Senate passes smoking ban; casino floors but not restos exempt

[texorama]

http://freep.com/article/20091210/NE...staurants-bars

Assuming House passage, would take effect in May 2010.

Casinos are already grousing, but I wonder how many people would be persuaded to go to Canada or Toledo, where there's no smoking either, when all they had to do to smoke was step out to the slots for a second.

[Sarah]

Yipppeee!!!!!!!

[dtowncitylover]

Disappointed to say the least.

[Johnlodge]

As a happily ex-smoker, I am pretty apathetic, but I do think the decision should be left to the private business owners. Smoking is not illegal, so it should not be illegal to have an establishment in which smoking is permitted. Put a permit system in place like is used for alcohol, you can bring in more revenue for the cash-strapped state.

[buzzman0077]

As a non-smoker this is awesome for me, no more stale smoke smell on my bar clothes. I would never vote for it myself because I believe it should be left to the owners to make those choices. I still benefit in the long run so yay.

[Novine]

I'm sure the nicotine addicts of the state will be OK.

[Stosh]

As an ex-smoker, I tnink that this is a great idea. I quit so I could stay relatively healthy, and to minimize further damage to my lungs.

[Detroitnerd]

As a smoker, I'm a little peeved, but that's the way it goes.

Can we now ban these obnoxious things?

* People who douse themselves with musk cologne or flowery perfumes? Blech. These smells make me sick!

* People talking on cell phones in restaurants. Why should I be distracted from my dinner because they have to talk to somebody at their table?

[TKshreve]

This will help people quit smoking. Watch.

[Johnnny5]

So smokers in every other business, bar and restaurant in Michigan will have to leave the building to light up, while those in the casinos will simply have to stroll onto the gaming floor? I thought the entire point of this smoking ban was to prevent employee exposure to second hand smoke?. As I've said before I could not care less if the state passed a smoking ban, but to allow the casinos anymore of a unfair advantage is outrageous! I realize that Granholm does not have the guts to do it, but I hope she sends this one back unsigned.

[buildingsofdetroit]

I smoked when I lived in Manhattan. And there was a smoking ban.
I smoked when I lived in Tacoma, Wash. And they passed a smoking ban when I was there.
I smoked when I lived in Seattle. And there was a smoking ban.
I smoked when I lived in Columbus, Ohio. And there was a smoking ban.

For those who smoke now, it's not so bad. You will cut down on how much you smoke, at least while at the bar, which is always a good thing. Most bars went out of their way to add patios or smoking areas, so other than the bitter cold, it's not so bad. It really is a win-win for everyone - other than the wintry months like these.

[R8RBOB]

As an ex-smoker, I am pleased that the state could finally come up with a no-smoking ban, however, I am displeased that the legislature could bow to the cries and dollar bills that the casinos were shelling out. A no-smoking ban should apply to all including casinos and yet the casinos proved once more that "big bank" will always beat "little bank"

[ghettopalmetto]

Bar and restaurant employees, on average, smoke at far higher rates than the general population. Who is this ban protecting?

This isn't about health. If cigarettes smelled like chocolate or flowers, no one would give two shits. This legislation is because some people don't like the smell of cigarettes. No more, no less.

If you want to base this legislation on health concerns, then you have to also ban alcohol and processed foods, which impact the health of a lot more people than smoking does. While we're at it, let's ban motorized transportation so that fat fucks will have to walk places like they used to. Smoking is banned, but you're allowed to sit and get shitfaced before driving home. Yeah, that makes sense.

If people want to talk about "health", put the damned donut down and join me for a 10 mile run Saturday morning. Then we'll talk about "health".

[R8RBOB]

Bar and restaurant employees, on average, smoke at far higher rates than the general population. Who is this ban protecting?

This isn't about health. If cigarettes smelled like chocolate or flowers, no one would give two shits. This legislation is because some people don't like the smell of cigarettes. No more, no less.

If you want to base this legislation on health concerns, then you have to also ban alcohol and processed foods, which impact the health of a lot more people than smoking does. While we're at it, let's ban motorized transportation so that fat fucks will have to walk places like they used to. Smoking is banned, but you're allowed to sit and get shitfaced before driving home. Yeah, that makes sense.

If people want to talk about "health", put the damned donut down and join me for a 10 mile run Saturday morning. Then we'll talk about "health".

ghetto,

You are correct in your post. This was not about protecting the employees. Though there are non-smokers working in bars and casinos, there are plenty of smokers working and they are bumming. At the strip bar I go to, all the waitresses and bartenders light up every chance they get. I used to make a joke that to get hired there you had to be a smoker. LOL

[Gistok]

As an ex-smoker, I am pleased that the state could finally come up with a no-smoking ban, however, I am displeased that the legislature could bow to the cries and dollar bills that the casinos were shelling out. A no-smoking ban should apply to all including casinos and yet the casinos proved once more that "big bank" will always beat "little bank"

Since the cash strapped state and city would lose revenue to Indian casinos [[where state smoking laws don't apply, and where the state no longer gets a cut of gaming revenue)... it was a logical decision. Unless some folks would prefer a tax increase to coincide with the offset revenue of this law?

[Diehard]

If you want to base this legislation on health concerns, then you have to also ban alcohol and processed foods, which impact the health of a lot more people than smoking does. ...If people want to talk about "health", put the damned donut down and join me for a 10 mile run Saturday morning. Then we'll talk about "health".

Wow, it took a whole 13 posts before a pissed-off smoker pulled out that stupid "but but but alcohol and fast food is bad for you too!!" red herring.

Smoking is banned, but you're allowed to sit and get shitfaced before driving home. Yeah, that makes sense.

Likewise with the amusing contention that drunk driving is perfectly legal.

By the way, calling it a "smoking ban" is inaccurate. This doesn't ban smoking, it just moves it outdoors where it belongs. The rest of the country is probably looking at us in amazement that it took this long. They survived. We will too.

[NoHeartAnthony]

Bar and restaurant employees, on average, smoke at far higher rates than the general population. Who is this ban protecting?

This isn't about health. If cigarettes smelled like chocolate or flowers, no one would give two shits. This legislation is because some people don't like the smell of cigarettes. No more, no less.

If you want to base this legislation on health concerns, then you have to also ban alcohol and processed foods, which impact the health of a lot more people than smoking does. While we're at it, let's ban motorized transportation so that fat fucks will have to walk places like they used to. Smoking is banned, but you're allowed to sit and get shitfaced before driving home. Yeah, that makes sense.

If people want to talk about "health", put the damned donut down and join me for a 10 mile run Saturday morning. Then we'll talk about "health".

I probably ran 3000 miles total this year. Let's talk about health.

[R8RBOB]

Since the cash strapped state and city would lose revenue to Indian casinos [[where state smoking laws don't apply, and where the state no longer gets a cut of gaming revenue)... it was a logical decision. Unless some folks would prefer a tax increase to coincide with the offset revenue of this law?

See, this story about Indian casinos is a crock of shit. Here is a website that I found http://500nations.com/Michigan_Casinos.asp that list all the Indian casinos in Michigan. There is no Indian casino in Southeastern Michigan. [[Greektown Casino is considered an Indian-owned casino because it is owned currently by SSM Chippewas but is not on Indian land so they have to follow state and federal law)

Here is my point. You live in Detroit or Farmington or Washington Township or Oxford or Port Huron and you are going to drive to Battle Creek or Arenac or Isabella just because you can smoke in their establishment? I don't think so. It was a con job to continue allowing smoking in the Detroit casinos.

[EMG]

As a smoker, I'm a little peeved, but that's the way it goes.

Can we now ban these obnoxious things?

* People who douse themselves with musk cologne or flowery perfumes? Blech. These smells make me sick!

* People talking on cell phones in restaurants. Why should I be distracted from my dinner because they have to talk to somebody at their table?

Cell phones are "a distraction" - true, but they won't kill you.

Perfumes - in enclosed areas might, but I don't think that's been sufficiently researched yet.

Eat junk food in my presence, and the worst you can do is fart. I'm willing to put up with that. If you get fat, develop diabetes and heart trouble and all the other evils of gluttony, well, yes, as healthcare costs are currently structured you may well wind up stealing money from me in the form of taxes or increased premiums borne by me because of expenses incurred by you - but that's something proper legislation could and hopefully someday will fix.

HOWEVER: When you smoke in the presence of another adult or child [[or pet for that matter!), you are directly contributing to their premature death. Morally if not legally, that equates to M-U-R-D-E-R, no matter how you spin it; the fact that it happens to be a partial contribution over an extended period of years -not to mention will not put you at risk of being sent to prison for this unenforced crime - does NOT mitigate it from a moral standpoint, and if those who would argue that point had any conscience at all they'd be honest with themselves and admit it.

But enough. I'm no longer in the area, so it's of no concern to me. Of course I believe there should be a complete federal ban on all production of lethal tobacco products. But here in Arizona we've already got our smoking ban, so I'm happy.

[[Oh, and by the way, years later now that the political dust has settled, nobody's suffering for it either).

[Diehard]

Let's go ahead and get these other red herrings out of the way:
1. They WANT to ban smoking entirely, but they won't, because smokers pay so much in taxes!
Not really. Smoking is still legal, and adults are free to choose to. This is only moving it out of enclosed areas around other people who don't choose or deserve to have your smoke in their lungs, eyes, hair and clothes. Tobacco taxes ARE high, and that's because they're considered a "sin tax" and are easy pickings politically.
2. What's next? Are they going to ban fast food?
Who knows? But what does that have to do with this? I eat a bacon cheeseburger, I get fat, nobody else cares.
3. But drinking and smoking go hand in hand!
For smokers, it does. For nonsmokers, not so much. So sit in your basement and smoke and drink all you want. It's your house. But now, you can't do it in an enclosed place that's open to the public, with strangers around you.
4. It's too much of a hassle to go outside!
It's also a hassle [[especially for women) to get up off the barstool and go stand in line to pee, but we do it anyway, because peeing right there at the bar is gross and unhealthy. So is secondhand smoke.
5. This will drive all the bars and restaurants out of business!!
Hasn't happened anywhere else in the country. They survived, so will we.
6. What's next, are they going to tell me I can't smoke in my own house/car?
Only if there are kids in there. Otherwise, smoke up, Johnny!
7. There's no evidence that secondhand smoke causes cancer!
Says the "study" funded by the tobacco industry. There's plenty of evidence it's annoying as hell.
8. Why don't they let the business owners decide whether to allow smoking or not?
That actually makes some sense. But it doesn't give the workers a choice, except the choice to "get another job," which is just plain laughable in Michigan today.
9. But bar workers smoke more than anyone else!
Maybe at the bars you go to. But they can take a smoke break outside like all the office workers do, can't they?
10. But alcohol is unhealthy, too, and people drive after they drink too much!
We have laws for that already. Very, very strict laws.

Did I miss anything?

[Melody]

I'm sooooooo tired of this discussion/argument. Just ban it and get it over with. Ban cigarettes too, if they're so bad.

I have to say, as a bar owner, it's annoying to now have to come up with a place for the smokers. When you have people going in and out of your building [[to smoke), then you are going to have security issues.

Also, who will be enforcing this? Will there be "smoking cops?" Will the fines/tickets to go the smoker, or the venue? [[The Detroit News reported that fines would be "up to $500.") If a venue is fined will it be a mark against their liquor license?

[R8RBOB]

I'm sooooooo tired of this discussion/argument. Just ban it and get it over with. Ban cigarettes too, if they're so bad.

I have to say, as a bar owner, it's annoying to now have to come up with a place for the smokers. When you have people going in and out of your building [[to smoke), then you are going to have security issues.

Also, who will be enforcing this? Will there be "smoking cops?" Will the fines/tickets to go the smoker, or the venue? [[The Detroit News reported that fines would be "up to $500.") If a venue is fined will it be a mark against their liquor license?

Sorry to rain on your parade, but Michigan is not the first state to ban smoking. I lived in the first state that ban smoking, California and they set the standard that 37 other states including Michigan have ban smoking in bars and restaurants. It has worked out for them, it will work out for Michigan.

[Ray1936]

I'm always amused that all the bleeding heart liberals want to make tobacco illegal. Then on the other hand they want MaryJane legal.

Hmmm. I'm starting to sound like CCBats, ain't I?

[Sstashmoo]

Ray,

Right on. I used to smoke, I'd be at someone's house and they were prompt to tell you no smoking in their house, and hour later they are firing up a joint. I guess it's just certain types of smoke they have problems with.

[iheartthed]

Bar and restaurant employees, on average, smoke at far higher rates than the general population.

Completely irrelevant. That's like saying a higher percentage of Detroit residents commit crimes, so therefore, Detroit residents don't deserve police protection.