Smoking ban will boost Michigan’s economy and well-being
On Saturday, Michigan became the 38th state to ban smoking in all worksites including restaurants and bars. Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm called for smoking ban legislation in her 2007 and 2009 State of the State addresses and signed the smoking ban into law on Dec. 18, 2009, to protect employees, patrons and citizens from the dangers of secondhand smoke.
The risk involved with secondhand smoke is all too real. Tobacco kills more people in Michigan than AIDS, alcohol, automobile crashes, fires, drugs, murders, and suicides combined. Secondhand smoke is the third leading cause of preventable death in Michigan, resulting in about 2,500 deaths in the state and at least 53,000 deaths annually in the U.S.
Janet Olszewski, director of the Michigan Department of Community Health
Last year, when lawmakers passed the Michigan smoking ban, it sent a clear, strong and direct message: The health of Michigan citizens is a top priority. This law will build more smoke-free environments that will allow us all to live in a cleaner, healthier smoke-free state.
While creating a healthier state, the law also will help improve the local economy.
Currently, Michigan businesses lose $3.8 billion a year due to smoking-related productivity loss and pay out $3.4 billion in health care costs directly related to illness caused by smoking. Michigan households pay $637 annually in state and federal taxes to cover the smoking related health care costs of persons insured through government programs. At a time when each of us is concerned with health care costs this law is a concrete step toward curbing those costs.
Public Sector Consultants conducted an analysis of studies of communities nationwide with smoke-free laws. They concluded that comprehensive smoke-free laws do not have a negative economic impact on bars and restaurants. In fact, studies conducted in New York, Massachusetts, California, Florida and other smoke-free states indicate revenue and jobs are created after smoke-free laws are adopted. In the first year after a smoke-free law was enacted in New York City, 10,600 hospitality jobs were created and business tax receipts from bars and restaurants increased by 8.7 percent. Many restaurants and bars discovered a whole new clientele of non-smokers and families who otherwise would not have patronized a smoked filled restaurant or bar.
Since the law will put all of these establishments on a level playing field, smokers will continue to patronize these businesses - they just will not be able to smoke. In fact, the Ronald M. Davis Law, named after the former medical officer in the Michigan Department of Public Health and an advocate against secondhand smoke, might encourage smokers to kick the habit. From all perspectives, the smoking ban is a winning strategy.
Janet Olszewski is the director of the Michigan Department of Community Health.
Comments
Jake C
Tue, May 4, 2010 : 11:41 a.m.
Nonsense. Even sitting at a restaurant's outdoor patio, if there's a smoker at the table next to us and we're downwind of their smoke, my wife's asthma is aggravated within minutes. Will it kill her immediately? No, but that doesn't mean it isn't a health hazard. I don't care how good the ventilation is, secondhand smoke is harmful, full stop. And even if the state just required all bars and restaurants to implement this 'modern ventilation technology', smokers and business owners would complain that it's an intolerable infringement of their freedoms from government regulation and that the added costs of ventilation would hurt their business. There's no way to satisfy everyone, so this is what we get.
Thomas Laprade
Tue, May 4, 2010 : 9:48 a.m.
An alternate to smoking bans If the public was honestly and truthfully informed about the effects of second-hand smoke, there would be fewer no-smoking laws in this country. There has never been a single study showing that exposure to the low levels of smoke found in bars and restaurants with decent modern ventilation and filtration systems kills or harms anyone. As to the annoyance of smoking, a compromise between smokers and non-smokers can be reached, through setting a quality standard and the use of modern ventilation technology. Air ventilation can easily create a comfortable environment that removes not just passive smoke, but also and especially the potentially serious contaminants that are independent from smoking. Thomas Laprade
Jake C
Mon, May 3, 2010 : 8:01 p.m.
It's all about freedom of choice? Well you can still choose to patronize a place of business and not smoke for a whole 2-3 hours (if your addiction will let you), you can choose to go outdoors for 3 minutes and have a quick smoke if you won't freeze your little toesies off, or you can choose to go home and smoke there. So many choices to choose from!
Private
Mon, May 3, 2010 : 10:47 a.m.
Jake C, very crafty of you to dodge the meat of the matter. The state is over stepping its bounds by "DICTATING" a sweeping policy across the board where there is no "CHOICE"! I would much rather have the ability to "choose" weather I want to go to a smoking establishment, or a non smoking establishment. Are you grasping the logic in what I am saying here? The individual right to choose, that means that I don't have to be just like you if I don't want to. That means that I don't have to go to smoke free restaurants and bars just because you prefer to breathe sterilized air. Do you understand CHOICE? Now there is no choice, now I have to smoke outside in the cold like some second class citizen, because people like you feel that EVERYONE should be just like you.
Jake C
Mon, May 3, 2010 : 9:24 a.m.
If you don't believe the hundreds of studies that have proven that secondhand smoke is directly linked to asthma in children living in smoking households, and causes more illnesses in employees working in smoking vs. nonsmoking businesses, then it's no use discussing the issue with you. If you believe the scientific process can be derided as a "modern priesthood" when it conflicts with your political philosophy, but yet you continue to take advantage of all the medical and technological advancements that science has given you over the past hundreds of years, then it's no use discussing the issues with you. No one's taking away anyone's freedom to smoke in your own household or car with small children, or as a pregnant mother, or in 99% of the open space in the country. The rest of us have just had enough of unhealthy air in our restaurants and bars and pubs. So please just expend the tiny amount of energy it takes to walk outside with your cigarette, and stop the whining.
Private
Mon, May 3, 2010 : 9:02 a.m.
One other thing on that note, anytime a governmental regime mandates policies where there is no "choice", you are under a dictatorship. And it is the responsibility of the people to remove these bums from power by any and all means necessary.
Private
Mon, May 3, 2010 : 7:20 a.m.
Ok first of all, there is no definitive proof that second hand smoke is hazardous. All you have are so called experts (modern priesthood) who say's it is so, and the zombies agree without question. Secondly, where does the state get off "dictating" policy? The correct approach towards this matter would have been to offer tax incentives for business owners who restrict or eliminate tobacco usage in their establishment by "CHOICE", the incorrect approach is what we now have being shoved down everyone's throats across the board. Right now it's smoking, tomorrow it will be something more intrusive, and unless these control freaks are thrown out of office very soon, their over lapping bureaucratic tentacles will be wrapped around every facet of your lives, and you wont even be able to wipe your own backside without signing for your toilet paper allowance. This isn't about health, it's about having the freedom to make your own choices for yourself without the need for permission from these parasites in Lansing and other governmental institutions.
amazonwarrior
Sun, May 2, 2010 : 11:23 p.m.
Nick52 - There were numerous articles in the Toledo Blade and the Toledo TV news several years ago. Also, based on past personal experience, before the smoking ban, there were a number of restaurants that we liked, which would have a 45+ minutes wait time. After the ban, we could walk right in and be seated and the restaurant would not be busy the entire time we were there, and this was on the weekend. The long time owners of several of the restaurants were bleeding money and sold out, with the new owners not appearing to be doing much better. This wasn't a "scientific study", only my personal observations the past couple of years.
janawritesalot
Sun, May 2, 2010 : 8:48 p.m.
Arguing that the ban is good or bad because smoking is good or bad misses the whole point of the issue. Many things are bad for us and yet still legal, such as binge drinking or copious consumption of fatty foods. The point is that there is a choice, and that choice within a private business is supposed to remain with the business owner. The choice is also given to the consumer to enter or not enter that place of business as a result. Restaurants and bars are not public places and so the state is not required to protect citizens from what goes on within so long as it is legal. Since smoking is legal, this ban doesn't make sense within public policy. The line of thinking that it took to pass this legislation makes me feel uneasy, because it opens the door to the citizenship making decisions for one another rather than for themselves, such as food, activity and drinking choices. Will the ban be a detriment to the Michigan smokers? No, of course not. Will some of them quit? Yes. Will it boost restaurant economy? Maybe. But it still sets a bad precedent, and one that might influence something a little more controversial next time.
Bob Johnson
Sun, May 2, 2010 : 6:44 p.m.
After two years, Illinois is finally trying to save its bowling alleys. http://cbs2chicago.com/local/bowling.shoes.alleys.2.1400032.html
American Family
Sun, May 2, 2010 : 6:26 p.m.
Smoking ban might enhance a persons well-being, butI do not think it will help the local economy. Bans like this have been tired before, for various items. Never works. Creates anger and "black markets." Only time will tell how bad this ban will make things for the people overall.
Mick52
Sun, May 2, 2010 : 6:13 p.m.
Interesting comment Amazon. I looked around online a little but could find no supporting documentation. Do you know of an article supporting a negative impact on restaurants or bars in Ohio? Seems to me people will still go to eat, get drunk. Perhaps someone did argue the Detroit casinos would loose gamblers to tribal casinos, but which casinos? I think one Det casino is affiliated with a tribe, but does anyone really think all those gamblers would flee to Mount Pleasant? Is there a closer tribal casino? I don't care where people go to loose their money, but to exempt casinos is a flaw. It should be all or none to be fair and equal. I hope that before this law was approved, some investigation was done on the possible effects of cigarette taxes decreasing. From browsing online, I found articles that support that limitations on smoking push people into non smoking and tax revenues from tobacco tax plummets. Some people buy online, go out of state or roll their own.
Mick52
Sun, May 2, 2010 : 5:23 p.m.
I approve of banning cigarettes completely, they drive health care costs drastically. However, measures involving cigarettes apparently causes fiscal problems. While looking for how much the state makes in tobacco taxes, I see a lot of articles online about how cigarette/tobacco tax increases cause a drop in sales and subsequently tax revenue. Apparently in response to higher cigarette taxes, people started rolling their own: Here is the article on that and the subsequent fed tax: http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2009/03/mon_holy_smokes_taxes_on_rolli.html Here is one that claims cigarette tax increases cause revenue dropping: http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/29248999.html http://mi.gov/documents/CigaretteTobaccoTaxes_2005StatisticalUpdate_165040_7.pdf I agree cigarettes are bad but what happens if tobacco tax revenue falls significantly? It appears tobacco use is a significant source of revenue.
amazonwarrior
Sun, May 2, 2010 : 4:56 p.m.
A year after this very same law was passed in Toledo, by the VOTERS, restaurant business dropped so drastically, that the restaurant owners wanted to repeal the law. I have seen near empty parking lots at formerly very busy restaurants, or placing going out of business all together. Go figure. Someone has their "facts" wrong. I think the decision should be left to the business owner, not government. What's next, the government coming into our homes and checking what we have in our cupboards and refrigerators?? Food, Beverage and Cigarette Police? Yikes!
Eryn
Sun, May 2, 2010 : 4:03 p.m.
fjord, Very well said. DW - First, it was the complete undercutting of the government testing agencies by George "the only good government is a small government" W. Bush that resulted in the lead crusted toys coming into this country. And the point (which you clearly missed) is that US companies can not put lead into paint, we can't regulate what other countries do, we just have to have enough government testers to find out if tainted toys are coming in. Thus we're back to where we started - by what criteria are you arbitrarily picking and choosing which regulations you support, and which you choose to demonize? Also, you allude to a slippery-slope argument here with "It's only a matter of time, and everyone know's (sic) it's coming. I'm curious what you think is coming, and what proof do you have that it's on its way? Using your logic, one would think that the 1994 banning of assault rifles must have lead us down a similar path with the government goose-stepping into every home to take all firearms just like the Nazis did in Germany in 1938. But no, that law lead to a massive spike in assault rife sales, but not much else. You can happily go down to your local Dunham's today and buy as many AR-15's as you like. Pick up a WASR AK-47 while you're at it, they're fun for the little ones!
LBH
Sun, May 2, 2010 : 3:55 p.m.
@DW - a minority of people smoke, a pretty substantial minority. That minority of people cause harm to the people around them when they choose to light up. It is not a passive act. It cannot be a passive act. There are many regulations relating to the food industry, this is just one more and I applaud it. As for lead paint from China; many companies have sold American's on the notion that everything should be cheap and disposable. Lower prices for junk, and lots of it, is how marketing works these days. Now, just because one is selling cheap junk, no need to eat into the bottom line. Solution, have goods made in countries with fewer regulations because it is cheaper. If we follow your line of reasoning, if we kill some pets or poison some kids it is the fault of the consumer because they could have chosen not to buy those products, right?
DW
Sun, May 2, 2010 : 1:11 p.m.
fjord, You mean the lead paint that the US Government allows China to ship here on our baby toy's, that has been discovered over the last year? That lead paint? And again, thanks for proving my point that this is not, and never been a health issue. You were correct when you said "Detroit casinos were able to convince the state legislature that they would be at a competitive disadvantage if smoking were banned there and not at their competitors' facilities." The key word is Competitors facilities. If it were a TRUE health issue, competition would have NOTHING to do with it. It's only a matter of time, and everyone know's it's coming. Get prepared.
DW
Sun, May 2, 2010 : 10:18 a.m.
LBH, thanks for admitting it is about the money and not health. If it were truly a health issue, Casino's would also be banned. As for the Cigar bars, you are again correct in saying, you don't smoke, so you wouldn't go. Same said for restaurants. If they have smoking, you don't go. You would go to the non smoking restaurants, wouldn't you? The thing here is you have a choice, as do the owners. Imagine the buisness boom that non smoking establishments would have, if that were the case? Wouldn't it put the smoking establishments out of buisness? You seem to like the "choice" for Cigar bars but not for restaurants. All I am saying is if you are going to ban smoking in public places, do it for ALL public places. Don't pick & choose. Funny how Detroit get's a free pass at their Casino's, isn't it? And, NOSUV,nice argument. Let's get rid of everything that causes our health premiums to increase. Let's let the Government rid us of everything and all ways that people "kill" themselves. You just proved my earlier point. Thanks! Oh, and I am not a smoker. Just fyi.
LBH
Sun, May 2, 2010 : 9:28 a.m.
True - it's not banned in Casinos because they have lobbying power and were convinced that people would stay away in droves if they were denied the right to breath other people's smoke. As for cigar bars and smoke shops - they exist because the expectation is that those who enter are going there to smoke. I don't smoke, so I wouldn't go. But I am extremely happy that I may now dine out or enjoy a drink with friends without being forced to participate in somebody else's deadly habit. The expectation at a restaurant or bar is not that people are there to smoke, but are there to eat or enjoy a drink. Before you get started on how harmful alcohol is, and so should be banned as well, I don't have to participate in your drinking a beverage. If it is harmful to you, I don't get splashed with it. Same with red meat, or salt, etc. But I absolutely cannot avoid participating in your smoking if you light up anywhere near me.
DW
Sun, May 2, 2010 : 9:06 a.m.
Then ban it across the board. Casino's, Cigar Bars, every place. If it is truly a health issue they are going after, then smoking should be outlawed, period! Typical Government telling it's citizens what's good & bad for you. Salt in your food? NY want's to regulate at eateries. Wood burners putting smoke in the air? Feds are looking to regulate that too. Red Meat? Not good for you, so let's ban it. I have 357 reasons why we need REAL change.
NoSUVforMe
Sun, May 2, 2010 : 8:57 a.m.
Hope and Change is working great for me. Sorry it's not working for you, DW. Why should Michigan remain in the dark ages? Finally, government in Michigan is taking a stance for the benefit of the people, not the radical fringe.
DW
Sun, May 2, 2010 : 8:48 a.m.
If it's health driving this, then why were the Detroit Casino's exempt? Typical Government picking & choosing what's in THEIR best intrest. How's that Hope & Change working for everyone?
Bonnie Discuillo
Sun, May 2, 2010 : 8:32 a.m.
I am so glad that this ban is finally in place. Now I hope that the no littering law will be enforced on smokers. What a mess cigarette butts make. They last forever and never break down. If anyone else threw a piece of paper out on the ground they would be ticketed and the same should apply to smokers. They have gotten away with this for too long. Why don't they make a filter that they can eat when they are none with their smoke.