LANSING, Mich. (Map, News) - An anti-smoking bill that appeared to be going nowhere took a surprise turn Thursday in the Senate when 25 lawmakers voted for a ban on smoking in Michigan's bars, restaurants and workplaces.

The bill returns to the House, which has been waiting since December for the Senate to act. The House could send the bill as early as next week to Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who backs the smoking prohibition in part because it could have a positive influence on youngsters. Studies have shown teenagers are less likely to take up smoking in communities with bans.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, who allowed the Senate to vote despite personally opposing the measure, called it a "blatant overreach" of government into private affairs.

"When will it stop? How much control do you want? And when will people have to stop thinking for themselves entirely?" asked Bishop, a Rochester Republican who was one of a dozen senators to vote against the proposal.

Sen. Raymond Basham, a Taylor Democrat and longtime backer of a smoking ban, said the measure was necessary because - while customers may avoid smoky taverns and restaurants - bartenders, waitresses and other employees still have to work in them.

Some Republicans who voted for the legislation said they became more favorable toward a ban as they read more evidence about the hazards of secondhand smoke. The U.S. surgeon general in 2006 reported that breathing any amount of secondhand smoke harms nonsmokers, and called for making buildings and public places completely smoke free.

More than 30 states outlaw smoking in public or work places, according to supporters. Some bans don't apply to restaurants and bars, though, while others make exceptions for casinos and other buildings.

The bill that passed the House five months ago would have exempted casinos, bingo halls, horse tracks, cigar bars and smoke shops from the ban. The Senate stripped those provisions in favor of banning smoking in all workplaces - though American Indian casinos likely would be exempt because many state laws don't apply there because of tribal sovereignty.

Rep. Brenda Clack, a Flint Democrat who sponsored the original legislation, expressed doubts about barring smoking in cigar and smoke shops but remained confident a deal can be reached.

Special exemptions for casinos and other buildings were needed to get the bill through the House the first time around, she said, but the Senate's action sends a strong message that "people want a cleaner, healthier state."

Sixteen Democrats and nine Republicans in the Senate voted for the bill. Eleven Republicans and one Democrat voted against it.

The Michigan Licensed Beverage Association criticized Thursday's vote, saying it could hurt the customer base of Michigan's hospitality industry. Bars and restaurants should be allowed to set their own policies based on what customers want, according to the group and the Michigan Restaurant Association.

More than 5,000 of the roughly 16,000 bars and restaurants in Michigan already ban smoking, up from around 2,200 in 1998.

Supporters of the legislation said studies show that smoking bans in other states didn't have any net economic impact on bars and restaurants. They applauded Bishop for allowing a vote despite his opposition to the bill. Legislative efforts to enact a ban date back nearly a decade.

"It shows that he has heard our concerns about the greater good for all Michigan residents," said Judy Stewart, spokeswoman for the Campaign for Smokefree Air.

---

The smoking ban is House Bill 4163.

---

Comments from Examiner Readers

9:31 AM MST on Mon., Mar. 31, 2008 re: "Smoking ban exception fails in House committee"

Examiner Reader said:
i love the ban thank god

1 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

5:58 PM MST on Mon., Mar. 10, 2008 re: "Smoking over in Maryland bars"

Rhonda said:
who can you call if your company supports people who smoke in the work place.

6 agree | 5 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

2:41 PM MST on Wed., Mar. 5, 2008 re: "Smoking ban yields few complaints"

Examiner Reader said:
What a load of ninnies! Yes, smokers can be annoying, but then so are people who shout into the cell phones, parents who don't discipline their spoiled, obnoxious children when they throw tantrums in public, drivers who apply make-up/eat breakfast/talk on their cell phones/tear through areas of heavy pedestrian traffic in order to shave five seconds off their commute. What's Belmont doing about those omnipresent forms of anti-social and unhealthy behavior? Absolutely nothing. Smokers, an ever-shrinking segment of the U.S. population, have become the ultimate pariahs.

10 agree | 9 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

1:28 PM MST on Wed., Mar. 5, 2008 re: "Smoking ban yields few complaints"

Examiner Reader said:
Am in Belmont alot and I smoke where I want to...When Belmont stops its hypocrsy then I will abide by their laws. Stop selling cigarettes (I bought a pack there), stop taking any tax dollars that was given to you..Then I will abide by your laws..if not I will continue to smoke where I please!!!

10 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

5:59 PM MST on Fri., Feb. 15, 2008 re: "Smoking ban raises few complaints in Maryland so far"

Jeff, an Independent said:
Welcome to the nanny state. Kudos to Mr. Cooke (1:43). I am not a smoker, but I do not want anymore freedoms taken away. I understand the health hazards of smoking, but the government could have mandated smoke eaters instead of flat out ban. What's next? Trans Fats, Alcohol, Legal Gun ownership, Our Free Speech? (oh yeah, that is already being limited now.)

37 agree | 35 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

1:43 PM MST on Sat., Feb. 2, 2008 re: "Smoking over in Maryland bars"

William H. Cooke said:
I don't know if any of you realize this or not, but we claim to have freedom in this country. If I start a business and want to allow smoking in it that is not your concern. If you don't like it don't go in. No one is putting a gun to your head. The fact is that most bars and restaurants were banning smoking on their own. Why you would want to take away, by force of law, the few places that I like to drink is beyond me. Anti-smoking zealots are mentally ill.

62 agree | 49 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

1:30 PM MST on Sat., Feb. 2, 2008 re: "Full smoking ban to take effect June 1 in Howard County"

Examiner Reader said:
Nobody is "banning smoking". All they're doing is saying that you can't smoke indoors where non-smokers are present. This is something that the entire public health community agrees is necessary. You can still buy cigarettes, and you can still smoke in many places. There is certainly no similarity to the alcohol prohibition that was tried back in the 1920s and 1930s. The idea here is that you can certainly smoke, just not in areas that can negatively impact the health of others.

49 agree | 54 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:46 AM MST on Sat., Feb. 2, 2008 re: "Smoking over in Maryland bars"

mark a New Yorker said:
An excellent cross section of opinions. This reporter did a non-biased job It has not hurt business in New York.My guess is that the ban on smoking has increased family outings to places that parents would not usualy take their kids

58 agree | 60 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

7:41 AM MST on Sat., Feb. 2, 2008 re: "Smoking over in Maryland bars"

William H. Cooke said:
The current ban has no exceptions for private clubs and that is an extremely serious infringement on freedom.

66 agree | 61 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

5:40 AM MST on Sat., Feb. 2, 2008 re: "Smoking over in Maryland bars"

Examiner Reader said:
Second hand smoke is a pubic health hazard. Therefore it is appropriate that it be banned from any business open to the public. Open up a private smoking club and let the rest of us enjoy the clean air. Next we need to fine smokers who throw their cigarette butts in the street. Also, don't forget how many fires are started buy careless smokers. Clearly, these druggies are a menace to society.

54 agree | 68 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:03 AM MST on Thu., Dec. 6, 2007 re: "Michigan House passes bill to ban smoking in bars, restaurants"

Michigan Smoker said:
These politicians who can't seem to deal with such trivial issues as balancing a State budget and properly funding public education somehow think they have a mandate to tell consenting adults where and when they can enjoy a smoke. They want to ban smokers from public places while still balancing the budget - or at least trying to - on the backs of those same smokers with their $2.00 per pack State Excise Tax on cigarettes. If they are truly concerned they should go the whole way and ban the sale of yobacco in Michigan and also forgo the taxes those sales bring to the State's coffers. Let the new Puritan smoke nazis pick up the tax gap by shelling out on something else, maybe a 50 cent a bottle tax on Evian water. There is nothing to keep anyplace from going smoke free and when the demand in the marketplace is there I'm sure there will be some bars and rrestaurants catering to non-smokers, while others will make a business of offering a haven for those who do smoke. No probl

57 agree | 60 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

6:19 PM MST on Mon., Oct. 1, 2007 re: "City bars to face tighter smoking ban"

Examiner Reader said:
Pretty sad that someone would be so addicted to cigarettes that they would not go to a bar simply because they'd have to step outside to smoke.

114 agree | 131 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

6:54 PM MST on Sun., Sep. 30, 2007 re: "A smoking ban loophole? Not for many, health advocates say"

Examiner Reader said:
Call it a day on the enticements. I know what I like and want and its not a lawyer.

124 agree | 110 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

4:01 PM MST on Sun., Sep. 30, 2007 re: "A smoking ban loophole? Not for many, health advocates say"

Examiner Reader said:
Call it a day on the enticements. I know what I like and want.

119 agree | 117 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

5:06 PM MST on Fri., Aug. 31, 2007 re: "City bars to face tighter smoking ban"

Larry Waller,Hou. Tex. said:
If a smooker sat next to a person with a really bad body odour, then they should understand how a non-smooker feels about cig. smoke. STINKS!!!

98 agree | 90 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

12:07 PM MST on Wed., Aug. 22, 2007 re: "Harford Community College bans smoking"

Examiner Reader said:
smoking ban about time

142 agree | 143 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

1:49 PM MST on Mon., Jul. 23, 2007 re: "City bars to face tighter smoking ban"

Examiner Reader said:
I have never smoked, but have put up with smokers for all my life. When I worked I had to put up with smoking in meetings and on the job. This gradually went away, but I still had to put up with it in bars and restaurants. Did it ever occur to you smokers, that you getting to be a very small minority? Why should the majority of the people put up with you and your stinking cancer causing habit? You keep blaming the lawmakers. Who do you suppose the lawmakers are trying to appease? If you were in office, would you be trying to get the vote of smokers or non smokers? Even you smokers should be able to figure out the answer.

145 agree | 128 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

1:49 PM MST on Mon., Jul. 23, 2007 re: "City bars to face tighter smoking ban"

Examiner Reader said:
I have never smoked, but have put up with smokers for all my life. When I worked I had to put up with smoking in meetings and on the job. This gradually went away, but I still had to put up with it in bars and restaurants. Did it ever occur to you smokers, that you getting to be a very small minority? Why should the majority of the people put up with you and your stinking cancer causing habit? You keep blaming the lawmakers. Who do you suppose the lawmakers are trying to appease? If you were in office, would you be trying to get the vote of smokers or non smokers? Even you smokers should be able to figure out the answer.

130 agree | 134 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

1:49 PM MST on Mon., Jul. 23, 2007 re: "City bars to face tighter smoking ban"

Examiner Reader said:
I have never smoked, but have put up with smokers for all my life. When I worked I had to put up with smoking in meetings and on the job. This gradually went away, but I still had to put up with it in bars and restaurants. Did it ever occur to you smokers, that you getting to be a very small minority? Why should the majority of the people put up with you and your stinking cancer causing habit? You keep blaming the lawmakers. Who do you suppose the lawmakers are trying to appease? If you were in office, would you be trying to get the vote of smokers or non smokers? Even you smokers should be able to figure out the answer.

145 agree | 93 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

1:35 PM MST on Mon., Jul. 23, 2007 re: "Blagojevich signs law making Illinois's public places smoke-free"

Examiner Reader said:
I thought there were exceptions to this law, such as allowing smoking in Casinos that are on the Mississippi that compete with riverboats in Iowa and Missouri. Also, what about private clubs, such as the VFW, American Legion, AmVets, etc. ??

110 agree | 112 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

4:52 PM MST on Fri., Jun. 15, 2007 re: "City bars to face tighter smoking ban"

Discrimination? Don't be silly. said:
Kicking a random person in a bar would result in a lawsuit (or fight). Second hand smoke is just as physically annoying (and i'm not talking about health issue here) yet you argue by saying "Don't go to the bar. It's easy". Well why don't YOU better not go to the bar instead? My another favourite is "OMG let us smoke you deprive us of our rights" Well why don't you let us have a nice comfortable time in a bar without us having to constantly cough, without sore throat, red eyes and sniffing the stinky air?

168 agree | 137 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

3:27 PM MST on Mon., Jun. 11, 2007 re: "Howard Co. smoking ban to override state law"

Not a moral issue said:
It's not a moral issue. It's a health issue.

182 agree | 177 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

3:25 PM MST on Mon., Jun. 11, 2007 re: "Bay Area city revists restrictive smoking ban"

I need some air said:
In California, smoking bans historically have been OSHA-based. Employers are obligated to provide a safe and healthy environment for employees, hence there is no smoking wherever even one person is employed. Taking that same logic outside of the workplace, the public also has a right to a safe and healthy environment wherever their tax dollars are being spent. Second-hand smoke endangers the life and health of anyone who is exposed to it, even outdoors. Smoking, like drinking alcohol, are tolerated by society up to the point where they become a nuisance or a danger. You can be arrested for being drunk in public if your intoxication causes you to become a nuisance. The same should be true for smoking. If smokers insist on endangering others, they will have to suffer the consequences. They can fight aagainst it, but they can't win. Public smoking is about to become a thing of the past, whether they like it or not.

134 agree | 120 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

8:20 PM MST on Fri., Jun. 1, 2007 re: "City bars to face tighter smoking ban"

Examiner Reader said:
I am the person that stated YOU WILL NOT PUBLISH THIS. I forgot to mention a few items regarding problems that COULD occur without being around SMOKERS, the fact that PEOPLE seem to forget about the CHEMICALS we are around every DAY, or have been exposed to years ago and are probably still exposed TO!!!!! IT JUST AMAZES ME, how quick people are to put the blame on one item. HELLO PEOPLE THINK !!!!!!!!!!1

164 agree | 167 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

2:32 PM MST on Tue., May. 29, 2007 re: "City bars to face tighter smoking ban"

Examiner Reader said:
I applaud the new smoking ban. I have been waiting for years. I am a Republican and welcomed a democratic govenor feeling this was a strong possiblity. Thank you

190 agree | 175 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

8:46 PM MST on Wed., May. 23, 2007 re: "Howard Co. smoking ban to override state law"

marie taylor said:
I am a smoker with as much human rights as the next person. What i don't understand is this most of the elected official call themselves christians. Why are you so busy with the small person smoking when you have allowed Gays the freedom to get married to live as they choose when the smoker cannot sit in a public place and have a cigarette. when a criminal has the right to choose what type of diet he would like in jail. or convicted felons to prey on other people to live back in the community, you are not concern about the high cost of gas or BGE increases just smoking,HIV kills more people than second hand smoke.I voted for mayor o'malley but that will not happen again he signed the bill to ban smoking to make maryland a smoke free state what about a crime free state the officials need to get a clue as to what is important and a damn cigarette is not worth all this controversity. what will be next how we sleep in our homes or will our homes be included in this state wide ban.

206 agree | 210 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:05 AM MST on Mon., May. 21, 2007 re: "Minnesota Lawmakers Pass Smoking Ban"

An EX-smoker who thinks smoking in public is ok said:
I think the state needs to stop wussy footing around. I f people want to smoke let them, or make smoking totally illegal. I am an ex-smoker. I think it should an all or nothing thing. Caffeine should be illegal too because it is a stimulant. Alcohol should be illegal look how many people die from that each year....Oh we tried that one it didn't work. I think this is all part of the wussification of America

125 agree | 118 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

5:29 PM MST on Fri., May. 18, 2007 re: "Minnesota Lawmakers Pass Smoking Ban"

Scott B. said:
I have to say I am against this bill but personally what I think is the real heart of the matter is if they stop the people from smoking in bars people will not go hence the drinking and driving statistics will go down. This is just a back door entry to stop people from doing that. What they need to be doing is instead of wasting time and money on ways to stop people for doing something that is legal they need to put that money and time to the people that protect us and take care of the real problems that the US faces today.

121 agree | 124 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

4:01 PM MST on Fri., May. 18, 2007 re: "Full smoking ban to take effect June 1 in Howard County"

Examiner Reader said:
Phil H People don not get the fact that we are legislating our civil liberties away left & right. It seems lkike they can't do anything about drugs and crime and shootings but lets ban a legal product! And as far as a worker choosing to work in a smoking environment thats everones right to work where they choose to and accept the risks involved like coal minners and police officers all kinds of harmfull environments. I just believe that there are so many other issues that need front page attention but, this looks good on paper. Watch out as obesity is now a leading cause of death so your ice cream might be next on the banned list!

191 agree | 186 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:38 AM MST on Mon., May. 14, 2007 re: "Minnesota Lawmakers Pass Smoking Ban"

Josh L. said:
That's all BS! Who gave them the right to tell use what we can and can't do LET US SMOKE! If people think they will die from 2nd hand smoke Don't go to the bar. It's easy. Granted it's a bad thing but it are choice. NOT YOURS!!!

139 agree | 132 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

11:31 AM MST on Fri., May. 11, 2007 re: "City bars to face tighter smoking ban"

Steve D. said:
Hopefully bars here will do the same thing that bars in Califonia do, it's simple...they all put "additions" on the back part of the bar that only has 3 walls and a roof and a couple of space heaters and then put a tree in the middle of the area - it consitutes an "outdoor" area and smoking is permitted. If there's no smoking INSIDE the bar, the non-smokers can't bitch about us going OUTSIDE in our specified section to smoke and enjoy ourselves.

203 agree | 175 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:21 AM MST on Fri., May. 11, 2007 re: "City bars to face tighter smoking ban"

Examiner Reader said:
Bar owners here will have to follow Canada and the Netherland's bars' examples and park an empty "smoking" bus outside the bar - smokers should be able to have a place to go and smoke and drink at the same time if they want to! Especially in the winter. What's next? No smoking in your car? On the sidewalk? Why not just go after the manufacturers if it's so bad, and force them to stop making cigarettes!

191 agree | 169 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:17 AM MST on Fri., May. 11, 2007 re: "City bars to face tighter smoking ban"

Examiner Reader said:
Rediculous! As an occasional smoker, bars were the one place i used to enjoy it the most - to take that away would also take away that pleasure. People have to expect smoke in bars - that's part of the package - at least, that's how I grew up. Then again, I never grew up...I just grew older!

177 agree | 170 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

9:47 AM MST on Fri., May. 11, 2007 re: "City bars to face tighter smoking ban"

Meghan B. said:
This is the first of a lot of stupid things this County will do. To me It seems like because there are new public officals in office "THEY" are trying to make a point, or even make it look like they are conducting strong offical business. Look... they didn't have to push this so hard. If anything they should have put the ban at bars, restaurants, etc during the daytime when there are small children at these places. For the adults who dont like smoke...well... They think NO SMOKING is a great thing. Maybe they should invest into Baltimore by building there own "SMOKE FREE" business.

186 agree | 173 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

7:54 AM MST on Fri., May. 11, 2007 re: "Full smoking ban to take effect June 1 in Howard County"

Karl Chue said:
If "non-smoking" bars were a good business model, were just as economically viable as smoking bars, or if there was a demand from the "non-smoking" public, then there would have been more of them before the ban. I've been to pretty much every bar in Baltimore and not a single one employed that model. This may not destroy the bars, but it will force them to raise prices and/or institute mandatory gratuities to offset the revenue loss. I would suggest that bars implement a plan where non-smokers pay more than smokers to make things fair.

167 agree | 209 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

5:45 PM MST on Thu., May. 10, 2007 re: "Full smoking ban to take effect June 1 in Howard County"

Mario Arenas said:
This ban is essentially going to kill small bar and restaurants. I've been to New York City, Los Angeles, and Boston where they all have similar bans in place, and the bar employees that I have spoken to all say that their income has significantly dropped since the bans have been in effect. For a so called liberal state, Maryland and Howard County especially really don't show tolerance for the rights of anyone who doesn't agree with those that get these laws passed - because it certainly is not the majority. While I was still employed in Ellicott City, the Howard County Times flat out refused to print an editorial I wrote because I was speaking against the ban. What everyone fails to realize is that bar employees are paid less than minimum wage and depend on tips to make up the difference. And, it doesn't hurt me to say it, but typically families and non-smokers are horrible tippers. So servers work harder for less money. But I guess non-smokers get what they want, noone else matte

188 agree | 222 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

12:46 PM MST on Wed., May. 2, 2007 re: "Complaints are rolling in after smoking ban took effect"

Ray Petrulsky said:
The Arizona Science Center has the Bodyworlds 3 exhibit which shows an actual smokers lung versus a non-smokers. Smokers already know they are going to die a slow and painful death. Nothing society can do or say will stop them from hacking their way to the grave. I have not seen one documented case that second hand smoke kills people. This law is just another way for our government to involve themselves in people lives. It all began in California when they started to section off portions of restaurants for better customer service and has turned into a nightmare for people who go to bars and wish to light up. The people who are poisoning their liver with alcohol feel that it is okay to ban someone else's disease casusing habit as long as they can have their own. Oh the Hypocrisy!!!!

165 agree | 160 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate