Of course, as everyone knows, ALL cigarettes have deleterious ingredients! The warning label makes that fact clear! by itself, without more evidence. And there is much more evidence! as standard cigarette ingredients data shows, as centuries of medical data show.

For an analysis of the Michigan law—with some examples of cigarettes' deleterious ingredients, emissions, and adulterants, and resultant adverse effects, click here. For historic early data, click here. Re adverse brain effects, click here. Re the tobacco formula change during the “Second Civil War,” making cigarettes a war weapon, click here.

The above-listed site includes a bibliography of pre-1909 writings and pre-1909 court precedents identifying deleterious effects of tobacco, by 1909 already LONG KNOWN in the medical profession, and of which, judicial notice had already long been taken.

For a complete list of Michigan cases related to tobacco issues, click here. For background on the federal OSHA law banning hazards, click here and here. (This law too is already passed, merely needs enforcing.)

For the dual rights to 'put out fires' and to 'pure air' that the Michigan law institutionalizes, click here. The Michigan law institutionalizes the already existing pre-constitutional right [e.g., Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Amendments] to pure air. No cigarettes = no cigarette smoke in the air!

The rights to pure air and put out fires already long existed, before the U.S. Constitution. They are pre-constitutional rights, incorporated by reference therein. Unfortunately, those rights are more easily violated without institutionalization. It is harder to control millions of people, than a small number of manufacturers and sellers. So the Legislature wisely chose to institutionalize the already-existing rights, by focusing on manufacturers and sellers. People in that better-educated era recognized the folly of criminalizing millions. Accordingly, their better-educated and wiser focus was against the pushers, the manufacturers and sellers.

Another benefit is that adults thus set the right example for youth, not manufacturing cigarettes, not selling cigarettes, not giving them away, not using them. For adults to set the right example, was a significant concern of that era, for details, click here.

For the 1897 Iowa cigarette manufacturing and sales ban law that Michigan followed, click here.

For the related 1897 Tennessee cigarette sales ban law, click here.

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

Note Opinions of Attorney General 1987-1988, No. 6460, pp 167-171; 1987 Michigan Register 366 (25 Aug 1987) (locating nonsmokers "checkerboard style" does not achieve law compliance). Of course, the law must be obeyed state-wide, not just in scattered locations.

For smokers' rights cases, click here.

For employers' rights' cases and background, click here.

For precedents showing that local governments cannot vote contrary to higher level law, for example, cannot vote against constitutional rights, click here.

For pertinent legal terms and their definitions, click here.

For discussion of what cigarettes cost Michigan (its government and private sector), e.g., cigarettes' enormous budget-busting costs increasing taxes and fees and obstructing public services, creating massive debilitating "legacy" costs for health care and other insurance types, etc., click here. (Readers from other states can use that data, to calculate what cigarettes cost their respective state).

Cigarette costs to society were already well documented in 1909, e.g., by

Michigan should have tens of billions of dollars in its 'rainy day fund,' enough to offset a decade of lowered income. It would have that amount in savings, and should have it.

Why doesn't Michigan have billions in savings? Because of the enormous cost each year, in damages from cigarettes.

And why is that: Due to the criminal negligence and malfeasance-in-office of Michigan officials, their failure and refusal to enforce the law, MCL § 750.38, MSA § 28.227.

Refusing to enforce a law is denial of "honest services" and is illegal.

See also data on dyscalculia and acalculia, especially apt data with respect to politicians.

Tell your politicians. Demand enforcement of the deleterious cigarette manufacturing and sales ban law! It's your money, your health, your life! Don't let them put the "slippery slope" argument on you!

To join the activism campaign to secure enforcement of this law, click here for the advocacy site.

See also Michigan's advertising ban law MCL § 750.38, MSA § 28.227, that in essence bans cigarette advertising.

        Note that due to Michigan's distinctive shape and borders, enforcement is easier than perhaps for other states. Michigan is bordered by large bodies of water on the East and West, and by Canada [with customs inspection] on the North and East.

Only on the South side, are cigarettes typically smuggled [imported] into our state.

Enforcement of MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216, can be as simple as

notifying the State Police to interdict and confiscate the arriving cigarette shipments (commonly trucked in via I-75 on Michigan's southern border)

having the State Attorney General obtain an injunction enjoining, banning, violations

and having your local police and sheriff department enforce it. They can do this when enforcing the ban against under-age sales, list that selling as "Count 1," and the violation of this law as "Count 2" (or vice versa).

Enforcement = institutionalizing making Michigan cigarette-smoke free, state-wide. That is as our ancestors, the common law, and lawmakers intended.

The Michigan law institutionalizes federal rights as listed at our pure air site. It is unlawful to take concerted action, engage in conspiracy, to violate federal legal rights, as per laws such as 18 USC § 241. See also 18 USC § 242.

As far as understanding what the law means, the words themselves state the meaning. In matters of statutory construction, courts go by the language of the statute itself. "Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, that language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive." Consumer Product Safety Comm'n v GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 US 102, 108 (1980). See also Jackson Transit Authority v Transit Union, 457 US 15, 23 (1982); Bread Political Action Comm. v FEC, 455 US 577, 580 (1982); Universities Research Assn. v Coutu, 450 US 754, 771 (1982); and Dawson Chemical Co v Rohm & Haas Co., 448 US 176, 187 (1980).

And, it is a well settled principle that "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius"; "''to express one thing is to exclude others,'" Reynolds Alloy Co., 2 Labor Arb. Reports (BNA) 554 (1943). The law expresses all three aspects that are banned: (1) manufacture, (2) sales, and (3) give-aways. It is thus more comprehensive than, e.g., a mere ban on usage in ceretain designated areas. Such bans, our ancestors knew, do not address and eliminate all the many non-second-hand-emissions-related cigarette damages that are caused.

Note that "Springfield Public Health Council bans sales of tobacco products at drug stores, supermarkets with pharmacies" (21 March 2012).

Sales can be stopped. For example, the N. Y. based Wegman "Supermarket Chain Drops Cigarettes, Tobacco Products" (7 January 2008). The CEO said "we . . . understand the destructive role smoking plays in health." "Company officials acknowledged that tobacco products are a 'very profitable category' but said stocks will not be replenished."   If companies will stop selling voluntarily, how much more so, if action were taken by sheriffs and state and local police?

Diana Dillaber Murray, "Michigan has second highest number nationally of would-be nonsmokers" (Oakland Press, 12 November 2014) ("The best state to live to avoid lung cancer is Alaska and the worst state is Missouri.")