Local Issues and Governments

Re: 2009 House Bill 4377 (Prohibit allowing restaurant or private workplace smoking )

Smokedoctor — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:50:57 GMT

Actually, smokers do have a right, the right to sue their pusher for their tobacco-caused injury(ies), http://medicolegal.tripod.com/dangeroustobacco.htm (and their estates have that right, when the smoker is killed by the pusher).

Smoking is not a mere "habit," see the medical date on inveterate smokers hard core brain damage, http://medicolegal.tripod.com/preventbraindamage.htm

children used to be taught about smoker brain damage, see references at http://medicolegal.tripod.com/edison1914.htm

To prevent these injuries and deaths, Michigan passed a law in 1909 to ban deleterious cigarettes, law MCL 750.27, MSA 28.216, http://medicolegal.tripod.com/milaw1909.htm This was done after the Michigan House of Representatives looked into the cigarette danger in 1889, http://medicolegal.tripod.com/mihouse1889.htm

Re: 2009 House Bill 4377 (Prohibit allowing restaurant or private workplace smoking )

Smokedoctor — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:41:30 GMT

You are correct. Indeed, it is far beyond mere addiction for smokers. It is a matter of hard-core heavy duty BRAIN DAMAGE. Medical science has shown this for CENTURIES, http://medicolegal.tripod.com/preventbraindamage.htm since at least August 1603 . The addiction aspect has been reported since at least the year 1527, http://medicolegal.tripod.com/tobaccoaddiction.htm Smokers also are documented to suffer from disproportionate mental disorders, http://medicolegal.tripod.com/preventmentaldisorder.htm

Deleterious cigarettes are illegal in Michigan, http://medicolegal.tripod.com/milaw1909.htm There is no right to use an illegal substance.

The term "smokers' rights" refers to their right to sue their pushers for tobacco-caused injuries, http://medicolegal.tripod.com/dangeroustobacco.htm (and the right of their estates to sue their pushers, once they are dead).

Constitutionally, rights exist to (a) put out fires and (b) pure air, as per anti-nuisance and pro-safety legal principles, http://medicolegal.tripod.com/pureaircases.htm Such rights of nonsmokers date back thousands of years and are continually upheld.

When smokers claim otherwise, remember their sad state, brain damage, etc., impairing reasoning and comprehension. See details on tobacco's adverse brain results and symptoms caused, at http://medicolegal.tripod.com/preventbraindamage.htm

Re: 2009 House Bill 4377 (Prohibit allowing restaurant or private workplace smoking )

Smokedoctor — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:23:58 GMT

Rep. Bledsoe makes good points. In view of the obstructionism of the bill, solution is enforcement of the already existing law MCL 750.27, MSA 28.216, http://medicolegal.tripod.com/milaw1909.htm as per the Michigan House Report on cigarette dangers as long ago as the year 1889, http://medicolegal.tripod.com/mihouse1889.htm

Toxic tobacco smoke (TTS) has long been known to cause lung cancer, since beginning of the 19th century, http://medicolegal.tripod.com/preventlungcancer.htm

The Constitutional right to pure air admits of no exceptions. See references at http://medicolegal.tripod.com/pureaircases.htm For bakcground on the toxic chemicals in Toxic Tobacco Smoke (TTS), see http://medicolegal.tripod.com/toxicchemicals.htm and http://medicolegal.tripod.com/coumarin.htm

Re: 2009 House Bill 4377 (Prohibit allowing restaurant or private workplace smoking )

Smokedoctor — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:18:29 GMT

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 .

Re: 2009 House Bill 4377 (Prohibit allowing restaurant or private workplace smoking )

yes_to_no_smoking — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:00:27 GMT

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?

Re: 2009 House Bill 4377 (Prohibit allowing restaurant or private workplace smoking )

Admin003 — Thu, 28 May 2009 13:57:11 GMT

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.”

Re: 2009 House Bill 4377 (Prohibit allowing restaurant or private workplace smoking )

BanCancerSticks — Thu, 28 May 2009 13:48:13 GMT

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.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4377 (Prohibit allowing restaurant or private workplace smoking )

BanCancerSticks — Thu, 28 May 2009 13:44:31 GMT

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.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4377 (Prohibit allowing restaurant or private workplace smoking )

BanCancerSticks — Thu, 28 May 2009 13:41:12 GMT

you are exactly correct!

Re: 2009 House Bill 4377 (Prohibit allowing restaurant or private workplace smoking )

BanCancerSticks — Thu, 28 May 2009 13:39:39 GMT

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!

Re: 2009 House Bill 4377 (Prohibit allowing restaurant or private workplace smoking )

BanCancerSticks — Thu, 28 May 2009 13:33:45 GMT

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!

Re: 2009 House Bill 4377 (Prohibit allowing restaurant or private workplace smoking )

FreeSpeaker — Wed, 27 May 2009 22:26:19 GMT

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.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4377 (Prohibit allowing restaurant or private workplace smoking )

gypsy — Wed, 27 May 2009 22:17:23 GMT

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.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4377 (Prohibit allowing restaurant or private workplace smoking )

yes_to_no_smoking — Wed, 27 May 2009 21:15:26 GMT

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.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4377 (Prohibit allowing restaurant or private workplace smoking )

Leftsideslicer — Wed, 27 May 2009 20:00:28 GMT

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