IL:  Buffalo Grove and Flora Outdoor Smoking.

Health Board drafts smoking-ban proposal

February 2, 2006
MATT KIEFER

A proposal for Buffalo Grove to ban smoking in public areas is being drafted by the local Board of Health.

The Village Board is scheduled to review the Board of Health's recommendation Monday, though a decision on the matter could still be a ways off. The Village Board meeting is scheduled to take place at 7:30 p.m. Monday in Buffalo Grove Village Hall, 50 Raupp Blvd.

The Board of Health voted unanimously Jan. 19 to recommend a smoking ban. The proposal is not expected to specifically define which public areas would be affected by smoking regulations, though restaurants have been a major focus of discussions thus far.

"Those kinds of questions still need to be hammered out," said Buffalo Grove Health Officer Brian Sheehan, who is writing the Board of Health's proposal.

Details of the proposal will have to be fleshed out through Village Board discussions, Sheehan added.

Sheehan said the Board of Health based its recommendation on both health and business factors. In addition to medical research highlighting the ill effects of secondhand smoke, he said Buffalo Grove has also reviewed sales tax data from communities with smoking bans in place to see if there has been a drop in restaurant business.

Sheehan pointed to the village of Skokie, which reported moderate increases in sales tax from restaurants in the first two years after a smoking was enacted there.

Opinions differ

Buffalo Grove Village Trustee Jeff Braiman, who serves as a liaison to the Board of Health, said the Village Board will have to research the issue further before a decision can be made. Specifically, he said that the board will want to hear from residents, businesses and the Chamber of Commerce in the course of smoking ban discussions.

"Whenever we make decisions, we want to have as much information as possible and that will include information from the affected parties," Braiman said. "There are a lot of issues to take into consideration."

Public opinion traditionally has been divided over the issue.

"As a smoker, I prefer not to have any smoking ban," Judy Lomeo said while puffing on a cigarette at Connie's Clubhouse and Tavern last week. "I'm always looking for a place to go where I can have a cocktail and a cigarette at the same time. It's getting harder and harder to find these types of places."

Ed Grossmann, a Connie's patron who gave up smoking 43 years ago, disagreed.

"I don't think they should be allowed to smoke," he said, adding that secondhand smoke bothers him. "It's not going to kill them to give it up for a couple hours."

James Kuzynowski, manager of Connie's and a smoker, would be willing to settle for a compromise.

"An inside smoking ban I would be OK with. I don't think it will hurt business," said Kuzynowski, adding that people should still be allowed to smoke outside of restaurants and in patio seating areas.

The debate over smoking regulations is not new to Buffalo Grove.

The smoking issue was raised by the Board of Health in the mid-1990s, prompting the Village Board brokered to prohibit smaller restaurants (40 seats or fewer) from offering a smoking section.

The Board of Health revisited the issue again about five years ago but no changes were made to village code, Sheehan said.

The current debate was raised last spring by a group of local teenagers. Youth Voice, a junior activist program coordinated by Omni Youth Services, suggested in May that the Village Board legislate stricter smoking regulations in public places.

The group, made up of about a dozen Buffalo Grove High School students, conducted a survey of local residents and businesses that suggested the public would be open to a smoking ban.

Smoking restrictions have been gaining popularity locally. The Buffalo Restaurant and the Continental Restaurant recently barred smoking in their establishments.

Last summer, the Buffalo Grove Park District passed an ordinance banning smoking on its property.

Bans debated nearby

Buffalo Grove is one of many nearby communities that have floated the idea of a smoking ban in recent years.

In 2003, the Wheeling Village Board voted down a proposal to prohibit smoking in public places. Arlington Heights did the same in 2004. Last year, the Lincolnshire Village Board began to look at the issue, and Elk Grove Village is now doing the same.

Regional organizations are studying the idea of uniform smoking codes across multiple communities, and members of the state Legislature have even broached the subject of a statewide ban.

Read

Buffalo Grove (IL) and Greenville (TX) Ban Smoking in Parks
August 11, 2005
By Michael Siegel
I don't see secondhand smoke exposure as such a serious health threat that banning smoking in outdoors, non-enclosed areas where people are not contained in a particular area is warranted. Certainly, smoking in parking lots is not a severe health hazard that deserves attention from public health practitioners. And I just don't see how those three or four senior ladies puffing on cigarettes outside the Alcott building represent a serious enough threat to the public's health to warrant government intrusion of this nature.
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2005/08/buffalo-grove-il-and-greenville-tx-ban.html

August 11, 2005 7:46 PM
Subject: Request for State Ruling: Legality of Current Illinois Smoking Ban? - Buffalo Grove, IL;

NOTE:  ORIGINAL E-MAIL SENT VIA ATTORNEY GENERAL CONTACT FORM AT http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/about/email_ag.jsp, REQUIRING ATTACHMENT TO BE PASTED AT BOTTOM OF COMMUNICATION.
 
Garnet Scheuer
Lake Bluff, IL  60044
 
 
"Ensuring Open and Honest Government"
Office of the Illinois Attorney General
 
Chicago Main Office
100 West Randolph Street
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 814-3000

Springfield Main Office
500 South Second Street
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-1090

RE: Request for State Ruling:  Legality of Current Illinois Smoking Ban? - Buffalo Grove, IL
 
To Whom It May Concern:
cc:  Buffalo Grove Park District, Buffalo Grove Village Hall, Chamber of Commerce and Illinois Park & Recreation Association
 
Even though Governor Blagojevich has signed HB 672, enacting the Clean Air Amendment - Home Rule Amendment, the law does not become effective until January 1, 2006. 
 
Buffalo Grove is currently violating the still valid 1990 Illinois Clean Air Act.  Therefore, I am requesting a ruling from the Office of the Illinois Attorney General in respect to the validity of their ordinance.  The municipality in question is located in Cook County.  The Buffalo Grove park district has instituted an outdoor smoking ban on all park district property and is not included among the twenty communities exempt from the 1990 Illinois Clean Air Act.
 
Attached as a document are copies of the letter I e-mailed to the Buffalo Grove Park District , IPRA and Buffalo Grove Village Hall on the evening of August 4, 2005, (including contact information) along with my original letter and a copy of the text (with link) from original Herald news story reporting the ban.
 
I learned from William Balling, the Village Manager: "The recent regulation passed concerning a smoking ban on Park District property was passed by the Buffalo Grove Park District which is completely separate from the Village. The Village at no time was consulted on the Park District's regulation..."
 
My response from Mike Rylko, Executive Director of the Buffalo Grove Park District  was simply  "...Thank you for voicing your opinion, it is my understanding that the park district ordinance to ban smoking is legal and was prepared by legal council." 
 
I was informed by Bill Wald, CEO of the Illinois Park & Recreation Association:  "If you have a specific issue regarding the smoking ban in Buffalo Grove, I would suggest that you direct those comments to the Board of Park Commissions or Director of Parks and Recreation at the Buffalo Grove Park District.  Your inquiries may be addressed in discussion with those with authority over such decision making practices."
 
If Illinois municipalities are indeed to have home rule over smoking bans in the future, it would be very helpful to establish the parties responsible for those decisions and proper procedures.  According to the Illinois laws I have read, Buffalo Grove residents should be able to smoke outdoors on park property through this coming Christmas. 
 
Thank you for your immediate attention and assistance in this matter. 
 
Sincerely,
 
______________________________
Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.com
Illinois Smokers Rights - http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/
mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!

August 4, 2005
 
Buffalo Grove Park District  kim_cashmore@bgpkr.org
530 Bernard Drive
Buffalo Grove, IL 60089
Phone:  (847)850-2100
Attn:  Mr. Scott Jacobson, Commissioner President
         Mr. Mike Rylko, Executive Director MRylko@bgpkr.org
         Mr. Dale Ducommun, Superintendent of Parks DDucommun@bgpkr.org
         Mr. Dan Schimmel, Director of Recreation and Facilities DSchimmel@bgpkr.org
 
Mr. Bill Wald, CPRP, CAE,  Chief Executive Officer  bill@ilipra.org 

Illinois Park & Recreation Association
106 North Schmale Road
Carol Stream, IL 60188
 
Buffalo Grove Village Hall
50 Raupp Blvd
Buffalo Grove, IL  60089
847/459-2500
Attn:  Mr. Elliott Hartstein, Village President  EHartste@vbg.org
         Mr. William Balling, Village Manager  bgroveil@vbg.org
 
 

Ms. Lynne Schneider, Executive Director

Buffalo Grove Chamber of Commerce  info@bgacc.org
50 1/2 Raupp Blvd.
P.O. Box 7124
Buffalo Grove, IL 60089
Telephone: 847/541-7799

Gentlemen:
 
I have attempted to contact the Buffalo Grove park district, the IPRA and the Herald and Pioneer Press newspapers who printed stories on the new park district outdoor smoking ban.  It appears my assertions that the ban is illegal are being completely ignored.  I am making another attempt to elicit your response by contacting additional decision makers, who should have an interest in this topic also. 
 
Please see attachments verifying my prior attempt (below).   Should you choose not to respond again, I will only have one alternative remaining.  I will contact our Illinois Attorney General's office with a request for an official ruling as to whether Buffalo Grove enacted the smoking ban ultra vires, therefore, the new ordinance is null and void.
 
Allowing three full business days, I will await your response through next Tuesday, August 9th.
 
Sincerely,
______________________________
Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.com
Illinois Smokers Rights - http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/
mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!
 

July 28, 2005
 
RE:   No more smoking on park property - Buffalo Grove, IL
 
Attention:  Steve Zalusky, Author
John Lampinen, Vice President/Executive Editor
Eileen Brown, Managing Editor
Madeleine Doubek, Deputy Managing Editor
David Beery, Assistant Managing Editor/Editorial

Buffalo Grove Area Chamber of Commerce
John Ambrosia, Editor-in-Chief, Pioneer Press - Glenview
 
Dear Editor,
 
Through Steve Zalusky's informative story (below), I learned the park board commissioners are attempting to expand the Illinois Clean Air Act in Buffalo Grove.  I wrote the following to the Buffalo Grove Park Recreation Association at  http://ipra.blogspot.com/ last night, in response to your story.  It is very sad to learn that even our local representatives do not understand Illinois laws.
 
Sincerely,
______________________________
Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.com
Illinois Smokers Rights - http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/
mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Whom It May Concern:

Buffalo Grove is overstepping their governmental authority by enacting a more severe smoking ban than Illinois state law currently dictates in the IL Clean Indoor Act of 1990. Buffalo Grove is not one of the 20 municipalities with the power to enact bans at this time. Before our governor signs HB0672, if he does, your ban is illegal.

I have also been in contact with the city of Flora, IL and their city legal department for the same reason. They have also passed an illegal smoking ban ordinance.

I am reposting a communication from the Illinois Smokers group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/illinoissmokers that I sent to a member this past March. It should help clarify why Buffalo Grove cannot institute this ban. I do not see BG on the list, and "outdoor areas" are not among the places where smoking is banned.

Sincerely,
Garnet Dawn
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Garnet Dawn"
Date: Tue Mar 8, 2005 5:15 pm
Subject: Which Illinois towns are able to ban smoking?

Hi,

Yes! Here it is. This subject came up was when HB 3996 was defeated last year. See below, where each of the communities grandfathered in before the Illinois Clean Indoor Air Act - 1990 is listed. Hope this helps.

Garnet Dawn

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FROM: billquin.....,
Tue, 08 Mar 2005 21:38:03 -0000
SUBJECT: Which Illinois towns are able to ban smoking?

Through conversation someone mentioned that certain towns did not have the power to ban smoking. Does anyone know anything about this? I own a business in the suburbs that could be affected by this. Thank you ahead of time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004
Subject: The Illinois Clean Indoor Air Act - 1990 vs House Bill 3996

There is much confusion about the Illinois Clean Indoor Act and the 20 communities that are exempt.

Section 9 is the one naming the Illinois communities with the right to ban smoking, should they choose to do so. This is because they instituted smoking regulations before the 1990 Act was passed.

House Bill 3996 was defeated yesterday. If this bill had passed it would have allowed any and all municipalities in Illinois to impose smoking bans on bars and restaurants. Therefore, "Leveling the Playing Field," as the Antis love to say.

The defeat of this bill was a major victory, in my opinion. Now is the best time to contact Illinois restaurants to ensure they continue to fight smoking bans.

Garnet Dawn

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Illinois Clean Indoor Air Act
What Does The Illinois Clean Indoor Air Act Do?

The Illinois Clean Indoor Air Act (Public Act #86-1018), which took effect July 1, 1990, establishes non-smoking as the policy for the State of Illinois. It changes the way employers, restaurant proprietors, businesses, school administrators and government officials must oversee smoking on their property. Under the Clean Indoor Air Act, all public places are assumed to be NON- SMOKING unless an area is designated for smoking. An owner MAY designate the entire premises as non-smoking. An owner MAY NOT designate the entire premises as smoking with the exception of bowling alleys; bars; hotel rooms; non-public sections of factories or warehouses; and private, enclosed offices occupied ONLY by smokers.

Where Smoking is Banned:
-In taxis, service lines, rest rooms, polling places, meeting rooms and assembly halls; sports arenas; public buildings, e.g., libraries, museums.
-In at least half of waiting areas of plane, train and bus terminals.
-In designated areas of restaurants seating 40 or more persons.

Where Smoking is Allowed
-Any outdoor area.
-Public lobbies, common corridors; bars; hotel and motel rooms.
-Restaurants, meeting, banquet rooms, assembly halls used for private functions.

SMOKING IN THE WORKPLACE:
-Employers must develop a company smoking policy that provides employees with smoke-free areas. However, no company will need to alter the building's physical makeup to comply.
-Employees can declare their immediate work area smoke-free and employers must find alternatives if this solution is not satisfactory.
-No employee may be discriminated against for insisting on rights provided under the ordinance.
-In disputes with smokers, the rights of non-smokers have priority. THIS WENT INTO EFFECT JULY 24, 1988.

What Does The Law Require?
The Illinois Clean Indoor Air Act requires Management to make reasonable efforts to prevent smoking in a public place outside of designated smoking areas by:
* posting appropriate signs
* using existing barriers and ventilation
* contacting law enforcement officials
* other appropriate means

Which Establishments Are Covered Under The Illinois Clean Indoor Air Act?
This law applies to any enclosed, indoor area used by the public or serving as a place of work. This includes (but is not limited to):
* offices
* hospitals
* hair salons
* meeting rooms
* schools
* retail stores
* restaurants
* theatres
* grocery stores
* nursing homes
* libraries
* banks

Which Communities Are Covered Under The Illinois Clean Indoor Air Act?
This law applies to all local municipalities in Illinois EXCEPT those "home rule" communities which passed their own local clean indoor air ordinances prior to October 1, 1989. These home rule communities are:
* Arlington Heights
* Champaign
* Chicago
* DeKalb
* Des Plaines
* Downers Grove
* Elgin
* Elmhurst
* Evanston
* Highland Park
* Hoffman Estates
* Joliet
* Northbrook
* Oak Park
* Orland Park
* Park Ridge
* Schaumburg
* Skokie
* Urbana
* Wilmette

www.creative.tribalddb.com/acs/frames/rights.html

---------------------------

No more smoking on park property
Buffalo Grove extends ban to all facilities

By Steve Zalusky
Daily Herald Staff Writer
Posted Tuesday, July 26, 2005

In what they think may be a first, Buffalo Grove Park District commissioners have banned smoking entirely from park property.

The park district already bans smoking indoors, but on Monday park board commissioners voted unanimously to extend the ban to all facilities.

"Maybe it will send a message to our village, to also prohibit smoking in restaurants and bars, just like they did in Skokie, just like they did in Highland Park, just like they're doing hopefully in Chicago in the not-too-distant future," said Park Board of Commissioners President Scott Jacobson, who pushed for the ban.

Only one member of the public was present, Buffalo Grove resident Jorie Ouimet, who also works for the American Heart Association.

Ouimet applauded the ban, particularly for its effect on children. "It's sending the right message to the right audience from the right group of people," she said.

One of the commissioners, Richard Drazner, said there will be penalties, but the aim is not to generate dollars for the district.

"We're not using this as a revenue source, but as public education," Drazner said. "If we get the word out that there is no smoking at parks, I think that there will be 95 percent compliance from the general public."

Drazner said a warning will be given for the first offense, but added that subsequent penalties would range between $25 and $100.

Although approval was unanimous, Commissioner Larry Reiner said he had reservations about the ordinance.

Reiner said he agrees with the philosophy behind it, which is to discourage secondhand smoke, but added, "I'm not sure that we ought to be trying to control behaviors throughout our whole community of individuals, and their private lives."

"Smoking is not against the law," he added.

http://www.dailyherald.com/news/cookstory.asp?id=77110
 

Buffalo Grove considers ban on smoking outdoors

Zalusky & Woodhams
July 14, 2005

No ifs, ands or butts about it.

The Buffalo Grove Park District is moving ahead on imposing an outdoor smoking ban.

If it passes, you are out of luck if you want to light up on a bike path, at a ball field, in a park or even outside the Alcott Center (or maybe you're in luck, since you will reduce your chances of getting cancer).

It is likely to come to a close vote within the park board, judging from the discussion at this week's park board meeting.

The biggest proponent is park board President Scott Jacobson, who mentioned that he once saw at least 20 cigarette butts in the tot area at Willow Stream Park.

Jacobson also noted that you can puff away at one of the Willow Stream concerts but are prohibited from sipping a glass of wine because of the district's ban on alcohol.

Park district Executive Director Michael Rylko said park staff supports the smoking ban but was uncertain how well the district can enforce it, particularly among the seniors who smoke outside the Alcott Center. Speaking of which, Rylko noted that preschool moms have complained about the seniors who smoke.

Interested parties, assuming there are any, might want to attend the next park board meeting July 25.

http://www.dailyherald.com/search/searchstory.asp?id=73531

  Dear Editor:

  The Buffalo Grove Park District needs to reconsider it's ban. 
Buffalo Grove does not have the authority to enact a ban of their own.  The
Clean Air Act - Home Rule amendment may have been passed by the Illinois
House and Senate, but our Governor has not signed the bill.  It will
not be in effect until he does, and any ordinances they pass before then
for smoking bans are illegal.  Buffalo Grove is not one of the 20
communities which may enact more stringent smoking bans than the 1990 Clean
Air Act. 

  That Act still allows smoking outdoors.  See www.creative.tribalddb.com/acs/frames/rights.html "Know Your Rights" The Illinois
Clean Indoor Air Act for the Communities which have that right.  It also reads: 
  Where Smoking is Allowed
  -Any outdoor area.
  -Public lobbies, common corridors; bars; hotel and motel rooms.
  -Restaurants, meeting, banquet rooms, assembly halls used for private
functions.

 ______________________________
Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter -
http://www.smokersclubinc.com
Illinois Smokers Rights - http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/
mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!

Leave smokers alone

July 26, 2005
 
Who is asking for this smoking ban?  Certainly not the people of Chicago. In 2003 there were only 16 registered complaints of smoking with the City of Chicago and 20 in 2004. The only people really pushing for this ban are Aldermen Smith and Stone.   January 2004 was the last official hearing on this ban. Smith has ''reintroduced'' the ban several times with no hearing, including on July 12, which again resulted in no hearing. How many times will it take before the alderman understands that the people don't want a ban? 

Restaurants and bars are privately owned businesses. The owners are in the best position to know what their customers want. They should be allowed to decide whether to permit smoking in their establishment. No one is forced to eat or work at a business that allows smoking.   About 69 percent of the 6,000 licensed restaurants in Chicago are non-smoking, by the owners' choice. For every restaurant that serves a certain cuisine and allows smoking, you can find one that serves that same cuisine and is nonsmoking.

People have a right to smoke, just as I have the right not to. We do not have a right to tell private owners how to run their businesses.  

Nikki Comerford,  Crystal Lake   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 26, 2005
Chicago Sun-Times

Just say no to smoking

As the president and chief executive officer of the largest health insurer in Illinois, I strongly believe a comprehensive smoke-free ordinance is appropriate public health policy for Chicago.

The Sun-Times editorial ''Compromise could temper fervor over smoking ban plan'' [July 11] suggests tobacco licensing as an alternative to the comprehensive ordinance. This is not a licensing issue. We don't provide licenses to restaurants that want to violate sanitation or fire codes. We would not consider providing a license to a building owner who wanted to utilize asbestos. Nor are those unfair comparisons. Like fire hazards and asbestos exposure, the danger of secondhand smoke is well-documented by scientific study. Secondhand smoke kills. Offering what would amount to a ''license to kill'' affirms the premise that secondhand smoke can cause cancer, yet grants exceptions for those establishments that can afford to pay a fee to continue putting their workers at risk.

The Sun-Times also says the city should require smoking restaurants to provide health insurance. We all want health coverage for workers who are uninsured. But does it make sense to suggest that exposing workers to toxic chemicals is acceptable if their employers are willing to help pay for treatment of the cancer, respiratory ailments or heart disease that will result from that exposure?

The Sun-Times says they "suspect" ventilation can help reduce the carcinogens in secondhand smoke. Experts know that is not the case. On June 30, the Board of Directors for the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers concluded that there are no ventilation or air filtration technologies that can completely eliminate the health risks caused by the 4,000 chemicals, including 63 cancer-causing carcinogens, contained in secondhand smoke. Ventilation helps decrease the odor but does not clear the air of poisonous chemicals.

Finally, the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that eliminating smoke from all work places would save at least $39 billion annually nationwide. In a time of rising health care costs and state and federal budget deficits, Chicago cannot afford to continue exposing workers to toxic secondhand smoke.

Ray McCaskey, president and CEO, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rebuttal to Ray McCaskey's July 26, 2005 Chicago Sun-Times letter "Just Say No"

Does Mr. McCaskey find it necessary to state his credentials to offer an opinion on smoking bans?  I hope he is simply verifying that health care insurance providers consider themselves involved in the outcome of smoking ban decisions.  He is forgetting that smokers are supposed to "die young" and, if we are to believe the dogma anti-tobacco health experts keep repeating, health insurance companies will actually save money through smokers! He does not realize that restaurant and bar owners are committed on hospitality smoking ban issues.

Picture a traditional hearty ham and eggs breakfast at home or in a restaurant.  Not only is the cook involved, but so is a chicken because she laid the eggs.  The only committed participant in this meal is the pig, who was slaughtered to create the meal!  Thus, involved vs committed.  Blue Cross/Blue Shield is only involved, while hospitality entrepreneurs are committed.

He is also failing to acknowledge that smoking bans are in violation of our US Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Private property rights and the right of a consenting adult to use a legal product in a private establishment are being ignored.  Employees are not conscripted to work in smoking environments.  That is the beauty of Free Choice and a Democratic Republic.

Restaurants and bars are private property according to a US Supreme Court ruling in the early 1970's involving leafleting Vietnam War protesters turned away from a shopping mall. The Supreme Court said a place of business does not become public property just because the public is invited in.  By that same reasoning, a restaurant or bar is not public property.

Tired arguments comparing smoking ordinances to sanitation codes, fire hazards and asbestos are comparing apples to oranges.  Those threats are invisible!  Sanitation codes are there to protect customers from hidden dangers that they would have no way of knowing about.  Fire codes are similar, but with the added kick of being there to protect firefighters from having to enter dangerous situations and to protect neighboring properties from fires.  As for asbestos, the threat is so large that it's been universally clear to researchers for over thirty years.  The threat is a hundred, a thousand times greater than that "claimed" (still not proven) for secondary smoke.  Again, asbestos a hidden danger; smoke is not!

Chicago is a metropolitan city that is large enough to satisfy a diverse population with varied tastes. This proposed smoking ban in Chicago is not about health.  It is about money, power and control.  Smoking ban proposals are a byproduct of what has become the wealthy and powerful anti-tobacco industry, controlled by extremist special interest groups.  Chicago does not need to follow the paths New York or Los Angeles have taken.  We need to set trends, not follow them.  No compromises!  No smoking bans!