Make your own free website on Tripod.com
   100th Anniversary  
in 2009 for
Michigan's Law on
SAFE CIGARETTES: 
REQUIRED BY MICHIGAN LAW

Background on The Safe Cigarettes Law (MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216)
A Smokers' - Nonsmokers' Rights / Cigarette-Ban
Law In One Sentence!
The Smoke-Free Michigan Law
Adopted Under A Consumer Activist Governor

Table of Contents
1. The Michigan Smokers' - Nonsmokers' Rights Law
2. Cigarettes Contain Deleterious Ingredients
3. Cigarettes Emit Deleterious Emissions
4. Foreign Substance Coumarin In Cigarettes
5. Impartial Analyses of the Ingredients' Deleteriousness
6. Hooking Children As Young As Six On Smoking
7. The Cigarette Holocaust
8. Cigarettes and 90% of Suicide
9. The Law Vs Cigarette-Induced Deaths
10. Cigarette-Induced Abulia
11. Nicotine: The Starter Drug
12. Cigarettes and 90% of Alcoholism
13. Cigarettes and 90% of Crime
14. Cigarettes and AIDS
15. Cigarettes and Divorce
16. Tobacco and Abortion
17. Pre-1909 Data on the Tobacco Hazard
18. Adults' Concern Then For Setting A Right Example for Youth
19. Case List, Litigation Involving Tobacco Issues
20. Modern Evidence for the Law
21. What You Can Do to Help

1. The Michigan Smokers' - Nonsmokers' Rights Law

          You may have heard of the old federal proposal (H.R. 1130) for "fire-safe" cigarettes--to halt the home and business fires caused by cigarettes. Michigan has gone this concept one better, and requires cigarettes to be chemical safe.

This cigarette control concept requires the ingredients themselves to be safe. It prevents discrimination against
  • (1) smokers, the only group of people otherwise denied a safe product, and

  • (2) children, who may otherwise be criminalized, as it bans both the manufacture, and the illegal sale BY THE RETAILER, in the first place.

           The safe cigarettes law is a smokers' rights law, institutionalizing having manufacturers respect smokers' right to a safe product. This is the same right as all other people have to safe products (the right smokers elsewhere must sue to obtain).

Tobacco manufacturers and sellers are against smokers' rights; manufacturers have a record of violating this smoker right, as smokers' lawsuits establish. (To tobacco companies, who invariably oppose such smokers' rights lawsuits, evidently smokers have no rights except to buy the stuff!—a denial of normal consumer protection rights).

Others allege that smokers' rights and nonsmokers' rights clash. Michigan's wise approach avoids the alleged clash. Nonsmokers typically only are hurt by, and object to, deleterious cigarettes producing "Toxic Tobacco Smoke" (TTS, or ETS). Smokers are only hurt by deleterious cigarettes.

Wherefore, via Michigan's safe cigarettes law, the rights of both groups to safety are protected. Michigan's law is thus both a smokers' and nonsmokers' rights law, combined into one.

Michigan's cigarette law was adopted thanks to the influence of

Health activists regularly lament that 'cigarettes kill when used as intended.' Not in Michigan!

The Legislature provided a product safety law granting what health activists want for all products:
  • no cigarettes can have deleterious ingredients,

  • no cigarettes can be adulterated.

This law was passed and signed during the third term of consumer activist Governor Fred M. Warner.


Gov. Fred M. Warner
Courtesy, State Archives of Michigan


Michigan's safe-cigarettes law, MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216, forbids

"any person within the state" from action that "manufactures, sells or gives to anyone, any cigarette containing any ingredient deleterious to health or foreign to tobacco . . . ."

MCL § 333.12601 et seq. prohibits smoking in public establishments.

In contrast, federal law 18 USC § 2341, § 2342, § 2343, § 2344, § 2345, and § 2346, does nothing to protect the rights of either smokers or nonsmokers from TTS, but merely bans "Trafficking in Contraband Cigarettes." Michigan's safe cigarettes law dates from the time of activist Gov. Fred Warner and the nineteenth century anti-slavery and revival/reformist movements.

Note the 1909 year. This was a decade before Alcohol Prohibition (1919-1933) even began. Banning dangerous/adulterated products is NOT Prohibition. Michigan's anti-deleterious-cigarettes law is not Prohibition. On the contrary, it is standard, normal, everyday, run-of-the-mill, garden-variety, typical, routine, common, all-other-products-style, consumer protection law. [We say this, not that you don't recognize this fact, but because others have falsely called the Michigan law 'prohibitionist'!!]

Shortly before the 1909 law was passed, the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Felsenheld / Merry World Tobacco v United States, 186 US 126; 22 S Ct 740; 46 L Ed 1085 (1902), upheld confiscating tobacco for having anything other than tobacco in the packages. Thus the Michigan law of 1909, banning "foreign" substances, was a logical result.

Case law has long established that the manufacturer is liable for a defective product, as products must be safe for intended use. See for example, Wallace v Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co, 69 SW2d 857 (Tex Civ App, 1934) (a tobacco product liability case involving contamination by metal particles).

           Michigan's smokers' rights law (the right to a safe product as all other products are required to be) is routinely disobeyed by tobacco companies' discriminating against smokers. Evidence showing this defiance of their customers' rights, and thus of nonsmokers' rights, includes but is not limited to the following.

2. Cigarettes Contain Deleterious Ingredients

           Cigarettes are inherently dangerous, says Banzhaf v Federal Communications Commission, 132 US App DC 14, 29; 405 F2d 1082, 1097 (1968) cert den 396 US 842 (1969). The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Reducing the Health Consequences of Smoking: 25 Years of Progress: a Report of the Surgeon General, Publication CDC 89-8411, Table 7, pp 86-87 (1989), lists examples of TTS deleterious ingredients including but not limited to:

acetaldehyde (1.4+ mg)arsenic (500+ ng)benzo(a)pyrene (.1+ ng)
cadmium (1,300+ ng)crotonaldehyde (.2+ µg)chromium (1,000+ ng)
ethylcarbamate 310+ ng)formaldehyde (1.6+ µg)hydrazine (14+ng)
lead (8+ µg)nickel (2,000+ ng)radioactive polonium (.2+ Pci)

Judicial notice of cigarettes' "inherent" deleteriousness is taken pursuant to an 1897 Tennessee law, in Austin v State, 101 Tenn 563; 566-7; 48 SW 305, 306; 70 Am St Rep 703 (1898) affirmed 179 US 343, 21 S Ct 232; 45 L Ed 224 (1900). The Michigan cigarette law was passed soon thereafter, in 1909. And none too soon, as shortly, in the case of Latimer v U S, 223 US 501; 32 S Ct 242; 56 L Ed 526 (PR, 19 Feb 1912), exposing tobacco company processing methods, it came out that tobacco sweepings from off-the-floor were being used in cigarettes.

3. Cigarettes Emit Deleterious Emissions

           § 2. covered the smokers' rights aspect—deleterious ingredients in cigarettes' TTS. Here is the nonsmokers' rights aspect, pursuant to the "ultrahazardous" impact of TTS on nonsmokers violating the right to "fresh and pure air." Due to cigarettes' inherently deleterious nature and ingredients, they, when lit, emit TTS deleterious emissions, impacting nonsmokers (and, truly, smokers too).

           The Department of Health, Education and Welfare (DHEW), Smoking and Health: Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service, PHS Pub 1103, Table 4, p 60 (1964), lists examples of cigarettes' deleterious emissions contrasted with the "speed limits" (official term: "threshold limit values"—TLV's) set by the federal toxic chemicals regulation 29 CFR § 1910.1000, including but not limited to:

TTS ChemicalQuantityTLV
acetaldehyde 3,200 ppm 200.0 ppm
acrolein 150 ppm 0.5 ppm
ammonia 300 ppm 150.0 ppm
carbon monoxide 42,000 ppm 100.0 ppm
formaldehyde 30 ppm 5.0 ppm
hydrogen cyanide 1,600 ppm 10.0 ppm
hydrogen sulfide 40 ppm 20.0 ppm
methyl chloride 1,200 ppm 100.0 ppm
nitrogen dioxide 250 ppm 5.0 ppm

4. Foreign Substance Coumarin In Cigarettes

          The case of Mike Moore, Attorney General ex rel State of Mississippi v American Tobacco Co, et al, No 94-1429, was one of the Attorney General cases to recover taxpayers' money taxpayers had paid to care for sick smokers due to cigarette-caused health care needs. During testimony in that case, Jeffrey Wigand, Ph.D., ex-tobacco company scientist, admitted coumarin (for rat poison) in tobacco.

Tobacco company attorney Thomas Bezanson objected, not as untrue, but "on trade secret grounds." See Philip J. Hilts, Smoke Screen: The Truth Behind The Tobacco Industry Cover-Up (NY: Addison-Wesley Pub Co, 1996), pp 161-163. This had been reported likewise in 1884:
"[I]t is largely used as an adulterant of smoking tobacco . . . [for its intoxicating, addicting effect]. Hence . . . cigarette-smoking . . . is assuming the proportions of a great national evil."--Laurence Johnson, M.D., A Manual of the Medical Botany of North America (NY: William Wood & Co, 1884), pp 170-171.

The 1897 Tennessee cigarette ban law upheld in Austin v State, 179 US 343, supra, was thereafter passed.

Here is more on coumarin being put in tobacco:
"[It] has been used commercially for many years--mainly in cigarettes . . . harvest of [it] is expanding . . . . The composition of one flavoring extract that includes [it] was patented in 1961. . . . About two million pounds of cured plants are harvested annually. . . . Because [it] is a perennial and the roots are not harvested, maintaining populations is not a problem. A decrease in plant populations has not been noted." See Krochmal, Trilisa odoratissima, 23 Econ Bot 185-186 (1969).

"Leaves of [the plant] . . . are used in the tobacco industry, particularly in cigarette mixtures. . . . It appears that the . . . constituent most desired by the tobacco industry is coumarin." See Haskins, et al., Coumarin in Trilisa odoratissima, 26 Econ Bot 44-48 (1972).

"Leaves used to flavor pipe and cigar tobacco and cigarettes . . . and as a moth repellant . . . may cause hemorrhage and liver damage." James A. Duke, Handbook of Medicinal Herbs (Boca Raton: CRC Press, 1985), p 491.

           As the danger spreads from smokers to nonsmokers, the rights of both are protected by the ban on adulterations including this one.

5. Impartial Analyses of the Ingredients' Deleteriousness

           Some people are suspicious of the Surgeon General data. They apparently feel that the many Surgeon Generals 1964-to-present have some sort of bias.

Here's a solution. Look at books that are NOT about cigarettes, but simply about the chemicals themselves. Learn for yourself that the ingredients are dangerous.

Here are some example explanations of the deleteriousness of specific cigarette ingredients via such impartial non-cigarette-subject sources as

          a. Gosselin, Smith, Hodge, and Braddock, Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products, 5th ed (Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1984). Page II-4 lists toxicity levels of 1-6 (1, "practically non-toxic"; 4, "very toxic"; 6, "super-toxic"). Nicotine, item 772, pp II-237 and III-311-4 is rated a 6; coumarin, p II-257, item 861, is a 4.

          b. Robert Dreisbach and William Robertson, Handbook of Poisoning: Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment, 12th ed (Norwalk, CT: Appleton & Lange, 1983 and 1987). Pages 35 and 259-263 cover carbon monoxide poisoning; pp 130-132, tobacco and nicotine; pp 385-7, anticoagulants, e.g., coumarin and warfarin.

          c. Sondra Goodman, Director, Household Hazardous Waste Project, HHWP's Guide to Hazardous Products Around the Home, 2d ed (Springfield, MO: Southwest Mo St Univ Press, 1989). Page 99 covers poisoning by carbon monoxide, of which cigarettes emit 42,000 ppm, exceeding the 29 CFR § 1910.1000 average safe TLV of 50 ppm).

          d. Jay Arena and Richard Drew, Poisoning, 5th ed (Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Pub, 1986). Pages 216-217 cover nicotine; pp 308-312, carbon monoxide; p 999, which lists coumarin, says, ominously, "see Warfarin," p 1007.

6. Hooking Children As Young As Six On Smoking

Tobacco pushers wanting to turn nonsmoker children into tobacco addicts well know that: "The first step toward addiction may be as innocent as a boy's puff on a cigarette in an alleyway," said the U.S. Supreme Court in Robinson v California, 370 US 660, 670; 82 S Ct 1417; 8 L Ed 2d 758 (1962). So the pushers want to hook children young.

          Tobacco company intent and action when unrestrained is shown by this example of smoking—hooking 30% of 6 year old boys; 50% of "boys between 9 and 10"; 88% of boys over 11, reported by Prof. W. E. Dixon, On Tobacco, 17 Canadian Med Ass'n J 1531 (Dec 1927).

This is a nonsmokers' rights issue, as obviously children are inherently nonsmokers. Now you know why our ancestors (not just in Michigan, but e.g., in Iowa also) had to pass laws against sales to children!! Pushers want to hook kids. See the 1889 example. Pushers want to hook kids; the pushers are killing their adult victims, and intend to kill more in the future.

And of course, the best solution is NOT criminalizing children, but rather, the Michigan smokers' - nonsmokers' rights law—no deleterious product being sold to anyone. No other product manufacturer insists that adults accept a fatal product when used as intended, i.e., surrenders normal consumer protection law rights.

          Also, one cannot fail to see that it is ineffective for adults to tell children, 'do as I say, not as I do.' The 1889 approach of ONLY protecting children is thus inherently flawed and does not and cannot work. There is no valid or moral reason for selling adults a dangerous, deleterious, and adulterated product.

So the, to us, obvious 1909 solution of banning the deleterious product PERIOD was decided upon, and correctly so, as per the conclusion to have adults set the right example--a major concern of that era. All other products must be safe. The law simply ended cigarettes' exemption from having to be safe like all other products.

7. The Cigarette Holocaust

           Some people object to this term. But, the fact is that, due to cigarettes' TTS deleteriousness,

"Over 37 million people (one of every six Americans alive today) will die from cigarette smoking years before they otherwise would," says the DHEW National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) book, Research on Smoking Behavior, Research Monograph 17, Publication ADM 78-581, p v (Dec 1977).

           This number constitutes a "holocaust." Indeed, referring to the then mere "annual death toll of some 27,500," the Royal College of Physicians, in its book Smoking and Health Now (London: Pitman Medical and Scientific Publishing Co, 1971), p 9, used that exact word, "holocaust." They were much closer in time to the World War II holocaust than we are. So the web writer defers to their choice of word, respecting that their knowledge of appropriate words was likely greater than his now nearly three decades later. (Apologies for any offense that may be taken).

In fact, by 1836, it was already well-established "that thousands and tens of thousands die of diseases of the lungs generally brought on by tobacco smoking. . . . How is it possible to be otherwise? Tobacco is a poison. A man will die of an infusion of tobacco as of a shot through the head." —Samuel Green, New England Almanack and Farmer's Friend (1836).

           Cigarettes' TTS-caused deaths are "natural and probable consequences," a term defined in Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed (St. Paul: West Pub Co, 1990), p 1026, as events happening "so frequently as to be expected [intended] to happen again." Cigarette deaths are not "accidents" ("unexpected" "unusual," "fortuitous" events), p 15. The protractedness means "premeditation," p 1180.

8. Cigarettes and 90% of Suicide

           Cigarettes' deleterious chemicals are the No. 1 cause of "premeditated" premature death, thus of the preceding severe suffering. This is a smokers' rights issue. As a "natural and probable consequence" of smokers' suffering,

"smokers have excesses of suicide: risks; thoughts; attempts; and deaths . . . Suicide [is] strongly . . . associated with smoking . . . independent of age, gender, exercise, cholesterol, race, low local income, diabetes, MI [myocardial infarction], etc. [variables]. Ex-smokers had lower suicide rates than current smokers. The pooled dose-response statistic [is] highly significant. . . . Suicide is prospectively, independently, consistently, strongly, and highly significantly dose-response associated with smoking," says Prof. Bruce N. Leistikow, M.D., et al., Analysis of Association Between Smoking and Suicide, 15 J Addictive Diseases 141 (1996).

Cowell and Hirst, "Mortality Differences Between Smokers and Nonsmokers," 32 Transactions of the Society of Actuaries 185-261 (1980), Table 9, p 200, found a 9-1 smoker-nonsmoker suicide ratio, the same ratio as lung cancer.

9. The Law vs Cigarette-Induced Deaths

           MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216, follows the principle set forth in over a century of case law that it is unlawful to provide people the means—e.g., a deleterious substance—by which they are foreseeably injured or killed, even if they consent [people can NOT consent to such harm] or even if death is slow, as in a lingering injury, People v Carmichael, 5 Mich 10; 71 Am Dec 769 (1858); People v Stevenson, 416 Mich 383; 331 NW2d 143, 145-146 (1982); and People v Kevorkian, 447 Mich 436, 494-496; 527 NW2d 714, 738-739 (1994). Of course, everyone in society is protected by the laws against causing us involuntary premature death.

10. Cigarette-Induced Abulia

          Cigarettes' toxic chemicals, especially the massive amounts of carbon monoxide far above the "speed limit" / TLV (42,000 vs 100) what any auto exhaust emits, cause brain "injury" that "takes away the power of resistance."

Cigarette chemicals lead to abulia, a "state of dethronement of reason from its governing power," Carmichael, 5 Mich 21, supra. This toxic chemical effect on smokers has been repeatedly reported in voluminous medical literature, see e.g.,

          Smokers' abulia results in fire-setting and rule-defying rebelliousness, Haller v City of Lansing, 195 Mich 753; 162 NW 335 (1917); Tanton v McKenney, 226 Mich 245; 197 NW 510; 33 ALR 1175 (1924); Jacobs v State Mental Health Dep't, 88 Mich App 503; 276 NW2d 627 (1979); and Stevens v Inland Waters, Inc, 220 Mich App 212; 559 NW2d 61 (1996). The prevalence of insanity led to Michigan's first mental hospital. See William A. Decker, M.D., Asylum for the Insane: A History of the Kalamazoo State Hospital (Traverse City: Arbutus Press, 2008).

Fires impact both smokers and nonsmokers, so the Michigan law protects the rights of both. Preventive action against abulia is needed.

11. Nicotine: The Starter Drug

           Cigarettes' toxic chemicals impair impulse and ethical controls, i.e., cause abulia (addiction). But there is some mythology out there among laymen as to which drug is the earliest used by children. Is it alcohol? tobacco, or marijuana? The solution is to read material that actually covers that exact point, the age of onset issue.

Here is what such analyses have found: It is typical that cigarettes are the starting point. They are the delivery agent for nicotine, the gateway (starter) drug for children.
  • The average age of onset is 12.

  • Next in sequence, alcohol follows, average age 12.6.

  • Then follows marijuana, average age 14.
  •            Analysts have also found that drug dependence does not suddenly occur overnight! A nonsmoker suddenly wants to use crack cocaine! Not so. Drug dependence develops in stages, over a period of years. People who do not use the starter drug, rarely proceed to later drugs in the sequence.

    "When we take a thorough drug history, we are forced to admit that nicotine—not alcohol or cannabis—is the drug of entry for most young people."—Emanuel Peluso and Lucy Silvay Peluso, "The Challenge of Treating Teenagers," 9 Alcoholism & Addiction (#2) 21 (December 1988).

               So professionals recognize that intervention must needs be occurring at the earliest stage—cigarettes. (Think about it; they wouldn't be citing issues of intervention at early stages, if stages were not something that is occurring!) See, e.g.,

  • DHEW NIDA Research Monograph 17, supra, p vi;

  • DuPont, Teen Drug Use, 102 J Pediatrics 1003-1007 (June 1983);

  • Fleming, et al., Cigarettes' Role in The Initiation And Progression Of Early Substance Use, 14 Addictive Behaviors 261-272 (1989); and

  • DHHS, Preventing Tobacco Use Among Young People: Surgeon General Report (1994). Page 10 supports law enforcement, saying, "Illegal sales of tobacco products are common."
  • Cigarettes cause "the worst of all drug habits, the smoking of tobacco"—Herbert H. Tidswell, M.D., The Tobacco Habit: Its History and Pathology (London: J. & A. Churchill, 1912), p 69.

               We are all impacted, or potentially impacted by drugs, so the law preventing the starter drug being manufactured, given-away, and sold is a rights issue to protect all of us, smoker and nonsmoker alike. Preventive action against drugs is needed.

    12. Cigarettes and 90% of Alcoholism

               Smokers suffer, then many self-medicate with alcohol. Drunk drivers are typically smokers, as police oft see. "Smoking prevalence among active alcoholics approaches 90%," says Dr. J. T. Hayes, et al., Alcoholism and Nicotine Dependence Treatment, 15 J Addictive Diseases 135 (1996). So it leads, in turn, to promiscuity, pregnancy, SIDS, and abortion. See the Surgeon General Report (1994), supra; and DiFranza, et al., "Effect of Maternal Cigarette Smoking," 40 J Family Practice 385-394 (April 1995).

    We are all impacted, or potentially impacted by drunk driving, and our child could be a smoke-induced SIDS victim. So the law preventing cigarettes with deleterious ingredients and adulterations being manufactured, given-away, and sold is a rights issue to protect all of us, smoker and nonsmoker, young and old, alike. Preventive action against alcoholism is needed.

    13. Cigarettes and 90% of Crime

              Once the abulic process of impairing ethical and impulse controls occurs, tobacco's 90% role in crime results. Most crime is committed by smokers, just as most lung cancer, suicide, etc., not to say that all smokers get/do such. Newspapers in writing about prison populations, repeatedly cite this fact, it is so well known and so long established. In addition,

    "Maternal prenatal smoking predicts persistent criminal outcome in male offspring." See Brennan, et al., 56 Arch Gen Psychiatry 215-219 (March 1999).
    In fact, the basic tobacco-crime link has been known since at least 1836, when Dr. William Alcott alluded to the connection already being known. The tobacco-crime connection has been cited many times by prison officials and judges since then, e.g., by Hodgkin (1857); Buckley and Trask (1860); Ellis (1901); Lindsay (1914); Torrance (1916); Brum (1924); Danis (1925); Healy and Bonner (1926); Crane, Dawson, Pollock and Shaw (1931); Wood (1944), etc.

    While these materials are not now easily available except to those in the profession, a couple easily accessible modern citations constituting judicial notice of the fact are offered:
    "Nowhere is the practice of smoking more imbedded than in the nation's prisons and jails, where the proportion of smokers to non-smokers is many times higher than that of society in general." Doughty v Board, 731 F Supp 423, 424 (D Col, 1989).

    "Nationwide, the [ratio] of smokers [to non-smokers] in prisons is 90 percent." McKinney v Anderson, 924 F2d 1500, 1507 n 21 (CA 9, 1991) affirmed and remanded, 509 US 25; 113 S Ct 2475; 125 L Ed 2d 22 (1993).

               Those two court precedent references are, unlike the preceding medical materials, easily accessed at almost every law library (the supportive Supreme Court decision is also on the Internet).

    We are all impacted, or potentially impacted by crime, and we certainly all pay for it in terms of the vast law enforcement system (police, sheriffs, guards, prosecutors, judges, support staff) and its vast costs, so the law preventing cigarettes with deleterious ingredients and adulterations (with their abulia-causing chemicals) from being manufactured, given-away, and sold is a rights issue to protect all of us, smoker and nonsmoker, young and old, alike. Preventive action against crime is needed--not just for its own sake, but to stop the warehousing of smokers, and the vast cost thereof. (That cost alone is the difference between your jurisdiction operating at surplus or deficit).

    14. Cigarettes and AIDS

              Tobacco depresses the immune system, causes abulia, and leads to post-gateway-drug drug abuse, so is a triple risk factor for AIDS. See

  • APA, Diag and Stat Manual of Mental Disorders, supra;

  • Newell, et al., AIDS Risk Factors, 14 Preventive Med 81-91 (1985);

  • Schechter, et al., Vancouver AIDS Study, 133 Can Med Ass'n J 286-292 (1985);

  • Halsey, et al., AIDS & Smoking in Haitian Women, 267 J Am Med Ass'n 2062-2066 (1992); and

  • Watstein, The AIDS Dictionary (NY: Facts on File, Inc., 1998), p 253.
  • Due to AIDS' actual or potential impact on us all, if only due to the costs of increased insurance and health care, the smokers' - nonsmokers' rights law established under consumer activist Gov. Fred M. Warner is a rights issue for us all. Preventive action against AIDS is needed, details at our AIDS-information site. Enforcing MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216, can play a vital role is this regard.

    15. Cigarettes and Divorce

               In view of the pattern of abulia caused by cigarettes' toxic chemicals, "smoking is a predictor of divorce," see Bachman, et al., Smoking, Drinking, and Drug Use in Young Adulthood (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc, Pub, 1997), p 70. Smokers have 53% more divorce than nonsmokers. See Doherty, et al., Cigarette Smoking and Divorce, 16 Families, Systems & Health 393-400 (1998).

    16. Tobacco and Abortion

    “As early as 1902 Ballantyne had found an increase in the abortion rate in French and Austrian women working in tobacco factories.” See Beulah R. Bewley, “Smoking in Pregnancy,” 288 Brit Med J (#6415) 424-426 (11 Feb 1984).

    “No reasonable doubt now remains that smoking in pregnancy has adverse effects on the developing fetus. The effects range from retardation of fetal growth and prematurity to an increased risk of perinatal death from all causes. . . . This view is supported by a report of an increased incidence of spontaneous abortion among smokers.” See “Smoking Hazard to the Fetus," Brit Med J (#5850) 369-370 (17 Feb 1973).

    Data of that era showed that the real culprit was tobacco, causing a loss of 509 infants per 1,000 married men, 53% of overall abortions, in a 1:7 ratio to live-born, and second-hand-smoke-caused abortions.

    "The smoking mother is . . . 80 percent more likely than the nonsmoker to have a spontaneous abortion." See Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., The Politics of Cancer (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1978), p 162.

    The role of cigarettes in abortion has been cited most clearly by DiFranza, JR and Lew, RA, "Effect of Maternal Cigarette on Pregnancy Complications and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome," in 40 J Family Practice 385-394 (1995). (Full text may be obtainable via your local library reference service INFOTRAC). DiFranza and Lew also provide an extensive bibliography.

    The study's "result" is a finding that:
    "Each year, use of tobacco products is responsible for an estimated 19,000 to 141,000 tobacco-induced abortions, 32,000 to 61,000 infants born with low birthweight, and 14,000 to 26,000 infants who require admission to neonatal intensive care units . . . an estimated 1900 to 4800 infant deaths resulting from perinatal disorders, and 1200 to 2200 deaths from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)."

    The study's "conclusion" is that
    "Tobacco use is an important preventable cause of abortions, low birthweight, and deaths from perinatal disorders and SIDS. All pregnant women should be advised that smoking places their unborn children in danger. . . . The cigarette . . . injures or kills a sizable proportion of its users when used as intended by the manufacturer. The harm caused by the cigarette is not limited to the user, however, as unborn children and infants are . . . harmed by other people's use of tobacco."
    Preventive action against abortion is needed, details at our abortion-facts site. Enforcing MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216, can play a vital role is this regard.

    17. Pre-1909 Data on the Tobacco Hazard

    Already Many Writings On Tobacco Effects
    "Observations Upon the Influence of
    the Habitual Use of Tobacco
    Upon Health, Morals, and Property
    ," by
    Dr. Benjamin Rush (1798)
    Disquisition on the Evils of Using
    Tobacco, and the Necessity of
    Immediate and Entire Reformation

    by Rev. Orin Fowler (1833)
    The Use of Tobacco: Its Physical, Intellectual,
    and Moral Effects on The Human System

    by William A. Alcott, M.D. (1836)
    The Mysteries of Tobacco, by
    Rev. Benjamin I. Lane (1845)
    Tobacco: Its Use and Abuse,
    by Dr. John Burdell (1848)
    Tobacco: Its History, Nature, and
    Effects on the Body and Mind

    by Dr. Joel Shew (1849)
    The Use and Abuse of Tobacco
    by Dr. John Lizars (Scotland, 1859)
    (Significant For Early Recommendation to Ban Tobacco, p. 49)
    Smoking and Drinking
    by James Parton (1868)
    Tobacco and the Diseases It Produces
    by Charles R. Drysdale, M.D., F.R.S. (1875)
    Le Tabac . . . Le Plus Violent des Poisons,
    by Hippolyte A. Depierris, M.D. (1876)
    Diseases of Modern Life, by
    Benjamin W. Richardson, M.D. (1876)
    Tobacco: Its Physical, Mental,
    Moral and Social Influences

    by Rev. B. W. Chase (1878)
    Tobacco and Its Effect
    upon the Health and Character

    by Dr. James C. Jackson (1879)
    Tobacco and Its Effects: Report
    to the Wisconsin Board of Health

    by G. F. Witter, M.D. (1881)
    The Tobacco Problem
    by Meta Lander (1882)
    Anti-Tobacco: Speech
    to Meadville Temperance Union

    by Ariel A. Livermore (1882)
    A Lecture on Tobacco, by
    Rev. Russell L. Carpenter, LL.D. (1882)
    The Use of Tobacco, by
    Prof. John I. D. Hinds, Ph.D. (1882)
    Tobacco: Its Use and Abuse,
    by Rev. John B. Wight (1889)
    Why Do People Intoxicate Themselves?
    by Count Leo Tolstoy (1890)
    About Tobacco and Its Deleterious Effects
    by Charles E. Slocum, M.D., Ph.D., LL.D. (1909)
    Click Here for Title List 1798-1925
    Click Here for Overview pre-1492 - Present

    For historic early data on tobacco's adverse brain effects, click here.

    Gov. John Warner and the people of that era (1909), when MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216, was passed, knew also that the Supreme Court had already upheld state authority to do tobacco inspection, over tobacco lobby objection, in the case of Turner v State of Maryland, 107 US 38; 2 S Ct 44; 27 L Ed 370 (Md, 5 Feb 1883) (a business practices case, affirming constitutionality of the state's tobacco inspection law, as per tobacco being commonly adulterated).

    They also knew that in Felsenheld / Merry World Tobacco v U S, 186 US 126; 22 S Ct 740; 46 L Ed 1085 (19 May 1902), the Supreme Court had upheld confiscating tobacco for having anything other than tobacco in the packages.

    And they were already well aware of many aspects of the "deleteriousness" herein cited, even effects such as lung cancer that many nowadays feel is a "new" discovery. By 1909, many aspects of the tobacco hazard had been shown by the medical profession, and it was so well documented already that aspects of the hazard had already repeatedly received judicial notice. Examples:
    * It is deleterious due to the fire hazard, Commonwealth v Thompson, 53 Mass 231 (1847).

    * It delivers an addictive drug, Carver v State, 69 Ind 61; 35 Am Rep 205 (1879), Mueller v State, 76 Ind 310; 40 Am Rep 245 (1881), and State v Ohmer, 34 Mo App 115 (1889).

    * It is deleterious to youths as cited by the 1889 Michigan House Committee.

    * Due to the second-hand smoke aspect, violating the right to "fresh and pure air," it is deleterious to nonsmokers, State v Heidenhain, 42 La Ann 483; 7 So 621; 21 Am St Rep 388 (1890). (See also Michigan's 'pure air' cases.)

    * It is deleterious to smokers themselves, Austin v State, 101 Tenn 563; 48 SW 305, affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court at 179 US 343 (1900), supra.

              As a consumer activist, Gov. Warner relied on already long-established medical facts, known for so long as to have been upheld in court. (Children of that era were taught more in health education material on the cigarette hazard, than currently is provided). The law would foreseeably survive challenge, if any. The courts had repeatedly upheld cigarette controls pursuant to the police power, e.g.,

    • Turner v State of Maryland, 107 US 38; 2 S Ct 44; 27 L Ed 370 (1883);

    • Gundling v City of Chicago, 176 Ill 340; 52 NE 44 (1898) rev den 177 US 183; 20 S Ct 633; 44 L Ed 725 (1900);

    • Austin v State of Tennessee, 101 Tenn 563; 48 SW 305; 70 Am St Rep 703 (1898) affirmed 179 US 343; 21 S Ct 132; 45 L Ed 224 (1900);

    • Felsenheld / Merry World Tobacco v U S, 186 US 126; 22 S Ct 740; 46 L Ed 1085 (1902);

    • Cook v Marshall County, 119 Iowa 384; 93 NW 372; 104 Am St Rep 283 (1903) rev den 196 US 261; 25 S Ct 233; 49 L Ed 471 (1905); and

    • Hodge v Muscatine County, 121 Iowa 482; 96 NW 968; 104 Am St Rep 383 (1903) rev den 196 US 276; 25 S Ct 237; 49 L Ed 477 (1905).

              Of course, 96 years later, in 2005, medical science has found additional aspects of the hazard unknown in 1909, for example, lung cancer and AIDS. But for purposes of this exposition of the law, suffice it to say that nowadays there is clearly more than ample evidence that cigarettes are both deleterious and adulterated. (Cigarettes are illegal in Michigan if they are EITHER deleterious OR adulterated; both types of hazard are not required for them to be illegal). Thanks to the Surgeon General, we now have evidence of deleteriousness affixed to each and every pack. As one court said, the very warning label itself establishes deleteriousness, with no additional evidence being required!! See the case of Grusendorf v City of Oklahoma City, 816 F2d 539, 543 (CA 10, 1987).

               In view of such facts and above-cited effects, it is clear why after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the 1897 Tennessee cigarette ban law in Austin, 179 US 343, supra, due to cigarettes' already known deleteriousness, in 1909, during the term of courageous Governor Fred M. Warner, Michigan banned such a severely deleterious product, the No. 1 cause of suffering and death.

              While Michigan was somewhat slower than, e.g., Tennessee and Iowa (1897) and Indiana (1905) in reacting to the cigarette hazard, nonetheless, it DID ACT after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Tennessee law. The safe cigarettes law is indeed modern in concept; it is a simple consumer protection law requiring a safe product. (If manufacturers can make it safe, fine; if not, don't sell it until they can and do).

    Also, it wisely followed the nineteenth century concept of criminalizing unsafe product/fraudulent sales, snake-oil sales, etc., not the buying. The concept was that criminalizing buying/use makes too many criminals, promotes disrespect for law, and punishes the victim of the fraudulent sale. This is especially true for children, below the age of maturity and consent to even make contract decisions, much less protect themselves, as tobacco companies know, American Tobacco Co v Polisco, 104 Va 777; 52 SE 563 (1906) and American Tobacco Co v Harrison, 181 Va 800; 27 SE2d 181 (1943) (context). We criminalize leaving one's refrigerator outside with the lock on (MCL § 750.493d, MSA § 28.761(4)), not the falling prey to it.

              Moreover, in view of the later Prohibition experience (which Michigan was first to oppose), the consumer protection law, the safe cigarettes law, is even more clearly the wise approach. By banning the gateway drug, not a post-gateway drug such as alcohol, MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216, avoids the error of the 1918-1933 politically inspired Prohibition. That error was to fail to use the medical evidence about cigarettes' role in alcoholism (their toxic chemicals lead to the suffering that in turn leads to the self-medication over-reliance upon which is called alcoholism).

              The pre-modern concept from medieval times, was "buyer beware," no personal responsibility on the seller. Centuries of experience led to rejection of that medieval anti-consumer notion. "Buyer beware" is not the law; manufacturers and retailers must make truthful disclosure, Bishop v Strout Realty, 182 F2d 503 (CA 4, 1950). As manufacturers and retailers are required to know what they are doing(!), "the standard of care," an ignorance claim, is itself a violation! Any alleged "failure to perceive" a hazard (an ignorance defense) itself "constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care . . . " Dillon v State, 574 SW2d 92, 94 (Tex Cr App, 1978).

              Subjecting people to a foreseeable hazard is unlawful. This is well-established under several principles of law, e.g., the general protective law for the population, e.g., 18 USC § 1111 (the federal murder ban). Some laws are tailored to selected elements of the population, e.g., 5 USC 7902.(d) (the federal workers safety act), and 29 USC § 651 - § 678 (the Occupational Safety and Health Act). Nowadays, the modern consumer protection concept of law—which the 1909 law applies—puts personal responsibility on those with most knowledge of the substance (manufacturers and sellers), not on unwary consumers, often children. Michigan's well-reasoned consumer protection law covering cigarettes—protecting both smokers' and nonsmokers' rights in one well-written sentence—is an example for the nation.

    Re the related law, the limited "no-smoking" law of 2010, since it went into effect, business has improved, even "nearly tripled," says Michael Martinez, in the article "Michigan businesses forced to go smoke-free seeing positive results" (Detroit News, 8 August 2013). Yes, enforcing the ancient multi-millennia rights against nuisances and to put out fires has benefits!

    18. Adults' Concern Then For
    Setting A Right Example for Youth

    Activists of the 1840's - 1910's era wanted what is now called a "comprehensive integrated program," meaning that adults must set a proper example for children (not 'do as I say, not as I do'!). Significantly more so than now, that era activism was concerned about national and adults' example,
    • for setting a good one,

    • against setting a bad one:

    See that era's writings (1833-1916):

    1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14; 15; 16;
    17; 18; 19; 20; 21; 22; 23; 24; 25; 26; 27; 28; 29; 30;
    31; 32; 33; 34; 35; 36; 37; 38; 39; 40; 41; 42; 43;
    44; 45; 46; 47; 48; 49; 50; 51; 52; 53; 54; 55; 56, 57, 58
    See also what children in that era were being taught about tobacco.

    They of a century ago knew the benefits of banning tobacco. And see 2011 data, "Study shows impact of Michigan's smoking ban" (11 October 2011). For example, note the "93 percent reduction in the level of secondhand smoke air pollutants in restaurants after the law went into effect." And, "The results from this study provide clear evidence that the law has been highly effective in improving air quality in indoor environments and protecting workers and the public from the health harms of secondhand smoke exposure in Michigan workplaces."

    19. Case List, Litigation Involving Tobacco Issues

    Shipman v Graves, 41 Mich 675; 3 NW 177 (21 Oct 1879)

    Detroit & T S L R Co v Campbell, 140 Mich 384; 103 NW 856 (8 June 1905)

    American Tobacco Co v Globe Tobacco Co, 193 F 1015 (D Mich, 2 Dec 1911) (unfair business practices case)

    People v Blumerich, 183 Mich 133; 149 NW 1040 (18 Dec 1914)

    Haller v City of Lansing, 195 Mich 753; 162 NW 335; LRA 1917E, 324 (9 April 1917) (worker compensation case)

    Schwartz v Michigan Warehouse Co, 219 Mich 401; 189 NW 1 (20 July 1922)

    Tanton v McKenney, 226 Mich 245; 197 NW 510; 33 ALR 1175 (24 March 1924) (student expelled from teaching college, due to tobacco addiction; smoking was already a known brain damage matter, and students in that era were being taught about tobacco's adverse effects. A smoking teacher would set a bad example and undermine teaching on-point.)

    People v Asta, 337 Mich 590; 60 NW2d 472 (5 Oct 1953) (licensing aspects case)

    People v Locricchio, 342 Mich 210; 69 NW2d 723 (14 April 1955) (licensing aspects case)

    Konieczka v Mt. Clemens Metal Products Co 360 Mich 500; 104 NW2d 202 (11July 1960)

    Foster v City of Detroit, 56 Mich App 644; 224 NW2d 714 (26 Nov 1974, lv app den 19 Feb 1975)

    Opinions of Attorney General 1977-78, No. 5202 (11 July 1977) (school smoking issues) (Search AG Opinions.)

    Matter of Evelyn Bertram, Case No. A9-190131 (29 Dec 1977) (worker compensation case)

    Jacobs v Michigan State Mental Health Dep't, 88 Mich App 503; 276 NW2d 627 (6 Feb 1979) (mentally ill smoker case)

    Kingery v Ford Motor Co, 116 Mich App 606; 323 NW2d 318 (16 April 1982)

    People v Hudgins, 125 Mich App 140; 336 NW2d 241 (20 April 1983)

    Cooper v Chrysler Corp, 125 Mich App 811; 336 NW2d 877 (18 May 1983)

    Lauren Hall v Sisters of Mercy Health Corp, Deaconess Hospital, # 80-031-746 (Wayne County Circuit Court, 2 Oct 1983) (employee request for smokefree workplace)

    Brisboy v Fibreboard Corp, 148 Mich App 298; 384 NW2d 39 (24 Oct 1985)

    Checker Motors Co v Int'l Union, Allied Industrial Workers of America, Local No. 682, AFL-CIO, 86-2 Lab Arb Awards (CCH) § 8612 (11 Aug 1986)

    Hall v Veterans Administration, EEOC No. 054-086-X0097 (Mich, 5 Sep 1986) (employee request for smoke-free workplace)

    Perkins v Ford Motor Co, et al., Civ No. 86-633018-CZ (Wayne Cty Cir Ct, 25 Nov 1986) (injunction for smoke-free workplace)

    Opinions of Attorney General 1987-1988, No. 6460, pp 167-171; 1987 Michigan Register 366 (25 Aug 1987) (placing nonsmokers "checkerboard style" [segregated] does not achieve law compliance, an Alford-style unconstitutionality analysis, as the benefit of safety is intended, and cannot legally be segregated away) (Search AG Opinions.)

    Brisboy v Fibreboard Corp, 429 Mich 540; 418 NW2d 650 (25 Jan 1988)

    Michigan Bell Telephone Co v Communciation Workers of America, 90 Lab Arb (BNA) 1186 (3 May 1988) (smoking-on-job case)

    Opinions of Attorney General 1987-1988, No. 6519, pp 327-330; 1988 Mich Register 80 (31 May 1988) (racetrack grandstand case) (Search AG Opinions.)

    Besser Co v United Steelworkers of America, Local 209, 89-1 Lab Arb Awards (CCH) § 8150 (23 June 1988)

    Acorn Building Components, Inc v Local 2194, Int'l Union, UAW, 89-1 Lab Arb Awards (CCH) § 8243 (15 Nov 1988)

    Potter v Potter, Lawyer's Weekly No. MA-2953, 3 Mich Law Weekly 1468 (1989) (custody case)

    Lauren Hall v Veterans' Admin, Civ Action No. 88-71102 (D ED Mich, 12 July 1990) (re employee request for smokefree workplace)

    MacDonald v Michigan State of Bureaucracy, 911 F2d 733 (CA 6, WD Mich, 23 Aug 1990) (smoker job-rights case)

    Opinions of Attorney General 1989-90, No. 6665 (15 Nov 1990) (Authority to regulate or prohibit the placement of cigarette vending machines; and affirming that the public health code does in fact grant local health departments the power to enact local ordinances stronger than state law for the protection of public health) (Search AG Opinions.)

    Bryant/Dept of Social Services v Wakely, Appeal No. 131708 (Mich App, 13 June 1991) (custody case)

    Lauren Hall v Veterans' Administration, 946 F2d 895 (CA 6, 28 Oct 1991) (smoke-free workplace case)

    Bradley v Philip Morris, Inc, 194 Mich App 44; 486 NW2d 48 (29 Oct 1991) (business practices case)

    Opinions of Attorney General 1991-1992, No. 6719; 1992 Michigan Register 177 (4 May 1992) (issue of nonsmoker only apartment complex) (Search AG Opinions.)

    Hall v Turnage, 504 US 958; 112 S Ct 2310; 119 L Ed 2d 231 (1 June 1992) (smoke-free workplace case)

    Bradley v Philip Morris, Inc, 440 Mich 870; 486 NW2d 737 (15 July 1992)

    Bradley v Philip Morris, Inc, 199 Mich App 194; 501 NW2d 246 (5 April 1993)

    Bradley v Philip Morris, Inc, 444 Mich App 644; 513 NW2d 797 (1 March 1994)

    Stevens v Inland Waters, Inc, 220 Mich App 212; 559 NW2d 61 (22 Nov 1996) (on firing smokers; smoking is not a protected 'handicap') [smoking is a dangerous mental disorder with a bad reputation; in law, dangerousness is a violation, not a protected activity, see details including anti-murder precedents, universal malice, and the doctrines of 'transferred intent' and 'taking victims as they come']

    Taylor v American Tobacco Co, Inc, 983 F Supp 686 (ED Mich, 3 Nov 1997) (dangerous tobacco case)

    Taylor v American Tobacco Co, et al, Civil No. 97 715975 NP (CA 3, Judge William J. Giovan, 11 Jan 2000) (dangerous tobacco case filed by persons illegally sold cigarettes in violation of Michigan law). SCB: 983 F Supp 686

    Mich. Restaurant Ass'n, et al v City of Marquette, 245 Mich App 63; 626 NW2d 418 (13 March 2001) [See Grand Rapids Press Editorial; and Well-Reasoned Pure Air Precedents]

    Reilly v Grayson, 157 F Supp 2d 762 (ED MI, 22 June 2001) (smoke free air, prison case)

    Booth v R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co, et al., 2001 WL 1837830; Prod Liab Rep (CCH) P 16,265 (WD Mich, 20 Nov 2001)

    Wayne County v Philip Morris Inc, et al., ___ Mich ___; ___ NW2d ___ (30 Jan 2002) (News Article; taxpayer health-care cost recovery case)

    Zimmerman v Department of Corrections, 2002 Mich App LEXIS 1419; 2002 Mich App LEXIS 31310162 (Mich App, 15 Oct 2002) (government employee effort to obtain the right to pure air, as would be automatic if Michigan's cigarette manufacturing/selling ban law were being obeyed and enforced))

    Jamie Reilly v [State of Michigan] Henry Grayson, Chris Daniels, and Joseph Cross, Case Nos. 01-1993/2189; 2002 FED App 0397P (CA 6); 310 F3d 519 (CA 6, 18 Nov 2002). SCB: 157 F Supp 2d 762 (smoke free air, prison case)

    People v Paul E. Renwick (Macomb Cnty Circ. Ct., Mich., 28 September 2006) (conviction for causing fatal fire)

    People v Beydoun, 283 Mich App 314 (14 April 2009) (cigarette tax evasion case)

    Foucault-Funke American Legion Post 444 v Guy St. Germain, Exec Dir of the Western Upper Peninsula Health Dept and the Western Upper Peninsula Health Dept (File No. 10-6062-CZ, Circ. Ct., Baraga County, filed 6 August 2010) (See rebuttal; and preliminary injunction issued ordering immediate compliance pending final adjudication of the smoke-free law, 15 October 2010). For the Michigan Department of Community Health Motion that had given rise to this Court Order, click here. The Final Order issued 23 December 2010, upheld the MI smoke-free law. See, e.g., "UP tavern loses bid to defy state's public smoking ban" (Detroit Free Press, 28 Dec 2010), and "Ruling on American Legion Smoking Ban" (Upper Michigan Source, 28 Dec 2010).

    20. Modern Evidence for the Law

    For information on tobacco's severe impact on Michigan, see the overview at the Tobacco-Free Kids website.

              James K. Haveman, Jr., Director, Michigan Department of Community Health, has twice sent letters supportive of the law, in July 1997 and September 1997. Gov. Engler banned smoking in state buildings and some cigarette manufacture, and issued a finding of a cigarette smuggling emergency. In December 1998, he signed the cigarette billboard ban law, and sent the web writer an explanation citing some of the many adverse impacts of cigarettes on Michigan residents.

               Cigarettes with deleterious ingredients are illegal. Cigarettes are not to be here—no manufacture, no sale, no giveaway. Contraband is "any property which is unlawful to produce." Black's Law Dictionary, supra, p 322. Cigarettes are contraband. There is no right to use contraband. Bringing cigarettes into Michigan is "smuggling."

    "'Smuggling has well-understood meaning . . . signifying bringing . . . goods . . . importation . . . whereof is prohibited. Williamson v U.S., 310 F2d 192, 195 [CA 9, 1962]; 18 USC §§ 545 - 546.'" Black's Law Dict, supra, p 1389.

              The gravamen of the law, and its essential effect, was and is to make Michigan a cigarette smoke-free state. However, violations are rampant. Deleterious cigarettes are a life and death subject, so prosecution for law violations is most appropriate and needed.

               Money can compensate for the damage in some crimes; but it cannot compensate for tobacco smoke-caused irreparable harm such as death. For example, when firemen are killed putting out cigarette-caused fires, criminal prosecution occurs, Commonwealth v Hughes, 468 Pa 502; 364 A2d 306 (1976). See cases brought by nonsmokers injured by second-hand smoke, seeking and obtaining court injunctions banning the hazard (caused due to employers negligently hiring smokers), cases such as

    As second-hand smokers are entitled to "cease and desist" order aid to secure law compliance, and police action to deal with violations, first hand smokers of all people, surely are entitled to compliance with the law!! and indeed, all Michigan residents endangered by this deleterious and adulterated product. Michigan wisely avoids such unnecessary litigation by its combined smokers' - nonsmoker's consumer protection law.

               To protect abulic smokers, children, and nonsmokers, enforce MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216, and halt the rampant violations, action should be taken to prosecute perpetrating tobacco manufacturers and sellers for their action to manufacture, give away, and sell the above described cigarettes, deemed "contraband."

               Michigan's law is restrained. More teeth are in the federal cigarette-smuggling ban. Enforcement of the Michigan law would be enhanced by cooperation with federal authorities in conjunction with 18 USC § 2341, § 2342, § 2343, § 2344, § 2345, and § 2346, the law banning "Trafficking in Contraband Cigarettes," and 18 USC § 1961, the Anti-Racketeering Law, incorporating the former by reference.

    See also "The Tobacco Toll on Michigan" (2007).

    Governor John Engler (1991-2002) did take paper steps to reduce tobacco usage in Michigan, including beginning enforcement of MCL 750.27, MSA 28.216, by his 18 March 1992 Executive Order 1992-3 to ban smoking in state buildings, prohibit tobacco sales on state property, and to end production of cigarettes by state prisons. But to protect the rest of us, we need full—not partial—enforcement of the law.

    And please see
  • the news article wherein this webwriter is quoted so advocating, Reporter Mark Puhls, "Obscure law bans cigarette sales," Detroit News (29 Dec 1998); and

  • the author's Enforce Cigarette Laws Advocacy Letter, Detroit Free Press (13 Feb 2002), p 12A.
  • 21. What You Can Do to Help

               This site is requesting you to help by sending a letter requesting enforcement of the consumer protection/safe cigarettes/smokers' rights/nonsmokers' rights law, MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216, to Michigan Governor Honorable Rick Snyder, Governor, State of Michigan, P. O. Box 30013, Lansing MI 48909-7513, USA, and to Michigan Attorney General Honorable Bill Schuette, Attorney General, State of Michigan, P. O. Box 30213, Lansing MI 48909-7513. Each day 3,000 more people are hooked, so your doing so is urgent.

               For those with interests in specific areas, pertinent data and some sample letters can be obtained by clicking on the item:

    Abortion AIDS Alcoholism
    Alzheimer's Birth Defects Crime 
    Divorce Drugs
    DWB
    Fires Hearing Loss Heart Disease
    Lung Cancer Mental Disorders Seat Belt Disuse
    SIDS Suicide Homepage Updates

    You can help spread the word about this blending of smokers' and nonsmokers' rights by also writing to your Senators, Congressmen, and the President, asking for a Michigan-type safe cigarettes law to be passed nationwide (and of course, to your appropriate state officials, for such a law in each of the fifty states). Though it is commendable, it is not enough for the President, by Executive Order 13508, to only protect those few Americans in federal buildings. Everybody is entitled to safety including pure air.

    So ask them to do more than require fire-safe cigarettes, as asked in H.R. 1130, but more importantly to require that cigarettes must be safe, period; or their manufacture and sale is banned, as per other dangerous drugs cited in the Federal Controlled Substances Act. Here are addresses:

    President George W. BushU.S. Senator _______U.S. Representative __Governor ___ State Senator __State Representative __
    1600 Pennsylvania AvenueSenate Office BuildingHouse Office BuildingState CapitolState CapitolState Capitol
    Washington DC 20500Washington DC 20510Washington DC 20515City State ZipCity State ZipCity State Zip

    RELATED TOBACCO INGREDIENTS/EXPOSURE SITES
    Coumarin as a Cigarette Adulterant
    Smokers' Chemical Exposure Self-Test
    Nonsmokers' Chemical Exposure Self-Test


    The web writer realizes that some of the data in the cited medical journals is material you perhaps did not know. While it is true that there are many medical journals, and the media cannot keep the public informed of them all, too many in the media take tobacco lobby money (you see the ads), so do not publish the above-type life saving material as you found here.

               But you now have the journal citations. Please feel free to go to your public library, and read the articles in full. And look around this site. It has, the author hopes you will agree, much informative material, though sometimes perhaps written in a different way than others might have written it. Regardless of that fact, the next paragraph has the solution.

               As has been wisely said, and is certainly applicable in view of cigarettes' links to so many factors that can impact each of us (and it takes only one to do so, and even if you only find one fact here that you like), 'the life you save may be your own.'

    Discussion Group: More Participants Welcome
    Michigan Lawyers Weekly




    FastCounter by LinkExchange

    We care, and this site is sponsored as a public service by
    The Crime Prevention Group. Please visit our homepage.

    Email@TCPG

    Copyright © 1998, 1999 Leroy J. Pletten