Michigan Votes Forum

I thought this was a capitalist country.  I'm beginning to change my mind.  Our 2nd highest paid legislators in the U.S.A. should have more empathy for private business owners.  I've been in restaurants where people with children ELECT to sit in the smoking section because they can get served quicker.  Let's leave this to the businesses to resolve by supply and demand.

bestgaffer:

I thought this was a capitalist country.  I'm beginning to change my mind.  Our 2nd highest paid legislators in the U.S.A. should have more empathy for private business owners.  I've been in restaurants where people with children ELECT to sit in the smoking section because they can get served quicker.  Let's leave this to the businesses to resolve by supply and demand.

Perhaps business owners should have more empathy for the 80% of the population that does not smoke.

 perhaps you should look a little closer at the statistics.

smoking bars... hundreds.  non-smoking bars... one.

non-smoking restaraunts... only available using the iron fist of government.

smoking restaraunts... a thing of the past. a choice no longer available. a freedom lost.

 I am AGAINST this legislation.

It is wrong and highly  Un-American.

I am for this legislation.

The right of the people to expect a clean and safe environment in places of public accommodation and their workplace trumps the rights of smokers in these places.

 living proof.

you think YOUR rights trump mine.

so much for ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL.

and EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW.

in my place of LIMITED ACCOMODATION, the public at large is not invited, only customers, and i have a choice as to which of THOSE i allow in. you don't have the right to enter my place of limited accomodation unless i extend it to you. it is NOT a public place. it is a privately owned establishment that sells a service and a product.

the service is allowing the customers to sit, drink, and smoke in a quiet atmosphere. the product is alcohol and cigarettes.

if you oppose the use of either, then by all means, exercise your rights and stay away from them. you have no business here.

you also have no right to remove their right to drink and smoke, and my right to allow them to drink and smoke in my place of business.

by the way, as a measure of the hypocracy of the legislators, and the anti-smokers. cigar bars are exempt from this bill.

talk about discrimination.

Well, blowhard, your claims about “limited” accommodation as contrasted to “public” accommodation turn out, evidently, to be hot air.

Search as I might, the term “limited accommodation” as it applies to places that invite the public to enter the premises does not turn up in legal parlance.  Evidently, it is one of those LaLa Land concepts that hasn’t yet emerged in legal circles. 

That means, you know, that your whole argument about the state’s authority to regulate your business when it comes to smoking is bogus, having been built on a concept that apparently does not exist.

You are one hollow vessel, crazy.  And a sad, pathetic, puppy to boot. 

 because you can't find it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. it's the same LIMITED ACCOMODATION that allows stores to arrest people for shoplifting and disturbing the peace.

by the way, the fact that you can't find it doesn't surprise me.

how many businesses did you say you own?

i didn't think so.

crazycajun:

 because you can't find it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. it's the same LIMITED ACCOMODATION that allows stores to arrest people for shoplifting and disturbing the peace.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, crazy.  You got yourself caught lying again, and now you make stupid, sophomoric arguments.

You are a hollow vessel, and a Sad Sack to boot.  Pathetic. 

 so, insane...

why don't i have to let juveniles into my bar? because they CANNOT BE CUSTOMERS.

STATE LAW PROHIBITS THAT SEGMENT OF THE PUBLIC FROM PROCURING MY ACCOMODATIONS.

if a segment of THE PUBLIC is prohibited from obtaining the goods and services i supply, then my business is NOT A PUBLIC PLACE.

i can also deny service to someone who I BELIEVE IS INTOXICATED. whether he is in fact intoxicated or not.

i can also deny service to someone who I BELIEVE HAS FAKE ID. whether he has it or not.

i can also deny service to someone who I BELIEVE HAS CAUSED A DISTURBANCE, OR WILL CAUSE A DISTURBANCE, whether they have caused a disturbance or not.

i can also deny service to someone AT MY DISCRETION, so long as i do not use race, color, creed, etc. to make my decision.

i can also tell all my customers to get up, pay up, and go home, any time i want to.

And more stupid, sophomoric arguments from crazycajun.  Complete with the usual capitalized "shouting."  To what end?  With each post crazycajun only reveal itself to be more of the idiotic blowhard we know it to be already.

All that BS about authority over customers has virtually nothing to do with the proposed ban on workplace smoking under discussion here.  It may make crazycajun feel all macho, and powerful, like playing with his gun does, but the fact is the state has very substantial and significant authority over how private owners run their businesses.  

You really are not entitled to run your business in such a way that employees and customers are exposed to hazards you can prevent.  That is quite a simple concept, well established in law.

Exposure to tobacco smoke is well established and recognized as being a health hazard.  It should be banned in workplaces and places of public accommodation (bars and restaurants).

 as usual, insane michigander thinks HIS rights trump everyone elses.

he believes that everyone should enjoy the view from the left.

notice that bars are not listed on the PUBLIC ACCOMODATION LIST. only restaraunts.

i love it when he gets upset. his fuse is really short. it's so easy to prove him wrong.

his leftist views keep him from knowing true liberty, and keep him trying to take liberty and rights away from others.

he's shown his hand, and been eucred.

crazycajun:

i can also deny service to someone who I BELIEVE IS INTOXICATED. whether he is in fact intoxicated or not.

i can also deny service to someone who I BELIEVE HAS FAKE ID. whether he has it or not.

i can also deny service to someone who I BELIEVE HAS CAUSED A DISTURBANCE, OR WILL CAUSE A DISTURBANCE, whether they have caused a disturbance or not.

i can also deny service to someone AT MY DISCRETION, so long as i do not use race, color, creed, etc. to make my decision.

i can also tell all my customers to get up, pay up, and go home, any time i want to.

I can't stop laughing. Your a hoot crazy. That imaginary bar you own must be one friendly place.

crazycajun:

 as usual, insane michigander thinks HIS rights trump everyone elses.

Now, where have I ever said that?  

Fact and truth are, I haven't said that.  Because it is not the truth at all, in respect to what I think.

Crazycajun, on the other hand, always crows and blows and bellows about his rights to do this and that and the other thing, to control other people.  Crazycanjun rights take precedence over all others, according to crazy's world view.  That is Holy Writ in crazycajun's LaLa Land.  Reading crazycajun posts on the topic of rights is like reading the Tin Pot Tyrant's Manifesto.

I full well recognize that my rights have limits.  When my activities threaten the well being of other people, I recognize that my right to engage in those activities has reached a limit.  We might call that recognition and call the self restraint that stems from it, good manners.  

But not everyone is well mannered.  The world is stocked with boors like crazycajun, who think only their own rights and activities are of importance, and to blazes with anyone else.  That is where our governments, constituted as states joined into a union come into play, to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, ... promote the general welfare ...," for all of us.  Our government is here, in a real sense to protect the rest of us from boorish tyrants like crazycajun.

To pass this bill would not take away nobody's right to smoke tobacco.  It merely would regulate the way -- actually the places -- in which smoking is carried on, in order to protect those who do not smoke from the unnecessary risk of exposure to tobacco smoke.  Smokers are pretty much free to injure themselves by smoking as they wish; but they are not entitled to injure other people in the process.    

SaneMichigander:

crazycajun:

 as usual, insane michigander thinks HIS rights trump everyone elses.

Now, where have I ever said that?  

<right here..."It should be banned in workplaces and places of public accommodation (bars and restaurants)."

 

Fact and truth are, I haven't said that.  Because it is not the truth at all, in respect to what I think.

<the fact and truth are that you DID say that. it IS the truth, and it IS what you think.>

Crazycajun, on the other hand, always crows and blows and bellows about his rights to do this and that and the other thing, to control other people.

<those ARE my rights as property owner, and business owner. the law says so. perhaps if you ran a business you'd know that.>

  Crazycanjun rights take precedence over all others, according to crazy's world view.

<no, every citizen's rights take precedence over those who would take those rights away.>

  That is Holy Writ in crazycajun's LaLa Land.  Reading crazycajun posts on the topic of rights is like reading the Tin Pot Tyrant's Manifesto.

<now which tin pot tyrant's manifesto? marx? engles? gerbles? pol pot? mussellini? idi amin dada? come on, which one? oh... yeah, right, they were all LEFTIST/SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST tin pot tyrants.>

I full well recognize that my rights have limits.

<so why don't you stay within those limits instead of imposing your views on the public by legislative fiat?>

  When my activities threaten the well being of other people, I recognize that my right to engage in those activities has reached a limit.

<you mean like closing down my place of business? no, you don't recognize that at all.>

  We might call that recognition and call the self restraint that stems from it, good manners.

<so, when do you start recognizing, and restraining yourself? much less talking about good manners.>  

But not everyone is well mannered.

<no, you're certainly not.>

  The world is stocked with boors like crazycajun, who think only their own rights and activities are of importance, and to blazes with anyone else.

<we boors are not trying to force you to come to our bar and ban smoking. you come of your own free will.>

  That is where our governments, constituted as states joined into a union come into play, to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, ... promote the general welfare ...," for all of us.  Our government is here, in a real sense to protect the rest of us from boorish tyrants like crazycajun.

<no, dimwit, the government is here to govern. it's YOUR responsibility to protect YOURSELF from anything. by the way, how boorish and tyranical can i be if you can't wait to get into my bar, as soon as the iron fist of government bans smoking for you?>

To pass this bill would take away nobody's right to smoke tobacco.  It merely would regulate the way -- actually the places -- in which smoking is carried on, in order to protect those who do not smoke from the unnecessary risk of exposure to tobacco smoke.

<my bar accomodates smokers. that is my choice. this bill takes away that choice. i choose NOT to accomodate NON-SMOKERS. you are trying to take away my right to choose my clientele, in other words, you are taking away my right of FREE ASSOCIATION, an enumerated right.>

  Smokers are pretty much free to injure themselves by smoking as they wish; but they are not entitled to injure other people in the process.    

<you can't be injured if you don't come into my bar. it is your responsibility to avoid injury, not mine to protect you from it. i'd say you were being a pretty poor steward of your precious body by taking it out into a smoky bar to drink alcohol in the first place. now, if it's my responsibility to protect you, i'll protect you. you cannot come into my bar because it's smoky, and you don't like smoke, and smoke is not good for you. you also cannot come into my bar because you might drink, which is also bad for you. and you might injure or kill yourself by drinking and driving, a known hazard. so, as protection, you cannot drink or smoke. your right to do both is trumped for your own protection by me, the one who you have given responsibility to protect you. PROBLEM SOLVED.>

 

 

Crazy, cut the malarky, you don't even have a bar to throw customers out of.

 you just HOPE i don't have a bar so you can be right for once.

well... bad news...

i have three. and i'm going to open a cigar bar soon. thanks for giving me the idea.

perhaps you've been in one of my bars. perhaps i've bought your favorite local without you knowing about it.

i'm not telling you where they are, so you have to worry about whether or not the bar you are currently drinkiing in is one of mine.

and be careful where you eat, i just bought a couple of eateries here. just to keep you wondering. not exactly money well spent, but hey, it's only money.

 that's alright, i banned you from drinking and smoking for your own good. it's for your protection, the environment, and the children.

you no longer have the right to choose whether or not you drink or smoke, i have the ultimate responsibility for your health and safety.

you are also banned from eating out at all. you must stay at home, grow your own food, supply your own electricity, and brew your own coffee from home grown beans. all for your health and safety. by the way, you must brew your coffee in COLD water, wouldn't want you burning yourself... no...

and that big, rolling death trap you call a car... pffft... gone... it's too unsafe, too polluting, and could kill too many people.

finally, your wish to be nannied has come true.

 another lie, trueblue?

or are you simply trying to protect your rights as a smoker?

crazycajun:

 another lie, trueblue?

or are you simply trying to protect your rights as a smoker?

Does your ignorance have NO limit??

I am also pro-choice.

It doesnt mean I am gonna run out and get an abortion.

What a fool.     Pfft!!

And I state AGAIN.....  this legislation is Un-American and foolish.

You cannot "ban" a LEGAL product that has cultural significance.

Tyranny of the majority is STILL tyranny. It is UN-American and  NOT the way the united states was set up.

We have a history of protecting minorities, regardless of what kind.

This is ......WRONG!

crazycajun:

 another lie, trueblue?

or are you simply trying to protect your rights as a smoker?

Crazycajun has to be the most mentally and emotionally betwirped jerk on the face of the earth.  He even attacks those who agree with him on issues.

That is why crazycajun will forever be a minorirty of one, a mere pimple on the butt of progress.

I don’t at all agree with TrueBlue on the issue of workplace and restaurant/bar smoking bans, which he opposes, but at least he does have a real point of view on the matter and has expressed it with civility.

 which is a first for trueblue.

now, if you could only learn civility... that's about as likely as teaching a bulldog long division.

i don't believe i'm a minority of one. there are plenty of people who agree with me. you just ignore them, or insult them, or try to tax them, or try to criminalize what they do.

crazycajun:

i don't believe i'm a minority of one.

Well, keep whistling in the dark of your own LaLa Land, crazy.  

You are a loner here.  You assault posters who take your side of issues.  It happens repeatedly.  Sort of like a stressed domestic pig eating its own kind.

Have a nice day in your twisted up LaLa Land, crazy. 

 sounds like the complaints of a loser.

well... let's see. it's you, jman, and trueblue.

and trueblue agrees with me on this one.

you are losing followers. you're down to two.

so, that makes you a minority of two who can't agree on much else other than their hatred of me.

glad i could bring such disparate personalities as yourself together.

crazycajun:

so, that makes you a minority of two who can't agree on much else other than their hatred of me.

I don't hate you crazy. I disagree with your ideology. I think your post on this forum are childish and rude, meant to bait others into arguments rather than compare facts and opinions. But I save my hate for much more serious matters.

 well, jman. i think your refusal to answer honest questions honestly is childish and rude. some of us are interested in hearing your opinion, and perhaps if you GAVE your opinion a little more often, and kept the childish games to yourself, you would be better respected here.

as it is, your posts are a source of comedy and derision around the old internet cafe, and we who frequent this place have a special place where your unanswered questions, along with your buddy 'sane's' are kept. we even have a bet as to how many different ways you can evade answering quesions.

when you get 'on a roll', you have an audience watching your every post. eight or ten computers all refreshing every few minutes, just waiting for the newest avoidance technique from you and your pal.

now, your idea of liberty is pretty one sided. as you cannot see your way clear of smoky bars, you feel the need to get 'big brother government' involved to clear the smoke out for you. it's not something you can do because you have convinced the owners that it's the right thing to do, so you feel you must bring in the muscle of uncle sam and nanny state.

every time you do this, someone's liberty is stripped away, never to be regained. all so you can go and kill your liver at a SMOKE FREE bar. you, of course, don't realize that the liquor will kill you quicker than the second hand smoke. we are ALL still waiting for the names of the people who have it on their death certificates that they died from second hand smoke. that one has been up there for quite a while. we're sure you are never going to answer it, so we have a hundred dollar bet on it. so far, the money is safe.

You disappoint me uber. I thought better of you. Oh well, not my first dissappointment with right wingers.

Thanks for giving me an audience though, at the "internet cafe". I'm sure all you adolescents are having a great time. Maybe the more mature among you may even learn something.

As for my idea of liberty, it pretty much goes along with the majority in the country, as the last few elections have indicated. Not that I need that majority to support my ideas, but it does make things a bit more comfortable for me, and less so for you. Maybe that's the reason you need to gather in little groups at the cafe, to support each other, so you don't feel so isolated. 

As for answering yours, or crazy's questions, get serious. I mean, ask a serious question, one that furthers the discussion, not just builds strawmen. Your chances of getting it answered will be greatly improved. Better yet, just make your argument. I don't need you answering my questions to make my argument. I make it myself. With all the help at the cafe, you'd think you could come up with a viable argument without strawmen. Have a brainstorming session with your friends there. Work on it a little. See if you all can produce an argument without a question in it. Put your heads together. It's only little ol me here.

 i have asked a serious question. one that furthers the discussion, and doesn't build strawmen. i asked for the names of the people who died from second hand smoke. you asserted that second hand smoke was highly toxic, but have yet to prove it with even one name of a person who has died from it.

if your assertion is true, you should have no problem proving it by giving us the name of someone who has verifiably died from what you assert is true. so far, you haven't been able to do that. your 'side' in this debate would have an instant "WIN" if you could, or if anyone could, for that matter.

not for nothing, what i find doubly curious is that one of the 'deadly toxins' you list, benzene, is manufactured by our own organs in our own bodies.

what really troubles me is the ease with which you would strip another citizen of his rights to further your own comfort. i suppose that we shall all, every citizen of michigan, every citizen who reads these posts, all grow old and grey, dying of old age before you answer these serious questions that will further this discussion.

the questions i have asked will not further the discussion, they will end it entirely. if you CAN answer it, your side wins hands down, no further discussions necessary. if you cannot answer it, then your assertion will need some work.

Your too clever by half crazy, I mean uber. Do you think you have anyone fooled with the question answer routine? Get a life. That trick is as old as debating. I don't need to name someone who has died from second hand smoke to prove it is unhealthy. The science is available for all to see. I don't need to answer your questions to express my support of this bill. I need only to show reasons why I support it, which I have.

Those reading these post can form their own opinions, based on the facts presented. You haven't proved anything by asking irrelevant questions.

As for your ridiculous argument that benzene is produced by our own organs, therefore we must conclude it isn't unhealthy for us to ingest, let me point out that many things are produced and ejected by our own bodies that would not be healthy for us to ingest.

jmangan:

Your too clever by half crazy, I mean uber. Do you think you have anyone fooled with the question answer routine? Get a life. That trick is as old as debating. I don't need to name someone who has died from second hand smoke to prove it is unhealthy.

[but alas, poor strawman... you didn't say it was unhealthy, we all can agree on that. what you said was that it was DEADLY. you said it was TOXIC. what you haven't said is who, exactly has died from it to prove it's toxicity. big macs are unhealthy, but people eat them every day. quarter pounders with cheese are even more unhealthy, but folks still eat those. your duty as a citizen is not to impose your views on others. if there are those who meet in smoky bars to imbibe in unhealthy items, it's up to them to stop if they want, not up to you to force them to stop. >

The science is available for all to see. I don't need to answer your questions to express my support of this bill. I need only to show reasons why I support it, which I have.

<on what science do you base your claim that second hand smoke is deadly? you have no proof of that, only the opinions of scientists. second hand smoke IS smelly, obnoxious, and quite possibly harmful in high enough dosages, but, so far, not provably deadly, at least not provably enough to get a scientist to put his reputation on the line to say so in writing on a death certificate.> 

Those reading these post can form their own opinions, based on the facts presented. You haven't proved anything by asking irrelevant questions.

<but you have proven much by avoiding answering them. you have proven that there is no proof to back up YOUR claims that second hand smoke is deadly. the one thing that would have won the arguement for you, and convinced the people of this state that smoking should be banned in all public places is the one thing that you have not yet provided. so now it seems as if your quest to ban smoking is simply a 'rights grab' by a power hungry person bent on forcing his will upon the citizenry.>

As for your ridiculous argument that benzene is produced by our own organs, therefore we must conclude it isn't unhealthy for us to ingest, let me point out that many things are produced and ejected by our own bodies that would not be healthy for us to ingest.

<the E. coli bug lives in our intestines. it thrives there, performing necessary service to us, without it we wouldn't last long. it's when it gets out of the gut and into other tissues that it causes major problems. it is the major contributor to the short mortality factor in gut shots. we try to get rid of  E. coli, but we need it to live. some would file that under "that which doesn't kill us...">

 

i don't think that your refusal to answer pertinent questions is based on personal scruples at all, but based on the fact that answering them HONESTLY would endanger your position. don't rely on 'THE SCIENCE' to bolster your position and then refuse to provide 'THE SCIENCE' when requested. 

Your becoming boring. I provided opinions by scientists. They are in this, or the other thread pertaining to banning smoking in restaurants and workplaces. If you, or anyone else, chooses not to accept these opinions, that's fine with me. Nothing I , or the scientist can say will change a closed mind.

But these opinions and studies still exist, and most prudent people will take the warning, and support legislation to protect theirs', and their children's health.

Your question about why second hand smoking is not on death certificates is plain silly. I explain that to you in another post. Most people don't need that explained to them. If you choose to be silly, have at it. I choose not to.

 we weren't "silly" enough to try and remove citizen's freedom of choice based on scientists opinions as to whether or not second hand smoke is hazardous to our health, you were "silly" enough to say that second hand smoke was TOXIC.

attempting to remove citizen's rights based on a direct, serious threat to their lives is still an attempt to remove citizen's rights.

your attempt to remove citizen's rights is based on a fallacy. what you should have said is that second hand smoke, and smoking in general is dangerous. no one could then disagree. but do not try and take away my right to control my life. no matter how strongly you feel about it.

the principle here is that each citizen has the right to decide what to do with his or her own body. you fight for that in the abortion thread, but you deny it to the citizen here. if you say that citizens have the right to choose what goes into their own body, at least be consistent about it. my disagreement with this bill is based on government interference with business, which is not the proper function of government.

my point of view is the preservation of citizen's rights. which include the right to be free from needless governmental intrusion.

and i understand your not choosing to provide the information requested... i couldn't find anyone who has it on their death certificate that they died from second hand smoke either. there WAS a case in hong kong about a doctor who put smoking as a cause of death on ONE death certificate, and recieved so much flak for it that he never did it again. he was also forced to remove that finding from the certificate.

One last time.

Toxic: containing or being poisonous material esp. when capable of causing death or serious deblitation.

Citizen's rights are limited to not infringing on the rights of other citizens.

I am not advocating taking the right of someone to smoke away.

One role of government is to regulate business. A lack of regulation results in chaos, much as we are experiencing at the present.

Second hand smoke will not be on anyone's death certificate, neither will smoking. Stop looking. Death certificates name the disease that the individual died from, or the condition. They are not a history of the person's life. They do not name the habits or environmental conditions the person encountered that caused their disease or condition.

Most reasonable people understand these basic facts. Second hand smoke is toxic. Science has proven facts to support that. People have a right to expect a clean environment in a place of public accomodation. That includes the air they breath. Smokers have a right to smoke if they choose to, in places that do not force others to breath their second hand smoke.

 even your research shows no deaths or serious debilitation. your science has failed you. your research shows, at worst, exacerbation of pre-existing conditions that are also exacerbated by such things as dust and pollen. i'd have to say that it isn't a good idea for someone with c.o.p.d. to be smoking, but thousands do. i'd also have to say that it isn't a good idea for someone with asthma to be smoking either, but thousands do. having said that, i wouldn't say it is my right to tell any of them that they must stop smoking, or to make any type of decision for them where, when, and how they smoke.

i would say that you are free to put your own money into a project that would open non-smoking bars, as others have put their money into projects that open smoking bars, but you are not free to interfere with the operation of a legitimate business that allows a legal activity. perhaps if you criminalized the consumption, possession, growing, and cultivating of tobacco like you have done with marijuana, then the problem might just go away.... oh wait... it HASN'T gone away, but now police officers are dying to keep it from being grown in the apartment next door.

social engineering isn't the proper role of government. stop doing it.

Try, just try to read my post. I know your anger is deep, but you let it cloud good judgement too often. I will repeat, very plainly, my position again. I ask you to read it.

I am not against anyone smoking, anything. Never said I was. I am against them blowing their smoke, whatever it's source, in my face. We have a right to dine and drink in a place that opens itself to the public, without being exposed to toxic air.

There is no "social engineering " going on here. This is a matter of public safety.

I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that "my" science has failed me. It says second hand smoke contains toxic substances, and is hazardous to our health if inhaled.

 try, just try to understand. you do not have the right to stop smoking (a legal activity engaged in by free citizens in a place that accomodates them) simply because you wish to be accomodated there too. in fact it is your duty to yourself to keep your distance from such places, not insert yourself where you know full well that harm will befall you. obviously a place that accomodates smokers chooses NOT to accomodate non-smokers. this is their right, which you attempt to strip from them so you can be included in a crowd whether the crowd wants to associate with you or not.

the 'other half' of the right of free association is the right NOT to associate with anyone i please. free association is not to ever be considered FORCED ASSOCIATION.

i would ask why you are so 'hot and bothered' to get into bars that people smoke in, only to drink a toxic substance that will bring a higher probability of causing your death, or the deaths of others than the cigarette smoke you hope to ban.

your right to not have smoke blown in your face also carries with it the responsibility to not have your face where it may have smoke blown into it. it does NOT have the right built into it to stop others from smoking. you are as free as they are, and they are as free as you are. you are not MORE free than they are. but you would like the government to make you more free. that is tyranny.

their right to be there in my place is just the same as your right to be there in my place. the difference is, i get to make a choice as to which one of you i will choose to accomodate, as i cannot accomodate both. you know beforehand that my place accomodates smokers, and your responsibility to yourself is to choose to bring your custom elsewhere. it is not within your rights, or the proper role of government to force your views onto my business. to do so is to deny me my rights to run my business so as to prosper and not fail. prospering business provides for the general welfare.

as for the two substances, alcohol and tobacco, being toxic, a gallon of alcohol WILL kill you. a carton of cigarettes won't. 

I must breath air, you must breath air, it is a requirement of life. Our air is shared by us all. I don't share my alchohol with everyone, just people who want to share it with me. If I drink alchohol next to you, I will make the utmost effort to not spill any on you. If I smoke next to you, you are forced to breath that smoke, whether you like it or not. I am infringing on your right to clean air. If I want to exersize my right to smoke, I will do it where I won't take your right to clean air away.

This is a simple premise, easily understood by most people.

If all restaurants and working places must follow the same rules, no businesses will be negatively impacted. That's common sense, and been documented in the states that have banned smoking in restaurants and workplaces.

I agree with your statements on the toxicity of alchohol. But that is really not the point.

Let me remind you the government bans smoking in many places now, because it is hazardous to people's health. Like while your pumping gas. That doesn't prevent anyone from exercising their right to smoke, nor has it hurt the petroleum business, They just can't smoke there. It's dangerous to other people. Get it?

In regards to the concerns of businesses about the proposed ban on smoking in restaurants, I think it is important to note that as of 2007, according to the Center for Disease Control, only 21% of Michigan residents smoke cigarettes.

It would seem to me that a restaurant would be wise to cater to 79% of the population, rather than 21%, if of course their greatest concern is making money.

 not if that 21% makes up the greater percentage of HIS customers. it's up to HIM to make those decisions, not you, and certainly not the government. mob rule is only for those with mob mentality.