State says smoking ban improved bar workers' health
Bar employees who participated in a state-administered secondhand smoke study reported better respiratory health and an improvement in allergy symptoms following the smoking ban.
The Michigan Department of Community Health released these and other findings today ahead of the one-year anniversary of a smoke-free law that went into effect May 1, 2010.
The ban on smoking applies to all bars and restaurants but exempts casinos and cigar bars.
The state conducted the study of 40 bar employees from 13 Michigan counties four to six weeks before and six to 10 weeks after the smoke-free law was implemented.
Photo by Flickr user Saltram
The ban has stoked debate in Ann Arbor and around the state. Health advocacy groups praised the move, but restaurant industry lobbyists and some business owners decried it for its potential to hurt the bottom line during hard economic times.
Business owners, smokers, restaurant owners, and patrons of Ann Arbor, what do you think of the ban? Has it hurt business? Helped your lungs? Trampled on your freedoms? Freshened the air? Take our poll and leave a comment below.
Comments
Louhi
Fri, Apr 29, 2011 : 5:14 p.m.
I have been a bartender for many, many years. I have also smoked on and off for several years. The smoking ban has affected the business at the bar I work in. Also, ALL of the staff smokes. There are a few regular patrons that are happy with the ban, and many that are not. But the tapes show a significant decrease in sales, regardless of drink specials and entertainment. I do not agree with the ban for the simple reason that it should be up to the business owner to make the decision. The Govt' could have offered either an incentive, or a tax instead of imposing the ban. Additionally, the ban is counter productive. The reason I throw this out, is that Granholm's admin added tax increases on cigarettes, and typically, people that smoke, will smoke more while drinking. Finally, the reason casino's are exempt from the ban is that the State Govt' can't impose regulations on Native American owned casinos. Therefore the casinos that are not owned by Native Americans could be at a loss if the ban was imposed upon them. Considering the State rides heavily on the gambling industry, they didn't want to reduce competitive advantage.
treetowncartel
Fri, Apr 29, 2011 : 3:26 p.m.
One other thing, imposing this ban on private clubs, where memberships are handed out, is reaching a little too far. Again, the Casinos got a free pass on this, becuase they couldn't compete with the tribal casinos. @ Clownfish, gambling ruins lives too, it is proven, yet we let money win out there over lives.
mun
Fri, Apr 29, 2011 : 3:07 p.m.
Based on some of the posts here, the right to smoke in a restaurant is more important than the right to eat and drink in a restaurant.
Greggy_D
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 6:03 p.m.
If the concept of non-smoking bars was so popular and profitable, then why did we not see them in huge numbers?
Atticus F.
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 5:48 p.m.
maybe we could ban any dangerous job. After all being an electrician, or a fisherman can be dangerous. But I guess that wouldn't make much sense, since those act don't offend your sense of morality...After all thats what this is really about, forcing others to give up a bad habit that YOU find morrally wrong.
BioVice
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 8:23 p.m.
That's not true at all. If it were they would ban cigarettes just like they've banned "street drugs". Someone being a fisherman doesn't affect me unless I guess if I were married to them, but someone smoking around me does. I have no problem at all with anyone smoking cigarettes. I'm not going to do it, but please feel free to do it yourself. I would like you to enjoy your life and be happy doing as you please. However, could you not stand next to me so that I have to inhale the smoke too? People may say "you can move just as easily as I can", but the difference is that I'll move away only to find myself next to another smoker. If I'm outside then it's different there is plenty of space outside it's totally fair, but inside the air gets stale as it is. The smoke will just linger and make it worse. So how is this not a compromise? Kind of like "No skating here" You can only skate in skate parks now because people had misconceptions about skateboarders. That sucks too, but no one is trying to change that, and the skateboarders weren't affecting the health of people around them. I'm just saying there are plenty of examples, but none of them actually had any affect on the people around them health wise.
Atticus F.
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 5:39 p.m.
A report by the Michigan Department of Treasury examining the first six months of the ban concluded it had "reduced the activity at taverns that serve liquor." From The Detroit News: <a href="http://detnews.com/article/20110428/METRO/104280405/A-year-later--Michigan" rel='nofollow'>http://detnews.com/article/20110428/METRO/104280405/A-year-later--Michigan</a>'s-smoking-ban-has-mixed-impact#ixzz1KqAgLNLm So where are all of the people that said they were going to frequent bars more often, and that this would increase business for bars and restarants?
BioVice
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 7:58 p.m.
Nothing against Detroit, but it's Detroit. While I've lived around here all my life and have no problem with it, there are many people who have a negative connotation about Detroit. So that could be why people aren't frequenting that area more often. It's sad really. Detroit isn't an awful place, and if people would just go there they could see that. It could also be improved a bit and then maybe people would feel more inclined to go. I just wish people wouldn't go based off of hear-say. Crime is everywhere so it's not like Detroit is special for it...
sig.melvin
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 3:52 p.m.
Well where are the number of the bars that have closed? where are the numbers for the loos of beersale and liquorsales? Where are the numbers for ALl the CIGARTTE BUTTS on the sidewalk? So now the Cigarette butts go right into our water , so more chemical are added to our drinkingwater? I like to see the number ? liquorsales are down! Time to let barowner decided what is rigth for there bar! I support the claen Air when in a fine resteraunt!
David Briegel
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 3:51 p.m.
D West, you are concerned about people "losing their rights"? Well, corporations are people and according to the TeaPublican philosophy they should have the right to pollute the air and water, poison our food and plunder the natural resources without the interference of that evil big gubbermint. You just need to incorporate!
RoboLogic
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 2:55 p.m.
As a smoker (currently) I do not mind going outside to smoke. It is a small price to pay for nice air inside while I am eating. Even though I smoke, I cannot stand smoke blowing in my face from someone else who chain smokes. It is about selfishness... The smokers want to smoke anywhere , anytime without regard for non-smokers...while the non-smokers want to ban smoking anywhere, everywhere. Saying that smokers cannot go outside and smoke is an example of this selfishness. Your just not happy are you? You got the smokers outside and I can live with that. As I stated above, I actually like it, however, that is where your selfishness ends. I have been both a smoker and non smoker my whole life ( the quit, start battle never ends)...I understand both sides and I am NOT selfish. And to you smokers going outside...there is a butt receptacle right in front of you. Why do you still throw your cig butt on the ground you selfish , lazy pigs? Are you trying to earn some of the criticism that the non-smokers are giving you? As far as the business angle...some are up (the ones with real good food and reputations) and some are down (the drink, smoke bar bars).
Louhi
Fri, Apr 29, 2011 : 5:21 p.m.
Hi Robo, I agree with you, being in the same position. I have smoked on and off. I feel that bars that do not serve food should have the choice to decide whether smokingshould be allowed. Also, the cost of correction for the ban is laid on the shoulders of health inspectors. Personally, I'd prefer that they focus on proper food handling, and less on searching for the rogue ashtray.
BioVice
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 8:13 p.m.
If only the internet allowed you to hear me clapping and see me smiling. This is EXACTLY what I think! I agree whole-heartedly. Best post on here yet, if I could vote it up a thousand times I would! Smokers have all the right to smoke anywhere outside as well as in their cars and in the comfort of their own homes. It doesn't really clog up the air too badly since there's plenty of air outside. Inside, ESPECIALLY if you're trying to quit, the stale smoke filled air kind of sucks to deal with. It's also nice that places can go get new chairs and such that no longer have the cigarette burn holes all over them. I think this is a fair compromise. No smoking inside. Great. In exchange I can deal with the smoking everywhere else. I'm glad someone else sees it this way! Also I agree with the whole littering thing... I don't like it when people do it no matter what it is, but smokers do tend to have a nasty habit of doing it. Worse though is eating fast food while driving and tossing cups and wrappers out the window. I stand guilty of tossing Gatorade bottles when I was younger, but never again. Also, if you have a good business people will keep coming. Smoking or non.
clownfish
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 1:07 p.m.
And there you have it folks, to so many posters here money is more important than lives. Anybody surprised by that?
sellers
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 12:52 p.m.
Much like in neighboring Toledo, many of the establishments have seen an increase in business. I imagine some have suffered but for example, Dan's in Saline just expanded into the neighboring space, due to increase in traffic mostly after the ban, according to reports in this publication.
CynicA2
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 6:19 a.m.
The arrogance of the non-smoking health-Nazis is far more "breathtaking" than smoking EVER will be.
Atticus F.
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 5:45 p.m.
maybe we could ban any dangerous job. After all being an electrician, or a fisherman can be dangerous. But I guess that wouldn't make much sense, since those act don't offend your sense of morality...After all thats what this is really about, forcing others to give up a bad habit that YOU find morrally wrong.
clownfish
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 1:10 p.m.
yes, no question. Limiting a hazardous material in a work place is akin to lining up millions of people and killing them, invading several countries and killing them and creating havoc worldwide. When will the madness end! Next thing you know these "anti-smoking Nazis" will want our medical drugs to be tested by labs, or worse.
BioVice
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 10:01 a.m.
I'm also not a republican. Anything else you want throw in there? Is this based off of stereotypes based on my argument against you so far? I don't tend to fit the stereotypes most people attempt to pin on me.
BioVice
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 9:58 a.m.
OK A2.com How is me saying who I didn't vote for a violation of anything. I didn't vote for Rick Snyder. I didn't like any of the candidates actually.
D. West
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 7:48 a.m.
@BioVice Go re-vote for Rick Snyder.
CynicA2
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 7:41 a.m.
Getting far too windy in here... nite-nite.
CynicA2
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 7:39 a.m.
If the shoe fits... !
BioVice
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 6:38 a.m.
Nazi's eh? That's original.
treetowncartel
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 2:28 a.m.
There are bars and bar employees that have taken a hit because of this. I've talke to emplyees and owners alike who would like it to go back to the old way because it hurts their bottom line. Has anyone talked about the drop in Keno over the past year? This ban is ridiculous for the hole in the wall shot and a beer dive joints. I agree with D. West, it is about property rights. And if it is about protecting people, then pleeeeeeze, ban parents or other adults from smoking with their kids in the confines of an automobile. All of us posting here can make our own decision about whether to drink or work at an establishment where smoking is taking place, but a child has no say in weather they are going to be strapped into the car seat and sit in the second hand smoke of mom and dad.
deb
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 1:46 p.m.
keno benefits are schools, so I care about keno and many others should also
BioVice
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 7:13 a.m.
As for Cartel, I don't agree with D. West., but I think your argument makes total sense and is quite valid in my opinion. I also DO believe/agree that parents should NEVER be allowed to smoke around their children. Not only do the kids (at the very least feel like) they don't have a choice AND it's bad for their development. Same reason why alcohol is illegal until you turn 21. It "sucks" to wait for kind of, but it's better for your health in the long run.
BioVice
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 6:37 a.m.
Also making choices for yourself is legal, but making choices that tread on another human beings rights isn't. You want your rights, but you don't care about anyone else's. You could just as easily establish a smokers only colony on an island somewhere.
johnnya2
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 5:01 a.m.
Nobody should care about the drop in Keno. If your establishment can not make it without smokers, FIND A NEW BUSINESS. This property rights argument just does not hold ANY LOGIC. If I choose to pee in your water at a restaurant and not tell anybody, that would be my right on MY property? Of course peeing in your water would be a lower health risk than smoking.
CynicA2
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 2:26 a.m.
I know several bar and restaurant owners, some local, some not. None are doing more business as a result of the ban - even the few non-smoking owners admit it has hurt their money crowd, the 10PM-2AM group (frequently made up of restaurant staffers, as they tend to close earlier, who drink more and tip better. They also tend to be smokers. Some bars have gained a little business around dinner time, but families with rug rats having dinner isn't where they make their money. Beer, wine, and liquor - in large amounts - are how real bars make money, and unless it's a football Saturday, or some other special event, they mostly capture that market segment later in the evening, right up 'til closing. No one goes to a bar to get healthy. Ironically, some bar/restaurant workers have lost their jobs because of this law. Wonder if they like being healthily unemployed?
D. West
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 1:02 a.m.
I have an idea. Let's ban cars too. They cause much more health problems than cigarettes. Hey, and while we're at it, maybe we should ban alcohol in bars, what, with all of that second hand stupidity floating around....and why on earth are we serving food in bars? It's just getting out of hand. How about if we ban prudes from the sidewalk, that would accomplish much more. I think everyone is missing the point that slowly, over time, you are losing more and more of your rights. Some of you can't even see it because you're too busy worrying about what everyone else is doing that you don't pay attention to what happens to yourself. So you don't like the smoke in the bar? Then go to a bar that is non-smoking. You don't want to work around all that smoke? Then work somewhere else. It's YOUR choice to do so. The point is that the government and guys with guns should not be telling owners what to do with their businesses. In Ann Arbor we had several non-smoking establishments before the ban went into effect, and you know what? It was the owners choice. You think it's a victory to ban smoking in bars and restaurants? Well guess what, soon there will be something banned that you are against. Perhaps they will ban kids in public, or even just being able to choose to have them. Maybe someday you won't be able to read the comments here because they will be too opinionated for your frail ears. Ban smoking on the sidewalks? How about no. How about getting a life, because someday when I don't like the mental stress that your haircut causes me we may have to ban hair. Let's focus on this as a rights issue. The rights of the business owner. You don't like it? Open your very own restaurant and make it non-smoking and invite your trite friends.
skigrl50
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 12:49 p.m.
The smoking ban is actually not for restaurant/bar patrons (although that is a nice benefit) it is all about a smoke free work environment for employees and only about a smoke free work environment.
Steve Pepple
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 11:34 a.m.
A series of comments that evolved into an exchange of personal attacks have been removed.
D. West
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 6:15 a.m.
@Macabre Sunset But not the casino owners? You're right. who would want to touch that arguement. So we'll outlaw eating, because it offends skinny people and makes them eat less and as a result creates health problems. Oh let's see, how far can we take this simple, simple debate about cigarettes and people's inability to make a choice about being around them. If you don't want to be around carnival rides because they scare you, don't work at the carnival, don't go to the carnival, outlaw ads for the carnival, and by all means, don't look at the carnival!
BioVice
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 6:04 a.m.
People with extremely limiting food allergies will be forced to choose wisely, but no one is shoving peanuts down your throat when you're allergic to them... Smokers are everywhere and for people to just "go somewhere else" is unrealistic. "People still drink and drive though it's illegal" yes, yes they do and when they get caught they face many sever consequnces. If you smoke in a place where it has been banned you will be warned, and if you persist you will be removed from the vicinity. That argument is still invalid. You keep saying "it's about us making our OWN decisions." But when someone drives drunk did the person they killed decide to die? So did the person you lit up in front of decide to smoke as well? Maybe we should just hold our breathe and leave so you can have your freedom. I honestly wish you would quit with this already. They didn't say you can't smoke EVER. You know, you can't ride a bike in a building. You might hit and injure someone. Oh my goodness! We have rights as bikers we can bike where we please! You can't drink in public aka randomly in the streets. Oh my goodness! How dare they confine me to this bar/my home where all the alcohol is conveniently placed! I can drink where I please! You know you can smoke anywhere outside. The whole world is yours. You're mad you can't go get cramped up in a building with tons of smelly strangers and do it? Gosh... Casino's are likely exempt because they often sell cigars and such and in an establishment where you sell smoking you can't really ban it. Clubs and Restaurants do not provide these things for you in the same manner, but you must bring them yourselves.
BioVice
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 6:03 a.m.
Dave's point is valid because if he puts the fuel into drinking water it's not just slipping it in YOUR cup it's ALL drinking water. Now if he didn't mean that, then for my point I do. It is the same as smoking at that point. Say I like the high or whatever. It "calms" me, and because of that I've put it in all drinkable water. Plenty or people around don't want to drink the diesel but now they have to, because of my rights. So their rights now are insignificant compared to mine? Your argument about the two bars would be valid if there were as many non smoking facilities as there are smoking. As well, if I walked into a bar that sold the diesal water, but also had water without it, then that would be fine and fair. The problem with your argument on this is that you smokeing doesn't just go into you and stay with you. If I go to the diesel bar and I want non diesel water and I can drink it and you can have your diesel at the same time, then non of your diesel is getting into my system nor is it harming me in any way. Sadly your smoke is in my face, in my eyes, in my lungs, making my hair and clothes smell, and possibly making it harder for me to breathe. Restaurants and bars/clubs are allowed to have a smoking room, but there are rules for that. The club I enjoy attending has a room outside. It has four walls and a cloth roof. The door is wide open and leads to the patio of the establishment. The patio is an adiquate size so that the smoke desipates before it can reach the doors leading back into the club. During colder seasons there is a door leading from the club directly to the smoking room and the door stay closed at all times. You walk in the door shuts behind you. It's simple.
BioVice
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 6:03 a.m.
One flaw many people against the ban make is the fact that smokers are also infringing upon the rights of others by smoking around them. It's basically why drunk driving is illegal as well. By saying "it's your choice so if you don't like smoke then don't go rawr" that basically makes an unwritten law banning none smokers from the majority of establishments. Also to tell people to go find new jobs if they don't like the smoke is just absurd in this economy. What about people with medical conditions such as asthma who would like to be able to go to a club with their friends and not end up in intensive care? "Go find a non smoking bar" huh? So they have to spend more and more time finding a special little place for them to go because they were born with different circumstances? Alright. If I may mimic your extreme oppositional argumentative tactics then let the segregation commence. You're in a wheel chair? Screw off and find a place without stairs. Those of us who can walk shouldn't have to pay the city for the construction. We have rights. Does that make any more sense? I think not. Next you'll predict they're going to ban breathing. Your argument has become a little outlandish. I get your point, but you're argument isn't exactly going to get the right kind of people to agree with you. As far as your argument against Macabre... Bikers get hit usually because they don't look, the driver doesn't look, and both end up paying for a ridiculous mistake. I've already addressed drunk driving. Car accidents are no more common than freak accidents in the home. No matter what you can think of you can die doing it. If everyone rode bikes still they could die just the same. So it wasn't that they got creamed by a car... but colliding with another biker, falling, and hitting your head just so on a rock will still kill you.
BioVice
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 6:02 a.m.
Um... I get your point, and I would start to agree with you if you didn't fly off the handle. You're sounding just as extreme as the people you're targeting. First of all they ARE trying to come up with more environmentally friendly cars. That's obviously why we have hybrids. Secondly, they won't ban alcohol in bars because of a few reasons. The main one being that they tried banning alcohol in 1920 to 1933 in the United States. It's called prohibition. Did you take history class? "After several years, prohibition became a failure in North America and elsewhere, as bootlegging (rum-running) became widespread and organized crime took control of the distribution of alcohol." Also, people go to bars and clubs specifically to drink. What they COULD do, however, is ban it in other establishments like family restaurants. Not all restaurants of course because upscale ones aren't required to be kid friendly, but "family" restaurant implies that kids will be welcome and even expected. They won't likely ban alcohol from these places at all, however, because they have already established rules and guidelines that these places have to follow to serve alcohol. As long as they follow these rules they are perfectly permitted to sell. In fact, you actually have to acquire a permit/license to sell alcohol within your establishment. Third, some of the same reasons they won't ban alcohol apply to the smoking ban. They did not ban it from casinos and cigar bars. Places that you go to specifically to smoke. Just like they wouldn't ban alcohol from a place that you go specifically to drink. Finally, are you seriously going to go so far with your argument as bringing food into this equation? There are laws that regulate the food survice industry so that the food is safe for cunsumption AND so that consumers know what they're eating. If you have an allergy it has legally been deemed YOUR RESPONSABILITY to inform the wait staff of any food allergies.
Macabre Sunset
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 6:01 a.m.
You want me to defend the exception for casinos. Not a chance. Property owners are free to smoke. When they employ someone or invite the public into their businesses, they have to follow the rules.
D. West
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 5:55 a.m.
@Macabre Sunset Don't you think that it's a bit silly then that smoking is perfectly allowed in casinos? Why is that? Money. So the employees at the casinos can choose, but not employees of other establishments? I know, I know, casino employees could just find a different job. Yes, they could. So could someone who chooses to work at a bar that allows smoking. This is about choices. The whole problem with this debate is that everyone is so distracted by the superficial arguement about the smoke itself that they forget about the bigger arguement regarding the owners rights. Maybe the law should simply be that to work in a bar that allows smoking you have to be a smoker? That way, who cares.
D. West
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 5:36 a.m.
@johnnya2 We all lost. And we're losing more everyday. Soon you won't even be able to express your uneducated feelings about laws on this website or any other. I'll tell you, I would rather come home from an establishment that allowed smoking, that I made a choice to enter (whether employee or customer) with a smelley shirt, than have the voters be so uninformed that soon we won't be able to leave our houses without a hall pass. This is about choice, not about your inability to make a choice. So you've had bad experiences with choosing a non-smoking bar over a smoking one. Thankfully you don't have to make that choice anymore. Don't worry, we'll pass laws to tell you what your choices will be. Then you can go to sleep in your blanket of trust and rest easy knowing that you don't have to do anything except listen to what you are told.
Macabre Sunset
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 5:30 a.m.
You know, DWest, I'd be inclined to agree with you if your argument had a little more discipline. We know that second-hand cigarette smoke can be deadly. Just as we know that asbestos fibers, inhaled, can be deadly. In order to employ someone or allow someone into your place of business, you have to take a little bit of responsibility for providing a safe atmosphere. That's not really in the category of losing your freedom. Cigarettes are a potentially deadly (both to the smoker and the smokee) drug delivery device. I just don't see other cases like this where freedom is abridged. Yes, we have to be vigilant about First-Amendment freedoms like church attendance and speech and even the ability to draw cartoons depicting Mohammad as a terrorist. I see troubling times ahead in that category. But, to me, the issue of smoking is not a freedom issue.
johnnya2
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 4:57 a.m.
Who gave you this silly notion that a LICENSED PUBLIC establishement can set their OWN rules? In those same restaurants there are health codes that must be adhered to. You do not have to follow them at home, BUT as a place that is serving the PUBLIC you are required to meet certain safety standards. By your logic an establishment could decide to not serve blacks, OR how about not make the place accessible to those with handicaps. Your argument is flawed and ridiculous. YOU LOST. Get over it. You are free to stay home, or leave for Indiana or any other state that allows smoking anywhere. BYE
D. West
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 4:05 a.m.
@Macabre Sunset I'll remind you that smoking is legal in this country, state, and city. The whole point is that we should not be passing laws that force restaurant and bar owners to not allow smoking, any more than we should tell them what kind of food to make. For example, if someone has a peanut allergy they aren't going to eat at a place called "Peanuts for You." They will make a conscious decision to go somewhere that doesn't have them. Yes. We don't allow people to drink and drive, but they DO. All the time. If you are too sheltered to realize that, then you probably shouldn't be in a bar. So if we eliminate the cars then we can be SURE nobody will drink and drive. You see? Crazy isn't it? This isn't about whether your precious virgin lungs will collapse after walking by a smoker, it's about us as citizens making our OWN choices. I can't make it any more clear that BEFORE the ban, we all had a choice. Now we do not. Smoker or non, that bothers me and I wish that it bothered you. Not as a non-smoker or a smoker, I just wish it bothered you that our liberties and rights are slowly diminishing. It's like the hands of a clock, you don't see them moving, but they are. They're going in ONE direction and soon before you realize it, clocks won't be allowed anymore. The church comment of mine was simply to point out that these sorts of laws are going to get more and more invasive as we go along to the point that I can imagine having to go to church, or a specific church, by law. It was really just an example. Maybe the laws of the future will tell us what color shirt to wear every Wednesday. Or wait! I know, we could all wear uniforms!!! I think you should look past your dislike of cigarette smoke and try to understand the underlying implications of this debate.
Macabre Sunset
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 2:57 a.m.
The ship sailed on that one a long time ago. We don't allow people to fire guns in public. We don't allow people to drink and drive. I don't know where you get forced church attendance from all of that, but you seem to be thoroughly enjoying your fantasies.
D. West
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 2:48 a.m.
@Dave66 Are you drinking that diesel fuel too? Because you have missed the point. It is about keeping government out of our lives and businesses. It is about the right of the owner of the establishment to decide if they want smoking or not. Suppose you had a choice between 2 bars, one that serves diesel fuel to it's patrons, and one that does not. I suppose you would choose the one that does not serve diesel fuel. But if someone wants to go into the other one and drink a little diesel fuel that will slowly poison them over the course of years then who are you to stop them. You just enjoy yourself in the non-diesel fuel bar and be happy that you have a choice. Like I said, soon something you like to do will be banned also.
Dave66
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 2:37 a.m.
So... You are arguing that you should have the right to poison the people around you? Interesting... You know what? I want a right, too. I want the right to put diesel fuel into your drinking water. Not enough to make you sick (right away), but enough so that you can taste and smell it. And if you drink enough of it that you get sick and die years later, it's a small price to pay for my "rights."
D. West
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 2:16 a.m.
@Macabre Sunset Sure, car exhaust is damaging, but what about all the accidents they cause, pedestrians getting hit, bikers getting hit, drunk driving, etc. I think you failed to see my point that this is a rights issue, not a health issue. Don't worry, at the rate this state and nation are going, something you like to do will be banned too. Or maybe you will be forced to go to a specific churh.
Macabre Sunset
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 2:01 a.m.
Nice rant. But the dangers of second-hand car exhaust are nowhere close to the dangers of second-hand cigarette smoke. If cigarettes were invented today, there's no way they would be legal. Any more than cocaine is legal.
Tom Joad
Wed, Apr 27, 2011 : 10:05 p.m.
Now it's time to ban smoking on the sidewalk outside the bars...I have a right to walk down the street without having to walk through a gauntlet of cigarette smoke...
deb
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 3:24 p.m.
I simply stated that Tom does not have that right, and studies have shown without the deaths related cigarette smoking that social security and other programs for the elderly would be bankrupt. why was my first comment deleted.
D. West
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 1:37 a.m.
Maybe you should have thought of that when it was banned, rather than jumping on a bandwagon heading to a destination you did not consider. At least when there was smoking in the bars you had the choice to go to a non-smoking one.
David Briegel
Wed, Apr 27, 2011 : 10:02 p.m.
The smoking ban is better for everyone. It improves the working conditions of employees and it has improved the business in virtually every bar and restaurant. There is no downside. If there is a downside it is the fact that we have to run the gauntlet of smokers at the entrance of every building. It is offensive even in fresh air!
aawolve
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 4:08 p.m.
<a href="http://detnews.com/article/20110428/METRO/104280405/A-year-later--Michigan%E2%80%99s-smoking-ban-has-mixed-impact" rel='nofollow'>http://detnews.com/article/20110428/METRO/104280405/A-year-later--Michigan%E2%80%99s-smoking-ban-has-mixed-impact</a>
aawolve
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 4:07 p.m.
Care to refute this story from today's Detroit News? Keep in mind that there are facts and figures contained within.
aawolve
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 3:01 p.m.
Some pretty bold statements there, with a lot of head nodding up votes. Do you have any facts whatsoever to back this up? I frequent a small bar, and the owner disagrees with you, but he must be the only one, ammirite?
nonameliketherestofuturds
Wed, Apr 27, 2011 : 9:47 p.m.
OOOHHHH!!!!
Macabre Sunset
Wed, Apr 27, 2011 : 9:16 p.m.
I joined a bar trivia team that formed after the new law went into effect. I've played at about a dozen different bars over the last year, and they're mostly packed. I would be surprised if the new customers weren't more than making up for the old customers who only went to bars in order to smoke.
treetowncartel
Fri, Apr 29, 2011 : 3:36 p.m.
Customers are not equivalent to income, e.g. sales and tips. Barworkers loathe the special event customer, you know, the trivia player, the new American Idol contestant at karaoke night, the gmae day guy. They think their 15% tip for the one beer, or maybe pop that they get refilled over and over again, along with a meager side order they had is the best thing that person saw all day. Plus, if it were not for refilling their water glass those menial restaurant workers would have to stand around and not burn calories, which is unhealthy for them to.
D. West
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 7:51 a.m.
I just wish it bothered you that our liberties and rights are slowly diminishing. It's like the hands of a clock, you don't see them moving, but they are. They're going in ONE direction and soon before you realize it, clocks won't be allowed anymore. That is my case.
Macabre Sunset
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 5:24 a.m.
Why? You've yet to make any kind of case for your fears.
D. West
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 4:40 a.m.
Soon bar trivia will be outlawed.
Ignatz
Wed, Apr 27, 2011 : 8:52 p.m.
Of course the law inproved the worker's health, but so would a law defining air standards within those bars. However, as with zealots everywhere, there was no middle ground or compromise. If safety was the sole factor, then why ban it in the open air?
treetowncartel
Fri, Apr 29, 2011 : 3:29 p.m.
How is the ban helping the health of the employee that partakes in first hand smoke? Service has gone way down, I have to wait for them to come back inside from their smoke break so I can get a refill!
BioVice
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 9:51 a.m.
Oh seriously! You don't like the ban and I do** I guess that means I need to go to bed. It is almost 6am after all.
BioVice
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 9:49 a.m.
You don't THINK I get it. What I don't is care. About any of this really. I care about the discussion. This entire discussion is very interesting to me, and I just enjoy talking about these sorts of things with others. I'm going to argue against you because you don't like that band and I do. Simply put. Me liking the ban is not the same as the people who want it banned everywhere. I don't agree with that. At all. While I do enjoy the ban personally I don't care if it sticks or not. I'm not going to be upset either way. It's not like I couldn't live with it previously. I just like it better this way.
D. West
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 7:50 a.m.
@BioVice Okay, you're definitely not getting it. We know your poor smoke polluted mind can't help it, but move along quietly.
BioVice
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 6:46 a.m.
Oh my goodness Westy! Free those workers and then help them find a job in an economic crisis (as we're calling it these days)! I bet you're first at everything! You're the most original person I've ever come in any sort of contact with! I must be a follower too since I'm mimicking your witty comeback style! You have all the answers and you're right about everything! In case you haven't noticed I'm likely to continue following you around on this page and responding to your ridiculous comments. At almost 3am without sleeping I have nothing that I can think of to do that would be as entertaining :D and besides, you seem to need a lot of attention, or at least feel you must validate and rectify your point again and again or you wouldn't be doing this, and since you're so original and I'm your follower I need to do the same! This is going to be so great because I'm obviously jumping on the bandwagon like I so love doing! Yeay!
D. West
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 6:06 a.m.
@johnnya2 Oh my goodness, Johnny! I had no idea these people were being forced to work there instead of a non-smoking place! We must FREE the bar and restaurant workers! You probably would prefer it if all smokers were implanted with a chip so that you could avoid them by using a GPS tracking program on your crumby iPhone. I know! Let's make EVERYONE get chips implanted! And you could have the second one ever produced because you've obviously never done anything "first" and have always been a follower.
johnnya2
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 4:52 a.m.
@D.west Employees do not have that option. I suppose by your standards if an electrician is working in water he should just go find a new job, and not have any OSHA regulations. It is not a CUSTOMER based law. It is an employee based law. Of course, if you don't like it, you are free to stay home.
D. West
Thu, Apr 28, 2011 : 2:53 a.m.
@Craig Lounsbury Right. And if you remove trite, prudish people who want the government to control every aspect of their life, then we also don't have a problem. Can't you just go to a non-smoking bar? Or is that too complex?
Craig Lounsbury
Wed, Apr 27, 2011 : 9:03 p.m.
If you remove the source of the air pollution you don't need "a law defining air standards within those bars."
Craig Lounsbury
Wed, Apr 27, 2011 : 8:38 p.m.
The whole smoking issue has always been about worker safety in my opinion.