Smoking

[Thiele]

You serious? Teachers can smoke? That was banned in schools here about 30 years ago. Here your not allowed to smoke in any public place indoors. You can't even smoke in cars now if theres kids in it.

 

[FoolKiller]

You serious? Teachers can smoke? That was banned in schools here about 30 years ago. Here your not allowed to smoke in any public place indoors. You can't even smoke in cars now if theres kids in it.

Private school teachers, not public schools. And then it depends on what the local regulations regarding smoking in a "public" business are.

 

[Joey D]

Looks like Michigan is going to join the ranks of thinking people are too stupid to care for their own health and going ahead and hurting an already ailing economy.

State Legislature passes smoking ban
Michigan is poised to become the 38th state to ban smoking in public places in May, following passage of the prohibition by the House and Senate today.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm has indicated she will sign the bill.

The House voted 75-30 for the long-awaited measure, which makes exceptions for the three Detroit casinos, cigar bars, specialty tobacco shops, home offices and motor vehicles, including commercial trucks. The Senate voted 24-13 for the bill earlier today.

The Michigan bill bans smoking in workplaces and bars and restaurants. It will take effect May 1, 2010.

Violations would be subject to fines of up to $500. Smokers who light up in the workplace or bars and restaurants would pay the fine. Businesses that allow smoking to take place or that do not post no-smoking signs also could be subject to penalties.

"I'm happy we're finally dealing with the secondhand smoke issue that has plagued this state for many years," said Sen. Ray Basham, D-Taylor.

An amendment calling for a total ban was rejected in the Senate because the House has opposed that version.

"Let us pass a compromise today rather than send something over that's DOA (dead on arrival)," said Sen. Ron Jelinek, R-Three Oaks.

He said polls show about 70 percent of Michigan citizens favor a public smoking ban.

Some who opposed the bill said state government should not be dictating smoking policy to private businesses.

A House Fiscal Agency analysis says the ban will likely cause tobacco tax revenue to decline but will save money on medical costs related to smoking.

In May of 2008, the Senate approved a statewide ban with no exceptions. The House passed a prohibition that would exempt Detroit casinos and cigar bars. Attempts were made at a compromise but none was reached.

Jelinek, who pushed for the casino exception, said Detroit could lose up to 8,000 jobs if smoking is banned from casinos.

The ban faced opposition from the Michigan Licensed Beverage Association, Detroit bar and restaurant owners and from health advocates and some lawmakers who object to exempting the three Detroit casinos.

About 6,000 bars and restaurants -- one-third of the state total -- have already gone smoke-free, according to Lance Binoniemi, executive director of the Michigan Licensed Beverage Association. He questioned the need for a law.

 

[Tornado]

When it says "statewide ban with no exceptions," does it mean "no smoking anywhere?"

 

[Northstar]

When it says "statewide ban with no exceptions," does it mean "no smoking anywhere?"

At least here it's banned inside of public buildings(this includes bars and restaurants). They recently tried to ban it in parks as well but failed.

 

[Joel]

Here it's banned in all "public" places. That means all publicly funded buildings (schools, arenas, hospitals, etc.). I have no issue with this, however, I don't agree with the inclusion of bars and restaurants. It's total BS that you can't decide whether people can smoke or not on your own private property. I'm kind of iffy on the ban on smoking with kids in the car. not sure about that one.

 

[Thiele]

Smoking's banned in just about all public buildings here too i believe, but not outdoor areas. It was banned in pubs a couple of years ago and pubs are much more pleasant now. You can still smoke outside though.

I'm kind of iffy on the ban on smoking with kids in the car. not sure about that one.

That's banned here too.

 

[Public'sTwin]

Here it's banned in all "public" places. That means all publicly funded buildings (schools, arenas, hospitals, etc.). I have no issue with this, however, I don't agree with the inclusion of bars and restaurants. It's total BS that you can't decide whether people can smoke or not on your own private property. I'm kind of iffy on the ban on smoking with kids in the car. not sure about that one.

It's public buildings and enclosed businesses. You can smoke on private property, and can even apply for a permit.

 

[Joel]

It's public buildings and enclosed businesses. You can smoke on private property, and can even apply for a permit.

I know you can smoke on your own property, but shouldnt the owner of a bar or restaurant or bowling alley, for that matter, be able to choose whether you can smoke or not?

 

[BMfan]

That woman who wants to sue her neighbors is taking it ti far.
If people want to smoke in their house's let them,
the only thing that i hate is that when i am busy removing a dent on a car the owner will normally come and watch and then light up right behind me so have to work and breath in his:censored:.
That i think is wrong,some smokers do have to be more considerate for other people.

 

[FoolKiller]

It's public buildings and enclosed businesses. You can smoke on private property, and can even apply for a permit.

Businesses are private property.

 

[Northstar]

Businesses are private property.

They are public places though.

 

[Joey D]

But it's still private property. My house is in a public place but is on private property.

 

[FoolKiller]

They are public places though.

Correction, it is private property which functions to serve the general public through voluntary business transactions. The key word being voluntary, as in no one is forced to go in.

A public place is owned by a public entity, aka government. This will be parks, community centers, government buildings, public schools and state universities, the street, etc.

 

[Northstar]

Correction, it is private property which functions to serve the general public through voluntary business transactions. The key word being voluntary, as in no one is forced to go in.

A public place is owned by a public entity, aka government. This will be parks, community centers, government buildings, public schools and state universities, the street, etc.

They do however have the expectation they won't be poisoned by smoke when inside the building though.

It seems a lot of people are using this "private property" argument when it is fairly flawed. Considering you need a permit to do do anything it really isn't private property, not to mention the codes, and other inspections people have to go through for even the simplest things.

 

[Danoff]

They do however have the expectation they won't be poisoned by smoke when inside the building though.

It seems a lot of people are using this "private property" argument when it is fairly flawed. Considering you need a permit to do do anything it really isn't private property, not to mention the codes, and other inspections people have to go through for even the simplest things.

Well something's out of whack, but it isn't the fact that it's private property. Perhaps it's the permits, codes, and inspections.

Give me one good reason why a sign the says "there's gonna be smoke in here" is insufficient to make this issue go away.

 

[Tornado]

They do however have the expectation they won't be poisoned by smoke when inside the building though.

So they don't go in the building. Simple as.

 

[Sureboss]

They do however have the expectation they won't be poisoned by smoke when inside the building though.

It seems a lot of people are using this "private property" argument when it is fairly flawed. Considering you need a permit to do do anything it really isn't private property, not to mention the codes, and other inspections people have to go through for even the simplest things.

It's an interesting situation.

On one hand I'd say, "No, it should be the choice of the properties owners." But then you have Health & Safety, which all businesses have to comply with, so they'd just chuck it under that. (Which it arguably already is.)

Smoking ban here has stupid implications, absolutely worst case (level 4, and you have to go up through 1-3) is a £2,500 fine. That's not a lot to some businesses. It cannot get worse than that. No risk of loss of licenses, nothing.

 

[FoolKiller]

They do however have the expectation they won't be poisoned by smoke when inside the building though.

But, judging by the amount of complaining anti-smoking folks do about the smell, they can obviously tell the moment they walk in, and exercise their right to deny the property owner their voluntary transaction. At worst, require a sign so that it is just a matter of informed consent, much like clearly posted health inspection results at restaurants.

Which brings me to:

It seems a lot of people are using this "private property" argument when it is fairly flawed. Considering you need a permit to do do anything it really isn't private property, not to mention the codes, and other inspections people have to go through for even the simplest things.

But what are these codes and inspections for? Think about it. What gets inspected: That the building has a low risk of doing something that may cause it to collapse or burst into flame or that food served on the premises is safe for consumption. Why do we have these things, and why are these certificates required to be visible, or available upon request (depending on local laws)? Because a customer is not a building inspector and should not have access to the foundations of the buildings, the insides of the wall facades, or access to the food preparation areas. So, these codes and permits are designed to allow experts to check on these things for customers that are unable to check them on their own.

Smoking being allowed by customers does not require a specially trained investigator to identify. You can see it, smell it, and possibly even taste it just by being in the same room.

 

[Nicksfix]

And what would you say to a veteran who belongs to a VFW,American Legion,etc.... That even though he went to war for his country,got shot up,went through hell for a few years defending his country,that he can't smoke in one of the clubs that are provided for him and his fellow comrades.

To that I say B.S. . He /she should be able to smoke in these establishments if they want to.

 

[Northstar]

But, judging by the amount of complaining anti-smoking folks do about the smell, they can obviously tell the moment they walk in, and exercise their right to deny the property owner their voluntary transaction. At worst, require a sign so that it is just a matter of informed consent, much like clearly posted health inspection results at restaurants.

Which brings me to:

But what are these codes and inspections for? Think about it. What gets inspected: That the building has a low risk of doing something that may cause it to collapse or burst into flame or that food served on the premises is safe for consumption. Why do we have these things, and why are these certificates required to be visible, or available upon request (depending on local laws)? Because a customer is not a building inspector and should not have access to the foundations of the buildings, the insides of the wall facades, or access to the food preparation areas. So, these codes and permits are designed to allow experts to check on these things for customers that are unable to check them on their own.

Smoking being allowed by customers does not require a specially trained investigator to identify. You can see it, smell it, and possibly even taste it just by being in the same room.

So non-smokers should be faced with the question of whether they want to put their health at risk just so they can go out? That doesn't seem fair if the majority has to give up a basic right so the minority doesn't have to give up anything.

And what would you say to a veteran who belongs to a VFW,American Legion,etc.... That even though he went to war for his country,got shot up,went through hell for a few years defending his country,that he can't smoke in one of the clubs that are provided for him and his fellow comrades.

To that I say B.S. . He /she should be able to smoke in these establishments if they want to.

Although I appreciate what vets have done, they have to live by the same rules as everyone else.

I could go further on that, but it would take this thread way off-topic.

 

[Nicksfix]

Although I appreciate what vets have done, they have to live by the same rules as everyone else.

Sorry Justin,but I have to dis-agree.These are usually private clubs anyway - reserved for those who served in the military and their spouse,immediate kin (children) - (non-public access). It's for them,they should be allowed to smoke a cigarette if they wish to.

 

[Northstar]

Sorry Justin,but I have to dis-agree.These are usually private clubs anyway - reserved for those who served in the military and their spouse,immediate kin (children) - (non-public access). It's for them,they should be allowed to smoke a cigarette if they wish to.

No they aren't, you can walk into any VFW/American Legion. You just have to sign a guest book. We used to go all the time for meat raffles, weddings, auctions, dinners etc...

 

[Nicksfix]

Delete - sorry,it double posted itself.

 

[Nicksfix]

As a guest you can do this when they host community meals,wedding receptions,etc... You cannot regularly go to these places and hang out like you can at a bar,pub,etc... If they let you in and your not a spouse,child etc. , the club is in the wrong for letting you in.

 

[Joey D]

Why should veterans get special treatment? They are still citizens of America, just like the rest of us.

 

[Nicksfix]

And what would you say to a veteran who belongs to a VFW,American Legion,etc.... That even though he went to war for his country,got shot up,went through hell for a few years defending his country,that he can't smoke in one of the clubs that are provided for him and his fellow comrades.

To that I say B.S. . He /she should be able to smoke in these establishments if they want to.

Joseph - re-read this. ^

Not every U.S. citizen,or citizen of any nation can say they did this for their country.Veterans have their own clubs,then they should be entitled to smoke if they want to after what they went through for their country.

 

[Joey D]

I still don't really think they deserve anything over and above what every other citizen should be entitled too. Every American should have the right to have their private property managed the way they wish, if they wish to allow smoking then it shouldn't be a problem, if they don't then that is their choice too.

I don't think veterans should have additional rights just because they are veterans. I get up every morning and go to my job, a solider does the same thing, as do police officers, bakers, wind washers, bankers, whomever. In the end all workers play a role in the country, not just military personnel.

 

[Nicksfix]

Every American should have the right to have their private property managed the way they wish, if they wish to allow smoking then it shouldn't be a problem, if they don't then that is their choice too.

I agree whole heartedly with you on this statement.👍 Tell that to our crooked ass politicians though.

I get up every morning and go to my job, a solider does the same thing, as do police officers, bakers, wind washers, bankers, whomever. In the end all workers play a role in the country, not just military personnel.

Besides the policeman (possibly),how many others have been involved in any conflict,been shot at,or have taken a round for their country in the line of defense ? They should be allowed to smoke if they darn well want to.

 

[Joey D]

Besides the policeman (possibly),how many others have been involved in any conflict,been shot at,or have taken a round for their country in the line of defense ? They should be allowed to smoke if they darn well want to.

Considering soldiers (for the most part) chose to put themselves in that situation I can't say I agree with that. I never understand why we have to put military personnel on some sort of pedestal. They signed up for the military knowing full well what the risks were. Every job comes with risks, some are just greater than others.

And once again, veterans, like everyone else, sound be allowed to smoke if they want to. Just as business owners should have the right to either allow it or not allow it in their buildings.