Michigan Votes Forum

PROMOTES the risk of driving, they CHARGE you for their permission to do it. then they CHARGE you taxes to build the places to do it. that SHOULD mean that they are ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE for EVERY HIGWAY DEATH in the country. but it doesn't. why do we have to stop you from hurting yourself?

who smoke deserve protection from themselves? you cannot and will not achieve 100% voluntary compliance from a constituancy that has a high percentage of smokers. so, how do you 'protect' a smoker from himself? you take away his right to smoke, and his right to operate his bar any way he chooses which doesn't HARM everyone who comes in. he CANNOT serve poisoned drinks. although alcohol is considered a TOXIN, which is why you are considered INTOXICATED. the state ALLOWS this, by giving LICENSES,or legal permission. he CANNOT serve tainted food. he CANNOT serve anyone who is not legally allowed to consume. other than that, he cannot stand in the way of personal choices any more than a druggist can stand in the way of dispensing an abortion pill. he may not agree with them, but he is not there to JUDGE the decision, he is there to FILL THE ORDER. if this legislation takes away customer's reason for going into a bar, then that has EFFECTIVELY taken away that person's livelihood. yes, THAT kind of taking. if the state feels the need to have non-smoking bars, let the state open a few.

stop you from buying a car, even though he KNOWS FOR A FACT that you are planning to use it in a crime. he CAN report you to the police, THEY have police power, but he CANNOT stop you from buying it other than to decide not to do business with you, which would be counter to why he went to all the trouble to go into business in the first place. he can also not be held responsible for any harm that comes to anyone else because of that sale. cars are a legal product, and so are cigarettes. it is the CONSUMER'S decision on whether or not that consumer smokes, no one else's.

who ever said that the people should VOLUNTARILY COMPLY with anything? no one. no one has opened a NO SMOKING BAR in michigan to TEST whether or not it would be a viable option. they simply pressured the legislature to succumb to their whims.

You'll think its absurd when it begins to happen. What you are advocating is little, by little, by little, away go the peoples freedoms. 30 yrs ago if someone in Govt suggested such a thing, they would have been tossed out on the street. But NOW its ok? Huh? WHY is is ok now and not 30 yrs ago? I'll tell you why. Because YOU are allowing it. You've been hoodwinked. What will you ALLOW them to do next? No fast food? Is that ok? Clean underwear check? Where do you presume it will stop? Largest tax increase in MI history? You ALLOWED it. I didn't - I got the hell out. And yes I have business in MI, my house has been on the market for a yr. It use to be a decent place to live until these total bunch of NANNY STATE idiots got elected. YOU voted for them. Nothing in the last 6 years I wanted or voted for EVER happened. 80% of the citizens of MI DID NOT approve of the tax increase, but they did it anyway. It was in fact "Taxation without representation" - A founding principle this nation was build on. I now have the same grieviences as the forefathers of the nation. Why? Because idiots like yourself keep voting for it. Your going to "VOTE" yourself right into a commie state (already is) Is that what you want? Mommy MI thinking for you, doing for you, feeding you every DAMN time you're hungry? That is what YOU are doing. Wise up, get a backbone throw the bum commies out!

a NON-SMOKER who wants to open a bar. then you have him put up his life savings and then some to open up this bar. then you have him hire ONLY NON-SMOKERS to work there, then you have him exercise one of HIS rights, which is to ONLY ALLOW NON-SMOKERS IN. then, you will have your wish. how far will you travel to have your wish fulfilled? probably not far. will this happen? probably not. why not? it won't make money. that's the only reason to open a bar.

they're too busy listening to shrillary's defeat speech.

illegal? can you REALLY discriminate against smokers? has it gotten THAT BAD??? obviously it has, for the last year we have been listening to the democrats cover the 'election' of a candidate in nauseating detail. they STILL can't decide who will lose for them.

that has been done on the effect of smoking bans in 34 states. then you will see that negative effect on business in bars and restaurants don't actually happen. that's what the research shows.

that gripes endlessly about how much better things are in other states now opposes Michigan's effort to catch up with the large majority of other states by outlawing smoking in the workplace. interesting.

the (activist) courts merely having concluded that, on balance, the state interest in enacting the regulation in question outweighs the private property owner's right to decide how use his/her private property. In case you missed it, we ARE talking about "PRIVATE" (i.e. not state owned) property here. The fact that the courts (when someone decides to challenge a state regulation - expending their personal resources in the process) ultimately conclude that Regulation X is a permissible regulation of private property usage does not mean that it was never a taking. Who's the one having difficulty tracking with complex concepts one here? As far as "an employee's right to be free from second-hand smoke", last time I checked I don't have a right to force my personal wishes on my employer. If I've made a decision that I need to work in a smoke-free environment, I have a decision to make - keep working where I've been working (which, was NOT smoke-free when I ACCEPTED the offer of employment), or don't take the job at the new employer. But, to say that the "right" of an employee to be able to work in a smoke-free environment (wherever you find support for THAT "right") somehow outweighs the rights of the OWNER of the property over which the employee is attempting to exert his will is ludicrous. That is unless, of course, you let your kids make the rules in your house. And your name-calling in prior posts only serves to demonstrate your recognition of the weakness of your position. That approach, however, is the common one taken by those who prefer a nanny state (i.e. those for whom turning to the state to address any discomfort they encounter is their initial, and only, reaction).

PLEASE, Show me ONE bar that kept it's reciepts the same or increased after the ban went in. Just One. I can show you 4 or 5 that I know personally that lost between 30 and 40% of their business. Just One... I'm Waitng..... Just One... Put up or shut up about things you don't know anything about.

Now back to the actual issue. I don’t think is it correct for Govt to mandate to bar or restaurant owners. I have already commented on that (see absurdity) But real world, the state of FL has ban smoking in bars, but only if they serve food. The ones that just serve drinks are exempt. Better than nothing I suppose. But the reason it’s not really a big deal here is that virtually all of the restaurants have a least some portion of the seating area OUTSIDE. That area is exempt as well. But for freezing ass MI, this is a bad move.

not one single 'voluntarily smoke free' bar has opened in michigan. why is that? with all that research saying that a smoke free bar will make MORE money than a smoke filled bar, you would think that smoke free bars would be popping up like cornfields around here. if the research is correct, the market will take care of the little problem you have far more efficiently than this legislation, but you STILL want the legislation. could it be that your RESEARCH IS WRONG?

voluntarily smoke free bar in michigan. and it is doing very well, business-wise.

also had several hundred constitutional challenges to it's laws, and not all of the challenges failed. this law has 'allowed exemption' for several thousand bar owners, and several thousand others spent more of their hard earned money to 'add on' patio's so their patrons could smoke. there was only a SHORT LOSS OF BUSINESS till the bar owners won their court cases. now the state of florida has to PONY UP refunds on additions to 'COMPLY' with the state laws. supreme court justices can be mean and capricious bastards when they set their minds to it.

bar? i'd like to talk to it's owner and find out these 'rumors' for myself. where is it? what is the phone number?

is so i can send all the SMOKE NAZI'S to it, so they will shut up about all the other bars they don't go to.

Have any of you guys ever heard of www.FreebieSMS.co.uk ? It seems to send free SMS messages in the UK, but does anyone have any experience with them?

No:5 comment June 5, 2008 Pertaining to DISTRACTION Wow! you took every word right outta my mouth, and then some. They always have to point to one category, never the whole picture. for sure that's our government. You did a very good job.

Bars, restaurants, hotels, etc. are places of public accommodation, appropriately regulated and licensed by state and/or to serve the public. There's state liquor licenses, sales tax, county health licenses, perhaps a local city/township license as well.