Michigan Votes Forum

From a non-smoker... get your grubby fascist government hands off my rights to run a business as I see fit. If the secondhand smoke bothers you, don't patronize my business and don't take a job in my establishment.  Otherwise, leave me and my patrons the hell alone!

 Another example of big and socialized Goverment.

 Thank you, I agree.

 it appears to me that the democrats in our legislature are getting more and more shrill in their dislike for smokers, even voting smokers. there are several bills pertaining to banning smoking, but this one goes well beyond that, allowing the iron fist of the state to close any bar that does not comply with any rule, regulation, ordinance or law.

awfully draconian in these trying financial times.

I would prefer this bill impose fines that would gradually increase before ultimately closing a restaurant for not complying with state regulations.

I would prefer that the State worry about more important matters and let businesses decide such trivial matters as who can and cannot smoke in their establishments.  What's next?  Impose fines or shut down restaurants who serve french fries?

 slow torture over a quick and painful death?

i think that's part of the goal, vike. it would at least appear that is the direction in which they are heading. i think even jman thinks they are going too far too fast. the peons are starting to notice.

 I've got an idea how about we close down the representatives when they don't uphold their oath of office?  Stop them from being able to carry out their legislative monkey business.   These social engineers are too numerous in our Michigan House of Reps.

uber-liberal:

i think even jman thinks they are going too far too fast. the peons are starting to notice.

Not too far, but maybe too fast.

And I appreciate the promotion to peon.

Can't do this without resorting to insults, can you?

Yes, we can have a debate without insults. And thanks jman for at least being honest about your totalitarian intentions that this measure represents your true wishes and intentions with regard to my personal liberties.

 no one ever said that you were a peon, except you.

Your welcome vike, but your also wrong.

There is nothing totalitarian about enforcing rules and regulations that are there to protect the publics health and safety. We've been doing it in this country for a couple hundred years. We've also been protecting your personal liberties, and will continue to do so as long as we all stay vigilant, and as long as your personal liberties don't cause a hazard to your fellow citizens.

Actually jman, you're wrong -- Guilty of both incomplete logic, faulty reasoning, and offenses against the English language by failing to realize that "your" is not interchangable with the contraction "you're" on two counts in your first sentence, but I digress.

You are applying a creeping reasoning that more and more voluntary, personal choice matters (like smoking, or permitting smoking, or prohibiting smoking in a privately owned business) come under the guise of "protecting "the publics [sic] health and safety."  [public's would be the more correct possessive form in this context]  This reasoning cannot hold up to its logical conclusion in a non-totalitarian state, which is why people (such as yourself) can only advance this reasoning incrementally.  When taken to its logical conclusion, you lose and are left to only respond with "Oh that would be ridiculous" which is hardly a logical reponse.

As I stated several posts ago, if your reasoning is really what the framers of our government had in mind, then let's dispense with all the pretense and get right to the heart (literally) of the matter and ban french fries and all fried foods in all restaurants open to the public and shut down any who dare serve anything fried, whether it's on the menu or not.  After all, any cardiologist worth his or her salt would have to say that this would indeed be protecting the public's health and safety.

 you are at liberty to consume alcohol. you cannot wait for the iron fist of government to clean the air in the bars so you can go pickle your liver. that presents a hazard to your fellow citizens by your driving intoxicated. how much of a hypocrite are you?

Thank you for correcting my English, and proving that how something is said is not as important as what is said.

My reasoning holds up quite well, actually, to anyone with a lick of sense. French fries only pollutes those eating them. Smoke pollutes all those breathing in the vicinity. You're (got it right?) having a tough time understanding I'm not advocating, nor is this bill, banning smoking, rather banning smoking where others are forced to breathe the second hand smoke.  If you have trouble following that logic, try reading like you were spell checking it.

No one is forcing anyone to breathe second hand smoke.  If I choose to prohibit smoking in my bar or restaurant because I want to offer my clientele a healthy, smoke-free environment, then I will reap the economic benefits (or damages) of such a decision.  Likewise, I may decide to permit smoking because I know that if I don't then 70% of my clientele will decide to just buy their beer at the supermarket and drink it at home where they can have a cigarette with it. In either case, I am not putting a gun to anyone's head, forcing them to enter my place of business and suck smoke.  Like eating fries, that's up to them.

You could also decide to not kill the cockroaches in your kitchen. That's your right. It's your business. But the state says if you want to operate as a restaurant, you must kill them, to protect the health of your clientele. If you don't, they close your restaurant. Your choice.

Jman, you're absolutely right.  But then after a few people got sick in my restaurant, or saw the cockroaches, word would spread and I'd be out of business faster than the government burns through a billion dollars.  (Oops, I'm sorry, nothing is that fast anymore.)  The trouble with the nanny-state is that it's all well intentioned but government cannot possibly enforce all of the laws it already has on the books more efficiently than the customer base who would stop coming into my restaurant once the cockroach fiasco gets around.

With that, I am tired and have better things to do.  I guess maybe I should relocate to New Hampshire ("Live Free or Die") and you can go have lunch in Minsk in a smoke-free cafe with an armed government agent at the door.

 Do you have a problem with the idea of "choice"?  You do not have to dine in an establishment that allows people to smoke.  You can eat at a restaurant that does not allow smoking.  Simple, isn't it?  We do not, nor should have to put up with governments jack-booted mandates, rules or regulations dictating to someone who owns a business, pays the taxes for that business, as well as the upkeep what they cannot or can allow.  It is called "FREEDOM OF CHOICE"  Something our Founding Fathers' believed in.

Your thinking is a hazard and dangerous to our liberties and the right of choice.  As I've stated before -- next we'll have Big Brother dictating that you cannot wear perfume or cologne, own pets (dander) and numerous other things, because SOMEONE might be allergic.  Oh, let's not have peanuts at the bar, because there are those who have terrible peanut allergies!

Chose a non-smoking restaurant to work at -- or dine in -- that is all you have to do.  It's called making a choice. I am sick and tired of the social engineers within and without of government.  Your kind of thought process helped to install a German dictator who the people had to go around saying, "Heil Hitler" to each and everyone they met. 

vikewings:

Jman, you're absolutely right.  But then after a few people got sick in my restaurant, or saw the cockroaches, word would spread and I'd be out of business faster than the government burns through a billion dollars.  (Oops, I'm sorry, nothing is that fast anymore.)  The trouble with the nanny-state is that it's all well intentioned but government cannot possibly enforce all of the laws it already has on the books more efficiently than the customer base who would stop coming into my restaurant once the cockroach fiasco gets around.

With that, I am tired and have better things to do.  I guess maybe I should relocate to New Hampshire ("Live Free or Die") and you can go have lunch in Minsk in a smoke-free cafe with an armed government agent at the door.

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but New Hampshire has a smoking ban in bars and restaurants. Try Minsk, and if you forget your cigarettes, that government agent at the door always has smokes. Have a glass of Krupnik for me, and a cigarette.

And invite inform to go with you, he or she needs a calming shot of Krupnik and a cigarette too.

 Just because New Hamshire or any other state has jumped off an Un-Constitutional - anti-Bill of Rights bridge does not mean I have to, or that anyone else has to follow like a sheep!  Your humor leaves a lot to be desired jmangan -- or should I call you Comrade jmangan?  I take it that you've never read "Atlas Shrugged."  Probably too deep for you.  You could read "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat -- it might help you see the light.

Never was a big fan of Ayn Rand, or Bastiat, as you might assume.

Sorry you don't appreciate my humor. It is an essential attribute when corresponding with such angry people.

One person's light is another's radical agenda.

 Oh, now I get it -- you are a  fascist-socialist who doesn't really use cognitive thinking.  You go by "feeling" instead of mentally putting one foot in front of the other.  Ayn Rand, Bastiat, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, et al -- believed in Individual Rights and liberties.   

You on the other hand, jmangan -- believe in "communal"  sheep group thought and actions -- something like Hugo Chavez. 

Well, as far as having any rational, free communication between you and I -- let's just call it a waste of time and effort.  Because I hold Ayn Rand, Bastiat, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson in high esteem.  You'd be better off e-mailing and visiting good ol' Communist Hugo.  Better yet, why don't you contact  Sam Webb, the Communist Party's national chair in the U.S.

Oh, and here's a slogan I thought up today, "Obama Nation is an Abomination"  and so is anyone who would try to abort, abrogate and destroy our Bill of Rights.  And, so that you can rest easy tonight I will not be communicating with you anymore -- wasting your time and mine.  I'll rest easy knowing that there are so many others who wish to uphold and restore our freedoms and liberties that so many have died for.

 vikewings - You're wasting your time and valuable effort trying to convey "reason" with jman.  Jman does not use rational, or cognitive thought  -- he goes by his "feelings."  He'd make a great pen-pal for Hugo Chavez.  He'd probably help Chavez pour oil on our Bill of Rights! 

 i notice that you list the founding fathers early in your reading list, then you list the others that you emulate later. with one or two strictly for enjoyment. did you think we would think less of you if you didn't list the founders in your list? did you think that listing them would somehow give you more credibility? 

i find it difficult to read adams, or jefferson, or any of the original framers of our constitution and our nation, and contemplate taking rights away from citizens. i do find reading benjamin franklin to be enlightening and humorous. silence dogood should be required reading in all households.

 i wonder how much you are going to like this law when it closes down your favorite feedbag for not complying with board of health regulations. or perhaps on some frivolous made up complaint. i wonder how inconvenient it will be when a large percentage of the restaraunts in a city are closed down for one reason or another because of this law. how will that benefit the state? the truth is, it won't. it will only close legitimate sources of income because those on the left don't believe that citizens have a right to smoke.

 first of all you are an idiot, it won't affect the business as you see, if they all go smoke free it won't hurt the business because they all will be smoke free.   I am a non smoker and have been to places like chicago and new york city were they have non smoking bans in place  it doesn't hurt the restaraunts at all, in fact I talked to a few bar and restaraunt owners and they said that there business actually inceased.  And with the economy the way it is shouldn't we want the restaraunts and bars see an increase in profit.  there is a solution to those who smoke go outside and stand the legal limit from the bar and smoke. 

 chicago and new york are two good examples of where your rights don't matter. there is a solution for those who don't smoke. go someplace else. like chicago or new york.

 does this mean that we can close down every burger king that doesn't have a 'handicapped' stall? or every dunkin doughnuts that doesn't imprint 'caution: hot!' in braille on every coffee cup? or close down every local meat market for not properly cleaning grinding equipment between meat species?

or is this law specifically meant to only close bars that allow smoking?

 Hey yooper2 - What constitutional protections of yours would you like to have taken away?  The big brother fascist representatives have no constitutional right DICTATING how to someone should run their business.  This country was founded on individual rights and choice not jackbooted, collective government.  Read your U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

If you don't like to visit or work in  an establishment that allows smoking then don't give them your business.  If our Founding Fathers were alive today they'd be starting second American Revolution against the heavy-hand of government.  Most of our so-called representatives are only giving their oath of office lip service.

By the way -- do you wear perfume, cologne have a pet, eat peanuts?  Maybe we should ban you from privately run establishments.  Why?  Someone might be allergic to any and all those entities, including pet dander.  So, shouldn't we ban stores from selling cologne, perfume, after-shave and peanuts.  Oh, and let's not forget those with shell fish allegies. We should have the government ban individuals from owning pets because of the possible reaction others may have to pet dander.  Won't that make PETA happy!

 First of all I am familiar with the constitiution and the bill of rights for america, I don't know what version you have but it does not say anywhere that smoking is protected by the constitution or the bill of righs.  And I also know the it doesn't say anywhere about non smoking.  I have chosen not to smoke, and when me and my friends go out to eat we eat and place where it is non smoking, and go to bars that are non somking.  And no I do not where perfume, cologne or have a pet due to how allergic I am to them.  but I believe that if someone wants to where it good for them I can't touch them or I will break out in hives.  I will be movig out of michigan since it does not care for the health of its individuals.  So you are infavore of letting little kids breath in second hand smoke which has shown to have a positive corrilation in imparied cognitive thinking.  What did they ever due to you?  And if you tell me then the parents shouldn't bring them in tothe restaruant  I agree with you.  My answer is have you seen some of the parentsout there?  They are ignornat and don't care about the life of that child.  More and more states are going to non smoking regulations and have seen a positive in economic growth and the way the michigan economy is and the fact that is it loosing more and more people each year.  It would be a positive impact on the economy and maybe get more people to move back.  But then maybe we should just leave michigan as the last state that will allow smoking and just ship all smokers there and have them pay for there own health care and not be a burden on other people. 

 i am in favor of the rights of the individual, including that individual's right to make decisions i don't agree with. i don't smoke, but i don't work to deny others the right to smoke.

you make good points about bad parents. bad parenting is not an excuse to deprive citizens of their rights. smokers are not prisoners. they are citizens who happen to have a habit you don't agree with.

 If you have read your U.S. Constitution and have properly interpreted it than you would know that it was written to Limit the Rights government  has over the people.  The people have "unalienable" rights that the government cannot abrogate or ignore. Read the Declaration of Independence.

I hope you are moving to where the State has cracked down on the "peoples unalienable rights" and unlawfully banned people wearing perfume, having pets, smoking and many other freedoms to chose.  Then you can live free and clear of those problems that cause you to break out in hives.

Again -- you can go to establishments that "by choice"  do not allow smoking so that you and children do not come in contact with second-hand smoke. That is "cognitive thinking."

Lower taxes, government regulations and the peoples "right to work" have caused economic growth in other States.  It has nothing to do with whether establishments are allowed to decide on their own whether to allow or disallow smoking, serving peanuts or wearing perfume.

What it all comes down to - Is do you want freedom, liberty and choice as protected by the U.S. Constitution?   I emphasize the word "protected" because the Constitution does not give us our rights, because we were born with those rights under Natural Law or as I believe "God given rights".  Or, do you want a socialist/fascist government that takes away everyones God given rights, thereby manipulates and controls through dictatorship what an individual is allowed to do.  That is called "slavery." 

Read "Animal Farm", "1984" and "Atlas Shrugged" and if you still come away with your current form of cognitive thinking than all I can say is "you like being a good slave to unlawful government mandates that might let you rattle your chains from time to time" 

I like having my unalienable rights protected -- Which thankfully we had very wise, well-read and researched  founders that did everything within their human power to write into the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights -- Amendment IX - "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."  That means that the fact the a right which is not "listed" specifically in the U.S. Constitution is still retained by the people.

Can you comprehend the full meaning of at least the 9th Amendment?  Don't like it?  Then move to a country where they unlawfully usurp the "peoples rights", but don't try to destroy or undermine what this country was founded on -- The Rights of the INDIVIDUAL, not "MOB RULE."  That is why we were founded as a Limited (individual) Republic.  We don't have Rulers - we have elected Public Servants.

inform4:

 If you have read your U.S. Constitution and have properly interpreted it

Would properly interpreting it be interpreting it the way you do?

What do you mean properly interpet the U.S. Constitution.  There are scholars and professors and very well educated people that have been arguing over what the U.S. Constitution properly means for a hundred years already.  And you say what it means to you, on what you mean it properly states.  I read it has how I interpret the Constitution. And I agree with Amendment IX.  But you agree with Amendment IX but we are at odds so how can it be properly interpreted.  You believe that it is your Right to smoke in any establishment.  I believe it is my Right to go into any establishment and not smell like smoke, from restaurants, bars, and other establishments open to the public.  So how can we both be right if we are properly interpeting the Bill of rights. And I agree that our founders were well read and were very wise for there time.  But if they were around today I believe they would be very dissapointed in the way society is today and would take it upon themselves to revampt the constitution to make society a safer, healthier place, that has high morsl.  Society had much higher moral standards back then.  Today we as society have no morals, And we have a way too leanent judical system. You interpret the constitution the way you see it and I interpret the constitution as I see it.  There are some areas where I think the Government has overstep there boundaries, I don't agree with the bailout plan that bush put into affect.  Because that was the government oversteping its boundaries.  I agree that if we don't like those who lead us then we need to elect people who will stand up for the people they represent. That is what happened in November, people wanted change and voted for a democratic president.  I agree thatI do like my unalienable rights protected But right now it is still not protected beacuse of the way society is. 

 lower courts 'interpret' the law. the supreme court determines whether law conforms to the standards and principles set up in the constitution, and whether people's rights have been violated.

Article III, Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution.

 and the judicial power does extend to all cases, in law and equity. which is why the lower courts 'interpret' the law, and the higher courts, up to and including the supreme court, assure that the law being 'interpreted' is not 'interpreted' in a way that is contrary to the constitution, and is not violating the rights of the citizens.