Michigan finally passed a smoking ban!

[Jackmannii]

@kopek

Then ------ why support laws that force that second hand smoke, that self-destructive behavior, onto the sidewalks, bus stops and building entrances? Why not embrace laws actually addressing those problems?

Oooo, it’s that wonderful smokers’ concern for air quality rearing its head again.

I haven’t seen the text of the Michigan law, but similar regulations elsewhere prohibit smoking at or close to building entrances, to prevent smokers from congregating there and forcing others to run a gauntlet of smoke to enter or exit. Enclosed bus shelters are also smoke-free under regulations in effect in some communities. Outdoors where there’s free air flow - not a problem. Puff away.

But haven’t you read the posts your friends have made here, the very title of the thread? “Limit forced exposure” isn’t the goal; banning all smoking is the goal.

The new Michigan law does not outlaw smoking and I’ve seen no one here calling for such prohibition. Please be rational.

[Yookeroo]

@kopek

First part – did you happen to read the title of this thread?

I also read the OP. There’s a difference between a ban on smoking in public places and an outright ban.

@kopek

Second part - want to place a little bet that I can’t find a bar in California with smoking “indoors indoors” (as opposed to the wimpy PA definition of indoors) that not only has employees but very well paid and willing ones? Give me say 6 hours in any California city (INCLUDING the People’s Republic of Santa Monica) of say Pittsburgh size or larger and it will be the easiest money I ever made.

You can probably find bars that will serve underage drinkers. So what? Those places are few and far between. It’s probably a risk to their liquor license.

@kopek

Then ------ why support laws that force that second hand smoke, that self-destructive behavior, onto the sidewalks, bus stops and building entrances?

You’re joking, right? And that’s ignoring the fact is that there are laws preventing smoking at building entrances.

@PunditLisa

But to answer your specific question: If, when we walked into a public place to shop or eat a cheeseburger, the general public couldn’t escape from your pornographic images, or we all became intoxicated by merely smelling alcohol vapors, why yes I’d call for a ban. Otherwise, I’ve got no beef with your porn or your martini.

Or to put it another way, if someone wants to listen to his iPod at 300 decibels using earbuds, we’ve got no issues. He’s only harming himself. If, on the other hand, he wants to crank it up to 300 decibels in his car, and drive around the subdivision at 2am, then we might have a problem. And I think it’s entirely reasonable of governments to pass laws to curb the latter.

Right. Choose to act like an asshole, the government just might step in.

[Sandwich]

So, to sum up, Michigan became the 38th US state to ban smoking in public places. Such bans are also common elsewhere in the civilised world. The smokers don’t get it. They list a number of arguments, ranging from the reasonable to the frankly ridiculous, but don’t quite understand why this has happened. So, for the benefit of those smokers in the 39th state, whichever it may be, here is an analysis which you might consider if you want to avoid a ban in your state.

NON-SMOKERS REALLY DO NOT LIKE HAVING SMOKED BLOWN ON THEM. EVER

There, that isn’t too complicated or difficult to understand, is it? The nuances come from the complex interaction of social and legal norms. But it still isn’t too difficult:

IN THE PAST, THE NON-SMOKERS HAD TO PUT UP WITH HAVING SMOKE BLOWN ON THEM. NOW, THEY DON’T.

Still keeping up? Good! So, if you want to keep your right to smoke in public intact, then the smokers in your state (and the simple honest businessmen exercising their god-given rights to encourage addictive behaviour in situations where they can exploit the addicts commercially) need to take one momentous step:

STOP BLOWING SMOKE OVER NON-SMOKERS

It won’t be easy. What you do in the comfort of your own home is your own business (unless non-smoking friends or family are visiting, or if you have children), but when you are in bars and clubs and restaurants and theatres and bookshops and buses and every other public space, you will need to exercise restraint. The managers of such facilities can assist: provided that all (which means “all”) of the amenities are available to anyone without having smoke blown on them, then no-one will mind if there is a back room where the smokers go to poison themselves. But, and I can’t emphasise this strongly enough, you are going to stop blowing smoke over non-smokers soon enough, the only question is how much of an inconvenience it will be for you.

A final word for the smokers of Michigan: your continuing right to smoke outdoors and in other public places is contingent on you not inconveniencing non-smokers with your smoke. Don’t push your luck.

Happy to discuss if anyone thinks there are any flaws in this analysis of the reality of the situation. Not interested in discussing whether the situation is fair or moral or reasonable - liberty has literally never smelled so sweet, and we will never agree to you blowing smoke over us again.

[Darth_Hamsandwich]

Thanks for the sum up. But after reading through this entire thread I still haven’t seen one rational argument discussing why a person who buys/leases his OWN property and opens up his OWN pub should not be allowed to put up a large sign stating CLEARLY: “We allow SMOKING.” If you are a non-smoker who is looking to go out on the town or you are a non-smoker looking for gainful employment, would you go out of your way to patronize the place?

It should be left up to the tavern owners themselves. If someone wants to work there, the owner should be upfront with the potential employee from the drop.: “We allow smoking pal, in case you missed the huge sign out front. Do you still want to work here?”

[Stratocaster]

It’s because the angels are on the side of any ban that someone can associate with a health issue, so long as said ban does not inconvenience the majority in any way. Same health issues, but the majority is inconvenienced? That’s just not as compelling a story.

Owner’s rights be damned. The fact that the guy actually owns the place and that no one need enter is a trivial detail obscuring the higher mission: to eradicate all health threats and protect workers, right up to (but not not past!) the point where the majority is personally inconvenienced in any way. It’s heartwarming, really.

[Inner_Stickler]

Let us know when you’re done playing martyr so we can have the cross cleaned for the next person.

It turns out that we don’t need a reason to ban smoking in bars if we can get the state legislature to do it for us. Don’t like it? Move to one of the states that don’t have a law yet or try to get the law overturned. But when it comes to arguments about driving or owner’s rights, it turns out I’m constipated, i.e. couldn’t give a shit.

[Darth_Hamsandwich]

Thanks for the constipation update, but you didn’t answer my question.

[gonzomax]

@kopek

Same with gas taxes too!

And BTW ----- guess you forgot my question; what do you have against people with actual physical illnesses? Not possible future ones but the respiratory ones being harmed by these poorly constructed regulations today?

I did not forget it. It is just too ignorant to respond to.
You are responding like a kid. I don’t do play that game.

[Jackmannii]

@Darth_Hamsandwich

Thanks for the sum up. But after reading through this entire thread I still haven’t seen one rational argument discussing why a person who buys/leases his OWN property and opens up his OWN pub should not be allowed to put up a large sign stating CLEARLY: “We allow SMOKING.”…It should be left up to the tavern owners themselves. If someone wants to work there, the owner should be upfront with the potential employee from the drop.: “We allow smoking pal, in case you missed the huge sign out front. Do you still want to work here?”

You apparently missed one or more posts on this subject.

It has long been part of social policy and law in this country that business owners do not have the right to operate under conditions that are hazardous to workers, under the justification that since they own the business they can do whatever they want. There are all sorts of government regulations applying to various businesses and industries to limit or eliminate preventable hazards. We do not accept the idea that workers who may be desperate for a job can be taken advantage of by employers whose workplaces are hazardous, even if the worker consents. There is no compelling reason that restaurant and bar owners should get a special exemption in this regard.

[Darth_Hamsandwich]

You had me up until the ‘desperate workers’ are ‘taken advantage of’. If they know the conditions going in, they are not being taken advantage of.

[Silverstreak_Wonder]

Jack, True, and remember it actually helps the dimwits who would allow such smoking in their business too, it is a fire hazard removed and the smell and stench won’t need all the cleaning all the time, and the owner won’t be breathing the second hand smoke—even if he thinks it won’t hurt him.

No different than we take people off ledges that are going to jump to protect them and the people below too, same with smoking bans. Everyone benefits, even the smokers who can’t do it for a while. We have a fire code to similarly protect people that are not smart, don’t we? We also have food preparation rules, we don’t just let an owner “do anything” so why is this hazard different?

[Darth_Hamsandwich]

Silver, I’ll take the chance of getting sick from second-hand smoke and cleaning the smell and stench every night because it’s my pub. If the fire codes are all up to snuff and it increases my clientele… that should be my business. Actually, it is my business.

[kopek]

@Jackmannii

Oooo, it’s that wonderful smokers’ concern for air quality rearing its head again.

I haven’t seen the text of the Michigan law, but similar regulations elsewhere prohibit smoking at or close to building entrances, to prevent smokers from congregating there and forcing others to run a gauntlet of smoke to enter or exit. Enclosed bus shelters are also smoke-free under regulations in effect in some communities. Outdoors where there’s free air flow - not a problem. Puff away.The new Michigan law does not outlaw smoking and I’ve seen no one here calling for such prohibition. Please be rational.

It’s that wonderful “smokers only care about themselves - they mustn’t have any family or friends” sentiment rearing its head again! :rolleyes:

I haven’t read the complete Michigan thing but I’ve read some of the similar ones as well. And our local one seems likely the same. Entryways may be designated as well as enclosed bus shelters (if differs from state to state) but that is at the discretion of the property owner. And the enforcement changed, where such laws exist, from being a police/civil matter to being a violation of the Health Department code and enforcement either their concern or that of building management. Building management, of course, has about as much interest in becoming smoking police as the casinos do - for basically the same reason. Economics. And the Health Department claims staffing/enforcement problems because these newer laws are basically unfunded; the revenues created by the various permits are already mandated to other areas. So just like “bad money drives out the good” bad smoking regulations have driven out the good ones.

Until the bans, Pittsburgh was actually fairly good about public smoking - keeping smoking in public as rare as possible. Todder can probably verify that Pittsburgh’s police had regular crack-downs and ongoing enforcement year round. Now? None. And I have requested intervention by police (hey - if I’m getting your car busted, do you think getting you busted bothers me in the least?) just to be told “it isn’t our concern anymore”.

<<Enclosed bus shelters are also smoke-free under regulations in effect in some communities.>>

Hmmm - smoking in stores and diners was already banned in some buildings and some communities. Does that mean we never needed the state-wide bans? If these state-wide bans really are necessary, why didn’t they include actual public property?
<<Outdoors where there’s free air flow - not a problem. Puff away.>>

Boy, if we ever have a Dopefest! I bring along a triple maduro and see if you really feel that way!
<<The new Michigan law does not outlaw smoking and I’ve seen no one here calling for such prohibition. Please be rational.>>

Reread the thread including the title. And please be both rational and honest.

[kopek]

@Sandwich

So, to sum up, Michigan became the 38th US state to ban smoking in public places.

Actually, no. Michigan did TRY to ban smoking in “public” spaces however the Democrats folded and allowed the usual loopholes concerning certain establishments they prefer and/or frequent. And I don’t object to your summary in general. HOWEVER, since “cigar bars” are the usual exception in all these bans, why not “cigarette bars”? Clearly, even the lowest IQ fans of these silly laws realizes that there just could be some smoke in a cigar bar. I may be giving them more credit than they deserve, but I’m betting they could make the same leap of logic to a cigarette bar.

@gonzomax

I did not forget it. It is just too ignorant to respond to.
You are responding like a kid. I don’t do play that game.

What game do you play?

@Jackmannii

You apparently missed one or more posts on this subject.

It has long been part of social policy and law in this country that business owners do not have the right to operate under conditions that are hazardous to workers, under the justification that since they own the business they can do whatever they want. There are all sorts of government regulations applying to various businesses and industries to limit or eliminate preventable hazards. We do not accept the idea that workers who may be desperate for a job can be taken advantage of by employers whose workplaces are hazardous, even if the worker consents. There is no compelling reason that restaurant and bar owners should get a special exemption in this regard.

If this were true, there wouldn’t be the exceptions in these laws for casinos and other places. In other words, they would actually ban smoking outside the home as other countries do. As the exceptions do exist, I state again that the health of employees is the least concern of these laws.

[Jackmannii]

Leaving aside kopek’s continued irrationalities about “expressing approval of limits on public smoking means they’re trying to BAN ALL SMOKING, OMG!!!”, I’ll just add a :dubious: about this statement:

@kopek

Until the bans, Pittsburgh was actually fairly good about public smoking - keeping smoking in public as rare as possible. Todder can probably verify that Pittsburgh’s police had regular crack-downs and ongoing enforcement year round. Now? None.

Oh - really? On what basis did Pittsburgh police allegedly crack down on public smoking? A city ordinance? And you’re claiming that with “the bans”, the police now don’t enforce the law? Why would that be? I wasn’t aware that police could pick and choose what laws they’ll enforce, or that enforcing a statewide public smoking ban in Pittsburgh would be more onerous than enforcing a local ban.
Of course you have cites to demonstrate the accuracy of your claims. :dubious:

I agree that there should be no exceptions made for casinos. The problem is that states like Michigan get dependent on casinos revenues, even as the proliferation of casinos and the economic downturn cause casino revenue to drop. So lawmakers in MI compromised a small part of their public health initiative due to pressure from an influential lobbying group. I doubt you’ll find any advocacy organizations that promoted the public smoking ban that agree with the casino exemption.
We differ on the significance of dubious exemptions. You are shocked…SHOCKED…to find that politicians can be money-hungry and hypocritical, and apparently see the casino exemption as justification for throwing the entire law out. What I see is valuable legislation to improve public health that can be further improved by dumping the exemption.

[Sandwich]

@Darth_Hamsandwich

Thanks for the sum up. But after reading through this entire thread I still haven’t seen one rational argument discussing why a person who buys/leases his OWN property and opens up his OWN pub should not be allowed to put up a large sign stating CLEARLY: “We allow SMOKING.” If you are a non-smoker who is looking to go out on the town or you are a non-smoker looking for gainful employment, would you go out of your way to patronize the place?

It should be left up to the tavern owners themselves. If someone wants to work there, the owner should be upfront with the potential employee from the drop.: “We allow smoking pal, in case you missed the huge sign out front. Do you still want to work here?”

Nope, you still don’t get it. We don’t need a rational argument (though those could be formulated). It won’t be left up to the tavern owners themselves (even if that seems a bit harsh). It isn’t about workers rights (though those are important). It’s about not blowing smoke over us in public places. That’s what you need to fix if you want to smoke outside your own home. Your call, your problem. Time is running out for you to find a solution that we will accept, otherwise smoking gets banned completely.

[Inner_Stickler]

@Darth_Hamsandwich

Thanks for the constipation update, but you didn’t answer my question.

Re your question, do you hear that? It’s the sound of Michigan not particularly caring.

[kopek]

@Jackmannii

Leaving aside kopek’s continued irrationalities about “expressing approval of limits on public smoking means they’re trying to BAN ALL SMOKING, OMG!!!”, I’ll just add a :dubious: about this statement:Oh - really? On what basis did Pittsburgh police allegedly crack down on public smoking? A city ordinance? And you’re claiming that with “the bans”, the police now don’t enforce the law? Why would that be? I wasn’t aware that police could pick and choose what laws they’ll enforce, or that enforcing a statewide public smoking ban in Pittsburgh would be more onerous than enforcing a local ban.
Of course you have cites to demonstrate the accuracy of your claims. :dubious:

I’m still waiting for the cites that eating out isn’t addictive.

The basis was probably either local ordinance or related to the port authority charter. Not being a violator I can’t say for sure what the exact basis was. However I did get to see tickets passed out and I always enjoyed it. I would assume that the “pick and choose” falls under the same basis as Allegheny Counties stricter ban on smoking and it being dropped.
<<Leaving aside kopek’s continued irrationalities about “expressing approval of limits on public smoking means they’re trying to BAN ALL SMOKING, OMG!!!”,>>

I just love these great debates!
<<I agree that there should be no exceptions made for casinos. The problem is that states like Michigan get dependent on casinos revenues, even as the proliferation of casinos and the economic downturn cause casino revenue to drop. So lawmakers in MI compromised a small part of their public health initiative due to pressure from an influential lobbying group. I doubt you’ll find any advocacy organizations that promoted the public smoking ban that agree with the casino exemption.
We differ on the significance of dubious exemptions. You are shocked…SHOCKED…to find that politicians can be money-hungry and hypocritical, and apparently see the casino exemption as justification for throwing the entire law out. What I see is valuable legislation to improve public health that can be further improved by dumping the exemption.>>

What I see is another poorly constructed law that can best be improved by dropping ALL exceptions. Or going back and looking at the entire issue; something I recommend states do with all laws on a regular basis.
Go back to the original post
“The Senate (controlled by Republicans) passed a bill that had no exemptions. Neither side was willing to compromise, so the bill died This time, the Republicans agreed to give the casinoes their stupid exemption, and the governor is going to sign the bill so it’s pretty much all set and done.”
Now this really shocks me. The Republicans, the party of the evil rich and Big Tobacco pushes for what approached an outright ban. And the Democrats, party of the poor and working class kills it. Huh?

Unless there is something to this other than health and concerns over the poor workers.

[kopek]

@Sandwich

Nope, you still don’t get it. We don’t need a rational argument (though those could be formulated). It won’t be left up to the tavern owners themselves (even if that seems a bit harsh). It isn’t about workers rights (though those are important). It’s about not blowing smoke over us in public places. That’s what you need to fix if you want to smoke outside your own home. Your call, your problem. Time is running out for you to find a solution that we will accept, otherwise smoking gets banned completely.

Jackmanii ----- you want to handle this one or should I?

Actually I agree with Sandwich, in a manner of speaking ------- ban it completely or let smokers deal with it. Cigarette bars and clubs; the perfect fix!

[Jackmannii]

@kopek

Unless there is something to this other than health and concerns over the poor workers.

Do you also believe that Congress’s attempts to pass a health care bill have nothing to do with improving health care access for Americans, with your “proof” being that there’s political wrangling and deal-making going on, same as with any other major legislation?

The pro-smoking advocates’ arguments are weak enough without adding in ludicrous paranoid speculations.

There are zero prospects for a complete ban on smoking outside the home - but the best way for smokers to avoid giving extremists some traction on this idea is to 1) stop being in denial about the dangers of secondhand smoke and the reasoning behind laws to limit this hazardous exposure, and 2) accept laws against smoking in enclosed public spaces, without trying to evade them or overturn them through doomed-to-fail court challenges.