Cigarette laws in Detroit/Michigan

[Laughsmith]

Even though I am a non-smoker I get a chuckle out of the intolerance and virulence of the anti-smoking crowd. They rant, rave and act as though they have the moral high ground.

Reality check: The average lifespan of a male in the US, as of 2010, is 75.6 years. It is 80.8 years for the ladies. Cigarettes or no, we are all going to die eventually. Deal with it, move on.

The anti-smoking crowd has no right or authority to dictate what others should and should not do. They can, however, control their own actions. If one does not care for the smell of smoke -- do not frequent establishments which allow it. Very simple. Live and let live.

I am waiting for the day when other "bad for you" things such as junk / fast food [[burgers, fries, chips, Twinkies, chocolate) and trans fats are banned. Many of the same folk who were thrilled by the smoking ban will likely be up in arms over someone telling them what they can and cannot eat. That day is not far off.

Pick and choose your arguments carefully, folks. Our personal liberties are in jeopardy and it is only a matter of time until one of your own guilty pleasures is in the crosshairs.

[Hypestyles]

...are there any tobacco-processing/cigarette factories in Michigan?

[R8RBOB]

Even though I am a non-smoker I get a chuckle out of the intolerance and virulence of the anti-smoking crowd. They rant, rave and act as though they have the moral high ground.

Reality check: The average lifespan of a male in the US, as of 2010, is 75.6 years. It is 80.8 years for the ladies. Cigarettes or no, we are all going to die eventually. Deal with it, move on.

The anti-smoking crowd has no right or authority to dictate what others should and should not do. They can, however, control their own actions. If one does not care for the smell of smoke -- do not frequent establishments which allow it. Very simple. Live and let live.

I am waiting for the day when other "bad for you" things such as junk / fast food [[burgers, fries, chips, Twinkies, chocolate) and trans fats are banned. Many of the same folk who were thrilled by the smoking ban will likely be up in arms over someone telling them what they can and cannot eat. That day is not far off.

Pick and choose your arguments carefully, folks. Our personal liberties are in jeopardy and it is only a matter of time until one of your own guilty pleasures is in the crosshairs.

Dude, I had to laugh at your rant. Now, don't get me wrong, your opinion here is welcomed just like mines so you can type out what you like. I ask that you know your facts before you post.

First off, as a ex-smoker, non-smoker, anti-smoker I have never told anyone that they could not smoke. It is not in my power to dictate who can smoke and who cannot. That is not my place so for you to say "The anti-smoking crowd has no right or authority to dictate what others should and should not do" is a fail. If you want to talk about rights then it is my right not to breath in the smoke of a smoker. So what do we do? You say tomato, I say to-ma-to. Who's right? We both are but there can only be one way so we go to the law. The state of Michigan debated the bill, heard from the people, voted and the governor signed the bill into law to ban smoking because the majority of the people wanted it. I call that democracy but you want to call it taking away your liberties...too bad. You can't have it both way.

[Wingnatic]

But us smokers do have a right to voice our opinions about ''sin taxes'' that only apply to smokers . I don't drink , can't stand to be around drunks , they are scary and deadly on the roads , a danger to themselves and to me , so tax alcohol equally .

[Ray1936]

"Reality check: The average lifespan of a male in the US, as of 2010, is 75.6 years."

Don't say that shit. I'm 74.2. Damn.

[jbd441]

Dude, I had to laugh at your rant. Now, don't get me wrong, your opinion here is welcomed just like mines so you can type out what you like. I ask that you know your facts before you post.

First off, as a ex-smoker, non-smoker, anti-smoker I have never told anyone that they could not smoke. It is not in my power to dictate who can smoke and who cannot. That is not my place so for you to say "The anti-smoking crowd has no right or authority to dictate what others should and should not do" is a fail. If you want to talk about rights then it is my right not to breath in the smoke of a smoker. So what do we do? You say tomato, I say to-ma-to. Who's right? We both are but there can only be one way so we go to the law. The state of Michigan debated the bill, heard from the people, voted and the governor signed the bill into law to ban smoking because the majority of the people wanted it. I call that democracy but you want to call it taking away your liberties...too bad. You can't have it both way.

Spoken like a true ex-smoker. It's funny how some non-smokers talk more about "rights" of smokers than ex-smokers. Us ex's should be more sympathic right? Actually the worse kind of smoker is an ex-smoker. All of a sudden you can't handle the smell of cigarettes even walking past a smoker outdoors. When your sense of smell comes back, all smells intensify like perfume, food, exhaust. At least that's the way it's been for me. But I refuse to complain.
A Smoking ban took effect where I live now a few years before Michigan's so I've heard most of what the posters on this thread are saying years ago. I was a smoker when the ban became law and I had a few months to get ready for it. Prior to that I had quit smoking in restaurants, in my home and car and when visiting other peoples homes even when I was told it was ok.
I agree with you, you can't tell anyone they can't smoke. If the ban sticks, after awhile the bars will fill up again and this will become a part of everyday life.

[Laughsmith]

I respect your opinion, R8R. I disagree with it completely, but I respect it.

Creating a law to ban an activity or substance which has been legal for many lifetimes is ineffectual as well as a colossal waste of time and resources. [[Please see: PROHIBITION) The reasonable solution would be for those who do not care for smoking to avoid the places which choose to allow it. Unfortunately, personal responsibility and tolerance appear to be alien concepts of late.

This said, I absolutely loathe the smell of smoke. I hate walking out of a bar and smelling like an ashtray -- but I'll be damned if I will ever infringe upon someone else's right to enjoy a cigarette, pipe or cigar. I can always find a dozen other smoke-free environments if I choose to avoid smoke. This is what reasonable, thoughtful, intelligent people do.

[Laughsmith]

Wow. Now I want to go to the bar and light up. Maybe I can order a pack of clove ciggies from India, as they are now no longer allowed to be sold here -- and they really drive people crazy, then wait for a citation. Yes, there is an effective use of our law enforcement officials...

[R8RBOB]

I respect your opinion, R8R. I disagree with it completely, but I respect it.

Creating a law to ban an activity or substance which has been legal for many lifetimes is ineffectual as well as a colossal waste of time and resources. [[Please see: PROHIBITION) The reasonable solution would be for those who do not care for smoking to avoid the places which choose to allow it. Unfortunately, personal responsibility and tolerance appear to be alien concepts of late.

This said, I absolutely loathe the smell of smoke. I hate walking out of a bar and smelling like an ashtray -- but I'll be damned if I will ever infringe upon someone else's right to enjoy a cigarette, pipe or cigar. I can always find a dozen other smoke-free environments if I choose to avoid smoke. This is what reasonable, thoughtful, intelligent people do.

Laugh,

No one is saying you can't smoke a cigarette. Just that you can't smoke in public enclosed spaces. As I stated in past postings, a smoker can get up from his or her seat walk toward the door, exit out of the door, pull out a cigarette and smoke it. I will not stop a smoker from "what they feel is right, of course." [[feeling Obi-Wan here) If they want to smoke in their car, their home, their closet, behind their garage, that's fine by me. However, when I am at the bar and I have a smoker who has his or her cigarette in the ashtray burning away and the smoke is drifting towards me, I have some issues with that. I am not alone in this.

You mention Prohibition. Prohibition was a money thing. The politicians back in the Roaring 20's didn't give a damn about people abstaining from alcohol. It was about a select group getting rich off the sale of bootleg alcohol.[[think Joe Kennedy) This is not Prohibition, the state has not banned smoking so you can't use that as a comparison. This is simply a new generation that don't look at smoking as a sexy thing like back the good ole' days.

[george_babbage]

Why can't they be fucking Libertarians? Why do you have to get all political here?!

Free your mind, man.

I prefer to free my lungs, man.

[wolverine]

I could never tell a person to "not smoke" either. It actually doesn't bother me that much. Certainly I'm sure they could point out flaws in me, so why bother. My opinion is the ban is just nice with clean air in bars and restaurants. I enjoy it for my own selfish reasons.

[Gannon]

Hey, no name-calling.

LOL, no that was an emphasis on the chosen knee-jerk response.


I'm all FOR Libertarians begetting more Libertarians...so they'd BETTER be fucking.


Sorry for the inadequacies of my language.

Cheers

[Gannon]

"Reality check: The average lifespan of a male in the US, as of 2010, is 75.6 years."

Don't say that shit. I'm 74.2. Damn.

No worries, Ray. You're WAY above average.

[george_babbage]

Creating a law to ban an activity or substance which has been legal for many lifetimes is ineffectual as well as a colossal waste of time and resources. [[Please see: PROHIBITION)

Seems effectual to me. In the seven-plus months since the law went into effect, I haven't encountered a bar or restaurant that allows smoking. Oh, and smoking is still legal [[unlike prohibition), you just have to take your entitled ass outside to partake.

The reasonable solution would be for those who do not care for smoking to avoid the places which choose to allow it. Unfortunately, personal responsibility and tolerance appear to be alien concepts of late.

The reasonable solution went into effect May 1 [[the only unreasonable aspect is that it didn't include the casinos). Air is the most basic element of life -- we need a dozen or so respirations per minute of 21sh percent oxygen and 79ish percent nitrogen. How does filling the air with smoke for nonsmokers to breathe fit into the concept of personal responsibility?

This said, I absolutely loathe the smell of smoke. I hate walking out of a bar and smelling like an ashtray -- but I'll be damned if I will ever infringe upon someone else's right to enjoy a cigarette, pipe or cigar. I can always find a dozen other smoke-free environments if I choose to avoid smoke. This is what reasonable, thoughtful, intelligent people do.

Luckily you don't have to infringe -- the state has done it for you. And now selfish smokers don't get to infringe on our shared air. That sounds reasonable, thoughtful and intelligent to me.

[Laughsmith]

Not yet. They have not tried to stop people from smoking outside -- yet. That is unless you happen to live in Burbank, California where you may not smoke within twenty feet of any building, or any public place for that matter.

And this timely bit just in from Fox 2 News:

Officials are considering a smoking ban in Detroit public housing. Now, of course, some wag will undoutedly retort "well, our money is helping to pay for these places, people shouldn't be allowed to smoke in public housing" but that logic would be wrong minded and predictably shortsighted. Again, where does the line get drawn? That is a person's private home. This is just another example of crafting incremental laws with the ultimate goal of banning the activity entirely.

Several comments in this thread perfectly illustrate the intolerance of which I spoke. Take a look at the thermometer this evening. Think it's fair and reasonable to force the 47 million US smokers outside into freezing or inclement weather? Oh wait, of course some do, because they don't like smoke. And they say that smokers are inconsiderate...

[hogz]

I don't smoke and never have.

BUT any reasonably perceptive person can look at this thread, and notice many of the anti-smoking [[or pro-ban posters) posters are driven by emotion. I don't know where that comes from. It may be a superiority thing... a way for non-smokers to distinguish themselves from smokers and label themselves somehow better; I understand that impulse. Smoking is not wise so, sure, non-smokers like myself can claim to be more enlightened. But, that seems so petty and NOT the issue.

R8RBOB, you admit you smoked for 17 years or something, and your current level of disgust at smokers is almost comical. Listen, I have never smoked, but I know it doesn't smell THAT bad. Perhaps, it is bothersome if you had a traumatic experience you associate with smoking, or if you have allergies [[I hadn't considered that).

But come on! One poster here even expressed malicious glee at these 'investigative journalists' getting some blue collar bar in trouble for not enforcing the ban. What is happening to free enterprise in this country. I had no idea people had such extreme positions.

I prefer to NOT be around smoking, but of course it is a win-win to allow businesses to pay extra for a smoking permit. Unless, you have some reactionary urge/superiority complex that is a no-brainer.

Also, why do people keep saying "the people spoke" or "we arrived at this after much public debate" or "it would have passed if we could vote on it" etc.

I, for one, want as much democracy as possible. Why not allow the people to vote?

And lastly, does anyone know ANYONE who has died of 2nd hand smoke? hmmm

[R8RBOB]

I don't smoke and never have.

BUT any reasonably perceptive person can look at this thread, and notice many of the anti-smoking [[or pro-ban posters) posters are driven by emotion. I don't know where that comes from. It may be a superiority thing... a way for non-smokers to distinguish themselves from smokers and label themselves somehow better; I understand that impulse. Smoking is not wise so, sure, non-smokers like myself can claim to be more enlightened. But, that seems so petty and NOT the issue.

R8RBOB, you admit you smoked for 17 years or something, and your current level of disgust at smokers is almost comical. Listen, I have never smoked, but I know it doesn't smell THAT bad. Perhaps, it is bothersome if you had a traumatic experience you associate with smoking, or if you have allergies [[I hadn't considered that).

But come on! One poster here even expressed malicious glee at these 'investigative journalists' getting some blue collar bar in trouble for not enforcing the ban. What is happening to free enterprise in this country. I had no idea people had such extreme positions.

I prefer to NOT be around smoking, but of course it is a win-win to allow businesses to pay extra for a smoking permit. Unless, you have some reactionary urge/superiority complex that is a no-brainer.

Also, why do people keep saying "the people spoke" or "we arrived at this after much public debate" or "it would have passed if we could vote on it" etc.

I, for one, want as much democracy as possible. Why not allow the people to vote?

And lastly, does anyone know ANYONE who has died of 2nd hand smoke? hmmm

You know what I find comical? This posting. Thank you for the laugh, I appreciate being called out. At least someone is reading.

While I was reading your post, I caught this piece:

I prefer to NOT be around smoking, but of course it is a win-win to allow businesses to pay extra for a smoking permit.

and I had to ask myself what is the best way to question this. I got it. Let's say you are an average joe and there is a well where you would go and get water. The water is free and for years it was never a problem. One day, a new owner comes around and says that the well is off-limits and the days of getting free water is over. Time passes and the owner says to people like the guy getting the free water that if he is willing to pay a price he can resume to get the water that he previously got for free. I suppose you never heard of principle? If I'm a bar owner and I would have to pay for a permit to allow smoking, I would be against it on principle. I didn't have to pay to do this and now you want to shake me down to fill the state coffers. Forget it. How about we work to repeal the law and I can resume to allow smokers to smoke, for free. Solves my problem, right?

As for your comment about allowing the people to vote well I have to ask, where were you? You are aware that the people voted for the guys that create our laws, so yes they did vote. It is called representation. This is why we have this system. They speak....for us. Again, people like you want to call out the system because it is overreaching. So wrong.

[lincoln8740]

I suppose you never heard of principle? If I'm a bar owner and I would have to pay for a permit to allow smoking, I would be against it on principle.

Now that is fantastically funny!!! I am going to be against getting a smoking permit and making more money at my bar on principle? Maybe you have never run a business but people run them to make MONEY. You should take a poll of bar owners in the area about the whole smoking permit issue and see what they say.

Bar A-has a smoking permit

next door

Bar B-does not have a smoking permit

Which one will have more business?

The above example is why we don't allow bars to voluntarily go smoke-free--There will be a pansy and two anti-smoking Nazis at bar B "saying how come everyone is at Bar A?"

It is more prevalent in California where you can smoke on a patio/deck at the bar [[oh my god secondhand smoke outside for shame!). The patio is rocking and packed with people and the inside is pretty tame. Why? Because people that smoke tend to drink more than people that don't smoke thus you have a packed patio and the inside of a bar with DB"s looking out and saying [[insert lisp) "I would never go out there just way too smoky, the smell of disinfectant and two day old puke is much better in here".

So now the law makes us all the DB"s on the inside of the bar in California.

[R8RBOB]

Now that is fantastically funny!!! I am going to be against getting a smoking permit and making more money at my bar on principle? Maybe you have never run a business but people run them to make MONEY. You should take a poll of bar owners in the area about the whole smoking permit issue and see what they say.

Bar A-has a smoking permit

next door

Bar B-does not have a smoking permit

Which one will have more business?

The above example is why we don't allow bars to voluntarily go smoke-free--There will be a pansy and two anti-smoking Nazis at bar B "saying how come everyone is at Bar A?"

It is more prevalent in California where you can smoke on a patio/deck at the bar [[oh my god secondhand smoke outside for shame!). The patio is rocking and packed with people and the inside is pretty tame. Why? Because people that smoke tend to drink more than people that don't smoke thus you have a packed patio and the inside of a bar with DB"s looking out and saying [[insert lisp) "I would never go out there just way too smoky, the smell of disinfectant and two day old puke is much better in here".

So now the law makes us all the DB"s on the inside of the bar in California.

You silly Republican. How old are you? Perhaps you should stare very hard at the words. Let me help you....."If I'm a bar owner and I would have to pay for a permit to allow smoking, I would be against it on principle. I didn't have to pay to do this and now you want to shake me down to fill the state coffers. Forget it. How about we work to repeal the law and I can resume to allow smokers to smoke, for free. Solves my problem, right?" Read before you comment.

[lincoln8740]

You silly Republican. How old are you? Perhaps you should stare very hard at the words. Let me help you....."If I'm a bar owner and I would have to pay for a permit to allow smoking, I would be against it on principle. I didn't have to pay to do this and now you want to shake me down to fill the state coffers. Forget it. How about we work to repeal the law and I can resume to allow smokers to smoke, for free. Solves my problem, right?" Read before you comment.

I am staring at the words FORGET IT which means you wouldn't pay the extra fee which is the whole point of my post. But of course the hypothetical is not based in reality because you have never owned your own business nor would you have the means necessary to operate one.

[p1acebo]

Man, you people and your "principles." I have been reading this thread for awhile and a variety of points have been made. What it comes down to for me? I don't smoke and I don't like smelling like smoke. The majority of people in the state don't smoke and I really don't care about smokers rights in public [[and apparently the majority of the state doesn't either... who cares about the "principles" if that is what the reality is).

So, tough luck for the smokers. Life isn't fair.

[R8RBOB]

I am staring at the words FORGET IT which means you wouldn't pay the extra fee which is the whole point of my post. But of course the hypothetical is not based in reality because you have never owned your own business nor would you have the means necessary to operate one.

linc, you have been nipping at me for the longest. You must love to pick my brain. I will bite. Did I touch a nerve? You sound a bit snarky there fellow.

[jbd441]

[quote=hogz;205067]I don't smoke and never have.


R8RBOB, you admit you smoked for 17 years or something, and your current level of disgust at smokers is almost comical. Listen, I have never smoked, but I know it doesn't smell THAT bad. Perhaps, it is bothersome if you had a traumatic experience you associate with smoking, or if you have allergies [[I hadn't considered that).

See my point exactly. From my experience, ex-smokers for some reason have more of a problem with second hand smoke than some non-smokers do. I don't outwardly express my disgust at smokers because I'm an EX-SMOKER. And due to the fact that nicotene is addictive, it is incredibly hard to quit smoking for some more than others. I've seen people buying cigarettes for themselves while hauling around an portable oxygen tank.
So of course any kind of smoking ban is going to be an emotional issue. There are compromises and it's up to us to explore them.

[george_babbage]

Several comments in this thread perfectly illustrate the intolerance of which I spoke. Take a look at the thermometer this evening. Think it's fair and reasonable to force the 47 million US smokers outside into freezing or inclement weather? Oh wait, of course some do, because they don't like smoke. And they say that smokers are inconsiderate...

So you prefer smokers' intolerance to non-smokers'?

Let me ask the smokers this: The very first time you took a drag on a cigarette, did you cough or hack in any way? I'm guessing for most people the answer is yes ... because smoking is not normal. It's bad for the lungs, thus the cough and/or hack. If you're sitting around a campfire and the wind changes direction, most people move out of the way of the smoke. Non smokers, which is 80 percent of us, don't want smoke in our air. We need our air to, ya know, live.

And quit being so dramatic -- going outside for five minutes in the winter is no hardship.

I, for one, want as much democracy as possible. Why not allow the people to vote?

Really?! Are you serious?! Go back and read Lowell's post at the top of the second page.

And lastly, does anyone know ANYONE who has died of 2nd hand smoke? hmmm

Globally, second-hand smoke kills 600,000 people each year [[one percent of all deaths).
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...ear_study.html

[R8RBOB]

So you prefer smokers' intolerance to non-smokers'?

Let me ask the smokers this: The very first time you took a drag on a cigarette, did you cough or hack in any way? I'm guessing for most people the answer is yes ... because smoking is not normal. It's bad for the lungs, thus the cough and/or hack. If you're sitting around a campfire and the wind changes direction, most people move out of the way of the smoke. Non smokers, which is 80 percent of us, don't want smoke in our air. We need our air to, ya know, live.

And quit being so dramatic -- going outside for five minutes in the winter is no hardship.



Really?! Are you serious?! Go back and read Lowell's post at the top of the second page.




Globally, second-hand smoke kills 600,000 people each year [[one percent of all deaths).
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...ear_study.html

g_b, thanks for the remind of Lowell's post. I wished it was put on the ballot. We all know the ban would have won by a landslide and I could breathe at MGM because there would be no exemption for the casinos.

@jbd441 Don't believe the hype. In no way have I said that I am disgusted by smokers. [[Posers here just want to mix in a bit of hyperbole to make their over the top comments.) I have never said that, however, I do not care for the smoke and if a smoker was to come in my house or got in my car they know that no smoking means no smoking.