Efforts to roll back Michigan's smoking ban should be soundly rejected
In the two years since the smoking ban went into effect in Michigan, a couple of things have become abundantly clear. The first is that the ban enjoys widespread popular support. The second is that it has done what it’s supposed to do, which is rid public places of second-hand smoke, the single most dangerous form of environmental pollution that people are commonly exposed to.
So why would the Legislature be considering not just one, but several efforts to roll back or undo one of the better pieces of public policy to come out of Lansing in recent years? These efforts should be roundly rejected.
We have been strong proponents of the ban, passed in 2009 to prohibit smoking in work places, as well as in restaurants and bars. The public has welcomed it, too. If anything, enjoying the opportunity to experience smoke-free public places has only increased the popularity of the ban. A survey conducted by EPIC-MRA in May 2011 found that 74 percent of those who responded said they supported the ban, up from 66 percent in a similar survey taken in 2009.
Angela Cesere | AnnArbor.com
Clearly, the law is creating a more healthful environment for the residents of Michigan, and people love it. Yet the ban is now under assault by GOP lawmakers who don’t like it and are trying to use their majority status to undercut it.
Sen. Howard Walker, R-Traverse City, is trying to amend the state’s community health budget to prevent the ban from being enforced for charitable events such as an annual cigar dinner put on by a Catholic charity in his district. “Philosophically, I’m opposed to the smoking ban,’’ he told the Associated Press.
Bills also were introduced in the House and Senate last term that would permit smoking at restaurants as long as it occurred in an outdoor patio or in an enclosed room separate from the rest of the indoor dining area.
Michigan has enough serious issues facing it at the moment that the Legislature should be tackling those, and not wasting effort on rolling back a hugely popular policy that protects public health. To see Republican lawmakers dawdle on matters that could significantly improve the Michigan economy - say, for instance, the proposed new international bridge between Detroit and Windsor - while chipping away at the smoking ban is not leadership, it’s regressiveness. Is this how the GOP wants to squander its legislative majority? It’s certainly not what the public wants or deserves.
(This editorial was published in today's newspaper and reflects the opinion of the Editorial Board at AnnArbor.com.)
Comments
Tru2Blu76
Mon, Sep 17, 2012 : 4:43 p.m.
Halter is correct. And he didn't even mention that the current move to ban bicycles on Main Street is ENTIRELY because restaurants there co-opted the public financed extra-wide sidewalks for their use as "outdoor seating" (and then the problem exists only from about 5PM to 8PM - only during warm weather months). There's a clear connection with Michigan's public smoking ban: when a brief annoyance exists, there's always a MASSIVE EFFORT to eliminate it by banning this or that activity. Bans are BAN-DAIDS on a problem, just moving it out of the way of those who become annoyed from time-to-time. To even think of connecting this ban with the term "health" solution" is nonsensical. Smoking bans fail - utterly - when it comes to curing tobacco addiction. So long as tobacco addicts exist: there will be smoking!! Get it? So long as that applies: there will be huge health care bills to keep the health insurance industry going.
paulczar
Sun, May 13, 2012 : 11:29 p.m.
If this law is all about protecting employees then why are casinos exempt? I like the general idea of the law, but it must be all or nothing, it cant be selective like it is currently.
Thomas Laprade
Tue, May 8, 2012 : 4:32 a.m.
There should be no smoking bans in this country. The owner can post a sign in his door. 'This is a smoking venue.' 'This a non-smoking venue.' This common sense solution gives owners and customers choices. Isn' this the American way??
Thomas Laprade
Tue, May 8, 2012 : 4:23 a.m.
The owner has the right to use or permit a legal product on 'private' property. Is this the American way??
Thomas Laprade
Tue, May 8, 2012 : 4:16 a.m.
Smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper that is mixed with the air of a decently ventilated venue is harmful to your health?? If anybody believes that, then I have some ocean-front property in Ohio I would like to sell them.
DBH
Tue, May 8, 2012 : 4:46 p.m.
Mr. Laprade, I will decline your offer to sell me some ocean-front property in Ohio, but I will keep it in mind should the need arise. Yes, "[s]moke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper that is mixed with the air of a decently ventilated venue IS [my emphasis] harmful to your health." See 1) http://thorax.highwire.org/content/60/10/814.abstract See 2) http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61388-8/fulltext See 3) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1535610803002198 See 4) http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2261/7/1 There are many other studies that show adverse effects of second-hand smoke on human health but, if the above studies fail to change your opinion, quoting additional studies is unlikely to do so. And, hey, good luck trying to sell your ocean-front property!
Dave
Mon, May 7, 2012 : 4:28 p.m.
As a non-smoker, I used to hate going to bars before the ban. Even if all my friends were going out on a Friday night, you could count me out... nothing worse than coming home with the stench of others' cigarette smoke soaked into your clothing and hair. It goes without saying, these bars and restaurants now enjoy a great deal more of my patronage. If the ban is overturned, they can expect to lose my business again.
A2James
Mon, May 7, 2012 : 4:23 p.m.
I think the law should be amended so that individual business owners can choose to have outdoor smoking on their premises. If people don't like it, they can choose not to go there. But as for indoor smoking at restaurants, I actually agree with the ban (even though I am a smoker). If people can't go without a cigarette for 1-2 hours while eating, maybe they should get carryout, lol
lumberg48108
Mon, May 7, 2012 : 3:37 p.m.
The casino exemption is a valid reason to either change, or repeal the law. Why punish Michigan business owners but exempt casino owners from Las Vegas? It makes no sense and everyone knows it. Equal application of the law? Hardly! Special rights for those more organized with a bigger bankroll and lobbying effort? Of course. Until the law is applied equally in Michigan, no one should support this travesty. And please, dont tell me how the law "is a start" - it is either applied equally to all or no one at all - period!
Frank
Mon, May 7, 2012 : 1:23 p.m.
I love going to smoke-free bars, even as a smoker, but I believe they should allow smoking on portions of outdoor patios. It isnt obtrusive enough when outside to merit banning it.
Tru2Blu76
Mon, Sep 17, 2012 : 5:13 p.m.
Frank: "I love going to smoke-free bars..." Well a lot of people "love" going to bars: you find them drunk and disorderly at every bar in Michigan. So shouldn't the real question be: Why go into bars in the first place? Worth noting: those who are licensed to carry a concealed handgun are "virtually" prohibited from even going into a bar. (The law forbids it and even drinking one beer puts a person over the much-lower .02 BAC limit applied to licensees.) Bars: used to be "natural territory" where both alcoholics and smokers got together to enjoy their destructive lifestyle. Now it's only the alcoholics who're not also addicted smokers. It gets lonelier and lonelier for the addict - but they'll never be in small numbers, eh?
Billy Bob Schwartz
Wed, May 9, 2012 : 11:14 p.m.
Might work if customers could parachute in and not have to walk through the smoke-fog to get inside. Don't laugh. Have asthma, will travel.
A2Realilty
Mon, May 7, 2012 : 12:40 p.m.
How about allowing smoking in restaurants and bars, but make those establishments pay for a "smoking license" just like they have to obtain a liquor license? If the cost of the smoking license were priced appropriately, there would be enough establishments that would choose to both obtain one and not obtain one.
Billy Whyde
Mon, May 7, 2012 : 1:58 a.m.
I guess big pharma the lobbyist of the health care industry owns Michigan. O'll ask the editor here if the smoking ban was such a great fantastic idea why is it a issue that creates anguish among the citizens! If this ban was so great you wouldn't need to do a editorial on the ban as there wouldn't be anything to say and you could really try to get on import issues such as jobs instead! In Pa you don't hear all this complaining and yes they have a common sense state wide smoking ban! No law suits such as in Ohio, no 4 million dollar enforcement such as in the failed Ohio ban as well. The Pa ban has well over 2796 exemptions (source Pa Dept of Health public records request) and you do not hear that state crying like Michigan or Ohio. Why not try the common sense approach, oops forgot common sense does not go well with dictator attitudes.
Justavoice
Mon, May 7, 2012 : 2:34 a.m.
Anguish? Such a large statement for only a few particularly when it doesn't infringe on what people do in their own homes. I love when people try to justify what they want to do no matter how bad it impacts anyone else around them (And yes, there are a lot of things that are still legal that shouldn't be for the same reasons).
CleanAirMeister
Mon, May 7, 2012 : 1:45 a.m.
They should be busy at work crafting new legislation which prohibits smoking in vehicles with child occupants.
paulczar
Sun, May 13, 2012 : 11:32 p.m.
While a good idea, we don't need laws limiting personal freedoms. Granted, a child is involved, but its a slipper slope when we start dictating how parents can legally treat their children. Cant we regulate the amount of fats and sugar parents feed to their children as well? Natural selection will take care of stupid parents anyway.
Billy Bob Schwartz
Wed, May 9, 2012 : 11:11 p.m.
Great idea. Hope it passes.
CleanAirMeister
Mon, May 7, 2012 : 1:43 a.m.
This is further evidence that Republicans do everything backwards. c
Robert Granville
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 11:29 p.m.
It's a stupid law and I'm glad the GOP is attacking it. I don't vote for them but they've got it right this time. If I own a business, I decide what you can do inside. If you don't kike it, get lost. If this law is so popular and smoking so unpopular, businesses that allow smoking wouldn't last anyway right? We all know better than that.
mike gatti
Tue, Sep 18, 2012 : 12:28 a.m.
So do you believe because you own the business you can refuse to serve minorities? Do you believe because you own the business that you can refuse to serve women? Do you believe that you should be allowed to pay less than the minimum wage? Do you believe that you shouldn't comply with OSHA requirements? Bad argument.
1bit
Mon, May 7, 2012 : 1:24 a.m.
No, you can't poison your employees or customers if you own a business.
DBH
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 11:18 p.m.
Michael J. McFadden, your attempts to analogize evaporated ethanol and cigarette smoke are specious and laughable. Epidemiologically, drinking alcohol in moderation for most people is associated with a net reduction in mortality, primarily from a reduction in cardiovascular disease, as well as with a lower incidence of dementia. With what important positive physical outcomes is smoking associated, at any level? And do you have any links to studies that demonstrate any negative outcomes in populations exposed to evaporated alcohol, similar to studies that show clear negative risks in those exposed to second-hand smoke?
DBH
Tue, May 8, 2012 : 4:24 p.m.
It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into. - Jonathan Swift, satirist (1667-1745)
Michael McFadden
Tue, May 8, 2012 : 7:54 a.m.
Whoops! Just caught a typo in an earlier response that might have made it sound like I was trying to misrepresent a statement of yours: "However I would agree with you that simply because something like ethanol (or tobacco smoke) is a Group 1 carcinogen "that all efforts to avoid it are necessarily prudent." E.G. crossing a street to avoid the smoke of some smokers standing on a sidewalk would probably be imprudent as a health decision." Of course you'd said, "does NOT mean that all efforts... etc." You'll note however that it was unintentional since my response indicated my acceptance of your meaning (I.E. I said I agreed that some efforts to avoid small exposures might be IMprudent at times.) I'd gotten your meaning correct, just split the copy/paste at the wrong point to carry it over correctly. Sorry! - MJM
Michael McFadden
Tue, May 8, 2012 : 7:35 a.m.
DBH, interesting. So am I understanding correctly that you maintain that there ARE "safe levels of exposure" to Group 1 Carcinogens such as tobacco smoke and alcohol? I actually would agree with you on that point, but it's an unusual admission for someone arguing the antismoking side of the argument. My points stand as made and I'm content with letting readers draw their own conclusions. However I will agree that my comment regarding addiction did not belong in my response to you: I think it was largely in reaction to a comment from one of the other posters here. - MJM
DBH
Mon, May 7, 2012 : 3:45 p.m.
Mr. McFadden, I can't tell if you are being serious or if you are grasping at straws in trying to defend an argument that is becoming increasingly transparently illogical. Assuming the former, I will engage you one last time. My argument about ingested vs. evaporated alcohol may sound similar to one made by Tobacco in the past, but it doesn't to me. And I make the point again: there is a net overall safe level to alcohol ingestion, as noted previously. There is NOT a safe level to tobacco exposure, at least not that I have seen, your speculative "arguments" notwithstanding. And the point about evaporative alcohol? Please, give it up. Unless and until you can show me studies showing that exposure to evaporated alcohol in the amounts expected within bars or other establishments that serve alcohol is deleterious to human health, please refrain from using that analogy. As I had noted before, for all we know such exposure might have a posiitive effect on human health. And your point about withdrawal, alcohol vs. tobacco? Of course, abrupt withdrawal from alcohol addiction can be fatal if dependency is great. So what? If someone wants to withdraw, they can do so gradually, either by decreasing the amount of alcohol ingested or by being temporarily medicated (usually with a tranquilizer such as Valium) until the danger has passed. The point about withdrawal is a red herring. It has nothing to do with your equating exposure to tobacco smoke and your speculative concerns about evaporated alcohol. You can speculate all day (as proven by your numerous comments and replies on this thread) but to make a sound argument, you need to use known facts and valid logic. Much of the writing used by you to which I have responded has neither. And you are welcome for the links regarding dementia and alcohol.
Michael McFadden
Mon, May 7, 2012 : 4:47 a.m.
1bit, CLass 1 is the IARC form of designation. Class A is the EPA form. For generally understood public purposes I don't fret about the distinction and I think most Americans are more familiar with the Class A term. DBH, sorry, I meant to thank you for the Google Scholar suggestion on alcohol and dementia. I must admit, I'm a bit surprised: I'd never really researched it but had always assumed the negative effect at higher levels of exposure would simply continue to the lower levels. Heh, I guess I was making the same mistake regarding alcohol that I accuse others of with regard to tobacco smoke! - MJM
Michael McFadden
Mon, May 7, 2012 : 4:44 a.m.
DBH, your argument about ingestion in a liquid vs gaseous state sounds a lot like the ones cigarette companies used to make about painting concentrated smoke solids on mouse skin. At least *they* had the additional point that mouse skin substantially differed from human lung and mucousal tissue though. And of course my speculation on studies not performed is speculative but if you believe in the "no safe level" mantra, it's a reasonable extension. However I would agree with you that simply because something like ethanol (or tobacco smoke) is a Group 1 carcinogen "that all efforts to avoid it are necessarily prudent." E.G. crossing a street to avoid the smoke of some smokers standing on a sidewalk would probably be imprudent as a health decision. I would in general believe that the evidence, although mixed (It's not as "clear" as you seem to think: check my earlier-linked table of 100+ lung cancer studies) would indicate that, all else being equal, it would be a sensible health choice to work at a job with less smoke rather than more. I'd say the same about working at a job in the country rather than the city. HOWEVER, it might well be safer to work in a well-ventilated/filtrated Free Choice smoking environment than in an otherwise similar but poorly ventilated Smoke Banned environment. Finally, I'd agree overall regarding alcohol's positive contribution for those who drink it moderately throughout their lives. However, When a child starts drinking (I believe most drinkers begin as children although I don't have the actual stats on the breakdown for that handy at the moment.) there is no way of knowing if there is a lifetime of light to moderate drinking ahead or a lifetime spent in the gutter. And, unlike the relatively mild response to withdrawal from nicotine "addiction" the response to abrupt withdrawal from alcohol addiction can kill. - MJM
DBH
Mon, May 7, 2012 : 2:34 a.m.
Mr. McFadden, your citation (written by you) admits that the carcinogenicity of ethanol is presumed to be ingested; extrapolations to any positive or negative effects of evaporated ethanol on the human body are simply speculative. Your failure to produce any studies of negative effects of evaporated ethanol on human health due to the lack of millions of dollars for research also is speculative; for all you and I know, the investment of such millions of dollars might just as well produce data that shows a positive effect on human health. Since no one knows what the effect of evaporated ethanol has on human health, why assume it is negative and use it to support an argument trying to minimize the effects of tobacco smoke on human health? As I wrote originally, such an argument is specious and (at least to me) laughable. Ethanol is listed as a Group 1 carcinogen, but that does not mean that all efforts to avoid it are necessarily prudent. Again, as I originally noted, significant evidence exists that for populations as a whole, light to moderate use of alcohol is associated with a reduction in mortality. Yes, its ingestion may increase risk of cancer (colon, pancreas, esophageal, for example), but due to the significant decreased risk of cardiovascular disease with alcohol use, the overall result is a positive one for human health. You are unable to make the same argument for tobacco smoke exposure on any level. Regarding evidence for a reduced risk of dementia with alcohol use, a simple search on Google Scholar yields numerous hits. Here are four: http://ageing.oxfordjournals.org/content/37/5/505.short http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(02)07493-7/fulltext http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/289/11/1405.short http://www.scielo.cl/pdf/bres/v37n2/art03.pdf
1bit
Mon, May 7, 2012 : 1:31 a.m.
You mean Group or Class 1 carcinogen, for future reference. Alcohol has its own issues and you are welcome to fight that issue on your own. As for the issue of smoking in the workplace, that was decided and a popular majority enjoys it. There are limits to personal freedom and different lines are drawn for different substances. For alcohol, you are free to drink yourself into a stupor so long as you do not endanger anyone else (e.g. getting behind the wheel of a car).
Michael McFadden
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 11:46 p.m.
DBH, if you access the British Medical Journal pages at: http://web.archive.org/web/20080330061027/http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/330/7495/812 and look at the tenth item, "Secondary Smoke, Alcohol, and Deaths" you will see the complete argument laid out. No, I do not have links to the sorts of studies you request, but I am sure that if I had several hundred million dollars a year to spend on "Alcohol Control" (Don't forget: "Tobacco Control" gets as much as 880 million a year just from the MSA agreement.) that I could produce a number. I agree with you on overall epidemiological results involving moderate drinking, however ethyl alcohol is indeed classed as a "Class A Carcinogen" just as tobacco smoke, and, oncologically speaking, "there is no safe level of exposure" to such things. Your point about dementia is interesting: I'd heard claims that smoking might reduce dementia (though that's recently come under some attack by the mechanical engineering guy in California I believe) but I wasn't aware of claims that alcohol protected the brain. Can you offer some citations? Since I enjoy a glass of wine now and then I'd like to see them! - MJM
Basic Bob
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 9:54 p.m.
There should be places one can legally smoke - cigar bars make sense. No one would knowingly enter a cigar bar and not expect to be exposed to cigar smoke. Outside is also a good place (not too close to the door, please). Travel out of state, especially to the tobacco producing states, and you will see evidence that smoking is still allowed in restaurants there. "Smoking and Non-smoking sections". After spending time in those states, I'm glad we banned smoking in restaurants here.
Billy Bob Schwartz
Wed, May 9, 2012 : 11:06 p.m.
There's a Panera Bread restaurant in Sarasota. We went in for a relaxing lunch, and couldn't figure out who was sitting in the place sucking on a stogey. What a stink. Finally, I gave up looking for the source and asked a worker. She pointed out that there was a cigar smoking lounge next door, and somehow the stench got into the Panera. No wonder the place was about empty. Got the second-hand stench if not the smoke. Never went back. Wheeeeew! BTW, the rest of the day I purely stunk. Even more than before!
SMC
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 9:22 p.m.
Why not permit smoking in separate outdoor sections? The health risk to waitstaff can't possibly be any worse than what they're already exposed to when working in sidewalk sections downtown, during rush hour. To preempt the holier-than-thou responses from the sensitive-nosed militant anti-smokers out there, just because you can smell it, doesn't mean the cigarette smoke is actually poisoning you at that moment. If it were, I'll bet a lot more of you would be less content to be stuck behind buses or trucks. Oh, and be sure to get your basements checked for radon.
Reason
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 9:13 p.m.
Thank you, Tony. As a physician, I agree 1000%.
Billy Whyde
Mon, May 7, 2012 : 2:08 a.m.
I figure with medical malpractice being the third leading cause of death in the US and the recent law suits against Johnson and Johnson in fraud such as TX and AR I would feel safer with a crowd smoking in a bar than in the hands of a doctor looking for a quick buck.
Kristine
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 9:12 p.m.
I'm a former smoker, and at the risk of getting multiple 'minus' votes, here're my two cents. I smoked 35 years and quit on October 24, 2005. Loved smoking. Would take it up again in a New York minute if someone told me it was OK for me to smoke or if I learned I had 6 months to live. After I quit, I continued to frequent bars, and I put up with the stinky clothes when I left those bars. Why? Because I was the one who CHOSE to enter a bar where people smoked. I remember visiting northern Cali in 1999/2000 (for the Y2K New Year), and they had a smoking ban in place long before Michigan did. Bar/restaurant managers kept ashtrays behind their bars. We were told that if we wanted to smoke, we could, but if were were busted, WE SMOKERS would be responsible for the (then) $500 fine. Scary, but I was willing to take that risk. My whole point is this: As a voter and a fomer smoker, I'm able to make my own choices. If the State of Michigan chooses to change the 'smoking ban' and make it the choice of invidiviual bars and restaurants, then so be it. That law will dictate where I choose to eat and drink.
mike gatti
Tue, Sep 18, 2012 : 12:25 a.m.
No you don't get to choose to poison someone else whose only crime was not finishing their sandwich before you came in and lit up.
Michael McFadden
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 11:32 p.m.
Kristine, I've done far, far worse than "indiviual" in some of my posts. If you read the huge peer-reviewed ETS/Heart-Attack meta-analysis done by Lightwood/Glantz -- see: http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/120/14/1373.abstract -- you'll find that in the VERY FIRST sentence of the study, the authors worry about "The estimated effects of recent pubic and workplace smoking restriction laws..." (note the spelling of the word before "and." ) So no one is immune to typos. Not even in medical journals. Also: in terms of California's ban, an antismoking researcher did a study about five years after their bar ban kicked in and was greatly distressed to find that almost half the bars he secretly observed were ignoring the law in various ways. And that was in the very heart of "Antismokerdom." - MJM
Kristine
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 10:19 p.m.
Wow. Didn't realize how badly I had mangled the word "individual" in the last paragraph :)
tdw
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 8:57 p.m.
Could someone please explain how anyone is " forced " to work or go anywhere ?
tdw
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 11:57 p.m.
No but there are somethings you have to deal with when you have a job.If it's that big of a deal then yes that's the type of job some one should avoid.
Ron Granger
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 11:50 p.m.
If a vendor needs to repair something at a business where smoking is allowed, their employees will be forced to enter that space. Are you suggesting some who services cash registers should quit their job to avoid the smoke?
bedrog
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 7:15 p.m.
for those who support the removal of the ban: i'd go along if there were an amendment requiring public smokers to wear impermeable bags over their heads. This could also help the economy, via designer bags with appropriate decoration ( e.g. an 'alfred e. newman' face -- the stupid- looking 'what , me worry?" guy from Mad magazine ). actually there are already whole regions of the world that select 2nd class citizen groups living in bags in public, so precedents exist .
clownfish
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 6:58 p.m.
In what other circumstances is one person allowed to poison another?
mike gatti
Tue, Sep 18, 2012 : 12:22 a.m.
Alexandre Dumas novels.
Billy Whyde
Mon, May 7, 2012 : 2:11 a.m.
Everyone driving a car does it clownfish!
Michael McFadden
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 11:52 p.m.
Ron, you wrote, "You might as well use dog poop in the park to make your point - it would make every bit as much sense - at least to you." Actually Ron, the editor at the BMJ seemed to think it made enough sense to publish it. They *do* review those published responses you realize: even down to checking the various reference links. Heh... I got called on a bad link one time -- turned out it was a typo on my end though, so once it was fixed they published the comment. - MJM
Ron Granger
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 11:46 p.m.
"I didn't claim there were toxic effects from the evaporation." You might as well use dog poop in the park to make your point - it would make every bit as much sense - at least to you.
Michael McFadden
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 9:41 p.m.
Reason, I didn't claim there were toxic effects from the evaporation. I simply pointed out that it was a toxic, carcinogenic, and highly volatile liquid. The amount of evaporation was based upon an easily replicable experiment you can perform at home with a martini glass and alcohol. Simply pour a full jigger (roughly 48 grams) of pure or near-pure ethyl alcohol in the glass, place it someplace where the cat won't lap it up, and check it in 48 hours. It will be pretty much gone: evaporated into the air anyone in your home will have been breathing. Are you harmed by that? Of course not. No more than if someone smoked a cigarette. - MJM
Reason
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 9:16 p.m.
Michael McFadden--Sorry but where is your data on the toxic effects of second-hand alcohol evaporation? Considering that alcohol is typically served in cold liquid form, without significant evaporation, I fail to see how people at nearby tables will get carcinogenic-level exposure?
Michael McFadden
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 7:09 p.m.
Clown, pretty much what I said on the other thread: A lot of people think they should be allowed to drink alcohol in restaurants. They think this *despite* the fact that alcohol is a very highly volatile neurotoxic poison AND a Class A Carcinogen that evaporates into the air that everyone else is breathing at a rate equal to over a million micrograms per hour from a standard martini. Do I think alcohol should be banned from restaurants? Of course not: it's no more dangerous than secondary smoke. All that's needed to handle such toxins are reasonable accommodations for proper ventilation. "The dose is the poison" is one of the most fundamental laws of toxicology. - MJM
Macabre Sunset
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 6:16 p.m.
If cigarettes were invented today, there's no way in the world they would be legal. A cigarette is simply a drug-delivery device. Nicotine is as addictive as crack, and the only difference between a smoker and a crack addict is that one can get his fix legally and the other cannot.
Tru2Blu76
Mon, Sep 17, 2012 : 5 p.m.
Interesting point: also worth noting that the tobacco industry became so powerful & successful when there was little evidence that tobacco smoking is harmful. Adding to Basic Bob's comment: It should be noted that smoking is a very slow-acting health hazard. I smoked for over 40 years before suddenly finding it had eroded my aorta wall to a point where I was on the verge of being killed by the aneurism smoking had caused - after 40 years! Likewise: I was always very active and athletic but a heart attack came a few years AFTER the aneurism surgery. Smoking is DEADLY but it doesn't materially affect you until after you've done it for many years. Now I'm desperately trying to find effective help to end my addiction (which is the root cause of all this). Guess what: I've been unable to find any such help in the Ann Arbor area. One of the most effective tobacco addiction treatment programs IN THE STATE was closed not long ago - and it was operating out of St. Joseph Hospital. EVEN the former director of that program told me she had no "sure leads" to another (equally effective) program. Addicts are the true victims (both from smoking and simplistic ban-it laws). The costs will go on and on until addiction is cured or prevented.
Billy Whyde
Mon, May 7, 2012 : 2:16 a.m.
Every smoking cessation product on the market delivers nicotine . The anti smoking cartel thrives on trying to market the smoking cessation products by taking in grants form the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation aka Johnson and Johnson makers of Nicoderm and Nicoret. Might that be the reason the CDC went to a conference sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation titled how to increase the sales of smoking cessation products? By the way the CDc get grants from the RWJF just about as bad as the GAO!
Basic Bob
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 9:47 p.m.
Nicotine does not make your teeth fall out as quickly or overdose.
Michael McFadden
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 5:53 p.m.
Tony, you wrote, "Within hours, his office had been flooded with so many calls and email from angry people who supported the ban that he dropped his court case. That's a pretty good indication of the potential political ramifications for anyone who seeks to roll back this ban." Tony, look at what you wrote and think for a minute. That response is actually "a pretty good indication" of just how organized and powerful the professional lobby forces are that push these bans. I'm sure the "ordinary citizens" didn't all get sudden news flashes of a court filing and go running to their telephones and computers all on their own. You also wrote, "Michigan has enough serious issues facing it at the moment that the Legislature should be tackling those, and not wasting effort on rolling back." Somehow I kind of doubt that two years ago you were saying that Michigan had "enough serious issues facing it" that they shouldn't have been "wasting effort" debating instituting a smoking ban. Finally, you wrote, "Studies of Detroit restaurants done before and after the ban found that indoor air pollution fell 93 percent." Actually, if you actually READ those studies, you'll find that they measured FPM 2.5 - - which is technically pretty much just another name for SMOKE. The studies you speak of cost about $50,000 apiece and they're done all over the country after bans, paid for with either tax or Big Pharm NicoGummyPatchy money, to show that there's less smoke in a room when no one is smoking in it. I could hire a third grader for fifty cents to tell me the same thing. Michael J. McFadden Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Billy Bob Schwartz
Wed, May 9, 2012 : 10:57 p.m.
Mac///Didn't I talk to you in Wisconsin once upon a time? How about a book called "Dissecting Smokers' Lungs"?
Michael McFadden
Mon, May 7, 2012 : 3:33 a.m.
Clean, see my response to you in Huron's 8:53 thread on that point. Billy, thanks for the Bravo! :> - MJM
Billy Whyde
Mon, May 7, 2012 : 2:18 a.m.
Excellent Mr McFadden BRAVO
CleanAirMeister
Mon, May 7, 2012 : 1:50 a.m.
Hey Michael J. McFadden, should we legalize drunk driving? After all, you don't really 'have to' drive on the same road as me, the reckless drunk driver. You can always walk.
Lovaduck
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 5:24 p.m.
I think that the closings, alleged, of bars and restaurants have many causes, including foremost the present economy. The smoking ban is all to the good, and other states where it has been enacted have not reported mass defections from bars and restaurants. I find not going out and having my health endangered, as well as not having my clothing stink from second hand cigarette smoke is a blessing.
Billy Whyde
Mon, May 7, 2012 : 2:19 a.m.
The exemption of the casinos in Michigan tells the truth about business losses!
Michael McFadden
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 11:17 p.m.
Mac, thank you for a thoughtful and interesting response. We partly agree and partly not. I would agree that prolonged exposure to concentrated secondary smoke can be a health risk. I'd take issue with the word "huge" when applied to today's environments. Even in the highly concentrated, poorly ventilated workplace environments of the 1950s through 70s, a worker working 40 hours a week for 40 years at a smoking job risked (According to the EPA estimate of a 19% increase over the base rate of about .5%) one extra chance in 1,000 of lung cancer from that exposure. Exposures in workplaces with modern well-designed ventilation/filtration systems would probably be on the order of 1/10th or less of that intensity, i.e. 1 extra LC among every 10,000 lifelong workers. In workplaces with even higher level arrangements involving "air curtains" and separated environments, the risk would head toward 1 in a 100,000 or even 1 in a million ... probably many, many times less than the risk of dying from having a drunk crack a beer bottle on a bartender's head. Heart disease risks and secondary smoke exposures are even less well-documented than the lung cancer link, but even if we accept them as partially true, the same sort of reductions would be likely. While I don't see a need for a special "license" I certainly would think that bars etc might indeed end up having to pay their staff extra in light of work conditions that might worry people. Heh, I'd be a lot more worried about that drunk with the bottle though in most bars. :> Limiting smoking to places excluding under 18s is reasonable, although if you look at the table I compiled of over 100 studies at: http://www.nycclash.com/Philly.html#ETSTable you'll see that while 10 showed some degree of increased risk for childhood exposure, 11 showed a decrease in risk. Most, on both sides, were not statistically significant. - MJM
Macabre Sunset
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 10:05 p.m.
I did read the blog link, and I agree that many pubs are in danger of closing if they don't change their business models. There is a smoking culture, so to speak, and spending evenings high on nicotine and alcohol with others is apparently quite pleasant for many. In some places, take that away, and there are no more customers. We see the same phenomenon, to a more damaging degree, in drug dens or crack houses. Honestly, I'd like to see all drugs legalized, including nicotine. But the problem is that there's no question that prolonged forced (or intentional) exposure to second-hand smoke is a huge health risk. Much more than walking down a street, unless you like standing behind diesel-powered buses. And with so many restaurants and bars allowing drug use, the cost to society to treat these illnesses was extraordinary. Maybe the solution is to require bars and restaurants that allow smoking to pay for a license to ill, so to speak. Mine workers get a good pay for unskilled work because it's highly dangerous. That seems to be the fairest economic argument. The question, though, is whether a society has an obligation to try and improve the health of young people. We say yes with most other dangerous drugs. So maybe only restaurants and bars that don't allow children should be able to purchase that license. It's a complicated issue. The only thing that's for certain is that the success of these restaurants and pubs was at the expense of the public for a long time. That needed to change. As for the casino argument, I am in complete agreement. They seem to have powerful lobbyists and protection in both parties.
Michael McFadden
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 7:46 p.m.
Mac, you wrote to me, "(I would imagine you're not local from your posts)." Nope. And I don't pretend to be. That's why I always make sure to clearly identify myself in my first post to a news article (see my post here at 1:53 where I responded to Tony e.g.) The information I add is valid however: I've watched these bans pushed through legislatures all over the country and the arguments and sound bites supporting them are almost always the same. See the "Sound Bites" page in my "Lies Behind The Smoking Bans" at: http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/PASAN/StilettoGenv5h.pdf for some good examples. - MJM
Michael McFadden
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 6:42 p.m.
Mac, you asked, "Did he also study other businesses gaining customers?" Mac, did you bother reading his research? He studied PUBS. That's where the ban mainly hit since most other businesses already largely banned smoking. Why would "other businesses" gain customers because pubs lost them? Although, actually, to some extent you're correct: there was a huge upturn in sales of alcohol from supermarkets to be consumed at home and at home parties (what they call "smokey-drinkeys" over there) where, of course, there are no barkeeps to monitor how drunk people get before they drive home etc. Great improvement, eh? - MJM
Macabre Sunset
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 6:20 p.m.
Did he also study other businesses gaining customers? I would imagine that a bar or restaurant that failed to adapt to the new business climate would be in danger of failing. Go to a Michigan bar (I would imagine you're not local from your posts). You'll probably find they run trivia contests and feature local beers you can't easily find in the stores. Maybe the food is better than it used to be. Businesses need to adapt to a changing business climate.
Michael McFadden
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 6:01 p.m.
Lovaduck, you wrote, "I think that the closings, alleged, of bars and restaurants have many causes, including foremost the present economy." Lov, "The Economy" is the excuse the Antismokers have been using to explain bar closings after bans ever since 2002. Historian Christopher Snowdon in the UK saw a unique opportunity to test that theory since the UK ban came in at different times in different years for England, Scotland, Wales, and also over in Ireland. Guess what? The pub closure rate, which basically skyrocketed from about 3/week up to 27, 36, and then 52/week, rose in accordance with time after the bans, not in accordance with any "The Economy" effect. See his full analysis at: http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2010/09/ban-damage.html - MJM
DAN
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 5:17 p.m.
Personally, I avoided many local Saline restaurants due to the heavy cigarette smoke odors until the ban. Now, I'm a frequent customer. Let's maintain the ban!
Joe_Citizen
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 5:05 p.m.
Who ever wrote this is sadly mistaken. For the most part it is true, but not for the bars who have been suffering the most from this ban, and some have closed down because of it. The casino's don't have to follow this law, and they are doing better then ever because of it. it's almost as if the law makers wanted it to happen this way. If you want to smoke inside at a bar you have to go to the Casino's to get away with it. Now getting hooked on gambling too. So lets compound the addiction for profit, and compromise the smoker. Why don't they just make it legal to smoke crack, prostitution, and shoot up heroin at the casinos also, and just follow suit with the profitable compromise. We can call it the "addicts r us" casinos and injection site and red light district, get all your desired needs filled here, and no need to travel far, unless you're broke.
Macabre Sunset
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 6:13 p.m.
One answer might be to end this silly double-standard of allowing special interests special rights the rest of us don't have - including the right to poison others.
Michael McFadden
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 6:09 p.m.
Joe, the Detroit casinos alone are reporting about 120 million dollars a month in revenue. I don't know the actual figures, but I'd guess they pay about 20% in tax on that, or about $25 million per month. When the smoking ban was imposed on Illinois casinos their revenue dropped immediately by 22% (And no, it wasn't "The Economy" since casino revenues in other states went UP during the same period.) So Joe, are you willing to help pony up $25 million per month, $300,000,000.00 per year, just so you can be happy knowing the casinos banned smoking? - MJM
AAbob43
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 4:32 p.m.
Michigan is such an insanely out of touch state, trying to commit suicide. I say, let it do so. Sure, let's allow others to pollute the air in public. Let's also go back to prohibition (cuz really, alcholol is more destrutive than is pot, and we're trying like hell to end the small inroad there). Let's also repeal women's sufferage. Let's reinstitute the death penalty. And while we're at it, let's take the tribal casinos back from the native American tribes. Let's go way back. Let's chase all of our young and intelligent people out of the state. What the hell are we waitiing for? Suggestion: get out of Michigan for a visit to a place that has left the dark ages, and see what a crap-hole our forces of conservatism are making of a once progressive and thriving state.
Greg
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 4:12 p.m.
Smokers can smoke if they wish. Expecting to subject others to it is to arrogant to stand
Billy Whyde
Mon, May 7, 2012 : 2:24 a.m.
No Greg if I want to start a coffee shop for smokers only and post it as such and your not a smoker and want to come in that is your fault not a smokers or the coffee shop!
Robert Granville
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 11:27 p.m.
So it's arrogant for a property owner to control his or her own property?
Bob Johnson
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 3:18 p.m.
One thing that bacame abundantly clear after the first winter is that many small neighborhood adult bars (no kids) have to ignore the ban to stay in business. Just laying down to die under oppression is not the American way.
Billy Bob Schwartz
Wed, May 9, 2012 : 10:51 p.m.
Or maybe the American Way is to let majority rule run the show. If 74% want smoking banned in public places as a dangerous health issue, that should about take care of it. Smoke at home. Spit your tobacco slop on your own floor (not the sidewalks). Drive on the right side of the road. Seems simple to me. It's nice to be able to go places and actually breathe instead of having coughing fits the whole time.
Royalprince
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 2:46 p.m.
The Republicans in the Michigan Legislature are so out of touch! How they can even consider promoting something that is probably the single most dangerous health risk to people, I will never be able to figure out. Smoking is dangerous, period! In public venues, there is absolutely no excuse for exposing nonsmokers to the dangerous effects of those thousands of carcinogens that cigarette smoke emit. Second-hand smoke is a real danger! If 20% of the population is so stupid as to smoke and destroy their health, there is no justification to expose the smart 80% of the population who don't smoke!
Diane
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 2:29 p.m.
ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!! What is the matter with these idiots?
jns131
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 1:50 p.m.
We stopped going to this one burger joint in Ypsilanti because it was always smoked filled. You could not breath even walking in to get an order picked up. I guess it was a smokers restaurant because all you saw were smokers. We have talked about going back since the ban but haven't. I guess it is better, but I really did not like taking my child in there because you really could not breathe. Keep the smoking ban in place. I should not have to die because of your bad habit.
Billy Bob Schwartz
Wed, May 9, 2012 : 10:46 p.m.
Billy...and your sources are...?
Billy Whyde
Mon, May 7, 2012 : 2:26 a.m.
guess what we all die some day and there were more people killed by E coli last year than by SHS!
Huron 74
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 2:15 p.m.
So don't go in there.
Ron Granger
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 1:48 p.m.
Michigan was viewed as a backward and bumpkin state as we lagged behind the rest of the country in passing a ban. Efforts to repeal that conjure up images of rust-belt dullards, sitting on our porches, sucking on menthols and hamhocks. You've come a long way baby! Way to cave into big tobacco money lobbying.
citizenwhocares
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 1:28 p.m.
I don't smoke, but because my boss decides that he permits smoking in his establishment, I have to breathe it because I serve the patrons. Where is my choice not to breathe in second hand smoke. This is just hypothetical for me as I don't actually have to deal with this decision but how unfair for those that did deal with this before and are now threatened to exposure again. Telling them to find another job is not an answer.
mike gatti
Tue, Sep 18, 2012 : 12:18 a.m.
Why because I sign a paycheck should I be able to knowingly and willfully expose my employees to carcinogens? Did you really write you are not entitled to a job? What is happening to this country's soul?
Peter Baker
Mon, May 7, 2012 : 2:54 p.m.
That's a non-sensical argument. When the job IS mining coal, no one's arguing that danger isn't present, but I think everyone should agree that everything possible should be done to make it as safe as possible, and banning voluntary past times that do endanger people seems like a no brainer.
Robert Granville
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 11:25 p.m.
You are not entitled to a job.
SMC
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 9:04 p.m.
Yes, it is. There are many occupations with varying degrees of risk on the job, which anyone has the freedom to pursue, or not. Mining coal is far more dangerous than stocking shelves at the grocery store, and no one will ever be forced to do either of those occupations.
Huron 74
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 12:53 p.m.
I still say it should be left up to the proprietor of the establishment. That means they would have the FREEDOM to decide. Patrons would also have the FREEDOM to decide if they want to enter an establishment where smoking is allowed. "hugely popular"? Not in my crowd. I am a musician and a pool player. I think you mean amongst people who feel they need to tell other people what to do. "what the public...deserves" is the right to choose, not legislation.
E Claire
Mon, May 7, 2012 : 3:32 p.m.
"Try walking into an emergency room some Friday night and count the number of secondhand smoke victims wheeled in vs. the number of dismembered accident victims" MJM, you won't see them in the ER because they're up in the cancer ward.
Michael McFadden
Mon, May 7, 2012 : 3:30 a.m.
Clean, I hate to break it to you, but your drunk driving argument has become as common as, and is just as silly as, the old "peeing in the pool" argument. Try walking into an emergency room some Friday night and count the number of secondhand smoke victims wheeled in vs. the number of dismembered accident victims. And if you happen to have a teenaged kid, think which phone call would worry you more: one that your daughter was seen at a restaurant where someone was smoking a cigarette or one letting you know she was being driven home by a guy who'd gotten carried to his car after a party. - MJM
CleanAirMeister
Mon, May 7, 2012 : 1:41 a.m.
I still say it should be left up to the driver of the vehicle. That means they would have the FREEDOM to decide to drink. Drivers would also have the FREEDOM to decide if they want to drive drunk on any road where driving is allowed. "hugely popular"? Not in my crowd. I am a drunk and a reckless driver. I think you mean amongst people who feel they need to tell other people what to do. "what the public...deserves" is the right to choose, not legislation.
David Wizard
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 2:53 p.m.
Your "freedom" does not include the freedom to inflict cancer and emphysema on those around you. Or do you think all laws against poisoning people should also be repealed?
jns131
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 1:53 p.m.
We all have freedoms. But my freedom is different from yours. Please keep it outside where my child and me do not have to breathe it. Thank you.
Ron Granger
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 1:50 p.m.
People who must work in that environment have no choice. Where is there freedom to be free from one of the deadliest killers?
a2citizen
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 1:10 p.m.
FREEDOM is just another word for nothing left to lose.
fjord
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 12:32 p.m.
It may not be perfect — I don't like the exception for casinos — but this ban is the best thing to come out of Lansing since Magic Johnson. Do the Republicans really want to pick this fight? We citizens won't have any problem getting a comprehensive, no-exceptions smoking ban onto the ballot and approved overwhelmingly by voters.
1bit
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 2:53 p.m.
Huron: You don't have the "right" to exhale toxic fumes that are dangerous to the public health. I can't throw poison at you and claim it as my "freedom".
Tony Dearing
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 1:27 p.m.
It's interesting that right before the smoking ban went into effect in 2010, Oakland County Executive Brooks Patterson filed a motion in court to block it. Within hours, his office had been flooded with so many calls and email from angry people who supported the ban that he dropped his court case. That's a pretty good indication of the potential political ramifications for anyone who seeks to roll back this ban.
Huron 74
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 12:57 p.m.
You are absolutely right, there are more people who do not smoke so you would win. Win what? A big foot on other people's freedom.
Halter
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 11:36 a.m.
Meanwhile, our once thriving bar and lounge nightlife is DOA after dinner hours as patrons stay home (and keep their wallets tucked closed) as our Ann Arbor proprietors try to keep their doors open. This trickles down to shops and services closing earlier downtown with no foot traffic to keep them open. No good deed goes unpunished.
mike gatti
Tue, Sep 18, 2012 : 12:15 a.m.
Ahh the old secret facts gambit. Perhaps you have a list of well known non-smokers. Well played Senator McCarthy
Michael McFadden
Mon, May 7, 2012 : 1:06 p.m.
Rob, you wrote, "So how is it that one cigarette in a bar will have me gagging and stinking of smoke for the next day, whereas I can't even smell the six dozen drinks being poured in the place? Perhaps a little more science, and a little less hyperbole." No hyperbole at all Rob. Alcohol has very little odor. Most types of smoke have fairly strong odors. In terms of hyperbole, how often have you spent an evening in a bar where only one cigarette was lit and it was then followed by being "stinking" the next day? And in terms of science, if you have any criticisms of the science in my "Lies Behind The Smoking Bans" document however, I won't mind at all if you offer specific criticisms. The link is buried somewhere below, so I'll offer it again... http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/PASAN/StilettoGenv5h.pdf I would agree with you that the ban should not be totally erased: there *are* some limited restrictions on smoking that might be reasonable. But the changes needed are so profound that I think "getting rid of it and starting anew" would work better than trying to tack on unwieldy amendments. - MJM
Rob
Mon, May 7, 2012 : 12:49 p.m.
Mr. McFadden: "Alcohol is a very highly volatile neurotoxic poison AND a Class A Carcinogen that evaporates into the air that everyone else is breathing at a rate equal to over a million micrograms per hour from a standard martini." So how is it that one cigarette in a bar will have me gagging and stinking of smoke for the next day, whereas I can't even smell the six dozen drinks being poured in the place? Perhaps a little more science, and a little less hyperbole. I am all for the smoking ban. The secondary effects have been CLINICALLY. PROVEN. Time has shown that if one bar dies in A2, three more will pop up to take its place. We're not hurting for restaurants. That said, a loophole that I would agree with opening is that of the Catholic cigar dinner charity. If nonprofits can get a license for gambling, why not for smoking? AMEND the law. Don't get rid of it.
Ron Granger
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 11:36 p.m.
"Actually, yes I can, but since those proprietors are busy putting together their own legal actions, I am not going to cite them here until they become public knowledge." Yeah, sure, sure. Anyone know how many times the bar location previously known as "The Full Moon" has closed over the years? Six?
Michael McFadden
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 7:04 p.m.
Clown, you wrote, " I think I should be able to drive 75mph down Jackson Rd, its' about my freedom." Clown, a lot of people think they should be allowed to drink alcohol in restaurants. They think this *despite* the fact that alcohol is a very highly volatile neurotoxic poison AND a Class A Carcinogen that evaporates into the air that everyone else is breathing at a rate equal to over a million micrograms per hour from a standard martini. Do I think alcohol should be banned from restaurants? Of course not: it's no more dangerous than secondary smoke. All that's needed to handle such toxins are reasonable accommodations for proper ventilation. "The dose is the poison" is one of the most fundamental laws of toxicology. - MJM
clownfish
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 6:55 p.m.
Well, as long as people are making money, who cares about the health of the employees? I think I should be able to drive 75mph down Jackson Rd, its' about my freedom.
Michael McFadden
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 6:37 p.m.
Clownfish, you wrote, "How nice to have ones "facts", but be unable to show them!" Clownfish, I can't help Halter with Michigan's facts, but I can show you exactly what she's talking about in another area where the facts are public record. Check out Christopher Snowdon's analysis of the ban effects on Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and England. Note that the bans all came in at different times and that the disasters to their pub industries occurred with regard to those times: NOT in tune with any claims of "general economic troubles." See: http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2010/09/ban-damage.html - MJM
clownfish
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 5:43 p.m.
How nice to have ones "facts", but be unable to show them!
Halter
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 1:52 p.m.
Actually, yes I can, but since those proprietors are busy putting together their own legal actions, I am not going to cite them here until they become public knowledge...but I can say that they have done some EXCELLENT studies and show drops like 90% of customer base after 10:00 pm due to the no smoking policy along the Main Street corridor...Smokers aren't going to stop smoking -- they will just stay home to do so. Ann Arbor has always had a counterculture of bar and lounge goers after 10:00 pm, who come into the area restaurants once the diners have gone out. That has virtually dried up. As to being out I go out ALL the time...I also am NOT a smoker, I hate it, but I also have friends that depend on that income downtown. Before everyone jumps on the "just ban smoking" wagon which we know all the tree huggers here in Ann Arbor are going to be 100% for, I posted my comment to slow you own and have you think about the negative impact it is also having.
Steve Burling
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 12:34 p.m.
Got any data to back up that claim? There are actually places I go to more often now because I can come home not stinking.
clownfish
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 12:29 p.m.
Can you cite some evidence of this claim? Which bars or restaurants in the area have closed due solely to the smoking ban? Do you think we should allow lead paint to be used in day care centers? How about Asbestos insulation in schools? Should people be able to defecate in public spaces as an expression of freedom?
sh1
Sun, May 6, 2012 : 11:44 a.m.
Something tells me you haven't been out in a while.