Chicago's loons are way out of line here. Whether or not one likes smoking (or drinking or any other activity), their portrayal in a theatrical production belongs outside government's purview. I'm not a smoker, but this action is needless revisionism and censorship.

Posted by JRR on May 9, 2007 at 12:45 PM Suggest Removal

Instead the City of Champaign Mayor and several city council members are focused on the nonsense of partially repealing an ordinance which will be irrelevant in 7 months and has been demonstrated to not harm the local economy. Now that's real nonsense as it is a waste of time and resources and bad public policy and merely illustrates the level of petty retribution sought by those desiring to revisit that issue.

Posted by mattvarbl on May 9, 2007 at 2:04 PM Suggest Removal

This example is the next step in the "incrementalism" to ban smoking and the freedom to smoke legal products. If "Smoke Free Illinois" were honest they would just focus on getting tobacco products banned and outlawed altogether from the start.

People that believe in freedom should visit the website of "Smoke Free Illinois" and read some of the statements there. Some of their statements reveal their intentions dramatically. They claim "65,000 Ameicans die from second hand smoke annually" and "one person dies from secondhand smoke for every 8 smokers who die from directly smoking (tobacco products)". If this were true (585,000 American deaths annually), why hasn't the Surgeon General and the Federal Drug Administration along with the Center for Disease Control declared tobacco products a major health poison and banned the production, sale, possesion, and use altogether?

mattvarbl..Why shouldn't the City of Champaign repeal this ordinance since the council members who were voted in campaigned on and won their positions by considerable margins stating outright they would revisit this "nanny state" ordinance? Doncha just love democrecy in action when it works for freedom?

jrr.. you don't seem to be completely truthful, either here or on a previous comment. You are either "an occasional cigar smoker" or "not a smoker" as stated above, I wonder which but don't really care (if you are truthful or not).

The "debate over public smoking" (as stated in the opening line) is not over. If people and businesses work to elect people who will overturn "nanny state" restrictions on freedom they can be overcome wheather on the state level or the local level as in the City of Champaign.

I have read several opinions on this subject and many from those who do not smoke are not in favor of this ban, myself among them (I do not smoke). I don't believe "nanny state" laws/ordinances based on lies (8 deaths from secondhand smoke per day in Illinois) are a good thing.

Non-smokers never "had to" patronize an establishment that allowed smoking.

There has never been a ban on a business that wanted to be non-smoking and cater to a non-smoking public. Now there IS a ban on esstablishments that want to allow smoking and cater to a smoking public.

Re-read the second paragraph in the editors letter above "in this rush to stamp out other peoples' vices" and you will understand how much of a "nanny state" "protect people from their own bad habits" type of legislation this truly is.

"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness" is a GOOD thing to base a country's laws on, not "I don't like your bad habits and don't want to be around them so I will make a law so if I go somplace you can't indulge in my presence".

Posted by FReRydr on May 9, 2007 at 3:53 PM Suggest Removal

FReRydr, for all intents and purposes I am a non-smoker -- my "occasional" cigar smoking is in the vicinity of one cigar every month or two. Most people (including my physician) consider me to be non-smoker, but you now know the details for whatever little worth they are to you.

Posted by JRR on May 9, 2007 at 6:03 PM Suggest Removal

mattvarbl..Why shouldn't the City of Champaign repeal this ordinance since the council members who were voted in campaigned on and won their positions by considerable margins stating outright they would revisit this "nanny state" ordinance?

Ummm..then why was Councilman Tom Bruno the lead in obtaining votes? Your statement is not accurate as if it were true he wouldn't have been re-elected. I believe there were other factors such as money and general quality of candidates that outweighed the impact of votes cast solely on the smoking ban. Look at the Campaign finance disclosure reports for Foster and Feinen and you'll see allot of money from bars and from the Mayor going into their pocket. That will tell you about their intentions and who they support.

Posted by mattvarbl on May 10, 2007 at 7:57 AM Suggest Removal

mattvarbl

So in your opinion, bar owners are not constituants? It is their businesses that are most affacted and they were wise to support candidates that would help them keep fron having to possibly close.

From what I have read (not that all things in print are infallable), Tom Bruno was the least adament about keeping the smoking ban intact, based on the loss of revenue to the businesses.

Posted by FReRydr on May 10, 2007 at 3:37 PM Suggest Removal