Michigan Votes Forum

 no, they were attacking south vietnam. an ally. we defended south vietnam the same way we defended france and england against germany. the germans never really attacked us, but we fought them nonetheless. it's a pity we surrendered, and south vietnam became a communist country.

That we're trading with, and visiting as tourist today.

Khe Sanh, 67.

 so, to answer your question, no, the public is NOT invited into any bar. all bars, by design and by law, are places of limited accommodation.

if you don't like the smoke in the restaurant, leave. that is your right. if you do, that place will soon enough close, if enough people follow suit. if not, it will keep on going like smoking bars have for hundreds of years.

uber-liberal:

 no, they were attacking south vietnam. an ally. we defended south vietnam the same way we defended france and england against germany. the germans never really attacked us, but we fought them nonetheless. it's a pity we surrendered, and south vietnam became a communist country.

 Wrong again.

South Vietnam???  North Vietnam??

Dont you get that its the SAME country??

It was an internal conflict and NONE of our business.

They were no threat to the USA nor did they declare hostile intention toward the USA.

Vietnam was as much bulshit as the illegal and criminal invasion of Iraq and..........

Panama,  & Grenada.

Wrong is wrong, and if you dont have the balls to stand up to your OWN government when it is WRONG you are a piss poor American and worse.....a total COWARD.

And that comes from THIS  US ARMY Vet !!!

BOTTOM LINE.

 if the government has a problem with smoking, stop taxing it. making money with one law, and banning it with another law is lunacy. it is legal. live with it.

28 states ban smoking in restaurants, 23 ban it in workplaces and bars.

Neither this bill, nor any of the states included above, ban smoking. Like alcohol, it is a controlled substance, taxed and legal, but restricted in it's use, due to it's effect on non-users.

 twenty eight states have lost sight of equal rights. they have also lost sight of personal responsibility. should we as well?

Twenty eight states have seen fit to protect their citizens from health hazards, therefore promoting their general welfare.

 If the state of Michigan does not want to go smoke free, then the state should be step up and pay for the medical bills for people who get cancer from second hand smoking and be charged with murder. 

 Let's try this one more time.  If you are concerned about "second hand smoke".  Don't go to places where people choose to smoke.  Don't work at places where people choose to smoke.

 the only problem with that is that no one has actually died of second hand smoke.

Now comes the argument it isn't on anyone's death certificate. Must be in the last resort section of the play book.

 no, it's the first phase of you telling the truth. we have not yet begun to ask tough questions.

What untruth have I told, sir?

 BTW yooper2, people die every day on state roads.  Should the state pay all their costs and be charged with murder?

 you haven't told us what person has verifiably died of second hand smoke. you say you only believe that which you can verify.

People don't die of second hand smoke, they die of what second hand smoke does to them. People don't die of smoking, they die of what smoking does to them. People don't die of obesity, they die of what being overweight does to them. People don't die of drinking, they die of what drinking does to them.

 so why are you fighting to eliminate smoking in bars where people kill themselves drinking, and restaurants where people eat themselves to death? and you are right. people do not die of second hand smoke. they are, at worst, irritated by it. you wish to strip away a citizen's right to persue his own happiness because you are irritated. are that smoker's rights not as precious to you as your own?

Smokers are not losing their right to smoke, they are losing their ability to injure others in public. They can pursue their happiness in their own home.

 so you advocate taking away a smoker's right to persue his happiness outside his home? your right to persue your happiness trumps his how? citizens have a right and a responsibility to look after their own health and welfare. not to have the government babysit them. if you want the government to do that, then let the government tell you it's not a good idea to drink, and keep you out of the bars.

if you are going to say that drinking doesn't injure anyone else, when you repeal the drunk driving laws, i'll believe you mean that.

I advocate protecting non smokers from the dangers of second hand smoke in public places.

The government has told us it isn't a good idea to drink. They have passed laws trying to prevent drinkers from injuring others. Are you against those too?

 can't citizens do that for themselves? don't you trust them to make the right decision for themselves? how do drunk driving laws prevent people from being injured? it must mean that those laws aren't working either.

Are you asking me if I trust an intoxicated person to make the right decision whether to drive or not, if there was no law against it?

 do you?

You get in your car first.

 i can walk home from my friendly neigborhood bar, and i always do. taxicabs are also a good option, when available. busses would be a great idea, but again availability is sometimes an issue. thousands of people in michigan drink daily. only a handful get into accidents. that is far better than the 'sober' drivers out there on cell phones. so, admit that you just don't trust your fellow citizen to do the right thing.

 The other issue with HB4377 is, do we have the right to own property?  The bar owner does all the work it takes to open and run the bar, perhaps saves for 20 or 30 years to make the purchase.  Then works 10 to 15 hours a day to make it go.  Suddenly he has someone change the rules on him, it cuts his business by 25% and he can no longer make it.  The bar closes.  All this because we could not let people make their own decision on whether to go into a smoky bar or not.  It is the bar OWNER'S property.  By making laws that force the bar to close, the government is essentially taking his property. 

Sorry gypsy, it's bad law.  Nobody forces anyone to go into a bar or restaurant and that's that.  I certainly support a law that prohibits smoking in government buildings but private property is PRIVATE.

Private property that is open to the public for business has to meet certain criteria. Anyone owning a business knows all about this. There are safety rules, access rules, fire rules, etc. Are all of these bad laws?

 Yes, those are bad rules.  Government regulation of business is bad.  All the things you mention above, I handle, not because of government regulations but because it is good business and fear of liability.  My insurance company does a walk through at least once a year to point out any safety or liability issues.  If I don't fix them, they drop my insurance.  If I don't have insurance, I can't borrow capital.  If I can't borrow capital, I can't remain in business.

The government regulations create additional red tape which leads to additional expense, and a lot of it.  That is one of the reasons business are fleeing Michigan.  The regulations are worse than the taxes and the taxes are bad.  That is also one of the reasons business are moving to other countries.  Unfortunately, I'm afraid your solution would be to force them (at gunpoint) to stay here, but I don't mean to put words in your mouth.

changeagent:

The regulations are worse than the taxes and the taxes are bad.  That is also one of the reasons business are moving to other countries.  Unfortunately, I'm afraid your solution would be to force them (at gunpoint) to stay here, but I don't mean to put words in your mouth.

Businesses don't leave the country to avoid smoking bans. That is what we are talking about here. I understand a business owner's concern. He has a clientele now he sees smoking, and fears if smoking is banned, they will not be his clientele anymore. This has not proven to be the case in the 28 states that have these bans. Those clientele that are smoking now don't go to the business to smoke, they go for the food or drink. If all similar businesses have the same rules, where will they go? Stay home? They could do that now. By the same token, people don't go to their jobs to smoke, they go to make a living. Not smoking at their job would make them healthier, so less expense and lost time for the business owner. Peer reviewed studies have shown these results.

I understand business organizations have done studies showing a loss of business after smoking bans have been put in place, but none of them I could find were any more than anecdotal. The Indiana University study seems the most scientific and non-bias.

 i look at the history of the state of florida, where businesses are rallying to have the smoking ban revoked. they find that smokers still come but must be accomodated differently. the smokers required an outside area to protect them from the weather, causing added expense. the overall business didn't improve, and the customers that don't smoke didn't come 'in droves' as promised. some businesses failed from the lack of customers because of the ban. several other states in the south have the same problems. most states in the north just suffer through their bad business climate quietly till they close.

if several studies show the same results, and only one supports your point of view, perhaps the bias is on your end.

 I think you are wrong about businesses leaving because of a smoking ban.  Most will not but a few will.  But it is the cumulative effect of all of the regulations that drive businesses out.  For some, this will be the straw that breaks the camel's back, for others, it will be the next silly regulation.  I have a ten by eight wall that is nearly completely covered with regulations we have to comply with and we are just a retail business.  The cost of compliance is crushing.  You can't imagine it unless you have to deal with it.  We employ 45 people and we may not make it in this economy and the cost of regulatory compliance would make the difference between profit and loss.  You can argue the point with me all day long but I know the cost and what it does. When we are gone no one will reopen in our place.  45 more people will be out of work. 

Frankly, I'm pretty sure that second hand smoke is not healthy.  The degree of damage may be debatable but tobacco smoke is harmful.  But so is poverty and when you cause people to lose their jobs by trying to protect them you do more harm than good.  As I said before, life in inherently risky.  Let us choose the risks we are willing to take.

bugman:

if several studies show the same results, and only one supports your point of view, perhaps the bias is on your end.

Several surveys, much like yours. These are anecdotal. If you have a survey or study to support your theory, please share it and it's source wwith us.

changeagent:

For some, this will be the straw that breaks the camel's back, for others, it will be the next silly regulation. 

I too manage a business. It is not food service, but is in the tourist industry. Yes, we have regulations, but they are far from the straw that breaks the camel's back you describe. We have no trouble meeting all of the state's and local municipalities requirements.

The biggest reason I see for the downturn in Michigan is the shrinkage of the auto industry. When the auto workers were thriving, we enjoyed prosperity in the tourist industry. Now it is a struggle, not because of regulations, but because of a lack of tourist.

Working within the regulations is just part of doing business. All other competing businesses follow the same rules. This would be the case with the smoking ban. I have lived and wintered in Florida, and believe me, there was no exodus from the restaurants when the smoking ban was passed. Quite to the contrary. I realize that is just anecdotal.

 the majority of the customers were still smokers, but the smokers had to be 'differently accommodated', costing the businesses tens of thousands of dollars in some cases.

none of this changes the fact that smokers rights are being abrogated.

 the state of florida is considering a reversal of the smoking ban. ask them what they studied to come to the conclusion that the smoking ban was bad for business.

Again bugman, can you show us some verification of that statement?

 yes, google it.

Again, no proof.

 again, you refuse to educate yourself. if you don't know what the facts are, how can we intelligently discuss anything?