Michigan Votes Forum

some facts are finally coming to light. this thread, like most here, are full of people who are long on conjecture, opinion, and innuendo, and VERY SHORT ON FACTS. it's refreshing to see some facts being injected into the conversation. the internet cafe welcomes those with facts. we welcome those with widsom. we even welcome those without either. but we DO NOT ALLOW those without factual backing to change our view. we welcome facts. those change our view. we welcome widsom. that changes our view. but emotion without facts cannot. lies will not. the WRONG shall not. as CITIZENS, we can do no less.

I looked up the website. It's the British Medical Journal - bmj.com - not bjm.com Is this the best you can come up with??? http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/328/7455/1529.pdf Look at page 2. The study you are citing is dated June 26, 1954. Not exactly what I would call a recent or up-to-date study. LOL.

than the slanted, let's change the rules stuff the anti smoke nazis and the cdc came up with.

the british medical journal site is a joke. the bjm site did a THIRTY YEAR STUDY on over three thousand people in california. they found no link between second hand smoke and all the doom and gloom you describe. besides, the british wouldn't be doing a study in california. nice try. try again.

For lemmings, denial is a basic psychological defense mechanism used to not only shield themselves from unpleasant realities, but also to reassure themselves that they will still fit within the acceptable range of opinion held by their peer group. Lemmings are absolutely terrified at the thought of being labeled as an "extremist" or a "conspiracy theorist." At all costs, their beliefs must always be on the politically correct side of the issue and conform within the boundaries of their lemming peers. Lemmings simply cannot bear the burden of responsibility, or the discomfort, which comes with thinking independently. They'll resist any efforts to change their misguided beliefs with all their mental energy. We can try to open their closed minds and free them from their self-imposed blindness, but it's not easy fighting the force of human nature. The chains of ideological conformity have too strong of a grip, and breaking them is a difficult task. With the limited resources at our disposal, it is next to impossible to compete with the media lemming-masters. Nevertheless, some of us must make the meager attempt, and thus lay the foundation upon which the truth might one day rise again.

Here's my prediction: the war on smoking is going to be just as successful as the war on drugs. Just as the war on drugs has weakened our Bill of Rights protections against unreasonable search and seizures (Article IV) and taking of property without due process of law (Article V), the war on tobacco promises to continue the process. When our Constitution is finally buried, a fitting inscription for its tombstone might be "We Did It For The Children." Walter E. Williams

Could someone give Brenda Clack a copy of the US Constitution and ask her to read it? If she can read that is. With so many important issues facing us today, why are you wasting our precious time and money debating this moronic issue? You and the people who voted for you don't deserve the freedom you now enjoy, paid for with the blood of others. I can't believe this bill even got to the floor for a vote. BTW I'm a Democrat. Brenda Clack is an embarrassment to all Democrats.

Exactly how this bill violates the US (or Michigan) Constitution. Cite the specific articles, and your reasoning, please. I am eager to learn about this.

violating My Private Property Rights? It's my business. I pay my taxes. I bought the building. I risked my money and time to build a business, not you. If I want to let my customers smoke, that's my decision, not mommy governments. Same with you. if you don't like the way I run MY BUSINESS then you are free to patronize another establishment. You do not have any right to come to my business and try to tell me how to run it. Just because you decide to use the iron fist of government to do your bidding doesn't make it right.

of the 30 year study. Here's one from bmj.com that says secondhand smoke is more dangerous than first believed: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/bmj.38146.427188.55v1 You keep insisting the site is bjm.com, but that site appears to be a spam mortgage site. If your study is real, why don't you post the URL?

But, I must agree I don't like the government telling me what to do. But does that mean that we should no longer make people wear seat belts, or drive under the speed limit? I feel that it is no one's "right" to expose me to second hand smoke. I understand the argument that if you don't like it leave, but I am from Northern Michigan, and believe you me, there are no non-smoking bars up here (think U.P.). I think if 30 other states and a slug of countries can do it, Michigan can do it fine. In addition, it's refreshing to go into a non-smoking restaurant, everything is so much cleaner and more sanitary. Responses: *Just got back from a week on Xmas break in the panhandle of Florida and a week of Spring Break in the Keys, and I never saw one bar/restaurant where you could smoke inside. *Children are allowed in bars (I was a bartender a couple years ago at the Keyhole. It depends on the liquor license, but for the most part, up to a certain time (usually 9 or 10PM), children are allowed in bars, but sometimes minors are allowed in bars until close...)

"But does that mean that we should no longer make people wear seat belts" Yes it does. Maybe you're learning. "Just got back from a week on Xmas break in the panhandle of Florida and a week of Spring Break in the Keys, and I never saw one bar/restaurant where you could smoke inside." You're lying. I own property in The Keys and you can smoke in every bar restaurant that doesn't have four walls. You can smoke in any bar that doesn't make more than 20% of their income from food. Quit Lying " and a slug of countries can do it, Michigan can do it" I'll show you a "slug" of countries where your daughter is horse whipped for showing her face on the street. Maybe we should do this too? I'll show you a "slug" of countries where people that speak their minds get fed into a tree grinder. Maybe you wish to emulate these also? You are a lying control freak and you know it. If you think you can run a business better than we can then do it.

it's not a LIBERAL ISSUE -- many, many conservatives are for the ban on smoking. it's a POWER ISSUE -- I agree, except the smoker's are the ones that have all the power. Not fair to the majority in Michigan who do not smoke. it's a CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE -- I agree. It's about the non-smoker's civil rights -- their rights to breathe smoke-free air and work in smoke-free environments. "and it's WRONG." No, you're WRONG. This bill is the right thing to do, and it's way overdue! "if you don't want to smoke, don't." OK, I won't. "if you don't want to be AROUND those that smoke, it's YOUR responsibility to do so, not government's." No. This is a public health issue. We have OSHA rules to help keep Michigan employees safe in the workplace. This is one more rule, to protect them from secondhand smoke.

dosage at which cigarette smoke is toxic. we know what it is for curare. we know what it is for arsenic. we know what it is for asbestos. we have no clue what it is for cigarette smoke. we have even less of a clue what it is for SECOND HAND SMOKE. let's see that study which proves that X amount of cigarette smoke is always deadly. let's find out what the lethal dosage for cigarette smoke actually is. till you can tell me that, you have no case.

" many conservatives are for the ban on smoking." Not one true conservative would ever want this. "their rights to breathe smoke-free air" You can exercise this so called right anytime by choosing to not patronize establishments that allow smoking. Once again, please explain why you think it's okay for the government to force me, a PRIVATE BUSINESS OWNER to run MY BUSINESS how you want. How many 16 hour days did you work with me when I was getting started? Oh, that's right, you didn't. I don't need a know nothing, no money partner like you or the government. I pay taxes and keep people employed. Go open a non smoking bar. You seem to think this would be a money maker so what in the heck are you waiting for? Risk YOUR money and give it a go.

their money, except to get shrillary elected.

In Part: No person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; (Being accused of a crime and then being tried in a court before a jury of their peers) Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. Creating a law dictating the use of a private citizens, private property is an obvious violation of Amendment 5 (at least to people who give a crap about their constitutional rights. You might then try reading Amendment 9: The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny of disparage others retained by the people. Carl S

Open a bar/restaurant of your own and then ban any customers from smoking in it. That is your right. Then you can go there. I may or may not choose to patronize your business and spend my money there. That is my right. Carl S

Well said. Carl S

As a rule, zoning laws and similar laws governing the use of private property have not been found to constitute the kind of "taking" forbidden by Amendment V to the US Constitution. Try again.

"The pathetic irony of this is that, in ALL states where indoor smoking has been banned, restaurant and bar business has flourished." B.S. I personally know 3 or 4 that went under and all have lost about 30% of their business and laid off help accordingly. " Many nonsmokers will return to bars and restaurants which they've been avoiding" Another lie. What happens is that they will stay at home and after a few weeks they find out that they save alot of money by staying home and bar-b-cueing and partying there. The business never returns. Go to Windsor, Tecumseh or Belle River Ontario. Belle River lost 1 bar and 2 restaurants. The main bar in town is still down 40% 4 or 5 years after the ban. The casino is down 50% and laid off hundreds. You must like seeing people lose their jobs. "The pathetic irony" that you talk of is that you will crush anyone to get your way. Typical of a whiny sniveling lib. Thats Pathetic.

Research consistently shows that smoking bans do not have a negative effect on restaurant and bar business when and where they are enacted. That may be counter-intuitive, but it is the fact of the matter. Of course, there always will be anecdotes about this individual or that individual losing business and eventually closing up shop after a smoking ban goes into effect. But when you look at the actual research into this, you have to wonder if somehow those anecdotes are either (a) apocryphal, (b) the result of self-fulfillment of prophesy, or (c) arise from individual business circumstances that were well in play before the ban. Sometimes the facts that emerge are quite astounding when you look into things with an open mind.

Show me one bar that made more after they enacted one of these freedom killing laws. I'm Waiting. Mean while you can go to Marathon Fl. and buy Garys Sports Bar, it closed shortly after this law passed. Big Al's in Belle River is down 40% since the draconian ban. I'm Waiting....

Just the facts. Research consistently shows that smoking bans do not have a negative effect on restaurant and bar business when and where they are enacted. That may be counter-intuitive, but it is the fact of the matter. Of course, there always will be anecdotes about individuals losing business and perhaps eventually closing up shop after a smoking ban goes into effect. But when you look at the actual research into this, you have to wonder if somehow any given anecdote about negative effects is either (a) apocryphal, (b) the result of self-fulfillment of a prophesy, or (c) arises from individual business circumstances that have little or nothing at all to do with the smoking ban. Sometimes the facts that emerge are quite astounding when you look into things with an open mind. This appears to be one of those matters.

bar that increased or even kept the same level of business and employment. "Research consistently shows that smoking bans do not have a negative effect on restaurant and bar business when and where they are enacted."

If research consistently shows that smoking bans do not negatively affect bar and restaurant business volumes where and when they are enacted, then that is what research consistently shows. I know well that the result is counter-intuitive. But there are many surprises in life. Really. Your insistence on seeing individual cases indicates to the world that you only are interested in idiosyncratic episodes rather than general or overall trends. One always can find individual instances that buck trends. They are called exceptions. Governments in this country have made a hash out of many things by legislating to manage for exceptions. It's time to get smart, as the Michigan legislature has on this, and start making laws that manage in accord with factually verified trends.

You repeatedly talk in circles. All I want is you to show me one bar that didn't lose business and lay off good decent working folks. I'm Waiting....

Show me your so called reasearch....

First of all we're not talking about a zoning law or some building code. Secondly, Federal or Supreme Court Judges are not Gods without bias. Former opinions have been changed and updated reflecting current culture often. That's why you can now have anal or oral sex with your partner at home without being arrested, buy and drink beer on Sunday's if you want, or eat ice cream on Sunday if you want. All of which were formerly illegal in many states or in the case of beer, at one time, ALL states. That's called PROGRESS. Removing a presumed right for a business owner to run his own business on his (her) own property as they wish is NOT progress. Why not ban DRINKING at a bar as well? Because it's not an immediate health risk to you personally? Tell that to the members of MADD. (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) Why not pass a zoning law that forbids you from preparing food and eating it in your own home? After all, if you're not a chef you might harm yourself or others in your home by feeding them tainted or under cooked food. Rather you should be forced to eat only at a restaurant with a trained professional preparing your food so there's no risk you might harm someone else or even a child, god forbid. Amendment 9 was added to the constitution specifically for the purpose of combating moronic arguments or precedence about the rights of the people like the one you're trying to make here. IOW's you are presumed to retain any/all rights known to man not specifically denied you by law. Including all your private property rights. Your argument therefore, is without merrit. Carl S

Florida's government has taken away the rights of other governments! Sarasota Herald-Tribune (Florida) May 20, 2008 Tuesday ALL EDITION A SECTION; Pg. A1 723 words County says no to hiring smokers; Officials say the cost of health care makes the prohibition necessary By ZAC ANDERSON zac.anderson@heraldtribune.com Citing the burden they place on taxpayers who pay for government workers' health insurance, Sarasota County officials announced Monday that they no longer will hire smokers. The policy makes Sarasota County the first county in Southwest Florida to make smoking a hiring issue. Charlotte and Manatee counties do not, though Manatee has policies designed to discourage employees from smoking. Sarasota County Administrator Jim Ley said the hiring ban came out of "a five- or six-year strategy to produce a healthier work force and manage our long-term health care costs." The county currently pays about $31 million annually in health benefits for 3,600 employees, or $8,600 per worker. Ley said not hiring smokers should help limit the annual growth in health care costs, the most expensive perk offered to county employees. Patrick Reynolds, who runs Foundation for a Smoke Free America, said it is hard to gauge the popularity of such hiring policies. They are less prevalent than smoking bans in restaurants and public places and largely dependent on state labor laws, he said. "It's really a question of what extent the state empowers companies to refuse to hire smokers," said Reynolds, who only tracks statewide smoking policies. "We know these bans contribute to the overall goal of a smoke free America." In Florida, government agencies that refuse to hire smokers range from the sheriff's offices in Hernando, Hillsborough and Pasco Counties to the city of Atlantic Beach. Manatee County employees who are smokers must pay more for the best health care coverage and attend a class about smoking. The county is also exploring ways to get more people to quit, said Manatee County Administrator Ed Hunzeker. Charlotte officials have discussed a ban on hiring smokers but the county currently does not discriminate. "It comes up from time to time, but right now we don't ask that question," said Charlotte communications director Joyce Ross. According to a report by the National Workrights Institute, a survey conducted in 1988 by the Administrative Management Society found that about 6,000 businesses nationwide "discriminate against off-duty smokers" and "the number has almost certainly increased since then." Sarasota County Commissioner Nora Patterson said she has some reservations about the tobacco-free employee rule, but decided it was beneficial on balance. "We could potentially lose some very valuable employees but all things being equal it's probably a good thing," she said. The move not to hire smokers is the latest in a string of anti-smoking rules initiated by Sarasota County. The county recently banned smoking on public beaches. Sarasota County Commissioner Jon Thaxton opposed the beach smoking ban as an assault on personal freedom but supports the hiring criteria. "I want to give people their opportunity to do what otherwise are lawful activities but this is proactive, not retroactive," he said. "Everyone will know this up front." New hires will be asked to submit to a drug test that detects nicotine and sign a pledge promising they have not smoked in the last 12 months. Existing employees will not be affected, but they are encouraged to take advantage of free programs to help them quit. In Florida, the right not to hire employees who smoke was upheld by a 1995 ruling of the state Supreme Court. A job applicant sued the city of North Miami arguing that an anti-smoker policy violated her privacy. The city argued that each smoker cost taxpayers $4,611 (in 1981 dollars) annually because of medical bills. Some companies even extend the smoking prohibition to spouses of prospective employees. Ley said 15 percent of the county's employees with severe illnesses account for 85 percent of the health care costs. County officials based their decision not to hire smokers in part on a Centers for Disease Control study that said employees who smoke cost their employer about $3,400 a year in lost productivity and medical expenses. Staff researcher Cindy Allegretto contributed to this report. BACKGROUND * In Florida, the right not to hire employees who smoke was upheld in 1995 by the state Supreme Court after a prospective employee sued North Miami. * Sarasota County officials cited Centers for Disease Control research that put the annual cost of hiring a smoker at $3,400 a year in lost productivity and medical expenses. May 21, 2008

It's just like bars and restaurants...you don't like smoking...don't go there. Don't like their policy...don't work there.

I'd rather get the roads fixed. If they want to make smokers pay more thats fine. I shouldn't have to have my tax money used to subsidize smoking. we're taxed to death already!

"Open a bar/restaurant of your own and then ban any customers from smoking in it. That is your right. Then you can go there. I may or may not choose to patronize your business and spend my money there. That is my right." So I can ban employees who smoke, that's my right. Just like FL did.

We are, indeed talking about the equivalent of a zoning law that limits how a private party uses his or her property when that use has an impact on the public. Likewise, the workplace smoking matter is like any regulation of working conditions. Government authority to do these things is well established and repeatedly has withstood tests of Constitutionality, including the "taking" assertion that you have raised. You may not like it and it may not suit your particular way of thinking, but that's the fact and the reality. Better find another line of argument in your opposition to this bill. Perhaps you will do better with it.

On January 2, 2002, El Paso, Texas (2000 population: 563,662), implemented an ordinance banning smoking in all public places and workplaces, including restaurants and bars. The El Paso smoking ban was/is the strongest smoke-free indoor air ordinance in Texas. To assess whether the El Paso smoking ban affected restaurant and bar revenues, the Texas Department of Health (TDH) and CDC analyzed sales tax and mixed-beverage tax data during the 12 years preceding and 1 year after the smoking ban was implemented. No statistically significant changes in restaurant and bar revenues occurred after the smoking ban took effect. These findings are consistent with those from studies of smoking bans in other U.S. cities.

On both a personal (as a customer) basis and business basis with two establishments -- one a bar, the other a restaurant in Michigan -- that have adopted no smoking policies within the last 30 months. Neither establishment has experienced a loss of business. In fact, both actually report modest increases in their volume of business since establishing the smoking bans, despite a failing economy. This has occurred in a competitive bar and restaurant market. But this is anecdotal and narrowly based information. For a better understanding and more reliable measure of trends involved with smoking bans I turn to more broadly based, professionally conducted fact-finding and analysis. That research consistently reveals that smoking bans do not have a negative effect on restaurant and bar business when and where they are enacted. As I have said before, that may be counter-intuitive, but it is the fact of the matter. Perhaps people who don't smoke have more money in their pockets to spend on what restaurants and bars sell. I don't doubt that some individual bar and restaurant establishments have experienced business declines on the heels of smoking bans. But the research tells me these are an exception and not the rule. Additionally, since such tales of decline and failure almost invariably are anecdotal, after looking at the research (which is readily available on the internet) I am led to wonder if any given case is (a) apocryphal, (b) the result of self-fulfillment of a prophesy, or (c) arises from individual business circumstances that have little or nothing at all to do with the smoking ban. As noted before, also, sometimes the facts that emerge are quite astounding when you look into things with an open mind. This appears to be one of those instances. I was personally surprised to learn what research has confirmed.

make so much more than smoking bars... why are there NO NON SMOKING BARS? at least according you non-smokers? why can't non-smokers just open non-smoking bars? that would solve everything without requiring any legislation. if they are competitive, they should make the non-smoking bar owner money, and that is why most people are in business. now, what is the name of this totally non smoking bar, so we can research it for ourselves? i'd like to look it up, perhaps visit, to see if what you say is actually true.

all it wants, show us ONE ACTUAL BAR that is non-smoking that is making money. give us the name of this fantasy bar.

You are shouting. And accusing others of lying. It is a sign of desperation. Obviously you believe your argument against this bill cannot prevail without shouting and implying that others lie about what they have learned. It appears this discussion is over. You have discredited your own position.

In discussion is a sign of desperation. Don't you believe your own position can be validated without shouting?