Smoking sections don't work, that pesky smoke won't obey those signs, it always wants to creep over in the non-smoking section.

Waitresses and workers have no choice, as it is now, they can't choose not to work in a smoke filled environment, especially in this job market. This is most of all, a workplace safety measure.  Banning smoking in private workplaces and restaurants has worked in other states without placing undue stress on business owners. Let's make it the law here.

 i still ask, why don't all these non-smokers get together and open themselves up a bar?

with all that working capital floating around, it should be a cinch to get a few grand to start one up.

instead of FORCING OTHERS TO STOP DOING SOMETHING, why don't they GIVE THE NON-SMOKERS A CHOICE?

if the business climate is so skewed to the non-smokers as you say, the smoking bars should close up within a month or two. if not, then there is ONE MORE TAX PAYING BUSINESS IN MICHIGAN.

now, as you favor using the iron fist of government to solve your problems, you will never agree to this suggestion. but i see it this way, if you are going to invest a couple of thousand dollars in a business venture that might fail, you will want to be just a little bit more sure about your facts and figures.

so far, there are VERY FEW IF ANY non-smoking bars, and what few there are isn't impressing anyone else to open more.

so, i'd say that the business community that MIGHT loan you money sees the 'big picture' just a little bit differently than you do.

It's all about CONTROL. There are already about 3000 smoke free restaurants in michigan, they want them all. If it was about health then they wouldn't ban smoking on beaches (khalifornia) hospital parking lots (michiganistan) and other inane rules like this. They are zealots and nothing else and just like algore, they will lie through their teeth and the media won't call them on it. The state has allowable limits of carbon monoxide in the workplace but tobacco is zero tolerance? I'm afraid that we have become too stupid as a society to survive. Lenin and Hitler were right, getcontrol of the schools and within a generation you own the place. The useful idiots are everywhere and they don't even know that they're idiots.

At the Univ of Michigan it only took 3 hours to get 500 signatures on a petion to ban Di-hydrous oxide. All the smart students wanted to get rid of this stuff that is in our lakes and rivers...........

 It is really sad that when  the Government steps in to try and save lives, it is because some people are too "ignorant" to figure it out themselves.   As a Health Care Provider I see everyday smoking related illness, I suppose that if people want to kill themselves they should come up with a way that does not cost so much money to the tax payers!

My complaint is the ill effects of smoking on innocent people (children specifically)  Second hand smoke has multiple carcinogens in each cigarette that children are forced to breath each time someone takes a child in a  "Family Restaurant"

Posions like Benzene, Pesticides formaldehyde, and arsenic to name a few.

There is a constant update of research on the effects of smoking.  An average number of hospital admissinos from 1999- 2006 in Michigan for what is known as acute Myocardial infarction or heart attack, and concluded that a smoking ban could lead to 3,340 fewer admissions annually.

Dr. Al-Mallah says the health benefits to a smoking ban are hard to ignore.  "When you smoke, you're hurting me, too." he says.  "The bottom line is that even if you save just one heart attack, it is something significant."  14,000 adults die each year from their own smoking. Smoking in Michigan accounts for an estimated $3.4 billion in health care costs each year.  Unfortunately it also accounts for those exposed to second hand smoke!

My job is to save lives!  What about you?

 dear glee.

please provide us the name of the last person who died of second hand smoke.

remember, it MUST list second hand smoke as the CAUSE OF DEATH, not a contributing factor.

please provide us a 'redacted' copy of the death certificate.

with thousands of 'second hand smoking deaths' yearly, you shouldn't have a problem coming up with one.

just one is all we ask.

by the way, what is the dosage of all those poisons from fifty feet away as opposed to which dosage will be fatal?

I can picture this interegation happening.

Name just one, just one person who has died from second hand smoke.

Name just one, just one person who has died from asthma.

Name just one, just one person who has died from COPD.

Name just one, just one person who has died from lung cancer.

Hah!! Thought you couldn't.

Therefore, second hand smoke, no problem.

Case closed.

Crazy, your a hoot!

 i can't find ONE coroner in the continental united states and all of it's possessions, nor in europe, who will sign a death certificate with the cause of death listed as SECOND HAND SMOKE.

UNTILL ONE DOES. i don't believe that second hand smoke kills.

i know dozens of asthma sufferers who smoke, and some of those are in their seventies.

my ex wife has C.O.P.D. AND STILL SMOKES.

my mother smoked till she was seventy five. from a family of smokers. she died at seventy seven, the shortest lived of her sisters, brothers, mother and father. none of them died of lung cancer. all were HEAVY smokers.

i have a good friend who NEVER smoked, no one around him smoked, he was an ANTI-SMOKING FREAK. but he has tongue cancer, usually derived from chewing tobacco. he's a professional pilot, a health nut. his only bad habit is the occasional scotch to celebrate something special.

now, tell me that second hand smoke kills. then SHOW ME THE PROOF.

 who's decision is it whether or not YOU breathe cigarette smoke?

if it's YOUR decision, then you must object to this bill on the grounds that this bill, if enacted into law, would remove your freedom of choice.

if it's the GOVERNMENT'S decision, then cue up into the government line and wait for the government to take care of you.

At room temperature, formaldehyde is a colourless, flammable gas that has a distinct, pungent smell. It is also known as methanal, methylene oxide, oxymethyline, methylaldehyde, and oxomethane. Formaldehyde is naturally produced in small amounts in our bodies.

It is used in the production of fertilizer, paper, plywood, and urea-formaldehyde resins. It is also used as a preservative in some foods and in many products used around the house, such as antiseptics, medicines, cosmetics and personal care products. (It is also used as a preservative in vaccines and given to children. Other exposure to formaldehyde occurs from out-gassing when synthetic materials such as carpets and foam used in cushions etc reach a certain temperature. Eds note)

with such constant exposure to formaldehyde, why do you even worry about the miniscule exposure to it from cigarette smoke? besides, it's FLAMMABLE, that means it burns up when the cigarette is lit.

why are you not banning pillows, and carpets, and plywood?

because doctor's offices are made with those things, and if you did, you'd be out of a job.

 whoa... ooober-dude...

i leave for one day to go spoil my grandkids and look at you. you should have told me you were going to take up all my slack, i'd have stayed longer.

thanks for keeping up the standards.

Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet

Secondhand smoke, also know as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), is a mixture of the smoke given off by the burning end of a cigarette, pipe or cigar and the smoke exhaled from the lungs of smokers. It is involuntarily inhaled by nonsmokers, lingers in the air hours after cigarettes have been extinguished and can cause or exacerbate a wide range of adverse health effects, including cancer, respiratory infections, and asthma.¹

uber-liberal:

with such constant exposure to formaldehyde, why do you even worry about the miniscule exposure to it from cigarette smoke? 

jmangan:

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.¹⁴

okay, jman. so where are the bodies? how many people died to prove that second hand smoke is toxic? so far, no one, and i mean NO ONE has come up with a single body that they are willing to say has died of second hand smoke.

how can something be SO TOXIC and have nobody die from it?

all i'm asking for is a SINGLE body that a SINGLE doctor has said on a SINGLE death certificate has died of second hand smoke.

that shouldn't be too much to ask of the MILLIONS of people you guys say have died from second hand smoke.

just ONE, from anywhere in the world.

i'm not even going to ask what the exposure level to this HIGHLY TOXIC mixture is that causes death...

You will find the list of those who died from exposure to second hand smoke along side the list of those who died from smoking. Pass this info on to your siamese twin uber.

 you know.. i've never seen a death certificate that listed smoking as the cause of death either. nor have i ever seen a death certificate that lists smoking as a contributing factor in the death, much less second hand smoke.

if you know of any, please give us the names, so we can prove you right.

That's the point genius. Smoking contributes to diseases that cause death, and the diseases are listed on the death certificate as the cause of death. Death certificates are not a history of the persons life. They are medical documents that detail the immediate cause of death.

You will also probably never seen a Medical Examiner list the cause of death as someone being overweight, but we all know that it had a lot to due with the 40 year old guy, standing 5'5" and weighing in at 410, dropping dead of a heart attack.

Some light reading: http://medgenmed.medscape.com/viewarticle/584605_print

 that's probably because there is no CAUSE AND EFFECT relationship between being that big and having a heart attack. if EVERYONE who were that big had a heart attack and no one else then you would start to see it. if EVERYONE who smoked got cancer, and no one else, then the cause and effect would be clear, but it's not.

until it is, you won't see it. so much for TRUTH IN ADVERTISING. if doctors cannot put their real medical opinion on a document, which is all they are doing when they say what they think caused the death, then why have an opinion on the document at all?

There is certainly "cause and effect" at play in many circumstances. To think otherwise is plain ignorance and delusion. There are a lot of variables involved in who does and doesn't have a heart attack, but obesity is certainly one of those variables. Try doing a little research instead of using your own logic as it doesn't stand up.

Doctors can not put the cause of death as smoking as it is not a direct cause but a contributing factor, a cause would be cancer, a heart attack, emphysema, etc. It is really simple to understand if you take the time to think about it.

 when doctors do put smoking as a cause of death, then, and only then will i consider it your duty to deprive anyone of their right to smoke.

until then.... it is still a choice, and not anybody else's business. if you do not wish to be exposed to smoke, do not go where people smoke. it's up to each and every citizen to make that choice for themselves, and no one else.

to make that choice for someone else is to believe that your rights trump the smoker's rights. that just isn't so. smoking being harmful does not give you the right to ban smoking. smoking being irritating does not give you the right to ban smoking. and nothing in the federal or state constitution so far gives you the right to ban smoking.

whether or not i eat myself to death, or smoke myself to death is none of your business. you have no right to legislate things for my own good. to do so is to believe that your rights trump the smoker's rights. that just isn't so.

if you read this law, it exempts CIGAR BARS. a bigoted attempt to keep the support of the clientel of higher end bars that cater to cigar smokers, and to not appear as if they are trying to grab the rights of those who to choose to smoke cigars, the rich and powerful.

 when every cigarette causes every person who smokes it to get cancer, then there will be a cause and effect. when every big mac causes every person who eats one to have a heart attack, then there will be a cause and effect. up till now, the enigma of non-smokers who aren't getting exposed at all to cigarette smoke getting the exact same cancer is keeping the medical profession looking at the subject carefully. the enigma of marathon runners falling down dead of heart attacks keeps the medical profession looking at the subject carefully.

even mesothelioma, which is USUALLY caused by exposure to asbestos, isn't ALWAYS caused by exposure to asbestos, and everyone who gets exposed to asbestos doesn't get mesothelioma.

i cannot and will not allow you to take my right to choose away from me. even for, and i might say especially for my own good. when i lose that right to choose, even that which is bad for me, i am no longer a free man, but your slave. 

Your "right" infringes on my rights, so you are trumped. As I've said, put this on a ballot and it will pass, guaranteed.

 only because the 'mob' cares not for rights.

how can your right to clean air be infringed if you are not in a place where there is smoking? don't you, by voluntarily walking into a place that you know people are smoking, give up your right to clean air? of course you do. but you will voluntarily go there anyway, just so you take away the right of the owner to decide and the right of the smoker to smoke. in fact, you will make it a point to go there until they are forced by the iron fist of government to stop smoking. and as you would have promised to continue to give your custom to this bar as a trade-off for the loss of smoking customers, you will renege on that promise and never return, leaving the owner to be forced to close the place down. you will have succeeded in killing another business in michigan. it must be a game to you, you have played it so well. 

many of the restaurants in the area that have gone no-smoking have had to resort to other 'games' to attract those promised customers. they have been forced to get liquor licenses and permits to sell beer to try and fill the voids. some have resorted to 'all you can eat buffets'. all are failing where once all were prosperous. your meddling has succeeded in killing even more businesses.

now, about those rights. don't you also have the responsibility to avoid danger? of course you do, but you avoid that responsibility by forcing those bars to cater to your whims with the iron fist of government. an elitist, and some would say totalitarian viewpoint. to believe that your rights are 'more important' than anyone elses, and that simply because you have a right to do something, that you must remove other's rights to do anything that might in any way conflict with that right is a tyranical use of the power of government.

you and your fellow travellers are the reason so many have, and will continue to leave michigan. i understand that you don't care now, but wait till you realize that we are also leaving you the bill.

 why does one have to have research to show what one company's research shows? because you are trying to use science to take rights away.

again, if it's fatal, show us someone who has died from it. if it's fatal, we will see that it's fatal by seeing death certificates signed by doctors with the cause of death listed as cigarette smoke. you cannot produce any of these, but you can produce a set of 'facts' by an anti-smoking organization declaring cigarette smoke toxic.

now, using your own facts, are you going to go where there was smoking going on for years, simply to imbibe a few drinks? of course you aren't. these toxic chemicals you speak of must be lining every surface, ready to kill at a moments notice. set to pounce on the poor, unsuspecting non-smoker the instant he enters, killing him where he stands, before he can even get his drink order in.

that will leave that business without the smoking customers, as you will have criminalized smoking, and without the non-smoking customers, as you will have terrified them, and unlike you who will have martyred yourself for this cause by insisting that the iron fist of government stop all this smoking so you can have a drink smoke free, they will stay away, and you will of course be dead.

 I would give my name, but I want the privacy that anonymity brings. I am a person who would have died from second-hand smoke.

As a child I was diagnosed with asthma. I went into respiratory arrest (almost died) numerous times BECAUSE of exposure to second-hand smoke. I am only alive today because of advanced cardiopulmonary resuscitation. I would have died several times if it weren't for the diligence of my mother trying to keep me away from second-hand smoke and the blood, sweat, and tears of the healthcare personnel who labored over my tiny infant body. Do you have children you love? Picture people pouding on her chest, breathing for her, and knowing that you were part of the reason she's almost dead.

I can give you or anybody else resource upon SCIENTIFIC resource that proves the dangers of second-hand and first-hand smoke. I have no problem providing all sort of research proof; I'm actually doing a research project on this bill and have the resources at my fingertips. Also, as a registered nurse, I can give you personal examples.

I have been on both sides of the idea. As I've said, I've been the person who almost died. I've also been the rebelious young-person who smoked WITH asthma, and been addicted. I understand the struggles of having an addiction to cigarettes and the opposition a smoker has. I understand the attitudes a smoker develops of, "It's my choice, it's my body, if people don't like it, they can go somewhere else." They can't, however, when they're in a public place. There aren't two different buildings of the same business, one dedicated to smokers and one dedicated to non-smokers, which is the very basic solution needed to completely keep the smoke from those who choose not to smoke.

If a smoker has a choice to smoke, and that's the argument, then a non-smoker's choice not to smoke is just as much of a right. We are all Americans, we are all supposed to have equal rights, especially to the pursuit of improved health, which the lack of is a burden on ALL of us tax-payers who pay Medicare taxes. The bottom line is, public places are places for the public, smokers and non-smokers. Unfortunately, a person who chooses to smoke in a public place, inhales his own smoke and exposes non-smokers to his smoke, unwillingly. A non-smoking environment unwillingly forces a smoker to breathe oxygen (if you will), which is necessary for life. If there were a way for only the smoker to inhale all of his own smoke, there wouldn't be a problem. In most public places, there aren't resources to accommodate smokers while keeping second-hand smoke from non-smokers who have just as many rights to not smoke.

Maybe you need to focus your angst on Philip Morris and other cigarette makers in asking them to create a cigarette that doesn't emit second-hand smoke. It has to be possible.

I agree with this bill, obviously. I actually feel that it should be taken further and focus on children, who have no control over their environment, and who don't have the choice of making healthy decisions like staying away from second-hand smoke even in their own homes or vehicles they have to ride in.

Thank you In10seRN for your very articulate and personal opinion on this bill. I too have been a smoker, and beaten the addiction. I feel the rights of the majority take precedent over the rights of the minority in this case. This bill does not take away the rights of smokers, it only limits the damage they do to others with their addiction when in public. Business owners should see the writing on the wall, and prepare themselves for the inevitable. I would be very surprised if this bill had any negative effect on restaurants, and am quite sure it would be a boon to most employers by keeping their employees healthier.

 so you don't believe that smokers have a right to smoke, and are perfectly okay with stripping them of that right.

Uber: 

No. To make my post more clear for you, I don't believe that smokers should be allowed to subject non-smokers to second-hand smoke.

Here's a resource to start with:

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/report/executivesummary.pdf

Gypsy: 

Thank you!

 didn't you say that you didn't believe that smokers should be allowed to smoke in their own homes? where is the smokers right to choose? whether the decision is right or wrong, it's still the smoker's decision to make. whatever the reason, whatever the consequence, no matter how little you like the decision. i personally don't like the decision either, having lived with a smoker most of my life.

it's a matter of what is more important. your health, or your right to make your own decisions about it.

Parents are not allowed to abuse their children in their own home. One's choice is limited by it's effect on others.

 people are not allowed to kill each other, but abortion still exists and is still legal. one's choices do effect others. my effect on you is in no way effecting my right. it is my responsibility to determine whether my effect on you is going to effect how i exercise my right. not the other way around.

for centuries, smokers have been free to smoke, and non smokers have been free to leave if the smoke bothers them. i'm not a smoker, and i don't have a problem with leaving if i'm bothered by the smoke. why do you?

glee:

children are forced to breath each time someone takes a child in a  "Family Restaurant"

Most "family restaurants" are already no smoking. I think that if kids under say 17 were banned from restaurants there would be alot less heart attacks since the stress level would go way down from not having to pay good money for a meal while listening to little misbehaved brats which usually belong to liberal control freaks.

glee:

Smoking in Michigan accounts for an estimated $3.4 billion in health care costs each year

Prove it. That figure is an out and out lie and you know it. Fat people cost the health system way more than smokers ever will. They get chubby, They get diseased and stay that way for along time.  The smokers that do get sick tend to die rather quickly.  While you are trying to prove your made up number try to find someone that has died of so called second hand smoke.

 I am against this legislation.

Reasons provided in a concurrent running thread.

 government has no place in this debate. it is for the owners and the customers to figure out.

I do have a problem with this bill and the corresponding bill that would make it illegal for a business owner to decide for themselves to allow smoking.  I have been in line many times and watched people with children elect to sit in the smoking section because they can get their quicker than waiting for non smoking.  Most restrauants I frequent allow smoking.  I don't frequent restrauants that don't.  It's my money, my choice.  Poeple who don't want to be around smoke have plenty of options of places to go. 

It's primarily about the right of government.  If smoking is really that bad for everyone, why put a bandaid on it.  Why not make it illegal and solve the problem?  Could it be because the tobacco companies put money into thier campaigns?  Or could it be that they learned something from prohibition when the number of people out of work almost ruined the country and the people breaking the law made tons of money?

No more bandaids.  Keep government out of my life.  We have enough laws that we don't enforce.

I support this kind of legislation, which is long overdue in Michigan.

Apparently my view is shared by a two-thirds majority of fellow Michiganders, according to recent polling results.  The legislature should moving on this.