Smoking at Wrigley -- Lake County (Il...

Smoking at Wrigley -- Lake County (Illinois)

There are 32 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Apr 4, 2008, titled Smoking at Wrigley -- Lake County (Illinois). In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

I took my five-year-old son to game at Wrigley yesterday and the smoking in the bathrooms was awful.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
John

Cincinnati, OH

#1 Apr 4, 2008
Or they could just allow smoking outside in the park. I can understand the indoor ban, although I disagree, but now we're talking about the outdoors. Stop catering to whiners!
Pete

Chicago, IL

#2 Apr 4, 2008
Wrigley is not the place for a 5 year old? Would you take your kid into a rowdy bar? What's the difference? The smoke should be the least of your concerns.
Barry

Schaumburg, IL

#3 Apr 4, 2008
Although it makes no sense at all,smoking was banned in the seats (outdoors)years ago; while allowing patrons to smoke only on the concourse.(indoors)
Bluto

North Chicago, IL

#4 Apr 4, 2008
Hey Syler, get a life. I had to endure that when I was a kid and now I'm 50 none worse the wear. Just be glad Sen. Craig wasn't sitting in one of the stalls tapping his feet.

“"let us, at least be civil"”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#5 Apr 5, 2008
As a non-smoker, I am having trouble understanding why smoking isn't allowed in the stands (outdoors). It's outside, for crying out loud. Is there a danger that smokers can pollute the whole out-of-doors?
This is one smoking ban that is over the edge. The anti-smoking group needs to get a grip.
john

AOL

#6 Apr 5, 2008
we need smoking and non-smoking washrooms.just try to remember what is in which hand or between fingers.
Kristen

Mission Hills, CA

#8 Apr 5, 2008
Well, what the heck happened to the areas outside Wrigley where smokers could go to smoke? Give smokers a place to go and they won't smoke in the bathrooms. This whole thing has gotten really ridiculous!
Spector

Chicago, IL

#9 Apr 6, 2008
Well I'm sure you have now thoroughly humiliated your boy with your sad little appeal on this forum. Honestly! If you were a real man, you would have gone up to the smokers and told them to their faces that they were causing the little cells in your little son's lungs to mutate into horrible horrible cancer cells, and then punch those guys in the nose, or at leawst tell them to leave.

But no, you would rather just 'air' your concerns in a letter here, and narc on folks who have been forced by a bunch of stupid restrictions into smoking in the boys room.

Well congrats pal, little Timmy will now know his daddy's a big NARC!

Shame!

(And no, I'm not a smoker, but I thinks these nanny-state restrictions on people's civil liberties have gotten way out of hand.)
Nevada CCW

Rockford, IL

#10 Apr 6, 2008
That's right, the answer is to pay for bathroom smoking police. Yup, another liberal over-regulation contributing to the bankruptcy of the state.

Since: Nov 07

Chicago, IL

#11 Apr 7, 2008
To those who wonder....banning the smoking is the stands was the best idea next to sliced bread. Who wants to sit next to a be close to (depending on the wind), a smoker and the smell.
I agree that there should be a place for smokers to gather to smoke much like Sox park has. The bathrooms at Wrigley stink any way without the smoke.
Jefferson

Chicago, IL

#12 Apr 7, 2008
Syler,

All you non-/anti-smoking wimpies got what you wanted. Although smoking in the stands has been a no-no for close to 15 years.

There has never been nor will there ever be a justifiable reason why one can't burn in the stands. Happened when I was 5 and happened when you were 5. And guess what? We all lived.

The advocates and experts are turning everyone into ****. Here is to you in not letting your son become one.
Bob

United States

#13 Apr 7, 2008
The taxpayers of the surrounding states are rejoicing over the Illinois smoking ban.
Bob

United States

#14 Apr 7, 2008
Nevada CCW wrote:
That's right, the answer is to pay for bathroom smoking police. Yup, another liberal over-regulation contributing to the bankruptcy of the state.
Can't they double duty as "religious police"? That can't be too far off.
Doomiss

Lyndhurst, NJ

#15 Apr 7, 2008
Kristen wrote:
Well, what the heck happened to the areas outside Wrigley where smokers could go to smoke? Give smokers a place to go and they won't smoke in the bathrooms. This whole thing has gotten really ridiculous!
Yep, let 'em smoke in the sewers with their fellow vermin.

“"let us, at least be civil"”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#16 Apr 8, 2008
Let me repeat. I am a non-smoker. I agree with smoking bans in restaurants because the smell of smoke affects the taste of food. I'm on the fence with smoking in bars/taverns because bars and taverns are a different type of socializing environment and smoking goes with this type of activity. I agree that smoking should be banned where there are little kids. But banning smoking in the stands at Wrigley is over the edge. It's outside, for cryin out loud. It's this kind of nonsense that gives the smokers a legitimate beef with bans in general. What ever happened to live and let live?
Common Sense

Grand Rapids, MI

#17 Apr 8, 2008
reader1 wrote:
To those who wonder....banning the smoking is the stands was the best idea next to sliced bread. Who wants to sit next to a be close to (depending on the wind), a smoker and the smell.
I agree that there should be a place for smokers to gather to smoke much like Sox park has. The bathrooms at Wrigley stink any way without the smoke.
I was at the park (US comiscular) yesterday and there is NO place for smokers. I quit about 5 months ago, but smokers were told to go out a specific gate, over the bridge, across the street, down to street level, then go outside to smoke... It is rediculous. Just let em smoke on the ramps at least like they used to or outside on the patio at wrigley. It won't bother anyone in their seats and smokers won't need to hire a sherpa to find a place to smoke!
Doomiss

Lyndhurst, NJ

#18 Apr 8, 2008
overthehill wrote:
Let me repeat. I am a non-smoker. I agree with smoking bans in restaurants because the smell of smoke affects the taste of food. I'm on the fence with smoking in bars/taverns because bars and taverns are a different type of socializing environment and smoking goes with this type of activity. I agree that smoking should be banned where there are little kids. But banning smoking in the stands at Wrigley is over the edge. It's outside, for cryin out loud. It's this kind of nonsense that gives the smokers a legitimate beef with bans in general. What ever happened to live and let live?
Easy answer, Pops: when your "right" to participate in a harmful/annoying/disturbing/st upid activity INFRINGES on my ACTUAL right NOT to participate, the instigator needs to stop. This rule applies to, e.g., boom cars, yapping on a cell phone on the train, drunk driving, and yes, smoking.

I'd rather have these rules self-enforced, but with idiots of all types seemingly incapable of common courtesy, unfortunately the state has to step in.

That said, for smokers, I worship the ground that's coming to them.
MRJ

College Station, TX

#19 Apr 8, 2008
Smokers are the whiniest people on the face of the Earth. If you can't stop your little habit for three hours so all can enjoy a ballgame, you're weak. You're just weak and whiny babies. Grow up.
Tom

Wenona, IL

#20 Apr 9, 2008
To those who think Wrigley is not a place for a 5 year old, those who had to suffer through it when they were 5, and it didn't hurt them, and to the idiots who think the bathrooms are outdoors (a floor, ceiling and 4 walls make the bathroom indoors!) miss the whole point. It is a foul odor that few if any people want in their faces, and it is the height of selfishness to practice their nasty habbit in public. Just because you suffered through it doesn't mean it's a good thing to continue. It's a closed area (like a plane) and it's stupid (and illegal) to allow people to smoke in confined areas. Being considerate of others would be nice....
John

Cincinnati, OH

#21 Apr 9, 2008
Doomiss wrote:
<quoted text>
Easy answer, Pops: when your "right" to participate in a harmful/annoying/disturbing/st upid activity INFRINGES on my ACTUAL right NOT to participate, the instigator needs to stop. This rule applies to, e.g., boom cars, yapping on a cell phone on the train, drunk driving, and yes, smoking.
I'd rather have these rules self-enforced, but with idiots of all types seemingly incapable of common courtesy, unfortunately the state has to step in.
That said, for smokers, I worship the ground that's coming to them.
Guess what? That right doesn't exist. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that everyone is free from dealing with minor inconveniences. And now that we're talking about the outdoors, your health crap isn't gonna fly. Face it, you are the one being unreasonable. Frankly, even inside your arguments are questionable if you've ever sat by a campfire for more than ten minutes, since that's way more smoke than in all but the most crowded bars.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Tribune Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Ron Paul Liberty 241,688
News Man who led armed protest at Texas mosque publi... (Dec '15) 5 hr melissa 5
News Billy Goat's famous 'Cheezborgers' coming to Je... 8 hr AmPieJam UncleSam 2
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) Mon Ms Sassy 63,859
News Boulder, Colo., police regain lead role in JonB... (Feb '09) Jun 24 kauna 1,667
News Man charged in Hinsdale slaying wants speedy tr... Jun 23 maureen 1
News 24 hours without a shooting, then 4 shot in a h... Jun 21 Deer Hunter 2
More from around the web