Senate passes smoking ban; casino floors but not restos exempt

[reddog289]

As a smoker and former bar hopper, I thought that I would be madder then I am. Last visit to the bar ended me up in the doghouse So I stay home and use my bar in the basement. One Coney Island that I freqent went all smoking a while back, don't know how that works for them but they seem busy. Wonder how they will do after the ban?

[pffft]

Well by definition smokers don't really care much about the future, or anybody around them [[who doesn't want to inhale their smoke), so why are you surprised they didn't care about motorcycle helmet laws?

[Gistok]

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.

I have several acquaintances who visit the Detroit Casinos, and also go to Mt. Pleasant quite regularly... they DON'T DRIVE... they take one of the cheap casino leased buses and then when they get there are reimbursed for the cost of the fare. They all smoke, and stopped going to Casino Windsor because of the smoking ban.

I was amazed at how many metro Detroiters [[mostly retirees) still go to Mt. Pleasant, regardless of the 3 Detroit casinos.

For people who have the time [[retirees)... they'll gladly take 2 1/2 hours to get there [[and then back) for the right comps and perks. And for some people allowing smoking is one of the perks.

I'm curious to know the statistics on how a smoking ban affected Casino Windsor's business.

Don't underestimate gamblers.... they're a picky crowd....

[R8RBOB]

I have several acquaintances who visit the Detroit Casinos, and also go to Mt. Pleasant quite regularly... they DON'T DRIVE... they take one of the cheap casino leased buses and then when they get there are reimbursed for the cost of the fare. They all smoke, and stopped going to Casino Windsor because of the smoking ban.

I was amazed at how many metro Detroiters [[mostly retirees) still go to Mt. Pleasant, regardless of the 3 Detroit casinos.

For people who have the time [[retirees)... they'll gladly take 2 1/2 hours to get there [[and then back) for the right comps and perks. And for some people allowing smoking is one of the perks.

I'm curious to know the statistics on how a smoking ban affected Casino Windsor's business.

Don't underestimate gamblers.... they're a picky crowd....

Hmm, I am aware of the bus trips but those are planned trips. You have gamblers [[like myself) who visit the casinos every single day or every other day. You really believe that they would stop going to the Detroit casinos because they can't smoke? That they would actually take road trips to Mt. Pleasant so that they can smoke a square? I don't believe that.

Like I said earlier, a crock of shit but it is moot. The Detroit representatives got what they wanted: the status quo.

[davewindsor]

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?

In Canada, we don't have smoking cops. The police just go on random ticket blitzes at venues and fine the individual smokers and, yes, police can mark a liquor license for anything: smoking, fighting, letting drunk patrons out of a bar...

[milesdriven]

I can't stand the smell of ranch dressing. If I'm in the vicinity, I start to gag and have to use all my powers to stop myself from vomiting. However, I respect the rights of others to indulge in this putrid condiment.

Although 1/3 of adults smoke, from personal observation I would say that about 2/3 of the bar crowd smokes. If people are concerned about the dramatically overblown effects of secondhand smoke, why not put a code in effect requiring air filtration of X cubic feet per minute throug a filter of X microns based on the volume of the establishment. Since moving to Toledo last year, we've spent about $1000 on entertainment in Detroit, and $50 in Toledo because of Ohio's smoking ban. My next-door neighbor owns a bar here in the city, and he said business is way down after the ban, and he hasn't had one new customer who came because of it.

Michigan's legislators can't figure out their budget, so they decided to make themselves look good by banning smoking. I hope the bar and restaurant industry sues the state over the casino exemption, and at least keeps an exemption for bars.

[d.mcc]

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".

Where have I heard this argument before???

[reddog289]

I get what Miles says, Kinda like the gun buy back.

[iheartthed]

Who knew smokers had such entitlement issues?

As far as I'm concerned, banning smoking in ALL public buildings makes more sense than seat belt laws. The effects of cigarette smoke are a proven public health risk, even for those who only come into contact with cigarette smoke by second hand. It is not now, nor has it ever been anyones birthright to smoke a cigarette whenever and where ever they please.

In fact, the ban should probably be done at the federal level, just like the minimum age of alcohol consumption [[something that also makes less sense than a smoking ban).

[monahan568]

This goes so much deeper than the argument of "the government is looking out for the health of it's people." And for those above who are using the arguments of 'Ad hominem', Confusion of correlation and causation, and non sequitur logic that is going on up there.... Let's politely step back and just look at another example - strictly from the business aspect of things. I'll first ask - do you know anything about how much it costs in michigan just for a restaurant/bar to obtain an outdoor serving license? Let alone about the others hurdles a.k.a. fees that are involved and will be added to the process? And then, after all the fun stuff, what it entails finacially and otherwise to keep such a "privilege"? I can gladly provide you with some examples.
We are one of the only states still deep in recession. Businesses who have been been rooted here for decades have been involuntarily closing their doors, and families moving on to greener pastures for the better opportunities and commerce friendly legislature...For reference please look at the Pew Center on the States website - http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/default.aspx - which "operates and supports projects that assess how states are performing in key areas of public policy." Our general forcast for recovery from our current ecomonic situation is many years from now to say the least...But just to illustrate further the business impact that accompanies this enforcement - and for a broader illustration - taken from a model of a region who's experiencing the recent commerce aftermath of this ruling - How great England's pubs "flourished" during their years after the ban - From the Guardian - 'Public smoking ban hits pubs' beer sales' http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...ddrinks.retail
And one more Exhibit- From the Journal of Public Economics - "A recent study published in the Journal of Public Economics titled "Drunk driving after the passage of smoking bans in bars" seeks to find answers to a possible association between the two common American vices of smoking and drinking. And the answer, according to the study is smoking may be the lesser of two evils."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...8&_rdoc=1&_fmt= summary&_orig=browse&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C0000502 21&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=00cb2d 4 2bb7b5c5d9d235dc23932756d

[kathy2trips]

Who knew smokers had such entitlement issues?

As far as I'm concerned, banning smoking in ALL public buildings makes more sense than seat belt laws. The effects of cigarette smoke are a proven public health risk, even for those who only come into contact with cigarette smoke by second hand. It is not now, nor has it ever been anyones birthright to smoke a cigarette whenever and where ever they please.

In fact, the ban should probably be done at the federal level, just like the minimum age of alcohol consumption [[something that also makes less sense than a smoking ban).

First off, the evidence of your medical claim is not conclusive. No one has yet been able to explain the non-smoking spouses of smokers who live beyond the standard life expectancy. By your reasoning, they should all die relatively soon after the spouse, and certainly not live into their 80s, and 90s, but this is not what's happening.

Here is the economics of your plan: Smokers will go elsewhere to enjoy themselves outside of home. Or maybe they won't stay at that restaurant for dessert or a drink. There's a big mark up on those items, lots of lost money. This is true for both small businesses and the gov't, with the loss of sales tax revenue. Can MI and Detroit really afford cuts in those areas right now?

And if there is a ban in ALL public buildings, smokers will just set up "private clubs", where you pay a yearly nominal fee, get a "membership card" and are completely exempt from the smoking laws. "Public buildings" being the optimal phrase. This is already happening in several smoking-unfriendly cities, like Austin TX for example. And they are doing VERY well....particularly the music bars and strip clubs.

I wish law makers would think things through, with lots of "what if" questions. I think the term is "unforeseen consequences". Most times, they would have been "foreseen", if they had taken the time to look at the big picture.

[royce]

Of course I am not surprised that smokers would try to justify why the state shouldn't ban smoking in public places. However, consider this: loud music in a public place is just as irritating as breathing in someone's cigarette smoke in a public place. The difference between the two events is that the loud music can be turned down. The amount of cigarette smoke can't. Therefore the only logical solution is to ban cigarette smoking from public places where it is deemed, by non-smokers and worker's in smoking establishments, to be most irritating. Remember: our freedoms stop when they impede on someone else's freedoms.

[wolverine]

I really am reminded how nice the smoking ban is out here in Chicago when I go home to visit friends at the bar back in michigan and leave smelling like an ash tray. Smokers have never bothered me but it's a completely different feeling when you are away from it then go visit that smokey bar in your hometown.... Almost seems foreign.

On the good side I know the ban at least got my best friend to stop smoking after he graduated and moved to the chi as well. It was some good motivation

[Novine]

"Here is the economics of your plan: Smokers will go elsewhere to enjoy themselves outside of home. Or maybe they won't stay at that restaurant for dessert or a drink."

Here's the economics for you: there's far more people who don't smoke and don't want to suck down someone else's smoke who will now go to restaurants and bars or stay longer than they would otherwise. I don't know of any restaurants or bars staying in business based on cigarette sales.

[R8RBOB]

After reading some of these responses you would think that Michigan is the first state that has banned smoking not the 38th.
I suppose I can understand the "sky is falling" comments. I was a smoker who believed that you should smoke anywhere you pleased. I believed that up the point I moved to California which was the first state to ban smoking. You will adjust. I adjusted up to the point when I finally quit. I admit that it is going to suck is when you bar and restaurant patrons will have to go outside in temperatures like we are experiencing right now to smoke a square. California, this is not.

[iheartthed]

First off, the evidence of your medical claim is not conclusive. No one has yet been able to explain the non-smoking spouses of smokers who live beyond the standard life expectancy. By your reasoning, they should all die relatively soon after the spouse, and certainly not live into their 80s, and 90s, but this is not what's happening.

Who says it isn't conclusive?

From the National Cancer Institute:

Does exposure to secondhand smoke cause cancer?
Yes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [[EPA), the U.S. National Toxicology Program [[NTP), the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer [[IARC) have classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen [[cancer-causing agent) [[1, 3, 5).

Inhaling secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults [[4). Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke [[2). The Surgeon General estimates that living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker’s chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent [[4).

Some research suggests that secondhand smoke may increase the risk of breast cancer, nasal sinus cavity cancer, and nasopharyngeal cancer in adults, and leukemia, lymphoma, and brain tumors in children [[4). Additional research is needed to learn whether a link exists between secondhand smoke exposure and these cancers.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/f...et/Tobacco/ETS

Every single person does not have to develop cancer to know that second hand smoke can cause cancer. Some people who smoke for their entire lives don't develop lung cancer, but that doesn't mean that smoking cigarettes doesn't cause cancer. Some people have had unprotected sex with HIV+ people and not been infected themselves, so do you now suggest that we do away with condoms?

Here is the economics of your plan: Smokers will go elsewhere to enjoy themselves outside of home. Or maybe they won't stay at that restaurant for dessert or a drink. There's a big mark up on those items, lots of lost money. This is true for both small businesses and the gov't, with the loss of sales tax revenue. Can MI and Detroit really afford cuts in those areas right now?

This is absurd on multiple levels. First, public health rules should be enacted without regard to the economics of anything. Smoking has been banned in retail stores, shopping malls, grocery stores, etc. since forever. Smokers still patronize those establishments. Second, public health rules should not be subject to the whims of private business. [[We don't allow Nike to open their sweatshops in the U.S. for a reason.)

And if there is a ban in ALL public buildings, smokers will just set up "private clubs", where you pay a yearly nominal fee, get a "membership card" and are completely exempt from the smoking laws. "Public buildings" being the optimal phrase. This is already happening in several smoking-unfriendly cities, like Austin TX for example. And they are doing VERY well....particularly the music bars and strip clubs.

So? Good for them, that's the way it should be. Having lived in a no-smoking city for nearly four years, I very much doubt that it will last long. It's much more convenient for smokers to just go outside and smoke on the sidewalk than to segregate themselves to private clubs.

I wish law makers would think things through, with lots of "what if" questions. I think the term is "unforeseen consequences". Most times, they would have been "foreseen", if they had taken the time to look at the big picture.

I wish more responders on this thread would do the same.

[Fury13]

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?

Great post!!!

This law is long overdue. The 20 percent no longer dictate to the 80 percent.

[Fury13]

After reading some of these responses you would think that Michigan is the first state that has banned smoking not the 38th.
I suppose I can understand the "sky is falling" comments. I was a smoker who believed that you should smoke anywhere you pleased. I believed that up the point I moved to California which was the first state to ban smoking. You will adjust. I adjusted up to the point when I finally quit. I admit that it is going to suck is when you bar and restaurant patrons will have to go outside in temperatures like we are experiencing right now to smoke a square. California, this is not.

Smokers deal with the weather issue in New York and Chicago just fine. And hey, the bars are still open there!

[Fury13]

Smokers will go elsewhere to enjoy themselves outside of home. Or maybe they won't stay at that restaurant for dessert or a drink. There's a big mark up on those items, lots of lost money. This is true for both small businesses and the gov't, with the loss of sales tax revenue. Can MI and Detroit really afford cuts in those areas right now?

Bars don't cater to just smokers. Non-smokers like bars and clubs too, and more non-smokers will patronize those places now. A lot of us like to enjoy drinks but don't want to deal with smoke. Overall revenue will probably go up or remain about the same [[it didn't hurt bar business in California, NYC, or Chicago in the long run). And the smokers can have their little hazy social group outside the door.

And if there is a ban in ALL public buildings, smokers will just set up "private clubs", where you pay a yearly nominal fee, get a "membership card" and are completely exempt from the smoking laws. "Public buildings" being the optimal phrase. This is already happening in several smoking-unfriendly cities, like Austin TX for example.

That's actually a great idea. Have private clubs where smokers can choke on each other's exhaust and be happy. More power to you.

[R8RBOB]

Smokers deal with the weather issue in New York and Chicago just fine. And hey, the bars are still open there!

I agree, but after reading some of these comments you would think it is the end of the world. Smokers have to go outside where they can get some fresh air as they suck in the cancerous smoke they choose to inhale, however, they get insulted because the man or woman next to them wish not to inhale their smoke. The ban should have been for every establishment.

[ghettopalmetto]

Personally, I don't mind smoking bans in principle, and I certainly don't miss the days of coming home from the bar reeking of stale smoke.

On the other hand, we see the true colors of the irrational anti-smoking army on this thread. Look at any single piece of smoking ban legislation, and you'll find NOTHING about "protecting the health of the public". None. So you can stop dancing like this is some kind of huge moral victory for you. It's not.

Every piece of smoking ban legislation I've seen couches the ban in language so as to "protect the health of employees". This is total crap. I've worked in restaurants where 90% of the employees smoked. Whose health are you protecting with this law, exactly? The premise of the legislation is an outright lie. And if you're so concerned about the health of the employees, why don't you mandate that their employer provide them with health insurance??? Makes you wonder why the Legislature [[pick your favorite out of the 37) has to couch a ban in such language, does it not? Maybe it's because it's already perfectly legal to operate an establishment that bans smoking, and for people to patronize such an institution.

On the other hand, we'll all continue to get socked paying for preventable long-term health care costs for fat fucks who choose to eat shitty food and not exercise. That's okay, though, because it supposedly doesn't affect us--unless it's your co-worker, employee, family member, or the person seated next to you on a bus, train, or airplane.

And until the automakers install an ignition killswitch that requires you to blow below a 0.08% BAC before turning the key, let's not even talk about the very ACUTE dangers of allowing drunk drivers on the road.

All I ask is for consistency.

[bartock]

I agree, but after reading some of these comments you would think it is the end of the world. Smokers have to go outside where they can get some fresh air as they suck in the cancerous smoke they choose to inhale, however, they get insulted because the man or woman next to them wish not to inhale their smoke. The ban should have been for every establishment.

Speaking only to the restaurant issue...without a ban, it seems that there are many establishments that have gone non-smoking in recent years; my wife and I go out of our way to visit those.

What about compromising an all-out ban by having "smoking clubs" or perhaps requiring the purchase of a special license for an establishment to be "smoking". About the only thing worse than being in the vicinity of someone smoking at a bar is walking through a gauntlet of people smoking as you enter a building. Make a "smoking" restaurant advertise itself as such...the extra cost of having a "smoking" license would mitigate the number of these establishments. Then, the "second hand smoke" is entirely voluntary. Yeah it doesn't take the smell out of clothes, but that is no different than someone who smokes anyway...besides, I'm not sure if a whiff of a smoker's attire carries the same health consequences of sucking the exhaust from an idleing car in a parking structure, etc., and am to lazy to do the research.

[ghettopalmetto]

Bartock raises a couple good points. One is that, as soon as a smoking ban passes, people start bitching about smokers hanging out by the door of the bar or restaurant. What do you do then? I mean, the employees are already "protected", aren't they?

The other is that no one seems to think a ban on high-emission vehicles is necessary. I mean, why don't we just ban SUVs outright? I'm tired of having to breathe the exhaust from these self-righteous pricks. Who do they think they are?

For that matter, why not outlaw incinerators? Or factories? Or manure ponds? All of these are far more acute than smoking, since they negatively impact the same people, day-in and day-out on a permanent basis. Why is smoking so dangerous, but these are all perfectly safe? Maybe their "employees" don't need "protecting", do they?

My point is, there are a lot of things in this world that aren't healthy. You're not going to be able to control them all. Get a helmet and deal with it.

[artds]

Smoking is not illegal, so it should not be illegal to have an establishment in which smoking is permitted.

There is. They're called cigar bars and tobacco specialty stores.

[Johnlodge]

There is. They're called cigar bars and tobacco specialty stores.

But if you serve alcohol there, it should be illegal?? What's the distinction being made? I say let them pay for permits, far less places will have smoking, and the state makes money to help the deficit. Win-win.