  El_jimbo Member Username: El_jimbo Post Number: 673 Registered: 12-2006 |
Danindc, John Wayne could kick our ass...if he hadn't died of stomach and long cancer from his use of smoking and chewing tobacco. Also, in terms of your well if we ban smoking we should ban obesity argument, I think it is bull. If you are in the same room as me and I eat a Big Mac, you aren't going to get fat cause of it. However, if you are in the same room as me and you are smoking a cigarette, I stand a pretty good chance of breathing it in. | ||
Diehard Member Username: Diehard Post Number: 493 Registered: 03-2005 |
But the things you listed are things nobody wants around. It is a little different. So do you truly enjoy sitting in a little closed room where the smoke is so thick from a few chainsmokers' "choices" that your eyes sting? Why not just sit in your car and burn a pack of Marlboros and get the effect much faster? Do you leave the flue closed when you use your fireplace? Do you idle the car in the garage with the door closed and play darts while you enjoy that wonderfully social "atmosphere"? Do you intentionally burn your popcorn and refuse to open a window? I keed, I keed. Sort of. | ||
Retroit Member Username: Retroit Post Number: 77 Registered: 04-2008 |
On behalf of 10 million sets of lungs and all those who want to see their loved ones quit smoking before they die of lung cancer, thank you Michigan Senate! | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 509 Registered: 07-2007 |
The day I don't have to go home from a restaurant or bar with my clothes and hair reeking of your smoking habit because I got within 20 feet of your cigarette, then I'll feel sympathy for your addiction. But as long as the by-product of your habit is polluting the air we have to breath and I leave smelling like I was the one smoking, kindly take it outside. | ||
Hugo8100 Member Username: Hugo8100 Post Number: 44 Registered: 06-2006 |
It's a property rights issue, not a public health issue. Regarding the entirely predictable response about exposed asbestos, etc... if there is a sign posted notifying the consumer that the establishment has health hazard X present then the consumer has all the information they need to make a decision. There are more important things than personal preferences masquerading as Public Health. If this falls under the legislative purview of Public Health then what the hell doesn't? If going to smoky bars gives you an asthma attack, then don't go to smoky bars. To advocate a blanket ban is very selfish and immature thing to do. Also, just because other states have been doing it is not an acceptable justification... unless you're 12 years old and do not know any better. Limiting the choices of adults is not Liberal. | ||
Mauser765 Member Username: Mauser765 Post Number: 2687 Registered: 01-2004 |
"if there is a sign posted notifying the consumer that the establishment has health hazard X present then the consumer has all the information they need to make a decision." Yup - and to hell with workers who have to breathe that sticky poison at work for 10 hours a night 6-7 days a week. Tell people who got sick from working around asbestos that they are being "selfish and immature" for wanting their work place free of poison. Thats the missing component in almost everybodys argument - people only think of employer and consumer. To hell with worker safety or workers rights in the workplace. And nobody even dare try to argue that "if you dont like being a waitress, get another job". Nobody on earth waits tables because they want to. It is not a good job, and the people who do it full time - for real - do it because they have to. The built in irony is that most restaurant workers smoke several packs a day WHILE at work. Pass the law now or suffer the onslaught of legitimate litigation from workers. Never limiting choices of adults, or passing laws, or regulating industry is called ANARCHY. | ||
20043_stotter Member Username: 20043_stotter Post Number: 279 Registered: 03-2007 |
Lets not forget, cigarette smokers are nothing more than addicted DRUG ADDICTS. It's not rocket science, that addicts will do and say anything to justify THE HABIT, they most certainly have. I was addicted too and know how tuff it is to give up the tobacco drug. You run out and look in the garbage for butts. Every habitual smoker has done this. It appears that the other states that have banned the deadly ciggies have not lost any business and more have gained business. So, put that in your pipe and smoke it. | ||
Hugo8100 Member Username: Hugo8100 Post Number: 45 Registered: 06-2006 |
If you don't like being a waitress at a smoky establishment, go work at a non-smoking establishment. If the worker is informed that there is asbestos present at hiring time and they consent then what is the problem? Lots of jobs are dangerous. Responsible adults weigh the consequences and make the decision that's right for them. Borrowing from Jefferson, I'd rather suffer from the consequences arising from too much liberty than those arising from too little. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 6554 Registered: 10-2003 |
Say goodbye to this list of businesses. No, they will not adapt. http://www.hookah-bars.com/MI. htm But hey, Michigan is doing so well economically, it can afford to shut private business owners down by passing more laws regulating people's choices, right? We don't need their taxes or economic impact. | ||
Thames Member Username: Thames Post Number: 146 Registered: 02-2007 |
Ban smoking in every public place BUT rescind the taxes. That's only fair. The state will have to find another way to collect 1 billion dollars every year. | ||
Detroitnative Member Username: Detroitnative Post Number: 12 Registered: 04-2008 |
In Norfolk, VA they tried to ban smoking in restaurants, bars, etc. It looked like it was going to happen until about a week before it was to take effect. I think that people expect that atmosphere when they patron such an establishment. I wouldn't think that the city of Detroit would actually follow through. Besides, it's bad for business, and business owners will definately let the city know. | ||
Diehard Member Username: Diehard Post Number: 494 Registered: 03-2005 |
If going to smoky bars gives you an asthma attack, then don't go to smoky bars. To advocate a blanket ban is very selfish and immature thing to do. Oh, it's so easy to flip that: Telling people not to go to the bar because you, the smoking minority, are entitled to stink it up for the nonsmoking majority is a very selfish and immature thing to do, when the alternative of asking smokers to simply step outside for a few minutes will make EVERYONE happy. If you don't like having to step outside to smoke, then YOU stay home. And it's not a blanket ban. It's only an indoor ban. You can smoke all you want outside. If you don't like being a waitress at a smoky establishment, go work at a non-smoking establishment. And of course, Michigan has "help wanted" signs in every window right now. Do YOU get to choose where you work based on what it smells like? Also, just because other states have been doing it is not an acceptable justification... Their experiences have shown that their economies haven't shut down and it's a good idea overall. That there's an acceptable justification. If the worker is informed that there is asbestos present at hiring time and they consent then what is the problem? No problem! If you die because you really needed the job, that's just the glorious free market working! You'll never CHOOSE to work there again! | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 6558 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: One is a government regulated restriction, the other is not. The horrors of free society. quote: And after this law is passed, there will be even fewer. Great time to make things harder for business. quote: The experience show a slowdown after the law is passed, and then most tend to come back up. Not so for the hookah bars, as I've mentioned above. Also, in an already depressed economy like ours where businesses are BARELY hanging on, that transition period will close a lot of doors forever. Wrong law, wrong time. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 6559 Registered: 10-2003 |
My final statement on this, and Diehard, thanks for the quality discussion. See, things can be debated on DYes without people getting irate with each other.  Non smoking establishments are more and more common. And no government regulation was necessary, the market does what it does. This trend will continue without laws, as smoking becomes less popular. If there is a market for it, there will be savvy business people capitalizing on it. I see no reason for the government to impose laws upon these business owners who have been running their establishments successfully for many years, ESPECIALLY in the current state of our economy. New York is NOT Detroit. I think many local establishments will not survive that transition period that cities have gone through when these laws have been passed. It will be harder for Michigan than it has been for other places, just like EVERYTHING is harder for Michigan these days. The last thing Michigan needs is MORE restrictions on business right now. Some day, maybe the time will be right for this here, but right now it is NOT. And by the time it is right for us here, the market will probably have solved the problem with plentiful options for non-smokers anyway. Let the market work. | ||
Django Member Username: Django Post Number: 314 Registered: 10-2003 |
Im down with Johnlodge, mainly on his point of some kind of extra permit to allow smoking, but the above posting also. "In hoc signo vinces" ^ I dont know what the hell it means | ||
Mortgageking Member Username: Mortgageking Post Number: 55 Registered: 12-2006 |
"Ironically, there's a place I go that allows smoking on its rooftop. They have a tent over the top (with side flaps) and heaters so they can keep the smoking-allowed rooftop open during the winter. The roof deck is invariably packed, even while the indoor floor below is completely empty." Local 16? | ||
Pffft Member Username: Pffft Post Number: 1514 Registered: 12-2003 |
The market does NOT take care of things like this. The majority of people in Michigan, easily, want smoke-free restaurants and bars, and yet we don't have them. It's always amazed me how a relative minority of the population -- smokers -- have kept the restaurant lobby in thrall to their wishes. If bar patrons were eating Big Macs until they passed out, that wouldn't affect the rest of us. But we do have to breathe in clouds of smoke from smokers and suffer the health consequences -- asthma, bronchitis, lung cancer, empheseyma (sp?), you name it. | ||
Dbc Member Username: Dbc Post Number: 122 Registered: 09-2006 |
Good guess Mortgageking; I was drawing a blank. Btw, I have repeatedly heard the argument that smoking bans hurt businesses. I could be wrong, but I haven't seen any study demonstrating that is the case. They said people would desert New York establishments when the state enacted its ban, but that did not happen. Also, the bar scene in DC has done just fine since the smoking ban. (I haven't seen an increase in DC residents flocking to Arlington to enjoy our incredibly unique, diverse, khaki-clad, sandle-wearing, white guy bar scene just to light up.) In fact, I heard on NPR not too long ago that smoking bans have actually been beneficial in that many bar/restaurants have seen increased patronage by families. Moreover, I don't see how it hurts Detroit if the the whole state adopts a ban. Given that Ontario bans smoking as well, what are people going to do? Drive to Ohio? | ||
Jams Member Username: Jams Post Number: 8636 Registered: 10-2003 |
Simply licence bars that wish to allow smoking rather than an outright ban. More money for the coffers, and adults will be able to choose the establishments they prefer. | ||
Sean_of_detroit Member Username: Sean_of_detroit Post Number: 292 Registered: 03-2008 |
Johnlodge, that is exactly what I was thinking about the hookah bars. Those are a big cultural draw in Dearborn and other areas. I plan on trying to help some friends open a second hookah bar location in the city. However, sense they do not serve alcohol, I don't think they will be affected. I really think Hookah bars, smoke shops, and smoking lounges should be exempt. As far as bars, the Garden Bowl is going to suffer. They have a cigarette machine that sells packs for around $7-$10. From what I've seen in the past, it does pretty good business. Apparently, drunk smokers will pay a premium. I don't smoke, but do have an occasional single cigarette every couple months with a beer at the bar. They just go together. Plus, if I own a bar, it should be me and my employees choice on whether we allow smoking. This dangerous environment crud is a joke. I do believe Michigan has a ordinance/law already on the books that requires new bowling alleys and some new bars (not sure of the exact criteria) that require them to have a commercial grade air purifier for every so many possible smokers (it's based on capacity). Those purifiers are so efficient that they eliminate most of the smoke that would cause health problems. How about allowing smoking in certain areas if you have a special designated area with one of these purifiers? You can argue the safety points all you want, but these purifiers make it all moot. Since SECOND HAND SMOKING IS NOT A MAJOR HEALTH RISK under these conditions, this looks more like a push to protect us from ourselves. If you can't smoke in public, you'll smoke less, and smoking in general will be less attractive to non-smokers and teens. I really think they are just trying to make smoking less appealing. That may not be all that bad, since money and economic costs (health coverage) is now more important to Americans than basic freedom. Just for kicks, I'm going to put that another way. Money (constantly billed as a root of evil) is now more important to Americans than freedom. Interesting, isn't it? Anyway, how is this going to be enforced? Are they going to have police going into all these bars? It should not be up to the owner to make sure no one is smoking. I mean, this would be easy in your small local corner bar, but it would be pretty tough in a larger venue or bowling alley. You'd have to hire a new employee to keep an eye out. I guess as long as the smoker is the one to get fined, and not the owners. Of course, unless they have a ton of non-smokers, why would the owners enforce it at all? ______________________________ __________ Sorry, I just like to take the underdog's counter point. Getting off topic (but not as far as it should be), I can't wait until they start the war on caffeine. I know what you're think, caffeine doesn't affect you second hand, right? Well, if you have kids, do you send them off to school every day? Do you realize that the statistics say many of you child's teachers are consuming ridiculous amounts of coffee? Have you ever taken a road trip with your family? Do you know how many truck drivers have been up for 24 or more hours, primarily by means of caffeine pills? they are accidents waiting to happen! How about doctors? Have you ever gone on a trip to the ER late at night? Do you know how many hours they work? How many use caffeine to stay awake? How about pilots? How about college and high school students? How many of your classmates are drinking more than a two leader of Mountain Dew a day? If they are, there is a very good chance they can't just stop cold turkey. Caffeine in that high of a dose can be very addictive. Quiting often brings cold sweats, nausea, severe migraines, and many other symptoms and health problems. Don't forget, in high doses, caffeine can be as powerful as cocaine. Okay, I don't necessarily believe that caffeine should be banned. The point is we all have our own self destructive vice. For some it's gambling, or road rage, or sex, or being a workaholic, or even cigarettes. If someone wants help, they will ask. Don't be like the poster formerly known as Karl. Don't try to randomly protect people. If you do that, you're taking away their choice between right and wrong, between a long life and a early death. Unless our existence is totally random, there might just be a very good reason we are supposed to make our own decisions. We all have vices. Maybe trying to help people is your vice? Now I know you're thinking it must be a virtue, but humor me just for a minute. Do you feel a compulsive need to constantly help others? Could you stop without feeling the desire to continue? If you can't, are you even really doing it for them? You could justify your actions by convincing yourself that you are helping them, that you know what is best. But are you? It has been said that some of the most horrible things done in this world have been done with the best of intentions. This is the way of thinking that Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and Council Women Monica Conyers have. They are so sure they are helping and doing God's work. Why not throw a party at the Manoogian Mansion? They are celebrating God's plan for them, right? Please think about this. Are they really helping, or are they actually causing more problems with their good intentions? Just my two cents. I really think this is just another long and meandering post of mine. I'm sure one or two people will support some of the views expressed in this post. Unfortunately, the readers this post was aimed at probably aren't even listening. There is a Modest Mouse song that has a good analogy. No matter how bad you want to help, you never really are in a position to help protect people from themselves. This is because you are in the same boat. It's like a rickshaw trying to pull another rickshaw. It's like a joke trying to make another joke laugh. It does not work. Freedom and free will to all the prisoners of Earth. LOL, maybe Bob Seger was on to something. The inmates are trying to free the guards. Edit: Spelling (Message edited by Sean_Of_Detroit on May 08, 2008) | ||
Mauser765 Member Username: Mauser765 Post Number: 2691 Registered: 01-2004 |
"Simply licence bars that wish to allow smoking rather than an outright ban." You can not provide a legally safe workplace - no dice. | ||
Hugo8100 Member Username: Hugo8100 Post Number: 46 Registered: 06-2006 |
I'm a non smoker. However, whether one smokes or not is completely irrelevant to a discussion on property rights and regulating the actions of consenting adults. quote: I was talking about using the coercive power of the state to limit the property rights of the property owner, not the smoking patron. So your flip doesn't really flip there. quote: I can't really say that smell has ever been a consideration for me. I know parts of the chemical plant I worked at smell worse and was potentially more hazardous to my health than cleaning tables in the smoking section of Big Boy's. I do know that in all the shitty jobs I've had I've never thought of advocating legislative changes to my working conditions. I was always more focused on getting a better job. quote: Again. It's not about economies shutting down. It's about a legislative body using the coercive power of the state to restrict property rights in a shameless pander to a majority of the population. It does not matter if the economy goes up or down. quote: Only the individual makes choices. The market is just a conceptual tool we use to describe the billions of transactions that billions of people make every day. There are economic realities that force people to make some hard decisions. However, education is more peaceful and less disruptive than interfering by fiat. (Message edited by hugo8100 on May 08, 2008) | ||
Hugo8100 Member Username: Hugo8100 Post Number: 47 Registered: 06-2006 |
quote: I like what you have to say and you may very well be right. However, in my own experience I've found that good intentions usually have rather selfish motives. Doubly true when politics is involved. | ||
Goblue Member Username: Goblue Post Number: 1648 Registered: 03-2007 |
Jeezus...grow up people...the smoking ban has had absolutely no effect on bar/entertainment revenue in Ann Arbor...nor, here in Arizona...hard to believe that Michigan trails in such a concept. | ||
Django Member Username: Django Post Number: 316 Registered: 10-2003 |
WHOO HOOO! Jams and SofD. Nobodys told me what the latin is for "In Hoc signo Vinces" means though. come on all you brains. | ||
Monahan568 Member Username: Monahan568 Post Number: 307 Registered: 04-2004 |
Karras Brothers and Atwater are both examples of non-smoking bars in the city. Both have struggled financially and have gone into bankruptcy. Karras was even sold to another party and they too couldn't draw people in there if they paid them to. The place tanked again. HOWEVER, these business owners had the freedom to choose what type of customers they wanted to cater to. They chose to run their establishments in that direction. This is the right that is being threatened by the passing of this bill, and it is being masked as a health issue... This law isn't about public health. It's about property rights. Why shouldn't these business owners have the right to decide what they want to do in their own establishments? It's their property. They are offering their business to the public. The public can decide if they wish to contribute to these businesses and walk inside these doors, or find another that suits their particular preference and occupy them instead. The definition of Freedom is the capacity to excercise choice. Banning smoking from places is hardly leveling any playing field, it's taking the basic right to be free from restraint away from these owners and forcing them to conform to a set of rules that is not established by the general public. Smoking is still a legal activity last time i checked? People have the right to engage in this activity free from restriction if they so desire. There are already spaces designated for individuals who choose not to smoke. Most of the halfway decent restaurants i've been to here take the necessary precautions to separate the two areas. If there is a business where an individual feels violates their image of an ideal experience, it is their right to feel free to go somewhere else. The 14th ammendment gives us the protection that no State shall make or enforce a law that deals with the deprivation of liberty or property. There is no logic in the reasoning that this is a fair standard to now force private businesses to adhere to. | ||
Sean_of_detroit Member Username: Sean_of_detroit Post Number: 296 Registered: 03-2008 |
I honestly am not 100% sure what you mean by that. For one I don't speak Latin. It'd be nice if you posted in English. I'm guessing that is a reference to the "Army of Christ" that some believe they are a part of here on Earth. As I argued with Karl, I brought up the point that you can't force others to do anything. The fight is achieved by doing. All you can really do is set a good example and live your life. The more you try to force others, the more they try to fight. You will not win that way. Not to mention, my above post still stands solid I think. Believing you are God's one and only chosen one for any task is straight blasphemy. The world can get by without you or I just fine. LOL, maybe getting people to think they are doing good is one of the devil's famous tricks. Just another "demon". Demon of course is a metaphor for a vice. Is this even what you were talking about Django? Edit: It just said on the news that casinos, bingo halls, and smoke shops (and hookah bars) will not be affected. At least, for now. They also talked about allowing certain rooms (smoking lounges) that do not contain wait staff in these establishments. Not a horrible compromise. (Message edited by Sean_Of_Detroit on May 08, 2008) | ||
Pffft Member Username: Pffft Post Number: 1515 Registered: 12-2003 |
If you run a public business you don't have unfettered "property rights" to abuse and torture the public as you wish. There are limits to what you can do if you open your doors to the public. You can't discriminate against one group or another, you have to maintain a certain level of cleanliness -- run your kitchen at home like a sty if you want. You have to have proper fire extinguishers -- oh the pain of the property owner! How dare they! If you don't like it, don't open your doors to the public. Stay in your building, invite your friends over and smoke yourselves sick. Be sure to keep all the windows closed. Good grief, you'd think this was the most important issue in folks' lives... | ||
20043_stotter Member Username: 20043_stotter Post Number: 280 Registered: 03-2007 |
Sounds like an addict sticking up for his right to smoke. Your wrong, it is about public health. The law is thinking about ours and your health too. Even though you want to cut years off your life and give second hand smoke to non smokers. Your tirade on the 14th is a joke. You ciggie freaks will do anything to to justify your drug addiction. You guys are like all addicts, in total denial. Instead of looking at the constitution, why don't you look in the hospitals where lung cancer and emphysema patients are? You might have a revelation. Your families should hold interventions for you. I'm sure the majority want you to quit and live longer for them because they love you. Do you love yourselves? The family used to try to talk to my mother-in-law to quit. She said it's her right to smoke and make others around her ill. She always would scream " AT LEAST I'LL DIE HAPPY". Well she didn't die happy from emphysema, she suffocated trying to breathe from the disease. I can't imagine someone wanting to die like that. It was sorrowful and pitiful. I hope you pitch those packages of death. | ||
Sean_of_detroit Member Username: Sean_of_detroit Post Number: 297 Registered: 03-2008 |
Second hand smoke can be eliminated or avoided, as I pointed out in two of my above posts. So forget about using that as a legitimate debate point. Pffft, any attack on any of our freedoms is extremely important. Our ancestors died for those freedoms. I really think if you jump to stop the small violations, then you will avoid facing some of the bigger ones. I like to think of it as a buffer zone. It is kind of interesting that we will fight so hard for freedom, and what do we do with it? We give it up to those vices. But it's the choice that is important, no? Edit: The government's purpose is NOT to protect me from myself. That is called oppression, it's supposedly what makes us so different from Iran and Iraq. LOL, what next? I know, let's make women cover like the Afghanistan government did. It will protect the men from feeling the urge to take advantage of them, causing there own demise. I have a hard time understanding how you could think that way. Please explain, cause I just don't get it. (Message edited by Sean_Of_Detroit on May 08, 2008) |
