STYLETHREAD -- LET'S TALK SHOP!

Elle · Hermes

Smoking Banned!

Hermes

Michigan has not enacted any smoking bans in bars/restaurants yet. I have a feeling it will be a city by city thing before the state takes action. For example, Ann Arbor will probably be first. I recently went to an Ann Arbor bar that banned smoking as of February 1st, and it seems emblematic of a trend in that city. I was thrilled. As an ex-smoker, I really do not want to be around it, and find myself especially repulsed by the smell now.

erin · Chanel

i keep hearing they are going to ban it here, too, but i haven't seen it happen yet. i can't wait!

RyanJ · Coach

I am not a smoker and really hate the smell, but that totally pisses me off. Why does the goverment get to go into private bussiness and tell them what they can and can't to?

This has been a pretty big deal in my area for a few years. A city, Toledo, Ohio, which is close to me had the smoking ban. It has really hurt a lot of bars and restaraunts and put many out of business.

luckylily · Gucci

Smoking was banned in Seattle a few months ago. It is the strictest law in the country so far. In addition to not being able to smoke in a public place, you can't smoke within 25 feet of a doorway. There are some additional restrictions on smoking outdoors.

I do think it was taken a bit too far in terms of limiting smoking outside. The businesses are responsible for making sure that people aren't smoking within 25 feet of their doorways or windows, and most small businesses/restaurants/clubs don't have the staffing to enforce that part of the law. And frankly, 25 feet is a bit extreme IMO.

I'm always a bit sensitive about the government taking away something from the public, so I'm still torn about the whole thing.

-- Edited by luckylily at 12:25, 2006-03-18

Elle · Hermes

See, normally I don't support the government taking away people's individual rights like this. However, I think it's more of a public health issue than a personal rights issue. Smoking has been proven to be detrimental to the health of the smoker as well as to people who breathe in the second hand smoke. So while I think people should be allowed to smoke if they so choose, I don't think that they should be able to endanger my health with their choices. If smoking was banned from all public places except for places that are bars only (ie not restaurants) then I'd be all for it, because then as a non-smoker I'd be able to choose to go elsewhere if I didn't want to be around the smoke. I think it's similar to drunk driving - It's obviously dangerous to the person driving as well as all other drivers on the road, which is why it's illegal. I don't care if people drink, but it's not their right to be able to endanger my life with their choice, ya know?

ETA: They interviewed a couple different places on the news that went completely non-smoking by their own choice at various points in the last 10 years or so. Every one of them said that they were afraid of the impact it would have on their business, and every one of them were pleasantly suprised when their business stayed the same and in some cases increased. I know that we as non-smokers purposefully choose not to visit places that are excessively smokey, so they lose our business now. With the smoking ban in place, we'll visit these places more often, making up (at least partially) for the smokers who refuse to visit these places. We'll be the 18th state to enact the law, and from what I've heard (which may well be somewhat uninformed), businesses in the states where the law is already in effect have been for the most part unaffected. I see how doing it city by city could be harmful to businesses, because people could just go to places outside the city if they still wanted to smoke. If it's state-wide though, there really isn't anywhere else to lose business to.

-- Edited by Elle at 13:10, 2006-03-18

kenzie · Chanel

I agree with Elle 100%. This is a public health issue, not a personal rights issue.

I hate the smell. I have asthma and allergies and they are made so much worse by going out where there's smoke. I hate the way it makes my eyes water.I hate that I can't wear certain things out b/c of the drycleaning hassle. I hate that I have to take a shower when I get home at 3am b/c my hair wreaks. I can't wait for the day when PA enforces a smoking ban.

member · Hermes

They passed that law here in Chicago a few months ago for restaurants. Bars are next - I think maybe sometime w/in the next year or so. It's so nice being able to go to a restaurant and not have to worry about my eyes burning or my clothes and hair smelling. I can't wait until it's banned in bars as well.

I totally agree w/Elle, this is more about public health than it is personal rights. Non-smokers shouldn't have to inhale 2nd hand smoke when we choose not to smoke - it's not safe or fair.

relrel · Marc Jacobs

two points:

1. the smoking ban HAS NOT been passed for patrons or customers health. it is purely an occupational health issue and has nothing (legally) to do with customers' health rights. the amount of ets (environmental tobacco smoke) that one would get from going to the bar or restaurant is pretty low. even though small amounts of ets is detrimental to ones health, especially for immunosuppressed or other specific people (pregnant women, young children, hiv+ people, etc), the amounts are too low to truly harm individuals who are only around the etc a few hours a week. however, numerous studies have been done on workers in the bars and restuarants and banning the indoor smoking has had huge effects on thier health. so, this has nothing to do with personal rights or the government telling the comman man what he or she can't do. this is no different than the government banning harmful substances in a factory. it is an occupational health issue and that is how it has been able to be passed in almost (i say almost because i don't know exact specifics on all the cities but chances are great that it is for every single one) every single city where this has gone over.

2. smoking bans do not hurt food or alcohol sales in bars and restaurants. this has not been proven at all to happen. and in fact, numerous studies actually show that sales and profits increase because more people are willing to go out to bars and instead of smoking people simply drink more.

and i say these points being a public health student who has actually been involved with getting smoking banned in philadephia (which is going to be voted on again with the month and this time WILL be passed) and has had countless lectures on smoking, ets, and smoking bans around the country.

-- Edited by relrel at 14:29, 2006-03-18

NCshopper · Hermes

I wish they'd pass a similar law here in NC, but that's one thing that isn't going to happen for a looooooooooooooooooooooong time. Our state was practically founded on tobacco money and still is to a large extent, so I don't see it happening here any time soon, but I wish it would. I really like what Seattle's done by banning smoking within 25 feet of a doorway. Some people in my office building smoke right outside the door and it sucks to have to pass through a cloud of smoke to get outside. Also some people in my building just can't seem to wait long enough to get outside before lighting up, so they'll either light up in the elevator (seriously) or in the lobby and then go outside to smoke. I think I'm going to throw a hissy fit next time I see someone do this.

Maddie · Coach

I have mixed feelings on this. As much as I enjoyed smoking in bars in the UK it was gross to come back reeking of cigarettes. I think people should be able to go out to dinner or even to a bar and not be subjected to cigarette smoke. I don't buy the whole "smokers are second class citizens" thing either.

However, I think Seattle's rule is completely ridiculous. Incidentally Maine has really similar laws. I hardly smoke at all but I don't see why I shouldn't be able to step outside and have a cigarette if I'm at a bar. That's not really affecting anyone's health but my own. I just really don't understand the logic. I guess it's annoying? I think the smell of meat cooking is annoying yet no one seems to be banning that for my protection. However, I don't really see this being too strictly enforced. I already don't smoke much in Seattle cause people glare at you.

-- Edited by Maddie at 20:49, 2006-03-18

lynnie · Chanel

i remember when it was first talked about in the dc area, everyone thought it was going to be a big deal and hurt business. But it wasn't really- people still go out and get drunk- thats not going to change, and people learn to adapt. I'm in nyc now, i *think* the law is in effect here, and i'm glad. Bars are way too crowded anyway to have to deal with cigarette smoke too. I think its great if they are doing it for the health of the workers.

bex · Chanel

Columbus, OH has been smoke free for some time now (i want to say well over a year and a half). In the begining stages the bar & club owners were trying to overturn it saying that it would effect their revenue. It turned out that it hasn't and they have actually done much better now that it is smoke free.

Hedvig · Coach

The smoking ban has been in effect in New York for a few years now, both in restaurants and in bars, and I'm really happy about it. I don't smoke and I definitely don't think it's within anyone's individual rights to cause harm to other people's health.

I hated going to a bar when people were allowed to smoke in them. Now I just wish all of Europe would ban smoking, too. I know at least Sweden and Ireland already have. I just can't and won't go to a bar in my home country Finland because of the smoke.

valenciana · Dooney & Bourke

they did this last year in Atlanta (don't think it's the whole state, just the city, but i'm not sure...it was just before i moved here). i love it. having to be around people who are smoking while i'm eating just bugs me.

however, it does not apply to outdoor dining areas, or restaurants/bars that don't allow under 18-year-olds in. so pretty much all bars still have smoking, and i'm semi-okay with that.

RyanJ · Coach

I don't agree that it doesn't hurt businesses. There are many businesses in the my area that closed because people would go to the surrouding areas that allowed smoking.

Two bars that have been around for a long time closed after the smoking ban. While my uncle's restauraunt a few miles away from the smoking ban flourished. If this is going to be a state or country wide effect (which I totally don't agree w/) that would be one thing, but city to city it does hurt businesses. Maybe not every bussiness, but some will and do suffer.

If you don't want to smell the smoke then don't go there. There are lot of places that I won't go because I don't want to smell like cigarettes. If you don't want to work in a place that allows smoking- then don't. These are private bussinesses and they need to butt out. The less the government makes decsions for me the happier I am.

JoceyBaby23 · Gucci

RyanJ wrote:

There are lot of places that I won't go because I don't want to smell like cigarettes. If you don't want to work in a place that allows smoking- then don't. These are private bussinesses and they need to butt out. The less the government makes decsions for me the happier I am.

I have several issues with this statement. As background, DH and I do NOT smoke and think it is absolutely repulsive. We would like to choose to NOT go to the "smokey" bars but DH is a musician and a good percentage of our household income comes from his gigs in these smokey bars. Unfortunately, he isn't signed with a big label and has to take jobs where he can get them. So DH cannot choose NOT to work in these bars, or else he won't make money and we won't be able to eat!

And for college students and thousands of others around the country without a college education, serving and bartending jobs make ALOT of money and these people are not qualified for better positions. If they can make $30/hour bartending and $8 as a receptionist.. is it really fair to say to them.. "Quit complaining and take the lesser paying job to avoid the smoke." That is ridiculous and not a fair statement. They have rights too.

JoceyBaby23 · Gucci

Maddie wrote:

That's not really affecting anyone's health but my own. I just really don't understand the logic. I guess it's annoying? I think the smell of meat cooking is annoying yet no one seems to be banning that for my protection.

RED FLAGS are going up everywhere with this one too..

Yes, you are affecting other people's health when you smoke around them. Dana Reeves for example, dies of lung cancer and never smoked a day in her life. How did it happen? Second-hand smoke.

Also, a less serious example.. I have asthma.. It developed around the time I was 15. Would you like to know the cause? My father smoked around me for 15 years, since the day I was born, my home was a "smoking" home.

You do affect others!!!

Also, I don't mean for this to sound bitchy.. BUT

When was the last time, the smell of meat caused cancer to those around it?

relrel · Marc Jacobs

RyanJ wrote:

I don't agree that it doesn't hurt businesses. There are many businesses in the my area that closed because people would go to the surrouding areas that allowed smoking. Two bars that have been around for a long time closed after the smoking ban. While my uncle's restauraunt a few miles away from the smoking ban flourished. If this is going to be a state or country wide effect (which I totally don't agree w/) that would be one thing, but city to city it does hurt businesses. Maybe not every bussiness, but some will and do suffer.

many businesses? how many? those two bars that you mention, where they having problems before the smoking ban? antecodotal evidence is all well and good, but it doesn't stand up to actual research done on areas that passed smoking bans. granted, there are probably a few businesses that suffered because of the smoking ban (there are always anomalies) but to go out of business completely simply because patrons could no longer smoke in the bar? highly doubtful. does your city have a sidewalk ban as well?

if you can show me a peer-reviewed journal article that actually has proven the loss of profits or sales due to the smoking ban...then perhaps i would be more willing to believe you. but time and time again, all the research done has proven that smoking bans have not hurt businesses. in fact, in most areas, alcohol sales have gone up. and i can quote you the articles on that.

i don't really like the government dictating certain things to private individuals, either, but when it comes to something like second hand smoke which the EPA has declared to be a known human carcinogen, then i am all for it.

silly me, but i actually like it when the goverment tries to do things to protect my health from things that would kill me.

RyanJ · Coach

relrel wrote:

silly me, but i actually like it when the goverment tries to do things to protect my health from things that would kill me.

That is my point exactly. I don't need the goverment to protect me from the cigarette smoke. I can't protect myself. I don't go where the cigarette smoke is.

What is next? Is the government going to protect me from pop? We all know how bad pop is for you. I think maybe they should stop serving pop in restauraunts too. The would be protecting us from obesity, tooth decay, caffeine dependency and weakened bones.

I know that pop is a lot different then cigarettes, but where does it end? Give then an inch and they will take a mile.