Michigan Votes Forum

just get a load of this! AP Gates, Bloomberg pool riches to fight smoking Wednesday July 23, 2:18 pm ET By Sara Kugler, Associated Press Writer Billionaires Gates and Bloomberg put $375 million into global anti-smoking campaign NEW YORK (AP) -- Microsoft founder Bill Gates and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg are pooling their piles of money to pour $375 million into a global effort to cut smoking. The billionaire philanthropists, who have a combined worth of more than $70 billion, said Wednesday that the money will help efforts in developing countries where tobacco use is highest. There are more than 1 billion smokers worldwide. ADVERTISEMENT The $250 million from Bloomberg and $125 million from Gates will support projects that raise tobacco taxes, help smokers quit, ban tobacco advertising and protect nonsmokers from exposure to smoke, their foundations said. It will also aid efforts to track tobacco use and better understand tobacco control strategies. "Bill and I want to highlight the enormity of this problem and catalyze a global movement of governments and civil society to stop the tobacco epidemic," Bloomberg said in a statement. Bloomberg, who built his fortune from the financial information company he founded in the 1980s, is adding to an anti-smoking initiative he funded with $125 million in 2006. That money goes toward tobacco-fighting campaigns in low- and middle-income countries, most specifically China, India, Indonesia, Russia and Bangladesh. The Bloomberg foundation is also conducting a survey to better understand smoking in those countries. When Bloomberg first announced that $125 million gift, he said at the time that he believed smoking was a public health issue that was largely ignored by philanthropists. He said he hoped publicizing it would bring more attention from other major foundations. Gates said Wednesday that $24 million of his gift will go directly toward Bloomberg's efforts that are already underway. The remaining money will be used by his foundation to begin its own anti-tobacco work, including preventing tobacco use from increasing in Africa. "Tobacco-caused diseases have emerged as one of the greatest health challenges facing developing countries," Gates said in a statement. "The good news is, we know what it takes to save millions of lives, and where efforts exist, they are working." Bloomberg, a former smoker who quit about 30 years ago, has crusaded against smoking as mayor. In his first term he banned smoking in bars and restaurants and his health department has an aggressive, ongoing campaign to help New Yorkers kick the habit.

In the name of general health and welfare, they are again taking away business owner's rights to operate as they see fit!!!!! So yes, it's crappy if they cancel someone. But freedom isn't always pretty. More manure from the governator...kissing cousin of Jenny. ------ Copyright 2008 Los Angeles Times All Rights Reserved Los Angeles Times July 23, 2008 Wednesday Home Edition BUSINESS; Business Desk; Part C; Pg. 3 367 words Bonuses for cutting coverage is banned Lisa Girion, Times Staff Writer Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law Tuesday a ban against health insurance companies rewarding employees with bonuses for canceling or limiting a patient's coverage. The law is one piece of legislative, regulatory and law enforcement efforts to curtail the practice that the industry has defended as a little-used guard against fraud that helps control costs. Assemblyman Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) introduced AB 1150 after The Times disclosed that Woodland Hills insurer Health Net paid bonuses to an employee in charge of canceling coverage based in some years partly on how many policies she canceled. In other years, the bonus was based in part on the savings associated with such cancellations. Critics contend that insurers use confusing applications for individual policies to trap people into making mistakes that can later be used against them. When a policyholder gets sick, they say, insurers scour old medical records looking for an undisclosed condition or symptom to use to justify cancellation. Schwarzenegger said the new law was a step in the right direction. "Until we achieve comprehensive healthcare reform, stopping unfair healthcare rescissions is an urgently needed consumer protection," Schwarzenegger said. "This terrible practice further illustrates the erosion of our healthcare system and the need for comprehensive healthcare reform. "Today we are standing up for consumers by putting an end to a deplorable practice, and I will continue working with my partners in the Legislature to stop unfair healthcare rescissions once and for all." Lieu said he was pleased that Schwarzenegger signed the bill. "The healthcare crisis has left millions of Californians without health insurance or access to medical care," he said. "Patients should not have to worry about losing their health insurance -- simply because an employee can make some extra bonus money." Last week, the administration's Department of Managed Health Care fined insurers Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield a total of $13 million over rescission practices. As a part of a negotiated settlement, the two companies agreed to offer new coverage to 2,220 Californians whose health plans were rescinded.

March 21st, 2008 by J.J. Jackson Recently here in Pennsylvania the anti-smokers have been on the march waging their usual campaign against private property rights. On radio they have been running ads featuring two fictitious anti-smokers sitting in a restaurant having a nice chat, ordering waffles and bemoaning how they like the food but hate the evil, vile, disgusting smokers that the owners have the gall to allow in the restaurant and breathe the same air as they are. They then revert to the typical canard of the government should “do something”. We’ve heard this argument for years; smoking causes cancer. The commercials even cite the Attorney General as saying so. And because smoking “causes” cancer, and everyone knows it, the government should step in and take care of the problem. These claims are made, of course, despite years of actual research and clinical evidence which shows no such thing but rather that there is only an increased risk of cancer among smokers rather than an absolute link that smoking or exposure to second hand smoke results in you getting cancer. This is akin to the obvious conclusion that if you get in a car you increase your chance of being in an automobile accident. Medical records are abundant showing people that have smoked their entire lives or that have been exposed to second hand smoke as children and who never get an ounce of cancer, suffer from asthma or contract any disease smoking “causes”. So much for the cause and effect the Attorney General’s claims. But the anti-smoking alarmists don’t care about the facts. They don’t even really care about smoking all that much. Oh sure, some of the foot soldiers being lead around by the ring in their nose do, but those leading the movement don’t. The movement itself is more about the destruction of private property rights and liberty than anything else. The basic argument of the anti-smoking crowd is that they like to go somewhere, but because they hate the smokers that also go to that same place then government should ban smoking in these places like restaurants and bars. Ok, so maybe we can apply that same twisted and tortured “logic” to other situations too. You neighbor has a beautifully landscaped and spacious backyard. It gets the perfect amount of sunlight for you to work on your tan. Your yard however doesn’t get much sun and you would love to go to the neighbor’s yard and sunbathe. However your neighbor doesn’t much like you coming over uninvited and just laying out in his backyard. You like to go there and work on your tan but your neighbor has set up some rules on his property (i.e. that he doesn’t want you on it) that you don’t like. He also has a particularly nasty cuss of a dog that is very protective of that yard and would certainly be hazardous to your health if you tried to go there without permission. So if you abide by the anti-smokers and their argument put forth above you would also agree that government should have the right to force your neighbor to get rid of his dog and allow you to come over and lounge around on his property. Why? Well simply because you like going there and he and his dog impair your potential enjoyment of his property. Or maybe one of your fellow workers has a really nice luxury car with heated leather seats and a kick butt stereo system. So one day you just hop in his car, sit there and partake of said luxury and are generally enjoying your time. When he comes down and finds you in his car he gets upset particularly because you have hotwired the car since you don’t have a key. He asks you to leave, but because you like being there you believe you are entitled to sit in his car. So he draws his trusty revolver and scares you out of the car with the implied threat that your health will suffer if you don’t. Caring about your “health” you obviously decide to flee. If you think that the anti-smokers have a “logical” argument then you would run to the government and demand a law that would force your coworker to get rid of his gun and to allow you to partake of his luxury accommodations. Why? Well, it simply boils down to nothing more than your assertion that you like being there and that you should be allowed to do so on terms you set. Are you seeing how silly this is by now? If you are a thinking person you are. If you are a rabid anti-smoker then you probably are not. Why would you have the right to run to government to dictate how someone else must manage their private property and forbid them from allowing otherwise perfectly legal activities just so you can enjoy it? If you like the food at a private restaurant but don’t like the smokers then the obvious answer is don’t go there. You don’t have the “right” to tell the owners they cannot allow smokers no more than you can tell your neighbor to get rid of his guard dog or your co-worker to get rid of his gun. You don’t have the “right” to tell the restaurant that they must accommodate your desires any more than you can tell your neighbor that he must let you sunbathe on his property or your co-worker that he must let you sit in his car. If you feel so strongly about smoking being harmful don’t go there. My God what a concept! Maybe you could even open up your own smoke free version of the restaurant right across the street. But as long as we live in America, where smoking is legal and will remain legal due to the ginormous amounts of taxes it brings in for government bureaucrats, you can’t tell the restaurant owner that they cannot allow it on their property just because you feel inconvenienced or threatened. And if the anti-smokers succeed in getting restaurants, bars and other private establishments to be “smoke free” then they have also laid the ground work for making your home “smoke free” as well. No, I’m not joking. If government is allowed to establish rules for smoking in private businesses then there is no roadblock to them doing the same for private residences. Some cities in America have already taken these steps. The anti-smokers will certainly enjoy that prospect. Until smoking is illegal everywhere that is. And when smoking is illegal everywhere government will have to replace those taxes on cigarettes by taxing something else instead. Either that or services will be cut. But we all know that government never cuts services. So get ready for your taxes to increase right along side of your loss of private property rights. The bottom line is this, people like those supporting these smoking bans and that pretend to care about you and me really don’t care about you and me. They really believe that you and I are too stupid to make our own choices without their help. We already tried prohibition once in America. It was championed by nebby do-gooders who thought the same ways as the anti-smokers do today. It was a dismal failure too. But as we often see, those on the left who seek government control over our lives have a broken rearview mirror and cannot learn from history. So they will continue on, trumpeting their same old “solutions” to the “problems” that they think you are too dumb to handle on your own.

It is about time Michigan did something to protect it bar and restaurant workers. And to all you doom-sayers who claim this is going to hurt the economy and put bars and restaurants out of business, try educating yourself before you start making hollow claims. Find a source not sponsored by the tobacco industry, like a report from a university done on a state that has already based a similar ban. I lived in CA when they based the law there and things actually picked up in the bars and restaurants. I worked in a few of them and we saw buiness pick up due to all the non-smokers coming in for a change. People who smoke are nto going to stop going out to eat, they aren't ging to stop going to heir favorite watering hole, they don't do this things to facilitate their smoking.

that's been harmed by so called second hand smoke. If it's such a great idea then the market will embrace it without the nanny government trampling on our property rights once again. Maybe you would like to give up being a control freak and opening your own smoke free bar, man that would show them. But the reality is that you would go bankrupt, you know it and the facts prove it so you need to use the iron fist of government to shove your idea of the perfect place down our collective throats. What are you and your comrads going to decide that you don't like next?????? The basic argument of the anti-smoking crowd is that they like to go somewhere, but because they hate the smokers that also go to that same place then government should ban smoking in these places like restaurants and bars. Ok, so maybe we can apply that same twisted and tortured “logic” to other situations too. You neighbor has a beautifully landscaped and spacious backyard. It gets the perfect amount of sunlight for you to work on your tan. Your yard however doesn’t get much sun and you would love to go to the neighbor’s yard and sunbathe. However your neighbor doesn’t much like you coming over uninvited and just laying out in his backyard. You like to go there and work on your tan but your neighbor has set up some rules on his property (i.e. that he doesn’t want you on it) that you don’t like. He also has a particularly nasty cuss of a dog that is very protective of that yard and would certainly be hazardous to your health if you tried to go there without permission. So if you abide by the anti-smokers and their argument put forth above you would also agree that government should have the right to force your neighbor to get rid of his dog and allow you to come over and lounge around on his property. Why? Well simply because you like going there and he and his dog impair your potential enjoyment of his property. Or maybe one of your fellow workers has a really nice luxury car with heated leather seats and a kick butt stereo system. So one day you just hop in his car, sit there and partake of said luxury and are generally enjoying your time. When he comes down and finds you in his car he gets upset particularly because you have hotwired the car since you don’t have a key. He asks you to leave, but because you like being there you believe you are entitled to sit in his car. So he draws his trusty revolver and scares you out of the car with the implied threat that your health will suffer if you don’t. Caring about your “health” you obviously decide to flee. If you think that the anti-smokers have a “logical” argument then you would run to the government and demand a law that would force your coworker to get rid of his gun and to allow you to partake of his luxury accommodations. Why? Well, it simply boils down to nothing more than your assertion that you like being there and that you should be allowed to do so on terms you set. Are you seeing how silly this is by now? If you are a thinking person you are. If you are a rabid anti-smoker then you probably are not. Why would you have the right to run to government to dictate how someone else must manage their private property and forbid them from allowing otherwise perfectly legal activities just so you can enjoy it? If you like the food at a private restaurant but don’t like the smokers then the obvious answer is don’t go there. You don’t have the “right” to tell the owners they cannot allow smokers no more than you can tell your neighbor to get rid of his guard dog or your co-worker to get rid of his gun. You don’t have the “right” to tell the restaurant that they must accommodate your desires any more than you can tell your neighbor that he must let you sunbathe on his property or your co-worker that he must let you sit in his car. If you feel so strongly about smoking being harmful don’t go there. My God what a concept! Maybe you could even open up your own smoke free version of the restaurant right across the street. But as long as we live in America, where smoking is legal and will remain legal due to the ginormous amounts of taxes it brings in for government bureaucrats, you can’t tell the restaurant owner that they cannot allow it on their property just because you feel inconvenienced or threatened. March 21st, 2008 by J.J. Jackson

Go Back!

[The basic argument of the anti-smoking crowd is that they like to go somewhere, but because they hate the smokers that also go to that same place then government should ban smoking in these places like restaurants and bars. Ok, so maybe we can apply that same twisted and tortured “logic” to other situations too.] The only “tortured logic” here lies in the false claims that form an underlying premise for further argument. Anti-smokers hardly hate smokers. Many, however, have come to recognize the harm that even passive smoking (secondhand smoke) does to human health, and so seek to minimize their own and others’ exposure to it. That’s a fairly simple matter, don’t you think? The prime argument mounted against this legislation is premised on the claim that it somehow violates private property rights. It does not, in any legal sense. Therefore, any logical argument proceeding from that claim is based on a false premise, and must fail. To assert otherwise is to “torture logic” in the truest sense. Even on a moral-ethical basis (which often is distinct from a legal basis) the property rights arguments fails. In an ethical, moral, organized society, an owner’s use of his property in a way that creates a public hazard or exposes the public to hazard would be regarded as unethical or immoral. (Remember the teaching, “I am my brother’s keeper.”) Moreover, to deliberately invite the public – either as employee (which this legislation is about) or customer -- to enter the property and be exposed to a known preventable hazard would be considered reckless and therefore unethical and immoral to a very high degree. Then, we have the repeated challenge to “show me just one” person harmed by passive smoking. Research now indicates that some 3,000 deaths a year are attributable to the effects of secondhand smoke. That’s your one, times 3,000. The hazards are real, as confirmed by legitimate research. Whatever tortured logic is used in the argument about this legislation comes from those who oppose it.

[The basic argument of the anti-smoking crowd is that they like to go somewhere, but because they hate the smokers that also go to that same place then government should ban smoking in these places like restaurants and bars. Ok, so maybe we can apply that same twisted and tortured “logic” to other situations too.] The only “tortured logic” here lies in the false claims that form an underlying premise for further argument. Anti-smokers hardly hate smokers. Many, however, have come to recognize the harm that even passive smoking (secondhand smoke) does to human health, ( show me one person harmed by so called second hand smoke) and so seek to minimize their own and others’ exposure to it. That’s a fairly simple matter, don’t you think? The prime argument mounted against this legislation is premised on the claim that it somehow violates private property rights. (When you come to MY PRIVATE ESTABLISHMENT and tell me what I can allow and what I can't, then yes, you are taking my rights. On the other hand you have no right to come into my bar, if you want to that's fine but you don't have any right to be there or control what is legally done there) It does not, in any legal sense. Therefore, any logical argument proceeding from that claim is based on a false premise, and must fail. To assert otherwise is to “torture logic” in the truest sense. Even on a moral-ethical basis (which often is distinct from a legal basis) the property rights arguments fails. (Wrong Wrong Wrong Maybe you would like it if I got the government to force you to let me have my company picnic in your yard) In an ethical, moral, organized society, an owner’s use of his property in a way that creates a public hazard or exposes the public to hazard would be regarded as unethical or immoral. ("In an ethical, moral, organized society" any person with a brain would just not go where they don't like something. I hate eating chicken, maybe we can stop restaurants from serving this fowl beast. Maybe we can get them to stop letting strippers dance at strip clubs, after all it's been proven (whereas 2nd hand smoke hazard hasn't) that this harms people. Some of these guys go out and rape after visiting these places. Some of them grab the barmaids on the buttocks, we need to stop this to protect the barmaids.) You are truly an idiot and have never tried to run a business if you think that this is not a property rights issue. Sales always go down, if they went up you wouldn't be able to find a smoking allowed bar, this is how capitalism works. Even if the owner smokes he would outlaw it if he could increase sales. You must have flunked economics 101. You have no right to tell a law abiding businessman what legal activity he can allow. Go back to annarbor and leav us alone.

One of the most frequently heard pieces of propaganda is that passive smoking causes childhood asthma. Children of the fifties did more passive smoking in one visit to the cinema than modern children do in their whole lives. Childhood asthma was then virtually unknown. It has increased steadily in subsequent decades, while environmental tobacco smoke has declined. It is now a major health problem. These facts are incontrovertible. Yet to state them is to arouse wrath. The sad side-effect of the dogma is that it diverts impetus from the search for the real cause: not a unique result of zealotry.

There is no question that tobacco haters are in the van and their unflinching, ruthless, mendacious campaign serves as an example to the rest. Their remarkable success is a spur to the others and their methods a model to be emulated. These include the gross abuse of the statistical method; the invention of numbers (particularly body counts, with no actual bodies or post-mortems) that grow mysteriously with time; the eschewal of anything approaching the scientific method; above all, the relentless, unceasing drum beat of propaganda. They never give up. Each tawdry victory strengthens the appetite for more. Having achieved the ban in public places (i.e. private property) they now seek to penetrate the home. In order to get their ban, the activists followed the advice of Adolf Hitler (The broad mass of a nation will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one). They needed to plant an arrant falsehood in the public mind, that second hand smoke was a deadly poison. The charge was led by the US EPA, who in 1994 published a so-called meta-study that was then a unique example of multiple statistical fraud and revealed the lowest standards of statistical significance ever recorded (since greatly bettered by subsequent zealots). Thereafter the campaigners did not even bother with corrupt science. They simply made pronouncements that were dutifully reproduced by their allies in the establishment media. One oft repeated one is that “there is no lower limit for damage caused by second hand smoke”, which is an example of the concentration fallacy and a contradiction of the first law of toxicology (the poison is in the dose). They pioneered the virtual body count, produced from nowhere and endowed with a remarkable capacity to grow on its own. The British zealots announced a body count of 1,000 a year (considerably greater pro rata for population than the EPA claim) which became 4,000 and then 11,000, with no evidence adduced.. It is now a matter of history that the campaign for a smoking ban was astonishingly successful. It was not only a bad day for human liberty and freedom of choice, but also defeat for science and a model for other zealots to embrace dishonesty in their crusades. At a time of threatened collapse of our society it was remarkable for its irrelevance. It offers the activists the ineffable pleasure of being able to oppress and humiliate a minority on the basis of an apparent justification. The anti-democratic EU, as always, leads in the suppression of free speech. John Brignell

There is no question that tobacco industry stooges are in the van and their unflinching, ruthless, mendacious campaign serves as an example to the rest. Their remarkable success is a spur to the others and their methods a model to be emulated. These include the gross abuse of the statistical method; the invention of numbers; the eschewal of anything approaching the scientific method; above all, the relentless, unceasing drum beat of propaganda. They never give up. Each tawdry victory strengthens the appetite for more.

I don't want to argue "liberal feelings" or other such horse squeeze. Show me one person harmed by so called second hand smoke. Why is there a safe limit for breathing carbon monoxide but no such limit for smoke? I'm tired of trying to teach usefull idiots. You're boring me.

Competent research indicates about 3,000 deaths per year are attributable to secondhand smoke. That's 3,000 times the one you keep asking for. 3,000 times. Learn to understand the math, loony tunes. Now, kindly tuck your scrawny little tail between your scrawny little reactionary legs and slink off. Have a nice day.

[You have no right to tell a law abiding businessman what legal activity he can allow.] Wrong again, Ol’ Reactionary idjit. As usual. I have every right to speak up and inform others of what is, and is not the law. Moreover, I have every right to advocate what I think should be the law, as in this case. It says so right in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But, of course, your version – the Reactionary Idjit’s Made Up U.S. Constitution – probably doesn’t include that provision. Now, the government certainly does have the authority to tell a businessman what activity on his property is legal and what is not. That is well established by precedent in actual Constitutional law (even though it may be missing from the Reactionary Idjit’s Library of Constitutional Law). How the business person responds to that determines whether or not he/she can be properly described as “law-abiding.” [Go back to annarbor and leav us alone.] Oh, how intelligent of you to say such a thing. I do not live in Ann Arbor, never have, and have no desire to do so. Your repeatedly telling me to shut up and go away marks you as the totally un-American Reactionary twit that you are. Have a nice day.

BS - there is no proof of that what so ever. Its all spectulation! BS BS BS BS BS

then please think about moving either there or khalifornia and stop stinking up this place.

Where is the study? Where are the facts? Show me the data. Give us a link to the study so we can check it out. Doctors kill 120,000 people per year. Maybe we should outlaw them also. (A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000. (B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000. Statistics Courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health & Human Services.

Bullshit!

"...concerns that the comprehensive prohibition passed by the Senate would disadvantage certain Michigan businesses that compete with entities not affected by the proposal, in particular Detroit casinos (which compete against Indian and Canadian casinos)." Canadian Casinos are already under a smoking ban. Where is the nearest Indian casino? Mt. Pleasant??? Honorable Representatives -- you authored this bill -- make it fair to everyone by passing the Senate version. That way, it's a level playing field (except for Indian casinos, which are nowhere near Detroit). We need a comprehensive non-smoking bill passed in Michigan. Our state is WAY behind the times. Please pass this legislation ASAP!!!

is nannies like you to stay out of the way and let the PRIVATE BUSINESS OWNER run his or her business. If the public wanted it they would vote with their wallets and the non smoking bars would be making lots more money than the smoking allowed bars. Within a few weeks you would see non smoking signs everywhere. You have control issues and want to use the iron fist of government to get your way. Go open a restaurant and you can run it your way. Or maybe you just want to keep chowing down at the all you can eat buffet. You Say "We need a comprehensive non-smoking bill passed in Michigan"

Now! It is good for Michigan and Michiganders.

a Mommy Like You To Look After Me.

Those of you that argue, non-smokers don't have to go to bars and bowling alleys etc. are full of crap. Maybe I like to drink and have a good time with friends at a bar. I just don't want cancer because of another persons addiction and stupidity. If you want to kill your self and smoke, do it at your own house or in your own car. Don't subject others to smoke. It's a dirty, filthy habit and smokers can't argue against that statement, just look into your ashtray, you're so appealing. If people need to smoke that badly, they can do it at home. Smoking kills, but it doesn't need to kill all of us. Also, health insurance costs would decrease. Indian casinos are not close enough to Detroit. That excuse is a crock. More people would go to bars and casino's initially and then it would level off and things would be normal. Look at how many major states that are bigger than Michigan have been able to accomplish. Smokers are not bad people, they are 1 of 3 things: addicts, idiots, or they want to die and/or kill others (aka only care about themselves). cough cough cough

idiot. smokers can smoke in their own homes and kill themselves. just because i'm a good bowler and love to bowl doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to bowl because people want to kill themselves with cancer sticks. The argument that "where's the study that proves it" is stupid. If you weren't so busy smoking, you would have time to do some research, but you probably have too many dead brain cells to do that. There's plenty of evidence out there. I love cancer sticks they don't just kill you, they kill others too.

i don't care if others want to smoke, but they should not subject their second hand smoke to others (that's selfish), they should smoke in their own homes, on their own time.  They should not make others have to go home smelling like an ashtray.  They can take their leatheryskinned, wrinkled old ugly face home and smoke.  ugh, it irks me that people can be so selfish.  I know some people can't live with out their cancer sticks, so smoking only in their homes is not a bad compromise to the alternative of outlawing cancer sticks.

"but they should not subject their second hand smoke to others" Just because I allow smoking in MY PRIVATE BUSINESS doesn't mean that I am "subjecting" you to anything. You make the choice to subject yourself to the conditions in MY BUSINESS. Maybe you will become a veggie and not want me to "subject" you to seeing a nice thick steak on the next table. How much control over MY BUSINESS do you want? "They should not make others have to go home smelling like an ashtray" This is an extreme exageration since I have spent a fortune on ventilation in MY BUSINESS. Also see above point. "They can take their leatheryskinned, wrinkled old ugly face home and smoke" This statement shows your true colors. If you are that much of a hater then you should just stay away from PRIVATE BUSINESSES that allow smoking. "so smoking only in their homes" I think that a good compromise would be for you to eat and drink in your own home and not try to run MY BUSINESS. If you had the ambition to work 15 hour days 7 days a week then you should open your own business. The you can make the rules.

"Competent research indicates about 3,000 deaths per year are attributable to secondhand smoke. That's 3,000 times the one you keep asking for. 3,000 times. Learn to understand the math, loony tunes." You can't. You know it. Now answer me one question. Why are there allowable limits for carbon monoxide (which will kill you in a minute or two and the allowable limit for cigarette smoke is zero? I'll answer it for you. It's because you are zealots that just want to control what other people do. You don't like smoking so no body should be allowed to. Seek help little control freak.

"There's plenty of evidence out there" Then it should be easy for you to show it to us.... I'm waitng....

from restaurants! They are stinky and disgusting and they cost us way too much in medical bills.

Someone with such a low IQ should not speak unless your owner offers you a cookie. You have no heart and no brain. Do not pigon hole people for the way they look, dress, or eat. Be careful, you could be next to be put in a pigon hole of no longer needed.

Even if they proved that the so called second hand smoke was dangerous they don't have a right to tell a PRIVATE BUSINESS OWNER that pays exorbitant taxes just to do business here in this socialist paradise that they can't allow it. I can show you many dangerous things that you can eat in a restaurant and you don't hear the freedom loving smokers trying to outlaw those things. Let the free market decide. If I can make more money by outlawing smoking in MY PRIVATE BUSINESS I will do it in a second. I will be in my office having a smoke. I'm not doing this because I like you, this is how I earn my living and you are tryiong to destroy it.

"You have no heart and no brain" You're pretty good with the "hurtfull things" "Do not pigon hole people for the way they look, dress, or eat." So you want to "pigon hole" the smokers but still force us to sit in a restaurant and watch 300 pounders shove food in their pie holes like a backhoe filling a ditch and we can't say a word? I would rather sit next to a smoker in a well ventilated restaurant any day rather than sit across the table from one of these gluttons that really don't smell very nice at all. Have a nice day and grab a few more candy bars for the ride. Don't worry, the nanny government that you seem to want is already going after the lard butts. L.A. khalifornia just outlawed any new fast food restaurants because you folks can't stop shoveling it in. I for one will rally for more laws like this to protect you from yourself.

Still Waiting...

“Even if they proved that the so called second hand smoke was dangerous they don't have a right to tell a PRIVATE BUSINESS OWNER that pays exorbitant taxes just to do business here in this socialist paradise that they can't allow it.” This stupid assertion has been made over and over in this discussion. It is stupid because it is wrong, and has been wrong as a matter of settled American law for the better part of a century. Grow up, do your homework, and find a better, fact-based and logically supportable line argument against this very good law, if you can. Your inane rants are not persuasive.

would that be???? You Say "It is stupid because it is wrong, and has been wrong as a matter of settled American law for the better part of a century."

because they're in line at the all you can eat buffet trough shoveling that fourth plate of fried chicken into their pie holes. Plus they know that they are wrong and unless you do away with property rights you can't do what they want.

Posts: “And Exactly What Law would that be????” Case law, sfb. Now go suck your thumb in the corner. We are wearied of your prattling about stuff of which you are obviously ignorant. Grow up, do your homework, and find a better, fact-based and logically supportable line of argument against this very good law, if you can. Your inane rants are not persuasive.

What law? Now you waddle back to the all you can eat buffet.

Understood in this case as, police powers of government. Those are the powers of government to regulate private behavior -- and use of of private property -- in order to protect and promote the public good. American courts have ruled that government has such authority. You may not like that fact, but your not liking it doesn't change it. So, far your argument flops. It has been based on the notion this proposed law violates fundamental principles in law (which it doesn't) and trying to change the subject to regulation of obesity, which is irrelevant. Why not do your homework and come up with a fact-based, logically sustainable line of argument against this bill if you oppose it? Oh, we know, that actually would take intellect you evidently lack and effort you won't and probably don't know how to expend. We really don't expect an intelligent argument from you. But we always can hope. Have a nice day.

since the state condones and pushes smoking because it is a cash cow for them. If they think it's bad enough for you that they can tell me how to run MY PRIVATE BUSINESS why do they allow them to be sold and take a draconian tax from them? You can't have it both ways princess. Now get back to the all you can eat buffet, the pie hole is geting empty.