The RIGHT way to limit smoking in your environment..

Fortunately, Michigan has not yet seen passage of the smoking bans presented and approved by the House nor the Senate.  The debate as to WHY these bills did not see the governor’s pen can go elsewhere for now.  The pressure will most certainly result with the  passage of SOME form of repressive government measure in the near future however.  And, as I have said before there are Right ways to promote health issues, and there are LEFT Wrong ways to promote health issues.

Among the (fewer) minor success stories you read or hear about in the local newsletters, papers and radio, you can always find the truth buried or perhaps even out front.  Again, I find another lesson to be learned which has been presented by someone who actually provides a service, a product.. something worthwhile.

In a recent email issue of the Traverse City business news ticker, a local businesswoman, Nancy Freund is highlighted as being able to turn around one of the local watering holes and turning it family friendly as it had been decades before.  Amongst the changes made was a decision to start smoke-free Thursdays about a year ago and more recently adding smoke-free Saturdays with family activities (WII).


She did it.  She didn’t HAVE to, but Freund had made the decision that a “smoke free environment” at least for particular times was appropriate to her continually changing business model.  It was the owner of that particular enterprise who made the choice to expand from a DAY of smoke free, to a day AND a WEEKEND of smoke free environment.  And it is likely she will find herself making the final plunge towards a completely smoke free mode in the future.

I Applaud the decisions made by business owners like Freund who decide for themselves to become clean air zones..  But as the actions of government nearly ALWAYS limits free and open enterprise,  I Abhor the actions of our state legislature in its attempt to stifle the ability of businesses to operate by fiat.

7 comments for “The RIGHT way to limit smoking in your environment..

  1. January 9, 2009 at 2:57 pm

    There is absouetly no good reason not to enact a workplace smoking ban in Michigan. Studies from the 34 state and entire countries that already have the ban indicate that banning smoking in Michigan’s bars and restaurants will be both good for Michigan economically and for the health of the people who work in those establishments. Just this summer a leading Lansing public policy group released a study that summarized 43 other studies and six public health reports across North America that have examined the economic and health aspects of banning workplace smoking in some form, and they concluded there is no net economic impact on bars and restaurants. It also included polls showing increasing public support for bans, with support even stronger after bans have been enacted.

    Only a small portion of Michigan residents still smoke, 21 percent to be exact. The other 79 percent of Michigan residents may also like to eat out and have a drink with friends. There are people all over the state saying they will not or cannot, for health reasons, frequent a bar or restaurant where people smoke.

    Michigan should join the other 34 states that ban smoking, including our neighbor Ohio and Illinois, and while we are not Canada, they join many other countries; such as England, Germany, Ireland, Scotland and just recently France; in going smoke free.

    The reality is that secondhand smoke kills. In fact, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has classified secondhand smoke as a Group A carcinogen containing 4,000 chemicals, including 43 cancer-causing chemicals. In Michigan alone 3,000 people die each year from secondhand smoke. As such, I firmly believe that smokers’ rights end when their personal choices negatively impact the health and well-being of nonsmokers. This is especially important given that secondhand smoke is the third leading preventable cause of death in the U.S.

    This legislation is not about the state trying to interfere with a business decision. It is about the state protecting the public’s health just as it does with regulations about how restaurants store, handle and prepare food. It is a public health issue. The facts also say a smoking ban will reduce health care costs. In just one year after Italy enacted a national smoking ban, researchers in Rome found an 11.2 percent reduction of acute coronary events in persons 35 to 64 years and a 7.9 percent reduction in those ages 65 to 74, according to a study in, “Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association.” That alone would be a significant savings in health care costs.

  2. jgillman
    January 9, 2009 at 5:54 pm

    Your Comment…

    “This legislation is not about the state trying to interfere with a business decision. It is about the state protecting the publics health just as it does with regulations about how restaurants store, handle and prepare food. It is a public health issue. The facts also say a smoking ban will reduce health care costs.”

    While I appreciate your honest attempts at protecting the public at large, There have been deaths by Auto Accidents, Place Crashes, Derailments, and Moped Mishaps. All of these are preventable.. Should we stop transportation?

    Next your reply might be: “they aren’t bad behavior activities which affect other people’s health..”

    True.. gosh let me see.. What about Gay sex? Water down the effects of something your liberal culture has brought as a disease spread by primarily the homosexual population into the normal population as something its not perhaps? Or better yet what of the health of the unborn? Are you ready to stand up for their health? I didn’t think so. Most liberals won’t.

    The smoking issue might well affect health care costs, and is a burden on society, however I don’t recall in the constitution where “health care” was the responsibility of the tax payer anyhow. Using one unconstitutional wrong to support another hardly warms any patriotic feelings here..

    The patrons of any business can choose to enter the doors of that business.. or not. Likewise no one FORCES employees to accept a position in an environment where smoking occurs.

    The difference between liberal and conservative views on subject such as these, is that Liberal thought assumes the individual carries a childlike inability to discern one’s surroundings and the effect on their health, whereas the Conservative believes we have the capability to make those decisions and act on them in our own manner of care and responsibility.

  3. January 9, 2009 at 9:41 pm

    True, and the government has safety regulations effecting “Auto Accidents, Plane Crashes, Derailments, and Moped Mishaps. “ in fact, the Michigan Constitution says the Legislature has an obligation to pass laws that protect the health and welfare of the people. The smoking ban meets that criteria.

    Gay sex? How does gay sex affect you? HIV did not originate from gays, and it can be transmitted from hetro sex and even from transfusions. The health of the unborn? What are we not doing to protect it? If you do not believe in abortion, don’t have one. I strongly believe in the health of the unborn, and that’s why I support prenatal care for all women who choose not to have an abortion. I don’t see what any of this has to do with banning a toxic substance in public places.

    This is a public health issue, nothing more nothing less. Also, it’s a nonpartisan issue. Just take a look at who voted for and against the bill. This BS about “Liberal thought assumes the individual carries a childlike inability to discern one’s surroundings and the effect on their health” is just that.

  4. jgillman
    January 9, 2009 at 11:30 pm

    I suspect this is the section of the constitution you refer to?

    “Sec. 51. The public health and general welfare of the people of the state are hereby declared
    to be matters of primary public concern. The legislature shall pass suitable laws for the protection
    and promotion of the public health.”

    Then certainly under the broad conditions it provides, you would have to agree that alcohol would be considered as bad or worse? Perhaps advocating a dry state? What about piercing of nipples and genitalia? And as for gay sex, would you argue that fornication of a rectal nature is as “safe” as traditional sex? You deny that the original onset of HIV-AIDs (in America) was primarily prevalent in the Gay Male community? And that its spread in the hetero community was due to promiscuity and mixed (Gay-Straight) sex partners, and finally through blood transfusions?

    In the early 1980s there was a reason Gays and intravenous drug users were considered “high risk” and discouraged from donating blood. As recent as 2006, 15-20% of AIDS patients were from blood transfusions, and Almost 50% still resulted from Male-Male sexual activity according to the CDC.

    So if a Smoking BAN in a private enterprise to promote the health and welfare in the context you provide is appropriate, then SURELY you would agree a BAN on homosexual activity is equally so. Just remember.. its for the children.. The first documented victim of an AIDS blood transfusion case WAS a baby…

    now.. having said all that. If gay folks want to do gay things.. I really don’t pretend to judge. I am merely making comparisons and underlining that there is a point which we cross that violates freedom and fundamental concepts under which this country was brought together.

  5. January 9, 2009 at 11:50 pm

    So CG, are you saying that people have the right to work for or patronize a business?

Comments are closed.

Loading Facebook Comments ...