It didn't take long: The smoking ban will be back in the new legislature. It's the same bill (no exemptions) that failed to pass the state House in 2008. This time it's being introduced by a Republican.
I'd expect it would still have problems in that form, and the fact a GOP member is introducing it in a Democrat-controlled chamber won't help. But who knows?
*** Efforts to revive a proposed public smoking ban in Michigan already have started in the new state Legislature.
A new state lawmaker says Thursday he will introduce a bill to ban smoking in all public places when the Legislature convenes for the first time next week.
The bill will be sponsored by Rep. Paul Scott. He is a Republican from Grand Blanc.
Democrats might introduce similar proposals.
Efforts to enact a smoking ban failed in the Legislature last year.
Supporters of a smoking ban might consider starting a ballot initiative targeting the 2010 election if Michigan lawmakers fail to approve a proposal. ***
Jag, when you're introducing the same bill as drafted in 2005 and 2007, it doesn't take much time. It's reported to be ther exact same bill (no exemptions) that failed last term. It should be online Wednesday.
I expect there will be other versions introduced soon by other lawmakers.
Sen. Ray Basham, the legislature's longtime anti-smoking activist is preparing to launch an "anti-smoking caucus," made up of members from both chambers who will be asked to sign a pledge to work on the issue.
Vision, the smoking bill, at least in Michigan, is not strictly partisan. The GOP Senate's refusal to discuss exemptions and the Democratic House's insistance on them is what killed the bill.
Like I said, it was introduced by a freshman GOP rep. On another Web site, I saw him listed by the anti-smoking groups as one of the new faces to contact, so I don't think it was an "offically santioned action." And I'm pretty sure it still won't represent the opinion of the GOP caucus.
And many House Dems (including Speaker Dillon) still prefer a few exemptions. They would be more likely to move a Dem bill.
I am sure something will pass this term, but I don't expect we will see the standoff of last time. I thinnk they'll try to reach an agreement. Even if they are unable to keep the casinos excluded, they'll work hard to give them an extended phase-in or other consideration.
I still can't recall a time when House Dems were willing to votefor something so opposed by the Detroit delegation. I don't think they would do that this time, either.
The "offical" Michigan smoking ban bill was introduced in the state house yesterday. I say "official" because anti-smoking groups have been urging reps to co-sponsor this version for weeks.
It was sponsored by a Democrat in the Democratically controlled House, making it more likely to see movement than the identical GOP-sponsored version already introduced.
Yet another smoking ban bill, HB 4377 (this makes 8 so far this year), was introduced in the state House yesterday.
This one includes exemptions for tobacco shops, cigar bars (if they generate 30% of income from cigar sales and humidor rentals) and Detroit's 3 casinos. These were the exemptions the House insisted on last year that precluded an agreement.
It was referred to the Regulatory Reform committee, the same as the bill with no exemptions.
Since the committee chairman, a Detroit rep, is on record as demanding an exemption for Detroit's casinos as well as cigar bars, I expect this bill to fare better than the no-exemption version.
Those of you in Michigan may want to e-mail the members of the House Regulatory Reform Committee, which is holding a hearing at noon today on the statewide smoking ban issue.
No bill is officially part of the agenda, although 4 smoking bills have been introduced in the House so far this year.
The members are:
Bert Johnson (D), Committee Chair, 5th District Harold L. Haugh (D), Majority Vice-Chair, 42nd District Pam Byrnes (D), 52nd District Martin J. Griffin (D), 64th District Tim Melton (D), 29th District Bettie Cook Scott (D), 3rd District Woodrow Stanley (D), 34th District Tory Rocca (R), Minority Vice-Chair, 30th District Hugh D. Crawford (R), 38th District Rick Jones (R), 71st District Jim Stamas (R), 98th District
Obviously, if you live in their district your e-mail has the most effect, but any from state residents will show there is opposition to a 100% ban.
I've been focusing on the fact no state smoking ban is 100%, meaning all have some exemptions, at least for tobacco shops and many for cigar bars. I can't believe the Legislature wants to pass a law that effectively puts cigar bars out of business and makes any smoking lounges worthless, which would force many stores to move or close since the lounge space wouldn't be needed.
More retail vacanies is not what the state needs now.
The first hearing on a statewide smoking ban was held yesterday. Tomorrow, the committe chairman is taking it on the road and will visit 2 casinos, a nightclub and a hospital.
I find this process of legislation very frustrating.
If the bill doesn't pass, it shouldn't be allowed to be re-introduced in its same substance. Creative politicians may be able to change the form, but the subtance itself shouldn't be allowed to be re-introduced if it failed recently.
What's more frustrating, as with my experience on a separate issue, is when they attach it to a much broader bill that has to be approved for the good of the country.
I called this a few months ago when it happened in Boston. As I almost always enjoy my cigars at home in my screened in patio, it doesn't affect me yet. I can see the day when it will and I'll be forced to convert a room in the house.
If any politically saavy person wants to get together the means to voice our concerns on an individual level, I'd look forward to a list of senators and representatives along with a "template" of an email or letter that should be written. My experience with this process is that it did NOT work; however, many of the politicians that pushed the legislation I'm referring to through did not retain their position after elections. This fact will certainly be added to any letter/email I send. Whether the combined efforts on the last issue caused the politicians not to be re-elected is debatable. The fact is it still happened.
My question is if they stop everyone from smoking, who's going to pay for the poor children's health care?
Another update for anybody in Michigan following the statewide smoking ban bills or anyone else interested.
Another hearing was held yesterday. Last week, the commiittee visited 2 Detroit casinos, a nightclub, a restaurant's cigar lounge and a hospital as part of its "smoking ban impact tour."
Yesterday, owners of 2 of Detroit's 3 commercial casinos testified that they would likely lose 11%-22% of their business in the first year of a ban without an exemption for them, citing stats from Illinois, Colorado and Ontario. They predict each casino would have to lay off at least 300 people to account for the drop in revenue. Windsor, Ontario's casino laid off 300 3 months after the province banned smoking in 2006.
They also mentioned the state's 20 Indian casinos, which would not be affected by any ban -- and they pay far less in tax revenue to the state.
3 bar owners also testified against a ban. In support were 3 doctors, a lawyer and a man who lost his voice box to throat cancer.
Before he left the meeting, one of the committee members said he was committed to "some sort of compromise" on the issue.
The committee is to visit 2 cigar lounges this weekend before holding what is to be the final hearing April 1. They hope to send a bill to the House floor at that time.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: MRM,
Here's another update on the Michigan smoking ban fight.
The commitee to which the ban bills have been assigned took 90 minutes of testimony this morning, including comments from the owner of a chain of cigar lounges and a hookah bar owner who said a bill without any exemptions would close them down.
(The comment was in response to a committee member who said she was not sure how she would vote but said it may take 5-10 years to determine the effects of a ban on cigar bars and other businesses. The hookah lounge owner pointedly said he would not legally be in business the day a ban without exemptions took effect, and it would not take five years to determine that.)
A bill was to have been reported out today that likely would have exempted cigar bars, tobacco shops and the gambling floors of Detroit's 3 casinos, but the vote was postponed at the request of the House speaker.
The commitee may take up the bill again April 22, after Spring break.
A number of health advocates and a couple bar owners also testified that any bill should not have any exemptions to be fair.
Another bill is also in the works that would mandate a no-exemptions ban as soon as the state's Indian tribes agree to ban smoking in their casinos.
