No Smoking In Ohio -- Soon Michigan?

Michigan lawmakers are reviving a push to ban smoking in Michigan's bars, restaurants and workplaces.

[ejm604]

Here we go with the not so liberal Liberals attempting to selectively eliminate a Freedom of Choice! Resturants and bars are privately owned business's, the public is invited to patronize and not forced too.

[disgusted]

Put it on the ballot. I should be able to eat in a restaurant without smoke going in my food. People do not get it. It is not a choice issue its a health issue.

[Dan]

disgusted wrote:

Put it on the ballot. I should be able to eat in a restaurant without smoke going in my food. People do not get it. It is not a choice issue its a health issue.

It is not a health issue. Smokers are not protected from cigarrette smoke under smoking ban laws, so it's not a public health initiative whatsoever.

You already ARE able to eat at a restaurant without smoke. You WANT all restaurants to accomodate your preference.

Remember, a restauarnt or any other business is not public property. The public is invited in, but it is not public property.

[MI-CA connection]

I grew up in the smoke infested restaurants of Michigan. I moved 5 yrs ago to SoCal where there is no smoking in restaurants/bars (in case you didn't know already). I'm a smoker. After the initial adjustment period of getting used to not being able to smoke in restaurants/bars..it's not that big of a deal. Many places have patios were you can smoke.

I'm actually kind of disgusted when I visit back in MI and have a smoker next to me while I try to eat. I say NO SMOKING in restaurants/bars should be applied in ALL states.

DEAL WITH IT selfish smokers.

[Dan]

MI-CA connection wrote:

I grew up in the smoke infested restaurants of Michigan. I moved 5 yrs ago to SoCal where there is no smoking in restaurants/bars (in case you didn't know already). I'm a smoker. After the initial adjustment period of getting used to not being able to smoke in restaurants/bars..it's not that big of a deal. Many places have patios were you can smoke.
I'm actually kind of disgusted when I visit back in MI and have a smoker next to me while I try to eat. I say NO SMOKING in restaurants/bars should be applied in ALL states.
DEAL WITH IT selfish smokers.

Why should the ban be applied in all states? Because you like it? If that's the case, how does that make smokers selfish?

[Cory]

MI-CA. "Many places have patios where you can smoke." That will work real well here. Right now it's 13 degrees and falling.

What is wrong with the business owner making the decision? There are many non-smoking restaurants here as there should be for those who do not want to smell smoke. I would not want to take that away from the non-smokers. Why would you want to take away a smoking establishment? Would it disgust you to drive by on your way to a non-smoking establishment? Or is it your way or no way? Talk about selfish.

[alfie]

I don't know how the laws work there, but in Scotland the no smoking law (in effect since last year) is to protect all EMPLOYEES. No employee anywhere has to work in a smoke-filled environment. Even truck drivers can be busted for smoking in their vehicles because it's a place of work. There was a lot of grumbling at first when this law took effect in Ireland, then Scotland. But in both countries a lot of smokers decided to quit. Later this year the ban in England and Wales will take effect.

I've been an ex-smoker for 14 years (today) and I wouldn't grumble about any bans. It's such a pleasure to be able to eat in a pub w/o gagging on the smoke. I really hope Michigan passes this law because that's where I go when I visit the US.

[disgusted]

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
It is not a health issue????? Smokers are not protected from cigarette smoke under smoking ban laws, so it's not a public health initiative whatsoever.
You already ARE able to eat at a restaurant without smoke. You WANT all restaurants to accomodate your preference.
Remember, a restauarnt or any other business is not public property. The public is invited in, but it is not public property.

You lost all credability when you state that it is not a health issue. Having sections in restaurants that are considered non smoking is a joke. I know people that are smokers and have visited here from some states that have restrictions on smoking and they have said that they think it is disgusting that people are eating in smoke filled rooms. Trust me Mich. smokers will be alright.

[Dan]

disgusted wrote:

<quoted text>
You lost all credability when you state that it is not a health issue. Having sections in restaurants that are considered non smoking is a joke. I know people that are smokers and have visited here from some states that have restrictions on smoking and they have said that they think it is disgusting that people are eating in smoke filled rooms. Trust me Mich. smokers will be alright.

You missed my point-
If a law is passed supposedly to protect public health (smoking ban), and excludes 25% of the public (the smokers) from that protection, how can it be a public health law?

[Cindie]

Smokers have the right to smoke as long as it doesn't interfere with non-smokers rights. Smoking in public DOES interfere with non-smokers rights. Let them smoke in their homes. Let them smoke in their cars. Let them kill themselves. As long as they don't kill us. I have the right to go out in public and go to restaurants with out endangering my health - not to mention I just plain don't like the smell. As far as the business owners having rights sorry, they gave up those rights long ago. They can't hire who they want, fire who they want, or use the business or property for anything they want. There are also health laws they have to follow in their kitchens every day. The government will always tell businesses what to do. I hope the government says "No Smoking".

[disgusted]

I understand what you're saying, I interpreted it wrong. Sorry

[Dan]

Cindie wrote:

Smokers have the right to smoke as long as it doesn't interfere with non-smokers rights. Smoking in public DOES interfere with non-smokers rights. Let them smoke in their homes. Let them smoke in their cars. Let them kill themselves. As long as they don't kill us. I have the right to go out in public and go to restaurants with out endangering my health - not to mention I just plain don't like the smell. As far as the business owners having rights sorry, they gave up those rights long ago. They can't hire who they want, fire who they want, or use the business or property for anything they want. There are also health laws they have to follow in their kitchens every day. The government will always tell businesses what to do. I hope the government says "No Smoking".

What right of yours are being abrogated by a smoker? There is no "right" to eat in a reataurant, nor are there rights to protect one from being offended by a smell they don't like.
There is no "right" to breathe clean air (this seems to be a common misperception).
You DO have the right to choose where to go and how to spend your disposable income. Excercise it by going to places that do not allow smoking.

[MI-CA connection]

Not selfish...just stating my opinion...that is what these message boards are for...right?

2001...2 years after the ban went into effect in California:

The state's Board of Equalization reported that sales were up 7.4 percent at restaurants and bars since the smoking ban took effect. Taxable receipts increased 9.1 percent at establishments licensed to sell only beer and wine and 6.3 percent at those serving all types of liquor.

It doesn't hurt businesses...it actually helps. Well it hurts the tobacco industry...and my father doesn't get as much business...being a pathologist.

[Non Smoker]

Cindie wrote:

Smokers have the right to smoke as long as it doesn't interfere with non-smokers rights. Smoking in public DOES interfere with non-smokers rights. Let them smoke in their homes. Let them smoke in their cars. Let them kill themselves. As long as they don't kill us. I have the right to go out in public and go to restaurants with out endangering my health - not to mention I just plain don't like the smell. As far as the business owners having rights sorry, they gave up those rights long ago. They can't hire who they want, fire who they want, or use the business or property for anything they want. There are also health laws they have to follow in their kitchens every day. The government will always tell businesses what to do. I hope the government says "No Smoking".

Could not have said it better!!! THANK YOU

[Non Smoker]

alfie wrote:

I don't know how the laws work there, but in Scotland the no smoking law (in effect since last year) is to protect all EMPLOYEES. No employee anywhere has to work in a smoke-filled environment. Even truck drivers can be busted for smoking in their vehicles because it's a place of work. There was a lot of grumbling at first when this law took effect in Ireland, then Scotland. But in both countries a lot of smokers decided to quit. Later this year the ban in England and Wales will take effect.
I've been an ex-smoker for 14 years (today) and I wouldn't grumble about any bans. It's such a pleasure to be able to eat in a pub w/o gagging on the smoke. I really hope Michigan passes this law because that's where I go when I visit the US.

Glad the bans are working in Ireland and Scotland, Hope we have one in place here before your next visit.

[mic]

george you anti smokin,anti american,you should pack your bags and get out of the usa before the parents of these great american soldiers,find you.
or maybe join the military,I heard the bombers are looking for a practice DUMMY.great job for you.
please leave now, free ticket to iraq i'll bet!!!

[RevLee]

George wrote:

Actually, nothing gives me MORE PLEASURE than a smoker with cancer!
I simply love it!
A smoker with cancer is like those useful idiots in the military who volunteer to get blown up in Iraq for the sake of Bush's fantasies.
Smokers volunteer to give they money to big tobacco. In both cases, they deserve exactly what they get!
Go on smoking, you idiots. While you are at it, don't forget to send your kids to Iraq to die for Bush. When you get them back in a plastic bag, you can smoke some more to relieve your stress.
Hope your cancer agony from cancer will be long and slow. If I get the chance, I'll drop by to say hello. Maybe you can say "hi" though your tracheotomy hole.

Sooner or later you will get what you deserve and it will be a lot worse than what you have wished for other people.

[Bill Hannegan]

Dan wrote:

<quoted text>
You missed my point-
If a law is passed supposedly to protect public health (smoking ban), and excludes 25% of the public (the smokers) from that protection, how can it be a public health law?

According to classic toxicology the smoker is more at risk from SHS than the nonsmoker. So why should nonsmokers get special protection?

[Bill Hannegan]

Non Smoker wrote:

<quoted text> Glad the bans are working in Ireland and Scotland, Hope we have one in place here before your next visit.

The smoking ban has helped hundreds of Irish pubs go out of business:
http://www.westernpeople.ie/news/story.asp...

[dukdodgers]

I am not a smoker, I don't like the way it smells and do not understand its draw other than the drug addiction.

I would love to see smoking banned in establishments whose main service was food related. I would not mind if smoking were allowed to continue in bars, where food is not the main business. Kinda hypocritical I know, but its the way I feel.

Heck, I wouldn't mind smoking if it only affected the smoker. I am not even talking about the health risks. I do not see why I should have to endure another persons habit while in a restaurant trying to enjoy a meal. Food is about smell and taste. The smell of a cigarette destroys dining. Why should I have to stink like a cigarette after going out in public?

To the people that say there are plenty of smoke free places to eat; too funny. There are restaurants that are smoke free, sure. They mostly consist of McDonald's and Subways. There aren't too many good restaurants that are smoke free.