Put This In Your Pipe And Smoke It. By Dave M.

April 13, 2006


Senator Kenneth Sikkema
P.O. Box 30036
Lansing, MI 48909-7536

Re: Senate Bills 394 and 395

Dear Senator Sikkema:

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the above referenced Senate Bills that have languished on the Senate Government Operations Committee for nearly a year without action. As Chairman of that committee I believe that your inaction has resulted in the stagnation of this proposed legislation.

By this correspondence I am requesting a written response that details your position on this legislation. I do not simply want a statement that you will keep my concerns in mind, or that you will consider this bill when raised by this committee. You have an opinion on this bill, you know how you will vote, you know what actions you plan to take to keep this legislation from passing or being considered, or what action you will take to get it passed. As a Michigan citizen, I am asking you to tell me your intentions. I believe that this legislation is an eventuality, but I’ve grown tired of waiting for this State to take action on the trend that is sweeping the United States and Europe.

I understand that my own individual opinions are not a concern for you or your political career. I realize that I do not contribute to your campaigns, or hold the clout of the Restaurant and Licensed Beverage Associations, but I can assure you that I am part of an increasingly number of Michigan citizens that have enjoyed the pleasures of smoke free dining and drinking at restaurants or bars of any choice in an increasing number of states and communities across this country. Please take a moment to simply Google the term “smoking ban in restaurants”. Everyday you will find numerous articles about the latest legislation at every level of national and international government taking action on this issue. Unfortunately, Michigan has not only decided reject this trend, but it has preempted its local communities from protecting the citizenry on their own initiatives.

Opponents of this legislation, such as the powerful restaurant and bar lobbies will tell you that this is a property rights or personal rights issue. They demand that the government not interfere with their businesses and their rights to choose for themselves whether to permit smoking or not. I agree that the least possible amount of government intrusion into everyday life is best. But everyone can agree that some governmental intrusion is necessary and truly beneficial. The property and personal choice rights issues argued by opponents to these bills are trumped by the public health issue that second hand smoke raises. A smoker should have the right to smoke, but that right should not infringe upon anyone’s right to breathe uncontaminated air. Governmental intrusion into this area is a necessity. Can you think of any other personal habit or action that has such a demonstrable ill affect upon those in close proximity to the action that has not been regulated? Here are some examples.

If I choose to own a firearm that is my right. But my ownership rights and my rights to fire that gun have been regulated for the benefit of the public health. These various regulations potentially economically burden gun and ammunition retail sellers and manufactures. Despite that economic impact and that diminution in rights, the legislature has restricted gun use. Gun owners cannot simply set up targets and sight in their rifles in their backyards. It’s a public nuisance and a hazard to their neighborhoods. Many hunters would like to hunt on their own land year round, but for the greater public good the government has restricted that personal right.

People love to drive fast, extremely fast. There is perhaps no better way to spend an early summer afternoon than driving north to the Mackinac Bridge on I-75 at approximately 95 mph. That is a personal choice, but when cited for a traffic violation a speeder cannot complain that the government has intruded upon his rights. The government has regulated that activity because speeding has a demonstrable ill affect upon our fellow citizens. In addition to speeding, seat belts are restrictive and uncomfortable. Yet again, the government has taken away the personal right to choose whether or not a seat belt should be worn. The government has even taken away the right to purchase a vehicle manufactured without seat belts or numerous other governmental mandated safety provisions.

Obviously these arguments are rhetorical. No one argues that governmentally mandated speed limits or automobile manufacturing safety standards are not beneficial to society as a whole in addition to the individual citizens that they directly affect. I argue that a statewide workplace, restaurant, and bar smoking ban is of equal benefit and rightly within the legislature’s purview to intervene.

Second hand smoke is a group A carcinogen. It clearly causes cancer in thousands of nonsmokers every year. There is no viable argument that it does not. I know that I have a personal choice to go into any restaurant that has decided to ban smoking and enjoy a smoke free meal. That’s true. But I know of only one such smoke free casual dining restaurant in the city where I live. I don’t know of any non-fast food establishments along the I-75 corridor between my hometown and the Upper Peninsula towns where I spend my summers that have made such a choice. Bars and restaurants are afraid to ban smoking for fear of competition and smoker backlash. This fear, however, is unfounded and has been dispelled in every state and community that has taken the step to ban smoking in public.

Smoking restaurants have lost my business; they potentially alienate the 75% of Michigan’s population that has chosen not to smoke. Anecdotally speaking, most nonsmokers will wait longer for a nonsmoking table rather than sit in a smoking section and they generally tend to avoid smoky restaurants and bars altogether. Statistics bear these observations out when smoking is banned. Statistically speaking, revenues increase and nonsmokers who avoid going out to bars and restaurants return when states ban public smoking.

The free market that we all enjoy as Americans has failed on this point, and that failure gives rise to the government’s duty to act. The free market did not produce automobile seat belts. The free market did produce gun safety or hunting limitations. The government mandated these changes because the free market failed to recognize the public health benefit of making those safety changes on its own. Not even automobile manufactures continue to argue that that they should have the right to produce a vehicle without safety restraints, they now recognize the safety and financial benefits of such regulation. Yes, there can be a financial benefit to regulation.

The restaurants and bars in Massachusetts, California, New York, Dallas TX, El Paso TX, Flagstaff AZ, and the approximately 10 other states and hundreds of other cities and counties that have banned public smoking no longer argue that their businesses will suffer economic hardships as a result of smoking bans. Reputable nonpartisan statistics indicate that in all such locations business has only improved. If there is any economic downside, it occurs only in the first few months, before a significant improvement follows. This legislation will not only clearly benefit every Michigan citizen; it will potentially produce a boon to the food service businesses of this State. The Restaurant Association does not care to investigate these trends; they have simply adopted their fears as truth and boast that they have successfully prevented action on this legislation.

Please do not allow the lobbyists to tell you that this legislation will cost food service jobs. Do your own research. Ask your legislative counterparts across this country whether their states lost food service jobs as a result of this legislation. Ask the restaurant lobbies in those states for their opinions. The evidence suggests that this type of legislation does not hurt businesses.

Let me return to the personal rights issue that this legislation presents. I agree that every citizen aged at least 18 years has the right to utilize tobacco. Where in that right am I allowed to demand that the smoky byproduct of that use not threaten my physical comfort and health, or the health of my children? Where is my right to enjoy smoke free, non-carcinogenic dinning? A restaurant should not be required to prohibit cell phone use in its dining rooms. That should remain a personal choice made by the business owner. But public cell phone use does not negatively affect the physical health of those in close proximity to the cell phone user. The discomfort and ill health affects of second hand smoke, however, puts an additional element into the balance between personal rights and the public health. This element of tobacco use should rightly restrict a smoker’s personal right to smoke around those who have chosen to not accept the risks and discomfort that smoking causes. I ask you to view this legislation from the public health standpoint rather than the personal choice standpoint. A restaurant owner does not have the right to demand that if I want to patronize the establishment that I consume undercooked chicken, or if I go to a buffet that I utilize the same plate when I get a second helping. Why does the same restaurant have the right to demand that if I want to patronize the establishment that I must consume second hand smoke? Please do not refer me to the state mandated establishment of smoking and nonsmoking seating. It is ineffective and antiquated legislation that does not serve the purpose for which it was intended. You, I, and every doctor in this country knows that if smoking is occurring in the restaurant or bar, the byproduct is reaching the lungs everyone present, including the nonsmoking section. Unfortunately, further legislative action is required to protect the citizens of this State. That is not my first choice for a solution, nor, I am sure, is it yours. But, it is the only choice.

Are you prepared to ask those citizens of this State who must work, and can find employment within the food service industry to accept the risks that are unquestionably imposed by second hand smoke? You would not ask a construction worker to work without a hard hat because his boss doesn’t want to accept the financial costs incurred in providing appropriate safety equipment. Why does the Michigan legislature continue to ask restaurant and bar employees to accept the risks of second hand smoke in order to make a living? Michigan jobs are in short supply; you cannot argue that most waitresses are in a position to demand a smoke free working environment or to quit a good job and search out a smoke free restaurant in which to find employment.

Please also consider the tourism industry in your assessment of this legislation. Tourism is a major Michigan industry, restaurants and bars are a major factor in that industry. Michigan tourism competes with Colorado, California, Florida, Vermont, Maine, Massachusetts, and New York. Each of these tourist states has enacted public smoking bans. Do you want the Two Hundred Twenty One Million Americans who do not smoke to make vacation destination decisions in part on whether or not they are guaranteed smoke free dining while on vacation? My own last two out of state vacations have been to smoke free states. It will always be a consideration of mine when traveling. I can assure you that vacationers from non smoking states will not happily patronize those states that have not enacted similar bans. I am reporting to you that once you have enjoyed the benefits of walking into any random restaurant that you happen to pass while on vacation and be guaranteed a smoke free meal, you do not ever want to go back to the endless searching for a smoke free restaurant or an acceptably segregated smoke free section in which to dine.

I urge you to do an independent investigation into the positive benefits that similar legislation has had across this nation and Europe. I don’t want you to take my ramblings or anecdotal arguments at their face value, and I would expect you to similarly question the arguments presented by the Restaurant and Licensed Beverage lobbies. Your duty as a legislator is to make a well informed independent decision despite any leverage or benefit that would induce you to act contrary to your conscious.

I am asking is for you to do some research into the real world benefits this legislation has created both economically and for the public health of the states where it has been enacted, and that you give me an honest written response indicating what position you have taken on this matter. I would like to know what the chances are that the legislature of the state in which I have chosen to live my life is going to act to protect the health of me and my family. I am at least entitled to that courtesy, if not the legislation.

Very Truly Yours,


David M.


Cc: Sen. Jason Allen Sen. Jim Barcia Sen. Raymond Basham
Sen. Patricia Birkholz Sen. Michael Bishop Sen. Liz Brater
Sen. Cameron Brown Sen. Nancy Cassis Sen. Deborah Cherry
Sen. Irma Clark-Coleman Sen. Hansen Clarke Sen. Alan L. Cropsey
Sen. Robert L. Emerson Sen. Valde Garcia Sen. Thomas M. George
Sen. Judson Gilbert II Sen. Mike Goschka Sen. Beverly S. Hammerstrom
Sen. Bill Hardiman Sen. Gilda Z. Jacobs Sen. Ron Jelinek
Sen. Shirley Johnson Sen. Wayne Kuipers Sen. Burton Leland
Sen. Michelle McManus Sen. Dennis Olshove Sen. Bruce Patterson
Sen. Michael Prusi Sen. Alan Sanborn Sen. Mark Schauer
Sen. Martha G. Scott Sen. Tony Stamas Sen. Michael Switalski
Sen. Samuel Buzz Thomas III Sen. Laura Toy Sen. Gerald VanWoerkom
Sen. Gretchen Whitmer