New Michigan smoking ban spurs debate about its economic impact
Michigan is poised to snuff out smoking in restaurants and bars, marking the climax of a fervent debate among restaurant owners, health activists and community members.
The lingering question is: How will Michigan's new smoking ban affect the state's struggling economy?
The state Senate and House on Friday passed a bill that would ban smoking in all bars and restaurants but exempt casinos and cigar bars. The ban's final approval is now imminent as Gov. Jennifer Granholm is expected to sign it into law.
The news provoked an uneven reaction among smokers, nonsmokers, restaurants and health activists.
Chuck Ghawi, owner of Maison-Edwards Tobacconist in Ann Arbor’s Nickels Arcade, whose business is not directly impacted by the bill, said the move was still invasive.
“I think it’s a far-reaching, intrusive step by government, especially during these hard economic times,” Ghawi said. “Let the market decide. Let the owners of the businesses decide.”
Still, the smoking ban earned heaps of praise from consumers tired of trying to dodge cigarette smoke at the bar or at a family restaurant. Some 66 percent of Michigan residents said they favored the ban in a poll conducted in March.
Activists like Judy Stewart, spokeswoman for the Campaign for Smokefree Air and director of state government relations for the Great Lakes Division of the American Cancer Society, were ecstatic.
Stewart said people who work in restaurants where smoking is allowed are 50 percent more likely to develop lung cancer.
“The majority of Michigan workers will have a smoke-free work environment, and there will be less cases of cancer, asthma, heart disease. The list goes on and on,” Stewart said. “Second-hand smoke is a real killer and a real disease cause in our state, so this is huge.”
Michigan, whose ban will take effect in May, joins 37 states with similar laws.
Drew Christensen, a University of Michigan student, said it was strange to see smoking in restaurants after living in California, where it’s banned.
“It was kind of weird to have that not be the case here,” he said.
The ban’s approval touched off a debate among proponents and opponents over how the new law would affect Michigan’s economy.
“Overall this is going to be great for business because the majority of the population doesn’t smoke,” Stewart said. “More of them will stay out longer, and they’ll spend more money.”
But Andy Deloney, a spokesman for the Michigan Restaurant Association, which lobbied against the ban, argued that restaurants would suffer from the new legislation. He said more than 1/3rd of Michigan’s 9,600 restaurants had already disallowed smoking.
“It does nothing to help the state of Michigan,” he said. “Michigan leads the nation in unemployment. We’re last in the nation in things like income growth. We’ve got about as bad of a business climate as you can have in the country. The actions of the House and the Senate (Thursday) add more burdens and mandates and restrictions on the backs of business owners.”
Ann Arbor resident Louis Dickinson, puffing a cigarette outside the Michigan Theatre on Friday, said he was disappointed by the ban.
“It’s inconvenient, but I’m not that upset about it,” Dickinson said. “I don’t think it’s going to affect when and where I go out.”
Health activists praised the ban, calling it long overdue and a major boost to the health of restaurant workers and patrons.
“For all intents and purposes it’s the single greatest thing we can do to improve the health of Michigan residents,” said Sharon Sheldon, Washtenaw County’s program manager for health promotion and disease management.
Sheldon rejected the suggestion that the state’s economy would suffer a blow due to the ban’s approval.
“It hasn’t hurt restaurants in any other place where this has been done,” she said. “They have their head in the sand if they think it’s something that’s going to hurt business. It’s a change for businesses, and people will get used to it.”
Restaurants in Ann Arbor responded to the news with mixed feelings.
Josh Evans, bar manager for Saline’s Brecon Grille, said the restaurant couldn’t risk banning smoking while its competitors allowed it. He said he doesn’t anticipate a drop in sales after the ban takes effect.
“If it’s a blanket policy that’s going to affect all bars and restaurants, it’s not going to take the wind out of our sails,” Evans said.
But Fleetwood Diner’s Lilly Dmiri said the 24-hour establishment relies heavily on customers who eat there particularly because smoking is allowed.
“I think it’s going to have a impact,” she said. “For me I’m the only one here pretty much who doesn’t smoke.”
Gary Wheelock, manager of downtown restaurant Arbor Brewing Company, said sales dipped briefly after the restaurant disallowed smoking Aug. 5.
“Still, it came right back to where it was before,” he said. “Eventually they just decided to come back and hang out here, because they like our beer and they like our servers. I don’t think there's a lot of negative effect from it.”
Wheelock praised the Senate’s move and said the ban would benefit the state.
“I completely see it as a positive thing,” he said. “It’s a healthier environment for our servers, everyone at a restaurant, to work in. It discourages people from smoking, which is a very destructive behavior. When you smoke, everyone around you smokes.”
Contact AnnArbor.com’s Nathan Bomey at (734) 623-2587 or nathanbomey@annarbor.com. You can also follow him on Twitter.
Comments
snapshot
Wed, Dec 16, 2009 : 5:06 p.m.
To Bob Johnson, The casino exemption under the law is a problem for many folks but I think it is approprate since American Indians are a sovereign nation unto their own. Folks might not like it but we don't try to legislate other sovereign nations. It's why they are allowed to have gambling establishments in the first place. On another note it is just a matter of time before they adapt to the law. Casinos in Lake Tahoe, Reno, and Las Vegas have made concesions in various forms, not because they were forced to but by public demand once the public, even some smokers, saw how much more pleasant and enjoyable a non smoking environment could be.
Steve
Wed, Dec 16, 2009 : 3:10 p.m.
"This WILL NOT hurt bars and restaurants. Any whining to the contrary is simply false." This comment is actually false in many respects. *Allow me to throw the disclaimer out there-I am a NON-smoker. Never have, never will. I am not a Republican. I am not a bar /restaurant owner. I do not run around the woods of the UP in fatigues sporting the newest in automatic weapons screaming the government is out to get me. But, I do support the states that have left the onus of responsibility up to the business owner, and the worker. I will not be applying for a job in a mine, at a chemical factory or as a high-rise iron worker any time soon-I know the risks involved with those professions. I do fully support banning smoking in family environments where children have no option in the matter, and non-hospitality work places. So, just to get that out there. Moving on I have been mass consuming/reading data, studies, and polls over the past few days. (Its more than a hobby). What I had (personally found) is that many are penned by special interest groups. Including the poll of 600 Michiganders that apparently supported the ban. 600? The replies given that account in FULL support of the ban were, strongly agree and somewhat agree. Hell, I somewhat agree-but that doesnt mean I support this economy crushing legislation. Economy crushing, I feel, in regard to Michigan. Case specific. Many of the studies that are quoted by politicians and the media, Ive found, are funded either by the health insurance industry and/or pharmaceutical companies. In as much as the anti-ban studies have been funded by the likes of Phillip Morris and R. J. Reynolds. So obviously objectivity is completely called into question. Where I have decided to make my choice and stick with it is on the side of the economy. I think this ban is bad. Heres why. Not all bans are created, penned, enforced, monitored, complied with, observed, enacted and on and on equally. One cannot compare the cities of New York, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Paris, London, Montreal, Toronto with *wait for it, you know its coming*. Detroit. Apples V. Oranges. Of course, unless my last trip through a vacant international arrivals area at Metro-Airport was on a fluke day-I wholeheartedly believe that post apocalyptic urban decay and crack houses didnt make the Travel Channels top ten tourist destinations this year, or last, or the year before. At least the journalist that penned his article had the savvy to at least mention, some FORM of legislation. Not as the mainstream has been eluding to that Michigan is the 38th state to outright ban smoking. Because as we all know, that is misleading and incorrect. Some establishments do not allow smoking. But they are counted in the numbers of many studies regarding success rates. Some establishments have 10% customers that smoke. Some 90%. How can you come up with an accurate number? I have been reading and re-reading the studies of Dr. Mike Marlow PhD, on the economic effects of smoking bans. Now my reason for reading his work is, he is a centrist and (as far as I can see) not affiliated with any special interest group. Dr. Marlow seems to feel that the formulas and their outcomes in stating smoking bans help economies are incorrect. With that said, my own eyes tell me what I see across the border in Canada. Windsor, Ontarios economy seems to have been decimated by the provincial, universal smoking ban. So says the bar owners that survived the unnatural economic attrition. One bar owner in Windsor said, I survived because I have a patio. Sure my sales still dropped over 35% for the first year, but the government gave us 12 months to conform-so I packed away money so I didnt have to lay people off. I cannot say so much for some of my friends. So, do the pro-ban lobby say this man is mistaken? Again, simply my observations. Another thing that struck me funny is a quote I read (albeit it was on an anti-bans website) but it struck me quick profound and logical in many respects. It said in effect that, if smoking bans were so lucrative and profitable then why would people engaged in one of the most competitive industries; people that have to constantly search for new ways to bolster their B-line well wouldnt this have caught on years ago? That unto itself struck chord with me, and forced me to ask questions. Is every bar owner in the world just really stupid? Do they have no business sense? Another scary and accepted statistic is-Drunk driving apparently increases on average by 13%, as smokers and non-smokers alike tend to stay home later and drink prior to heading out to the bar. Non-smoking areas seem to report a higher rate in violence outside the bars. Police in Arizona lodged complaints to the city regarding being under staffed to deal with the increase of fights outside bars. There is a bar here in S.E. Michigan. Very popular. It began its life as a smokefree beer garden in the late 90s. After a year in business, they faced bankruptcy. As the manger says, the thing that saved this bar was putting ashtrays on the tables. Are they lying? The manager is a non-smoker and has been there since the day it opened. Is that made up. He isnt afraid of the smoking ban. Its not his money invested in the bar. Here is one of the biggest things. How in the name of all things blue or green are we going to pay to enforce this? Seriously? Were broke. Our public sevants are over worked. Example, Ohio has had legislation since 2006. They are in a very similar economic situation as we are. They dont have the money. Over $5,000,000 in fines have been levied. The appeals. The hearing requests. They collected less than $10,000. Nobody really thought long and hard on that one now did they? Now yes, again-smoking kills. It is bad. Its actually disgusting. But the fact of the matter is, its not illegal. We should be going after the tobacco industry opposed to small business owners. If smoking bothers you, do what I do if Im not in the mood-its a completely ground breaking concept dont go in. Go somewhere that offers a non-smoking venue. I do, and theres plenty. Bars, clubs, restaurants, live music venues. Be an adult and make an adult decision. So to the previous blogger, I certainly mean no disrespect. Youll have to believe that. But I disagree. Im not whining. Im not ranting. Ive made my decision what side Im on, and do not support it. And it was written with me in mind more than others. Thanks.
Newzdog
Tue, Dec 15, 2009 : 12:46 p.m.
The downside is that now bars will smell like body odor and farts instead of smoke.
Karen N Janssen
Mon, Dec 14, 2009 : 3:40 p.m.
Actually, restaurants in cities who have banned smoking have increased their numbers. Also, all of us pay the costs of the health problems resulting from the exposure to cigarette smoke.
Ignatz
Mon, Dec 14, 2009 : 1:34 p.m.
@Paul A.: Thanks for the info. Maybe I'll get some antlers or finally join the American Legion!
Edward Green
Mon, Dec 14, 2009 : 11:32 a.m.
Personally I love the smoking ban. I am oppressed (like a form of respiratory slavery) by the minority who have smoked for far too long. We should ban smoking everywhere except for gas chambers and electric chairs. To people that wish smoking outdoors to be banned, you need to have a reality check with your facism. Just because you prefer something doesn't mean infringing on someone's right to smoke outdoors is justified. I COMPLETELY understand the smoking indoors ban. Unless you are a hard core smoker, stepping outside every one in a while is no big deal. However, I can only see a trend of the facist majority trying to ban smoking outside. Just because the majority believes in the something does mean it's right. Unless you think the Third Reich had it right. "Oh my god, i can smell smoke from 20 miles away. That evil smoker ought to be executed".
Paul the Malcontent
Mon, Dec 14, 2009 : 7:36 a.m.
@Ignatz (and others): The ban is on smoking at any restaurant, bar, or other establishment that serves food, OR indoors at any business that employees 1 person (with an exception for home offices and a couple other specific cases I think). So the ban does include lodges like the VFW, Moose, etc., if they employee even 1 person or regularly (say, even once weekly) "serve" food, i.e. likely they are licensed & inspected by the county health department. If those conditions exist, the ban applies to any function in that hall, even when those conditions don't exist at a particular function (e.g., this means a private potluck, with no lodge employee present or food preparation occurring, would still fall under the ban). The ban also includes outdoor patios of the same qualifying locations (and the benches at ice cream stands and probably the parking lots at drive-ins like A&W), and would add a prohibition from serving any food/drinks at the exempted cigar bars/tobacco shops. Also, no new cigar bars may be opened, current locations have to make >20% (iirc) of revenue from cigar sales, and only cigar smoking is permitted in them (no cigarettes). I believe the tobacco shops have a 70% revenue from tobacco sales threshold and are also limited to those currently in existence. As an ex-smoker, I find the scope of the new law troublesome and overreaching even though it no longer affects me. I would have preferred a situation like Texas had about 10-15 years ago; at that time they required completely separate areas for smoking and non-smoking, including separate entrances, ventilation systems, restrooms, etc. If a business was willing to make the investment to comply, non-smokers and workers could choose a smoke-free environment, but without imposing intrusive restrictions on smokers (for example, a business I visited was a bar and pool hall; it had two entirely separate areas of pool tables & seating, that flanked the bar, kitchen, and rental counter). I expect this type of requirement would still reduce the number of smoking establishments, since many businesses (especially restaurants) would likely choose not to make the necessary modifications, but this would still allow bars, bowling alleys, pool halls, etc., an option to provide equal accommodations to smokers and non-smokers alike. Lastly, in response to comments from supporters of this ban indicating that they do not see the potential for further restrictions on smoking in the future (aka "the slippery-slope"), I'd point out that more-draconian restrictions are already in place and are being expanded throughout the country. A recent article in The Michigan Review stated that over 260 college campuses have implemented smoking bans on campus (http://www.michiganreview.com/features/campus-smoking-ban-sparks-controversy-1.778857); many of these prohibit smoking ANYWHERE ON CAMPUS, including outside and even in one's own vehicle! This is also the same ban currently in effect right here in Washtenaw County on the Mercy Health Systems (St. Joseph Hospital) campus. YES, that's right, sitting in one's own car, with the windows up, exposing no one but oneself to any smoke, is prohibited, and such bans will certainly be expanded to other areas (universities, local schools' property, public parks, public sidewalks, etc.) as the anti-smoking forces continue to gain momentum. Note that Texas has changed from the rules I described above to a complete ban in restaurants and bars now. Smokers are pariahs in today's society, and as long as the majority believes these restrictions on them are "just," they will continue to proliferate. Yet many of the same people would be militantly opposed and raising bloody hell if comparable restrictions were being proposed or implemented on their "sacred" freedoms (abortion rights or gun ownership, for example). Hopefully, many businesses will operate like Bob Johnson indicated Chicago-area bars did; otherwise, I'm sure the police will love responding to "smoking in progress" calls at all the local hole-in-the-wall bars and diners throughout the state. I recommend using civil disobedience next spring; almost wish I still smoked. I'd also recommend reading the following argument against smoking bans: www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv29n4/v29n4-4.pdf.
eom
Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 9 p.m.
This isn't a "slippery slope", it's common sense. We all know texting while driving is not only stupid, it's dangerous and could cause death or injury - BUT PEOPLE DO IT EVERY DAY. So, some places have written laws making it illegal to text while driving. Duh. People also know that drinking and then driving a car isn't a good idea and can also cause death or injury...yet PEOPLE DO IT EVERY DAY. So, laws were passed to make it illegal. Do you see a pattern here? Smoking is dangerous and can cause death and illness - and what are states now doing? Passing a law that protects those of us who don't smoke. I think everyone has the right to do anything they want - until it infringes on my rights. It's not okay to text while driving - I can't count the number of times I have almost been hit by people texting - not paying attention to the car they are driving. Most people know or are related to someone who has had an encounter with someone who was drunk while driving...and I'm guessing most people have experienced an awful restaurant experience because of someone else smoking. For those who say "GO SOME PLACE THAT DOESN'T ALLOW SMOKING." I disagree - my being in a restaurant isn't infringing on anyone else's health - I have a right to be there, not the smoker. Now, many of you are saying "Well, she clearly isn't a smoker!" Nope, I'm not. Never have been. Does that mean I can't enjoy dinner without your habit in my face, lungs, clothes, hair in my midst? It sure shouldn't.
Sling Blade
Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 7:38 p.m.
Please enjoy my smoke cloud and me blowing smoke in your face as you enter and exit the fine establishment of your choice as I smoke outside in this communist state and country.
russellr
Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 7:28 p.m.
We went to Canada 3 years ago on our way to Nova Scotia. I was thrilled. They had a sign outside of a business that said Smoking 8 feet away from building. Also one town banned smoking until after 9:00 p.m. in the city outside. We are way behind times. Thank you for banning in restaurants, we tried to get non smoking sections here in Ann Arbor, I can't stand breathing it. I feel more sorry for the waiters and waitresses they have to breath it for an 8 hour shift. They have already proven second hand smoke causes cancer. If you want to smoke when you get done eating at least go outside and please get away from the door so we don't have to breath it trying to go in. Thank you
Robin Davis
Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 4:34 p.m.
As a Michigan bar owner I am very concerned about the smoking ban. Have you bothered looking at the actual effects on bar owner from those other 37 States. A lot of hard working business owners lost their bars due to smoking bans. While I agree that many people have quit smoking and don't like the smoke, there are still those of who do smoke and it is taking away their freedom. If you all think that is okay, wait till the government starts controlling your life, taking away your freedom of choice. As a property owner, I feel they are taking away my personal property rights. I pay my taxes it should be my right to decide if I will allow smoking in my building. I respect those who do not smoke but I still feel it should be the business owner right of choice. I believe it would be best to make everyone confortable, smokers and non-smokers alike. I fear the loss in business. This year I have already experienced a 37% loss of business due to the economy. Any further loss will force me to let some of my staff go, putting more people on the unemployment line. Believe me, my staff is in fear of this smoking ban. You need to seriously look at the facts and effects that smoking bans have had on others bar. The bars are a target the so called "Sin Tax" is a sin. Americans are away fighting to protect freedom and yet here at our freedom is being taken away.
jaxie
Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 2:01 p.m.
Bowling alleys will probably gain business, at least mine
Ignatz
Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 1:59 p.m.
@Marcus: It makes sense to ban smoking indoors, unless the the owners are given a chance to improve the air quality. However, as far as I know, outside seating is also under the ban. It's considered a "workplace".
tdw
Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 1:05 p.m.
Ignatz the Moose and VFW is exactly who I was thinking of, those are about the only places I go
Oregon39_Michigan7
Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 12:31 p.m.
Prior to living here in Ann Arbor I lived in Eugene Oregon. Sometime in the mid-90s the city of Eugene passed (by the voters, not city council) a smoking ban in all restaurants and bars. Immediately cries came out - "This is a business killer." "How far does the Government need to go?" "This will drive prices at restaurants and bars up" "All the restaurants and bars will close!!" A main argument that was made was patrons will simple go to Eugene's neighboring city Springfield for their dining needs (Springfield at this point did not have a smoking ban). I will point out that Springfield and Eugene are similar in distance as Ann Arbor and Ypsi are - so yes it was a valid hypothesis that people might drive the extra 10 minutes to a different city so they could smoke. None of the business killing theories came true. People still went out to eat and drink and the restaurant association reported the following year that they had seen an increase in business, which many theorized as more non-smokers going out to bars/restaurants than before since they wouldn't have to deal with smokers. This is a State wide ban so there's no argument to be made that smokers will go to a different city and it would be ludicrous to argue some is going to drive to Indiana (the only neighboring state that doesn't have the ban) so they can smoke. The same will happen here - people will still go out to eat, still go out to get a beer, etc. if they want to smoke - great, do it outside. Most bars in Eugene now built great outdoor sections for smokers. The best ones I have seen are covered, have heaters, couches, tables, food service, etc. I imagine there will be some establishments that do the same here. The main "pro" to the smoking ban is for the health benefits of the employees at restaurants and bars. Think of how much second-hand smoke they are exposed to each day. I will also point out that before I moved out to A2 there was a smoking ban in effect over all of Oregon. People still go out to eat, still go to bars, life goes on.
Ignatz
Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 12:28 p.m.
@tdw: I don't think that would work. Bars and restaurants are already privately owned. I think the only provisions for exemption are casinos and cigar bars. I don't even think that clubs like the Moose can be exempted. I've tried looking for the law, but have not been able to find it yet.
tdw
Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 11:54 a.m.
Can't bars and resturants just become priviate and make people sign a paper to "join"?
Bubba
Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 11:37 a.m.
Let these people who smoke go through Chemotherapy & radiation once & they'll change their tune.
Really?
Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 11:33 a.m.
I think it would be fair to say that a smoking ban would hurt businesses... ONLY if certain restaurants had to abide by it and others didn't. The fact that they ALL will have to makes the playing field even. If you're a chain smoker, you going to stop going to your favorite dinner spot because you can't smoke? Ok, so where are you going to go then? Next door where you still can't smoke? This issue is being fought with nothing more than ignorance. All for the ban. You wouldn't want me blaring offensive music next to you when you ate, but it's ok to blow cancer causing smoke in my face and I'm supposed to take it? Nice try. Welcome to reality smokers!
Bob Johnson
Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 11:20 a.m.
After the fanfare faded, the ban also faded in to forgotten history in many small neighborhood bars where the owner knows his customers in my area of Chicago.
Ignatz
Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 10:54 a.m.
I think the economic impact will be nil, given the experience of other states. The playing field will be leveled, so nobody will have a "smokers advantage", save cigar bars and casinos. As an aside, I believe casinos are exempt because the majority owners are so-called native americans. The ban went too far, however, when they banned smoking from outdoor areas. I don't see any evidence of a health hazard in the open air. In fact, when dining outside at the mainstreet locations, the automobile stink is pretty overpowering. At any rate, I will still go to the Corner Brewery and sit outside, sans cigar. It just takes that much joy out of my life. Viva la Nanny state!
Bob Johnson
Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 10:37 a.m.
Exempting the casinos debunks the myth of smoking bans not affecting business.
Jake Walker
Sun, Dec 13, 2009 : 10:36 a.m.
Hasn't this question been answered by 37 other states? It's not as though Michigan is breaking new ground here. California has banned smoking for over 10 years, most other states have a ban, and no one's pointing to any actual horrible consequences that occurred in any of those places. I can't believe the Michigan Restaurant Association can even credibly continue to debate this. Move along, boys, to one of the other 12 states left, and try selling your nonsense there.