“If it ever comes down to St. Joe ... this town is going to go under,”

Great observation from a smoker. So if a few hole in the wall bars loose a little buisness the whole town goes under?

I guess Mr. Bradley doesn't realize that there are people in this town that don't venture out to bars simply because they hate getting home and having their clothes smell like smoke.

Some places will actually increase in buisness for the above reason.

Mr. Bradley doesn't get out much.

Right on! It is about time non-smokers had some place in this world. Kansas City has spoken as has the rest of the world, as the tide is turning. It sucks to have to be sick the next day when you go out after sucking up inconsiderate smokers second hand smoke.

I live in fl, smoking is banned in bars and all restaurants. It hasn't hurt business. It is a non issue anymore and it will be increasing that way in MO

I do not understand why you can not have both smoking and non-smoking bars.

Bars are one place I no longer go to, I see little merit in them.

But, this is America, you're free to spend your money as you want.

Seems liquor and smoking go hand in hand, but there is a class of drunks that would prefer to not be around smoke, let them have their non-smoking bars - let the customers business and bucks decide, we already have too many stupid laws, why add another?

last time i checked, cigarettes were still legal, and produce tax revenue. i am a non-smoker. i enjoy foster's quite a bit. i am completely against dictating to business owners how to operate their business. this is just a lot more of the government sticking their noses in where they don't belong. it is a matter of PERSONAL choice.

No one's going to go out of business if smoking is banned in St. Joseph. The bars/restaurants in the area where I live (southern Ohio) have been non-smoking for a while. Most bars around here offer an outside patio-type area for the smokers to light up. Personally, I think it's nice to go home from a night out and not smell like an ashtray.

If these anti smoking zealots would focus as much on the tobacco companies and government as they do the small, so called, "hole in the wall bars", we'd all be better off. If you go to a bar and come home with your clothes smelling like smoke, throw them in the washing machine. What would you do if you went to a rodeo, a tractor pull, circus, fishing, and on and on. You gonna wear them dudes the next day or just lay them by your bed to smell? But then again, its all about choices isn't it. I choose not to smoke and I also choose whether I go to a bar or not. If business should increase, why are there not more bar owners opening up non-smoking bars? Get ready! Your home is next.

It's not about smelling like smoke or trying to hurt tobacco companies----banning smoking in public places is about protecting the public. Second hand smoke is worse than first hand--so when someone lights up in public that choice doesn't just affect them.

It should be up to the bar owners. It is not a right to go into a bar, it is a choice. These businesses will ban smoking on their own if it means they would lose business because of it. We live in a free market economy, therefore let the businesses decide on their own

Bigger government is always a bad idea.

Since I stopped smoking 11 years ago I’ve probably become one of the most anti-smoking people around. There are some bar/restaurants here in KC that don't have a non-smoking section. We’ve tried to eat in a couple of them because we've heard numerous times that they have excellent food. I couldn’t stand the smell of cigarettes so we left. I often say that if I had known how badly cigarettes make your body and breath smell (not to mention how brown your teeth get) I would have stopped years sooner.
With that said, I still feel that it is not the government’s place to dictate whether or not people smoke in a business establishment.

There is no big brother here. The people voted against smoking in bars and restraunts. What is all this government intervention? Its not like your congressman decided this for you. Right on SJ35.....Why should I be subjected to your smoke with the health implications to me? Is it OK for me to dump my trash in your front yard? Or what if I had AIDS? You OK with me having sex with you? Think about it. If it affects others, you have to consider your actions, and most smokers don't, and moreover, could careless if they blow their poison in your face.

gr8fan: Who do you think wrote the law & will enforce it?

Dalearch,
Guess big brother tricked us again, huh? The people spoke...Who cares who wrote the bill?........Must have been a subliminal message in there or something.

gr8fan: Try to think a little deeper.

Well if you guys want to fight the good fight against controlling politicians there are much larger fish to fry than smoking...

I know, I know, it's the point, right? It all starts somewhere, right?

Big government has been the business since day two. Pick your fights, this one is hardly worth it.

I am a smoker. I welcome the change.

I QUIT SMOKING, BUT I THINK IF PEOPLE WANT TO SMOKE, LET THEM SMOKE, JUST MAKE US NON SMOKERS A PLACE AWAY FROM IT.

In short, if smokers leave an establishment due to a smoking ban, non-smokers will fill the void.

I understand the Firefighters Hall recently went smoke-free (is it a tad ironic smoking was permitted there in the first place?).

I had only been there twice to play bingo before the change and gagged on the air in there. If I were still living in the area, I would gladly patronize it some more now.

A business should be allowed to make a decision on its smoking policies without governMENTAL interference. A separate smoking area with separate ventilation, though costly, would accommodate smokers and non-smokers.

The firefighters hall is a great example on smokey environments. It was awful to go in there. The smoke was so bad. They needed to go smoke free or buy a smoke eater. However a law would of made that decision for them. They seemed to be able to handle the issue without a law.