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

[Der Nister]

Alcohol is way more dangerous to those that do not drink than smoking could ever be.

My step brother was killed by a drunk driver (he was 21) and all it took was one night. My step brother was not given the chance to live his life.

I offer this challenge to all the non smokers, find a case where a non smoker died from second hand smoke on the same night. I have already seen the effects of someone dying the same night that someone else over drank.

Why not a drinking ban as well? If the criteria is that second hand smoke kills/infringes on the rights of others. Drinking too, kills/infringes on the rights of others.

Am I wrong?

[phee]

Alcohol is way more dangerous to those that do not drink than smoking could ever be.

My step brother was killed by a drunk driver (he was 21) and all it took was one night. My step brother was not given the chance to live his life.

I offer this challenge to all the non smokers, find a case where a non smoker died from second hand smoke on the same night. I have already seen the effects of someone dying the same night that someone else over drank.

Why not a drinking ban as well? If the criteria is that second hand smoke kills/infringes on the rights of others. Drinking too, kills/infringes on the rights of others.

Am I wrong?

I think as far as I am concerned I am not talking specifically about the "dangers"

I am talking about basic human rights to choose... For example, I am not a smoker, and if I am standing somewhere not smoking... who is being forced to not smoke with me? Who is being annoyed by me not smoking? NO ONE!

However, danger or not. A smoker lighting up around me is FORCING me to smell and take in his smoke, it is no longer just his personal choice and only effecting him, he is taking away my rights to not smoke. By me not smoking I am in no way taking his rights to smoke away.

I have nothing against smokers... they should be able to smoke till they get black lung, it's the choice they make. But don't take away my choice to not smoke please.

That being said, I think business should be able to choose whether or not they are smoking establishment. That way.... if a non smoker such as myself goes in, they can't bitch about the smokers there, because they will know what they are getting into. I go to CC now.... it allows smoking now, I don't complain when people light up.... but I will also tell you that I will go more often if I don't come home with City Lung.

[torn asunder]

the more i think about this, the more i think people are missing the point. (i know i did originally) this law is meant to protect the waitstaff/bartenders who are trying to earn a living. smoking creats a hostile, unhealthy work environment. many, many workplaces are smoke-free, i don't see anyone bitching about not being able to smoke at work!? these service workers are forced to breathe in that smoke, or quit/lose their job, there are no other options for them. are the smokerrs saying that their right to smoke is greater than their right to earn a living in a healthy work environment?

[phee]

the more i think about this, the more i think people are missing the point. (i know i did originally) this law is meant to protect the waitstaff/bartenders who are trying to earn a living. smoking creats a hostile, unhealthy work environment. many, many workplaces are smoke-free, i don't see anyone bitching about not being able to smoke at work!? these service workers are forced to breathe in that smoke, or quit/lose their job, there are no other options for them. are the smokerrs saying that their right to smoke is greater than their right to earn a living in a healthy work environment?

+1

[freydis]

Oh no....

Argument over http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Damn, beat me to it.

Godwins Law! Godwins Law!

[TheOsakaKoneko]

Alcohol is way more dangerous to those that do not drink than smoking could ever be.

My step brother was killed by a drunk driver (he was 21) and all it took was one night. My step brother was not given the chance to live his life.

I offer this challenge to all the non smokers, find a case where a non smoker died from second hand smoke on the same night. I have already seen the effects of someone dying the same night that someone else over drank.

Why not a drinking ban as well? If the criteria is that second hand smoke kills/infringes on the rights of others. Drinking too, kills/infringes on the rights of others.

Am I wrong?

In my opinion, yes. Drunk driving IS illegal, and is NOT a direct consequence of drinking. There are those of us who do drink who have never driven drunk and find the idea of drunk driving repulsive. You're complaining about someone who chooses to drink and then make hideously bad decisions, not just someone who drinks...this is more like if there was a smoker who chose to take his cigarettes and rather then butting them out on the floor, put each and every one out in the eye of a nearby person, causing them to go blind.

[Simon Bar Sinister]

I won't pretend to have read the final version that the Governor signed. is there any provision for a "private club" designation/exemption in it?

[Der Nister]

the more i think about this, the more i think people are missing the point. (i know i did originally) this law is meant to protect the waitstaff/bartenders who are trying to earn a living. smoking creats a hostile, unhealthy work environment. many, many workplaces are smoke-free, i don't see anyone bitching about not being able to smoke at work!? these service workers are forced to breathe in that smoke, or quit/lose their job, there are no other options for them. are the smokerrs saying that their right to smoke is greater than their right to earn a living in a healthy work environment?

Alcoholics also can and have caused unhealthy/unsafe work enviroments. Not only for staff but for patrons.

If you want I can google the number of cases where a drunk has harmed staff and innocent patrons at bars/resturants/clubs/concerts.

Does that not infringe on other peoples rights?

Or is it a case of, those that drink, but do not smoke, are fine with a smoking ban but not an alcohol ban?

I, think that rights are rights. My right to not be killed by a drunk driver is fringed upon all the time. Meaning, I have the right to be safe from people that drink too much/often. Is that not important?

It's a fair question.

Also, no one has/can produce any cases/evidence that people that work in these places have died from second hand smoke.

All I am seeing hear is anti smokers talking about peoples 'rights' but it is one sided. And I think the reason it is one sided is because those that enjoy drinking do not want their 'right' to drink alcohol taken away.

Seems very unfair imo.

[Der Nister]

The Toll of Underage Drinking

Drunk driving, alcohol dependence, risky sexual behavior and health consequences.

Drunk Driving:

� Three teens are killed each day when they drink alcohol and drive.1 At least six more die every day from other alcohol-related causes.2

� According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 6,002 young people ages 16-20 died in motor vehicle crashes in 2003. Alcohol was involved in 38% of these deaths.3

� In 2003, 3,571 young drivers ages 16-20 died in motor vehicle crashes. Of these, 1,131 - approximately 32% - had been drinking, and 26% were legally drunk at the time of the crash.4

� A survey of college students in 2001 revealed that, for students under age 21, 26% drove after drinking alcohol, more than 10% drove after consuming more than five drinks, and almost a quarter rode with a high or drunk driver at least once in the 30 days before the survey.5

� In the year 2000, only 7% of licensed drivers were ages 15 to 20. However, in that same year, they represented approximately 13% of drivers who had been drinking and were involved in fatal crashes.6

Alcohol Dependence:

� Americans who began drinking before the age of 15 are four times more likely to develop alcohol dependence than those who wait until the age of 21.7

� In November 2004, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) concluded that alcohol abuse and dependence are "developmental disorders."8

� An analysis published in the November 15, 2004 issue of Biological Psychiatry stated that the onset of alcohol dependence peaks by 18 years of age.9

Risky Sexual Behavior:

� It is estimated that teenage girls who binge drink are up to 63% more likely to become teen mothers.10

� In a poll of more than 11,700 college students from 128 colleges in the United States, researchers found that, compared to those who waited to drink until they were 19 or older, college students who got drunk for the first time before age 13 were twice as likely to say they had had unplanned sex because of drinking. They were more than twice as likely to say they had had unprotected sex because of drinking.11

� In a study conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation, 23% (5.6 million) of sexually active teens and young adults ages 15-24 in the United States reported having had unprotected sex because they were drinking or using drugs at the time. Twenty-four percent of teens ages 15-17 said that their alcohol and drug use led them to do more sexually than they had planned.12

Health Consequences:

� The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 4,554 underage deaths each year are due to excessive alcohol use.13

� Alcohol use plays a substantial role in all three leading causes of death among youth - unintentional injuries (including motor vehicle fatalities and drownings), suicides and homicides.14

� Those who begin drinking before the age of 14 are five times more likely than those who begin drinking after the age of 21 to be injured while under the influence of alcohol at some point during their lives.15

� Among young people, binge drinkers and heavy drinkers are more than twice as likely as non-drinkers to report having attempted to injure themselves or having contemplated or attempted to commit suicide.16,17

� Research has also shown another specific link between heavy alcohol use and youth suicides. States that passed "zero tolerance" laws to reduce youth drinking-driving also experienced statistically significant reductions in suicide deaths among 15- to 20-year-olds, compared to states that did not pass such laws.18

� There is growing evidence to suggest that alcohol use prior to age 21 impairs crucial aspects of youthful brain development. In one recent study, heavy-drinking adolescents who had been sober for three weeks still scored 10 percent lower than non-drinking peers on tests requiring verbal and nonverbal recall and skills needed for map reading, geometry, and science.19

Social Consequences:

� The costs of youth drinking are an estimated $53 billion annually, and include costs to society such as medical care costs and lost productivity, as well as costs to the young drinker such as pain and suffering and loss of income.20

� A study that followed over 6,500 individuals found that, by the age of 23, those who were drinkers by seventh grade were:

- more likely than non-drinkers to have "missed work for no good reason,"

- more likely to be substance-users,

- more likely to engage in criminal and violent behavior, and

- between 1.7 and 2.3 times more likely to be weekly or binge drinkers, exhibit signs of alcohol dependence, and experience multiple alcohol problems.21

Updated July 2005

But you anti smokers are right, smoking is far more of a danger to others than alcohol. I'm sure all the children killed by alcohol every day is far less than the children killed by smoking/second hand smoke.

[Tacohitts]

I like walking drunk,good luck cracking down on that,they cannot impound your shoes,I have yet to see them arrest 45 people in one night for walking trashed on a sidewalk esp when they are just going home and not causing any issues

[torn asunder]

Alcoholics also can and have caused unhealthy/unsafe work enviroments. Not only for staff but for patrons.

If you want I can google the number of cases where a drunk has harmed staff and innocent patrons at bars/resturants/clubs/concerts.

Does that not infringe on other peoples rights?

Or is it a case of, those that drink, but do not smoke, are fine with a smoking ban but not an alcohol ban?

I, think that rights are rights. My right to not be killed by a drunk driver is fringed upon all the time. Meaning, I have the right to be safe from people that drink too much/often. Is that not important?

It's a fair question.

Also, no one has/can produce any cases/evidence that people that work in these places have died from second hand smoke.

All I am seeing hear is anti smokers talking about peoples 'rights' but it is one sided. And I think the reason it is one sided is because those that enjoy drinking do not want their 'right' to drink alcohol taken away.

Seems very unfair imo.

what you seem to be confusing is this - alcohol does not harm the staff. people who drink do, in your scenario, and only if they've had too much and are belligerent/angry/violent. now, if i were to, say, burn 5-10 cigarettes for every person who came into the bar, but none of them directly or actively smoked, the smoke would still harm others. you're debating two different things.

also, you do have the right to not be killed by a drunk driver, that's why there are *laws* against it, just like this law.

Edited December 13, 2009 by torn asunder

[Tacohitts]

Wait till they ban your right to free speech 100% you won't be able to complain about anything without getting arrested,LOL! It will happen, this is not a country it's a corporation,gotta enjoy sarcasm,btw welding fumes,farts,and factory smoke are safer to inhale

[Der Nister]

what you seem to be confusing is this - alcohol does not harm the staff. people who drink do, in your scenario, and only if they've had too much and are belligerent/angry/violent. now, if i were to, say, burn 5-10 cigarettes for every person who came into the bar, but none of them directly or actively smoked, the smoke would still harm others. you're debating two different things.

also, you do have the right to not be killed by a drunk driver, that's why there are *laws* against it, just like this law.

In my scenario? In real life, bar staff member is killed by drunk driver on the way home from work. So obviously the laws that are in place already are doing no good.

What's the next step? Let's ban alcohol. You'd be just as ok with that right?

Wait till they ban your right to free speech 100% you won't be able to complain about anything without getting arrested,LOL! It will happen, this is not a country it's a corporation,gotta enjoy sarcasm,btw welding fumes,farts,and factory smoke are safer to inhale

It's unfortunate that most people fail to see where bans like the one on smoking are going. But that is because they are ok with banning things they don't like. when law makers start attacking things they like, they will be the one's whinning loudest.

[TitsMcGee]

I won't pretend to have read the final version that the Governor signed. is there any provision for a "private club" designation/exemption in it?

Private clubs will have to follow the smoking ban too.

[torn asunder]

In my scenario? In real life, bar staff member is killed by drunk driver on the way home from work. So obviously the laws that are in place already are doing no good.

What's the next step? Let's ban alcohol. You'd be just as ok with that right?

actually, banning alcohol would not be the next step in your scenario. you want the ban on smoking to be revoked, so what that implies is that, since the drunk driving laws aren't working, let's revoke them. does that make any sense? i don't think so.

and personally, i don't care what's banned. if one thing is banned, people will find another. i think regulation for the safety of the general public is fine. they haven't banned smoking, just regulated where it can be done, for the health & safety of the general population. that's my opinion.

[TheGimp]

all i can say is city club is fucked...how many people do you see smoke in there....there not ganna let people in and out to have a smoke in the lot to much loitering and underage drinking and all someone has to do at that point (if they get rid of the 4$ re-entry fee is bring the black marker with them and write the word on there friends hand and say no we were here and paid so people would start gettin in for free..no one is ganna wanna go to a club and not be able to smoke

[AstralCrux]

I think as far as I am concerned I am not talking specifically about the "dangers"

I am talking about basic human rights to choose... For example, I am not a smoker, and if I am standing somewhere not smoking... who is being forced to not smoke with me? Who is being annoyed by me not smoking? NO ONE!

However, danger or not. A smoker lighting up around me is FORCING me to smell and take in his smoke, it is no longer just his personal choice and only effecting him, he is taking away my rights to not smoke. By me not smoking I am in no way taking his rights to smoke away.

But in your scenario, you chose to enter an establishment that permits smoking. Pre-antismoking law, most restaurants and public places had already gone non-smoking. You can choose to support those establishments or you can choose to enter an establishment that allows smoking. If you have entered an establishment that allows smoking- you have not been forced to endure cigarette smoke. I make a personal choice on a regular basis to support establishments that allow smoking. I have, specifically, gone out of my way to support smoking, because I saw this coming. So, I did what I could to support my freedom to choose the establishments I frequent because they allow smoking.

the more i think about this, the more i think people are missing the point. (i know i did originally) this law is meant to protect the waitstaff/bartenders who are trying to earn a living. smoking creats a hostile, unhealthy work environment. many, many workplaces are smoke-free, i don't see anyone bitching about not being able to smoke at work!? these service workers are forced to breathe in that smoke, or quit/lose their job, there are no other options for them. are the smokerrs saying that their right to smoke is greater than their right to earn a living in a healthy work environment?

Well, if that's the case. I'll do my best to put them out of a job, because I'm going to stop going out as of May. I realize they're more stuck in this economy to end up in a crappy low-paying job, but that should be an incentive to go to school or take some adult-ed classes to get into something better. If I wasn't happy with my job, I'd be working my way into something better, but I happen to like what I do. And, I work in an environment that allows smoking. (in our lounge) I could care less that I'm exposed to it. But, I also know that damn near everything causes cancer. My grandma died of throat cancer in her 90s and she only smoked for a few years in her early 20s. If I'm gonna get cancer, I'll get it, but I truly doubt I'll ever suffer that much from smoking.

[Rev.Reverence]

the more i think about this, the more i think people are missing the point. (i know i did originally) this law is meant to protect the waitstaff/bartenders who are trying to earn a living. smoking creats a hostile, unhealthy work environment. many, many workplaces are smoke-free, i don't see anyone bitching about not being able to smoke at work!? these service workers are forced to breathe in that smoke, or quit/lose their job, there are no other options for them. are the smokerrs saying that their right to smoke is greater than their right to earn a living in a healthy work environment?

I'm pretty sure that you skipped where I tried to bring that up. That's oK...peoples do that to I all the time.

all i can say is city club is fucked...how many people do you see smoke in there....there not ganna let people in and out to have a smoke in the lot to much loitering and underage drinking and all someone has to do at that point (if they get rid of the 4$ re-entry fee is bring the black marker with them and write the word on there friends hand and say no we were here and paid so people would start gettin in for free..no one is ganna wanna go to a club and not be able to smoke

..they will take a huge hit, & may go under...

But in your scenario, you chose to enter an establishment that permits smoking. Pre-antismoking law, most restaurants and public places had already gone non-smoking. You can choose to support those establishments or you can choose to enter an establishment that allows smoking. If you have entered an establishment that allows smoking- you have not been forced to endure cigarette smoke. I make a personal choice on a regular basis to support establishments that allow smoking. I have, specifically, gone out of my way to support smoking, because I saw this coming. So, I did what I could to support my freedom to choose the establishments I frequent because they allow smoking.

YEAH WHAT SHE SAID...!...not that many non-smokers want to agree with this, though, it is TO-FUCKING-TRUE!

Edited December 14, 2009 by Rev.Reverence

[Rev.Reverence]

..yeah, it is a great sentiment that they do this in...but, really, who smokes that can go an 8 hour shift without a puff...what club or bar can afford the renovations for patios...they are REALLY trying to drive MORE peoples out of work...so they can haz a larger, more proletariat populous...that is why there is all of this...THEY, want to own us...hungry for power, they will tell us what to do...if they don't see that we conform...they will spank us...it did not work for the church, it will not work for THEM.

YUP...here ya' go Torn...I was bitchin' for my bartenders (that all but 1 smoke at my bar, & she's the owner, & just quit last year.)

[phee]

But in your scenario, you chose to enter an establishment that permits smoking. Pre-antismoking law, most restaurants and public places had already gone non-smoking. You can choose to support those establishments or you can choose to enter an establishment that allows smoking. If you have entered an establishment that allows smoking- you have not been forced to endure cigarette smoke. I make a personal choice on a regular basis to support establishments that allow smoking. I have, specifically, gone out of my way to support smoking, because I saw this coming. So, I did what I could to support my freedom to choose the establishments I frequent because they allow smoking.

Indeed you do what you feel you have to

[n0Mad]

I realize they're more stuck in this economy to end up in a crappy low-paying job, but that should be an incentive to go to school or take some adult-ed classes to get into something better.

Let's see ... I have a high school diploma, a vocational degree, an associates degree, a bachelors degree, and I'm nine weeks away from completing a masters degree. Guess what? I'm stuck in a crappy low-paying job. I'm trying to get into something better but right now 1 out of every 3 people are unemployed or underemployed and competition for anything good is fierce. So until things start to turn around people are stuck where they are and just happy to have a job in the first place.

[Rayne]

But in your scenario, you chose to enter an establishment that permits smoking. Pre-antismoking law, most restaurants and public places had already gone non-smoking. You can choose to support those establishments or you can choose to enter an establishment that allows smoking. If you have entered an establishment that allows smoking- you have not been forced to endure cigarette smoke. I make a personal choice on a regular basis to support establishments that allow smoking. I have, specifically, gone out of my way to support smoking, because I saw this coming. So, I did what I could to support my freedom to choose the establishments I frequent because they allow smoking.

You would be surprised, as a non-smoker, how many public places I encounter that have "no smoking" (and not just here in Michigan, I travel a lot) policies where people do it anyway and either try to hide it, or until they are caught and told not to.

[Rev.Reverence]

You would be surprised, as a non-smoker, how many public places I encounter that have "no smoking" (and not just here in Michigan, I travel a lot) policies where people do it anyway and either try to hide it, or until they are caught and told not to.

That example is off the subject, as it is clearly ass holes that are blatantly ignoring or defying a posted rule.

..I think I understood this correctly....THIS LAW...will specifically not let me open a private smokers club.

..it takes away the OPTION for me to GATHER in PUBLIC, to pursue a HOBBY.

Do you even SEE the point I am making, that I was not bitching about the Club, nor the supermarket, not even about the party store (yeah, you can still smoke in my party store)...I was bitching about the RIGHT for us to gather SOMEWHERE.....it also takes away the right or privilege (whatever it WAS I fergot) for an employer to give a room WAY DOWN THE HALL, as a smokers break room...it takes away the right for a bar owner to give a bartender that WANTS a cig to take a break in between customers...

THAT, is the fascist aspect of this law.

It's some old dumb bull shit.

[torn asunder]

That example is off the subject, as it is clearly ass holes that are blatantly ignoring or defying a posted rule.

..I think I understood this correctly....THIS LAW...will specifically not let me open a private smokers club.

..it takes away the OPTION for me to GATHER in PUBLIC, to pursue a HOBBY.

Do you even SEE the point I am making, that I was not bitching about the Club, nor the supermarket, not even about the party store (yeah, you can still smoke in my party store)...I was bitching about the RIGHT for us to gather SOMEWHERE.....it also takes away the right or privilege (whatever it WAS I fergot) for an employer to give a room WAY DOWN THE HALL, as a smokers break room...it takes away the right for a bar owner to give a bartender that WANTS a cig to take a break in between customers...

THAT, is the fascist aspect of this law.

It's some old dumb bull shit.

take it easy man, we're just having a conversation. i'm sure at least some people see what you're saying. as for me, i never said "everyone missed it", i said "a lot of people". don't take things so personally...

[Rev.Reverence]

take it easy man, we're just having a conversation. i'm sure at least some people see what you're saying. as for me, i never said "everyone missed it", i said "a lot of people". don't take things so personally...

That's how I am.