Senate passes smoking ban; casino floors but not restos exempt

[Diehard]

It's funny how the 2% or so on either side were were assholes about it seem to dominate the debate. Nearly all my friends smoke, but they're polite about it. They know I don't like it and will go out of their way keep it away from me. In return, I vow to not be one of those nazi nonsmokers who gets all melodramatic when someone twenty feet away lights up.
I think if everyone had practiced some common sense and common courtesy, a law wouldn't have been necessary. When the room gets unbearably hazy, you'd think most smokers would recognize that and take a break for a while, but that generally doesn't happen. I've been "smoked out" of more places than I can remember, and missed some great bands because the hipster fans just haaad to have a lit cigarette in their hand at all times, because that's what they do.

[pffft]

I always find these types of comments amusing. People hate other people talking on cell phones nearby them. I can understand if you're waiting for that person to get off the phone to complete something, but if it's just the fact that they are next to you, you're ridiculous. Two people talking next to you are fine but a one sided conversation is bad? That just means you're nosy and want to hear the other side of the conversation too.

It's because people shout on cel phones for some reason.
Two people talking to each other is never as loud.

[Johnlodge]

What the advocates of "personal freedom" are overlooking is that wearing too much perfume to a restaurant doesn't physically harm others around you. Farting or eating disgusting food doesn't harm anyone but you. Smoking does.

Farting is harmful? Uh oh.

[Sarah]

According to the Freep, outside patios are covered under the bill too.

[ghettopalmetto]

Might I remind the vehement anti-smokers that the bill wasn't passed to protect you--it was passed to "protect the health of bar and restaurant employees". Why are you making this about your personal preferences, and not the language of the bill?

Using "majority rules" as an argument is bullshit as well. Government doesn't exist to ensure the rights of a majority. But since we're all well-educated citizens, I'm sure my words here are redundant.

Wouldn't it be cool if people stopped throwing stones?

And yes, if you've ever lived anywhere with a smoking ban, people do complain about smokers when they enter or exit an establishment. Perhaps if we just start instituting bans that prohibit smoking within a 1/2 mile radius of all doors, we can eliminate that nasty problem too.

Any other legislation that you require to make the world a happier place for you? Maybe we can make it illegal to pee in rivers and lakes. Maybe we could make it illegal to cook or eat a medium-rare hamburger. Maybe we can make it illegal to be ill and exchange money for goods and services. These are public health issues too, right?

[Diehard]

Might I remind the vehement anti-smokers that the bill wasn't passed to protect you--it was passed to "protect the health of bar and restaurant employees". Why are you making this about your personal preferences, and not the language of the bill?

It protects everyone's health.

Using "majority rules" as an argument is bullshit as well. Government doesn't exist to ensure the rights of a majority.

The majority doesn't breathe?

But since we're all well-educated citizens, I'm sure my words here are redundant. Wouldn't it be cool if people stopped throwing stones?

We're well-educated, and we get it. You're a pissed-off smoker. You're don't like this change, and you're looking for some way to justify how you feel. Throwing out illogical arguments doesn't work, though.

And yes, if you've ever lived anywhere with a smoking ban, people do complain about smokers when they enter or exit an establishment.

I've never heard any, but if people really are complaining about that they should STFU. People go in and out doors all the time. That's what doors are for.

Perhaps if we just start instituting bans that prohibit smoking within a 1/2 mile radius of all doors, we can eliminate that nasty problem too.

Now your'e just being silly, but if that's what you want...

Any other legislation that you require to make the world a happier place for you?

Universal health care would be nice, thank you.

Maybe we can make it illegal to pee in rivers and lakes.

Why? Pee ends up there anyway.

Maybe we could make it illegal to cook or eat a medium-rare hamburger.

Why? How does that affect anyone who's not eating the burger?

Maybe we can make it illegal to be ill and exchange money for goods and services. These are public health issues too, right?

No, and you're not making any sense.

[ghettopalmetto]

Diehard [[or anyone else),

If the bill is intended to protect everyone's health, then why does the language in the bill explicitly mention bar and restaurant employees? Why do they not also mention the customers, who are obviously far greater in number, and thus a greater epidemiological problem? Does the general public not matter? Your argument isn't consistent with the stated intent of the bill, which does not purport to protect everyone's health as you claim. As I've stated, if you want to protect EVERYONE's health, let's make donuts illegal. Let's tax the shit out of fast food, since we'll all have to pay for the health care of every obese person.

Of course, it's pleasant to see that you can excuse dangerous discharges into the water supply as well as E. Coli outbreaks in food and passage of disease through the handling of money just because it suits your personal preferences.

[Diehard]

Diehard [[or anyone else),

If the bill is intended to protect everyone's health, then why does the language in the bill explicitly mention bar and restaurant employees? Why do they not also mention the customers, who are obviously far greater in number, and thus a greater epidemiological problem?

Probably so it could be passed more easily. One could always make the argument [[and smokers of the asshole variety have, very loudly) that a customer can just choose to leave when the smokers insist on stinking up the joint. It's harder to tell workers to "choose to get another job." Who cares? It's good for everyone.

Does the general public not matter? Your argument isn't consistent with the stated intent of the bill, which does not purport to protect everyone's health as you claim.

Of course the general public matters. The "Defense of Marriage Act" does nothing to defend marriage either. It's language. Politicians manipulate language to achieve their ends.

As I've stated, if you want to protect EVERYONE's health, let's make donuts illegal. Let's tax the shit out of fast food, since we'll all have to pay for the health care of every obese person.

Dude, we've been over this. That's a stupid, stupid red herring and you know it. Nobody's cramming donuts down unwilling people's throats, and the cost of health care is a different political issue that's being addressed at the national level. Quit talking to us like we're little kids.

Of course, it's pleasant to see that you can excuse dangerous discharges into the water supply

one person's pee in a river?

as well as E. Coli outbreaks in food and passage of disease through the handling of money just because it suits your personal preferences.

Oh, enough with the melodrama. E. Coli outbreaks in food? The "passage of disease?" What, are you the Boy in the Plastic Bubble? How do you even leave the house? Get some Purell if you're that worried. No matter how much you've wrecked your lungs, you should still have an immune system.

Again, we get it. You're pissed and you're looking for something you can use that lends some logic to how you feel. Problem is, you really don't have a leg to stand on. Why not just say you're a smoker, and you like to smoke when you drink, and you're against this? That at least makes sense.

[NoHeartAnthony]

Of course, it's pleasant to see that you can excuse dangerous discharges into the water supply as well as E. Coli outbreaks in food and passage of disease through the handling of money just because it suits your personal preferences.

Aren't these already enforced in one way or another?

[kathy2trips]

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

Regarding thinking things through, you still haven't answered my original query regarding spouses of smokers who live to ripe old ages. You can find an "expert" to testify to anything. Ask any attorney.

BTW: Cigar smoker George Burns lived to be 100. I'm not responsible for your genetics, or your hubris. I don't smoke anymore, but will defend the rights of those who do because next time, it will be MY rights. Can you possibly understand that? Talk about not thinking things through, champ! Check back when they outlaw one of your vices, hmmm?

[sumas]

I respect the right of individual business owners to decide to go smoke free. I think it should be the left to the individual propriators. Legistlating vice never seems to accomplish much, it just forces people to go underground such as blind pigs.

The state doesn't care much about health or the hugh tobacco settlement would have been used for smoking cessation and related ailments and not go to already well to do students for free college entitlements.

Frankly, I get tired of legislators passing feel good laws. I am always particularly amused when law makers get popped for drunk driving. Might be nice if they showed such fervor for things like balancing the budget, ethics rules, reducing crime, health reform, raising literacy rates and job recreation.

I live in a household with smokers and non smokers. We have smoking zones with filtration and non smoking zones. Two cars, one smoking, one non smoking.

[Novine]

"Regarding thinking things through, you still haven't answered my original query regarding spouses of smokers who live to ripe old ages. You can find an "expert" to testify to anything. Ask any attorney."

The fact that some spouses of smokers live to a ripe old age doesn't disprove the health effects of smoking. Occasionally, a person survives a car/train accident even though the vast majority of such crashes kill the victims instantly. Does this mean that car/train crashes aren't dangerous because someone occasionally survives one?

[Fury13]

You know, some day, the very concept of restaurants and bars providing ashtrays for customers will be as quaint and outdated as the idea of such establishments providing spittoons.

[econ expat]

[quote=Novine;99382
The fact that some spouses of smokers live to a ripe old age doesn't disprove the health effects of smoking. Occasionally, a person survives a car/train accident even though the vast majority of such crashes kill the victims instantly. Does this mean that car/train crashes aren't dangerous because someone occasionally survives one?[/quote]

OMG someone might get killed. With that logic, car and train travel oughta be banned.
In fact, the reaction of some who observe a whiff of smoke and panic is not unlike the airplane traveler who panics all the way worrying about a crash. They heard of some getting killed in a crash and presume the worst.

[econ expat]

You know, some day, the very concept of restaurants and bars providing ashtrays for customers will be as quaint and outdated as the idea of such establishments providing spittoons.

Already is in many states.I'm surprised [[but more comfortable) coming into a bar where smoking is allowed in some states.

We had a family gathering in Mich recently. Only tables available were in smoking section. Fine with me, I don't want to be seated in the snob section anyways. Courtesy prevailed. Not one person in our group smoked, smokers slipped outside.And... though there was ashtrays on the tables, We did not see anyone smoking in the room anyways.
Think about it- while eating, people rarely have a cigarette lit.

Over the last few years many restaurants have gradually gone 100%% non-smoking. Were that the case 10 years ago, my restaurant would have been same. Though it was small enough that the grill exhaust fan sucked all the room's smoke [[and heat/air conditioning) up the vent hood. The previous owner tried to make the restaurant non-smoking, lost too much business.He changed that policy but lost interest in the place. Opened another place a few miles away that was 100% non-smoking. I bought that one also.I smoked [[outside back door) at that time. Customers that knew treated me as a pariah.

Once the laws are in force, that smug feeling won't last. There will be another cause, another reason to feel more superior to others.

[artds]

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.

I think the distinction is that if you serve food and alcohol, then you're likely to have a waitstaff, and that's the primary group of people that this law was designed to protect.

On the other hand, if you're just selling cigars and whatnot, it's more likely that the only person behind the counter is the owner of cigar shop, who the law is not as concerned about protecting from the effects of second hand smoke, for obvious reasons.

This all begs the question: 'then why not just make the law applicable to places with waitstaffs?". The answer is that, while the law is primarily aimed at protecting the health of waitstaffs, it's also aimed at at protecting the health of patrons. And there's a much stronger presumption that customers of cigar bars [[as opposed to customers of restaurant's/regular bars) have, via their very presence, consented to exposure to harmful smoke.

[Diehard]

Not one person in our group smoked, smokers slipped outside.And... though there was ashtrays on the tables, We did not see anyone smoking in the room anyways.

How utterly reasonable. If everyone was like that, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I smoked [[outside back door) at that time. Customers that knew treated me as a pariah.

Those people need to get a life.

Once the laws are in force, that smug feeling won't last. There will be another cause, another reason to feel more superior to others.

I wish people would quit labeling ordinary nonsmokers as "smug" or "nanny state" or "superior" or any of that. That's a completely different stereotype. Those smug, superior types wouldn't set foot in a Detroit bar anyway.
"Smug" and "superior" do, however, describe that angry smoker who lashes out at people who eat donuts.

[Corn.Bot]

As an ex-smoker... almost 2.5 yrs now, w00t for me... I won't preach: if you smoke, have at it; if you don't, don't stand downwind. Pretty basic, if uncommon, common sense. I like the smoking ban for a completely selfish reason - it removes that much more temptation from my path. I don't like the smoking ban because smoking is technically still a legal adult activity, yet legal adults can't do it anywhere but their own homes [[at least not and have a cup of coffee or a can of pop or beer with it).

The agenda followed to pass this ban was solely for the purse-string-holders, not customers or waitstaff at all. The insurance industry, being the root of all evil as well as the Lord and Master over all our every thought, word, and deed, either jingled the right amount of new coins at key deciders, and/or threatened to take back some of their previously-offered $. Absolutely nothing to do with businesses, business owners, employees, or customers. Everything to do with their ever-growing control, and their ever-growing bottom line and profit margins.

Whoever still believes our legislators represent actual constituents in Lansing is apparently smoking the other 'backy... you know, that illegal weedy stuff that somehow has become more socially acceptable to use than licensed, regimented, fully-taxed tobacco products.

[Gistok]

It's because people shout on cel phones for some reason.
Two people talking to each other is never as loud.

Thanks for setting that one straight pffft!!

When 2 people are engaged in a private conversation, you have to be within 5 ft. of them to hear at least some of what's being said.

But for cell phone users... you can hear their one person conversations from 30 ft. away!!

[Fury13]

We had a family gathering in Mich recently. Only tables available were in smoking section. Fine with me, I don't want to be seated in the snob section anyways. Courtesy prevailed. Not one person in our group smoked, smokers slipped outside.And... though there was ashtrays on the tables, We did not see anyone smoking in the room anyways.
Think about it- while eating, people rarely have a cigarette lit.

Nice story, but often, courtesy DOESN'T prevail. I've been seated next to smokers many times in a bar or restaurant when they haven't hesitated to light up right next to me while I'm eating and exhale their foul oral exhaust all over me and my food. With the new law, that won't happen anymore.

Interesting that you call the non-smoking section the "snob section." So, that's some sort of class issue to you? Hmmm...

[Bearinabox]

Interesting that you call the non-smoking section the "snob section." So, that's some sort of class issue to you? Hmmm...

It is most definitely a class issue.

[Fury13]

It is most definitely a class issue.

You think so? How so? Using that kind of rationale, I'd end up coming to the conclusion that all smokers live in trailers.

No, I think there are smokers and non-smokers. That's it.

And I'm sure there are snobs who smoke and snobs who don't.

I think there's a kind of reverse snobbery in play when you call the non-smoking section the "snob section."

[Bearinabox]

You think so? How so? Using that kind of rationale, I'd end up coming to the conclusion that all smokers live in trailers.

No, I think there are smokers and non-smokers. That's it.

And I'm sure there are snobs who smoke and snobs who don't.

I think there's a kind of reverse snobbery in play when you call the non-smoking section the "snob section."

I don't disagree with anything in this post, but I still find it hard to believe that everyone pushing for this ban is concerned only about health and the smell of their clothes. Again, I don't care one way or the other about the ban itself, but I still wouldn't like to party with the folks responsible for pushing it through the legislature.

[Diehard]

I don't like the smoking ban because smoking is technically still a legal adult activity, yet legal adults can't do it anywhere but their own homes [[at least not and have a cup of coffee or a can of pop or beer with it).

Of course people can smoke when they want. It's simple. You step outside for a few minutes, do your thing, then come back in. It's not a ban, it's just moving it outdoors so the smoke can dissipate instead of accumulating in a closed room. You wouldn't barbecue or build a campfire indoors, would you?

The agenda followed to pass this ban was solely for the purse-string-holders, not customers or waitstaff at all. The insurance industry, being the root of all evil as well as the Lord and Master over all our every thought, word, and deed, either jingled the right amount of new coins at key deciders, and/or threatened to take back some of their previously-offered $. Absolutely nothing to do with businesses, business owners, employees, or customers. Everything to do with their ever-growing control, and their ever-growing bottom line and profit margins.

Or maybe, as the 38th state to do this, they just wanted Michigan to join the 21st Century. I don't recall the insurance industry weighing in at all, but if you have any links please share.

Whoever still believes our legislators represent actual constituents in Lansing is apparently smoking the other 'backy... you know, that illegal weedy stuff that somehow has become more socially acceptable to use than licensed, regimented, fully-taxed tobacco products.

Smokers are 20% of the population, so legislators are serving 80% of their constituents. I doubt that they'd allow smoking weed in an indoor public place either, but that's a different question.

[Diehard]

I still find it hard to believe that everyone pushing for this ban is concerned only about health and the smell of their clothes.

What else is there? You're talking about an unhealthy activity that 20% of the population chooses to do, but by its very nature forces the other 80% in a closed room to participate in unwillingly. If there was a way to enjoy a smoke without involving everyone around you, this wouldn't be an issue. [[Is there? Anyone want to invent a drinkable or snortable nicotine product?)

Again, I don't care one way or the other about the ban itself, but I still wouldn't like to party with the folks responsible for pushing it through the legislature.

I'm sure many of them smoke.