Michigan Votes Forum

Will no smoking in buildings "cure " cancer? No. Will it stop cancer? Yes. It will prevent cancer from second hand smoke. It looks like the people who are against the ban are just plane idiots. Will it hurt a business? NO! Profits have increased in area business where a ban is law because as much as the smokers will say that they will quit going to that business, they don't stop and a lot of nonsmokers will now start going. This is fact. And about the idiot comment, I say just read what they have to say and you will have to agree, they're idiots.

And don't interfere with my DNR personal wishes, Control Freak.

You Say "Will it stop cancer? Yes. It will prevent cancer from second hand smoke." You are a genius. All we had to do was what you told us and we will stop what percent of cancers? ZERO. Because your stupid law is intended to stop something that doesn't happen. "Will it hurt a business? NO" You are delusional. I'll show you tons of data that shows that if you kick out 25% of your customers and all the people that hang out with them your business will drop like a brick. Go ask the 400 people that casino windsor laid off how much more they make today. Quit Lying!

given us ONE VERIFIABLE CASE OF CANCER CAUGHT EXCLUSIVELY FROM SECOND HAND SMOKE. in fact, you haven't given us ANY disease or condition that is gotten exclusively from second hand smoke. please back up your rants with verifiable facts.

...Even Castro recognized the right to smoke and doesn't attempt to regulate the size of your toilet tank. --Lew Rockwell Freedom cannot survive the number of Americans who think that the government is there to take care of them. -- Neal Boortz

I'm surprised the braintrust in Lansing didn't ban cell phones in restaurants and bars and even our cars, too! So what if research shows smoking and driving or talking and driving causes more accidents? It's my car and my phone! I should be able to do what I want with MY PROPERTY. If I cause an accident, it's my fault and I should pay, but I don't need government "protecting" me from MY CHOICE. If people object to my phoning and driving or smoking and driving, it's their CHOICE...they don't have to ride with me, and there are plenty of other roads they can take...or better yet, get the hell off the road I pay for with my taxes...and take road your commie liberal friends off the road too!

Just what we need...governments trying to regulate marriage. Who cares who gets married?...we don't need more laws and more regulations from all these BIG GOVERNMENT types in California and elsewhere. We're loosing our freedom - stay out!

From http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422#four "Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen). Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke. Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic, including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic ammonia and hydrogen cyanide. Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year. Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at work are at increased risk for adverse health effects. Levels of ETS in restaurants and bars were found to be 2 to 5 times higher than in residences with smokers and 2 to 6 times higher than in office workplaces. Since 1999, 70 percent of the U.S. workforce worked under a smoke-free policy, ranging from 83.9 percent in Utah to 48.7 percent in Nevada. Workplace productivity was increased and absenteeism was decreased among former smokers compared with current smokers. Fifteen states - Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Washington and Vermont - as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico prohibit smoking in almost all public places and workplaces, including restaurants and bars. Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon and Utah have passed legislation prohibiting smoking in almost all public places and workplaces, including restaurants and bars, but the laws have not taken full effect yet. Secondhand smoke is especially harmful to young children. Secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year, and causes 430 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths in the United States annually. Secondhand smoke exposure may cause buildup of fluid in the middle ear, resulting in 790,000 physician office visits per year. Secondhand smoke can also aggravate symptoms in 400,000 to 1,000,000 children with asthma. In the United States, 21 million, or 35 percent of, children live in homes where residents or visitors smoke in the home on a regular basis. Approximately 50-75 percent of children in the United States have detectable levels of cotinine, the breakdown product of nicotine in the blood. New research indicates that private research conducted by cigarette company Philip Morris in the 1980s showed that secondhand smoke was highly toxic, yet the company suppressed the finding during the next two decades. The current Surgeon General’s Report concluded that scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to second hand smoke. Short exposures to second hand smoke can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, decrease coronary flow velocity reserves, and reduce heart rate variability, potentially increasing the risk of heart attack."

Last I checked, guns are still legal and a constitutionally given right, but we have some business owners banning law-abiding, concealed carry permit holders. We're being denied our rights to carry in their favorite bar or restaurant. This nanny state has gone too far we need to have our constitutional rights protected, even if it means the business owner is overrulled!!!!!!!!!!!!!!They can't take away our rights!!!!!!!

So go to some other place. It's your choice to where to patronize! Support a buinsess that supports your rights.

I wish it were that simple...there's only two places in town. I have to drive about 20 miles each way to go somewhere else. It's not fair!!!!

Someone that has been harmed by so called second hand smoke. See my post below entitled, "second hand smoke deaths, dangers, costs, etc." The link will get you to the American Cancer Society's page, dated June, 2007, with 15 references.

is what I meant.

a business that limits his or her customers to only what the libs deem to be politically correct persons will not be profitable. I know profit is a dirty word to you socialists but without them only an idiot would risk their money and open a business. The only way around this simple economic fact of life is to use the iron fist of government to get your way and crush all business in the process. If it wasn't for whiny little sniviling lib control freaks we could all be free.

it is imperative that Michigan adapt hb 4163. I am a lung cancer survivor...(not too many of those.) Lets move on in Michigan with no exceptions.

Those are just "facts" dreamed up by BIG GOVERNMENT. Remember they are the ones doing the banning! It's all part of the conspiracy. I know in my heart what's right, I don't need this supposed research. 85% of all statistics are made up.

brocv zihdswx rugpaw bshk pmxhsu qewxgm bhgvz

Ha ha I wonder if there is some anti-smoking comment board where all the clean lung tree hugging liberals are hanging out? Sure ain't here...the last bastion of ME. So we're the big sociopaths right? Ha ha. Good to see so many like minded conservatives!

You ask for proof that secondhand smoke can cause death. I send it to you. One of the documented, referenced studies showed, "Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year." Then, you discount it as government propaganda. So what's the use in trying to convince you? I'm wasting my time.

Unfortunately not. As I said, it's either go there or drive to another place and at $4 per gallon that choice is not good. So the place is always busy. And there's this big sign that says "Concealed Firearms Prohibited by THIS ESTABLISHMENT" and people don't care that this business owner can trump the constitution...the law of the land for crying out loud. They keep going there anyway.

"I'm wasting my time." YOU TOTALLY ARE. No one here will be convinced no matter how compelling the evidence to the contrary. We are impervious to your so-called intellectual approach and logic. Truthiness reigns supreme.

You make absolutely no sense. Why bother asking for proof of secondhand smoke if you're never going to believe it anyway? Sounds like you're going through life with your head buried in the sand, or maybe it's just a cloud of thick smoke. Either way, it appears that your judgement is clouded.

Did you ever stop to think that many, many conservatives are in support of this bill to ban smoking in public places? Many more than aren't, I believe. I'm just one of them. Go ahead -- call me "lib." I think it's a compliment, as it stands for Libertarian.

That was someone else you were replying to. I'm just pointing out that YOU ARE WASTING YOUR TIME. This is a pro-smoking, pro-gun ownership, pro-business rights, anti-liberal comment board. We don't care what the evidence. It doesn't fit with what we know and value.

I agree with: pro-gun ownership, pro-business rights, and anti-liberal sentiment. Just believe the smoking ban is way overdue, that Michigan is still in the dark ages for still allowing smoking in public places.

one quarter liberal. how can you be FOR some rights and AGAINST others? it's an ALL OR NOTHING type of thing. if you are willing to take SOME rights away, you are willing to take ALL RIGHTS away.

take liberties away, they fight to maintain them. no libertarian worth the name would take away people's rights. how do you square that with libertarianism? the smoke can only hurt you if you are there to be hurt.

names and histories for these people that the government says second hand smoke killed. i don't think that they can put a finger on what exactly killed them. i'm looking for VERIFIABLE PROOF that they were killed by second hand smoke and nothing else. you have verified nothing. where are your sources? we'd like to look at them for ourselves.

says that any business can opt out of the constitution by simply placing 'no guns here' signs. nice try, though.

tell me. what habits did you have that contributed to your lung cancer? the saddest thing about lung cancer is that, according to you, it could have been prevented if only you had stayed away from that ultra-harmful second hand smoke. are you one of the thousands who are dying of second hand smoke?

verification? where is the citation? where is the information? you say 'studies', but list none.

please name the victim of second hand smoke. name the person who has DIED of second hand smoke and nothing else. then, you might not have so many problems banning it. but you CAN'T, can you? there are higher risks drinking detroit's water. there are higher risks climbing out of bed. there are higher risks climbing a set of stairs. but you see ANY risk as too much risk. please put out the numbers of people who were killed in michigan last year strictly from exposure to second hand smoke. that's all we asked for.

Don't let the facts get in the way! The tobacco addicts, like all addicts, generate incredible rationalizations to support their behavior and position on this topic. This is a public health issue not an economic issue! Nonetheless, any intelligent debate would conclude smoking has a huge negative economic impact with increased health care costs to all. Environmental smoke , an EPA defined group A carcinogen , is especially harmful to children . The time has come to accommodate the 80% non-addicted majority. The pathetic irony of this is that, in ALL states where indoor smoking has been banned, restaurant and bar business has flourished. Many nonsmokers will return to bars and restaurants which they've been avoiding . Maybe that is why over 30 European countries, Canada, and 25+ states have seen the light and reaped the economic benefits by inacting healthy smoke free laws. We'll see where the House Democrats go now : side with the people or the gaming money .The balls in their court!

Polling data consistently shows very strong support for a complete ban. In 2006, Ohio residents passed a comprehensive ban by a 59%- 41% margin . This subtle margin might be hard for the Democrats to understand but the public/media will be closely watching their action on this bill . Will the Detroit reps side with the Casinos while they ignore the health of their voters? Just follow the money!

You said it, Doc! And you're 100% right. I hope the House doesn't get misinformed, or worse yet bribed, by the casino industry. Michigan needs a smoking ban in ALL public places ASAP. This is long overdue. Representatives -- if you're listening, please know this is not a Democratic or Republican issue. It's a health issue, and the vast majority of Michigan citizens would like you to pass this legislation. Thank you.

See post "Sources" above and/or look up any of the links I've posted.

it's a LIBERAL ISSUE. it's a POWER ISSUE. it's a CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE. and it's WRONG. if you don't want to smoke, don't. if you don't want to be AROUND those that smoke, it's YOUR responsibility to do so, not government's.

80% favor a smoking ban, then, when the REAL ELECTION comes around, only 56% actually favor it. what happened to the OTHER 25%? didn't they favor a ban enough to go out and vote for it? or did the poll lie? the folks in florida ALSO supported a complete ban on smoking, led by the vast amount of liberal democrats from the east coast. now that the ban has been in place for a few years, there are DOZENS of legal 'loopholes' in place that allow smoking in ALMOST all the places the ban originally covered. yes, businesses lost money. yes, some businesses closed. yes, florida lost tax revenue. yes, florida allows smoking in bars again. look it up for yourselves. it didn't work there, it won't work here. and by the way, i'm NOT a smoker.

The tobacco addicts, like all addicts, generate incredible rationalizations to support their behavior and position on this topic. [this has nothing to do with addiction. this bill will NOT stop people from smoking, it will simply remove their right to smoke in certain places.] This is a public health issue not an economic issue! [no, this is a POWER issue. the economics are already obvious. there ARE NO NON SMOKING BARS at this time becaus they are NOT ECONOMICALLY VIABLE. simple as that. why do you wish to shove an economically NON-VIABLE idea down the throats of the businessmen who operate the bars?] Nonetheless, any intelligent debate would conclude smoking has a huge negative economic impact with increased health care costs to all. [and any intelligent debate would conclude that tobacco is the highest taxed commodity in the state, other than gasoline. those taxes are supposed to PAY for all the suffering the state says WE HAVE TO PAY FOR. who made the state our HEALTH NANNY? isn't it OUR responsibility for OUR HEALTH? of course it isn't. you're a liberal, NOTHING is your responsibility.] Environmental smoke , an EPA defined group A carcinogen , is especially harmful to children . [so, how many children are exposed to second hand smoke in bars? isn't it ALREADY ILLEGAL to have children in bars? of course it is, but that law doesn't make you feel better, the complete ban of smoking does. now, how about that list of people who died of second hand smoke? i haven't seen it yet.] The time has come to accommodate the 80% non-addicted majority. [they are ALREADY accomodated. they DON'T SMOKE. where does it say that the power of law MUST BE USED TO ACCOMODATE? truth is, lib, it DOESN'T.] The pathetic irony of this is that, in ALL states where indoor smoking has been banned, restaurant and bar business has flourished. [BULLSHIT. that is an outright lie. florida has REPEALED many of the ban locations because of this very issue. bars and restaraunts have closed. tax revenue has been lost. ever notice that CASINO'S ARE ALWAYS EXEMPT? they have bars and restaraunts.] Many nonsmokers will return to bars and restaurants which they've been avoiding . [no they won't. it hasn't happened in any of the states that have tried it, what makes you think it's gonna happen here. besides, if a non smoker is 'avoiding' a bar because of smoke, he will simply go when it's not as smoky. those are the facts.] Maybe that is why over 30 European countries, Canada, and 25+ states have seen the light and reaped the economic benefits by inacting healthy smoke free laws. [perhaps you should take a closer look at european laws. it's LEGAL to smoke in pubs. it's legal to smoke in bars. it's also LEGAL to smoke in public buildings across almost all of the european union. why? they have GOVERNMENT SPONSORED HEALTHCARE. they don't CARE what healthcare costs. it's paid for by TAXES. they also don't care whether or not their people are healthy, as most 'healthy living programs' are elective in nature, and therefore NOT AVAILABLE IN THOSE HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS. now, lib. why do you wish to take away another person's rights? please answer that question. if you say 'smokers effect MY health', i'd say, MOVE AWAY FROM THE SMOKERS. if you say 'smokers effect me on the job', i'd say, GET ANOTHER JOB. it's amazing how you quote that 80% of the people DON'T SMOKE in one post, then quote that 75% of the people in bars are smoking. it's amazing how non smokers have gone from a shrinking minority to the VAST UNCOUNTED MAJORITY in just a few posts. i don't smoke, but i WON'T take away someone's rights. it's just that simple. and i WON'T support a politician who does.]

BJM.COM that supplies studies for doctors, so that they can make informed decisions. they did a study about the co-relation of people who NEVER smoked and the SMOKERS they were married to. they tracked twenty eight years of CONSTANT exposure to environmental second hand smoke in over twelve thousand non smokers. you know what? Conclusions: The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed. so, i'd say that blows the lid right off your 'NON SMOKERS ARE DYING IN DROVES' theory, wouldn't it? the site is BJM.COM, look it up for yourself. it's very interesting reading.