What the hell are you talking about? The only license I have showed to get alcohol was my driver's license. I got intoxicated a time or two at commercial establishments. Yea, my drinking didn't affect those around me….unless I had decided to get into a car or step out in the street (causing a driver to have to swerve into an on-coming traffic lane), etc.. Funny how no one cares about the tons of negative problems that come from people consuming too much alcohol at bars and restaurants. Again, the waitress working at a smoky bar needs saved, but the night shift worker who gets killed by a drunk driving home from Broad Ripple…ugh, who cares about the victims of excessive out-in-the-public alcohol consumption.

The tobacco companies failed when they marketed to the poor. The poor don't become the leaders and lawmakers of the future. The alcohol companies on the other hand are marketing Gods. They knew that poor people will drink regardless, don't need to really market to them. However, the future of your product will be controlled by lawmakers, who usually went or are going to college. As such, alcohol companies focused on colleges, and pushed their products as much as possible. They push the party, party, party lifestyle, gaining millions of customers for life.

Of course some of these folks grow up and become lawmakers. They still like drinking, but do so responsibly. They couldn't fathom limiting alcohol consumption (not just telling servers to watch, but actually issuing cards and such, scanning patron licenses, etc.) in any meaningful way…I mean we are talking about our beloved God here…alcohol. And since they no longer are out at all hours of the night, they could careless about drunk driving until their kids and loved ones are put in harms way. It is very easy to sit back and have pretend compassion for people who _might_ get lung cancer from smoking, but where is that compassion for people who _might_ get killed by a drunk driver by someone driving home from downtown bars or Broad Ripple clubs? Why don't we limit the consumption of alcoholic beverages to the person's private residence only? That way they wouldn't get so intoxicated as to forget they shouldn't be driving.

Of course this isn't about compassion. It is about “me, myself, and I.” I want to be able to go to a bar and not have to smell like smoke. I want someone else to take the financial risk and deal with bankruptcy if this passes. Again, this is all about individuals wanting something for themselves and business owners to are too scared of the free market to make the decision for their own establishment. They want government to do this to “even the playing field.” Funny how it always seems to be the bigger, more popular establishments pushing for this, not the smaller hole in the wall places that likely have more smokers than non-smokers.

Let's not rewrite science, folks. Secondhand smoke is a known killer. That is beside the issue of a ban…folks are worked up and that's their right. They'll call their councilpersons and a vote will be held. It's how it works. It might win, it might lose. Life will go on. Here's a hint, John Doe: alcohol is only sold by licensed folks. To get a license, hundreds of pages of rules and regulations have to be followed. Get it? Govt. is already involved–up to their taxing eyebrows.

The GOP doesn't seem to want to learn any lessons. “If you don't support me you're not a Republican.” Keep it up. No, seriously. Define your party as narrowly as you can. Because that works so well. Kick out folks who don't agree with you on every single issue. It's so enlightening, too.

As for the public safety thing, I'll ask the question again: why do we even need this expensive position? Doesn't the Mayor already appoint the chiefs of the various public safety divisions? Why is there another layer needed? Eliminate the position and have the mayor interact more directly with those chiefs.

Problem solved. LEOs and firemen/women, am I missing something here? Is there a reason you want another layer? Open ears here.

The internets thing was bothersome this weekend, Abdul, but my surfing was more directed toward holiday shopping and newspapers anyway. But yeah, I did miss you. What's the deal anyway?

This is exactly what the smoking ban is about. The pushers want it so they can go to the popular bars/restaurants that decided to go 18+ and allow smoking. They also want to force the clubs/bars that cater to the younger generation to go smoke free so their non-smoking kids won't have to worry about second hand smoke. They don't understand the concept of personal choice or freedom. These are “me, myself, and I” socialist, regardless of their political party affiliation. Most would be appalled if people started pushing for folks making over $70K+/year individually to get taxed another 2-3% to pay for health care, because that would affect them in a negative way. Yet they have no problem passing laws that will affect others in a negative way.

Any Republican who supports this smoking ban is in no way a conservative. They obiously don't support individual rights.

If these anti-freedom busybodies really want to save lives, why don't they attach to this law the banning of the public consumption of alcohol in a commercial establishment? It wouldn't ban alcohol, but it would force people to only be able to drink alcohol in residential homes/apartments. This would likely help reduce drunk driving to an extent, as folks are more likely to crash at a friend's place, but they can't do that at a bar. Oh, that's right, these anti-smoking folks likely go out to bars and pubs to have a drink. They only care about the pity poor non-smoking workers in the bars/clubs, they don't care about the victims of drunk driving crashes. Hypocrites.

The hyperbolic “threatening life” claims by proponents of the smoking ban just flat won't accept the difference between someone being forcibly placed in a room where the air may have some cigarette smoke in it and grown adults walking into it voluntarily.

They are so hell bent on forcing their opinion on everyone else or to try and remake the world in the way they want it to be for their own convenience, and then once they've taken a stand on the issue they are backed into a corner and no matter what argument is made subsequent, most people lack the humility to accept that (a) they are wrong and have reconsidered or (b) they are wielding power that perhaps they shouldn't. The old, just because we CAN do a thing does not mean we SHOULD.

Even worse, some of these folks take themselves wayyyy too seriously – you'd think they were a Senator or something. And then some of them are absolutely great people regardless of disagreement on policy issues or party affiliation.