Comments on: A Dateline exclusive: Thirst Parlor or Gulag?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 19:44:00 +0000

“You ever seen a spleen that large?”

“No, not since breakfast.”

By: nancy

nancy — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:14:00 +0000

It’s so nice how a little Fletch reminiscing can bring everyone together.

I agree.. I can’t see Zach Braff having his wages garnishied. Dr. Dorian does not a Dr. Rosenfetus make.

By: BlogFreeSpringfield

BlogFreeSpringfield — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 02:34:00 +0000

Zach Braff as Fletch? I’m not buying it. And I’m not watching it.

“Well somebody’s bucking for a promotion…probably that pederast Hanrahan”

By: Paper Boy

Paper Boy — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 23:16:00 +0000

Like the Abstract Prosaic, nothing to add to the debate, other than to say:

"What kind of a name is Poon?"
"Comanche Indian."

I like Zach Braff, but he will NOT do a better job as a revamped Fletch than Chevy Chase's original.

By: John Cocktosen

John Cocktosen — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 20:11:00 +0000

"I am not smart enough to know that second-hand smoke is dangerous at continous pro-longed exposure and I need them to protect me from myself."

Is that a statement? I guess we have swayed your opinion.

"Anyway lets all go down to the Barrelhead and get drunk, pick up a skanky chick, drive her home drunk, have unprotected sex and get an STD"

OK, are you driving? Pick me up at 8:00.

By: nancy

nancy — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 01:56:00 +0000

clj

Is your attitude common among smokers that you know, or are most irate at the smoking ban?

It seems that if more smokers could keep their cool, we wouldn't need nonsmokers to be so outraged on their behalf.

Take it easy up there at the Hilton.

By: Dave H

Dave H — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:36:00 +0000

I know I am beating a dead horse here, but if you do not like the smoke in a bar. Don't go there! That is your right. Start up your own bar that is smoke-free and attract that clientele. Why hasn't it been done already...because it would not make a profit in Springfield. I agree that there is a fine line in this argument, but I am on the side of not letting the government overreach its bounds and of all people I guess I would know that. By taking this liberal position, what you are saying is that the government is smarter than me. I am not smart enough to know that second-hand smoke is dangerous at continous pro-longed exposure and I need them to protect me from myself.

Dan, I wasn't trying to parrallel the smoking ban and trans-fats but I was trying to point out the overreaching bounds of government trying to protect me from what I already know is bad for myself. I have the freedom to not eat that angus burger. I could have just as easily gone down to the Subway and got a healthy turkey sandwich. The free market created that.

If your going to take this stance on the smoking issue than you damn well better take this stance when it comes to say abortion. Is this truly not a public health concern for the baby who does not have the ability to protect itself? Then we as a country should ban abortion nationwide because it is a public health issue. Just because the mother wants an abortion (i.e. smoker) doesn't protect the rights of an unborn child.

Anyway lets all go down to the Barrelhead and get drunk, pick up a skanky chick, drive her home drunk, have unprotected sex and get an STD, but by God don't blow that smoke in my face.

By: CLJ

CLJ — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 21:50:00 +0000

John to answer your question about smoke-free bars in Chicago. There are several I go to on a regular basis. These places have been smoke-free long before the Chicago City Council passed the smoke-free ordinance, which by the way still exempts bars.

These places are packed because they figured out a long time ago to attract people, smokers and non-smokers.

The demand has nothing to do with smoker vs. non-smoker. It's about how much fun you will have at a bar.

When I'm in Springfield, I go to a bar because I enjoy the bar and the people in it. I'm not going to go to the Curve Inn just because it allows smoking. I'll go to the Brewhouse or Frannie's because I like the place. When I smoke my cigarette I'll go outside. It's not real hard, unless you're at the top of the Hilton.

By: nancy

nancy — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:00:00 +0000

The argument that if there had been a need for non-smoking bars, we’d already have them could be used to prevent all kinds of positive development in a community. When it was time to build the Prairie Heart Institue or Memorial’s Burn Center, couldn’t you argue that if Springfield had had a need for such places, they’d already be here? Why build additional firehouses? We’d have them already if there was a need. Certainly if there was a need for improvements to the state’s highways, they’d already be improved. A community cannot remain stagnant and a smart community will respond to studies which can help make it better in any number of ways. Smoking bans are where the entire country is headed. Hopefully there will be a county and then statewide ban soon to level the playing field for all bars in the Springfield area.

But in the meantime, Springfield bar owners are not being denied the right to serve smokers. And I’ll be the first to defend a bar owner’s right to attract a clientele that will be profitable to his business. My first piece of advice would be ACCEPT the ban and make non-smokers feel welcome.

By: BlogFreeSpringfield

BlogFreeSpringfield — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:22:00 +0000

Dave H,

The smoking ban wasn't put in place to protect smokers from themselves, it is to protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke. Therefore, the trans fat argument is not analogous. You can sit next to me and eat as many Hardee's thick burgers as you can stomach and my arteries won't harden a bit.

"It is wrong for the state or city to walk into a private business and dictate a class of customers they may not serve."

Smokers don't constitute a protected "class". They aren't being discriminated against, they just can't light up in a bar. There are plenty of legal activities that you can engage in at home that you can't in a bar because of health concerns. If you want to have a beer and watch the Bears game with no clothes on at home, that's your right. Is it discriminatory to dicate that you can't do that in a bar? Or are you more liberal than you care to admit.

Thanks for commenting,
Dan