What’s Up With the Smoking Ban?

26 01 2009

A few weeks ago, I posted a press release fromincoming Representative Paul Scott (R-Grand Blanc).  In that release, he said he was going to introduce a smoking ban on the first day of session which was on January 14.  I had been checking the Legislature website looking for the bill, but hadn’t been able to find it, so I e-mailed Rep. Scott to find out what the hold up was.  I got an answer today.

I am going to introduce the smoking ban bill as soon as possible. The legislature hasn’t read in any bills yet but hopefully I will be able to during session on Feb. 3rd. 

If you would like to look up what I’m going to propose you can go onto the legislature website and look up Bill Number 4163 for the 2007-2008 session.  The bill proposed by Brenda Clack is the same one I am introducing this year.
OK, so hopefully we’ll see something filed next week.  Then the legislature can sit on it again two years until election time.
Advertisements

Actions

Information

6 responses

26 01 2009
Karen Brown

Good News. The bill has been introduced!

As smoking ban battle again heads to state Legislature, Genesee County smokers hope to preserve places to light up

Posted by Sally York | The Flint Journal January 26, 2009 10:34AM
Ryan Garza | The Flint Journal
GENESEE COUNTY, Michigan — The hottest issue in the state last year is unlikely to go away: Should smoking be banned in the workplace?

State Rep. Paul Scott, R-Grand Blanc, just filed a bill in the state Legislature that would forbid smoking wherever people are employed, with no exceptions.

Not that he has anything against smokers.

“It’s not anti-smoker,” Scott said. “It’s everything to do with protecting nonsmokers from contracting cancer against their will.”

Continue Reading at Flint Journal

26 01 2009
Mid-Michigan Dining

Thanks for tipping me off. I hope you don’t mind I edited your post to experpt the beginning then provided a link to the Flint Journal for the rest. News organizations don’t like it too much when you copy all their work…. 🙂

27 01 2009
Thoma

Smoke from tobacco is a statistically insignificant health risk

27 01 2009
Mid-Michigan Dining

Even if that were true, it’s still irrating. It still makes everyone’s clothes smell. It still irritates everyone’s eyes.

28 01 2009
Archie Anderson

Minnesota… Two bills in legislature to exempt bars

Charitable gambling funds at an all time low, businesse’s closing, bar and resturant employees in the un employment line, the state is overdrawn by 4.5 billion dollars and people are staying home because defacto laws like the smoking ban and the .08BAC The “tripwire” law that allows ambitious cities to write DUI and DWI tickets to collect revenue for their hostile to free people jurisdictions.
The Second hand smoke canard and the ,08 “Tripwire is paralyizing society…….. The anti smokers own the whole damn state and don’t show up to appreciate their failing 100% smoke free business that they and the state now own by proxy. Stickit Comrades.

28 01 2009
Watchdog

No public official who has permitted, and who still permits, some of the most toxic and cancer-causing industrial substances in the world to remain…undisclosed to consumers…in typical cigarettes has any credibility at all in “concern” for health of smokers or “second hand” smokers.
Ditto for officials who have allowed and who still permit added burn accelerants in typical cigarettes.

Some or most, if not all, of these “anti smoke” officials may be up to here in funding and/or investments in the most toxic, carcinogenic parts of the cigarette industry…namely, pesticides, chlorine, fertilizers, contaminated agricultural additives, paper and pulp, and etc…and any of those industries’ investors or insurers. It is understandable why they prefer to blame, and legally burden the unprotected and uninformed victims, and the conveniently “sinful” tobacco plant.

When officials ban untested and known toxic, carcinogenic, and fire-starting, kid-attracting, and addiction-enhancing non-tobacco cigarette adulterants, only then will we know that legitimate science is being used to create legitimate law. In the meantime, we have illegitimate laws, that like illegitimate military commands, are deserving only of disobedience and rejection.

Current ban laws may be crimes themselves in that they are designed to help the complicit parties evade charges and liabilities and deservedly bad PR and profit losses. They may be illegal Obstruction of Justice, based often on perjured statements about, for instance, “tobacco killing [thousands of people]”. Smoke from No Plant can possibly cause many of the so-called “smoking related” or “tobacco related” diseases…but many of the non-tobacco industrial parts (especially pesticides, dioxins, and the radiation from fertilizers) of most cigarettes can do that and are known to do that. Did “concerned” officials even have the human decency to inform or warn anyone about that? Not likely.
Such officials are no better than Capone Gang members pretending to be “anti shooting”. Worse actually. Gangsters aren’t sworn and paid to protect the public from exactly such risks and harms.

Smokers and non-smokers are being intentionally divided. Both sides ought be in the streets together demanding action on the industrial toxins and carcinogens in cigarettes AND in so many other consumer products.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: