SemperFi

Mon, Jan 18, 2010 : 3:54 p.m.

Clearly, Mr. Rider doesn't understand the effects of low-level exposure to cancer causing agents. Quoting from Greg Watchman about health hazards is like quoting from Gengis Khan about humanitarian aid. There's a reason that guy was ACTING as an OSHA Secretary. Mr. Laprade, the public is honestly and truthfully informed about the effects of second-hand smoke and the well-informed have decided that it is truly an attack on the health of the public. "A non-smoking section in a restaurant is much like a non-peeing area in a pool." Now, I can take a deep breath!

Woman in Ypsilanti

Mon, Jan 18, 2010 : 1:40 p.m.

I think the next thing we should go after is loud music in bars. I mean, sometimes I go to a bar and the music is terrible! Sometimes it is worse, terrible AND loud. Everyone knows that loud music is bad for a person's ears. Why should we allow anyone to force people into listening to their music? I want to be able to go into any bar in the state and not have to listen to music I dont want to listen to. haha. Seriously though, as a non smoker, I cant say that the end effect of this smoking ban is going to matter much to me personally but I do really find the attitude of entitlement a lot of my fellow non-smokers have about this issue to be really annoying. Where does it end? Will it end with smoking?

johnnya2

Mon, Jan 18, 2010 : 1:07 p.m.

Base don the false argument the government has no business in this, is like saying that because it is legal you can drink alcohol any place you want. You can get naked any where you want. You can do whatever you want anywhere. The MAJORITY of people do not smoke. The only reason people smoke is to ingest drugs. The government has every right and responsibilty to try and control that. If you do not think second hand smoke is bad, I suggest you walk into a home where the people smoke. I bet you would still smell the smoke for a long time. It lingers within the fibers and cells of everybody. If you want to smoke, DO IT IN YOUR OWN HOME. If you want to kill yourself that is fine (there is little doubt about that), but the rest o us should not be subjected to a smokers selfish addiction. We don't let heroin addicts shoot up at the bar.

AAJoker

Mon, Jan 18, 2010 : 12:46 p.m.

The quote from the Greg Watchman letter is in reference to benzopyrene, acetone and tolulene and if you based your logic on this information you would probably also conclude smoking isn't hazardous, which has been proven wrong time and time again. Come out from under your rock and realize non-smokers have an equal right to not deal with your nasty habit in public places.

Yogi

Mon, Jan 18, 2010 : 12:04 p.m.

Cigarettes stink! Not to mention the second hand smoke. There is a very small minority of smokers who if they could quit would choose not to. The reason they won't is they are addicted and judging by some of these posts the cigarette junkies are really angry about this new law. Please don't hide behind the government taking away another freedom because they haven't. They are simply mandating that you step outside to smoke. Big deal!

Macabre Sunset

Mon, Jan 18, 2010 : 11:38 a.m.

It's hard to conclude second-hand smoke is not harmful. At least in this day and age. If you're interested in the science, a rather good starting point can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking. The government intrusion aspect... yes, the government is often hypocritical. But so are proponents of laws in this area. On both sides. The bottom line is that nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs known to mankind. A cigarette is a drug-delivery device. Not only that, it's a drug-delivery device that forces innocent bystanders to share a drug fix. There's not much question that cigarettes would be banned if invented today. But with more than 50 million drug addicts in America, banning cigarettes is simply not a practical solution. Smokers need to understand that, and be thankful there are people working to humanely cure their addiction. Unlike the problems with other drug addictions, where addicts are jailed and help difficult to find.

sun runner

Mon, Jan 18, 2010 : 11:35 a.m.

I recently visited a bar in the Pittsburgh area with a friend. We went there because the establishment is owned by a college classmate of ours. While I enjoyed having a few beers and visiting with her, the place was jammed with smokers and the air was so heavy with secondhand smoke it stung my eyes and made it difficult to breathe. When we finally left, I had a pounding headache and we both had to take showers once we got home because our bodies and hair reeked of smoke; the state of our clothing was even worse. If this place was in the Ann Arbor area I would never go back (as I crossed the 8 Ball Saloon off my list of places to visit years ago for similar reasons). Say what one will about the health consequences (or alleged lack thereof) of secondhand smoke, no person should have to shower at midnight after spending a couple of hours in a bar because they smell so foul, and I cringe to think of the health of the people who work in such an environment for a full shift. Fortunately for us in Michigan, this scenario's days are numbered. I look forward to returning to places I reluctantly gave up on because the effects of secondhand smoke were too great (Ashley's, the aforementioned 8 Ball). The only reason I'd like to be reminded that I had a night out at a bar is a case of cotton-mouth the next morning, not because I have a cloud of cigarette stink around me and everything I touched.

sheila

Mon, Jan 18, 2010 : 11:15 a.m.

Now let's talk about DeBorah's funding for this "war" on small business owners. And all the money that flowed into Michigan for ads and propaganda hype. Let's start with the mega foundation Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. They hold over 6 BILLION dollars from their holdings in Johnson and Johnson stock. The Johnson and Johnson "family" of companies include J&J and Pfizer Pharmaceutical Companies. They also control Chantic, Nicoderm, Nicoderm CQ, Nicorette, Nicotrol. This magnificent marketing scheme will not be reported in the media as the media is getting bookoo bucks for the "poisonous smoke" ads, and for all the products of J&J. They also will not report that the funding for all this non science comes from nicotine replacement. It is hard to follw the money as it travels in and out of private, supposed non profits, and into lobbying. Look up Pfizer PAC and CORP donations. Almost every State level Rep in this country and in Washington is getting campaign donations from them. Also, all the bogus "studies" are funded from the same source. If anyone from the media had the guts to do the real story behind this agenda, it would expose all the lobbying money, the politicos on the take, the grant sponging done on tax payer time, by tax paid employees of the County and the State, and would produce the OSHA studies which state that second hand smoke might be a niusance, but it is NO hazard. Small businesses are closing. And NO ONE is trying to ban the selling of tobacco products. WHY? No tobacco selling equals NO nicotine replacement sales. DUH!

tracyann

Mon, Jan 18, 2010 : 10:53 a.m.

First off, cigarettes aren't just "a handful of crushed leaves and some paper". Chemicals are introduced during the production of cigarettes which classifies them as carcinogens. Second, it seems the only ones who feel second hand smoke isn't bad are smokers. Try as one might, second hand smoke isn't always easily avoided, as any asthmatic will attest to.

David Read

Mon, Jan 18, 2010 : 7:53 a.m.

I am a reformed smoker and, as such, have frequented the various (and numerous) smoke-free establishments in the area. I try to avoid the restaurants that have a "non-smoking" section because, no matter how good the ventilation, the cigarette odor (which I find extremely unpleasant) still manages to find its way to my table. However unpleasant that odor is, I find the government intrusion Mr. Laprade speaks of to be even more so. Here we have a government that, on one hand, subsidizes the production of a product and on the other limits (or prohibits) its use. Ridiculous! The market should drive the smoking situation. This smoking ban is just another intrusion of government into our lives, the latest being the voluntary (for now) restriction of salt in NYC. As to whether smoking bans are good for business as mentioned by Ms. Borden, I would like to see the numbers to substantiate that statement. Yes, smoke-free establishments may see an increase in patrons and possibly revenue, but that doesn't necessarily result in an increase in profit. But I would hold off commenting any further until we see the pre-ban and post-ban P&L statements.

smokedbacon

Mon, Jan 18, 2010 : 12:16 a.m.

Did Michigan legislators sign a deal with evil? Anti tobacco ripping off unemployment benefits in Ohio! $190,000,000.00 worth! Benefits aren't there when they are most needed http://www.dispatch.com/live /content/editorials/stories/20 10/01/16/Hossfeld_SAT_ART_01-1 6-10_A9_AHGA91D.html?sid=101 written by GERALD HOSSFELD Grove City interesting letter by a man noe unemployed that can ot get assistance. Perhaps Mr. Whydes letter http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2010/01/16/Whyde__SAT_ART_01-16-10_A9_FNGAIS2.html?type=rss&cat=&sid= explains why the benefits are not there. I respond to the Sunday Forum column "Foundation's money would serve Ohio best by fighting tobacco," http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2010/01/10/healton.ART_ART_01-10-10_G5_M5G8C6J.html?sid=101 by Cheryl Healton, president and chief executive officer of Legacy, the national public-health foundation devoted to keeping young people from smoking and helping all smokers quit. According to Internal Revenue Service tax returns, Healton receives $763,358 a year in wages and compensation, so I could see her interest in this matter. Mind you, that is almost twice what the president of the United States gets paid. She did not mention that it is her organization that is fighting to get its hands on and control of $190 million that our state government, in a bipartisan decision, decided to use for the unemployed people of Ohio. She throws a pitch that Ohio would see the $190 million flow back to Ohio. I seriously question that. Once the money is in Legacy's hands, it will decide what kind of money goes back to Ohio while disbursing the money for other causes, such as the American Cancer Society. Susan Jagers, employee/lobbyist of the American Cancer Society, made the motion to give Legacy the $190 million. If you're unemployed or know of someone who is unemployed in Ohio, please think about this. I would rather see a smoker than to see an unemployed Ohio family living under a bridge with no home. I would rather see unemployed people being trained for possible new jobs that might give them the chance to save their homes. I would rather see $100,000 being used in a homeless shelter or food-bank kitchen than used to get people to quit smoking, as the Ohio Tobacco Prevention Foundation has done. Do you really want $190 million to be in the hands of an organization such as the American Legacy Foundation which, in 2002, lent nearly $1 million to Healton so she could buy a $975,000 home in Washington's exclusive North Cleveland Park neighborhood? Do Ohioans want $190 million in these hands? I have asked Ohio's senators to sue those responsible for this fiasco for the legal expenses incurred by Ohio and for damages that have been inflicted upon the unemployed because of Ohio's inability to utilize this money.

Thomas Laprade

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 10:56 p.m.

An alternative 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. A little smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper that is mixed with the air of a decently ventilated venue is going to harm or kill you? 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

Thomas Laprade

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 10:54 p.m.

Government power the real health hazard The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed threat of "second-hand" smoke. Indeed, the bans are symptoms of a far more grievous threat, a cancer that has been spreading for decades and has now metastasized throughout the body politic, spreading even to the tiniest organs of local government. This cancer is the only real hazard involved the cancer of unlimited government power. The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or is in fact just a phantom menace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journal indicates. The issue is: If it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction? Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating people about the potential danger and allowing them to make their own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and force people to make the "right" decision? Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than trying to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health, the bans are the unwanted intrusion. Loudly billed as measures that only affect "public places," they have actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops and offices places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whose customers are free to go elsewhere if they don't like the smoke. Some local bans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is negligible, such as outdoor public parks. The decision to smoke, or to avoid "second-hand" smoke, is a question to be answered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessment of the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding every aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend or sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get married or divorced, and so on. All of these decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmful consequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from the neighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He must be free because his life belongs to him, not to his neighbours, and only his own judgment can guide him through it. Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Smokers are a numerical minority, practising a habit considered annoying and unpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the power of government and used it to dictate their behaviour. That is why these bans are far more threatening than the prospect of inhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco while waiting for a table at your favourite restaurant. The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated alarm at those wisps of smoke while they unleash the unlimited intrusion of government into our lives. We do not elect officials to control and manipulate our behaviour. Thomas Laprade

snapshot

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 5:47 p.m.

I would question this study based upon my own study of "not being able to breath in a cloud of smoke". You wouldn't try to force me to eat the leftover food you liked, why would you feel justified forcing me to breath your leftover smoke? And if you respond with I don't have to go into the establishment, well the same goes for you.

harley rider

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 10:13 a.m.

Second hand smoke is a joke,this person is lying to everyone about health effects. The facts are that shs/ets is 94% water vapor and air......even osha has said...... As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that: "Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997