OT Michigan Smoking Ban
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.
http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2009/12/michigan_legislature_…
December 11th, 2009 at 3:58 PM ^
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.
December 11th, 2009 at 7:51 PM ^
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.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:34 PM ^
Obviously I'm greatly outnumbered on this, but I feel pretty strongly about it.
December 11th, 2009 at 3:03 PM ^
You have every right to smoke and harm yourself. You just don't have a right to do it in a manner that harms others.
What if someone else liked to take a "break from a stressful workday" by sitting at the bar and punching you in the face? Maybe that's how they relieve stress? Do they have a right to do that? Of course not. No one has a right to cause physical harm to others.
December 11th, 2009 at 2:34 PM ^
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.
December 11th, 2009 at 1:53 PM ^
I still frequent a local bar that stopped allowing smoking, and am familiar with the staff. Some of the bartenders quit, and the ones that remain tell me that their earnings have taken a significant hit. People who would hang out and conversate with friends for hours, now simply leave when the craving hits.
December 11th, 2009 at 4:09 PM ^
Despite what professional athletes would have you believe, "conversate" is not considered a normal word.
December 11th, 2009 at 7:11 PM ^
Good enough for me.
December 11th, 2009 at 2:00 PM ^
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.
December 11th, 2009 at 2:33 PM ^
You have no facts to support your claim. You're just spouting your opinion.
December 12th, 2009 at 9:05 AM ^
Cigarettes are an important part of their travel itinerary, and I mock them for it, but it's true.
December 11th, 2009 at 1:27 PM ^
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.
December 11th, 2009 at 3:33 PM ^
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.
December 11th, 2009 at 1:44 PM ^
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.
December 11th, 2009 at 2:06 PM ^
to find another job at that level at any given time in any given place. Don't like waitressing at a smoky restaurant? You can work at McDonald's, do custodial work at the local hospital, or find a job as a receptionist somewhere. As bad as the economy is in Michigan, those types of jobs still have a high turnover.
December 11th, 2009 at 7:33 PM ^
Does anyone have a reply to go with their neg? I'm sincerely curious to hear how I'm wrong.
December 11th, 2009 at 1:47 PM ^
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.
December 11th, 2009 at 1:51 PM ^
I hate coming home from bars smelling like smoke, but it's scary that the government can limit a bar-owner's right to allow a legal substance to be used on their property.
If you like freedom, you should oppose this ban.
December 11th, 2009 at 2:02 PM ^
limits the bar owner's right to sell alcohol (a legal substance).
December 11th, 2009 at 2:06 PM ^
as a libertarian, i disagree with a lot of regulations, but mgoblog aint the place to discuss
December 11th, 2009 at 2:11 PM ^
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."
December 11th, 2009 at 2:23 PM ^
He's just sayin.
December 12th, 2009 at 1:26 AM ^
As a libertarian, you want restrictions of the place of free speech? An interesting contradiction... ;-)
December 11th, 2009 at 1:51 PM ^
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.
December 11th, 2009 at 1:54 PM ^
...to breathe clean air outweighs the right to smoke.
December 11th, 2009 at 2:13 PM ^
My theory: You can inhale whatever you want, wherever and whenever you want... as long as you don't exhale it on me.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:07 PM ^
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.
December 11th, 2009 at 1:55 PM ^
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.
December 11th, 2009 at 1:58 PM ^
The important question is: if they didn't smell like smoke, what would places like the 8 ball or Fleetwood smell like?
December 11th, 2009 at 2:05 PM ^
Some thoughts:
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.
December 11th, 2009 at 2:10 PM ^
What this guy said. Enough mgopolitics for me, I'm off to the "Titles of a Tiger Woods Porn" thread.
December 11th, 2009 at 2:19 PM ^
Smoking ban porn titles!!!
"Put that butt out"
"You can't do that in public"
Others?
December 11th, 2009 at 2:07 PM ^
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!
December 11th, 2009 at 2:08 PM ^
Instead of commenting on each anti-smokefree air point, I figure it's easier to do it in one long post. I'm a bar owner (no, won't say which bar...some of you folk are c-razy) and an attorney, so I've got good insight into the issue.
There are a couple of main points that pro-indoor smokers bring up:
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.
Second, indoor smokers claim this will kill the industry. This is spoken by those, again, without any understanding of fact. Hospitality growth in MI is 50/50 nationally. The worst. On the other hand, in those areas with smokefree air, receipts have risen. Jobs have been created. It may be that some of the most backwoods, low-education areas will suffer. That is unfortunate without doubt. The entire state need not suffer, however, for the bottom of the barrel.
Please remember that no one is banning cigarettes...it's just a location regulation, moving smokers outside. If a short walk can save lives and increase business (not to mention remove the stigma of MI looking like a relic to out-of-state business interests), smokefree air is essential.
December 11th, 2009 at 2:14 PM ^
It seems like they would already not allow smoking, if they though they would make more money. I might have to get into that business, the competition looks weak.
December 11th, 2009 at 2:36 PM ^
Increased revenue is found when the playing field is level. So when all bars/restaurants are smokefree, nonsmokers are going to go out more and spend. Smokers (and I don't mean to lump them all together...I find that many are very considerate and love the smoking ban) will still go out. It's the only way to increase potential customers in such a tough market/economy.
December 11th, 2009 at 5:20 PM ^
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?
December 11th, 2009 at 7:56 PM ^
that's too complicated. It's easier to just have a mob bully culture that bans everything they find in poor taste.
December 11th, 2009 at 2:15 PM ^
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."
December 11th, 2009 at 2:32 PM ^
Many thanks! I tried to keep it bit more lively for the MgoBlog folk.
December 11th, 2009 at 2:48 PM ^
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.
December 11th, 2009 at 3:45 PM ^
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.
December 11th, 2009 at 3:52 PM ^
Yes. Most bar/restaurant owners must be forced to change. The meat packing industry also had to be forced to change.
Again, this isn't about "more" or even less regulation. It's about good regulation. Current law bans servers from "mingling" with customers. That's "bad" regulation. Moving smokers a few feet to save lives and increase revenue..."good" regulation.
December 11th, 2009 at 4:30 PM ^
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.
December 11th, 2009 at 2:10 PM ^
I am for the ban. I don't have to slowly develop anyone else's lung cancer anymore.
On a side note, it seems strange that rolling leaves and paper and setting them on fire in your mouth should be legal anyway. Everything else that causes cancer is kept out of our lives. Unfortunately, nicotine addictions = taxes for our government... So...
December 12th, 2009 at 1:30 AM ^
You just had to not go to establishments that allowed smoking. See? Problem solved!
December 11th, 2009 at 2:17 PM ^
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.
December 11th, 2009 at 2:19 PM ^
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.
December 11th, 2009 at 2:24 PM ^
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.