Economy

Re: 2007 House Bill 4163 (Prohibit allowing private workplace smoking )

crazycajun — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 17:04:44 GMT

let's look at a few pseudo-scientific misnomers, shall we?

smoking causes cancer.

scientifically, it is impossible to prove that smoking causes cancer, because EVERYONE WHO SMOKES DOES NOT GET CANCER.

even asbestos, which causes ONLY A SPECIFIC TYPE OF CANCER doesn't cause it in everyone exposed to it, even if some WITHOUT the cancer have a higher level of exposure than those WITH the cancer.

one would believe, with the HUNDREDS OF TOXIC, NOXIOUS, AND CARCINOGENIC chemicals in cigarette smoke, that people would be falling down dead daily from exposure to it.

but they are not.

some smokers live long lives. my grandfather smoked heavily, and he lived to 89. juvenile leukemia killed him. can you say that smoking caused the leukemia? NO. neither could the doctors who autopsied him to find out why he died of a disease that normally affects small children.

my mother smoked, and she lived to 78. she died of complications of lung function associated with living with a diesel mechanic and being exposed daily to asbestos in brake dust. in other words, the first stages of mesothelioma.

my father never smoked, but he died of congestive heart failure at 67. he had it since just after world war 2.

according to you, everyone in my family, owing to our LONG TERM EXPOSURE to cigarette smoke,should be dead by now.

not only did my family, and millions of others DODGE THE BULLET, but we ALSO SKEW THE STATISTICS that keep the medical community from stating a DIRECT LINK BETWEEN SMOKING AND CANCER. right now, the percentage of smokers who get cancer of any type is under thirty percent.

they percentage of people exposed to asbestos who get mesothelioma is just under fifty percent.

is smoking A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR??? QUITE PROBABLY. but until the MILLIONS OF NON SMOKERS WHO GET CANCER and the MILLIONS OF SMOKERS WHO DO NOT quit screwing up the statistics, WE DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE. and neither do you.

as for the health risks... everything has a health risk.

you are FAR more likely to die driving to work than you are of getting cancer from smoking.

you are FAR more likely to die in an industrial accident.

you are FAR more likely to be hit by a person talking on a cell phone.

you are FAR more likely to develop liver disease from drinking.

by the way... everybody has a problem with lead paint on toys, but when is anybody going to get mad about the LEAD PIPES IN DETROIT????

Re: 2007 House Bill 4163 (Prohibit allowing private workplace smoking )

crazycajun — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 02:06:30 GMT

dear sane..

you note thatThere is no option for incidental or passive exposure to tobacco smoke."

perhaps because it has not been found to be a significant factor in any deaths. if you have ever been around anyone who has ever filled out a death certificate, you will find that he is UNLIMITED by that form, meaning that he can tack on as many 'white pages' as he needs to explain the nature and cause of the death being investigated.

none so far, out of the millions of people who have died so far lists second hand smoke as even a contributing factor in any death.

now, perhaps you would wish to change that by challenging the medical profession to delve deeper into the past histories of the deceased.

as for the market not working rationally, i find it works VERY rationally.

if there is a demand for chocolate, the market fills it. if there is a demand for gasoline, the market fills it.

nothing irrational there. what you find irrational is the fact that most people who frequent bars frequently smoke.

what you also find irrational is that bar owners would cater to the majority of their customers, not the vocal few who do not smoke, but insist on poisoning their liver with those that do.

what i find irrational is why HEALTH NUTS who are so against smoking are dead set on knocking back a few at the local bar?

where is the rationale for that decision?

truth is, there isn't one.

you speak of the dangers of smoking, yet are totally ignoring the dangers of drinking, especially drinking and driving.

why is this important?

because HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE DIE EVERY YEAR FROM DRUNK DRIVING, the effect is immediate. those that don't die of drunk driving will eventually die of liver disease.

these cases are PROVEN AND WELL DOCUMENTED. yet you quibble about second hand smoke being a proximal cause of death, which has not been PROVEN NOR WELL DOCUMENTED.

now, wake up to what the facts are. when a body rolls into a morgue, the coroner is not putting on death certificates that the stiff died of second hand smoke. until they do, i don't believe that it is killing people at the rate you suggest.

chlorine is a deadly poison, and a known carcinogen.

it's in your tap water.

lead is a deadly poison, and a known carcinogen.

it's also in your tap water.

ammonia is a severe lung irritant, in sufficient amounts it will burn the lining of your lungs out.

it's in thirty percent of every cleaning product you use daily.

i could go on, but your freedom of choice gives you the opportunity to NOT EXPOSE YOURSELF TO THESE THINGS WITHOUT DEGRADING THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.

you have no right to take away someone else's rights. that is what this bill is all about.

Re: 2007 House Bill 4163 (Prohibit allowing private workplace smoking )

SaneMichigander — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:15:21 GMT

crazycajun:

two questions, sane...

Oh, here we go again. Another whirl on the same old merry-go-'round.

But, ever the optimist, I will endeavor to respond.

”1. why aren't their more NON-SMOKING BARS IN MICHIGAN if the majority of the people support NON-SMOKING BARS? don't the business owners SEE the marvelous opportunity slipping between their fingers?”

Perhaps someone else can explain this. I am at a loss as to how irrationality can be explained. The question assumes markets are rational. But as I noted earlier, real experience shows us that markets do not always (if ever?) behave rationally.

”2. where is that list of people who died of second hand smoke? of the thousands of deaths you cite, isn't there EVEN ONE who is being autopsied by someone with the guts to stand up for non-smokers?”

This argument, in one form or another has been raised throughout discussion of this legislation. A quick internet search reveals this argument is commonly raised by people who wish to contest the scientifically established fact that secondhand tobacco smoke contains 250 or more chemicals that are known to be toxic, including more than 50 known carcinogens. “Carcinogens” are materials that are known to cause cancer.

Worldwide, cancer of the lung is the most common cause of cancer-related deaths among men, and second most common cause of cancer-related deaths among women.

As often is the case, the answer to this “challenge” is not as snappy as the simplistic sound bite character of the questioning.

In order to digest the real answer one must come to grips with the real meaning of terms like “proximate” or “immediate cause of death” and “underlying cause,” as defined in the medical profession that deals with these matters. I suggest doing that through not just an internet search, but a real study of multiple sites and sources until the meanings and usages are digested and grasped.

What you will come to realize is that just as “smoking” would not be listed as either an immediate or “underlying cause” of the “lung cancer” or “heart disease” that lead to a particular death, “second hand smoke” would not be written in as an “underlying cause.”

Perhaps to illustrate, while you may find “gunshot wound” listed as a cause of death on a death certificate, you will not find “dealing in drugs” listed as a cause or underlying cause, even though the gunshot wound came as a result of the drug dealing activity.

Nonetheless, it is well established and well accepted in the medical profession that both active and passive breathing in of tobacco smoke lead to the development of cancer and heart disease. In other words, there is more than a mere correlation between active or passive smoking and the occurrence of cancer and lung disease of certain types; there is a statistically demonstrable cause-effect link between them.

Thus, that second hand smoke contributed to or caused a particular death can be legitimately inferred from circumstances surrounding a particular deceased person’s life and lifestyle based on accepted research findings. By “legitimately inferred,” is meant that the inference is deemed reliable on a true statistical basis.

Internet search also yields a blank copy of the standard death certificate form used in the United States. Item 32 in the form takes us to the section that deals in “immediate” and “underlying” causes of death.

Section 35 asks specifically if tobacco use contributed to death. There is some ambiguity there. However, a conservative interpretation dictates that if the deceased had been a non-smoker (or chewer) one could not say the subject had been a tobacco “user,” which certainly implies active use of the product. That applies even if one had been exposed to others’ smoke. There is no option for incidental or passive exposure to tobacco smoke.

Re: 2007 House Bill 4163 (Prohibit allowing private workplace smoking )

crazycajun — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:57:52 GMT

dear YES TO NO...

where is your concern for the RIGHTS of the business owner? they are NON-EXISTANT.

where is your concern for the RIGHTS of the smoker? they are NON-EXISTANT.

an ultra-conservative libertarian would believe, as i do, that your right to breathe fresh air ends where my front door begins. and if you value your right to breathe fresh air more than the drink you are poisoning your liver with, then you will exercise your right to go elsewhere.

an ultra-conservative wouldn't DARE infringe on my right to operate my business as i see fit. but you would.

so much for YOU being an ultra-conservative libertarian. nice try though.

Re: 2007 House Bill 4163 (Prohibit allowing private workplace smoking )

crazycajun — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:53:14 GMT

two questions, sane...

1. why aren't their more NON-SMOKING BARS IN MICHIGAN if the majority of the people support NON-SMOKING BARS? don't the business owners SEE the marvelous opportunity slipping between their fingers?

2. where is that list of people who died of second hand smoke? of the thousands of deaths you cite, isn't there EVEN ONE who is being autopsied by someone with the guts to stand up for non-smokers?

Re: 2007 House Bill 4163 (Prohibit allowing private workplace smoking )

crazycajun — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:47:54 GMT

how do i know?

look at what's happening even now in florida. if you read the LIBERAL PRESS, you will think that everything is *** dorey. if you look at ACTUAL FIGURES FROM THE STATE OFFICE OF TAXATION, you will see a drop in income, and a loss of total numbers of bars and restaraunts.

each and every one had to either ACCOMODATE the customers that USED TO FREQUENT THEM, and hope that the non smokers took up the slack, OR CLOSE THEIR DOORS.

many have closed.

is it fair to expect a bar to shell out THOUSANDS to accomode OLD customers and then to ONLY HOPE that new customers come in?

NO, it's also not LEGAL.

this law is being challenged in the florida supreme courts on the grounds that making all bars non-smoking is an UNFUNDED MANDATE FROM GOVERNMENT. and in florida, that is against their constitution.

so far, the smokers are winning.

that law won't be on the florida books long.

now, why should we have it here?

show me it WILL be good for business.

prove your assertion. no rhetoric please.

by the way... are you still going to frequent the bar if you have to walk past all those smelly smokers sitting under a shelter right outside the front door???

Re: 2007 House Bill 4163 (Prohibit allowing private workplace smoking )

SaneMichigander — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:04:24 GMT

Researchers generally report that approximately 80% of the United States adult population is made up of non-smokers. That means, of course, only about 20% of US adults do smoke.

Put another way, the adult population comprises four times as many non-smokers as it does smokers.

Or in commercial terms, the market for service establishments that intuitively would appeal to non-smokers is four times as large as the one for smokers. Thus, if “markets” really were entirely “rational,” as often is asserted, we would find that non-smoking eating-drinking establishments would be overwhelmingly smoke free without government intervention.

However, markets are not exactly rational at all, as real-life experience repeatedly shows. (Superior products and services, even at very competitive prices do not always prevail in the competitive marketplace, by a long shot.) The restaurant-business in states like Michigan, where smoking is permitted in such establishments, broadly serves as a case in point. (Although, those Michigan establishments that voluntarily adopt no-smoking rules consistently report positive outcomes in commercial terms.)

Thirty states have moved in a different direction from Michigan's, and have banned smoking in eating-drinking establishments. This, in the face of consistent resistance from bar-restaurant owners whose organized voice argues, insistently, that such laws will “kill” their businesses.

Interestingly, studies of commercial activity in places where the no-smoking rule has become law despite those protests demonstrate that hospitality business increases when the no-smoking rule is imposed.

The point here is that from a market standpoint, both rational and experiential, the real “numbers” consistently argue for a smoke free workplace law such as the one that nearly was enacted in the 2007-08 session of Michigan’s Legislature.

Combine that with the established facts that secondhand smoke is a menace to health, and that a majority of Michiganders support such legislation, this should be a slam-dunk for enactment into law during the 2008-09 session.

But politics, like the marketplace, is not especially rational. So for “we the people” the wait-and-see game begins all over again.

Re: 2007 House Bill 4163 (Prohibit allowing private workplace smoking )

yes_to_no_smoking — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:40:43 GMT

BS BS BS. Losing business??? How do you know? If all bars are non-smoking, that means that non-smokers will be free to patronize them. Smokers are still free to patronize them too but they will have to go outside to have a cigarette.

If this bill passes, all of the people (like me) who avoid going to smoky bars, restaurants, and casinos will be free to go there. I believe a non-smoking bill, if done fairly and across the board, will INCREASE bar and restaurant business in the State of Michigan. Period!

And as I said before, I'm an ultra-conservative Libertarian who believes that people have the right to breathe smoke-free air.

This bill is good for the economy and good for the health of the restaurant, bar, & casino workers too!

Re: 2007 House Bill 4163 (Prohibit allowing private workplace smoking )

uber-liberal — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:55:57 GMT

tell me, mr. smokefree...

is the state of michigan going to reimburse those bar owners for the added expense of making accomodations to their smoking clients?

probably not. but WHY NOT?

this bill forces bar owners to reach into their own pockets and shell out hard earned profits to accomodate customers who USED TO HAVE PERFECTLY GOOD ACCOMODATION BEFORE THIS BILL BECAME LAW. there is no other reason to put up an OUTSIDE SMOKING AREA other than because this law says so.

if the state wants non-smoking bars, lower the liquor license fee on non-smoking bars, then give them a five year tax holiday, and watch how many non-smoking bars show up. this, of course, rubs against the grain of every loyal liberal in the legislature, and has no hope of passing. i see this bill as destructive to business, and discriminatory on it's face.

let's see what OTHER good ideas the left can come up with...

Re: 2007 House Bill 4163 (Prohibit allowing private workplace smoking )

crazycajun — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 22:17:29 GMT

SmokeFreeMI:

crazycajun -

You absolutely WILL see health improvements,

<my health is fine, i don't smoke. we are talking about rights and responsibilities here. can you tell me that YOU have the right to make HEALTH DECISIONS FOR ME? and if you do, what makes you think so?>

as several studies have shown in several areas with non-smoking laws passed over the past few years. However, I do agree with you on a couple points: "People who don't smoke will still get cancer" & "people who do smoke won't get cancer." But it's a fact, not a myth, that smoking has led to many cancers in people and that their overall health is at higher risk than those who do not smoke. And the latest data is that heart attacks are reduced by removing smoking as well. So if there is a known cause for a health problem, then it only makes sense to remove/reduce that cause.

<it certainly does. that's why I don't smoke. but you cannot control everybody else. it is not within our rights, nor is it our responsibility to control other's thinking or actions, especially by force.>

To your point on non-smoking barmaids. I didn't say that they are the majority, but they do exist. You can't refute that. But just because the majority may be smokers, doesn't mean that the non-smokers don't have a say.

<once again, the barmaids and bartenders KNOW OR SHOULD KNOW that smoking is going to be going on. based on that, if their HEALTH is such a concern, they have no business applying for such jobs. now, if their health is YOUR concern, you have no business coddling them (forcing us to pay for their healthcare) if they DO place themselves in that kind of danger. the FIRST way shows PERSONAL INITIATIVE AND RESPONSIBILITY, the SECOND WAY shows A DESIRE TO NANNY FAR BEYOND THE SCOPE OF YOUR RIGHTS.>

From your comment, "my place of business.." I assume you own a bar/restaurant?

<you ASSUME too much. i just try to see things from the business owners point of view as well as yours.>

I can understand the concern of these owners losing business from disallowing smoking, and that is likely a BIG reason that there aren't many Smoke free bars. But there are options. I was in Los Angeles a couple years back (all smoke-free) and the one bar had a smoking room completely separate from the bar. Of course not all bars have the real estate to pull such a feat off, but it's one possibility.

<if you go to florida, where one of the FIRST smoking bans happened, the bar owners had NO OTHER CHOICE than to spend TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO ERECT OUTDOOR SMOKING AREAS UNDER SOME SORT OF ROOF. now, those that couldn't afford that kind of accomodation lost their customers and, eventually, their businesses.>

We would definitely see a rise in cigar bars if the legislation had passed with that proposed exception to the rule.

<what do you think you would see if there WERE NO EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE? i'm sure you would see a drastic DECREASE in the amount of TAX PAYING BUSINESSES in michigan that used to be bars.>

Back to the "NO SMOKE FREE BAR" question: There are some (currently very few) bars in Michigan that are smoke free. And for example, several bars in Portland went smoke free despite no laws to do so. There are also several restaurants which are becoming smoke free in Michigan and they still enjoy success. It can be done.

<yes, it CAN BE DONE, but the question was, why weren't there MORE of them. there are already a FEW, but if it is to be believed that smoke free bars will succeed, i will want to see FAR MORE BEING SUCCESSFULL before i believe what you say is true. so far, there are none in the area where i live, and none are even considering the option unless the law forces them to. i say it's BAD GOVERNMENT to be meddling in the private business affairs of the citizens of this state. it's also bad government to TRY TO TAKE CARE OF SOMEONE ELSE'S HEALTH. it's NOT THEIR JOB.>

sir, the only difference between the two of us is our views on who should be responsible for whom.

ask yourself, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MY HEALTH?

if the answer you come up with is GOVERNOR GRANHOLM, then i feel sorry for you.

if the answer you come up with is I'M RESPONSIBLE FOR MY OWN HEALTH AND NO OTHER CITIZEN'S , then we are well on our way to agreeing completely.

Re: 2007 House Bill 4163 (Prohibit allowing private workplace smoking )

SmokeFreeMI — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 21:58:09 GMT

crazycajun -

You absolutely WILL see health improvements, as several studies have shown in several areas with non-smoking laws passed over the past few years. However, I do agree with you on a couple points: "People who don't smoke will still get cancer" & "people who do smoke won't get cancer." But it's a fact, not a myth, that smoking has led to many cancers in people and that their overall health is at higher risk than those who do not smoke. And the latest data is that heart attacks are reduced by removing smoking as well. So if there is a known cause for a health problem, then it only makes sense to remove/reduce that cause.

To your point on non-smoking barmaids. I didn't say that they are the majority, but they do exist. You can't refute that. But just because the majority may be smokers, doesn't mean that the non-smokers don't have a say.

From your comment, "my place of business.." I assume you own a bar/restaurant? I can understand the concern of these owners losing business from disallowing smoking, and that is likely a BIG reason that there aren't many Smoke free bars. But there are options. I was in Los Angeles a couple years back (all smoke-free) and the one bar had a smoking room completely separate from the bar. Of course not all bars have the real estate to pull such a feat off, but it's one possibility. We would definitely see a rise in cigar bars if the legislation had passed with that proposed exception to the rule.

Back to the "NO SMOKE FREE BAR" question: There are some (currently very few) bars in Michigan that are smoke free. And for example, several bars in Portland went smoke free despite no laws to do so. There are also several restaurants which are becoming smoke free in Michigan and they still enjoy success. It can be done.

Re: 2007 House Bill 4163 (Prohibit allowing private workplace smoking )

crazycajun — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 11:45:43 GMT

dear smokefree.

no you won't. people will still smoke and die of cancer. non-smokers wil still die of something else other than second hand smoke.

people who don't smoke will still get cancer at a rate that befuddles the people making the studies, and people who DO smoke will live long, cancer free lives, and die of something totally unrelated to smoking. it happens all the time.

now, take a poll, how many non-smoking barmaids can you name that work in smoky bars? not many. i don't personally know any at any of the bars that i hang out in occasionally. i can't say i know any in new orleans either. so that shoots your arguement in the foot.

now, as for your rights. you DON'T have the right to come into my place of business and demand that i bend over backwards to accomodate you. if you are in the absolute minority, i will tell you to hit the bricks, as you don't amount to enough of my business to make me decide otherwise.

now, answer me this, why aren't there MORE SMOKE FREE BARS?

if you can answer that one, you will have found the key to success for this bill.

now, if this bill will REIMBURSE THE BAR FOR ANY ADDED EXPENSES, AND ANY LOSS OF BUSINESS, THEN AND ONLY THEN WILL I SUPPORT IT.

Re: 2007 House Bill 4163 (Prohibit allowing private workplace smoking )

SmokeFreeMI — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 07:22:44 GMT

I've read/heard many of the arguments against this smoking ban and they all amount to nothing. Talk about rights: "People have a right to smoke", but people should also have a right to breathe clean air.

All of these arguments seem to focus on the patrons and the owners, but what about the employees, really? "Business owners should have the say in whether or not they can allow smoking," but I'm absolutely certain several employees would like to live without the smoke. I'm friends with a few waiters/waitresses (at bars and restaurants) that NEED their job to make it by, but they don't smoke and they don't have other job options.

I could care less if someone smokes or not, I stay out of smoky bars myself (I can't stand the stuff). The issue is that there have been SEVERAL SEVERAL studies which prove over and over again that second-hand smoke is harmful to those with prolonged exposure. What can you say to the waitresses? "Start a new career?" Unfortunately, many of them can't do that, especially in this economy of cutbacks. The smoking is a legitimate work hazard for them. They are just getting by with what they have and they weren't fortunate enough to have money for further education. And they also aren't in a position where they can take a stand with their employer.

The point is, they have rights too. And I've heard it before so spare me the, "yeah, they have a right to work somewhere else" line (see above).

I work at a place where smoke breaks are the norm. People who smoke, go outside and smoke when they wish. Let them harm their bodies, it's their right. But since when should their right impede on those around them?

People can try and label others "liberals" who agree with this smoking ban, but really Public Health is a non-partisan issue. I'm glad this legislation is being put forth, but it's disappointing to see that what I thought was a "progressional" state, will be one of the last to pass such a bill. But really, despite all the arguments for and against it, this bill WILL eventually pass. And as all other places in the US and around the world, Michigan will see a much needed improvement in health after it does.

Re: 2007 House Bill 4163 (Prohibit allowing private workplace smoking )

crazycajun — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:23:39 GMT

dear sanemichigander.

i personally hope that nothing of the sort happens this session. this bill seeks to take away freedoms and shows a complete lack of trust in michiganders to look after their own affairs.

you, too, show that same mistrust. i'm sure that you can look after your own affairs quite admirably, why don't you give every other michigander the same respect you expect of them?

why? because they don't agree with you about what's good for them. that's why.

YOU know better, and you feel it YOUR place to make sure that we all TOE THE SANEMICHIGANDER LINE on this to the "nth" degree.

whether we want to or not.

i do not smoke, but i don't dare believe it's my place to stop YOU from smoking. YOU, on the other hand, firmly believe that every other michigander is too stupid to be able to decide what is good for him and what is not.

now, i believe that if you DO wish to tell me what to do, then you should pay my bills. it's only fair, if i'm "going to live by your rules, then i should live under your roof."

now, as you DON'T pay my bills, try taking a shot at staying out of my life.

as for YOUR right to breathe clean air, try not going into an establishment that you KNOW has foul air in the first place. that shows personal responsibility and personal inititative. to further this point, you might try opening a SMOKE FREE BAR, just to see if your facts are correct. it would seem that they are not, as there are no, according to you, smoke free bars in michigan.

now, as those that do smoke also vote, i'm sure that the career of the politician who floats this kind of legislation would be painfully short, i'm not so sure that any WISE politician will really back something that takes away the freedoms of those who elected him.

the fact that this original bill died in committee should send you a message, but it hasn't, so, we stand prepared to debate you if any further nonsense like this shows up. this time, please be prepared to use FACTS, and not drivel.

Re: 2007 House Bill 4163 (Prohibit allowing private workplace smoking )

SaneMichigander — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 18:46:32 GMT

Here's hoping that comparable legislation will be introduced in the new legislative session, and pass into law without political game-playing.

Michigan must move into the 21st century in respect to this issue. It will be good for business and tourism and all affected individuals in the long run. There are no constitutional impediments to passing such a law. And the majority of people support this kind of ban as being in the public interest (which it clearly is).