Michigan Votes Forum

 I agree. If there were so many people who did not want to go to smokey bars or restaurants they should have stayed home. Then the free market would work. Restaurants and bars would have voluntarily gone no smoking to make money.

 I am a NON-SMOKER who, like all of the other posts I've read, feel this is unnecessary legislation (especially with so many other problems in this state right now) that is ultimately another defeat of liberty. That opinion seems uninanimous. So where were all you so-called "freedom lovers" when the helmet law repeal bill was up for a vote?

"I don't care, it doesn't effect me." I can't tell you how many times I've heard that. But ultimately it does! Anytime the government takes away your right to do something we are one step closer to socialism. Which is, by the way, the road to communism! That may sound extreme, but only 1 out of 2,000 Russians supported communism in 1917, the year it took effect. In the 1950's, when economic times were at their best, 1 out of 1,500 Americans supported communism! What do you think those numbers might be today in these hard economic times?!!

Again, I know that sounds extreme. My point is we all should STRONGLY oppose any and all legislation that tryies to ban or even regulate freedom-of-choice issues. Even if you think that it "doesn't effect me." I don't smoke, and this bill pisses me off!

The repeal of prohibition in 1933 and in certain states the repeal of motorcycle helmet laws are the only examples I can even think of the government reinstating freedom-of-choice issues that were once taken away. Otherwise once there gone, they're gone! You can bet your ass that the day before this bill takes effect will be the last day you will ever have this right to choose again! So please, I ask EVERYONE to oppose any and all freedom killing legislation with great vigilance. Republican, Democrat, or otherwise! If not, one day a bill will pass that takes away a freedom-of-choice issue that DOES EFFECT YOU! That I promise you!

The thing you don't understand is that this legislation is not a freedom issue.  It's a health issue.  Whose health?  The employee's health.  If there were toxic fumes in the workplace making everyone sick, the gov't would shut down the place.  Tobacco smoke is toxic, so employees should not be forced to breathe it.

The one criticism I have is that this bill is unfair.  It seems as if the legislators care about restaurants and bar workers but could care less about the Detroit casino worker's health.  Allowing smoking in the casinos is hypocritical, and will hurt bars and restaurants in that general vicinity.  If smoking was banned everywhere, there would be no advantage for a smoker to visit a casino vs. a bar.

As I said before, I believe the casino workers lobbied for this bill, as they stand to gain business.  The restaurants and bars in the suburbs may lose some business from smokers but will gain business from non-smokers who have been avoiding their places of business due to the smoke.

I feel that it is an awful shame that a man or woman can serve in the military putting his life on the line to keep America a free nation only to have a hand full of congressmen and senators create a law that tells them that they cannot sit in a VFW hall, an American Legion, or any other private organization and have a smoke while they drink a beer.  If someone doesn't like to be around smoking it is there right to not visit places that allow it.  Congressmen and Senators get your noses out of our private lives.  Don't you have something more important to do?

tmprime:

I feel that it is an awful shame that a man or woman can serve in the military putting his life on the line to keep America a free nation only to have a hand full of congressmen and senators create a law that tells them that they cannot sit in a VFW hall, an American Legion, or any other private organization and have a smoke while they drink a beer.  If someone doesn't like to be around smoking it is there right to not visit places that allow it.  Congressmen and Senators get your noses out of our private lives.  Don't you have something more important to do?

I find it appalling, as a US military veteran who made personal sacrifices for the greater good, that smoking members of the VFW or Legion would be so self-centered as to verbally express and show disdain for the interests of their non-smoking comrades.  That "me first" attitude expressed by smokers is something for raggedy civilians and not for true blue military people, I was brought up to believe and always have thought.

More to a real point here, it's time to stop whining about this legislation.  The bill passed, was enrolled and has been signed into law.

No individual rights have been taken away or violated.  Smokers certainly can continue to smoke -- they only will have to do it in ways and places that demonstrate a bit more consideration for the interests of their fellow citizens.  In fact, the rights of a majority of Michigan citizens -- non smokers -- have been properly protected by enactment of this law.

Furthermore, it was hardly a "handful" of legislators who voted to bring this bill into law.  The House passed this bill by well beyond a two-to-one margin; the Senate vote came close to two-to-one.  By any measure, those are overwhelming endorsements of the legislation.  Further, the votes reflect public sentiment regarding this legislation, as determined by reliable polling.

Finally, passage of this bill into law brings Michigan into line with a large majority of states (38 of 50) that have adopted similar laws.

There is no valid, fact-based argument against this legislation.

 I'm glad they passed the bill without us'ns  havin to vote on it. I don't like to vote in cold weather.. That's what we elected our gubmint guys to do. To do our thinking for us. Weze is too dumb to not stay out of places where they be smokin.

FreeSpeaker:

There is no valid, fact-based argument against this legislation.

There certainly is, you just don't want to listen.  Liberty is the issue.  The liberty of the private property owner as well as that of the smoker.  I agree that smoking should be banned in govt buildings but the "fact" is, people choose whether to go into an environment where smoking is allowed.  When this law goes into effect, people will no longer have that choice.  It's a dangerous ride down a slippery slope and there will be no more "FreeSpeekers" at the bottom.

changeagent:

FreeSpeaker:

There is no valid, fact-based argument against this legislation.

 

 

There certainly is, you just don't want to listen.  Liberty is the issue.  The liberty of the private property owner as well as that of the smoker.  I agree that smoking should be banned in govt buildings but the "fact" is, people choose whether to go into an environment where smoking is allowed.  When this law goes into effect, people will no longer have that choice.  It's a dangerous ride down a slippery slope and there will be no more "FreeSpeekers" at the bottom.

You haven't been paying attention, or done your homework. 

The private-property-liberty issue has long been settlled as a matter of law, establishing that the state (government) does have the authority to regulate activities on private property.  That is a simple fact.

No smoker is being deprived of the "liberty" to poison himself or herself by smoking through passage of this law.  Smokers only are being regulated to minimize the unwholesome effect of their unwholesome habit on others, who choose not to smoke.  That is a simple fact.

The further fact is, this law will greatly expand the choices of places in which to eat and drink for those who do not wish to be poisoned by tobacco smoke.  Those people -- we call them "non-smokers" -- comprise an overwhelming majority of the public, whose health and safety our legislature is bound, by the Michigan Constitution, to protect as matter of primary importance.

Your arguments against this law really are nothing more and nothing less poorly informed opinion.  You should give up the argument here and use your time to develop fact-based, informed opinions on other issues.  Perhaps you will do better.

FreeSpeaker:

The private-property-liberty issue has long been settlled as a matter of law, establishing that the state (government) does have the authority to regulate activities on private property.

Yes, and the Supreme Court ruled that slaves had no claim to freedom in the Dred Scott case.  Since that was a long established matter of law, did that make it correct?  My argument is not about the liberty of a smoker to poison himself, it is about the rights of private property owners to determine how their property can be used without interference from the government.  If they are going to make it illegal to smoke on private property, they should make smoking illegal.

Your arrogance continues to show through.  My arguments are certainly opinion, but hardly poorly informed.  Your argument is based solely on your blind acceptance of laws imposed on us when history has shown time and again that many laws turn out to be very bad indeed.  Critical thinking requires skepticism.

changeagent:

FreeSpeaker:

The private-property-liberty issue has long been settlled as a matter of law, establishing that the state (government) does have the authority to regulate activities on private property.

 

Yes, and the Supreme Court ruled that slaves had no claim to freedom in the Dred Scott case.  Since that was a long established matter of law, did that make it correct?  My argument is not about the liberty of a smoker to poison himself, it is about the rights of private property owners to determine how their property can be used without interference from the government.  If they are going to make it illegal to smoke on private property, they should make smoking illegal.

Your arrogance continues to show through.  My arguments are certainly opinion, but hardly poorly informed.  Your argument is based solely on your blind acceptance of laws imposed on us when history has shown time and again that many laws turn out to be very bad indeed.  Critical thinking requires skepticism.

I always think the apperance of arrogance created by one's knowledge of facts is preferable to ignorance.  The facts simply are not with you on the libertry argument you are making.  The US Supreme Court long has held that under the 10th Amendmennt to the US Constitution states have the authority to regulate uses and conditions of private property.  You really do need to spend some time doing your homework on this issue so your opinions are bolstered by fact rather than pipe dreams.

This WILL hurt private clubs and stand alone bars. There was no thought put into this ban. All the bar owners from around the country, around the world, on legit news resourses certainly cannot all be lying when they say smoking bans put them under. As for private clubs, my Lord, they're PRIVATE. Not public. This ban stinks to high heaven. It WILL cost jobs. End of story.

And will someone please tell me where the money will come from for enforcment for this stupidity. (The ban). It cost roughly $2500 to collect a $100 fine in Ohio. The appeals courts, lawyers, etc etc.... where? Where will the money come from? There is so much more to this than Lansing counted on.

Lansing took public health and economics off the table when they accepted the exemption for the casinos. Two admissions there. 1) Its not about public health. See casino exemption 2) It will harm business. See casino exemption.

 The government overreaches when it tells business owners how they must behave, and what they can allow their customers to do.

Nobody is forced to ingest 2nd hand smoke... it is a choice...

I don't smoke, and don't go places where smoke is present... BUT it is my choice, and the owners' choice.

Bad Government... Too Much Government

Don't support any candidate who voted yes on this bill... Being less bad than their opponent is no longer good enough!

Saying you're conservative is no longer good enough

Quit whinning and buy a warm coat so you can stand outside and smoke.

djadamini:

 The government overreaches when it tells business owners how they must behave, and what they can allow their customers to do.

This is just your pipedream opinion.  It has no basis in fact.

Nobody is forced to ingest 2nd hand smoke... it is a choice...

First of all, secondhand smoke is not injested; it is inhaled. Those who do not wish to inhale secondhand smoke do not have a choice about whether or not to inhale when smokers are producing their reek in an enclosed, shared space where everyone has a perfectly protected right to be.

I don't smoke, and don't go places where smoke is present... BUT it is my choice, and the owners' choice.

Good for you.  I do hope you enjoy and revel in the fact that in excersing their right to foul the air with toxic material, smokers have been placing limitations on your choice of places to go.

Bad Government... Too Much Government

In a sense, I agree with this sentiment.  It does not apply in this case, though.  This is the "right" amount of government, acting to protect everyone's interest in breathing unfouled air.

Don't support any candidate who voted yes on this bill... Being less bad than their opponent is no longer good enough!

Any legislator who voted against this bill violated his or her sworn oath to uphold the State of Michigan Constitution.  What we really should start doing is make sure we remove constitution-scoffers from office at every opportunity.  (See MI Constitution, Article XI, Section 1 for the oath; Article IV, Section 51 for the provision violated.)

Saying you're conservative is no longer good enough

Quite right.  True conservatives support and defend the provisions of our national and state constitutions.  They do not applaud legislators who scoff at the provisions of those all-important documents.

 Freespeaker misses the mark when he/she says there is no choice but to inhale 2nd hand smoke.

You have a "right" to go into a business establishment... but not an "obligation"

you choose to be in the environment...

to take this to its ridiculouos conclusion we could ban skippy from making peanut butter because someone allergic to peanuts wants to tour the factory.  The minute you confuse rights with privileges & obligations, you've already lost your argument.

djadamini:

 Freespeaker misses the mark when he/she says there is no choice but to inhale 2nd hand smoke.

You have a "right" to go into a business establishment... but not an "obligation"

you choose to be in the environment...

You lose again, because you have not done your homework.

Article VI, Section 52 of the Michigan Constitution says, flat out:

The conservation and development of the natural resources of the state are hereby declared to be of paramount public concern in the interest of the health, safety and general welfare of the people. The legislature shall provide for the protection of the air, water and other natural resources of the state from pollution, impairment and destruction.

That means the people -- all of them -- have a right to breathe clean air in any place they may legally be, including business establishments.  One should not be required to abandon his rights for the convenience of those who indulge in an unwholesome habit.

Further, it is true that I have no obligation to go into any particular business establishment; but the owners/operators of business establishments have an obligation to provide a safe, and wholesome environment for customers and employees. 

djadamini:

 

to take this to its ridiculouos conclusion we could ban skippy from making peanut butter because someone allergic to peanuts wants to tour the factory.  The minute you confuse rights with privileges & obligations, you've already lost your argument.

The attempt at clever argument through analogy is absurd.  Peanut allergies are not universal, affecting only a limited segment of the population; but the threats to health posed by tobacco smoke (first- or secondhand) are universal. 

It's time for opponents of this legislation to get in touch with and accept reality:  This bill -- flawed as it is by the casino exemption -- has become law in the State of Michigan because majority of legislators and the governor (who signed it) honored their oaths to uphold the state constitution, and protect the rights of all citizens.

Me thinks you've pretty much stubbed their arguments out in the ashtray of debate, FreeSpeaker.

 Me thinks I don't have time to argue with fools.  My point is clear.  Just because it is a law does not make it right.  Your time is coming.

changeagent:

 Me thinks I don't have time to argue with fools. 

Then why, pray tell, do you continue talking to yourself about this legislation, which has been signed into law?

Some old lawyers once told me, about arguing a case: "if the facts are with you argue the facts; if the facts are against you argue the law; if the law and the facts are against you try to dazzle 'em with your rhetoric."  Well, in this case the facts and the law line up solidly against opponents to this legislation, and their rhetoric has been only strident and less than dazzling.  'Tiz the way this cookie crumbles.

FreeSpeaker:

Then why, pray tell, do you continue talking to yourself about this legislation, which has been signed into law?

Because I'm so impressed with your intellect and I like to be schooled by your responses.

  I have breathing problems around smokers.  But, I believe that since it is a legal substance

thlis Bill should not pass.  Want to stop tobacco use pass a law that outlaws tobacco otherwise

let the market place decide whether smoking or non smoking establishments survive.

Thunder stick:

  I have breathing problems around smokers.  But, I believe that since it is a legal substance

thlis Bill should not pass.  Want to stop tobacco use pass a law that outlaws tobacco otherwise

let the market place decide whether smoking or non smoking establishments survive.

Wake up and smell the coffee!  This bill has passed and been signed into law.  Opponents to the legislation lost in the debate on every count.

Thunder stick:

I have breathing problems around smokers.  But, I believe that since it is a legal substance

thlis Bill should not pass.

See above.

I thought we beat Communism. Turns out we became a Communist state. The government has essentially seized control of everyones businesses and most of us are to dumb to realize it. Kiss all your personal freedoms goodbye. They start with your business, next your car, and then your home. It won't be long and we will need permission to leave our homes.

Come election time if you disagree with this ban, please vote against all of the following come election time, who supported this unjust law.

MI State Representatives:

Kathy Angerer (D), Richard J. Ball (R), Vicki Barnett (D), Joan Bauer (D), Timothy Bledsoe (D), Lisa Brown (D), Terry Brown (D), Pam Byrnes (D), Barb Byrum (D), Brian Calley (R), Bob Constan (D), Marc Corriveau (D), Andy Coulouris (D), Hugh Crawford (R), Robert Dean (D), Larry DeShazor (R), Andy Dillon (D), Marie Donigan (D), Fred Durhal, Jr. (D), Kate Ebli (D), Douglas Geiss (D), Lee Gonzales (D), Kevin Green (R), Vincent Gregory (D), Martin Griffin (D), Jennifer Haase (D), Gail Haines (R), Richard Hammel (D), Goeff Hansen (R), Shanelle Jackson (D), Bert Johnson (D), Robert Jones (D), Andrew Kandrevas (D), Deb Kennedy (D), Marty Knollenberg (R), Eileen Kowall (R), Richard LeBlanc (D), Gabe Leland (D), LaMar Lemmons, Jr. (D), Steven Lindberg (D), Ellen Lipton (D), Lesia Liss (D), Matt Lori (R), Jim Marleau (R), Gary McDowell (D), Mark Meadows (D), Tim Melton (D), Kimberly Meltzer (R), Fred Miller (D), Chuck Moss (R), David Nathan (D), Judy Nerat (D), Paul Opsommer (R), Gino Polidori (D), John Proos, IV (R), Sarah Roberts (D), Tory Rocca (R), Tonya Schuitmaker (R), Paul Scott (R), Dan Scripps (D), Kate Segal (D), Joel Sheltrown (D), Dian Slavens (D), Jim Slezak (D), Alma Smith (D), Dudley Spade (D), Woodrow Stanley (D), Jon Switalski (D), Rashida Tlaib (D), Sharon Tyler (R), Mary Valentine (D), John Walsh (R), Rebekah Warren (D), Jimmy Womack (D), Coleman Young (D).

MI Senators:

Glenn Anderson (D), Ray Basham (D), Patricia Birkholz (R), Liz Brater (D), Nancy Cassis (R), Deborah Cherry (D), Irma Clark-Coleman (D), Hansen Clarke (D), Tom George (R), John Gleason (D), Tupac Hunter (D), Gilda Jacobs (D), Ron Jelinek (R), Roger Kahn (R), Michelle McManus (R), Mike Nofs (R), Dennis Olshove (D), John Pappageorge (R), Bruce Patterson (R), Michael Prusi (D), Martha G. Scott (D), Michael Switalski (D), Samuel B. Thomas, III (D), Gretchen Whitmer (D)

markah79:

Come election time if you disagree with this ban, please vote against all of the following come election time, who supported this unjust law.

 

MI State Representatives:

Kathy Angerer (D), Richard J. Ball (R), Vicki Barnett (D), Joan Bauer (D), Timothy Bledsoe (D), Lisa Brown (D), Terry Brown (D), Pam Byrnes (D), Barb Byrum (D), Brian Calley (R), Bob Constan (D), Marc Corriveau (D), Andy Coulouris (D), Hugh Crawford (R), Robert Dean (D), Larry DeShazor (R), Andy Dillon (D), Marie Donigan (D), Fred Durhal, Jr. (D), Kate Ebli (D), Douglas Geiss (D), Lee Gonzales (D), Kevin Green (R), Vincent Gregory (D), Martin Griffin (D), Jennifer Haase (D), Gail Haines (R), Richard Hammel (D), Goeff Hansen (R), Shanelle Jackson (D), Bert Johnson (D), Robert Jones (D), Andrew Kandrevas (D), Deb Kennedy (D), Marty Knollenberg (R), Eileen Kowall (R), Richard LeBlanc (D), Gabe Leland (D), LaMar Lemmons, Jr. (D), Steven Lindberg (D), Ellen Lipton (D), Lesia Liss (D), Matt Lori (R), Jim Marleau (R), Gary McDowell (D), Mark Meadows (D), Tim Melton (D), Kimberly Meltzer (R), Fred Miller (D), Chuck Moss (R), David Nathan (D), Judy Nerat (D), Paul Opsommer (R), Gino Polidori (D), John Proos, IV (R), Sarah Roberts (D), Tory Rocca (R), Tonya Schuitmaker (R), Paul Scott (R), Dan Scripps (D), Kate Segal (D), Joel Sheltrown (D), Dian Slavens (D), Jim Slezak (D), Alma Smith (D), Dudley Spade (D), Woodrow Stanley (D), Jon Switalski (D), Rashida Tlaib (D), Sharon Tyler (R), Mary Valentine (D), John Walsh (R), Rebekah Warren (D), Jimmy Womack (D), Coleman Young (D).

 

MI Senators:

Glenn Anderson (D), Ray Basham (D), Patricia Birkholz (R), Liz Brater (D), Nancy Cassis (R), Deborah Cherry (D), Irma Clark-Coleman (D), Hansen Clarke (D), Tom George (R), John Gleason (D), Tupac Hunter (D), Gilda Jacobs (D), Ron Jelinek (R), Roger Kahn (R), Michelle McManus (R), Mike Nofs (R), Dennis Olshove (D), John Pappageorge (R), Bruce Patterson (R), Michael Prusi (D), Martha G. Scott (D), Michael Switalski (D), Samuel B. Thomas, III (D), Gretchen Whitmer (D)

 

Quite to the contrary, these are legislators who should be kept in office.  After all, they are they are the ones who honored their oaths to uphold the Michigan Constitution by voting for legislation that protects the public health and welfare as a matter of first priority.

Furthermore, there is nothing unjust about this law, which merely regulates a behavior by a minority that threatens the well-being of everyone.  If anything, it justly helps protect the rights of all to breathe wholesome air.  

The legislators to oust -- if you believe that constitutional principles and integrity, and real justice are important -- are the ones who voted against this bill and attempted to block its passage into law.

 THE EXPANSION OF GOVERNMENT

"A constitution of government, once changed from freedom, can never be restored.  Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."

John Adams,            July 7th, 1775

You can bet the house that after April 30th, your right to smoke in a bar, or even a PRIVATE CLUB, will be gone forever! There are a lot of people who are pissed at this bill, as well they should be. But where were these people Granholm twice vetoed the helmet-choice bill? "I don't care, it doesn't effect me" is the answer I heard most. Well I don't smoke and this bill pisses me off. If you allow the government to take away one right then they can, and will, take away another. Think of all the things that you USED TO be allowed to do. Wasn't life better then? With the exception of the repeal of prohibition, can you think of any example of the govenrment giving back your right to do something?

How long until total Socialism?!!  Probably sooner than you think!!!

Freerider:

... There are a lot of people who are pissed at this bill, as well they should be. ...

Get over it, and quit the whining.

There are a lot more people who are delighted by this law.  That's just a simple fact.  And well they should be for many, many reasons, which have been cited again and again in this discussion.  That is another simple fact.

No freedoms or rights have been taken away here.  But the freedom and right for everyone to breathe wholesome air has been both protected and expanded.  That's a winner for "the people" in Michigan, from whom all government authority derives.

There is no "right" to smoke. There is a "right to life", along with liberty and the pursuit of happiness, according to the Declaration of Independence.

 I too am a non-smoker and do not like this bill.  You, Freerider, have it exactly right!  People DO have the right to smoke just as people have the right to not frequent places that allow smoking.  What is next?  No fat people allowed because they too have a self-impossed habit  that causes the health care a lot of money!  Just wait and  see what will be next... and there will be something, because they're already adding up the amount of tax dollars they think they will lose by discouraging people to smoke.  DO NOT KID YOURSELVES!!!!  Liberty, once lost,is forever gone............because this is about liberties......not smokingI If you chose not to frequent places because of smoking and that business lost money because of it then they would change their accomadations due to that, but to limit another indivduals rights [ and people do have the right to smoke ] is absolutely wrong!  Like I said...wait until the next right is taken away, and the next one, etc.  Sooner or later it will be something you find unfair....then what are you going to do? You will probably be told to quit whining!

News note:  This bill was been passed and signed into law nearly three months ago.  No freedoms or "rights" were sacrificed in the process, but the legislature's primary constitutional obligation to protect the health and welfare of Michigan citizens was fulfilled.  The time has come to quit the petulant, paranoid whining over its passage.

 You just don't get it...do you?  Your interpetation of the constitutional obligation to protect the health and welfare of citizens does NOT encompass not allowing people to smoke cigarettes.  You have every right to not be around them.  I choose not to frequent places that allow smoking but I understand that they have their rights also. No Smoking bans have NOTHING to do with the protection of people who don't smoke.  If you are stuck somewhere that you can't escape from the DIRECT contact with smoke, such as a subway car, then that's different.  But a place of business that you can choose to frequent or not to frequent is stepping over the line.  All this crap about breathing fresh air...then go outside.  As a matter of fact the air inside a lot of people's homes[that don't smoke] is worse for your  health than the air from someone smoking on the other side of the room.  This is just the latest politically correct attitude for now.  When they get bored with this one it will be the FAT people who will be targetted next and then the physically handicapped because they cost too much for health care and it will go on and on...MARK MY WORDS.  You people who condone this action have opened a very, very socialized door.  Individual liberty has always been given the highest priority under our constitution and any deviation from it is extremely dangerous.  God forgive them for they know not what they have done.

theenforcer:

...  the constitutional obligation to protect the health and welfare of citizens does NOT encompass not allowing people to smoke cigarettes. ...

Have you been living under a rock?  Secondhand smoke is a known health hazard.  It is a fact, confirmed by scientific study and the matter even has been adjudicated in our court system.   

Are you a non-reader?  The Michigan Constitution, in Article IV, Sec. 51 says, unambiguously:  "The public health and general welfare of the people of the state are hereby declared to be matters of primary public concern. The legislature shall pass suitable laws for the protection and promotion of the public health."

Even a simpleton could put this 2 + 2 together:  Secondhand smoke is a public health menace + the Michigan Constitution requires the legislature to pass laws to protect the public health = this legislation to ban workplace smoking.

You aren't any logician, either, as demonstrated by your comment:

If you are stuck somewhere that you can't escape from the DIRECT contact with smoke, such as a subway car, then that's different.

You have founded your whole argument against this legislation on the premise that people have a choice as to whether to work in or otherwise visit establishments where smoking is allowed.  If you were consistent in your argument, you would realize that people have a choice as to whether they will ride the subway.  Your analogy, and your whole argument thus falls solidly on its prat.

And your "slippery slope" fallacies don't gain validity by repitition.  All they do is appear more silly with each iteration.

You should applaud the legislature for actually doing its job according to Constitutional principle and mandate in this case, rather than whining endlessly about the outcome.

Sorry, but second hand smoke is right up there with the global warming "facts" that some individuals in power have used to impose their own agenda.  Watch...it also will change as time goes on.  A fact that is not used is the level of exposure that was used to come to these conclusions.  For example there are a multitude of things that at low levels causes no harm but at higher levels does in some people.  Even in longterm smokers only 10% of those people ever develop any form of lung disease.  Yes, it is a preventable condition in those 10% but it is far behind the level of diseases that are caused by obesity which falls under the classification of small amounts of something [ food ] causes no harm but excessive amounts do cause a multitude of medical problems.  As far as upholding the law...  there are a lot of bad laws on the books  To quote Thomas Jefferson: " All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be REASONABLE; that the minority posses their EQUAL RIGHTS' which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression. "  This law, as written, is oppressive to the minority of people who smoke in that the level of second-hand smoke that another individual is exposed to when someone is smoking on the other side of a room in a well ventilated area is RIDICULOUS!!!!  That is the problem with this ruling...it IS ridiculous.  The Constitution of the United States of America cleary states that the right of the individual supercedes that of the group.  It is real obvious that you have socialized tendencies where the group overrules thye individual.  There is plenty of room in Europe for your type of do-gooders and you can take your applause of the legislature for actually doing it's job with you!  In this country we are free to be and that does include smoking and another persons right to not be around those who do smoke.  Like I said....YOU and those like you just don't get it!  Our forefathers left Europe to get away from this type of oppression and your so-called facts do not hold up under intense scrutiny by all those in the scientific and medical community....read everything and you will see that pieces of it have been isolated to further someones agenda and that includes some of the legislatures in this state who also have a socialistic view of the direction of this country!  FREE TO BE....and if you don't like it you have the freedom to walk away from it.  STOP trying to control other people...you are obviously scared of true freedom...so all I can say is good-bye...we don't need your type around here.               

FreeSpeaker:

Secondhand smoke is a known health hazard.

Secondhand smoke  may be a public health hazard.

http://www.connectingsingles.com/forum_0_52682_1/second_hand_smoke_hoax.htm

The article you gave direction to was written by Jerome Arnett Jr., a pulmonologist and writer. He wrote this commentary for the Competitive Enterprise Institute. One of this think tank's major funder's is the Philip Morris tobacco company.

'nough said.

moe iii:

FreeSpeaker:

Secondhand smoke is a known health hazard.

Here is one problem with your thinking. To be acurate,

Secondhand smoke  may be a public health hazard.

http://www.connectingsingles.com/forum_0_52682_1/second_hand_smoke_hoax.htm

Ah-h-h-h. the Arnett article, once again!

Here is the problem with your thinking:  You have been taken in by a source that does not tell the whole story.

Arnett -- author of the article to which you refer us -- asserts that in 1998 a federal court judge threw out the 1993 Environmental Protection Agency report that tagged secondhand tobacco smoke as a health hazard.  The "thing" about his assertion lies in a couple of details that Arnett leaves out that also are terribly inconvenient to Arnett's argument:  First, in 1998 the judge only partially ruled on the health hazard question and left most of the EPA's scientific findings about health hazards intact.  Second, the judge's ruling subsequently was overturned by the same federal appeals court in 2003, and the EPA's findings thus were reinstated in their entirety.

So, the matter of whether secondhand tobacco smoke is a hazard to public health really has been settled, not only by science, but by and in the court system.  And let there be no doubt that the validated findings say secondhand smoke is a public health hazard.

gypsy:

The article you gave direction to was written by Jerome Arnett Jr., a pulmonologist and writer. He wrote this commentary for the Competitive Enterprise Institute. One of this think tank's major funder's is the Philip Morris tobacco company.

'nough said.

Normal 0 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} p {mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";}

Yes I am aware that Philp Morris is among those providing funding, that does not in and of its self cause me to invalidate their findings.

The driving force (money) behind evidence to the contrary is Pharmaceutical Companies. Would you care to toss it all and start from scratch?

FreeSpeaker:

moe iii:

FreeSpeaker:

Secondhand smoke is a known health hazard.

Here is one problem with your thinking. To be acurate,

Secondhand smoke  may be a public health hazard.

http://www.connectingsingles.com/forum_0_52682_1/second_hand_smoke_hoax.htm

Ah-h-h-h. the Arnett article, once again!

Here is the problem with your thinking:  You have been taken in by a source that does not tell the whole story.

 

Dear moe iii:  Your skepticism, however sincere it may be proves or validates (or, disproves or invalidates) absolutely nothing.  The weight of scientific evidence overwhelmingly tips the balance to establish as fact that secondhand tobacco smoke is a public health hazard.

By the way, the 1998 court decision written by federal judge William Osteen was itself based on a "technicality," which caused it to be overturned later, in 2003,  by the same full appeals court. 

Further, the bulk of EPA's scientific findings in respect to public health hazards created by second hand tobacco smoke were neither challenged nor rejected by Osteen's 1998 decision. 

As has been noted before, both the facts and the law have stood overwhelmingly in favor of passage of this legislation in Michigan.  Common sense mandates it as well.  And reliable polling shows that a large majoritry of Michigan citizens support the legislation, and the law it has become.  Arguments against this legislation have virtually no substantial basis.

Governor and Senators

It seems that this so call act or bill 4377, is very one sided and tilts towards the Non Smokers side in a very Unconstitutional manor, in the first place the Constitution Guarentees only the right to choose not to take away from, one for your personal gains, but those who choose not to smoke have the right to build their own non smoking clubs or businesses, somewthing to think about Michigan Elect, BArs and Clubs have been smoking and drinking sence they started, it is part of the history of freedom to go there, and all persons were welcome, but now we have a few non smokers who all of a sudden what to alter or abridge our Constitution for their person gains, ignoring the Rights of Others, in the name of health, well what tells me it is a personal reason their are doing this ( is I here I don't like the smell and so on, but they will set there and get drunk ) if they are so concerned about their health they would not even enter the door of a bar or club, and if they like to go some place to dance then go to a dance club, but do not try to contol and order around bars and clubs to conform to their idea's on false or light and Transiant reason, just remember what the Constitution says about that kind of person. And if the Gov. want to take on this Law and Enforce it, then they better be ready to pay JUST COMPENSATION every week for the lose of right and the right to be safe and secure in their place of business and Homes, That is the Constitutional Way, if your way is different then that, then maybe you need to brush up on the Michigan and Federal Constitution,