Michigan Votes Forum

jmangan:

I must breath air, you must breath air, it is a requirement of life. Our air is shared by us all.

[so why must you insist on breathing the smoky air in my place? don't i get a choice as to whether i want my air smoky or not? not according to you i don't. if you don't like YOUR air smoky, don't come into a bar where you KNOW the air is smoky, and don't expect the iron fist of government to clean it up for you. perhaps if you and the "majority" of non smokers talked to the owner, and explained it to him why you don't drink in his place, and that IF he cleaned up his air, you WOULD come in and drink, and convinced him that it was in his best business interest to do so, then i'm sure the results would be swift and certain.]

 I don't share my alcohol with everyone, just people who want to share it with me. If I drink alcohol next to you, I will make the utmost effort to not spill any on you.

[ah, but you DO share your alcohol with me. you drive home on the same road as me. presenting me the hazard of being hit by you in your intoxicated state. (notice the word TOXIC in there...) you do not exercise your  responsibility to do no harm to others by calling a cab to drive you home. i don't force you to drink at my bar, you freely choose to do so. obviously there is something about my bar, smoke and all, that attracts you. ]

 If I smoke next to you, you are forced to breath that smoke, whether you like it or not.

[no i'm not. i'm free to walk off. or leave. i have the right to do both. i also have the responsibility to myself to make the best decision for myself. if you stand next to me and breathe my smoke (i don't smoke, by the way) then you are ACCEPTING the risks involved, and giving your implied consent to my smoking.]

I am infringing on your right to clean air.

[no, you are polluting your air, your lungs, and your body. i don't HAVE to be a part of it. why do you insist on being a part of it?]

 If I want to exersize my right to smoke, I will do it where I won't take your right to clean air away.

[you already are. in a place that voluntarily accommodates smokers. you have no right to clean air.]

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

[please show me in the constitution where the right to clean air is guaranteed.]

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.

[all businesses that once allowed smoking will be negatively impacted. what about them? don't their rights matter?] 

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

[oh, but it IS the point. you raised the specter of second hand smoke being toxic, and i countered with the fact that alcohol was toxic at much lower dosages. your insistence on poisoning yourself is counter to your 'health benefit' argument.]

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?

[no, that is deadly to the one pumping the gas. no one else need be involved. i'm sure you aren't going to pull up into a gas station that is on fire, now will you?]

 your logic of 'health benefit' is faulty on the grounds that drinking is much more hazardous than smoking. you trying to 'trump up' the toxicity of second hand smoke proves that. your drinking also provides a PUBLIC hazard, as you will go onto that ribbon of PUBLIC ACCOMODATION called a road and drive your car, possibly into mine, because you are under the influence of that fluid of your personal addiction. it is amazing that you will chastise those with one addiction while supporting those with YOUR addiction.

I must breath air, you must breath air, it is a requirement of life. Our air is shared by us all.

[so why must you insist on breathing the smoky air in my place? don't i get a choice as to whether i want my air smoky or not? not according to you i don't. if you don't like YOUR air smoky, don't come into a bar where you KNOW the air is smoky, and don't expect the iron fist of government to clean it up for you. perhaps if you and the "majority" of non smokers talked to the owner, and explained it to him why you don't drink in his place, and that IF he cleaned up his air, you WOULD come in and drink, and convinced him that it was in his best business interest to do so, then i'm sure the results would be swift and certain.]

I didn't know you had "a place", I thought that was crazy with the bar. Mmmm.

You invited me into your place by being a business offering to sell something to the public. If you only want smokers in your place, put a sign up saying " non-smoking not allowed".

I expect the "iron fist of government" to protect me from unscrupulous business owners.

 I don't share my alcohol with everyone, just people who want to share it with me. If I drink alcohol next to you, I will make the utmost effort to not spill any on you.

[ah, but you DO share your alcohol with me. you drive home on the same road as me. presenting me the hazard of being hit by you in your intoxicated state. (notice the word TOXIC in there...) you do not exercise your  responsibility to do no harm to others by calling a cab to drive you home. i don't force you to drink at my bar, you freely choose to do so. obviously there is something about my bar, smoke and all, that attracts you. ]

Ah, but I don't drive home drunk, I don't get intoxicated, but if I, or anyone else did, they should suffer the consequenses of the law for endangering other citizens.

 If I smoke next to you, you are forced to breath that smoke, whether you like it or not.

[no i'm not. i'm free to walk off. or leave. i have the right to do both. i also have the responsibility to myself to make the best decision for myself. if you stand next to me and breathe my smoke (i don't smoke, by the way) then you are ACCEPTING the risks involved, and giving your implied consent to my smoking.]

Your forced to walk off to protect your health from someone endangering it. That's not freedom in my book.

 Congradulations for not smoking, it's bad for your health.

I am infringing on your right to clean air.

[no, you are polluting your air, your lungs, and your body. i don't HAVE to be a part of it. why do you insist on being a part of it?]

You shouldn't be forced to be a part of it. You have rights to, you know.

 If I want to exersize my right to smoke, I will do it where I won't take your right to clean air away.

[you already are. in a place that voluntarily accommodates smokers. you have no right to clean air.]

Yes I do, like I have a right to expect clean food from a clean kitchen. That's part of the bargain we make when we dine at a restaurant. And the state insures the business owner lives up to his part of the bargain.

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

[please show me in the constitution where the right to clean air is guaranteed.]

You really must read the preamble. Your missing out on a lot.

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.

[all businesses that once allowed smoking will be negatively impacted. what about them? don't their rights matter?] 

No, they won't. All businesses will have to follow the same rules. Level playing field. The 21% of the citizens of Michigan who smoke will not stop dining out because they can't smoke in the restaurant. They probably don't even smoke in their own homes.

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

[oh, but it IS the point. you raised the specter of second hand smoke being toxic, and i countered with the fact that alcohol was toxic at much lower dosages. your insistence on poisoning yourself is counter to your 'health benefit' argument.]

Many things are more toxic than secondhand smoke. That doesn't change the fact second hand smoke is toxic. I'm not arguing levels of toxicity with you.

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?

[no, that is deadly to the one pumping the gas. no one else need be involved. i'm sure you aren't going to pull up into a gas station that is on fire, now will you?]

I don't know what gas station you frequent, but the one I go to has numerous pumps, and usually most of them are being used. If one was to explode because some idiot was smoking while fueling his car, more than just one person would be injured or killed. Your really reaching with that argument, uber.

 your logic of 'health benefit' is faulty on the grounds that drinking is much more hazardous than smoking. you trying to 'trump up' the toxicity of second hand smoke proves that. your drinking also provides a PUBLIC hazard, as you will go onto that ribbon of PUBLIC ACCOMODATION called a road and drive your car, possibly into mine, because you are under the influence of that fluid of your personal addiction. it is amazing that you will chastise those with one addiction while supporting those with YOUR addiction.

I don't know why you think I'm addicted to alchohol, or why you keep bringing up alchohol. If it's just an adolescent attempt at insulting me, I will excuse it. If you, me, or anyone else drives drunk, they should be prosecuted. They are endangering the health of fellow citizens, the same as smokers do when smoking in restaurants and workplaces.

jmangan:

 

 

I must breath air, you must breath air, it is a requirement of life. Our air is shared by us all.

[so why must you insist on breathing the smoky air in my place? don't i get a choice as to whether i want my air smoky or not? not according to you i don't. if you don't like YOUR air smoky, don't come into a bar where you KNOW the air is smoky, and don't expect the iron fist of government to clean it up for you. perhaps if you and the "majority" of non smokers talked to the owner, and explained it to him why you don't drink in his place, and that IF he cleaned up his air, you WOULD come in and drink, and convinced him that it was in his best business interest to do so, then i'm sure the results would be swift and certain.]

I didn't know you had "a place", I thought that was crazy with the bar. Mmmm.

[once again, you assume too much.]

You invited me into your place by being a business offering to sell something to the public. If you only want smokers in your place, put a sign up saying " non-smoking not allowed".

[i will allow non-smokers in, providing they behave themselves. i have nothing against non-smokers, i have simply chosen to accommodate smokers primarily, leaving non-smokers free to choose to give me their custom or not, as is their wish. i wish to deprive no one of their rights and freedoms. but you have no rights to clean air where people have the right to smoke.]

I expect the "iron fist of government" to protect me from unscrupulous business owners.

[another unrealistic expectation on the proper role of government. how did it become the responsibility of government to protect you from unscrupulous business owners? doesn't CAVEAT EMPTOR mean anything to you?]

 I don't share my alcohol with everyone, just people who want to share it with me. If I drink alcohol next to you, I will make the utmost effort to not spill any on you.

[ah, but you DO share your alcohol with me. you drive home on the same road as me. presenting me the hazard of being hit by you in your intoxicated state. (notice the word TOXIC in there...) you do not exercise your  responsibility to do no harm to others by calling a cab to drive you home. i don't force you to drink at my bar, you freely choose to do so. obviously there is something about my bar, smoke and all, that attracts you. ]

Ah, but I don't drive home drunk, I don't get intoxicated, but if I, or anyone else did, they should suffer the consequenses of the law for endangering other citizens.

[no one said drunk. i said intoxicated. the level of alcohol in the blood to be intoxicated is far below the level in the blood to be drunk. so, how many drinks does it take before you consider yourself drunk?]

 If I smoke next to you, you are forced to breath that smoke, whether you like it or not.

[no i'm not. i'm free to walk off. or leave. i have the right to do both. i also have the responsibility to myself to make the best decision for myself. if you stand next to me and breathe my smoke (i don't smoke, by the way) then you are ACCEPTING the risks involved, and giving your implied consent to my smoking.]

Your forced to walk off to protect your health from someone endangering it. That's not freedom in my book.

[so, forcing someone else to stop smoking so you don't have to exercise your responsibility IS freedom in your book?]

 Congradulations for not smoking, it's bad for your health.

[so is drinking. when are you going to stop?]

I am infringing on your right to clean air.

[no, you are polluting your air, your lungs, and your body. i don't HAVE to be a part of it. why do you insist on being a part of it?]

You shouldn't be forced to be a part of it. You have rights to, you know.

[i don't have the right to force any behavior on you. i wouldn't choose to even if i did. you, on the other hand, prefer to force your will upon others. you seem to want the right to be 'where the action is' and not suffer the consequences. you talk of your rights, but you refuse to take your responsibility. you refuse to walk away, like a responsible citizen. instead, you force your will upon others.]

 If I want to exersize my right to smoke, I will do it where I won't take your right to clean air away.

[you already are. in a place that voluntarily accommodates smokers. you have no right to clean air.]

Yes I do, like I have a right to expect clean food from a clean kitchen. That's part of the bargain we make when we dine at a restaurant. And the state insures the business owner lives up to his part of the bargain.

[okay, where is this magical right to clean air you keep speaking of. even the state will tell you that eating certain foods is not good for you, does that stop you? no. they tell you that drinking is not good for you, does that stop you? no. but you say that smoke is not good for you, and you want everyone around you to stop. following your example, should we? no.]

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

[please show me in the constitution where the right to clean air is guaranteed.]

You really must read the preamble. Your missing out on a lot.

[again, it's not in there... so try again. unless it's a right you just MADE UP on the spot. why isn't your right to clean air banning mattresses that contain formaldehyde? or carpeting? or paints? this toxin is in all these products in much higher amounts than in cigarette smoke, but you condone their use, or accept the risks associated with that use. but you have zero tolerance for cigarette smoke. why is that?]

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.

[all businesses that once allowed smoking will be negatively impacted. what about them? don't their rights matter?] 

No, they won't. All businesses will have to follow the same rules. Level playing field. The 21% of the citizens of Michigan who smoke will not stop dining out because they can't smoke in the restaurant. They probably don't even smoke in their own homes.

[again, you assume too much.]

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

[oh, but it IS the point. you raised the specter of second hand smoke being toxic, and i countered with the fact that alcohol was toxic at much lower dosages. your insistence on poisoning yourself is counter to your 'health benefit' argument.]

Many things are more toxic than secondhand smoke. That doesn't change the fact second hand smoke is toxic. I'm not arguing levels of toxicity with you.

[oh but you are. you said that cigarette smoke is toxic. i asked you to name the people who have actually died from your favorite toxin. you cannot name one, nor can you find anyone who will verify that your  favorite toxin has actually ever killed someone. that would a reasonable person to believe that the level of toxicity is much higher than you think it is. if you choose to live your life smoke free, do not expect the government to make every place you wish to go into a smoke free environment.]

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?

[no, that is deadly to the one pumping the gas. no one else need be involved. i'm sure you aren't going to pull up into a gas station that is on fire, now will you?]

I don't know what gas station you frequent, but the one I go to has numerous pumps, and usually most of them are being used. If one was to explode because some idiot was smoking while fueling his car, more than just one person would be injured or killed. Your really reaching with that argument, uber.

[no, you are. you ASSUME that all regulations are to preserve our health. no smoking at gas stations was in effect when smoking was still considered acceptable. it was because people set themselves on fire with the new gasoline.]

 

 your logic of 'health benefit' is faulty on the grounds that drinking is much more hazardous than smoking. you trying to 'trump up' the toxicity of second hand smoke proves that. your drinking also provides a PUBLIC hazard, as you will go onto that ribbon of PUBLIC ACCOMODATION called a road and drive your car, possibly into mine, because you are under the influence of that fluid of your personal addiction. it is amazing that you will chastise those with one addiction while supporting those with YOUR addiction.

 

I don't know why you think I'm addicted to alchohol, or why you keep bringing up alchohol. If it's just an adolescent attempt at insulting me, I will excuse it. If you, me, or anyone else drives drunk, they should be prosecuted. They are endangering the health of fellow citizens, the same as smokers do when smoking in restaurants and workplaces.

[so, how many drinks does it take to get you drunk? if you are of average size and build, it takes two in an hour to get you legally intoxicated.

why do you want to go to a bar that has smokers in it? to drink, obviously. smokers feed their addiction by smoking. drinkers feed their addiction by drinking. there is a difference between WANTING a drink and NEEDING a drink. you obviously NEED the iron fist of government to clean the air in your local bar before you can get your NEEDED drink.

this is not an attempt to insult you, this is a statement of facts as you have presented them.] 

 

 

 not for nothing. you have no right to clean food from a kitchen. you have the EXPECTATION of clean food from a kitchen. when the food does not meet that expectation, you have the right to either eat it as is, or leave. you have the OPTION of reporting them to the board of health.

in the end, YOU are responsible for your health. if you wish to pawn that responsibility off to the government, don't whine when you no longer have the right to decide anything for your own good.

no one is forcing you to come to a smoke filled bar. you decided to do that on your own, without the iron fist of government being involved. you are simply too weak willed to live with the consequences of your own decisions, or even worse, too weak willed to make the right decisions.

none of us really cares which it is, as we all have our own pet theories.

obviously, your rights and freedoms are not as precious to you as they are to me. much the pity.

You have become too personal in our discussion. Typical reaction when one runs out of argument. 

Your need for reinforcement from your crowd also indicates uncertainty.

I have stated my opinions quite clearly I believe, and my support of this bill.

 this is a discussion about personal choices, personal rights and personal responsibilities, isn't it? it is after all a bill that would remove an individual citizen's right to decide health care issues for himself. it also will remove an individual citizen's right to choose to smoke in public. not to mention removing the collective owners of all the bars in michigan's rights to run their businesses as they please, it will remove all of their collective rights to free association, and the right to allow smoking in their establishment, paid for with their hard-earned money, not taxpayer dollars.

obviously you believe that your personal rights far outweigh all these other citizen's rights. not once have you suggested the possibility of moving yourself out of "harms way" to avoid the toxic fumes you rail about. that would show at least a modicum of personal responsibility. instead you walk in, sidle up to the bar, order yourself a drink, and whistle for the jack-booted thugs to come in and force everyone else to put out their cigarettes in your exalted presence. is this how you envision freedom?

also, not once have you asked the smokers, citizen to citizen, to put out their cigarettes for you. as this might contain an element of personal risk. you have asked the government, armed men all, to demand those citizens to stop smoking.

you have also not asked the owners, as a paying customer, to have your rights and your views upheld in his place of business. this would seem to be the best answer, as you state that non-smokers are much in the majority. could it be that other non-smokers do not share in your choice of bar? but instead you choose the path that takes away the most rights from the most people.

actions have consequences, and i am simply holding you accountable for the results of your actions.

This is a discussion about public safety. Something you are intent on ignoring. This bill would not remove an individual's right to decide healthcare for himself. It would protect others from his bad decision. Bar or restaurant owners have much leeway in how they run their business, but they can't run it as they please. There are laws and regulations they must follow, for the health and welfare of the public.

This discussion has nothing to do with how I feel about my personal rights, rather about what I feel the proper role of government is in protecting the health of citizens. Your attempting to make it personal, and in the process, insulting me with wild accusations of me calling for jack booted thugs and feeling superior to everyone else.

As I stated in an earlier post, only 21% of people in Michigan smoke, that means 79% don't. Get your calculator out and fiqure which of those two numbers is bigger.

You have no standing, other than your huge ego, to hold anyone on this forum accountable.

 oh but you are accountable for your decisions. whether you wish to be or not. it is not the proper role of government to make any kind of health care decisions for me. if i smoke, i must not care much for my health. if you drink, you must not care much for your health either. what i do care about is having the right to make decisions that are not necessarily good for my health, but very good for my freedom. you have no right to take my rights away, even to protect me from myself.

we are all citizens, all responsible for ourselves. as responsible citizens, we have the responsibility to OURSELVES to make FOR OURSELVES the best decision, no one else, and we have no right to make that decision FOR ANYONE ELSE BUT OURSELVES.

you cannot live with that truth. you cannot resist the urge to make those decisions for others. trampling their rights and freedom as you do. you are blind to this, masking it with the mantra of protecting the health of the citizens. how far left will you go? will you snatch total control of health care issues from the free citizens of michigan? that is the only way to assure that the 'PROPER' decision is made, with you being the sole arbitor of which decision is and isn't proper.

you don't want anyone else having control of the decisions you deem proper, only you. you don't trust the citizen to be able to make up his own mind whats best for himself. the truth is, it's none of your business. you have no business being involved at all with that decision. the only decision you have any business making is your own.

you get to decide whether or not the risk of going into a place of business which accomodates smokers is worth the risk for the reward of an alcoholic beverage. you forget that your logic was once used to ban alcohol. that ban didn't work either. it was considered unconstitutional, and it was repealed.

what you DON'T get to decide is whether the owner of that bar you can't wait to go into and pickle your liver will accomodate smokers or non smokers. right now, they accomodate both. it doesn't matter how many CITIZENS smoke in michigan, it matters how many CUSTOMERS smoke in his bar. perhaps if you could convince a greater number of those non-smokers to bring their business to the particular bar you go to and pickle their livers too, and raise the ratio of non-smokers to smokers, then, perhaps, the owner would see your point of view. 

 in another thread, you quoted thomas jefferson on religious freedom. you said that his neighbor having freedom of religion neither broke his legs nor picked his pocket.

how does someone smoking in a bar that you don't go into break your legs? the truth is, it can't. not unless you violate your own code of health by entering that 'toxic' environment by choice.

how does banning smoking pick the bar owner's pocket? if a majority of his customers smoke, you do the math. i know you will promise a replacement of smokers with non-smokers, but experience has told us a different story. if non-smokers were that large of a constituency for bar owners, there would be a plethora of non-smoking bars, not only one.

<oh but you are accountable for your decisions. whether you wish to be or not. it is not the proper role of government to make any kind of health care decisions for me. if i smoke, i must not care much for my health. if you drink, you must not care much for your health either. what i do care about is having the right to make decisions that are not necessarily good for my health, but very good for my freedom. you have no right to take my rights away, even to protect me from myself.>

OK, I'll just keep repeating this until you get it, if ever. This bill, nor I, wants to take your right to smoke away. Not to sound crass, but I really don't give a rat's rear end what you do with your body, as long as it doesn't involve my body.

<we are all citizens, all responsible for ourselves. as responsible citizens, we have the responsibility to OURSELVES to make FOR OURSELVES the best decision, no one else, and we have no right to make that decision FOR ANYONE ELSE BUT OURSELVES.>

Right.

<you cannot live with that truth. you cannot resist the urge to make those decisions for others. trampling their rights and freedom as you do. you are blind to this, masking it with the mantra of protecting the health of the citizens. how far left will you go? will you snatch total control of health care issues from the free citizens of michigan? that is the only way to assure that the 'PROPER' decision is made, with you being the sole arbitor of which decision is and isn't proper.>

Here's where you depart reality. No ones freedom is trambled if you can't smoke in a restaurant, like you can't smoke in a hospital, church, gas station, theatre etc..

<you don't want anyone else having control of the decisions you deem proper, only you. you don't trust the citizen to be able to make up his own mind whats best for himself. the truth is, it's none of your business. you have no business being involved at all with that decision. the only decision you have any business making is your own.>

If I lived in a fantasy land, this might be true, but the decisions I make, and the decisions you make, affect others.

<you get to decide whether or not the risk of going into a place of business which accomodates smokers is worth the risk for the reward of an alcoholic beverage. you forget that your logic was once used to ban alcohol. that ban didn't work either. it was considered unconstitutional, and it was repealed.>

It was not considered unconstitutional, it was considered unenforceable, although I would agree it should have been considered unconstitutional. I don't always go into a restaurant for a drink, sometimes for food. You are intent on painting me as a drunk. I haven't even said if I drink or not. Maybe you need to view me as that so you can make your argument.

<what you DON'T get to decide is whether the owner of that bar you can't wait to go into and pickle your liver will accomodate smokers or non smokers. right now, they accomodate both. it doesn't matter how many CITIZENS smoke in michigan, it matters how many CUSTOMERS smoke in his bar. perhaps if you could convince a greater number of those non-smokers to bring their business to the particular bar you go to and pickle their livers too, and raise the ratio of non-smokers to smokers, then, perhaps, the owner would see your point of view. >

In another state I lived in, smoking was banned in bars and restaurants while I was there. That state saw an increase in bar and restaurant business. Stands to reason, if the majority of the population doesn't smoke, why would business decrease if the business became more attractive to a larger customer base.

And I've lived to a fairly ripe old age without pickling my liver.

jmangan:

<oh but you are accountable for your decisions. whether you wish to be or not. it is not the proper role of government to make any kind of health care decisions for me. if i smoke, i must not care much for my health. if you drink, you must not care much for your health either. what i do care about is having the right to make decisions that are not necessarily good for my health, but very good for my freedom. you have no right to take my rights away, even to protect me from myself.>

OK, I'll just keep repeating this until you get it, if ever. This bill, nor I, wants to take your right to smoke away. Not to sound crass, but I really don't give a rat's rear end what you do with your body, as long as it doesn't involve my body.

[the only way to make sure you don't breathe smoke is to avoid going into bars that choose to allow smoking. problem solved.]

<we are all citizens, all responsible for ourselves. as responsible citizens, we have the responsibility to OURSELVES to make FOR OURSELVES the best decision, no one else, and we have no right to make that decision FOR ANYONE ELSE BUT OURSELVES.>

Right.

<you cannot live with that truth. you cannot resist the urge to make those decisions for others. trampling their rights and freedom as you do. you are blind to this, masking it with the mantra of protecting the health of the citizens. how far left will you go? will you snatch total control of health care issues from the free citizens of michigan? that is the only way to assure that the 'PROPER' decision is made, with you being the sole arbitor of which decision is and isn't proper.>

Here's where you depart reality. No ones freedom is trambled if you can't smoke in a restaurant, like you can't smoke in a hospital, church, gas station, theatre etc..

[two people's freedom are trampled. the smoker who goes to that bar to have a smoke, and the bar owner who relies on him and many other smokers for his livelihood. and those two are two too many. you don't lose your rights to not smoke by not going into my bar, you only loose the expectation that you can go into my bar and expect everyone else to quit smoking to accomodate you.]

<you don't want anyone else having control of the decisions you deem proper, only you. you don't trust the citizen to be able to make up his own mind whats best for himself. the truth is, it's none of your business. you have no business being involved at all with that decision. the only decision you have any business making is your own.>

If I lived in a fantasy land, this might be true, but the decisions I make, and the decisions you make, affect others.

[my decision to smoke, or to allow others to smoke, doesn't affect you unless you make a conscious decision to come into my bar. a place that specifically accomodates smokers. of course you are welcome to come in and sit down, if that is your choice, but you are NOT welcome to come in and take away my rights, and my customer's rights to suit your personal whims.]

<you get to decide whether or not the risk of going into a place of business which accomodates smokers is worth the risk for the reward of an alcoholic beverage. you forget that your logic was once used to ban alcohol. that ban didn't work either. it was considered unconstitutional, and it was repealed.>

It was not considered unconstitutional, it was considered unenforceable, although I would agree it should have been considered unconstitutional. I don't always go into a restaurant for a drink, sometimes for food. You are intent on painting me as a drunk. I haven't even said if I drink or not. Maybe you need to view me as that so you can make your argument.

[no, you have painted yourself as a drinker. otherwise why would you want to come into my bar and stop my paying customers from smoking? we are not discussing a restaraunt, we are discussing bars. many methods are being tried to accomodate both smokers and non smokers. in florida, covered patios and porches are being built at added expense to the bar owner to accomodate the many paying customers that smoke. so far, the non-smokers haven't taken up the slack from the customers that the bar owners lost. many have gone out of business. in new york, many bars are closing, and many mcdonalds restaraunts are opening. ]

 

<what you DON'T get to decide is whether the owner of that bar you can't wait to go into and pickle your liver will accomodate smokers or non smokers. right now, they accomodate both. it doesn't matter how many CITIZENS smoke in michigan, it matters how many CUSTOMERS smoke in his bar. perhaps if you could convince a greater number of those non-smokers to bring their business to the particular bar you go to and pickle their livers too, and raise the ratio of non-smokers to smokers, then, perhaps, the owner would see your point of view. >

In another state I lived in, smoking was banned in bars and restaurants while I was there. That state saw an increase in bar and restaurant business. Stands to reason, if the majority of the population doesn't smoke, why would business decrease if the business became more attractive to a larger customer base.

And I've lived to a fairly ripe old age without pickling my liver.

[all that cigarette smoke you breathed in when you were younger, before the smoking ban, must not have been as toxic as you said it was, or you'd be dead by now.] 

 just a thought, jman.

a wise man once said, "if you are thirty and not a democrat, you have no heart. if you are fifty and not a republican, you have no brain."

i was a democrat and a liberal when i was thirty, but i have outgrown that nonsense now. i have seen the better way, and i have taken it.

 The argument over this bill is just about as clear as an example could be to illustrate one's personal philosophy.  You either believe in the right of individuals to own and control property and to make decisions about their own well being, or, you believe that someone else is in a better position to make choices for individuals.  Anyone who supports this legislation should be prepared to give up any rights to make choices for themselves, as they are prepared to take free choices away from other individuals.  Despite uber-liberal's tendency toward personal attack (and considering the frustration created by continual loss of liberty, I understand)  his arguments on this subject are dead on!

I see this as a clear example of greed on the part of certain, not all, business owners, at the cost of the health and welfare of their customers and employees, disguised as a personal rights issue.

uber-liberal:

i was a democrat and a liberal when i was thirty, but i have outgrown that nonsense now. i have seen the better way, and i have taken it.

Another way of saying I've got mine now and I'm not worried about anyone else.

 What you call greed, the business owner may call desire to serve his customers.  That is his job as a business owner, to provide goods and services to people who are willing to pay for them.  Frankly, I believe what you, gypsy, are advocating is a form of greed.  In your greed to have someone elses property serve your needs, you are prepared to use the force of gunpoint to get what you want, at the expense of the property owner and his customers.  Yet, as it is, no one is forcing you at gunpoint to go to an establishment that allows smoking, you must choose to go or not to go.  Personally, I choose not to go to a place that is filled with smoke.  Eventually, the market will adjust to my needs because there are a lot more people who do not smoke than who do.  Already many restaurants do not allow smoking.  I don't allow smoking in my business.  Not because of force, but because of choice.

 it is a personal rights issue. the health and welfare, and the bearing of the costs for those things is the business of the customers and employees.

 And the customers and the employees have a personal right to not do business there and to not work there.  This seems so simple to me.  Am I going too fast?

changeagent:

In your greed to have someone elses property serve your needs,

That someone  else who owns the property is in the business of serving the customer's needs. If he doesn't want to, he can turn his business into his home and make his own rules. He just can't charge people for his goods and services.

changeagent:

you are prepared to use the force of gunpoint to get what you want

I don't think a smoking ban in restaurants and workplaces will require gunpoint.

changeagent:

And the customers and the employees have a personal right to not do business there and to not work there.  This seems so simple to me.  Am I going too fast?

The customers and employees have a personal right to do business there and to have there workplace as safe as it can be made. The business owner has a social responsibility to make his restaurant and workplace as safe as he can also. It is in his financial interest to do so.

No, not too fast at all.

 I disagree, completely, in fact.  Your statement is absurd.  Customers do not have a "personal right" to do business anywhere!  They have free choice.  If one were to make a workplace "as safe as it can be made" nothing would ever get produced!  There has to be a cost/benefit analysis of everything we do.  Life is inherently risky, deal with it!

And, the most absurd of all, "it is in his financial interest to do so".  If that is the case, he will do it, and if it is the case and he doesn't do it, he'll go out of business!  That's the way it is supposed to work and it will if we can all make free choices.

Why is it so difficult to understand the difference between free choice and coercion?

 you advocate writing a law. laws are enforced by people with guns. it will come to that.

I think you may be a little extreme in your conclusion that a smoking ban in restaurants and workplaces will be enforced at gunpoint.

changeagent:

Life is inherently risky

Yes, it is. That's why we take precautions to lessen the risk.

changeagent:

Why is it so difficult to understand the difference between free choice and coercion?

I don't find it difficult at all. I can choose to smoke, or not. You can choose to smoke, or not. Free choice. I can't choose to harm you. If I do, I get punished by the state. If you choose to harm me, you get punished by the state. Coercion.

 so you believe that the proper role of government is to keep you personally from coming to harm?

where is your responsibility in all this?

The proper role of government is to promote the general welfare.

 do you need the government to tell you that smoking is bad? or do you just need the government to force smokers to stop smoking where you choose to drink?

 If I own a bar and continue to let people smoke after the government has made a law against it they will try to stop me.  First they will try to fine me.  I won't pay.  Then they will put the fines on my property taxes.  I still won't pay.  Then they will try to evict me from my property and I will resist.  Then they will come with armed police officers and if I resist and am armed (as I am) they will shoot me.  That is how it works and how a no smoking ban is enforced at gunpoint.  Now gypsy you tell me how I am wrong.

Now gypsy you tell me how I am wrong.  That is how all of your damn laws work everytime you put one of your restrictions on how other people choose to live.  Why don't you open your own bar and make it no smoking?  I may even come in and have a drink.

 that very thing has been suggested hundreds of times. all to no avail. they do not wish to be in "A" non-smoking bar. they wish all bars to be non-smoking. once again, totalitarianism gets a pass.

 So gypsy, by your understanding of the proper role of government promoting general welfare means they can do whatever "they" think is a good idea.  I can hardly wait until they decide it is in the interest of our "general welfare" that we all have computer chips inserted in our butts that can monitor our activities so we can be protected at all times.

 how does banning smoking in bars promote the general welfare? a law that only effects a small group is bad law.

The majority of Michigan citizens want this to pass.

I am not very sure if the majority of Michigan citizens want this to pass this idea. I am very circumspect at this chapter. cazare costinesti 2011