Back in the days of Prohibition, there were still places to buy and drink alcohol: speakeasies. What’s going to happen when the smoking ban goes into effect in Illinois? I think we can expect to find the smoking equivalent of the old speakeasies popping up around town: “smokeasies.”
You can find smokeasies in other states where a smoking ban is in effect, such as Washington, Pennsylvania, and New York. You can count on finding them here, too. Well, not everyone will find them — just those who are smokers or no-snitch non-smokers who know where to look.
Sure, in the summer they won’t be necessary because smokers can use outdoor patios and beer gardens where smoking will still be allowed (at least for now). But when winter rolls around, and it’s too cold to stand outside, there will be places where the demonized smokers will be able to sit inside, in secret, and enjoy their cigarettes and beer together.
Then no doubt we’ll have to divert limited police resources from neighborhood patrols to try to root out this new class of “criminals.” Welcome to Illinois, the Land of Lincoln Nanny State.
Like it or not, 60+% of registered voters who chose to vote in that recent non-binding referendum indicated they wanted all public/private businesses to become smoke-free. The politicians saw this as a slam dunk.
Yea, 60+% of very low voter turnout. Maybe we’ll have Kramer open up his apartment to allow smokers to kick back.
House parties may increase because of this. It would be a place to cook out, have some drinks and of course smokes. The restauranter and tavern owner will unfortunately lose out.
Using the 60% and it must be right formula I would hope that there are a bunch more bills ready for votin. 60% of folks may be disgusted or feel endangered by all sorts of stuff, lets ban them. Gotta be all sorts of things we could think of.
62.25% of voters in 2005 voted for a ban on full nudity in Peoria. I’ve kind of been wondering why it hasn’t been banned yet.
at least 62.25% of Peorians should never be nude under any circumstances, look around you.
Hmmm….CommonSenseDude…time to start doing some advertising 🙂
Also, it was 60%+ of a misleading question. If it were two questions such as: “Do you think that smoking should be banned in restaurants” and “should smoking be banned in bars that serve minimal or no food” I bet we would have seen higher numbers in question one and lower numbers in question two. Lumping bars and restaurants together most likely skewed the response. I am against the ban (oh, well – and I don’t smoke) but would have voted yes to that very biased and pointed ballot question because it would ban smoking in restaurants. But since it banned it in bars (stupid), too, I voted no.
You will still be able to smoke in tobacco shops, such as the Tinder Box. As long as a retail establishment receives at least 80% of their revenue from tobacco or related accessories, they can allow smoking. Thank goodness the government is so worried about my health…if only they were as worried about upholding the state constitution. Like Will Rogers once said…It’s a good thing we don’t get all the government we pay for.
Smokers should NEVER smoke around ANYONE without first asking for their EXPLICIT consent. Lighting up without such explicit consent is selfish and rude – and, quite frankly, assault.
If proud and hardened smokers want to gather in tobacco shops and concentrate their carcinogens … frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn. It’s – quite literally – their funeral.
January 1st can’t come soon enough. After that, you folks all up in arms about this common sense public health measure can take your whine out on the patio while I enjoy my smoke-free meal.
I’ve missed your red herring arguments, Knight. Glad you stopped by.
You might be surprised to learn that you can enjoy a smoke-free meal right now, before January 1. That’s right! There are lots of smoke-free dining establishments out there. You could even start your own if you wanted. Or you can stay home and eat a home-cooked meal (which is better for your health than eating restaurant food, by the way).
See, the selfishness is not on the part of the smokers, but the anti-smokers. The real reason you want the ban is to punish smokers for smoking, not because you want to enjoy a smoke-free meal. You never have to endure second-hand smoke against your will in a restaurant; you always have the choice of patronizing that establishment or not.
“See, the selfishness is not on the part of the smokers, but the anti-smokers. … You never have to endure second-hand smoke against your will in a restaurant; you always have the choice of patronizing that establishment or not.”
Really? I teach in a smoke-free building. 80% of my students go out during the break in the 3 hour class to get a smoke. One day last week when they came back in, the smoke coming off them was so bad in that enclosed classroom I started having an asthma attack and couldn’t teach until we vented the classroom.
So how am *I* supposed to avoid being subjected to an asthma-attack-inducing level of smoke in my smoke-free workplace?
Eyebrows: Forgive me, but I’m not following your logic. Are you saying we should make it illegal for people’s clothes to smell like smoke in a smoke-free area now? There are lots of things that can trigger an asthma attack. What if they came to school right after mowing the lawn and the pollen caused an asthma attack? Should that also be made a criminal act? What if someone is wearing perfume too strong? Fine them?