12 violations issued in Washtenaw County during first year of state's workplace smoking ban
Cooks smoking in the kitchen, a patron smoking outdoors at an ice cream parlor and customers lighting up in bars were among the incidents that prompted 17 complaints to the Washtenaw County Health Department in the first year of Michigan’s workplace smoking ban.
During the same time period, the Health Department found that 12 restaurants or bars violated the ban. The department resolved the violations by talking to owners and managers about the ban, asking them to post signs and remove ashtrays where smoking had occurred and educate employees about enforcement.
This photo was taken before the workplace smoking ban went into effect May 1, 2010.
File photo | AnnArbor.com
Most of the complaints to the Health Department involved patrons smoking at a restaurant or bar’s outdoor areas where food was being served, she said.
“Some other states allow smoking on outdoor patios, so this was a bit of an educational piece when the law was enacted for both the public and the restaurant operators,” she said.
Under the law, smoking is not allowed indoors at restaurants or bars. It's also banned in outdoor areas like rooftops or patios where patrons receive service for food, beverages or both.
The Health Department investigates with a visit to the site after it receives a complaint; inspectors have to observe smoking during the visit to issue a violation.
Refusing to comply with the ban could result in an office conference at the Health Department, which carries a $122 fee. In a worst-case scenario, the Health Department can issue a cease order.
“Would we shut a restaurant down because an employee was caught smoking in the kitchen? No,” she said. “It has to be pretty egregious for us to tell them to stop operating.”
Schweighoefer said it’s hard for her to picture that happening in Washtenaw County.
The Health Department did not issue any fines or revoke any business licenses since the law went into effect.
“Overall, restaurant operators have tried very hard to comply with the provisions of the law,” she said.
Complaints were highest in the year after the May 1, 2010, law went into effect. Since the law's 1-year anniversary, there have only been two additional complaints, Schweighoefer said.
Some establishments received numerous complaints, a review of Health Department records shows.
The Fraternal Order of the Eagles, 2935 Holmes Road in Ypsilanti, received multiple complaints during the first year of the smoking ban, records show. Health inspectors visited several times but never observed smoking on the premises.
The Health Department suspected a dispute between customers and management was behind numerous anonymous complaints filed against the establishment, records show.
Guy Hollerin’s at Holiday Inn North, 3600 Plymouth Road in Ann Arbor, received a complaint in August 2010 about patrons smoking outdoors in the deck area and volleyball court tables during a Friday night volleyball league.
The Health Department issued a violation for a lack of signage. It told the restaurant to post “No smoking” signs in these areas, and that employees must tell customers to stop smoking if they observe it. The establishment also needed to post a “No food or beverage sign" in a designated smoking area in front of the building, records indicate.
Smoking in the kitchen at Dexter’s Lighthouse Cafe, 8124 Main Street, prompted a January complaint. An email to the Health Department says cooks routinely smoke in the food preparation and cooking areas. The Health Department confirmed the behavior in January 2011 but did not issue a violation under the smoking ban, records indicate. The restaurant closed in February.
The ban applies to all workplaces, not just bars and restaurants, with few exceptions. Four violations were issued at places of business besides restaurants and bars in the ban’s first year of operation in Washtenaw County, said Orlando Todd, a departmental specialist with tobacco section of the Michigan Department of Community Health.
Complaints regarding the smoking ban can be directed to 734-222-3800. Complaint forms are also available online.
Comments
C. S. Gass
Sun, Jul 17, 2011 : 4:06 p.m.
Oh isn't this just grand! Look at how well everyone is behaving and obeying the law! Like good little boys and girls... It's a good thing that our Nanny State keeps us all safe from that EEEEEvil second hand smoke! I feel so much better now that I don't personally have to whine about people blowing smoke in my face, now the state will do it for me! Maybe if I whine about people giving me dirty looks for being a weasel, the state will take up that fight for me too! I love living in Michigan. Land of whiners. BTW I don't smoke and never have. I used to go into plenty of bars that allowed smoking. And sure, I smelled smoke. Now, with the smoke gone, you smell stale beer, farts, BO, bad breath, stench from peoples jobs, such as painting. I miss the 'smoke screen'. And I don't care if the majority are against me. The majority of people in the US believe in a God, yet the religion of the country is officially atheism, just to make a tiny minority happy. So don't tell me about majority rule. This is about freedom. Or the lack thereof.
julieswhimsies
Sun, Jul 17, 2011 : 9:38 p.m.
My father died last year of lung cancer. He was exposed to second hand smoke on a daily basis in his office for 50 years. He was a non-smoker.
pest
Sun, Jul 17, 2011 : 1:41 p.m.
There would be no violations if the government would allow business to make their own choice to allow smoking or not.
julieswhimsies
Sun, Jul 17, 2011 : 2:42 a.m.
@jamie. Sorry, dude...but when you make idle threats on a local blog to the local blog...and continue your rant...you sound angry to me. When an individual needs work, they will take work anywhere in order to survive. Workers have a right to work in an environment that does not poison them. I am SO thankful this law exists.
CynicA2
Sat, Jul 16, 2011 : 9:58 p.m.
I hear that many BARS (real bars, not restaurants) in the Detroit area are simply refusing to enforce this law, and since most of their patrons are smokers anyway, and there is little enforcement, no one particularly cares. The decline in business was so great for many, post ban, that owners had to defy the law, or go out of business. Hopefully, the legislature will revisit this issue, and allow bars for "smokers only" to exist. That way the health puritans can have their places, and smokers can have theirs. As I suspected, the ban drove away mainstay regulars, who smoked, without a corresponding increase in new, non-smoker business. A friend recently described how great it was to sit down at a bar and have a smoke again! Of course, this would never fly in prissy, health-nutty A2, but the "smokers only" idea could work.
julieswhimsies
Sun, Jul 17, 2011 : 9:36 p.m.
@CynicA2 Do you have any statistics to back up what you "heard"?
Themadcatter
Sun, Jul 17, 2011 : 2:15 p.m.
I don't patronize bars, too old for that now, although hated the smoke back when I did go back in my 20's (and teens). But I don't think a few smoking bars is a bad idea. Since drinking and smoking sort of go hand-in-hand for some, why not allow a few bars to be "smoking bars." Those bars could be charged an annual fee for the allowance. There could be only so many "smoking permits" available like is done with alcohol. This will insure every bar doesn't revert back to smoking bars.
pest
Sun, Jul 17, 2011 : 1:42 p.m.
The decrease in business is true and is happening. I know a bar owner in Wayne and his business dropped 40% since the smoking ban. He is following the "law" but may end up closing doors soon.
CynicA2
Sun, Jul 17, 2011 : 3:24 a.m.
Well, Johnny... sounds like you have it all figured-out... not! "Smokers only" bars could only employ smokers, so there would be no conflict with respect to either customers or employees, and there would be a big sign on the door - "Smokers Only", so all the non-smokers could just keep on walking! Aside from that, no one goes to bars to get healthy! I really couldn't care less about the drinking age issue, since any college-age person who wants to drink, can and does, in bars and elsewhere. Michigan LOWERED the drinking age to 18 for a few years before reverting to 21 after the number of fatal crashes involving drunk kids skyrocketed.
EyeHeartA2
Sun, Jul 17, 2011 : 2:46 a.m.
Yep. I have observed that as well. Not a smoker, never smoked, but I totally enjoy seeing them stick it to the man.
johnnya2
Sat, Jul 16, 2011 : 10:49 p.m.
yeah, what a horrible concept to make a healthy environment for employees and customers. I don't care of those cars go out of business. If you business model is based on killing people, it says a lot about your business model. There is no credible evidence that smoking is in anyway safe. I wonder how you feel about a place deciding they dont want to follow that silly 21 year old drinking age in Ann Arbor because most students are between 18-20. Guess what would happen to them. They are after all ADULTS. A business that is knowingly participating in illegal activities should have their liquor license revoked. See if they will follow the LAW then
HerrSnibbens
Sat, Jul 16, 2011 : 5:02 p.m.
I have come around to the ban indoors. I guess maybe I got used to it just from visiting other states and Canada. But banning it outside? In the open air? I can't think of another state that has a measure so draconian.
thecompound
Sun, Jul 17, 2011 : 3:30 a.m.
A week ago I would have agreed with you. Then I sat outside at Carlyle's where their patio is kind of boxed in. People smoking on one half, kitchen workers sitting outside smoking on the other end and no breeze to dissipate any of the smoke. Had to go inside despite the nice weather. I actually didn't know until this article that patio areas that serve food are suppose to be nonsmoking. And now I will just wait for all the angry rants, lol.
Jack Gladney
Sat, Jul 16, 2011 : 3:25 p.m.
johnnya2 What exactly are you arguing for, the abolition of two-thirds of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Fireams? Nice spot on the Feds not having constitutional authority there. Good on you.
InsideTheHall
Sat, Jul 16, 2011 : 12:29 p.m.
The economy is failing and we are chasing down smokers on patios and veterans in their halls? The priorities are all screwed up!
C. S. Gass
Sun, Jul 17, 2011 : 3:54 p.m.
You are exactly right Hall, this might not have been as destructive to one of the few working sectors of Michigans economy ten years ago, but today it is another nail in our coffin. I can't wait to retire, move out of this stupid, nanny state and take my Michigan retirement check to another state. That way I can punish this state with every dollar I spend somewhere else. The moronic people here in MI love overbearing government because they are too ignorant to think for themselves.
johnnya2
Sat, Jul 16, 2011 : 10:44 p.m.
This is another one of those fake arguments that smokers cant come out and now the bar owners bottom line is hurt. The fact is those smokers will just choose a different place (their home) to drink and smoke. You could make an argument that, this is good for the package liquor stores. Or if that discretionary dollar is being spent somewhere else. In talking to 100's of restaurant owners, the ones hurt the most are the ones with Keno. Most of that money just goes to the state.
Mr Blue
Sat, Jul 16, 2011 : 1:05 p.m.
Nobody is "chasing down" smokers and veterans
Huron 74
Sat, Jul 16, 2011 : 11:35 a.m.
Don't people just love to tell other people what to do? "Wear a helmet." "Tear down that fence because I don't like it." I still say the option to allow smoking in an establishment should be left up to the owner.
Jimmy McNulty
Mon, Jul 18, 2011 : 11:13 a.m.
@jjc155, "Why is "your right", as you put it, to breath fresh air MORE IMPORTANT than someones else's "right" to smoke?" Well, I need to breathe clean air to live. I've tried to stop this nasty habit when I was 5 or so and it did not work out. You do not need to smoke to live. Secondhand smoke has been shown to be a health risk. As a consumer in a public place, I have a reasonable expectation to breathe clean air.
jjc155
Sun, Jul 17, 2011 : 7:57 p.m.
@Jimmy-Both sides are "rights" (even though I have never read ANYWHERE breathing fresh air in a private establishment OR smoking are enumerated rights). It however simply is not something that needed to be Legislated. Neither "right" is more just or important than the other. Thats how "rights" work either they are all good and equal or all bad and unequal. This arguement could have been about ANYTHING under the sun and my opinion would be no different. Why is "your right", as you put it, to breath fresh air MORE IMPORTANT than someones else's "right" to smoke?
Jimmy McNulty
Sun, Jul 17, 2011 : 3:29 p.m.
@jjc155, I'll throw that one right back at you. Why is a person's right to smoke more important than my right to breathe clean air? Breathing clean air is natural, and almost expected when visiting a public establishment. We can go on and on, but as for right now, the smoking ban is on my side of the argument. @themadcatter, well put.
Themadcatter
Sun, Jul 17, 2011 : 1:56 p.m.
Without a law to govern smoking prohibition it could be very difficult for some establishments to enforce a no-smoking policy on their own - especially in some bar. Secondly, I would find it very inconvenient to have to call ahead to find out if an establishment has a no-smoking policy so I could choose to not patronize it. Now that smoking is no longer an issue I have total freedom of choosing which doors I will walk though and take a seat. As far as smoking outdoors - the law should be stricter than it is. I was sitting in the fenced in patio area at a popular DT AA restaurant and other patrons/employees were standing right outside the fence smoking the entire time we were there and as luck of the table draw would have it, luck we were one table from the fence and the breeze blowing in our direction. We would have moved but it was the only table free. That said, I now know to never, ever, eat outside in a crowded area such as DT AA. I will go elsewhere - probably home. I'd take a gander that the no-smoking policy has increased business for some establishments as now they have the non-smoking patrons that used to refuse to come. Anyone have stats on that?
jjc155
Sun, Jul 17, 2011 : 1:23 p.m.
@ jimmy-I'll start this by saying I am a non-smoker, but why are your "rights" more important than Homeland's????? You have the right to choose to go to or not go to where people smoke, plain and simple. To quote Animal Farm (I know very cliche, but fits perfect here) " all animals are equal, just some animals are more equal than others." LOL This is just another example of nanny statisum.
Jimmy McNulty
Sun, Jul 17, 2011 : 12:01 p.m.
@Homeland, I believe that your right to smoke ends where my right to breathe clean air begins.
Craig Lounsbury
Sat, Jul 16, 2011 : 6:32 p.m.
"I still say the option to allow smoking in an establishment should be left up to the owner." I see it as a workers safety issue. I think there is a responsibility to provide a reasonably safe work environment. Obviously some jobs have inherent dangers that can only marginally be mitigated but toxins in the air from tobacco doesn't fit IMO. I further think the argument that the worker can go somewhere else only works if one holds that to be true for virtually any work place safety issue.
johnnya2
Sat, Jul 16, 2011 : 2:47 p.m.
How is that Big Brother? Nice to invoke Nazism with the first 10 posts. Do you think people should be allowed to drink in any establishment they want? If I want to drink alcohol should I be able to walk into Pioneer high school with it in my hand like I am drinking a pop? Why not? It is legal for an adult to use alcohol. Should a business be allowed to serve rancid food? Why not? It is their private property. It is their business. If you don't like me serving rancid food, don't come to my establishment. Should my PRIVATE business be allowed to say I will not serve blacks? It is my private business. I can do whatever the hell I want. As "conservatives" I thought you believed in two things. STRICT constitution and states rights. There is ZERO mention of tobacco use or motorcycles in the constitution, and the STATES have the right to control their use based on the tenth amendment.
Homeland Conspiracy
Sat, Jul 16, 2011 : 1:42 p.m.
Welcome to Big Brother! @ Jimmy stay out of the bars where smoking is allowed instead of demanding that we all conform to your dislike for smoking. @ A2anon it's all about the money. I'll take freedom over money & how does smoking cause "permanent head injuries"? I don't like having to *pay* for OTHER peoples children, but I don't demand people stop having children. @ jinxplayer The mob rules!!! How did that work for Germany 1939 to 1945 @ InsideTheHall I agree. What or who's next?... people with blue eyes?
jinxplayer
Sat, Jul 16, 2011 : 1:19 p.m.
And the majority says you are wrong. Sorry bout you.
A2anon
Sat, Jul 16, 2011 : 1:04 p.m.
No, instead they just mandate that other people / society *pay* for their choices as they develop chronic emphysema, cancer, and permanent head injuries.
Jimmy McNulty
Sat, Jul 16, 2011 : 12:20 p.m.
As a former smoker, I used to agree with your position. However, the older I get the less I can stand cigarette smoke, especially at a bar.