Bishop, in true doctrinaire fashion, said that even though he personally agreed with the content of the bill that he could not support it because it imposed unnecessary government restrictions. He would not let the bill come to vote in his committee.

Of course, there certainly is a place for philosophy guiding government action. There are many government policies that are decided on largely philosophical grounds and not empirical ones: abortion, gay marriage/civil unions, death penalty legislation (although empirical data does make itself into the debates on all three).

The philosophy that prevented the smoking ban from taking effect, however, was divined from some kind of ill-defined talking points handbook. Throw in some vague language about free markets and nanny government and stir.

The Republican majority in the Senate argued that this bill would hurt business at bars and restaurants. Bishop’s predecessor, former Senate Majority Leader Ken Sikkema, R-Wyoming, now with Public Sector Consultants, prepared a report on smoke-free research that contradicted the claim on businesses.

That report found that in the 24 other states that have passed smoke-free laws the businesses continue to thrive, and that the public support of the law continues to grow.

A funny thing happened, however, when Public Sector Consultants published their data: The tone in Lansing about the smoking bill changed. Sen. Bruce Patterson, R-Canton Township, who once opposed the bill, came out in favor of it. He gave credit to data in the Public Sector report that cited earlier U.S. surgeon general findings that secondhand smoke is a public health hazard.

This was a move that took some guts. Two powerful lobbying groups: the Michigan Chamber of Commerce and the Michigan Restaurant Association had both come out against the legislation. These are two big gorillas in state policy-making, and any Republican or Democrat who consistently acts against their interests could find themselves in hot water come November.

The Senate majority leader’s tone changed too. Bishop agreed to let the bill come to a vote, even though he continued to be against it. Nine Republicans and 16 Democrats voted to pass the bill and send the Senate version back to the House. Gov. Jennifer Granholm issued a statement that the Senate approval “sends a strong message across Michigan and the nation that we place a high priority on the health of our citizens.” After this bill looked dead in December it looks like it will finally become law. This is a rare thing in Lansing: Dispassionate debate about empirical data trumped the ideological impetus that usually prevails in state policy-making.

This is a welcome change in my opinion. It is too often that, before a bill even comes up to vote on the floor of the Senate or the House, it is clear which way certain lawmakers are going to vote.

No amount of debate or evidence will change their minds either way. Instead of arguments based on facts, we normally see two juxtaposed sets of muddled philosophies.

Instead of a lot of hot air, we now have legislation in the works that gives Michigan a historic opportunity to both protect public health and help stimulate our economy.

For once, I would like to congratulate our lawmakers for making a good decision and for making it on evidence and not just principle alone. In the light of last year’s budget battle it may have become too easy to underestimate the lawmakers in Lansing, but this week I am proud of their work.

Eric Gregory is a State News columnist. Reach him at ericwgregory@gmail.com .