Michigan Votes

2007 House Bill 4163 (Prohibit allowing private workplace smoking )

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

  • Introduced by Rep. Brenda Clack on January 30, 2007, to prohibit a business owner from choosing to allow smoking in his or her establishment. This also would apply to bars and restaurants.
    • Referred to the House Commerce Committee on January 30, 2007.
      • Reported in the House on July 24, 2007, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-3) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
    • Substitute offered in the House on November 8, 2007, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that exempts "cigar bars" and tobacco specialty shops. Subsequent substitutes include this and additional exemptions. The substitute failed in the House by voice vote on November 8, 2007.
    • Substitute offered by Rep. Brenda Clack on November 8, 2007, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that exempts motor vehicles, the gaming floor of casinos, and licensed bingo events. It also lowers from 30 percent to 10 percent the proportion of gross receipts that qualifies a bar as a "cigar bar." Subsequent substitutes include these and additional exemptions. The substitute failed in the House by voice vote on November 8, 2007.
    • Substitute offered by Rep. Brenda Clack on November 8, 2007, to replace the previous version of the bill with one also exempts the non-food service areas of horse racing tracks. The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on November 8, 2007.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Bill Huizenga on November 8, 2007, to require the state to pay for the no smoking signs the bill would mandate in private businesses. The amendment failed in the House (51 to 54) on November 8, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Bill Huizenga on November 8, 2007, to require the Department of Community Health to create a brochure describing potential dangers of second hand smoke, and require businesses and other public places to make these available. The amendment failed in the House by voice vote on November 8, 2007.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Rick Jones on November 8, 2007, to exempt veterans organizations and private club facilities from the prohibition.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Jeff Mayes and Rep. Tim Melton on November 8, 2007, to exempt veterans organizations and private club facilities from the prohibition, and also exempt bars that don't have employees under age 18 and that make at least 51 percent of their gross receipts from alcohol sales from the prohibition. The amendment failed in the House (52 to 49) on November 8, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Howard Walker on November 8, 2007, to exempt designated smoking rooms in Bed and Breakfasts (B&Bs) from the prohibition. The amendment failed in the House by voice vote on November 8, 2007.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Daniel Acciavatti, Rep. Kenneth Horn and Rep. Kimberly Meltzer on December 5, 2007, to repeal the 6 percent service tax (that was already repealed when the amendment came before the House). The amendment failed in the House by voice vote on December 5, 2007.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Bill Huizenga on December 5, 2007, to suspent the proposed smoking prohibition unless the governor is able to negotiate with tribes a similar ban in all the Indian casinos in the state. The amendment failed in the House (51 to 57) on December 5, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Tim Melton on December 5, 2007, to exempt veterans organizations and private club facilities from the prohibition. The amendment passed in the House by voice vote on December 5, 2007.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Barbara Farrah on December 5, 2007, to exempt veterans organizations and private club facilities from the prohibition, and also exempt bars that don't have employees under age 18 and that make at least 51 percent of their gross receipts from alcohol sales from the prohibition. The amendment failed in the House (55 to 50) on December 5, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Edward Gaffney on December 5, 2007, to tie-bar the bill to House Bills 4044 and 4816, meaning this bill cannot become law unless that one does also. HB 4044 would allow product liability lawsuits against drug companies for drugs that have been approved by the U.S. Food And Drug Administration (FDA), and HB 4816 would add the restaurant smoking prohibition to the state Food Code. The amendment failed in the House by voice vote on December 5, 2007.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Rick Jones on December 5, 2007, to exempt bars, private clubs, banquet facilities, and veterans halls from the prohibition. The amendment failed in the House (54 to 52) on December 5, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
  • Passed in the House (56 to 46) on December 5, 2007, to prohibit a business owner, including the owner of a bar or restaurant, from choosing to allow smoking in his or her establishment. The bill would apply to all "public places," including government facilities. However, tobacco specialty shops, "cigar bars," vehicles, the gaming floor of casinos, the non-food areas of race tracks and licensed bingo events would be exempt. [Vote Details and Comments]
  • Motion by Rep. Steve Tobocman on December 5, 2007, to give the bill immediate effect. The motion failed in the House (63 to 41) on December 5, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
  • Received in the Senate on December 11, 2007.
    • Motion by Sen. Ray Basham on December 11, 2007, that the bill be referred to the Committee on Health Policy. The motion passed in the Senate (17 to 17) on December 11, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
    • Moved to reconsider by Sen. Alan L. Cropsey on December 11, 2007, the vote by which the bill was referred to the Committee on Health Policy. The motion passed in the Senate (19 to 16) on December 11, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
    • Motion by Sen. Alan L. Cropsey on December 11, 2007, to refer the bill to the Committee on Health Policy. The motion failed in the Senate (17 to 19) on December 11, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
    • Substitute offered in the Senate on May 8, 2008, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that does not contain the exceptions in the House-passed bill, including the Detroit casinos, race tracks, bingo halls, and "cigar bars". The substitute passed in the Senate by voice vote on May 8, 2008.
  • Passed in the Senate (25 to 12) on May 8, 2008, to prohibit a business owner, including the owner of a bar or restaurant, from choosing to allow smoking in his or her establishment. The bill would apply to all "public places" except for Indian casinos, which the state has no authority to regulate. [Vote Details and Comments]

Line

Comments

Introduced by Rep. Brenda Clack on January 30, 2007. Passed in the House (56 to 46) on December 5, 2007. New Comment

1) Stop taking our rights away! [by Anonymous Citizen on May 10, 2008]
Democrats are all concerned about 'Waterboarding' which saves countless American lives, but wants to limit law-abiding citizens behavior. Is this just the first step to making cigarettes illegal? I'm not a smoker, but it is scary to see how if you don't use it or don't like it, it seems perfectly ok to step on people's rights. What next?
Reply New Comment

Line

2) State Reps Need A Diet [by Anonymous Citizen on May 10, 2008]
These fat cats in Lansing are putting my safety in jeopardy. Just the other day I was driving behind what appeared to be Senator Basham and he looked like he was having trouble controlling his car. He was eating what looked like a greasey burger, swerving all over. I was afraid for my life.

I would like to propose a bill that would enforce a weight limit to our State Reps, which would include a cholesteral screaning. If they go over 200 then we need to pull them off the road and out of office. They are a danger to themselves and others around them because the posh life they are leading has made them soft and lazy and lack the knowbility to carry out the duties that they were sworn to uphold-- which by the way doesn't mean a 'Big Mac'. Mind your own business! And stay out of ours.
Reply New Comment

Line

3) Time for New Government [by Anonymous Citizen on May 10, 2008]
You know people, it is time to get serious. We need a change in Lansing-- RIGHT NOW. Let's not wait for 'Dumbo' to finish her term. It's time for a recall. I am a non-smoker and I can tell you I don't go to bars. Sorry bar owners, but I am spending seven days a week trying to make it in Michigan.
Having said that, I'm not an idiot. Government needs to stay out of private business. PERIOD.
Who's in? We need to start at the top and everyone needs to circulate the petition ballets. How much proof do we need to see that Granholm and her cronies are killing this state. She's just plain stupid and so are our reps. I'm mad as hell. Can I say that?
Reply New Comment

Line

4) Family Restaurant owner [by Anonymous Citizen on May 9, 2008]
I am looking foward to not being the bad
Reply New Comment

Line

5) AAARRRGH [by Anonymous Citizen on May 9, 2008]
You have the freedom not to go there. Instead, you want to take away the rights of private property owners. You can't see the slippery slope you are on? Whats next?
Reply New Comment

Line

6) Stealing Property [by Anonymous Citizen on May 9, 2008]
Another example of the taking of private property. Of course, they argue that this is what the citizens want. So they are going to allow the erosion of property rights based upon the tyranny of the majority.....we are living in a very dangerous time.
Reply New Comment

Line

7) RE:Stealing Property [by Anonymous Citizen on May 10, 2008]
You are exactly right. Maybe we should ask all people that have had a similar experience with our government stealing our property rights to blog in and put a group together to go to Lansing and demand that they follow the Constitution. They only get away with it because they're better organized and centralized. We can not give up. The tyranny of this Government rule has become way out of control. We pay taxes and then the government uses that money to put us out of business.

Why should we leave Michigan? It's them that have to leave.
Reply New Comment

Line

8) tired of this [by Anonymous Citizen on January 23, 2008]
This goverment protecting me from my own actions is getting old.I don't need a baby sitter in Lansing. If there is a God in heaven then there is a special place in hell for tyrants. P.S. I am a non smoker in Jenison.
Reply New Comment

Line

9) Smoking ban in the Bars! [by Anonymous Citizen on December 20, 2007]
Wake up everyone! This isn't about smoking!It's about money!( What's new?) Isn't it convenient to exclude the Casinos from the smoking ban!It's OK to smoke in a place where the Government is getting a 20 percent cut of the action but it's not anywhere else! What will be next, a law that says the the only place there can be a Liquor License is in a Casino?! Why doesn't Prohibitionist Jennifer Granholm put all of us Bar Owners out of our misery by simply calling us all up and and ordering us to drive to Lansing and turn in our Liquor Licenses? It would be swifter and easier!!! --A Fed Up Bar Owner!
Reply New Comment

Line

10) Reply - Smoking Ban [by Anonymous Citizen on December 23, 2007]

The democRats captured our state house and senate a couple of years ago. The first thing they did was to raise taxes. The second was to ban smoking in buildings open to the public, including bars and restaurants.

The reason I'm writing is because another long-established bar happens to be in the news here for the reason that it had to permanently close its doors yesterday. Established in 1959, this local tavern and burger bar was profitable for over forty-five years, right up until the smoking ban took effect.

This is just the most recent business to be plowed under due to the health Nazi's and their environmental tobacco smoke hoax.

Particularly given Michigan's poor financial situation, I find it hard to believe that this bill is getting traction.

Merry Christmas,
Jim
Arvada, CO
Reply New Comment

Line

11) 4163 [by tk0329 on May 7, 2008]
35 others states have passed similar legislation,and it is about time Michigan does the same. Besides it is just your addiction talking.


Reply New Comment

Line

12) 4163 [by Anonymous Citizen on May 9, 2008]
Ok, let me take your property rights. I don't smoke but no one has a right to tell me what I can do with my private property. If you don't like going to a smokey bar, don't go. You have no right to take others rights away from them. How long will people stand by while government chips away at your freedom. Like a typical liberal, "it's ok to take others freedom...we know whats best for them".
Reply New Comment

Line

13) that only proves that [by Anonymous Citizen on December 21, 2007]
she thinks that the government is better than the people.

she believes that the people are incapable of making 'good decisions'. she believes that she is.

she has no problem exempting the state from her laws, yet holding everyone else to them at the point of a gun.

everyone can plainly see her true colors, yet she somehow got re-elected. is this what the democrats intended her to do?

is this what she got voted into office twice to accomplish?

obviously so.

by the way, i'm STILL waiting to be BLOWN AWAY.
Reply New Comment

Line

14) AAARRRGH [by Anonymous Citizen on December 16, 2007]
I've seen many comments from angry smokers about the bill, complaining about their freedom to smoke, but they arn't thinking about OUR freedom to not have smoke blown in our faces
Reply New Comment

Line

15) Smoking ban in the Bars. [by Anonymous Citizen on December 21, 2007]
If you don't like the smoke, don't patronize the Bars--it's that simple!!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

16) 4163 [by tk0329 on May 7, 2008]
Are all smokers stupid? This has to do to with the health of the workers,period. Find another addition,like reading.


Reply New Comment

Line

17) 'Find another addition,like reading.' [by Anonymous Citizen on May 10, 2008]
Looks like you had a *subtraction*--of some of the grey matter!
Reply New Comment

Line

18) 4163 [by Anonymous Citizen on May 9, 2008]
Wow, you really think you know what's best for everyone else don't you?
Reply New Comment

Line

19) what makes WORKER'S [by Anonymous Citizen on May 7, 2008]
health any of the GOVERNMENTS BUSINESS???


Reply New Comment

Line

20) Re: what makes WORKER'S [by Anonymous Citizen on May 8, 2008]
It all started when the useful idiots bought into the story that the government is their mommy and will always be there for them and tell them what they can and can't do. The problem will come soon when they find out that their new mommy is bi-polar and starts to beat them.
Reply New Comment

Line

21) it is not the proper [by Anonymous Citizen on December 21, 2007]
role of government to have anything to do with private enterprise.

it's not there to 'perfect' it.

it's not there to 'regulate' it.

it's only there to TAX it, and only as little as is absolutely necessary to accomplish the other PROPER ROLES OF GOVERNMENT.

if they would stick to these pricniples, we wouldn't be in the kinds of troubles we are in now.

Reply New Comment

Line

22) AAARRRGH [by Anonymous Citizen on December 16, 2007]
I've seen many comments from angry smokers about the bill, complaining about their freedom to smoke, but they arn't thinking about OUR freedom to not have smoke blown in our faces
Reply New Comment

Line

23) choices [by Anonymous Citizen on May 9, 2008]
No one forces you to go to a smoking establishment. It's your CHOICE. Don't go crying when the government takes your choices away for having internet or pay them money, It will happen too.
Reply New Comment

Line

24) dq [by Anonymous Citizen on December 11, 2007]
Thank you Senator Basham for trying to do the right and moral thing.
Reply New Comment

Line

25) Re: dq [by Anonymous Citizen on May 10, 2008]
Suck up!!
Reply New Comment

Line

26) 4163 [by tk0329 on May 7, 2008]
I agree. He has done a fine job.


Reply New Comment

Line

27) we need to encourage smoking [by Anonymous Citizen on December 8, 2007]
For those over 50. It'll cut down Alzheimer's prostate cancer and most geezers will die sof something else before their lungs are affected.

Plus, the revenues from ciggie taxes will help the deficit.

Smokers have bailed out the schools, Medicaid, and nursing homes through onerous taxation.

School children should have to participate in "Thank a Smoker's Day" once a year.

Smokers use fewer medical resources before they die and don't drain Social Security coffers.

It should be the patriotic duty of every American over the age of 50 to smoke at least a 10 cigarettes a day.

Where is the smokers' candidate? Why can't we get a return on all the money the state gets from us? A warm shelter by every public building would be a great start.
Reply New Comment

Line

28) Sen. Basham's "journal statement" [by Admin003 on December 7, 2007]
Senator Basham's statement is as follows:

I would like to talk about an honorable young man who needs a Christmas present. His name is Josh Polka. He wrote me a letter; actually his mother wrote it. He is only seven years old and I will read you a little bit of it:

"He has been strongly against smoking most of his life. Josh cannot stand to be around smokers whatsoever. Referring to those little Dum Dum suckers, Josh says, 'Don't be a dum-dum, smoking is for suckers.' He doesn't like the smell, the smoke gets in his eyes, it makes him cough, and not only can smoking kill the smoker, but also the people around the smoker. Josh says, 'Just because other people want to smoke, why should I have to be around it?' He cheers for joy if a restaurant has a sign that reads, 'Smoke-Free.' "

Josh wanted to start a petition that would ban smoking in public places, but being only a child, he couldn't have any legal impact. However, he knows that I have a Senate bill in the works, but my bill hasn't had much action lately. Fortunately, House Bill No.4163 has. The Democratic leadership in the State House has actually moved an important bill that should be a nonpartisan bill and should be taken up and voted on by both chambers and signed into law by Governor Granholm.

Josh would like to know what he can do to help me get my bill passed. He is a child who wants to make a difference. He wants to be able to eat in any restaurant in his home state of Michigan and not have to worry about the dangers of secondhand smoke. If this bill gets passed, he would be the happiest child on earth. His parents would be glad that he wouldn't have to move to California when he becomes an adult. He thanks me for my time.

Colleagues, there are 3,000 people dying per year as a result of secondhand smoke in the state of Michigan. We should give Josh Polka his wish and make it a happy Christmas for him and a number of other folks who don't want to breathe secondhand smoke. There are 17 respiratory diseases associated with secondhand smoke. There are also thousands of chemicals, 200 are poisonous and 43 are cancer-causing, and the U.S. Surgeon General said there is no safe amount of secondhand smoke. I would encourage my colleagues, if you don't want to hear my bill, why don't we do a discharge vote on House Bill No.4163 and let the issue get in front of this legislative body. I would hope that the Majority Leader would give us a vote on this type of legislation, whether it's a House bill or my Senate bill.
Reply New Comment

Line

29) RE: Sen. Basham's "journal statement" [by Anonymous Citizen on May 10, 2008]
Wha.. wha..wha...

Get a job where you actually produce something useful that someone needs at least once in a while. You've been a drain on tax payers money.
Reply New Comment

Line

30) Senator lostrights.... [by Anonymous Citizen on May 9, 2008]
Scary
Reply New Comment

Line

31) Liar [by Anonymous Citizen on December 10, 2007]
"He has been strongly against smoking most of his life"

He's 7 years old for cripes sake. He only spouts what his mommy says. I'll bet he's against taking baths also, lets ban bath time.

"He cheers for joy if a restaurant has a sign that reads, 'Smoke-Free."

I want to meet this future nanny stater. I also think you are lying to us.

"He doesn't like the smell"

I don't like the smell of 7 year old boys. ban Them.
I don't like eating in restaurants that allow little coddled control freak children in the door either.

Have you ever heard of freedom Mr. Rep?
How about we let the marketplace set the rules? How long do you think it would take a business owner to ban smoking if they thought they could make more money? After all, that is why they are in business, it isn't to give you guys someone to mess with.
Go balance the budget and then go home and get a real job.
Reply New Comment

Line

32) 3,000 dead second hand smokers [by Anonymous Citizen on December 8, 2007]
Name three people who have died from second hand smoke. Out of 3,000 Michiganders, I'm sure you can come up with NONE!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

33) Unbelievable!!!! [by concerned PE on May 9, 2008]
Smokers don't get it - you want the government out of your business but you also want to be protected at work by OHSA and you'd be the first to sue if you think you are exposed to something. I see it daily. The workers in the casinos, bars and restaurants want protection too. Yes, patrons can go elsewhere - like the Windsor Casino, but people need the jobs here. I have been in a Detroit casino and twice a smoker has sat next to me and actually blew the smoke in my face. When I move my chair to get away, I have been told "Its my right - leave if you don't like it!!" You ask about 2nd hand smoke deaths..besides my own mother, whose death certificate says "second hand smoke", I can name several others. I work as a public health consultant and it is not unusual. As a consultant I have interviewed many of these workers and they want it to be smoke free too but are afraid to complain and lose their job. Take 2 minutes to Google 'prenatal smoke exposure' and see for yourself what the pregant worker has to worry about in these places. Of course she can quit but not only does she lose her job but that may be her family's only sourse of health care. Or go to the web site for the Center for Disease Control (www.cdc.gov) and search second hand smoke, you'll be informed & appauled.
Think before you make the stupid statements that your rights are violated. You don't like it - go to the designated smoking area and confine the smoke to yourself and others that are addicted and leave the healthy lungs around you alone.
Reply New Comment

Line

34) Unbelievable!!!! [by Anonymous Citizen on May 10, 2008]
'...whose death certificate says 'second hand smoke...' No way. Even if your mother suffered from cancer at the time of her death, unless it was homocide, accident, suicide, or trauma, it says 'Cardiac Arrest.'
'Think before you make the stupid statements...' Appropos advice--for you.
Reply New Comment

Line

35) once again, you are not [by Anonymous Citizen on May 9, 2008]
exercising YOUR freedom to be healthy.

you are FREE to leave that person well alone, simply because he smokes. that is YOUR DECISION, and only YOU should make it.

if it requires the assistance of government, you are a sad individual.

if YOU decide to be healthy at all costs, then, by all means, pay those costs yourself, don't ask others to pay it for you.

you have NO RIGHT to MY MONEY, or MY FREEDOMS. MY FREEDOMS are as important to me as yours are to you, maybe moreso.

ask yourself, what is a good reason to take someone's freedoms away. if you come up with any, other than that person has committed a crime, you are a liberal.
Reply New Comment

Line

36) SHIP IS SINKING [by Anonymous Citizen on December 6, 2007]
THE SHIP IS SINKING (MICHIGAN) AND YOU ARE WORRIED WHO IS SMOKING ABOARD.
Reply New Comment

Line

37) Re: SHIP IS SINKING [by Anonymous Citizen on May 10, 2008]
Right on!!!

This smoking crap is just a distraction from the fact that our Reps' should and need to be removed from their jobs.

People this isn't about smoking. It's about Lansing doing our thinking. When did you folks turn off your brains and decide to let the fat pigs in Lansing run the show?
Reply New Comment

Line

38) smoking ban [by Anonymous Citizen on December 6, 2007]
Sir:
Thirty-two other states take exception to your comments, as well as several European countries and so do I. As a life long Republican and former small business owner I am ashamed that my party would take the side of small business versus the health of its citizens on this important health issue. Eighty percent of your constituents do not agree with you either.


Reply New Comment

Line

39) 32 States, WHO CARES! [by BenClarkson on December 7, 2007]
Who cares what 32 other States do? This is a personal property issue, restaurants, bars and other small business are not public domain they are privately owned. If you don't like smoke or the atmosphere, DON'T PATRONIZE THE ESTABLISHMENT! It should be the right of the business owner to determine the criteria for his/her establishment not some over zealous government hack. I also think if you don't have the courage to sign your name to your post it should be deleted.
It would be great if we could get back to the personal responsibility/personal freedom base our country is founded on.
Reply New Comment

Line

40) smoking ban [by Anonymous Citizen on December 8, 2007]
I agree!!!
The goverment keeps taking away more and more of our personal choices. Big brother is here and it's going to get worse. My lord they are saying that Santa is too fat and he is not real.
Reply New Comment

Line

41) Liars Lie... [by Anonymous Citizen on December 6, 2007]
Our own government had to fudge the numbers to make it look like so called 2nd hand smoke is harmful. The bars and restaurants in Ontario where this draconian ban has been in effect for years have still not recovered. The windsor casino still has not rehired the 400 employees it let go the day after the ban hit that business. If your so called 2nd hand smoke is so bad why is michigan going to exempt the casinos? They don't care if those folks are killed by the evil tobacco? Maybe the state knows revenues will drop like a brick? If this crap is "for our own good" where do you propose to end it? Speeding cars kill thousands every year. Maybe a national 35 mph speed limit with 10 year jail terms for absconders? Don't even get me started on fast food and fat people. Whats next? Bathtubs kill lots of folks every year, why do we allow this insidious killer to be installed in our homes? Maybe we can sue the builders for creating an attractive nuisance. You say you owned a business. Did you outlaw smoking there? Why not? Why then do you want the iron fist of government to force your ideas on others? In ending I must say that when you are for more nannyism, bigger stronger government to make all our decisions for us, use examples of what socialist governments do as an example of how we should do things, sir, you're no republican.
Reply New Comment

Line

42) smoking ban [by Anonymous Citizen on December 6, 2007]
Have you considered that ALL the smokers in Windsor are going across the border to the detroit casinos?????? I for one applaud the ban!!! I really hope the senate passes it! 32 other states have done something similiar.... me and my friends will start going to the bar again if it passes! I am sure a lot of NON smokers feel the same way!!!! Let the smokers smoke outside!


Reply New Comment

Line

43) 30 "other states" [by Anonymous Citizen on December 13, 2007]
Put felons to death. Wanna enact the death penalty here? You control freaks disgust me.
I would rather be in a sealed up room with 30 smokers and drinkers than 30 nanny staters that want to control everyone else.
Reply New Comment

Line

44) thirty 'other' states [by Anonymous Citizen on December 13, 2007]
put felons to death.

we're too pussified to do it.


Reply New Comment

Line

45) i think that they are [by Anonymous Citizen on December 13, 2007]
controlling everyone by NOT bringing the death penalty here. a very large majority supports it.
Reply New Comment

Line

46) RE: i think that they are [by Anonymous Citizen on May 10, 2008]
You are absolutely right. Do you think the politicians are nervous about their own necks?
Reply New Comment

Line

47) not yet... [by Anonymous Citizen on May 10, 2008]
but if we keep on electing REAL republicans, they will be.
Reply New Comment

Line

48) Rep. Sheen's "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on December 6, 2007]
Rep. Sheen, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I am opposed to House Bill 4163. Smoking is clearly unhealthy and many times creates a variety of health problems for those who smoke. Secondhand smoke is also unhealthy and irritating to those who don't smoke. However, the fact remains that it is a legal substance which is bought and sold in every grocery store, gas station, and convenience store inAmerica. Telling restaurant and business owners what they can and cannot do at their place of business is an infringement on their personal property rights. Smokers and non-smokers alike know which restaurants allow smoking and which don't, and they use this knowledge to determine which establishments to frequent. Government needs to stay out of the market place and people's lives, so they can make their own choices."

Reply New Comment

Line

49) 4163 [by tk0329 on May 7, 2008]
You all continue to miss the point on this one. Worker health is the issue,but the addicts never mention it. Maybe they can't read.




Reply New Comment

Line

50) 'Maybe they can't read.' [by Anonymous Citizen on May 10, 2008]
And maybe you can't 'add' or 'subtract!'
Reply New Comment

Line

51) Rep. Clemente's "journal statement" [by Admin003 on December 6, 2007]
Rep. Clemente, under Rule 31, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I did not vote on Roll Call No. 557 because of a possible conflict of interest."

Reply New Comment

Line

52) Want some cheese with your whine? [by Anonymous Citizen on December 6, 2007]
Lets see, you say the ONLY place you can work is bars and that you have to breathe secondhand smoke for 5 to 6 hours every gig. Then you go on to say that you are only playing every other Friday and your wife comes to watch your 2 1/2 hour gig.......If you're complaining about having to eat then maybe you'd better get a job for those other 12 days between your playing gigs........You might also consider getting your facts together if you want to add credibility to your whine...........

Let the bar owner decide what is best for him/her business, not your government.


Reply New Comment

Line

53) Small Business Owner [by Anonymous Citizen on November 18, 2007]
I hear a lot of doomsday predictions, but very little FACT. Fact - I've been to Tucson & Ohio where they have already baned smoking in public establishments. The bars, restaurants and bowling alley's all were as busy as before the ban. The only difference I noticed was a small number of people would get up from their table or the bar & go outside for a smoke then come back in. It seems to me a lot of the debate seems to be whether or not second hand smoke causes cancer. That issue aside, it DOES pose a significant problem with children & adults alike who have aszma. A condition no one disputes is on the rise. As a parent of a child with aszma you can't go to a restaurant, bowling ally or sports bar like Applebee's for fear of the smoke causing an attack. The no smoking section is simply an arbitrary line that the smoke doesnt recognize. The smokers talk of their dining choices being reduced, so too are those of people with aszma due to the selfish indoor air pollution of others. Then there is the issue of employment choises. Instead of trying to predict what will happen, lets ban the smoking and see if the results in FACT repeat those of Ohio & Arizona. We can always repeal it.

Reply New Comment

Line

54) If you really are [by Anonymous Citizen on November 19, 2007]
a small business owner then why don't you ban smoking? Why wait for the nanny state to tell you what to do? Why do you want to force others to do it your way? When did you decide that it would be a good idea for the mental midgets in government who have never earned a living in the real world to tell us how to run our business?
When are you going to seek help for your control freak fetish? When the state says that you have to close your business on Sundays will you obey? I think you should. When the nanies tell you to get your lard butt on a scale before you are allowed to buy that double cheeseburger will you be happy?
Reply New Comment

Line

55) bar musicians (like me) [by Anonymous Citizen on December 6, 2007]
I play the guitar for part of my income. About the ONLY place I can work is bars. I have to breathe secondhand smoke for 5 to 6 hours every gig, or I cannot make enough money to eat. This has been going on for over 35 years. Just imagine how much longer my life could have been extended if I had had a smoke-free workplace, not to mention my quality of life.

Throughout my life I have had hundreds of serious sinus infections, even once requiring hospitalization, from this smoke. My best friend Paige MacDonald died prematurely from a heart-attack and I miss him greatly. We used to play a lot in E. Lansing at the Coral Gables and the Peanut Barrel, in the Flood Band and the Stratton-Nelson Band. Now I play at with Earl Jam, at Rubbles in Mt. Pleasant, and my wife cannot even come hear us because she literally gets sick after coming to the gig, which is only 2.5 hours long, once every other friday.

I cannot imagine why you would oppose House Bill 4163, unless you think that we musicians don't deserve to live.
There is literally no other establishment that hires musicians regularly, except for bars. Please pray about this - I fear that Satan has you right where he wants you.

Reply New Comment

Line

56) bar player [by Anonymous Citizen on December 6, 2007]
I agree with you!!! It will be so nice to go to a bar and not smell like smoke when you get home! I quit going out b/c of the smoke!!! I really hope the senate does the right thing and passes it!!! It will be so nice to be able to go out to the bars again
Reply New Comment

Line

57) bar player [by Anonymous Citizen on December 6, 2007]
I agree with you!!! It will be so nice to go to a bar and smell like smoke when you get home! I quit going out b/c of the smoke!!! I really hope the senate does the right thing and passes it!!! It will be so nice to be able to go out to the bars again
Reply New Comment

Line

58) for once you exercised [by Anonymous Citizen on December 7, 2007]
a freedom, the freedom of choice. you were capable of exercising it responsibly, why is it you think that no one else is?

why should you be allowed to exercise freedom, yet everyone else should have the decisions rammed down their throats by the state?

so, which do you prefer? the freedom to decide what is right for yourself? or the NANNYISM that you are spouting now?

i'd be interested in hearing your answer.
Reply New Comment

Line

59) Yeah, Right [by Anonymous Citizen on December 6, 2007]
"I have to breathe secondhand smoke for 5 to 6 hours every gig,"

And in your younger days during every break you and the band headed for the parking lot for a doobie. Cry Me A River. WaaWaa Waa
Reply New Comment

Line

60) Hey Mr. Guitar man [by Anonymous Citizen on December 6, 2007]
once the nanny government outlaws smoking you will need to find real work because half of these bars will close. Regardless of how you feel, the numbers don't support your so called 2nd hand smoke hazard. This is just another attempt to destroy one of the building blocks of our freedom, private property rights. After all these years you know that you have a problem and still choose to pursue this line of work? Bad decision making if you ask me. It's not like you couldn't make lots more money 35 years ago working in a factory. Sorry to burst your bubble but if you haven't been "discovered" yet, it probably ain't gonna happen. You chose this life because you liked it, now you are old and don't like it so everyone should obey your dictates? Get a life. Most bars and restaurants today are so well ventilated that even if smoke was as deadly as carbon monoxide you wouldn't harm anyone. It's all abount control. You need to go back to school and learn about PRIVATE PROPERTY. If you don't like my business then stay the heck away. All you whiny crybabies are nothing but a pain to most business owners and complain about numerous other things other than smoke.
Reply New Comment

Line

61) Anonymous Citizen [by tk0329 on May 7, 2008]
Another idiot. All LOW IQ'S.

Anonymous Citizen
Reply New Comment

Line

62) to the musician [by Anonymous Citizen on December 6, 2007]
are you trying to tell us that the only place you can play music is in bars?

what about coffee shops?

what about restaraunts?

what about going 'semi-pro'?


Reply New Comment

Line

63) Mr Guitar Man&Musician [by Anonymous Citizen on March 5, 2008]
You guys need to get a life. All the places Mr. Musician you named have smoking areas too. You can't get away from it. So you're saying it's not harmful. Maybe you should get asthma and tell me that. I have it and number of people that I work with have it too. No we don't work in a smoking environment now, but over the years it's taken a toll. I wouldn't have it now if I hadn't worked in jobs when smoking was allowed. (Talked to my Plumonary Doctor) Now I choke and cough all the time. I take numerous medicines. Have you ever saw someone die from Emphysema? It's not pretty and takes years and they usaully die from something else brought on by this terrible disease. We're tired of you know-it- alls telling us what we need. Until you have lived it, you don't know what your talking about. You smoke outside (usually too close to the entrance of buildings now what's a few more. I don't care if you smoke in your home or your car. I won't smoke in them. You won't smoke in mine.
Reply New Comment

Line

64) Dr. 's Kill too [by Anonymous Citizen on August 4, 2007]
Complications of Med/Surg Care killed 3,059 people last year.you are not safe anywhere.

Radon is the 2 largest cause of lung cancer THEY going to BAN that,too??
**for you people in Rockford,that was A Joke**
Reply New Comment

Line

65) junk science [by Anonymous Citizen on August 4, 2007]
USWM smokers have a lifetime relative risk of dying from lung cancer of only 8 (not the 20 or more that is based on an annual death rate and therefore virtually useless).

Lung cancer is not in even in the top 5 causes of death, it is only #9.**
All cancers combined account for only 13% of all annual deaths and lung cancer only 2%.**
Occasional cigarette use (<1 pk/wk) has never been shown to be a risk factor in lung cancer.

Certain types of pollution are more dangerous than second hand smoke.

Second hand smoke has never been shown to be a causative factor in lung cancer.

A WHO study did not show that passive (second hand) smoke statistically increased the risk of getting lung cancer.
No study has shown that second hand smoke exposure during childhood increases their risk of getting lung cancer.

In one study they couldn't even cause lung cancer in mice after exposing them to cigarette smoke for a long time.

If everyone in the world stopped smoking 50 years ago, the premature death rate would still be well over 80% of what it is today.
(But I thought that smoking was the major cause of preventable death...hmmm.)

*This article was revised after errors in the data and calculations were noticed by Charles Rotter, Curtis Cameron and Jesse V. Silverman. This is the corrected version. A special thanks to both.


Reply New Comment

Line

66) The federal government is starting to regulate transfats [by Anonymous Citizen on August 3, 2007]
a good move
Reply New Comment

Line

67) boy the fat liberals are [by Anonymous Citizen on August 4, 2007]
gonna go bonkers when that happens.
Reply New Comment

Line

68) Whatever, bars in California still have customers. [by Anonymous Citizen on August 3, 2007]
We as a state to be brave and step up. Others will follow.
Reply New Comment

Line

69) RIGHT! [by Anonymous Citizen on August 3, 2007]
32 states have already adopted this legislation so we are now in the MINORITY. If this is so devasting to business then why has almost two thirds of the country adopted this bill???

Get on board Michigan, it's coming down the tubes eventually.
Reply New Comment

Line

70) I Thought [by Anonymous Citizen on October 2, 2007]
that all you libs loved minorities
Reply New Comment

Line

71) they DO, unless [by Anonymous Citizen on October 2, 2007]
the 'minority' is a rich business owner, then they are the 'hated rich'.

then, if the 'minority' happens to be helpless infants in the womb, with no power to vote, they are known as 'expendable' and 'a choice'.

see, the only 'minority' they care about is the 'majority' of left leaners that vote for them.
Reply New Comment

Line

72) california offers [by Anonymous Citizen on August 3, 2007]
a variance from the smoking ordinance, for a fee. that means that if a bar can come up with the cash, they get to have all the smoking they want. and the other customers can't say a damn thing about it, because THEY GOT A VARIANCE.

did it help? NO. did it raise money for the state? YOU BETCHA.

who wins? THE POLITICIANS WHO GET THE MONEY FROM THE VARIANCES.


Reply New Comment

Line

73) Hmm.... very interesting reading [by Anonymous Citizen on August 2, 2007]
Dangers of Secondhand Smoke:

21.9% of Michigan adults smoke.
Secondhand smoke causes between 35,000 and 62,000 deaths from heart disease every year. 1

12,000 otherwise healthy nonsmokers will die of some form of cancer, 3,000 specifically to lung cancer, because of their exposure to secondhand smoke.2

Secondhand smoke contains over 4,000 substances, more than 69 of which are known or suspected to cause cancer.3,4

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has classified secondhand smoke as a Group A carcinogen, a substance which is known to cause human cancer.

According to the American Cancer Society, secondhand smoke is the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States, killing 38,000 to 65,000 nonsmokers every year.
Food service workers appear to be 50 percent more likely than the general population to develop lung cancer, largely because many of them are exposed to secondhand smoke on the job.5,6

Kids and Smoking:
17% (101,400) of high school students smoke.
30,100 to 19,000 young people(under 18) in MI become new daily smokers each year.
20.7 million packs of cigarettes are bought or smoked by young people in MI each year.

Studies show secondhand smoke may be a major factor in the development of asthma in children under five.

Secondhand smoke is a serious trigger of asthma and can cause or worsen respiratory conditions. Studies have shown that children with asthma who are exposed to secondhand smoke require more asthma medicines, have more emergency room visits and lower lung function.

Deaths in Michigan From Smoking:

14,500 adults die each year from their own smoking.

298,000 young people under 18 and live in Michigan will ultimately die prematurely from smoking.

1,340 to 2,390 adults, children, and babies die each year from others' smoking (secondhand smoke and pregnancy smoking).

Smoking-Caused Monetary Costs in Michigan:
$3.4 billion—Annual health care costs in Michigan directly caused by smoking.

$1.1 billion—Portion covered by the state Medicaid program.

$637—Per household resident's state and federal tax burden from smoking-caused government expenditures.

$3.80 billion—Smoking-caused productivity losses in Michigan.

References:

1Steenland, K. (1992). Passive Smoking and the Risk of Heart Disease. Journal of the American Medical Association 267(1): 94-99.

2U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1992). Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders. Washington, D.C.: EPA.

3National Cancer Institute. Risks Associated with Smoking Cigarettes with Low Machine-Measured Yields of Tar and Nicotine. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 13. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, NIH Pub. No. 02-5074, October 2001.

personal communication, dated October 28, 2003, from Dietrich Hoffmann, Ph.D., Associate Director, Institute for Cancer Prevention, co-author of Chapter 5 of NCI Monograph 13, clarifying that Table 5.4 of the Monograph (that lists the 69 carcinogens) is missing a carcinogen, namely MeAaC (2-amino-3-methyl-9-Hpyrido[ 2,3-b]indole, and it should be inserted under “under “Miscellaneous Organic Compounds”.

4National Cancer Institute. Risks Associated with Smoking Cigarettes with Low Machine-Measured Yields of Tar and Nicotine. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 13. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, NIH Pub. No. 02-5074, October 2001.

5Shopland, D.R.; Anderson, C.M.; Burns, D.M.; Gerlach, K.K., "Disparities in smoke-free workplace policies among food service workers," Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 46(4): 347-356, April 2004.


Reply New Comment

Line

74) More Facts For People That Want A Government Nanny [by Anonymous Citizen on October 2, 2007]


Passive smokers inhale six cigarettes a year
By Robert Matthews and Victoria Macdonald


PASSIVE smokers inhale the equivalent of just six cigarettes a year from other people's smoke, according to the largest ever study of actual exposure levels of non-smokers.

The figure, which undermines previous warnings about the dangers of passive smoking, is a thousand times lower than that faced by direct smokers, and so tiny that it could not be measured statistically. Results from personal air monitors carried by more that 1,000 people in cities across Europe reveal that even the most highly-exposed passive smoker inhales the equivalent of 0.02 of a cigarette a day - 10 times lower than Government-backed estimates.

The findings, published by an internationally respected UK-based team of air monitoring experts, are the biggest blow yet to the credibility of the Government's insistence that passive smoking causes fatal diseases.

The slippery slope
Jun 14, 2006
by Walter E. Williams (

Down through the years, I've attempted to warn my fellow Americans about the tyrannical precedent and template for further tyranny set by anti-tobacco zealots. The point of this column is not to rekindle the smoking debate. That train has left the station. Instead, let's examine the template.
In the early stages of the anti-tobacco campaign, there were calls for "reasonable" measures such as non-smoking sections on airplanes and health warnings on cigarette packs. In the 1970s, no one would have ever believed such measures would have evolved into today's level of attack on smokers, which includes confiscatory cigarette taxes and bans on outdoor smoking.
The door was opened, and the zealots took over. Much of the attack was justified by an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) secondhand smoke study that used statistical techniques, if used by an academic researcher, would lead to condemnation if not expulsion. Let's say that you support the attack on smokers. Are you ready for the next round of tyranny using tactics so successful for the anti-tobacco zealots?
According to a June 2 Associated Press report, "Those heaping portions at restaurants -- and doggie bags for the leftovers -- may be a thing of the past, if health officials get their way." The story pertains to a report, funded by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) titled, "Keystone Forum on Away-From-Home Foods: Opportunities for Preventing Weight Gain and Obesity." The FDA says the report could help the American restaurant industry and consumers take important steps to successfully combat the nation's obesity problem. Among the report's recommendations for restaurants are: list calorie-content on menus, serve smaller portions, and add more fruits and vegetables and nuts. Both the Department of Health and Human Services and the FDA accept the findings of the report.
Right now, the FDA doesn't have the authority to require restaurants to label the number of calories, set portion sizes on menus or prohibit allowing customers from taking home a doggie bag. That's for right now, but recall that cigarette warning labels were the anti-tobacco zealots' first steps. There are zealots like the Washington-based Center for Science in the Public Interest who've for a long time attacked Chinese and Mexican restaurants for serving customers too much food. They also say, "Caffeine is the only drug that is widely added to the food supply." They've called for caffeine warning labels, and they don't stop there. The Center's director said, "We could envision taxes on butter, potato chips, whole milk, cheeses and meat." Visions of higher taxes are music to politicians' ears.

How many Americans would like to go to a restaurant and have the waiter tell you, based on calories, what you might have for dinner? How would you like the waiter to tell you, "According to government regulations, we cannot give you a doggie bag"? What about a Burger King cashier refusing to sell french fries to overweight people? You say, "Williams, that's preposterous! It would never come to that."
I'm betting that would have been the same response during the 1970s had someone said the day would come when cities, such as Calabasas, Calif., and Friendship Heights, Md., would write ordinances banning outdoor smoking. Tyrants always start out with small measures that appear reasonable. Revealing their complete agenda from the start would encounter too much resistance.
Diet decisions that people make are none of anybody else's business. Yes, there are untoward health outcomes from unwise dietary habits, and because of socialism, taxpayers have to pick up the bill. But if we allow untoward health outcomes from choices to be our guide for government intervention, then we're calling for government to intervene in virtually every aspect of our lives. Eight hours' sleep, regular exercise and moderate alcohol consumption are important for good health. Should government regulate those decisions?
Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University in Fairfax, VA as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics.
Copyright © 2006 Townhall.com

Killing the Passive Smoking Debate
Written by Michael Fumento
Friday, July 07, 2006

Fraudulent science does not serve the public interest--or end the debate over secondhand smoke

''Secondhand smoke debate 'over.' '' That’s the message from the surgeon general’s office, delivered by a sycophantic media. The claim is that the science has now overwhelmingly proved that smoke from the cigarettes of others can kill you. Actually, ''debate over'' simply means: ''If you have your doubts, shut up!''

But you definitely should have doubts over the new surgeon general’s report, a massive 727-page doorstop. Like many massive reports on controversial issues, it’s probably designed that way, so that nobody (especially reporters on deadline) will want to or have time to read beyond the executive summary--or maybe even the press release. That includes me; if I had that much time I’d reread War and Peace. Twice. But the report admits it contains no new science, so we can evaluate it based on research already available.

First consider the 1993 EPA study that began the passive smoking crusade. It declared such smoke a carcinogen based on a combined analysis (meta-analysis) of 11 mostly tiny studies. The media quickly fell into line, with headlines blaring: “Passive Smoking Kills Thousands” and editorials demanding: “Ban Hazardous Smoking; Report Shows It’s a Killer.”

But the EPA’s report had more holes than a spaghetti strainer. Its greatest weakness was the agency’s refusal to use the gold standard in epidemiology, the 95 percent confidence interval. This simply means that there are only five chances in 100 that the conclusion came about just by chance, even if the study itself was done correctly.

Curiously, the EPA decided to use a 90 percent level, effectively doubling the likelihood of getting its result by sheer luck of the draw.

Why would it do such a strange thing? You guessed it. Its results weren't significant at the 95 percent level. Essentially, it moved the goal posts closer to the kicker, because the football kept falling short. In scientific terminology, this is known as “dishonesty” or “fraud.”

Two much larger meta-analyses have appeared since the EPA’s. One was conducted on behalf of the World Health Organization and covered seven countries over seven years. Published in 1998, it actually showed a statistically significant reduced risk for children of smokers, though we can assume that was a fluke. But it also showed no increase for spouses and co-workers of smokers.

The second meta-analysis, published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) in 2002, likewise found a statistical significance when 48 studies were combined. Looked at separately, though, only seven showed significant excesses of lung cancer. Thus 41 did not.

WHAT? PROHIBITION NOT WORKING? WHO'D HAVE THUNK IT?

Four months ago, Nevada voters approved by a 54-46 margin Question 5, which prohibits tobacco smoking in nearly all public places in the state, including restaurants and bars that serve food. (Though brothels and casino floors are exempted -- the latter a savvy compromise to neutralize opposition from the deep pockets of the state’s powerful casino interests. Why the ladies of the evening are considered immune from the supposed dangers of “second-hand smoke” remains unclear.)

As with any prohibitionist measure, the law is already generating unintended consequences. The owners of many a tavern where food was previously served as a loss leader, unwilling to drive away smoking customers, have simply closed their kitchens, laying off blameless cooks and waiters. Presumably these Nevadans are now enjoying the smoke-free air of the unemployment lines.


Reply New Comment

Line

75) OMG [by Anonymous Citizen on August 3, 2007]
Well if it is soooo damn bad, BAN THEM< MAKE THEM ILLEGAL. Nope, they would NEVER do that, too much tax $$$. And does your little study say how much FAT PEOPLE cost us? So BAN JUNK FOOD. And does your little study say how much BOOZE cost us? BAN THE CRAP! See how that works our for you moron. And while your at it, make cars illegal. they kill alot. You moron, it isn't about HEALTH, 'cause if it was, they'd be ILLEGAL. Tis about $$$ and feel good BS Gov. FIX the damn BUDGET, NO NEW taxes. Stay out of my wallet, my personal life and the LEGAL choices I made. You think these people are your momma?
PS, I don't smoke, never have.
Reply New Comment

Line

76) Simmer down now.... [by Anonymous Citizen on August 3, 2007]
Everbody KNOWS junk food is bad, everybody KNOWS liquor is bad and everybody KNOWS smoking is bad. But no one's trying to BAN it! If junk food and liquor are found to negatively impact the air of a restaurant, and in turn affect the patrons, then it wouldn't just be the smoke that is the issue. Smokers are going to smoke just as many cigarettes in a day, whether it's in a restaurant or not, so it's not going to change the amount of money being spent on them.

How can you say it's NOT about health in these facilities??? Why do they have to follow a fire code then, why do they have to keep refrigerators certain temps. why do they have size capacities for how many are allowed in at a time??? Because these are SAFETY AND HEALTH MEASURES put in place to PROTECT the patrons!!! Saying it's OK to follow these guidelines but let's just forget about the air is what's moronic. But I don't need to throw around insults to get my point across.
Reply New Comment

Line

77) Admit It You Nanny Lovers [by Anonymous Citizen on October 2, 2007]
It's all about control. You little minded folks just want to be able to control other folks. I was in my car in the parking lot of a hospital yesterday that is a "smoke free campus". After I parked I was approached by a lady that knocked on my window and told me to put out my cigarette. Never said a word about shutting off my diesel pickup truck. Tell me again how it's for non smokers health. You nanny state lovers are a bunch of miserable little control freaks that want everybody to be as un happy as you are.
You people are tired of watching folks at the bar laughing and having fun while you sit in the non-smoking section worrying about all the gremlins that might kill you. Get a life. Live a little. Since you guys kicked religion out of this country you replaced it with worshiping the human body and this is making your lives miserable.
Reply New Comment

Line

78) the health code doesn't [by Anonymous Citizen on August 3, 2007]
stop you from buying junk food, does it? NO.

the health code doesn't stop you from buying a beer or a drink, does it? NO.

the health code is all about making sure that WHAT YOU BUY ISN'T CONTAMINATED.

it has nothing to do with how HEALTHY the food is for you. when will you get this through your head?


Reply New Comment

Line

79) Right... [by Anonymous Citizen on August 5, 2007]
The health code doesn't stop you from buying junk food in the restaurant because it DOESN'T negatviely affect anyone else's health in the establishment!! It doens't stop you from buying alchol, because that alcohol isn't affecting ANYONE ELSE in the establishment.

Yes... you're right... the health code IS about making sure the food isn't contaminated... the food.... AND THE ENVIRONMENT WHERE THE FOOD IS SERVED!! Why can't you get THAT through your head?
Reply New Comment

Line

80) because it doesn't [by Anonymous Citizen on August 5, 2007]
have anything to do with the 'environment'.

it has to do with the FOOD. it can be served in the middle of a cow pasture for all the HEALTH DEPARTMENT CARES. in fact, some of it IS served in the middle of cow pastures for county fairs across the state.

you are grasping at straws if you think the department of health will be able to flex it's burocratic muscles and stop smoking in bars and eateries.

the department of health can only regulate what the bar or restaurant does, not what the patrons do inside. it's not the bar owner, or the restaurant owner that is smoking, it's the patrons.

making those places against smoking will only drive those patrons elsewhere. you just can't seem to admit that.

you will not end smoking, but you might end those businesses that allow smokers, and that thrive on the business of a high percentage of smokers.

you non-smokers may promise to TAKE UP THE SLACK, but in twelve states so far, you have not.

when are you going to step up to the plate and replace the dollars lost from the smokers???

the truth is, you aren't. and the businesses are either going to have to close down, or pay extra for 'variances' from these ordinances.

now, if the only reason you are writing these ordinances is to make money on the variances, then you are no less of a theif than the guy who puts a gun in the face of a cashier and demands all the money.


Reply New Comment

Line

81) yes, you ARE trying to [by Anonymous Citizen on August 3, 2007]
ban it. you are trying to ban it in PRIVATE WORKPLACES.

next, you will try to ban it in PRIVATE HOMES AND PRIVATE VEHICLES.

why do you lie?
Reply New Comment

Line

82) private home ban [by Anonymous Citizen on December 6, 2007]
that would be nice!!! to ban smoking in cars!!! I can't stand the way it smells when I pull up next a smoker in the car next to me... i really hope this happens....
Reply New Comment

Line

83) RE: private home ban [by Anonymous Citizen on May 10, 2008]
I know who you are. You're that person that pulls up to me with your window down and FARTS!!

I can't stand people who fart in public!!!

Yes we're 'Big Brother" and we know all your dirty little secrets and OUR NANNY Government is going to put a stop to your FARTING. We are going to collect tax money in the form of a fine.

It never ends honey. Haven't you heard? Cows have caused our global warming problem because of their bottoms at work. Who will pay for that? The Cows?
Reply New Comment

Line

84) Right.... [by Anonymous Citizen on August 3, 2007]
because it's hindering the safety of that building! If it didn't have any negative affect to the air of the building it wouldn't be an issue!


Reply New Comment

Line

85) and.... [by Anonymous Citizen on August 2, 2007]
Key Messages from the "Make MI Air Smokefree" site:

Smokefree air is good for Michigan’s health.
The 2006 U.S. Surgeon General’s report stated the only way to protect consumers and employees from deadly exposure to secondhand smoke is through comprehensive smokefree workplace policies.

Our 2006 Air Quality Tour showed that nonsmoking sections do not adequately protect Michigan consumers and employees from deadly secondhand smoke.

12,000 otherwise healthy nonsmokers will die each year from some form of cancer – 3,000 specifically because of secondhand smoke exposure.

Secondhand smoke is the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States, killing about 50,000 nonsmokers every year, according to the California Environmental Protection Agency.

Smokefree air is good for business.
During a poll of 400 registered Michigan voters, 79% said they would go to restaurants "more often" or "just as often" if they become smokefree; and 70% of respondents indicated the same about bars, clubs and bowling alleys.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates the cost savings of eliminating secondhand smoke in the workplace to be between $35 billion and $66 billion a year.

Studies across the country prove that smokefree laws benefit business.

After New York City went smokefree in March 2003, the Department of Finance reported 10,600 new jobs in the city’s bars and restaurants between March and December 2003; and tax receipts increased by 8.7% , or approximately $1.4 million.

Similarly in Florida, receipts for taverns and bars that served food remained unaffected by the state's smokefree law.

There are 21 well-designed studies that show no negative economic impact from smokefree policies in restaurants and bars

Michigan’s government already regulates several areas of workplace and restaurant policies in the name of public health. Employees should not be forced to sacrifice their health because they need to earn a paycheck.

Food service workers are 50% more likely to develop lung cancer, due largely to the fact that they are exposed to secondhand smoke while on the job.

A Michigan smokefree workplaces law is supported by more than 70 organizations, including the Michigan Health and Hospital Association, Michigan State Medical Society, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, and American Lung Association AND is strongly supported by Michigan voters.

In a statewide poll conducted in 2005, 63% of Michigan voters support a smokefree workplaces law, while only 23% oppose. Fourteen percent are neutral.

A MIRS poll conducted in February 2007 showed 61% of Michigan voters support smokefree buildings, including restaurants and bars.






Reply New Comment

Line

86) applaud [by Anonymous Citizen on December 6, 2007]
applaud appluad.. thank you for writing all these GREAT facts for us!
Reply New Comment

Line

87) Get On The Clue Bus [by Anonymous Citizen on August 2, 2007]
"Similarly in Florida, receipts for taverns and bars that served food remained unaffected by the state's smokefree law"

I know 3 in the Keys that are closed due to the draconian smoking laws.

"In a statewide poll conducted in 2005, 63% of Michigan voters support a smokefree workplaces law, while only 23% oppose. Fourteen percent are neutral."

I can take a poll today that will prove that 70% of the people in Michganistan think that we should take all your money and give it to them.

"There are 21 well-designed studies that show no negative economic impact from smokefree policies in restaurants and bars"

All done by nanny staters like you. All Bunk

"Studies across the country prove that smokefree laws benefit business."

B.S. Show me one legitimate study. have you ever tried to run a business? Have you ever been a productive member of society. My guess is that you are living at the public teat, either in government, the so called school system or maybe the dpw.

"Secondhand smoke is the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States, killing about 50,000 nonsmokers every year, according to the California Environmental Protection Agency.'

Then why will Khalifornia issue a variance (for a price) if you are going broke because of this law? Maybe they just don't care.

You are just a lonely little person that wants to impose your agenda on the productive class.
Maybe you are jealous that some of these people make lots of money running a business that allows freedom. I Pity You.

Reply New Comment

Line

88) Nice try [by Anonymous Citizen on August 2, 2007]
"lonely little person", "jealous of people who make money".... these are useless statements that have nothing to do with this bill.

But you are right, this is about money. Business owners are just looking at the bottom line. Again, this has nothing to do with rights and free will. As long as that owner gets paid, they don't care if their customers are subjected to a known health risk.

"making lots of money running a business that allows freedom"????? Right....

making lots of money at the expense of the health of their workers and customers.

They're the one's pushing an agenda just to get what they want.... making a buck.


Reply New Comment

Line

89) Huh [by Anonymous Citizen on August 2, 2007]
"Business owners are just looking at the bottom line"

Explain to me another reason to work the long hours and have all the headaches that go along with owning your own business.

"Again, this has nothing to do with rights and free will"

This has everything to do with "rights and free will", namely the owners "rights and free will". Your free will is to not patronize them. Your rights end at their Pivate Property front door, if you don't like the way they do business then stay out. Problem solved. Maybe you think they lose these rights because you consider them part of "the evil rich"
Let me tell you something libby, without the evil rich, risk taking business men and women you would be sleeping under a bridge in a refrigerator box.
Reply New Comment

Line

90) not a partisian issue [by Anonymous Citizen on October 2, 2007]
I am rich and I am republican and I don't want to have to pay the medicaid bills of all the restaurant employees who are subjected to secondhand smoke. If the restaurant owners want to cover their employees health benefits then at least they won't cost the rest of us so much money. Oh, but wait a minute...secondhand smoke is dangerous, it kills, it smells and no one should have to put up with it any more. not libs or conservatives. It's not always about money or bars would be open 24/7.
Reply New Comment

Line

91) why AREN'T [by Anonymous Citizen on October 2, 2007]
bars open 24/7???

every time someone says "give me a drink." he pays taxes, some of the highest taxes in the state.

it seems dumb that the state should force a revenue source to close down at a specified hour.

after all, if the state is responsible for our health and welfare, then smoking and drinking would already be totally banned, illegal in all states and under all circumstances. we would only be eating and drinking state prescribed wholistically grown, organically raised food in healthy amounts, we would be getting up at the crack of dawn and running five miles with everyone else in the country.

but the state is NOT responsible for our health, we are.
Reply New Comment

Line

92) it has EVERYTHING [by Anonymous Citizen on August 2, 2007]
to do with another liberal trying to push his liberal agenda on others, all the while taking away rights, freedoms, and liberties.

it's the liberal way.


Reply New Comment

Line

93) Scare tactics [by Anonymous Citizen on August 4, 2007]
The Blunders of SAMMEC (1) 400,000 Killed by Smoking!?
by Rosalind B. Marimont

That smoking causes 400,000 deaths annually is now widely promoted as a statistical truth. The recent campaign against teenage smoking asserted that one out of three teenagers who smoked would be killed by his habit. These numbers are a gross misinterpretation of the CDC SAMMEC results, and a gross overestimate of the importance of smoking as a cause of death. Another mantra of the Anti-Smoking Partisans (ASPs) is that smoking kills more people than alcohol and drugs combined. This latter piece of disinformation has been used to justify neglect of the shocking rise in teenage binge drinking and driving. Neither candidate for president has even mentioned teenage drinking, and the Clintons have hardly mentioned drugs until the Republicans made an issue of it.
The 400,000 plus estimate is the result of logical and epidemiological blunders and a lack of scientific integrity, by the fanatic anti-smoking lobby. The CDC estimate is described as the number of deaths ASSOCIATED with smoking, not CAUSED BY it. This is not a semantic distinction, because a death can be associated with many factors.

Among risk factors for heart disease, for example, are hypertension, high serum cholesterol, obesity, sedentary life style, smoking, and genetic factors. If we ran SAMMEC computations for each of these factors, we could estimate the number of heart disease deaths associated with each one. But suppose that John Smith, who died of heart disease, had all of these factors. He would have contributed 6 deaths to the total associated deaths. So that when we sum up these results to arrive at the total deaths, we find that our total is MUCH LARGER THAN THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY DIED OF HEART DISEASE.

A simple numerical example will demonstrate the SAMMEC method, and its multiple counting error. Let us consider heart disease. A behavior or attribute is said to be a risk factor for death by heart disease(HD) if the population exhibiting that behavior has a higher HD mortality rate than the population which does not exhibit that behavior. If obese people have a higher mortality rate than non-obese, obesity is a risk factor for heart disease death. The ratio of these two mortality rates is unknown as the risk ratio of obesity for heart disease death, and of course, is measured statistically.

How does SAMMEC compute the deaths associated with some risk ratio? Assume that we have measured the risk ratio of obesity for HDD to be 4. Assume that we have a population of 1000 people, of whom 500 are obese and 500 are not. We observe 10 deaths by heart disease. We can then compute that 8 of these deaths would occur among the obese, and 2 among the non- obese, the ratio of 4:1. Let us call this risk ratio r. Then SAMMEC assumes that if the obese people were not obese, they would have the same mortality rate as the non-obese, or only 2 deaths. Therefore 6 deaths among the obese are attributed to obesity, or the fraction (1-1/r) of the deaths of the obese, in this case 3/4. It is easy to compute the fraction of the total deaths, which is called THE SAF, OR STATISTICALLY ATTRIBUTABLE FACTOR. IF WE STOPPED AT THIS POINT, WE WOULD SAY THAT OBESITY CAUSES 3/4 OF THE DEATHS OF ALL OBESE HEART DISEASE PATIENTS.

But is this true? Let us continue our computation, and consider hypertension as a risk factor for HDD. To simplify the calculations let us assume that hypertension also has a risk ratio of 4 and this is the crux of the overcount, assume that the same group of people who are obese are also the hypertensives. Then we find that 6 deaths of our hypertensive group are attributed to hypertension. Similarly we can find that smoking, lack of exercise, and high cholesterol levels each result in 6 deaths. So that we find that our 5 risk factors are associated with 30 deaths by heart disease. BUT ONLY 10 PEOPLE DIED ALTOGETHER, AND ONLY 8 IN THE HIGH RISK GROUP. Only if each person had only 1 risk factor for any cause of death, would the SAMMEC SAF be a true fraction, in the sense that all fractions would add up to 1.

This overcount is not the only problem with the SAMMEC system. In estimating risk ratios, we compared death rates of smokers to those of non-smokers. This ratio would be a true estimate of the effects of smoking only if the two groups were identical in all other respects than smoking. This of course is not true - the measurement is done without controls. For this reason epidemiologists rarely take seriously risk ratios of less than 3.

In the SAMMEC report, of 102 risk ratios of smoking for various diseases, only 40 are greater than 3. IF WE CONSIDER ONLY RISK RATIOS equal to or greater than 3, THE NUMBER OF DEATHS IS CUT IN HALF, TO ABOUT 200,000. Even if we reject only those less than 2, the number is cut by about one third, to about 270,000. And these corrections still leave a number of serious confounders.

One of the most serious confounders in smoking studies is the inverse correlation of smoking with socio-economic status (SES). Low SES is one of the best predictors of disease and early death.

And finally, no attention is paid to the benefits of smoking. For some conditions, such as obesity, the risk ratio of smoking is less than 1, since smokers are less likely than non-smokers to be obese. Also, smokers are Iess likely to have ulcerative colitis. It is of course heresy to suggest that smoking can have any good effects, but like caffeine, nicotine is known to improve alertness, and allay depression and anxiety. There is recent evidence that smoking may provide some protection against Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's. These good effects are rarely mentioned for fear of being branded a tool of the tobacco companies.

It has been said that truth is the first casualty of war. The deceptions of the war on smoking have done incalculable harm to the nation. The grossly overstated dangers of smoking to health have distorted the nation's health priorities. To equate smoking with alcohol or drugs as teenage dangers is obviously absurd, and would never have happened if the health dangers of smoking had been accurately reported. The war on smoking has become a crusade of good against evil, and logic and science have been prostituted to attain its objective.

(1) Shultz, Novotny, and Rice, "Quantifying the Disease Impact of Cigarette Smoking with SAMMEC II Software", Public Health Reports, May-June 1991, Vol 106, No 3, pp 326-333.


Reply New Comment

Line

94) okay, you are going to [by Anonymous Citizen on August 2, 2007]
ask a state that just took in several BILLION dollars from the tobacco industry to suddenly cut that income?

every cigarette smoked is MORE MONEY FOR THE STATE. do you REALLY think that they are going to cut off that funding???

oh, they'll make TOKEN JESTURES, but that's about it.

they understand that people are FREE, THAT INCLUDES BEING FREE TO DO THINGS THAT AREN'T GOOD FOR US.

driving isn't good for us, but we do it.
drinking isn't good for us,(depending on who you talk to) but we do it.
riding motorcycles isn't good for us, especially if someone runs you over in their big s.u.v.

all these things aren't good for us for one reason or another. all can kill us. but it's not the state's job to tell us not to do them.

it's up to each and every one of us to tell ourselves not to do it. and while we are at it. it's not YOUR job to tell ANYBODY what not to do.


Reply New Comment

Line

95) No one is telling people to stop smoking [by Anonymous Citizen on August 2, 2007]
"ask a state that just took in several BILLION dollars from the tobacco industry to suddenly cut that income?"

The state isn't cutting that income... if a person can't smoke in a restaurant do you really think they're going to stop, or have one less cigarette that day? No, they're going to smoke just as many cigarettes, but smoke them somewhere else.


"they understand that people are FREE, THAT INCLUDES BEING FREE TO DO THINGS THAT AREN'T GOOD FOR US".

I don't have a problem with people doing things that aren't good for them, just as long as it doesn't affect the people around them. The only way a business is even allowed to exist, and make money off the public, is because it has agreed to follow certain safety and health guidelines to protect the people that are giving them their business, and the employees that help to run that business.

"all these things aren't good for us for one reason or another. all can kill us. but it's not the state's job to tell us not to do them."

The state ISN'T TELLING PEOPLE NOT TO SMOKE. People can smoke 50 packs of cigarettes a day, for all they care. They're telling them if they go into a place of business, they can't contaminate the air of that business because it's a health risk to the other patrons. When the smoking no longer affects JUST the person doing it, it becomes a whole other issue. Yes, the other patrons "made" the decision to enter, but they did so with the understanding that the restaurant was following the state health guidelines. Harboring a known carginogen in the air of your business should become a part of those state health guidelines.






Reply New Comment

Line

96) maybe you are right. [by Anonymous Citizen on August 2, 2007]
but as of now, those KNOWN CARCINOGENS are NOT part of the state health guidlines.

it's not the job of the state to protect YOUR health. if you know the air is 'polluted' with KNOWN CARCINOGENS, don't go to the restaraunt or bar.

it really is YOUR responsibility, not the state's. the state has enough to do without you dropping another thing in their lap to nanny over.

businesses are 'allowed to do business' in order to pay the state certain fees and taxes. not to protect the general public from KNOWN HEALTH HAZARDS. if the state did that, they would have to close every mcdonalds hamburger joint in the state.

exercise some personal initiative. stop relying on the state to keep you safe. they really do a crappy job of it.
Reply New Comment

Line

97) Arm the health inspector with a thick fine pad and set him/her loose [by Anonymous Citizen on August 1, 2007]
Go for it.
Reply New Comment

Line

98) Lets Create [by Anonymous Citizen on August 2, 2007]
an entire jack booted gestapo to enforce all the laws that little people like you want.
Man, sounds like a great place to live....
Reply New Comment

Line

99) If they do in workplace, then fine them. Take it out of their paycheck. [by Anonymous Citizen on August 1, 2007]
lol,
Reply New Comment

Line

100) I am just plain sick of it [by Anonymous Citizen on August 1, 2007]
SICK OF THE SMOKE.

I go to a restaurant, have to wait in line. Why? Because someone with a nasty, pathetic habit can't make through a meal without their addiction interfering.

I go the bowling alley, the casino, and come home smelling disgusting. Why, because some has, yet again, contaminated the air with their weakness and addiction.

It is about damn time this bill gets passed. And we can say goodbye to the pollution being cast on innocent people's lungs, clothes, hair!!! IT IS A FILTHY, POISONING, WEAK HABIT THAT NEEDS TO BE REMOVED FROM ALL PLACES OF BUSINESS! DO IT ON YOUR OWN TIME, AWAY FROM INNOCENT BYSTANDERS.
Reply New Comment

Line

101) Settle Down [by Anonymous Citizen on August 2, 2007]
and put those veins back in your neck. You have just made my point for me. This has nothing to do with anything except you wanting people to do things your way. You are a anti smoking zealot and facts mean nothing to you. Try to live in the real world, you may like it and find a friend or two.
Reply New Comment

Line

102) shouldn't have fines... [by Anonymous Citizen on August 1, 2007]
if they follow the HEALTH GUIDELINES!
Reply New Comment

Line

103) cutting out smoking is not [by Anonymous Citizen on August 2, 2007]
in the state's health guidelines. keep the meat cold IS.


Reply New Comment

Line

104) unions support smoking [by Anonymous Citizen on August 2, 2007]
look up the case.

"DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
VA SAN DIEGO HEALTHCARE SYSTEM
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
and
LOCAL R12-228, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, SEIU"

in this case, the union MUST support it's member's right to smoke. it must fight when a facility arbitrarily closes a 'smoking area'.

it MUST do this or face the fact that the union members will not support the union with their dues if the union does not support them.

now, the government was arbitrary and capricious when it closed the area, and the union had to stand up to them.

the state of michigan is being arbitrary and capricious in closing down THESE smoking areas.

it has no scientific evidence, just anecdotal statements by anti-smokers.

now, when the hearings come, please try and produce some truely scientific evidence about this specific case, not just some 'well done study' about the 'evils' of smoking in general.

Reply New Comment

Line

105) wasn't this bill introduced by a republican? [by Anonymous Citizen on August 1, 2007]
After reading all of this I still cannot believe people still think that smoking in a public place is a right that should be protected.

Yes, businesses may be "privately" owned, but they do have regulations they have to follow. For example, they have to follow a fire code, they have to pass a health inspection, they have rules to follow in order to have a liquor license. These are rules and laws put in place to protect the consumer. These restaurants may be privately owned but they are open to the PUBLIC. And as such, they ARE responsible for creating a safe environment.

I can't move my table and chair in front of a "fire exit", I can't drive around their "privately" owned parking lot drunk, I can't have sex in the booth of that restaurant, because it's a place out in public, and because it's against the law. So just because it's a privately owned place, there are still rules and laws that they have to follow in order to protect the public from harm. What people don't seem to understand is that free will, freedoms, and liberties, are only that, when they don't interfere with someone else's freedoms and liberties.

Telling non-smokers to go somewhere else is not realistic. It is a restaurant for the public. And unless the business is passing out "member's only" jackets, and creating some sort of private club, it is a public venue. As with any business that must follow fire codes, health codes, and all of the rest of the rules and laws that govern our state, I don't see why banning smoking from restaurants shouldn't be included as a "health code". It is a fact that secondhand smoke hurts other individuals, and as a business, they have a responsiblity to make sure their environment is up to code in that regard.

As it's been said, your individual rights end at your nose, so if you go out in public, you shouldn't be able to do anything that could potentially harm that public. Our freedoms are no longer freedoms when they interfere with another person's rights.

If people want to smoke, it's their right to smoke... in the privacy of their OWN homes. Not in a restaurant for the public. And it IS the restaurant owner's responsibility to see that fire codes and health codes are followed to protect it's patrons. Smoking has now become a health issue for those that are around it, so as a business, that should be included in the "health codes" that they are obligated to follow.
Reply New Comment

Line

106) It's Not Public! [by Anonymous Citizen on August 1, 2007]
"people still think that smoking in a public place is a right that should be protected."

They outlawed smoking in public buildings a while ago. This is about government telling a PRIVATE businessman how to run his business!

"It is a restaurant for the public."

Wrong again mental midget, it's a business that a PRIVATE citizen poured his or her hard earned money and sweat into in hopes of making money to feed his family.

"It is a fact that secondhand smoke hurts other individuals"

Not Proven at all

"Smoking has now become a health issue for those that are around it, so as a business, that should be included in the "health codes" that they are obligated to follow."

Then let's make it illegal for the PRIVATE owner to sell anything but tofu to fat people. After all, it's his "obligation" to make sure you do healty things. Where does it end comrad??????


Reply New Comment

Line

107) Privately owned restaurants serve the public [by Anonymous Citizen on August 1, 2007]
If a restaurant owner serves a high fat meal to an overweight person, the only arteries being negatively affected are those of that ONE individual. So if that ONE individual wants to damage is or her own body, as long as it's not negatively affecting the other customers or the workers, they have the right to do that. That's "where it ends". It ends when the health decision doesn't affect ANYONE ELSE. A restaurant owner shouldn't be asked to force their customers to be healthy, but they SHOULD be forced to protect them as a whole while they're in that facility. That is why they have fire codes and health codes that they MUST follow. The decision to smoke in a restaurant doesn't just affect that ONE individual, it affects the other customers and workers health. Pretending secondhand smoke doesn't hurt the customers and employees of the restaurant is naive.


Reply New Comment

Line

108) Obesity Is Contagious [by Anonymous Citizen on August 1, 2007]
Obesity Is Contagious
By Michael Fumento
Published 8/1/2007
What makes you fat? Eating cheesy-poofs while watching Sex in the City reruns? Wolfing down a Wendy's "Baconator," comprising a double cheeseburger with six strips of bacon that could feed everyone in Darfur for a week? How about when you get the urge to exercise you lie down until it goes away, as one CEO famously put it?

Yes, to all of the above. But these are all specific contributors to obesity driven by larger forces that are making us, well, larger. One of the most important of these, as a new study in the New England Journal of Medicine shows, is that having fat social contacts makes you fatter. Obesity is contagious.

Reply New Comment

Line

109) You have got to be kidding me [by Anonymous Citizen on August 1, 2007]
This is actually laughable! You're seriously comparing this to a carcinogen? Wow, you really are grasping at straws now. The article also happens to mention this refers to "social contacts", people you actually "know" and spend a signifcant amount of time with. Not strangers in a restaurant.

Smoke, pure and simple is a health hazard. Restaurants have a responsibilty to run a business that is safe. You so conveniently disregarded the "health inspector" by the way. You know, the one that has to come in and make sure a restaurant owner is not making people SICK, that their employees are washing their hands, and that they don't have mold or bacteria growing anywhere...or, I don't know, say making sure they aren't allowing CARCINOGENS TO CONTAMINATE THE AIR!

Wanting a business to maintain a safe and clean environment does not make me a brainwashed drone, mindlessly being "manipulated" by the "all powerful" government, so to keep throwing around a pathetic little term like "useless idiots" is a cop out. Paranoid much? The government isn't ALWAYS on a witch hunt, trying to take away liberties from the people. In this circumstance, I truly believe it is meant to promote healthy working conditions and a "clean" environment for the patrons.


Reply New Comment

Line

110) it's not the restaurant [by Anonymous Citizen on August 3, 2007]
owner who is smoking, it's his customers. the health inspector cannot say ANYTHING about them. he cannot mandate that THEY stop what is a legal activity. as long as it is TAXED AND REGULATED, IT IS LEGAL.

as long as the cigarettes are not being used to make poisons that are then forced down the other patron's throats in LETHAL DOSES, which can easily be done by soaking one in water, and making a patron drink that water, killing him almost instantly, the state can say nothing.

it is up to the patron (the customer) to avoid cigarette smoke IF HE WISHES. it's not up to the state. if the state DOES make the statement that it IS harmful, it also takes on the responsibility of NOT SAYING IT SOONER, SAVING THOUSANDS, IF NOT MILLIONS OF LIVES. it also takes on the responsibility of taxing something harmful to the population, profiting off of other people's suffering. saying that it's okay to harm yourself and others simply because you are paying taxes on it.

imagine the legal position that would put the state in.

look what happened to the tobacco industry when THEY admitted it was harmful. they paid BILLIONS OF DOLLARS (mostly to states, not to victims).

imagine what the states would have to pay when the 'useful idiots' found out that the state not only ALLOWED them to be hurt, but PROFITED FROM IT.

no, the government of this state will take no such position, instead will allow you to be responsible for your OWN health and well being.

if you wish to be responsible for someone else's health and well being, be prepared to be responsible to pay when they aren't healthy and well.

the state is not in any kind of a rush to put themselves in that kind of predicament.
Reply New Comment

Line

111) the health inspector can't [by Anonymous Citizen on August 1, 2007]
say anything about cigarettes, as they are legal, and taxed heavily. he cannot opine one way or the other on the subject, by law.

now, you want to try again? let's cut the taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products and just ban it altogether.

let's see how far the state gets then.

Reply New Comment

Line

112) he can when their smoked around the public [by Anonymous Citizen on August 1, 2007]
Your right....the health inspector can't say anything about cigarettes because they ARE legal....legal WHEN THEY'RE IN YOUR OWN POCKET, SMOKED ON YOUR OWN TIME, IN YOUR OWN PRIVATE HOME, CAR, ETC!!

But the health inspector SHOULD be able to say something when those cigarettes are smoked in a business where the public is served and negatively impacted by them!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

113) but he can't, can he? [by Anonymous Citizen on August 2, 2007]
no he can't. he can't even tell a bar owner to get a 'smoke-eater'. all he can do is check the temperature of the coolers and the food in the kitchen.

he can't even make you throw out an obviously sick customer. he can't even SUGGEST IT.

this is because a health inspecor only has certain duties, and is not allowed BY LAW to do any other duties. he cannot tell you to quit serving alcohol, because he is not allowed to INSPECT alcohol. he cannot tell you to stop smoking in your establishment, because he is not allowed BY LAW to inspect for smoking in your establishment.

he cannot be in the bar area at all, and if he is, he is in trouble, because he is not allowed into the bar unless they have a permanent area to serve food.

so, your idea of a 'health gestapo' just went down the toilet. remember, the 'department of health' is not there for YOUR HEALTH, it's there for the state's revenue.

as long as you pay for your inspection, and pay any fees for non-compliance, you can do what you want.

good luck, but try again.
Reply New Comment

Line

114) Yes, please, and HURRY! [by Anonymous Citizen on August 1, 2007]
OH, and I love the beach that bans cigarettes. NOW we are getting somewhere. Michigan rarely wins awards for its beaches, and it SHOULD considering the percentage of coastline. BRAVO. Butts make up the largest percentage of solid waste found on world beaches. YUCK. Increase tourism and save on beach maintenance by banning cigarettes EVERYWHERE on MI beaches. Tourism is something we should be investing in HEAVILY right now. Other states already have cigarette bans on beaches. I hope this trend continues SOON. I love and appreciate and respect that the state invested in money for curb appeal between the Indiana border and the close to the border lake cities to attract Chicago citizens to MI. Fabulous. GOOD leadership. New Buffalo, cute town, is just opening their casino. I think that's a good place for one. If you live in New Buffalo, you've already got good financial literacy skills to be able to afford to live there. Those citizens won't RUIN themselves and their family's finances. It will draw many Chicago folks. We need to give scholarships in tourism skills, send our kids to the best hotel, rest. management programs in the nation, and then give them job offers they can't refuse to come back. We need SOUTHERN HOSPITALITY in Michigan in a BIG way.

Reply New Comment

Line

115) all this talk about beaches [by Anonymous Citizen on August 2, 2007]
when a goodly portion of the beaches in east michigan are CLOSED due to a dark brown muck that grows on the beaches. it stinks. it comes from fertilizers and waste water run off going into the lakes and bays.

do we ban farming?

do we ban fertilizers?

do we ban toilets?

that's what we'd have to do to clean this mess up, and then, they are not even sure if THAT would do it.

a mucked up beach will never win awards. but michiganders will never understand that, they are too busy trying to outlaw smoking.
Reply New Comment

Line

116) Right [by Anonymous Citizen on August 2, 2007]
"We need SOUTHERN HOSPITALITY in Michigan in a BIG way."

But we don't need ignorant little laws to control all the good subjects. This is too easy, you control freaks keep making my point for me. This has nothing to do with health and everything to do with CONTROL. Someone smoking on the beach will never hurt you but you want to ban that too? I own property on beaches here and in Fl. and have never seen a cig wash up. You are small minded socialist control freaks that need to get a life.

Reply New Comment

Line

117) Second-hand Smoke is Harmful to Science [by Anonymous Citizen on August 1, 2007]
Second-hand Smoke is Harmful to Science
By Michael Fumento
Scripps Howard News Service, Sept. 11, 2003
Copyright 2003 Scripps Howard News Service



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Looking for a surer method of being ripped apart than entering a lion's den covered with catnip? Conduct the most exhaustive, longest-running study on second-hand smoke and death. Find no connection. Then rather than being PC and hiding your data in a vast warehouse next to the Ark of the Covenant, publish it in one of the world's most respected medical journals.

That's what research professor James Enstrom of UCLA and professor Geoffrey Kabat of the State University of New York, Stony Brook discovered last May. That's when they reported in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) that their 39-year study of 35,561 Californians who had never smoked showed no "causal relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and tobacco-related mortality," adding, however "a small effect" can't be ruled out.

At this writing there have been over 140 responses on www.bmj.com, and if made into a movie they would be called "The Howling." Many are mere slurs several grades below even sophomoric.

Some demanded the BMJ retract the study because, as one put it, the "tobacco industry will use it." (It didn't). Another made the rather draconian call to ban all use of statistics in science, lest they be put to such wicked purposes as this.

"It is astounding how much of the criticism springs from (personal attacks) rather than from scientific criticism of the study itself," observed one of the few supportive writers. Said another: "As a publisher of the leading Austrian medical online news service, I feel quite embarrassed following the debate on this article. Many postings look more like a witch hunt than a scientific debate."

Sadly, one of the most pathetic responses came from Dr. Michael Thun, vice president for epidemiology and surveillance research at the American Cancer Society. The ACS started