Senate approves smoke-free Mich. legislation
Tweet
After an almost 10-year fight, the Michigan Legislature passed legislation Thursday that makes Michigan workplaces, including bars and restaurants, smoke free.
The ban, which exempts Detroit casino floors, cigar bars and smoke shops, will take effect May 1, 2010, said state Sen. Ray Basham, D-Taylor.
“What better way to spread health and good cheer this time of year than passing this legislation to make Michigan workplaces smoke free,” Basham said.
The House passed the legislation last spring and the Senate passed a substitute to the house’s version with a 24-13 vote Thursday. The House concurred with the Senate’s bill, and it was sent to the governor’s desk.
Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s spokeswoman Megan Brown said the governor is expected to sign the bill.
The Republican-led Senate passed a smoking ban without exemptions last year, and the Democratic-led House passed a ban exempting casinos. Because the two houses could not come to an agreement, the legislation could not go forward.
State Sen. Ron Jelinek, R-Three Oaks, said he is glad the two houses finally were able to compromise.
“It’s past due,” Jelinek said. “I voted for a total ban (without any exemptions) a year or so ago and that was my preference, but we knew that this time around we had to work to get an agreement.”
With the passage of this legislation, Michigan becomes the 38th state to pass some type of public smoking ban, said state Rep. Lee Gonzales, D-Flint Twp., who sponsored the bill in the House.
The legislation will ban smoking in 99 percent of workplaces and is a fair compromise, Gonzales said.
“Nothing good comes easy and this is a victory for public health,” Gonzales said. “I am pretty pleased that the negotiations didn’t go up in smoke.”
But executive director of the Michigan Licensed Beverage Association Lance Binoniemi said the legislation would be economically detrimental.
“We think this is going to mean some major loss of revenue of our businesses,” he said. “It’s going to really affect your small family-owned bars that do have a customer base that likes to smoke.”
Binoniemi said it was unfair to grant exemption to certain hospitality businesses.
Joe Bell, the owner of The Peanut Barrel Restaurant, 521 E. Grand River Ave., said he was unsure how it would affect business.
“Some people will like it, some people won’t,” Bell said. “We have a fair amount of smokers who come here but we also have a fair amount of people who don’t come here because of the smokers.”
Political science freshman Katherine Zerwas said she smokes socially but still thinks smoke disrupts a meal.
“If it’s possible to have smoking and nonsmoking, it’s a better option,” she said. “But I think people can suck it up for an hour and not smoke while they’re eating.”
Commentary
Add your $0.02, go to the comment form or follow the comment feed
Kristin
(12/10/09 11:10pm)Report
Now, if only we could get people to adhere to the “no smoking within 20 feet of a building” rules on campus… Nothing like walking through a cloud of smoke from smokers camped out 5 feet from the door.
Great
(12/11/09 2:03pm)Report
Now what fashion of our lives is the government going to start controling? This is supposed to be a democracy and the government making all these laws and rules about what you can and cannot do when and where is not a democracy!!!
Lena
(12/11/09 2:18pm)Report
Give me a break. This is not about what you can or cannot do…smokers in 37 other states have had to deal with the law, I think you can too. Just because you cannot smoke in a public place doesn’t mean you have lost all sense of individualism and freedom. That is a rather presumptuous idea, overemphasizing the significance of smoking in the first place. This law was put into place because it is a public health issue…not to restrict democracy.
@Great
(12/11/09 3:02pm)Report
@Great — you have the right to destroy your own health. You do not have the right to destroy the health of others.
Personally, I’m looking forward to being able to go to places I’ve never gone because of the smoke; Peanut Barrel, Trippers, bowling alleys, pool halls … and I’ll probably go out and see more live music, too, since I won’t come home smelling like smoke and feeling like I licked an ashtray.
I think this IS great, and a long time coming, as well.
Greg
(12/12/09 5:07pm)Report
Why can’t I as a business owner decide if I want smoking in my restaurant/business? If it’s true that so many people decide not to go places based on whether smoking is allowed there, than it would be beneficial to me to ban smoking, but that decision should be up to me.
To Great
(12/12/09 5:26pm)Report
Guy, come on!
Democracy says nothing about the level of control a government should have over its people. It simply says that the rule of majority wins out, ideally with a few restrictions on oppressing minority rights. If the majority of people want smoke free bars, then supposedly the government will make that happen. In which case BAM!!!! Democracy in action. It doesn’t always work that way, but it is an ideal to strive for. Only ideologues with no respect for their fellow citizens are more concerned with their personal rights then the well being of society as a whole.
Greater
(12/13/09 9:01pm)Report
To “Great”, the government making laws concerning what you can and cannot do, when, and where, is the very definition of democracy.
You see, we do this thing called “voting” where you pick other people to make “laws” that tell you what you can and can’t do. Hopefully if the person who you “voted” for becomes elected, they will pass laws that agree with you.
Every now and then they decide to pass laws for the common good, like, for instance, prohibiting you from driving drunk, or killing other people. No matter how many times you drunkenly yell “it’s a free country” as you run over pedestrians and traffic cones, it turns out, the government can stop you from doing something because they think it’s “bad”.
If you don’t like it, start a referendum and see just how many people are on your side. I dare you.
KJ Green
(12/15/09 12:05pm)Report
The argument of “my rights” in regard to smoking in restaurants is a weak one. Virtually all of our laws are rooted in the establishment of defining boundaries for acceptable behavior in our society. This is no different.
The next argument that follows is that “we should not legislate” behavior. In theory, that is correct. However, due to the selfish and inconsiderate, it becomes necessary to do so. (Have you ever asked a smoker in a restaurant to refrain from smoking? The odds are even that you will be told to where to go.
Finally, smokers will argue that bars/restaurants should be able to choose whether they allow smoking or not. This is also a weak argument as there are few restaurants that will “unilaterally disarm” and see how it affects their traffic. This law levels the playing field.
This legislation is not banning smoking. It does seem to balance a smoker’s need to smoke with the desire for a nonsmoker to enjoy their dinner/entertainment.
As a side note, I found it interesting that some friends who were most adamant in opposition to a similar law in Illiniois were ones who always stepped outside their house to grab a smoke, “for the kids sake.”
Yay!
(12/24/09 10:52am)Report
YAY!!!!!!!!!! It’s about time!