Smoking Ban Reactions

9 05 2008

I’ve gathered some reaction from Senators on the smoking ban vote yesterday.  Most of them are in favor…having a hard time getting quotes from those who voted against.  Again, if I get them, I’ll update this post…

Senate Democratic Leader Mark Schauer (D-Battle Creek):

“Creating smokefree workplaces in Michigan may be the most important public health issue we address this year. It will help protect workers and families from harmful secondhand smoke and reduce long-term health care costs to the state and to businesses. Research has also shown that in other places that have gone smoke free the economy does not suffer as some have argued. I hope this legislation moves forward swiftly and the Governor has the opportunity to sign it into law as soon as possible.”

Sen. Ray Basham (D-Taylor)

“I have been advocating for the health and well-being of Michigan families for more than ten years, and this is a major victory today in ensuring they have a safe, smokefree environment to dine, work and play,” said Sen. Basham. “This is one of the biggest health concerns of our generation and a massive burden to state and commercial healthcare resources, and I urge my colleagues in the House to continue their support and act quickly to protect the people of Michigan.”

Senator Glenn S. Anderson (D-Westland)

“This is one of the most important issues we will debate this year, in terms of protecting public health and reducing preventable smoking-related illnesses here in Michigan,” said Sen. Anderson. “Workers in service industries shouldn’t be forced to choose between their health and their job.”

Sen. Hansen Clarke (D-Detroit)

“I first decided to support this legislation after hearing about a woman in her 20’s who never smoked, but died of lung cancer because she lived with her father, who was a smoker,” said Sen. Clarke. “We need to protect non-smokers from second-hand smoke, which numerous studies have linked to cancer, asthma, emphysema and other diseases.”

Sen. Ron Jelinek (R-Three Oaks)

“Michigan residents have been asking for this and it is time we acted to protect the health of everyone, including business patrons and employees. I am pleased to tell the residents of the 21st Senate District that very soon they will be able to enjoy a meal out with their families and not be subjected to the dangers of secondhand smoke.”

Sen. Alan Cropsey (R -Dewitt ) from Senate Floor Debate

I have the largest Indian casino or Native American casino in the state of Michigan in my district, and what’s going to happen? Just recently, I had a restaurant that had been a local landmark in Mount Pleasant. It’s been a landmark there for 50 years and has closed down, for whatever reason. Competition is tough in the restaurant business. What we are going to be doing by telling folks that, you know, all the restaurants and bars in Isabella County are going to be going smoke-free. However, the one at the Native American casino is not going to be regulated at all by the state. So guess where all the smokers are going to go when they want a nice meal or when they want a drink? They are going to go to the Native America casino. Now what is that going to do?

We are sending a currently tax-paying citizen of the state of Michigan and telling them, “You go to the casino where no taxes are being paid—no sales tax.” No property tax, no taxes are being paid-and we are going to be telling all the other restaurants in Mount Pleasant, “Sorry, you’re at a competitive disadvantage,” and more of them will go out of business. And what will happen then? Property values become depressed. Fewer sales taxes. And then you are going be coming back and asking me, as one of the members of Appropriations, we’re spending too much on the Department of Corrections because we don’t have enough money.

Sen. Valde Garcia (R-Marion Township ) from Senate Floor Debate

I opposed this bill not because I smoke because I don’t, but I believe this is a business decision best made by the business owners. People have a choice as to whether or not to frequent an establishment that allows smoking. They can choose to spend their money there. They can choose to work there. I’ve heard it said that we have a duty to protect the public health, but if it is our constitutional duty to protect the public health, then where do we stop? Let’s ban fast food. Let’s ban smoking. Let’s ban the use of alcohol. We have proof that all of these items harm the health of people. So why don’t we ban them? We don’t. We all know the answer to that. Just follow the money.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishiop (R- Rochester ) from Senate Floor Debate

Government, in this case, began with regulation of smoking. Then in its infinite wisdom began to mercilessly tax the product, and now government moves to ban its use entirely. This is a consistent pattern of government. It slowly intrudes into the private lives of individuals and businesses and ultimately attempts to govern every aspect of our lives. In effect, government is trying to protect us from ourselves.

As a non-smoker, I understand and appreciate the concern about the smoke and its hazardous impact. I sincerely do, and my heart goes out to all of you who have had relatives who have been impacted directly. But I want you to know that even though I respect the sponsor’s intent, he is a dear friend and I have been on the receiving end of a lot of his internal lobbying—as we would like to call it—over the years, having had the opportunity to sit next to him for so many years. I want you to know, I, as a father, as a husband, over the years make choices every day—personal choices. It is my responsibility to take control of my own life. In this case, I oftentimes choose smoke-free environments if my family chooses to go out. There are plenty out there—plenty. In fact, if you go to smokefreemichigan.org, you will see that there are over 5,000 smoke-free establishments—bars and restaurants—out there for you to choose from, and that list continues to grow at a rapid rate





Smoking Ban Vote!

8 05 2008

It seems Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop will allow a vote on HB 4163.  There was some movement on the bill today as it was place on Order of General Orders.  A vote could come as early as today. 

I’ll update this post as more information becomes available.

UPDATEWOOD-TV is reporting via the Associated Press that the smoking ban has passed in the Senate by a vote of 25-12.  The bill now goes back to the House where they will decide if they will carry out the full ban or come up with some exceptions.  Governor Granholm has said in the past she will sign it. 

UPDATE – Governor Granhom released the following statement HB 4136

“I congratulate the State Senate for approving legislation that bans smoking in public places.  Their action sends a strong message across Michigan – and the nation – that we place a high priority on the health of our citizens.  It will go a long way toward influencing the actions of our young people, too.  I urge the House to act as quickly as possible.”

UPDATE – Reaction from the American Cancer Society and Campaign for Smoke Free Air.

“The Senate has been a major hurdle on this issue for many months and today we are very excited to clear that hurdle and continue moving forward,” said Judy Stewart, spokesperson for the Campaign for Smokefree Air (CSA) and government relations manager for the American Cancer Society Great Lakes Division.  “We appreciate Senate Majority Leader Bishop allowing a vote on this important issue, even though he is still opposed.  It shows that he has heard our concerns about the greater good for all Michigan residents.”

I agree with the comments about Sen. Bishop.  I have e-mailed him and told him the same thing.  In Illinois, this never would have happened.  If the leaders don’t plan on voting for something, they won’t call it…unless they can use it for political reasons.

I’m working on getting a comment from the Michigan Restaurant Association.  If they reply to my e-mails, I will post their reply as well.

One thing I overlooked when I originally posted this is the Senate took away all exemptions.  The House version of the bill gave casinos an exception.  The reasoning behind this is because the State of Michigan can’t regulate Indian casinos, so in order to level the playing field for the casino’s in Detroit and other non-Indian casinos, they made the exemption.  This could be a hold up when it goes back to the house.  The House has adjourned for the day, so hopefully they will tackle this soon, but it looks like the fight isn’t over and this isn’t a done deal yet.





Smoking Ban may SIGNIFICANTLY Lower Youth Smoking

5 05 2008

I’ve already made it clear where I stand on a public smoking ban.  This new data from Boston University published in this months edition of Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Minds really makes a strong argument to outright banning smoking in public places.

Results  Youths living in towns with a strong restaurant smoking regulation at baseline had significantly lower odds of progressing to established smoking (odds ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.85) compared with those living in towns with weak regulations. The observed association between strong restaurant smoking regulations and impeded progression to established smoking was entirely due to an effect on the transition from experimentation to established smoking (odds ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-0.86).

Conclusion  Local smoke-free restaurant laws may significantly lower youth smoking initiation by impeding the progression from cigarette experimentation to established smoking.

You can read the entire study HERE.  More importantly, contact your local legislators and encourage them to ammend HB 4136 to ban smoking in all workplaces including bars and restaurants.  Contact Senators that sit on the Government Operations and Reform Committee (Senators Bishop, Patterson, Cassis, Kuipers, Schauer , Clarke, and Olshove, which hasn’t met since Nov. 2007) where the bill is sitting now and encourage them to call the bill and pass it on to the full Senate.





4 AM Bars Update

29 04 2008

A few weeks ago, I wrote about legislation currently stalled in the House of Representatives that would give cities/towns/villages, etc the ability to create a 4 AM liquor license.  HB4573 stalled in the House last October.

I wanted to know what was going on, so I e-mailed Rep. Steve Tobocman to see what his plans were.  This afternoon, I recieved the following response from his office.

While Representative Tobocman continues to work on this bill, he has been unable to secure the 56 votes that is necessary to pass it out of the House.  Representative Tobocman is committed to this legislation and our office will keep you updated on any changes or advancements. 

My suggestion is to call your representative and tell them to get on board.  This is a good revenue source and we all know Michigan needs it.





4 AM Bars

23 04 2008

The State News has an editorial this week about the legislation that would allow municipalities to enact an ordiance to allow bars to stay open until 4 AM.

The point of the bill is to make money for the state and help reduce the deficit. However, the bill seems too potentially dangerous to justify the budget relief.

Currently, bars across the state are open until 2 a.m. In that time, bar crawlers are able to thoroughly indulge in their desired alcohol-driven activities. By the time the bar closes, many patrons stumble home, drunk and tired.

What happens if bar hours are extended for two extra hours?

More alcohol is consumed, and at 4 a.m. patrons who are even more drunk and tired will pour into the streets, off to their next destination.

The potential for alcohol-related incidents including drunken driving and public intoxication likely would increase.

*Sigh*  Another un-informed opinion.   I know State News is a college paper, but give me some proof to back that up.  For five years, I lived in Peoria, IL where they have a 4 AM district.  Guess what?  There aren’t a ridiculous number of DUI’s or accidents.  There aren’t people in the street fighting at 4:05 because they’re intoxicated.  Peoria is home to Bradley University so it’s not like there are no kids running around Main Street.   It just takes some planning on the city’s part.  I wouldn’t be in favor of a state-wide 4 AM license, but done responsibily, extending liquor license’s can be a benefit to the communities and the state as a whole. 

Let’s not try to pretend that alcohol is the root of all evil.  There’s a reason prohibition failed.  Alcohol sales provide a good portion of any cities revenue through license fees and sales tax.  Not everyone who drinks a beer does so irresponsibly.  I already said I’m not in favor of a state-wide 4 AM license, but I am in favor of 4 AM districts similar to the one in Peoria.  The State News article makes the same point in it’s article.

However, such legislation could be effective in stimulating areas such as downtown Detroit where casinos and other nightlife are prevalent.

But in the very next sentence, they go back to blaming all of the world’s problems on college students.

In more metropolitan areas such as Detroit and Grand Rapids, where the majority of residents are working adults and not active students, the bill could provide a positive social and economic stimulus.

An extended license in a downtown district in any city in Michigan can be a good thing.  East Lansing is no different.  Yes, it’s probably true that business downtown would spike after 2 AM, but that also gives East Lansing Police a chance to regroup and redeploy themselves downtown.  It IS the PD’s job to keep the peace.  Drinking and hanging out at the bars are part of life and a whether you think it’s a good thing or not, it is a big part of college life.  Every one of those police officers know when they take a job in East Lansing that most of their time is going to be spent trying to control rowdy college kids.  Every resident who moves into East Lansing should also know that is where a majority of their tax dollars will go too.

Back to Peoria.  The 4 AM zone is only in Downtown and it doesn’t even cover every bar.  There are boundries set up that have been under question for a few years, but the Council has been very tough when it comes to changing.  The zone is set.  The police chief is in favor of it and realizes the benefits to the 4 AM zone.  At 3:00 they reposition police officers to the Main Street area.  The taxi services know to be downtown starting around then too.  In all my years in Peoria and working in news, I only know of one or two instances of problems when the bars closed and both of those instances where at the same bar.

Michigan has a unique opportunity here with HB4573 to improve the quality of life in it’s urban areas as well as take advantage of a huge funding source.  Business wishing to stay open to 4 AM would be charged an extra $1000 on top of the license fee.  The bill stalled in the house on Oct. 3 of last year when Rep. SteveTobocman moved for temporary postponement on the third reading.