Smokefree Sausage

by T. Scott
March 16, 2010

Throw barbs at this Michigan Legislature if you will (and must, because it’s usually justified), but don’t overlook the fact that last December it did produce one of its most important pieces of work in many years.

Whether it was luck (give an infinite number of lawmakers…), divine intervention by a fed-up deity, or simply enough legislators catching up with public demand, the legislature finally enacted a measure to clear the smoke from Michigan’s workplaces (most all of them), including restaurants and bars (most all of them).

Breathe at last, breathe at last. Thank God Almighty, we can breathe at last…

It wasn’t pretty. It wasn’t quick. It wasn’t without pain, passion and compromise. But when it was done, what was done will mean a healthier Michigan.

Our lengthy cover story this month (“Clearing the Air: How the Smoking Ban Was Won”)  takes us deep inside the last five years of that legislative journey, with its torturous twists, excruciating delays and constant uncertainty. It’s somewhere that, until now, only those directly involved in the fight have been.

Two of the key players, Peter Ruddell and Emily Gerkin Palsrok from the Campaign for Smokefree Air, approached Dome some weeks after the bill signing. They had a question. Would Dome be interested in publishing their account of how the legislation came to pass? They had been going over their notes, talking about the high and low points, and thought it made a compelling story.

They had me from the word compelling.

But the antennae also went up. Dome would not be interested in a simple, self-serving piece, it was explained. Even within the “our story” nature of the article and use of the victors’ viewpoint, accuracy and fairness were paramount. Journalism is often described as the first cut at history, and this would undoubtedly be the first cut at describing how Michigan enacted one of the most important pieces of legislation in its recent history. We needed to get it right.

We all agreed to go forward, something Peter and Emily probably regretted (as did their families) as their draft grew beyond 5,000 words, passed 10,000 and approached 14,000. There are plenty of books out there that aren’t that long.

As it turned out, those initial cautions were not necessary. Emily and Peter, professionals in their careers as advocates, did a great job under a tough deadline, all the more outstanding for the fact they are not journalists, academics or screenwriters by trade. Their concise prose wove together the many elements of the Campaign’s drive for a comprehensive smoking ban. They reported facts, explained strategies and revealed the human drama of the Campaign hitting a new wall every time it started to make progress, pushing its leaders to struggle constantly over whether to keep faith in the legislative process or abandon years of work in the trenches to go to the ballot.

Admittedly, it’s a long story, especially for reading online. But, I promise, your work will be rewarded if you stick with it, even if you must come back and read only a chapter or two at a time. The final product provides an excellent case study for anyone interested in public policy and politics. In this case, what jumps out is the political importance of the thousands of individuals and hundreds of organizations that had signed on to the “cause.” The Campaign did indeed run on what the group described as People Power. The story, in addition to being instructive, is also, well, compelling.

In a nutshell, that’s what Dome is all about. We’re here to inform and entertain, and not in bites, clips and blogs that don’t last as long as a hiccup (or have as much substance). We’re not afraid to put up a long article; we know our readers can handle it.

We also know our readers have their own perspective on the smoking ban issue. Many were involved directly. Our cover story can’t possibly be the definitive piece on the subject: it is only a first cut at the history of the legislative action.

As always, we encourage readers to amplify, supplement and disagree with what we’ve published. Posting an informed and thought-provoking comment adds to the richness of the record for all others to read.