Smoking ban would promote health, encourage customers
I recently had the privilege to go to Philadelphia for public relations and had some wonderful experiences. From the Liberty Bell to City Hall, I enjoyed nothing so much as the smoke-free bars and restaurants. Philadelphia falls under a countywide smoke-free law. It was so nice to breathe clean and healthier air while we ate and hung out in the bars.
In Proposed smoking ban could hurt local economy (SN 11/26), the editorial board stated that a proposed smoke-free legislation could hurt Ingham County’s economy. According to a statewide poll conducted in 2005 by The Campaign for Smokefree Air, nearly 80 percent of Michigan voters would go to a restaurant “more often” or “just as often” if the state became smoke-free. Independent studies also have shown smoke-free legislation has no negative effect on bar and restaurant business. In fact, business is booming in New York City after the smoke-free law was enacted. Studies also show restaurant sales in Florida were up 7 percent after implementation of statewide legislation.
Thirty-one states in the U.S. have gone smoke-free already, and yet Michigan still lags behind. Despite this positive economic evidence, going smoke-free is not a business decision — it’s a health decision. While opponents argue that restaurant owners should make the decision on their own, for many it’s not easy to do. My parents own a restaurant in Ludington, and my mom dislikes its smoking environment. We do have regular customers who are smokers. It’s hard to make an individual decision. That’s why Michigan needs to enact statewide smoke-free legislation to protect its residents.
Katlin Ying-Ju Hsueh
communication senior
Published on Thursday, November 29, 2007
Comments
gh
11/30/07 @ 7:27am
If large cities like Boston, Chicago, Las Vegas, NYC, and Austin, TX can ban smoking in public places, it shouldn’t be such a problem for Detroit and the rest of Michigan. Like any change, people will have to make adjustments. More and more people are becoming non-smokers and it would be nice to go out for a good time and not wake up in the morning reeking of an ash tray. Michigan is one of the unhealthiest states in the nation. How about we start doing something about it?
2000Grad
11/30/07 @ 7:49am
Katlin, you hit the nail on the head. Michigan lags behind on everything. The bottom line to all of the smokers out there is that whether you like it or not a statewide smoking ban will happen and its just a metter of time…Everyone will have an opinion about the decision, but you can’t please everyone.
Joe
11/30/07 @ 8:25am
You make great arguments, but I’d like to add the explanation for the increase in business for the restaurants that became smokefree. Since smoking was no longer allowed in restaurants, smokers could not sit to enjoy their after dinner cigarette. This lead to a higher turnover rate, meaning tables were becoming available more often and the restaurant could serve more customers during business hours.
Joe
11/30/07 @ 8:27am
One more comment… Lou and Harry’s Bar & Grill on MAC is currently smokefree by choice. Go ask them if it hurts their business.
Appreciative Smoker
11/30/07 @ 9:47am
I’ve smoked for years and am trying to quit. The hardest part, for me, is not smoking when I go out to eat, or go to the bar. I truly believe if restaurants and bars were smoke-free it would be easier for me and others to quit, so I have to say I would like to see the ban go into effect.
Y'all is foolish
11/30/07 @ 10:33am
Hey, I’m a non-smoker, so I understand not appreciating being around smoke. It stinks, is unhealthy, causes tains, etc. But banning it is not the way to go, especially not for the reasons listed in the original letter and the follow up comments.
First, saying that it hurts business is ridiculous. Please keep in mind that restaurant and bar owners can chose to make their establishment smoke free anytime they want. There isn’t anyone forcing them to allow smoking. If it made good economic sense for them to go smoke free (as Joe argued) do you really think they’d need a government enforced ban to do so?! Yes, some establishments benefit from going smoke free, but some also benefit from allowing smoking (as smokers like to go out to eat, too.)
From a health perspective, do you really think that the second hand smoke you inhale during the 45 minutes you are sitting at the restaurant will do anywhere near the amount of health damage to your health as the 1200 calorie plate-o-lard you’re slurping down, along with the 3-4 beers (or jumbo size coke) and the slice of cheesecake the size of a volkswagon? Yeah, smoking and being around smoke is a stupid health choice, but creating legislation to force people to make healthier choices is a slippery slope. What’s next, mandating gym memberships?
Just because something annoys you doesn’t mean it should be outlawed. As a non-drinker, I can say loud drunk people annoy me and are a public health hazard (not just drunk driving, but beng around them gives me terrible headches.) Does that mean we should outlaw booze?
You really want restaraunts to go smoke free? Don’t do it through a governmental regulation. Do it with your wallet. Stop going to establishments that allow smoking. Then, send the restaraunt manager or owner a nice letter explaining why you stopped going there and that you’d be happy to return if they went smoke free. Restaraunteers are businessmen, and as they say, money talks and BS walks.
Juan
11/30/07 @ 10:44am
What part of personal choice is so hard for people to understand? Every time this issue comes up we hear the same old tired crap – the state knows best, smoking is bad for you, business like to act against their own economic self-interest, etc. Why not just be honest: many of you hate smoking and think that your opinion is more important than someone else’s, and wish to see your superior wisdom enshrined in law so you can feel better about yourself. Pathetic, really.
If someone does not like going to places where smoking is permitted, then don’t go. Ditto for working there. As a non-smoker, I gladly make these choices and am comfortable with the idea of refraining from going to certain venues on that account. Likewise, my smoking friends and acquaintances pursue an analogous course of action in selecting smoking-friendly venues. There are plenty enough places to eat/dine/recreate that we should each be able to find a place that meets our personal needs, desires, and smoking requirements.
For Appreciative Smoker and others like him/her: it is not the state’s job to restrict the rights of others to make up for your lack of willpower and resolve. To suggest that laws should be enacted for that reason is a perversion of the purpose of representative democracy. If you want to quit smoking, do it because you want to and not because the state has told you you have to. Grow a backbone.
Lastly, for those who point out the supposed positive economic effects that will flow to business that go smoke-free, unless and until you OWN that particular business you need to defer to the business judgment of the actual owners of the business. Lou&Harry’s made a decision to go smoke-free because they found it to be in their best interest as a business. The were probably right. Other businesses, faced with a similar choice, might believe that it is in their economic interest to be smoking-friendly. And they’d probably be right, too. To presume that you, as an outsider, know what is best for somebody else’s business is arrogant, presumptuous, and childish.
Benjy Compson
11/30/07 @ 10:56am
Wow, Appreciative Smoker. You’re too weak to overcome your own addiction so you expect the state to limit the otherwise legal activities of over a million residents?
I don’t smoke, but this whole push for a state-mandated ban is wrong. If you don’t want to drink or dine in smoke-friendly establishments, don’t go to one. If you want to drink or dine in a smoke-free establishment, go to one. I know there aren’t many, but if people think more about more where they spend their money, market forces will alter the ratio of smoke-friendly to smoke-free businesses. Do people really think owners would resist a change to no smoking if it made them more money?
You cannot subjugate people because you think their habits are disgusting. And the health factor is just a red herring because you do not have to patronize a business that allows smoking (i.e. you don’t have to go to the Riv to have a few beers).
On a side note: I agree with the campus regulation prohibiting smoking within a certain distance of building entrances. People do not have the choice of going somewhere else for their classes if a bunch of people are smoking outside (the EB is especially bad).
Joe
11/30/07 @ 11:01am
I agree completely that second hand smoke is not as much of a health risk as the unhealthy American diet — as evident by the obesity epidemic we now face. However, the dangers of secondhand smoke should not be downplayed either.
I think we should look at this from a revenue generating measure. Michigan should enact smokefree legislation and then allow businessowners to purchase a “smoking license” similar to a “liquor license.” These licenses should be provided at low cost to businesses (maybe $100 annually) if they would like to allow smoking in their establishment. This would help mitigate the public health hazards of second-hand smoke and generate revenue during a time when Michigan needs it. I know this will get people to scream about government regulations on business, but I think this is a reasonable compromise.
the Champ
11/30/07 @ 1:47pm
BAN SMOKING IN BARS!
I’m all for it. I love not being smoked out by floozies & guys with no futures. It’s nice to be able to re-wear my jeans the next day. And smoking, let’s face it, IS slutty.
Put it on the ballot and let the people of a locality decide. the American way!
on a different note: Jimmy’s Bar out on Abbott Road is smoke free. Great place! plus very hot waitresses.
MSU Alumna 2007
11/30/07 @ 3:25pm
Smoking is the leading cause of preventable deaths in the United States, not obesity. The guy next to me in the restaurant eating the 2000 calorie meal isn’t harming me; he’s harming himself. The guy smoking next to me in the restaurant does cause damage to my lungs, not just his. I now live in Oregon where smoking is banned in all bars and restaurants, and it’s awesome. People don’t complain about it here; they simply go outside for the cigarette they’re craving and then come back inside. Obesity is becoming just as much of a problem as smoking, but until someone tries to shove their hamburger down my throat, it’s not the same thing.
Y'all is being ridiculous now
11/30/07 @ 3:48pm
Champ: Wearing dirty clothes, lets face it, is slutty.
MSU Alumna: You gotta accept some sort of personal responsibility. When you CHOSE to frequent establishments where smoking is allowed, you need to expect that smoking may be going on. Would you go to a dance club and then complain about the loud music? How about going to a strip club and then complaining about all the nudity?
Yes, I’m sure the smoking ban does seem great to you. I’m guessing you’re a nonsmoker.
Bleed Green
11/30/07 @ 4:35pm
@ Y’all is being ridiculous now
You can say whatever you want to about banning smoking, but it WILL happen in Michigan. I can’t wait. :)
Nitro from American Gladiators
11/30/07 @ 5:06pm
no doubt the smoking ban is government overreaching. but in this instance, it’s great!
no more smoke at bars and restaurants! fantastic idea!
and the Champ points out a good and hilarious fact: girls, smoking IS slutty!
Tim
11/30/07 @ 5:42pm
There is a nice irony in smokers telling people to go to other bars if they don’t want to smell like smoke since the state is saying the same thing to smokers with this ban.
I agree with (I can’t believe I’m going to type this) Nitro, in that it is governmental intrusion, but so be it. I would rather defend this intrusion than defend a habit that has been proven to be highly effective at killing you.
Benjy Compson
11/30/07 @ 7:58pm
Nitro etc.,
You wrote “no doubt the smoking ban is government overreaching. but in this instance, it’s great!” I agree it is great in this instance, but I would object, and I assume most here would as well, at other instances of government overreaching. No, this is not a ‘slippery slope’ argument, because it would set a legal precedent (I doubt the State Supreme Court would overturn such a law) that THE STATE CAN LIMIT THE OTHERWISE LEGAL ACTIVITIES OF CITIZENS IN PRIVATELY OWNED BUSINESSES.
Honestly now, everyone, if someone came up to you (without mentioning smoking) and said, “Do you believe the state should be allowed to limit the otherwise legal activities of residents while they are in privately owned businesses?” what would you say? (Yes, I realize there are current instances where they do just that, but I don’t agree with those either.)
Benjy Compson
11/30/07 @ 8:06pm
My main point is that this is not something that should be legislated, rather something that business owners (who would be most affected) should consider and decide for themselves.
Nitro from American Gladitors
11/30/07 @ 8:35pm
then by all means, Benjy, let’s put it on the ballot and let business owners, customers, and other interested parties decide for themselves.
Benjy Compson
11/30/07 @ 9:47pm
Nitro,
This does not belong on a ballot and it does not belong on the floor of our Capitol. I do not object to businesspeople making their bars/restaurants smoke-free or smoke-friendly, as they wish. I object to laws invading personal freedoms. These laws could quite possibly force a small business to fail, and I don’t think you avoiding “slutty” women or Champ saving money on laundry are valid reasons to subject a hard-working person to financial difficulty. And, as mentioned above, the second hand smoke argument simply does not hold (i.e. no one is forcing a 2000 calorie meal down your throat, but no one is forcing you to go to a smoky bar either, MSU Alumna).
Nitro from American Gladitors
12/01/07 @ 1:26am
then let the market decide! as it stands now, the market is saying YES to smoking in bars (since mostly all bars are smokers).
but I still hope the Gov steps in and ruins it with the ban, for my own personal preferences. I like smoke free.
What
12/02/07 @ 5:12pm
Champ & Nitro,
Smoking is slutty? I’m a smoker and one thing I’ve never been accused of is being slutty, perhaps a good lay to those selective few (97% of guys at state are disgusting), but never slutty.
Smokin'
12/03/07 @ 2:53pm
Smoking = Slutty?
Wow. I guess by that logic: those that frequent establishments that allow smoking and think its their right to bitch about it = douchebaggy.
Think about it. You don’t like smoke. Don’t subject yourself to it and then complain about it.
I personally do smoke, and don’t judge people that do or don’t. I do try to avoid blowing smoke in someone general direction when out and they aren’t smoking. But lets face it: if you are at a crowded bar that has been smoke filled every night since the doors opened, what makes you think that its up to you whether smoking is allowed or not?
I live in Chicago currently. You can not smoke in a lot of resturants/bars period. Some you can as long as you are within 15 feet of the bar. Not a big deal. Yet in a large place (like John Barleycorn’s, a great MSU game spot) you have non-smokers cozied up to the bar when there are an EASY 100 other seats outside of the bar’s smoking area. Personal choice my friends.
You chose MSU as a school because it offered what you want as a school. You didn’t decide to attend CMU (or any other school) and then try to change the offerings to make it what you wanted. You can chose what situations you are in. Don’t complain if you are in a smokey bar. Go somewhere else.
If enough people chose the non-smoking bars and the market demands it (through $$$, not complaining), then other places will try to attract the crowd and $$$.
Econ 101
chris
12/04/07 @ 1:41am
To y’all is foolish: y’all is dumb.
Comparing food to smoking is a false analogy. One has inherently dangerous because of is carcingenic toxins. The other (food) is an organic chemical that the human body process in its entirity. The same cannot be said for inhaled smoke. Food is not inherently dangerous, unlike smoke. I could eat 5,000 calories a day for several weeks, yet have no effects because I can counteract it through personal fitness and my bodies ability process and safely eliminate said food. Not the case with smoking. Nice try, but survey says no.
Second, the free market is not entirely perfect, sometimes governmental regulation is necessary to spur action, that seems foolish at the time, but progressive and proper in hindsigh. Please see asbestos, lead paint, and CAFE standard, slavery!!!, women’s right to vote, need i cite more? Also, please provide a list of all these alternative options available to non-smokers who dont want to patronize a smoking bar? They are few and far inbetween. Hard for non-smokers to display their economic force. Second, you presented a false choice because of the lack of nonsmoking taverns. The actual choice is between a smoking bar (already rejected) and not going out to the bar, which they usually do. Thus, the rise is bar patronage after a smoking ban is lifted. Econ 101. Boo ya in the eye.
Third, second hand smoke is not simply an ‘annoyance,’ its a DANGER and a proven CARCINOGEN. Business owners are not the only ones affected, the patrons are!
Juan, you started strong, but then attributing the ban to some hatred and superiority was absurd, you lost me there buddy. Way to do exactly what you were decrying.
The simple fact is smoking is a public nuisance and a significant health risk. The greater public utility is banning smoking in taverns. You still have the ability to smoke outside or in some specially designated, secured area.
Y'all need to think
12/07/07 @ 1:49pm
Chris,
I wish your explanation held water, but it doesn’t. To argue that food, particularly food at a modern restaurant, is organic and wholly processed by the body is overly optimistic, at best. The crap they call food nowadays is more often created in chemistry labs rather than grown or raised. Yes, you could eat 5,000 calories a day and not see effects over several weeks (although I doubt it. You’d likely gain weight, or at the very least feel sluggish ond bloated.) I could smoke a pack a day for several weeks and not see any immediate negative effects.
As for your free market analogy, it doesn’t hold water either. Your basic argument seems to be you should take away the choice from smokers and assign it to non-smokers. After all, by enacting a smoking ban, you are giving smokers the same “false choice” you argue non-smokers face today (either go to a non-smoking bar or stay home.) Slavery and women’s suffrage?! Come on! Those analogies would only work if African American’s were given freedom at the expense of white folks’ freedom, or if women were given the right to vote while men’s right to vote were taken away.
Third, barbecue is a carcinogen, should we outlaw barbecue? Should we close down beaches because people might be exposed to the sun (which has also been linked to cancer?)
There are lots of public nuissances and health risks out there, and legislating is not the way to address them.
John Wayne
12/11/07 @ 8:20am
...Anyone can quit smoking, it takes a real man to die from cancer. Sorry, when the beeoch former Mayor Laura Miller had the law passed in Dallas I stopped frequenting Dallas establishments. I’m in the camp of let the pocketbooks rule.
y'all was WRONG!
12/12/07 @ 10:31am
Well well well. To those of you who said this thing was inevitable, you were wrong. It just got shifted to the “kill this bill” committee in the senate. Guess cooler heads prevailed.