Gapers Block has ceased publication.

Gapers Block published from April 22, 2003 to Jan. 1, 2016. The site will remain up in archive form. Please visit Third Coast Review, a new site by several GB alumni.
 Thank you for your readership and contributions. 


Monday, June 24

Gapers Block

Gapers Block on Facebook Gapers Block on Flickr Gapers Block on Twitter The Gapers Block Tumblr


printdude / December 7, 2005 11:52 AM

Lemme preface this by saying that I am a reformed smoker:

I think the ban infringes upon the free will of my fellow human beings.
I think that if restaurants and bars wished ti be smoke-free, that would be their perogative, but I am wholeheartedly against legislature for health reasons.
No body is going to be at a bar for health reasons!
Should someone wish to avoid smoke, it is easy for them to avoid the bars that allow smokers.

amanda / December 7, 2005 11:55 AM

I say hooray! Now I can go to bars and not have to do laundry and take a shower the second I get home!

d4ve / December 7, 2005 12:01 PM

it's about freakin time!

Pedro / December 7, 2005 12:02 PM

These bars and restaraunts are privately owned businesses, people. Not public domain.

The way I see this thing rolling out is that some bars will choose to comply with the ban in early '06. They will see that a large percentage of their business is drinking at a bar that still allows smoking, thus strengthening the restaraunt associations initial position.

In two years, we will have a new debate.

jen / December 7, 2005 12:03 PM

i say yay!

i used to smoke, but, apart from the *bar* issue, going to concerts for me lately has been the pits. every show at abbey pub i've left with watery eyes and black boogers from the smoke.

and that's the thing - i don't mind a little smoke. but a bar/club also can't very well say "well, 25% of people here are already smoking, so you can't light up", it's all or none. thus, i'd prefer none.

hench / December 7, 2005 12:06 PM

on again, off again smoker. currently very on again.

i think it's going to reduce the severity of my hangovers by a factor of 5.

just spent a week or so in california. mostly in bars and rock venues... the nonsmoking thing takes a couple days to get used to, but it's not that much of an imposition to walk ooutside for a few minutes. granted, december in san diego is less of a dicey proposition than december in chicago.

there's also always going to be places that let one smoke on the sly (e.g., every bar in williamsburg, brooklyn) - once the initial hype wears down, things will likely be smokey business as usual, just a bit sneakier.

steven / December 7, 2005 12:09 PM

As someone who doesn't smoke, I'm glad it's finally going to happen. And while it's true that no one is going to a bar for health reasons, I shouldn't have to worry about my health when I go to a bar. If I have 1 beer, it doesn't affect everyone around me in a negative way. If I smoke 1 cigarette, it does. And I'm not referring to stinking up someone's clothes and hair.

Carrie / December 7, 2005 12:11 PM

Bring on the ban! I'm curious to learn from printdude that it's "easy" to find smoke-free bars. I live in East Lakeview, and the only one near me I'm aware of is Minibar on Halsted. And as to a bar being generally unhealthy anyway...that argument might hold water if people actually poured alcohol down my throat at a bar. Since they don't, I shouldn't have to share their unhealthy, second-hand smoke either.

eep / December 7, 2005 12:19 PM

While I don't really like being in an overly-smoky bar, I have to agree with printdude. It just seems to me that if the government was so concerned about our health and the effects cigarettes have on it, they should just ban the suckers outright. Maybe that's what this is, the baby steps towards making tobacco illegal. Maybe in a few decades that will be the case. But for right now, I feel sorry for the smokers. They're addicted, and they're treated like social lepers because of it.

I don't see why the proprietors of the bars and restaurants can't choose whether they want to be smoke-free or not. Why does there need to be a citywide blanket rule?

paul / December 7, 2005 12:22 PM

I'm mixed on this. I'm an ex-occasional bar smoker, and I'd hate to think that they'll be a day when one can't have a beer and a cigarette. But smoke seems more offensive to me as I grow older.

If the compromise of smoke cleaning machines mentioned in the article is to work, that technology really needs to advance. I always seem to get caught sitting between those things and the smokers, so the smoke flows past me, making me feel like a side of bacon in a smoker.

Put those things IN the bar or on the floor, so second hand smoke never reaches other noses.

matty / December 7, 2005 12:32 PM

Restaurants should be able to chose on their own and let the market sort itself out.

If you don't want to work in a bar that has smokers, simply go work in a bar with the ban. Same goes for the patrons. Imposing this is stupid, particularly if you are forcing patrons out into the cold (0 degrees!) to smoke.

matty / December 7, 2005 12:33 PM

also i am not a smoker.

Erica / December 7, 2005 12:33 PM

Salt and Pepper. Peanut Butter and Jelly. Drinkin' and Smokin'.

I can't imagine a bar sans smokers. They just go together. It just seems crazy and I don't even smoke.

My boss had a funny comment about visiting his fave New York Bar recently: "Yeah, it was weird. Without the smoke, you could really smell the bathrooms."

Granted, NYC is dirty and all, but still.

Robin / December 7, 2005 12:45 PM

I love smoking bans!

It is so nice to come home from the bar and not have to shower and hang my coat out on the porch for the night.

taj / December 7, 2005 12:46 PM

i say great. someone elses's free will to smoke their lungs away is trasspassing on my free will to be healthy and smoke free.

amyc / December 7, 2005 12:46 PM

These bars and restaraunts are privately owned businesses, people. Not public domain.

I just can't get behind this argument. Privately owned businesses have to comply with all sorts of government rules and regulations. Would you eat in a restaurant that only selectively followed health codes because the owner thought he should be allowed to choose which ones he obeyed, for example?

Carrie / December 7, 2005 12:50 PM

Right on, AmyC! The citywide ban makes sense for the same reason that the federal govenment bans asbestos, some pesticides, and many other carcinogens: they kill people.

Stosh / December 7, 2005 12:54 PM

>Would you eat in a restaurant that only
>selectively followed health codes because
>the owner thought he should be allowed to
>choose which ones he obeyed, for example?

Why do you trust the government inspectors? What if they are on the take? Just because someone gives a restaurant a thumbs ups doesn't mean everything is on the level. Bribes, incompetence (inspector is an alderman's second cousin's neighbor's friend...etc) all come into play in city politics.

For some reason when the government becomes involved, we become all too trusting. And knowing how Chicago works, I cringe at this sometimes.

Beau G. Pickens / December 7, 2005 12:56 PM

I believe in reasonable freedom from government regulation, but I support the ban. Smoking is just too big and broad a public health risk not to take steps like this.

If the ban is instituted, I'll start going to shows again! And I'll form a band called "The Black Boogers."

jp / December 7, 2005 1:03 PM

I only smoke the occasional marijuana so it doesn't really affect me but if it did I would be for it. We all have to be considerate of other people and cigarette smokers are notoriously selfish not to mention the way they smell. Since recent studies show smoking causes long term mental debilitation so it is probably hard for smokers to understand that the proposed ban is in there best health interests. I do not usually side with any type of legislation that infringes on our personal freedoms but this one is on the money. This is a no brainer. Plus smoking is addictive and since when do we cater to the needs of addicts?

Kevin / December 7, 2005 1:09 PM

Plus smoking is addictive and since when do we cater to the needs of addicts?

See also: Alcohol Industry.

Aliota / December 7, 2005 1:10 PM

First, they came for people who talked on cell phones while driving. Since I hated those people, I cheered.

Then they came for the jaywalkers and bicyclists. They were always causing traffic problems, so I was very happy when the hammer fell on them.

And then they came for the smokers. Nobody liked those people, so I celebrated by going out and having a smoke-free drink.

Finally, the only people left were the ones just like me. And life was all good after that.

Kevin / December 7, 2005 1:12 PM

The citywide ban makes sense for the same reason that the federal govenment bans asbestos, some pesticides, and many other carcinogens: they kill people.

Except in those cases there is hard irefutable evidence of the dangers of those substances in the workplace. Despite the Osteen decision being overturned, many more studies since then have concluded, despite the EPA's hyperbole, that the dangers of secondhand smoke are negligible at best.

jennifer / December 7, 2005 1:13 PM

"Since recent studies show smoking causes long term mental debilitation so it is probably hard for smokers to understand that the proposed ban is in there best health interests."

As a smoker, I find this statement completely rude and offensive.

I support the ban, because it will make it that much easier for me to quit. The closest I ever came to quitting was when I lived in NYC earlier this year.

Paula / December 7, 2005 1:20 PM

I support the ban for the same reason many others mentioned - I'm tired of going to bars and clubs and coming home and having to immediately take a shower and throw any clothes that I was wearing into the washer. I can't wait to be able to go back to some of my favorite bars. If NYC can do it - Chicago certainly can do it.

Pete / December 7, 2005 1:21 PM

Now that this ban is in place, we can start working on getting fast food made illegal also.

gb / December 7, 2005 1:28 PM

as an ex-regular smoker and very occasional smoker that never really liked cigarrette smoke, it will be nice to be in smoke-free places. going outside is not that hard, and if i'm not mistaken, people somehow survive during smoke breaks outside offices in the winter. plus, i'm pretty sure no matter how comprehensive the ban gets, you will still be able to find a place that lets you smoke, if you know where to look.

and aloita: ha, "when the hammer fell on [the jaywalkers and bicyclists]." yeah, that 'hammer' sure pounded out the real "traffic problems." (hint the big metal boxes might contribute some to the 'problem.')

mike / December 7, 2005 1:45 PM

I wish it would just go through tomorrow, so I wouldn't have to listen to any more whining from both sides of this debate. I'm honestly more than happy to go outside. I do it at home.

I am also making a personal vow, from this moment on, to say "no" to any social or bar-smoker who asks me for a cigarette. Those people are the worst.

Xan / December 7, 2005 1:55 PM

ban the smoking.
can't believe it's taken so effing long.

Tendrix / December 7, 2005 2:00 PM

If you don't want to work in a bar that has smokers, simply go work in a bar with the ban.

I wish it were that easy! Unfortunately, more often than not if you want to work, you take what's available.

Stephen / December 7, 2005 2:00 PM

I'm all for the ban, but am concerned that the delay in enforcement at bars & taverns risks creating a market situation that would support pro-smoking arguments regarding loss of business.

An all-out, no-phasing-in ban is the only way to avoid this... I don't care if that's effective tomorrow or 2.5 years from now, but it's the only way to guarantee a level playing field and the health of employees and patrons alike.

Did anyone see this in the Tribune yesterday? "If Chicago had gone smoke-free in 1995, [data suggests] that 8,000 deaths here could have been prevented." Pretty compelling argument, if you ask me.

C-Note / December 7, 2005 2:25 PM

Hey Mr. Compelling Argument - if the Tribune told you mandatory sterilization would prevent billions of deaths, would you be for that, too? Consider the fact that those 8,000 people would have died anyway before you start using it as a reason to ban smoking.

m / December 7, 2005 2:31 PM

"If Chicago had gone smoke-free in 1995 when an earlier Smith-like ordinance was proposed, data from other smoking ban cities suggest that 8,000 deaths here could have been prevented, Africk said."

That's a bullshit statistic if I ever read one. Way too vague. Think about it. Who are the "8,000 people" who would have lived? Healthy non-smokers who died because they went to bars and restaurants and were exposed to smoke? Or are they smokers who would have gone outside the bars and restaurants to smoke anyway? I have no doubt that banning smoking in places where people tend to smoke a lot will improve health and possibly save lives if those people cut down and quit. But the CEO of the American Lung Association resorting to this simplified and misleading 8,000 figure just cheapens his own argument.

pete / December 7, 2005 2:32 PM

stephen, if prohibition had never ended, i'd like to see an estimate on the number of alcohol-related deaths in chicago that could have been prevented. that sounds more compelling to me...

Baltimore / December 7, 2005 2:38 PM

The guy who said that "many more studies since then have concluded that the dangers of secondhand smoke are negligible" has been reading too many Philip Morris "studies" while smoking CRACK and not even the high grade westside Crack. And the guy who reached into the weighty depths of his education and posited that the city should not ban second hand smoke (with over 4000 chemical compounds; 200 of which are known to be poisonous, and upwards of 60 have been identified as carcinogens that kills and estimate of 60,000 people who don't even smoke), because the inspectors might be corrupt, also on crack. Now I see why people just believe Bush just because he's the President.

If people have a right to smoke in a bar then I have a right to walk into a bar with a can of Raid and Spray it in the air. They have many of the same ingredients so what's the different?. And then I guess I have the right to tell people who get pissed off that I am poising there air, that if they don't like it then leave. Its my right to poison the air of a bar, instead of just coming in to have a drink.

But now that I have a new 110 pound mastiff puppy, I have had a slight change of heart. I will support allowing selfish people to poison the air at bars and restaurants, if I can bring my dog to bars and restaurants. I like bars and restaurants alot and I want to make sure that my dog doesn't out live me

Spence / December 7, 2005 2:41 PM

Kevin wrote:

"that the dangers of secondhand smoke are negligible at best."

This statement is ridiculous.

Chicago Tribune wrote:

"Big cities around the nation that have imposed stringent smoking bans found that after a period of turmoil, the bar and restaurant industry recovered and even grew, according to a survey by the Tribune.

In New York, Boston and Los Angeles, the specter of crippled businesses, rowdiness on the street outside bars and patrons fleeing for less restrictive environments never became reality, according to proprietors, health officials, police and bar patrons.

Ban it. Bar and restaurant business will be fine. People will be healthier. I won't drop $12 a weekend on cigarettes.

Kevin / December 7, 2005 2:46 PM

Dearest Baltimore,

If I'm smoking crack them you must be suffering from the effects of my second-hand crack. Your response had all the emotional effect of a Springer audience member yelling "woot, woot, woot!" All that was missing was your telling me "You need to do is get a job and respect yourself." Compelling shit there, bra.

Northwest Side High Quality Crack Smoker.

Kevin / December 7, 2005 2:51 PM

This statement is ridiculous.

How so Spence? Care to elaborate? I have links to studies to back my shit up. Your quote from the Trib is simply a finger roll to my Shaq. Bring it if you can.

Emerson Dameron / December 7, 2005 2:56 PM

Nicotine is the most addictive substance on earth. I had an awful time giving it up. Thus, I'd expect the smokers to be the smug, self-righteous, defensive ones, not the supporters of the smoking ban. If logic is on your side, you don't need to insult strangers. Had a good look at your own life lately?

I think the smoking ban would be an infringement on personal liberties, like seatbelt laws. I also think it's guaranteed to pass anyway, and I'm cool with it. Chicago is one of the only major cities that doesn't yet have one. If we're going to lose a personal liberty, it may as well be an expensive one that makes you hack up black tar at 3:00 AM.

I overcame my relative indifference long enough to cough up this article. I hope you like it.

Spence / December 7, 2005 2:56 PM


I'll call your bluff. Let's see those links.

Emerson Dameron / December 7, 2005 2:59 PM

I meant"this article. Sorry. Carry on.

julie / December 7, 2005 3:05 PM


Emerson Dameron / December 7, 2005 3:07 PM

As far as air quality is concerned, cigarette smoking is a side-issue. The next Fuel should ask the ban's more aggressive supporters to rationalize their car ownership.

carrie / December 7, 2005 3:14 PM

I smoke.

I'm for the ban.
I wish taxes would bring the price of cigs to 50 bucks a pack.
I wish non-smokers would poke me in the ass with a cattle prod
everytime I lit up...

maybe this ban will encourage me to a few years
when there's full compliance...

Kevin / December 7, 2005 3:20 PM

Here you go Spence. This should give you a good start.

Just to be clear, even the most ardent smokers among us would be crazy to deny the awful effects of smoking on the smoker. Even as a smoker, I still find myself leaving certain smoky environs for fresh air. My main issue with this whole debate is the almost complete lack of respect for the the evidence that exists with regard to the shady correlation to secondhand smoke and cancer. As with anything, it's a personal choice and I'd never go out of my way to harm a non-smoker but it's getting to the point now where the mentality is to legislate anything that may cause you or I the slightest discomfort.

However, this all a moot point since the law has passed and I must relegate myself to the awning outside or a back alley to enjoy one of the finer things in life.

Pedro / December 7, 2005 3:20 PM

Well Carrie, if enough smokers quit, Chicago is going to need to tax you and non-smokers elsewhere to make up for the lost revenue.

Maybe they could come up with a self righteous do gooders tax?

Y'all crazy / December 7, 2005 3:23 PM

I love the comments by non-smokers who say "I can finally go back to the bars now" or "I can go see shows again"

Such BS, like smoking is the reason you don't go now.

Your type of patronage makes up around 5% of the bar industry's revenue. Is the industry excited about winning you back? No, they're afraid of losing the smoking crowd, which is a more profitable segment.

Cinnamon / December 7, 2005 3:24 PM

Bars worry that a no-smoking policy will cause them to lose money. I have several friends who have asthma who I can't hang out with at bars because they can't breath. I've left bars earlier than I would have liked because my eyes were so blurry from the smoke I was in pain, or because I was having a hard time breathing from the smoke. I think most restaraunts and bars will realize that their customer base increases if people like me and my friends with asthma/allergies can enjoy a drink or stay longer. And I'll be delighted to no longer have to hang my coat outside during the winter to air out because I went to a bar the night before.

Kevin / December 7, 2005 3:29 PM

C'mon Cinnamon, a smokey coat gives it character! Ok, maybe not.

Nuxrs / December 7, 2005 3:31 PM

I smoke, and I'm for the ban too. Whatever. Like Carrie said, maybe it'll help me to quit.

That said, it's amazing how many people on here are anti-smoking, but not anti-shrill, sanctimonious assholery.

I'm just sayin.....

Oketo / December 7, 2005 3:35 PM

Two comments:

1) 3,000 people will die of smoke related diseases between now and the end of the Chicago "Phase Out" plan and

2) Why on Earth do people start that nasty, smelling, destructive, diseased habit in the first place.

My mother quit after 50 years of smoking, if she can do it, anyone can do it.

robin.. / December 7, 2005 3:38 PM

i don't smoke, but i think it looks pretty cool, compellingly. i don't really care if you smoke, but on the other hand i wish my dad would stop smoking. i used to know a lot more smokers in college than i do now. i don't mind smelling like smoke after a bar or a show, but i do notice when i don't. i notice when a bar has a layout or an airflow (or a clientelle? (sp?)) that keeps the smokiness less obtrusive, but i don't avoid bars where this is not the case.

all in all, the ban won't make me feel one way or t'other. i just wish it wasn't in the news all the time. now this brad pitt-angie jolie business, that's some fine news...

jen / December 7, 2005 3:40 PM

>>As far as air quality is concerned, cigarette smoking is a side-issue. The next Fuel should ask the ban's more aggressive supporters to rationalize their car ownership.

Emerson - i don't smoke, but have a car in the city. fuel-efficient compact(w/o being a prius, which i couldn't afford), and i don't drive to work (CTA), only to stores (grocery, target, etc.) and out of town. what's the problem there, exactly?

and crazyperson - i said i think it fucking sucks that i should have to endure others constant smoking to enjoy some live music. can you refute this? to see an artist i enjoy live i should have to put up with poor effects to my health?

m / December 7, 2005 3:44 PM

Hey Oketo,

Get in a time machine and go back to when you were fifteen and immortal. Start smoking. Smoke for ten years or so. Then quit.

Do this or otherwise, shut up.

Oh, and my grandmother quit after 60 years.

Oketo / December 7, 2005 3:49 PM

Hey m -

Thankfully, I was smart enough at the age of 15 to not start smoking in the first place. Sure, I tried it and then wondered, "What is the big deal, this sucks, who would want to do this ::cough cough::"

amyc / December 7, 2005 3:53 PM

Such BS, like smoking is the reason you don't go now.

Smoking is entirely the reason I don't go now. I go to shows maybe a couple times a year now to see the bands I really can't miss, but I have asthma. If I could go to shows at the Empty Bottle/Metro/Riv/Aragon/Vic without horking up goo for three days afterward, I totally would.

aj / December 7, 2005 3:53 PM

Afraid of losing the smoking crowd? I can't imagine that the bar ban will keep people who smoke home.

There are many times I've chosen not go to a show or a bar because I don't like the smell of smoke and don't want to shower after I get home. So, I tend to go to lots of shows at Old Town School and drink in restaurants or beer gardens.

If my neighborhood tavern was smoke-free, I would indeed be there much more.

a scientist / December 7, 2005 3:55 PM

Hey, Kevin,

A brief is not a scientific study. A pretty-transparently-biased commentary that was never published in the scientific literature is not itself a study. Here are some studies and one meta-analysis:

Emerson Dameron / December 7, 2005 3:55 PM

The problem is that no one is innocent. However, you never insulted anyone, so I wasn't talking about you. Your initial comment made pretty good sense, actually. I work in a bar, and I suck up a lot of smoke there, whether or not I choose to.

carrie / December 7, 2005 3:55 PM

Pedro...we'll see if the honorary Maria Pappas
will fill the cig tax void in a year or two. Then we renters
and homeowners and doo-gooders will both be grabbing our smoke free bars!

Carrie (a different one) / December 7, 2005 3:57 PM

Isn't this thread just the whole kids thread from a week ago rehashed? "I have a right to bring my noisy kid/ciggy with me to the restaurant" vs. "I have a right to be unmolested by your noise/smoke"? My high school social studies teacher use to say "Your freedom ends where others' rights begin." I nice thought, but figuring out how that applies in a public realm is no easy task.

Bill / December 7, 2005 4:09 PM

im still annoyed that i cant smoke at bally's

Kevin / December 7, 2005 4:16 PM

So to sumarize:

A bunch of people smoke
A bunch of people hate it
Evidence is presented for both sides
Heads nod to and fro in mutual acceptance/disagreement


In 20, 30 maybe 40 years we can all laugh as we watch Celebrity Roasts on late-night TV where stars will be smoking. The world will again be one.

Re: Bally's comment = teh funny.

m / December 7, 2005 4:24 PM

Carrie ... actually I have been thinking that when the ban (which I am not against) goes into effect, a lot of bar/restaurants will start to experience the "Taste of Heaven phenomenon." I've noticed this lately at places like the Grafton and even the Edgewater Lounge of all places ... non-smoking areas are drawing people with toddlers into atmospheres that are (license-wise) restaurants but (environment-wise) bars. Having "Dance Motherf**ker Dance" by the Violent Femmes on the jukebox may help deter this phenomenon.

Emerson Dameron / December 7, 2005 4:34 PM

As long as the toddlers sing along with "Debaser," then call me their "best friend," then accuse me of homosexuality, then start knocking over furniture, I'll adjust.

Carrie / December 7, 2005 4:34 PM

non-smoking areas are drawing people with toddlers

Ha. Pick your poison, I guess, cuz you'll never be rid of the kids AND the smoke!

jk1 / December 7, 2005 5:38 PM

Oh please, smokers are not going to stay home because of the ban. They will just drag their asses outside, take a few pulls, stomp the butt and run back inside.

As a non-smoker, if I go to a music venue, club or bar, I cannot escape the smoke, yet I still go out even though the smoke iritates my asthma and stinks up my hair and clothes. With the ban in effect, smokers can still light up outside and then go enjoy the show inside. What is the compelling reason for them to stay home?

In any event, to me breathing is a more fundamental right than smoking. It boggles my mind how smokers feel justified in endangering someone else's health so they can enjoy their habit. I don't pass any judgement on folks who want to smoke, I only pass judgement on them when they infringe on my ability to breathe without choking.

Jason / December 7, 2005 6:16 PM

Three or four years ago, I'd have cared. But since then, I've lived in 3 (and now 4) different cities that have had the ban.

So long as provisions are made for mom and pop operations, which will definitely see a loss in their gross reciepts in the first year or two, a well-considered ban is good in the long run.

Ramsin / December 7, 2005 6:34 PM

This is bull. Seriously. Ban it in restaurants, ban it venues with music, ban it in restaurant/bars:

but TAVERNS!? Jesus Christ people, you're at a place where 2/3rd of the people in there are poisoning themselves with sedentary lifestyles, greasy food, exhaust fumes, and cheap beer and worse whiskey! IT'S A TAVERN! How far are we going to let the nanny government go? Seriously? This is a privacy issue. These are privately owned establishments! If you don't like what goes on there, go somewhere the hell else! You think these small corner taverns can afford a six, ten month percipitous decline in their cash intake anyway? And what about social clubs? Aw, hell.

Are you telling me that by summer of 2006, there will be no place in Chicago you can enjoy a steak, whiskey, and cigar? You people killed this city.

FlowFeel / December 7, 2005 6:40 PM


yawnie / December 7, 2005 7:04 PM

I think that this ban would be fine if the city also instituted "driving within city limits" taxes for those who are so self-absorbed (yet, it appears, self-righteous when it comes to others particular pollutant vices) to think that their contribution to air pollution in such a heavily-populated area is a right.

Unfortunately, the only thing I see happening is an even more steep reduction in liquor licenses from the corner bars losing business, while these horrifying trendy dance clubs feel little effect if any. Smoking may not add character to a city (though with the puritanical revivals going on, it can't hurt), but small business are a huge part of it.

PS As a self-absorbed smoker, I am looking forward to the Legion and Elks Lodges et al specifically recruiting smokers as members (since, as private clubs, they don't have to follow the rules.)

Jim / December 7, 2005 7:46 PM

This is GREAT! I am SO in favor of this smoking ban. I will go out more and spend more money. And be healthier. Finally we passed this. Today's a GREAT DAY

Baltimore / December 7, 2005 7:58 PM

Dear Geniuses, Kevin, Spenceit, Pedro, etc

First of all the revenue lost because of decreased smoking(secondhand smoke) will be more than gained when thousands of people no longer are hospitalized because of second hand smoke. This doesn’t include the people that will finally stop smoking because of this ordinance. Feel free to goggle both the amount of state and federal revenue (our tax dollars) that go to cover sickness caused by smoking. Maybe we should just send the bills to your deep pockets and you can use your link cards?

Second, thanks for the bogus “study” I wish I had enough money to rent a few “scientist” or “economist” to go against the grain and flat out lie for financial gain. Next time you hear a scientist saying the earth is flat check out who he “consults” for. So next time thinks, I promise you, it won’t kill you, unless your T cells can’t take the complexity

Third. It’s very very un-American to make fun of Jerry Springer. Maybe in your next life you will be blessed enough to have dated/continue to date some of the finest women to grace the stage- and briefly sit in the chairs- of the Jerry Springer Show.

Yours In Christ,

Your baby Bro Baltimore

Mister C / December 7, 2005 7:59 PM

Penn Jillette (of Penn and Teller) hit it on the nail for me with his quote, "I hate secondhand smoke, but I love the Constitution more."

Stinky clothes and that coughy wooziness from smoky bars and clubs does suck tremendously, but I have a real problem with the government stepping into this whole matter for all the usual libertarian reasons.

That whole "when they came for the smokers, I didn't speak up because I wasn't a smoker" trope is not as overwrought as you might think. I look at the majority of anti-smoking "activists" and I don't get the feeling that they really care about public health, but rather are motivated by a fervent desire to control other people's behavior (kind of like Operation Rescue). What will all those "concerned" people channel their energy into when all municipalities finally have smoking bans?

That said, it will be real nice to not have to suffer through all that smoke (it seems odd that the ventilation/purification technology doesn't exist to make this all a moot point).

Maggie / December 7, 2005 8:23 PM

I'm happy. I have asthma and have never been able to work at a bar/restaurant - which, after two layoffs, would have been nice - because of the smoke. (Not any of the ones in my neighborhood, anyway.) I think our city did the right thing.

brian / December 7, 2005 8:47 PM

I personally plan to drink significantly more to make up for the smoking ban. Like many others, I don't go to shows because someone next to me keeps smoking.

I'm all for it. If "the market will decide" then we'll watch Chicago go to hell in a handbasket so people can hang out in awesome spots like Niles and Forest Park. Right.

Even better than The Bar Debate: the majority of restaurants will be smoke-free in November. This is fantastic news. I enjoy good crappy diners, and they will be improved without cigarettes.

Chicago will get over this. If Vegas ever enacts a smoking ban, then that will be the true sign of the apocalypse.

amyc / December 7, 2005 9:55 PM

"I hate secondhand smoke, but I love the Constitution more."

This is a Constitutional issue now? Where exactly is smoking protected in the Constitution? I mean, drinking is legal, but you can't stroll down the sidewalk (or drive) with an open container of alcohol. There are lots and lots of laws about who can buy and sell alcohol, and where, and when. Yet nobody ever complains about "drinkers' rights" being violated. Most people realize that a little regulation of hazardous substances is in the best interest of the public, even if it inconveniences the individual.

You want to smoke? Fine. Smoke in your house, smoke in your car, smoke 'em five at a time for all I care. But you do not have the right to make other people breathe in your toxic spew.

j / December 7, 2005 9:59 PM

i guess i'll just have to stand outside and breath in that healthy chicago air in addition to my cigarette.

nico / December 8, 2005 12:03 AM

as an avid smoker i say, "boo!" but it's not that bad. even in new york, i made some friends smoking outside the bars -- and at a few, they didn't even care....if it was late enough they let us smoke anyway.

Mister C / December 8, 2005 12:36 AM

The Constitutional issues speak more to telling business owners what decisions they can make in regard to their own establishments rather than the "right" to "make" other people breath in smoke.

No one is forced to enter smoky bars and restaurants. People can choose not to go into places that allow smoking (or not to work there) and the government should not be telling restaurant and bar owners that they can't allow smoking.

Katie Ann / December 8, 2005 12:53 AM

Y'all have forgotten Minneapolis. They have a total smoking ban in the city, so a lot of folks now DRIVE to drink at bars that allow smoking outside of the city, where they DRIVE back after drinking a whole lot. Or some drive to St. Paul where smoking is allowed in restaurants. Lots of places losing money in the colder months up there. Or ya know, dying on the way home driving drunk.

amyc / December 8, 2005 6:31 AM

the government should not be telling restaurant and bar owners that they can't allow smoking.

Why not? The government tells restaurant and bar owners lots of things -- the maximum number of people allowed in their establishment, the minimum wage they have to pay employees, whether or not they can serve alcohol, health codes they have to follow, how many fire exits they have to have. Are these rules all violations of business owners' constitutional rights?

Paul / December 8, 2005 7:34 AM

Amy's got it right. This isn't a ban on smoking in, say, your house - if it was, I certainly wouldn't be a supporter. But I definitely do support the ban.

On the Minneapolis situation, what's going to happen if Cook County passes an anti-smoking ban? Are people then going to just drive to other counties? How far will someone go to smoke in public? Rockford?

PDF / December 8, 2005 9:28 AM

"... private clubs or lodges"

I wonder if this Elks, VFW exception will create a loophole that will allow bars to become "private clubs." Pay your $5 two-week "membership fee" at the door and you're in. I don't know what criteria must be met in Illinois to becaome a private club.

I was in Salt Lake City recently and every bar in what is probably the squarest city in America is a "private club for members" and many of them allow smoking.

Utah Private Club Liquor License Summary

Emerson Dameron / December 8, 2005 9:39 AM

People already drive drunk anyroute. As Sam Kinison said, "It's the only way to get the car back to the house! AHHHHHHHHH!" Will a St. Paul type situation provoke an uptick in fatalities? We'll see, perhaps. But I can tell you that, especially on weekends, Chicagoland is already swarming with snockered drivers. As the cops are busy with murders and such, it takes a real idiot to get a DUI in the city. In the 'burbs, of course, they'll search your car if you forget to signal.

There are good arguments for and against the ban. There are also self-righteous turds that make both sides look horrible.

What gives you retarded crackheads the right to make my jacket smell funny? I say YAAY to the ban!

I say BOOO! How am I supposed to enjoy a skirt steak, a Manhattan and a five-dollar blowjob without a coffin tack? BOOO! I say.


Or not. It's passed now. What's next?

Kevin / December 8, 2005 9:42 AM

I'll tell you what's next. Telling me where are the $5.00 blowjobs at?

grammar queen / December 8, 2005 9:45 AM

Can I just clarify something that keeps popping up in this thread and is irritating me?

breath- This is the noun. For example, "I need to step outside a take a breath."

breathe- This is the verb, which can also be converted into an infinitive (to breathe) or participle (breathing). For example, "I don't mind breathing in smoke if it's not too heavy. But my friend with asthma things it's impossible to breathe in here."

Got it? Good...go about your business now.

lucas / December 8, 2005 9:49 AM

the argument of 'people don't go to bars to be healthy' is ridiculous. people go to bars to socialize. sometimes, i go to bars and don't drink just to hang out with my friends in a lively atmosphere. and even when i do drink it doesn't affect those around me. it's a trite argument for self-centered addicts.

bam / December 8, 2005 9:51 AM

I don't care too much if bars are smoke free or not. I don't like it when it gets too smokey, maybe I'll leave or just buy another round.

As the ever wise printdude posted in post 1, it's easy to avoid smokey bars -- don't go to them, invest your funds, and start your own smoke free bar. Let the market decide, vote with your feet and pocketbook.

The central question is where do my rights end and where do your rights begin? Timeless questions. And where will they next draw the line? Time to dust off that classic of political philoshopy On Liberty.

I haven't read the full text of the passed ban, but the earlier drafts included a clause stating that you were allowed to smoke on your own property. Hey thanks! But how long til they strike that clause? How long to some miltant coop owner decides to press their right to not be subjected to the "dangers" of smoke in the commonly owned hallway?

What if I want to smoke meats for 14 hours over a nice hickory & cherry pit in my back yard? When might that be outlawed in the name of my neighbors liberties and fresh air? The day the man mandates propane-only grilling will be a sad one indeed.

Maybe it's time to buy a section of land and move to New Hampshire. Live free or die!

Aliota / December 8, 2005 10:15 AM

Now can we FINALLY ban smoking in private homes where underage children live? They should not be subject to second hand smoke either. And it's not like they can just leave to avoid it.

leah / December 8, 2005 11:19 AM

I have to comment on what Jim said: "I will go out more and spend more money. And be healthier."

Am I not getting the sarcasm? Maybe.

If no sarcasm was intended, when you go out and spend this "more money", you don't consume alcohol? Last I checked having a beer wasn't exactly like eating your veggies.

Maybe going out more means going out to the park more? But then what's the smoking ban got to do with it?

All nit-picking aside, as a smoker, I see my having to go outside to smoke as less of an inconvenience than a non-smoker having to endure second-hand smoke.

wrecks / December 8, 2005 11:22 AM

Yay smoking ban! I used to be a smoker, and now I just cannot stand second-hand smoke. Actually I didn't like second-hand smoke when I was a smoker either...

sarcasm? hope so. / December 8, 2005 12:03 PM

It begins:

"Now can we FINALLY ban smoking in private homes where underage children live? They should not be subject to second hand smoke either. And it's not like they can just leave to avoid it."

Next GB Fuel question should be "what would you ban?"

duke / December 8, 2005 12:59 PM

Talk about self-centered Lucas, to suggest that your actions do not affect those around you seems a tad self-centered. Perhaps you are not aware of any adverse affect, but there are few actions without externalities. Watch out when you cast that first stone.

Kevin / December 8, 2005 1:15 PM

I was just about to post that the rest of the Kevins had voted, and any Kevin who is against the ban is a twink, but then that other Kevin comes out with the question about the $5 blow jobs, so I says, "HOLD EVERYTHING!" We took a new vote, and if that actually helps lead Kevins to cheap fellatio, he's not a twink after all.

Emerson Dameron / December 8, 2005 1:19 PM

I'd ban uninformed slippery-slope arguments.

I'd be happier if no one banned anything, if people simply treated each other with respect and believed that a good life is its own reward. That doesn't seem like could be initiated in two-to-three years.

Mister C / December 8, 2005 1:29 PM

AMYC- Just because it's OK for the government to tell business owners that they have to do certain things doesn't mean that everything the government says is OK. I think a blanket smoking ban for private businesses is constitutionally suspect.

Why are you trying to convince me anyway? The law's been passed and the forces of goodness have won. Now to other behaviors we don't like!

Even if Aliota was kidding, there are plenty of people who aren't. I once saw someone do a class presentation about how parental smoking is child abuse. It won't be long before people will lose custody of their children because a concerned neighbor saw them smoke. But hey, smoking's bad, so any law passed against it must be OK? Right?

Kevin / December 8, 2005 1:43 PM

Thanks Kevin. Now if Emerson would just answer the question cause' I got a stack of fins just buring a hole in my pocket.

Aliota / December 8, 2005 1:44 PM

sarcasm? hope so -

Why do you hate children so much?


(and post was sarcasm)

Moon / December 8, 2005 1:49 PM

It's OK to leave asbestos in work places. Hey, if you can't handle the asbestos, go work someplace else.

It's a society, people. And you smokers are outcasts. Pariahs. NOT WANTED. Orphans of society.

/Quit already, you bozos.

dm / December 8, 2005 2:04 PM

i don't like the smoke, but what i really hate is that i've been burned on the arm several times, and gotten a couple holes in shirts while trying to make my way through a bar, or while dancing... (seriously, who smokes and dances)
i won't miss that part either.

dm / December 8, 2005 2:04 PM

i don't like the smoke, but what i really hate is that i've been burned on the arm several times, and gotten a couple holes in shirts while trying to make my way through a bar, or while dancing... (seriously, who smokes and dances?)
i won't miss that part either.

Sun / December 8, 2005 2:36 PM

"It's a society, people. And you smokers are outcasts. Pariahs. NOT WANTED. Orphans of society."

I don't mind going outside to smoke one bit, but it depresses me to no end that I'll soon be bellying up to the bar alongside self-appointed enlightened assholes like Moon.

J Madison / December 8, 2005 2:49 PM

Good thing our system was designed to protect us from the tyranny of the majority.

Sun trumps an intolerant moon anyday.

winediva / December 8, 2005 2:53 PM

Gotta say, as a former bartender and waitress, and current small business owner in the liquor industry: I love the ban. LOVE IT. Yep, I said it.

If Chicago loses one convention of smokin types, they'll gain at least two more because of the ban. And all of those people gotta eat in Chicago restaurants and drink in Chicago bars while they're here. The industry will just get different people's cash.

I eat several meals a week sitting at the bar of a restaurant or pub, as I often have to eat by myself between client meetings. I pefer the bar, beacause I get to chat with folks and feel less goofy about eating alone. Smokers are often the best conversationalists and most interesting types. Love their company; hate the way they make my wine and food smell.

Sure I could choose to sit alone in a booth and read or some damn thing, but I dont wanna. Food and wine is meant to be shared. So, now I'll miss my new smokin pals for 7 minutes or so while they jaunt outside, but my Pinot Noir wont smell like ass and I can actually taste my chili nachos.

Obviously, I'm not a health nut. But ability to smell is a HUGE part of your sense of taste. I'm not trying to convince anyone that my reasons for supporting the ban are anything but purely personal. Just explaining my experience.

captain justice / December 8, 2005 3:30 PM

I love second hand smoke and enjoy the ambiance of a smokey bar. I also like gum on sidewalks and being woken up at 2 in the morning by people yelling at their wife to let them back into the apartment.

captian justice / December 8, 2005 3:31 PM


dutch / December 8, 2005 3:43 PM

I whole heartedly support the ban in restaurants and bar/restaurants, but to ban smoking in taverns is idiotic. It is all just part of the city's general plan to get rid of one of the things that makes Chicago unique amongst America's cities.

I can no longer find the original article, but this has the important parts.

Basically, I fully understand banning it in most types of places, but it is ridiculous to ban it in places like the corner bar. Maybe the most fervent of the anti-smokers could comprimise, and realize that no one does, or should, have the right to go or do whatever they want, everywhere.

Moon / December 8, 2005 4:29 PM

I don't mind going outside to smoke one bit, but it depresses me to no end that I'll soon be bellying up to the bar alongside self-appointed enlightened assholes like Moon.

See?? This is why nobody wants to hang out with smokers. They have NO sense of humor.

/Still, quit already.

e_five / December 8, 2005 4:46 PM

Now that we have the smoking ban in place, we can begin work on banning:

Internal combustion engines
Flag burning
Fatty foods
Coal power plants
Hair dye
Breast implants
Red meat
Loud music
Body art
Spray paint
Roller blades

Just wait until some wacko group turns the scrutiny on one of your favorite diversions.

e_five / December 8, 2005 4:58 PM

I forgot cell phones, strip clubs, and dry cleaners.

Flynn / December 8, 2005 6:13 PM

Just wait until some wacko group turns the scrutiny on one of your favorite diversions.

Happens to everyone. Sorry. Sometimes it means you can't drive that fast car 80 MPH. Sometimes it means you can't buy alcohol on Sundays. Sometimes it means you can't marry your sister. It's all about degrees. No society can be everything to everyone.

Plus, what may seem wacko to you doesn't seem as wacko to a non-smoker. I don't have asthma, but I don't go out much either, because I hate having my eyes and throat burn for a day afterwards. Clubs, bars...all of these places...and there's always some idiot standing next to me holding his cigarette AWAY FROM HIS BODY so that everyone else can enjoy his smoke (and run into his cigarette while walking through the crowd). So, YOU don't even like inhaling your own second hand smoke, yet I should be ok with it?

JUST ONCE I want to go into a bar walking around spraying people with patchoulli or lilac...getting it in their eyes, smelling up their clothes. Hey, it's a free country, right? I should be able to do that, shouldn't I? What's the difference? If I enjoy the smell of it and I like the feel of a pump spray, it's my personal choice.

And if those people don't like it, they can just stay away from me (and places people like me frequent), right?

Leelah / December 8, 2005 6:16 PM

I remember the old days, when I used to have to leave Lounge Ax because the smoke was so bad.... I'd stand outside on Lincoln in the summer till my eyes stopped watering, then go back in for great music and second hand smoke torture.

That's actually a memory I like.

But I'm old now, and I'm not going to miss the second hand smoke.

smoke_this / December 8, 2005 6:57 PM

Yo, die hard smoking proponents, since you're all such rugged champions of individual liberty, no matter what the cost...

How 'bout the next time I'm at a club and your smoke triggers my asthma, I will gladly suffer it. But, I reserve my 'right' to stab you in the eye with a cue stick.

Seems fair to me! Quid pro quo and all...

kate / December 8, 2005 7:26 PM

Dedicated smoker here.
I think the idea of a smoking ban sucks. I'm pleased that the kind of shitty, sticky-floored bars I hang out in are going to allow it for another 3 years though.
I'm a little antsy about concerts and sporting events though... maybe they'll change their designated smoking areas to a free nicorette patch distribution area.

waleeta / December 8, 2005 8:01 PM

Yay smoking ban! YAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!!!! FINALLY!!!!!!!!!!!

nicole / December 8, 2005 9:08 PM

woohoo! about time...

ALLAN / December 9, 2005 6:34 AM

I just hope they come to there senses and dump this proposed ban.

Rudiger / December 9, 2005 7:04 AM

I think we should all take a minute to remember all the friends and family members we've lost to second-hand smoke.

Paul / December 9, 2005 7:53 AM

"It is all just part of the city's general plan to get rid of one of the things that makes Chicago unique amongst America's cities."

What? Oh, please. Save the drama for your parental unit.

How does smoke - of all things - define Chicago?

Brittany / December 9, 2005 8:39 AM

I think it needs to be done. As an asthmatic, I'm glad it's finally passed.

granny / December 9, 2005 8:48 AM

I'll admit it, I'm old, and a "parental unit", but as I've been reading these posts I've been imagining how excellant the Pixies show last year at the Aragon would have been if I hadn't felt like I was being choked to death. I am also an ex, but sometimes smoker, who knows that the best way to deal with annoying second hand smoke is to join in and smoke. How much second hand smoke is the product of people thinking "I might as well be smoking, because breathing all of the second hand smoke sucks".

somewhat tangentially, Kim Deal had a special person whose job it was to light her ciggarette and walk out on stage and stick it in her mouth.

the more important question, I think, is how will the smoking ban affect Kim Deal?

paul / December 9, 2005 9:04 AM

A few years ago I saw the Steppenwolf production of Buried Child. At one point a character lit up a cigarette on stage and smoke wafted around the theater. The audience gasped, some of them visibly upset and offended. The gasp wasn't nearly as loud at the finale, when a character walked out on stage, cradling the skeleton alluded to in the title.

Are they going to have to create a 'stage cigarette', or is there some sort of exemption for this?

Baltimore / December 9, 2005 9:52 AM

Ya know what? Smoking advocates will argue
that smoking in public places should be legal just because they are plane old USA dumb and ignorant, and happy, oh so happy to be that way! The fact that the Cigarette industry blatantly lied for 50 years, telling the world/America that cig smoke is good for us/you means nothing to these morons.

The fact that the industry admitted in internal documents that they have to target kids -hence Camel Joe and Google the Kool Mixx Campaign that Lisa Madigan sued to stop them- ,and the poorest third world countries -they place free cigs on the tables of restaurants- in order to survive means nothing to them as well. So wake up cowardly NPR liberals and fight. We live in a sick sick society, so you better take your gloves off and figure out how to fight. Because this is a small victory and if you read John Kass’s column today you will see how the ban can easily be over turned in two and a half years. And you wonder why we are in Irag right now!

In Christ our Lord I remain, unless I’m out drinking

Your humble servant Baltimore

p.s, news flash. They don’t hate us because we are free, they hate us because we are stupid 

Cosmo Kramer / December 9, 2005 10:19 AM


Next thing you will tell me is that dentists should have their own schools!

Kevin / January 17, 2006 6:17 PM

Ok no smoking get everone to quit where will our sin tax come from? Tax the bottled water 50%

Bill Hannegan / January 24, 2006 2:09 AM

Good news! A huge secondhand smoke study just released indicates that smoking bans are not necessary to protect public health after all.

Press Release

For Immediate Release: December 5 , 2005

Do Smoking Bans cause a 27 to 40% drop in admissions for myocardial infarction in hospitals?
December 5, 2005

Antismokers claim that studies have shown that bans bring about an immediate and drastic decrease in heart attacks among nonsmokers exposed to smoke at work.

This claim was never true to begin with - the cited studies never separated and analyzed nonsmokers as a separate group - and it has now been pointed out in the pages of the BMJ that even the claim of saving lives among the combined population of smokers and nonsmokers might be worthless.

While many making that claim may have believed their information to be accurate, it is now obvious that its basis has been thrown strongly into question. As Jacob Sullum noted in a December 1st reaction to the announcement, "An effect this dramatic (i.e. an immediate and pronounced drop of hospital admissions for heart attacks) should have been noticed all over the country..."

Just a week before the Chicago Aldermen were due to vote on a citywide smoking ban, two independent researchers working together, David W. Kuneman and Michael J. McFadden, unveiled a new study covering a population base roughly 1,000 times as large as the previous town-based studies. The new study indicates strongly that rather than a 30% decrease in heart attacks, statewide smoking bans seem to have literally NO EFFECT AT ALL on heart attack rates. Incredibly the data even indicates that California's statewide heart attack rate went UP by 6% in the first full year of their total smoking ban!

The data for the study and the basis of its design have been backed up and expanded by well-known antismoking researcher Michael Siegel who has come out in support of the researchers' approach as providing "compelling evidence that brings into question the conclusion that smoking bans have an immediate and drastic effect on heart attack incidence." His observation is echoed by researcher Kuneman who asks, "Ever wonder why you didn't hear about post ban heart attack declines in New York City? Or in Minneapolis or Los Angeles? Now you know!"

On December 4th the British Medical Journal entered the fray with the online publication of a Rapid Response by Mr. McFadden outlining the new research and posing sharp criticisms of the earlier studies and of the refusal of the authors of those studies to respond to previous criticisms and questions. McFadden points out that the data in the Kuneman/McFadden study are fully open for public examination and far less selective than the data in the earlier studies and notes with pride that he and his co-researcher have been quick to respond to all queries posted about their methodology on Dr. Siegel's web blog.

He also poses the wider ranging question of whether studies commissioned by the "Antismoking Industry" should begin to receive the same cautious reception accorded those commissioned by "Big Tobacco." The current study, as well as an earlier one by the duo, were unfunded and neither researcher receives grants for their work from either interest group. Kuneman sharply asks the question, "Why the difference between the studies? For one thing we weren't dependent on antismoking-targeted grants!"

At this point there appears to be very little, if any, real scientific support for the claim that protecting nonsmokers from normal levels of exposure to secondary smoke prevents any heart attacks. And it is this claim that has always provided the impressive numbers upon which ban advocates have pressed legislators to pass smoking bans.

Without those numbers proponents of extreme bans are left with little other than the widely discredited EPA figures relating ETS to lung cancer and a few isolated instances of hospitality workers who have come to believe that their own cancers were caused by working in smoking establishments. Samantha Phillipe, editor of the longstanding newsletter, notes that while it's always a cause for sadness when someone becomes ill that it's even more sad when they are misguidedly advised to blame family and friends for their illness.

Without a compelling body of scientific evidence backing them up, smoking bans are an unnecessary and overbearing intrusion of government into the spheres of free choice, private property and free enterprise. And the Kuneman/McFadden study points up just how uncompelling even some of the strongest and most publicised evidence actually is.


1) Article: A Preliminary Study

2) Mike Siegel's blog analysis and follow up comments:

3) BMJ Response: Helena 1000 Days

4) Jacob Sullum's REASON column: Hit and Run

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Mid-Atlantic Regional Director of
web page:

Bill Hannegan / January 27, 2006 2:08 AM

How dangerous is ETS? My group, KEEP ST. LOUIS FREE!, helped beat the smoking ban in
St. Louis by pushing this reasonable estimate by antismoking expert Elisabeth Whelan:
You have to challenge the junk science to defeat smoking bans. But it can be done.
If I can help fight a smoking ban in your town contact me at:

scott / February 26, 2006 9:29 PM

We need to ban drinking next. I hate all those drunks at bars. I would go out to bars so much more if there was no alcohol! I could come home without my clothes smelling like alcohol. Banning alcohol will save many lives, and won't hurt business one bit, I'll bet! Taverns can serve salads and wheatgrass instead!

Genny / October 26, 2006 10:31 PM

I support the smoking all the way, I just wish they would do it in the suburbs!!!

KATHY / March 4, 2007 6:35 PM

against the smoking ban!!!! whats next !!!!!!!!!!!!!

GB store

Recently on Fuel

Urban Ethos [26]
What is Chicago's "urban ethos"?

Cool Glass of... [16]
What're you drinking?

Supreme Decision [22]
What's your reaction to the Supreme Court's decision on the Affordable Care Act?

Taking it to the Streets [20]
Chicago Street Fairs: Revolting or Awesome?

I Can Be Cruel [9]
Be real: what is the meanest thing you've ever done?

View the complete archive

GB Store

GB Buttons $1.50

GB T-Shirt $12

I ✶ Chi T-Shirts $15