Comments on: Smoking ban: Only 6 law enforcement visits so far

By: snowbird

snowbird — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 06:18:32 +0000

A smokeless environmentI believe that non-smokers, like anyone else, have this right.

But how far does that right extend?

Should it take priority over someone else's rights?

Court houses, publicly owned buildings and anywhere else an
individual might be forced to go should properly be included in any
smoking law.
What should not be included are places located in or on private property,

providing an individual is not compelled by necessity or law,

to frequent or work at that specific location.
Second-hand smoke is not a statistically significant health risk.
Smoking laws mean: It is against the law to use or permit a legal product on 'private' property.
Is this the American way??
There are two reason for smoing bans and neither of them are about health.
Quarantine/isolate the smoker.
Denormaile smoking .
Unfortunately, the hospitality iscaught in the cross-fire.

http://smokersclubinc.com
http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com

Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Ph. 807 3457258

By: daddysteve

daddysteve — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 22:34:43 +0000

Here's a thought; how about installing a ceiling vent? How much would it cost to install better ventilation? No, let's enforce our socialist meddling at the point of a gun. It's easy to push around a minority (smokers) with the the power of big govt. C'mon, smoking has been around for HUNDREDS of years. Socialist sheep.

By: generalsn

generalsn — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:50:01 +0000

Here in Chicago, seven bars that I know of within two miles of my place, maybe more, ignore the ban. Many of the people who are suposed to enforce it are regular customers. Instead of just closing shop, most bars are willing to risk a fine to stay in business. The customers pay the bills, not the state. Mayor Daley calls the ban “silly”