Michigan Votes Forum

 I can see it now, instead of primarily serving alcohol at a bar, the owner will just call it a "cigar bar" that serves alcohol on the side and become exempt. Why don't they just let freedom of choice and capitalism be the deciding factor in the public smoking wars. I do know a few non-smoking bars and restaurants that seem to be doing a good business. If the patrons want to smoke, they choose to go elsewhere.

Read the bill.

 Another government intrusion on our freedom.  The market really will take care of this.  I won't eat at a restaurant where smoking is allowed.

 most restaraunts are non-smoking, either through local laws, state laws, or in anticipation of state laws. i know of only one NON-SMOKING BAR in michigan. where is another?

if my bar goes non-smoking, i may as well close. the vast majority of my customers smoke. and if they stop coming because they cannot smoke, i don't see the non-smokers taking up that kind of slack.

You said your not a smoker crazy. Hope your not spending too much time in that smokey bar of yours.

 there you go again... wanting to nanny me...

is that urge INCURABLE? OBVIOUSLY SO...

hmmm... concern about my health... concern about my 'sexual activities'... i think jman has the hots for me.

And don't over due it by trying to plug all the holes in your dam in one night. There's always tommorrow.

 The Station in Iron River, MI is a non-smoking bar. I choose to go there because I don't like smoke in my clothes, stinking up my car and house afterwards. Great company along with other non-smokers, and I go to non-smoking bars as well, by choice. But if the smoke is overwhelming, I leave, again by choice.

 good for you, sir.

thank you for seeing common sense.

look, jman.  a citizen exercising his right to choose. what a concept.!!!

Soon this gentleman will have more choices.

 i disagree, jman. soon he will have lost the choice to go to a smoking bar if he wishes. how is that securing the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity?

By allowing us to live healthier lives, as the majority of us would like to. Being healthy is the ultimate freedom.

Most states that have banned smoking in restaurants have allowed smoking in bars where food is not served, or allowed cigar bars. I'm sure we can work something out for those that insist on sharing their smoke with others, as long as the others don't object.

jmangan:

By allowing us to live healthier lives, as the majority of us would like to.

[you are free to live a healthier life. are smokers not free to choose to do otherwise?]

Being healthy is the ultimate freedom.

[no. being free is the ultimate freedom. being healthy is a lifestyle of choice. besides, what do you care about being healthy? you want to stop smoking so more non smokers can go out drinking and driving.]

Most states that have banned smoking in restaurants have allowed smoking in bars where food is not served, or allowed cigar bars. I'm sure we can work something out for those that insist on sharing their smoke with others, as long as the others don't object.

[we already have worked it out. it's worked for two hundred years. non-smokers who cannot stand smoke simply stay out of bars that are too smoky. i'm not a smoker, and i don't have a problem with that. why do you?]

We've done a lot in two hundred years. One was find out that smoking is harmful to your health, another is find out that smoking is also harmful to non-smokers health, if they breath second hand smoke.

This bill is about banning smoking in "restaurants and private workplaces." Your preoccupation with bars is somewhat telling, but your attempt to make it my preoccupation is disingenuous.

uber-liberal:

you want to stop smoking so more non smokers can go out drinking and driving.]

No, I don't. I support prohibiting smoking in restaurants and private worlplaces. Places where I, and other non-smokers, are invited by owners to sample their wares, or where I or others have been hired to work.

jmangan:

Places where I, and other non-smokers, are invited by owners to sample their wares, or where I or others have been hired to work.

first, you and other non-smokers aren't invited into bars in which the majority of the customers are smokers, and in which the bar owner has made a conscious decision to cater to smokers and those that don't mind smoke.

second, workers have no business attempting to take a job at a job that they believe will be hazardous to their health. to do so is stupid. besides, most of the workers who apply at bars to be bartenders and waitresses smoke.

third, your assumption that you have a right to clean air also assumes that you are not attempting to get it where you know that the air is polluted. you cannot complain about noise when you buy a house near an airport. you cannot complain about the smell when you buy a house near the trash dump. you cannot complain about the antics of the students when you buy a house near a college campus. and you cannot complain about the smoke when you enter into a smoking bar. these have been precepts in law for centuries. you fight to change them for your own convenience, not for the good of your fellow men.

your concern for freedom and liberty for your fellow men is nil compared to your own.

 I am against this legislation.

 thanks for your support, tb. that's absolutely republican of you.

Prove positive trueblue and I don't have the same "talking points".

I believe people have a right to clean air where they eat and where they work, business owners have a responsibility to provide it, and the state has a responsibility to make sure they do.This is not taking the right to smoke away from those who choose to. They can smoke in places where they don't affect others.

uber-liberal:

first, you and other non-smokers aren't invited into bars in which the majority of the customers are smokers, and in which the bar owner has made a conscious decision to cater to smokers and those that don't mind smoke.

I have yet to go to a restaurant that displayed a sign reading "smokers only", or been stopped at the door and questioned if I smoked or not., or been refused service because I didn't smoke. I have never been told in a job interview that I had to be a smoker to apply.

 we disagree on your right to clean air. i believe it is an EXPECTATION of clean air. but you will not be swayed. we agree that it is the responsibility of the owner to provide clean air IF HE WISHES TO HAVE YOU AS HIS PRIMARY CUSTOMER. my belief gives the owner the choice of clientele. your belief that the state has the responsibility to enforce your wishes is invalid on it's face, as the state has no such responsibility, nor can it. even the wildest eyed stalwart of banning smoking wouldn't be able to force that responsibility upon the state. it can mandate the latest technology, but even that has it's limits. to give the state the responsibility to provide you clean air is irresponsible to ask for and impossible to deliver.  to ban smoking is to remove smoker's rights and owner's rights as if they don't exist.

 and you won't. what you will see is ashtrays on the tables and the bar. a sure sign of smoking allowed. they are there for all to see, and are hidden from no one, unless and until the government bans smoking in bars.

as for your being refused service. no one is saying they will. that is within their rights to serve anyone they choose. it is within your responsibility to either accept the place as it is, smoky, or move on. it is also the applicant's responsibility to accept the place as it is, smoky, when you apply for a job. you don't have to smoke, but you must be tolerant of smoke.

i have seen restaraunts that have displayed 'no smoking' signs. perhaps we should start displaying signs that say 'no smoking intolerant allowed'. that would be keeping with the current government policy of putting notices on products and packages that may contain irritating or allergy producing products like wheat, gluten, milk, or nuts. it's enough that your food is labeled this way, i'm sure it won't suffice for bars. 

You must be joking. It certainly is the states resposibility to provide citizens with clean air. Maybe you haven't heard of the EPA, or the DEQ. You may want to look them up and read their charter's. You might want to check out what the state Health Dept. does too. That should provide you with some interesting reading.

 the e.p.a. has been trying to clean the air for almost thirty years. has it?

the health department has been trying to eradicate food poisoning for almost two centuries. has it?

it's irresponsible to ask others to clean your air, and it's also impossible for them to deliver clean air to you, despite billions spent in trying.

Yes and yes, to a much larger extent than if these government bodies had not existed. We are not "asking others" to clean our air. This is the common misconception the right tries to foist on the public. We are the government. We are the EPA and the DEQ and the Health Dept.. They do as good of a job as we let them, or insist they do.

 if the answers to both questions is yes, then what is your complaint? if the E.P.A. and the D.E.Q. has cleaned up the air, then smoke is not a problem.

you have set up not one, but two government agencies, with large budgets and police powers to accomplish one goal. wasn't one agency enough? or is the 'habit' of big government just too much for you to resist? you did indeed ask others to clean up the air for you, and you are asking the state once again to clean up the air for you, at the cost of the rights and freedoms of smokers and bar owners.

The job to clean our air, and water, and keep food safe etc. is an ongoing concern, as this bill illustrates.

One agency is federal, the other state. That's how our Federal Constitutional Republic works. Neither has police powers. Police have police powers.

I am not "asking" anyone to clean our air. I am supporting the governments efforts to do it's job, that is to make our environment as clean as possible.

 you say the E.P.A. and the D.E.Q. have no police power? how do they enforce environmental regulations?

do you really need the E.P.A. and the D.E.Q. to step in for you and decide for you if it's okay to go into a smoky bar? can't you decide that for yourself? and while we are on the subject, who are you to DEMAND that the E.P.A. and the D.E.Q. step in and clear the air in a place that isn't public property?

you yourself stated that bars are privately owned businesses that INVITE a segment of the public in, and by no means invite the ENTIRE public in. while they will let any legal customer (paying customer) in, they do not demand that anyone come in, as that would violate your rights to choose. you yourself stated that smoking bars should, perhaps, put up signs saying something to the effect of 'for smokers and smoker tolerant people only'. well... if you see ashtrays on the tables, and smell smoke in the air... THERE'S YOUR SIGN.

uber-liberal:

 thanks for your support, tb. that's absolutely republican of you.

This legislation is wrong. Your insults dont change that.

IF republicans are also against it, it must simply be the "blind chicken" theory.

Every once in a while even the republicans will happen to be on target, just like the chicken peckin for feed.

Furthermore, it is wrong for a multitude of reasons.

It is a legal substance.

It has hundereds of years of cultural significance.

If the non-smoking populace is worried about second hand smoke it is their responsibility to avoid it.

We shouldnt ban disco balls in night-clubs because they MIGHT give someone a seizure.

We cannot ban bungie jumping or airplanes because someone might die.

If people are that scared of the world around them they should stay home under the covers and not inflict THEIR morality on others.

If republicans happen to be right for ONCE, its is their business, as I am neither a Dem or a repub.

TrueBlue:

I am neither a Dem or a repub.

no, you're a socialist who only votes republican. thanks again for your support.

uber-liberal:

no, you're a socialist who only votes republican. thanks again for your support.

How I vote is my right and my business.

YOU, on the other hand ARE a republican, and in case you havent noticed........ they lost.

And I welcome the utter collapse of the bankrupt Ideology known as "conservative republicanism" that has led this country to total ruin.

 I can"t belive you DEMOCRAT blue collar dummies who think Bush and the republicans are to blame for the mess this country is in today!  Do you really think our new ?PRESIDENT? is going to bail us out by BORROWING us out of debt?? BULL____! A sixth grader with any sense at all knows "YOU CAN'T BORROW YOUR WAY OUT OF DEBT!" And, laws that BAN anything is socilistic, communistic BULL___ too! I am a former POW from the Vietnam era and fought for my rights and freedom, I'll smoke where I damn well please!

uber-liberal:

 you say the E.P.A. and the D.E.Q. have no police power? how do they enforce environmental regulations?

< with fines>

do you really need the E.P.A. and the D.E.Q. to step in for you and decide for you if it's okay to go into a smoky bar? can't you decide that for yourself? and while we are on the subject, who are you to DEMAND that the E.P.A. and the D.E.Q. step in and clear the air in a place that isn't public property?

<What is this preoccupation you have with bars? Restaurants and private workplaces.

I didn't demand the EPA or DEQ do anything. I said I supported the government performing it's duty to keep our environment clean for all citizens.>

you yourself stated that bars are privately owned businesses that INVITE a segment of the public in, and by no means invite the ENTIRE public in. while they will let any legal customer (paying customer) in, they do not demand that anyone come in, as that would violate your rights to choose. you yourself stated that smoking bars should, perhaps, put up signs saying something to the effect of 'for smokers and smoker tolerant people only'. well... if you see ashtrays on the tables, and smell smoke in the air... THERE'S YOUR SIGN.

< Bars again. Restaurants invite the public in, the entire public, to eat and drink. They don't limit their clientele to smokers. If they want to, they should put a sign at the door saying so. If they don't, they should make their establishment safe for the entire public.>

 

 I think the whole aspect of PROHIBITING or BANNING anything in this country is socialistic crap and a person should have the right to smoke, especially in a Bar, and a non smoker should have the right to NOT smoke' if ya don't want to smell smoke, stay fricken' home! OR suck it up and QUIT bitchin' about my smoke, I have the same rights as Non- smokers,!

 can a fifteen year old go into a bar and buy a drink? no. thus, your 'entire public' theory is shot down. you seem to need a 'sign' and government permission to limit clientele. so, i take it that strip bars, gay bars, *** bars, cigar bars, martini bars, and bars and grills should all admit everybody, not just their limited clientele?

how do you force those that don't want to go into those bars to enter? they don't go there now, what makes you think they want to go in after you take smoker's rights away.  my 'preoccupation' with bars is really a preoccupation with rights. what is your preoccupation with taking rights away?

 sorry to burst your bubble, doc, but our resident socialist also agrees that this legislation is wrong. other than that, you hit the nail on the head.

Doctor Feelgood:

 I can"t belive you DEMOCRAT blue collar dummies who think Bush and the republicans are to blame for the mess this country is in today!  Do you really think our new ?PRESIDENT? is going to bail us out by BORROWING us out of debt?? BULL____! A sixth grader with any sense at all knows "YOU CAN'T BORROW YOUR WAY OUT OF DEBT!" And, laws that BAN anything is socilistic, communistic BULL___ too! I am a former POW from the Vietnam era and fought for my rights and freedom, I'll smoke where I damn well please!

I'd say your not feeling too good.

I wonder, were you that adamant about debt when Bush was increasing ours to the largest deficit ever to fight a war that shouldn't have been fought and give tax breaks to the most wealthy during that war? Mmmm?

We didn't fight for any one's rights and freedoms in Vietnam. We fought for each other.

jmangan:

We didn't fight for any one's rights and freedoms in Vietnam. We fought for each other.

 funny, that's not how i remember it. i remember fighting the communists. what part of vietnam were you in?

uber-liberal:

 can a fifteen year old go into a bar and buy a drink?

No, but I can take my whole family, from infants to seniors, into a resaturant, and expect they will not be poisoned, either by the food, or the air.

Were the communist attacking, or even threatening to attack our country? If so, why didn't they when we left Vietnam to them?