http://statenews.com I support House Bill 4163, legislation that could make all workplaces smoke-free, including bars and restaurants. As a college student, I like to go to local bars and restaurants to enjoy myself. I do not appreciate the overbearing, indiscreet stink of cigarette smoke on dry-clean-only clothing that cannot be dispelled by a douse of perfume. Nor do I appreciate having to inhale clouds of secondhand smoke. en-us Foundry4 Mon, 08 Sep 2008 06:25:41 -0400 Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:40:41 -0400 webmaster@statenews.com http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15608/view So much for the free market; so much for private property. At some point, forcing people to the right thing is worse than them doing the wrong thing. Tue, 15 Apr 2008 19:54:31 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15608/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15615/view You can make the difference!!! Govt does not have to fix this. If supporters of this ban want smoke free bars and restraunts, only attend smoke free bars. If supporters did this the free market could correct the problem. Trust me if Ricks was empty on Friday night and hundreads of people were in line at Lou and Harry’s, Ricks would change policy in 24 hours. This is the equivelant of the govt banning cell phones in restraunts bc people didnt like to hear the ringing. Personally support the restraunt owners to make this decision. The Govt has no right to ban a legal activity in a private business. Tue, 15 Apr 2008 20:47:37 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15615/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15618/view Bars in Florida are not completely smoke free. They can get around that if less than 10% of their sales comes from food. So in a way, they are making a choice. Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:56:32 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15618/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15630/view I don’t understand why more people don’t go to Dublin. Most of their place is smoke free. Hit them where it hurts the most… in the pocket book. Stop going to shitholes like Rick’s and the Landshark where they allow smoking. Wed, 16 Apr 2008 00:20:15 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15630/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15633/view You know what? When you’re talking about something as pervasive and harmful as cigarette smoke, it seems like we need all the laws we can get. NO ONE should have to be exposed to that in the air around them. Wed, 16 Apr 2008 00:46:55 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15633/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15644/view The headline of this letter is absolutely correct although Thomas Jefferson stated the same thing much more eloquently: The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. Wed, 16 Apr 2008 05:48:53 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15644/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15650/view Absolutely agree with the comments here. Government should not regulate private practice. Therefore, farmers should be allowed to use DDT or any other pesticide/herbicide they need to. Also, building contractors should be allowed to return to using asbestos insulating materials as well. And industry shouldn’t be under environmental restrictions of chemical dumping into ground water. And the government shouldn’t at all have any say into lead levels or safety in children’s toys, either. Absolutely—let the free market handle things like this like it has for the last 200 years… Wed, 16 Apr 2008 07:49:54 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15650/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15659/view “This is the equivelant of the govt banning cell phones in restraunts bc people didnt like to hear the ringing” The last time I checked, the cell phone I hear ringing while I am in a restaurant or anywhere else for that matter was’t sending TOXIC fumes into my body. Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:57:28 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15659/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15661/view I agree, Mike S. People seem to forget the government already regulates environments to protect public health. And contrary to, Get Your Facts Straight, this ban would not be “the equivelant of the govt banning cell phones in restraunts bc people didnt like to hear the ringing.” Unless there is new data showing cell phone rings cause diseases like asthma, emphysema, and cancer. Are these the facts you want me to get straight? Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:01:47 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15661/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15666/view If we elect a majority of officials who support legislation that bans smoking in restaurants then its seems like democracy is working. If you are opposed to government actions like this, then be sure to vote for candidates who support smaller government. Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:10:09 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15666/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15670/view It is funny; people used to make an argument about a slippery slope where the government would take away unhealthy foods if things like this were allowed to pass. Every one laughed and said the slippery slope was ridiculous. Now many cities have banned transfat! Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:22:50 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15670/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15690/view It is stunning how misinformed people are about the issue. Farmers cannot use whatever herbicide they want because it will run into the water supply and ruin the water for everyone. And, farmers to not have the right to ruin the water as they do not own it. Same goes with dumping chemicals into the ground. Businesses do not have a right to do that because they do not own the ground. In terms of public property such as water and the ground, I have exactly as much claim on it as a business does. The same is NOT true of smoking in a bar or restaurant. Smoking in a bar or restuarant imposes NO costs on people NOT inside the bar or restaurant. Hence, a bar or restaurant is clearly the private property of the owner. And, there is no information problem associated with it, unlike walking into a building you have no idea contains absetos or has shoddy construction, or buying a toy that turns out to contain lead. Prior to entering a bar or restaurant, you can CLEARLY see if people are smoking and then decide whether or not to enter. Comparing smoking bans with other forms of government regulation is like comparing apples to oranges. Smoking bans are nothing more than a few busybodies trying to impose their will on private property owners. Disgusting. Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:37:49 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15690/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15697/view Royce – If you were new to the area and wanted to go to a bar and you decide to go to Rick’s. Standing at the door, I don’t believe you can tell that people are smoking. However, once you enter and pay cover, it becomes very obvious that smoking is allowed. People want to drink and want to go to establishments that provide alcohol. This fact is not going to go away anytime soon. However, your chances of becoming very sick, lung cancer, etc. become greater when you’re inhaling second hand smoke. This is where it becomes a public matter. Now, somebody has to pay for the medical costs associated with this. Frequently, at least a portion of the tab comes back on the taxpayers. So what you want about the reasoning behind it, being good for people’s health, etc, but that really means we don’t want to pay your medical bills. Same thing applies for trans fat. It’s always about money and trying to cut costs. Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:06:11 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15697/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15702/view Royce- Sure water contamination has something to do with banning pesticides but that’s not the only reason. Some pesticides could be absorbed by the fruit/vegetable and then poison whoever eats it. Why do people advise rinsing fruits and vegetables before eating them? Stop being so arrogant and acknowledge that most of these issues are multifaceted with nuances that most, if not all, posters are unaware of. Also most comments are too short to address every reason for a given policy. Failing to mention one is probably not ignorance. Go be an internet tough guy somewhere else. Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:26:58 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15702/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15704/view Tim: The problem is information. If I pick up an an apple at Meijer, I have no idea whether or not it contains dangerous pestacides. Unlike a bar, where I can clearly see people smoking in it. John: Your comment is completely ridiculous and I cannot believe you seriously use it to strenghten your argument that smoking should be banned. Do you honestly believe that someone who just moved to Michigan would have compeletely no idea that people are smoking in Ricks? Even if this is the case, you walk downstairs, see people are smoking, and turn around and leave. You are out $5. Big whoop. If people do want to drink at bars that are smoke free, bar owners will soon realize they can increase business by banning smoking themselves. It is ironic that people who drink at bars complain about the health dangers of second-hand smoke. Isn’t it ironice that some people on this board who binge drink and have unprotected one-night stands are so worried about second-hand smoke????? Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:34:42 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15704/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15709/view One of the issues brought up early on that is being overlooked is that of the employees. Yes, most individuals can figure out whether the establishment they just walked into is a smoke-free bar, or a smoke-filled bar. That is a choice, and they can just as easily chance that choice if (gasp) they chose poorly. The issue at hand is the employees working there. Like it or not, second hand smoke affects the health of individuals in the direct vicinity. Safe and heathly work environments should be maintained. Those individuals working are being exposed to compounds that endanger their health unvoluntarily. And before you say “they chose to work there” stop and consider that someone will have to work there so all it does is force the least healthy positions on individuals with the fewest options-much like the asbestos issue. Personally, I am a smoker. I consider it a choice that I am making regarding my own health and I will fight for my personal freedom to make choices regarding my own health. But when I am affecting other peoples health, therein lies the problem. I smoke in my own house, and if individuals choose to come over, they accept the risks of my smoke. That is not the same as going to an establishment and forcing the poor person behind the bar to breathe my ever so tasty and relaxing cancer stick fumes. Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:55:34 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15709/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15710/view I live in CO where bars are smoke free and I LOVE it. No smelling like smoke after I leave, no burning eyes, no 2nd hand smoke problems, no more leaving my coat in the car so that is doesn’t stink afterwords…. Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:58:31 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15710/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15725/view Royce- I was less attacking your argument than I was your decision to call people ignorant and than fail to acknowledge an important factor in banning pesticides. Enough board policing for me. Didn’t we elect these officials who are now implementing this legislation. Voting these people into office seems to be an indication that consumers don’t want to be exposed to second hand smoke. While you seem to prefer that we wait for capitalism to take its course, I will side with the slightly faster moving wheels of democracy. I’m sure numerous unethical, unsafe and unhealthy labor practices would have eventually been stopped due to a lack of profitability, but I am fine with the fact that the government stepped in at an earlier time. I know that isn’t exactly on point, but we shouldn’t always wait for capitalism to sort this kind of thing out. Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:58:03 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15725/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15736/view “Voting these people into office seems to be an indication that consumers don’t want to be exposed to second hand smoke.” Come on now, Tim. Do you think residents voted for their representative because he/she promised to ban smoking in restaurants? I’ve never heard of a politician using that as their platform. “Didn’t we elect these officials who are now implementing this legislation. ... While you seem to prefer that we wait for capitalism to take its course, I will side with the slightly faster moving wheels of democracy” You will side with it now because you agree with the decision being made. You’re basically saying that since they are elected, the decisions politicians make are correct. That’s a bit dangerous. I am not a smoker, but I do not think this is something that should be regulated. Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:17:56 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15736/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15737/view The argument that the employees don’t have a choice is bunk, too. Lots of people work in dangerous and unhealthy environments. That is their choice and a workplace hazard. Is the risk of developing cancer from your bartending job any more dangerous than the risk a cab driver being in an auto accident, the coal miner being trapped in a mineshaft, or a factory worker being injured by a machine? What’s next? Barring restaurants from serving hot food, as employees could burn themselves? There are risks associated with every career. If you are concerned about potential health detriments of secondhand smoke, perhaps working in a smokey bar might not be the wisest career move. Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:30:33 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15737/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15739/view Benjy- I agree that residents are unlikely to vote for candidates based on this specific legislation, but don’t you think these officials have some feeling of what the electorate wants on this issue? I wouldn’t be surprised if some state reps or senators included banning in smoking in their platform. I get your point, but saying I think all political decisions are correct is going too far. Couldn’t I say the same thing about those opposing this legislation and capitalism? That being that they are basically saying capitalism always gets it right? I am hesitant to wait for capitalism and business in general to change due to health concerns of consumers. Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:38:46 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15739/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15741/view Royce, your arguments regarding water and land ownership for pesticides and chemical dumping compared to smoking in a bar are a bit absurd. You state that farmers don’t own the water and corporations don’t own the land that they could potentially pollute and you have as much right to it as the next person. Putting the obvious private property counterargument aside, you account for land and water but don’t consider the air people breathe as public domain? THIS is why your argument totally falls apart. The chemicals contained in cigarette smoke don’t magically stop at the door or the divider between smoking and non-smoking. They’re still present. Granted the farther away you get from the source the more diluted it gets but you can use that same argument for pesticides in water and chemicals in the ground. You were better ahead by not even bringing that up. Do I think bars should go smoke free? Yes but with a caveat. One thing that AAA left out was that you CAN smoke in certain bars in Colorado that have sections completely isolated from the main part. That means doors to enter the room and independent air handling systems so that it is not sent back into the rest of the bar. This works pretty well in Boulder and Denver. Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:53:42 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15741/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15742/view I am an alum who lives in Chicago. We just banned smoking January 1 and I haven’t seen bars and restaurants so packed in my time in this town. Business will boom and even the smokers like going out more than they did before. Everytime I go back home to visit family/friends in MI, I get some sort of ailment that is smoke related. And I smoked for 5 years!!! Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:18:03 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15742/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15746/view MSUAlum2001: Do you believe that anyone OUTSIDE of the bar is exposed to second-hand smoke? If the answer is “no” (which it is), than my argument is perfectly consistent, as the second-hand smoke is not harming some third party like pollution in the water or ground is. The simple fact remains: it is up to the bar owner to decided whether or not smoking should be permitted IN HIS BAR. Then it is up to you, given this decision, WHETHER OR NOT TO GO TO THE BAR. The difference between this and ground and water pollution should be obvious. Water pollution is banned (or at least regulated) becuase the pollution trickles downstream and ruins the water in front of my house. Ground pollution is banned (or at least regulated) because the pollution could seep into my ground. Smoking in bars should NOT be banned because no one seriously argues that the smoke is seeping outside the bar and harming others. Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:58:39 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15746/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15776/view No your argument still doesn’t hold water Royce unless you’re assuming that the air inside the bar is scrubbed before it leaves the building. The only thing I’ll give in on is the fact that the amount of smoke is considerably less outside the bar. Is it completely gone? No, and to state otherwise is just plain ignorant. I can walk past a smoky bar or bowling alley or whatever and smell it in the air. It’s not as strong as actually being in the establishment, but it’s there. So yes people outside the bar ARE exposed to some second-hand smoke. Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:18:41 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15776/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15806/view Cigarette smoke is a Class A carcinogen. So is Asbestos. We think nothing of having people (bartenders, waitstaff, etc…) working in an environment saturated with sigarette smoke, but expect people working with asbestos to wear protective equipment? As much as it really pains me, California got this one right. Their smoking ban is centered on the employees of these establishments, not the clients… Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:40:41 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/15806/view