Michigan Votes Forum

Yours invariably are irrelevant and inane. You evidently are grossly undersized for the task here. Give it up. Fact is, this is a very good bill that has widespread public support . It should be passed into law.

You are a control freak that wants the nanny government to make the world work just like you think it should. Sorry Princess, it ain't all about you. If you don't like a place, don't go there. Once again, how can the state make money off something so bad that it also gives them a right to trample MY PROPERTY RIGHTS? Nobody is forcing you to go anywhere you don't want to. Nobody is forcing you to ever have to breath any so called second hand smoke. Why do you feel it is right to come to MY PLACE and tell me what to do? I would like to come to your place and tell you to quit shoveling food into your pie hole but I wouldn't because it's not my business and I have no right to tell you what you can and can't do in YOUR PLACE OF BUSINESS. Oh, that's right, you don't have one or you wouldn't be wanting the state to trash your business. Okay princess, back to the trough.

Little Androgena, continue to lack any substance. It appears you suffer a certain smallness, in your head and -- given your obvious fascination with other folks' size -- probably elsewhere. Anyway, this bill is a good idea that is well supported by the public. It should pass and become law. It will be good for Michigan employees, and good for Michigan business when it does.

You can't or won't answer simple questions. You keep trying to pretend that you possess some sort of twisted lib logic (a true oxymoron) and I am tiring of it. By the way. The bill is dead. Have a nice day and keep eating princess.

Has been answered here several times within the last 24 hours, little androgena. Evidently, your brain is too small to absorb and grapple with factual information. Likewise, your line about the "show me one person" has been answered overwhelmingly, with the 3,000 deaths per year attributed to secondhand smoke. That's 3000 X the one you kept asking for. So far you have not made made a single coherent, fact-based and logical argument in opposition to this bill. All you have done is bray, natter and yammer, bellow falsehoods, try to change the subject, and engage in name-calling and labeling. Try making a real argument for a change. You will look far less like a twit.

"Likewise, your line about the "show me one person" has been answered overwhelmingly, with the 3,000 deaths per year attributed to secondhand smoke. That's 3000 X the one you kept asking for." That is just a number that the zealots like yourself came up with. You keep parroting the same line without any facts to back them up. Just because you say something a thousand times does not make it a fact. Show us one person that has been harmed by your so called second hand smoke. "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."

Little androgena. Denial of facts doesn't make your argument for you. The facts are simple. Reliable estimates tell us that secondhand smoke (passive smoking) causes 3,000 deaths per year. You have demanded to be shown just one; the facts of research point to 3,000 per year! Yet you continue to deny the reality. You claim these no-smoking bills violate certain "constitutional" rights regarding private property. Fact is, that common law and case law say you are wrong. Wrong. Got it? Wrong. You claim that that no-smoking laws kill business. Actual research demonstrates they don't. In fact, actual research indicates they benefit hospitality businesses. Your problem, little person, is that you are so frightened by the prospect of positive change that you deny the facts and truth. You lie through your teeth, make up senseless and stupid arguments, keep trying to change the subject, and pull just about every juvenile trick in the book to keep the argument going. You are a joke. Opposition to this legislation is irrational. A majority of citizens see that and support passage of it into law. The legislation actually was passed by solid majorities in both Michigan legislative houses. Unfortunately, our irresponsible and partisan legislative leaders have failed urtterly in their responsibilities and obligations to reconcile the minor differences between House and Senate versions of the bill, so it can move ahead and become law. Of course, the current legislative session still has a few months to run, so the matter is not yet a dead issue. No matter, anyway. This will become law eventually. Change is coming, little person, whether you like it or not. Quit acting like a petulant, whiny child, and learn to live with it like a grownup.

"The facts are simple" "estimates" "Fact is, that common law and case law say you are wrong" "Denial of facts doesn't make your argument for you." I have been asking you for facts and you come up with lib talking points. You really should take a break from reading the dailykooks website and move right into the real world. Please show me, remember, I'm a joke. Please help me out with the law that says that the government can tell me that I can't allow a legal activity on MY PROPERTY. "Actual research demonstrates they don't. In fact, actual research indicates they benefit hospitality businesses." Again, I can show you three busunesses that were harmed by these draconian laws. Windsor casino - 400 laid off the day after the law went into effect. Big Als bar and grill-Belle River Ontario- business off by 50% and still has not recoverd after 5 years. 5 employees gone. Gary's Sports bar-Marathon Florida-Closed within a year-Building for rent- maybe you can give it a go...that would require you to work long hours and get your nose out of everybody elses business. Now you show me ONE busines that got bettter after your silly little control freak law. I'm waiting.... Also could you please show me one instance that you were forced to go to a business that you didn't agree with their rules. I'm waiting... My guess is that you have either A: forgotten how to have fun or never learned B: Get jealous when you see folks over at the bar enjoying themselves and socializing C: Just a narcissistic control freak that never grew up. D: A do gooder, nanny state lib that believes that you know whats good for all of the rest of us. or E: A little crabby because the all you can eat buffet has blacklisted you. Have a nice day princess

Norquist starts by analyzing American politics as breaking out into two diametrically and irreconcilably opposed coalitions -- The Takings Coalition and the Leave Us Alone coalition. For the Takings Coalition: "These groups and individuals view the proper role of government as taking things from one group and giving them to someone else….Money, power, and control. Who are they in favor of taking it from? You and me, the taxpayers." This coalition includes everyone who wants a handout from the government, from straight welfare to corporate welfare. It includes trail lawyers and labor union leaders trying to loot corporations and the taxpayers. It includes government bureaucrats, contractors, grantees, and big city political machines, whose primary motivation is a gold-plated deal paid for by the taxpayers. It also includes the "coercive utopians." These folks want to change the world. They want to change you. And they are willing to wield the blunt instrument of the state to make you, your family, and your life fit their procrustean bed—no matter how much it hurts you or how much it costs you. And they expect to be paid with tax dollars for supervising your moral regeneration. These are the radical environmentalists, gun control advocates, extreme feminists, safety and health "Nazis," animal rights extremists, anti-religious secularists, and some gay groups that wish to impose their sense of morality on others through the power of the state. Of course, this Takings Coalition is the heart and soul of the Democrat party. In sharp contrast, the Leave Us Alone Coalition, the political movement created out of the defeated Republican Party of midcentury and sculpted by Ronald Reagan's political leadership and lifetime, is a coalition of groups that have one thing in common. They do not want the government to give them something. Or take something from others. On the key issue that motivates their vote, they want one simple thing from government: They just want to be left alone. They are taxpayers who want lower taxes. Businessmen and -women, entrepreneurs, investors who wish to run their own affairs without being regulated and taxed out of existence. Property owners who do not wish to be taxed out of their homes and property. Gun owners protective of their second amendment rights. Homeschoolers who are willing to spend the time and energy to educate their own children, asking only that the government leave them alone. Conservative Catholics, evangelical Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Mormons, all members of the various communities of faith who wish to be left alone to practice their faith and pass it on to their children. This Leave Us Alone Coalition is the heart and soul of the Republican Party, whether actual Republican leaders understand that or not.

Same old stuff, different minute, little person. Why are you so afraid of positive change? Your prattling quotes from Grover Norquist have virtually nothing to do with this bill, which certainly will be good for Michigan's people and the state of Michigan when it -- or a successor --eventually becomes state law. The Norquist stuff is nothing but partisan prattling, gross distortion, and boring to boot. The fact is, secondhand smoke is a health hazard, and a largely and very readily preventable -- or controllable -- one. The fact is, government does have the authority, by common law and litigated precedent to regulate hazards and hazardous conditions to promote the common good. One would guess that good health is perceived as a common good, even among the most regressive boneheads in our society. The fact is that economic studies demonstrate smoking bans of the sort proposed in this legislation have no lasting negative impact on hospitality industry business. In fact, the research indicates there likely will be a positive benefit, although that is not a highly touted claim in support of this legislation. Give it up, little person. Shed your fears and trembling, and give up your juvenile, whining, baseless arguments against this bill. Change is coming whether you like it or not.

Twit, little person. Fearful denial of facts and reality, and being scared of change is a sign of mental weakness. We would laugh at you but that's impolite. Discrete snickers will have to do. Have a nice day in your la-la land.

Still nothing to back up your arguments. See ya princess. Have fun at the trough this weekend.

You now have no argument at all, twit. Of course, you never did, fearful little person. All you do is deny facts that support positive change, as proposed by this bill. That is the sign of weak-mindedness. If facts supporting this legislation (which actually are validated by reality) are wrong, cite your contervailing facts to prove it. Or quit boring us with your prattling. In in the meantime, we know, for fact, that: It is estimated that secondhand smoke causes 3,000 deaths per year. Exposure to hazardous secondhand smoke in the workplace is readily preventable. It is well established in law that government has the authority to regulate workplace and public hazards. Legitimate and reliable research shows that no-smoking laws have no long term negative effect on hospitality businesses, and may, in reality, produce long term benefit for such businesses. Grow up, fearful small person. Either that, or return to your cozy little corner and suck your thumb. You will do better that way than continuing to publicly demonstrate your own terror at the prospect of constructive change, and your lack of intellectual capacity with your sensless prattling and yammering. Have a nice day in la-la land, little twit.

Are a total idiot. You don't get it do you? Its not about SMOKING, its about a government that is going COMMIE!! You are a Fool.

name five people who have been diagnosed to have died of second hand smoke. i dare you.

I don't buy their numbers a bit..no sir. Their just lying again to cover their nanny state tracks and bogus laws. Smoke ban dooms bars? Think again By Jon Craig - July 10, 2008 COLUMBUS -- Despite predictions the state smoking ban would doom Ohio bars, there are more places to drink now than before in Greater Cincinnati and Ohio. The state smoking ban, passed by Ohio voters in November 2006, began getting enforced in May 2007. It banned smoking in most public places including bars and restaurants as well as work places. While many tavern owners complain the ban has cut into their profits, state liquor permit statistics don’t support that. The number of bars and restaurants that sell beer, wine and hard liquor is up over last year, according to the latest totals. According to figures updated last week by the state Division of Liquor Control, there are 2,454 businesses that have permits to sell beer, wine and liquor -- up from 2,394 in December 2006 and 2,351 last December. Permit totals to sell alcohol for “on-premises consumption” – bars, bowling alleys and restaurants - also rose by 211 statewide since December 2006 and 103 since last December, according to state officials. Further, state liquor control officials say new permits and renewals also are up for the fiscal year that ended June 30. Jacob Evans, a lobbyist with the Ohio Licensed Beverage Association -- a trade association representing bars, liquor stores and restaurants that sell alcohol – said he’s skeptical of the permit totals as an indicator of the smoking ban’s impact, saying many of his members complain business has fallen ever since fines have been levied. Evans said that because the state Division of Liquor Control issues permits on a quota system based on population, there can only be so many permits issued at any given time. “I’m sure if permits were down, I’d be telling you it’s a clear sign”’ of an impact, Evans said. “Frankly, the whole permit system is a little convoluted, so that’s why I don’t think you can look at the number of permits and say ’good, bad or indifferent.’” Evans said that anecdotally he’s hearing that bars and restaurants are reporting lower profits ever since the smoking ban began. But the Division of Liquor Control also reported that liquor profits -- which include store sales, and not just bars -- have risen the past two years. Matt Mullins, a spokesman for the state Department of Commerce, which includes the Division of Liquor Control, said net profits from the sale of liquor increased from $192 million in fiscal year 2006 to $203 million in the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2007, the latest annual figures available. Mullins said that dollar sales for liquor in the calendar year ending Dec. 31, 2007, also increased to $686.6 million statewide, up from $655.7 million in the 2006 calendar year. However, those totals also include liquor store and carryout sales. Annual permit fees begin at $300 for wine consumed on site, $376 for beer only or $750 for liquor only. Fees climb to $2,344-a-year to sell beer, wine and liquor in restaurants, at airports, malls, hotels or entertainment districts. Donna Walls, owner of Angela’s Pizza in Madison Place, 6811 Grace Ave., said the state smoking ban hasn’t hurt her liquor sales. In fact, Walls, who is a non-smoker, said she built an outdoor beer garden – with a gazebo, desk and patio – which has been popular among smoking customers the past five years. “It’s beautiful,’’ Walls said Wednesday. “If people want to smoke, they go outside.” Liquor Control officials and Evans’ trade association were unable to provide a breakdown of the number of bars versus restaurants in Ohio. Liquor Control does not track sales by permit classifications so it can’t distinguish between bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, or other types of businesses that have permits allowing for on-premise consumption, according to Mullins. Mullins also said it’s impossible to provide a blanket reason for the permit increase that fits the entire state. The population has increased in some cities which track permits by “taxing districts,’’ he said, while in other areas permit quotas are being filled. New and renewed permits also are up in the fiscal year ending June 30. Statewide, the Liquor Control division issued 2,116 new permits this past year, up from 1,475 new permits issued in the year ending June 30, 2007. A total of 23,380 liquor permits were renewed through June 30, up from 23,285 in the previous fiscal year. Evans also said he hopes the introduction of Keno lottery machines in Ohio will attract new customers. “Obviously we’re optimistic it will help bring people into the bars,’’ Evans said Monday. All seven of Ohio’s racetracks, including River Downs in Anderson Township and Lebanon Raceway in Warren County, have applied for licenses. Nearly 1,000 bars, restaurants, racetracks, bowling alleys and other establishments have applied to the state to bring the Ohio Lottery’s new Keno game to patrons. The Ohio Lottery Commission has approved 70 percent of the applications by outlets with liquor licenses, according to The Toledo Blade. Other applicants include fraternal and veterans’ organizations and takeout restaurants. Keno numbers will be drawn every four minutes. Players choose between one and 10 numbers out of 80 and then win jackpots based on how many numbers match among 20 selected by a statewide computer system. The maximum jackpot could be $2 million for a $20 bet that places all 10 of its numbers among the 20 displayed on the monitor.

what the heII the WSJ - a fine pro-business, conservative paper, is doing printing this. Why help the enemy? That liberal so-called New England Journal of Medicine is spewing lies again. Why give this story any credibility? Bury it! Study Supports Health Benefits Of Smoking Ban Hospital Admissions Fall 17% After Scottish Law Enacted; Businesses Balk at Restrictions By JEREMY SINGER-VINE July 31, 2008; Page D1 A new study from Scotland provides what public-health experts in the U.S. say is the strongest evidence yet that public bans on smoking -- being debated in several locales -- improve health by reducing exposure to secondhand smoke. According to the study, which appears in Thursday's edition of the New England Journal of Medicine, hospital admissions for heart attacks and acute coronary problems fell 17% overall, and even more for nonsmokers, in the year after Scotland banned smoking in public places. HEART HEALTH When Scotland prohibited smoking in enclosed public areas and workplaces after March 2006, researchers found: • A 14% reduction in admissions for acute coronary syndrome among smokers. • A 19% reduction among former smokers. • A 21% reduction among people who had never smoked. Source: New England Journal of Medicine "There has long been a claim from smokers that they are affecting their own bodies, and why should the public care?" said David Cohen, director of cardiovascular research at Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute in Kansas City, Mo., who wasn't involved in the study. "This shows that the public should absolutely care ... that is an incredibly powerful finding." The study found that nonsmokers accounted for 67% of the overall reduction in heart-disease hospitalizations, said Jill Pell, the University of Glasgow professor who led the study. Nonsmokers saw a 20% reduction in their hospital admissions following the ban. Smokers' admissions were down 14%. This isn't the first study published on the health impact of smoking bans -- the 17% decrease in hospitalizations among Scots was comparable to rates recorded in previous research. But these findings "should add considerable oomph to the pressure for smoking bans" elsewhere, because of the study's rigor and use of blood tests, said Edith Balbach, director of the Community Health Program at Tufts University and president of Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights. Unlike past studies, researchers took blood and saliva samples from patients as they were admitted to the hospital. Then they searched for a molecule that's the product of nicotine metabolism -- cotinine. The presence of cotinine can definitively classify patients as smokers or nonsmokers instead of relying on self-reporting by patients. Researchers found that nonsmokers with heart disease had higher levels of cotinine than the general population but lower levels than before the ban, a sign that their exposure to secondhand smoke had decreased but was still a factor in their heart damage. Inhaled smoke makes blood platelets stickier, thus more likely to clot and clog arteries -- after even brief exposure to low levels of smoke. But the increased stickiness can wear off after just a few days. These effects make heart disease the most immediate health risk of tobacco smoke, and reducing these effects provides the most immediate benefit of smoking bans, according to public-health experts. Support for state and local smoke-free laws has grown in recent years; still, such bans face strong opposition in many areas, especially in the Midwest and South. Opponents typically include small-business and restaurant owners, who say bans reduce their revenues, and libertarian groups. There has been little action at the federal level since an executive order signed by President Bill Clinton ended smoking in federal buildings in 1997. Antismoking groups prefer to target local and state governments. More than 60% of the U.S. population is covered by some type of smoking ban at the state or local level, usually restricting smoking in either public areas or workplaces, according to Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights. More comprehensive bans like Scotland's -- which prohibited smoking in all enclosed public areas and workplaces after March 2006 -- are now law in 14 states, up from three in 2005, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In Kansas, one of the states where smoking bans have been most contentious, legislators have proposed statewide bans three times since January 2007, but all have failed. Opposition from Detroit casinos stalled a similar bill in Michigan as legislators left for recess last month. Also in June, nine businesses sued Kansas City, Mo., to overturn a new smoking ban there. "I'm a nonsmoker myself ... but our daytime business is down 70%" since the ban took effect June 7, said Dave Pever, manager of Peppermill Lounge South, one of the businesses suing the city. The "biggest problem," Mr. Pever said, is that smokers, who made up 90% of his clientele before the ban, can drive half a mile to Grandview, Mo., where smoking is allowed in bars. "When it's just a citywide ban and you have several cities around without the ban, it's unfair." The economic impact of smoking bans is still hotly debated in state and local governments. But academic researchers are less divided. On the basis of numerous peer-reviewed studies, the Surgeon General's Office issued a report in 2006 concluding that "smoke-free policies and regulations do not have an adverse economic impact on the hospitality industry" -- a conclusion the tobacco industry disputes. "We think that people should be able to avoid being around second-hand smoke, especially in places they must go, such as government buildings and public transportation," said Bill Phelps, a spokesman for Altria Group Inc., which owns cigarette maker Philip Morris USA. But he added that "business owners, particularly those who own restaurants and bars, should be able determine smoking policy for their own businesses." There are about one million hospitalizations for acute coronary syndrome in the U.S. every year, Dr. Cohen said. Each episode generally costs between $10,000-$20,000 to treat, pegging the cost of this care at $10 billion per year or more, he said.

You are absolutely right....this is just hogwash dressed up and trotted out. So called evidence doesn't proove a thing. Any one knows that bar people here are totally different from scottish people. And they don't even have the constitution and bill or rights like we do. so it doesn't fly in my book.

that stinks about your revenue. ouch. maybe it's the neighboorhood? Yup the government is getting a huge cut from the casinos. How much do they get from their total monopoly control on liquor and the ability to set the prices? They're winning either way.

A bar is a place of public accommodation. And no one is asking to "improve the health of the public", only limit the damage to patrons, who are in a place of public accommodation.

So the imperial government sells more liquor licenses and you think that I'm stupid enough to stop there and believe that these stupid laws somehow entice people to drink more??? You are delusional. If it is true then we need more smoke filled bars so that the usefull idiots won't drink as much. Let me see the sales data from bars that were open before during and after this draconian, nanny state theft of private property rights. They won't show you that because the sales always go DOWN and they assume that you are stupid and will just buy into their fantasy world where they know what's best for everyone. They also won't show you anyone that has been harmed by so called second hand smoke. They also won't explaine why there are allowable limits for things like carbon monoxide (that will kill you in minutes) and no allowable limits for so called second hand smoke. They won't show you the numbers of good hard working folks that lose their jobs after these draconian laws are forced on the public by a few zealots. U would like to see just one of these freedom hating nanny stater zealots try to run a business. Maybe they are just jealous of the successful and want to see more losers like themselves created. "COLUMBUS -- Despite predictions the state smoking ban would doom Ohio bars, there are more places to drink now than before in Greater Cincinnati and Ohio. The state smoking ban, passed by Ohio voters in November 2006, began getting enforced in May 2007. It banned smoking in most public places including bars and restaurants as well as work places. While many tavern owners complain the ban has cut into their profits, state liquor permit statistics don’t support that. The number of bars and restaurants that sell beer, wine and hard liquor is up over last year, according to the latest totals. According to figures updated last week by the state Division of Liquor Control, there are 2,454 businesses that have permits to sell beer, wine and liquor -- up from 2,394 in December 2006 and 2,351 last December."

In the wake of what's no less than a national moral meltdown, among our youngsters, what do we expend our energies on? If you said, "Trying to stop kids from smoking cigarettes," go to the head of the class. What we're doing reminds me of the story about a Paris police chief whose squad was summoned to stop a robbery in progress at a downtown department store. Upon arrival the chief discovered that he didn't have enough men to cover all of the department store's entrances. What do you think he did? He assigned his men to cover the entrances of the building next door because it didn't have so many entrances. Our teenage anti-smoking agenda, like the Paris police chief's strategy is stupid. Our big problems with our youngsters are drugs, murder, rape, teenage pregnancy, gross disrespect for authority and scoring dead last, or nearly so, on international comparisons of academic achievement. Those problems threaten the nation's future, and what do we do? Like that Paris police chief, we cover the "entrances next door" - go after teen smoking. What's worse is that, while trying to stop kids from smoking, we are destroying our Constitution. At a recent meeting I had with leading members of Congress, I asked one of the congressmen to cite that article in the U.S. Constitution that granted Congress authority to do what's no less than extortion of the tobacco industry and its customers. I got no answer. There wasn't even an attempt to fabricate an answer like the "commerce clause" or the "general welfare clause." When our Constitution is finally buried, a fitting inscription for its tombstone might be "We Did It For The Children." Walter E. Williams

Good intentions are irrelevant. Public policy always has unintended bad consequences. John Stossel

MOVE THERE!

Stay out of my life!!!!! What the heck do these rednecks know about anything. The Herald (Rock Hill, S.C.) August 20, 2008 Wednesday Final Edition OPED PAGE; Pg. 5A 485 words Charge smokers more Smokers raise the overall cost of health care for state employees. It's only fair to require state workers who smoke to pay more for their health insurance. South Carolina soon will join seven other states in charging public employees who smoke - or whose insured dependents smoke - more each month for insurance coverage. Each employee who falls into that category will have to pay $25 a month extra for health insurance than nonsmokers. The charge is per policy, not the number of smokers in the family. The new rules will take effect in January 2010, giving smokers ample time to quit if they choose. The change was heavily promoted by Gov. Mark Sanford. He said that smoking should remain a choice for state workers but that nonsmokers should not have to bear the higher costs resulting from tobacco-related conditions. We agree. The evidence that smoking is the No. 1 preventable cause of illness in the world is conclusive. Smoking is a factor in a wide range of life-threatening illnesses, including heart disease, a variety of cancers and lung diseases. And not smoking is the most effective way to reduce the risk of contracting those diseases. The State Budget and Control Board estimates that tobacco-related health-care claims amount to about 7 percent - or $75 million - of state health insurance claims. That is $75 million nonsmokers shouldn't be obligated to pay. Granted, this new policy will be hard to enforce in some respects. After all, it relies largely on the honor system. State employees will be asked to sign a document saying they don't smoke, and so far, no penalties have been put in place for lying. But other states with similar policies levy fines on smokers who lie and order past surcharges paid, and South Carolina is likely to do the same. This policy not only will require smokers to bear the financial burden of their habit, it also could have the beneficial result of prompting many smokers to quit. And the state will help out if they do, enrolling them in smoking cessation programs. Some might ask about other groups that have "self-inflicted" health problems, such as those who are obese. At least one other state, Alabama, is considering a surcharge for obese workers similar to the one for smokers, and that might be the trend. Sanford said he is open to the idea, and that workers who exercise and maintain good health habits should be rewarded. While it is evident that a sedentary lifestyle and obesity can contribute to poor health, we think the focus for now should be on smokers. The dangers of smoking are clear cut. Smoking - as long as others aren't inflicted with secondhand smoke - should remain a choice for adults. But that choice should entail picking up the tab for health-care costs resulting from smoking. That's only fair to the state workers who don't smoke.

Fat people +$50 per month Ride a motorcycle? +30 Play sports? +15 Tramp around? +75 Faggot? +60 Dyke? + 10 Drink? +50 History of family illness? +100 Kid smokes dope? +45 Everyone of these life styles takes a hit. But wait. I smoke, but I excercise, not fat at all, dont ride a motorcycle, not a fudge packer and the kids don't do drugs. So what gives? This is NOT insurance, its punishment but ONLY FOR the lifestyles the GOVT THINKS is bad.

"Smokers raise the overall cost of health care for state employees" The facts are that most health care money is spent in the later years. If smoking is as bad as all you nannies say then the smokers will be loong gone when the really large bills start coming in. Another fact, fat people are way more costly. They take more time off work, they are lazy and ruin productivity when they do show up, they get sick more often, they require new hips and knees more because of all the damage from carrying around all that blubber, they get diabetes and other diseases that cost a fortune to treat since they start young and stay unhealthy for a long time, blood pressure medicine alone would pay for all the smokers health problems all by itself. You zealots have to admit that it's not about health, it's about controlling folks that do something that you don't like. I think it's time to ban fat people from eating in restaurants. Do It Now. We can't afford to keep footing the bill for all these lard butts. Maybe it's time for the nannies to start up some government fat farms to put all these chubbies in until they learn to obey the state. "Some of the magazine's comments on the five fattest cities: Houston. Given the region's climate (hot and humid), air quality (abysmal) and relative lack of outdoor recreation, staying active presents a Texas-style challenge. The city does have an ongoing Get Lean Houston campaign. Chicago. The windy city blows it in terms of weather, commute time, open spaces, and poor air and water quality. Detroit. The only time Detroiters run is when someone offers them fruits and vegetables, the magazine says. Philadelphia. The city was dubbed the fattest in 2000, and since then the mayor and the city's health and fitness czar embarked on an ambitious anti-lard crusade. St. Louis. Waistlines here are probably as well-rounded as the Gateway Arch, because most menus consist of burgers and beer. The city has the highest ratio of fast-food joints per capita in the survey."

Of smokers elevating their own health care costs that drives this legislation. If it were, your arguments about fat people might be worth considering. What drives this legislation is that passive smoking (secondhand smoke) -- smoke produced by smokers and inhaled by others -- represents a significant threat to the health of those others. Thus, your persistent effort to change the focus of discussion from control of secondhand smoke to the issue of obesity is irrelevant here. It is merely a red herring. The health threat posed by secondhand smoke is readily minimized: simply end smoking in places where people gather. In this case, the gathering place is the workplace. That is what this legislation proposes to do. It is good legislation, supported by a majority of voters. The House and Senate should get down to business and resolve the minor differences in versions of the legislation they have passed, so this can become law.

It is not the economic issue of smokers elevating their own health care costs that drives this legislation. If it were, your arguments about fat people might be worth considering. What drives this legislation is that passive smoking (secondhand smoke) -- smoke produced by smokers and inhaled by others -- represents a significant threat to the health of those others. Fat people do not pose a threat to the health of others. Thus, your persistent effort to change the focus of discussion from control of secondhand smoke to the issue of obesity is irrelevant here. It is merely a red herring. The health threat posed by secondhand smoke is readily minimized: simply end smoking in places where people gather. In this case, the gathering place is the workplace. That is what this legislation proposes to do. It is good legislation, supported by a majority of voters. The House and Senate should get down to business and resolve the minor differences in versions of the legislation they have passed, so this can become law.

"passive smoking (secondhand smoke) -- smoke produced by smokers and inhaled by others -- represents a significant threat to the health of those others" Just show us one person harmed by it. "BMJ published air quality test results show secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 5,000 times SAFER than OSHA indoor workplace AQ regulations" Nicotine is the only unique or "trace" chemical in secondhand smoke. If you measured for formaldehyde, the carpet and other interior sources of formaldehyde would corrupt the test result, formaldehyde is formed naturally in our atmosphere due to photochemical oxidation. Benzene is given off from burning foods in the kitchen or diesel exhaust outdoors so again a false reading would be obtained. Therefore, nicotine is the ideal chemical to measure to determine secondhand smoke concentrations in the air. And then our comparison to OSHA guidelines is the logical manner in which to determine if secondhand smoke levels pose a health hazard, as you can see, according to OSHA, the authority on workplace safety and indoor air quality, they do not. If you wanted you could measure every airborne chemical in secondhand smoke and then compare them to OSHA guidelines for each specific chemical, the results would be the same, if not more dramatic. And the BMJ test results which ranged from 0.1 - 192 micrograms (ug) / cu. M, are actually 2.6 - 5,000 times SAFER than OSHA indoor air quality permissible exposure limits (PEL) for the secondhand smoke component -nicotine."

Anti-Smokers Wage War Against Private Property In Pennsylvania 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.

“Just show us one person harmed by it.” [secondhand smoke] 3,000 deaths a year attributed to disease caused by secondhand smoke. Disease leading to death is “harm” in any reasonable person’s book. That’s 3,000 X what you have asked for. Try another line and style of argument, control freak. You are not doing well with your red herrings.

"3,000 deaths a year attributed to disease caused by secondhand smoke" Who Attributed them? Where are the data? 3000 is a big number, you should be able to show WHY they were attributed to so called second hand smoke. Why can't you do this? I can show you hundreds of thousands of people that were raised in homes where the smoke was thick (not like the well ventilated restaurants and bars that you want to run out of business) and they have no problems today. Children of the fifties did more passive smoking in one visit to the cinema than modern children do in their whole lives. Admit it, You are nothing but a small minded narcissistic control freak zealot that doesn't like the smell of smoke.

Smoke-Free Dining Guide There are more than 3,500 smoke-free restaurants and eateries in Michigan. Click here to find smoke-free dining in your area. This online guide is compiled by the Michigan Citizens for Smoke-Free Air.

Ala. workers get a year to lose the fat Alabama, pushed to third in national obesity rankings by deep-fried Southern favorites, is cracking down on state workers who are too fat. The state has given its 37,527 employees a year to start getting fit -- or they'll pay $25 a month for insurance that otherwise is free. Det Free Press

The Senate passed their version of this bill back in May. What in the heck is taking it so long to get to the floor for a vote? The Democrats crafted this bill. The Republicans improved upon it, by making it fair to all, i.e. no exemptions for non-Indian casinos, race tracks, or tobacco shops. Please pass this bill now. I know Jennifer Grandholm's busy with Kwame's hearing, but that may be over pretty quickly. Let's make history; House - please pass this bill; Governor - please sign it. Thank you for not smoking in public places. The people have the right to breathe clean air in all restaurants, bowling alley's, bars, casinos, etc.

You Have Lots Of Choices, Don't Take Mine Away [by Anonymous Citizen on August 22, 2008] Smoke-Free Dining Guide There are more than 3,500 smoke-free restaurants and eateries in Michigan. Click here to find smoke-free dining in your area. This online guide is compiled by the Michigan Citizens for Smoke-Free Air.

get back to the buffet line. You're missing out on the third helping of mashed potatoes. I think that as long as we're telling PRIVATE business what they can do then we need a new law to limit portions since all you lard butts cost the health care industry way more than smokers could ever dream of.

If our legislatures continuie to drag their feet on this bill, Michigan will soon be the only state that people can smoke in restaurants. Won't that just make it lovely for the rest of us. Quit giving in to the restaurant owners association and think about the vast majority of people who prefer non smoking restaurants. We should not be forced to breath other peoples smoke. Michigan is currently one of only a handfull of states that still allow smoking in public places, no wonder we keep falling behind the rest of the country.

Well if there is only an increased risk of cancer by all means we should be breathing smokers second hand smoke, I assume it's way too much trouble for you to step outside so I don't have to breath your smoke....