Michigan Votes Forum

 again, you refuse to educate yourself. if you don't know what the facts are, how can we intelligently discuss anything?

I am beginning to ask myself the same question. You made the claim, you prove it.

 you don't know the facts. educate yourself.

You don't have the facts, find them.

 i do have the facts. the fact is that this bill will strip michigan citizens of rights. that is bad law. what other facts do you need?

Your "facts" is an opinion. You need to learn the difference.

 this bill cannot pass without sacrificing the rights of smokers.

Fact: Smokers will not lose the right to smoke if this bill is passed.

Fact: Smokers do not have a right to endanger others.

 This bill cannot pass without sacrificing the rights of business owners.

Business owners have a responsibility to provide a safe environment for their workers and patrons.

 gypsy, you must be able to see the flaw in your argument.  Based on your logic above, all bars should be closed because they serve alcohol.  All ski areas should be closed.  All ice skating rinks, all moto-cross tracks.  What about all the car accidents people have on the way to work?  If the office wasn't located so far away they would not have to drive to work.  How much will you protect us from ourselves?

May I humbly suggest the flaw is in your logic.

The bars sell alcohol, the ski areas sell sking, the ice rinks sell skating, the moto-cross tracks sell moto-cross, the auto companies sell cars.

The restaurant does not sell smoking. It sells food, drink and service. All of those items are purchased by the patrons from the business owner. Second hand smoke is not on the menu.

The bar owner must provide safe alcohol, and limit it's use, to protect the drinker and the general public. The ski lodge has to maintain it's slopes, the ice rink it's rink, the moto-cross track it's track, the automobiles manufacturers their cars, to protect the public from risk not bargained for in the purchase of the services and products they offer.

 no, they have a responsiblilty to make money and pay taxes.

 you mean like the risks inherent in walking into a smoky bar, or driving to work on an icy street, or skiing?

 OK, gypsy, I've beat this horse to death.  You and I will never agree on the role of government, but someday, they will come after your rights and perhaps you will see the danger (probably too late).

 changeagent,

i haven't seen gypsy on for a couple of days. perhaps he has seen the error of his ways.

Perhaps the discussion has been exhausted, as changeagent has suggested.

I'm looking forward to the cleaner air we all will be breathing when we dine and work soon.

This bill seeks to enforce already existing constitutional rights to eliminate nuisances and to put out fires. These rights have existed for thousands of years, see details at http://medicolegal.tripod.com/pureaircases.htm .   Michigan in 1909, to enforce these rights and adopt consumer protection for smokers as well (protection from dangerous products, e.g., cigarettes) banned deleterious cigarettes (the only kind there are). This was done in 1909 by law MCL 750.27, MSA 28.216, http://medicolegal.tripod.com/milaw1909.htm 

This law needs enforcing. Enforcement of this consumer protection law for smokers, protecting them from manaufactuers and sellers who'd harm them, would help obviatenecessity for the new bill.

your right to be free from a "nuisance" does not trump MY right to private property,

don't like the smoke then stay the heck OFF MY PROPERTY and my restaurant

duh

ps, this has been well established common law for thousands of years MORE than your nuisance claim

Thing is, secondhand smoke is not merely a "nuisance."  It is a proven health hazard.

If you like to smoke, do it where you will not endanger the health of others who happen to be where they are legally entitled to be.

 Nuisances are typically ON private property. The Constitutional rights involved forbids such! AND authorizes putting out fires, including against the will of the person whose fire is being put out.

People who make the private property argument (a) refuse to acknowledge that private property is where most nuisances are, (b) are closet segregationsts who would have used the same "private property" argument to oppose civil rights for blacks, and (c) are anti-education, i.e., refuse to even read the thousands of year history on the subject.  For that, see for example, http://medicolegal.tripod.com/pureaircases.htm

Smoking behavior is also notoriously a mental disorder, a dangerous mental disorder. It is always acceptable to forcibly stop the mentally ill from endangering themselves, others, and property, wherever they may be.  For background on smoker mental disorder, see for example http://medicolegal.tripod.com/preventbraindamage.htm

You are correct, smoking behavior goes far beyond being a mere nuisance. I "dumbed down" what I wrote in view of the low comprehension level of a number of people.

Smoking behavior is ultrahazardous, as that term is used in law. For references, see for example,  http://medicolegal.tripod.com/effects.htm

For background on the dangerous ingredients of tobacco and emissions, see for example http://medicolegal.tripod.com/toxicchemicals.htm

Smoking behavior is not something pople "like" to do. Smokers are victims of poisoning activity with intent to cause mass numbers of deaths against them, see references at http://medicolegal.tripod.com/tobaccomurder.htm  Nobody "likes" to be assaulted/poisoned.

Smoking notoriously causes brain damage, see references compiled at http://medicolegal.tripod.com/preventbraindamage.htm

For a more comprehensive listing of tobacco effects and correlatives, see for example http://medicolegal.tripod.com/effects.htm

You are correct, smoking behavior goes far beyond being a mere nuisance.  It causes disorders, deaths, and, especially to mention in view of Michigan's budget situation, high costs, see details at http://medicolegal.tripod.com/cost.htm

Rep. Clemente, under Rule 31, made the following statement:

“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I did not vote on Roll Call No. 261 because of a possible conflict of interest.”

Rep. Huckleberry, under Rule 31, made the following statement:

“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I did not vote on Roll Call No. 261 because of a possible conflict of interest.”

Rep. Geiss, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

An amendment (1A) I offered to House Bill 4377 was not allowed a record roll call vote today. My amendment would have provided for Legal Smoking Rooms as part of HB 4377. In summary, the amendment would allow restaurants and bars to have a separate space for smoking, within their establishments. The LSR would be self contained and would have to be equipped with ventilation such that no smoke is allowed to leave the room. No individual or employee would be required to enter the room, nor would they be exposed to smoke. The room would be required to close one hour before the end of normal business hours to allow for the room to fully ventilate prior to any employee being required to enter and clean the room.

It is my basic belief that an individual has the right to choose, as long as their choice does not impact another person(s). It is my opinion that my amendment would have allowed for a win-win situation for all stakeholders: 1) Non-Smokers are not impacted by smoke, 2) Employees are not impacted by smoke, 3) Smokers can pursue their enjoyment without being subjected to cold winter outside or be forced to huddle in doorways.

In addition, Detroit Metro Airport, which is in my district, has raised concerns with House Bill 4377 as presented. Specifically, international travelers would be required to exit the building, smoke, then go back through security screening checkpoints and make it to their gate during layovers. It is the opinion of the Airport that many passengers would not go through this arduous task and would simply utilize the restrooms. My amendment would provide a solution without harming non-smokers.

While I have tried to equally weigh the rights of non-smokers and smokers within the state of Michigan, the bill as presented protects some of the people some of the time, a position I cannot support. Therefore, I respectfully vote ‘NO’ for this version of the smoking ban legislation.”

 This bill is a good start.  Since the motivation for this bill is for the health of Michigan workers, there should be no exemptions for casinos, cigar shops, racetracks.  I would prefer to see the non-smoking laws applied to ALL establishments.  That way, the restaurant and bar owners cannot complain of an unfair advantage that casinos have because smoking is allowed there, but not in restaurants or bars.

 yes_to_know-smoking,   Let me ask you this question - what Article, Amendment, or Section of our MI State Constitution was removed or changed to allow our representatives to pass this legislation?  Or, do you fully believe that what they did is lawful -- meaning Constitutional?  Or, should we just throw the Rule of Law out all together to satisfy all of your whims and wishes? 

What if I had the wish that no seeing-eye-dog be allowed in any establishment because the animal might cause an allergic reaction?  Are my rights superior to a blind persons?  By the way - I would not even think of requesting or demanding it..

What if I demanded that overtly obese people be removed and denied access from all eating establishments that served fattening foods (which causes diabetes and heart problems and thus increases all of our health insurance) -- do you think our legislatures should pass such a law, which would be beyond the confines and borders of our MI State Constitution?

 Bull pucky....!

 I agree with you inform4...the bull pucky was for the other guy///

I don't see why you think this is unconstitutional.  I don't know the exact figure, but probably 80% of people in Michigan do not smoke.  I doubt if 80% of people are allergic to dogs.

I would prefer to breathe smoke-free air when I patronize an establishment.  People who smoke will have the right to do so outdoors or in their own homes.  The rest of us will be free to breathe smoke-free air.  Most of the stuff government does is really stupid.  This is not.  It would be one of the few good laws.  Michigan is way overdue for this; so many other states have already adopted it, and their businesses are doing just fine.

inform4:

Let me ask you this question - what Article, Amendment, or Section of our MI State Constitution was removed or changed to allow our representatives to pass this legislation? 

If you think this law is a violation of the Michigan constitution, your next step would be to seek a ruling from the Michigan Supreme Court. That is how the rule of law works.

inform4:

What if I had the wish that no seeing-eye-dog be allowed in any establishment because the animal might cause an allergic reaction?

A dog might cause an allergic reaction in some people. Then the decision would have to be made either by the blind person with the dog, or the person suffering from the allergy, to leave the establishment. A smoker's second hand smoke affects everyone else, not just a small minority. Should the rights of an individual put the health of everyone else in jeapordy?

inform4:

What if I demanded that overtly obese people be removed and denied access from all eating establishments that served fattening foods (which causes diabetes and heart problems and thus increases all of our health insurance)

You have a good point about their health affecting the cost of health insurance for us all, but their mere presence is no threat to you or anyone else. Someone smoking, on the other hand, presence a real and present danger to anyone in the same building.

inform4:

... Let me ask you this question - what Article, Amendment, or Section of our MI State Constitution was removed or changed to allow our representatives to pass this legislation?  Or, do you fully believe that what they did is lawful -- meaning Constitutional? ... 

Actually, the Michigan Constitution speaks directly to the issue of workplace smoking, as follows:

STATE CONSTITUTION ARTICLE IV (EXCERPTS)

CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN OF 1963

 

§ 51 Public health and general welfare.

 

Sec. 51. The public health and general welfare of the people of the state are hereby declared to be matters of primary public concern. The legislature shall pass suitable laws for the protection and promotion of the public health.

 

§ 52 Natural resources; conservation, pollution, impairment, destruction.

 

Sec. 52.  The conservation and development of the natural resources of the state are hereby declared to be of paramount public concern in the interest of the health, safety and general welfare of the people. The legislature shall provide for the protection of the air, water and other natural resources of the state from pollution, impairment and destruction.

So, the Michigan Constitution does not merely sanction, but mandates the passage of legislation to protect the public from the health hazards of secondhand smoke.

Of course this has been pointed out here to opponents of this bill (and similar legislation) before.  Nonetheless, opponents of this kind of law continue to belabor their non-issue about such laws being unconstitutional.  But ignoring the truth doesn’t change it.

Furthermore, consider that members of the Michigan legislature take an oath of office that obliges them to support the state constitution, as provided in the state constitution:

§ 1 Oath of public officers.

 

Sec. 1.  All officers, legislative, executive and judicial, before entering upon the duties of their respective offices, shall take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of this state, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of .......... according to the best of my ability. No other oath, affirmation, or any religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust. 

And then, we should remember that the state constitution requires that no persons be denied equal protection of the law.

§ 2 Equal protection; discrimination.

 

Sec. 2.  No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be denied the enjoyment of his civil or political rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof because of religion, race, color or national origin. The legislature shall implement this section by appropriate legislation.

This bill, as passed by the Michigan House is a big step in the right direction of conforming to Article IV, Sections 51 and 52 of the Michigan Constitution.  But it still fails to meet the test of equal treatment (protection) under the law for employees of certain exempted businesses.  It seems our legislators should be urged to reflect on the meaning of their oath of office, and start behaving in accord with it.

It is absurd for smokers to think that they have the right to endanger the health of other people.  It is really sad that smokers are so addicted to cigarettes that their views are skewed and they cannot bring themselves to admit that smoking and second hand smoke causes health problems for many people, including those with asthma.  There is years and years of cold hard evidence pointing to the link between smokers and cancer.  That is why they are called "Carcinogens."

If this bill was not to pass, it would be a sad day in the state of Michigan.  There is a reason all of the main cities are on board to get rid of the public spread of cancer.  It would be nice to be able to find a job when you're a teenager and not have your lungs polluted with the smoke of inconsiderate feins. 

If you are that addicted that you cannot bring yourself to quit smoking, then smoke in your own house or your own car, but I don't want to have to go to a bar or restaurant only to come home wreaking of your filthy stench.  Keep your cancer to yourself please!

 It is also about time that our legislators started looking out for the health and wellbeing of those that do not want to be around that disgusting odor of cigarettes.  It's about time we put an end to second hand smoke.  The chain smokers will still be able to kill themselves, and better yet, they can do it in the comfort of their own homes.  There are no benefits to continue to allow public smoking, but there are many benefits to disallowing it.  It really is no contest and I'd like to hear a smoker with a truly good reason that is better than protecting the health and wellbeing of our states future (environment, kids, & young adults).

So smokers, you really have a good reason to smoke in public, or is it a lazy, selfish reason... that's exactly what I thought!

 you are exactly correct!

 C'mon, can you really be serious, that's your logic.  You can do whatever the heck you want in the privacy of your own property (home/trailer) and in your car (or bicycle).  You really have a good reason to refute the cold hard facts that smoking and second hand smoke cause cancer.  Go to the WHO, CDC, Cancer Research Center, etc... and "educate yourself" because clearly you are just a selfish chain smoker who cares nothing about the health of our state.

 Smokers have no rights!  People that spread cancer because of a selfish habit due to a poor decision in the past have no rights whatsoever.  FACT!  Keep your cancer to yourself...and start making posts here when the nicotine stops talking for you.

Rep. Bledsoe, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of House Bill No. 4377, made the following statement:

“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

Aside from a few introductions of guests, this marks the first time that I have spoken on the House floor. I hope my colleagues take this as a sign of the importance I attach to this matter.

I rise today to oppose the bill before us.

A few weeks ago with a constituent of mine called my office in tears. She had recently been diagnosed with lung cancer and she had never smoked in her life. She had, however, spent considerable time in smoked-filled places and was convinced, with good reason, that this second hand smoke was responsible for her cancer.

We find ourselves at a fork in the road regarding second hand cigarette smoke in Michigan. The passage of the bill before us takes us down the same failed path that the previous House took on this issue last year.

On the other hand, passage of a comprehensive smoking ban offers real hope for a successful outcome as we deal with the other chamber on this issue.

Those opposed to a smoking ban assert that a ban would cost thousands of jobs in restaurants, bars, and casinos. Based on the experiences of the 35 other states that have adopted smoking bans, there is no evidence, I repeat, NO evidence of job loss associated with the banning of smoking in these public places. To suggest that an economic calamity will result is wildly speculative, and borders on fear mongering.

On the other hand, there is nothing speculative about the damaging health effects that result from second hand tobacco smoke. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have all classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen. According to scientific research, for every eight deaths attributed to cigarette smoking in the United States, a ninth death is added that is attributable to inhaling second hand smoke.

To once again fail to ban smoking in public places leaves us in the company of states like Kentucky, Mississippi, West Virginia, and South Carolina.

Rejection of this particular bill in favor of a comprehensive ban that offers real prospects for success finds us in the company of states like California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Washington, and Wisconsin.

I understand that the bill currently before us has exactly two-cosponsors, while the comprehensive smoking ban enjoys 33 cosponsors, including me.

As I address you today I do so on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of citizens of this state who want to see a smoking ban, but who lack the organization and resources of the powerful special interests in our state. Please, don’t let their voices go unheard because they lack a strong organization and a well-funded political action committee. Don’t turn your backs on the thousands of employees who often work 40 hours a week in unhealthy, smoke-filled workplaces.

Thinking about how we are repeating the same failed strategy of last year as we vote on a nearly identical bill again this year, I am reminded of the saying:

Fool me once, shame on you.

Fool me twice, shame on me.

Don’t be fooled a second time into thinking that we can send the other chamber anything less than a comprehensive smoking ban. Don’t find yourselves ashamed as you try to explain to your constituents our inability to successfully address this issue. Join me in voting against this bill that will again take us down the path to failure so that we can take up a comprehensive ban on in-door smoking in public places in Michigan.”

 This is just a hunch.  I'm for a non-smoking bill, but this one seems a bit peculiar.  Could the casinos be backing this bill?  They may be, because if it passes as it stands, the casinos stand to gain business from smokers who will not be able to smoke in restaurants and bars.

I think they should make the non-smoking bill across the board -- they should NOT exempt casinos.  After all, if health of Michigan workers is the main justification for a non-smoking bill, why in the world are we ignoring casino workers' health?

 You raise a good point. The Constitutional right to pure air admits of no exceptions. See references at http://medicolegal.tripod.com/pureaircases.htm  The toxic chemicals in Toxic Tobacco Smoke (TTS), http://medicolegal.tripod.com/toxicchemicals.htm , do not discriminate, do not injure everyone except casino workers!  Casinos know that smokers are primary customers of theirs, http://medicolegal.tripod.com/preventgambling.htm , so can be motivated to obstruct passing this new law. Solution: enforcement of the already existing law MCL 750.27, MSA 28.216, http://medicolegal.tripod.com/milaw1909.htm .