The Michigan Smoke Free Law needs no revisions
In December 2009, the Michigan Legislature passed House Bill 4377. This bill declared Michigan a smoke-free state, prohibiting smoking in all public and private workplaces and all food establishments, including restaurants, bars and bowling alleys. On May 1, 2010, we celebrated the fact that Michigan had become the 38th state to go smoke free. Many individuals throughout the state advocated, volunteered and supported the passage of this law.
As the third leading “preventable” cause of death In the United States, secondhand smoke poses increased health risks to non-smokers. Legislators gave Michigan workers, as well as the public, a great gift — to be able to breathe smoke free air.
It is now disheartening to hear that some legislators want to weaken this law by making exemptions that will reduce the health protection provided to Michigan workers and residents.
The Michigan Smoke Free Law needs no revisions!
The health hazards of tobacco were clearly defined in the 2006 “Surgeon General’s Report, The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke,” which states that eliminating smoking in indoor areas is the only way to fully protect nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke. Seventy-four percent of Michigan residents support a smoke free law.
Legislators took a stand and supported what was right for the health and well-being of Michigan residents, a law that enhances the quality of indoor air and protects workers from the damaging effects of secondhand smoke. Can we really afford to tamper with that?
If you enjoy a smoke-free environment when you dine out or work at a bar or restaurant that is smoke free, let your state legislators know how much you appreciate the smoke -free law and that you oppose any changes to weaken it.
DeBorah Borden
Coordinator, Washtenaw County Tobacco Reduction Coalition
Comments
rainbow
Wed, Sep 28, 2011 : 4:59 p.m.
I personally only smoke post 2 beers. So I like the law as it makes it a hassle to get up, find a place to obtain a cigarett and light. To make matters worse, I am then forced to stand outside amongst those labeled as heathens by oursociety. An overall bad experience..... so for me, leave the law alone, I am healthier because of it.
Thinktanker
Tue, Sep 27, 2011 : 10:06 a.m.
It is encouraging to see that Governor Snyder, in his Sept 14th "Special Health and Wellness Message" views tobacco use as one of our state's biggest public health threats - even as Michigan moves towards year two of being the 38th state to adopt smoke-free legislation. He continues by describing that "wellness and economics are linked", identifies smoking as the leading cause of preventable death and a huge financial drain - - 3.4 billion dollars annually due to tobacco-driven illnesses in our state. The governor rightfully alerts us that "while tobacco use is down, now is not the time to let up". He knows that when a state adopts a smoke-free policy, 'Big Tobacco' ratchets its formidable 'Big Money' and 'Big Lobby' up even more than before. Therefore, we must not become complacent and assume our statewide smokefree policy will continue 'free and clear' - on the contrary - some Michigan legislators are already crafting bills to erode and chip the law away. Your legislators look to you for what to support and how to vote. They listen, and it's easy to contact them. Please tell them, now, in no uncertain terms, you are one of the 75% of Michiganders, who support the law and will not tolerate any changes to it and that you support the governor's proposal to expand smokefree strategies as a method for enhancing both individual health and the economic fortitude of Michigan!
Tru2Blu76
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 5:11 a.m.
Uh, so now it's a "great idea" to move the problem around so that, theoretically, more spoiled, over-sensitive boobs will not be offended? Funny how each state got millions of dollars from tobacco companies but not one has created an effective program to support nicotine addicts in quitting. None of that money was used to alleviate the supposed added medical costs "to society" or to individuals. Funny how those millions just disappeared in service to legislators' favorite districts and funny how none of that money was put to use for all the citizens instead of just special interest groups. I don't know the exact figure, but there must be over 1 million smokers in Michigan. So I hereby invite ALL of them to move to Ann Arbor - which will enable removal of all such onerous and useless laws - and quite a few picky holier-than-thou types as well.
Sheila Martin
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 3:25 a.m.
If smoking bans are so great, why are all these pro ban people lying about business losses, and healthcare savings? They pay for their own polls so no truth will come out. IF the poll doesn't come out in their favor they just throw away the poll! And WHY is the AMerican Cancer Society promoting smoking at home? They say as long as you don't smoke in a bar they're fine with it! I hear they get BIG funding from nicotine replacement giant J&J to lobby for bans. I never knew you could buy off the ACS!
DBH
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 11:36 a.m.
"If smoking bans are so great, why are all these pro ban people lying about business losses, and healthcare savings?" Documentation or some sort of reference, please. "They pay for their own polls so no truth will come out. IF the poll doesn't come out in their favor they just throw away the poll! " Documentation or some sort of reference, please. "And WHY is the AMerican Cancer Society promoting smoking at home? They say as long as you don't smoke in a bar they're fine with it! " Documentation or some sort of reference, please. "I hear they get BIG funding from nicotine replacement giant J&J to lobby for bans." Documentation or some sort of reference, please.
Michael McFadden
Sun, Sep 25, 2011 : 10:18 p.m.
1bit, you wrote, "I can't urinate or defecate wherever it is convenient for me, nor can I smoke anywhere I want to smoke." 1bit, I'm sorry. but you have violated McFadden's Law. McFadden's Law states, ""As an online discussion on smoking grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving urination or defecation approaches 1." McFadden's Prime Corollary states, "The use of such excretory comparisons in the context of arguments about secondary smoke exposure effectively exposes the lack of scientific basis for any real arguments to be made in favor of smoking bans, effectively 'losing' the argument for ban-supporters." The necessity for the creation of McFadden's Law and its Prime Corollary can be seen simply by Googling the term: smoking AND "peeing section in a pool" and then realizing that although the two are usually stated as being co-equal, in reality, since the water in a pool is changed about 1x per year while the air in a decent bar/restaurant is changed more than 25,000x in a year, the two actually have no equality at all. Similar Googling with various forms of "smoking" and "defecation" will bring up countless further examples. So, 1bit, I'm sorry, but you have been tried, found guilty, and are hereby sentenced to spend life in a pool full of screaming 2nd graders -- secure in the knowledge that none of them will ever pee in that pool. - MJM ::proper hat-tip to Godwin's Law::
Michael McFadden
Tue, Sep 27, 2011 : 12:11 a.m.
Heehee.... thanks for the inspiration. :> I've written about the pool peeing thing before, but never thought of this particular angle on it. It truly IS amazing if you do some googling to see how universal that sound bite became. - MJM
1bit
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 12:03 a.m.
Love Godwin's law and I just caught you in the act above. Will remember McFadden's law the next time around! Thanks for the levity.
Woman in Ypsilanti
Sun, Sep 25, 2011 : 9:16 p.m.
I think the law is a little bit too strict even though as a non-smoker, I certainly appreciate it. Still, it seems to me that the law could be revised in a way that would allow smokers an indoor place to smoke in the winter. For instance, maybe the state could come up with really expensive smoking licenses that they could issue to bars? Most bars wouldn't pay the extra money so most bars would remain smoke free and there would be a few bars here and there where smokers could get together and smoke themselves silly. I wont go to those bars myself but I don't have a problem if other people do.
Woman in Ypsilanti
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 5:26 p.m.
For a long time, I would go to bars that allowed smoking if they were well ventilated or had very distinct smoking areas. I would probably still go to those places if smoking were allowed. But before the ban was put in place, more and more bars had started to be non-smoking or non-smoking during certain hours (like Sidetrack in Ypsi).
Sheila Martin
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 3:18 a.m.
Oh GOODY! A bar just for rich people! Actually they already have them. THey are called Country Clubs. Which bars do you go to before the ban that allowed smoking? None?
Lin
Sun, Sep 25, 2011 : 3:35 p.m.
DeBorah Borden - One question for you----WHAT BAR DO YOU OWN?
Michael McFadden
Sun, Sep 25, 2011 : 5:16 a.m.
J Shaker asked, "what are the chances?" Actually very good J, provided we have a ten year long hate campaign against drivers funded by $800,000,000 + per year coupled with a quadrupling of the base price of gasoline. Simply provide the bicycle activists with the same level playing field given to the antismoking activists and your vision would become a reality. - MJM
J Shaker
Sun, Sep 25, 2011 : 4:18 a.m.
and it would improve air quality immensely and save tons of lives if the speed limit on highways was reduced to a mere 40 mph and all new automobiles were required to get at least 50 miles per gallon and if we all relied more on public transportation and quality bike lanes. what are the chances?
J Shaker
Sun, Sep 25, 2011 : 4:17 a.m.
so after the smoking ban was enacted one of my favorite bars was no longer smokey but it smelled like stale beer and vomit.
ypsicalling
Sun, Sep 25, 2011 : 7:44 a.m.
Well it always smelled like stale beer and vomit (and urine imo), but the smoke did a good job of covering it up (it's still the best bar in aa imo). I actually have a good friend who I can never convince to go to the ball for that very reason now, no kiddin!
Billy Whyde
Sun, Sep 25, 2011 : 3:05 a.m.
Wait a minute here. It has been reported in more than one report where Medical Malpractice is the third leading cause of death in the U.S. killing over 200,000 Americans a year! Now while the author of this article is so concerned about saving life I will entrust that the next opinion she has in this paper calls for criminal charges (prison time, no settlements to avoid trial) and permanent license suspension of those found guilty of medical malpractice. Time after time we see Johnson and Johnson pay out fines to avoid trial. Seventy million to avoid a trial for bribing Iraqi officials in the UN food for oil scandal. Remember the USA getting bad mouthed for killing children due to lack of medicine? Johnson and Johnson paying doctors to perscribe their drugs for ailments that the drugs have not been approved for! How about the lack of the ability of the medical profession to police itself? Case in point the pediatrician that molested possibly 200 children that were under his care! How about the Ohio Department of Health caught manipulating data to make their failed smoking ban look like a success? In lieing they are worse than big tobacco ever was, big tobacco did not thrive off tax dollars. I suggest the health care industry gets out of trying to write law and get back to the practice of medicine without looking after patients after the greed of money flashes through their greed.
1bit
Sun, Sep 25, 2011 : 1:02 p.m.
I suggest that people not make self-serving arguments using anecdotal "evidence".
Michael McFadden
Sun, Sep 25, 2011 : 3 a.m.
Steven Piziks wrote, "The law isn't to protect customers. It's to protect the employees." Really Steven? Then why would the law ban smoking in separately ventilated rooms where no employees are forced to enter? And why would it prevent a smoking owner from opening a bar that hired only smoking employees who wouldn't need that "protection"? (After all, the Antismokers support employers' ability to hire only NONsmokers, so they can't very well deny the opposite option.) And why would the antismoking groups pressure legislators against allowing installation of ventilation systems that would make the air in a smoking bar CLEANER than the air in a nonsmoking bar? How is THAT "protecting employees"? (And yet that was exactly what happened in the NY legislature five years ago when the main antismoking advocates refused to let such an exemption even be voted on by the main body.) Can you answer those three questions Steven? - MJM
Michael McFadden
Tue, Sep 27, 2011 : 2:16 p.m.
Whoops! That was actually one extra lung cancer for every EIGHT thousand worker-centuries! Sorry! - MJM
Michael McFadden
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 11:13 p.m.
(continued...) The lung cancer claim itself was so weakly supported that they had to move the statistical significance test to 90% -- almost unique in the world of epidemiology. But let's take the EPA lung cancer claim as being real. It claimed a 19% increase in the base nonsmoker's lung cancer rate after 40 years of steady workplace exposure in conditions FAR smokier than anything that would be tolerated today. That base rate is about .4% so a 19% increase is just about 1 extra lung cancer for every 40,000 worker-years of exposure. A *reasonable* high end ventilation/filtration system today would reduce smoke levels from what existed in the 50s - 70s by at least 95%, which would then leave us with 20x *less* risk: 1 extra lung cancer for every 800,000 worker-years of exposure, i.e. one for every thousand centuries. I think workers in bars have far more to worry about in terms of getting a beer bottle busted over their heads! And remember, the above only holds true if you ACCEPT the EPA Report -- something I do not, since I believe from my research on it at the time that it was biased and very poorly done. That opinion was backed up in a federal court in 1998 in an 80 page ruling by Judge Osteen: the same judge who dealt a deadly blow to the tobacco industry a year earlier when he opened the first legal doors to FDA oversight of tobacco. I don't think an average of one death for every thousand centuries of work translates into "pumping cyanide into the workplace" very well. - MJM
Michael McFadden
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 11:01 p.m.
1bit, thank you for a reasonable dissenting reply! :) To respond to your points in order: 0) That opening quote seemed quite appropriate to the topic at hand: that citizens have a duty to be healthy for the good of the state. 1) Your point on the economics and early death is quite true. But if you're going to use an economic argument you have to take the economics as they exist. If you argue that smokers get sick and die younger then you can't play "Let's Pretend" and ignore the expenses of diseases of extreme old age. 2) The link didn't "ignore" recently published data, it was just written back in 2003 when my book was being published. I think I've seen the "chronic disease" figures you speak of and I don't think the costs there are particularly new though I haven't examined them closely. Meanwhile however, taxes on cigarettes have gone from an average of 25 - 50 cents per pack when the NEJM research was done to an average of about $4 per pack today: an increase of 800 to 1600%. The arguments made in "Taxes...." would, I believe, be even stronger today than back then. 3) I don't see what man-made vs. nature has to do with the right to a safe workplace. Outside patios are neither inherent nor necessary to the acts of eating and drinking and there is clearly no reason why workers should be "forced" to work in such an unsafe environment. Do I believe it should be banned? No, but I don't believe indoor smoking needs to be banned either. 4) A ventilation system such as you describe is only needed if you adopt a total zero tolerance policy -- similar to insisting that not only must patio diners be moved indoors but that all restaurant windows be covered with solid steel plating. I believe you vastly overestimate what threat level is actually claimed for smoke exposure. The EPA Report refused to include heart disease because the data supporting the claim were even weaker than the data supporting the lung cancer claim
1bit
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : midnight
Michael: Love the link and particularly how it starts by proving Godwin's law. So let's start in reverse: 1. The chief point about the economics of smoking that the article mentions are studies that suggest that there may be no cost savings from people stopping smoking if they live longer. That is, by letting smokers die hopefully at a younger age then maybe they won't cost society as much. Are you sure this is an argument you want to make? Maybe we should let lots of people die off because it's cheaper. 2. But it's not cheaper. The link ignores contrary evidence including recently published data citing that the major costs in US healthcare are related to chronic conditions (heart disease, cancer, etc...) Turns out smoking causes those things. 3. Sunshine is not smoking. It is a major public health problem, but it is not the same. Sunshine is not man-made either. See my previous comment on conflating unequal things. 4. It is not practical to businesses to install ventilation systems to exhaust smoke from the patrons. Why? Because you would have to have a separate ventilator for each table (which would need to be enclosed) to do it. A ceiling ventilation system would not be able to evacuate smoke quickly enough to do it. Even, assuming a system could be rigged, it would need such massive airflow that temperature control within the premises would be very difficult to maintain (i.e. when you ventilate air out, you need to bring replacement air in). The closest thing to what you are describing are in hospital operating rooms or isolation rooms in hospitals. Those rooms are relatively small compared to bars/restaurants and are very expensive. So, while I appreciate your enthusiasm on the topic, I humbly dissent.
Michael McFadden
Sun, Sep 25, 2011 : 9:17 p.m.
Hello 1bit. :) 1) If such ventilation systems "do not exist in any practical form" why then have antismoking advocates been so vehement about opposing them? All they'd have to do is let them be installed and then demonstrate that the air is still "dangerous," true? Of course the answer is that they know such systems ARE practical and that they would NOT be able to demonstrate such "danger" -- so they refuse to allow them in the first place. 2) There are lots of workplaces where cyanide and such things in the air are byproducts which are handled quite fine by ventilation systems. 3) Your proposed level of "right" to a "safe working environment" would require that daytime patio dining be banned, since such things as sunscreen and awnings provide patio workers only the same sort of "partial protection" from carcinogenic sunshine that ventilation would provide indoor workers regarding secondhand smoke. Do you feel patio dining should be banned to protect those workers' "rights"? 4) Your argument appealing to taxpayer concerns about "health care costs" is false. See the full argument, with references, showing that smokers actually end up subsidizing the health care of NONsmokers with all the extra taxes they pay: Read "Taxes, Social Costs, and the MSA" at: <a href="http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7" rel='nofollow'>http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7</a> Any specific, substantive criticisms are welcome. - MJM
1bit
Sun, Sep 25, 2011 : 1:01 p.m.
1. Those ventilation systems do not exist in any practical form. The cost would be too prohibitive for most businesses. The argument is the equivalent of telling factory workers: "We're going to pump cyanide into your workplace, but we're sure our ventilation system will protect you." 2. Workers rights are workers rights. You cannot "elect" to give up a right. The "right" in question is your right to a safe working environment. Yes, it is paternalistic. Yes, this is the "nanny-state". And yes, your nanny kept you from doing dumb things that would get you killed. Moreover, this nanny protects me from paying the healthcare costs for your "choice".
Michael McFadden
Sun, Sep 25, 2011 : 2:51 a.m.
While I'm completely against the smoking ban, I'd agree that there are some aspects to the Michigan law that make it a good one: READ THE LAW! Know what it DOES & DOES NOT demand! Businesses are *NOT* required to act as actual law *ENFORCERS* in any sense, and do *NOT* have to physically eject smokers or call authorities unless they *WANT* to. Bar owners/workers are NOT indentured to act as unpaid, untrained, uninsured, and unempowered Citizen Vigilante Enforcers of this law. Businesses *ARE* required to *POST* no smoking signs, *REMOVE* fire-safety equipment (ashtrays), *INFORM* smokers of the law violation, *ASK* smokers to stop or leave, and refuse them service *WHILE* they are smoking: NOT throw them out or refuse service when they are not smoking. Read the short, simple law itself: <a href="http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2009-2010/billenrolled/House/pdf/2009-HNB-4377.pdf" rel='nofollow'>http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2009-2010/billenrolled/House/pdf/2009-HNB-4377.pdf</a> ==== Print that out and give it to as many bar owners/staff/customers as you can. "Smoke Enforcers" routinely refuse to confront smokers in bars themselves without police backup. Why should staff and owners be stuck with the job? Michael J. McFadden Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Roadman
Sun, Sep 25, 2011 : 1:27 a.m.
Restaurant owners are now crying the blues over decreased revenues and many are close to shutting down. Some attribute the smoking ban as a substantial factor in that decrease. While I abhor the ill effects of smoking, alternatives need to be considered to protect this major segment ofthe state's economy.
1bit
Sun, Sep 25, 2011 : 12:56 p.m.
Or maybe it's the economy or a bad business model that is forcing the businesses to close.
a2cents
Sun, Sep 25, 2011 : 4:12 a.m.
...to protect this major segment ofthe state's economy. getting old, used to be cars
David Briegel
Sat, Sep 24, 2011 : 10 p.m.
I agree with doglover. And what is it with people who pollute our air and then turn around and litter our environment. Who do they think they are, Corporations?? Why are smokers exempt from littering laws?
Michael McFadden
Sun, Sep 25, 2011 : 9:27 p.m.
JCJ, good point about the dog laws. Think about it: how many cigarette butts would you have to step on to equal the problem of stepping on just one pile of dog doo? Are the comparative fines set in equal measurement? After all, it would only be fair to multiply the fine appropriately. And if they refused to pay the fines, the enforcement could be handled in the same way the antismokers in Ohio are handling bar owners who defy the ban and won't pay: simply revoke their bar/dog licenses and take away their bars/dogs. Who would object to that? - MJM
jcj
Sun, Sep 25, 2011 : 3:30 p.m.
I don't think they are exempt from littering laws any more than dog owners are exempt from any law requiring them to pick up their dog feces. When is the last time you heard of either one of them being cited?
ypsicalling
Sun, Sep 25, 2011 : 7:37 a.m.
Right! They're so awful. Someone said the football tailgaters cause litter too, but that's not so bad because Pioneer gets filled with hundreds of RV's that are left running all night, so eventually they'll have to fill up again at our gas stations it works out fine! Hmm..I guess cigarette buyers do pay sizable state and federal taxes on those too but...oh it's just so gross, and just think of the children!
Subroutine
Sat, Sep 24, 2011 : 8:51 p.m.
Your perfume makes me sick. I'm allergic to most colognes and perfumes. When oh when will my nanny government protect me from those that choose to apply scented products? I find it outrageous that business owners are allowed to choose for themselves whether or not scented people are allowed in their establishments. Can't we please propose that the local, state and federal government enact laws against anything I find distasteful or that the interwebs have told me is unhealthy?
1bit
Sun, Sep 25, 2011 : 11:43 p.m.
"...the "fresh-smelling scent" from clothing dryer fresheners was carcinogenic..." Funny. Everything causes cancer. The "fresh-smelling scent" is not smoking, however, and it is arguing to the ridiculous to suggest one report is equivalent to decades of research (including that of the tobacco companies themselves!) So my point about conflating unequal conditions applies even moreso, this time directed towards your statement as well.
Michael McFadden
Sun, Sep 25, 2011 : 9:30 p.m.
Actually 1bit, they just came out with research last month showing that the "fresh-smelling scent" from clothing dryer fresheners was carcinogenic, so perfume is almost assuredly carcinogenic as well. To paraphrase you, "Deconflating equal conditions does not further the argument, it furthers ignorance." - MJM
1bit
Sun, Sep 25, 2011 : 12:55 p.m.
+1 to lorie. Perfume makes me sick too, but it doesn't give me cancer or heart problems. Conflating unequal conditions does not further the argument, it furthers ignorance.
pseudo
Sun, Sep 25, 2011 : 12:38 p.m.
actually, you are forgetting that this is a public health issue because it causes cancer. which means it doesn't equate to your likes and dislikes comment.
pseudo
Sat, Sep 24, 2011 : 8:41 p.m.
I have enjoyed feeling free to eat and join others in places that I wouldn't go before the smoking ban. I am pleased that I don't have to put up with someone else's bad habit in public places. I haven't found 'an explosion' of people standing on the sidewalks or increased cigarette butts on the ground. I consider the ban successful. Further, I appreciate the author's public statement on this.
pseudo
Sun, Sep 25, 2011 : 12:36 p.m.
actually, ypsicalling, I don't disagree with you just thought my side of it should be heard. I won't go where I have to sit in someone else's cancerous cloud. i didn't vote for or support the ban. I'm not a fan of banning things per se but in this case, given the public health costs and my taxes...I'm ok with it knowing that it will cost a few bar jobs. That being said, a few more Ypsi establishments are getting my dimes because I will go there now that I won't be poisoned when I walk in the door. I am a different kind of customer and don't have my social life structured around going someplace to smoke and drink so I am not one that will come close to making up the revenue lost based on those who are finding other places to smoke. However, that may be the key to surviving the ban - change the model - food that actually has taste and some other attraction beyond the grimey drunk scene. From there, it is a public health issue unlike individual likes and dislikes mentioned in other comments.
ypsicalling
Sun, Sep 25, 2011 : 7:09 a.m.
That's great that it's worked out so well for you! It truly is a successful ban, hopefully the first of MANY! :)
Jim
Sat, Sep 24, 2011 : 8:41 p.m.
Yeah! To hell with the constitution and peoples rights! Look, I am a non-smoker and I hate being around smoke - so guess what? I don't frequent establishments where smoking is permitted. It's how the U.S.A. works - love it or leave it.
johnnya2
Sat, Sep 24, 2011 : 11:27 p.m.
According to right wingers, whatever is not enumerated in the constitution is left up to the states to decide. Please point out which part of the constitution this is in. I missed the one where it says government shall not deny people the right to use tobacco products. Of course, it was that rabid liberal Ronald Reagan who passed a law that said the drinking age must be 21 on a federal level. It forced states such as Wisconsin to raise their age. If the state wanted to, it could actually ban the sale of all tobacco products according to strict constructionists.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sat, Sep 24, 2011 : 10:40 p.m.
I'm curious: which restaurants and bars in the A2 area prohibited smoking before the ban went into effect? Also, can you please specify which part of the Constitution this ban violates? I can't find it! Good Night and Good
Steven Harper Piziks
Sat, Sep 24, 2011 : 8:54 p.m.
The law isn't to protect customers. It's to protect the employees. Customers come in to a bar or restaurant and are there for only an hour or three once or twice a week. Workers are there eight and ten hours a day, five and six days a week, working in a smoke-filled room. They need the job, so they can't escape it. They're stuck with a terrible health hazard that we've finally eliminated.
Tex Treeder
Sat, Sep 24, 2011 : 8:34 p.m.
It's just a matter of time before smoking and drinking are so heavily taxed, regulated and propagandized as immoral that most people will do neither. Good thing it's for their own good. Nanny state, here we come.
Sallyxyz
Sat, Sep 24, 2011 : 8:31 p.m.
Second hand smoke is dangerous and the law is good as far as it goes. It should be extended to include apartment buildings in A2, which should be smoke-free, including inside the apartments and all common areas. If you live in an apartment and are a non-smoker, and a smoker moves in next door, you will smell the second hand smoke constantly in your apartment. In complexes with more than one building, then there could be "smoke free" buildings and buildings for smokers, if the complex desires. But allowing smoking everywhere is wrong, and the rights of non-smokers are not being protected.
Tex Treeder
Sun, Sep 25, 2011 : 1:17 a.m.
I thought at first this comment was satire, but reading the full paragraph made me realize that Sally is serious. It's just like I predicted.
Chuck Early
Sat, Sep 24, 2011 : 7:46 p.m.
Just keep taking the rights of others; but don't be angry when they take awy your rights.. Ok you hypocrites.
1bit
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 12:07 a.m.
Billy: Although Robert Wood Johnson II was involved with J&J, the foundation is a completely separate organization with different leadership and goals than J&J. I won't convince you, but your allegation could not go unchallenged.
jcj
Sun, Sep 25, 2011 : 3:27 p.m.
ERMG I believe it is in the paragraph just after the one that say's you have a right to walk three dogs on a public sidewalk.
Billy Whyde
Sun, Sep 25, 2011 : 2:19 p.m.
They the anti smoking cartel are not happy till they feel the rush of control over others running through their blood. In case you do not know it there are some health care groups that are trying to make gun control a public health issue. The American Academy of Pediatricians ( who also promote smoking bans) are backing a law for the creation of a gun ownership data base as a public health issue in Florida. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation backs smoking ban to increase the sale of the lucrative smoking cessation market by smoking bans as well. ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION = Johnson and Johnson makers of smoking cessation drugs!
1bit
Sun, Sep 25, 2011 : 12:52 p.m.
Chuck: We have to live together. We have to limit some of our freedoms in order to do so. I can't urinate or defecate wherever it is convenient for me, nor can I smoke anywhere I want to smoke.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Sep 25, 2011 : 1:33 a.m.
I'm curious: can you tell me where there is written that there is a right to smoke? I missed that one in civics class. Good Night and Good Luck
doglover
Sat, Sep 24, 2011 : 7:11 p.m.
I would argue that the law does need to be revised. Eliminate those shameful exemptions for casinos and make it consistent.
ypsicalling
Sun, Sep 25, 2011 : 6:56 a.m.
Exactly, that way casinos could finally become the beacons of virtue and decency that those lousy smokers ruin for everyone!
ypsicalling
Sat, Sep 24, 2011 : 7:08 p.m.
I'll abstain from opining my personal problems about the law as I am a smoker and thus biased (maybe more than non-smokers), but whenever this subject comes up I can't help but dream up the idea that what's allowed in a private establishment is SOLELY up to the business owner (provided it's legal). And thus patrons will choose a place to go that suits them, creating a free and diverse market. It makes perfect sense to me. I know it's been said before^, and I won't even venture into the "automobile exhaust creates 1000x more harmful gases than second-hand smoke" argument, but this issue is one of the few that makes me understand where libertarians and righty's are coming from.
swcornell
Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 3:38 a.m.
Unlike the cigarette smoke the automotive exhaust is happening outside on the streets, not in the restaurant where I'm in a confined space and trying to eat
1bit
Sun, Sep 25, 2011 : 12:48 p.m.
"... I can't help but dream up the idea that what's allowed in a private establishment is SOLELY up to the business owner (provided it's legal)." With due respect, this is a very curious statement. It seems to me that as you were writing it, you realized that..wait a minute...you can't do EVERYTHING in your own establishment (like exclude people of different races, set up a sex shop, torture animals) so you put the caveat at the end, "provided it's legal". Okay, so it's NOT legal to smoke in a business establishment as provided under the law because it is no longer legal to cause cancer and other health problems in your patrons and workers. You already acknowledge that we don't have unlimited freedom and rights, so what's the problem?
ypsicalling
Sun, Sep 25, 2011 : 7:02 a.m.
@johnnya2; it sounds like you didn't read my post before replying in such a vicious and immature manner. I said "provided it's legal." Also I began my post with the acknowledgement that I am a smoker. You're absolutely right, that means I'm addicted to nicotine; that's generally what being a smoker entails. This is a lifestyle choice I have made because I happen to enjoy it. Tossing in the term "hopeless" sounds like nothing less than a personal attack and insult -- negatively judging the abilities and choices of someone you've never met. I don't know what made you so angry that you'd feel the need to respond that way, but I hope you're able to relax once in a while. And I think your examples are a little extreme and unrealistic -- there are laws against those actions no matter where they're done (except it is still legal to fire or not hire someone based on their sexual orientation in 38 states). Smoking itself is NOT an illegal act when it's done by an adult; so what bothers me is the government banning an otherwise legal act in an establishment owned by a private citizen, frequented by people of their own free will.
tdw
Sat, Sep 24, 2011 : 6:19 p.m.
I don't like being forced to go to smoke free bars.( just using the same logic as people who say they don't like being forced to breath smoke in a bar )
Steven Harper Piziks
Sat, Sep 24, 2011 : 8:51 p.m.
Workers shouldn't be forced to work eight and ten hour shifts in smoke-filled rooms, either.
Soothslayer
Sat, Sep 24, 2011 : 7:02 p.m.
No one's forcing anyone to do anything. Smokers can smoke in their own cars, homes or inside bags on their heads all day long if they want. Point is that public places shouldn't cause ancillary health hazards. Sure your liver may fail from being an alcoholic but you probably won't get emphysema or lung cancer too from second hand smoke at a bar. Only smokers throw cigarette buts out the window instead of using ash trays so what's up with that? Don't care about your own health so make your mark on the world too by littering? Come on.
Michael
Sat, Sep 24, 2011 : 6:15 p.m.
The law DOES need changing...I know from personal conversations with Bowling alley owners and Bar owners that the law is costing them money...and eventually that will cost us jobs!!! I find it very disturbing that so many public entities are so willing to pass laws governing the behavior of the public but do NOTHING to regulate their own behavior...The late ,Great Country of America... I should also point out that I am a non- smoker..
johnnya2
Sat, Sep 24, 2011 : 11:18 p.m.
Those people who would spend money at bowling alleys and bars might now go to buy new clothes, or out to a movie theater for a different form of entertainment. That would require the retailer or movie theater to hire more people. It in no way will cost jobs, except to an industry that believes it needs to allow deadly behavior to survive. Maybe those industries should learn how to survive without needing addictive drugs. By the way, bowling was a dying industry long before the smoking ban.
Soothslayer
Sat, Sep 24, 2011 : 6:52 p.m.
Nah it's much better for the state by saving more money in healthcare costs and less lost production from sick days due to first & second hand smoke. If its harder to smoke maybe they'll quit, especially when winter rolls around! They can thank us all later, or not, as they live healthier and happier lives.
godsbreath64
Sat, Sep 24, 2011 : 6:03 p.m.
You should be ashamed of yourself, author. The explosion cigarette butts and the smokers themselves on the sidewalks is disgusting. Just like your opus.
Billy Whyde
Sun, Sep 25, 2011 : 2:03 p.m.
As a outdoors type of person I do not like seeing litter myself. However cigarette butt litter for the most part can be blamed upon the radical anti smoking cartel. It was not smokers who did away with ash trays in vehicles. As a matter of fact the American Cancer Society in writting LAW required the removal of ash trays in vehicles and went so far as to ban the placement of ash trays in areas for smokers, thus the ACS ought to clean up the mess they created! Litter comes in many forms from the tons of fast food wrappers on our highways to seeing self serving so called non profits having donation cans near check out registers. Trash is trash.
DBH
Sat, Sep 24, 2011 : 6:36 p.m.
You are disgusted by the cigarette butts and smokers on the sidewalks, but you blame the law and not those who are responsible for the cigarettes and the sidewalk smoking? With all due respect, I believe your disgust is misplaced. It is not as if the law banned some sort of essential bodily function within the establishments. Smoking is a choice by those who smoke.