Michigan smoking ban passes, but casinos are exempt…
What was interesting is the ban in Michigan will exempt all of the casinos, it doesn’t exempt bars or adult establishments with the exception of casinos. As the Detroit Free Press reports, Gov. Granholm is expected to sign it. One question with the casino exemption is how it will impact NWO since the casino here, when built, will be smoke free.
Before the compromise was reached to allow smoking to continue in the casinos, it was estimated that a third of their revenues could be lost according to the Detroit News. There were also those who felt allowing the casinos to allow smoking would give them an unfair advantage over the smaller businesses, but apparently the potential loss of tax dollars from the casinos outweighed the possible harm to small businessmen. Windsor has lost revenue in it’s casinos, that has been blamed in part on the smoking ban that went into effect in 2006.
The fines in Michigan are $100.00 for a first offense and $500.00 for each additional offense, compare that to Ohio’s:
* First violation – warning letter
* Second violation – $100
* Third violation – $500
* Fourth violation – $1,000
* Fifth and subsequent violations – $2,500
WKYC-TV reported in November that smoking violations were still happening and the reporting indicates there seems to have been some selectivity as to which places have been targeted and which ones have never been cited.
Discrimination of bar owners, restaurants, etc. if smoking is allowed at the casino!
Then stop every where the serving of alcohol of an kind any where then there will be a lot less
December 11th, 2009 at 8:47 pmof drunk drivers killing people!
Have acquaintances and co-workers who visit either Detroit casinos or Windsor, some as often as a couple times a month. None are smokers, and all were shocked that Detroit casinos were exempted. Most of them prefer non-smoking Windsor, but all do not have passports.
Seems like the small business in Wayne County might have a class action suit possibility here. Of course, if the powers that be have decided they might lose tax revenue, then a good guess would be that the “fix” would be in, and a court challenge would go nowhere.
Our smoking ban here is one of the best recent laws passed (for a dozen reasons), and will probably attract lots of Detroit customers to Toledo, if all this casino building comes to pass.
The reason any of this of interest to me personally, is memories of when smokers ruled. You could be sitting at any lunch counter years ago (the dime store, Lion Store lunch counter) – and some smoking idiot would plop down beside you, light up, and blow smoke your way all through lunch. If you got up and moved to another seat, the idiot smoker would look at you like you had personally insulted him/her (instead of the other way around). Smokers in general are not going to go to casinos or bars because of a smoking ban? In the immortal words of Maynard G. Krebs: “Oh come now!”
Yay smoking bans – wherever they exist.
December 12th, 2009 at 4:02 pmWell, for many it is it irratating and
uncomfortable for them to sit in restaurants, etc. to have people drinking their alcohol and making a disturbance, etc.
Politicians, Government, Medical Professionals love their alcohol too,
December 12th, 2009 at 5:12 pmBUT WITH SOME PEOPLE IT DOES NOT TAKE THAT MUCH ALCOHOL ALONG WITH ALCOHOLICS AND DRUNKS WHO KILL PEOPLE
INSTANTLY WITH NO WARNING AT ALL!!
I’m not a smoker but I find it interesting that states cannot exist without the tax revenue from cigarettes and lawsuit money previously won, yet continue to “bite the hand that feeds them”.
They should go all the way and just ban cigarette sales completely, but I doubt that will ever happen.
December 13th, 2009 at 6:30 amActually jeff a couple of states, RIsland and Massachussetes, and maybe NY. (I can’t remember which ones exactly, i think those) Raised taxes on cigarettes years ago to pay for children’s health programs. What went on next is that people stopped smoking cause they didn’t want to pay the extra money. And guess what happenend??!! Those children’s health programs started to come up short in the funding that they were supposed to receive from the cigarette tax. It was really funny!
December 13th, 2009 at 11:37 amChad, include Florida as another that jacked the tax over $1.00 a pack, making them an average of $6 a pack.
Florida also uses it’s cigarette settlement to balance the state budget.
December 14th, 2009 at 6:19 amCharge $15 per drink for alcoholic beverages!
Anyone that drinks alcohol never see it or will even discuss it or
how it not only KILLS PEOPLE INSTANTLY
BUT ALSO NOT ONLY HOW ALCOHOL EFFECTS AND DESTROYS THEMSELVES
THEIR FAMILIES, AND OTHERS EMOTIONALLY, ETC.
ALCOHOL IS WORSE THAN SMOKING!!
December 14th, 2009 at 7:36 amChad,
I fail to see the humor in underfunded SCHIP programs.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:20 amI also don’t find it amusing that states depend on sin taxes to get by instead of having the cajones to actually raise taxes or, better yet, repeal corporate welfare tax breaks.
Once upon a time a business owner had the right to decide what was allowed in his business. It was called property rights.
I know the arguments for smoking bans and as an ex-smoker I have lived on both sides but the one thing I will always hold true to is that if a restaurant owner wants his establishment to be smoking, then it should be allowed. Customers should tell owners what they prefer through thier patronage, not through thier elected officials. Smoking bans is a good example of the oppressive majority. Just because everyone wants something, doesn’t mean it is right.
The only time I can see a smoking ban on certain businesses would be when they are places you don’t have a choice but to enter like a grocery store. Bars and restaurants, however, are luxuries.
December 14th, 2009 at 9:22 amI don’t quite recall there ever being a problem with grocery stores having smokers, I always thought they were no smoking to begin with by choice of the owners, but maybe it was just that smokers don’t smoke while grocery shopping.
In general, if something is a legal act, then it should be allowed anywhere at the discretion of the property owner. You can’t go halfway, it either is a legal act or it is not a legal act.
December 14th, 2009 at 10:11 amDoug,
Business owners are free to violate the ban and pay (or not pay, as is most often the case) the fines.
Check out the WKYC-TV link in the posting above.
December 14th, 2009 at 10:43 amSo it’s ok to do things that I should be able to do as long as I pay someone to do it (or in this case someone else pays for me to do it then charges me and you through higher prices)?
Guess that works with seat belts, I can pay not to wear a seat belt. Or run red lights in Toledo, I can pay to do that too.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:25 amCraig,
Such is the price of freedom then? It is not personal responsability and the blood of patriots but how much money you can pay? Awesome, I used to think that the constitution would protect me but now you have shown me that liberal/progressives have made the almight doller my source of freedom. And to think they called conservatives greedy…
Anyway, it is not like a one time yearly fine you pay, it’s for each violation and a violation can be issued daily. link
December 14th, 2009 at 12:55 pm#10 – I seem to remember in the 70’s people would smoke everywhere. I swear my grandma used to smoke in the grocery store. Back in the 80’s my aunt’s husband was walking through the grocery store and smoking a cigarette and the manager of the store yelled at him.
December 14th, 2009 at 3:09 pm#14 – That kind of goes to my point (I only knew the 80’s and that seemed to be the turning point on smoking), but in the 70’s everyone smoked there wasn’t any harm and people didn’t care, 80’s came along and business owners decided they couldn’t smoke in certain places. The oppressive majority didn’t come in and say you couldn’t smoke, the owners voluntarily bent to the will of the people.
Now in the cases of bars and resteraunts, they segregated the smokers (maybe not all that well), and probably would have eventually gotten there on their own (reteraunts at least), probably not most bars.
December 14th, 2009 at 5:33 pmActually the downtown restaurants in particular, prior to the ban, were on the point of being schizophrenic with regard to their smoking sections. Many of them (when there were many of them) made a habit of bum-rushing some parties of lunch patrons into the smoking sections. Friends and I had this happen at both Georgios and that restaurant in the Spitzer Arcade. The host would mumble something to someone in the group & next thing we knew we non-smokers were sitting in the smoking section. Both times I insisted we be moved to non-smoking.
Here was the message I got from this behavior. The restaurants knew the worst sections were the non-smoking. They appeared to reserve them for, in addition to smokers, groups of ladies they thought would not tip well or would linger over lunch to talk too long [some of this info I got from a former restaurant manager]. I felt – from observing who was automatically seated in non-smoking, that local celebrities or groups of the obviously well-heeled, were given what the RESTAURANT ITSELF CONSIDERED PREMIUM SEATING – the NON-SMOKING SECTION.
There are absolute, proven health issues here, which all the smokers and former smokers above are very conveniently ignoring. You do not have the right to make me sick, period. Hence the long overdue smoking bans. I have witnessed out and out wars over this topic when employed years ago at Owens-Corning. Prior to smoking bans, believe me, smokers ruled. One in particular, sat next to a woman with asthma, and didn’t give a hoot. She smoked her brains out regardless of any attempts to reason with her. She was eventually fired for a different reason, when caught shopping on a called-in sick day. But management was frustrated with her lack of caring for anyone working around her. Businesses should have instituted these smoking bans 40 years ago.
December 15th, 2009 at 12:42 pmcorrection – the restaurants knew the worst sections were the SMOKING.
December 15th, 2009 at 12:44 pmActually, smokers should be happy with the smoking bans. Smokers are the only group who get 75 breaks at work every day (sorry, couldn’t resist).
December 15th, 2009 at 12:54 pmtruthseeker,
December 15th, 2009 at 12:55 pmI am pretty sure you weren’t forced to go to those restaurants. You had a choice.
#19 – sorry, but completely beside the point. You DO NOT have the right to endanger the health of others by your (addictive) behavior in public places. You are free to enjoy your disgusting addiction in the privacy of your own home.
December 15th, 2009 at 1:19 pm@20
December 15th, 2009 at 1:33 pmIt is completely in point. You are telling people what to do with thier private property. It is private property that is open to the public. The conditions are stated that smoking is allowed on that property. You don’t want to be around smoke for WHATEVER reasons you decide, then you can decide to go or not. You are not forced. Take for example Nascar. The sound of those cars is far and above what is good for my hearing. It is a public place therefore should we enact laws to reduce how much sound those cars can make? It’s public health, permanently damaging ears. You know what I do? I don’t go to races…
#20
Not beside the point, you’re arguing that the business owners were bad to you. You don’t have to smoke. You don’t have to go to places where smokers will be. You can talk to owners and get them to make their businesses smoke free. You can start your own business and make if smoke free.
BTW I am not a smoker and have never been addicted to smoking
December 15th, 2009 at 1:39 pm