PDA

View Full Version : No improvement to USCF smoking areas?


nug0hs
08-05-2007, 07:05 PM
Hadn't heard anything about this in a while and didnt find anything in the search. A few days ago I decided to email Brooks regarding the USCF smoking areas and their lack of any improvement over the past 2 seasons. My email is below, followed by the response.

Mr. Boyer:
I just wanted to run a quick question past you which I have been pondering for a the past few months. I am a longtime season season ticket holder up in section 526 and noticed that the designated smoking areas on the ramps have been roped off the past few days. Additionally, a friend and I were wondering if anything is planning on being done to accomodate fans who are often using the smoking area. I have noticed that there are no "butt trays" or anything of the sort on ANY of the ramps/smoking areas, and I would imagine this makes more work having to sweep up butts every night. Wouldn't it make sense to put some kind of receptacle out there for us fans who choose to smoke? Similarly, I am curious if anything is being done to get a speaker or TV in these areas for fans who run out during live play. I am aware that there is a speaker at the top of every escalator, which is a few yards from my closest smoking area, but it is difficult to hear and causes me to lose track of the game. Obviously the only way around this would be to stop smoking, but I really feel that additional speakers and/or a TV wired to the in-house broadcast would be the optimal result for all of us. I constantly hear fans complaining that they wish that something would be done to address this problem, and I am sure that wiring some speakers an extra 20 or 30 feet wouldnt be that costly or difficult for the team to do. Have you and your coworkers considered doing something like this? I would bet that us smokers would even be willing to pay the extra few $$ to contribute to hooking up speakers or a TV out there. Just a thought. Get back to me if you have any comments or questions. Thanks a lot for your time and GO SOX!


...and the response:

Eric,

Brooks Boyer read your letter and asked me to follow-up. We have adjusted and will continue to adjust the volume on the game on the ramps of the park. Believe it or not, the wind direction actually plays a part in the sound. We have looked at adding some televisions, but we need to locate them in an area where with an element protection box will allow you to view the screen and protect the set from the elements. This may not happen this season, but it is something we are looking into. We must also investigate the impact to the facility; the Illinois Smoking Ordinance will create next season, before adding anything permanent.

Thank you for taking time to share your ideas. It is comments from our fans that assist with the changes we are constantly making to improve our fansí experience at the ballpark.

Sincerely,

Julie A. Taylor
Sr. Director of Guest Services
Chicago White Sox



Any ideas/comments on this discussion? It really seems to me that something should be done, but I'm not one to really whine and complain about this, so let's please NOT turn this into a pro/anti smoking debate.

ilsox7
08-05-2007, 07:10 PM
Any ideas/comments on this discussion? It really seems to me that something should be done, but I'm not one to really whine and complain about this, so let's please NOT turn this into a pro/anti smoking debate.

I'd have to look into it, but I think it will be illegal to smoke in the park next year.

EDIT: This article (http://www.nbc5.com/sports/13800106/detail.html?rss=chi&psp=news) makes it appear it will be illegal, as it will be in Soldier Field.

anewman35
08-05-2007, 07:11 PM
Hadn't heard anything about this in a while and didnt find anything in the search. A few days ago I decided to email Brooks regarding the USCF smoking areas and their lack of any improvement over the past 2 seasons. My email is below, followed by the response.


I have no special knowledge of this, but it actually wouldn't surprise me at all if smoking gets banned in the park entirely. The Bears are entirely banning all smoking in Soldier Field this year, and the wording of the press release (which I'm attaching below) indicates that it's due to the new state law. This seems to mean that the new state law is stronger than the city law was, and if the Bears have to ban smoking because of it, it's hard to imagine how the Sox could still allow it. The law does specifically ban smoking in "sports arenas that are 'enclosed or partially enclosed'", and I would have to assume that includes the Cell.


The Illinois Smoke Free Act passed the State Legislature during the beginning of the month of July and it was signed by Gov. Rod Blagojevich on Monday, July 23. The act bans smoking in indoor public venues, workplaces inside and outside such as bars, restaurants, casinos and bowling alleys, sports arenas that are "enclosed or partially enclosed", and smoking within 15 feet of entrances or open windows of buildings where smoking has been banned.
The ban will become effective on Jan. 1, 2008, but the policy will be implemented for all Bears games at Soldier Field this season, rather than change the policy for any potential home playoff contests in January of 2008.

Etownsox13
08-05-2007, 09:22 PM
Time to break out this...

5466

IlliniSox4Life
08-06-2007, 02:40 AM
I have no special knowledge of this, but it actually wouldn't surprise me at all if smoking gets banned in the park entirely. The Bears are entirely banning all smoking in Soldier Field this year, and the wording of the press release (which I'm attaching below) indicates that it's due to the new state law. This seems to mean that the new state law is stronger than the city law was, and if the Bears have to ban smoking because of it, it's hard to imagine how the Sox could still allow it. The law does specifically ban smoking in "sports arenas that are 'enclosed or partially enclosed'", and I would have to assume that includes the Cell.


I guess the question would be, are the ramps considered to be part of the building. I mean, obviously they are attached, but I could see them being designated as separate.

Either way, I haven't noticed because I don't smoke, but if they don't at least have some sort of butt disposal place out there, that's pretty ridiculous.

Nellie_Fox
08-06-2007, 02:43 AM
I guess the question would be, are the ramps considered to be part of the building. I mean, obviously they are attached, but I could see them being designated as separate.I believe that the current trend is that anyplace where anybody other than you is subjected to the smoke is off-limits. I'd be very surprised if smoking continues to be allowed on the ramps.

Steelrod
08-06-2007, 06:04 AM
I believe that the current trend is that anyplace where anybody other than you is subjected to the smoke is off-limits. I'd be very surprised if smoking continues to be allowed on the ramps.
I was at At&T, and the smoking sections we similiar to US Cellular, except they were walled off, with a door for entry and exit. Not to turn this into a debate, but smokers do have some rights.

Parrothead
08-06-2007, 06:58 AM
I was at At&T, and the smoking sections we similiar to US Cellular, except they were walled off, with a door for entry and exit. Not to turn this into a debate, but smokers do have some rights.

Not in this state or many others anymore. I find it nuts, if the state wants to stop smoking...stop selling cigarettes /cigars.

The hypocrites will take the tax dollars smoking generates but actually do nothing to help. Enjoy the higher tax rates due to all the lost revenue for the banning of smoking. I know City of Chicago already like the higher property taxes to make up for the 200 million plus lost due to people buying tobacco out of the County / state.

SynchroJet
08-06-2007, 07:01 AM
Smoking is a nasty, filthy, smelly habit.

For those of us that don't smoke and have to walk though the cloud of secondhand smoke on the ramps, it makes up sick.

itsnotrequired
08-06-2007, 08:17 AM
EDIT: This article (http://www.nbc5.com/sports/13800106/detail.html?rss=chi&psp=news) makes it appear it will be illegal, as it will be in Soldier Field.

That's how I read it as well. "Enclosed area" will be the sticky point.

Parrothead
08-06-2007, 08:30 AM
Smoking is a nasty, filthy, smelly habit.

For those of us that don't smoke and have to walk though the cloud of secondhand smoke on the ramps, it makes up sick.

A cloud of smoke on an outside ramp? Come on, get serious. It would seem that you are making up sick.

No, I don't smoke.

itsnotrequired
08-06-2007, 08:33 AM
And downhill we go...

ilsox7
08-06-2007, 08:39 AM
And downhill we go...

It was inevitable.

stacksedwards
08-06-2007, 08:39 AM
Pretty soon you will have to leave earth to have a smoke

You can't smoke if your dead- Roy Munson

itsnotrequired
08-06-2007, 08:41 AM
It was inevitable.

Let the horns blow.

As an aside, what was the policy at Soldier Field last year? Could you smoke in the seating area?

whitem0nkey
08-06-2007, 08:45 AM
I wonder how this will effect season tickets. I can see some people who would not renew due to this rule. I do think they will get some new ticket holders because of this. but I think they will loose more than gain with this issue.

itsnotrequired
08-06-2007, 08:48 AM
I wonder how this will effect season tickets. I can see some people who would not renew due to this rule. I do think they will get some new ticket holders because of this. but I think they will loose more than gain with this issue.

A season ticket holder choosing smoking over the Sox? Seems a little extreme, especially since this is being enacted by the State and not the Sox.

stacksedwards
08-06-2007, 09:01 AM
Let the horns blow.

As an aside, what was the policy at Soldier Field last year? Could you smoke in the seating area?
No. From my seats in the 100 level you had to go down stairs where you enter. And from 400 level you had to go down stairs to 300 level concourse.

Steelrod
08-06-2007, 09:15 AM
Smoking is a nasty, filthy, smelly habit.

For those of us that don't smoke and have to walk though the cloud of secondhand smoke on the ramps, it makes up sick.
Considering that you are a mechanic, do you push the cars into your bay?

Fenway
08-06-2007, 09:46 AM
In Boston you actually have to go out onto the street to smoke

http://blogs.timesunion.com/baseball/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/yawkey.jpg

The city closes off Yawkey Way and it becomes part of the park 2 hours before game time

102605
08-06-2007, 09:55 AM
Not improving the smoking areas? What a shame!

soxfan13
08-06-2007, 09:56 AM
In Boston you actually have to go out onto the street to smoke

http://blogs.timesunion.com/baseball/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/yawkey.jpg

The city closes off Yawkey Way and it becomes part of the park 2 hours before game time

I can see the Sox doing the same thing like the United Center. Certain exits being roped off so you can scan your ticket leave and then have it rescanned when you come back in.

itsnotrequired
08-06-2007, 09:57 AM
No. From my seats in the 100 level you had to go down stairs where you enter. And from 400 level you had to go down stairs to 300 level concourse.

So smoking was allowed on the concourses? Sounds like that was in violation of the City ordinance. I haven't been to a Bears game so I'm not sure how enclosed the concourses are.

itsnotrequired
08-06-2007, 10:00 AM
I can see the Sox doing the same thing like the United Center. Certain exits being roped off so you can scan your ticket leave and then have it rescanned when you come back in.

I could really only see this happening at Gates 3 and 5 (and I guess 4 for the glitterati). Gates 2 and 6 don't have escalators and I can't imagine people wanting to go up and down that distance, especially from the upper level.

I wonder if they would run a set of the escalators down after the game starts so people could make the smoking trip as quickly as possible?

stacksedwards
08-06-2007, 10:03 AM
So smoking was allowed on the concourses? Sounds like that was in violation of the City ordinance. I haven't been to a Bears game so I'm not sure how enclosed the concourses are.
Its really not a concourse. Your kind of bellow the concourses away from consession stands just in an open area. Hard to explain but similar to the way smoking is at the Cell.

voodoochile
08-06-2007, 10:04 AM
I was at At&T, and the smoking sections we similiar to US Cellular, except they were walled off, with a door for entry and exit. Not to turn this into a debate, but smokers do have some rights.

Actually, legally they don't. Smoking is not a protected status in any way. It's a privilege, not a right.

Smoking doesn't bother me and I actually enjoy a cigarette every now and then when I am having a few beers, but it's never going to be afforded any kind of legal protection when the vast majority of people don't smoke and efforts are definitely being made to reduce public consumption of tobacco.

It will never be made illegal/criminal to do so either because the black market would simply take over and the government would lose out on tax revenue.

Still, smokers should just accept that they are going to be forced farther and farther away from public facilities. The trend isn't changing any time soon.

Steelrod
08-06-2007, 10:13 AM
Iaccept your point and agree with it.
But our lives are getting more and more regulated. In my life, I have been in accidents with both smoking and drunk drivers. Are we soon to be prohibited from having a cool one at an establishment that offers parking, since alcohol does affect reaction time even under the legal limits.
What a waste of my 1,000th posting!

johnr1note
08-06-2007, 10:22 AM
I wonder how this will effect season tickets. I can see some people who would not renew due to this rule. I do think they will get some new ticket holders because of this. but I think they will loose more than gain with this issue.

If a smoker feels this strongly, or lacks the ability to refrain for the length of a ballgame, they will have the same issue at every other public venue in the state -- be it restaurant, tavern, office, or athletic venue. To "stand up" for smoking rights and boycott an establishment that bans smoking will mean the smoker stays home, and never goes out anywhere.

Fenway
08-06-2007, 10:23 AM
At the Boston Garden smokers are just plain stuck. No re-entry at all.

thepaulbowski
08-06-2007, 10:26 AM
Let the horns blow.

As an aside, what was the policy at Soldier Field last year? Could you smoke in the seating area?

They had designated smoking areas. If caught smoking outside of the designated area you are issued a smoking ticket. Once you receive so many tickets, you could lose your seats.

nug0hs
08-06-2007, 11:20 AM
The point of me starting this thread was in hope that the team would do something cheap and easy. It wouldn't be too hard to add some kind of tent which would prevent passers-by from being exposed but would keep us all happy.

itsnotrequired
08-06-2007, 11:25 AM
The point of me starting this thread was in hope that the team would do something cheap and easy. It wouldn't be too hard to add some kind of tent which would prevent passers-by from being exposed but would keep us all happy.

Who wouold pay for the tent? Would it be "permanent" or erected/taken down for each game? Would it be fully enclosed or more like a windscreen? What happens when it gets full? What happens if some jags damage it? Would effectively lessening the surface area of the ramp be a violation of some egress code?

There are a lot of factors to consider. Simply throwing up a tent may not be as easy as it sounds.

dakuda
08-06-2007, 11:29 AM
The point of me starting this thread was in hope that the team would do something cheap and easy. It wouldn't be too hard to add some kind of tent which would prevent passers-by from being exposed but would keep us all happy.

I agree that they should have somewhere for the butts to go. However, if they have to ban smoking in the building completely next year(due to the government encroaching on more rights - but that is another discussion), I doubt they will want to spend the money.

itsnotrequired
08-06-2007, 11:31 AM
I agree that they should have somewhere for the butts to go. However, if they have to ban smoking in the building completely next year(due to the government encroaching on more rights - but that is another discussion), I doubt they will want to spend the money.

Smoking is not a "right".

In any event, I agree with you that the Sox won't want to spend any money on this due to the upcoming ban. They only have to fake it through 29 more dates (plus a few for the postseason) and then shut the whole thing down.

soxfan13
08-06-2007, 11:31 AM
I could really only see this happening at Gates 3 and 5 (and I guess 4 for the glitterati). Gates 2 and 6 don't have escalators and I can't imagine people wanting to go up and down that distance, especially from the upper level.

I wonder if they would run a set of the escalators down after the game starts so people could make the smoking trip as quickly as possible?

Personally I can hold out for the game but you would be amazed at what some maniac smokers would go through :tongue:

soxfan13
08-06-2007, 11:38 AM
Smoking is not a "right".

In any event, I agree with you that the Sox won't want to spend any money on this due to the upcoming ban. They only have to fake it through 29 more dates (plus a few for the postseason) and then shut the whole thing down.

Either is breathing clean air :tongue: (sry couldnt resist)

dakuda
08-06-2007, 11:43 AM
Smoking is not a "right".

In any event, I agree with you that the Sox won't want to spend any money on this due to the upcoming ban. They only have to fake it through 29 more dates (plus a few for the postseason) and then shut the whole thing down.

Smokers have the right to choose to smoke. It is perfectly legal to purchase and use cigarettes. These new laws go too far, in my opinion. Having a separate place to smoke is fine, outlawing the use of a legal substance is just odd to me.

BTW: I don't smoke.

itsnotrequired
08-06-2007, 11:45 AM
Smokers have the right to choose to smoke. It is perfectly legal to purchase and use cigarettes. These new laws go too far, in my opinion. Having a separate place to smoke is fine, outlawing the use of a legal substance is just odd to me.

BTW: I don't smoke.

Not wherever they want...

Does anyone see anything other than a total ban at The Cell next year, ramps included? I really can't see any other way around it, save for the United Center-style "smoking corrals".

Noneck
08-06-2007, 11:47 AM
Does this smoking ban next year also apply to casinos and racetracks? If so the State is shooting themselves in the foot, I think that will result in quite a revenue hit.

kevingrt
08-06-2007, 11:47 AM
I was at At&T, and the smoking sections we similiar to US Cellular, except they were walled off, with a door for entry and exit. Not to turn this into a debate, but smokers do have some rights.

Apparently they are losing many of them though.

dakuda
08-06-2007, 11:48 AM
Not wherever they want...

Does anyone see anything other than a total ban at The Cell next year, ramps included? I really can't see any other way around it, save for the United Center-style "smoking corrals".

I didn't say wherever they want. I believe I said that I understood having a separate place. I just think that legislating it to this point is stupid. I am sure there will be a total ban at the park next year. I don't want to deteriorate this thread, so this is all I will say in it.

voodoochile
08-06-2007, 11:52 AM
Smokers have the right to choose to smoke. It is perfectly legal to purchase and use cigarettes. These new laws go too far, in my opinion. Having a separate place to smoke is fine, outlawing the use of a legal substance is just odd to me.

BTW: I don't smoke.

This is turning pretty political, but so far people are playing nice, so I'm not going to shut it down.

Cigarettes haven't/won't be outlawed, they will merely be restricted. It's no different than saying you drink alcohol on a public street - last time I checked no one was complaining about that law.

PatK
08-06-2007, 11:52 AM
I don't mind the smoking at the Cell, then again, I'm always sitting upper deck where people just go on the top of the ramp and it's all open air.

I also agree that smoking bans have gotten a little silly, even though I'm not a smoker. Most smokers I know are pretty conscious of those around them and try to not bother them.

I am also one that thinks banning of smoking everywhere is going to cost us non-smokers more in taxes in the long run.

itsnotrequired
08-06-2007, 11:52 AM
Does this smoking ban next year also apply to casinos and racetracks? If so the State is shooting themselves in the foot, I think that will result in quite a revenue hit.

I'm sure they are covered. I would have to imagine that people's love of gambling is greater than their love of smoking.

itsnotrequired
08-06-2007, 11:53 AM
This is turning pretty political, but so far people are playing nice, so I'm not going to shut it down.

Cigarettes haven't/won't be outlawed, they will merely be restricted. It's no different than saying you drink alcohol on a public street - last time I checked no one was complaining about that law.


Chips was griping about it last week.

:D:

voodoochile
08-06-2007, 11:55 AM
Chips was griping about it last week.

:D:

I knew that or something similar was coming. I just couldn't resist saying it. It was that or talking about other bans which would have turned this WAY political, so I stuck with the safe analogy...

dakuda
08-06-2007, 11:58 AM
This is turning pretty political, but so far people are playing nice, so I'm not going to shut it down.

Cigarettes haven't/won't be outlawed, they will merely be restricted. It's no different than saying you drink alcohol on a public street - last time I checked no one was complaining about that law.

I lied, I have to come back in here for this one.:D:

I don't like that law either. :gulp:

soxfan13
08-06-2007, 12:02 PM
I'm sure they are covered. I would have to imagine that people's love of gambling is greater than their love of smoking.

I am pretty sure it is any public facility. BTW how do I make my house a public facility so I can ban myself:tongue:

itsnotrequired
08-06-2007, 12:04 PM
BTW how do I make my house a public facility so I can ban myself:tongue:

You could become an ordained minister over the internet and make your house a church.

:D:

soxfan13
08-06-2007, 12:05 PM
You could become an ordained minister over the internet and make your house a church.

:D:

The Church of Donuts would be awesome!!! All welcome!!!

HotelWhiteSox
08-06-2007, 12:12 PM
I don't smoke, and coming from a family where plenty do, I really dislike it, but I agree, I saw no problem with having the areas outside for smokers, this new thing about completely banning it, like at SF, does seem over the top.

At the same time, can people really not hold out for 3 hrs? Yes, it's your choice, but maybe this is a blessing in disguise, if you can't handle sitting through the game without one, maybe it's time to get some help!

Noneck
08-06-2007, 12:26 PM
I'm sure they are covered. I would have to imagine that people's love of gambling is greater than their love of smoking.
Or go to Indiana or Wisco and help their economy.

mrfourni
08-06-2007, 01:10 PM
Who wouold pay for the tent? Would it be "permanent" or erected/taken down for each game? Would it be fully enclosed or more like a windscreen? What happens when it gets full? What happens if some jags damage it? Would effectively lessening the surface area of the ramp be a violation of some egress code?

There are a lot of factors to consider. Simply throwing up a tent may not be as easy as it sounds.

To add on to that, security would have to police the tent. That is who the law is supposedly designed to protect, the employees exposed to cigarrette smoke. I don't think the easy answer will ever be to erect a smoking tent.

It's Dankerific
08-06-2007, 01:34 PM
I live in Los Angeles, California. We have pretty strict public places smoking laws. We also have plenty of smokers. People are able to get on with their lives quite easily and harmoniously. (without any special smoker tents at dodger stadium or angel stadium).

Sometimes, it takes a little more inconvenience to do the things you love. (whether that be watching a sox game or smoking a cigarette.)

Cat Thief
08-06-2007, 01:52 PM
I'm sure they are covered. I would have to imagine that people's love of gambling is greater than their love of smoking.

No smoking means no gambling for me. I'll go to Indiana.

itsnotrequired
08-06-2007, 02:03 PM
No smoking means no gambling for me. I'll go to Indiana.

Fair enough but if Indiana/Wisconsin were not viable options, would you give up going out gambling altogether?

Frankfan4life
08-06-2007, 02:27 PM
I don't smoke, and coming from a family where plenty do, I really dislike it, but I agree, I saw no problem with having the areas outside for smokers, this new thing about completely banning it, like at SF, does seem over the top.

At the same time, can people really not hold out for 3 hrs? Yes, it's your choice, but maybe this is a blessing in disguise, if you can't handle sitting through the game without one, maybe it's time to get some help!Can you handle sitting through a game without eating or drinking for three hours? Of course, but it might be a little uncomfortable. That's the same thing smokers feel. I know people who don't smoke at work (that's eight hours without a cigarette) but as soon as they leave work they light up. If you are a smoker, part of the satisfaction of enjoying a game, food or drink is to compliment it with a cigarette. It's not necessary, but to most smokers it's either habitual and/or pleasurable.

No rational person would think that smoking in an outdoor environment would harm anyone's health (besides the smoker's that is). I don't see anything wrong with asking for a few low-cost accomodations for those who smoke on the ramp.

ilsox7
08-06-2007, 02:37 PM
I don't see anything wrong with asking for a few low-cost accomodations for those who smoke on the ramp.

The problem is that asking for such accomodations appears like it will be against the law, hence they won't be happening.

Steelrod
08-06-2007, 02:46 PM
The problem is that asking for such accomodations appears like it will be against the law, hence they won't be happening.
I am comfortable in the knowledge that the Sox will do what they can for smoking customers, and of course follow the letter of the law.

NorthSideSox72
08-06-2007, 02:53 PM
Can you handle sitting through a game without eating or drinking for three hours? Of course, but it might be a little uncomfortable. That's the same thing smokers feel. I know people who don't smoke at work (that's eight hours without a cigarette) but as soon as they leave work they light up. If you are a smoker, part of the satisfaction of enjoying a game, food or drink is to compliment it with a cigarette. It's not necessary, but to most smokers it's either habitual and/or pleasurable.

No rational person would think that smoking in an outdoor environment would harm anyone's health (besides the smoker's that is). I don't see anything wrong with asking for a few low-cost accomodations for those who smoke on the ramp.
This rational person is pretty confident that second hand smoke is harmful, so if a couple dozen smokers are gathered on the ramp and I walk through that, I'd say it is in fact harmful to my health.

Mind you, I don't like the smoking bans getting so restrictive. If cigs are legal, then restricting the hell out of them is hypocritical. But I take issue with you saying that no rational person would think that way, when in fact many do.

DumpJerry
08-06-2007, 03:12 PM
Given that smokers are always fogging up the ramps while leaving after the game ends when they could just hold off for another minute or two when they get outside makes it real hard for me to be sympathetic.

By the way, the Federal and State Constitutions make no mention of "smokers' rights." "Smokers' rights" are a myth created by the tobacco industry. Voodoochile has a legit point about the ban on drinking on the public way (sidewalk). Nobody gets hurt from someone who is drinking a beer while strolling down the street, so why not allow it? The alcohol industry does not seem to be hurting from the ban, I'm sure the tobacco industry will not be sent to the Poor House on January 1st.

skottyj242
08-06-2007, 03:15 PM
You could become an ordained minister over the internet and make your house a church.

:D:

I'm an ordained minister.

According to everyone that I have talked to the stadium ends once you walk onto the concourse, all you would have to do is walk 15 feet outside on the ramps and you're outside. If they could get away with it last year and this year after the city ban took effect they should be able to do it next year.

I would not renew my season tickets if you can't smoke inside.

DumpJerry
08-06-2007, 03:22 PM
I'm an ordained minister.

According to everyone that I have talked to the stadium ends once you walk onto the concourse, all you would have to do is walk 15 feet outside on the ramps and you're outside. If they could get away with it last year and this year after the city ban took effect they should be able to do it next year.

I would not renew my season tickets if you can't smoke inside.
The ramps are considered to be outside the building. Therefore, the current City of Chicago ban does not affect them. I don't know how the State of Illinois will look at the ramps under the state law.

Steelrod
08-06-2007, 03:24 PM
Given that smokers are always fogging up the ramps while leaving after the game ends when they could just hold off for another minute or two when they get outside makes it real hard for me to be sympathetic.

By the way, the Federal and State Constitutions make no mention of "smokers' rights." "Smokers' rights" are a myth created by the tobacco industry. Voodoochile has a legit point about the ban on drinking on the public way (sidewalk). Nobody gets hurt from someone who is drinking a beer while strolling down the street, so why not allow it? The alcohol industry does not seem to be hurting from the ban, I'm sure the tobacco industry will not be sent to the Poor House on January 1st.
If they walk to their car and drive away, somebody could get hurt!

Cat Thief
08-06-2007, 03:28 PM
Given that smokers are always fogging up the ramps while leaving after the game ends when they could just hold off for another minute or two when they get outside makes it real hard for me to be sympathetic.




I'm a smoker but that annoys me also, especially when there are little kids around.

itsnotrequired
08-06-2007, 03:36 PM
If they walk to their car and drive away, somebody could get hurt!

That's why I take the train. Or if the mood should strike me, a helicopter.

Noneck
08-06-2007, 03:40 PM
I'm sure the Sox will try to keep smoking alive on the ramps if the law permits it. If not it may hurt sales. People get carried away with all this secondhand smoke stuff. They complain about walking through clouds of cigarette smoke but will ride home behind a semi or bus spittin out clouds of black smoke. They also complain about the smell but don't complain about sitting next to someone wearing cheap perfume, cologne or maybe even a polish with onions. All these little inconveniences are part of being with crowds.

Patrick134
08-06-2007, 03:47 PM
Games are 3 hours long. Can people really not go 3 hours without smoking ?

itsnotrequired
08-06-2007, 03:51 PM
I'm sure the Sox will try to keep smoking alive on the ramps if the law permits it. If not it may hurt sales. People get carried away with all this secondhand smoke stuff. They complain about walking through clouds of cigarette smoke but will ride home behind a semi or bus spittin out clouds of black smoke. They also complain about the smell but don't complain about sitting next to someone wearing cheap perfume, cologne or maybe even a polish with onions. All these little inconveniences are part of being with crowds.

No doubt. They won't ban it entirely unless they have to.

dickallen15
08-06-2007, 03:56 PM
I'm sure the Sox will try to keep smoking alive on the ramps if the law permits it. If not it may hurt sales. People get carried away with all this secondhand smoke stuff. They complain about walking through clouds of cigarette smoke but will ride home behind a semi or bus spittin out clouds of black smoke. They also complain about the smell but don't complain about sitting next to someone wearing cheap perfume, cologne or maybe even a polish with onions. All these little inconveniences are part of being with crowds.
How would a smoker feel if they were just minding their own business sitting there perhaps eating something and someone came up and passed gas right in their face? Aren't there farter's rights? It isn't breaking any laws. Its about time smokers realize their habit stinks and affects people. You're in dreamland if you think second hand smoke doesn't harm others. If its not so harmful why don't you just inhale it all and leave it in your body? I'm with the group that says if you can't go 3 hours without smoking, you've got a big problem.

voodoochile
08-06-2007, 04:00 PM
How would a smoker feel if they were just minding their own business sitting there perhaps eating something and someone came up and passed gas right in their face? Aren't there farter's rights? It isn't breaking any laws. Its about time smokers realize their habit stinks and affects people. You're in dreamland if you think second hand smoke doesn't harm others. If its not so harmful why don't you just inhale it all and leave it in your body? I'm with the group that says if you can't go 3 hours without smoking, you've got a big problem.

There's always one...