If they think it will save lives, why don't they just ban cigarettes and be done with it!
I'm sick and tired of their rhetoric. They will do what they please anyway. We voted in the brothers of Hitler.
Posted on 06/21/2004 7:39:37 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan
Senate committee to consider bill to ban smoking in public restaurants
By DAVID EGGERT
The Associated Press
6/21/2004, 5:21 p.m. ET
LANSING, Mich. (AP) — A state Senate committee will consider a proposed ban on smoking in public restaurants, but opposition from business groups and others makes the bill's approval a tough sell, especially in Michigan's struggling economic climate.
After a 16-month wait, a Senate committee on Tuesday will hear testimony from supporters and opponents of the legislation to prohibit smoking in restaurants. It would exempt bars that take in less than 30 percent of their income from food, along with bowling alleys, private clubs and fraternal groups.
Democratic Sen. Raymond Basham of Taylor said it's time that Michigan address a serious public health problem. Some 2,500 people in the state die from the effects of secondhand smoke each year, state health officials say.
"This will save lives," said Basham, the bill's sponsor. "It's not a nuisance issue. It's a public health issue."
But Basham has failed to win backing from the Republican chairman of the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee, Sen. Jason Allen of Traverse City. The legislation has also run into resistance from the 4,500-member Michigan Restaurant Association.
Restaurants, not government, should decide whether to ban smoking because customers ultimately drive the market by choosing where they want to eat, said restaurant association spokeswoman Kristyn Sorensen.
"The marketplace is doing a great job of regulating itself," Sorensen said, adding that thousands of Michigan eateries already choose to be smoke-free. "It's not our job to serve as the smoking police."
Opponents say the legislation would hurt the $11.3 billion food service industry and cost some of its 350,000 restaurant workers their jobs.
But Basham argues that many restaurants can't do away with smoking sections for fear they might lose business to the eatery next door. He also says most smoke-free restaurants serve fast food and aren't spots where patrons sit and eat for an hour.
A restaurant smoking ban exists in seven other states — New York, California, Connecticut, Utah, Vermont, Delaware and Maine. At least 200 cities and counties in other states have individual bans in place as well, with hundreds more considering similar moves.
Allen supports the idea of smoke-free dining but doesn't like a state mandate that would outlaw smoking, said Jeremy Hendges, Allen's legislative director.
"There's a tough line to walk between the rights of private businesses and the citizens who patronize those establishments," Hendges said.
He says Allen could support an alternative that provides incentives for restaurants to go smoke-free.
Opponents complain that restaurants serving mostly food during the day and alcohol by night — sports bars, for example — would be hurt severely while other businesses would be unaffected.
"Why has (Basham) excluded bowling alleys and private clubs?" Sorensen said. "Why is he unfairly targeting restaurants?"
-------------
All Democrats. Gilda Jacobs is one of the most notorious freedom grabbers in the State too. She's hates the 2nd amendment as well.
ping
Really? Care to prove it. And then prove its from people smoking in public places and then prove that the person who died was forced to go into those public places that allow smoking!
Because it's there.
Because it is about control...not smoking.
The non-smokers of America can pass all the illegal laws that they want, because the government was never granted that power.
Just this weekend, my wife and I took a mini-vacation for her birth-day. Prior to our trip, I tried for hours to locate a hotel what would allow smoking.
After this weekend, the hotel room that my wife and I stayed in, became a designated smoking room!
I have always respected the designated smoking and non-smoking areas and agree with the segregation. Once they crossed the line and no longer allow any smoking areas, then we have a problem.
Today, I smoke at any location which I desire. I often blow smoke into the face of any non-smoker that is dumb enough to get upset about it.
They have made the choice to no longer accept the segregated smoking and non-smoking areas. That mutual respect had served the citizens of America rather well.
Once the concept of mutual respect was abandoned, people like me are fighting back.
If more of the 30% of smokers took your way, maybe we would get somewhere.
I'm shopping for a new car and I would say that 70% of them don't come with ashtrays. I REFUSE to buy a car without an ashtray and make sure the dealers know that when they call to follow up. One suggested I get a beanbag and put it in the car. FAT CHANCE
Restaurants, not government, should decide whether to ban smoking because customers ultimately drive the market by choosing where they want to eat, said restaurant association spokeswoman Kristyn Sorensen.
sorry for sounding cynical, but I doubt she will hold that stance very long if every establishment in the state is included.
I saw it happen in Delaware. As soon as the bars were included (token food, only over 21 allowed) the Restaurant Association was all in favor of it. And the political hacks ate it up, even though the DRA represented less than 1/4 of the restaurants in the state and the majority were the fast food chains, most of which had already gone non-smoking.
I'm not a smoker but I can see some 'jackass' (read liberal environmental Democrat) tacking on a rider that forbids passing gas as a means to protect us from ozone holes.
Thirty percent of the population has tried to be nice and understood the concept of mutual respect. Obviously, that was not acceptable.
I absolutely refuse to give my money to a company that has decided to discriminate against 30% of the American population. If I have an alternative, a company willing to treat it's customers with respect will always get first priority.
For those companies which have no choice, because of local laws, I feel sorry for them. I will not respect those illegal laws and this company is caught in the middle.
Unfortunately, I know of no other way to represent thirty percent of the population, without causing a problem.
Each and every time I see a NO SMOKING sign, I take out my black Sharpie marker. I simply cross out the word SMOKING and write above it; the word FAGS.
Some people are smart enough to figure it out. For others, well, what can you say?
"This will save lives," said Basham, the bill's sponsor. "It's not a nuisance issue. It's a public health issue."
Public health issue, eh? Doesn't stop you power-hungry control freaks from taking "blood money" (i.e. revenue from cigarette taxes).
Very mature of you. And when you vandalize these signs, do you take into account whether they are in place because of law or because the private entity involved wants it thus?
Now I live in a place where, at least in bars, you can still smoke. I'd never go up to someone there, because I accept it as part of going to these places. I accept that my clothes will reek of cigarette smoke. But if there's a private business that forbids smoking, I don't consider it a great loss. It's within their rights and this ain't the 2nd amendment(which I believe is being unofficially destroyed by 'private' business dictates.)
That said, I don't buy the second hand smoke argument anymore, unless you really live with someone who smokes heavily day by day.
While I understand your frustration, probably more than most people, I can't agree with how you are dealing with it.
One of the favorite arguements of the antis is about rude smokers and they go on to describe people who do just the things you claim to be doing.
Avoid spending money in places that don't permit smoking, and tell management why you are not doing business there. Avoid going to states and municipalities/counties that have laws against smoking in PRIVATE establishments and email these entities telling them WHY you are not coming.
If more people would take those simple steps - the powers that be would start waking up and realize that smokers are not uneducated, low income slobs, but rather intelligent, well reasoned adults who make choices on how and where to spend their hard-earned funds.
If they think it will save lives, why don't they just ban cigarettes and be done with it!
I'm sick and tired of their rhetoric. They will do what they please anyway. We voted in the brothers of Hitler.
I'm with you! We already lost Maine. The anti's did what they wanted and the lawmakers went along with them.
No matter how many letters, emails and phone calls we made, they still went about their merry way and banned smoking everywhere.
Ok, it saves me money! I can order in or go for take-out. Fork em all.
My letter to Jason Allen, sent earlier this year:
Dear Honorable Senator Allen,
I have been seeing many public news stories regarding the bill to eliminate smoking in Restaurants and Bars. In many of those stories I have seen you support the right of choice and it is clear that you are not supportive of this bill. In addition, it is clear that you are facing a growing momentum of support for this bill. I would like you to know that most of the residents of this State would be supportive of you, if they could get an equal representation disputing many claims that are presented as "facts" regarding this issue. I was writing a letter to you and to my Senator, the body of which is below. I have decided to send it only to you, in the hopes that it could arm you for this fight. I am not sure which of the Senators are in support of this legislation and which Senators are opposed to the legislation, so I am sending it to only you. Please distribute it to the supporters of Private Property Rights.
The letter as written:
I am writing to express my opposition to Senate Bill 186, Michigan Smoke Free Dining Act. I have been actively researching the effects that this type of legislation has had in other areas of our Republic. I have also extensively researched the bill itself. The question that you need to consider regarding this type of legislation is the question of harm. If harm can be shown to exist then you must follow up with a question of who is harmed the most and whose rights are infringed upon by this harm.
In the language of the bill the harm to any specific individual is not discussed, however we know that the sponsor of the bill and the supporters of this bill consider the harm of smoking to be the exposure to ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) to non smokers. They claim that the health risks merit such legislation and that it is the responsibility of Government to minimize any risk to citizens of that State/County/Municipality. I am including a link to a summary of many studies performed regarding ETS and what the correlative risk factor was determined to be. After reviewing that list you will see that the relative risk associated with ETS is generally below a statistical significant risk factor of 3.0. Therefore, it can be proven that the risk of harm to a non smoker is minimal.
If this bill were to pass, then another segment of our population would be harmed. The smoker would no longer be allowed to freely participate in a legal activity in the comfort of their gathering places. Their right to freely assemble would no longer available to them. That segment of our population would no longer be allowed to participate in this legal activity with the consent of the private property owner. They would be forced outside to designated smoking areas and during our wonderful Michigan winters this would be at the least a major inconvenience to the smoking public. This harm could also be considered a minimum harm, therefore, we could say that both the smoker and the non smoker are facing equal harm with regards to this legislative issue.
Therefore, as a politician you may consider the balance between these groups. The normal question would be to decide which group represents the most votes and then normally a politician would support the group representing the most votes. Given that the affected population of smokers to non smokers is 25% to 75%, your clear choice would be to pass the legislation. However, that does not consider the greatest harm that occurs from such legislation.
No one is forced to enter any private property, in fact most people chose which private property to enter based on an invitation from the private property owner. Upon an invitation ("open" sign in the window) they decide if that particular private property offers them some service or product that will please them for a particular fee they are willing to pay. If an individual feels comfortable at specific restaurants or clubs or grocery stores, that individual will chose to offer the owner of that establishment value (money) for the services. Given this scenario, an individual will decide to invest in any particular business that he/she feels will offer them a fair return on that investment. All of these risk takers make that decision based on the potential customer base. If they decide that they would be at a competitive advantage by offering a smoke free environment then they are free to offer it to the potential customers. If they decide to allow smoking and they decide to cater to the smoking population they are free to do so. If this legislation is passed, not only will the competitive advantage be destroyed for the smoking allowed establishments, but you will also destroy the competitive advantage of the smoke-free establishments. The harm suffered by the property owner is both economical and it is a degradation of the rights of property owners. In fact, all of society will be harmed by damaging a free market economic system. It is clear that this legislation will cause the private property owner to suffer a greater harm than either the smoker or the non smoker.
A case could be made that the State has eliminated the ability to use the property as the owner sees fit, under the standards that they made the investment. In other words, the state is confiscating the use of the property. Under the US Constitution and the State of Michigan Constitution, these property owners would be due compensation for this confiscation of property. How would the State compensate these property owners?
I am also including a link to the business affected by such legislation in other states and cities. This should clearly show the economic impact to individual businesses that are directly attributed to smoking bans. This effects Michigan's economy directly and it will directly influence the tax revenues at all levels of government. Local municipalities will lose revenue by lower rates of renewals of liquor licenses and property taxes. Will the State compensate the municipalities for this lost revenue, or will the Senate expect them to raise the property tax of private citizens? State revenues will also be affected by lower sales taxes and lower sin taxes. How will the state make up for that lost revenue, perhaps by raising the sales tax to 8%?
If health is truly the issue, why not issue legislation that totally bans tobacco sales in Michigan? If the Senate truly believes in the statistics used to support this bill, then the Senate should be more than willing to give up the $1.1 Billion in total revenue per year that Tobacco generates for this state. You could easily double the gas tax to make up for this loss in revenue.
Let me take this one step further. If you accept this infringement on private property rights, in the name of health, what will stop legislation that allows for smoking parents to have their children removed and put into state care? What will stop legislation that goes further and monitors the diets that parents provide to their children? What will be next, in the name of "protecting the citizenry"?
The tobacco free Michigan website claims that we have access to 3,500 non smoking restaurants. Most restaurants offer both smoking and non smoking sections, most malls are voluntarily smoke free, most retail stores are smoke free, in fact any individual can survive quite well without ever making contact with ETS in society. How is this current situation broken? How will this type of legislation fix it? This type of legislation is not about offering choices to people and allowing private property owners to meet the separate demands of different segments of society, instead the anti smoking legislation would like to see complete control over the use of private property and the elimination of choice.
Links:
ETS and SHS Study Summary:
http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/2ndheart.htm#table5
http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/2ndheart.htm#table6
Affect to business:
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/badforbiz.html
And Senator Allen's Response:
Electronic Mail,
Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me about the introduction of legislation that would prohibit individuals from smoking in restaurants. I appreciate the time you have taken to contact me.
Senator Basham has introduced Senate Bill 186, a bill to amend the Public Health Code. The bill proposes to ban smoking in food service establishments or establishments that have food sales greater than 30 percent of their sales. This bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor, which I chair.
Over the past few months since the bill was introduced, the Commerce & Labor Committee has been primarily focused on legislation to boost our economy and help create jobs in Michigan. A few of the key programs have been the creation of a venture capital fund to promote investment in new businesses, the reauthorization of the Michigan Economic Growth Authority, the states key economic program to attract new jobs to Michigan, and the package of legislation to assist the tool and die industry and allow them to compete with other states and foreign companies.
As we continue face a slow economic recovery in Michigan, we will again be focusing primarily on creating jobs and economic development. To date, over 70 bills have been referred to the committee while we have only been able to address 35 of those over 44 committee hearings.
In recent years, the number of smoke-free institutions has dramatically increased as the market responds to the wishes of the consumer, without government intervention. There has been a 27 percent increase in smoke-free establishments in the last five years alone and the number continues to grow.
With accommodations already being made by restaurant owners to offer smoke-free environments, I do not believe it is the role of the legislature to impose a ban on smoking. As a small businessman, I feel it is inappropriate for the government to infringe on the personal property rights of a business and inflict additional restrictions on how they chose to operate their business.
Our nation is based on a free market economy that encourages competition. Many restaurants take advantage of a non-smoking atmosphere to attract clientele, much like other establishments chose to retain smoking sections for the same reason. As a consumer, you reserve the choice to patronize an establishment that allows for smoking or to take your business to an establishment more conducive to your needs. As public demand for smoke-free environments increases, the number of establishments that offer that type of atmosphere will increase, as we have seen dramatically happen in Michigan in recent years.
This legislation also establishes an unfair playing field, as certain types of institutions are exempt, while others not. Some bars that have little food sales or bowling alleys would be able to still offer smoking, while a brew pub, who specializes in production of hand crafted beer and that has significant food sales, would not. Such an artificial standard creates an unbalanced field of competition by allowing certain businesses rights that others in the same or similar industry are denied.
At this time Senate Bill 186 has not been scheduled for a hearing as we continue to focus on energizing Michigan’s economy and creating jobs for working families. For the status and analysis of legislation introduced in the Michigan Legislature, please visit: www.mileg.org.
Thank you again for your email. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of assistance.
Best Wishes,
Jason Allen
State Senator
37th District
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.