The smoking ban - six months later

**R8RBOB** · September-25-10, 08:30 AM

As we close in on the six month of Michigan's smoking ban, people are making a stink about repealing the law that ban smoking in restaurants and bars. According to a story in the Detroit News, http://www.detnews.com/article/20100...l-all-fired-up a group is leading a lottery boycott on Fridays to protest a law that is "killing" business in our fair state.

I support the ban, however, I do believe that Michigan should have patterned their ban based on the first state that called for a ban on smoking: California. In California, they did put some exemptions to the ban. For example, if you are a bar owner and you have nothing but family members [[i.e. mom, pops, little sis, kid) working in your establishment then you can allow smoking. Patio smoking unlike here in MI were not banned and you can setup up a room away from the bar floor where patrons can smoke. Bear in mind the room may be a very dingy smelly small room filled with smokers like I experienced years ago in Hollywood or a empty dining room at the Brass Rail in Sunnyvale [[If you know the Bay, you know what I'm talking about)

California went through the same shit we are going through. People complained about businesses losing money because they couldn't smoke just like here in Michigan but this will pass. If bars and restaurants are losing money then perhaps it is because we have a lot of unemployed people who can no longer afford the luxury of going out to eat or play Club Keno at the bar. Just my opinion.

**Mikeg** · September-25-10, 09:11 AM

Six months later, the Michigan legislature still considers casino workers to be second class citizens who do not deserve equal health protections in the workplace.

Which just proves that that the smoking ban legislation has been flawed from the start and was a mis-use of the powers that citizens have delegated to our leaders in Lansing.

**R8RBOB** · September-25-10, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by Mikeg

Six months later, the Michigan legislature still considers casino workers to be second class citizens who do not deserve equal health protections in the workplace.

Which just proves that that the smoking ban legislation has been flawed from the start and was a mis-use of the powers that citizens have delegated to our leaders in Lansing.

I detest that the Legislature placed an exemption to casinos. The ban should apply to all including casinos because we all should have to share the pain and if that meant casino revenue would dip then so be it. To say that casino workers are not worthy of a smoke-free environment because of profit is the reason why there should be no exemptions.

**Zacha341** · September-26-10, 10:59 AM

I agree, I quit smoking some years back and while I'm not smoke 'phobic', the casino's here should be smoke free too, just as in Canada. Going into a casino, even for the a fairly tolerant ex-smoker is pretty tough. It seems all the smokers on the planet go to the casino just to be able to smoke [[it's really low hanging thick smoky)-LOL! And I end up coughing alot afterwards if I go even just for the buffet. So I just don't go in casinos at all anymore. Though Greektowns casino's buffet is close to the outer door before you get into coffin-closed smoke areas of the casino.

Originally Posted by R8RBOB

I detest that the Legislature placed an exemption to casinos. The ban should apply to all including casinos because we all should have to share the pain and if that meant casino revenue would dip then so be it. To say that casino workers are not worthy of a smoke-free environment because of profit is the reason why there should be no exemptions.

**R8RBOB** · September-26-10, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by Zacha341

I agree, I quit smoking some years back and while I'm not smoke 'phobic', the casino's here should be smoke free too, just as in Canada. Going into a casino, even for the a fairly tolerant ex-smoker is pretty tough. It seems all the smokers on the planet go to the casino just to be able to smoke [[it's really low hanging thick smoky)-LOL! And I end up coughing alot afterwards if I go even just for the buffet. So I just don't go in casinos at all anymore. Though Greektowns casino's buffet is close to the outer door before you get into coffin-closed smoke areas of the casino.

I remember on one of my many times to the casino to give them my money, I was on the blackjack table and I recall the dealer, a woman was dealing the cards yet and the same time moving cigarette smoke away from her. She was getting nailed by drifting smoke and I said to myself, "there's no way I could work as a dealer, no matter how much money they pay." To suck in second-hand smoke and smell like an ashtray just isn't worth it.

**Zacha341** · September-26-10, 02:19 PM

Yeah, I applied to work in one of the Detroit casinos graphics/ marketing departments and was like will the smoke from the "action" floors make it up to business offices. The smoke at a casino is really heavy and I too wonder how the folks on the floor deal with it day in and day out. I could not.

Originally Posted by R8RBOB

I remember on one of my many times to the casino to give them my money, I was on the blackjack table and I recall the dealer, a woman was dealing the cards yet and the same time moving cigarette smoke away from her. She was getting nailed by drifting smoke and I said to myself, "there's no way I could work as a dealer, no matter how much money they pay." To suck in second-hand smoke and smell like an ashtray just isn't worth it.

**Crumbled_pavement** · September-25-10, 09:20 AM

I truly and honestly cannot understand the fascination with smoking a nasty ass cigarette. I have never in my life smoked a cigarette and just don't get what's so exciting and grand about it. On top of that many smokers are quite arrogant and feel they have the right to blow their smoke in your face. I have on occasion had to confront smokers about smoking in my house or car. These people really don't understand how disgusting cigarettes smell to non-smokers and how the smell lingers in a location and in one's clothes. Why the hell do I want to smell your cigarette smoke in my clothes after you've long ago put the cigarette out? Funny thing is, whenever someone kicks the habit they complain that years later cigarette smoke makes them sick. No kidding? Non-smokers have been trying to tell you that for years.

With all that said [[thanks for the opportunity to rant on smokers), I think the ban was a bad idea. Let the consumers decide what the businesses provide. If people are fine with going to restaurant to eat and come home wreaking of tobacco smoke then so be it. Personally, I would boycott any restaurant that doesn't at least separate the smoking and non-smoking section. If I'm in the minority then I guess I stay home, no loss to business. If I represent the majority who'd like to breathe AIR not cigarette smoke then businesses when ban smoking on their own. Business is designed to cater to everyone, so some businesses may prosper with a ban on smoking and other businesses may prosper because people can smoke there. This one size fits all ban is not the way to go.

DetroitPole · September-25-10, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by Crumbled_pavement

I truly and honestly cannot understand the fascination with smoking a nasty ass cigarette. I have never in my life smoked a cigarette and just don't get what's so exciting and grand about it. On top of that many smokers are quite arrogant and feel they have the right to blow their smoke in your face. I have on occasion had to confront smokers about smoking in my house or car. These people really don't understand how disgusting cigarettes smell to non-smokers and how the smell lingers in a location and in one's clothes. Why the hell do I want to smell your cigarette smoke in my clothes after you've long ago put the cigarette out? Funny thing is, whenever someone kicks the habit they complain that years later cigarette smoke makes them sick. No kidding? Non-smokers have been trying to tell you that for years.

Uhh...you do understand that it is a drug and an extremely powerful addiction, right? There isn't really anything "exciting and grand" about it.

**Downriviera** · September-25-10, 05:41 PM

Its ironic how the smokers are now standing outside bars to have a smoke. Before the ban I used to go outside of the bar to have some fresh air. I don't smoke cigarettes but I still think the ban is far too restrictive.

**marcwigle** · September-26-10, 12:48 AM

Originally Posted by DetroitPole

Uhh...you do understand that it is a drug and an extremely powerful addiction, right? There isn't really anything "exciting and grand" about it.

A drug??!! bwahahahahahaha People begin to smoke because they want to be "exciting and grand" and to fit in with the "cool" people. You obviously have been smoking something more powerful...

**milesdriven** · September-25-10, 11:19 AM

I live in Toledo, but work throughout MI, OH, IN, IL, and KY. Although MI, OH, and IL all have smoking bans in place now, MI is the only state which has banned smoking in hotel rooms [[which are my home many nights during the week). My employer has probably spent about $1500 less on lodging in MI because I've either stayed in IN, or driven home when faced with a mountain of paperwork. When I have stayed the night at hotels in MI, instead of having the top floor full of smokers, I noticed the guests now smoke in non-smoking rooms throughout the hotel. I'm glad that most bar owners still permit smoking on outdoor patios, even though the ban prohibits this, and I know a few places that will skirt the ban inside come wintertime. It's been great for Toledo, as most people who used to go to bars in Temperence and Monroe now patronize bars here now. Activists in Ohio are working on bringing forth a ballot initiative to permit smoking in bars and private clubs, and hopefully Michigan will do the same. I consider myself a liberal, but this act is liberalism run amok.

**fryar** · September-25-10, 11:44 AM

Exempting the casinos is ridiculous.

But how shall the casinos continue to exist, to make a profit and benefit their environs through job creation, if they can't encourage their patrons to maximize their indulgence of their addictive personalities?

What do you think the barkeep said?

**R8RBOB** · September-25-10, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by fryar

Exempting the casinos is ridiculous.

But how shall the casinos continue to exist, to make a profit and benefit their environs through job creation, if they can't encourage their patrons to maximize their indulgence of their addictive personalities?

What do you think the barkeep said?

Argument for exempting the casinos: the gamblers will go to Indian casinos because they could smoke there.

I admit that I spent a lot of time in the casinos and I have lost lots of money, however, the casinos were in Detroit and since I live in Detroit it is not a drive for me to get there. When I lived in the Bay Area, the nearest casino was like two hours ago and I would not visit the casino because of the drive.

Would someone sell me on the idea that gamblers would drive hours away just to smoke and lose money if they had made the Detroit casinos smoke-free? I don't believe gamblers who smoke would entertain driving to let's say Mt. Pleasant just because they can't smoke in Detroit. All the time!!!! I just don't believe it.

Oh.....the reason I didn't make that drive is that I didn't want the feeling of spending two hours on the road pissed I just lost my money. Not a good feeling.

**gazhekwe** · September-25-10, 11:30 AM

I think it was a mistake to tie it to employee health. Then any exceptions don't make sense.

The smoking ban inside of restaurants suits me fine, as there were quite a few places that had non-smoking areas that were just a table or two in the smoking area. Now, if they want to impose a design where smokers are completely isolated from non-smokers, that would be great. No smokers walking past non-smoking tables puffing away on their way to the cash register or door.

I agree, smoking on the patio should be allowed. Pul-lease, it's outside! Aside, did you know, Florida restaurants will let you bring your dog on the patio to eat with you? I like that!

I like the idea of having the smokers be on the top floor in multi floor hotels. I have been in a non-smoking room where the smokers downstairs drove me out.

Places that want to have smoking inside should be able to buy a license and call themselves a smoking establishment. Then us non-smokers would know to stay away unless we feel like reeking and having our meal taste like cigarettes, Yuck.

Just so you know, there were quite a few places that declared themselves non-smoking well before this ban was passed, like Nello's in Royal Oak, the Original Pancake House, and more.

**blackmath** · September-25-10, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by gazhekwe

Places that want to have smoking inside should be able to buy a license and call themselves a smoking establishment. Then us non-smokers would know to stay away unless we feel like reeking and having our meal taste like cigarettes, Yuck.

Best thing said in this entire thread. There should be "smoking" establishments, and "non smoking" establishments, that way, before you even go into a place you'd know what you were getting into as a patron and as an employee.

**Crumbled_pavement** · September-25-10, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by blackmath

Best thing said in this entire thread. There should be "smoking" establishments, and "non smoking" establishments, that way, before you even go into a place you'd know what you were getting into as a patron and as an employee.

I agree with this.

**Johnnny5** · September-25-10, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by blackmath

Best thing said in this entire thread. There should be "smoking" establishments, and "non smoking" establishments, that way, before you even go into a place you'd know what you were getting into as a patron and as an employee.

Isn't this exactly what we had before the ban?

**MCP-001** · September-25-10, 11:59 AM

I still look at this as a very slippery slope.

If the state can tell people what they can do on private property, it's not much of a stretch for the state to tell people what they should do for their own "health".

Put down that Faygo! It's not "healthy" for you any more.

No more chips or fast food! Do you know what that food is doing to your body?

You're too fat! Better report to your mandatory fitness center and see a personal trainer who will report on your progress to the state.

Is that what anyone wants?

**jt1** · September-25-10, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by MCP-001

I still look at this as a very slippery slope.

If the state can tell people what they can do on private property, it's not much of a stretch for the state to tell people what they should do for their own "health".

Put down that Faygo! It's not "healthy" for you any more.

No more chips or fast food! Do you know what that food is doing to your body?

You're too fat! Better report to your mandatory fitness center and see a personal trainer who will report on your progress to the state.

Is that what anyone wants?

It's not what is bad for the user but what is bad for others in close proximity. If you eating chips made me fat then I would expect something to be done.

**MCP-001** · September-25-10, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by jt1

It's not what is bad for the user but what is bad for others in close proximity. If you eating chips made me fat then I would expect something to be done.

You're missing the gist of the thread.

No one is making anyone frequent any of these establishments that allow smoking.

The fact that the state unilaterally took it upon itself to determine what is, and is not healthy, and felt that it was within its authority to impost that determination on others without their consent, can be construed to apply to anything they deem "in the public good", given enough lawmakers signing off on it.

**R8RBOB** · September-25-10, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by MCP-001

I still look at this as a very slippery slope.

If the state can tell people what they can do on private property, it's not much of a stretch for the state to tell people what they should do for their own "health".

Put down that Faygo! It's not "healthy" for you any more.

No more chips or fast food! Do you know what that food is doing to your body?

You're too fat! Better report to your mandatory fitness center and see a personal trainer who will report on your progress to the state.

Is that what anyone wants?

If you want to eat chips and fast food, I don't care. That's you. If you want smoke, I don't care. What I do care about is you trying to shove your chips and fast food down my throat and I would care if I'm sitting next to you and your smoke is going up my nose. The state did not ban smoking. This is not Prohibition when the government said you cannot buy alcohol or possess alcohol. This is simply the right to go into establishment and not be choked to death because of a smelly cigarette.

**Searay215** · September-25-10, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by R8RBOB

If you want to eat chips and fast food, I don't care. That's you. If you want smoke, I don't care. What I do care about is you trying to shove your chips and fast food down my throat and I would care if I'm sitting next to you and your smoke is going up my nose. The state did not ban smoking. This is not Prohibition when the government said you cannot buy alcohol or possess alcohol. This is simply the right to go into establishment and not be choked to death because of a smelly cigarette.

AMEN brother!!! I am loving it!!! I can now take my girlfriend out for dinner, as she has asthma and could not go do to the smoke. This is what smokers do not realize or care about....is others who for whatever reason can not tolerate smoke.
R8RBOB you are right on the money.... Its not just the smokers health that is affected but also those around them. Be considerate of others....

**R8RBOB** · September-25-10, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by Searay215

AMEN brother!!! I am loving it!!! I can now take my girlfriend out for dinner, as she has asthma and could not go do to the smoke. This is what smokers do not realize or care about....is others who for whatever reason can not tolerate smoke.
R8RBOB you are right on the money.... Its not just the smokers health that is affected but also those around them. Be considerate of others....

I know your girl like that feeling of not being choked to death because of some random smoker lighting up cigarette after cigarette. Like I posted earlier, this talk about bars and restaurants losing money because of smoking is bullshit. We have thousands of people in this state unemployed. I doubt that they are breaking their piggy banks just to go to the local pub to play Club Keno prior to the ban. They are broke and no money, not smoking indoors is going to keep people away. These "smokers" simply want things to remain the same which is fine in their world but people do evolve, shit happens and things changed.

**Johnnny5** · September-25-10, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by R8RBOB

Like I posted earlier, this talk about bars and restaurants losing money because of smoking is bullshit.

I have spoken to many bar owners that would flat out disagree with that statement. The ban may not be affecting all bars and restaurants, but the subset of bars that traditionally catered to smokers [[Not Applebees's

) is being affected with out a doubt.

I'm not a smoker, and honestly I'm not even opposed to the smoking ban. It's the hypocritical exceptions [[Detroit Casinos) and the the degree to which they banned smoking that I don't agree with. No smoking on open air patios? No smoking on a golf course?

[[Techncially it's actually illegal now) If the health of employees was actually the true reason behind the ban, then why ban smoking where employees, and non smokers would not even be affected?

**MCP-001** · September-25-10, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by R8RBOB

...The state did not ban smoking. This is not Prohibition when the government said you cannot buy alcohol or possess alcohol. This is simply the right to go into establishment and not be choked to death because of a smelly cigarette.

The state did not ban smoking?

Then what did they tell these private property owners about what can happen on their own property?