Michigan Votes Forum

"But by saying the question is whether one supports taking away rights or preserving them is a false dichotomy. It is the same as saying that the question is whether one supports protecting employees from passive exposure to substances that cause harm to them or doesn't. [okay, show where second hand smoke causes harm. show me one medical condition CAUSED by second hand smoke and nothing else. show what level of second hand smoke will always cause this harm. i'm sure you would like to list the regular things, such as asthma, bronchitis, eye irritation, lung irritation, and cancer. the difference is, these conditions ALSO appear in people who were never exposed to second hand smoke. some are genetic. you say harm is caused by second hand smoke. well, we know that asbestos causes mesothelioma. what PARTICULAR condition does second hand smoke cause that cannot be caused by anything else?] Clearly, property owners have a real interest in their rights to use their property to their own advantage or profit. {yes, they do, unless they do business in michigan. then the STATE has all the interest, and the property owner's only interest is in paying the taxes involved in doing business.] Employees on and visitors to those premises likewise have an interest in and right to their own health. [yes, they do. and it's NOT the business owner's right or responsibility to see to those rights and interests. it's only his right to be paid for goods or services rendered. he can, and should have NO INTEREST in the health concerns of either the visitor or the employee. those concerns are for the visitor and employee to attend to.] The political question here is a matter of balancing rights and interests in a civil society. Creating false dichotomies does not advance that cause. [does it create a false dichotomy when the state tells you that you have to have insurance to drive your car, but you drive it at your own risk? they have no interest in your health, or whether or not you have an accident. they just sweep you up off of the highway when you crash.]

been a peer revued study to show any correlation between second hand smoke and death, or cancer, or any other disease or condition. till you come up with one, you can stop saying that it causes all this mischief and damage. in fact, there are several peer revued studies, including three in california, that show NO correllation between second hand smoke and any disease or condition. in fact, one of the studies seemed to show an INCREASE in HEALTH FACTORS for some of the participants exposed to second hand smoke. that being said, it's STILL the responsibility of the INDIVIDUAL to guard himself against second hand smoke if he feels it necessary, and not the government.

responsibility to look after our health, then it's the state's responsibility when we crash our cars on the state's roads. they WERE built with state money, after all, and the state IS independantly wealthy, with sources of income all it's own, with nothing to do with our taxes. so, that makes them THE EVIL RICH, and liable for raping at the hands of the liberals.

Since when does government mandate what business can allow and not allow? What happened to freedom of choice? What next? Ban people from restaurants that have pets because the dander they may carry could cause someone an allergic reaction? How about banning the sale and serving of peanuts, because some people have bad allergic reactions. That could also include the wearing of cologne and perfume. The list can go on and on. Since when were you given the right to legislate such actions without amending the U.S. or Michigan State Constitutions -- such as when they prohibited the sale of alcohol and brought about prohibition, and then later amended it again to rescind the amendment? When someone denies the rights of one -- somewhere down the line their own "preferred" rights could be lost by unlawfully legislating them away. We have too many social engineers in our government who have forgotten what the meaning of their oath of office is about. When our elected and appointed officials reach into our daily, private lives and start dictating what and what is not allowed in order to "better" our lives then we have a government run by fascist mentalities. Fascist thinkers act upon an elitist attitude -- in other words -- Big Brother Government is here to save us from ourselves. We have not elected you to become our wet-nurse. This country was founded on individual rights, and individual choice. You are choosing to un-constitutionally dictate the rights of the individual and private enterprises. Tell me, since you are so much in favor of smoking bans and banning whatever else comes to your mind in the future will you then decide to pass legislation to contribute to the taxes that businesses pay? After all -- you have stuck your nose into telling people how to run their business and acting like a silent partner. Shouldn't you then be responsible for carrying part of their business costs? To use the reasoning that other states have passed a ban and we need to catch up with their unlawful (Un-Constitutional) actions tells me that your mind-set is to follow them into throwing our individual choice under the bus. After all -- if one sheep falls off a cliff the others should follow. We did not have our country founded on "Plato's Republic" where the elitists (elected and appointed officials) control the people and the government. Our government was founded on a Limited Republic where the rights of the individual are foremost.

michigan give a flying rat's ass about either the state or the federal constitution?

Exactly how this bill violates the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of Michigan. Real explanation, please -- no hare-brained imagining and ranting. Thanks.

rela slooow PRIVATE PROPERTY

?

does it say you CAN regulate smoking? the truth is, it doesn't. anything the state does that is NOT SPECIFICALLY LISTED IN EITHER THE STATE OR THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, as the state gets it's power and authority from those two documents, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. now, show me where in the constitution that it says the the state has the authority to regulate smoking on private property.

does it say the government has the authority to impose the death penalty on criminals? you argue: "anything the state does that is NOT SPECIFICALLY LISTED IN EITHER THE STATE OR THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, as the state gets it's power and authority from those two documents, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL." there is no specific mention of the death penalty in the u.s. constitution, and yet many states employ that form of punishment. how can that be, using your standard? yeah, i know. we aren't discussing the death penalty. but we are discussing the constitutional authority of government to do things that include, "... promote the general welfare ..." of the people.

haven't read the FIFTH AMENDMENT. give it a try. you might just find some edification. the michigan constitution has a SIMILAR passage there. would you like me to look it up for you? or can you manage to find it by yourself? something about "LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS". which means that they CAN take your life, liberty and property WITH due process.

banning smoking in a private building without banning smoking entirely increase the 'public welfare'? you aren't stopping ANYONE from smoking, and you aren't REALLY stopping anyone from being exposed to SECOND HAND SMOKE. now, how much SECOND HAND SMOKE do you have to be exposed to before you die? what is the TOXIC DOSE? how many people in michigan have DIED of second hand smoke? please list them for me, along with the RECORDED REASON FOR THEIR DEATHS.

the concept of "welfare" strictly with preventing death. that is an idiotic construction of the term.

that you have read into the fifth amendment the implied constitutionality of capital punishment. but it is only implied, and not specifically given by the constitution as a power of government. same applies to laws governing what may or may not be done on or with private property. the fifth amendment clearly implies that private property rights may be impinged upon, provided it is done by due process of law. generally speaking, enactment of laws by the legislature constitutes part of that "due process." so tell us where, exactly, and how, precisely, the constitution prohibits the enactment of this proposed workplace smoking prohibition. no more blathering and blithering.

IMPLIES nothing. it states that no life, liberty, or property can be taken away without DUE PROCESS. how do you get that statement means it IMPLIES anything? are your FIRST amendment rights IMPLIED?

there is no law that says that you have to use the 'public sewer system' in order to maintain 'public health and safety' by not dropping your droppings onto the street. in fact, it doesn't say you cannot drop your droppings on the street. you can use a septic system if you want, or simply take a dump in a hole. you cannot be FORCED to use your property as a brothel. you cannot be FORCED to use your property as a barracks. you cannot be FORCED to practice a particular religion. why do you think it's okay to FORCE people to use their property to advance the public health? it's not the business owner's job to ADVANCE THE PUBLIC HEALTH, nor is it the government's. it's the INDIVIDUALS job to look after his own health. that's why the constitution says NOTHING about forcing people to use their property as the government says. by the way, the government may TAKE your property, but NOT dictate it's use. i'm still waiting for you to tell us where you found anything that IMPLIES that it can. but of course, you can't. balls in your court.

how to read. and then practice. you are not very good at it now.

constitution does it say that government can FORCE YOU TO USE YOUR PROPERTY TO ADVANCE THE PUBLIC HEALTH?

you argue only to argue. and you argue absurdities by posting nonsense, half truths and untruths.

precisely where and how does the constitution of either the united states or michigan prohibit the passage and enforcement of this proposed law. answer the question. so far you have only responded with hot air.

kind of like INFLATE??? perhaps the word you are groping for is CONFUSE??? unless you are trying to CONFUSE us with the term derived from CONFLATUS in the latin... to BLOW TOGETHER, TO FUSE...

precisely where and how does the constitution of either the united states or michigan ALLOW the passage and enforcement of this proposed law. answer the question. so far you have only responded with hot air

where in the constitution it says YOU CAN DO IT, and i will be proven a liar. till then...

bring any FACTS to the table to back up your claims. now, you have been repeatedly challenged to do so, yet you have once again failed miserably to provide any. now as for IMPLICATIONS... if the fifth amendment says you CANNOT take away life, liberty, and property WITHOUT due process, that means that you CAN take away life, liberty, and property WITH due process. just like the fourth amendment says that you CANNOT SEARCH A PERSON'S HOME, PERSON, OR PAPERS WITHOUT A WARRANT, but you CAN search a person's home, person, or papers WITH a warrant. it works out that way. but you are far too simple to understand that.

you posted: “… the constitution says NOTHING about forcing people to use their property as the government says. by the way, the government may TAKE your property, but NOT dictate it's use. i'm still waiting for you to tell us where you found anything that IMPLIES that it can. but of course, you can't. “ well, ol’ bud, you’re surely on a roll. three absolutely false statements in row. that makes you a serial … untruth teller. obviously, your home school education did not include a real study of the u.s. constitution. if it had you would have read amendment three, the third item in the bill of rights, which says, “no soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner prescribed by law.” this does not just imply but says outright that the government does have authority to dictate how your property is used. it merely has to be “prescribed by law.” but you also overlook the simple fact that zoning laws have the specific purpose of dictating how property – including private property – may be used. the usual hysterical challenge to zoning laws is that they amount to a “taking” of property or property rights by the government. but the fact is, zoning laws, when properly constructed and administered withstand constitutional challenge. you still have not shown us where and how this bill violates either u.s. or michigan constitution as those documents are written and applied.

haven't shown where it can... like i said, the government can't FORCE you to use your house as a barracks. they have written NO LAWS that say that they can. they HAVE written laws that say the soldiers can sleep in their tents, instead of tents they supply on their own. now, where does it say that the government can force you to use your property to ADVANCE THE PUBLIC HEALTH? please be SPECIFIC. circular arguements only PROVE ME RIGHT.

the very fact that those laws have been exposed to constitutional query proves that SOMEBODY thought that they violated the constitution. the very fact that the supreme court looked at the issues shows that the points have some merit. look at the decisions.

somebody thought wrong, as it turned out. that's what the decisions say.

where a public health responsibility is prescribed by law in any zoning ordinance. and in spite of all the GOOD INTENTIONS of the health departments around the country, they STILL do not have the right, or the responsibility to DICTATE WHAT I PUT OR DO NOT PUT INTO MY BODY. they can make it ILLEGAL for me to obtain certain items from 'regulated sources', making others do their work for them, but they CANNOT make it law that i make myself healthier. prohibition didn't work for alcohol. it isn't working for drugs. and it won't work for smoking. unless of course, you want more law enforcement officers dying to try to enforce these laws as well.

dissenting opinions in all of those cases were WRONG? one vote could have made things otherwise. one vote made abortion constitutional. one vote made zoning abuses constitutional. one vote made draft laws constitutional. popular doesn't always equate into RIGHT.

a specific reference to a law that makes it the business owner's responsibility for INCREASING PUBLIC WELFARE by STOPPING SMOKING. now, if you CAN'T come up with one, you have PROVIDED A FALSE STATEMENT. provide a specific reference that shows where that responsibility is given to the property owner, or be proven wrong. any other answer is HOT AIR.

you posted: “if the fifth amendment says you CANNOT take away life, liberty, and property WITHOUT due process, that means that you CAN take away life, liberty, and property WITH due process. just like the fourth amendment says that you CANNOT SEARCH A PERSON'S HOME, PERSON, OR PAPERS WITHOUT A WARRANT, but you CAN search a person's home, person, or papers WITH a warrant.” which is precisely the point i made earlier. why do you choose to repeat it now, as if it argues against my position that the state of michigan does have constitutional authority to enact this bill? clearly you are just posting to see your words on the internet, or just arguing for the sake of drawing someone into your argument game. Maybe you should give it a rest.

an anonymous poster writes: “so, dissenting opinions in all of those cases were WRONG? one vote could have made things otherwise.” the key supreme court decision that upheld the constitutionality of zoning ordinances dictating how a piece of property may be used now has stood as the ruling precedent for more than 80 years. it also was not a narrow decision, as the poster has asserted, but was decided by a two-to-one margin. six justices in that case more than 80 years ago voted to uphold the constitutionality of zoning ordinances; three voted against.

reference to a law that mandates improving the public health by a private property owner. so, there must not be any. so, if there is no law that says they CAN, they cannot. it isn't prescribed in the constitution, or in the law. so much for your HOT AIR.

prove what you say. you say that the state has the right to impose the duty to improve the public health on a private property owner. show me where it says that.

ask the bar owner NOT TO SELL POISON, OR SUBSTANCES WHICH ARE HARMFUL, but to KEEP OTHER PEOPLE FROM POISONING THEMSELVES AND INJESTING THINGS THAT ARE HARMFUL. it's not his job to do that, and furthermore, it's not his DUTY to do that. it's not government's either. and you can't prove that it is.

ask the bar owner NOT TO SELL POISON, OR SUBSTANCES WHICH ARE HARMFUL, but to KEEP OTHER PEOPLE FROM POISONING THEMSELVES AND INJESTING THINGS THAT ARE HARMFUL. it's not his job to do that, and furthermore, it's not his DUTY to do that. it's not government's either. and you can't prove that it is.

factually baseless... YOU can't prove him wrong.

has been proved wrong on every point he's tried to make against the passage of this bill. crazy and the sock puppets should give up their trolling on this thread and go back to trolling michigan prison sentencing laws reform supporters.

this bill would prohibit workplace smoking. you really should learn to read.