- Home
- Create an account
- Advanced searches
- Scorecards
- Links
- About
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Sen. Tupac Hunter (D) on April 23, 2009, to prohibit a business owner, including the owner of a bar or restaurant, from choosing to allow smoking in his or her establishment. However, under the bill the ban would not go into effect unless it was approved in a referendum on the November, 2010 ballot.
- Referred to the Senate Government Operations and Reform Committee on April 23, 2009.
Most Recent Comments
1) Re: 2009 Senate Bill 469 (Prohibit allowing private workplace or restaurant smoking ) by FreeSpeaker on December 29, 2009[quote user="dallas1950"]
Why are our government officials so willing to strip the citizens of their rights. It is not up to the government to determine what is good for us. Wether or not to allow smoking in a privately owned establisment should be left up to the owner. Three out of the five resteraunts in one of my local towns are NON-SMOKING, and the numbers are growing all the time. This is one of the most rediculous laws that have been passed, and I for one am tired of the legislature stripping away my rights. What is next, will they make Michigan a "DRY STATE" in order to stop drunk driving? The premise is the same. I understand why non smokers don't want to be around smokers but there are better ways to handle this. They have the right to go to a non-smoking establishment, just as I should have the right to have a cigarette with my beer if the owner wants to allow it (if the owner doesn't allow it I will go somewhere else, simple isn't it?). The legislatures time would be better spent fighting unemployment and crime, not stripping me of my rights.
[/quote]
Why not can the whining?
First of all, every one of those objections has been well answered by legal precedent and the Michigan Constitution.
Second, no smoker is being deprived of the right to smoke by this legislation. Smokers merely are being restricted in their "privilege" to inflict their toxic smoke on other people. That seems like a more than reasonable tradeoff and balancing of interests among citizens, which is something we have formed our governments to do, regardless of what idiotic ideas one may have to the contrary.
Third, this law has been passed, and will become effective on May 1, 2010. It is long overdue, favored by a majority of Michigan citizens and voters according to reliable polling data, and will bring our state into the majority of states (now 38 out of 50) that have chosen to protect their citizens' interests with similar legislation.
In short, this legislation is a good start. It is time to move on and continue dealing equally wisely with other matters that affect the interests of Michiganders.
Reply
Smoking in privately owned bars or restaurants that are open to the public deprives non-smokers of their right to a safe environment. The owner of an establishment that invites the public in has a responsibility to provide for the public's safety, and an employer has the responsibility to provide a safe work place. These are well established tenants of our laws. There is no right to smoke, like there is no right to yell fire in a crowded theater. One person's pursuit of happiness cannot come at the expense of another's right to life.
Reply
Why are our government officials so willing to strip the citizens of their rights. It is not up to the government to determine what is good for us. Wether or not to allow smoking in a privately owned establisment should be left up to the owner. Three out of the five resteraunts in one of my local towns are NON-SMOKING, and the numbers are growing all the time. This is one of the most rediculous laws that have been passed, and I for one am tired of the legislature stripping away my rights. What is next, will they make Michigan a "DRY STATE" in order to stop drunk driving? The premise is the same. I understand why non smokers don't want to be around smokers but there are better ways to handle this. They have the right to go to a non-smoking establishment, just as I should have the right to have a cigarette with my beer if the owner wants to allow it (if the owner doesn't allow it I will go somewhere else, simple isn't it?). The legislatures time would be better spent fighting unemployment and crime, not stripping me of my rights.
Reply
View Full Conversation
