Senate passes smoking ban; casino floors but not restos exempt

[Bearinabox]

What else is there?

What I'm getting at here is that I've noticed a very clear social stigma attached to cigarette smoking. Whether this is justified or not is irrelevant--I happen to agree with Fury that it is not, but that doesn't make it go away. It's easy to get behind something like this--just as it's easy to raise the cigarette tax every year in lieu of fixing the budget--because smokers as a group are looked down upon anyway. I'm not saying this is the only or the primary reason this ban was passed, but I don't think you and Fury should dismiss it as easily as you have.

[royce]

Charlie Brown's Linus once said, "There are three things that I've learned never to discuss with people: religion, politics, and the Great Pumpkin." Well, clearly banning smoking in public places is the fourth. I'm sorry but as a non-smoker I can't follow the reasoning of most smokers who insist that smoking in a bar, restaurant, or casino isn't a major inconvenience for those who don't smoke. Since the permanent casinos have been in play, I go to them a lot less now then when there were non-smoking floors in the temporary casionos. Once I get my passport or enhanced license and I want to go gambling, I will be going to Windor's casino more often just to get away from the cigarette smoke that bombards you as soon as you enter any of Detroit's casinos.

Now, regarding the casinos' fear that if they didn't get the exemption from the smoking ban that it would cause them to lose business is a crock of crap. You've got a group of people who frequent your establishment who have two addictions: smoking and gambling. You mean to tell me that these two-addiction saddled people are going to give up one addiction, gambling, over the other, smoking, because they won't be allowed to practice one addiction, smoking, while engaged in the other addiction, gambling. I find that while in a gambling establisment, the addiction of gambling will simply win out over the addiction of smoking. If they get that sudden urge to smoke they can always run outside for five minutes and come back in and continue gambling. If a smoker wants to gamble, where is he/she going to go if the nearest smoking-gambling establishment is two hours away. Do casino owners actually believe that a gambler-smoker is going to stay home or go to the bar instead because he has to smoke? I don't think so. I think the need to gamble will take priority over the need to smoke. It's that simple.

[royce]

Charlie Brown's Linus once said, "There are three things that I've learned never to discuss with people: religion, politics, and the Great Pumpkin." Well, clearly banning smoking in public places is the fourth. I'm sorry but as a non-smoker I can't follow the reasoning of most smokers who insist that smoking in a bar, restaurant, or casino isn't a major inconvenience for those who don't smoke. Since the permanent casinos have been in play, I go to them a lot less now then when there were non-smoking floors in the temporary casionos. Once I get my passport or enhanced license and I want to go gambling, I will be going to Windor's casino more often just to get away from the cigarette smoke that bombards you as soon as you enter any of Detroit's casinos.

Now, regarding the casinos' fear that if they didn't get the exemption from the smoking ban that it would cause them to lose business is a crock of crap. You've got a group of people who frequent your establishment who have two addictions: smoking and gambling. You mean to tell me that these two-addiction saddled people are going to give up one addiction, gambling, over the other, smoking, because they won't be allowed to practice one addiction, smoking, while engaged in the other addiction, gambling. I find that while in a gambling establishment, the addiction of gambling will simply win out over the addiction of smoking. If they get that sudden urge to smoke they can always run outside for five minutes and come back in and continue gambling. If a smoker wants to gamble, where is he/she going to go if the nearest smoking-gambling establishment is two hours away. Do casino owners actually believe that a gambler-smoker is going to stay home or go to the bar instead because he has to smoke? I don't think so. I think the need to gamble will take priority over the need to smoke. It's that simple.

[Diehard]

What I'm getting at here is that I've noticed a very clear social stigma attached to cigarette smoking. Whether this is justified or not is irrelevant--I happen to agree with Fury that it is not, but that doesn't make it go away.

Depends on the crowd you run with, I guess. Where I go, there are always hordes of hipsters with a PBR in one hand and a lit cigarette in the other. They're not even necessarily smoking it. It's part of the uniform.

It's easy to get behind something like this--just as it's easy to raise the cigarette tax every year in lieu of fixing the budget--because smokers as a group are looked down upon anyway.

Yup. Way back, on the first page of this thread, I addressed this. Tobacco falls in the "sin tax" category, like alcohol, and is easy pickings for politicians.

I'm not saying this is the only or the primary reason this ban was passed, but I don't think you and Fury should dismiss it as easily as you have.

Not dismissing the tobacco "sin tax" - but it's irrelevant here. Less smoking equals less tax revenue. It's hard to see how pushing the smoke outside can be a money-maker.

[Bearinabox]

Depends on the crowd you run with, I guess. Where I go, there are always hordes of hipsters with a PBR in one hand and a lit cigarette in the other. They're not even necessarily smoking it. It's part of the uniform.

Hipsters like to co-opt elements of lower-class culture. PBR is a perfect example.

[R8RBOB]

Now, regarding the casinos' fear that if they didn't get the exemption from the smoking ban that it would cause them to lose business is a crock of crap. You've got a group of people who frequent your establishment who have two addictions: smoking and gambling. You mean to tell me that these two-addiction saddled people are going to give up one addiction, gambling, over the other, smoking, because they won't be allowed to practice one addiction, smoking, while engaged in the other addiction, gambling. I find that while in a gambling establishment, the addiction of gambling will simply win out over the addiction of smoking. If they get that sudden urge to smoke they can always run outside for five minutes and come back in and continue gambling. If a smoker wants to gamble, where is he/she going to go if the nearest smoking-gambling establishment is two hours away. Do casino owners actually believe that a gambler-smoker is going to stay home or go to the bar instead because he has to smoke? I don't think so. I think the need to gamble will take priority over the need to smoke. It's that simple.

Bravo, you and I are alike in regards to the casinos. The exemption that was given to the casino was the "long con." [[I'm a Lost fan)

Let me explain the long con that was used for the casinos to get their exemption. Gambling is about two things: being damn lucky and maintaining. There are no time-outs when it comes to gambling. Sure one has to take bathroom breaks but those are necessity breaks not choice breaks. Casinos don't want people to take breaks from gambling because the goal is to take your money. As long as you can smoke and drink, you can sit at your slot machine or your blackjack table or stand at the craps table all day as long as you are losing your money.

If there was a smoking ban at the casinos, the customer would have to take smoke breaks outside. Smoking breaks would be a choice break, not an necessity break like taking a leak. A gambler who is taking a smoke break might get a moment of clarity while sucking in the smoke and realize that he or she is just not lucky today and decides to leave with what they have. Ding, hence the problem that casinos have with a smoking ban. The casinos want to CLEAN YOU OUT. They don't want you finding logic while on a five to ten minute smoke break. Sure, most will return inside to lose the rest of their money but some might wake up and just leave. The casinos can't have that.

The casinos in Detroit know that their region of gamblers are not going to drive two or more hours just to gamble and smoke. That was smoke and mirrors. They will go to MGM or Motor City or Greektown and they will gamble and then they will go outside and smoke a cigarette. The casinos just can't take that chance and let their customers walk out the door.

[jerrytimes]

I'm sure something like this has been said. I'm not a non-smoker either, but I don't agree with Michigan doing this right now. Most restaurants allow smoking and all of them have the authority to make their place non-smoking if they want. There is a reason why they didn't, and it should be up to them. Now on the other hand, I also believe that this is a topic that should have been put on the ballot a few months ago and let the people vote on it. If it passed then fine, if not, fine as well. Just government stepping in where they shouldn't.

[R8RBOB]

I'm sure something like this has been said. I'm not a non-smoker either, but I don't agree with Michigan doing this right now. Most restaurants allow smoking and all of them have the authority to make their place non-smoking if they want. There is a reason why they didn't, and it should be up to them. Now on the other hand, I also believe that this is a topic that should have been put on the ballot a few months ago and let the people vote on it. If it passed then fine, if not, fine as well. Just government stepping in where they shouldn't.

jtimes,

You do know that 37 other states prior to Michigan have passed smoking bans right? People like yourself keep saying the same-old, lame-ass excuse. That the government should not be saying who can smoke and who can't. In the end, that excuse becomes white noise. Just know that no state have repealed their ban on smoking. Just my two cents.

[milesdriven]

jtimes,

You do know that 37 other states prior to Michigan have passed smoking bans right? People like yourself keep saying the same-old, lame-ass excuse. That the government should not be saying who can smoke and who can't. In the end, that excuse becomes white noise. Just know that no state have repealed their ban on smoking. Just my two cents.

If you don't like what's on TV, change the channel. If you don't like the music a radio station is playing, choose another. If you don't like a bar because they allow smoking, go to a non-smoking bar.

If you are concerned for health reasons, mandate a filtration code. Auto-body shops vent paint fumes, people who sand floors wear masks, and people who clean sewers wear protective gear. Provide waitstaff with respirators upon request, I bet very few will accept the offer because the majority of the employees in the hospitality industry are smokers.

Food for thought: http://www.davehitt.com/facts/badforbiz/

[R8RBOB]

If you don't like what's on TV, change the channel. If you don't like the music a radio station is playing, choose another. If you don't like a bar because they allow smoking, go to a non-smoking bar.

If you are concerned for health reasons, mandate a filtration code. Auto-body shops vent paint fumes, people who sand floors wear masks, and people who clean sewers wear protective gear. Provide waitstaff with respirators upon request, I bet very few will accept the offer because the majority of the employees in the hospitality industry are smokers.

Food for thought: http://www.davehitt.com/facts/badforbiz/

After reading this, I attempted to find logic with your word. Sadly, I could not. Let me add to your line of thought.

This ban is not for the employees, it was for the non-smokers and ex-smokers like myself. If this bill was meant to protect the employees then there would not been an exemption to the ban. The dealers at the casino has to have the worst jobs because the ones who don't smoke have to be surrounded by cigarette and cigar smoke for hours and hours. Imagine being in an environment where you are surrounded by cigarette smoke all day and you are not a smoker. You would lose your mind. And please spare me the "I wouldn't work there" snide remark. Easy to say when you are not in that kind of environment.

[Novine]

"If you are concerned for health reasons, mandate a filtration code. Auto-body shops vent paint fumes, people who sand floors wear masks, and people who clean sewers wear protective gear."

You're OK with mandating every restaurant in the state to invest in filtration equipment so a small minority of people can continue to smoke but you're opposed to mandate that says "if you want to smoke, you have to go outside"?

[Pam]

Here smokers, get that monkey off your back. You know you need to and the rest of us are tired of your whining:

http://www.nicorette.com/

http://www.nicodermcq.com/

[Diehard]

If you don't like what's on TV, change the channel. If you don't like the music a radio station is playing, choose another. If you don't like a bar because they allow smoking, go to a non-smoking bar.

If you are concerned for health reasons, mandate a filtration code. Auto-body shops vent paint fumes, people who sand floors wear masks, and people who clean sewers wear protective gear. Provide waitstaff with respirators upon request, I bet very few will accept the offer because the majority of the employees in the hospitality industry are smokers.

Food for thought: http://www.davehitt.com/facts/badforbiz/

The first two words on that website are "nicotine nannies." Which tells me they're missing the point. This is not a case of the "nanny state." The vast majority of nonsmokers could give a sh*t about you and what you do to your lungs. Smoke all you want, outside.
Besides, what are all those articles on there? A guy falls off a terrace, so we should allow unrestricted indoor smoking? WTF is that?
If asking smokers to step outside for a few minutes is so bad for business, why haven't any states repealed their laws? If, as this site contends, smokers are such whiny babies that they'd rather allow their favorite pubs and restaurants to fail than make a small adjustment to their routine, whose fault is that?

[R8RBOB]

If asking smokers to step outside for a few minutes is so bad for business, why haven't any states repealed their laws?

No state has repealed the ban because most residents support any ban on smoking.

If, as this site contends, smokers are such whiny babies that they'd rather allow their favorite pubs and restaurants to fail than make a small adjustment to their routine, whose fault is that?

Not the non-smokers and the ex-smokers. How about the economy?

For 12 years these lovers of nicotine have screamed from the top of their lungs that businesses would go out of business because people who choose to smoke can't smoke. BULL!!! If said business goes out of business then perhaps they went out of business because times are tight or perhaps people have discovered that the drinks are watered down or maybe they just don't like the clientele but hey there is always the smoking ban. When I lived in California, the bars and restaurant were always filled with people and if they [[the smokers) wanted to smoke a cigarette they went outside and smoked a god damn cigarette. No muss, no fuss.

[sumas]

I am always a little bemused by the angst displayed by non smokers. Personally, I think the ban is great. Now smug self righteous folk can band together eat drink and be merry.

I am motivated now to reclaim my basement from years of accumulated stuff. A finished basement with wet bar, fridge, pool table and air filtration exists. Think of the money I'll save. As for restaurants, no problem, I like my own cooking better.

Since I smoke and enjoy an occaisional drink, I already pay a stiff sin tax. I thank our legislators for saving me a fortune. I'll just host at home parties from now on.

Last time I did a self moral inventory, I was pretty happy with myself. Honest, hard worker, Sunday school teacher, Volunteer worker of the years awards up the kazoo, good neighbor, mother of two successful non smoking sons, married 35 yrs, voluntary caretaker of three seniors, plenty of friends, considerate smoker and active in my community. We eat healthy, excercise daily and weigh what we did we we got married. Recently had a seven step pulmonary cardio test. I am healthy as a horse.

To read the non smoker posts, I'm appearently pretty disgusting because of my habit. So bless you for your increased patronage of businesses and bars to fuel our local economy.

[Pam]

I'm appearently pretty disgusting because of my habit

You aren't disgusting, but the smoke is.

[Diehard]

I am always a little bemused by the angst displayed by non smokers. Personally, I think the ban is great. Now smug self righteous folk can band together eat drink and be merry.

I am motivated now to reclaim my basement from years of accumulated stuff. A finished basement with wet bar, fridge, pool table and air filtration exists. Think of the money I'll save. As for restaurants, no problem, I like my own cooking better.

Since I smoke and enjoy an occaisional drink, I already pay a stiff sin tax. I thank our legislators for saving me a fortune. I'll just host at home parties from now on.

Last time I did a self moral inventory, I was pretty happy with myself. Honest, hard worker, Sunday school teacher, Volunteer worker of the years awards up the kazoo, good neighbor, mother of two successful non smoking sons, married 35 yrs, voluntary caretaker of three seniors, plenty of friends, considerate smoker and active in my community. We eat healthy, excercise daily and weigh what we did we we got married. Recently had a seven step pulmonary cardio test. I am healthy as a horse.

To read the non smoker posts, I'm appearently pretty disgusting because of my habit. So bless you for your increased patronage of businesses and bars to fuel our local economy.

You do realize you're not being banished from the bars, don't you? I think everyone here likes you. I'd buy you a drink.

[NoHeartAnthony]

I am always a little bemused by the angst displayed by non smokers. Personally, I think the ban is great. Now smug self righteous folk can band together eat drink and be merry.

I am motivated now to reclaim my basement from years of accumulated stuff. A finished basement with wet bar, fridge, pool table and air filtration exists. Think of the money I'll save. As for restaurants, no problem, I like my own cooking better.

Since I smoke and enjoy an occaisional drink, I already pay a stiff sin tax. I thank our legislators for saving me a fortune. I'll just host at home parties from now on.

Last time I did a self moral inventory, I was pretty happy with myself. Honest, hard worker, Sunday school teacher, Volunteer worker of the years awards up the kazoo, good neighbor, mother of two successful non smoking sons, married 35 yrs, voluntary caretaker of three seniors, plenty of friends, considerate smoker and active in my community. We eat healthy, excercise daily and weigh what we did we we got married. Recently had a seven step pulmonary cardio test. I am healthy as a horse.

To read the non smoker posts, I'm appearently pretty disgusting because of my habit. So bless you for your increased patronage of businesses and bars to fuel our local economy.

God hates smokers.

[Gambling Man]

Atlantic City repealed its ban.

[sumas]

Thank you Diehard that was very very sweet. The past few weeks have been tramatic for personal reasons and kind words are appreciated.

I think I mentioned I was a considerate smoker, I don't smoke around friends and family who do not smoke. The distinction now is lack of personal choice. An acquaintance is opening a smoke free bar, this decision was made prior to the vote. I honor that personal choice. Business should be able to make those choices for themselves

Tomorrow, I go out with my business partner for a visit to a client who goes over the top on xmas deco to see their displays. We plan to have lunch. She is a non smoker and I repect that. She in turn respects my choices and I sure don't hear from her that I stink like a chimney. Respect should be mutual.

I am not too worried, plenty of neighborhood bars will ignore the ban. Frankly, I don't go out that much. The only people who might miss our trade would be in the dive bars [[they are cheap) that we patronize occaisionally, would be the service staff who we tip well.

As a Detroit resident, I simply don't see enforcement as an issue except at pricey downtown establishments. Be nicer to see enforcement for real crime.

[R8RBOB]

Atlantic City repealed its ban.

Hmm, I wonder why? Care to guess?

[Diehard]

Thank you Diehard that was very very sweet. The past few weeks have been tramatic for personal reasons and kind words are appreciated.

I think I mentioned I was a considerate smoker, I don't smoke around friends and family who do not smoke. The distinction now is lack of personal choice. An acquaintance is opening a smoke free bar, this decision was made prior to the vote. I honor that personal choice. Business should be able to make those choices for themselves

Tomorrow, I go out with my business partner for a visit to a client who goes over the top on xmas deco to see their displays. We plan to have lunch. She is a non smoker and I repect that. She in turn respects my choices and I sure don't hear from her that I stink like a chimney. Respect should be mutual.

I am not too worried, plenty of neighborhood bars will ignore the ban. Frankly, I don't go out that much. The only people who might miss our trade would be in the dive bars [[they are cheap) that we patronize occaisionally, would be the service staff who we tip well.

As a Detroit resident, I simply don't see enforcement as an issue except at pricey downtown establishments. Be nicer to see enforcement for real crime.

Most of my friends smoke, and they are as considerate as you. If everyone was, there would be no problem at all.

[sumas]

Just for fun, we went to a dive local bar where everyone smokes. Just curious to see what they plan to do. The area is not so great so they have cameras and a door that locks and you get buzzed in. Lots of characters there. They plan to ignore the ban. Just stand in front of the camera, put a cigarette in your mouth and you will get buzzed in.

See what I mean, decent people will now be engaged in criminal activity. That place is like family for so many of their customers. What would have been criminal, is if we drank all the free shots that clients sent our way. Next time we go, there's six shot glasses with our name on them. A free night out I guess.

We take our dog when we go there cause patrons get pissed if we don't. He sits on the bar stool and holds court. Lots of lonely people who enjoy his company. Spare me the critisism that he is subjected to smoke. The vet figures he is about twenty years old now. He is a rescue mutt we adopted 7 years ago. Our cats lived to 23 and 18 respectively. We must be doing something right.

This is a neighborhood establishment that has a Christmas, Thanksgiving, and Easter dinner for their clients. We are blessed with family and friends but others are not so fortunate. We send food like pies and stuff for those feasts.

We go there maybe once every six weeks but know everyones name and people know us.

This is the type of small mom and pop bar that will close if they comply with the law.

[Fury13]

Just for fun, we went to a dive local bar where everyone smokes. Just curious to see what they plan to do. The area is not so great so they have cameras and a door that locks and you get buzzed in. Lots of characters there. They plan to ignore the ban. Just stand in front of the camera, put a cigarette in your mouth and you will get buzzed in.

See what I mean, decent people will now be engaged in criminal activity. That place is like family for so many of their customers. What would have been criminal, is if we drank all the free shots that clients sent our way. Next time we go, there's six shot glasses with our name on them. A free night out I guess.

We take our dog when we go there cause patrons get pissed if we don't. He sits on the bar stool and holds court. Lots of lonely people who enjoy his company. Spare me the critisism that he is subjected to smoke. The vet figures he is about twenty years old now. He is a rescue mutt we adopted 7 years ago. Our cats lived to 23 and 18 respectively. We must be doing something right.

This is a neighborhood establishment that has a Christmas, Thanksgiving, and Easter dinner for their clients. We are blessed with family and friends but others are not so fortunate. We send food like pies and stuff for those feasts.

We go there maybe once every six weeks but know everyones name and people know us.

This is the type of small mom and pop bar that will close if they comply with the law.

Of course, any joint like that can choose to ignore the ban, and deal with any consequences that might result, like patrons being ticketed.

I know this: I've been to plenty of neighborhood, divey, "mom and pop" type bars in Chicago [[south side and southwest side). They comply with the law and people smoke outside [[often outside the back door as well as the front). They're still in business and doing fine.

The amazing thing is: when you walk into one of those places, that nasty "old-bar" smell is... NOT THERE. Those places, after just a few years of a no-smoking law, don't reek any more. They smell like any other normal business establishment now. Nice surprise.

[sumas]

Last time I looked this is a forum about Detroit. Don't give two F***'S about other cities.

I tried to give a nice perspective to a local pub who takes in and embrasses lost souls. Apparently I must be one of those, since I find the venue and old style class charming.

Frankly, your venom, Fury, is tres boring. What bugs you most...the fact that you can't inflict your will on the people or there are nice places who care for their clients?

Look at our screen names Sumas which is non confrontational or Fury. Give it a break, we live in a gritty city. Stupid laws do affect business owners.

I go back to my mantra which is, it would be nice if legistlatures stuck to real business and not try to control my life or choices but enact laws over vigilante type activity.