Michigan Votes Forum

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.

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?

We as a state to be brave and step up. Others will follow.

to go back. that's the bottom line. if the government puts too many restrictions on them, they stay away. and suddenly, another business closes from lack of business. is that the goal of this legislation? if it is, it's doing a great job. you seem to think that 'just adding another regulation' will make smoking go away, it won't. it will, however make the SMOKERS go away. they are a significant portion of the patrons of bars and restaurants, and to lose that portion of their business often spells the death knell of those establishments. non-smokers, despite promises to the contrary, don't 'make up the slack' when push comes to shove. it didn't work in california, where variances can be had for a fee. it didn't work in florida, where variances can be had for a fee. it isn't working in new orleans, where variances can be had for a fee.(do you see a pattern developing here? VARIANCES FOR A FEE???) if you are so concerned about my health, why don't you just donate your entire wealth to my healthcare? take care of my health needs for the rest of my life. that is the 'flip-side' of being 'responsible' for my health. i can be VERY EXPENSIVE in my old age...

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.

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?

mold spores flying around. there is no way to stop them. nothing can stop them. the state cannot legislate what it cannot control, and the state should not legislate what the customers do in a bar. it should MIND IT'S OWN BUSINESS. BUT IT WON'T.

a good move

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!

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.

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**

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.

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.

gonna go bonkers when that happens.

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?

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.

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.

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.

that all you libs loved minorities

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.

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.

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.

Thouse needs to continue to defeat this proposal. Every tax payer has the right to decide if they want to go to a bar that has smoking or a eating establishment that allows smoking and non smoking. We do not elect officials to make the decision for us. When will government realize there are issues that are up to the person and quit wasting our taXxes on these defeated house bills over and over. Michigan is already burden withot adding to the business owners another impact negatively on their revenues by banning smoking in bars

regulating private workplace smoking become the proper role of government? government has no business doing this. it's not what government is supposed to do. STOP IT.

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.

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?

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.

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'?

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.

"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

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.

I too am a small business owner and a non smoker, but to me it is having my rights to own my own business and run it the way I want. Non smokers have a right to not come in to my establishment. I guess we should sleep good, knowing the government is always looking to save us from our selves. My Uncle was killed by a drunk driver(and was wearing his seatbelt) so I think you should ban smoking and ban drinking too. Just as many people are killed that way. This is crazy, how far do we need to take this. I just want to be able to run my business they way I want to. I can put a sign out front that says this is a smoking establishment, that way they have to right to not come in.

Rep. Bieda, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: While I agree with the intent of this amendment -- to prohibit smoking in casinos operated by federally recognized Native-American tribes -- the language of the amendment would draw out the prohibition on smoking in all facilities until after agreements with all of Michigan's Native American run gambling facilities had been reached. This would push the effective date of the ban out considerably. Thus, I voted 'no' on this amendment."

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."

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."

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.

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.

I wish to God they would ban all the hot air coming out of Lansing.

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!

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