Michigan workplaces -- including bars and restaurants -- will go smokefree in May

[TitsMcGee]

Michigan will go smokefree next May once Gov. Jennifer Granholm signs a workplace smoking ban, including bars and restaurants, that health advocates have sought for years.

The key vote was this afternoon in the Senate which approved, 24-13, a version approved in the House back in may that carves out exemptions to the ban for cigar bars, tobacco specialty shops and the gaming floors of Detroit's three commercial casinos. About an hour later, House provided the final vote, 75-30, that sends the bill to Granholm's desk.

Rep. Joan Bauer, D-Lansing, said it was "historic day when we have the opportunity to protect 99 percent of Michigan workers from the damaging and sometimes lethal effects of secondhand smoke."

"Nothing good comes easy," said Rep. Lee Gonzales, D-Flint, lead sponsor of a measure that has been approved by both chambers in the past but never before in a singular form that could be presented to Granholm and become actual law.

Senate Majority Leader Michael Bishop, R-Rochester, called the smoking ban a "blatant" intrusion of big government regulation into the market place at a time when the state should be trying to create jobs, not lose them as the bar and restaurant industry claims will happen.

But Sen. Mike Nofs, R-Battle Creek, said while he philosophically opposed ordering businesses to ban smoking, it was clear from going door-to-door in his successful special election bid this fall that the public was behind the ban. After jobs, he said, it was the second most pressing issue to voters he talked to.

The two physicians in the chamber had differing views on the compromise. Sen. Roger Kahn, R-Saginaw Twp., said if the bill is truly a public health effort, it should protect all workers and patrons including those in the Detroit casinos. Sen. Tom George, R-Kalamazoo, said, however, "I want to see this process come to fruition and this (compromise) has the best chance of going all the way."

Sen. Ron Jelinek, R-Three Oaks, called the Senate-passed measure a "delicate compromise" that delivers what "70 percent of what our constituents in this state are asking us, to make this a smokefree state."

Bar and restaurant lobbyists insisted the measure would cost thousands of jobs as smokers would choose to frequent the Michigan establishments less often. They said the decision to go smoke free should be left to business owners. They say that 6,000 bars and restaurants have already done so.

Health care advocates who have pushed for a workplace smoking ban for years commissioned a study last year that found that smoking restrictions in other states had boosted customer traffic as non-smokers shun establishments that permit smoking.

They argue that exposing bartenders, wait staff and other restaurant employees who have few other employment options in this economy shouldn't be subject to second-hand smoke in order to keep their jobs.

The smoking ban has followed a tortured path. Various versions of it were approved in the last legislative session, but the two chambers could never agree on a single approach. Detroit casino lobbyists have played a big role in gumming up the works.

Casinos once argued that banning smoking would put them at a competitive advantage with the casino in Windsor. When Ontario banned workplace smoking, they then argued that gamblers would flock to tribal casinos, where smoking will still be allowed. Carving out an exemption removed that obstacle to passage.

I find it interesting how only the casinos in Detroit are exempt from the bad. Apparently the casinos up north don't matter much. I also think that it should be left up the to owner of the establishments if they want to go smoke free or not.

[Rev.Reverence]

WAAHT!~JLHBL:CIHYDN$E{P(*

*falls down*

[Msterbeau]

I also think that it should be left up the to owner of the establishments if they want to go smoke free or not.

One issue I hadn't thought of before is the health of bar and restaurant employees. They have almost zero choice, particularly in an economy like ours, to move to a place that doesn't permit smoking.

I have a question for those who smoke. Bearing in mind that for all of us here, the harmful effects of smoking have been undisputed for our entire lifetimes - Why did you start smoking?

[taysteewonderbunny]

Answer: it stopped me from eating and fit with my oral fixation, k? Plus, as someone with chronic depression/anxiety issues, it worked as a mood stabilizer. And, once upon a time, I thought it looked cool. Also, at key points of my sexual development, the cigarette smoke smell was permanently linked in my memory positively, so I sometimes find the odor arousing. Lastly, after you've been doing it a while, it tastes good. I've also quit this past summer excepting moments of weakness at City and at camp-outs where I am waaaaaaaay drunk. And that's my honest answer.

[Mrs.Heart]

I started smoking because that's what I grew up around.

I disagree with the baning of smoking in bars because 80-90 persent of people that go to/hang out in bars are smokers. Restaurants are more of a family enviroment, so that is understandable.

[Msterbeau]

I started smoking because that's what I grew up around.

I disagree with the baning of smoking in bars because 80-90 persent of people that go to/hang out in bars are smokers. Restaurants are more of a family enviroment, so that is understandable.

I'm going to disagree with the 80-90% number. I'd be surprised if it was over 50% these days. Also.. Who cares if it's children or adults? It does the same thing to your lungs.

I would be fine with clubs having a smoking area partitioned from the main bar and dancing, but I hate the smoke and I really don't like coming home smelling of smoke, and most of all, I hate that my freedom to not smoke is essentially over ridden at clubs by those who choose to. That's fair? I don't think so.

[Mrs.Heart]

I'm going to disagree with the 80-90% number. I'd be surprised if it was over 50% these days. Also.. Who cares if it's children or adults? It does the same thing to your lungs.

I would be fine with clubs having a smoking area partitioned from the main bar and dancing, but I hate the smoke and I really don't like coming home smelling of smoke, and most of all, I hate that my freedom to not smoke is essentially over ridden at clubs by those who choose to. That's fair? I don't think so.

I allso would be fine with said smoking area but the reason I said the 80-90% is because of having worked in bars & clubs for so long, most of the costumers that I have seen come into bars are smokers.

[Shade Everdark]

I started mostly because I'm extremely nervous (you couldn't tell, could you) and needed something to do with my hands when I was out. And it made a convenient excuse to get up and walk around a bit, while at my very sedentary job.

I should probably feel angry or a sense of injustice at this smoking ban, but I can only feel almost entirely ambivalent about it now.

[taysteewonderbunny]

I allso would be fine with said smoking area but the reason I said the 80-90% is because of having worked in bars & clubs for so long, most of the costumers that I have seen come into bars are smokers.

Which would suggest, if fewer than 50% of people are smokers, that as many as 40% of people may be scared out of bars by cigarette smoke or other factors. Or it might just be that smokers are more likely to go bars. I don't know.

I am not fond of the ban. I suppose that local governments will make oodles in tickets on those in non-compliance, but overall, I think that will have a negative impact on businesses. However, I think that the feasibility of maintaining truly segregated smoking and non-smoking areas makes non-smoking zones more of a joke than a reality. I've been to only one or two places of business that supplied smoking closets or rooms or other closed off ventilated areas, but it seems I was the only smoker content to use such a provision. Because of the real health risks involved to asthmatics and other persons with compromised lungs, I can understand, where the two sides seem to be at an impasse, how legislation would favor the non-smokers. I just hope that a reasonable compromise is in our future.

[Simon Bar Sinister]

a couple of thoughts:

frpm what i've read, everywhere in America that smoking bans have been enacted (and also in Ireland and France), the pattern has been the same: bars and restaurants suffer a hit in business for 2 to 3 months. after that, for every 3 customers that they lose, said establishments pick up 4 new ones.

on a purely selfish level :

Edited December 10, 2009 by SpammerOvTheGods

[jynxxxedangel]

The "law" can kiss my ass.

[candyman]

One issue I hadn't thought of before is the health of bar and restaurant employees. They have almost zero choice, particularly in an economy like ours, to move to a place that doesn't permit smoking.

I have a question for those who smoke. Bearing in mind that for all of us here, the harmful effects of smoking have been undisputed for our entire lifetimes - Why did you start smoking?

Picking and choosing is a luxury some people can't afford. If you go to work someplace you should know the risks of the job and everything that goes with it. Some of these bar workers whining about this are about as smart as those people that sign up for military service but are against fighting...its kinda part of it.

I started smoking because it was a social aspect of my life...and I liked it from the start. I have met some of my best friends out on smoking decks.

Yeah, smoking decks, we already had them because we do not demand that we are able to smoke inside...but if we can then why the hell not? And yes in alot of BARS close to 70%-80% of the people are smokers OR they are people that do not care about the cigarette smoke. Now there are places that are different than that but in the vast majority of towns, in Wisconsin where I live, that is how the bars are. You can argue with that but I invite you to come over here and see...you can also see how most of the owners and workers also smoke and all of the Anti-ban signs they have posted. Also, many of the regulars at these bars are smokers just off of work or in from a hunt...then some ladies come in for their one night out for the week or month and want it smoke-free? My ass!

Is a choice. Plain and simple. If there was really such a demand by all of these workers and patrons then the market would have switched for them instead of some stupid legal mess. See, it is all about the money and from what it sounds like there is a HUGE market for non-smoking bars which would mean that any smart small-business owner would switch if he/she knew what was good for business. But alas, it seems that small-business owners are getting the shaft once again.

If people would just ask me to move or would say that my smoke bothers them then I would gladly try to remedy the situation but NOBODY does that. I don't smoke while I eat...but I DO smoke while I drink for it is not a health club. Do non-smokers want a choice? Yes, and they can have it. But what about the smokers? You could be a smart-ass and say "your choice is to go somewhere else" but we all know that is a bunch of bullshit...now smokers are in the same boat as non-smokers were before. Kill the choices for, no you don't know the numbers for smokers, just to give others a choice.

Long winded rant? Yes, but I am part of the Tavern League of Wisconsin ,being a former bartender, and we are pissed. And as a regular for about 4 different bars I can honestly say that the majority of us don't want it...let us choose. Oh but they are also going to have to figure out how to enforce this...not many people are going to listen at the bars...

[candyman]

a couple of thoughts:

frpm what i've read, everywhere in America that smoking bans have been enacted (and also in Ireland and France), the pattern has been the same: bars and restaurants suffer a hit in business for 2 to 3 months. after that, for every 3 customers that they lose, said establishments pick up 4 new ones.

on a purely selfish level :

Ireland has a rapidly growing movement to repel the ban...and my friend went to France and was able to smoke in some of the bars.

Also, how many bars just up and close? Madison, WI and the surrounding area lost over 77 bars...thats just the bars. Now, they do show a "gain" but included in the list of establishments that "gained" were fast-food places, movie theaters, and all the remaining establishment without any mention to the ones that were closed. And no they were not all shitty bars...one of them was very large and was the favorite hangout for after Badger games. But the bars in Madison are actually nice now...I never have to wait for a seat even on the once crowded State St.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I think they need to prove that second hand smoke is as harmful as they claim before pass laws banning it from any place.

[Rev.Reverence]

I think they need to prove that second hand smoke is as harmful as they claim before pass laws banning it from any place.

YEaSS!

[candyman]

I think they need to prove that second hand smoke is as harmful as they claim before pass laws banning it from any place.

Yep...but first they need to shut down all the vent systems indoors, have the EPA "retest" SHS, and use the words "help" and "care" more than they do now.

[phee]

[TitsMcGee]

One issue I hadn't thought of before is the health of bar and restaurant employees. They have almost zero choice, particularly in an economy like ours, to move to a place that doesn't permit smoking.

I have a question for those who smoke. Bearing in mind that for all of us here, the harmful effects of smoking have been undisputed for our entire lifetimes - Why did you start smoking?

Around my neck of the woods, the majority of the people who who work in bars are smokers themselves. I started smoking because it helped me not eat when I was bulimic. And just to put out there, I'm the youngest of 4 children, who were raised by two smokers. I'm the only one who picked up the habit. And none of my siblings have any issues from second hand smoke. So I agree that things need to be proven before legislation is enacted.

[Slogo]

"We should have 10 laws in this country. A maximum of 10 laws, that's all we should be allowed to have and you vote on a 900 number. So you can be a fat son-of-a-bitch and still be a productive member of society. Then you'd have all the laws everyone agrees on; like rape and murder and burglary and assault. And then you can half a dozen of the little bullshit mix-and-match laws; don't sell drugs and put an a seatbelt and don't masteurbate on the bus and put on a helmet. And then when you wanna add a new one you kick the least popular back to the people. "o.k. I can't smoke in bars anymore but I can jack-off on the bus again". That way only a certain fraction of people are getting screwed at any given time, on a rotating basis."

Doug Stanhope

[TitsMcGee]

Apparently this covers private clubs too, so places like the VFW bars will have to follow the smoking ban too.

[candyman]

Do the people at VFW bars even know that there are non-smokers?!?!

[Slogo]

Do the people at VFW bars even know that there are non-smokers?!?!

doubtful

[GothicRavenGoddess (3)]

I hate that this is happening...

but at least they are doing it in May, when its starting to warm up a little bit, so us smokers aren't stuck freezing to death, trying to keep the other patrons from getting cancer...

Edited December 11, 2009 by GothicRavenGoddess

[TitsMcGee]

I hate that this is happening...

but at least they are doing it in May, when its starting to warm up a little bit, so us smokers aren't stuck freezing to death, trying to keep the other patrons from getting cancer...

But getting sorosis of the liver is perfectly okay lol.

[GothicRavenGoddess (3)]

But getting sorosis of the liver is perfectly okay lol.

yeah, no kidding....

heh.... do it like the hospitals have in the south (I say the south, cuz I've never really spent time at a MI hospital) They have a little building, outside the hospital, off to the side of the entrances, that have fans in them that obliterate the smoke before it sucks it outside..