1. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Nov 13, 07 @ 10:37 am:

   Yes, it is reasonable to expect that any smoking area is fixed so that the pollution doesn’t waft into the rest of the facility. No smoking within 15 feet of any door to a smoking area. Just making a garden a smoking area doesn’t mean you can have smokers seated by the door in the garden. If establishments wish to cater to smokers they may need to do more than just set up tables outside. No smoking means no smoke pollution or stench in the establishment.

   To smokers, it was reasonable that they just feel bad when their smoke ruins your meal. Smokers don’t care about themselves, so why should they care about others? We consider smoker’s “reasons” the same way they have cared for our reaons over the past 100 years.




2. - zatoichi - Tuesday, Nov 13, 07 @ 10:38 am:

   Seems to be a lot of “smoke” over an adult issue and who a bar/restaurant wants to cater to. If my business can go smoke free and be profitable to a level I want, then great for me. If I own the business and I prefer to allow smokers (for whatever reason), then my customers and employees know what they are stepping into. It becomes their choice to be there. If my business fails due to being a smoker or non-smoker place then it fails, just like many other business go under or succeed based on the appeal/lack of appeal to paying customers. Surely some group will talk about the health benefits/insurance costs and how it effects their personal rates. All that is true. But so do overweight people, people in poor health, people with bad genes for some family related disease process, and many other related items. As a non-smoker, this entire items seems to be more a feel good PR, election item. There are several restaurants in our town I simply do not go to becasue of the smoke. My life is not ruined because of it. I really prefer smokers to be away from the entrances to non-recreational buildings. After that, it becomes my choice of where I spend my time and bucks. If the owner wants my business they will accomodate.




3. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Nov 13, 07 @ 11:21 am:

   Apparently, the smoking ban issue is no longer a hot topic here. lol.




4. - steve schnorf - Tuesday, Nov 13, 07 @ 11:25 am:

   Bureaucracy compounding stupid. For safety reasons,
   let’s limit the number of angels on the head of a pin. Of course we would need rules on how to count, and how close together pins could be.




5. - lake county democrat - Tuesday, Nov 13, 07 @ 11:30 am:

   So instead of letting consenting adults kill themselves in a bar with cigarette smoke, now it moves outside where it can waft into non-smoker space. Friggin nannystate.




6. - Justice - Tuesday, Nov 13, 07 @ 1:39 pm:

   Yes, I think the rules are very reasonable. I would also ask that smokers change into jump suits to enter the smoking area and leave them there when they re-enter. They also must enter through a special chamber to breathe clean air for two minutes before exhaling in the non-smoking area. If they smoke and have more than five tattoos and or body piercings they must move to Teaneck, New Jersey.




7. - No Smokes For You! - Tuesday, Nov 13, 07 @ 2:17 pm:

   *WHEN* are we going to ban smoking in privates homes, like they are staring to do out in California?

   The health of our children - the ones that can defend themselves the least - is at stake.




8. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Nov 13, 07 @ 5:15 pm:

   Smoking bans protect employees, too, not just customers. By the logic of “zatoichi,” we could eliminate regulations of work place safety generally, let each employer decided how safe to make their workplace and if an employee isn’t skilled enough to get a job at a more desirable “safe” workplace and can only get a job at an unsafe workplace, well, it helps thin the gene pool.




9. - Truthful James - Tuesday, Nov 13, 07 @ 5:18 pm:

   Smoking ought to be a matter for consenting adults in the privacy of their home.

   I feel for the small blue collar ethnic bars (used to own one) where people who grew up in the ward came after finishing in their trades jobs even after they had moved out to the suburbs. And also the tiny restaurants where an ethnic dinner was to be had and beer and funny cards was the order of the evening. With a seating area maybe twenty four feet by twelve feet and lino covered tables how in heck are you going to have a no smoking area. Where a plumber or sewerman can go still stinking from the job, having washed his face and hands and changed to dry clothes in the shadow of his truck.

   Those places are gone forever. Get home earlier to hear the wife complain.




10. - JakeCP - Tuesday, Nov 13, 07 @ 8:26 pm:

    In my opinion:
    I believe that private business owners should have the right to chose to ban smoking in their establishments. This really shouldn’t be an issue because the government has no right to tell a privately owned business to ban smoking. I don’t think any smoking ban compromise is reasonable because if people smoke outside or in a privately owned place then it should be allowed.




11. - kimsch - Wednesday, Nov 14, 07 @ 8:33 am:

    the proprietor shall not permit tobacco smoke to drift into areas where smoking is prohibited through entrances, windows, ventilation systems, or other means.

    So, the proprietor is responsible for the wind? That’s what would happen if the smoke from the smoking area of the garden reached the non-smoking area of the garden because of a breeze. You are OUTSIDE.

    Also the 15 feet rule may make smokers go out into the middle of the street in a high density area like Chicago. It’d be the only place that was 15 feet from a door.

    I have been smoke free since April 25, 2006 and glad of it, but sometimes the nanny state is too much.

TrackBack URI

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.