Finally, a common-sense solution to Michigan’s smoking ban

Groups and businesses can sign up at

Micompco (The Michigan Compromise Coalition) is an association of groups and small businesses working toward a common-sense compromise on Michigan’s smoking ban. We are not affiliated with big business or corporations in any way.


Smoking Ban Reasonable Compromise (SBRC)

To lessen the damaging economic effect of Michigan’s smoking ban and give owners more of a say, we are proposing the following common-sense exemptions and updates to the law:

1). Bars, cigar bars, and other establishments not already exempted which only admit persons age 21+.

2). Veteran halls, private clubs and charities, membership clubs, and banquet halls which admit only persons age 18+.

3). Open air patios, including patios where food and drinks are served.

4). Smoking rooms inside restaurants and other privately-owned establishments open to the public. The smoking rooms must have signage posted at their entrances designating them age 18+ and be separated by complete floor-to-ceiling enclosures and double doors.

If an establishment or area of an establishment falls within the exemptions listed above and allows smoking within an exempted indoor area on the premises:

A). Clear and conspicuous signage must be posted void of images or graphics at all exterior entrances stating no more and no less than the following: “This establishment permits indoor smoking in ALL areas which comply with EPA standards for good to moderate air quality.” OR “This establishment permits smoking ONLY in contained indoor area(s) which comply with EPA standards for good to moderate air quality.”

B. It must have ventilation equipment installed capable of removing smoke particles as small as 0.01 microns and maintaining a particulate matter PM 2.5 level equal to or less than 35.4 micrograms per cubic meter, which matches the EPA standard for good to moderate air quality.

C). It is required to have a PM 2.5 meter on the premises accessible to employees.

D). It is subject to random PM 2.5 on-site measurement inspections conducted by state officials, which will be conducted no more often than once per month. Any smoking establishment not meeting the 35.4 micrograms per cubic meter requirement during this inspection must increase its ventilation capacity to meet this requirement before its following inspection. Establishments failing two inspections in a row must:

D1). Not permit smoking within the establishment for no less than one year following the date of the second of its two consecutive violations.

D2). During the one year probationary period, the establishment in violation will be subject to any number of random state inspections to visually verify there is no smoking currently taking place inside the building. For each violation during this probationary period, the establishment shall be required to pay a fine of no more than $100. When one year has passed since the establishment’s initial second consecutive violation, it may again allow smoking within exempted areas and will be subject to the same ventilation requirement stipulated in this amendment.

Groups and businesses can show their support by signing up at

4 thoughts on “Finally, a common-sense solution to Michigan’s smoking ban

  1. Lookin’ great guys! 🙂

    Suggestion for change in first heading where you say:

    “We are proposing several common-sense exemptions and updates to the Michigan smoking ban specific ONLY as possible choices for the following types of areas currently under the ban:”

    Phrasing it that way makes it clearer that you’re not proposing something that would MAKE all those places allow smoking! And when objections are raised against it, you can point out that the essence of your compromise proposal is that No One Is Forcing all these places TO ALLOW smoking, just as no one should force them all to BAN smoking.


    Re (A): not sure on the “no graphics” thing? I think the ADA might require such? Possible graphic: the classic smoking symbol, then a “/”, then the classic ban symbol… thereby showing that walking through that door takes you into a place with both sorts of areas provided?

    Re PM 2.5: It’s important to emphasize that you’re talking about meeting the AVERAGE reading — which is what the EPA talks about. You might want to investigate OSHA averages as alternatives since they’re specifically designed for workplaces and (I believe) for indoor places of public assembly.

    Love it overall!!!



      1. Very good. An old Antismoker trick is to focus on what they like to dress up in scientific language as “peak values” in “plumes” which is actually pretty meaningless in terms of any health effect. EPA and OSHA are always very careful to make distinctions that are usually based upon 1 hour, 8 hour, 24 hour, and annual averages.

        Also, you might want to consider the option, at least as a basis of comparison, with readings in smoke-banned restaurants. Most indoor settings tend to have values for many pollutants that are somewhat higher than outdoor air and are still perfectly acceptable — which is why you’ll often see OSHA values as higher than EPA values. The EPA “Good” standards are set to be safe for asthmatic 95-year-olds in wheelchairs and sickly three-day-old infants… neither of which class generally tends to hang around trading dirty jokes and double-shots in bars. (Unless Michigan is a bit different from Philadelphia…)



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s