The smoking ban - six months later

[Philbo]

I just read in the Detroit News today that some bar owners have reported a 40% drop in thier business since the ban. I'm curious what the drop in business will be during the winter months when smokers decide to stay at home completely other than freeze thier ass off going outside to smoke. This will probably effect new years eve and super bowl parties the most. Perhaps the state should allow seperate heated parlors for smokers. Just a thought.

[Blarf]

The fact that you can smoke inside casinos automatically gives the pro-smoking ban people's argument ZERO credibility.

Sorry but it's true. Ban smoking in the casinos, or else the whole premise of the law and the people who support it are flawed.

[fryar]

In my opinion, debating the merits and demerits of social engineering by the government and citing fascist slogans in reference to incrementally increasing intrusions into individual liberty, again by the government, in this of all contexts is a complete waste of electrons. Pick another battle, guys. Some of the above comments are the best way to get me not to worry about that issue in a hurry.

I smoke. I know I shouldn't. It's pretty hypocritical of me. That said, I probably still will smoke tomorrow. It would be nice if my inevitable jonesing could be accommodated in some way in situations where it's not altogether unreasonable to do so. Like smoking on a deck or something, at least conceivably, might not impact other people's health or enjoyment to an unreasonable degree.

Since we have this thread, I'll bother to quibble with the details. Like maybe it's harsher than it needs to be, since you can't smoke on decks, or maybe I perceive corruption in exempting the casinos. Can't say enough about that last one. But really, it's about gosh darn time, even if it does inconvenience my immaturity. Way overdue.

K, folks, that's all I got for now. It's time for that mile-long walk.

[DetroitPole]

The reference must be lost on you.
You must be very young....or stupid.

Young? Well, for starters, some years ago I got my degree in history. Now, what reference of Hitler to the smoking ban are you referring to? Do tell.
Are you referring to Adolf Hitler's personal vendetta against smoking or his variation of Nazi-fascism in general? I'm curious! Either way, any comparison you may draw from the life of Hitler and 21st century Michigan is stupid and vapid. Sorry sweetheart, a smoking ban doesn't equate a totalitarian dictator's racist perversion of fascism. Does that not sit well?

[marcwigle]

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...

[jt1]

You are dancing around the issue that tobacco is still a legal product.

Why not just come out and say that you want to ban smoking altogether because you know what is better for someone else, than they do?

Alcohol is a legal product but you're not allowed to drink it inside a moving vehicle. You should whine to Lansing about that.

[jt1]

The reference must be lost on you.
You must be very young....or stupid.

If that is the case wouldnt it, inall your infinite wisdom, just be better to explain it to us. Calling someone young...or stupid is a lazy way to support your statment.

[jt1]

I just read in the Detroit News today that some bar owners have reported a 40% drop in thier business since the ban. I'm curious what the drop in business will be during the winter months when smokers decide to stay at home completely other than freeze thier ass off going outside to smoke. This will probably effect new years eve and super bowl parties the most. Perhaps the state should allow seperate heated parlors for smokers. Just a thought.

Are these the same owners reporting a 40% drop in business due to the economy? Given the current economic factors in the region it seems that attributing loss in business to the smoking ban is eithe rstupid or disingenious.

Of all the states [[is it 36?) that have a smoking ban there have been zero that have repeaked it. Yep, it must just kill business THAT much.

[dookie joe]

If the ban is supposedly good for the people, then why didn't they just put it on the ballot and let the people vote on it? Because politicians know what's best for us. Riiiiight.

Giving government more power is almost always a bad idea. If you have a history degree and you haven't realized that yet, then you should ask the college for your money back.

[CLAUDE G]

I went to the bowling alley tonight and it was so much more enjoyable without having to deal with the smell of burning cigaretts.

The ban really needs to be extended to the Casino, its not right that they got an exception.

As far as Hotel rooms, I disagree with the smoking ban there. Like someone pointed out earlier people since the entire hotel is now non-smoking, you now got guests breaking the rules throughout the entire hotel and ruining the non-smoking rooms. Go back to designating rooms as smoking and let the smokers have the smoking rooms, so when I get a non-smoking room, the hotel can guarantee to me its smoke free.

If you think the people are complaining now about the ban, wait till January rolls around and its 15 degrees outside and they are standing outside the enterance to the bar puffing away their cigarett with no jacket on.

Now is a better time than ever to consider quitting!

[R8RBOB]

Are these the same owners reporting a 40% drop in business due to the economy? Given the current economic factors in the region it seems that attributing loss in business to the smoking ban is eithe rstupid or disingenious.

Of all the states [[is it 36?) that have a smoking ban there have been zero that have repeaked it. Yep, it must just kill business THAT much.

Actually, Michigan is the 37th state to ban smoking in bars and restaurants.

I called bullshit on the businesses who claimed that their drop in business was a result of the smoking ban because we have suffered and still is suffering from one of the worst financial downsides in history. You have millions of Americans unemployed including hundreds of thousands here in Michigan wondering when they are going to get their next job or their next dollar. You have thousands displaced due to foreclosure and as a result many have simply left the area. You have casinos preying on the weak because they are desperate to pay their bills. There are many more reasons why people aren't going out to the bars more but I really doubt the inability to smoke is the primary reason. Sure you have some bitchin' about not being able to light up but this will pass.

Two things will happen: either the smokers accept that "no smoking" is here to stay and return to their watering hole or new customers will eventually replace them. It may take a year and under new management but it will happen.

[DC48080]

While some bars may have lost some customers who will not go to a bar if they can't pollute their own bodies as well as the bodies of those who are around them, you now have people who previously avoided smokey bars who now will go out for an enjoyable evening and spend money without going home stinking and having to take a shower before going to bed to wash off the stench of someone else's habit.

[Melocoton]

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?

There's actually a name for the logical fallacy on display here. It's called the "slippery slope fallacy." There's no evidence, based on the smoking bans already in place, that these bans lead to some nefarious government-mandated fitness concentration camps, or whatever.

Obviously the smoking bans aren't really going anywhere. Besides, it is one small way for Michigan to actually join the rest of the world that lives in the 21st century. The casino exemption, of course, shows just how corrupt our politics are.

The question I have, is how widely is it enforced in the city? I know in Corktown and around Wayne State the bars are pretty smoke-free. What about in neighborhood places in less-gentrified areas of town?

[R8RBOB]

There's actually a name for the logical fallacy on display here. It's called the "slippery slope fallacy." There's no evidence, based on the smoking bans already in place, that these bans lead to some nefarious government-mandated fitness concentration camps, or whatever.

Obviously the smoking bans aren't really going anywhere. Besides, it is one small way for Michigan to actually join the rest of the world that lives in the 21st century. The casino exemption, of course, shows just how corrupt our politics are.

The question I have, is how widely is it enforced in the city? I know in Corktown and around Wayne State the bars are pretty smoke-free. What about in neighborhood places in less-gentrified areas of town?

Friend, you won't be able to convince the Master Control Program. He or she is following a script written by a tea bagger stating that the government is trying to take your rights away. I wonder if MCP agreed with Rand Paul when he was claiming that the government had no right to tell privately-owned but public businesses that they HAD to serve Black people.

[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 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.

[MCP-001]

Alcohol is a legal product but you're not allowed to drink it inside a moving vehicle. You should whine to Lansing about that.

Problems with that analogy:

Someone can smoke an entire carton of cigarettes or a case of cigars, and their ability to drive isn't affected.

Someone downing a case of MGD, good luck getting them to drive in a straight line.

[Zacha341]

I used to smoke yet was never a smoke during eating, or during work "smoking pattern" type. So the ban would have effected me little. I know in Windsor they have smoking patios and rooms for their die-hard [[pardon the pun) smokers. Otherwise, if you want to gamble there you'll do so without lighting up.

I just read in the Detroit News today that some bar owners have reported a 40% drop in thier business since the ban. I'm curious what the drop in business will be during the winter months when smokers decide to stay at home completely other than freeze thier ass off going outside to smoke. This will probably effect new years eve and super bowl parties the most. Perhaps the state should allow seperate heated parlors for smokers. Just a thought.

[MCP-001]

There's actually a name for the logical fallacy on display here. It's called the "slippery slope fallacy." There's no evidence, based on the smoking bans already in place, that these bans lead to some nefarious government-mandated fitness concentration camps, or whatever.

Obviously the smoking bans aren't really going anywhere. Besides, it is one small way for Michigan to actually join the rest of the world that lives in the 21st century. The casino exemption, of course, shows just how corrupt our politics are.

The question I have, is how widely is it enforced in the city? I know in Corktown and around Wayne State the bars are pretty smoke-free. What about in neighborhood places in less-gentrified areas of town?

Actually, I gave two examples: speed limits and seat belts.

They were first proposed as guidelines and secondary offenses, which quickly got bumped to laws and primary offenses.

My experience with "enforcement" is spotty. Some bars go on like nothing has changed. Other places have gotten pretty empty after they enforced the ban.

[MCP-001]

Friend, you won't be able to convince the Master Control Program. He or she is following a script written by a tea bagger stating that the government is trying to take your rights away. I wonder if MCP agreed with Rand Paul when he was claiming that the government had no right to tell privately-owned but public businesses that they HAD to serve Black people.

Cute, R8RBOB.

But using that reference, you have officially confirmed that you still live in your mother's basement, and I'll venture to bet that you haven't even kissed a girl yet, either.

My handle is my own choice that has nothing to do with bad sci-fi.

I also don't subscribe to the notion that good government is doing its job when it enforces my will on others.

Most people are perfectly capable of living their own lives without the need for outside interference.

[mjs]

I just read in the Detroit News today that some bar owners have reported a 40% drop in thier business since the ban. I'm curious what the drop in business will be during the winter months when smokers decide to stay at home completely other than freeze thier ass off going outside to smoke. This will probably effect new years eve and super bowl parties the most. Perhaps the state should allow seperate heated parlors for smokers. Just a thought.

You are talking about the article that started this thread. A wanna be lobbying group asked a few of the people they are lobbying for. Really? Have they ever heard of using real numbers from real data from a neutral source? Read the whole article where the State says it hasn't affected the official numbers they track. Any decrease in the sales of the product thats driving up my "fair share" of universal health care?

I just have a serious problem with the government telling me what I can and can't do in my own home. Hiding that behind the guise of "protecting children" or "public health" is very suspicious to me. Since when did this or any government give a rats ass about anything but control of its citizens, maintaining the status quo and increasing the GDP?

Since this bill apparently. One, this is a change in the status quo thus the controversy. Two, the wanna be lobbying group claims it has lowered the state's GDP and tax revenue. Three, the stats on second hand smoke is fact, not some I asked a bunch of bar owners poll. Smoking does affect health. Four, protecting public health and welfare is the primary function of state governments. Five, what law are you refering to that said you can't smoke in your home?

I agree, government shouldn't exist to prop up businesses. Even if it were true that business is being lost, I just don't feel sad if fewer people are blowing out their livers or corroding their lungs and arteries with toxins. I also don't really feel a loss if the state makes less from taking advantage of poor people looking to get lucky.

And what good is a legal product, if the state restricts where you can use it?

Same as jacking off if the state restricts where you can do it.
Nobody is stopping you from spending your whole day at home surrounded by spuge and toxic clouds. Just don't do it where the rest of us are trying to enjoy ourselves.

[DC48080]

Just because cigarettes are legal doesn't mean that they are exempt from regulation. A smoker's right to smoke does not trump another person's right to breathe smoke free air. A product being legal does not exempt it from regulation.

My automobile is legal. But that does not mean that I can drive it anywhere I want or in any manner that I want. If I am operating it in a way that endagers the well-being of others I will be dealt with by the authorities.

My firearms are legal. That does not mean that I can recklessly discharge them without consequence. I cannot legally shoot them into the air within city limits because doing so endangers the well-being of others.

Alcohol is legal. But I cannot legally walk down the street drinking an open container of alcohol.

Cigarettes are legal but that does not mean that you are free to smoke them in a bar and endanger other people's well-being.

[Searay215]

The fact that you can smoke inside casinos automatically gives the pro-smoking ban people's argument ZERO credibility.

Sorry but it's true. Ban smoking in the casinos, or else the whole premise of the law and the people who support it are flawed.

On this one you have to blame the Democrats who wanted and got the exemption for the casino's. As far as I am concerned it should be banned there as well. If the intention was to have a healthy work enviorment then it should be for all or non.

And the businesses that claim are loosing money...well it might be sour grapes and there smoking customers are speaking up, so they say that in hopes of changing things. I think its here to stay...I say get used to it.

My Asthmatic girlfriend loves it, because she can now go so many places that were out of bounds because of her condition.

[R8RBOB]

Cute, R8RBOB.

But using that reference, you have officially confirmed that you still live in your mother's basement, and I'll venture to bet that you haven't even kissed a girl yet, either.

My handle is my own choice that has nothing to do with bad sci-fi.

I also don't subscribe to the notion that good government is doing its job when it enforces my will on others.

Most people are perfectly capable of living their own lives without the need for outside interference.

Are you dissing me MCP? You are getting snarky with your comments and it isn't necessary. However, you better be careful otherwise I will be forced to sic Tron on you and he will have to throw his disc into your core again.

C'mon MCP, you know if I could use Tron references then I have to be pass the age of 35. Give me some credit here. Based on your previous comments, I conclude that you are a dude, over the age of 30 and a smoker. I suspect you are a smoker because 15 years ago, I was in a restaurant in Lathrup Village and engaged in a conversation with a fellow smoker about smoker rights. I was spitting out the same nonsense that you defended over and over. That smoking is legal, that smokers have a right to smoke wherever they please, to hell with non-smokers, etc...

We live in a nation of laws. We understand that laws CAN be changed if the people demand it. In regards to the smoking ban, you want to give the state government too much credit. Sure they voted to enact the ban, but in order to move forward with this, they had to hear from their constituents about such a ban. If the constituents wasn't for it then it would not happened. People like yourself act like the legislature woke up one day in 2010 and decided "hey we need a smoking ban" and poof we have a ban. This ban was discussed for YEARS, not months and certainly not days. Years of talking about banning smoking in public places and in 2010 it happened. It is not the ban I would have wanted because we still have smoking in casinos but like health care, you take what you can get.

[Lowell]

It is highly inaccurate to characterize the Democrats as wanting the exemption for the casinos. There were a handful of Detroit Democrats, who shamefully have allowed the casinos to put them in their pocket, who threatened to join the big majority of Republicans and sink the entire ban if their patrons the casinos did not get their way.

Politics is the art of the possible and the rest of the Democrats reluctantly allowed the exemption rather than have no ban at all. IMO, that was the correct course. Get the ban, start saving lives of the vast majority of the workforce and public then go after the casinos another time.

While I am happy for Ontario getting their ban earlier than Michigan's, one of the unfortunate consequences was the banning smoking at their casino, along with the federal treaty exemption for Native American casinos, gave the Detroit big 3 [casinos] a cry-baby to lean on. This is ridiculous as current law allows no competition against them, so they couldn't play the "we'll be forced to shut down and move" card knowing full well that their license would be seized in a heartbeat. Instead they called in their cards from local representatives.

It would have been better if this law would have come about by referendum vote which would have passed overwhelmingly and included all workplaces and avoided the leveraging of a few politicians. Maybe a referendum will be needed to achieve this and cement this law firmly. Where do I sign up?

[R8RBOB]

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.