Michigan Votes Forum

Just put the issue on the ballot like Ohio did... The smoking ban passed by 20 points. End of case.

If pigs could vote, the man with the slop bucket would be elected swineherd every time, no matter how much slaughtering he did on the side. --Orson Scott Card

to vote this DEMOCRACY back into A REPUBLIC...

That may or not be the truth, but even if it is, you'll still be accused of trying to take away a business owner's "rights" and therefore you'll be accused of being a stinking "lib." Every argument here turns ad hominem and people insult the person, instead of making an intelligent reply. It doesn't matter if these no loss of business experiences have been repeated in many states, an exception will always be found..."I know a bar owner and he went out of business...ruined his life," whether or not the ban was the actual cause or not. It also doesn't seem to matter that it just makes some logical sense. If the majority don't smoke, perhaps business will increase when the majority can go somewhere without being forced to smoke through the second hand smoke. Like all the families with kids who, for the most part, avoid anywhere smoky. Nah, makes too much sense. You're a damn lib. Go somewhere else, you are wasting your time.

"make so much more than smoking bars... why are there NO NON SMOKING BARS? at least according you non-smokers?" 1) Most people don't like to change or challenge the status quo. 2) Liquor licenses are tightly controlled and in many towns there are none available.

available for the right price. there are ten thousand of them in detroit 'IN ESCROW'. just buy one of those. i'm sure the state will sell you one if you tell them you are planning to open a NON-SMOKING BAR. imagine what you will save in forced ventilation costs... oh... wait... those are mandatory even if your bar is non-smoking...

All I asked you for was ONE that stayed the same or got more business. I'm Still Waiting.....

Your accounts of bars that went under due to smoking bans still amount only to anecdotes. As has been noted, any given anecdote well may be (a) accurate, (b) apocryphal, (c) the result of self-fulfillment of a prophesy, or (d) arising from individual business circumstances that have nothing at all to do with the smoking ban. In short, individual anecdotes really don't mean whole lot in the big scheme of things. In this case, your business failure anecdotes do not match up with what research shows to be the actual trend when smoking bans become effective. The bulk of readily accessible objective research using real data clearly says that smoking bans generally do not result in decline in sales for bars restaurants when they are imposed. You may not like what the research shows, but the fact that it does not conform to what you want to believe does not invalidate the research. Life just works out that way sometimes.

FYI: For the final time, "THIS ISSUE IS NOT A ZONING LAW." If you'd like the definition of what a "ZONING" law is, go to your local library and look it up in Black's Law Dictionary. I own a real estate brokerage company. I've been in the real estate brokerage & development business for over 25 years. I know what a zoning law is and the history of why zoning laws were created in the first place. Zoning laws have nothing to do with your private property rights. I pay dues every year to numerous organizations that spend millions of dollars lobbying our government at all levels to protect YOUR property rights from being further eroded. I receive newsletters weekly that update my industry in regards to private property rights. Further more, a company policy is not a law, nor is it a zoning law. Even though my office is non-smoking I can change that policy to allow smoking any time I want and fire anyone that doesn't like my company policies any time I want for any reason I want with the exception of discrimination. You may think you know what you're talking about but I assure you, YOU ARE CLUELESS. I also have the RIGHT to throw anyone out of my business location, even if I'm just a tenant there, FOR NOT SMOKING, if I want, whenever I want, and ban them from ever returning to my business, IF I WANT. Could I be sued for behaving this way? Yes. You can be sued at any time for any reason no matter how stupid that reason might seem to everyone but the person suing you. You then have a constitutional ZONING LAW (to use your term) to spend thousands of dollars (or even millions) for legal counsel proving your innocence before a jury of your peers, NO MATTER HOW STUPID THE ACCUSATION IS IN THE FIRST PLACE. Could I lose in court even if every single individual in the US including the jury thinks one of my rights was violated? YES. That's how are flawed justice system works. Private property rights have been around for literally thousands of years and far predate the founding of the US. The US Constitution was constructed on the defining principle that THE PEOPLE not the government own all the rights known to mankind other than those SPECIFIC rights that THE PEOPLE as a whole through the power of representative voting have empowered their government to deny to them. A ZONING LAW has to do with the architectural & structural integrity of buildings (building codes) and the location of any such improvements to real estate within the community they are located in based on the intended use of the building once it's put into service. This keeps Consumers Energy from being able to use the property adjacent to yours for a nuclear waste dump. Why? Because you have a RIGHT to the QUIET ENJOYMENT of your property without interference or the destruction of its value from other property owners. Do you know why you have this RIGHT? BECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN SPECIFICALLY DENIED TO YOU BY YOUR GOVERNMENT . . . YET. Is this right specifically addressed in the US Constitution? YES, Amendment 9. Zoning laws are not RIGHTS and only by distant association do they apply to some public safety issues. ie. buildings should be constructed so they don't fall down on you if the wind blows while you're inside. That's it. You also have the unalienable (assumed self evident because it's believed to be given by God) ZONING LAW (as you put it) to the Pursuit Of Happiness because our government has not yet denied you that right. (US Constitution, Bill of Rights, Amendment 9) And until our government takes it away, I have the ZONING LAW (as you like to refer to your "Rights") to throw your uninformed Ass out of my business and ban you from ever returning for NOT SMOKING. That is the difference between a ZONING LAW and a RIGHT. I can see from the comments that you've made thus far that you think that Judges make the law of the land in the US. Before you stick your head up your A?? any farther, go do some research. No, not on the internet. Go to a law library. Carl S

Open a bar in Detroit...mmmm yeah, I'll get right on that. Top of my list of things to do.

And yet at Lazy Days, I had to wait for a table because they were packed. Go figure!

There's a bit of a free rider issue here as well. Most restaurants and bars workforces' are dominated by part time employees. They generally don't have health benefits. The cost of their health care, or lack thereof, gets passed on to their spouses' employers, if they have one, or comes out of their own pockets in the form of high individual premiums, or it might get passed on to taxpayers if they get a cancer of some other expensive disease. So not all the costs of smoking are really borne by the business itself.

way lower health care costs than the obese folks that patronize the restaurants. These are mostly young healty amd in shape people that work in these establishments. There isn't much call for chubbies to wait tables and they couldn't handle the jobs anyhow. As for your "free rider issue" most of you libs that are pushing to do away with our private property rights are the same ones that think it would be a good idea for everybody to become free riders on the government health ins disaster in waiting.

"an exception will always be found.." I'm not asking you for an exception, I'm asking you for ONE example of what you say is "documented" in "many studies" of bars that actually make more money. Just One.. I'm Still Waiting... You're a liar and now find yourself behind the eight ball with someone calling your bluff. Typical control freak lib/socialist. I'll make you a deal. Open a bar down the street from mine and I'll send you all the people that bitch about the nonexistant smoke in my place. You see, I have discovered this great new thing called ventilation. It allows free adults to enjoy each others company even if you don't care for some of their habits.

"You may not like what the research shows" Just show us one instance that will prove your imaginary "research".

It already has been posted here once. Maybe you missed it, or decided not to read it because it didn't fit your preconception. On January 2, 2002, El Paso, Texas (2000 population: 563,662), implemented an ordinance banning smoking in all public places and workplaces, including restaurants and bars. The El Paso smoking ban was/is the strongest smoke-free indoor air ordinance in Texas. To assess whether the El Paso smoking ban affected restaurant and bar revenues, the Texas Department of Health (TDH) and CDC analyzed sales tax and mixed-beverage tax data during the 12 years preceding and 1 year after the smoking ban was implemented. No statistically significant changes in restaurant and bar revenues occurred after the smoking ban took effect. These findings are consistent with those from studies of smoking bans in other U.S. cities. Have a nice day.

Until Hell freezes over. I am not playing your trolling game.

" turn to more broadly based, professionally conducted fact-finding and analysis." Show Us The "research". "Neither establishment has experienced a loss of business. In fact, both actually report modest increases in their volume of business since establishing the smoking bans, despite a failing economy." Name Them so we can do some "research". "Perhaps people who don't smoke have more money in their pockets to spend on what restaurants and bars sell." My research by asking actual folks that work in restaurants and bars proves you wrong. The whiny little twits that are always carping about the smoke way over there in the bar section are notoriously terrible tippers and generally a pain in the az to wait on. Wrong agin libby. "As noted before, also, sometimes the facts that emerge are quite astounding when you look into things with an open mind." Please open my mind and show me some facts and these studies you go on and on about. If you will guarantee me that I'll make more money if I ban smoking in my bar I'l put the signs up this afternoon. Unlike all the libs/socialists I will freely admit my agenda. I'm in it for the money. I also need this money to feed my family and all my employees also need it to feed their families. If the government would stay out of the way it would be much easier. This is why it is so stupid for some do gooder, nanny state lib to push this down the real folks throats that are out here working just so you can sit back and think you are helping all those people that aren't as smart as you. Your government education/self esteem building program worked great but this is the real world and it ain't all about you anymore.

Winning is so sweet, especially when you can see the little liberal stomping their feet and wetting their pants. If you ever do find that "research" I'd like to read it so I can "keep an open mind". Maybe you should try that too.

American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation???? The findings in this report are subject to at least three limitations. First, because sales tax reports lag revenue collection by 6 months, sales tax data were available for only 1 year after the El Paso smoking ban was implemented

I consider myself to be liberal. Just because I think the government should be all inclusive (instead of run by the wealthy Like it is now) doesn't mean I like the rights of the people being further eroded. Using broad, sweeping, labels to define people based on their comments is infantile. I could assume from your comments that you are a) conservative. b) a member of the Republican or Libertarian party. From that I could further define you as: a religiously, superstitious, gun-toting, toothless, illiterate, moron with the right to vote. All that from one simple statement. Any time ANY right is being denied to the people for any reason should be cause enough for ALL the people to be alarmed. Especially when the reason for removing the right is as blatantly biased as this one. The assumption being made regarding this issue is that providing medical care for people who smoke costs US taxpayers far more than it costs to provide the same care for non-smokers when the real facts just don't add up to that assumption. The real facts are that FAT people, (of which group Brenda Clack appears to be a member), drinkers, and even drivers, cost far more to treat than smokers ever will. Using that stupid analogy to deny a business owner the right to allow smoking at his private business and on his private property is morally vacant unless you're going to ban all risky behavior that might cost taxpayers just as much if not more health care money. They're not going to ban drinking because they tried that once and it didn't work. As a result those of us that don't drink are forced to pay higher health care costs that typically apply only to drinkers, or mountain climbers, or people who eat a lot of fast food, or people who choose to have deformed babies, or . . . the list is endless. With all of the legitimate pressing issues facing the state and the country right now, this is what our legislators are choosing to spend their time on? To me it just proves that we do not need full time highly paid representatives at the state level. Rather we should eliminate the senate as an unnecessary, expensive, branch of state government, and reduce the congressional branch to part time only. Maybe with a less time on their hands to spend on non-issues like this one, they will only have time to devote to actually PRESSING ISSUES that effect everyone. But that's another issue . . . Carl S

In the year before the ordinance was enacted, gross sales stood at $571,627,075. The year of the ban, 2002, the total fell to $541,592,292. It was the first decrease in gross sales El Paso eating and drinking establishments had experienced after seeing steady growth since at least 1995. If city leaders don't act, a band of bar patrons threatens that they will. Amid the crack of billiard balls and the clink of beer mugs at El Paso's Eagle's Nest bar, owner Roxanna Crandall and her customers are plotting a revolution. At the end of the bar sits the evidence: a petition filled with hundreds of signatures and a stack of voter registration cards to hand out just in case a customer needs one. The exercise in democracy inside this military-friendly bar is aimed at forcing the El Paso City Council to let voters decide whether to outlaw smoking. Crandall and her husband, Jack, both are smokers who say they are outraged that "government regulation" has stolen rights from them and their customers. Police have cited Crandall for smoking in her bar, and at least three customers have been cited by authorities. There is an outside patio for smokers, but the Crandalls acknowledge they aren't that tough on customers who insist on lighting up inside. Bar owners can ask patrons not to smoke, but the ban leaves the burden on customers to refrain from smoking, Crandall said. At the Eagle's Nest, the ban has sent smokers scurrying to the bathrooms to sneak cigarettes, Jack Crandall said. "It's like junior high schoolers in the bathroom — they shouldn't have to act this way," he said. "This building is not owned by the government. Smoking, whether the city likes it or not, is legal over age 18. "This is a not a health issue, it's a freedom issue. And we intend to fight."

I consider myself to be liberal. Just because I think the government should be all inclusive (instead of run by the wealthy Like it is now) doesn't mean I like the rights of the people being further eroded. Using broad, sweeping, labels to define people based on their comments is infantile. I could assume from your comments that you are a) conservative. b) a member of the Republican or Libertarian party. From that I could further define you as: a religiously, superstitious, gun-toting, toothless, illiterate, moron with the right to vote. All that from one simple statement. Any time ANY right is being denied to the people for any reason should be cause enough for ALL the people to be alarmed. Especially when the reason for removing the right is as blatantly biased as this one. The assumption being made regarding this issue is that providing medical care for people who smoke costs US taxpayers far more than it costs to provide the same care for non-smokers when the real facts just don't add up to that assumption. The real facts are that FAT people, (of which group Brenda Clack appears to be a member), drinkers, and even drivers, cost far more to treat than smokers ever will. Using that stupid analogy to deny a business owner the right to allow smoking at his private business and on his private property is morally vacant unless you're going to ban all risky behavior that might cost taxpayers just as much if not more health care money. They're not going to ban drinking because they tried that once and it didn't work. As a result those of us that don't drink are forced to pay higher health care costs that typically apply only to drinkers, or mountain climbers, or people who eat a lot of fast food, or people who choose to have deformed babies, or . . . the list is endless. With all of the legitimate pressing issues facing the state and the country right now, this is what our legislators are choosing to spend their time on? To me it just proves that we do not need full time highly paid representatives at the state level. Rather we should eliminate the senate as an unnecessary, expensive, branch of state government, and reduce the congressional branch to part time only. Maybe with a less time on their hands to spend on non-issues like this one, they will only have time to devote to actually PRESSING ISSUES that effect everyone. But that's another issue . . . Carl S

A major study was released in February, 2003 which assessed the quality of various studies on the economic effects of smoke-free policies on the hospitality industry. The study, by Scollo, Lal, Hyland & Glantz, found that no-smoking policies in restaurants and bars don't harm business, despite concerted efforts by the tobacco industry to prove otherwise. The researchers trawled online databases and print references for all studies produced on the economic impact of smoking bans in bars and restaurants up to the end of August 2002. They included unpublished tobacco industry research, and in total, assessed the findings of 97 studies. The quality of the studies concluding that smoking bans adversely affected revenues, was poor, the authors found. These studies were four times as likely to use subjective rather than objective measures to estimate impact, and they were 20 times as likely not to be peer reviewed. Further, all the studies concluding that smoking restrictions harmed the hospitality industry were funded by the tobacco industry or its allies; none were funded by sources that were clearly independent of the tobacco industry. Only one of the 31 industry funded studies had been published in a peer reviewed journal compared with almost 40% of those funded from other sources. And none of the industry studies met all the accepted criteria for quality, compared with over a third (35%) of those funded from other sources. None of the 21 quality studies reported a negative impact, while four reported that bans had a positive effect on sales. On the basis of the quality of the evidence, fears that smoking bans in bars and restaurants eat into revenues are unfounded, stated the authors. And policy makers wishing to reduce exposure of employees and patrons to the dangers of secondhand tobacco smoke should be reassured by these findings, said the authors.

your game because there is no research to support his position that doesn't come from his side. there is no group of studies that proves anything except that our tax dollars went to fund a left leaning agenda grabbing stack of lies. he knows this, and is unwilling to admit it to you. winning IS sweet, isn't it?

from other states dispute those facts. boston's newspaper, staunch supporters of the ban there, report glowingly about how well the ban is, citing increases in food sales at 'some establishments' and a general increase in employee numbers at food service establishments. arizona newspapers, not so staunch supporters of the ban, report real cases of people having to go through legal red tape and added expenses to try to gain back some of the business lost to the smoking ban. some have spent over $75,000 to add 'smoking patios' and 'premise extensions' to their places. the government is not assisting those taxpayers one little bit. so, where you get your information is important to the 'quality' of your research. i'm sure that there are bars in boston 'feeling the pinch' as well as the bars in arizona. you just have to know where to look. besides, a quick google search didn't show any bars that INCREASED business because of the smoking ban.

"Where you get your information" about research does have some influence on what that information will be. For myself, I rather prefer independent sources whose research is not funded by the tobacco or bar industries, both of which have well known preconceived ideas about how they want the studies to turn out.

taken from what actually happened. unbiased news reporting simply doesn't happen in every city. the arizona reports highlight this fact. we don't need anyone else to 'study' the facts if we get the facts for ourselves. don't 'sugar-coat' our news, give it to us straight, without the political slant so often found in todays papers. if you are going to 'root for your side', do it in the editorial section, not in the 'hard news'. now, looking at the FACTS, it seems that there are restaraunts and bars that, despite government regulations, have managed to eke out a living after the ban. but there are NONE that didn't have to go to added expense and BOTHER to comply, and some went to extravagant expenses to continue making the same as they did before the ban. now, i don't know about you, but every dime a business spends to comply with the law is a dime that business owner cannot pay his employees with. that takes away the only thing that supports the employees, PROFITS. if a business owner experiences LOSS OF BUSINESS because of a law, and has to INCREASE EXPENSES to recoup those losses, it is QUITE LIKELY that some of his bills are not going to get paid, or some of his employees are not going to get retained. neither is good for the state of michigan. michigan is paid with other people's taxes. it should be in the business of providing NECESSARY SERVICES, not meddling in the business community's affairs, impeding their ability to raise the money to pay the taxes. your health is YOUR business, not mine, not the states. my health is MY business, not yours, not the states. notice a COMMON THEME HERE??? our health is NOT ANY OF THE STATE'S BUSINESS.

On October 16, 2000, the results were released of an independent statewide survey in California by respected polling firm, Field Research Corporation, which found that 73% of those bar patrons polled approved of the California law prohibiting them from smoking in bars. This is a dramatic 24% increase from the 59% level when the law took effect in 1998. Further, the poll, conducted in June/July, 2000, found that 75% of bar patrons say that a smoke-free environment in clubs, bars, lounges and restaurants with bars is "very important" or "somewhat important" to them. In addition, 72% of bar patrons say they are concerned about the effects of secondhand smoke on their health. Other key survey findings include the following: 91% of bar patrons either go to bars more often or have not changed their bar-going behavior as a result of the smoking ban; 87% of bar patrons say they enjoy visiting bars as much or more due to the ban; on average, bar patrons are staying longer at bars than prior to the smoking ban; and, support for the ban has almost doubled among smokers since it went into effect in 1998, increasing from 24% to 44 %. The survey provides strong evidence that the warnings that such smoking bans will hurt business, often uttered by the tobacco and hospitality industries, are based on smoke, not substance.

Has it ever occurred to the people who keep citing all these studies that maybe "EFFECT on revenue" isn't the issue here? That maybe, just maybe, the issue is about the RIGHT to conduct your private business the way you want and the right of the public to choose to patronize your business or not? Money isn't the issue. RIGHTS is the issue. If a business owner's only reason for being in business was to make as much money as possible, and you had a hundred . . . no, even ONE study proving that if they changed their business to non-smoking they'd make gobs more money, don't you think they'd do that? Maybe they just don't care if they will make gobs more money with a non-smoking business. Maybe they just want to be left alone and decide for themselves what their smoking policy will be and suffer the consequences of their decision regardless of that decision's effect on revenue? that maybe their RIGHTS are more important to them then the extra money they might receive by losing that right? Do ya think that's possible? That maybe they'd rather not have a fat person like Brenda Clack whose inability to control her eating is going to cost all of us more tax money to take care of her in her old age, that maybe they'd rather not have her telling them how to live their lives even if they personally don't smoke? After all, she represents such a fine example of a unhealthy FAT person telling an unhealthy smoker how to live, who wouldn't want to take her instruction . . . BY FORCE. Carl S

time. why not just give us the FACTS about whether or not the smoking ban cost bar owners business, not NON-SMOKER'S OPINIONS about the ban. better than that... how about letting bar owners decide for themselves? THAT would be giving them the FREEDOM to be smoke free IF THEY CHOOSE. but that won't sit well with the nanny/liberals. polls are NOT research, by the way, polls are just that, POLLS OF PEOPLE'S OPINIONS. facts have nothing to do with polls. remember, it was a POLL that got jennie elected.

But the primary argument raised here against this law has been that it will collapse the hospitality business in Michigan. Research and history says it won't. That's just the fact. Now, you want to frame the issue as being a matter of impingement on private property rights. It is quite true, of course, that the smoking ban law does affect the rights of property owners to do what they darned well please with or on their own property. Nobody in his or her right mind would argue otherwise. The question then becomes first a matter of whether the law constitutionally sustainable. Experience so far indicates that it is. That's just a fact. So finally we get down to the question of whether this particular thing is something we want to see done. That is the political question. People will differ in their views on this, for various reasons of their own.

do your POLITICS support citizen's rights, or the TAKING AWAY of citizen's rights? now, looking at it THAT way, there is only ONE RIGHT THING TO DO. leave the citizen's rights alone. get our government out of the business of TAKING AWAY CITIZEN'S RIGHTS.

sit next to a smoker than a stanky obese person. Once this stupid law passes i will start a new one banning chubbies from airplanes. Ever get wedged in between the window and jabba the huts humugous kinfolk? It ain't pretty and it's dangerous. What it you are on a bus that hits a tree and the 400 pounder behind you flies forward and breaks your neck? It is gonna get real ugly when everybody thinks that they can force everyone to do everything they want.

"bar patrons are staying longer at bars than prior to the smoking ban" Smoking ban causes drunk driving. Hey, it's fun being an ignorant lib..Hehehe

"For myself, I rather prefer independent sources whose research is not funded by the tobacco or bar industries, both of which have well known preconceived ideas" that don't agree with your agenda.

if you wish. But by saying the question is whether one supports taking away rights or preserving them is a false dichotomy. It is the same as saying that the question is whether one supports protecting employees from passive exposure to substances that cause harm to them or doesn't. Clearly, property owners have a real interest in their rights to use their property to their own advantage or profit. Employees on and visitors to those premises likewise have an interest in and right to their own health. The political question here is a matter of balancing rights and interests in a civil society. Creating false dichotomies does not advance that cause.

Executive Summary The Health and Economic Impact of New York's Clean Indoor Air Act July 2006 One of the central programmatic goals for the New York Tobacco Control Program (NYTCP) is to eliminate nonsmokers’ exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS). A key step toward achieving this goal was the enactment of the comprehensive Clean Indoor Air Act (CIAA) (Public Health Law, Article 13-E)—prohibiting smoking in virtually all workplaces, including bars, restaurants, bowling facilities, taverns, and bingo halls—on March 26, 2003. This report describes the health and economic impact of the CIAA, as Exposure to SHS among well as indicators of compliance with and public support for the law, and nonsmokers statewide attitudes toward SHS. The report presents the following key findings: * Exposure to SHS among nonsmokers statewide declined in the year following CIAA. * Exposure to SHS declined markedly among hospitality workers as did self-reported sensory irritation (eye, nose, and throat). * Surveys of New Yorkers and direct observations indicate declines in smoking in hospitality venues. * Exposure to SHS in worksites more broadly has not changed. * Compliance with the law is high in hospitality venues. * Public support for the law is strong and has increased steadily over time. * The law has not had an adverse financial impact on bars and restaurants.

read s-l-o-w-l-y now: the bulk of reliable and credible research shows that smoking bans do not have negative effects on hospitality businesses. you don't have to believe that if you don't want to. it's you choice. after all, some people still think the earth is flat.

it is the root question. visitor's rights and health are not the owner's concern, nor are they the government's. they are the visitor's. the same goes for employee's rights and health. now, by you trying to place responsibility for visitor's and employee's health on the businessman, you are creating unrealistic scenarios and expectations. you cannot and should not expect the business owner to be responsible for the health of a person who has a choice whether or not he frequents or works at a location. the visitor and employee both have the opportunity to CHOOSE to visit or work someplace else if they deem the health risks of smoking to be too high. it is not the job of the state to make that kind of decision for either the business man, the visitor, or the employee. all are perfectly capable of deciding such things for themselves.