Ban on Smoking in Public fizzles out in Mi

[Royal Oak Rog]

Source: Detroit Free Press

“It is a serious disappointment, it’s another signal that Michigan doesn’t quite get it, is not quite ready to step into the 21st Century,” said Rep. Andy Meisner, D-Ferndale, a leading proponent for a smoking ban who acknowledged the issue was dead for this year.


“It sends an unfortunate message to the citizens of Michigan that we don’t care about their health, and that there are interests in Lansing that have greater influence than they do.”

http://www.freep.com/article/20081219/NEWS06/81219009/1001/NEWS




Read more: http://www.freep.com/article/20081219/NEWS06/81219009/1001/NEWS

---

Republicans insist on a full ban of smoking even in "cigar bars" with a wink to big Tobacco which will insure more health issues for MI restaurant and bar workers for another year.

[ixion]

1. Always happy to see smoking bans fail

:woohoo:

[HarveyBrooks]

3. Why?

[ixion]

4. Because I don't believe in them

is why...

[Trajan]

63. As a long time smoker ...

Who feels it is absolutely NOT RIGHT to force nonsmokers to breathe my smoke; I am perfectly fine if smoking is banned in government buildings, restaurants, workplaces (where non smokers work) ...

Why subject non smokers to a known carcinogen when you dont have to ??? ....

Would you smoke in a newborn nursery ? ... Would that be OK ?

If you want to pump your lungs full of a noxious material, then you are free to do so .. But you should NOT be free to pump noxious materials into the people around you, against their will ...

[superconnected]

67. excellent post!

[toopers]

86. I agree that government buildings should be smoke free, but . . .

private property owners should be able to determine their own rules. If I want to open a Cigar Bar why should I be banned?

[hlthe2b]

5. So, too said one of my dearest friends...

Until they had to sit at the bed of their beloved stepfather as they died an extended and torturous death from lung cancer... They've never been the same since and are now the most vocal anti-smoking advocates you've ever seen.

Just sayin.... Your dogma might beat your karma.

[IsItJustMe]

6. And how far do you think our gov't should go in controlling peoples behavior. Maybe we should have

food monitors in restaurants to make sure we don't eat too much. I don't want to live in that type of world.

As long as someone else's habit is not effecting you, for all of our sakes, please leave them alone.

[hlthe2b]

7. Two words...

Passive smoking...



You equate apples and oranges comparisons. I recognize the defensiveness and thus this will be the extent of reply to you. I never hounded my friend either, for the same reason.

[onehandle]

13. Exactly right. nt

[ixion]

24. a myth concocted by proponents of your cause

having nothing to do with reality.

In any case, though, it's the business owners, not the State, who should decide if smoking is allowed. If non-smokers don't like it, they don't have to go there. That is exactly the option I'm giving as a smoker these days.

[joeglow3]

27. AMEN. The business owner should decide.

If I want to risk all my money on a gay bar to cater to gays, it is MY business. If I want to risk all my money to cater to the meat market crowd, it is MY business. So too is it my business if I want to risk my money on a business to cater to smokers. You have no "right" to come into my establishment and demand I cater to you by not allowing smoking.

And if you do believe that, I hope you also support banning peanuts in all places, as there are many places my son cannot go and I GUARANTEE the consequences he faces with peanuts is a hell of a lot more severe than what you face with smoking.

[harmonicon]

25. passive, schmassive

There have never been laws that require any business to have a smoking section. There are loads of things that passively effect our health and well being, but for some reason smoking is singled out. Do you drive a car? Do you know how to escape being around internal combustion engines? They're offensive, and they're killing us all. Where is the push to ban all non-essential transport by oil-fueled vehicles?

[winter999]

30. Agreed. Looks at the stats for any metropolitan area and

you'll see that the smog people are breathing is far worse than an occasional whiff of tobacco smoke. Where's the rally against second-hand car fumes? If someone is smoking in a public, open-air, space, there's no risk of second-hand smoke (unless you get it constantly blown in your face). Same cannot be said about gas\diesel\oil fumes.

[gmpierce]

31. passive thinking

When the FDA first came out with the passive smoking reports, a number of very good mathematicians pointed out that their statistics were completely bogus. They were ignored, even though they were right. (Smoking IS bad for your health. Passive smoking was a big lie.)

Personally I believe that it all came from LSD. Remember? LDS causes chromosome damage? Somewhere around the time of Ronnie Raygun science became for sale to the highest bidder.

[benEzra]

57. Air quality standards for nonsmoking areas, strictly enforced,

would be as effective as smoking bans.

Smoking bans aren't really about health, though. The're about the punishment of sin, just like alcohol prohibition was. And about shaming those sinners and making them pariahs unless they repent of their Unclean Ways.

I'm a nonsmoker, and cigarette smoke gives me headaches and triggers my wife's asthma, but damned if I'm going to support those who think everyone should be forced to live the perfectly insipid lives that the Carrie Nation types want us to. There are ways to accomodate those who choose to smoke without infringing the right of us nonsmokers to breathe clean air.

I don't smoke or ride motorcycles and very rarely drink, but if someone wants to relax with a smoke in a bar at the end of a long day, or take a scenic ride on a motorcycle with the wind in their hair, it's none of my goddamn business.

[quakerboy]

42. Totaly Agree.

Cept of course when I want to go out and have a drink, but I can't because every damn bar is full of smoke, and If I do go out for a nightcap, I will be coughing up the reminders for about a day afterwards.

Oh, yeah, and there was my smoking Uncle and Grand's. I have them to thank for my Non-Smoking Cousins cancer. He didnt really have a choice of whether to be around his parents/grand parents.

But other than that, yeah, other people smoking just has absolutely no effect on me.

[gtar100]

54. It isn't just an "our government" ... it's me!

And anyone else who cares to breath air that isn't stunk up by filthy, toxic cigarette smoke. You don't get to choose where the air around you goes so it's public space. You want to go to a space where you'll least likely do damage to others, then fine. Smoke your lungs out. Just don't try to drag the rest of us down with you. That's why there are bans on smoking in public spaces.

Your analogy with eating food isn't the same. There is no second-hand overeating.

[ixion]

23. I've lost several relatives to cancer

they smoked knowing full well the potential outcome, as do I.

Sorry, I'll be sticking to my "dogma".

[krabigirl]

49. same here

[onehandle]

2. The article also says it failed "for now" and that a ballot proposal may be coming.

Bans are inevitable everywhere.

It's interesting that bans often fail in economic disaster zones and in states with a lot of poor and uneducated people.

[Kolesar]

10. The smoking ban was overwhelmingly approved in Ohio, the sad sister of Michigan

Now the restaurant employees don't have to toil in a cloud of polluted air.

[Doremus]

15. Or toil as much.

The smoking patios that have sprung up at many bars and restaurants aren't for ambiance. Business fell off after the ban and owners were desperate to keep their clientele.

[Winterblues]

18. I am sure Bush*'s economy had NOTHING at all to do with lack of sales

It has to be because people can't poison themselves and everyone around them. :shrug: Has to be...

[razors edge]

19. Well, I used to go out to dinner a lot.

Three or four times a week, not anymore. I couldn't tell you when the last time I visited a restaurant was and I don't intend to go to one with a ban anytime in the future.

[StarryNite]

37. Well there are others,

like myself, who now go out to dinner a lot because we don't have to smell that crap anymore.

[razors edge]

38. Good for you.

You can also take credit for the loss of jobs associated with these laws.

I used to tip at least twenty percent. You being the new clientèle to replace the old may want to consider upping that to make up for the lost income.

Seeing as how the smoking section in all Toledo establishments were on separate ventilation systems, I find it hard to imagine that smokers made the dining experience impossible or even an avoided activity for those who have serious problems with inhaled particulates.

But I do understand where you are coming from. Fried onions will make me puke where I sit if a sizzling fajita is served anywhere near to me.

Maybe I should start a lobby effort to outlaw onions.

[StarryNite]

39. I don't live in Toledo.

And where I live, before the ban, I could still smell tobacco smoke in most of the restaurants that I went to. So I just quit going. When I eat, I chose to taste the food, not tobacco smoke. And I also tip a minimum of 20% for good service. It's also possible that the medical industry might start to suffer the loss of patients due to smoking bans. So maybe we should encourage more teens to take up the habit to help out the doctors and hospitals. Nobody is forcing you to quit smoking. They are just preventing you from smoking in public places where there could be other people who do not want to take the risk of destroying their lungs, hearts, and lives with smoke.

[razors edge]

40. Toledo enacted a ban before the state did.

It required the property to have totally separate provisions for smokers and non-smokers. Many businesses spent a large amount of money to provide what amounted to a dual establishment that guaranteed no smoker would violate the sensitivities of the non-smoker.

That was not good enough for the same people who demand my cigarette cost twice as much to offset the cost of the social ills you attribute to them.

The medical industry makes quite a bit more from the obese than it does from all ailments ascribed to smoking, and simple logic says that non smokers eating less would deprive them of their recourses faster than banning smoking in a public place. I could look up the statistics on smoker and endomorph percentages of the populace if you like, but something tells me you already understand where I'm going here.

I'm a sedentary 44 year old 6'0", 175lb male, and have not gained a pound in 27 years. My brother was an active athlete all his life, all state basketball player, 6'0" 175lb 18 year old who now weighs 225lbs, has had two hip replacements by the age of 45 and can barely walk. Excuse me if I don't buy into all the horror story bullshit about what will happen to you if you smoke.

Like I said, I understand your not wanting to breath my smoke. I don't want you too. But you will breathe mankind's toxic footprint no matter how much you try to avoid it. Nuclear waste to energize us and keep us safe from the commies, chemical waste to preserve our food and give us GI Joe with the kung fu grip, not to mention every damned thing you do in your life is contributing to the pollution my children will ingest, including the coal burned to power your computer to read this reply.

In the light of the totality of the situation, a whiff of my marlboro light that is contained in a separate eating facility not meeting with your self righteousness while you demand higher taxes from me, all the while knowing I won't be the tax burden on society you will, would be comical if it weren't so stupid.

[StarryNite]

46. What?

Am I to deduce from your diatribe that you think I'm an obese American because I do not smoke and that you are going to have to cover my medical bills due to my surmised overweight status? LOL If that's what you think, you are way off base. I am careful about what I eat and I exercise because I want to stay healthy. Many of us nonsmokers do care about our health and that seems to be missing from your random thoughts. However, I have seen many overweight smokers. It seems that some people just are not concerned about their health so they both over eat and smoke.

I certainly agree with you on the polluted state of our earth. I can't avoid all of the toxins or bad food but I just do the best that I can. Adding to the problem with tobacco smoke isn't going to make my life healthier. Within two months time, in the fall of this year, I knew three people who succumbed to lung cancer. Avid smokers who were in denial about the dangers of smoking until their health issues appeared. Then they all stopped smoking and died from cancer because by that time the damage was done. And not one of them said they were glad they had smoked and that it was worth it. Quite the opposite. I know one other woman who is battling lung cancer. She had to have one lung removed. She never smoked but spent a lot of time in bowling alleys where she inhaled a lot of second hand and side stream smoke. Side stream being the most dangerous because it is not filtered. Of course as a smoker, you get the "benefit" of all three kinds of smoke.

Personally I have no problem with a restaurant that has a completely different vent system for the smokers. Have at it. Smoke away. After all, not every smoker dies from smoking related illness. You want to gamble with your life, go for it. I remember back in the day when people were allowed to smoke everywhere! LOL I remember seeing ashes on everything from cereal boxes to produce in grocery stores. Nasty! Oh, and those lovely people who stomped out their ciggies on the floor of stores. And trust me, I know that not all smokers are that rude. But you know the ones I'm talking about. Anyway, where the obese person shoving cheeseburgers and fries down his throat may not look appealing, at least that grease isn't going to jump down my throat. Whereas the guy smoking at the next table would be screwing up the already polluted air that I breathe even more.

[Owl]

51. Very well said StarryNite.

Here in Minnesota the smoking changes have been nothing short of wonderful! We can go out and enjoy a wonderful evening, and not have to throw all our clothing and outerwear in the washing machine to get rid of cigarette stench.

I don't think active smokers realize just how stinky their habits are.

[StarryNite]

52. Owl I don't think they do realize it.

And I hear you about the stinky clothes after being where people are smoking. I also remember coming home from work and jumping into the shower first thing to shampoo my hair to get the smell out of it.

I also remember eating lunch or dinner with my kids, outside in freezing cold and sizzling hot weather at restaurants because at least we were away from the smoke. When it was nice out, the smokers enjoyed the beautiful weather while we sat inside and just hoped that nobody would light up while we were eating. None of them had any compassion for us nonsmokers but now we are supposed to feel badly for them that they are relegated to the outdoors to smoke. At least they can still enjoy eating inside because my nonsmoking is not going to ruin the taste of their food or harm their lungs. They only have to go outside to smoke. The way I look at it is, it's their turn to freeze and sweat the way that we did for all those years.

[Owl]

53. Again, well said.

Thanks.

[LiberalHeart]

56. Smokers' arguments in favor of smoking are pathetic...

But you have to remember it's the addiction speaking. They can't help it. I live in a smoke-free state and appreciate it every day.

[StarryNite]

59. That's true.

That's why we see all the silly excuses and various stages of denial about the health ramifications of smoking. My mother was the same way. She tried to convince herself that it wasn't really that bad.

[benEzra]

66. Yet it *is* their choice to smoke if they so choose,

and none of my business if they do.

Espresso, alcohol, motorcycling, rock climbing, parkour, excessive sunbathing, non-monogamous sex, and sitting in front of the TV eating Doritos are all either risky or bad for you. They also bring pleasure to many of those who do them.

I know "my body, my choice" is a really radical concept these days, but it goes way back...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

There is no "if it prolongs your life" limitation on the pursuit of happiness, at least in my copy of the Declaration of Independence. I personally don't smoke, but if someone wants to trade 5 years of their life after age 70 for a few decades of smoking now, then it's their choice.

I think most smokers, deep down, really do know it's bad for you. The equivocations about the data one sometimes hears from smokers probably stem from subconsciously not wanting to argue their personal choices with a busybody, so they make token objections to the data instead.

[StarryNite]

72. Yes it is their choice if they want to smoke.

However, I don't want them dragging me down with them. How would you feel if I was sitting at the table next to you and I decided to pull out a can of bug spray and start spritzing it around the restaurant? Should I be allowed to do that? Of course not because it can be harmful to the other people. Well so can tobacco smoke. Just because something is legal to do does not necessarily mean that it should be legal to do everywhere. Shooting a gun is legal but you can't just shoot it anywhere you please. So does that mean that people who don't think spraying bug spray and shooting guns should be legal to do everywhere are wanting to ban those things? Certainly not. Don't be silly.

[benEzra]

75. Quite so. My point was,

a ban on restaurants with well-thought-out smoking sections, or smoking-only bars, goes far, far beyond protecting nonsmokers.

[NashVegas]

62. It's an Empowerment Thing

The average anti-smoking plebe will never have the opportunity to sit down with their Governor and rag their ass about their vote on the nuclear power plant upwind or toxic landfill.

But they can get in a smoker's face any old time.

[StarryNite]

64. No, you're missing the point.

It has nothing to do with a power trip. Nonsmokers are tired of the smoke getting into our faces. Not only does it smell like crap, it's harmful.

[benEzra]

68. So fight for air quality standards in nonsmoking areas...

which would neatly solve most such problems.

Of course, it wouldn't punish those dirty sinners enough, so the Carrie Nation types go for tobacco prohibition instead.

And yes, I am a nonsmoker; cigarette smoke gives me headaches and triggers my wife's asthma. But prohibition is wrongheaded, IMO.

[StarryNite]

70. Why don't you fight for

air quality standards? It sounds like something you are passionate about. Because frankly I don't care if they have to stand outside a restaurant to smoke. Just like they didn't care about me and my kids having to eat outside in the heat or cold to avoid breathing their secondhand and side stream smoke. I'm just happy that after all those years I can now eat in a restaurant and not smell cigars and cigarettes. And nobody is banning smokers from eating in restaurants. They just can't smoke in them. People also cannot shoot a gun in one or have sex on the table or do any number of things that some people might decide they would like to do.

[Owl]

50. Same here. Totally agree with you.

[Doremus]

41. Bush's economy didn't occur overnight but the drop in sales did.

Just coincidentally, right after the smoking ban became effective.

It is a fact that Ohio bars and restaurants have been hard hit by the smoking ban.

Whether the ends justify the means is the only issue that's debatable.

[Bandit]

45. Well in Anchorage Alaska they placed a ban on smoking in public

and sale increased dramatically. The ban was placed in 2004 and sales are still as good or better than before the ban even in this dire economy. There is No Justification NONE for anyone being allowed to poison others with their tobacco smoke. If you want to poison yourself fine and dandy, but what makes you think you have the right to poison others? Smoke in private and you won't be seen as such a fool.

[Corey_Baker08]

61. The Smoking Ban here in Ohio killed business and cost jobs & yes it is fizziling out in Ohio too!

[harmonicon]

22. ooohhh.... yeah, I'm so uneducated

I'm guessing that "uneducated" = "stupid", huh?

Yes, I'm from Michigan, I'm as educated as possible, and I hope this and all other smoking bans fail. These bans are an assault on individual and economic liberty, and they scare the shit out of me for what ramifications the mentality that allows this could let pass in the future.

[onehandle]

28. Michigan is an economic disaster zone.

Kentucky, Mississippi, the Carolinas are where there are a plurality of poor and uneducated people and few smoking bans.

I thought I set up enough separation in my statement.

And smoking is an assault on worker's health.

But I guess to you an addictive, carcinogenic substance sprayed into the public's environment is somehow not an assault.

Smoking bans are inevitable. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

[harmonicon]

29. "..carcinogenic substance sprayed into the public's environment..."

This is my point, which someone else here has stated very clearly: smoking is a red herring, bull shit issue. Smoking can only harm those who choose to do it and be around it, where as industry is killing everyone, and no one is stopping it. No one is banning cars or lawn mowers either.

If people don't like smoking - fine. I don't care. However, I see no logical reason, what so ever, that a bar shouldn't be allowed to have a separate room where people are allowed to smoke. If there is such concern about the health of workers, it could be a room where no one works apart from non-business hours. Who would that be hurting? I don't think those extremes should have to be taken, but it would easily be possible. Personally, I think people should be allowed to run their businesses however they see fit, and people should be allowed to take the jobs that they want, knowing the risk. This is all just puritanical control over the lives of others.

[onehandle]

33. "such concern about the health of workers"

I'd leave the word "such" off. Makes you seem unconcerned about others. Try saying that out loud in the mocking tone of a movie tyrant. Ming The Merciless comes to mind.

A special room? I thought that part of the problem was for the business owner's pocketbook. Sounds expensive.

[harmonicon]

35. running a business is expensive

I don't think that the government should be able to tell people that they can't do something with their business, because it would be too expensive. That's just crazy.

As far as the health of workers, I don't really buy it. People can work where they want. I've had jobs where I was allowed to smoke at work - it was great. Some people like that. Some people don't mind working in places that allow smoking. To each his own. It's not as if people aren't aware of job conditions when they take a job.

[pleah]

8. Good.

:smoke:

[Peace Patriot]

9. The "Puritans" can't control massive corpo/fascist pollution of air, water,

our bodies and the entire planet, so they pick on smokers. It's psychological displacement. Some of the "Puritans" are well-intentioned--that is, their real targets are corpo/fascist polluters, but they can't win against corpo/fascist power, so they sidetrack to individuals and this particular behavior as an easy target (--interesting that we haven't banned SUVs, eh?, or chemicals and GMOs in food, or clear-cutting, or toxic pesticides in Big Ag, or vast global corporate oil pollution of the oceans)--and some of the "Puritans" are just Calvinists who want to control other people, period. We have an ugly strain of Calvinism in our society, which is often exploited for huge profit, say, in anti-marijuana laws and the "war on drugs." It has also been exploited politically in our insane purity standard for politicians, who may be excellent leaders but are driven from office (or blackmailed and controlled) for having a mistress or pay a prostitute. We need to lighten up. Truly.

I'm for reasonable regulation of 2nd-hand smoke. Banning smoking everywhere is insane.

[Kolesar]

11. Just trying to protect employees who have to work in restaurants

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3651852&mesg_id=3652099

[winter999]

32. Right...... I see smoke on the top of the list of workplace hazards.

If you really cared about worker safety, you'd go for one of these on the list:

http://www.safety.com/articles/top-workplace-hazards.html

(Hmmmm. don't see tobacco smoke on the list.)

[harmonicon]

26. bravo!!!

[RainDog]

74. This is IT - EXACTLY

this is also why poor people rob other poor people in hard times. they cannot get access to the rich who have stolen money and jobs and rigged the system to their advantage. they can walk into a 7-11.

and the media outlets in the U.S. continually refuse to look at reality or report the same.

[Mari333]

12. as I have posted before

I live in a tourist town in MI. we have 7 or so restaurants downtown, they cater to tourists. they have all CHOsen to be non smoking. fine. there are 2 restaurants that are on the outskirts of town, they have CHOsen to have small smoking sections, and are sort of half and half. One of them is a truck stop.
The local people can CHOOSE to frequent whichever ones they want. the truck stop would definitely shut down if they get rid of the smoking section. I spoke with the waitress there, and she told me the base of her clientele is mostly smokers at the truck stop. tourists dont go near the truck stop, its not fancy enough for them.
so we have choices here, based on the resturants personal decisions.
I like that a lot better then the govt swooping in and telling everyone what to do.

[Waiting For Everyman]

14. Lawmakers need to knock off micromanaging peoples' lives.

They got their indoor bans everywhere, that's sufficient. Surely there is some other bigger issue for them to solve. ???? Might be a thought.

[Doremus]

16. Coming next: banning fireplaces and bonfires

Same deadly chemicals wafting into the air.

Some of them in restaurants. Gasp.

[sinkingfeeling]

17. Good.

[LanternWaste]

20. I've reduced my habit/addiction to

I've reduced my habit/addiction to only my own apartment and the smoking section at work-- it's really the most civil and accommodating gesture short of quitting I can make for other people (and it's taken me from a pack a day down to half a pack-- saving me about $900 a year).

And it's kinda nice to go into restaurants that don't smell as bad as I do... :P

[Bake]

21. Meisner sounds like a real gem. Holier than thou and everybody else.

Indoor bans are more than sufficient.

:smoke: :smoke: :smoke:

Bake

[sarcasmo]

34. We have way bigger problems to deal with at the present time.

[CreekDog]

36. People should be protected from second hand smoke in public places

second hand smoke needlessly harms the lungs and respiratory systems while providing no compelling or countervailing benefit in the process.

[CarolT]

43. Anti-Smokers Lie!

Those are filthy lies! The anti-smokers are guilty of flagrant scientific fraud for ignoring more than 50 studies, which show that human papillomaviruses cause over ten times more lung cancers than they pretend are caused by secondhand smoke. Passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to this virus, so the anti-smokers' studies, because they are all based on nothing but lifestyle questionnaires, have been cynically DESIGNED to falsely blame passive smoking for all those extra lung cancers that are really caused by HPV.

http://www.smokershistory.com/hpvlungc.htm

The anti-smokers have committed the same type of fraud with every disease they blame on smoking and passive smoking, as well as ignoring other types of evidence that proves they are lying, such as the fact that the death rates from asthma have more than doubled since the anti-smoking movement began.

http://www.smokershistory.com/newviews.htm

[blue_onyx]

81. That website's homepage says

"Obama Health Policy is NO CHANGE AT ALL." Yeah...you might be in the wrong forum.

[Royal Oak Rog]

44. THE SMOKESCREEN OF LIES

THE LIE: Non-smokers are intolerant of smokers rights.
THE TRUTH: This is one of the most used misrepresentations of the truth. This is propaganda promoted by the tobacco corporations. Every so-called smokers’ rights organization is a front created by the tobacco industry. They accumulate names of smokers by offering free cigarettes when smokers send in coupons. The smokers then become part of the bogus membership list of smokers’ rights advocates. The concept of smokers’ rights is ludicrous. Smokers can go to non-smoking environments, they simply have to leave their lighted cigarettes behind. A non-smoker becomes an involuntary smoker when in a smoking environment. The lie of intolerant non-smokers is perpetuated even more by drawing ridiculous parallels to other addictions. "Why not ban alcohol then?" they will say. The truth is that tobacco is the only unregulated drug in terms of harm to non-participants. It is illegal to consume alcohol and drive, for example. Smoking in public places is comparable to a heroin addict injecting heroin into other people on the street.

http://www.smokefreerevolution.org/content/English/lies_en.html

[Royal Oak Rog]

47. To the smoke anywhere I please crowd?

Why shouldn't I be able to play with mercury anywhere I like? If I get mercury exposure isn't it my own business? You say that I could expose others to the mercury and therefore it's a public health issue.......hmmmmmm, just wondering.

[StarryNite]

48. Same thing with drunk driving..

Why should some poor drunk slob be forced to pay for a cab to get home? :shrug: He has his rights! After all, most drunks make it home without killing some innocent person. And if somebody doesn't like being on the road with drunks, then they should just stay home. :eyes: Oh, and how about the right to fire my gun into the air on New Year's Eve? Hey, that's how I want to celebrate. It's a free country! :sarcasm:

[benEzra]

58. So, do you support outlawing alcohol consumption in restaurants and closing down bars,

or do you merely support restrictions on driving while impaired?

Because if it's the latter, then air quality standards for nonsmoking areas would be a more comparable approach than blanket smoking bans, which are more comparable to alcohol prohibition.

[StarryNite]

60. I was talking about drunk driving...

which endangers the lives of others. Just as side stream and secondhand smoke endangers the health of others. If bars and restaurants want to have completely different air and vent systems for the smoking and non smoking areas then I would not have a problem with that. But before the ban went into effect where I live, it was not like that. The smoking section could be just a matter of a few feet away from the nonsmoking and we all know that smoke drifts.

[benEzra]

65. I believe nonsmoking sections should be well segregated from smoking sections.

But the antismoking fundamentalists don't just want clean air for nonsmokers; they want to compel abstinence by smokers, if you look at their proposals.

[StarryNite]

73. Oh?

Care to back that statement up?

[benEzra]

76. Right here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/01/AR2007010100768.html

Google "citywide smoking ban" for more.

And where the We-Know-What's-Best-For-You crowd wants to take this:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/128579/solution_for_rising_health_care_costs.html

[Taverner]

55. If you do not ventilate...you must extricate!

[zelta gaisma]

69. you'd think they'd have leared from the prohibition...

funny how the ADDICTIVE smoking drug is legal but the NON-ADDICTIVE smoking drug isn't

[roody]

71. Life is good in California! No smoking inside in public places.

The whole mess with smoking sections and non-smoking is ridiculous. Just ban it. It is banned in hotel rooms also. California smokers are the most conscientious and polite on earth.

[Critters2]

80. We have a ban in Illinois, too. Makes eating out a thousand times more pleasant. nt

[Owl]

83. Minnesota's smoking ban is fabulous too!

[Paladin]

85. Count Colorado In That Lucky & Enlightened Group Of States

And you don't hear any pathetic whining about the policy, as you do on this grumpy thread.

Moment of clarity for all you libertarian moaners: cigarette smoking is a dirty, destructive practice, and those who insist on doing it in public deserve minimal legal protection and privileges. Want to do it on your own time and in your own residence? Knock yourself out. Just don't come around demanding public assent to your addiction, because you're not entitled to it....

[JonQ]

77. Sounds like the main problem people had with it

was that it would compel casinos and bars to ban smoking, which seems ridiculous to me.

It's not like they were talking about banning it only in schools, government buildings, public transit and that sort of thing.

[blue_onyx]

84. I think it's a little more complicated than that

I don't think the Republicans want it to pass. The GOP controls our state Senate and they introduced a different smoking ban bill than our Democratic State House did. The GOP bill banned all smoking and the Dem version allowed exemptions for casinos and cigar bars. Since Detroit is the most Democratic area of the state, it makes sense that the Dems would get pressure to allow smoking in casinos. The majority of the public supports the ban. When the GOP introduced a bill that didn't include exemptions for casinos (knowing the Dems would fight this), they were trying to appear to be on the side of the public while still being the "party of business." It's typical Republican obstructionism.

I have only been to the casinos once and they had a separate non-smoking floor. It helped a lot. I could still smell the smoke a little but it was much better than having smoke blow directly in your face.

[Marrah_G]

78. What a self righteous ass that Rep is.

Way to go Michigan !

[Mari333]

82. just for fun....

[Nye Bevan]

79. I hate it when peoples' smoke blows on me

Hey smokers, I will defend your right to indulge in your addiction. But please practice this filthy habit in private and spare the rest of us your disgusting byproducts. I like to have a couple of beers but I am considerate enough not to urinate all over innocent bystanders in the process.