Michigan workplace smoking ban passes!

I'll make this quick. I'm happy to report a victory for the health of citizens of the Great Lakes State.

The Michigan Senate has just passed a ban on smoking in the workplace!

The bill passed 25-12 and will be returned to the House for a concurrence vote, after which it will be presented to the Governor.

(For those of you who've heard about the Guv's emergency surgery for a bowel obstruction last week: She's resting comfortably and will probably be able to sign the bill from home.)  

Special thanks to State Senator Ray Basham for his tireless efforts to get this bill to a vote despite repeated efforts by the Republican majority to stop it. Thanks also to Representative Brenda Clack, who introduced the bill in the House.

More details will appear on Michigan Liberal as they become available.

•  TIPS for Public Health!

  by ScottyUrb on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:20:11 AM PDT

  •  One more government intrusion.

    I'm all for public health, but going after smokers is nothing but a witch hunt.

    Automobile exhaust is dangerous to the "public health" too, but I don't see the anti-smokers calling for bans on automobile exhaust.

    by Kronos Blue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:29:32 AM PDT

    •  Amen There n/t

      by webranding on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:31:04 AM PDT

    •  Slight difference-no one shoves their tailpipe...

      ...into your cubicle.

      I have no problem with people smoking in outdoor, open areas (as long as it's not a fire hazard.

      by Brainwrap on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:33:58 AM PDT

      •  Well What If I Own The Freaking Building? n/t

        by webranding on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:36:05 AM PDT

        •  Do you own your employees?

          by pat208 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:37:38 AM PDT

          •  Nope, Not At All

            but when you interview for a job you know ahead of time it is a smoking environment.

            by webranding on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:38:27 AM PDT

            •  Not permitted for any other substance.

              "But you knew you'd be handling radioactive waste when you signed up for this job!" Nope, not permitted. There are limits to the risks that potential employees are allowed to take.

              Safe workplaces are a right, not an option. Otherwise every employer could cut costs, reduce safety, degrade the working environment for their own gain, and force potential workers to choose among bad alternatives.

              by pat208 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:42:45 AM PDT

              •  Safe Workplace

                I have a right to a safe workplace. Yes, I'm sure you do. Then maybe you should argue that everything that is unsafe be banned then. Why focus on smoking alone?

                by Kronos Blue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:55:02 AM PDT

                •  Who says we're singling it out?

                  Why focus on smoking alone?

                  This diary happens to be about a smoking ban. Democratic Party policy happens to be in favor of safe workplaces for everyone, in and out of the US, regardless of hazard.

                  Then maybe you should argue that everything that is unsafe be banned then.

                  And that's just silly, because there is nothing that is "unsafe." Also, my profession is risk analysis. So keep arguing if you like.

                  Good policy weighs costs and benefits, and sets priorities based on bang for the buck. Smoking cessation is one of the cheapest ways to save a lot of lives.

                  by pat208 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:00:23 PM PDT

                  •  Risk Analysis?

                    Now I'm intimidated!

                    My argument is that government should not be in the business of determining what is appropriate for me to consume. This workplace ban, for example, is nothing more than non-smokers getting an advantage that smokers don't have.

                    Do non-smokers have a right to a smoke-free environment? Yes. Do non-smokers have a right to require their employer mandate a smoke free environment? No.

                    In the few places that allow smoking at work (as opposed to an outside break room) then the non-smoker can leave. Yes, leave. Quit. Go somewhere else. Sound harsh? It isn't. Why? Because workers do not have a right to a particular place of employment.

                    by Kronos Blue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:10:58 PM PDT

                    •  Extended more broadly...

                      ... you could justify having high levels of, say, cotton fiber in your workplace, even though they might cause lung problems for your workers, because anyone who doesn't like it could leave.

                      That's the Republican policy on workplace safety. That's also the Chinese government's policy on workplace safety. We're supposed to be better than either of them.

                      by pat208 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:14:32 PM PDT

                      •  Republican?

                        Yes, I'm advancing republican policy by suggesting that it is inappropriate for government to be more zealous in targeting cigarette smoke than automobile exhaust, both of which are harmful.

                        Personally, I don't think that people should smoke at work, unless they all smoke. But should all the smokers be banned from smoking for the sake of the one that doesn't?

                        Like it or not, people have to take responsibility for their own lives, and where they can't, that is the point where government should step in. But the argument most non-smokers advance is that government should legislate a solution for them, when they at all times had a choice to frequent a place where smoking was accepted.

                        If responsibility is a republican talking point, then there is something seriously wrong with your "analysis."

                        by Kronos Blue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:20:44 PM PDT

                        •  You're missing the key point.

                          But should all the smoke rs be banned from smoking for the sake of the one that doesn't?

                          Yes. It's the smoke that is being banned from the workplace.

                          Smokers in Michigan are still free to smoke.

                          And what's this crazy talk about wanting this more than tailpipe emissions? (That's both a straw man - nobody's argued it - and a false dichotomy - it's both/and not either/or.) Maybe you've been out of the country since, um, 1965, but auto emissions are heavily regulated, have been increasingly so for decades, and are subject to ever-increasing demands for reductions. Google "Prius" or "ozone" for goodness sakes.

                          by pat208 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:25:35 PM PDT

                          •  No, I'm Not.

                            I am really with you about the smoke free workplace, but the legislation here is not merely about a smoke free workplace. It covers restaurants and bars too. Many bars and restaurants already prohibit smoking, which is fine with me. But there are some that allow it, which is fine with me as well.

                            Now government, no matter what way you try to spin it, has any business telling those establishments that do allow it, that they can no longer do it because a non-smoker "might" happen to come in.

                            If a non-smoker goes to a bar that says "Smoker Friendly," what right does government have to mandate that private establishment change it's policy to accommodate those that don't smoke?  

                            by Kronos Blue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:40:14 PM PDT

                        •  Then by YOUR logic, lets get DRUNK at work.

                          Why do YOU have the right to SPEW carcinogens into the air for no other reason than a nicotine addiction?
                          Shouldn't drinkers be allowed to enjoy their "drug" at work also? How about pot smokers, or other drug users?
                          Most DEMS support restrictions on automobile exhaust. For example CAFE standards reduce the amount of gasoline used, thus lowerering emisions.

                          CIGAGERRETES are the ONLY product that if used according to their intended use will kill you.

                          Cigarette users are NOT victims, except possibly of cigarette manufacturers and advertisers. I should NOT have to endure smelly clothes, itchy eyes, coughing, etc beacause of someone bad habits, to earn a living in a workplace.

                          Tucker Carlson says "What right is there in the constitution is there to have clean air?"

                          by sd4david on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:46:08 PM PDT

                          •  That's Funny.

                            I should NOT have to endure smelly clothes, itchy eyes, coughing,...

                            Maybe we should criminalize stinky people, those with allergies, and those with colds since "YOU" should not have to endure them.

                            by Kronos Blue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:52:16 PM PDT

      •  Tail Pipes

        No one shoves their tail pipe into your cubicle. I would hope not, but how exactly is this a problem for government to solve? Seems to be an issue for your employer to address.

        by Kronos Blue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:47:45 AM PDT

    •  Their smoke goes after everyone else.

      going after smokers is nothing but a witch hunt

      This is no more an "intrusion" than regulations keeping your pollution out of my drinking water.

      And by the way, we all pay an enormous cost for smokers' unhealthy habits.

      by pat208 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:35:30 AM PDT

      •  Oh Don't Even Go Down The Cost Path

        I pay a lot for people that are overweight but I don't think we should regulate the size of somebodies waist.

        by webranding on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:37:17 AM PDT

        •  Slippery slope much?

          If smokers want to commit suicide, that's fine with me. I have a problem with them insisting on taking others with them.

          And another interesting fact you will ignore; a recent study showed that restaurant smoking bans has been reducing the level of teens smoking, because it sends a clear signal of disapproval that is preventing some teens from starting.

          by pat208 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:40:06 AM PDT

        •  Your own health isn't affected by

          someone else's obesity. Your health is affected by someone else's smoke.

          Apples and oranges.

          by ScottyUrb on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:40:09 AM PDT

          •  Not correct, Scott

            Obesity has proven health risks. And when an obese person (insured or uninsured) goes to the hospital or the doctors, then it effects my premiums. You're simply wrong.

            by Kronos Blue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:05:13 PM PDT

            •  And you're conflating two arguments.

              1. There is no second-hand fat.

              2. But the obese do cost the health system an enormous amount.

              With smoking, both issues are at play, which is one reason why it's an easy -- and appropriate -- target for legislation.

              by pat208 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:12:12 PM PDT

            •  I did say health

              as in, physical health.

              by ScottyUrb on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:15:22 PM PDT

              •  Yes, Scott. I Didn't Read It Well.

                My apologies.

                by Kronos Blue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:24:01 PM PDT

      •  We All Pay? Yes, Purge The Obese Then!

        If you're going to run with this lament about how we all pay for health hazards, then let's not forget the obese.

        While we're at it, those donuts you have over there, get rid of them. That table salt, trash it. Maybe you should provide an inventory of your household goods so that government can determine if it will effect the public pocketbook.

        Are you at all getting the point?

        by Kronos Blue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:03:32 PM PDT

        •  You're not even close to getting the point.

          The primary problem with smoking in the workplace is the health effect on others. That's what this ban addresses - it does not require people to stop smoking, nor does it argue that these people's own health costs are the reason for the ban.

          However, the side benefit, a bonus if you will, of reducing smoking, if that's what happens here, is that their disproportionate burden on the health system will be reduced, freeing limited health care resources to take care of, I dunno... trauma care, prenatal care, hospice care, whatever.

          by pat208 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:10:42 PM PDT

      •  Totally False.....

        The rhetoric about the "added health care costs" imposed by smokers (or the obese) is diametrically opposed to the reality.  A Dutch government study just a couple months ago confirmed that the demographic that runs up the highest lifetime health care bills are "healthy weight nonsmokers" who tend to live longer and mooch the most government health care services in their geriatric years.  The lifetime health care costs for the obese is 11% lower, while smokers' health care costs are 21% lower over the course of a lifetime.  The group forced to pay the most money towards health care costs just happen to run up the cheapest health care bills.  This is particularly tragic given that smokers tend to be downscale, and the justification for the regressive taxes foisted upon them with increased regularity is not based on reality.

        by Mark27 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:48:09 AM PDT

•  Ok so Michigan had allowed people

  to smoke in the work place? Or is this some law making it illegal to have smoke breaks?

  by Dreggas on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:20:46 AM PDT

  •  smoke breaks are ok

    you just have to go outside or to a designated smoking place. Many counties here, including my own, already had the ban. This just makes it statewide. Yet another victory for the nanny state, IMO.  

    Oh well, it's democracy. Whatcha gonna do?

    by dougymi on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:33:54 AM PDT

    •  We have had the ban here in Chippewa Cty

      too. This is nothing different than what we had and was really not needed as most Counties have already banned it in the work place. Now, If they would just ban the polution coming from Canada, and the freighters spewing asbestos, we would be all set.

      by Owllwoman on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:36:52 AM PDT

•  I haven't seen smoking in the workplace

  Since 1990 or so.

  Wow.

  And I've lived in KENTUCKY since 1995.

  by slippytoad on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:23:47 AM PDT

  •  And the world didn't end, did it?

    Most people live in states where smoking in the workplace is a distant memory, and life goes on just fine.

    Some of the commenters in this diary are acting like the Government of Michigan is confiscating their guns donuts lattes Birkenstocks hell, I dunno... something life-supporting.

    by pat208 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:20:01 PM PDT

    •  Actually....

      ....bars and restaurants throughout the country are reporting double-digit losses of business since smoking have been advancing at fever pitch....at least the ones that haven't already gone bankrupt yet.  In my home state of Minnesota, bars have been exploiting a "theater night" loophole to cynically manipulate the calamitous new smoking ban in that state and keep from going broke.  Now my adopted home state of Iowa has swallowed the same smoking ban poison, and particularly in rural Iowa, is assured of devastating commerce at a time when the economy is already hurting.  For especially hard-hit to choose to destroy its hospitality industry based on "article of faith" smoking bans is particularly deranged.  

      by Mark27 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:54:19 AM PDT

•  I Can't Say What I Think

  cause I will sound like a Republican.

  by webranding on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:24:30 AM PDT

•  Wow...I never figured the GOP Senate would...

  ...let it go through. Hooray!

  by Brainwrap on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:31:43 AM PDT

•  Woo hoo!

  I hope Pittsburgh follows soon.

  In the meantime, we'll spend our $ in Ohio.

  by Vote On Paper on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:47:23 PM PDT