Michigan Votes Forum

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

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....

applaud appluad.. thank you for writing all these GREAT facts for us!

I'm a non smoker who opposes the ban, but can see the way the wind blows. That said the idea that casinos and certain other business would be exempt is irrational if this bill is truly for the good of the workers. It is also a slap in the face for all the small independent restaurants and bars who are competing in a tough economic climate.

THE SHIP IS SINKING (MICHIGAN) AND YOU ARE WORRIED WHO IS SMOKING ABOARD.

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.

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.

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.

Name three people who have died from second hand smoke. Out of 3,000 Michiganders, I'm sure you can come up with NONE!!!

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.

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.

"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.

"Prohibit allowing PRIVATE WORKPLACE smoking". There is no "private" anything anymore. These bastards have taken away our rights and liberties. I don't smoke, I don't allow smoking in my workplace, I wouldn't work somewhere that allowed smoking in the area I work. However, if it's MY business, I should say what can or can't be done there. If the state wants to make all the rules, they can buy my business and run it. Heat the tar, I'll bring the feathers.

would the state legislature even consider controlling the actions of private individuals and their place of business? it's not the proper role of government. it seems the democrats just don't understand that. i don't think that they ever will. is the urge to 'nanny' that strong in democrats these days? if you want to be nannied, fine. but the people of michigan DON'T WANT TO BE NANNIED. learn to do your job.

Thank you Senator Basham for trying to do the right and moral thing.

Sen. Kuipers will no longer get this Republicans vote. This is common sense which most of the Republican Senators can't seem to understand. Hopefully, those who opposed will get voted out.

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.

controlling everyone by NOT bringing the death penalty here. a very large majority supports it.

put felons to death. we're too pussified to do it.

It's too bad that they refused to take away the rights of private business owners????? This is not a smoke vs. no smoke issue, it is a private property issue. It is a free choice vs. coercion issue. You and everyone else have a free choice to not do business or work for a business that allows workplace smoking. If you want the government to do something about smoking, why not make smoking and sale of tobacco products illegal in Michigan? I'd love to see a response from you.

- Cigatettes smoking in one of the actions that causes harm to other people. Usually when your actions affect other people, that is where the government can step in to protect others. - The government has alrady passed many laws that regulate bars and restaurants in order to protect public health (food preparation, bathroom hand washing, etc). I hear no outcry that restraunt owners should be able to decide for themselves whether to serve spoiled food, or whether to allow employees to prepare food with filthy hands. - WOrkers should not have to choose between their health and a paycheck. - Bring Michigan into the modern era and ban all workplace smoking including bars and restaurants.

that all the rules that restaraunt owners have to follow are to prevent people from getting sick because of spoiled food? no wonder you only have a few places to eat here. business people haven't figured out that no customers will come in and eat in a place that serves bad food, and no customers have figured out for themselves not to eat at the places that serve bad food. if the people here are incapable of figuring that out for themselves, no wonder the legislature feels the need to nanny them.

I agree that this is a private property issue, not public health. It is currently possible to ban smoking in your place of business if you so desire, and many business owners have already done so without the force of government. No one has to allow smoking on the property they own whether it is a home, business, or car. It is just common sense. This bill should die a quick death. Then the legislature should do everyone a favor and go part time so they can really reflect on the proper role of government in private citizens lives.

Workers can choose to become business owners and then they can have the right to ban smoking on their property. Many businesses are started by persons who worked for someone else first. Workers also have to freedom to look for another job that better suits their personal needs.

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

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

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!

If you don't like the smoke, don't patronize the Bars--it's that simple!!!!

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.

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.

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

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.

I think a bill should be passed allowing poison to be injected into people in small amounts whenever they go to a bar or restaurant, and they shouldn't be given a choice to whether they want it to be done or not. It is rude, disgusting and downright unhealthy for poisons to be forced upon a person. It has to be one of the most inconsiderate acts I can think of. Restaurant workers don't have a choice. If someone says, "well they shouldn't work there if they don't want to get second hand smoke", tell me who is going to do it, because I doubt anyone really wants to breath in second hand smoke. I know from experience as a worker at a bar, we don't enjoy the smoke, the sweat, broken glass, loud music and heat is more than enough. Maybe Joes bar down the road closed because they went smoke free. Guess what thats because when one bar goes smoke free and all their regular customers smoke, it's not going to go well. When all restaurants go smoke free, everyone isn't going to stay home because they can't smoke, just take a look at the economic boost that it gave all the other cities and states. This isn't a law to protect the smokers, its one to protect those who value their health and choose not to smoke, or have no other choice to breath in a smokers regurgitated toxins. I thought we had passed a certain point socially as a country where we care about the health and well being of other people around us, that's what makes us uniquely human, the ability to think, consider the impact of our own actions and how it may affect the others around us. If you want to poison yourself, stick the needle into yourself, don't force it into other people too, just because you have a little left over

I signed up so I could put my info with this post.

If everyone chose to work under ideal conditions do you think anyone would work at these bars or restaurants, or mcdonalds, would you keep your current job? it must be the most ideal job for you, you must love every facet of it, like how much you get paid, your vacation, the people you work with. I'm sure it's all just perfect. If not, quit now and good luck finding that job. In the mean time, accept the fact that no job is ideal, and people, especially with how the economy is, can't pick and choose their jobs.

What part of Private Business are you having a problem understanding? You were abviously educated by the government. "I know from experience as a worker at a bar, we don't enjoy the smoke, the sweat, broken glass, loud music and heat is more than enough." I know from experience from drinking in bars for 35 years that most of them today have very little smoke in the air. My wife doesn't smoke and says that most times she can't even smell it. I have known bar tenders that have been in the same job for over 40 years that are fine. Most smokers only die a couple of years early. (Average 75 years vs. 77 years) On the other hand obese whiny crybabies cost us a fortune, die early and insult our noses all the time. I want a law passed that keeps fat stinky peole on their own airplanes so that they don't make me sick and use half of my seat too. Did they come to your house and ask you to work there or did you go to them and ask for a job? Maybe if you spent more time getting educated you could go get a job in your own private shangri la. Looks to me like after you're done with telling private business owners that they can't let their customers smoke you are going to move on and limit the volume of the entertainment, then you can go after all that glassware. You are what's wrong with our country. "I thought we had passed a certain point socially as a country where we care about the health and well being of other people around us," That is your Personal Responsibility. Maybe you have trouble grasping this concept also. If yopu don't like what an Owner is doing with His Private Business then don't go there. See how easy that was. "Maybe Joes bar down the road closed because they went smoke free" Exactly, this shows that most folks don't want to hang around with chicken lttles like you. Please go get a life. Maybe back in your day the bars were smoke filled, today the ventilation is much better. Just because you smell a little whiff of smoke doesn't mean that you will go toes up the next day. You might have even been a fun person back in your day, now you can't enjoy yourself and it makes you mad when you see folks socializing and having fun so you wnat to use the iron fist of government to stop others from enjoying themselves. Pathetic. "It has to be one of the most inconsiderate acts I can think of." The "most inconsiderate" act that I can think of is you coming into MY PRIVATE BUSINESS" and telling me what I can and can't do. I'll bet that you don't even go to any of these "poison" places anymore and just want to make sure that everybody has as miserable of an existance as you do. Please seek help, go back to your oprah and leave us alone.

Centers For Disease Control and Prevention U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Fact Sheet Secondhand Smoke (updated September 2006) Definition of Secondhand Smoke: * Secondhand smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke, is a complex mixture of gases and particles that includes smoke from the burning cigarette, cigar, or pipe tip (sidestream smoke) and exhaled mainstream smoke.1 * Secondhand smoke contains at least 250 chemicals known to be toxic, including more than 50 that can cause cancer.1 Health Effects of Secondhand Smoke Exposure: * Secondhand smoke exposure causes heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmoking adults.2 * Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their heart disease risk by 25–30% and their lung cancer risk by 20–30%.2 * Breathing secondhand smoke has immediate harmful effects on the cardiovascular system that can increase the risk of heart attack. People who already have heart disease are at especially high risk.2 * Secondhand smoke exposure causes respiratory symptoms in children and slows their lung growth.2 * Secondhand smoke causes sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more frequent and severe asthma attacks in children.2 * There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure. Even brief exposure can be dangerous.2 Current Estimates of Secondhand Smoke Exposure: * Exposure to nicotine and secondhand smoke is measured by testing the saliva, urine, or blood for the presence of a chemical called cotinine. Cotinine is a byproduct of nicotine metabolization, and tobacco is the only source of this marker.2 * From 1988–91 to 2001–02, the proportion of nonsmokers with detectable levels cotinine was halved (from 88% to 43%).3 * Over that same time period, cotinine levels in those who were exposed to secondhand smoke fell by 70%.3 * More than 126 million nonsmoking Americans continue to be exposed to secondhand smoke in homes, vehicles, workplaces, and public places.2 * Most exposure to tobacco smoke occurs in homes and workplaces.2 * Almost 60% of U.S. children aged 3–11 years—or almost 22 million children—are exposed to secondhand smoke.2 * About 25% of children aged 3–11 years live with at least one smoker, compared to only about 7% of nonsmoking adults.2 * The California Environmental Protection Agency estimates that secondhand smoke exposure causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700–69,600 heart disease deaths annually among adult nonsmokers in the United States.4 * Each year in the United States, secondhand smoke exposure is responsible for 150,000–300,000 new cases of bronchitis and pneumonia in children aged less than 18 months. This results in 7,500–15,000 hospitalizations, annually.5 References 1. National Toxicology Program. 11th Report on Carcinogens, 2005. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Sciences, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 2000 [cited 2006 Sep 27]. 2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, Georgia: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coordinating Center for Health Promotion, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006 [cited 2006 Sep 27]. 3. Pirkle JL, Bernert JT, Caudill SP, Sosnoff CS, Pechacek TF. Trends in the Exposure of Nonsmokers in the U.S. Population to Secondhand Smoke: 1988–2002. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2006;114(6):853–858 [cited 2006 Sep 27]. 4. California Environmental Protection Agency. Proposed Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Final report, September 29, 2005, approved by Scientific Review Panel on June 24, 2005 [cited 2006 Sep 27]. 5. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders.* Office of Research and Development, EPA/600/6-90/006F, Washington, D.C., December 1992 [cited 2006 Sep 27]. (Also published as: National Institutes of Health. National Cancer Institute. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders: The Report of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph Number 4. NIH Publication No. 93-3605, Washington, D.C., August 1993.)

EPA's Pseudoscience Goes Up in Smoke By Michael Fumento July 22, 1998 Copyright 1998 Michael Fumento -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It was the farce that launched a thousand bans. In 1993, the EPA released a study ranking passive smoking at the top of its carcinogen pecking order. It did so based on a combined analysis (meta-analysis) of 11 American 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." Suddenly, smokers found themselves ranked below child-molesting lepers. The crusade against smoking in public places assumed ludicrous dimensions, culminating with President Clinton trying to ban it not just IN federal buildings but anywhere NEAR them. Yet since the EPA's hour of glory, it's been battling not just (predictably enough) the tobacco companies, but also the Congressional Research Service (CRS), and myriad scientists and science journalists. It ignored them all, but has now run into an unmoveable object in the form of a federal judge, who ruled that the agency's report ignored accepted scientific and statistical practices in making its risk assessment. This has no direct effect on legislation, but may prompt repeals of some legislation and hold off the implementation of new anti-smoking laws. Although the EPA's report had more holes than a piece of Swiss cheese under assault by a ravenous mouse, its greatest weakness was its refusal to use the gold standard in epidemiology, the 95 percent confidence interval. This simply means there's only five chances in 100 that the conclusion came about simply 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? Yup. Because its results weren't significant at the 95 percent level. Essentially, it moved the goal post to the three yard line because the football had fallen two yards short of a touchdown. There's a technical scientific term for this kind of action – dishonesty. The EPA report was scientifically at or below the level of anything ever put out by the Tobacco Institute. It was also a harbinger of EPA games to come. For example, when it comes to radon, the agency has simply ignored the overwhelming number of household epidemiological studies showing no harm from the gas at low levels, instead choosing to extrapolate down from men exposed to massive amounts of radon each day for years in uranium mines. In promulgating new air pollution regulations last year, again the EPA ignored the majority of epidemiological studies showing no connection between harm and the pollutants in question, instead relying on a few studies conducted by "advocacy scientists" (one a former EPA employee). As to passive smoking, two more meta-analyses have appeared since the EPA's. One was conducted on behalf of the World Health Organization (WHO) in seven countries over seven years. When it appeared, the tobacco industry claimed it supported their position, and WHO squealed like a pig going to slaughter. "Passive Smoking Does Cause Lung Cancer, Do Not Let them Fool You," blared its press release. No, it was WHO trying to fool you. Its study also found no statistical significance at a 95 percent level. So the press release just ignored the whole issue of significance altogether. The third meta-analysis, published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), found slight statistical significance when 48 studies were combined. Looked at separately, though, only seven showed significant excesses of lung cancer meaning 41 did not. Further, the combined increased risk was merely 24 percent, also called a "relative risk" of 1.24. Such tiny relative risks are generally considered meaningless, given the myriad pitfalls in epidemiological studies. "As a general rule of thumb," says the editor of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine Marcia Angell, "We are looking for a relative risk of three or more" before accepting a paper for publication. "My basic rule is if the relative risk isn't at least three or four, forget it," says Robert Temple, director of drug evaluation at the Food and Drug Administration. Explains the National Cancer Institute, "relative risks of less than two are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or effect of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident." The main exception to that rule comes when the study is extremely large, but such was not the case with the BMJ analysis. The studies showing excess disease comprised a mere 1,388 persons. By contrast, a recent study implicating obesity as a cause of early death contained over 320,000 subjects. So where does this leave us? Do we know that passive smoking doesn't cause lung cancer? No. But we know that either it does not or that if it does the risk is so tiny as to be unmeasurable. Does this mean passive smoke poses no health risks? No. It makes sense that it would aggravate asthma and other breathing problems, if nothing else. Does it mean that just because smokers aren't murdering other people, they're not still engaging in a nasty, expensive habit that greatly increases their own chance of sickness and premature death? Definitely not. Ultimately, the EPA study tells us a lot less about passive smoking than it does about the basic dishonesty of the agency in charge of protecting our environmental health. Michael Fumento is the author of numerous books, including Science Under Siege.

When it comes to credibility, I'll take a CDC fact sheet updated in late 2006 over a screed penned in 1998, any day.

on smoking in federal buildings that caused him to put that cigar where he did in the oval office.