Docmo Member Username: Docmo
Post Number: 50 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 68.40.171.54
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 12:19 am: | |
Any chance the City of Detroit takes the lead in this state and goes smoke free in bars and restaurants. It has worked incredibly well in NYC, California and numerous other locales across the country. Michigan is a backward state when it comes to health with incredibly high smoking and obesity rates. Maybe Detroit could use this issue to project a progressive living standard to its residents and neighbors. There is a large contingent of people who hate going to a non-smoking restaurant separated from smokers by only a few feet. The Surgeon General's attached report makes it clear this is a huge public health issue. I'd love to see the City take the lead on this. WASHINGTON (AP) -- Breathing any amount of someone else's tobacco smoke harms nonsmokers, the surgeon general declared Tuesday - a strong condemnation of secondhand smoke that is sure to fuel nationwide efforts to ban smoking in public. "The debate is over. The science is clear: Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard," said U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona. More than 126 million nonsmoking Americans are regularly exposed to smokers' fumes - what Carmona termed "involuntary smoking" - and tens of thousands die each year as a result, concludes the 670-page study. It cites "overwhelming scientific evidence" that secondhand smoke causes heart disease, lung cancer and a list of other illnesses. The report calls for completely smoke-free buildings and public places, saying that separate smoking sections and ventilation systems don't fully protect nonsmokers. Seventeen states and more than 400 towns, cities and counties have passed strong no-smoking laws. But public smoking bans don't reach inside private homes, where just over one in five children breathes their parents' smoke - and youngsters' still developing bodies are especially vulnerable. Secondhand smoke puts children at risk of sudden infant death syndrome, or SIDS, as well as bronchitis, pneumonia, worsening asthma attacks, poor lung growth and ear infections, the report found. Carmona implored parents who can't kick the habit to smoke outdoors, never in a house or car with a child. Opening a window to let the smoke out won't protect them. "Stay away from smokers," he urged everyone else. Even a few minutes around drifting smoke is enough to spark an asthma attack, make blood more prone to clot, damage heart arteries and begin the kind of cell damage that over time can lead to cancer, he said. Repeatedly questioned about how the Bush administration would implement his findings, Carmona would only pledge to publicize the report in hopes of encouraging anti-smoking advocacy. Passing anti-smoking laws is up to Congress and state and local governments, he said. "My job is to make sure we keep a light on this thing," he said. Still, public health advocates said the report should accelerate an already growing movement toward more smoke-free workplaces. "This could be the most influential surgeon general's report in 15 years," said Matthew Myers of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. "The message to governments is: The only way to protect your citizens is comprehensive smoke-free laws." The report won't surprise doctors. It isn't a new study but a compilation of the best research on secondhand smoke done since the last surgeon general's report on the topic in 1986, which declared secondhand smoke a cause of lung cancer that kills 3,000 nonsmokers a year. Since then, scientists have proved that even more illnesses are triggered or worsened by secondhand smoke. Topping that list: More than 35,000 nonsmokers a year die from heart disease caused by secondhand smoke. Regular exposure to someone else's smoke increases the risk of a nonsmoker getting heart disease or lung cancer by up to 30 percent, Carmona found. Some tobacco companies acknowledge the risks. But R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., which has fought some of the smoking bans, challenges the new report's call for complete smoke-free zones and insists the danger is overblown. "Bottom line, we believe adults should be able to patronize establishments that permit smoking if they choose to do so," said RJR spokesman David Howard. And a key argument of some business owners' legal challenges to smoking bans is that smoking customers will go elsewhere, cutting their profits. But the surgeon general's report concludes that's not true. It cites a list of studies that found no negative economic impact from city and state smoking bans - including evidence that New York City restaurants and bars increased business by almost 9 percent after going smoke-free. To help make the point, Carmona's office videotaped mayors of smoke-free cities and executives of smoke-free companies, including the founder of the Applebee's restaurant chain, saying business got better when the haze cleared. In addition to the scientific report, Carmona issued advice for consumers and employers Tuesday: -Choose smoke-free restaurants and other businesses, and thank them for going smoke-free. -Don't let anyone smoke near your child. Don't take your child to restaurants or other indoor places that allow smoking. -Smokers should never smoke around a sick relative. -Employers should make all indoor workspace smoke-free and not allow smoking near entrances, to protect the health of both customers and workers, and offer programs to help employees kick the habit. --- On the Net: Report: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy. |
Psip
Member Username: Psip
Post Number: 1096 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 68.60.45.70
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 12:26 am: | |
God I hope not! Enough of this taking away what we have. |
Docmo Member Username: Docmo
Post Number: 51 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 68.40.171.54
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 12:32 am: | |
Take your smokes outside, Psip. Or, do your part to get us out of that crappy air status rating from Men's Health and quit smoking altogether. |
Psip
Member Username: Psip
Post Number: 1097 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 68.60.45.70
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 12:54 am: | |
YOU stay away from me. Get it? |
Gumby Member Username: Gumby
Post Number: 1300 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 68.60.143.186
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 1:10 am: | |
I have never understood why smokers are so against these smoking bans. I have never met anyone who actually enjoys smoking, they all claim to want to quit. Go ahead and kill yourselves with the cigarettes but leave my air alone. |
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup
Post Number: 1130 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 69.130.18.100
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 1:45 am: | |
what's more amazing is the price people pay for brand names smokes nowadays - a heavy smoker could go bankrupt |
Yupislyr Member Username: Yupislyr
Post Number: 133 Registered: 07-2004 Posted From: 24.57.86.210
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 2:52 am: | |
Going to a show at a bar and not coming home stinking from smoke really is refreshing. You folks should try it sometime. I go to most shows in Detroit so I still end up stinking anyway though :| |
Gdub Member Username: Gdub
Post Number: 1051 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 4.229.66.238
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 3:24 am: | |
Too working-class here. Won't happen, for a while, at least. If clean air is a priority, then do what you can to fight pollution. The air's so bad in Detroit anyway, it really doesn't make much of a difference if it's tobacco or auto/industrial emissions. I'd favor a ban at restaurants, but a bar is a bar. At this point, in Michigan, if you want to be a make demands on every leisure business, then find a nonsmoking place or stay home if it bothers you that much. Or you could always move to one of those great bastions of clean air like New York City or Los Angeles. |
Pdtpuck Member Username: Pdtpuck
Post Number: 76 Registered: 01-2006 Posted From: 208.251.168.194
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 3:34 am: | |
when do we stop banning everything that's supposed to be bad for us? I can't wait for the day (and you watch, it WILL come!) when they try to ban drinking in bars, or eating hot dogs at sporting events, or getting a tan at the beach, or.... then everybody can go and smack the guy who first started this bullshi+!!! kinda reminds me of why my Dad hated people so much...their "hooray for me and fuk you" attitude. "Yeah, you have rights, and I will defend to my death your right to have them, but the minute they infringe on MINE, well, buddy, sorry....me first!" |
Gumby Member Username: Gumby
Post Number: 1301 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 68.60.143.186
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 3:36 am: | |
Wouldn't getting rid of smoking fight pollution? I realize that it would be a small dent but still a dent. |
Pdtpuck Member Username: Pdtpuck
Post Number: 77 Registered: 01-2006 Posted From: 208.251.168.194
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 4:14 am: | |
|
Machoken Member Username: Machoken
Post Number: 1359 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.85.155.145
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 6:53 am: | |
Put me down for smoke free. When deciding whether to eat at a new place on a busy night, the first question I always need to know is whether or not it's smoke free. If it's not smoke free, we'll usually go somewhere else. |
Shark Member Username: Shark
Post Number: 236 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 69.210.23.70
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 7:17 am: | |
quote:Any chance the City of Detroit takes the lead in this state and goes smoke free in bars and restaurants.
Not unless you can get the state legislature to repeal preemption. At this point in time, bars and restaurants must be done at the state level, not in individual counties or cities. There has been legislation introduced for smokefree bars and restaurants, but it is stuck in committee right now. |
Paulj Member Username: Paulj
Post Number: 410 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 68.249.241.80
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 7:39 am: | |
I dont say ban smoking, but ban it indoors.... You wouldnt want me to fire up my motorcycle indoors with you around, would ya? ...And I am an ex smoker, smoked for 5 years. It's really disgusting once you allow your respiratory tract time to recover and cand smell what it really smells like. I really enjoyed being in California this summe and not having to be trapped inside, breathing the second hand smoke. Quite a nice change from living at the Ramada Inn where it ws status quo and acceptable to get in the elevator with a lit ciggarette! |
Huggybear Member Username: Huggybear
Post Number: 243 Registered: 08-2005 Posted From: 68.79.117.92
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 7:54 am: | |
Time out! If they ban smoking in bars, then we'll be able to tell if someone else farts. And as we all know, nothing is worse than *someone else's* flatulence. |
Everyman Member Username: Everyman
Post Number: 61 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 68.58.41.232
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 8:31 am: | |
Machoken's got it right, in part. Let the market decide. If there truly were this overwhelming support for non-smoking establishments, then most would be non-smoking. As it stands, it appears most places feel a majority of people prefer smoking to be allowed. Dollars always vote better than politicians in situations like this. |
Jjw Member Username: Jjw
Post Number: 125 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 68.33.56.156
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 8:40 am: | |
I am not a smoker----But----the automobile city has more to worry about than smoking. Do your part and take transit, sell one of the two cars, walk, ride a bike. The shat in the air comes from the 9 billion cars running around town all day---not the smokers. My lungs are being polluted from car exhaust, not the guy who happens to be smoking. |
Pacypacy_ Member Username: Pacypacy_
Post Number: 162 Registered: 05-2006 Posted From: 136.181.195.84
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 9:01 am: | |
Smoking, laughable. We walk around all day sucking up auto and factory pollution and you people are worried about smoke harming you when you are drinking in a bar converting alcohol into piss at $3.00 per 12 ozs. and rotting your livers at the same time. Remember when all this anti-smoking nonsense started with a few libs and the fledgeling health police? It started out in the late 70's with the words: "well all we are asking for is a couple of tables set aside in a restuarant". Look at it now, employers dictating policy for employee's in their off time, legislation attempting to tell parents when they can smoke, etc... We see the same thing happening with food now that the food police have their foot in the door. I'll tell you how did my grandparents ever make it into their 90's with their kind of lifestyle and no do-gooder/control freaks to watch over them? |
Pffft Member Username: Pffft
Post Number: 1032 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 69.221.69.131
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 9:19 am: | |
Pacy, Why are you so threatened by this? It's hilarious. This is the conservative Surgeon General of your conservative hero President Bush, speaking. He's saying those few tables in the non-smoking section are pathetically inadequate! You are so fortunate to have great genes, so you can smoke yourself silly into your 90s like your grandparents did. Have you seriously never seen anyone die of lung cancer or emphysema? I have, a cousin died of lung cancer leaving two children under 12. It was a horrible death, she went down to 80 pounds and was in terrible pain. Doctors have known about the risks of smoking for years. YEARS. So smokers couldn't say they "didn't know." And now we know, it's proven, that their damn smoke kills innocent people. |
Hochi Member Username: Hochi
Post Number: 74 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 63.85.190.226
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 9:37 am: | |
I'm a non-smoker. If smoking is banned indoors for bars it will be a sad day. I dislike smoke for the most part, but smoke is part of the bar experience. |
Andysrc Member Username: Andysrc
Post Number: 84 Registered: 07-2005 Posted From: 209.220.229.254
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 9:39 am: | |
quote:when do we stop banning everything that's supposed to be bad for us? I can't wait for the day (and you watch, it WILL come!) when they try to ban drinking in bars, or eating hot dogs at sporting events, or getting a tan at the beach, or.... then everybody can go and smack the guy who first started this bullshi+!!!
There is a difference between a smoking ban and the things you are referring to (hot dog ban, beer ban). If someone goes to a bar and sits next to you and drinks ten beers, you don't get drunk. But if someone sits next to you and smokes ten cigarettes, you do breathe in their smoke. The smoking ban isn't about protecting the smoker from themselves, it's about protecting all the other people from the smoker. |
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg
Post Number: 87 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 69.136.155.244
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 9:42 am: | |
Legislating where people can and cannot perform a perfectly legal activity on private property is the first step down a very slipery slope! If smoking and breathing second-hand smoke is such a dire health hazard (believe me, I am receptive to the data that says it is - that's why I am a non-smoker), then our legislators should first criminalize the production and sale of cigarettes and cigars. Once they are so bold to take that action, only then should they criminalize the use of smoking materials on private property. Of course, this approach is way to controversial and difficult for our elected representatives, so expect more of these "back-door" approaches to get at the ultimate objective. Tobacco industry lobbyists "push-back" more effectively than the bar and restaurant owners. Ultimately, we will have to rely on continued public education on the health hazards of smoking. The data shows that this approach works over time, but the nanny-state do-gooders always want instant results. |
Pffft Member Username: Pffft
Post Number: 1033 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 69.221.69.131
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 9:45 am: | |
Yeah and I suppose disease is part of the life experience, too... Everybody knows the health hazards of smoking. But people choose to smoke anyway. LET them. But they no longer will be able to take the rest of us with them. If protecting me from dying because of some fun another idiot is having with a cigarette is being a nanny, we need lots of nannies. Bring 'em on. |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 1587 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.100.158.10
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 10:19 am: | |
The fun part about all these restaurant and bar smoking bans is they are promoted as ways to "protect" the employees. Bullshit. Obviously, none of the cheerleaders for the smoke-free mandates have ever worked in the biz, otherwise they would know that a vast majority of restaurant and bar employees smoke. |
Jjw Member Username: Jjw
Post Number: 126 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 68.33.56.156
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 10:28 am: | |
Personally, I don't care if there is a ban or not. I am a non-smoker. But, if someone drives a car and supports this ban, he or she is a hypocrite. Why? Because cars contribute to the overall lack of health much more than cigarettes, cigars, or pipes. No one wants to talk about this fact because it affects everyone including me. It's easier to draw the public's attention to issues that only affect a few like this ban. There are way to many more issues to deal with---health care for all, the war in Iraq, etc. |
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_
Post Number: 1412 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 69.220.230.150
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 10:33 am: | |
You will have a better chance making smoking illegal before you ban it completely. Keep believing the insurance business hype and you will be wearing a helmet in the shower. They have feed you this BS that everyone else is costing you money. It is just an excuse to keep raising rates and people buy it hook line and sinker. We need reform more than we needs laws. (Message edited by _sj_ on June 28, 2006) (Message edited by _sj_ on June 28, 2006) |
Funkycarrie Member Username: Funkycarrie
Post Number: 280 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 69.209.138.56
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 10:37 am: | |
I'd love to see a ban, I'd love to be able to go somewhere and enjoy myself without someone blowing a cloud of smoke into what I'm breathing. It's worked wonders in Cali. A ban would also help those that are trying to quit actually do so. It's so much easier without temptation all over the place. |
Funkycarrie Member Username: Funkycarrie
Post Number: 281 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 69.209.138.56
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 10:39 am: | |
sj - how do you explain the success of the state of California? I love visiting my brother, going to a bar, and not coming home smelling like an ashtray, it's fabulous! |
Spacemonkey Member Username: Spacemonkey
Post Number: 63 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 63.102.87.27
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 10:39 am: | |
I like to smoke. |
Funkycarrie Member Username: Funkycarrie
Post Number: 282 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 69.209.138.56
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 10:41 am: | |
even when I was a smoker (5+ years) I can't really say that I liked it. |
Pacypacy_ Member Username: Pacypacy_
Post Number: 165 Registered: 05-2006 Posted From: 136.181.195.84
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 10:43 am: | |
Protect us from ourselves...again. Cradle to the grave baby. How does this protect someone who is 22 years old, doesn't smoke and walks out the front door and gets run over by a polluting diesel bus? FYI I do not drink or smoke. |
Kimmiann Member Username: Kimmiann
Post Number: 59 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 155.139.50.15
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 10:47 am: | |
Let the market decide! It will, eventually. Keep the government OUT of my personal choices! On this particular issue, I agree with Pacy. As a smoker, I WILL NOT patronize any place that is completely smoke-free. If the market were to make this decision for me, I may have to amend my position on this (I can see that day coming sooner, rather than later.) On the other hand, if I am at a restaurant with a table full of non-smoking friends, I certainly will wait to light up, out of consideration for the non-smokers around me. If more people, smokers and non-smokers, Republicans and Democrats, Christians and Muslims, or even blacks and whites, would just be courteous to one another, this world would be a much better place. I resent, deeply, being told what I can or cannot do by anyone who never bothered to "walk a mile in my shoes"! |
Ndavies Member Username: Ndavies
Post Number: 1968 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 129.9.163.106
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 10:50 am: | |
The city council introduced a resolution to ban smoking in all workplaces last year. It didn't pass. |
Funkycarrie Member Username: Funkycarrie
Post Number: 285 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 69.209.138.56
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 11:00 am: | |
Just more proof that as much as I love Detroit, I need to live somewhere else. I'm an asthmatic, for the past year, anytime I enjoy myself at a smoking establishment, I find that I have an attack the next day. It's controlled, so it's 100% cigarette caused. Walk a mile in my shoes Kim...see how you fare with an asthma attack. It goes both ways! |
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed
Post Number: 311 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 209.220.229.254
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 11:01 am: | |
I forgot that NYC did this, so when I was there a month ago, I couldn't figure out why everytime we LEFT a bar, I smelled smoke outside worse than inside...and then I remembered the ban. It was great. But I remember hearing that since there is almost no bar in NYC that doesn't have people living upstairs...I guess all that smoke (since people are now outside smoking by the dozens) goes right up into their windows. |
Docmo Member Username: Docmo
Post Number: 52 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 170.232.128.10
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 11:24 am: | |
Pacy, It is not a question of your rights being legislated away. Not when your so called right to smoke puts my health at risk. It is clear from this conservative appointed Surgeon General that the evidence is overwhelming that indoor secondhand smoke is a major public health hazard. I can't go to a damn Coney Island without smelling smoke while eating my breakfast. This Surgeon General report will accelerate further states and cities from banning smoking in restaurants and bars. 17 states presently ban smoking in these establishments. Colorado comes on line this summer. It is inevitable, IMHO, that this will become a nationwide practice over the next 10-20 years. Michigan will be one of the last states to adopt this public health measure. We are too blue collar with too many smokers. We will likely only be ahead of Tobacco Road states like North Carolina, Kentucky, and Virginia. |
Bob Member Username: Bob
Post Number: 1046 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 64.12.116.204
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 11:33 am: | |
I agree, Michigan is too blue-collar and uneducated to be groundbreaking in banning smoking in indoor public places. It is goung to happen, we will just have to wait to be behind everyone else that does it. I useless lawmakers will give some line about hurting business, and will never bring it up for a vote. The when 49 states have approved it, we finally will. The biggest way to show how you feel about this right now, is frequent the places, that are non-smoking if you're a non-smoker, and if you're a smoker, frequent the places where you can smoke. Business's will follow what the market says, if everyone is asking for non-smoking tables, or if business if up in establishments that are non-smoking, more will follow. If places have their smoking sections filled, and their non-smoking empty, people have spoken. |
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_
Post Number: 1414 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 69.220.230.150
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 12:54 pm: | |
quote:sj - how do you explain the success of the state of California?
There was/is a list on the internet listing the amount of bars that have closed due to the ban. Until it is illegal ban it in public, but let the private business owners decide. And don't forget that with Casino Windsor seeing a drop off in patronage after the ban the Casinos will lobby hard to keep it. |
Funkycarrie Member Username: Funkycarrie
Post Number: 295 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 69.209.138.56
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 1:32 pm: | |
How do specific bars/restaurants in California close, due to a smoking ban, when it's illegal statewide in all establishments? |
Funkycarrie Member Username: Funkycarrie
Post Number: 296 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 69.209.138.56
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 1:36 pm: | |
"According to the report, comprehensive smoking bans such as those in New York City and Boston have not hurt the hospitality industry." http://www.forbes.com/forbesli fe/health/feeds/hscout/2006/06 /27/hscout533493.html |
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_
Post Number: 1415 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 69.220.230.150
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 1:38 pm: | |
IMO Bars are not in the hospitality industry. Closed due to declining revenues. |
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg
Post Number: 88 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 69.136.155.244
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 1:42 pm: | |
Funkycarrie, it is difficult to legislate human behavior, especially when it involves the use of legal substances. The bars are hurting and closing because folks who like to socialize with a drink and a smoke have found other places to do it. |
Funkycarrie Member Username: Funkycarrie
Post Number: 297 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 69.209.138.56
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 1:51 pm: | |
sj, did you write the article? Maybe the author has different views about what is and isn't part of the hospitality industry. Mike, the reason I asked the question is because I haven't heard a thing about bars closing, because of the ban, in California. All the Californians I know dont mind the law. Bars are hardly hurting as well. http://www.gaspforair.org/gasp /gedc/artcl-new.php?ID=62 "Two retail categories that cover bars and taverns posted sales growth of 6.1 percent and 5.1 percent during 1998" http://www.enquirer.com/editio ns/2004/03/15/loc_loc1asmok.ht ml http://www.no-smoking.org/july 03/07-21-03-3.html http://www.tcsg.org/sfelp/econ omic.htm While the tobacco industry has for years stated that smoke-free policies will reduce customer patronage of smoke-free businesses, there are no credible, scientific studies that support these claims. |
Funkycarrie Member Username: Funkycarrie
Post Number: 298 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 69.209.138.56
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 1:54 pm: | |
you are right about Casino Windsor though, but why cross the border and use that Casino, when you have 3 here in Detroit where you can smoke? That makes sense... |
Funkycarrie Member Username: Funkycarrie
Post Number: 299 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 69.209.138.56
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 2:12 pm: | |
I think the solution is to ban it and then open city owned smoking dens...think about the cash the city could make... |
Chub Member Username: Chub
Post Number: 337 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 69.246.28.200
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 2:23 pm: | |
I've really cut down on going out to shows for two reasons; one is the lack of good bands coming to town, and the other is that I don't like smelling like smoke for the rest of the night and the next morning. Ban Smoking In Public Places Now! |
Docmo Member Username: Docmo
Post Number: 54 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 170.232.128.10
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 2:26 pm: | |
"That's the conclusion of a new U.S. Surgeon General's report issued Tuesday, which determined that nonsmokers who were exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work had a 25 percent to 30 percent increased risk of developing heart disease and a 20 percent to 30 percent increased risk for lung cancer." I'm lucky in that I work in a Hospital which is smoke free. If I am a non-smoking waitperson working in a restaurant with with a smoking section, I am pissed off today. I find out that my chance of developing the # 1 killer in this country (heart disease) is increased by 25-30%. My chance of contracting a hideous disease like lung cancer is 20-30% greater. In fact, I would be so pissed I would sue my employer at the first sign of any heart disease. I'd love to sue the State, but I suspect that would be harder than going after my employer who created an unsafe working environment. |
Pffft Member Username: Pffft
Post Number: 1034 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 12.34.51.20
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 2:33 pm: | |
"...it is difficult to legislate human behavior..." No, it's not. You're not allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded auditorium, leave a child in a hot car for three hours, or beat your dog senseless. You're not allowed to rob someone. Those are all forms of human behavior that we "legislate." And there are a lot of "legal" activities for adults that are regulated. Regulating something that leads to illness and death in innocent, nearby parties is a no-brainer. Kill yourself, but do it over THERE, by yourself, or with likeminded nihilists. People do things they're not supposed to do, and they are penalized. If these sorts of "human behavior" weren't regulated and penalized, many more would do those things. |
Pffft Member Username: Pffft
Post Number: 1035 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 12.34.51.20
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 2:35 pm: | |
Funky Carrie, Many of us have cut down on seeing live entertainment in clubs because of the smoke problem. What aggravates me is it's always a minority of people smoking, only a handful in most instances, but in a small bar with no windows or ventilation, the entire room is sucking down the smoke with them. Thus a tiny minority terrorizes the majority. |
Oldredfordette Member Username: Oldredfordette
Post Number: 24 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 68.60.177.56
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 2:46 pm: | |
The smoking ban hasn't hurt in New York City either. People either break the law or go outside. Not a single bar has closed. Smoking has been slowly ostracized over the last 10 years, people are getting used to going outside or waiting longer to light up. When I smoked, you could still smoke everywhere. |
Hooha Member Username: Hooha
Post Number: 115 Registered: 06-2005 Posted From: 24.145.153.182
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 3:16 pm: | |
"Machoken's got it right, in part. Let the market decide. If there truly were this overwhelming support for non-smoking establishments, then most would be non-smoking. As it stands, it appears most places feel a majority of people prefer smoking to be allowed. Dollars always vote better than politicians in situations like this." I highly doubt a majority of people want smoking to be allowed in bars. People who hate smokey bars go there anyways. Not to show their support for their smoking brethern, but because there's no other choice. I can't go to Karras Bros. every night. I like variety, and there's just not enough non-smoking bars in this town. If it was the other way around, and only a few bars allowed smoking, I would gladly stay away from them. But as is, what am I supposed to do? Spearhead a massive movement to boycott smoking bars and put a big dent in the local economy, as well as ruin my nightlife for a couple months? F that. Instead I'll put my support behind legislation to fix my problem. Dollars don't always indicate the will of the people. How many of you Detroiters spend money in the burbs on things you can't find in the D? Is it because you want to support business outside city limits? No, you just don't have a reasonable alternative. Same thing with those who patronize smokey bars. |
Tayshaun22 Member Username: Tayshaun22
Post Number: 268 Registered: 02-2005 Posted From: 69.14.101.116
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 5:20 pm: | |
Not smoking in a bar is comparable to not praying in a church. |
Thecarl
Member Username: Thecarl
Post Number: 823 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 69.14.30.175
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 7:07 pm: | |
next thing you know, the government will be pounding on your door because you own books. watch, it will happen. |
Thecarl
Member Username: Thecarl
Post Number: 824 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 69.14.30.175
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 7:13 pm: | |
quote:Not smoking in a bar is comparable to not praying in a church.
not smoking in a bar is comparable to not splashing pedestrians by driving through mud puddles. |
Pffft Member Username: Pffft
Post Number: 1036 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 69.221.69.131
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 7:34 pm: | |
A little worse, last I heard, mud and water splashed on you did not cause a 25-30% increase in heart disease. |
Paulj Member Username: Paulj
Post Number: 413 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 144.160.5.25
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 7:55 pm: | |
Is Karras Brothers smoke free? If so I just found my new joint, cuz they have a rooftop deck and pinball, and good people. |
Pffft Member Username: Pffft
Post Number: 1037 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 69.221.69.131
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 7:59 pm: | |
The new Book Caddy will be smoke-free |
Newlaster Member Username: Newlaster
Post Number: 176 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 69.136.136.209
| Posted on Wednesday, June 28, 2006 - 9:08 pm: | |
I think this could work if it were done on a region-wide level. Otherwise, it would deter some of the crowd from partying in the city. Or it would empower illegitimate party venues (which are often the most fun anyway). But we can't agree on anything on a region-wide level. |
Pdtpuck Member Username: Pdtpuck
Post Number: 78 Registered: 01-2006 Posted From: 208.251.168.194
| Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 1:17 am: | |
quote:cuz they have a rooftop deck
where you'll be happy to ingest the putrid, car-polluted and 2nd hand smoke air!! Bon appetit!
quote: ------------------------------ ------------------------------ -------------------- quote: when do we stop banning everything that's supposed to be bad for us? I can't wait for the day (and you watch, it WILL come!) when they try to ban drinking in bars, or eating hot dogs at sporting events, or getting a tan at the beach, or.... then everybody can go and smack the guy who first started this bullshi+!!! ------------------------------ ------------------------------ -------------------- There is a difference between a smoking ban and the things you are referring to (hot dog ban, beer ban). If someone goes to a bar and sits next to you and drinks ten beers, you don't get drunk. But if someone sits next to you and smokes ten cigarettes, you do breathe in their smoke. The smoking ban isn't about protecting the smoker from themselves, it's about protecting all the other people from the smoker.
you missed my point....
quote:next thing you know, the government will be pounding on your door because you own books. watch, it will happen.
apparently, I'm not the only one who feels this way!
quote:There is a difference between a smoking ban and the things you are referring to (hot dog ban, beer ban). If someone goes to a bar and sits next to you and drinks ten beers, you don't get drunk. But if someone sits next to you and smokes ten cigarettes, you do breathe in their smoke. The smoking ban isn't about protecting the smoker from themselves, it's about protecting all the other people from the smoker.
yeah, but that same person sitting next to me who drinks 10 beers and doesn't get me drunk will be the same jerk-off who t-bones me on the way home! of course, it'll be my fault because I didn't have a SMOKING DEN (?!?!?!?!?!?) to go to!!!
quote: If someone goes to a bar and sits next to you and drinks ten beers, you don't get drunk.
...and thank God for that...my sponsor would kick my ass! (Message edited by pdtpuck on June 29, 2006) |
Funkycarrie Member Username: Funkycarrie
Post Number: 302 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 68.249.241.80
| Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 1:21 am: | |
flawed logic all over the place. |
Pdtpuck Member Username: Pdtpuck
Post Number: 80 Registered: 01-2006 Posted From: 208.251.168.194
| Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 2:32 am: | |
MAN SUES DENNY'S FOR GIVING HIM LUNG CANCER by Willy Makeitup An Anywhere, Michigan man sued the local Denny's for what he claims is "lung cancer and heart disease from long-term exposure to second-hand smoke from sitting too close to the smoking section at my favorite restaurant, Denny's." He also claims that he may even consider suing the state and local governments for not passing the much bally-hooed "Kick the Marlboro Man out of Detroit" legislation earlier this year. When asked by reporters how often he went to Denny's, he replied "oh, at least 2 to 3 times a day. My wife passed away last year from heart disease, which was brought on by no light-rail system being available here in Detroit, and I'm not much of a cook, so Denny's was the logical choice." He also commented in passing that he always ate right, including cheeseburgers, biscuits and gravy, and hash browns. ---a stretch, but not much...... I can see it coming............. (DISCLAIMER: for those that cannot see the inherent "jokiness" in this post...lighten up.) (Message edited by pdtpuck on June 29, 2006) |
Paulj Member Username: Paulj
Post Number: 416 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 68.249.241.80
| Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 10:24 am: | |
hey in wisconsin I went to a restaurant where they allowed a smoking section... It was ventilated & glassed-off from the rest of the joint. I'm OK with that but the idea of sitting me at a table across the room from 25 fuming smokers with no divider... thats kind of a joke. I'm all for personal freedom, but my right to swing my fist around ends just short of the tip of your nose. al least a fist isn't going to make me stink, harden my arteries & possibly makle me die sooner. |
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_
Post Number: 1416 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 69.220.230.150
| Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 12:06 pm: | |
A quick search of the internet revealed the except opposite that growth in the bar industry in the states which contain smoking bans of 0-10%. While bar industry in non-smoking ban states saw growth of 20-50%. One state reported one bar closing every 6 days due to the smoking ban. Ban smoking in all public places. Not a problem. But until smoking is illegal it has to be allowed in private establishments and until then let the patrons of the bars smoke. |
Hugo8100 Member Username: Hugo8100
Post Number: 1 Registered: 06-2006 Posted From: 69.246.41.106
| Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 1:40 pm: | |
The puffer at the end of the bar isn't going to kill you. When did we become a nation of hypocondriac ninnies? http://www.reason.com/hitandru n/2006/06/did_carmona_eve.shtm l#014497 <quote>I'm all for personal freedom, but my right to swing my fist around ends just short of the tip of your nose.</quote> That's a silly argument in this case and I'm so tired of hearing it applied to smoking bans. You walk into a bar then you CHOOSE to breathe the air there. You CHOOSE to work at a restaurant/bar with a smoking section. Just because you don't like your options doesn't give you the right to legislate property rights away. |
Susanarosa Member Username: Susanarosa
Post Number: 952 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 208.39.170.90
| Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 2:06 pm: | |
Ban smoking in private bars and resturaunts so all the smokers can head out to the public streets and sidewalks? I just don't get it. |
Docmo Member Username: Docmo
Post Number: 58 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 170.232.128.10
| Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 3:21 pm: | |
Hugo, Actually the Surgeon General does say emphatically that the smoker next to you could be killing you. Second hand smoke increases your risk of contracting two of the nation's most devastating diseases by 25-30%. It's very easy for you to say it is a personal choice to choose to work in a smoking restaurant. That is not realistic for most restaurant workers. Probably 98% of sit down restaurants in this state offer so-called smoking sections. 99.9% of bars are smoking. That sucks if all you want to do is make a living serving a meal or pouring a drink and not end up with some hideous cancer eating away at your lung and chest wall. Susanarosa, Yes, take your smokes outside where their pathogens are at least diluted into the atmosphere before contributing to our crappy air we have in Detroit. |
Susanarosa Member Username: Susanarosa
Post Number: 955 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 208.39.170.90
| Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 3:24 pm: | |
quote:Susanarosa, Yes, take your smokes outside where their pathogens are at least diluted into the atmosphere before contributing to our crappy air we have in Detroit.
I've been smoke-free for 18 days and would personally rather avoid somewhere that I knew would be smokey (smoking sections, bars, etc) than have to walk through a cloud of smoke on my way into a building. But it's all just personal preference Docmo. |
Designut Member Username: Designut
Post Number: 29 Registered: 05-2006 Posted From: 65.123.68.93
| Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 4:02 pm: | |
As a smoker, I would support a ban in restaurants - but bars? As was mentioned earlier, smoke is just part of the bar experience - like it or not. Chicago resolved this issue by passing a law that makes it illegal to smoke in restaurants but it's legal to smoke in a bar. the distinction between the two is simple: if the establishment makes over 50% of its profits by selling alchohol its a bar, over 50% from food and it's a restuarant. This allows for plenty of smoke-free bars (that have a grill/kitchen). In boston you can't smoke in either a restaurant or a bar, and the streets (where all of the bars are) are FLOODED with drunk smokers... But I digress........Docmo is right, our blue-collar city won't ban smoking any time soon anyhow. |
Docmo Member Username: Docmo
Post Number: 59 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 170.232.128.10
| Posted on Thursday, June 29, 2006 - 4:06 pm: | |
Susanarosa, Congratulations on your 18 days of improved health prospects. One of the problems cited in the Surgeon General's report is that smoking sections don't work. You sit in a son-smoking section and you are still exposed to the pathogens. Try walking quickly past the smokers outside a building. Don't inhale if you can. That brief minimal exposure is much less than a non-smoking section sit down meal with smokers on the other side of the room. Docmo |