smoking and littering problem

Yeah, people vote a lot of things into being mandated. That doesn't make the mandates make any sense (Ohio's casino, gay marriage in CA/ME, etc.).

Dove hunting in Michigan.

The whole reason our government is set up the way it is, is to keep a minority free from oppression by the majority. Of course, no one minds when this gets thrown out the window when their on the side of the majority.

^I almost nominated you for post of the month until I realized you were probably still talking about smoking.....

Great news regarding smoking.

Michigan just passed a bill simular to ohios no smoking law. No more smoking in restaurants, bars or public places.

Read about it here......

http://www.wxyz.com/mostpopular/story/Will-MI-Smoking-Ban-Hurt-the-Bar-Business/tewYIxhca0e5T98fc_ac8g.cspx

Let freedom reign.

Amen freedom from allergy inducing, toxic, carcinogenic blue clouds.

Michigan banned cars, trucks, planes, trains, factories, power plants, peanuts and pollen? That is extraordinary.

^All of those things mostly stay outside, and are thus breathed in in a much less quantity then a smoke filled room. Also everything you mentioned is for the most part not allergic, toxic and carcinogenic believe it or not.

Tobacco-The closest thing to a guarantee of a slow, painful death out there. And as a bonus, you get to give your friends, loved ones, and all of those who are physically closer to you the same fate!

Glad to see the further erosion of freedoms in a 38th state.

I put the over/under on raising cigarette tax to fill the budget at October.

Nobody's taking away your right to smoke. Only the right to expose other people to the toxins you spew into the air.

Your right to indulge in the ignorant behavior of your choice ends at the boundary where said behavior hurts other people. Now that we've known for quite some time that second hand smoke is unhealthy, and sometimes even fatal, to others, the boundary is shifting.

Look at it as a football game. Before 1970, you could smoke in hospitals. Schools. NASA, for pete's sake. So the chains were pretty much on the one yard line -- in favor of smoking. Now, we know a lot more about the dangers of second hand smoke. So it's more like the chains have moved to the 50-yard line. You can smoke all you want, but you're not allowed to make anyone else inhale your smoke against their will. Period.

At some point, it will probably be illegal to smoke in your own house if children live there. Again, this is not about eroding your personal freedoms. It's about protecting the health of others who don't have a choice in the matter.

I defend the right of smokers to light up. I would never support banning smoking altogether, because that indeed would be an assault on personal liberties. But just as I support legalization of drugs and prostitution, I nevertheless wouldn't want those activities to be permitted without intelligent regulation.

I personally fought against mandatory seat belt laws in Ohio back in the 80s. I went door to door and gathered signatures on petitions. But even though I still think adults ought to be legally free to wear or not wear belts, I would never support giving that right to children -- who as uninformed beings are incapable of making that decision for themselves.

So not everybody, not every state, not every government, is out to 'get' smokers. Neither are they hell bent on oppressing those stupid enough to light up. This is not a vendetta.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it. ;)

Edited to make one gooped up sentence make sense.

I have no problem smoking at Cedar Point. I don't smoke while I wait to get on rides. If I'm politely told to put out my cigarette, I do so, until that person is far enough away, then I'll light another one.

I do have a problem with the littering though. There's trashcans all over the place. I don't know why people should just throw their trash on the ground. If people are told to leave the park for smoking then they should be told to leave the park for littering. Littering is just as dangerous as breathing second hand smoke. Some one could slip on a piece of paper, bump their head and die from it. I just thought of something, littering is punishable by a fine up to $500. Cedar Point should enforce that.

Trent

Ensign, there is one major flaw in the opening to your argument. No one forces you into an establishment that allows smoking. When I light up in a restaurant or bar, I'm not doing it with intent to harm a non smoker. Rather the non smoker forces it upon themselves.

I've been reading that a lot of establishments will begin selling cigars as there is that loophole in the Michigan law.. One owner of a bar I frequent is going to do just that to allow smokers to continue to frequent his bar.

We are forced to go to those establishments as no restaurant ever goes smoke free without these bans because they are "worried about losing customers" which for some reason never happens to any of those establishments once the ban goes into effect.

It comes down to this Prawo, it is not the job of the non smoker to specifically seek out places where there will be no smoke, its their right to have smoke free air. It is instead the responsibility of the smoker to not light up in an area where he can be a danger to other people. To use another form of a tobacco as an example, you suggesting that non smokers stop going to resturants that allow smoking is akin to a chewer telling you its your fault you stepped in his spit because it was your choice to walk on the ground not his responsiblity to put it in a spitoon.

Where are the designated smoking areas. I would have one between the Giant Wheel & Wicked twister, and back by Mean Streak. Maybe one by Iron Dragon too. These are good locations because they are all open spaced and not many people would be disturbed. This is a way Cedar Point could make a profit because they could fine the people who smoke outside the Areas. Busch is amazing about the designated smoking areas. It seems when they are clearly marked and the employees give a crap about the parks cleanliness, the smoking areas work a lot better. At Kings Island, their is an announcement every 30 minutes about smoking in designated areas. I really don't think Cedar Point has a all around park announcement system like all the former Paramount Parks do.

"Weare forced to go to those establishments as no restaurant ever goessmoke free without these bans because they are "worried about losingcustomers" which for some reason never happens to any of thoseestablishments once the ban goes into effect."

Magic Bag, Ferndale one of Metro Detroits hot spot stage and movie venues went smoke free 3 months ago and there are tons of restaurants including a Rams Horn of all things that went smoke free sometime ago in Rochester near where I work. Magic Bag's Brew & View night attendance has dropped drastically and they admitted it recently in the Woodward Talk newspaper. Once the statewide ban goes into effect though, I think it will be business as usual as smokers won't have a choice anymore, except for those that adapt a Cigar Bar type business.

Coolkid, there is a smoking section between WT and GW. Right up against the trees that seperate the Happy Jack line and the midway. Also one back by the train station that is near the Mavirck turn leading to the horseshoe roll.

There is no right to smoke. Legislatures could ban smoking tomorrow and smokers would have no recourse (other than to lobby for a change in the law or move). Which means it is not a right. The same is not true of a legislative ban on guns or any given religion which would infringe on actual rights.

I have seen studies which indicate that more people die every year from air pollution than traffic deaths. And allergies cause problems for millions of folks (with some deaths from such things as peanut allergies). So I think we are talking about freedom from an unpopular allergy inducing, toxic, carcinogenic cloud.

That businesses didn't go smoke free on their own (at least not in large numbers) says there isn't a true market for smoke free businesses. Private enterprise is very good at meeting unmet markets. From what I have seen, most people who supported smoking bans did so based on a dislike of smoking rather than any health concerns which isn't sufficient to create a market for smoke free businesses. The health concerns were just the excuse. There are some people who believe that sitting in a non-smoking section of a restaurant for a couple of hours will cause them to die of cancer in the near term but from what I have seen, that is a very small number of folks (certainly not enough to get smoking bans passed).

Our policies towards smoking are interesting. Health issues are known by all. Addiction factor is also well known. Rather than banning smoking (which we do with other things with similar health/addiction issues) we place all kinds of limits on it (leading smokers to gather outside in the cold/rain, taking breaks from work/leisure, etc.). Apparently we claim the reasons against a total ban are based on some type of freedom but it seems to me the reason is just tax revenue.

From someone who sees the damage of smoking every single day I call BS on your people only want smoking bans because they dislike smoking claim. Has it ever occurred to you that its health dangers contribute to people's dislike of smoking?

I for one would absolutely vote for an all out ban of smoking, but that is just me. The reason we don't have one (or at least a movement) in this country is because the tobacco lobby is too strong not to mention what happened with prohibition. Also, as you mentioned it is a major tax revenue for states.

Also we have a long history in this country in allowing people to be stupid, why stop now? I really dont see how smokers feel that they have a right to smoke indoors in a public environment. I bet if you took a vote of everyone in the room before you lit up who would prefer you didnt, most of the time the majority would vote no. Also those smoking bans in most states have been passed by referendum, which means that a majority voted for the ban.

My experience with respect to smoking bans is based on conversations with 200 or so smoking ban supporters in connection with the Ohio ballot issues a couple of years ago. Certainly not a scientific sample but its the basis for my experience. And the vast majority of those folks listed health issues as the primary reason they supported the ban. But talking with them revealed that the health reason was just an excuse. They didn't view the health issues of second hand smoke for a couple hours now and then as being significant. They didn't go out less frequently because places allowed smoking. Whether a restaurant allowed smoking/had smokers didn't influence the restaurants they liked to frequent. They wouldn't turn down a job because the employer allowed smoking. Most common actual reasons to support the ban were dislike of the smell of smoking, dislike of the smell of clothes/hair when they got back home from a night out and a belief that smoking is disgusting. About 10% of the people I talked to about the issue truly were supporting the ban for health reasons. Most of the 90% though seemed to be pretty defensive about the notion that they were supporting the bans for something other than health reasons so I suspect if you asked them today, they would list health reasons.

I have never said that smokers have a right to smoke in public indoors in public environments. As I noted earlier, smoking is not a right. But more importantly, I believe that it should be the right of the owner of the public environment to decide whether they will allow smoking (which is a legal activity). And if you do not like that decision, you do not have to patronize that business. And just like no one has a right to smoke, no one has a right to eat out at a restaurant or go to a bar. If you do not like the options that are out there, feel free to raise the capital and start your own and ban smoking if that is what you want to do.

And I agree that if you asked people, a majority of folks would prefer that someone not smoke around them. But as noted above, that doesn't tell you the reason (other than that they don't like smoking).

And as I have previously noted, I am not a smoker. I can't stand smoking. Would never allow anyone to smoke in my house, my car or my office. But I think that business owners should have the ability to determine whether they will allow smoking and the public can respond accordingly.

GoBucks89 said:

That businesses didn't go smokefree on their own (at least not in large numbers) says there isn't atrue market for smoke free businesses.

Total BS. I cannot remember the last time I went into a restaurant in Michiganand was asked "smoking, or non". You see, the customers (of restaurants) spoke, andthose businesses listened, and adjusted their private business models as they saw fit. I love how the fact that bars haven'tswitched somehow means they're ignoring their market. Yeah, because itcouldn't be that certain businesses make more money by allowing smoking.

In Michigan (and most states are similar), only 28% of people over 18 smoke. Having 72% of the population on one side gives an immense amount of power to "force" businesses to operate as that majority sees fit. The problem, though, is that so many of these whiny-ass non-smokers* moan and complain about how awful the smoke is at their local pub, and then go give them their money anyway. Either STFU, or stop giving them your money!

*Former 13-year smoker here.

Let's see:

Founders Brewing Co. - went smoke free when they moved locations. They do still provide smoking on their deck which they partially enclose in the winter to protect smokers against the wind. However, they won't be allowed to even do that now. Oh, and you had to go outside and then into the smoking area. So smoke didn't even wafte into the main bar.

Olga's - used to allow smoking. Decided a couple years ago to cut out their smoking section.

Melting Pot - has never allowed smoking.

Red Robin - has never allowed smoking.

Bostons - bar area is completely separated from the restaurant (i.e. closed doors)

I'm sure there are also quite a few more in the area that I haven't discovered yet, but the point is that there are places that made the business decision to not allow smoking. They didn't need a law to do it.

Before now, everyone had a choice. You could patronize a business that allowed smoking, thus indicating that you either didn't mind, or liked that they allowed their customers to smoke.

Or you could skip them and patronize the business that had gone completely smoke free, thus indicating that you were glad that they chose not allow smoking at all.

Now, no one has a choice. Regardless of whether you are a smoker or not, you can only go to a non-smoking restaurant/bar. It is always funny how its easy to give up freedoms when they are someone else's freedoms and not your own.