anecdotal evidence that smoking KILLS. We expected smokers already hooked to die off, cut back or quit. We thought people would be smart enough to learn the facts and never start. We wanted to be nice about it. Our loved ones dying of cancer were ignorant victims. We understood how hard it is to quit nicotine. So we continued to hold our breaths and tried to find a nice way to end smoking. We posted warnings on cigarette packs, we started eliminating cigarette ads on TV, we made companies post warnings on their print ads, we banned smoking on airplanes, we banned smoking throughout restaurants, then we shut down the non-smoking sections, then we banned smoking in public places, banned it from 10 feet from public entrances, banned it from bars, now we are discussing banning it in cars with children in them. Each time we took a step, we empathetically listened to each complaint and considered each merit against our steps. Then we would run outside, take another breath, wash our hair, and return to listen to these smokers complain about the next step we took. A lot of it has worked. Smoking has been cut back substantially. Now, after 45 years of being nice, 45 years of education, 45 years of research, 45 years of lawsuits, 45 years of increasing smoking bans, YOUR TIME IS UP. Please stop pretending to be surprised by this. We have all seen the freight train running towards you and have been nicely advising you to step away from the ashtrays. As we have been saying for FORTY-FIVE FREAKING YEARS: please if you smoke - quit, and if you do not - don’t start. You have another ten years before we start banning it from your house, or just shut down the factories. GET A CLUE! - BBpolNut - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 11:57 am: For crying out loud. When will it stop. Either make cigarettes illegal or leave them alone. Why not ban fatty foods, liquor, sick people, gambling, noisy children and anything else people don’t like. - A Citizen - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 12:03 pm: If smoking or otherwise using tobacco products is so detrimental to citizens’ health and the government is supposed to save us from ourselves then why don’t they simply outlaw tobacco. Hippocrites all. - Utility Infielder - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 12:52 pm: GOP. Are you sure you want to go there? Legislation will create the “vice police” in the form of your employer. Now that he has to give you health insurance will mandate that you have 30 days to stop smoking, stop drinking and go on a diet. The morons will be spared. - anxious to see - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 1:02 pm: To BBpolNut: Your comment “Why not ban fatty foods, liquor, sick people, gambling, noisy children and anything else people don’t like.” is different from smoking because if I eat fatty foods, they affect me and only me. Liquer affects me and only me unless I choose to drive and hurt someone. If I sit next to you in a restaraunt and eat a burger and fries while having a beer, you are not affected in any way. If you smoke next to me, you potentially affect my health and I leave stinking. I am affected by you and it’s not my choice. I’m not taking sides, but these apples to oranges comparisons make no sense. - Judy, Judy, Judy - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 1:25 pm: I’m really quite surprised to see so many of you support a law like this. While I myself have never smoked, grew up in a home where my mother smoked, attended parties where others smoked, and feel there should be no smoking in all restuarants, this law would be one more on the path to Big Brother controlling everything you can and can’t do in life. Enough is enough! People are intelligent beings able to make decisions for themselves and their children - the government should not tell them what they can and cannot do in every aspect of their lives. Would I smoke with a child in the car? No, I wouldn’t smoke. But cigarettes are legal in the U.S. and people who choose should be allowed to smoke if they want. Who’s fooling who here? Legislatures should spend more time on balancing the budget and finding ways to pay their bills. They do not need to provide a law as a safeguard from all the bad things in life that can happen. They should not make decisions for all of us because they believe something to be right - who says their opinion is right and ours is wrong? They aren’t smarter than the rest of us, yet they perceive themselves to be. STOP IT! STOP THE NONSENSE BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE AND THEY INTRUDE INTO EVERY ASPECT OF YOUR LIFE. - grand old partisan - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 1:26 pm: “Infielder” I understand your point, but wouldn’t you say that there is a significant difference between a private employer requiring those things and a state government? - Just a Citizen - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 1:34 pm: This is the most ridiculous piece of legislation yet!! I agree with many of the comments already made. Just make cigarettes illegal if they are so bad is an example! As a past smoker, I can tell you I don’t like cigarette smoking or what it does to people but come on, no one can enforce such a law and it is ridiculous to put it on the books. Concentrate on the real issues within the State. - David - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 1:41 pm: This bills goes too far. Period! - Tom - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 1:45 pm: This law would be enforced almost as often as the ban on cell phone use while driving in Chicago, meaning very rarely. This would be another meaningless law from a legislator with too much time on his hands. People with colds and the flu are much more harmful to me than secondhand smoke, but I don’t want a law confining the sick to their houses. - Rae - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 1:54 pm: To me it’s a health isse, nothing else. The goverment steps in to insure we have clean air and work in places without hazardous substances such as asbestos, and I see second hand smoke as the same sort of problem. I think it’s high time we joined the more progressive rest of the country on this important issue. Let’s lead the Mid-West. - archpundit - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 2:02 pm: ===“fat police” may seem snarky Anyone who has seen me lately knows I am totally against the fat police. Rim shot And I don’t think regulating behavior is generally the way to go-education is generally the best strategy–smoking in public spaces to me is different because it affects others (me in particular though I suffer, suffer I tell you, through it in a bar). I wouldn’t ban it in cars, though parents should not do it. (actually just getting back to working out after some bouts of minor health problems, but definitely not for the fat police. - yinn - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 2:10 pm: I’m not sure that prohibiting smoking in a car with children present is a “slippery slope” to policing one’s house because the 4th Amendment has always been applied differently to cases involving automobiles than those involving homes. So I’m against it precisely because it would afford too little protection to children with moronic parents. It also seems a bit much to add this to officers’ duties. If we ban tobacco, we will create yet another underground market for a drug, so that’s not the answer, either. - Utility Infielder - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 2:11 pm: GOP. Absolutely. But, I can handle an employer madnate, (and I suspect we will see this matter tested in court), I don’t like the idea of another unenforceable law. Just like the kids in carseats law, which I support completely, but is for the most part ignored. - Whizbang - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 2:50 pm: Sure it is a slippery slope and a dumb idea. Ah but what the heck 1984 was 23 years ago. - zatoichi - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 3:14 pm: Talk about playing the Child card. For the sake of equality, it must also be the state’s responsibility to protect me from me. I want a law banning butts bigger than 50 inches, no BMIs above 25, eliminate all fried food, get rid of beans and the gas they bring, ban anything that can remotely be considered unhealthy. Demand 30-60 minutes of vigorous exercise daily. This will cut down on health issues, lower insurance costs, decrease the need for Medicare/Medicaid, and save multi millions of dollars. The police can be charged with enforcement since they basically sit in cars all day, have the time, and are paragons of health. Makes as much sense as banning smoking in every possible location and telling people what to do. Last I looked smoking was as legal as a Krispy Kreame and Big Mac. Now, pass that bag of chips over here. - Levois - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 3:20 pm: If this was addressed to prevent 2nd hand smoke it would make sense if and only if this was actually proven. I don’t know trying to enter your vehicle and saying you can’t smoke with a child inside. That’s not to say a child shouldn’t be exposed to that, but I think this goes to far. - Duh - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 3:33 pm: Ok - so I get the fact that some people believe that it’s the state’s responsibility to protect children, but this is another ridiculous example of government intervention where it doesn’t belong. How can IL even consider a bill like this without passing immediate legislation (with appropriate funding) to mandate that all school transportation install and require the use of seatbelts? Government certainly has a right to have input where public funds are involved. No? It’s too expensive? Bad idea? Then try this idea. I would like to see a ban on all legislators eating foods with high cholesterol, sugars, fat, and anything else that is proven to be unhealthy. My tax dollars are funding their health insurance and clearly they are not capable of making good choices. They must need a “parental figure” to make decisions on their behalf. - Papa Legba - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 3:51 pm: Way too far. My God. As was stated in other posts you can legislate away stupidity. Just think of the trauma that the child will go through seeing mommy or daddy getting hauled away by the police because they were tugging on a butt. Mental trauma lasts a lifetime as well as respiratory problems. Cell phones are by far more dangerous to occupants in the car as well as other drivers. You have to be extra careful on the road now because you have idiots yapping on the phone instead of driving. And one more thing. When I pick up my child from day care I see many people who just plop their kid into the car seat. No buckling them in, just setting the kid on the seat. What do they think the car seat is for? So junior can see out the window better? Idiots. Don’t even get me going on the morons watching their DVD players as they cruise down the highway. - Irish1 - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 4:01 pm: Anyone wanting to have children should need a license. Proof of responsible behavior is required and agreement to vote yes to all school referendums. - Freezeup - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 4:12 pm: For whatever it’s worth, I’m a trooper, and I am a rabid anti-smoker. I grew up in a house full of smokers. I would rather not be in the middle of this issue. It seems to dredge up amazingly strong feelings on both sides of the issue. I am disgusted when I see people smoking in cars with small children and infants present. (Tobacco AND marijuana. Happens all the time.) Frankly, I believe that most judges would scorn enforcement of a law like this even though there are good reasons for it. Like I said, I’d rather not be in the middle of that. In enforcement of any law that is created by the presence of a child, sometimes it becomes a challenge to keep some “parents” from taking their anger for the ticket out on the child. Example: While the child restraint laws are effective and necessary, (and I believe strongly in the law), more than once I have had mothers screaming at their children and roughly buckling them up after recieving a ticket. It breaks your heart and you do everything you can do to mitigate the situation, some days I go home wondering if my enforcement actions will cause abuse of the child later. I agree that this is about protecting those who cannot protect themselves, but I also think that laws tend to have unintended, unforseeable consequences. Wish I had an answer. - Can't Say!!!!! - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 4:15 pm: I am an anti-smoker, but don’t we have bigger fish to fry than smoking bans and fois gras (sp?)bans? Meaningless, time wasting blather. - Matt - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 4:52 pm: To everyone who is comparing smoking to eating fatty food, drinking, etc.: Smoking is that only legal product, that when used according to directions, will kill you. Fat in moderation is no problem. Drinking in moderation actually has health benefits. Smoking in moderation? No such thing, - T.J. - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 5:28 pm: Why not cut to the chase and force bars out of business on some other, more direct rationale? - Skeeter - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 6:55 pm: I have to laugh at the responses here. People are outraged about legislation to protect children. If you think this is a bad law, please don’t reproduce. Difficult to enforce? Probably. So is speeding but the laws remain on the books. But too much government intrusion? No way. Legislation that will save the hearts and lungs of children is about as pro-life and necessary as any legislation I could imagine. - Skeeter - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 7:01 pm: One more thing: I am tired of hearing smoking compared to fatty food. Message to smokers: NOBODY CARES IF YOU KILL YOURSELF. WE DON’T CARE. IF YOU ARE DUMB ENOUGH TO SMOKE, PLEASE SMOKE MORE. YOU ARE THE LAME GAZELLE OF THE HUMAN RACE. YOUR SMOKING THINS THE HERD. What we care about is when your bad habits causes us to get cancer. Find ways to kill yourself that will not also kill those around you. - Gregor - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 8:23 pm: I think the person drafting the legislation has their heart in the right place, but I think that unlike a public facility like a bar or other building, the car is not as practical a locaton to enforce this rule. Frankly, I think its a solution to the wrong problem, this is a parenting and awareness problem, and I think you’d actually get more and better results approaching it from that angle. Make it a law and you’ll get exceptionally inconsistent application and resentment. - Eddy - Thursday, Mar 8, 07 @ 2:13 am: Skeeter….here it is in capital letters… DO GOODER….GET A LIFE….go work for the lung association, and get out of my private life. You’re ugly, and that offends me. You got a match? - It makes cents... - Thursday, Mar 8, 07 @ 6:41 am: If creating a law to protect 80.1% (percentage of Illinois non-smokers)of its population is intrusive; then why does the government legislate laws pertaining to, but not limited to: asbestos, mercury, leaded gasoline, lead shot, lead paint, opiates, pharmaceutical drugs, illicit drugs; drunk driving, child abuse, partner abuse, animal abuse, slavery, discrimination, etc.? BECAUSE ITS THEIR JOB TO PROTECT THE CITIZENS. At one time all these products and actions were legal or at least tolerated by society. Smokers: go ahead a kill yourself, but don’t take me or my family with out with you! - Skeeter - Thursday, Mar 8, 07 @ 8:31 am: Eddy, If protecting children from cancer makes me a do gooder, so be it. With regard to your other question: No, but I do encourage you to smoke more. We need to thin the herd. Light up all day long. Fine by me. Want to make my day Eddy? Smoke ten packs today. I will be very pleased. - T.J. - Thursday, Mar 8, 07 @ 8:41 am: “For the children” is not Teflon coating for an otherwise vacuous argument. Do you take your toddler to the bar late at night? - Patriot - Thursday, Mar 8, 07 @ 3:59 pm: If Illinois truly wants to protect children. Protect them from sexual predators. Pass “Jessica’s Law” now. - Winston - Thursday, Mar 8, 07 @ 6:02 pm: Too far!! I hear they’re out to pass state-wide legislation on this. I see quite a few of you applauding this bill and have seen many up in arms over the spanking bill. There is really no difference if you don’t want the gvt telling you how to raise your kids (smoking will be the first hurdle) after that it will be you won’t be able to consume a glass of wine around them, then it will be the way you punish them, food will be next, then it will be religion. It’s a very slippery slope and what you applaud now as being in the best interest will affect the next things including religious teachings. Should we also demand that cigarettes be made illegal immediately. And I mean immediately. Then we can sit back and watch all the state govts die from trying to make up the tax revenue. Let’s not even get into what the fed govt will lose. I’m glad so many people here are willing to see their state taxes go up as much as 50 percent to make up for the lost income. It’s only fair, since almost no money from the big tobacco settlement (the rape of the tobacco companies) and from state excise taxes on cigarettes goes to helping smokers quit. In my state, the cigarette money goes into the general fund - meaning all the self-righteous, sanctimonious non-smokers BENEFIT directly from cigarette taxes. And so do their children. Isn’t that kind of hypocritical? Oh, wait, it’s okay to be hypocritical as long as you’re a non-smoker casting blame and revulsion and disgust against evil, weak-willed, pathetic, smelly SMOKERS. (Of course, we all know we would never do such a thing, at least not to fat people, or gays, or even alcoholics.) But it’s human nature to find SOMEONE you think you’re better than, and what better target than smokers? You can hate them vocally and openly and be rewarded! (Just the observations of a non-smoking, non fat spectator in the Hypocrisy Wars). I can think of a million behaviors of people that are dangerous. They aren’t illegal, because so far, you can be as stupid as you want and no one will lock you up. In fact, the law will force other competent people to subsidize your stupidity. Because - which is my point - SOME behaviors that kill are okay, some garner sympathy and compassion, but smoking is (gasp!) socially unacceptable. You can mock and disparage smokers to kingdom come, and you’ll be greeted with hearty nods and the armor of sanctimonious self-righteousness. Of course, the habits of the tskers and haters are immune to scrutiny. If we were honest, we’d all admit we have habits and behaviors that someone is bound to find disgusting, repulsive, and even dangerous. Smokers are society’s scapegoats. I just merely point out the obvious. It sometimes gets lost in the sanctimony tsunami. I’d patronize a restaurant in a heartbeat that excluded kids!!!! Now this isn’t politically correct at all, but there are way too many bratty kids that imbecilic parents bring into restaurants and let them run wild. The parents refuse to discipline their monsters, but they think everyone else should have to put up with it. A child-free zone made just for adults? Is there such a thing anymore? Let me know where it is! I’m THERE! - Skeeter - Thursday, Mar 8, 07 @ 6:10 pm: Actually, Win, a bill to outlaw spanking wouldn’t bother me at all: 1. A law to stop people from hitting kids. Seems sensible. I don’t see any “right” to beat kids; 2. A law to stop people from people not to smoke in cars when children are present. I am not aware of any “right” to force children to inhale things that will kill them. With regard to the tax question: If we could raise taxes by taxes by allowing some power plants to spew carcinogens and slowly kill everyone around, would we go for that deal? Of course not. We are civilized. And finally, although I have said this repeatedly most of the inhalers just don’t get it (looks like the smoking has done its damage already): We ENCOURAGE you to smoke, as long as nobody else is around to breathe in your smoke. - ripped - Friday, Mar 9, 07 @ 12:55 am: # Tom - Wednesday, Mar 7, 07 @ 1:45 pm: “People with colds and the flu are much more harmful to me than secondhand smoke, but I don’t want a law confining the sick to their houses.” ABSOLUTELY! As I sit here with a terrible flu I caught on the El, I can tell you that germy people are far more dangerous than any second hand smoke I might encounter throughout the day. Oh, and what about parents that drink in front of their young kids? Aren’t they just as dangerous? Why don’t we simply outlaw stupidity? Wouldn’t that cover all the bases? - Winston - Friday, Mar 9, 07 @ 9:15 pm: Skeeter, In your first point you refer to “beating” kids. This is a “spanking” bill. Not beating. Big difference. And yes, I believe in spanking. Spanking could save their lives. I often wish congress would do an “exploratory committee” on these people (teens included, as in Columbine), to see if any of them were ever spanked, or were given “time outs” when growing up. Your second point…this just proved my second paragraph, second sentence that’s it’s too bad we don’t outlaw STUPID PEOPLE!! And I’m a firm believer that people should have to pass a test before being allowed to procreate. Of course I don’t condone smoking “around” children. But I do believe, if you have children to raise, you have a recourse to smoke. Just don’t smoke around them. On your third point of taxes, I guess you really won’t have to worry about that as “Joe the private citizen” because Sponge-Bob will never raise our taxes. He’ll just stick it to big businesses, which will send them running from Illinois to other states. I read there’s a huge push to once again illegalize alcohol. I’m all for it!! I am not worried about a guy who may smoke an entire pack of cigarettes, getting behind the wheel of his car and possibly killing me. I am however worried about a gut who has 6 or 7 beers and shots getting behind the wheel of his car and killing me and others. You want to get sanctimonious, we can ALL get sanctimonious. Cigarettes may kill the user and infect those around him. Alcohol may kill the user, (unless he’s drunk enough to survive the crash), and not “infect” but could very likely kill those around him. I just want all the self-righteous, court-bounding do-gooders to get hit with laws that affect THEIR personal lives. Let’s hear how loud they cry when their constitutional rights are infringed upon. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.