 
El_jimbo
Member
Username: El_jimbo
Post Number: 678
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2008 - 12:45 pm: |    |
Dds,
an initial drop in sales doesn't mean mass bar closings. Also, if the bars close due to a moderate drop in business for a few weeks, chances are they were barely skating by to begin with and weren't going to make it anyway. |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 6571
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2008 - 12:46 pm: | |
quote:chances are they were barely skating by to begin with
BINGO! It's a called recession, and in Michigan it's called really bad recession. |
El_jimbo
Member
Username: El_jimbo
Post Number: 679
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2008 - 12:53 pm: | |
and your point is? That if we ban smoking we'll go into a depression? Thousands of people in bread lines saying, "I had a job once, but I stopped going to the bar because the banned smoking. Next thing I know, the bar closed and then the mill shut down not to far after. Damn that smoking ban!" |
Diehard
Member
Username: Diehard
Post Number: 495
Registered: 03-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2008 - 12:55 pm: | |
Wow, you walk away for a while and look what people are talking about.
Congrats to this forum for being respectful and intelligent. The only other place I've seen this debated better is at fark.com.
Still supporting the bill here. Smokers will adjust easily enough, as they have everywhere else. Getting up and going outside to light up is no more trouble than getting up and going to the restroom to pee.
It's silly to think people will stop going out just because they're not allowed to smoke inside. Smokers and nonsmokers alike go to the bar to socialize, dance, listen to music, play pool, etc. - all of which have nothing to do with cigarettes.
I'll repeat it over and over: Nobody's taking away your right to smoke. What this bill does is remove noxious fumes from a crowded, closed indoor space, and I fail to see what's so horrible and un-American about that. |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 6573
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2008 - 12:59 pm: | |
quote:and your point is? That if we ban smoking we'll go into a depression? Thousands of people in bread lines saying, "I had a job once, but I stopped going to the bar because the banned smoking. Next thing I know, the bar closed and then the mill shut down not to far after. Damn that smoking ban!"
My point is the last thing many of these business owners need now is ONE MORE THING hurting their business. The Michigan Legislature can't balance a budget, can't create jobs, can't even handle their primaries properly, but they can make things even harder for business owners during some of the toughest times they've ever faced and get applauded for it. Nonsense. |
Mjb3
Member
Username: Mjb3
Post Number: 171
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2008 - 1:18 pm: | |
I still don't see it hurting business? Where are they going to go? Windsor, Toledo, Chicago? They all did this 3-5 yrs ago!
Yes, they will bitch initially. But they are still going to go out to eat, shoot pool, hook up. They'll just be doing it in smoke-free environment. And it's level playing field all bars smoke free. |
Rrl
Member
Username: Rrl
Post Number: 957
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2008 - 1:18 pm: | |
A question slightly off topic, but something I'd like to know;
can prisoners in state prisons smoke inside, or do they have to go outside to designated areas at scheduled times? Any one familiar enough with State Corrections to know the answer? |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 514
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2008 - 1:34 pm: | |
I'm sorry that a law that doesn't allow you to run a business environment where cigarette smoke is permitted to poison your customers and employees is seen as such a hinderance. I'm sure the sanitation laws and the health code are a hassle sometimes as well. |
El_jimbo
Member
Username: El_jimbo
Post Number: 680
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2008 - 1:43 pm: | |
John Lodge,
It isn't exactly like the money is going away. If people aren't frequenting bars and restaurants then the money they aren't spending will be available for some other part of the economy. If there is an economic impact to this, it is nothing but a minor blip and is a VERY weak excuse from the anti-ban crowd. |
Jcole
Member
Username: Jcole
Post Number: 539
Registered: 04-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2008 - 1:52 pm: | |
A few years back, I used to frequent the small government run charity casino in Sarnia, Ont. When Ontario announced that all government buildings would be under a smoking ban, the patrons at Pt. Edward were up in arms. They would no longer go there, it was an outrage, etc. A few people DID quit going, but the vast majority just joined the crowd outside in the smoking area. When it's a matter of giving up one vice over another, the stronger vice wins.
What has injured the Canadian casinos is the weak American dollar, not the smoking ban.
(Message edited by jcole on May 09, 2008) |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 6575
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2008 - 1:59 pm: | |
Well, I suppose we will see who is right. The studies I've looked at have shown little effect to large bars and restaurants in the long run, but some serious lost revenue reported from individual small business owners. Unfortunately, most of Detroit's businesses are the latter. So maybe Novi will be fine, but an already beat down city might not be. |
Ron
Member
Username: Ron
Post Number: 368
Registered: 03-2006
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2008 - 2:27 pm: | |
I'm a smoker, and rationally believe that it is probably the right thing to do. However, I will say that I like to have a drink and smoke at the same time. If I have to go outside, I will not be able to take my drink with me at the bar I frequent most often, because outside is on a public sidewalk (as opposed to a private, outside area owned by the bar, such as a patio, or an area on a public sidewalk where drinking is allowed ... I think there is a special permit required for that). This will not allow me to drink and smoke at the same time. That is my only beef with the legislation. But hey, I am seriously considering quitting anyways. Maybe this will be the last little push I need. (Or maybe I will just stay home and drink  . |
Matt_the_deuce
Member
Username: Matt_the_deuce
Post Number: 815
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2008 - 3:31 pm: | |
I think a lot of people are underestimating the amount of non-smokers who presently stay away from bars because of the smoke. Even a lot of my friends who are ex-smokers can't wait.
I'll be spending a lot more time and money going out if I can do so in a smoke free environment. When I'm in NYC or Cali it's quite a nice change. Smokers can grab a smoke outside or on the deck/patio and everyone can enjoy the indoor entertainment on equal footing. |
Ggores
Member
Username: Ggores
Post Number: 83
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2008 - 4:16 pm: | |
in reply to a previous ?, in another flash of brilliance, just recently, I believe, the State did in fact ban all smoking at all state-run correctional facilities; not only does it improve the health of inmates, it also... ummmm... i can't remember what the other reason was... probably saves money in health costs. the state care's so much for EVERYbody. gotta love it! |
Dds
Member
Username: Dds
Post Number: 619
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2008 - 4:37 pm: | |
quote:Smokers can grab a smoke outside or on the deck/patio
Which in Detroit (maybe LCC) is another yearly license that must be paid. Outside seating requires what I believe is called a "cafe permit." (this may only include establishments which serve food) Cafe permits also expands the square footage of your building/business, which makes for higher taxes.
Outside seating requires tables and chairs. Detroit has a yearly inventory tax. Tables and chairs are included. More inventory means higher taxes in Detroit.
(this information comes directly from a local independent establishment owner-- I am trusting him for its accuracy)
During summer months, how long before the non-smokers complain that the smokers are ruining the enjoyment of the patio?
Isn't one of the pet peeves of this forum the violence that occurs in and immediately outside of clubs? Imagine all of the smoking clubbers getting herded into a small outside patio area? A friend of mine who lived in Albany said this was a huge problem after the smoking ban there.
I have to echo Johnlodge's sentiments and say quite a few of the beloved local, independent watering holes that are touted on this forum may not survive in Detroit. (and maybe those that sing their praises here all smoke?) Maybe el_jimbo is correct in assuming that they aren't economically stable to begin with, but does that mean it's OK to shove them under the bus?
Also to keep in mind, every place that might close, be it a few or many, also effects local distributors.
quote:I still don't see it hurting business? Where are they going to go? Windsor, Toledo, Chicago? They all did this 3-5 yrs ago!
What were the local unemployment rates 3-5 years ago? What were the costs of local utilities 3-5 years ago? Food costs? Etc. etc. etc. Maybe 3-5 years ago, when the economy was stronger, is when this ban should have been enacted.
Like I stated earlier, I don't mind if they pass the bill, but enact it when the economy is stronger in our region. |
Evelyn
Member
Username: Evelyn
Post Number: 225
Registered: 02-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2008 - 5:23 pm: | |
I’m glad Michigan is starting to catch up to the rest of the country.
When the state I live in (New Mexico) banned smoking in bars and restaurants, I found it MUCH easier to quit. And I smoked for ten years.
After the ban here, most bars and cafes just set up an outdoor patio area. So you have to take your beer outside to have a smoke. It’s a ban on smoking inside, not an outright ban on smoking!
About hookah bars: at least here in NM, an exemption was given for those. I’m not sure what the law says, but I know they’re still around. |
Diehard
Member
Username: Diehard
Post Number: 496
Registered: 03-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2008 - 5:23 pm: | |
During summer months, how long before the non-smokers complain that the smokers are ruining the enjoyment of the patio?
Won't happen. When there are no ceilings or walls to hold the smoke in, it can't accumulate, and might even keep the 'skeeters away. It won't "ruin the patio" unless there are butts tossed all over the place.
I have to echo Johnlodge's sentiments and say quite a few of the beloved local, independent watering holes that are touted on this forum may not survive in Detroit.
So you think smokers are so dead-set on the idea that they MUST smoke indoors that they'll abandon these "beloved" places and let them die? What a fickle bunch. |
Downriviera
Member
Username: Downriviera
Post Number: 375
Registered: 02-2008
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2008 - 5:38 pm: | |
I'm not a cigarette smoker. However, on occasion I enjoy going to a cigar friendly establishment for a bourbon and a cigar. I would never light up if someone nearby was eating. I think the cigar bars and or smoking specific establishments that are not serving much food should be exempt, as well as the casinos that would be at a disadvantage to the Indian casinos. Although I do agree that the business owners should decide and keep the government out of it, thats just not going to happen. So ban smoking with exceptions. Let your rep know.
http://house.michigan.gov/repl ist.asp |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 6594
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2008 - 7:23 pm: | |
quote:So you think smokers are so dead-set on the idea that they MUST smoke indoors that they'll abandon these "beloved" places and let them die? What a fickle bunch.
Fickle, maybe, but apparently it happens. As I said earlier, the big chains and whatnot seem to not be affected too much, but the local hole in the walls have been reporting revenue losses in some of these states. Is this the right time for Michigan to experiment with a gamble that could hurt small businesses? |
Ladyinabag
Member
Username: Ladyinabag
Post Number: 592
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2008 - 8:41 pm: | |
We'll all be able to eat without coughing and gagging. So be it. |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 521
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2008 - 8:57 pm: | |
"As I said earlier, the big chains and whatnot seem to not be affected too much, but the local hole in the walls have been reporting revenue losses in some of these states."
Any studies that actually document a cause and effect? |
Sean_of_detroit
Member
Username: Sean_of_detroit
Post Number: 308
Registered: 03-2008
| | Posted on Saturday, May 10, 2008 - 2:41 am: | |
Waymooreland, the main problem with smoking bars or lounges is that they aren't really profitable on their own. The require sales of other items (often some food and drink items). I really think that this law should have an exception (which it appears to have one) when it comes to hookah bars. They barely have any tobacco in them (some not at all). The most they have is about 10% I think. Hardly a major health risk when compared to cigarettes. I don't think this law really even originally took them into account. In fact it still really doesn't. While hookah bars are allowed, hookah bars that serve food/snacks are not. A very large number of hookah bars in our area serve food. The combination is the only thing that makes them viable.
I can see large lawsuits on the horizon against the State of Michigan from these places. There are a lot of them in Dearborn, as well as some in Ann Arbor, Grand Rapids, and other areas of Metro Detroit (besides Dearborn). This really should be taken into consideration by the State. The last thing Michigan tax payers want to do is be stuck paying out the behind for a bunch of class action lawsuits by these places.
I'm not a lawyer, but I really think this proposal is really poorly written. It leaves out to many things.
THIS LAW WILL HURT BUSINESS BECAUSE of the diversity of culture in Metro Detroit. While you may not see them in your neighborhoods, many other areas with high amounts of Middle Eastern and Asian residents have places like hookahs bars and other cultural type institutions where smoking is a big draw for business. Also, some neighborhoods local bars also rely on smokers. THE REASON WHY THIS HURTS BUSINESS has to do with competition and the social environment. Smokers are fickle, like most customers. Smoking is a social activity for them. If that is taken away, they may go elsewhere to socialize. Because there are places that still allow it, the bars will suddenly be competing with those places for the same social entertainment hour and/or dollar.
This will have positive benefits for restaurants and other places that attract a significant amount of non-smokers, but everyone else (small bar owners, hookah bars, etc.) will suffer, and possibly close. It may just be a small blow, but you can only handle so many of those small blows.
I really think business rebounded in other states, but that may not apply to many areas of Michigan. We are much more diverse in culture and income levels. Look at it this way, if it was suddenly discovered that fumes from fryers and popcorn makers where harmful to movie theater patrons (I know it's kind of silly to think about, but if it was), would they stop selling these items? Would there be as many movie theaters opening up (with the lower profits)? Many small bars and bowling alleys make a substantial amount of their income on cigarette sales. Back to the movie theater thing, this might seem silly because we don't go to a theater to eat, and we don't go to a bar to smoke. That may be true, but really many people actually go for a whole experience. If they can't get popcorn at the movie theater, they may look at other options that allow this prohibited item (maybe a drive inn or simply renting a video and having people over to their home). The same could be said about bar patrons. If I smoke, I'm not going to call up Dave to meet me at the bar after work for a smoke and maybe the less desirable beer to socialize.
It's hard to explain, and this argument is going to seem downright bizarre to some people, but I really think it stands as a good argument for certain people and certain economic and social groups.
Should this even be a decision made at the state level, or should it be left up to individual communities (or the even smaller option, business owners)?
I just managed to make a full circle back to where I started didn't I?
Good Grief!
20043_stotter, I understand where you and others are coming from. Please understand I'm not saying that cigarette smoking should be encouraged. All I'm saying is that, did we really need the government to step in on this? If the answer is yes, then we really need to be making sure that everyone is being accommodated if possible. And most importantly, we should not be setting ourselves up for easily avoidable lawsuits.
I guess I'm debating based on the lack of thought that appears to have gone into this, more than anything. |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 522
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, May 10, 2008 - 3:51 am: | |
Individual communities tried to pass smoking bans but the state wouldn't allow them and the courts rejected those local laws. As for the argument that people won't go to a bar or restaurant because they can't smoke, the law applies to all bars and restaurants. Are those people not going to go anywhere because they can't smoke? Also, as others have stated, there's a lot of non-smokers who have avoided or curtailed their restaurant and bar visits due to the smoke. |
Reddog289
Member
Username: Reddog289
Post Number: 277
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, May 10, 2008 - 4:19 am: | |
while i smoke a marlboro and drink a high life, i ,d have to say Granholm ain,t the only one with a bowel obstruction in Lansing. There are more important things going on in this state then people smoking in bars, taverns, saloons, etc. i won,t even go where i,m going with this cept this union working man has been slapped in the face by his so called party. |
Royce
Member
Username: Royce
Post Number: 2624
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, May 10, 2008 - 6:54 am: | |
I can not believe with all the warnings about the dangers of cigarette smoking that people, especially under the age of 40, still smoke. I know for myself, as a non-smoker, it's getting harder for me to go to the casinos here in the city because as soon as you walk in the door you are bombarded with cigarette smoke. Does this ban apply to the casinos? At least at one time the temporary casinos had a non-smoking floor, but I have not seen that at the permanent ones.
Also, this smoked-filled environment can not be healthy for the casino workers. When will they file a class action lawsuit against the casinos when they discover they have health issues directly tied to their employment with the casinos.
Banning smoking in restaurants and bars makes sense to me because there are far more non-smokers than there are smokers. Think of the impact on the economy if non-smokers stopped going to restaurants and bars.
Cleaner air should be the desire of every person on this planet. Is it too much to ask a smoker to wait 'til he or she gets to their car or home to smoke? On that thought, do you know that you can smell the cigarette smoke of someone driving a car in front of you, even if you have your windows up? The smoke just travels through your ventilation system. The ban would be a good thing for Michigan, period. |
Sean_of_detroit
Member
Username: Sean_of_detroit
Post Number: 316
Registered: 03-2008
| | Posted on Saturday, May 10, 2008 - 7:19 am: | |
It's not that they are going to totally stop going to restaurants and bars. It's just that they will choose them as their chosen social spots less. Restaurants and night club sized bars will be fine. It's the local corner bars that are going to be hurt by this. The those "Cheers" type places where "everyone knows you name, and are always glad you came". Corner diners and Coney Islands also often act as social squares in some of our lower income areas. It's just more incentive to stand around and socialize on the streets, in parks (do you really want barflys drinking, smoking, and swearing in your park?) and in front of liquor stores. This is going to hurt the little guy, but benefit the bigger places.
BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR!
Imagine a hot summer day with no breeze along Monroe. It's lunch time, and the street is jam packed with cars spewing fumes in the air. Imagine now how disgusting Greektown will be if every smoker visiting the casino, bars, and restaurants has to go out on Monroe and smoke? It dissipates quicker than indoors I know. But it would still be horrible if enough people do it. Especially with no breeze. It really doesn't dissipated as quickly as you think on a street that's boxed in by several tall buildings.
Now imagine a few years into the future. It is game day. Woodward is full of restaurants and sports bars. The traffic is at a stand still because of the game (a common scenario on game days). Imagine similar scenarios in Harmonie Park, Capitol Park, Campus Martius, and Washington Boulevard. Imagine you are one of the people stuck in that traffic jam. A/C would help, but not everyone has it (and it eats up gas). Imagine you are traveling by foot past all this. Imagine you are out on a first date with a gal (or guy) from the suburbs. Imagine you have your family in toe. Maybe you're going to the game with your kids, or showing your fiancee around your home town for the first time. Imagine all the drunks that are going to be stumbling out of all the bars and restaurants every few minutes/hours to have a smoke the first time you take your children down Woodward to Campus Martius. Imagine you live in Detroit and have to send your kids of to school. Imagine they have to pass a bar or restaurant on the walk to school. What are the odds they might get confronted by a drunk (maybe a shady character or ex-con) stumbling out for a smoke. Worst of all, imagine you or a loved one works and/or lives on one of these streets. You'd be constantly exposed to pollution, cancer causing fumes, and second hand smoke.
This what you're asking for by forcing smokers out into the truly public spaces. This has been a problem elsewhere. I wouldn't be surprised if the next "compromise" enacts a city/state wide smoking ban (only allowed in your own home).
Non-smokers may be saying "great". However, this is still going to be a problem for the years it takes to gain support and enact a new law. Years that people in our CBD will be breathing second hand smoke. This law is poorly written, and fails to look into the future consequences. Those consequences should be planned BEFORE the law is enacted. This version needs to be shot down, and a new one should (assuming you support it) be written.
I've had brushes with lung cancer deaths too. But, if this is passed in it's current form (and enforced), it will do more harm than good. That goes double in our urban areas. |
Pffft
Member
Username: Pffft
Post Number: 1517
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 10, 2008 - 9:04 am: | |
Sean,
That is reaaaaaally stretching it to say we're going to have outdoor pollution now from all the smokers. Next you'll argue on behalf of the birds who might get an occasional whiff.
The whole point here is, when you're inside in an enclosed space with smokers puffing away, you are forced to ingest something that at the very least irritates your lungs and sets off asthma, at worst is a Class A carcinogen.
To close someone in a small space with it should be against the law, and apparently will be soon. |
Danny
Member
Username: Danny
Post Number: 7337
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, May 10, 2008 - 10:24 am: | |
Put away those cancer sticks so that death doesn't knock on you door! |
Sean_of_detroit
Member
Username: Sean_of_detroit
Post Number: 321
Registered: 03-2008
| | Posted on Saturday, May 10, 2008 - 9:09 pm: | |
Death's already going to knock at everyone's door.
Pffft, you'd think that is stretching it. Unfortunately, I've heard this argument accepted to many times. Non-smokers tend to simply move on to the next complaint. There are tons of outdoor bans that have happened as a result of people standing around outside and smoking. I've seen bans outdoors in amusement parks, concert venues, and even outside major office buildings and open air shopping centers in our own metro.
It is often accepted as a logical argument. Some non-smokers somewhere WILL start to bring this new "problem" up. I really would bet on it happening. Honestly, there very well could be something to that often accepted argument. I personally think some of the arguments on second hand smoke being so dangerous are just as silly, but those stand and are apparently believed by many (statistics can be made to prove any point, as the tobacco companies have proved in the past). It doesn't matter how strange the argument is if the masses accept it as fact.
Edit: Oh, and while the purifiers don't get rid of all the carcinogens, they do reduce them to a "non-harmful" amount. I still say the only argument there is basic whining and attempted justification because it's actually the smell that is brought up psychologically when a non-smoker is around smoke.
Many people don't like the smell, but that doesn't mean it's at unsafe levels. Could it be that the health reason (although a valid concern) is NOT the reason for some non-smokers supporting this law?
Go get one of those gag "fake" cigarettes and start pretending to smoke at a large crowded event like the Freedom Fireworks. Watch how many people start to cough and mention complaints to their friends about cigarette smells. Very, very strange.
(Message edited by Sean_Of_Detroit on May 10, 2008) |
Reddog289
Member
Username: Reddog289
Post Number: 283
Registered: 08-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, May 11, 2008 - 4:46 am: | |
i,m pushing 40 ,i know more then ever that i,m gonna croak one day, smoking and drinking will make it sooner so say the experts, i was once told that i should have been born 50 yrs before my time, i now know 25 years later that person was right. like i said before i don,t go to bars like i did , don,t go to casinos and with the gas prices like they are, unlikely to travel much round town. after the smoke clears, the same people will bitch about something else and get rid of that.
(Message edited by reddog289 on May 11, 2008) |
3rdworldcity
Member
Username: 3rdworldcity
Post Number: 1126
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 11, 2008 - 9:32 am: | |
A friend was one of the owners of the Old Woodward Grill, a sports bar which he opened 20 or more years ago in the 555 Woodward Bldg in Birmingham. It was non-smoking from the day it opened. It was probably the most popular bar in the whole area, and he made a fortune.
Several on here have made the obvious point that should the ban hopefully be implemented, all owners will be on a level playing field. The bar owners ought to be delighted.
If the ban is implemented, I'll start patronizing Slows again when I'm in town.
Smoking cigarettes is the same thing as wearing a "stupid" sign around one's neck. I could care less if people want to slowly kill themselves as long as their habit does infringe on my freedom or cost me money. Smokers cost me, and everyone, money because studies have shown that they require far more medical treatment than non-smokers, and that additional cost is passed along to all of us indirectly.
I say we should make smokers pay for the privilege by increasing their medical insurance premiums accordingly -say, double them - and for those that don't have or won't pay for medical insurance, provide them only with minimum care (no lung transplants, chemo etc); just pain relief.
The M.D. Anderson Hospital in the TX Medical Center in Houston, one of the best cancer hospitals in the world, makes patients pay in advance for treatment which may not be covered by their insurance. Although a non-profit, it showed a "profit" of $300 million last year (much of which went into cutting edge research) according to a recent article in the WSJ.
I say if you smoke you better be rich. |
Jman
Member
Username: Jman
Post Number: 168
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, May 11, 2008 - 10:00 am: | |
"I say we should make smokers pay for the privilege by increasing their medical insurance premiums accordingly -say, double them - and for those that don't have or won't pay for medical insurance, provide them only with minimum care (no lung transplants, chemo etc); just pain relief."
I'm a non-smoker and I agree with 3rdwc providing you also lump in drinkers, fast food eaters, speeders, drunk drivers and anyone else who has bad habits that I don't personally agree with. Make them all pay as they also contribute to the high cost of insurance.
In the meantime I am going to wear a "smart" sign around my neck. |
Andylinn
Member
Username: Andylinn
Post Number: 850
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, May 11, 2008 - 10:45 am: | |
what I like about the bill is that it would make it ALOT harder for the casual "social" smoker (of which many of my friends would qualify) to actually smoke. If you're in a bar and all your friends are lighting up, I would assume it would be easy to just have one... This way it would be a BIG pain for the CASUAL smoker to light up. Which is good. People who are addicted can keep on puffin' but it might drag in less "non-smokers" |
Jman
Member
Username: Jman
Post Number: 169
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, May 11, 2008 - 10:54 am: | |
Great point Andylinn. I have a son who is a social smoker. He has a cigarette or two when he is at the bar with friends. I cannot imagine him going outside the bar just to light up. |
Leoqueen
Member
Username: Leoqueen
Post Number: 2052
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 11, 2008 - 10:55 am: | |
I was in the Cass Cafe last night to get a bite to eat. I sat in the "non-smoking" area across the way from the smoking area. I noticed something unusual...it was quite clear in there because even though people were sitting in the smoking area no one happened to be smoking. There was no haze, no smoky bitterness in the air. In fact, there was only one person smoking, they were sitting at the bar. The only reason I noticed that person was because I saw the curl of smoke coming from her hand. It was so refreshing to be able to eat my food and not have the smoke ruining it. This is just one little anecdote in support of the smoking ban. |
Mauser765
Member
Username: Mauser765
Post Number: 2699
Registered: 01-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 11, 2008 - 9:03 pm: | |
good riddance, smoky smokas....go home and smoke your stinky sticky poison dripping poop sticks.
Hey - whatever gets you through the night, yknow ? I have no moral grudge against addicts, just keep your poison junky shit out of my face. |
Superdave
Member
Username: Superdave
Post Number: 15
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, May 11, 2008 - 10:28 pm: | |
hey smokers - how does it feel? when we complained about your smoking you said "go somewhere else if you don't like it". now we get to say it. quit hiding behind your usual crybaby chants. bars and restaurants will be just fine. stats in other smoke ban states clearly show it. quit comparing it to obese people, drinkers, etc. when fat people eat or drinkers drink they aren't spraying fat and beer into the air for everyone to inhale.
if you boycott a place because you can't smoke there you really have a problem. you have a weak will. smoke on your way there and on the way back home to your white trash trailer. fill up that nascar ashtray. want to quit? it's easy. it's called DON'T BUY ANYMORE. can't smoke them if you don't have them.
why is it when you are the offender with your smoke that when confronted do you get mad and defensive?
50 people a day die in michigan every day from smoking related illness. EVERY DAY. here's the math. 50 people x 365 days = 18250 michigan people smoke themselves to death. when's your turn?
if you smoke in your house or car with your children there you are a negligent abusive parent and child protective services need to take your kids into custody.
smoking is dominated by lower income uninsured people and THE biggest drain on the health care system. you should be placed on the lowest treatment end and even denied.
smokers better not EVER complain about gas prices. $5 or $6 packs few times a week. there's your extra gas money.
can't wait for the ban. 50 feet clearance from entrances is also the norm for smoking ban states so heads up. who's going to report bars that are loose in enforcing? ME. they aren't going to pay $1000 fines so you can smoke.
smokers i DARE you to challenge my logic. bring it. |
Jman
Member
Username: Jman
Post Number: 170
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2008 - 6:13 am: | |
"quit comparing it to obese people, drinkers, etc. when fat people eat or drinkers drink they aren't spraying fat and beer into the air for everyone to inhale."
I assume this sentence was in response to my post. I brought up drinking, fast food and drunk driving in regards to additional medical costs.
While I won't challenge your logic, I do challenge your comprehension.
You may also want to note that I am a non-smoker.
Off to Pa. now, see ya in a week. |
20043_stotter
Member
Username: 20043_stotter
Post Number: 286
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2008 - 10:45 am: | |
Superdave, A hell of a post. Bravo, pure truth, but an addict denies the truth. |
Ggores
Member
Username: Ggores
Post Number: 87
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2008 - 11:26 am: | |
I smoke as a chimney does and I don't care if this law passes or not - I try to obey any and all laws best I can anyways. What gets me is why we (in general society) always need to have yet ANOTHER law enacted to solve our problems. Puleeeeze get off mommy's teet, trust me, we'd all be ok. Really, we would. Well, whatever. It's a shame, I think, that's all. Cheerleaders for more insane rules and molestors of freedom. |
Danny
Member
Username: Danny
Post Number: 7338
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2008 - 12:39 pm: | |
Soon there will be...
in bars.
in restaurants.
in workplaces.
Those
media campaigns really working and its reaching to the state, federal and local governments. Sorry smokers! The
ban will effect your lives. This is for your own good. We have to save your lives and other people.
By the way
. |
Dtales
Member
Username: Dtales
Post Number: 5
Registered: 02-2008
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2008 - 2:01 pm: | |
http://dtalesdtown.blogspot.co m/2008/05/smoke-em-if-you-got- em.html |
Superdave
Member
Username: Superdave
Post Number: 16
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2008 - 9:01 pm: | |
|
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 1279
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2008 - 11:31 pm: | |
I have asthma, pretty bad, and I always considered the "non smoking sections" of restaurants a bad joke. I physically can't tolerate cigarette smoke, but there it would be, five feet from me in the smoking section. So this helps me; I can go out now, where I really haven't been able to for a long time.
Now granted, there are a great many more smokers than asthmatics, so what about the effect on business?
When I was on the Berkley city council, many years ago, a couple fellows opened a new tavern, the Berkley Front. Their idea was to serve high quality beers and single malt scotch, so to preserve the flavor qualities, they decided not to allow smoking at all. This was a business decision which they made on their own, with no government intervention. As far as we could tell, the only trouble they had was cleaning up after the smokers who would go outside to have a smoke and absolutely refuse to use the cigarette receptacle they had put outside, but would toss their butts all over the sidewalk instead.
Now, living where I live these days, we have a bike path near my place, and a kids' group I'm involved with volunteered to clean it. The bike path is near the road. There was almost no trash to clean up except for cigarette butts, and we filled four thirty-gallon garbage bags with those. I realize that's almost beyond comprehension, but I was there and saw it at first hand.
So from my experience with the way smokers treat the environment around them, it isn't easy for me to conjure up a bunch of sympathy for them about this. |
Melody
Member
Username: Melody
Post Number: 198
Registered: 11-2007
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2008 - 11:44 pm: | |
I just hope they pass the damn thing so this whole conversation will stop. It's annoying to hear people whine about this on both sides. Just outlaw it. Not smoking kind of rules anyway, try it.
Also, try not complaining about what other people do and how it terribly effects you. I try not to complain when your kids are being obnoxious when I'm trying to eat at a restaurant or go to the movie theater...or when you drive in the fast lane and aren't passing anybody. How bout you not complain if I have a cigarette in a dirty dive bar.
Don't get up in arms, I'm half-kidding. Or am I? I'm just done with this whole topic. Nevermind me |
Ggores
Member
Username: Ggores
Post Number: 89
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 - 8:13 am: | |
^^right on. i am completely comfy with my choice of impending disease, so let's spare the sanctimony. i'm sure my insides aren't much worse off than the majority anyhow. i am snuffing out this one as well. good luck ya'll. |
Mauser765
Member
Username: Mauser765
Post Number: 2706
Registered: 01-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 - 8:22 am: | |
" I try not to complain when your kids are being obnoxious when I'm trying to eat at a restaurant or go to the movie theater.."
And how the hell do somebodys obnoxious children account for 40,000 deaths per year ?
Second hand smoke kills innocent bystanders, PERIOD. 15 times more than died on 9/11, except every single year.
This is absolutely not about people "complaining". Its about systematic addiction, where the junkies involved are killing bystanders with their death drug. The States all profit massively from the death drug - how many States would bankrupt instantly if cigarettes vanished today ? 48 ? All ?
The ignorant caliber of this conversation could only occur in the United States. |
Townonenorth
Member
Username: Townonenorth
Post Number: 34
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 - 8:35 am: | |
As far as I'm concerned, I'm for the ban, at least in restaurants. Bars and a smoking ban may be problematic. The health risks are too great for the legislature to ignore. I know my health suffers from smoking related illnesses, as do others that I know. I'd prefer that I stay out of places that there is a large amount of smoke, I'd rather not compound the damage I had already inflicted on myself. |
Danny
Member
Username: Danny
Post Number: 7342
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 - 9:56 am: | |
No more cancer sticks! |
Superdave
Member
Username: Superdave
Post Number: 17
Registered: 03-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 - 5:29 pm: | |
almost as many people died in the united states on september 11th, 2001 from smoking related illness and disease than killed in the world trade center. why aren't we going to war with phillip morris? why not rain bombs down on south carolina tobacco fields? where's the outrage we have for the taliban? because you do it to yourself. outraged at oil company profits? try looking into cigarette company profits and see how mad you get? think they are losing sleep at full funeral homes? overtaxed hospitals giving uncompensated treatment? ask a smoker if they are saving for retirement? why bother? you won't live to spend it. spend it now. just some more piling on. anybody like the pic in my previous post?? |
Ggores
Member
Username: Ggores
Post Number: 90
Registered: 10-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 - 6:39 pm: | |
what if, sometime in the future, medical science "proves" that EMP, microwave radiation, etc... wait a second, I said I was "snuffing this one out".... dammit... you're all too intriguing! |
Lodgedodger
Member
Username: Lodgedodger
Post Number: 17
Registered: 05-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2008 - 7:12 pm: | |
I usually believe in live and let live, but not when it involves smoking. I deal everyday with respiratory illnesses and allergies. One inhale around an exhaling smoker and my night is ruined. I'm extremely thankful for this law. |
|
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.