Proposed Michigan Smoking Ban-What are YOUR thoughts?

I think this is a very good question for you to ask Kelly. Make sure you respond to this on Monday morning. That way it will show back up on the front page and more people will see it.

I am ready for the ban.

Terry

.

I'd love to see a smoking ban in all public places.  I'm very sensitive to cigarette smoke and smoking makes it impossible for me to enjoy certain venues even if there are designated smoke free areas.  Bring on the ban!!

I LOVE IT!!  California has had it for about 10 years and we ALL loved it when I lived there.

I am in favor of the ban. Little background, former smoker. With all this talk about health care and expenses, how can we still justify infringing someone else's harmful habit on others to potentially effect their health and health care costs?

When others come here from states where smoking is banned, they can Not Believe we still have smoking in our public places. Passionate, Ban!

I can remember being a smoker and wishing that there WERE smoking restrictions in public places. This is because my social life trumped my desire to smoke and I knew I would smoke less, feel better, SMELL better, and LOOK better if I wasn't able to smoke in public places. I was looking for the bars/restaurants to limit my smoking. Tough to say if it would have had any impact.....nicotine is a powerful, manipulative addiction. For me it was easy to blame my smoking habit on the places that allowed me to smoke, not to mention the other smokers that stimulated my desire to smoke. Smokers can get VERY creative:) It was never MY fault!

I am  a non-smoker and am against a smoking ban.

As long as smoking is legal and over indulgence does not cause direct harm to others (such as drinking and driving) I see no reason to ban it.  While drinking alcohol is legal, abuse of it does cause harm or death to innocent victims.  While some would bring the issue of second hand smoke into the equation, I'd argue that spending a few minutes within a few feet of a smoker hardly has the impact that drinking and driving has.

The government cannot have it both ways IMO, taxing it to make money, yet outright banning people from doing it.

If I am in a public area and smoke is bad enough to bother me or my family, we move. The smoker has a right to be there as well.

I feel it should be up to the business owners of restaurants and bars to choose if they want to run smoke-free or not. It is my choice as a patron to go or not to go to these establishments.

Just my $.02

It's interesting that in all of the discussions I've been involved in regarding this topic, Joe is the first individual to comment on the significance of the Cigarette Tax to the State of Michigan. I was interested in locating some data and came across the following; the first link is the blog comment from Tobacco Free Michigan in response to the second link regarding a study: State's cigarette excise tax unrelialbe, declining, unstable funding source.

http://tobaccofreemichigan.blogspot.com/2009_08_01_archive.htm

 http://tinyurl.com/yaa5lja

I'd like to believe that, but other reports show they have been increasing. Regardless, they are making money from it but don't seem to mind if owners of bars and restaurants suffer the results of a ban.  Doesn't sit right with me.

CDC: http://www.nacsonline.com/NACS/News/Daily/Pages/ND1113096.aspx

ATLANTA - A new U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) survey found that smoking rose slightly in 2008 among U.S. adults - from 19.8 percent to just under 21 percent - for the first time in almost 15 years, reports the Associated Press.

Albeit a small increase, some groups are not happy.

"Clearly, we've hit a wall in reducing adult smoking," Vince Willmore, spokesman for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, told the news source.

Smoking bans, cigarette excise tax increases and FDA regulation of tobacco are "feeding that perception" that smoking "is a dying public health danger;" however, Willmore says that the tobacco industry has been "discounting cigarettes to offset tax increases and keep smokes affordable."

The bars and restaurants have not suffered in the 24 states that have banned smoking in public places (including Virginia and North Carolina in the heart of the tobacco industry).  Even if there is no overall reduction in smoking, the servers and bartenders that have to work in a smoky environment are exposed to dangerous levels of 2nd hand smoke.  Michigan finds itself in the company of most of the other states with slowest growing economies.  Just one more example of our states inability to get things done for our future.

I am ALLLLLLL for it!

I heard the other day that an exemption is being proposed for smoke/cigar shops and cigar bars.  I LIKE that!  I LOVE the idea of a ban on smoking, but to ban smoking in a cigar shop and/or bar just doesn't make sense to me.

And it's not just a few minutes; it can be hours.  And the effect is cumulative.  I really don't like the idea of me (or my children) getting cancer in our old age because we went out to eat or go to a bar.  I tend to be fairly sensitive to smoke, as Katherine is, and even when there are smoking and non-smoking areas and I'm sitting deep in a non-smoking area, there are times I have to put up with it, move or leave. 

I don't like smoking at all, but you do have the right to indulge in your own peccadillos in your own home - of course!  But that doesn't mean that you indulge in them all out in public.  And I have a right to go out and enjoy myself without coughing and not being able to breathe.  I just re-read this and feel like I may be sounding a bit like I'm a self-righteous prig, and I truly don't mean to.  So I'll just leave it there and get down off my soap box now!

The bars and restaurants have not suffered in the 24 states that have banned smoking in public places (including Virginia and North Carolina in the heart of the tobacco industry). Even if there is no overall reduction in smoking, the servers and bartenders that have to work in a smoky environment are exposed to dangerous levels of 2nd hand smoke. Michigan finds itself in the company of most of the other states with slowest growing economies. Just one more example of our states inability to get things done for our future.

I have yet to see any conclusive reports either way.  Fact is many people want to smoke when they drink. How much of an impact would it have? Hard to say unless real information is reported. I'd say the chances for negative business impact is MUCH greater than increasing or staying the same.

I love the server/second hand smoke argument. People choose to work where they work. If they want they can choose to work in an establishment that allows smoking or one that does not. Many bars in Michigan are going smoke free on their own. One more case where I believe business should be allowed to make a decision on their own.

I hardly see this topic as an example of our states inability.

As I've said before we all have choices, you can easily choose not to eat at an establishment that allows smoking.

Great idea.  Not only do I feel I am subjected to the awful smell (and effects) of the smoke, but I really feel sorry for the waitresses, bartenders, and other workers who put up with every day.  They might as well smoke themselves.

I hope this makes it to our beloved legislators so they wake up and act on this important health issue.

I am a non smoker as well but I believe in the bar's freedom of choice. I think that if the individual bar feels it may be a good marketing tip to have smoke free days or go smoke free altogether it should be up to them. If I owned a bar/ restaurant right now and I was reading this post it might encourage me to go smoke free with out the government's help. 

I quit smoking a few years ago. I prefer places that do not have smoking or choose the "non-smoking section."

I've noticed that there are MANY restaurants/bars that do not allow smoking. Apparently, the benefit of drawing in non-smokers or those who don't care outweighs the benefits to allowing smoking.

If some places, particularly bars that limit entry to adults, find that allowing smoking adds to their business or that a ban would harm business, I feel they should have the right to allow it. Equally, those who oppose smoking have the right to choose establishments that do not allow it. If enough people stop patronizing a particular business, the owner may CHOOSE to change the policy.

I understand how second hand smoke is a health concern that effects non-participants. But consider other things that can affect the "innocent bystander"...

I know of several people who get migraine headaches from perfume and other strong orders, like incense. If I frequent events with very loud music, tinnitus is surly in my future. If I'm out on a sunny summer day (without 40+ block), I WILL experience severe burns and possibly skin cancer someday. And what about the pesticides that venues with "lawn seats" and even golf courses spray on the grass to keep it lush and green? Something to think about that the next time you attend such an event.

I know I'm being the devil's advocate here, and some of these examples may seem extreme, but honestly, I'd like to see a day when individuals have enough sense NOT to bath in perfume, and companies (and people) only use non-toxic methods for landscaping. I don't care if it costs them more -- that's not my problem. "Little Billy's Lawn Service" needs to step up to MY standards no matter how it effects his business.

See where I'm going with this? Businesses (and government) will do whatever is best for business, and as long as I'm aware of the potential effects (I know which places allow smoking), I'm ok with that. Government should not have complete control over business practices, particularly when everyone has the control, and power, to make change just by making their own choices and sticking with them.

So your favorite restaurant allows smoking? Approach the owner/manager with a rationale argument for going smoke-free. If they don't consider your needs, then maybe they don't deserve your patronage.