A year later, Michigan's smoking ban has mixed impact

[GUSHI]

well I had no problem smoking in the bars and
I wasn't the only one

You're dreaming

[ferntruth]

well I had no problem smoking in the bars and
I wasn't the only one

Yet you are still in the minority on this issue. Face it, there are more of us non-smokers, and those of you that smoke are helping lessen your numbers.

It's not that big a deal - walk your lazy ass outside and smoke until your lungs turn to ash for all I care - just not indoors and not around those of us who choose not to share in your nasty habit.

Yes, I hear there are bars that ignore the law and I've witnessed a couple times now where someone tried to light up at the bar. The crowd took care of that pretty quickly. Maybe I hang out at a better class of club than some of you.

It's been my experience that the vast majority of bar patrons [[and employees) are ok with this law. There just seems to be a dedicated group of cry-babies who can't seem to figure out how to satisfy their oral fixation without exposing everyone around them to second hand smoke.

[GUSHI]

why would i walk outside if I don't have to, all I stated was that people were smoking in bars in nyc, so who you calling lazy, I guess I know the right people , because in life it who you know.

Yet you are still in the minority on this issue. Face it, there are more of us non-smokers, and those of you that smoke are helping lessen your numbers.

It's not that big a deal - walk your lazy ass outside and smoke until your lungs turn to ash for all I care - just not indoors and not around those of us who choose not to share in your nasty habit.

Yes, I hear there are bars that ignore the law and I've witnessed a couple times now where someone tried to light up at the bar. The crowd took care of that pretty quickly. Maybe I hang out at a better class of club than some of you.

It's been my experience that the vast majority of bar patrons [[and employees) are ok with this law. There just seems to be a dedicated group of cry-babies who can't seem to figure out how to satisfy their oral fixation without exposing everyone around them to second hand smoke.

[Detroitnerd]

Yes, I hear there are bars that ignore the law and I've witnessed a couple times now where someone tried to light up at the bar. The crowd took care of that pretty quickly. Maybe I hang out at a better class of club than some of you.

Oh, yeah, strength in numbers. Sorry, generally the more people you have who smoke in a place, the more likely it is to allow smoking. And that's just the way it is. Stay away from shitty bars and you'll be fine.

[ResurgetCineribus]

Sigh!!! Frankly don't care about the smoking ban. My husband and I smoke and must admit we just do not go out anymore. We do lots more home entertainment and lots more establishments do home delivery. Really can't stand being much around smug "I am perfect sorts" There are plenty of bars around that allow smoking just really can't be bothered to waste money anywhere anymore.

...

Just being crabby so please ignore. Smokers are nice people too. Just won't be where we are vilified.



Who needs bars?

So you are too old to adjust to a changing social norm. Good riddance.

Smokers are not villified because they are not perfect like non-smokers. They aren't villified at all. There is nothing morally wrong about smoking. Just do it in a way that only affects you. Thankfully the law is starting to make you do this.

[hhockey]

We frequent several bars twice a week. Since the ban it has been a pleasure not having to smell the smoke, or go home smelling like a tobacco farm. I smoked for thirty years before quitting and i never realized how bad i must have smelled to other people and how my house smelled. The bars we go to actually have increased in business and one in particular, we can hardly get into due to overcrowding.That said i would have no problem allowing a separate room with a door for smokers or allowing them to smoke on a patio.

[maxx]

The smoking bans are unconstitutional, unfortunately no group stands up for the rights of smokers. If the government can tell you that you can't smoke in your PRIVATELY owned business, what to stop them from saying you can't drink, or eat a cheeseburger? Both of those things are also detrimental to the public health.
If I buy a piece of land, and open a restaurant, WHY shouldn't I be allowed to make whatever rules I want? Any reasonable person will agree with me, smoker or not.

Because the public has a right to breathe clean air in your establishment. And I'd like to see you compare the health danger of one hamburger or one shot of whiskey with an equal quantity of cigarettes figured either by price or weight. If you want to argue about the quality of our air in general, take it up with the other polluters. A cigarette is just a small smokestack.

http://www.quitsmokingsupport.com/whatsinit.htm

Cigarette smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, including 43 known cancer-causing [[carcinogenic) compounds and 400 other toxins. These include nicotine, tar, and carbon monoxide, as well as formaldehyde, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, arsenic, and DDT. ..

[Pam]

tightasses

smug "I am perfect sorts"

Not wanting to get cancer or emphysema is sensible, it doesn't make you a smug, tightass. Kick the habit, you know it's the right thing to do.

[1KielsonDrive]

We frequent several bars twice a week. Since the ban it has been a pleasure not having to smell the smoke, or go home smelling like a tobacco farm. I smoked for thirty years before quitting and i never realized how bad i must have smelled to other people and how my house smelled. The bars we go to actually have increased in business and one in particular, we can hardly get into due to overcrowding.That said i would have no problem allowing a separate room with a door for smokers or allowing them to smoke on a patio.

Ditto. I've often thought the same things.

[1KielsonDrive]

Oh, yeah, strength in numbers. Sorry, generally the more people you have who smoke in a place, the more likely it is to allow smoking. And that's just the way it is. Stay away from shitty bars and you'll be fine.

Sometimes the shitty bars are the most fun bars. Unfortunately for me and my dive barring, I can't handle the smoke as much or as often as I used to. And I still light up once in a while. I love the non-smoking law [[chronic bronchitis) but oft times regret it. Having said that, Nerd, let's have smoke and a Beam. I would've suggested a better bourbon but I don't want to insult your lowbrow sensibilities. Nor mine, for that matter.

[1KielsonDrive]

At a lot of the bars I've been at lately, there is smoking. It's just when you tightasses aren't there. So, in that respect, the law is a failure.

How can you tell who tightasses are? Are able to identilfy a tightass when they walk through the door? When they depart, do they leave a tightass trail? Do you know a tightass when they report the joint? Funny, I've known a lot of tightasses, but they weren't all smokers, non-smokers, drinkers or non-drinkers.

[Keith]

I personally love the ban. It means that I can go to a bar, breathe clean air, enjoy a few drinks and perhaps some music, and not go home smelling like a dirty ashtray. I know a lot of working musicians that also really appreciate the ban. One could argue that perhaps it should be a free market thing and non-smokers can simply go to smoke free establishments.

This sounds plausible on the surface until you look at it from a work environment perspective. A factory would be shut down by OSHA if the level of carcinogens in the air were comparable to that of a crowded smoky bar. Just as employers are liable for employee safety, In other types of work settings, they should not be exempt from the responsibility and hence the liability in this case. The liability would far more than outweigh the money lost by smokers choosing to stay home.

Re: infringing on the rights of smokers. They should have plastic bubble helmets that seal in the smoke so only the smoker has to be exposed to it. If that were the case I would buy the individual rights argument. I don't think I have the right to go and sprinkle the food of my fellow diner with carcinogenic chemicals or e coli just because I feel like it.

Just a few thoughts. I haven't posted here in a few years.

Cheers

[Goose]

This sounds plausible on the surface until you look at it from a work environment perspective. A factory would be shut down by OSHA if the level of carcinogens in the air were comparable to that of a crowded smoky bar. Just as employers are liable for employee safety, In other types of work settings, they should not be exempt from the responsibility and hence the liability in this case. The liability would far more than outweigh the money lost by smokers choosing to stay home.

Re: infringing on the rights of smokers. They should have plastic bubble helmets that seal in the smoke so only the smoker has to be exposed to it. If that were the case I would buy the individual rights argument. I don't think I have the right to go and sprinkle the food of my fellow diner with carcinogenic chemicals or e coli just because I feel like it.

Just a few thoughts. I haven't posted here in a few years.

Cheers

your analogy of smoking to carcinogens and sprinkling food with e-coli shows the average low level of logical thinking by supporters of the ban

if an establishment has high levels of asbestos and you and everyone else knew this, would you go in? no, and this establishment would either close or be forced by the market to clean up those carcinogens...

if you food was sprinkled with e-coli and you knew that it was, would you eat it - no

the difference between your examples and smoking is that when there was smoking allowed, you knew it, it wasn't hidden from you, nothing was snuck on you, you chose or not chose to frequent a place that it was known that there would be smoke

you weren't duped into thinking the place was smoke free, you weren't forced to go there

as for sprinking ecoli on food, or food health standards, that is because when you order food, you don't expect or know its on there... you could eat an ecoli infested burger and never be aware til later.... the food safety laws are to protect you from what you can't control and what you don't know....

unlike smoking, where you know/knew prior that places allowed smoking....

i respect the people that just say the law is good just because the like it and they don't smoke, at least they are being honest and not trying to equate this to some other great evil

although these people are wrong, at least they aren't hiding behind false logic.....

[milesdriven]

I work all over the Midwest, and both MI and WI have banned smoking in hotel guest rooms. Tomorrow I'm working in Wisconsin, and I booked a hotel in Illinois. Wednesday I'll be in Grand Rapids, but I'm spending the night in Indiana. Michigan has lost about $2,000 in hotel revenue to Indiana from me alone in the past year, and I spent $1,000 less on going to the bars in the state as well [[This will be changing as I have found establishments that cater to my leisure activity in spite of this draconian legislation.)

[Django]

Id be pretty pissed off if the man told me I cant smoke in my own bar. If you non smokers are so damn important that you need the government to protect you you should stop going to bars that allow smoking or open up your own no smoking establishment. At this point Im a conservative and want the government out of my business.

Ive asked several bars about business since the ban and they mostly say business is down, but hey, you non smokers just have to push your laws up everyones asses instead of either dealing with it or opening up your own establishment with your own rules.

Its infringement plain and simple. I hate big government.

[MSUguy]

Id be pretty pissed off if the man told me I cant smoke in my own bar. If you non smokers are so damn important that you need the government to protect you you should stop going to bars that allow smoking or open up your own no smoking establishment. At this point Im a conservative and want the government out of my business.

Ive asked several bars about business since the ban and they mostly say business is down, but hey, you non smokers just have to push your laws up everyones asses instead of either dealing with it or opening up your own establishment with your own rules.

Its infringement plain and simple. I hate big government.

Yeah let's get government out the way who let's completely shut down these oppressive health department telling people how to run their business

[Mikeg]

Yeah let's get government out the way who let's completely shut down these oppressive health department telling people how to run their business

I'm a non-smoker, but if a behavior is legal and the legislature bans it for health reasons, I strongly believe the legislature is stepping beyond their authority when they make a prohibition on that activity while exempting certain private businesses. This is corruption at the highest levels of government in the sense that while using the powers we've ceded to them, the legislature has infringed on private rights of selective groups under the "fig leaf" of protecting the public health. Since they did not have the votes to make the law apply equally and yet they went ahead anyway, what's to stop them in the future from enacting other selective bans on legal activity on private property in the name of potential health or safety concerns?

For example, what's to stop the legislature from enacting a law prohibiting the wearing of perfume and cologne in any privately-owned, indoor or outdoor public place - except for casinos or some other well-heeled lobbying group - and authorizing the local health department to "tell people how to run their business"?

Everybody wants to ignore the legislature's overstepping the bounds of their authority and instead just focus on how much nicer certain places smell. Well, think it stinks that Big Brother has shown us how easily they can take away the rights of selective groups under the guise of protecting public health.. If it is truly a health issue, they must either ban the product or make an across-the-board prohibition of its use in public spaces.

[Trumpeteer]

I have relatives who came to visit us last year and wanted to stay in a nearby hotel. Both are non-stop smokers but are courteous to those who aren't such as my wife and I. When I checked on the room reservation I made for them and was told it was a non-smoking room, I changed it to a smoking room so they could enjoy that habit in some degree of comfort. Talk about a shock when we met them for dinner after they checked in and they told us they had changed to a non-smoking room because they don't like how the smoking rooms smelled and they usually just spray some sort of "air fresherener" in the room when they check out!

[Detroitnerd]

How can you tell who tightasses are? Are able to identilfy a tightass when they walk through the door? When they depart, do they leave a tightass trail? Do you know a tightass when they report the joint? Funny, I've known a lot of tightasses, but they weren't all smokers, non-smokers, drinkers or non-drinkers.

It's usually a pretty blue-collar crowd in a place, people look around, take out their smokes after, say, 10 p.m., when the nicer-looking folks are gone, and smoke. But you're among the most reasonable persons I know, 1KD, so I'll let you in on a secret: I am making fun of some of the posters on this thread, not tightasses in general.

[gazhekwe]

Trumpeteer: I knew it! I've unfortunately been in non-smoking rooms where they have stayed before me. It is so obvious. They need to quit that.

[Goose]

I'm a non-smoker, but if a behavior is legal and the legislature bans it for health reasons, I strongly believe the legislature is stepping beyond their authority when they make a prohibition on that activity while exempting certain private businesses. This is corruption at the highest levels of government in the sense that while using the powers we've ceded to them, the legislature has infringed on private rights of selective groups under the "fig leaf" of protecting the public health. Since they did not have the votes to make the law apply equally and yet they went ahead anyway, what's to stop them in the future from enacting other selective bans on legal activity on private property in the name of potential health or safety concerns?

For example, what's to stop the legislature from enacting a law prohibiting the wearing of perfume and cologne in any privately-owned, indoor or outdoor public place - except for casinos or some other well-heeled lobbying group - and authorizing the local health department to "tell people how to run their business"?

Everybody wants to ignore the legislature's overstepping the bounds of their authority and instead just focus on how much nicer certain places smell. Well, think it stinks that Big Brother has shown us how easily they can take away the rights of selective groups under the guise of protecting public health.. If it is truly a health issue, they must either ban the product or make an across-the-board prohibition of its use in public spaces.

perfect

this is not a smoking issue, its a personal property privacy issue

the people that like/support this law do so for personal benefit, with no regard to logic or other persons "rights"

i am not a smoker and this law does benefit me, but I am not bllinded by my feel good emotions to see the true consequences of laws such as this...

more governmental control, as long as it benefits me... soon the number of beneficiaries of govenmental "help" with be greater than the number of contributors, majority rule...

[gazhekwe]

Government control exercised for benefit of humans is what We the People determine. Government controls my behavior to prevent me from harming others. I can't take my baseball bat to the mall and whack someone who annoys me with their humongous shopping bag or stroller or whatever. I can't drive 90 mph in a residential area. I can't play my music loud on my own back porch at 3 a.m. Now, I can't spoil everyone else's dinner with my cigar smoke. It is the same kind of control, preventing me from endangering others or adversely affecting their enjoyment with an anti-social activity.

[bailey]

Government control exercised for benefit of humans is what We the People determine. Government controls my behavior to prevent me from harming others. I can't take my baseball bat to the mall and whack someone who annoys me with their humongous shopping bag or stroller or whatever. I can't drive 90 mph in a residential area. I can't play my music loud on my own back porch at 3 a.m. Now, I can't spoil everyone else's dinner with my cigar smoke. It is the same kind of control, preventing me from endangering others or adversely affecting their enjoyment with an anti-social activity.

clearly you are a communist socialist muslin loving facist who wants to control everyone's god given right to smoke.

I wholeheartedly agree that failing to ban smoking in the Casinos is completely unconstitutional as its going to be pretty hard to prove there is any basis for exempting one group of public places...however, in the mean time, I think it would be funny to be in one of these bars that violate the ban with impunity... i suppose that would make paying the tab optional. What are they going to do? call the cops?

[Goose]

Government control exercised for benefit of humans is what We the People determine. Government controls my behavior to prevent me from harming others. I can't take my baseball bat to the mall and whack someone who annoys me with their humongous shopping bag or stroller or whatever. I can't drive 90 mph in a residential area. I can't play my music loud on my own back porch at 3 a.m. Now, I can't spoil everyone else's dinner with my cigar smoke. It is the same kind of control, preventing me from endangering others or adversely affecting their enjoyment with an anti-social activity.

another false analogy

smoking in a private owned business hurts no-one except the people the CHOSE to go into this business...

your other examples are in no way similar, driving 90 on a public tax paid and maintained residential street equals smoking in my private owned building and business..... really?

[bailey]

another false analogy

smoking in a private owned business hurts no-one except the people the CHOSE to go into this business...

your other examples are in no way similar, driving 90 on a public tax paid and maintained residential street equals smoking in my private owned building and business..... really?

I hate to break it to you... as it should have been clear after about half a century of Supreme court precedent, but yes...really. If you're open to the public for business, you are open to regulation.