Personally I love it. I was in AZ when it passed out there and the world still went on. I know this is a divisive issue and am wondering how the board feels about it.
OT Michigan Smoking Ban
This was the main topic on the radio this morning (97.1 I think) and it seemed that most of the callers were for it. Personally I hate the feeling when I come home from the bar and I smell like cigarettes. Even worse is when you wake up the next day and you still smell. Not to mention the health risks of second hand smoke.
I am for the smoking ban. However, I am sure there will be some establishments that will still allow smoking and will pay the fine for it to draw in that crowd. I have heard of that happening in other states (NY I think) that have passed a smoking ban.
Not surprised it was the main topic on 97.1, since they seem to rarely actually talk about sports.
in 20 years people will be amazed they ever allowed it in the first place. you used to be able to smoke on airplanes back in the day. how ridiculous does that sounds now?
In Canada it has been banned for about 4 years in public buildings. Even as a smoker I find it hard to believe it was ever allowed.
Now they have also banned it in vehilce carrying children. If a parent is carting their children around and the cops see that they are smoking they can be fined on the spot.
Again, I smoke, but I like the laws for protecting those who don't.
And it's fucking bullshit. I can't even go to my favorite bar for lunch (it's really nice, and generally has more smokers than non)and have a smoke now. We may as well ban fucking Christmas trees, they offend some people too. That's all I have to say about it, liberal b.s. pisses me off.
I edited my original comment to be less politically charged. I'm sure you could figure out where.
But smoking doesn't necessarily offend people, it kills people.
Everybody kills people... murders you, murders me...
"Michigan Legislature also bans Terelle Pryor from bars and restaurants, citing similar concerns about employee safety that led to the smoking ban"
That TP quote never gets old! I will probably always plus-one any mention of it. (Not sarcasm.)
So does alcohol, and hell if that's ever going to be banned.
If I go to a bar, get drunk, drive home, and plow headlong into a van and kill 5 people, that does affect people around me.
the state legislature should make that illegal, too.
The point is, if you are going to start legislating everything that can cause potential harm to the public, you'll be eliminating a vast array of things. Should we ban coal-burning power plants? You can get cancer from the smoke. What about cars? Where exactly are you planning on drawing the line?
There are things far more dangerous to the general populace than cigarette smoke. This legislation does nothing beyond making people more comfortable in enclosed buildings by eliminating smokers. The health benefits are, for all intents and purposes, negligible. Unless you spend every waking moment with a chain smoker, you will more than likely die of something else unrelated to second-hand smoke. This does nothing to help children of smoking parents, who are probably the people most susceptible to the negatives of second-hand smoke.
as a cost/benefit analysis.
We need electricity and transportation, so we're more lenient with carcinogens from coal plants and cars. (It's worth noting that the government regulates the ever-loving hell out of power companies, and many states have emmisions requirements for cars).
Now, if you can provide one good reason for why smoking is positive, or point to one benefit it provides society, to offset the fact that it causes heart disease and emphysema in people whose only mistake was to stand next to you, then I'll concede.
If it didn't hurt people, I wouldn't care.
It adds to some people's enjoyment of life.
If you don't want to go to a smokey bar, go to a smoke-free bar.
The government could have imposed more intelligent licensing regulations to incentivize businesses to not allow smoking -- causing businesses to pay society for the negative externalities that smoking causes would both increase the number of smoke-free establishments and help pay for the healthcare costs of people affected negatively by cigarette smoke.
Let's face it: this ban is a publicity stunt, an easy fix and a hot topic that makes it look like the government is doing a good job. These issues are intended to distract us from things like, for example...
The State of Michigan, last year, monetized the annuity from the big tobacco lawsuits to cover the enormous gaps in their budget. This was a yearly cash inflow of tens of millions of dollars that would last many, many years .... sold for a quick fix. And it's not like our budget has got any better, so what are we going to do now? But that's not a hot topic. Don't care about that, please. Here, look, shiny object.
I worked in Michigan politics for several years. I've seen the sausage made, and it's never pretty. FWIW, they've been securitizing the Tobacco settlement in chunks over the last five years, it isn't a new thing. They've tapped pretty much every pot of money they can find, and they still have to use some "questionable" accounting to balance the budget every year. I can tell you why that happened, but it's really boring and partisan.
The legislature absolutely passes "shiny object" legislation (see, for example, the Free Puppies and Warm Apple Pie Act of 2009). I worked quite a few of those types of bills. But this bill is a "real" one that is going to make a significant impact in the state.
It adds to some people's enjoyment of life.
So you're saying that personal enjoyment offsets cancer, emphysema, allergic reactions and a laundry list of other potential health problems that can all be attributed to secondhand smoke?
That seems just a little selfish.
Imagine the plethora of things that would be legal if the only requirement for them to be allowed is... their adding towards some people's enjoyment of life...
I agree on the electricity and transportation, but where is the research money on cleaner technologies? Why continue building coal plants when nuclear, wind, solar, etc. produce far, far less (nearly zero) negatives to people? The long-term costs certainly aren't any higher. What about electric vehicles?
I'm not "anti nuke", but nuclear energy has the HIGHEST long term cost, and the most DANGEROUS short term investment/ accidental cost of any energy source there is?
Thats why it's controversial.
actually.. lowest long term, highest short term.. especially taking into account the expected increase in fossil fuel costs due to developing nations only being able to generate their increasing power demands that way.
As far as risks go.. you're forgetting about climate change and the environmental impact of CO2. Go ask the French if nuclear power is dangerous.. they generate most of their power that way. Chernobyl was a very crappy plant design and no one died in 3 mile island.
I wasn't forgetting about environmental impacts.
How long does it take for nuclear waste to "disappear"?
Where is all that waste going to be located? YOUR backyard?
Billions are spent finding/fighting locations and then storing the waste. . . forever.
Accidents DO happen, and the short AND long term costs are catastrophic.
Yes, Chernobyl was a crappy plant design, but gee that was years ago, it's probably safe to build a day care center there now, right?
Maybe CO2 emissions ARE ultimately more costly, but nuclear energy is hardly a magically low long term cost solution. Just because the French are doing it (who have a limited number of affordable options) doesn't mean it's cheap or green.
I'm not against it, just trying to be realistic.
There is no need to store the curent waste. It can be re-processed and re-burned down to Cesium-137, which in ~100 yrs has lower radioactivity than the original uranium. We have laws in the US preventing this. Japan, China, UK, France, Russia, India and even Iran, have no such laws (not sure about Germany)..
I'm not sure what your comment regarding Chernobyl means.. The USSR had a very flawed design.. we don't graphite moderate here; never have and never will. Our nuclear reactors are basically failsafe with countless safety systems and redundant backups to those systems.
When nuclear plants release pollution or radiation, it's an accident, it makes the papers, and it gets fixed. When a fossil fuel plant does, it's called Tuesday.. (a single coal plant has released more radiation into the environment today than all nuclear plants in the world combined.. there is uranium and thorium in coal..)
Nuclear power offers us the ability to not worry about our energy supply for a thousand years(at least).. Between the uranium that we already have, reprocessing, and then harvesting trace uranium from the sea.. we have enough fuel for about a million years.. Instead of that.. we have a bunch of morons trying to figure out the best place to rise another stupid wind-farm
Coal plants are the cheapest to build, and the electricity they generate is cheaper than the alternatives. Private companies build them, so the invisible hand guides them to the cheapest option.
(But I think at this point we've gone OT of the OT...)
It is the same stance the pro-marijuana contingent use.
It really doesn't hold water versus the amount of deaths that second-hand smoke and then cancer lead to...
...doesn't have the effect on those around the drinker that smoking does. If I'm standing next to you and drinking, you don't feel the effects of alcohol.
Whether it affects those around you or not is besides the point. The idea that because something can be banned because it is bad is absurd. In a truly free society people have to be accountable for their own decisions. Our country is repressive to individual freedom because most people do not want the burden of deciding for themselves.
The owner of the bar/pub/club should be able to decide whether to allow smoking or not. If he does not want smoking then the smokers will go to other bars. Then the market will decide whether there are smoking bars or not. In this case the people would have decided and no more legislature would be needed.
In Tennessee you can carry concealed weapons into bars (if you have a permit). If the bar owner does not want guns in the bar, then he places signage at the exits stating that weapons cannot be brought in his/her bar. If you want to carry a gun into a bar then you simply go to another bar.
We need to decide for ourselves. All government is repressive, decide for yourselves what is wrong or right.
Honestly I can't say it better.
If me drinking in a bar could kill the guy sitting next to me, it would probably be banned.
EDIT: Yeah, what he said ^^^^
to restaurants or hotels that want to be racially segregated? Or is that something that is OK to "legislate?" Just to nip any overreactions in the bud: no, I'm not saying smoking is as bad as segregation or something. But if the rationale is rooted in private property rights and the market being a better moderator than the government of what goes on in private establishments, where's the distinction?
you pretty much answered your own question when you said "I'm not saying smoking is as bad as segregation..." The rights of private enterprisers vs. the rights of the populus have developed in this country with the development of the judiciary's opinions on equal protection and due process. These are constitutional safeguards at issue. And all the universe of equal protection and substantive due process cases, as constitutional issues worth litigating, began with reconstruction and the issue of former slaves.
On issues of racial prejudice as they affect contracts, the economy, housing and employment, the standards for private enterprisers have become quite clear cut. There is a strict standard of reviewing the legality of the discriminatory practice.
However, with respect to the more post-modern "exclusive groups" of prejudiced people, such as homosexuals, the overweight, the elderly, and now to some degree, smokers, case law is underdeveloped. The standard of review holds the line of requiring a rational basis for the discriminatory practice.
Your question, therefore, would have been much more provocative had you compared the liberty of private enterprise to discriminate on the basis of weight, gender-identity or age vs. the basis of smoker/non-smoker.
The '64 Civil Rights Act (which is what prohibits racial discrimination in private businesses like restaurants) was not passed under 14th Amendment authority (which is where DP and EP live). Nor was it passed under Congress' 13th Amendment authority to extinguish the badges and incidents of slavery (it couldn't have been. see the Civil Rights Cases) It was passed under Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce. Yep, its commercial litigation. There are, in fact, no *constitutional* restraints whatsoever on a private actor's right to discriminate based on race (or anything else). Due process and equal protection restrict only state actors, which a restaurant is not. So your reference to those principles is truly off-point and irrelavent.
Besides, what we are really talking about is the private property rights. I did not couch my comment in the affirmative rights of non-smokers (it therefore doesn't matter whether they are similar or dissimilar to fat people, old people, or gay people). I take it as a given that everyone thinks the govt. should be allowed to tell restaurants they can't be segregated. But, as the above paragraph outlines, those laws are *not* of constitutional dimension. My point was that we don't care so much about private property rights when we are talking about segregation laws, and we trust the govt. more than the marketplace in those contexts. So why not here?
If privately owned, not getting government funds, then yes, I have a big problem with the government controlling people's right to interact and congregate. If the government wants to make sure that such places do not get tax breaks, or any sort of government benefits afforded to other businesses? Here here. But if the Masters doesn't want women, or the local country club, paid for only by member dues doesn't want black people, or the local bar doesn't want to let redhead in, that should be their right on their private property. Just as it's my right to NEVER give them any business, and to protest their practices as outdated, wrong-headed, and draconian. If it's public/government discrimination, then it should be squashed out, because the government is for, of, and by the people. If we can let the KKK march and spout garbage, and survive as a country, we can survive this.
To send the fire department if there's a fire on that private property (assume no potential damage to other property)? Send the police if someone breaks in? Maintain the roads in front of it? Provide courts if there's a dispute over title to the property? Print and register the deed to the property in the first place? These are all "government benefits afforded to other businesses."
It goes way beyond tax breaks: there really isn't much to the notion of private property without government. So saying 'people can do what they want with their private property, but government doesn't have to help them out' is an empty proposition. Withholding "government benefits" from a private business destroys the concept of its private property altogether.
Look, I'm not saying the government *ought* to legislate everything, I'm just suggesting its a little odd to invoke inherent private property rights in this situation; if duly elected officials think its best to ban smoking, I'm totally fine with that.
PA did this a few years back.
I don't smoke, but still hate this idea. I hated coming home from the bar stinking of smoke, but didn't think I had the right to tell other people how to run their lives just to not inconvenience me. If it would have made more sense (and money) some bars would have been smoke free.
I would have supported minimum sentencing (5 days for 1st offense and increasing) for selling tobacco to minors since they are not at the age of consent yet, but not taking away the choices of adults.
Prohibition doesn't work...ever.
Man I need to proofread.
Bill O'Reilly, is that you?
the ban is bullshit..skeeps will not be the same...
Have you ever looked at the ceiling in that place? It's black because of the all the smoke.
It will be nice to be able to go to the bar and not reek of smoke the next morning. However, when I am out smoking doesn't really bother me, but the smell afterwards is what is so bad.
Bowling alleys will never be the same
If there is one thing we need to preserve, it's the quaint ambiance at Skeepers.
"Chlamydia and sticky floors" counts as ambiance, right?
god damn right they do
... live out in Washington state now, and it is absolutely the greatest feeling being in a bar without smoke. When I went back home (to the D) last year, I couldn't sit in a bar for 30 minutes.
We passed a no-smoking law in NY years ago, and now it is hard to imagine walking into a restaurant or bar and lighting up. On trips back to Ann Arbor, it is always shocking when the smell of cigarettes first hit me as I walk into a bar. The loss of that smell and the ambience of smoking will in due time prove an excellent use of the state's police power.
There is absolutely nothing beneficial to sitting in a confined space with a massive volume of cigarette smoke. And this is coming from a "social smoker", who should really just quit already.
Illinois has become smoke free as well in the last couple years and it has been great.
Here in the nanny-state of Ontario the powers that be enforce far more stringent law on the topic (i.e., no smoking in cars with children, no provision of heated outdoor structural shelter outside your bar i.e., on the patio etc.).
I believe that's the law in Ontario now.
(which is odd for many laws here as we do tend to go *way* overboard on a lot of things legislatively)...for example, you might recall us as the country that recently legislated that only kids over 14 can ride on the back of motorcycles with their parents (because apparently motorcyclists here would be too stupid to reasonably consider their children's safety and/or the already existing laws around careless driving)
Ontario is not for the independent minded, believe me.
WOW, thanks for reminding me what all of the red in the canadian flag as for.
The NHS is banning smokers from hospital waiting rooms. Not smoking. SMOKERS. Reason: third-hand tobacco smoke. Smokers smoke. It gets toxins on their clothes and in their hair. This makes them walking chemical weapons.
This is not a joke. Smokers are systematically being excluded from civilization.
I am a nonsmoker, but this is friggin' lunacy.
I don't smoke, but I grew up on a tobacco farm, so this issue always hits close to home. Anytime a state has a change in tobacco policy, it does not hurt the tobacco companies because they pass the extra cost onto the farmers by paying less for the raw tobacco.
Personally, I'm against the ban (I live in PA where there is a ban, albeit slightly less restrictive in nature). I'm not a smoker, never have been and never will be. I think the legislation would be better if the taxes on cigarettes were just jacked up even more. All you really need is to have established smoking and non-smoking sections.
The problem with cigarette taxes is that instead of raising gradually every year, they raise it significantly once every ten years when they need increased revenue. (Last year's tax raise in Michigan made the price of loose tobacco rise 300%.) This forces smokers to make a major lifestyle change and hurts the stores that see a sudden drop in business. If the taxes just went up a set increment every year, the system would not be so ridiculous.
I agree that the current tax increase system is pretty poorly implemented. What I was trying to say is that instead of banning it everywhere, tack on what amounts to a "right to smoke" tax and let owners of businesses decide whether they want to allow smoking or not.
Here in the Great White North we take overtaxation seriously...indeed, so seriously that what has happened is that the smokers don't buy the branded cigarettes and instead by counterfeit ones made in China or attend the local first nations reservation where huge business is done in "smoke shops". So, for example, you can buy a carton here for $70 commercially or just attend the local reservation and get a carton of packaged and blended cigarettes (the Six Nations reservation has moved into professional manufacture of cigarettes) for around $25. It's completely impossible to police (too many roads in and out and also big business for First Nations) but has caused about a 1 billion loss to provincial revenues.
I'd say those advocating huge tax increases look at whether or not there is a ceiling to that effect before organized crime (counterfeit) or First Nations (self-made product) come calling.
When NYC jacked taxes under Mayor Bloomberg, a few months later, several middle eastern men were busted running a smuggling scheme. They bought cigs in NC, trucked them to NYC, and sold them at 100%-ish markup, which was still a discount to the then-$8.50ish per pack NYC price. It was then discovered that they were funneling their profits back to bank accounts flagged as terrorist financing-related.
Yet another example of the effect of prohibition (or brutal taxation in this case) creating outsized profits for those morally/ethically uninvested in the value of the law. Pablo Escobar et al did pretty well using this business model, too.
if you can convince the smoke to stay in the smoking section. But smoke is a pain in the ass like that. It just does its own thing. It doesn't live by your rules. Smoke is kinda like James Dean in that way.
Having a no-smoking section in a restaurant is like having a no-peeing section of a swimming pool.
is separately ventilated, no-service/service-optional smoking rooms. Keeps that pesky smoke in a separate place and servers aren't forced to enter.
I hate it. Obviously. I live in Virginia where the ban took effect Dec. 1. It's been lousy to deal with because I hate freezing my ass off when I have to go outside at the bar.
The bigger problem I have with it is the regulation. In a down economy I don't think the government should restrict businesses from doing what they think is best to make a profit. If bars and restaurants think they can make more money by eliminating smoking, they should. If they think they can make money by allowing smoking, they should.
Also, I live in a cabin ... and am working on a manifesto.
You have a good group of proof-readers here at your disposal.
I guess I should not be one of them.
changed your name to PlaysWithSquirrels yets?
Chicago has been smoke free for about 2 years. Smoker's complained when the law passed, but 2 years later, almost all of my friends that smoke either like it, or, have adapted to it easily.
Time heals all wounds. Well, all wounds but for lung disease.
EDIT: As for the "it will hurt business" argument - at least in Wrigleyville, there has been 0 negative effect. Bars still packed, people still drinking -- just smoking outside.
I live there as well, and when the ban went into effect I was annoyed. I've totally gotten used to it to, though, to the point that when I go home I still go outside for my smokes (even though I don't have to). A breath of fresh air never hurt anyone and even I, a smoker, smell less like complete shit the next morning. The key to making this a non- issue is that bars need to allow easy exit and reentry for their smoking patrons. Really, the law just made the doorman's job harder.
It does suck for January and February though.
Yea man I live in Chicago and I can tell you that if the smoking ban was reversed, there would be total outrage. It's great to go to a bar, have some drinks, eat some food, and socialize and not go home smelling like smoke.
The bars in Wrigley, on Rush Street, etc. are still packed and I would say that its possible that more revenue is made with the smoking ban. When I go back home to Michigan I dont even go to the bars there because I refuse to smell like shit when I go home. Plus I like keeping my lungs healthy
I will say this ban is bullshit. If you don't like smoking, don't go to a smoky place. Simple.
But no, god forbid I should be able to enjoy a cigarette at the bar now, there's a possibility I might increase the chances someone else gets lung cancer because they voluntarily went to the bar.
But this law isn't about liking or disliking others smoking habits in restaurants and bars. This aspect does make the law popular, even if one is politically opposed to it. But, contrary to many assumptions, this is not, primarily, about consumers and "the market".
No, this is a public health issue dealing with second hand smoke and workers. Ask the waitress at your local Denny's if she likes smoking or not. Doesn't really matter, because she has to go to work everyday whether she likes it or not.
I, for one, can't wait to go to all of those restaurants we've been avoiding since my son was born.
People work jobs they don't like, or are dangerous all the time, solely to convenience the public. I'm sorry if my waitress doesn't like smoking, but she's not legally bound to be there. It might not be realistic for her to quit, but we all have to make sacrifices to earn money. It would be nice to live in a perfect world where we all work where we want, but we don't.
This law is legislating away bar owners rights to satisfy the moral majority, and that is just wrong. It goes against the principles our country was founded on. A majority doesn't make you right, sadly it does let you push laws through that infringe upon the rights of others.
I'm sickened that it comes to this. Its the smokers now, but what next? Do we make it illegal to drink outside your house because you might offend a waitress? Do we outlaw violent TV shows because they MIGHT cause violent crimes? Where does the line get drawn?
Perhaps this is because you are a smoker, but you fail to recognize that smoking nicotine is extremely harmful to one's body. It is linked to obesity, heart disease, cancer, pulminary disease, hyper-tension, periodontal disease, lowered fertility, cataracts, wrinkles, bad breath, etc. My wife is a doctor, and the first question she asks a sick patient is, "Do you smoke?".
Second hand smoke isn't as bad as inhaling the stuff directly, but it is linked to all of the major health problems associated with smoking. I'll say it again, this isn't about being "offended", it's about public health. Drunk people cause harm too, but only after they get behind the wheel. That's why that is outlawed too.
Perhaps it is not the supposed freedoms of the employee that's in question here. (and these, days few of us are free to choose their employer) Perhaps this is a question of the freedom of a smoker to exhale in front of anybody anytime. You mention that we all make sacrifices at our work, but few of us have to compromise our health at work because of somebody else's totally voluntary behavior. There are laws to protect people against this kind of stuff, ask OSHA. This law is just another in that same line of defense.
There are tons of jobs that require us to expose ourselves to health risks. We all have the ability to find another job if they're to such an extent that we feel like it's not worth it. Construction workers face harsh conditions, get exposed to all sorts of fumes, and many dangers. Firemen. Cops. Military service. I myself have had jobs that require me to be around clients couching up TB and lord knows what else, go into apartment with bedbugs, and go on the Cass Corridor to get HIV drug using street workers away from their pimps. None of it was healthy. And no one forced me to do it.
Metro Detroit (not to mention a lot of other cities) have plenty of those right now!
How about the protection of cooking staff, touring bands (those who don't already smoke), sound guys, maintenaince people, dealers at the casinos (oops, guess they don't count in Michigan), and anybody else who has to work in a smoking environment.
Anyways, what's bullshit about being interested in the health of waitresses? Do you believe that their health doesn't warrant a smoking ban? Or is it hard to believe that anybody would actually care about it?
I was a waiter in a past life. The smoking sucked, but I lived. I also grew up in a house with a smoker. (My dad quit when I was 15) About that same age, I went to the doctor for a physical, and he was convinced I was a smoker after listening to my lungs. It took some convincing, but he only fully believed my story after I informed him that my dad was a smoker my whole life until that point.
Yes, the ban is awfully convenient for me and my family, but I do actually care about the real effects of second hand smoke. Even on waitresses.
work at Dow Chemical, brah. I think that is more hazardous.
Pay should reflect exposure to hazards. Government could have forced smoking establishments to pay their staff more money. That would be an intelligent policy that utilizes the laws of economics.
...non-smokers can't go to bars? Name a good non-smoking bar.
Go to Chicago, Washington DC, or New York City and there will be plenty. States that still allow smoking are living in the past.
when they are all non-smoking, this is the answer you get to "name a good smoking bar."
bars are not good because of smoke, but in spite of it. if the oh-so enlightened cities of lexington and louisville, kentucky (which makes a lot of money selling tabacco) have changed the law, there is most likely something to it.
Good Time Charley's and Red Hawk come to mind...
...but Charley's is for college kids and Red Hawk is really a restaurant, not a "bar."
If I could vote you 1,000,000,000 mgopoints I would. The next big thing will be sunlight. Since the sun causes cancer whether you want it to or not the sheeple will try to have it banned. Why should I have to wear sunscreen or stay indoors...I don't want to think for myself.
My dad has emphysema from smoking. You know who caused it, he did. No big tobacco, or government, just his own choice. I guess I should sue Philip Morris or RJ Reynolds for tricking him...
Personally, I am all for the ban. Michigan was one of the last states to pass this law. In other states where similar laws have been passed people still smoke, they just don't do it in bars or restaurants.
Think of the poor bar owner who gets sued by a waitress because she gets cancer and blames it on second hand smoke. This is happening more and more.
This has not hurt tobacco sales very much. Worldwide tobacco use continues to increase. With the low dollar we are exporting more cigarettes to developing nations. Go to Asia, the 6 year olds are smoking.
Just my 2 cents.
Bar's make their money on people that 1) Drink; and/or 2) Meet up to socialize; and/or 3) Want to avoid their families; and/or 4) Want to meet someone to nail.
No one has ever, ever, ever walked into a bar for the sole purpose of smoking a cig.
Therefore, bar owners will still make money as long as Booze, Friends, nagging wives, and tail are not outlawed.
No one has ever, ever, ever walked into a bar for the sole purpose of smoking a cig.
I have, and my decision as to where I choose to eat lunch is greatly impacted by the smoking policy of said bar/restaurant. I'm quite sure there are others like me (my woman for one). I'm not a fan of this ban, if you can't tell.
"No one has ever, ever, ever walked into a bar for the sole purpose of smoking a cig.
I have, and my decision as to where I choose to eat lunch is greatly impacted by the smoking policy of said bar/restaurant."
Dude, you need help.
Because I like to take a break from a stressful workday, and be able to sit (in my seat!) and enjoy a cigarette with my meal? Thanks, man, but that's like, your opinion.
I was joking.
Sorry, I get a little worked up over this.
infringe on others liberties and smoke a cigarette. Poor poor you. I live in Chicago and ya know what people do they go outside. And if it's cold outside (like it is today) people question if they actually want to smoke.
You can still smoke you just have to go outside to do it but having a "smoking section" in a restaurant is like having a "peeing section" in a pool.
But since you chimed in, every mofo sitting anywhere near me is smoking too. The place I'm referring to generally has more smokers than non smokers, and the ownership wants it to stay that way. I'm done w/ this thread.
You hit the nail on the head.
There is obviously demand for smoking in bars because people do it. This means it has utility. This means it is a good thing.
The trick is to design policies that increase utility for everyone. But I guess legislators would actually have to give a shit for that to happen.
Obviously I'm greatly outnumbered on this, but I feel pretty strongly about it.
It also impacts where I choose to eat in that I absolutely cannot stand smoky places. I realize you have the right to smoke, but your bad habit makes my eyes itch, my clothing smell, and my skin break out.
Despite what professional athletes would have you believe, "conversate" is not considered a normal word.
No one has ever, ever, ever walked into a bar for the sole purpose of smoking a cig.
Wrong. For most smokers who fly on airplanes, the first order of business when you land at a connecting city is to seek out the one smoking-allowed bar in the airport for the sole purpose of having a cig. Most bar owners require that you purchase something while you're there, but the only reason you went there in the first place was to be able to smoke.
You have no facts to support your claim. You're just spouting your opinion.
Don't smoke, never have, can't stand it. Don't think we should restrict what people allow on their private property. I have full right not to spend my money that allows smoking, let them know it, and encourage change with my wallet. All this "public" area stuff in nonsense. It's not a park, it's not tax supported...quite the contrary. Don't tell me what I can do in my home or establishment. And if you don't like it's policies, don't go there.
Scorekeepers has catered to Buckeyes over Thanksgiving before. I don't go there anymore because of it. I don't think there should have been a restriction telling them it wasn't allowed. And Buckeyes have threatened my health far more than secondhand smoke.
However, if I did have my own place of business, I would completely not allow it, and think I would do better business because of it. But that would be my free choice. The examples above in Canada are just scary.
are the health costs associated with disease induced by smoking
Unfortunately, this bill generates no revenue from smokers and so does not address that issue at all. It's just a smoke-screen (ironic, no?) to distract people from issues that are meaningful to the system because people care more about not having to dry-clean their sweaters every time they go out.
I think the best argument I've heard for the ban is that there are many bartenders/servers who support it. People say the owners should be able to choose, but they're not the one's there everyday. Imagine if you had someone standing by your desk smoking all day. And don't say if they don't like it they should find a new job, because that's not really an option for many people.
Lived in Chicago when it went into effect, and and the results were amazing immediately. Now live in Virginia where it just went into effect, and the bars are so much more tolerable. You no longer stink when you leave, and you don't have to Febreeze your clothes constantly. Though I don't smoke much anymore, I'll still light one up at a happy hour every now and then, and the fact that it now means I have to go outside isn't a big deal at all. My smoker friends don't seem to mind all that much anymore either.
As to the negative economic effect on bar owners, I think New York and Chicago both established that there really wasn't one. I'm not aware of any bar that went under because of a smoking ban. If you decide to not go to a bar now simply because it doesn't allow smoking, you're in the very small minority. Most people just suck it up and deal, and the bars are doing fine. People still drink as much as ever.
limits the bar owner's right to sell alcohol (a legal substance).
as a libertarian, i disagree with a lot of regulations, but mgoblog aint the place to discuss
That's quite a statement to make after saying "if you love freedom, you should oppose this ban."
Ohio and the no smoking thing passed a few years ago.
It is wonderful to go out to a bar come back just reeking of booze rather than booze and cigarettes.
...to breathe clean air outweighs the right to smoke.
My theory: You can inhale whatever you want, wherever and whenever you want... as long as you don't exhale it on me.
in front of the huge corporations that are really responsible for the air not being clean, not some fucking guy trying to have a smoke. This isn't 1950, proper ventilation has been created.
just about every bar here has expanded some sort of outdoor seating area to accommodate smokers. this is very popular in the summer for everyone and has turned every dirt hole with a liquor license into a tolerable place to get a drink after work in the nice weather months.
The important question is: if they didn't smell like smoke, what would places like the 8 ball or Fleetwood smell like?
1. Smoking is a choice (I know, I smoked for over 20 yrs)
2. Most people don't smoke (80%ish in MI apparently). However the population of bar-goers does include a higher percentage of smokers.
3. Second hand smoke kills people, period.
4. No one visits a bar at gunpoint. Nor is it a "right".
5. There are no laws prohibiting an entrepreneur from opening a smoke-free business of any kind.
5. Business that shortsightedly choose to offer a smoking environment for their customers (who are so stupid that they continue to risk their health) should be free to do so. They will eventually fail, as the smokers die off and other bar patrons have chosen to visit the profitable smoke free establishments.
6. This seems like a self correcting problem to some degree.
7. Laws should be written protecting people when they would have no choice but to expose themselves to second hand smoke. (ie. govt buildings, planes, trains, grocery stores, hospitals, etc.) Including those places where people without the choice (children, the elderly in care facilities) would be exposed. Yes, this even includes outdoor parks, and in cars with kids.
8. The only issue I see is what about the employees of a bar and their serious health concerns:
a. Don't work there. Other, nicer smoke free bars are opening every day. (at least they should be)
b. Sign a contract understanding and accepting the risks.
c. Negotiate (perhaps legally mandated) with the employer to pay all health care benefits, and/or a higher wage to compensate for the risks/added costs.
d. Most businesses have VOLUNTARILY chosen to make a smoke free environment. It's GOOD business.
9. I wear a helmet on a motorcycle and a seatbelt in a car and it has NOTHING to do with any current laws. I don't need to be protected, and while I appreciate any law that helps protect my child, we simply don't go into places that allow smoking.
10. I appreciate being treated like an adult.
Smoking ban porn titles!!!
"Put that butt out"
"You can't do that in public"
It will be great to go out and not have to ask for a non-smoking table only to be a few feet from smokers. If you think about it, smoking in confined public places is stupid and as time goes by most people will realize that.
I am looking forward to this change!
If you are a bar owner, why didn't you just declare NO SMOKING HERE! and clean up on all of the increased business that you'd get as a delightfully smoke-free bar.
Surely, since a non-smoking environment seems to be what you think the vast majority of your current/potential customers want, with little inconvenience to smokers, that would have been a good business decision, right?
What stopped you from doing that? You'd have such a huge business advantage over those Neanderthal "smoking" establishments. And you don't even need a law to help you do that. You can do it on your own. What level playing field? Why would you want a level playing field? Why don't you want a tremendous (smoke-free) business advantage? Tilt that ol' playing field in your favor?
Except, uh, that lots of people want to be able to go to a bar where they can smoke, right? Inside, where the heat is and the drinks are and the tv is on. Right?
that's too complicated. It's easier to just have a mob bully culture that bans everything they find in poor taste.
I don't know why you have so many negative points, but this post was fantastic. And this line:
"To save those lives, smokers merely have to walk outside for a smoke. If your laziness is more important that someone else's life...you're an asshole."
Was excellent. As Chad Henne says, "excellence is good."
I remember hearing a lot arguments against the smoking ban by bar owners before it went into effect in Ohio. A couple of years later, I don't hear anything like this. And yes, there are still plenty of bars.
First, indoor smokers claim that the government shouldn't interfere in private business. The problem with that is that it's absolute ignorance. Bars/restaurants are regulated massively...hours of operation, staffing storage, cleaning, building codes, etc. Hell, the State even owns/operates a MONOPOLY on the sale/distribution of alcohol. We cannot open our doors without a government license. Regulation per se is not bad. The question is whether the particular regulation is important. In this instance, you have an activity that KILLS 50,000 Americans annually. To save those lives, smokers merely have to walk outside for a smoke. If your laziness is more important that someone else's life...you're an asshole.
And yet they aren't assholes BECAUSE THE BAR OWNER ALLOWS THEM TO SMOKE!
That's an assholey bar owner.
Perhaps the bar owner would be a little less assholey if he considered the 80% of his customers that don't like to be around smoke (and no smoking "sections" of restaurants are a joke).
Perhaps if that assholey bar owner wanted to have his cake and eat it too he'd not allow smoking in his bar/restaurant yet provide some kind of outdoor smoking area for his smoking customers.
I guess he's not really assholey, he's just ignorant of his own self interests, and must be forced.
Just because the restaurant/bar industry is heavily regulated (with a monopoly alcohol revenue stream), doesn't mean it's better with MORE regulation. As I stated earlier, it's the employees that have to make an informed employment decision, and it's serious enough that perhaps SOME protections should be in place.
I wouldn't work in a smoking environment, and if there are 3 restaurants across the street and two of them (wisely) choose to be smokeless, they get my lunch $.
I understand the dangers of second hand smoke (as do preschoolers), I also understand that underwater demolition is risky, I choose to avoid both and it's really easy, 99% of businesses are smoke free already.
This isn't protecting the public, it's protecting us from ourselves and legislating something that smart people and smart businesses SHOULD ALREADY BE DOING.
Contrary to my sexy ten-point post earlier, I care very little about this issue; I only visit smokey establishments by choice, and never with my family . This just looks like another example of Mob/majority rule passing laws to combat lazy, assholey, short-sighted bar owners who still think they're living in the 1940s.
Why are we helping them? Don't do business with assholes.
It's my politicians and tax money at work (barely), so that is about the extent of my emotional involvement.
So you are comparing food (meat) that people need to be able to buy to support their families and survive with a conscious decision to enter an (presumably known and advertised) establishment that may currently contain smokers?
I think those two things are too dissimilar for comparison.
This is about known health risks, a legal activity (except for less locations now), and an informed choice. Everyone has been informed about the dangers of smoking by now. Some bars still (for some twisted, self defeating reason) want smokers.
Let them, in a few years it will be easier to spot the last few smoking bars in the state (if they haven't burned down).
How do you feel about the portion of the law that allows cigar-bars? Shouldn't they be saved from themselves?
Why can't I bring my infant into a cigar bar and have it be smoke-free?
Because that would be ludicrous.
My point is, many people in support of this law think it's fine to have "cigar bars" for smokers, but will suddenly be in favor of a total ban if their favorite bar suddenly decided to install a humidor.
This is a populist law pretending to be a public health achievement.
You just had to not go to establishments that allowed smoking. See? Problem solved!
Michigan is one of the last places to do this. I live in Florida now, which is smoke-free, and its great. I hate coming home to Michigan and going to a restaurant with my kids, and the place being smokey as hell. non-smoking sections are a joke, you can clearly still see, and smell the smoke. It is disgusting, and detrimental to other's health. Not to mention Michigan has some of the unhealthiest people around this will do some good.
It's been like this in Florida for about seven years now. It works out great. Smokers talk about choice, but when they smoke inside, they are making everyone around them "choose" to smoke, whether they want to or not. Now, people aren't forced to "smoke" just because they are somewhere where someone else wants to.
Down here, people bitched for a couple of months, and then they adjusted to it quite well. Smoking is still permitted in bars whose f and b revenue is less than fifteen percent food, but some of them even choose to make smokers go outside.
The only snag I see in comparison is that going outside when it's ten below is a little less comfortable than going outside when it's seventy degrees.
The current situation of a non-smoking area in a restaurant is like a non-peeing section of a pool. It just doesn't make sense. Smokers are in the vast minority and as stated by others here, my right to clean air trumps their "right" to smoke. It is the smokers with the "problem" not the non smokers.
This is great. Why should the majority suffer? Finally the only person a smoker will be harming with their cigs is themselves. Smokers are selfish and only care about themselves. When you smoke you harm everyone elses health around you. If you want cancer that is great, just don't give it to the rest of us.
If smoke-free establishments were so popular, I'd have thought that virtually all such establishments would voluntarily go smoke-free.
But they haven't; some people want to smoke. The owners of some bars know that. Now, the legistlature wants to tell bar-owners and their customers who want to smoke, that they can't.
Still, let's not avoid the obvious majority; as you say, the majority of the population does not smoke and does not want to be around smokers. The majority prefers a non-smoking environment. So, what do we have? First, we have laws requiring that all restaurants set aside non-smoking sections. And then on top of that, we have the wonderful world of the free market, and business owners who respond to their customers and employees. The association of Michigan bar and restaurant owners says that about a third of all establishments in Michigan are entirely non-smoking.
So if there is any real dissatisfaction on the part of non-smokers like you, it is that you can't go EVERYWHERE you'd like to, and have it be a non-smoking environment for your comfort. I sense that one of the most powerful motivators for people supporting the new law is that, "Smoking is bad for you, and you shouldn't be doing it anyway. Also, your habit annoys me."
Now back to my title for this comment... "Selfish."
Why aren't there more smoke-free bars? According to most of you, it is what you want, and you find smoky bars to be abhorrent -- worse, you think that you are risking your lives to be in them. So, uh, don't go there. Or, alternatively, open your own fabulously successful, wildly popular, smoke-free bar and grille. And don't worry about smokers. Don't go to the bars that they go to. (Restaurants should be less of a concern; all of them have non-smoking sections.)
I said it above but it will probably get buried so I'll say it again: somebody else's bad habit is not reason enough for my eyes to itch, my clothes to smell, and my skin to break out.
I've loved it in Chicago. One of my friends was one of the few considerate smokers, who would actually go outside and smoke if no one else in the bar was smoking. This was before the city ban (a state ban soon followed) was passed. Nice to go to my favorite beer bar and actually be able to get the full taste of the beer now as it was intended.
My most common places to drink in Michigan were already smoke-free: Kuhnhenn and Dragonmead (the in-laws live in Warren).
at Kuhnhenn - but the service sucks and the prices are outrageous.
But as far as smoke free establishments go they(micro breweries) are really the only game in town.
This debate has been going on in the Michigan legislature for a significant chunk of the last decade. One of the larger points of contention was whether or not the ban would apply to the Detroit casinos.
Well, not only are the casinos exempt, but so are cigar bars.
Wait a minute.... cigar bars??? So let me get this straight... you can operate a business that by its own definition is a bar where you go to smoke, and the ban does not apply to you. But if you are a bar owner who wants to allow smoking, you can't?
That sounds pretty hypocritical to me, although I must be honest. I don't smoke cigars (I have, but not regularly). Are cigars less harmful to those who smoke them, and in particular, to those in the bar who are forced to inhale them second-hand (i.e., those for whose protection this ban was passed)?
It was inevitable. This law was going to eventually pass. I am a smoker, and I knew it was coming. If anything, I'm disappointed that the Michigan Legislature is so inept that they couldn't manage to pass it the first half dozen times it came up. Talk about wasting taxpayer dollars.
Yesterday, I read the text of the statute at Legislature.mich.gov.
It is pretty interesting. You should read the stautory definition for "cigar bar." (btw, tobacconist shops are also exempted.) A cigar bar has to be a separate building or a completely separate room, with ventiliation. It has to sell cigars, and have cigar sales be a % of total sales. It has to have a humidor for cigar storage. Etc., etc.
I have the feeling that there will be a new crop of cigar bars in the state of Michigan. There is no requirement for separate licensing, although a cigar bar must be certified as such.
passed on to the Governor for signature? Can you give me a link to the text that you're talking about?
there were EIGHT different versions of House-side smoking ban bills since about 2004-2006. I don't know how many Senate bills. And, as I am sure you know, they were all tweaked and amended; no casino ban, all casino ban, no mention of cigar bars, cigar bars exempted, etc., etc.
As I read the definition of "cigar bar" in what I thought was the final Senate version (which anti-smoking activists have now complained about, for being too watered down), there were definitions as to what it took to be certified in the future, and nothing about being in existence as of a certain date.
So, yeah, I'd like to be shown a specific reference because I do not think there is a sunset clause in the final Senate version that will forever bar anyone from opening a new cigar bar anytime in the future of this state.
Seen here (scroll to p. 8):
I could be wrong, but I don't think the final approved bill had that language. I can't find any definitive link to what it was Granholm signed, or is going to sign...
When I read the thread title I thought that Michigan had banned the more fun type of smoking.
Wait, what? The fun type of smoking is banned in Michigan other than Ann Arbor? Damn.
I live in Florida now where the ban has been in place for years and it's great. The bars do just fine. When I'm back home to see the family in Michigan it'll be nice to go out and have a drink again -something I haven't done in years because I hate coming home smelling like an ashtray.
As for the right to smoke, I don't think anyone would be too pleased if I sat down at the table next to them with an open jar of benzene and let it drift throughout the restaurant while I ate so I see no 'right' for them to do the same to the rest of us (along with the 80 or so other cancer causing agents in a typical cig). Do it at home, not around other people.
certain bars will not be the same without smoking (in Ann Arbor, for example, the 8 Ball, Circus, any other dive trashhole type of bar). Some bars will be better, though (Ashley's).... personally I think the market could use just a nudge instead of this draconian method
Why not require bars that want to allow smoking to buy a permit to do so (much like licenses to distribute alcohol) and limit the number of permits per area to create a niche market? Also, the permits could be cost prohibitive.
This would allow the state to make even more money off of smokers to recuperate the costs of heart disease etc. that they bring upon themselves (and all insured people and taxpayers end up paying for).
I emailed my idea to state congressmen a few months ago and got the usual "Well that's a good idea that we considered but it doesn't appease the right special interest groups" shtick. Ah, democracy.
Still, I think the ban is a good thing, but not the best it could be. There is money to be made!!! MONEY!!! $$$$!!!
i don't like the government telling a business how they should operate. leave that to the bar owner. however being a non-smoker i will enjoy the fact my hair will still smell like rockaholic gel come morning.
what part of my posts leads you believe that i don't realize that bars/restaurants are endlessly regulated? i don't need to read any of your posts or try and buy a 14 year old a drink at 3am on christmas to figure this out. i don't like any government regulation be it on bars/financial companies/airlines etc. i like freedom
thank god. now all we need is to get people to quit smoking under the new structures at michigan stadium! anyone else hate it when you go under those things and the first thing you smell is cigarette smoke?
I suspect that many of you realize that a full, complete, total smoking ban is now being considered by President Coleman and the Regents.
The new ban would not just ban smoking in University buildings. It will ban smoking ANYWHERE on U-M property. You won't be able to smoke outside the MLB, or the Grad Library. You won't be able to smoke walking across the diag. You won't be able to smoke while walking in the Arboretum or the Matthei Botanical Gardens.
Here's where it gets freaky, if you ask me: You won't be able to smoke a cigar while playing the back nine on the University of Michigan Golf Course. You won't be able to smoke in the Blue Lot after a football game. You won't be able to smoke next to Ferry Field after a hockey game.
Somewhere in all of this, I am thinking, "What sort of resources is the Univeristy going to expend, to enforce a silly rule like this? It's a rule like that makes someone like me (who rarely smokes; sometimes a cigar after a football win, while in the Blue Lot, or while walking the golf course in summer months) want to say to the University: "I DARE you to enforce it! Tell me what you're going to do if I am smoking a cigar on the golf course!" Don't even tell me about "the dangers of second-hand smoke..." It has no application, when there is no one within a quarter-mile of me.
Oh, and by the way, smoking is (rightly, I think) banned EVERYWHERE at Michigan Stadium. So any new rule/law doesn't change that status at all.
The tobacco ban is actually further along than having Mary Sue "consider it." According to the e-mail she sent to students a while ago it will take effect on July 1, 2011.
FWIW, it doesn't seem like they will punish people who smoke with fines, they will simply inform them of smoking cessation programs which are available on campus. It is kind of a strange enforcement strategy.
I presume that they'll loan Mary Sue a golf cart, so that she can ride out to the Third Tee at the golf course, to inform me in greater detail about the smoking cessation programs available to me.
That's not cigarette smoke you're smelling, it's the smell of our defense being burned again.
zing! but at the same time that saddens me...
I'm a native New Yorker, and a freshman at U of M. I was actually kinda shocked that it wasn't already outlawed. Personally I'm all for it, and I there really hasn't been too much backlash in NY from either businesses or individuals. Its pretty strict in NYC too - you can't even smoke at outdoor cafes, you have to be beyond the property.
I think it actually probably helps certain businesses that people previously avoided due to the amount of smoke.
There are some people that like smoking, and some that don't. The ones that don't like smoking want to keep the smokers from enjoying their habit.
Since the state government is now in the business of regulating behavior based on the simple wants of the public, here is an idea.
Ban all non-smokers from the state. Have them box their stuff up, and ship them off to UC Berkley. That way they can be with their kind and happy, and the rest of the public here can keep their freedoms.
Smoking IS banned in every building that you have a legal right and/or a need to enter. Smoking is banned in every public building in the state. Virtually every office building, every health care provider; practically every business you can think of is either non-smoking, or has a non-smoking section.
I think you must enjoy the telling-others-not-to-smoke part.
"Smoking is banned" is not the same thing as "smoking is banned indoors." Like he said, you're still free to smoke in private residences and outdoors.
Ergo, smoking is not banned and he's not wrong.
He's pissed, because an adult, sitting in a bar, who wants to smoke, and the bar-owner, who wants that adult's business and who doesn't mind smoking can go ahead, like adults, and... smoke.
He wants to prevent those two adults from transacting business in that fashion.
He doesn't really need to interfere with that buisness; it is just a bar, after all, not a Secretary of State's office, or a Circuit Court, or a hospital (all of which ban smoking). No, it's just a bar, where people have routinely gone to relax, drink, tell jokes, watch the game and, sometimes, have a smoke.
Now, thanks to Democrats in Lansing, there's a law that prevents it. Hallelujah for more laws. What would we do without legislators looking after such important issues?
There are some people that like smoking, and a lot more that don't. The ones that do want to keep the non-smokers from fully enjoying anything at all when the smokers are around.
Here's an idea. Ban all the smokers from the state. Have them box their stuff up, and ship them off to Cuba. That way they can be with their kind and happy, and the rest of the public here can keep their not-smoky air.
See, I can play that game too.
The impact on bars and restaurants on their business seem at best inconclusive.
In Ohio, the loss in business has been pretty steep in the two years since the ban was enacted, though the same link cites a study where in Minnesota it's had no effect in the same period.
So IME the tiebreaker is that I get to eat at a bar and actually smell the food I'm eating. Good job Michigan!
In Ohio, the loss in business has been pretty steep in the two years since the ban was enacted
The ban passed there in 2006, and (especially in Ohio) the economy hasn't exactly been on an upswing since then. In downturns, bars and restaurants lose business as people choose to stay home instead of going out; I'd be hesitant to credit that downturn solely to the smoking ban.
the loss in business in Ohio is not because you can't smoke in bars and restaurants - it is because the economy is down and people are cutting back on non-essential expenses.
I bet if there was a stat for how much business has declined in Ohio over this span it would mirror the loss of business in the bar/restaurant business.
The Smoking Ban in Ohio is the only good thing about living in this awful state.
1. This is a neat topic, but imhtge, probably not for this board.
2. The actual fairness of the law is somewhat irrelevent, as legislators have already shown they're willing to sacrifice minute personal rights for public health.
3. Smokers will probably never see another day where smoking in public is welcome. It stinks, because people who smoke aren't any different from people who don't, but the movement to ban smoking has gained a lot of leverage recently, and it wouldn't suprise me if smoking restrictions increase like this all across the U.S. in the coming years. I don't think smoking is any better or worse than drinking, but I also think, that due to smoking having the very SLIGHTLY similar* influence-by-proxy characteristics of marijuana use, smoking will probably be reduced to a private, recreational habit in my lifetime.
* similar not in actual effects, but because effects are indeed felt. By the way, for god's sake let's not get into a discussion about mary-jane, we don't need it here.
I've got no problem "forfeiting my right" to breathe in smoky air indoors for my own health. As one who is very sensitive to smoke, I see it rather as gaining the right to go places without worrying about whether or not I'll be able to breathe and keep my eyes from watering.
It isn't particularly fair to smokers to ban it indoors, but everyone breathes, not everyone smokes. By the way, IDK if you were replying to me, and I can't tell if you were being super crass, but if you were, why don't you go ahead and forfeit that right of yours to breathe, ok?
For selfish reasons, I applaud the legislation. I am not a smoker and I despise being exposed to second hand smoke. Non-smoking sections in establishments are an absolute joke. Places with state of the art filtering systems cannot completely segregate the air between the smokers and non smokers.
With that said, it seems ridiculous to me to ban it across the board. It would make more sense to me to establish licensing requirements, similar those in place for alcohol, where the establishments would have to demonstrate that they meet those requirements before licensure.
Treating every corner bar the same as a family restaurant doesn't seem exactly right.
Seriously, why not just pursue legislation that would ban smoking all together? (which again, for selfish reasons, wouldn't exactly hurt my feelings.
Banning cigarettes would most likely work to the benefit of gangs and organized crime. Better to just regulate the crap out of it until it practically disappears from view. The next step is to get it out of Hollywood films.
Do you honestly doubt that this will happen? Ten years from now you'll never see a cigarette in a movie that gets less than an R rating.
I agree completely.
So far no one has bothered to address the issue of the cigar bar. There is an exemption in the law that allows for them. (and casinos, but I think that was a complete sell-out).
Where are the people weeping for their poor choking employees?
Where is the outrage that you'd still be subject to all that disgusting smoke if you entered?
Is it because cigars are cooler?
That they don't smell as bad?
Too small of a niche?
If you're ok with cigar bars existing (e.i. you know exactly what your in for) then why not other special smoking bars for the 20% that want to sit around and blow first AND second hand smoke into each others faces.
Call them smoking quarantine clubs.
second hand cigar smoke is just as unhealthy as cigarette smoke. In fact, it is likely MORE unhealthy because it is unfiltered.
Personally, I feel the decision to allow smoking in a privately owned establishment should be up to the owner of the establishment and not the government.
(See my post #154 at 3:37pm)
to smoking and non-smoking sections? By the way, I was watching the local news story about this and they interviewed some guy about it who was just as happy as can be that no more smoking was aloud, HOLDING HIS FUCKING BABY AT THE TABLE. So, no one can smoke but we all have to listen to you're stupid fucking kid while we try to eat, and just hope he doesn't take a huge shit. The nerve of some people. Don't get me wrong, I understand why non smokers wouldn't want to be around smoke, but thats fucking bullshit right there, hypocrites.
My 2 cents:
Like it or not, this is the way America is going. California has been smoke free in public places for years now as well. Not only that, but entire cities (Beverly Hills, Calabasas and downtown Burbank, for example) have banned smoking outdoors. This has made these areas MORE desirable to live in.
Smoking is not as socially accepted today as it was 20 years ago, and people don't put up with it like the used to. Expect this trend to continue.
they are affected by other peoples exhaust fumes everyday...Where is the fucking crybaby army for those poor, mistreated souls?
Once you get used to it, you can no longer stand being in a place that does have smoke.
Whether or not you agree with it, it all comes down to your opinion on how much the government should regulate health or morality standards.
To those who oppose smoking legislation, do you support laws against drinking and driving? Should people be allowed to drink in their own home/cars, and then drive regardless of BAC?
Most people would agree they should not be able to...
This is the third state that I have lived when the smoking ban hit. There is always the morning freakout and the evening who gives a shit. Smokers get used to it real quick. No big deal.
but as a smoker living in Canada (where these laws have existed for a few years) I can honestly say I think they are a good thing.
As a smoking Dr. (which is quite a minority in this country anyway) I know of the various health risks associated with smoking and don't feel that I (or anyone else who smokes) has the right to impose those risks on others who chose not to accept them.
When the law first past here I was a little angry about it but that was only because of the way it impacted me personally. Once I took the time to consider the rationale behind the law and get over my selfishness, I realised it was the right thing to do.