Mich. House OKs smoking ban, but not in casinos

Retroit · May-27-09, 07:23 AM

Hooray!

[[cough)

**ghettopalmetto** · May-27-09, 07:36 AM

I don't like these smoking bans because they are always framed as "workplace smoking bans", in order to "protect" bar and restaurant employees. If you have EVER worked in a bar or restaurant, you know this argument is disingenuous horseshit. Restaurants and bars already have the option to ban smoking, and those that do often do well because of the business model they choose. Where do you draw the line? Is it not unreasonable to ban smoking in private homes, or anywhere outdoors after this step. After all, we already have people complaining about smokers near doorways of buildings--PICK ONE. You can't physically have both!

What's next? Do we make all fatty foods illegal? I mean, do you know how tempting it is to work in a bakery and have to spend all day watching cookies and cakes come out of the oven? Won't someone protect the bakery workers from obesity?

If the Smoking Police are so concerned about health, I invite them to get up early Saturday morning and join me for a 10 mile run. Just don't make me breathe in the exhaust from your vehicle when you drive over.

**gnome** · May-27-09, 07:48 AM

What about the volume of noise/music? I really hate it when you can't hear the person next to you, when our ears ring for a day later ... think about those poor waiters and bartenders ... deaf by age 45. Who pays for their hearing aids?

So you can drive to a bar, drink a substance that is poison, a substance that removes your inhibitions, pick up a stranger and end up at the Viking Motel, but you better not smoke while doing it.

jeeze, the State is going broke, companies are leaving right and left, and our legislative body is still spending time on this issue. What happened to dove hunting? Civil Unions? Leprechaun racing?

**pffft** · May-27-09, 07:56 AM

Gnome,

Drinking can be done in moderation, but there is no amount of nicotine that isn't toxic. Plus, smoking always travels to the people next to you and then the people next to them, and so on, against their will.

That beer in your glass does not travel into our bodies, uninvited, to sicken us.

**ghettopalmetto** · May-27-09, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by pffft

Gnome,

Drinking can be done in moderation, but there is no amount of nicotine that isn't toxic. Plus, smoking always travels to the people next to you and then the people next to them, and so on, against their will.

That beer in your glass does not travel into our bodies, uninvited, to sicken us.

Based on this logic, states on the East Coast should ban particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and other harmful pollutants emitted by factories in the Great Lakes region.

No one is FORCING you to go into a bar or restaurant that allows smoking.

**GREENTROIT** · May-27-09, 08:05 AM

Well it doesn't matter because nobody will be able to afford a pack of cigarettes after Jenny G is done taxing them 500%!

**pffft** · May-27-09, 08:14 AM

ghettopalmetto,

Why should your rights as a smoker trump mine, as a non-smoker?

As fury says, it's actually over. You guys are on the losing side and eventually smoking will be banned in bars. This is your last stand, I understand that.

**gnome** · May-27-09, 08:31 AM

Smoking will kill you. No doubt. It is slow suicide.

Drinking alcohol will kill you as well. But it can kill you within an hour. Drink enough fast enough and anyone will end up room temperture. Toss a car into the mix and that is a high octane cocktail.

Just ask the parents of those children killed last month in Macomb county.

**ghettopalmetto** · May-27-09, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by pffft

ghettopalmetto,

Why should your rights as a smoker trump mine, as a non-smoker?

As fury says, it's actually over. You guys are on the losing side and eventually smoking will be banned in bars. This is your last stand, I understand that.

There are no individual "rights" in question here. There is no legally-defined concept of "smokers rights" and "non-smokers rights". So you might as abandon that horse.

There is a concept, though, that a proprietor of a business should be able to run his business as he sees fit. I claim that this "protection of employees" is a sham--the vast majority of restaurant and bar employees with whom I have worked have been regular smokers. Are you protecting them from themselves??? Let's call a spade a spade: legislatures are majority non-smokers and are forcing their will down the throats of people. But our representative democracy was never intended to ensure the rights of the majority, as it was to protect the minority from tyranny of the majority. So why is this acceptable?

Yes, smoking can kill you, and is not a recommended activity for good health. But there are a million other unhealthy aspects of our daily environment, few of which are ever addressed by our sudden "health-conscious" elected officials. Why the disconnect?

Coming soon to Michigan: constant bitching that smokers are always standing in the doorways of bars and restaurants, polluting the air and ruining the health of innocent bystanders.

**pffft** · May-27-09, 08:48 AM

There is a concept, though, that a proprietor of a business should be able to run his business as he sees fit. 

The proprietor of a business is not allowed to poison his patrons, even if he "sees fit," he's not allowed to discriminate against the disabled, even if he wants to...forcing patrons to breathe in nicotine as the proprietor sees fit will no longer be allowed.

**ghettopalmetto** · May-27-09, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by pffft

There is a concept, though, that a proprietor of a business should be able to run his business as he sees fit. 

The proprietor of a business is not allowed to poison his patrons, even if he "sees fit," he's not allowed to discriminate against the disabled, even if he wants to...forcing patrons to breathe in nicotine as the proprietor sees fit will no longer be allowed.

Then you might as well ban idling of a vehicle in a parking lot. Breathing automobile exhaust is more dangerous than "inhaling" second-hand smoke that has passed through an air filtration system--in an establishment you chose to patronize, knowing full well the consequences of that choice.

Instead of maintaining a closed environment in which air can be cleaned and filtered [[there are VERY good, but expensive, air filtration systems made strictly for this purpose), this will mandate that smokers release said toxins to the ambient environment, where they can be enjoyed not just by bar and restaurant patrons, but everyone, including children, that may be passing by. You're going to have a higher concentration of toxins as smokers cluster together near doorways. Ain't that a genius move now?

Again--WHY. THE. DISCONNECT? Are we to believe the Legislature is full of fitness nuts?

Blarf · May-27-09, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by One4Detroit

Most states I go to already have a ban on smoking in public places. Its going to be a nation wide ban eventually. People who dont smoke shouldnt have to sit in smoke. If im at a restaurant I cant take my plate and go eat outside to get away from the smoke, but a smoker can easily take the cigarette outside. Problem solved. Its a health hazard. Take the hazard outside. What is so hard to understand about that?

If you don't like smoking, than don't go to places that allow it. No one is forcing you to go anywhere. What is so hard to understand about that?

Blarf · May-27-09, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by pffft

There is a concept, though, that a proprietor of a business should be able to run his business as he sees fit. 

The proprietor of a business is not allowed to poison his patrons, even if he "sees fit," he's not allowed to discriminate against the disabled, even if he wants to...forcing patrons to breathe in nicotine as the proprietor sees fit will no longer be allowed.

How does the proprietor of a business force people to come into their business that allowed smoking?

**ghettopalmetto** · May-27-09, 09:09 AM

I have to think that if you want to "protect workers in their workplace", you might start with meat-packing plants and coal mines before you worry about bartenders.

As far as health is concerned, might I suggest that none of you Olympians drive I-75 by the Rouge plant? Or purchase any foodstuffs that do not have organic origins? Lord knows the negative impacts that vast lagoons of pig and cow shit on factory farms create in the air we breathe, water we drink, and food we eat.

**Fury13** · May-27-09, 09:11 AM

Look, it's simple. The current situation is that a 20 percent minority is dictating to an 80 percent majority. It's been accepted until now, simply because it's "always been that way." But the overall consciousness of society has changed, and the status quo will no longer be tolerated. Times are changing, and smoking in public places has become anachronistic.

The "it'll hurt business" argument doesn't hold water. Plenty of bars in NYC, Chicago, Ohio, and Paris, France do even better business now since their smoking ban, because MORE people [[belonging to that 80 percent majority) are choosing to patronize their businesses. Most establishments cited a brief downturn after the smoking ban, followed by an upsurge in business.

Why don't we have cuspidors or spittoons in public places anymore? [[They were rampant 100-120 years ago.) Because society decided that they catered to a disgusting habit. I believe that having to breathe others' concentrated, exhaled smoke is equally disgusting -- and the time has come for smokers to stop using confined areas as their own personal respiratory spittoons, so to speak.

In 30 years, the practice of allowing smoking in restaurants and bars will be seen as just as archaic as placing spittoons out for public use.

**Novine** · May-27-09, 09:11 AM

Isn't this a basic public health issue? We don't allow restaurants to serve contaminated food or bars to serve poisoned drinks. Why are they allowed to maintain an indoor air that everyone has to admit poisons us?

**ghettopalmetto** · May-27-09, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by Novine

Isn't this a basic public health issue? We don't allow restaurants to serve contaminated food or bars to serve poisoned drinks. Why are they allowed to maintain an indoor air that everyone has to admit poisons us?

You know that building codes have minimum ventilation requirements, right? And that the intention of said requirements is to ensure healthful air to breathe? Of course you do.

Actually, Fury, after this ban passes, you'll see more smoking in public places. But instead of in a controlled environment, it'll be on the sidewalk, on the street, in the parking lot....

But hey--when the employees go outside to smoke, at least they'll be protected, right?

**Fury13** · May-27-09, 09:20 AM

Smoke has room to dissipate outdoors, Ghetto... it doesn't have that ability in a confined area.

**ghettopalmetto** · May-27-09, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by Fury13

Smoke has room to dissipate outdoors, Ghetto... it doesn't have that ability in a confined area.

I'm no mechanical engineer, but there is such a thing as forced-air ventilation.

If someone could at least explain how the bar and restaurant employees are being protected by being forced to smoke outside, I might be a bit more agreeable.

The way the bill is phrased is a sham. The Legislature KNOWS that it takes YEARS of exposure to smoke to develop chronic illness. So they phrase it to "benefit" those most likely to be exposed for such durations--the employees--rather than the patrons. Where are the documented cases of people who have contracted cancer merely by sitting in a bar to have a drink?

**Johnlodge** · May-27-09, 10:07 AM

I don't smoke anymore, and I don't like breathing in smoke. However, it's still bullshit. Fury is making the most argument here, so let's break it down.

Look, it's simple. The current situation is that a 20 percent minority is dictating to an 80 percent majority.

No they aren't. Business owners are dictating to everybody what can be done in their business. They have that right, it's THEIR business. It is not "the majority's" business, and it isn't the government's business.

It's been accepted until now, simply because it's "always been that way." But the overall consciousness of society has changed, and the status quo will no longer be tolerated. Times are changing, and smoking in public places has become anachronistic.

If the "times are changing" why aren't the business owners doing it themselves? Are the times changing, or is an ever encroaching government deciding to change things by use of law?

The "it'll hurt business" argument doesn't hold water.

Then voluntarily become non-smoking. But the truth is, if they did that it WOULD hurt their business. The only way for it to not hurt their business is if the government forces all their competitors to do the same.

Why don't we have cuspidors or spittoons in public places anymore? [[They were rampant 100-120 years ago.) Because society decided that they catered to a disgusting habit.

Is there a law against spittoons, or were they simply removed BY CHOICE by the bar owners, and patrons asked not to spit?

I believe that having to breathe others' concentrated, exhaled smoke is equally disgusting -- and the time has come for smokers to stop using confined areas as their own personal respiratory spittoons, so to speak.

If it's your confined area, you're free to decide what people can and cannot do in it.

In 30 years, the practice of allowing smoking in restaurants and bars will be seen as just as archaic as placing spittoons out for public use.

Except it will be forced upon the private business of others by government, instead of simply fading away because society no longer finds it acceptable.

**heedus** · May-27-09, 10:24 AM

I'm one of the few that is for the bill as passed by the House. Smoking indoors is a public health concern [[we're spending how much on health care annually in this country?). And because of the sheer amount of tax revenue the casinos generate, I really don't want to see their business suffer. I'd be interested to see how much revenue decreased at Caesars Windsor after the ban was enacted in Ontario.

Anyway, it all depends on the republican dominated senate now. They were strongly against exceptions for casino, so we may end up at another impasse.

**pffft** · May-27-09, 10:27 AM

The government mandates food safety in restaurants, it mandates access for the disabled, it mandates lots of things that are for the public good. The proprietor of a business can serve roach-laden burgers and refuse to serve a demographic he doesn't like in the privacy of his home, but he can't do it in his bar/restaurant, he doesn't have that "right."
He's open for business, and society does have certain standards for a place that serves the public, the rights of the proprietor to do whatever he pleases has limits, thankfully.

**ghettopalmetto** · May-27-09, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by pffft

The government mandates food safety in restaurants, it mandates access for the disabled, it mandates lots of things that are for the public good. The proprietor of a business can serve roach-laden burgers and refuse to serve a demographic he doesn't like in the privacy of his home, but he can't do it in his bar/restaurant, he doesn't have that "right."
He's open for business, and society does have certain standards for a place that serves the public, the rights of the proprietor to do whatever he pleases has limits, thankfully.

But this bill says NOTHING about public health or safety.
The bill is worded to "protect" the employees in the "workplace".

There are a lot of double-standards in this half-assed bill, just the same as all the other smoking bans passed around the country. Of course, we find this tolerable, since 80% of the population gets to ram its will down the throat of the other 20%.

Other people's kids drive me insane when I go out to eat. Let's ban them from bars and restaurants too.

**R8RBOB** · May-27-09, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by heedus

And because of the sheer amount of tax revenue the casinos generate, I really don't want to see their business suffer. I'd be interested to see how much revenue decreased at Caesars Windsor after the ban was enacted in Ontario.

No exceptions!!!!!! Casinos can run that tired line about about them losing business because smokers would not patronized their casinos if they go smoke-free but they will come back. They always do.

**GREENTROIT** · May-27-09, 10:40 AM

ghettopalmetto...

Why can't you see how this would protect some employees? It is proven that secondhand smoke has very adverse health effects. Your assumption that every bar/restaurant employee in the state is a smoker is obviously wrong. So passing this bill would protect thousands and thousands of non-smoking restaurant employees that are currently subjected to secondhand smoke. How does this not protect employees in the workplace?