Proposed Michigan Smoking Ban-What are YOUR thoughts?

Well said Julie.

can someone bum me a smoke? ...ok... kidding... but seriously - isn't there some irony within all of this? Smoking is legal and they are trying to make it illegal in certain areas/places that most people go to directly to smoke. Designating smoking and non smoking areas has always seemed to do the trick before, why change it now? This might really hurt the bar owners out there putting more rules out there for there customers who go to these places to get away from rules in a sense. Yes, I know that sounds bad - but it is reality! As for the arguement of the waitstaff and bartenders dealing with all the smoke to... well, they know what they were getting into when they signed up for the job ...right? 

Don't get me wrong - I am not a fan of coming home after a night out celebrating a new account, the big game, or a friends engagement and my clothes and (whats left of) my hair smelling like 10 years of smoke but ...I knew what I was getting into when I walked into that bar...

I am all for the ban... and most bar owners are too for health reasons. Recently Royal Oak Music Theatre went non smoking in October. Royal Oak Brewery is after Thanksgiving.

While hesitant, due to the fear of lack of business all studies show that business is NOT effected overall when smoking is banned. Only 13 states have not moved forward with a smoking ban.  If the night life in Miami, Chicago, New York can withstand a ban I think Detroit can.

It is a health issue and a rights issue... what about non smokers rights? And, yes extra perfume/cologne  is annoying, but far less health implications for most people.

Smoking and drinking don't have to go hand and hand. And. really how many smokers do you know that are EXCITED to be smokers. It is an addiction. Most the smokers I talk too are not too upset about the potential ban as it would help them increase their life span and improve their health. And, save them money. Curious, if you have a friend that drinks too much, do you try to help them? Offer them a ride home, get a taxi. OR do you give them their right to drive... either smoking and driving drunk, both are deadly. We are not saying don't go and drink!? I know more non smokers would be out more too... including myself.

For those that can remember Old Woodward Grill in the 555 Building...  I believe it was 3 years of lines out the door. They were a non smoking bar. Never had an issue with business. Young professionals as well. Still wonder why the bar closed...

From Wikipedia

Nicotine, the primary psychoactive chemical in cigarettes, is addictive.^[37] Cigarette use by pregnant women has also been shown to cause birth defects (which include mental and physical disability).^[38]
On average, each cigarette smoked shortens lifespan by 11 minutes and
smokers who die of tobacco-related disease lose, on average, 14 years
of life.^[39]

I hope we are smart enough to see the big picture...

My vote is against the ban.  I have never smoked.  I don't like to be exposed to cigarette smoke for longer than a couple of minutes.  In most cases that I can recall I have not been forced to remain exposed for longer than that.  If I go to a bar or restaurant that does not leave me an option for a relatively smoke-free experience I leave.

If a business sees economic benefit from allowing smoking I think that is there perogative.  And as long as there are some restaurants/bars that see gain in attracting those of us that do not wish that exposure things are working as they should (in my humble opinion).

I have asthma when people smoke. I carry an inhaler when I smell smoke. I don't mind if people smoke, so long as it is outside away from businesses.

I'm a non-smoker, and I think that the law is unnecessary.  A better method of controlling the problem would be to have a standard for venting the smoke in bars, or a mandatory enclosed smoking area with a separate ventilation system.  If a bar couldn't conform to the state requirements, then they would have to be smoke free until they did.

Establishments in other states that have smoking bans either break the ban by having a smoking area in the back away from the front door so someone that sees an enforcement officer can tell everyone to stop, or there is a group of people that smoke in the front entrance of the building so everyone going in or out has to walk through a smoke cloud.

Finally I think it's hypocritical, because these laws are probably thought up while our politicians are having a cigar and sipping on a scotch at an exclusive member only club (will those be smoke free too?).  

I think it would be great it all restaurants and bars went smoke free. I really do.

But if I owned such a business, I wouldn't want legislation forcing me to do so. If I own a business, it IS "my" business isn't it? And if I then choose to allow smoking and alienate enough of my would be customers that don't smoke, it would be my "bad business" choice, but it should still be a choice.

If enough people who do not like the smoke stop going to such places, especially if it is made known that the smoke is keeping customers away, the business will eventually comply on their own.

These are private or corporate owned businesses, not city/state owned buildings where people actually are required to go.

I agreed we should all lend our full support to family and friends in their quest to quit smoking, but we can't tie them down and hold an intervention. I don't feel it's my place to make people do "what's best -- for their own good."

There was a segment on this on WGN news in Chicago last night. They were reporting how widespread the lack of compliance has been. There are not enough people on staff to enforce the laws they put into place and many establishments are still allowing patrons and employees to smoke.

To me it as simple as the hypocrisy and one more way government has their paws into the private sector. To those who support a ban, where does this end? Many of you own your own businesses as well.

Here is another thought;  the smoking ban is designed to protect workers, right?  Then why don't we start with a law that is already in place; the great majority of service industry employees work for more than 8 hours a day, yet rarely does an establishment give them the legally prescribed 30 minute break, and most of the time they don't get a 15 minute break either.  For the average person, secondhand smoke might cause lung cancer, but fatigue causes more problems in a larger number of people(irregular heart beat, high blood pressure, digestive problems, infertility).  If you disagree with that then think about this; service industry employees work with glass, around your food, and fatigue makes them more accident prone.  I would pose the question, why are we targeting smokers?  There might be something more to it, but I would have to point out that the popularity of the issue is one of the biggest factors.  Rather than putting an end to a blatant disregard for the law, we're going to pass another law that has been proven unenforceable in the states that have passed it.

Thanks for listening,

Dan

Dan - I like your line of thought. This is the pattern with laws in the last decade or so.

We already have laws on the books for things like assault and murder, but somehow hate crimes snuck their way into the books under the guise of helping our fellow man/woman.  I fail to see how it is more of a crime to murder someone based on a select criteria. Murder is murder, there are already degrees of murder on the books. Follow the current law instead of piling more on.

Similar to hand gun legislation, enforce the laws we already have before you target the innocent law abiding citizen

Just saw this on Twitter (I believe from an MCC member)...

Royal Oak Brewery is now smoke free! Great food, even if you don't want to try one of their amazing brews: http://bit.ly/8H9sRh

EXCERPT: "The Royal Oak Brewery officially went smoke-free November 27. Diners
can literally breathe a fresh sigh of relief, knowing that they no
longer have to experience second-hand smoke, or come home to find their
clothes smelling from it.

The idea has been in the works for a
while, and the Brewery even posed the question to its Facebook fans. An
overwhelming majority voted in favor of this change."

Another Smoke Free choice, created by vocal patrons and smart business sense, not another law that is difficult and expensive to enforce.

I wholeheartedly applaud the Royal Oak Brewery for choosing to go smoke free. It is another option for non-smokers. Here’s what I feel. Smoking bans turned out ok for places like New York, L.A., Chicago, Boston etc. Why? Because the places that didn’t wind up closing their doors had the economic backing to survive the 12-24 months of lost revenue-revolving door tourism. Now, if post apocalyptic urban & industrial decay and crack make some form of tourist industry “come-back”, we should be ok. We're not New York, we love our state and our Detroit-but c'mon? Apples vs. oranges there. It is however crushing small businesses in places such as Ohio, Wisconsin, New Jersey… why are these NEVER counted into the selective pro-ban equation. I was more or less impartial before doing some reading. Frankly, I like not coming home smelling of smoke. BUT, I do believe the government has NO business dictating to small business owners. Smoking is not illegal. And should the business owner choose to allow a perfectly legal (yet disgusting) activity to go on in their establishment, then go right ahead. The onus of responsibility is on ME whether to enter or not. I do firmly agree with a smoking restriction in public family environments. The children have no choice in the matter. But when it is an adult only venue, be an adult and make an adult decision. Go in, or don’t. Now the state has taken it being a public health issue right out of their arsenal. *Casinos exempt. That would make them hypocrites to say otherwise. Its everyone, or its no one. I think the bill needs to be amended to protect the rights off small business owners, and not force the will of the government on private citizens. (For the record, I’m a democrat, a non-smoker and NOT in the bar business). The economic benefits of smoking bans seem to be skewed. I fail to see how (looking across the river at Windsor Ontario) the universal “plus” of bans, economically speaking. Economics, rights and freedoms of small business owners and to a smaller extent the hypocrisy of Lansing is why I support amending this ban.

Agreed Steve. Good point on the "family environments." I have a few friends that suffer from asthma because they grew up in households with heavy smoking parents (never smoked themselves).

But we as adults, have choices -- bar and restaurant owners should have the choice as well.

I drive by several places that I would love to go into or back to , but my expierence was, they were to smokey! Now I Cant Wait to go to several restaurants and social gathering places that are now smoke free! Mark Ridleys Comedy Castle, on 4th street in Royal Oak, next to the RO Brewery is also smoke free! Thank you Mark!