Smoke-free air legislation doesn’t harm businesses
(Last updated: 06/10/09 7:21pm)As a recent graduate of MSU, a current resident of East Lansing and a frequenter of many of East Lansing’s bars and restaurants, I support a comprehensive smoke-free law.
In the article, Consensus hard to find on proposed state smoking ban (SN 5/25), there seemed to be concerns about how business would be affected in a college town. The University of Minnesota and The Ohio State University, both of which are in states with comprehensive smoke-free laws, recently released research that smoke-free laws did not have negative effects on employment in any of 10 Minnesota cities that were tracked for a 45-month period after passing smoke-free legislation.
There are now 37 states with smoke-free laws. Michigan lawmakers cannot ignore the facts any longer.
I am a big supporter of our local businesses, and I would never want to see their business suffer, but I also know that legislation would protect myself, my friends and their employees’ health. I want our businesses to have a fair playing field and healthy environments for all my future fellow Spartans.
That’s why Michigan lawmakers need to pass comprehensive smoke-free air legislation now!
Mary Pettit
2009 MSU graduate
Originally Published: 06/10/09 7:21pm
Todd
06/11/09 9:35amIt’s obvious that a smoking ban would not harm businesses, since many restaurants that are thriving around Michigan have voluntarily chosen to ban smoking. The greater issue here is that such a government-imposed ban is a direct assault on the private property rights of business owners.
Zeke
06/11/09 2:53pm“The greater issue here is that such a government-imposed ban is a direct assault on the private property rights of business owners.”
Said business owners also cannot sell alcohol, cigarettes, or porn to minors either. Property rights are extended only by the law – which is not created by “government,” but by the people who form it. People like me, who are tired of going out to a bar, sucking in carcinogens, and reeking like a chimney at the end of the night.
There will always be people who cling to archaic and deadly activities. Count on the reasonable and rational to severely limit those activities to places where they cannot be affected by them.
Hal Incandenza
06/11/09 8:50pmDoes everyone understand why we don’t have smoke-free restaurants? The State Senate is majority Republican, the House is Democrat. The Senate won’t pass a bill exempting the casinos because they feel it would economically benefit Detroit districts, consequently giving Michigan Democrats more political power (and maybe even giving the city more districts in the future if population increases). The House won’t pass a bill without the exemption for the same reasons.
...View full comment »
Todd
06/12/09 1:24pmZeke,
Only patronizing establishments that don’t allow smoking would be “reasonable and rational,” rather than looking to the nanny state to solve everyone’s problems.
Re: Todd
06/17/09 11:28amYes, because the only factor that informs my decision on where to go out at night is whether or not there is smoking.
Zeke
06/18/09 11:11am“Only patronizing establishments that donât allow smoking would be âreasonable and rational,â rather than looking to the nanny state to solve everyoneâs problems.”
Mmmmkay. So instead of engaging the legislative process via my constitutionally-granted rights and pushing for legislation to end smoking at my favorite BWW, I should just suck it up and hope they change their policies sometime in 2025?
...View full comment »