Patterson to ignore smoking ban

[HazenPingree]

L. Brooks Patterson intends to turn a blind eye to the smoking ban, and says he will sue to state over the legislation.

http://detnews.com/article/20100415/...ce-smoking-ban

[lizaanne]

Great. And just when I've been counting the days until this took effect and I didn't have to breathe in disgusting cigarette smoke while eating my eggs on a Saturday morning. :-[[

[Homer]

Who is suppose to enforce this law? Can I dial 911 if someone lights up with their morning coffee or after their evening meal? Does the establishment's manager get ticketed or the offender? Just wondering.

[lizaanne]

I think dialing 911 for this would be a bit over the top. While second hand smoke IS life threatening, I have not heard on anyone who dropped dead immediately in the presence of smoke. But I get your drift - who will enforce this?

[Sarah]

Who is suppose to enforce this law? Can I dial 911 if someone lights up with their morning coffee or after their evening meal? Does the establishment's manager get ticketed or the offender? Just wondering.

Both the establishment and the offender can be ticketed.

[wolverine]

I'm not getting it. What burden? If a patron lights up, the business says take it outside...that's the enforcement. If the business ignores it, customers annoyed by the smoke get up and leave, meaning the business loses. The only difficulties I've noticed are getting smokers to stand 15 feet from the entry of a workplace. Though people are getting better at complying and standing out by the curb

[artds]

LBP is making a lot of noise over nothing in my opinion.

An unfunded mandate argument is a legit argument, but in this case, this law isn't going to require law enforcement to do much of anything, and certainly doesn't require the counties to establish an enforcement mechanism or program. It merely gives law enforcement to discretion to fine violators.

Additionally, people for whatever reason tend to follow no smoking rules. It's rare to see people regularly light up inside of no-smoking establishments or refuse to put out their cigarette when told there's no smoking by the staff.

This law's very existence and dissemination of knowledge about its existence is going to be enough to serve its purpose, which is to protect the health of restaurant workers.

Other states that have passed similar bans have not run into any major enforcement issues [[although I'm sure there was just as much whining by people like Brooks when those laws were passed)

[Johnlodge]

Voters choose representatives at the state level. Those representatives passed a law. Now Patterson is going to use taxpayer money to fight a law passed by the people the taxpayers chose to make decisions on their behalf?

PS you may remember I was against the bill when it was being debated. Yet I still think Patterson is being an idiot.

[ghettopalmetto]

This law's very existence and dissemination of knowledge about its existence is going to be enough to serve its purpose, which is to protect the health of restaurant workers.

Thank goodness for protecting the health of the restaurant workers! Now maybe someone will protect the health of the fat fucks who eat out all the time.

Just one question--do the restaurant workers also have to be at least 15' from the door when they go outside to smoke?

[artds]

The only difficulties I've noticed are getting smokers to stand 15 feet from the entry of a workplace. Though people are getting better at complying and standing out by the curb

There's no 15-foot distance or anything like that in bill that was passed

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%2...0AND%20smoking
.

[artds]

Voters choose representatives at the state level. Those representatives passed a law. Now Patterson is going to use taxpayer money to fight a law passed by the people the taxpayers chose to make decisions on their behalf?

PS you may remember I was against the bill when it was being debated. Yet I still think Patterson is being an idiot.

To be fair, he's not really fighting the substance of the law but rather the method of its enforcement. He's telling the state, "either have one of your agencies enforce it or, if you want the counties to enforce it, then provide us funding."

As I stated, though, I believe this is a weak argument.

[iheartthed]

Patterson says the law amounts to an "unfunded mandate" if county health departments must oversee and enforce the ban and that Oakland County doesn't have the resources to enforce it.

Ha! This galaxy's greatest county doesn't have the money to enforce a smoking ban??? And he wants to sue the state for making a rule and not providing the funding to enforce? Does the state provide funding to enforce speed limits? Does.not.compute.


ETA: Oh yeah, it's called grandstanding.

[artds]

Here's an FAQ document on the new law for anyone who is interested.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/md...L_314723_7.pdf

I think there's been the most confusion over how restaurant owners/staff are expected to comply with the law, so I'll post the relevant portion here:

What do business operators need to do to comply with this law?

• Business operators shall prohibit smoking in areas where it is not permitted. Compliance is determined by the following

• Clearly and conspicuously post “no smokingâ€� signs or the international “no smokingâ€� symbol at each entrance and in other areas where smoking is prohibited under this act. These other areas may include outdoor areas such as patios or rooftops where patrons are intended to receive service or consume food, beverages, or both.

• Removing ashtrays and other smoking paraphernalia from anywhere where smoking is prohibited. “Smoking paraphernaliaâ€� means any equipment, apparatus, or furnishing that is used in or necessary for the activity of smoking.

• Informing individuals smoking in violation of this act that they are in violation of state law and are subject to penalties.

• Refusing service to an individual smoking in violation of this act.

• Asking an individual smoking in violation of this act to refrain from smoking and, if the individual continues to smoke in violation of this act, ask him or her to leave.

[EastsideAl]

This is nonsense. He's grandstanding for the rubes again. State legislatures pass laws, and of course it's the responsibility of local law enforcement to enforce the laws they pass. That's the way our system functions.

[milesdriven]

I usually disagree with LBP 99% of the time, but I agree with him on this issue. Michigan's ban will not allow smoking on outdoor patios, or in hotel room. Since a hotel room is a rented dwelling, and I spend about 10 nights monthly in hotels for my job, they are telling me I cannot smoke in my home. If this goes through, I'll skip on the hotel and just drive the extra few hours back to Toledo where smoking is permitted in my home office. I am not aware of any other states that have taken it to this extreme. How about a separate well-ventilated room in establishments that allow smoking, or an exemption for family-owned businesses and private clubs?

If this were in the best interest of businesses, they would've enacted it on their own. I don't go to gay bars, country bars, or dance clubs, but they don't bother me at all. Let the market decide.

P.S. I'm typing this in a small sports bar in Grand Rapids while I enjoy a smoke. The bartender, the cook, as well as 8 out of 13 patron are currently enjoying a smoke with me.

[artds]

Ha! This galaxy's greatest county doesn't have the money to enforce a smoking ban??? And he wants to sue the state for making a rule and not providing the funding to enforce? Does the state provide funding to enforce speed limits? Does.not.compute.

Yes, they do, as they're required to by law. See sections 25 and 29 of the Michigan Constitution.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...nstitution.pdf

This is what Brooks is talking about when he refers to an "unfunded mandate". The only problem with his argument is that the law isn't mandating that the counties do anything. It appears to simply give the counties' law enforcement arms the discretion to fine someone for violating the new law, but doesn't appear to require them to establish any kind of enforcement mechanism or program to ensure that restaurant owners are complying with the new law.

[Detroitnerd]

The law was too sweeping. I can't think of another state that prohibits smoking on a bar patio outdoors. It almost seems it was just "thunk through" by a lot of health nuts and reactionaries, not people who studied the issue outside the state.

Want people to obey the law? Design a law that's easy to obey.

[artds]

If this were in the best interest of businesses, they would've enacted it on their own. I don't go to gay bars, country bars, or dance clubs, but they don't bother me at all. Let the market decide.

The law wasn't motivated by a concern about the bottom line of businesses, but by concern for the health of restaurant workers.

Telling businesses that they can't dump garbage in our lakes probably makes waste disposal more expensive for many businesses, but we still do it out of a concern for public health.

[leland_palmer]

He's already caved.

Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson this afternoon reversed himself, withdrawing his plan to sue against a statewide public smoking ban.

The move came after an overwhelming number of phone calls from constituents who opposed what he was doing.

http://freep.com/article/20100415/NE...er-smoking-ban

[milesdriven]

The law wasn't motivated by a concern about the bottom line of businesses, but by concern for the health of restaurant workers.

Telling businesses that they can't dump garbage in our lakes probably makes waste disposal more expensive for many businesses, but we still do it out of a concern for public health.

If you read my post in its entirety, you'll notice that I suggested ventilation as a solution. Heck, I'd be willing to go up to the bar and get my own drinks and bring them back to the smoking section. Maybe even allow smoking on outdoor patios like every other state with a ban does, and ban it indoors while exempting family businesses. Nobody ever wants to compromise, but maybe we can sit down and discuss some solutions instead of an outright ban.

[milesdriven]

The law wasn't motivated by a concern about the bottom line of businesses, but by concern for the health of restaurant workers.

Telling businesses that they can't dump garbage in our lakes probably makes waste disposal more expensive for many businesses, but we still do it out of a concern for public health.

If you read my post in its entirety, you'll notice that I suggested ventilation as a solution. Heck, I'd be willing to go up to the bar and get my own drinks and bring them back to the smoking section. Maybe even allow smoking on outdoor patios like every other state with a ban does, and ban it indoors while exempting family businesses. Nobody ever wants to compromise, but maybe we can sit down and discuss some solutions instead of an outright ban.

[ghettopalmetto]

The law wasn't motivated by a concern about the bottom line of businesses, but by concern for the health of restaurant workers.

Oh yeah? You mean, a real, honest, genuine concern for the health of THESE people?

Study: Foodservice workers smoke more than others
http://www.nrn.com/breakingNews.aspx?id=373686


I call "bullshit". The "protecting health" excuse is a ruse. If you want to protect the health of restaurant employees, use the money from the tobacco settlement to fund smoking cessation programs for restaurant workers.

[kraig]

Oh yeah? You mean, a real, honest, genuine concern for the health of THESE people?

Study: Foodservice workers smoke more than others
http://www.nrn.com/breakingNews.aspx?id=373686


I call "bullshit". The "protecting health" excuse is a ruse.

Doesn't the ban on smoking apply to all of the areas of a restaurant and not just the dining area?

[Searay215]

This whole story has NOTHING to do with smoking....FAT OLD Patterson hasn't seen his name in the paper in a while an thought he would jump in with this....and oh yea and HE Wants the MONEY for HIS County and the hell with the rest of us.....Retire you stupid old man!!!

[Searay215]

Doesn't the ban on smoking apply to all of the areas of a restaurant and not just the dining area?

Yes it does including tables that may be outside.........