East Lansing Police Chief Opposes Extended Bar Hours

24 02 2009

Mike and I got into a discussion today in the comments section of another post about longer bar hours.  I’m in favor.  I’ve seen it work.  I came from a city that had a 4 AM zone downtown.  It was by accident that I came across this article in the State News were the East Lansing Police Chief voices his opposition.

But for East Lansing police, longer bar hours would mean more patrols and more money spent to pay officers, East Lansing police Chief Tom Wibert said.

“On weekends, we would increase our overtime pay,” Wibert said. “We generally put out extra foot patrols on bar nights.”

Wibert said making liquor available Sunday mornings probably wouldn’t affect police, but the extended bar hours could pose a problem of increased late night crime.

“Not many good things happen between 2 and 4 a.m.,” he said.

Two things.  1.)  You’re a police department.  You’re job is to serve and protect.  Plan accordingly.  2.) Extended bar hours do not increase late night crime.  You have no proof of that  and there are several cities that have 4 AM license and it works.  Instead of prediciting what you think would happen, I would suggest getting in touch with Peoria (IL) Police Chief Steve Settinsgaard who actually encourage the expansion of Peoria’s 4 AM zone a few years back. 

East Lansing has a number of bars in a small area and they’re near the police headquarters.  Extending the liquor license by two hours shouldn’t be that big of a deal.





How Much Caffeine is in Energy Drinks?

17 02 2009

You may not know right now, but Senator Michael Switalski (D-Roseville)  wants you to.

State Sen. Michael Switalski says a “caffeine race” is escalating in the marketplace. The Roseville Democrat wants to require the makers of Red Bull, 5-Hour Energy and other drinks to put caffeine content on their labels.the U.S. Food and Drug Administration generally oversees food and beverage labeling.

Switalski says the products are marketed toward youth, and parents need information to control children’s caffeine intake. The bill may not get far because

I don’t know about you, but even if they put a number on the can, I would have no idea what a lot or too much is.  Hell, for kids, it will probably just encourage them to buy more.  I can remember going for Jolt Cola when I was kid because it had more caffeine than Mt. Dew…it was kind of the cool thing to do.

The bill is SB 0230 and right now, it’s been referred to the Committee on Commerce and Tourism





Press Release – Granholm Smoking Ban Remarks in State of State

10 02 2009

From a Campaign for Smokefree Air press release….

Granholm once again calls on lawmakers to enact smokefree legislation in her State of the State address

LANSING, Mich. –During her State of the State address, Gov. Jennifer Granholm, once again, strongly urged Michigan lawmakers to pass comprehensive smokefree workplace legislation.

“We again applaud the governor’s comments tonight and her support for smokefree air,” said Susan Schechter, CSA spokesperson and director of advocacy at the American Lung Association of Michigan. “Many lawmakers have done their research and know that in 2006 U.S. Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona released a report stating the only way to protect Americans from secondhand smoke is through comprehensive smokefree workplace legislation and policies. It’s time for lawmakers to stop dancing around the issue and finally listen to the state’s leader as well as their constituents and pass comprehensive smokefree air legislation this year.” Read the rest of this entry »





House Bill 4099 – The New Smoking Ban Bill

26 01 2009

Doesn’t it figure?  I just put a post up this afternoon about the smoking ban bill not being filed.  A few hours later, I get a comment on that post with a link to a Flint Journal story.  The bill was introduced last Thursday and sent to the Commerce Committee.  Today, the bill was filed which is why it just showed up on the Legislature’s website. 

HB 4099 differs from the bill introduced last year because it is a total ban on smoking…including casino’s and cigar bars.  That was a big issue a few months ago.  The Detroit legislators don’t want and probably won’t let the bill pass without an exemption for the casinos. 

To me, a ban with the those two exemptions is acceptable.  I don’t like it.  I think if the casinos are exempted, then bars (not any place that serves any kind food) should be exempted as well and I don’t want to see that.  Exemptions start a slippery slope and everyone thinks they should be an exemption.  It’s not a matter of Big Brother telling you want to do as the tobacco lobby will try to tell you.  I can’t think of any other thing that people are allowed to do that makes others physically uncomfortable.  If smokers had an ounce of respect for people around them, this wouldn’t be an issue, but most smokers feel like it’s their god given right to make everyone around them uncomfortable.

I wouldn’t expect this to move pretty fast.  In the overall scheme of things, this bill isn’t high priority.  Michigan has bigger problems than a smoking ban and I would guess they will drag it out to the next election.  You don’t want people to forget that you voted in favor of the ban.  It’s one of those social issues that get people on both sides fired up.





…And it Begins Again

8 01 2009

Like most people figured, it didn’t take long.  I got the following press release from Rep. Paul Scott (R-Grand Blanc) who will introduce a bill next week when the legislature convenes to ban smoking outright.

Scott pushes for statewide smoking ban

Lawmaker unveils bill to protect public health

Citing a groundswell of support from local residents and a clear public health threat to the people of Michigan, state Rep. Paul Scott today unveiled landmark legislation to ban smoking in all public places in the state.

Scott will be the first state lawmaker to introduce the legislation this session. The Legislature tried unsuccessfully last year to ban smoking in public. Scott’s bill would ban smoking in all public places, with no exceptions.

“Secondhand smoke represents a clear and present danger to all Michigan residents, especially children, and efforts must continue in Lansing to protect the public,” said Scott, R-Grand Blanc. “People overwhelmingly want this ban. I talked with thousands of local residents during the last few months and there is steadfast support for a smoking ban.”

Scott also dismissed the argument that a smoking ban would hurt businesses.

“These naysayers evidently haven’t frequented Little Joe’s in Grand Blanc on a Friday night,” Scott said. “Businesses that have voluntarily banned smoking are thriving for good reason. Michigan residents don’t want to be forced to breathe tobacco smoke when they go out in public.”

There is mounting evidence that breathing tobacco smoke is unhealthy. A study released just this week shows that heart attacks dramatically decreased in Pueblo, Colo. after the city banned smoking in public places in 2003. Hospital admissions decreased by 41 percent after the ban, according to The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5751a1.htm

Secondhand smoke kills an estimated 46,000 nonsmokers annually from heart attacks in the United States. An estimated 150,000 to 300,000 children under 18 months of age also get pneumonia or bronchitis every year from breathing secondhand tobacco smoke, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

“A statewide smoking ban would be a game changer for people’s health and well-being,” Scott said. “The jury is out when it comes to the harmful effects of smoke. Not only is secondhand smoke a threat, but now we’re learning about the harmful effects of so-called third-hand smoke.”

“Third-hand smoke” is the dangerous matter from tobacco smoke that can get into a smoker’s hair and clothing. Young people, especially infants, can be negatively affected if they come in contact with the toxins.

Scott will formally introduce the smoking ban bill next Wednesday, on the first day of session.

#####





Press Release – Bottle Bill Sent to Governor

19 12 2008

From a Michigan Senate press release –

Bills to stop bottle deposit fraud sent to governor

LANSING — Legislation to help prevent Michigan from losing more than $10 million annually in fraudulent bottle deposit refunds is on its way to the governor, said bill sponsors Sens. Ron Jelinek and Cameron S. Brown.

The bipartisan, bicameral package of legislation requires reverse vending machines (RVM) to be retrofitted with new technology to prevent out-of-state bottles and cans from being returned in Michigan for the 10-cent deposit.

“Today is a great day for the state and for our retailers along the border who are taking the brunt of the fraud and will now have a means of preventing it from happening,” said Jelinek, R-Three Oaks. “This new technology will do wonders to keep out-of-state containers from being redeemed in Michigan and to keep state money in the state.”

The legislation:

> Requires unique markings on returnable beverage containers sold in Michigan designating them  as Michigan-only;

> Requires reverse vending machines used in Michigan to correctly identify and reject non-Michigan bought beverage containers;

> Establishes a fund to help reimburse manufacturers for the costs of the RVM retrofits in the two tiers of counties along Michigan’s southern border as required by the new law; and

> Revises and adds new penalties for consumers who return and dealers who accept out-of-state containers.

“This problem has been neglected for far too long and is especially acute along the border counties,” said Brown, R-Fawn River Twp. “As chair of the Michigan Beverage Container and Recycling Task Force, I am pleased to see this legislative package advance to the governor. Addressing fraudulent redemptions was a key component of the task force’s 2003 report and these bills will help collect revenue the state is currently losing. They will also help retailers who administer the bottle returns by paying for the cost of the upgrades to their reverse vending machines.”

The bills in the package are Senate Bills 1532 and 1648 and House Bills 5147, 6441 and 6442.





Press Release – “Michigan Legislature Delivers Lump of Coal”

19 12 2008

From a Campaign for Smoke Free Michigan press release –

Michigan Legislature delivers lump of coal – no smokefree air for state residents
CSA frustrated with disregard for public health

Lansing, Mich. – Unable to work on a final compromise for smokefree air in Michigan, the state Legislature wrapped up Lame Duck this week and left the legislation to die.

Since both the House and Senate had passed different versions of House Bill 4163, the bill was sent to a conference committee to work out the differences. (The House had passed a version with exemptions in 2007; the Senate passed a version with no exemptions earlier this year). But leadership from each chamber was unable to work together on a final bill, and have left Lansing for the year.

“In the end, political gamesmanship is the only winner here,” said Susan Schechter, spokesperson for CSA and director of advocacy for the American Lung Association of Michigan. “Michigan workers are holding their breathe waiting for this law to pass. The leaders of these chambers know the public wants smokefree air, they have seen the science and economic numbers behind the movement, but instead they are listening to the dollars from Big Tobacco, casino and restaurant industries that flow into their campaign coffers.

“We have worked hard to educate lawmakers on the benefits of going smokefree and despite Michigan residents’ support on this issue, a select few legislators have chose to disregarded the public’s health and kill the bill. It’s an utter shame and a waste of time and money to start over this legislative process again in 2009, but that’s exactly what we have to do.”

Schecter did thank Reps. Brenda Clack, D-Flint, Andy Meisner, D-Ferndale and Dave Hildenbrand, R-Lowell and Sens. Ray Basham, D-Taylor, Alan Sanborn, R-Richmond and Alan Cropsey, R-DeWitt for their hard work and dedication to smokefree legislation during the conference committee.

Currently, more than half of Americans live in a city or state with smokefree workplace protection laws (34 states have smokefree workplace laws in effect). Gov. Jennifer Granholm has called on legislators to pass statewide smokefree legislation and vowed to sign the bill if it crossed her desk. CSA plans to continue to fight for smokefree air in 2009.





Press Release – MDCH Director Urges Smoking Ban Passage

15 12 2008

From an Michigan Department of Community Health press release –

MDCH Director Urges State Legislature to pass Smoke-Free Law

The Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) is once again
strongly encouraging the Michigan State Legislature to pass a law
banning second hand smoking in public places including restaurants and
bars. While attempting to reach a compromise, the state Legislature
recently pondered the idea of allowing businesses to avoid the ban by
buying a special permit.

“While compromise may be needed, the state Legislature must protect
its citizens from second hand smoke,” said MDCH Director Janet
Olszewski. “Michigan needs a strong, firm, concrete law that outright
bans smoking in public places. Allowing businesses to buy their way out
of the law would be unacceptable and unfair to Michigan residents.”

Second hand smoke is the third leading preventable cause of death and
when smoking occurs in the workplace, employees find they are exposed to
cancer causing substances all day long. Research has shown that tobacco
smoke has more than 4,000 chemicals of which 60 are known carcinogens.
Contrary to popular belief, separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning
the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures to
secondhand smoke.

MDCH understands the urgency of passing a smoke-free law during the
lame duck session, which officially ends Dec. 30. The department is
asking state legislators to put aside political gamesmanship and do what
is appropriate for Michigan residents.





Smoking Ban on Last Leg

12 12 2008

I mentioned this in comments last week and I had heard some rumblings, but I was hoping it wasn’t true.  According to MIRS News this morning, the smoking ban is hinging on one thing….the ability for a business to buy their way out of it.

House Speaker Andy Dillon plans to bring the legislation up next week with an addition that would allow business to buy their way out of enforcing it.

I think this is crap.  You shouldn’t be able to buy your way out of a law.  My hope is that this will be a huge fee.  I initially said in comments nothing short of $10,000 a year, but the more I think about it, the more I tend to like the idea of 1/4 of gross receipts.  Think of the money the state could get from the Detroit casinos if they charge a 1/4 of all money taken in to the casino….not a 1/4 of profits, but a 1/4 of receipts.  That would deter most bars and restaurants from taking advantage of the buyout, but would still, probably, give the casino’s the exemption they’ve been asking for.





Press Release – Ingham County Smoke Free

9 12 2008

From an Ingham Country Press Release…..it’s not as good as it sounds on it’s face, but it’s a start.  This one surprise me when I got it in my inbox.  I had never heard that Ingham County was considering such an ordinance….

County Passes Smoke Free Regulation for Bars and Restaurants
Commissioners Pass Unique Resolution to Protect Public, Employees

The Ingham County Board of Commissioner today passed a first-of-its-kind regulation that would require restaurants to change non-smoking sections instead to be “smoke free.”

“Citizens expect to be able to go to their favor restaurant and eat the food and enjoy the atmosphere without having to breath in someone else’s smoke second-hand,” said Commissioner Andy Schor (D-SE Lansing). 

Schor, who chairs the Human Services Committee of the Ingham County Board of Commissioner, shepherded the resolution through the legislative body while working with the health experts on the Ingham County Health Department staff. 
The regulation passed by the County Commission would require that businesses have ample air filtration, smoke eaters, air flow, and other safeguards to separate the smoke from the non-smoking section.  From 2009 through 2014, any new business or any new major renovation would have to comply with these standards.  In 2019, all businesses in Ingham County will have to comply, although cases can be made by certain businesses for extensions.
Schor said, “This is health-conscious and business friendly. We heard and understand the concerns of businesses about cost, but we have also heard the concerns of the citizens to be smoke-free.  This resolution is the best possible compromise for the citizens of our county.”

The Legislature is considering a smoking ban in bars and restaurants, but has not passed this ban.  The Ingham County regulation would be the first of its kind to regulate and monitor how much smoke goes into a non-smoking section.

“My preference is for the Legislature to ban smoking in bars and restaurants for the health and safety of the citizens and employees,” Schor continued.  “I wish we could ban this at the local level, but the Supreme Court says we can’t….so we have taken the most proactive step that we can take.  We have started the clock for businesses and in ten years, whether the Legislature has acted or not, this county will have separation between smokers and those who don’t want to breathe in smoke.”

The regulation allows for flexibility to the County Health Department and staff will work with restaurants to ensure that they are in compliance when the regulation fully takes effect. 

So, if I understand this press release, all they did was change the name from “non-smoking” to “smoke free” and impose some new rules on air filtration that will gradually take effect over 10 years.  So, it’s not going to eliminate smoke, but it might make it better.  Again, brining up Illinois’ law.  Before they passed a smoking ban, they passed a law that gave local municipalities the option to ban.  Some did, some didn’t.  Those that didn’t expressed the same sentiments that Ingham County has….they just wanted the State to do it. 

I guess it’s a start.