Mi no smoking ban starts tomorrow

[Hoosier]

I agree that this is a property rights issue. The owner of the establishment is the one who should decide whether or not legal products should be allowed to be used by those of legal age, as long as there are no others below legal age who would be impacted (I can see a rational argument regarding not allowing smoking where people are that are underage).

I can't see how this is much different than telling the restaurant they can't serve fried food because that it bad for you also. Or keeping the calorie count or alcohol amount to a certain level per hour. And please don't respond with the argument that the fried food one eats doesn't affect the person sitting next to you, because you do NOT have the right to a smoke-free restaurant to eat in. If you think that you do, there's probably no use discussing this with you. The owner is the one who is making the investment and taking the risk to provide that, and ONLY the owner can make that decision regarding smoking, for it is his/her property. That is the principle underlying property rights, which are fundamental to America. You do NOT have to patronize that restaurant or work there, for that matter. In fact you should not, if you want the owner to stop allowing smoking.

For the record, I hate being in smoke-filled bars and restaurants. But it's not my right to tell the owners what legal activities can and cannot be done there. In itself, this is a small issue that doesn't really impact me. But it's definitely part of a larger trend of rights being taken away. If you can't see the parallels between this issue and what they want to do with your 2 stroke snowmobile that you enjoy driving down the trail...

Again, this in itself isn't that large of an issue, but it makes me wonder what America will look like in 30 years.

 

[Admin]

One question here. Why does everyone keep saying "their right to smoke"?

I am by no means an expert on constitutional law, but I don't see anywhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights where this is something guaranteed by law. To me smoking has always been a privilege. There are laws governing who can smoke, just as in who can drive. Slightly different laws, but laws just the same.

I have always believed that it is more a persons right to breathe air that does not contain cancer causing agents than it is for someone to produce those cancer causing agents. I mean, who here would not raise a HUGE stink if a company was going to move in next to their residence and build a business that would be producing a thick white smoke that was proven to cause cancer?

I do understand the argument about a business having the right to run things as they see fit. However, keep in mind that any business that makes a living off of producing products that are consumed or used by us hold special responsibilities to make sure that they are doing so in a manner that is not threatening to our lives. Restaurants and bars have special rules that they need to follow and even have government inspectors come in and examine their premises to make sure that our health is not being put in jeopardy. To me making sure that the environment where those products are being served is free from health hazards such as tobacco smoke is also a responsibility.

I am certainly not for our government trying to tell us how to live our lives, but just about every law I can think of that is currently on the books is to protect the general population from dangers or wrong doings from others that do choose to act in a manner that is threatening to us.

I feel sorry for the smokers who's lives have been changed by this, but to tell you the honest truth, I have talked to a ton of smokers up here and have yet to come across one that is upset by it. All have said that it will not negatively impact their bar or restaurant visits and most actually think it is a good thing for all.

-John

 

[booondocker]

I...I can't see how this is much different than telling the restaurant they can't serve fried food because that it bad for you also. Or keeping the calorie count or alcohol amount to a certain level per hour. And please don't respond with the argument that the fried food one eats doesn't affect the person sitting next to you, because you do NOT have the right to a smoke-free restaurant to eat in.
Again, this in itself isn't that large of an issue, but it makes me wonder what America will look like in 30 years.

Using this argument, we should do away with the health department inspections because it is the right of the owner to serve food that is dangerous...as we don't have to eat there.

You sit down in a booth somewhere and order your meal, but right then here comes JOHHNNY GOT TO HAVE A SMOKE...and he promptly sets up shop right where the smoke will filter over to ME so I have to decide if I want to stay and eat, or stiff the owner and leave.

Nobody is telling you that you have to eat there, but the smoke you make gets out of your lungs and drifts to others who doesn't want it.

If you farm and pollute the stream, because you can....those down stream should just suck it up and live with it? Drive drunk, cause it is your right? The list is long...

There are hundreds of examples where dangerous things YOU do are restricted so that they don't endanger ME or my family.

This is one of them. Nobody cares if you want to kill yourself, but you shouldn't be trying to kill those around you at the same time you are doing yourself in.

While I do think that there should be some places....a few, that allow smoking, then the rest of the places can capitalize on the "smoke-free" atmosphere and all the butt people can head to those places that allow it and do their thing. The owner, can be happy, and the watress can just tough it out and they can just name these place...houses for the insane!

 

[lakesimcoe]

W/O trying to read through the entire thread..

What they tried here in Ontario first (before an outright no smoking in bars or restaurants) was that establishments could choose to ban either smoking or everyone under 18YO.....

Then they revoked that and said no smoking unless in a separately vented smoking room....

Then after business owners spent the oodles of money for a specially vented room, the government banned those as well,

Now it is just simply no smoking in establishments, and more recently in private cars with kids under 16..

The saga continues.....

 

[lenny]

The business rely's on PUBLIC money. In other words, your's and mine. Without it, they go OUT of business.

This smoking thing has been covered many times, MI and WI are just a little behind when it comes to doing it. Business's will take an initial hit, but as has been the case in MN, people will still go, and find a way to spend their money, and smoke their cigs, just not in my face anymore.

"I am in no way for telling one how to run their business, but if they want my patronage, I would rather NOT have to smoke to be there."

"I would rather not HAVE to smoke to be there," You nailed it right there buddy.

 

[lenny]

Of course I am...it was a sarcastic attempt at humor (that apparently failed)....The main point was that smoker's are being treated like second class citizens..while doing something that is legal...AND like it or not the majority of people who drink at taverns DO in fact smoke. Ask any bar owner what the percentage of people who smoke in their bar is.

Like I said all the anitsmokers did is close mom and pop places...may not happen today...but you watch what happens with in one year...like mosiquito said...business was down 60 percent the first day of the ban...how many businesses can stay open losing that kind of money for a sustained period of time???

so the Mosquito normally gets 10 people and that day they got 6? Were not stupid here. Most of the small town bars up here suffer with or without this smoking thing and one day account is useless. Keep in mind the initial angry response MAY or MAY NOT actually happen. Your gonna need months of counting patrons to have any sort of accuracy. Nothing against the Mosquito at all. It's a nice place and I give the new owners major props for the drive to see a business operate. I wish you the best. I was simply stating an obvious error.

You know what's really gonna happen here, people who smoke are going to have to smoke outside and have no effect on the rest of the public. People like myself will not have to decide where to spend money on food and drinks because of an addiction. We will not have to sniff smoke while we eat and drink, have our cloths saturated with stench, have our eyes irritated. If the majority of smokers had some decency in the first place we would not be dealing with this right now. How many smokers actually use the ash tray in their car instead of throwing the butts out the window, I mention that to illustrate the selfishness the majority of smokers. I am 45 years old and have had many friends over the years and 90% throw their garbage in my driveway, grass, garage floor. You guys call it freedoms and I call it responsibility. When the school kid shoots the spit wad on the chalk board and no one will fess up, the whole class is punished. Smokers created this problem and now the business have to clean up the mess, unfortunate, but that's what happens with irresponsible people. A little consideration goes a long way. I made my lodging unit a NO smoking place and now the snow is gone I am cleaning up after the guys. Oh yea! my fault, I didn't supply them with a can. Does that mean when you eat out on the snowmobile trail you throw your trash out because someone didn't puts garbage cans along the trails or better yet, a cig butt is small and causes no harm.

 

[Hoosier]

Using this argument, we should do away with the health department inspections because it is the right of the owner to serve food that is dangerous...as we don't have to eat there.

You sit down in a booth somewhere and order your meal, but right then here comes JOHHNNY GOT TO HAVE A SMOKE...and he promptly sets up shop right where the smoke will filter over to ME so I have to decide if I want to stay and eat, or stiff the owner and leave.

Nobody is telling you that you have to eat there, but the smoke you make gets out of your lungs and drifts to others who doesn't want it.

If you farm and pollute the stream, because you can....those down stream should just suck it up and live with it? Drive drunk, cause it is your right? The list is long...

There are hundreds of examples where dangerous things YOU do are restricted so that they don't endanger ME or my family.

This is one of them. Nobody cares if you want to kill yourself, but you shouldn't be trying to kill those around you at the same time you are doing yourself in.

I think you're comparing apples or oranges here. All of those are illegal activities. This is about the right of a property owner to allow adults to use legal products in a legal manner on his private property where no one is forced to be there and suffer from it. Why the state needs to step in and play nanny is what rubs me the wrong way. And it also rubs me the wrong way when people are accepting of the nanny state when it furthers their agenda, and against it when it does not (as an aside, I think that's the problem with the republican party in a nutshell). The end result of such a mindset will inevitably be more government, and eventually that bigger government will take away something you would prefer it not.

I think the end result of having smoke-free establishments is a good one. I personally would prefer that. As most do, at least from reading this thread. However, I believe this should be the right of the property owner. Seems like someone could make a good buck opening a non-smoking bar, as the majority would prefer that.

 

[chords]

Just being outside does not make it a smoking zone. Its where you are at outside. New rules include outdoor bar patios. I'm OK with all this, but ya just know that smokers like to congregate near entrances and some bobbing and weaving thru the huddles will be required esp in cold weather to get in/out the door.

 

[lenny]

IUSMIT, you see the reps as big gov, than tell me what we have going on right now.

What you are not seeing is we the people elect officials to represent us and this is what the people have wanted, at least the majority. The gov didn't think this up. Freedom schreedom, many business owners don't have the nads to stand up for being considerate to it's customers for fear of a lost buck and because of this big bro stepped up to the plate. Smoking makes for nasty air for people in building to breath, common sense says it should have been outside all along. Most smokers I know are considerate of their kids in their own car, if they would have stepped it up a bit more this would never have happened, there wouldn't have been a reason to impose a law

 

[Hoosier]

IUSMIT, you see the reps as big gov, than tell me what we have going on right now.

What you are not seeing is we the people elect officials to represent us and this is what the people have wanted, at least the majority. The gov didn't think this up. Freedom schreedom, many business owners don't have the nads to stand up for being considerate to it's customers for fear of a lost buck and because of this big bro stepped up to the plate.

I'm not trying to pick fights here, but what you just said above is big government at its finest. If the private property owners don't make the "right" decision regarding their private property, well then it's up the govt to make it right. That works great as long as you agree with the end result. Just hope they don't decide next that snowmobiles pollute too much to be in the national forests, because maybe that's what the majority wants! Again, I don't have an issue with the result, I just think that if consumers truly demanded smoke-free environments, then that is what business owners will supply. Big brother should invest its resources elsewhere.

And about your first comment, to clarify I meant the problem with the repub party is that it goes back and forth about the role of govt depending on whether its agenda is being promoted by the specific action rather than being concerned about whether the process is correct/constitutional.

 

[xcr440]

I'm not trying to pick fights here, but what you just said above is big government at its finest. If the private property owners don't make the "right" decision regarding their private property, well then it's up the govt to make it right. That works great as long as you agree with the end result. Just hope they don't decide next that snowmobiles pollute too much to be in the national forests, because maybe that's what the majority wants! Again, I don't have an issue with the result, I just think that if consumers truly demanded smoke-free environments, then that is what business owners will supply. Big brother should invest its resources elsewhere.

And about your first comment, to clarify I meant the problem with the repub party is that it goes back and forth about the role of govt depending on whether its agenda is being promoted by the specific action rather than being concerned about whether the process is correct/constitutional.

I'll agree it is "private" property, until you open it up as a business, then, not necessarily. They still have the right to "serve" who they want, but at that point, you are opening it up to the "public".

And for the second clarification, this is true for "politicians" not repubs or dems specifically. Don't be fooled by one or the other.

 

[polarisrider1]

I went to two of my favorite places for drinks last night. Tension was High at both locations. The smoking crowd at one location all moved to the end of the bar by the door for quicker exit and entering. They stuck to themselves. The non smokers were at the far other end of the bar and stuck together. No smoking was going on. But a clear separation could be seen. The 2nd Bar had a lot more swearing and bumping into around the pool tables. One guy in his twenties lit up a cig. and the door man quickly made him leave But a big scene took place during the removal process. I am thinking this will all smooth out in a week or two. Both places said business was down some, but it was a Sunday in a resort town that is still early season and the economy still weighs in as a factor to.

 

[polarfreek]

As a non smoker I like the law. Does this take the smokers rights away? NO, you can still smoke, get cancer and all the other bad health problems that come with smoking chemicals. Will big govenment come into your home or truck and tell you you can't smoke? with the new health care law the possibilties are greater. Do smokers have the right to smoke and get cancer? Yes. Do they have the right to force a non smoker to in hale the chemicals in an enclosed area and get cancer? NO. Rights and freedoms come with responsibility. For example, we all have the right to practice any religion, but if it harms another person it's not a right or a freedom.

I smoke and could care less about a "law" I just go outside or wait till I leave; don't care. Too bad for the bar/restaraunt owners but I don't think it will kill them. The gov't screws with everybody, just like healthcare. Healthcare increases smokers rates but they will also be increasing rates on overweight people too. That is just as bad or worse than smoking. Watch the news and you will soon find out that you will have to be within 10 LBS avg for your height or you will be a risk. Humm. Smoking, drinking and eating will kill everyone. That's our healthcare system in motion.

 

[yamahauler]

I am wondering by what I am reading if this actually goes wayyyyy back.

A long time before I was around, wasn't smoking considered safe?

At that point, you could smoke in public buildings and what not. So with that, it brought about that is was normal to do so. Then studies started to show that it was a cancer causing substance and things changed for some places but not others...And now that it has been this way so long, it seems like a travesty that you won't be able to smoke indoors in public places. I still don't believe that this will affect business much...I doubt people go to the bar ONLY to smoke.

 

[Hoosier]

And for the second clarification, this is true for "politicians" not repubs or dems specifically. Don't be fooled by one or the other.

I'm not fooled...the dems only care about the "ends" and don't even pretend to care about the "means"...repubs at least pretend to care about the means until they don't like the ends. Sorry to hijack the thread, and to get political!

 

[dcsnomo]

A sample of 1 is not a valid sample, but interestingly a bar in our village closed for 4 days, cleaned up, and opened non-smoking. Place has been packed. The last smoking bar in the Village is empty, used to be popular place but not anymore.

 

[ohiosledder]

Here in Ohio it affected a lot of bars and restuarants at first, but they seemed to recover quickly enough. The big problem has been that it was recently reported that State of Ohio government had so far spent $2.5mil enforcing the ban, but only collected $50,000 in fines.

 

[snoluver1]

This just in: Cheese burgers banned for public consumption. The government has found a link between second hand methane gas and cancer. It has been determined that the general public is to stupid to realize the obvious health risk from fatty foods and that methane gas emisions are iritating peoples lungs and eyes. Therefore the government has decided to step in and take the right to serve cheese burgers away from all resturaunt/bar owners. A strech?---who knows? The precident is being set!

 

[polarisrider1]

Note: some people are taking this kinda hard. Cheeseburgers? lol. I think there was more noise when lead was removed from Gasoline. I am glad the law was passed. Most smokers (not all) are so hooked on the cancer sticks they could care less who they are taking with them to the grave. Now they want our pity to. Sucks to be a smoker I'm sure. Can someone explain the upside of smoking besides the taxes and percieved weight gain if they don't smoke.

 

[snoluver1]

The point is its not about the smoking. We all know its a stupid, deadly habit.
How many millions of people have been killed by drunk drivers? How much property damage? How many families have been ripped apart by alchohol's effects. The government tried to fix that once--remember how that turned out? You just can't fix stupid!!
I don't have any problem with a government ban on smoking in public spaces. A bar is not a public space. You can make a decision to enter or not.
Example: You want to take your kids out for dinner. Its little Bobby's b-day. Do you go down to the local outlaw biker bar for a tombstone and a pitcher of beer, or do you go to the local family resturaunt with a non smoking section? Does the fact that the biker bar isn't catering to your needs at that paticular time, mean that he should not be allowed, by law, to run a biker bar? Its called free enterprise. You can make the choice to go somewhere else. There's no place around thats compleatly non smoking you say? Go to the grocery store. Its a public place. You can by your food without being bothered by smoke. If the market will bare compleatly smoke free bars and resturaunts, then let the market show that, not the government! Next they will ask you to hand over your favorite shotgun, you know, the one Grandpa gave you when you were 14, and while we're at it, why don't you just give us that fishing rod to. We've determined your not responsible enough to use it.