Benjo Member Username: Benjo
Post Number: 20 Registered: 02-2007
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 10:10 am: | |
I was wondering what everyone's thoughts were on the proposed smoking ban http://www.clickondetroit.com/ news/13483261/detail.html Personally, I think it is a bad idea. Last time I went to Windsor, I noticed that the casino was a lot less crowded. If people want smoke-free offices, then that would be okay. As far as bars and restaurants, I think it should be driven by the market. If the demand for smoke-free bars existed, then they'd be everywhere. |
Nyct Member Username: Nyct
Post Number: 52 Registered: 01-2007
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 10:13 am: | |
as an ex-smoker and new yorker, i was LIVID when the ban went into effect there. business slowed temporarily until the initial outcry died down a bit. once us smokers got used to it, we we're fine with it. now that i don't smoke anymore, i'm all for the ban. why should non-smokers have to breathe in someone else's smoke and go home smelling like an ash tray? |
Lizaanne Member Username: Lizaanne
Post Number: 61 Registered: 06-2007
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 10:14 am: | |
I'm all for it!! How nice it would be to go out dancing or to dinner and not feel like I need an iron lung when I walk out. ~Liza |
Ray1936 Member Username: Ray1936
Post Number: 1541 Registered: 01-2005
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 10:16 am: | |
Makes me glad I quit six years ago. First couple of months was a little rough, but no problem after that. Did it cold turkey...no patch or any of that stuff. Just wish I had saved all the money I didn't spend. |
Nyct Member Username: Nyct
Post Number: 53 Registered: 01-2007
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 10:17 am: | |
congrats ray ...i'm on chantix now. smoke free for 2 months. |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 961 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 10:18 am: | |
Long overdue. |
Defendbrooklyn Member Username: Defendbrooklyn
Post Number: 281 Registered: 11-2005
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 10:21 am: | |
Ban smoking in bars and restaurants...Its only logical... |
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 598 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 10:23 am: | |
"I'm all for it!! How nice it would be to go out dancing or to dinner and not feel like I need an iron lung when I walk out. " I understand sentiments like this, but at the same time, I agree about the market driven aspect. If you don't want to feel like an Iron Lung, don't go to bars where smoking is allowed. If there was a big enough market for it, some bars would have this rule. I don't understand, however, telling a business owner what policies he can and can't have. I don't think it's anybody's inherent RIGHT to walk into any privately establishment and have an environment that caters to them. Some places will, some places won't, pick which to spend your money at. |
Defendbrooklyn Member Username: Defendbrooklyn
Post Number: 282 Registered: 11-2005
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 10:28 am: | |
If NY can do it MI can do it... Continuing to allow smoking shows our dim-wittedness and lack |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 962 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 10:31 am: | |
>Johnlodge How many establishments are currently smoke free by choice? This is an all or none case. No business wants to be the one to isolate a segment of their clientele and deny them a luxury that their competitors offer. The free market should not decide this one. |
Defendbrooklyn Member Username: Defendbrooklyn
Post Number: 283 Registered: 11-2005
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 10:36 am: | |
2 that i know of... sams diner (ferndale) and another diner on woodward just after 696 |
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 600 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 10:39 am: | |
http://www.smokefreeworld.com/ michigan.shtml Here's a very extensive list of smoke-free by choice restaurants in Michigan. Apparently some business have no problem choosing to cater to only segments of clientelle. And good for them, it's their CHOICE to do so. |
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1
Post Number: 9406 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 10:42 am: | |
Karras Brothers is smoke free. I believe that Bally Corcaigh (sp) is as well. |
Kslice Member Username: Kslice
Post Number: 59 Registered: 04-2007
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 10:43 am: | |
Nice. it just seems like a way to push smoking out altogether. I can see no smoking in a office or plane, but ;let the resturants make up their own mind. Don't start proabition over again, we all know what happens. O, and almost every resturant has a no smoking section with "smoke eaters" so those who dont like it can get away from it. |
E_hemingway Member Username: E_hemingway
Post Number: 1218 Registered: 11-2004
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 10:45 am: | |
Ban it |
Kid_dynamite Member Username: Kid_dynamite
Post Number: 9 Registered: 06-2007
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 10:46 am: | |
Bull, Brooklyn. This is another great example of big government going too far. What if I was a small business owner, (such as a night club or bar owner) and my target customer base included smokers? I love hearing the gov't telling people how to run their businesses. What a travesty. |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 963 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 10:48 am: | |
>And good for them, it's their CHOICE to do so. Now it is. It shouldn't be, IMO. Should restaurants be required to refrigerate their meat? Should they be required to put toilets behind a wall and a door? Really, that list is not very impressive. |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 964 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 10:51 am: | |
"What if I was a small business owner, (such as a night club or bar owner) and my target customer base included smokers? I love hearing the gov't telling people how to run their businesses." There would be no shortage of smokers going to the clubs if smoking was banned. |
Nyct Member Username: Nyct
Post Number: 54 Registered: 01-2007
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 10:52 am: | |
if they ban it, it'll only be indoors. in ny some bars have outdoor patios or backyards where you could smoke. i ended up enjoying smoking outside better, especially during the spring and summer. also, a few cigar bars remained open where smoking was allowed. not sure if that's still teh case though. |
Rfban Member Username: Rfban
Post Number: 89 Registered: 02-2004
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 10:56 am: | |
I smoked for 10 years then quit for 2 then started back up again for 1 year, now I have been a non-smoker for a good 3 months with intent to never light up another cigarette. As for the smoking ban? I am for it, not on city streets but in establishments. Smokers will realize very quickly that it isn’t so bad being at a bar with a ban, also they will be forced to go outside to have a smoke and mingle with strangers. |
Viziondetroit Member Username: Viziondetroit
Post Number: 1083 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 11:03 am: | |
Ban that shit....More people would go out and party, bowl, dance, etc... if they didn't come home smelling like the Newport factory. I hate that shit.... have a smoking area outside if you must. Like it was said above, if NY can ban it so can MI. Most of the people are against it are probably smokers..... I don't want to get cancer from 2nd hand smoke because YOU decided to smoke. I don't feel it's fair that I can't have a good time because because the places I want to hang out at are gilled with smoke and people blowing that shit in my face.... How can we speed this process up? |
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 601 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 11:07 am: | |
If we are going to start banning behavior in private places, then I want a ban on any eating, drinking, cell-phone using, or any other distracting activity behind the wheel of an automobile. I feel in far greater danger for my well being on the road than I do in a restaurant or bar due to smokers. Or is this too inconvenient to people? Since a grand majority of people do THESE activities, I guess that makes it ok, since we aren't just singling out a minority of people as with the smoking ban. |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 965 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 11:12 am: | |
^Maybe you should go check some of the ordinances that already ban those types of things... |
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 602 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 11:15 am: | |
That same notion right back at you on the smoking ban. Some places already ban that type of thing. |
Nyct Member Username: Nyct
Post Number: 55 Registered: 01-2007
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 11:25 am: | |
i agree ... if NY can do it, michigan can. ireland did it too not long ago. i also totally 100% agree with banning cell phone usage in certain places. every single time i almost crash or get run off the road or stuck behind someone in outer space on the road, when i pull up on them to curse them out they can't hear me cause they're talking on the friggin phone! They should also ban douchebags from talking on their cell phones out loud on the busses too. if i don't know you, i don't care about your problems and don't want to hear about them when i'm trying to read a book or something. |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 966 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 11:25 am: | |
Washtenaw County... Where else? |
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_
Post Number: 1883 Registered: 12-2003
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 11:50 am: | |
Here is an idea, ban it all together. If it is such a health risk make it illegal. But oh wait, what would Jenny do then without her tax money.
quote:If NY can do it MI can do it... Have you ever been to NY bars, where they have a coffee can for smokers to donate to cover the fine. I would also like to see how they plan to enforce this in Detroit. If you don't enforce it for all then it becomes a waste. Better stop wearing your cologne and perfume because it will be next on the banned substances lists. Also how do you stop a bar or restaurant owner who owns the building from smoking, what if he lives in that building as well, how do you enforce that? |
Jfre66_77 Member Username: Jfre66_77
Post Number: 71 Registered: 01-2006
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 12:26 pm: | |
I'm not a smoker, never have been one, never will be one. That said, I am also not in favor of allowing the government to take away our individual rights. Let the establishments decide for themselves. |
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 1032 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 12:31 pm: | |
Back in the old days, going out in public meant something different. It meant you dressed well, behaved politely to your peers, showed respect for the elderly, opened doors for ladies, and lit a lady's cigarette for her. There were all sorts of rules for smoking. You didn't smoke while walking. You'd cool your heels against the shady side of a building and smoke. Offering a cigarette was a universal sign of fellowship. The smell of smoke meant that civilization and -- more importantly -- leisure couldn't be far off. There were always places you couldn't smoke, like fuel depots, ammo dumps, gas stations. But it was generally accepted that smoking was a polite thing, if done properly. Now we laugh at this. It's absurd. How hilarious that people wouldn't smoke at a gas station for fear of killing -- at most -- 20 or 30 people in an explosion, but we'd let them harm hundreds over the course of their lives by smoking in movie theaters and hospitals. Yet, that's how it was. And, somehow, society didn't fall apart. Why? Because people were used to being around other people. They were used to their foibles. They were used to their vices. They were used to being among the people, joined up with the world. The people who wanted to control the public were the enemy then. They were the fussbudgets, the stoolpigeons, the bootlickers. They were the brownnosers and -- worse still -- the brownshirts. Reformers were ridiculed by the public. They were no fun. Maybe they could fill up a tent in the public square on Sunday, but they couldn't stop people from being people. What does it say about our time that people stand back and let the fussbudgets dictate what the public may do? What does it say about our day? We have people who want to be outdoors and social, and they would LOVE to be, if only there weren't all those messy, inconvenient PEOPLE with their HABITS. If anything, this whole magilla shows how uncomfortable people are in public anymore, and don't know how to relate to others. It is just another sign of social atomization, of -- as the French say -- anomie. Personally, you can light up in my house if you want. I want to emulate the French example. Fuck the fussbudgets. |
Burningwheel Member Username: Burningwheel
Post Number: 1 Registered: 06-2007
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 1:08 pm: | |
I testified a few years ago at the first hearing for this bill (HB 4163). I personally believe smoking should also be banned at outdoor dining areas and other outdoor events. Just because you are outside doesn't mean I'm not gong to get your secondhand smoke. You are crazy if you don't think it will affect me. A few years ago, I was dining outside and I saw a women about to light up, I explained to her why I would prefer she didn't smoke, she refused my request. Smokers are selfish, though it's the nicotine addition that makes them this way. They've banned smoking at Tiger stadium. You also shouldn't be allowed to smoke within 100ft of a public building or store front. They have done this at the University Michigan Hospitals in Ann Arbor. I was at a Marshall's the other day and an employee was smoking just outside the entrance and her smoke was going into the building. Crazy! Here is part a letter I wrote this week to the senators supporting this bill: "...it's important for all Michigan restaurants, bars, work places, concert venues and even many outdoor areas including outdoor shopping districts in the Grosse Pointes, Birmingham, Royal Oak etc, to be smoke-free. Michigan residents deserve more than to be subjected to dangerous secondhand smoke. It should be also be illegal for parents to smoke in cars with children, particularly small children. I recently heard from a friend who talked to a new restaurant owner in the area and he said he'd lose business if his restaurant were smoke free. This argument is so illogical it's ridiculous, pure lunacy! I swear, some people can't think straight. People don't stop flying on planes because they can't smoke. People don't stop shopping because they can't smoke. People don't stop working because they can't smoke. I could go on...PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO STOP GOING OUT TO EAT, CONCERTS OR EVEN SHOPPING OUTDOORS JUST BECAUSE IT'S SMOKE FREE. ...... As you know many countries are smoke-free now. It's time for Michigan to help lead the rest of this country to be a smoke-free nation as well. (Message edited by burningwheel on June 14, 2007) |
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 1034 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 1:26 pm: | |
Sock puppet |
Quozl Member Username: Quozl
Post Number: 748 Registered: 07-2005
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 1:30 pm: | |
Sock Puppet? Who really is this mysterious Burningwheel? |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 968 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 1:31 pm: | |
"Personally, I think it is a bad idea. Last time I went to Windsor, I noticed that the casino was a lot less crowded." Funny, I stopped going to that casino because I always smelled like an ashtray when I left. |
Paulc Member Username: Paulc
Post Number: 132 Registered: 03-2005
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 1:33 pm: | |
LOL - Detroitnerd. Enjoyed your previous post. Burningwheel - Welcome to DY. You may want to avoid blanket statements such as "Smokers are selfish, though it's the nicotine addition that makes them this way." As a smoker, nicotine addiction is an obvious issue, but many smokers, myself included are very aware of other around them including non-smokers. I often to ask if I may "light up" even in the presence of fellow smokers. As far as the potential ban goes, I will make due and abide as necessary, however I agree that the market should dictate this decision in terms of bars, restaurants, etc. Perhaps those who wish to see an outright ban, may want to ask their government why such a strict liability is allowed to occur - perhaps the answer lies in the profits generated by the tobacco lobby / industry. This to me is the larger issue - more so than someone smoking in front of a store, etc. |
Ffdfd Member Username: Ffdfd
Post Number: 88 Registered: 09-2006
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 1:34 pm: | |
quote:If we are going to start banning behavior in private places, then I want a ban on any eating, drinking, cell-phone using, or any other distracting activity behind the wheel of an automobile. I feel in far greater danger for my well being on the road than I do in a restaurant or bar due to smokers. Or is this too inconvenient to people? Since a grand majority of people do THESE activities, I guess that makes it ok, since we aren't just singling out a minority of people as with the smoking ban. A smoking ban and driver distraction laws are not mutually exclusive.
quote:if they ban it, it'll only be indoors. in ny some bars have outdoor patios or backyards where you could smoke. i ended up enjoying smoking outside better, especially during the spring and summer. also, a few cigar bars remained open where smoking was allowed. not sure if that's still teh case though. When I was in Manhattan two years ago, I dined outdoors in front of a restaurant. The person I was with had to adjourn to the sidewalk next to our table to smoke. So maybe that policy has changed since you left NYC. |
Mackinaw Member Username: Mackinaw
Post Number: 2956 Registered: 02-2005
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 1:35 pm: | |
Eloquent and well-said, Detroitnerd. I don't care either way. People shouldn't smoke. It's bad. We should enable them to quit. They run up public health costs. They stink. Trying to regulate the public realm though, is something different. Next thing you know, you won't be able to go out in public if you have a cold because someone else might catch it. |
Ffdfd Member Username: Ffdfd
Post Number: 89 Registered: 09-2006
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 1:48 pm: | |
quote:You may want to avoid blanket statements such as "Smokers are selfish, though it's the nicotine addition that makes them this way." As a smoker, nicotine addiction is an obvious issue, but many smokers, myself included are very aware of other around them including non-smokers. I often to ask if I may "light up" even in the presence of fellow smokers. I think Burningwheel is right on. Smokers, by and large, are selfish. If you ask whether you can light up, Paulc, then you are in the minority of smokers I've run across. If you need proof of the selfishness of smokers, just look at a sidewalk or a street and count the butts. Not content to pollute the air for anyone within breathing distance, smokers top it off by tossing the remainder on the floor or out the car window. |
Karenk Member Username: Karenk
Post Number: 42 Registered: 07-2006
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 1:49 pm: | |
We're going smoke free in Las Vegas. No smoking if food is served and most other places too. One can still smoke in casinos-somehow they got around this law. There is still a great deal of grumbling over it, but as a non-smoker for over 20 yrs. I am glad I don't have to inhale others smoke. It's really nice to have a smoke free dinner. |
Suuzq35 Member Username: Suuzq35
Post Number: 4 Registered: 01-2007
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 2:01 pm: | |
I Think it's a WONDERFUL idea that of a smoking ban...after all why should we all suffer from the second hand stuff , they can always go outside and smoke.. and who cares if the casinos are less crowded?? as long as there are games .. whatever..and if there was smoking at my workplace I would be a VERY unhappy camper. I mean it's just plain nasty. (Message edited by suuzq35 on June 14, 2007) (Message edited by suuzq35 on June 14, 2007) |
Paulc Member Username: Paulc
Post Number: 133 Registered: 03-2005
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 2:16 pm: | |
Ffdfd - I agree with your point and can certainly see where there is selfish behavior - but again, not necessarily akin to "all" involved - not even just smokers, I also find littering fast-food eaters and those who wish to include me as part of their cell phone audience selfish as well. |
Nyct Member Username: Nyct
Post Number: 57 Registered: 01-2007
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 2:16 pm: | |
When I was in Manhattan two years ago, I dined outdoors in front of a restaurant. The person I was with had to adjourn to the sidewalk next to our table to smoke. So maybe that policy has changed since you left NYC. I said SOME ... nothing's changed ... i too had to move away from the outdoor seats to smoke a few times too. |
Ventura67 Member Username: Ventura67
Post Number: 137 Registered: 12-2003
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 2:22 pm: | |
Most smokers appear ashamed of their habit and look like outcasts when they light up anymore. They're used to going outside with 15 degrees and 20mph winds to get there fix, they often hide in alleys or behind trees so others don't see them, half their friends, parents and even some of their lovers don't even know they do it. It is a shameful, destructive, nasty habit, and I do not care to be around it in any way, shape or form. The sooner we ban it the sooner the habit will be pushed further to the outer fringes of society and eventually done with. Care to see a spittoon section in action at your local coney island? No, I do not see two sides to this issue, never, ever will- Bye bye cigarettes, polluted indoor air, tobacco lobby and butts all over our highways and sidewalks (on that point strengthen our littering laws to stop the practice of flicking those damn things out of cars). Ban it now and I likely will take my family to places I never thought I would before, including jazz clubs, many restaurants and major events. I disbelieve a loss of business to those establishments and those business owners who claim such a loss would occur have their heads stuck deep in the sand. And Detroitnerd, on that universal sign of fellowship that offering a cigarette created and all those other kitschy ideas, don't forget the marketing power of the tobacco industry and television throughout those, and even our, times. That all was spoon fed to smokers and nonsmokers alike to make it appear like a grass roots feeling about smoking. It wasn't, look how it quickly it vanishes now that that marketing is reigned in. BAN IT! Send letter bombs (with smoke stains) to...... |
Ffdfd Member Username: Ffdfd
Post Number: 90 Registered: 09-2006
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 2:24 pm: | |
quote:I agree with your point and can certainly see where there is selfish behavior - but again, not necessarily akin to "all" involved - not even just smokers, I also find littering fast-food eaters and those who wish to include me as part of their cell phone audience selfish as well. Agreed on the fast-food litterers and the cell phone users. And you're right, not all smokers are rude. I just wish more were as considerate as you. |
Paulc Member Username: Paulc
Post Number: 134 Registered: 03-2005
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 2:33 pm: | |
Thanks Ffdfd. Ventura67 - "Habit" is the operative word in your first paragraph (Post 137) - and shameful is a rather strong word, but I digress. The simple fact is that smoking cigarettes creates a physical, chemical and psychological addiction, period. Even as a smoker (who is considering quitting myself), I would have no issues with an outright ban - albeit nationwide. It is a serious health concern. I would ask those of you, before attacking those who smoke, using a rather smug and punitive tone, to consider why this "danger" is not addressed by the government - perhaps profit / industry trumps public safety here? Think asbestos, think of any other harmful product or chemical in recent history... in most instances evidence of danger is available many years before the plug is pulled. Although Detroitnerd needs no defense - I think the point to his post was about fellowship in general. Remove the references to smoking and his point still vividly stands. My two pennies. |
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_
Post Number: 1885 Registered: 12-2003
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 2:44 pm: | |
One more task getting the Unions to agree, who see banning smoking as another workplace restriction.
quote:One can still smoke in casinos-somehow they got around this law. Because they unlike you actually matter in the grand scheme of things when it comes to Vegas. (Message edited by _sj_ on June 14, 2007) |
Ventura67 Member Username: Ventura67
Post Number: 138 Registered: 12-2003
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 2:47 pm: | |
Paulc, You get to the heart of a part of my feeling. Yes, smoker's are hooked not because the tobacco is that addictive in itself, but because of nicotine manipulation and heavy, heavy marketing by the manufacturers. Who allowed/allows this? Why the government, of course. Why did the government allow it? Why lobbyists, of course. It's not necessarily anyone's fault that they're addicted but it is there responsibility to see why and how and rid themselves of a destructive habit. Enjoy smoking? Fine. Buy some natural tobacco, roll it yourself, and smoke it away from those who wish not to participate. You'll be less addicted, spend less and will be measurably safer due the natural tobacco, and won't encourage ranters like me to push for smoking bans by doing it privately! |
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 1037 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 3:01 pm: | |
Ventura: People smoke because it relieves stress. Your issue with marketers has a point, but smoking has been a part of the Anglo-Saxon culture we've inherited since the days of Raleigh. Before then, it was the aboriginal people of the Americas. I doubt there were any marketing people or Altria executives lurking the continent then. Your points are good, but there is an element of smug self-satisfaction that seems to miss the point. The science of persuasion, as practiced by marketers, is much gentler than the cudgel of the lawman or the sentence of the judge. He who would control a culture through bans and laws debases the idea of liberty. There's nothing inherently wrong with smoking bans. The fault lies with push-button thinking. Even in the halls of Congress, the idea that problems may be solved with laws has been ridiculed. And with good reason. We may be a country of laws and not men, but we are a people of men, not laws. |
Lukabottle Member Username: Lukabottle
Post Number: 75 Registered: 12-2004
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 3:06 pm: | |
I am a smoker and I agreed it should be banned from restaurants and bars. I am selfish. I have gotten to the point that the only time I smoke is in bars. Maybe I can finally kick it if I am not surrounded by my drug of choice when I go out. I know this is a selfish thought in regards to other smokers. I should be able to kick it on my own. |
Awfavre Member Username: Awfavre
Post Number: 126 Registered: 08-2005
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 3:20 pm: | |
Smokers’ rights? What happened to breathers’ right, & which rights are more important? Like the right to drive down a freeway without an intoxicated driver putting other drivers’ lives at risk, I do not think smokers have a “right” to pollute the air breathed by others with the toxins produced by secondhand smoke. If smokers want to kill themselves, their family members, & their pets in their homes & their cars, more power to them. But they shouldn’t be allowed, as a “right,” to do the same to others. Besides,as a very wise once said, there is no such thing as a non-pissing end of the pool. (Thanks for that quote, Rex Halfpenny.) Notwithstanding the health aspect, there is a very good economic reason to ban smoking: increased business. Studies have shown that, although there is an initial drop in business after a ban takes effect, the business then increases to levels beyond those prior to the ban, because non-smokers start going to the places they previously avoided. I know people with health problems who cannot go into restaurants with smoking sections. These folks would spend a lot more money in Michigan establishments with a smoking ban in effect. And honestly, as a non-smoker, I am selfish, too. I like being able to smell/taste the entirety of foods I eat & smell/taste the subtleties in the microbrewed beers I drink without interference from secondhand smoke. So, rather than go regularly to King Brewery in Pontiac (which allows smoking, has FABULOUS food & beers, & is only a few miles down the road for me), I drive over 30 miles to Sherwood Brewing Company in Shelby Township, which is non-smoking. I am willing to put my money where my beliefs are, & I’d be willing to spread that money around if more places were non-smoking. As an aside, best of good luck kicking the habit, Lukabottle. |
Ray1936 Member Username: Ray1936
Post Number: 1544 Registered: 01-2005
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 3:31 pm: | |
Hmmm....Awfavre, I gotta admit food and goodies always tasted great to me when I was a pack a day smoker, and since swearing off six years back, that stuff tastes the same. I didn't experience any improvement in my taste or smell buds after quitting. Kind of expected to, I guess, but it didn't happen. Just felt like mentioning that for whatever it's worth. |
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 1039 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 3:35 pm: | |
Ah, if only there were a law against smug self-satisfaction. I could collar all of you and haul you off the slammer! |
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_
Post Number: 1886 Registered: 12-2003
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 4:16 pm: | |
quote:Notwithstanding the health aspect, there is a very good economic reason to ban smoking: increased business. Studies have shown that, although there is an initial drop in business after a ban takes effect, the business then increases to levels beyond those prior to the ban, because non-smokers start going to the places they previously avoided. I know people with health problems who cannot go into restaurants with smoking sections. These folks would spend a lot more money in Michigan establishments with a smoking ban in effect. And I can show you more studies that show the business never picks up. Gotta love how people who have no attachment to the business can actually comment on what they believe will happen. |
Susanarosa Member Username: Susanarosa
Post Number: 1539 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 4:20 pm: | |
All I remember about being in Albany NY after the smoking ban were all the fights. Put everyone outside to smoke, someone drives by in his car and yells something to a guy standing outside smoking who yells something back to the car and another guy at the bar across the street gets involved and boom, it's brawl time. |
Ventura67 Member Username: Ventura67
Post Number: 139 Registered: 12-2003
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 5:01 pm: | |
Brawl of words, brawl of fists; it's all good! It's Detroit already! Dnerd, you said "smoking has been a part of the Anglo-Saxon culture we've inherited since the days of Raleigh. Before then, it was the aboriginal people of the Americas." Before that I already said "Enjoy smoking? Fine. Buy some natural tobacco, roll it yourself, and smoke it away from those who wish not to participate. You'll be less addicted, spend less and will be measurably safer due to the natural tobacco." Being one that grows much of my own food I would grow my own pot and tobacco if I had any interest in such things, giving your idea that "we may be a country of laws and not men, but we are a people of men, not laws" great validity in my eyes. Somebody please tell me how to quote on this forum! |
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 1111 Registered: 10-2006
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 5:04 pm: | |
https://www.atdetroit.net/forum/mes sages/91697/93035.html |
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 1043 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 5:19 pm: | |
Yeah, I can respect that you want to keep it DIY. That's cool. But the marketing aspect of tobacco is relatively recent compared to its introduction to the culture. That's what I was getting at. To my mind, the world is a filthy place. We go out into it at our own peril. We come home smelling like stuff we don't want to. Big deal! We wash our clothes, our bodies, and get over it. When people start demanding the general public changes its ways for the few who feel annoyed by something is when we simply don't understand what a free society is anymore. I'm a follower of Franklin, so I won't budge on that one: Those that would sacrifice some necessary freedom for temporary safety deserve neither freedom nor safety. |
Bob Member Username: Bob
Post Number: 1479 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 6:28 pm: | |
It will happen eventually, it is just a matter of when we do it now, or be the 50th state to do it. We are 50th in almost everything else, let's add one more thing. (Message edited by bob on June 14, 2007) |
Viziondetroit Member Username: Viziondetroit
Post Number: 1084 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 6:38 pm: | |
"I'm not a smoker, never have been one, never will be one. That said, I am also not in favor of allowing the government to take away our individual rights." ^I don't think it's fair that someones habit in public can make me sick or I could die from it. It already sucks to have a family or friend member die from lung cancer because THEY chose to smoke... but even worse to get sick and maybe die because of what OTHER people can't seem to do in their own homes and cars I feel that you can be exempt from laws when your bar or restaurant doesn't have to be regulated by state authorities... ie, food health and safety (FDA), and LCC |
Diehard Member Username: Diehard
Post Number: 58 Registered: 03-2005
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 7:11 pm: | |
"When people start demanding the general public changes its ways for the few who feel annoyed by something..."<p> Except in this case it's not a few who are annoyed. The majority of adults (the general public?) in the U.S. are nonsmokers, and the rest of the country is rapidly moving toward comprehensive indoor smoking bans. It's a public health issue, not mere annoyance, and it's only a matter of time before Michigan realizes that. |
Diehard Member Username: Diehard
Post Number: 59 Registered: 03-2005
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 7:17 pm: | |
btw, I'm really surprised at the lack of grumpy smokers weighing in here. Usually when you find a debate on this topic, it's dominated by smokers calling the nonsmokers a bunch of nanny-state wimps who should stay home. Anyone else been to the Magic Bag, the Belmont or the Painted Lady for a show and had to leave because it's such a choking cave of fumes? Those places are particularly bad if you value your lungs. |
Detroitrunaway Member Username: Detroitrunaway
Post Number: 14 Registered: 06-2007
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 7:39 pm: | |
I agree with Detroitnerd. I was a late bloomer when I started smoking...the age of 25. Before then it didn't bother me at all to be around smoke. I rather enjoyed watching people, their habits and behavior. Will they ban drinking in public if someone spills a drink on a someone's $1000 suit? I think not. If it is because you're worried about cancer from second hand smoke...then let's ban drinking all together to make sure no one drives from the club tipsy. Or even better...let's ban foods that cause high blood pressure and other things bad for a person. I would put money on the fact that if that most non smokers may have or currently smoke pot....praying one day to have it legalized...all while protesting to have a cigarette ban. Go figure. |
Parkguy Member Username: Parkguy
Post Number: 49 Registered: 04-2007
| Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 7:48 pm: | |
Eateries, bars doing fine after smoking ban P-I NEWS SERVICES [June 12] OLYMPIA -- Gambling declined while beer and food sales rose slightly in bars, restaurants and gambling establishments across Washington last year, the first full year under a smoking ban, state figures indicate. Alcohol and food sales were 3.6 percent higher in 2006, compared to a 2.1 percent average annual growth rate in 2002-05. Gross income at non-tribal gambling businesses was down by 9.8 percent in 2006, according to Revenue Department figures issued Monday. "The numbers suggest that bars and taverns may have lost some smokers but gained customers drawn to a smoke-free environment," department spokesman Mike Gowrylow said. ---Personally,I have to say it was pretty nice to walk into a bar on Broadway in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Seattle recently with a group for a late drink and dinner and not be blasted with smoke. |
Burningwheel Member Username: Burningwheel
Post Number: 4 Registered: 06-2007
| Posted on Friday, June 15, 2007 - 10:16 am: | |
thanks for the welcome. nice first post huh? the sockpuppet |
Kingofdetroit Member Username: Kingofdetroit
Post Number: 11 Registered: 10-2006
| Posted on Friday, June 15, 2007 - 12:03 pm: | |
It's poison. Ban it! |
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_
Post Number: 1888 Registered: 12-2003
| Posted on Friday, June 15, 2007 - 2:52 pm: | |
quote:^I don't think it's fair that someones habit in public can make me sick or I could die from it. It already sucks to have a family or friend member die from lung cancer because THEY chose to smoke... I wonder what the sick rate is for the people eating the food or drinking alcohol is at those places compared to second hand smoke. I think that might be an interesting study.
quote:but even worse to get sick and maybe die because of what OTHER people can't seem to do in their own homes and cars What if their business is their home? |
Motorcitydave Member Username: Motorcitydave
Post Number: 23 Registered: 11-2004
| Posted on Friday, June 15, 2007 - 2:54 pm: | |
Maybe just improve and regulate the quality of the air cleaning systems that bars have to have. Each bar has to have an acceptable air cleaning system, or a system that meets the standards for the size of the bar, etc. Then some bars would upgrade and allow smoking, some would choose to ban smoking... but most importantly, it would be their CHOICE!!!! I think that it should be the bar owners choice, same as it is their choice to play music, have live bands, have TVs, etc. All of those things may be annoying to some people, and it is their choice not to go into that bar.... it should be no different than with smoking. (If loud music hurts your ears, then you are not going to hang out at a bar that has live rock bands, right?) ....It's all about the atmosphere the bar wants to create, and if that includes smoking, or if that includes a smoke free environment, then so be it..... I never understand why people in America are so quick to ban things and give up their freedoms! There is no law that states that a bar HAS to offer smoking. |
Viziondetroit Member Username: Viziondetroit
Post Number: 1085 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Friday, June 15, 2007 - 3:00 pm: | |
^ should we also put barriers up along the roads so drunk drivers can still drink and drive and not endanger the public? |
Susanarosa Member Username: Susanarosa
Post Number: 1542 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Friday, June 15, 2007 - 3:01 pm: | |
MCdave makes a good point. Most bars are full of smoke because the majority of folks who spend a lot of time and money in a bar are smokers. Therefore, bar owners will cater to the clientele that brings in the most money. Unfortunately for non-smokers that does not include them or else you'd see a lot more bars and restaurants become smoke free. |
Ffdfd Member Username: Ffdfd
Post Number: 91 Registered: 09-2006
| Posted on Friday, June 15, 2007 - 3:05 pm: | |
quote:I wonder what the sick rate is for the people eating the food or drinking alcohol is at those places compared to second hand smoke. I think that might be an interesting study. What does that have to do with a smoking ban? BTW, the alcohol from those peoples' drinks isn't entering my blood stream, nor is the cholesterol from their fatty food. The smoke from someone else's cigarette is entering my lungs. Breathing is a pretty basic component of life, and I prefer to get my air in as pure a form as possible. Why can't smokers respect that? After all, the first time you smoked it made you cough. That's because it is not natural to inhale smoke. For the majority, who are nonsmokers, it is still not natural to inhale smoke. |
Motorcitydave Member Username: Motorcitydave
Post Number: 24 Registered: 11-2004
| Posted on Friday, June 15, 2007 - 3:06 pm: | |
I don't even know if I should respond to that one Viziondetroit.....lol. ....but I guess I will say this, speaking of drunk drivers, maybe we should ban the sale of alcohol because of the drunk drivers, they are endangering us all, and alcohol should be banned..... or maybe cars.... I should be able to walk down the side walk, and not have to worry about getting ran over.... or hey, why not ban everything that may somehow harm innocent me.... (Message edited by motorcitydave on June 15, 2007) |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 980 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Friday, June 15, 2007 - 3:55 pm: | |
Speaking of alcohol... ...we already have some restrictive laws concerning where it can and cannot be consumed. |
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_
Post Number: 1889 Registered: 12-2003
| Posted on Friday, June 15, 2007 - 5:23 pm: | |
You are complaining about getting sick from second hand smoke in these place of BUSINESS, are you getting sick from the alcohol and food you are consuming in these business and is one risk greater than the other? Is your constant diet of fast food and alcohol killing you faster than some second hand smoke. |
Dabirch Member Username: Dabirch
Post Number: 2325 Registered: 06-2004
| Posted on Friday, June 15, 2007 - 5:38 pm: | |
quote:should we also put barriers up along the roads so drunk drivers can still drink and drive and not endanger the public? That would be awesome. Great thinking. |
Diehard Member Username: Diehard
Post Number: 60 Registered: 03-2005
| Posted on Friday, June 15, 2007 - 6:47 pm: | |
....aaaand out come all the usual "straw man" arguments. This isn't about people eating fatty food or drinking, or driving, or the "nanny state" taking away your rights. 1. Your diet is your own choice, and nobody else is affected by it (at least the people at the bar aren't). 2. Drunk driving is already illegal, and people can and do walk to bars or take cabs. 3. Banning smoking indoors isn't about the government trying to take away smokers' rights, it's about restoring nonsmokers' - actually, everyone's - rights to breathe. By the way, why do smokers act like it's soooo unfair to have to step outside for a few minutes to get their Vitamin N, but will gladly tell nonsmokers they should "just stay home?" Like that's more fair? I can't go see my friend's band because I have asthma? |
Brother_james Member Username: Brother_james
Post Number: 3 Registered: 09-2006
| Posted on Friday, June 15, 2007 - 8:33 pm: | |
I was just in Detroit and I had forgotten what it was like to be asked "smoking or non?". Even if you ask to be seated in a non-smoking section, the table next to you or the one next to that might be smoking. It's disgusting. It's about time folks catch up with the rest of the country. |
Fury13 Member Username: Fury13
Post Number: 1774 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 3:55 pm: | |
Why not have smoking sections at the rear of bars/restaurants (instead of near the front so that non-smokers have to walk through it)? Or just have separate, closed-off rooms in establishments so that smokers can congregate together (and breathe in each other's smoke without forcing non-smokers to ingest it)? |
Mjb3 Member Username: Mjb3
Post Number: 155 Registered: 11-2004
| Posted on Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 5:40 pm: | |
27 states so far have done it...Alabama, yes even the huckleberry's have smoke free restaurants. It's coming, it's just a matter now of whether we are the 28th state or the 49th to do it. Sign of the times. It might not make it out of legislature this yr, but will happen in the next 2-3 yrs. I think California was the first state to do it, back in like 1984 or 85. Must be nice to be a leader state instead of a follower dragged kicking and screaming. I used to love Spike and Mike's Animation festival @ Magic Bag. Except had to throw clothes in washer when I got home. Can hardly wait til this becomes reality. Ohio starting this yr may prompt our govt to move quicker.. |
Pythonmaster Member Username: Pythonmaster
Post Number: 59 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 5:52 pm: | |
I think it's the responsibility of the employer to provide a safe and healthy environment for the employees. Letting business owners expose their employees to smoke makes no sense. It should not be legal. |
Abracadabra Member Username: Abracadabra
Post Number: 28 Registered: 04-2007
| Posted on Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 6:16 pm: | |
There is more bullshit being spewed here than there is smoke in all the bars and restaurants in Michigan. Most of the anti-smoking zealots beliefs are based in myths and half-truths. Ban it. Yeah, that has worked so well with alcohol and drugs. |
Mjb3 Member Username: Mjb3
Post Number: 156 Registered: 11-2004
| Posted on Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 7:32 pm: | |
Abracadabra, No need for hostility, amigo. It's worked in the other 27 states, Canada, UK and Ireland. And I don't think I'm a zealot. Smoke your lungs out, it's your right. Just don't do it in enclosed public spaces where you are exposing it to the rest of us. Our eyes, clothes, etc. This is just my opinion, but the majority approves of these bans or it would have been overturned in the places where enacted. |