I see this as infringing on my freedom as an American, end of story. The gov’t needs to learn its place now more then ever. These guys better wakeup because the good people of Michigan need help now more then ever before. There are real issues that need to be addressed and they need to be taken care of now. I believe gov’t is going to see people mobilize and demand accountability. April 15 across the country people are holding tea parties and I believe this is just the start. Michigan has 12 percent unemployment across the state and 17.4 percent in Southeast Michigan; and they are spending time on a smoking ban. You can only push people so far and I think they have just about reached that point. It may work in other countries but if history shows anything it does not work here. Your not going to tax us to death and take away our freedoms. This is the home of the free and land of the brave!
Posts: 2481 | Location: vintagecigarclub | Registered: March 10, 2003
Monk, the House majority leader (who supports exemptions for cigar bars, tobacco shops and Detroit's casinos), has said this is not the No. 1 issue for the state. I've heard he may not want to spend a lot of time on the issue right now.
That said, it's better to pass something with exemptions than send a no-exemption bill to the voters, because they will almost certainly approve it.
I will not compromise freedom. I rather loose it all then bow down. We owe that to the brave men and women that gave their lives to assure these freedoms.
Posts: 2481 | Location: vintagecigarclub | Registered: March 10, 2003
Originally posted by THEMONK: I will not compromise freedom. I rather loose it all then bow down. We owe that to the brave men and women that gave their lives to assure these freedoms.
I'd be curious to hear what you propose...
A bill is going to go in one form or another.
At this stage in the game, what will you do to avoid "compromis[ing] freedom?"
I disagree with the ban as well, but there are certain realities that can't be ignored here, despite the fervent patriotism...
jag
jag, Please help me out here. What are the certain realities that can not be ignored in the face of freedom; in this case?
Posts: 2481 | Location: vintagecigarclub | Registered: March 10, 2003
Monk, I sympathize, but US courts have consistently held there is no "right" to smoke, so the freedom analogy doesn't hold.
I don't recall any soldiers dying for Americans' "right" to inhale smoke from dried leaves.
If we take your position, in a year and a half or sooner, the only plave you will be allowed to smoke indoors in Michigan is a Native American casino, and some lawmakers say they're ready to tackle that one next.
Alternately, if you accept that a ban is coming like those in 35 other states, you work to make it as reasonable as possible. That's what the tobacco lobby has done in recent years.
I have been very active in contacting as many at the state as possible about what I expect. I have also kept these lines of communication open. I have hired an online professional to develop and implement a web based means in which to launch action from and to empower those that want to be more involved. I don’t have a time yet when the site will be functional but it will be (target date less then 5 months out), as I can no longer stand by and take no action. I am not a wealthy man but I am willing to make a substantial investment of not just money but of time and energy. I plan on making any such action as costly as possible for all involved and I hope to be part of a small awaking. Please don’t get me wrong; I understand that I am just one man and I will most likely loose this fight at such a late hour but that does not mean I will not give it what I can. I think the resent tea parties are evident that many others are starting to take action. I don’t think I am wrong or alone and that is pretty powerful. So in short, no amount of compromise makes it right.
I also see this as much larger then this one issue.
Posts: 2481 | Location: vintagecigarclub | Registered: March 10, 2003
Monk, I am impressed with your determination to the cause. I as well have e-mailed many loawmakers and am in regular contact with some lobbyists, which has given me some insight to behind-the-scenes action.
But I, along with the lobbyists fighting for the right to smoke in cigar bars, tobacco shops and similar places know they would not make much traction if they told lawmakers a ban is not needed.
But by stressing that most other states exempt certain places and an all-out ban would mean certain death to cigar bars and lounges, they've gained some allies that wouldn't otherwise have.
The bill may indeed end up buried if the Senate refuses to vote on it again or send it to conference committee (It's still unclear what Sen. Mike Bishop will do. He'd rather not deal with this issue anymore.).
But if a bill is not passed in 2009, anti-smoking groups will likely mount an attempt to get it on the 2010 ballot, where it will almost certainly pass. Getting it on the ballot may not be easy, though.
And this would be a no-exemptions bill. It could even encompass parts of outdoors.
Smoking bans are not a big enough issue to influence elections either way. All incumbents were re-elected last year, regardless of their stance on the smoking ban. I don't think you could get anybody voted out on that issue.
And the odds of getting any changes once the law is passed is very small-- that's why Detroit Dems would not OK a full ban last term, when the idea was to insert the exemptions this year before the full bant took effect.
And no state smoking ban has ever sunset. If anything, they get more strict.
The best shot is to get a ban with some exemptions included passed this year, and give those affected as much time as possible to prepare.
I just watched an online video of Michigan PBS' "Off the Record," where the ban was discussed with a former lawmaker now working with the smokefree group.
They are mulling the ballot option, but will have to decide fairly soon, he said. I'd guess by fall, to start raising cash.
If that happens, I'm not sure an anti-ban group will emerge to fight the ban with their own ballot question, although the Detroit casinos might backroll that. That strategy was tried in AZ, OH and NV in 2006. (RJ Renyolds paid for most of the effort in AZ and OH; slots operators bankrolled the NV try.)
The stricter bans won in all states, although the tobacco money forced the anti-smoking groups to raise millions more than they planned. The MI anti-smoking groups have acknowledged that could be a problem if they face well-financed opposition here.
The constitutional issue is interesting. With the turn to the left of the state's supreme court, I doubt ban opponents would succeed. But maybe a court fight would stall it.
Either way, I think they should work out an agreement. The House seems to think -- hope -- the prospect of a voter-approved total ban will make the Senate want to have a say in crafting the law.
That didn't seem to matter last time and I'm not sure it will this year, either.
As for the gov race, Lt. Gov. Cherry may get the Dems nod, but he will be easy to beat with Granholm's poor record. I think Andy Dillon may challenge him for it. He would fare better.
On the GOP side, I think Mike Cox has a good shot. I don't think L. Boooks Patterson will run.
Meisner was my rep. I wrote him about the ban and met with him twice. I really liked him, even though he told me he would vote for the 100% ban if/when it came up, despite supporting the cigar bar exemption when it was in his committee (and claiming to be an occasional cigar smoker himself). He was very sincere.
I know that in other states, competing ballots on the same issue can appear. Whichever gets the most votes wins.
Before they start collecting signatures, they will probably get the ballot approved as to form (skipping this step is what killed the union-backed "Reform MI Govt Now!" drive last year). We should know by late winter what the ballot question will look like.
I still think fundraising will be a challenge.
As for the gov race, early polls show Cherry in big trouble -- no one knows who he is and when they find out he's affiliated with Granholm, it tanks his numbers.
The only reason Granholm was reelected was DeVos was the wrong candidate in 2006.
Dillon is a former Republican and well-liked/known in the biz community. I think he could get the money.
It looks like the state legislature is putting off tackling the smoking ban for a few months:
House shelves workplace smoking ban
Lansing -- Advocates of a workplace smoking ban in Michigan will have to wait at least a few more months for the issue to return in the Legislature.
House Speaker Andy Dillon, D-Redford Township, said he has decided the House should zero in this spring on balancing the cash-strapped budget and creating jobs in the wounded economy.
"The smoking ban is an important issue, but jobs and the budget are more important right now," Dillon said. "I see us getting back to the smoking issue by summer."
Senate Republicans agree.
"Until we get our unemployment rate down, issues like the smoking ban are not a good use of the Legislature's time," said Matt Marsden, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester.
But Sen. Ray Basham, D-Taylor, a leading proponent of the smoking ban, said lawmakers can work on more than a couple issues at a time.
"I'm OK with multi-tasking," Basham said. "When 3,000 people are dying in Michigan every year from secondhand smoke and smoking-related diseases are costing us billions a year for health care, we should find time to deal with this." ...
For anyone following Michigan's possible smoking ban:
It may not be a ballot drive that takes a statewide smooking ban to Michigan voters.
Sen. Tupac Hunter (D-Detroit) has introduced a bill to ask Michigan voters on the Nov. 2010 ballot if they want a comprehensive smoking ban -- one without exemptions for Detroit casinos, cigar bars tobacco shops or any other workplace.
So far, the state House and Senate have been unable to agree on how far a smoking ban should go. This is what killled the bill last term. The House wants exemptions for ciagr bars, tobacco shops and especially, Detroit's 3 commercial casinos.
The Senate has held that all workplaces -- casinos in particular -- or none should fall under a ban.
I don't know how this ballot suggestion will be received. The ant-smoking activists are still pushing for a House vote on the no-exemptions bill and Detroit House Dems are still adament the casinos be exempted.
Leadership in both chambers has said they want to focus on the growing budget deficit right now and consider the smoking bill a distraction.
There was a report that some version of a smoking ban was to be released from a House committee this week, but that did not happen. No idea what that means, but it's usually sign of some sort of problem for either side.
The committee had been very open to exemptions. It may report the bill next Wednesday.
Two lobbyists I spoke to this week said as the bills are written currently, smoking on outdoor patios would also be illegal (at least for bars and restaurants). Not sure about tobacco shops.
A committee vote on HB 4377, the statewide smoking ban for Michigan with exemptions for tobacco shops, cigar bars and Detroit's 3 casinos, is scheduled for this Wednesday.
No word if other amendments are to be offered or if the bill will be voted on soon in the state House.
A few weeks ago, leadership said they were postponing serious debate on the smoking bills until summer.
The Senate has said it has no interest in the issue at this time. There is speculation it may not vote on the smoking ban again after allowing a vote in 2008.
