Later this year, Michigan will be enacting a smoking ban in public places. Smokers will not be allowed to smoke in any public place with the exception of existing casinos (all casinos built after the ban is put in to place will be no smoking zones).
So before too long, when you go into a restaurant you won't be asked "Smoking or Non" it will no longer be an option. I'm really curious as to what your opinions are on this whole ordeal. I can understand both sides of the argument; Second-hand smoking is bad for the non-smokers, but people have the right to decide to smoke. How do you think this law is going to affect businesses? (I'm thinking bars and restaurants.) Do you think business will go unchanged? Or will there be negative effects?
For more read: http://www.detroitbusinesslaw.com/2009/12/michigan-smoking-ban-summary-of-house-bill-no-4377/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In WA, we have already passed a smoking ban. I remember the big debate and anger from smokers. People have gotten used to it and there's no longer any fuss. I honestly think it's a good thing because a "smoking" section doesn't help; the smoke still goes into the non-smoking section. Businesses may lose business from smokers but they'll gain business from people who stayed away because of the harmful smoke. I have personal experience with this. I now go to my local bowling alley instead of the one further away because it's no longer filled with smoke. I say good for MI!
ReplyDeleteConsidering that the majority of the population does not smoke, it seems that the smoking ban is more beneficial then it is harmful. It's not only protecting non-smokers from the harms of secondhand smoke, but it also, like Cierra said, makes places liek bowling alleys or resturants more pleasant to be in.
ReplyDeleteMy uncle owns a bar near Detroit, and I honestly can tell you first hand that he believes this will increase his business. Over winter break, my dad and I had a conversation with him about this ban, and he thinks he will see an increase in business because a good portion of his costumers do not smoke, and with this ban, it will attract even more of those costumers because they will not have to worry about taking in second hand smoke. This will bring people into the restaurant and bar markets that used to not be in it because they did not want to deal with breathing in smoke. With this said, my uncle anticipates to see more costumers, because he believes the hesitant non-smokers have no reason to worry about second hand smoke anymore, and the people that did not go to restaurants and bars at all, because of smoking, will now go out. (E, T)
ReplyDeleteI worked at Outback where over the summer the whole restaurant became non smoking. We lost some customers who liked smoking at the bar, but i think we also gained many more customers with big families with kids, which also brings more money. No more attracting small, single parties, but big families who, when talking to me as a hostess, are very happy with the restaurant being non-smoking. I think it depends on what type of business you are in when it comes to the good and bad effects of this law. If there's a family like atmosphere like an Outback, then it will attract more families, bigger parties which will bring in more profit. But if it's a sports bar or something like that, the number of costumers may go down. I myself was happy with this law, i didn't go home smelling like smoke anymore. So i think family-like business' will profit and bars will suffer.
ReplyDeleteAs a waitress in the metro-Detroit area, I am SO EXCITED about this new law! It's great to know that I won't be subject to the dangers of second-hand smoke when I'm just trying to do my job.
ReplyDeleteE
My Dad, being a smoker, is pissed, and I find it hilarious. Maybe this will help him quit.
ReplyDeleteI think it is a good thing for MI. Since atleast 75% of the population are non smokers, losing the tiny percent of people who smoked and went out to eat won't be noticed. People often smoke when they drink at bars and are not smokers outside of their nightlife. I personally like this because my whole family has pretty much smoked cigarettes in front of me my whole life. Now i will not have to deal with smelling like cigarettes after eating or enhaling everything.
ReplyDeleteThis is going to sound a little too preachy but I've been thinking it, so I feel a need to say it. The number places that smokers have to smoke are declining rapidly. It seems like there are very few left. While I think it is noble to discourage people from smoking, going about it in technical way (making smoking impractical as opposed to illegal) seems disingenuous. In a way, smokers are becoming a persecuted minority. I know, I know, there are plenty of other persecuted minorities that are in worse situations than smokers, but right now that's not what we're talking about. It's become common to hate on people for smoking. By defining someone as a smoker, it immediately becomes easier to judge that person as a whole based on the fact that they do something that we do not approve of. Same goes for "junkies" and "addicts." I say love the smoker, hate the smoke.
ReplyDeleteYou can't smoke within some number of feet of a building in Chicago...which basically means (in theory) you can't smoke anywhere. I think it is unfair for the smokers because they believe it is their right. However, I think the right to fresh air is greater than smokers' right to smoke. People have different normative beliefs about smoking in largely populated areas, which is why there is so much controversy. E
ReplyDeleteI dont thing businesses will hurt that much if at all. The restaurants will still sell food, the bars still alchohol, and the new casinos will still give the thrill of gambling. It is true that people have the right to smoke but not to force others to smoke. Secondhand smoke affects my mother a lot who has allergies and ashma. If we step in a restaurant where somebody is smoking across the room it immediately effects her. Its just like anything you have the right to do....you can do it but if it risks somebody else's health or life your not allowed. It doesnt make everybody happy but its the most beneficial for everybody as a whole.
ReplyDeleteI personally think this is a bad idea. I don't smoke, no one in my family (that I know of) smokes, and I don't encourage smoking- however I feel economically and democratically speaking, we should not ban smoking in public places. Smoking in bars and certain restaurants is just a habit, and how I see it, changing that will ruin the business. Second hand smoking has been proven to cause health problems, however that is why there is a smoking and non-smoking option in restaurants. It gives equality to both smokers and non-smokers, rather than giving non-smokers a benefit. T
ReplyDeleteWhere does it say that people have a right to smoke? Conversely, under clean air legislation people do have a right to clean air.
ReplyDeleteI was a board member on a cancer society and I worked on petitioning for this issue because we all know that a non-smoking section is still permeated by the 43 chemicals in cigarettes including formeldahyde. Mmmm!
As time goes on, we are only finding out about more and more harmful aspects of smoking, and I really don't see how businesses will be hurt. If a smoker has been smoking at his favorite bar for 20 years, and he finds that he can no longer smoke there, what is he going to do? Drive to his second favorite bar? Smoking is banned there too. Now what? Should he drive to Ohio? Actually, Ohio was the first midwestern state to ban indoor smoking, and they did so in 2006.
ReplyDeleteI believe this ban will do nothing but good. A