Puff Cigar Discussion Forums

Cigarmark · 05-16-2008, 04:00 PM

[SIZE=5]Michigan: Legislative Update[/SIZE][SIZE=2]International Premium[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Cigar & Pipe [/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Retailers Association[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2](IPCPR)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]State House of Representatives Delays Smoking Ban Bill Vote [/SIZE][SIZE=2][SIZE=2]With Delay, Pressure for Exemptions Mounts on House [/SIZE]May 16, 2008 - The House again delayed voting on Senate-amended smoking ban the House originally approved. The anti-smoking lobby is anxious to get a House vote this week on banning tobacco in bars, restaurants, casinos and any other indoor location where the public can meet, but that vote may be delayed until next week, at the earliest .

The Senate surprised Lansing by passing an indoor cigarette-smoking ban and there's a feeling that if the Democratic-controlled House doesn't act soon, the smoking lobby and the pro-business groups will build up more roadblocks.

"I don't know what we're going to do," said House Majority Floor Leader Steve Tobocman (D-Detroit). "We certainly want to have a smoking ban, but we want to do it in a way that makes sense."

Detroit casinos have turned up the heat on Democrats to restore an exemption for the three casinos, claiming 15 to 20 percent of their employees will have to be laid off to offset the expected loss of business to the Indian-run casinos.

Tobocman discloses that another strategy is on the table whereby the ban, as it cleared the Senate, would be sent to the Governor, but then the House would revisit the issue with so-called trailer legislation that could grant some exemptions. This strategy gets around sending an amended version of the bill back to the Senate, where it's possible a second vote wouldn't be taken.

But Tobocman said something needs to be done to address cigar bars, where banning smoking "stretches reasonableness . . . we could come back and fix it. That jury is still out."

(Senior Capital Correspondent Tim Skumick contributed to this story.)
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][SIZE=2][SIZE=3]IPCPR Member and Customer Efforts Paying Off[/SIZE] [/SIZE]According to the Cigar Association of America (CAA)'s Michigan Lobbyists, messages from IPCPR retail members and their customers are getting the attention of lawmakers in Lansing. The House representatives have heard the calls for exemptions for retail tobacco shops and cigars bars and are working to include these exemptions in the legislation before next week's vote.

Please Note: nothing is guaranteed, but there is still time to influence the House of Representatives! In addition to the IPCPR Legislative Action Alert that allows email messages to be sent to Lansing, the IPCPR has activated a Call Action Alert. Follow the link below to call your state representatives!

[SIZE=4]Call Your Representatives Today! [/SIZE]
[SIZE=5]Link

[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]

357 · 05-22-2008, 01:48 PM

I am writing to ask you to vote AGAINST the smoking ban, House Bill 4163 (2007). While the bill has good intent, it tramples on the rights of all property owners. Worse yet is that the good intent is based on false pretenses.

The Environmental Protection Agency, in its landmark 1993 study warned that secondhand smoke is a carcinogen that annually causes thousands of deaths from lung cancer.

However, five years after the study was released, a federal judge lambasted the EPA for "cherry picking" the data, excluding studies that "demonstrated no association between ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) and cancer."

And two years before that, the American Heart Association journal, Circulation, reported no increase in coronary heart disease associated with secondhand smoke "at work or in other settings."

So what? Maybe secondhand smoke doesn't kill people, but how about the harm to those with asthma, respiratory infections or eye allergies?

Well, listen to Jane Gravelle of the Congressional Research Service, testifying before Congress in 1994: "The statistical evidence does not appear to support a conclusion that there are substantial health effects from passive smoking."

Some argue that a ban is necessary to protect the rights of nonsmokers to be in smoke-free environments. But ban proponents misunderstand the nature of rights in a free society.

I have a right to smoke, and I also have a right not to smoke. But I only have those rights when I’m on my own property. When I voluntarily walk into someone else’s bar or restaurant, my right to smoke or not to smoke is no longer an issue, because I’m on his property, not mine. If a bar owner chooses to allow smoking on his property, that’s his choice. He has every right to allow smoking, just as he has every right to serve apple pie.

A smoking ban is an attack on freedom and an attack on property rights. Proponents of the ban want government to grant them the power to walk onto someone else’s property and have things exactly the way they want them. And that means sending the police after business owners who do not bend to their will. Property owners who refuse to comply will risk fines and jail time.

Some wish to talk about the health of workers exposed to secondhand smoke, and the scientific research that has attempted—in vain—to find a link between environmental tobacco smoke and cancer. But even if environmental tobacco smoke were proven to cause substantial health risks, there would be no cause to regulate it in private establishments. When you walk into a smoky restaurant or bar, you can tell immediately that smoke is present, and you can choose to stay or leave. For comparison, it is infinitely more difficult to detect the presence of salmonella in a chicken sandwich, so a stronger case can be made for regulating the cleanliness of restaurant kitchens.

If you are looking for a smoke-free restaurant, you are in luck. Almost all restaurants nowadays choose to have separate smoking and nonsmoking sections, if they allow smoking at all. That is the product of the free market: Over the last 40 years, as smoking has declined in America, nonsmokers have demanded smoke-free restaurants, and business owners have supplied them.

The war on tobacco started with a proven truth: primary smoke is a high-risk factor for lung cancer, bronchitis and emphysema. But that fact has mushroomed into an assortment of untruths, eroding the credibility of government agencies and the rule of law.

Smoking bans are really about unrestrained government, an anti-tobacco crusade against thousands of private businesses and millions of smokers without grounding in fairness or common sense, and without an appreciation for the principles that nourish a free society.

Please take this into consideration before voting on HB 4163 (2007)

Mike ******
##### ***** Street
Roseville, MI 48066

357 · 05-22-2008, 01:50 PM

357 · 05-22-2008, 01:52 PM

I sent that letter to every e-mail in the thread. I got a bunch of form letters, but I got 15 or more hand-written responses. It's worthwile to do, and it only takes a minute. Some who voted for this bill still believe exceptions are needed. Even it we can't get this bill killed, at least we can soften it up with common sense exceptions.

Get Outlook fired up, we need help here guys!!

Mike

Mark THS · 05-28-2008, 05:51 PM

Good news for the cigar bars/shops

Michigan House approves smoking ban, but exempts casinos
Charlie Cain / Detroit News Lansing Bureau

LANSING -- The Michigan House voted again this afternoon to ban smoking in workplaces including bars and restaurants -- but carved out an exception for Detroit's three casinos.

Other exemptions, under the House-passed bill, were granted to tobacco shops, cigar bars, Bingo halls and horse tracks.

There was no debate before House members voted 65-39 in favor of the bill.

Advertisement

It continues a stalemate between the House and the Senate, which this month approved a broader smoking ban that extended to all workplaces, including casinos. Senate leaders said the House action was guilty of "political gamesmanship" that doesn't move the state any closer to smoke-free work environment.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm has repeatedly said she is eager to sign smoke-free legislation. But that won't happen unless the two chambers can agree to the same set of restrictions.

If Michigan enacts a smoking ban, a topic of heated debate for the last decade, it would join more than 30 states that have limited public smoking.

The Michigan Restaurant Association and the Michigan Licensed Beverage Association have been the most outspoken critics of the legislation, arguing that decisions about smoking policies are best left to business owners and their patrons.

The restaurant association notes that nearly a third -- about 5,100 -- of the state's bars and restaurants have voluntarily decided to ban smoking without government prodding.

The licensed beverage group says some of its members would be financially harmed if smoking is banned in Detroit's casinos which must compete with 18 American Indian casinos sprinkled around the state. Indian casinos are not covered by state law and would be immune from any smoking ban adopted in Lansing.

Matt Marsden, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, said his boss was at a loss to explain the House vote.

"We're not sure what the House is trying to accomplish here," Marsden said. "Allowing smoking islands for special interest parties that Democrats want to court favor with does not constitute a smoking ban."

Bishop, who personally opposes a smoking ban, said if one is enacted it should be applied across the board, so everyone is treated equally.

He plans to sit down in the coming days with his fellow Senate Republicans to see how they want to proceed.

"The Senate overwhelmingly supported an across-the-board ban," Marsden said. "That's clearly not what the House wants and I think the people of Michigan will have something to say about that."