Michigan Votes Forum

What is wrong with letting a business owner decide how he wants to run his business?  If smoking is so serious, why is it legal?  There are plenty of non-smoking restaurants in the state of Michigan.  I don't frequent them.  If everyone is so concerned about everyone's health, why do people with young children choose "first available" and then sit with their children in the smoking area?  Michigan could use less laws and less interference with business.

      What happened to FREEDOM in this country? This is all about freedom of choice, to choose where I want to go, including what bar or restaurant I want to visit, as well as how the owner of that establishment wants to run his or her business.  

This bill reflects the wishes of a majority of Michigan residents.  It also is good public policy, from a public health and welfare protection standpoint.  This bill or an equivalent that accomplishes essentially the same thing should pass. 

(I could support a bill that continues to allow smoking in establishments that are primarily in the business of selling smoking tobacco and related smoking paraphernalia.)

 More theft of the right to use your property as you wish.  Another liberty to be taken by an omnipotent government.  Another loss of freedom.  If I own a business I ought to have the right to make you light up before you come in if I wish.  Watch out, the next step will be to outlaw smoking in your car or home.

“Property rights” arguments against this bill (and orthers like it) typically are exercises in hysteria to one degree or another.

This bill is about protecting and promoting the public (“general”) welfare, which certainly fits well within the government role outlined in the Preamble to our revered United States Constitution. 

This bill or its equivalents should become law, perhaps with minor adjustments to allow smoking in establishments that are primarily in the business of selling smoking tobacco.  

Freespeaker, what other habits, behaviors and lifestyles would you outlaw to promote the "public welfare"?  Sorry, you can stay out of my life, I'll live it the way I want.  By the way, I don't smoke and I don't allow smoking in my business, but you, nor anyone else has a "right" to deprive me of my use of property.  You can choose not to do business or enter establishments that allow smoking.  As for your exclusion for places that sell tobacco, I don't see your logic, after all, if you want to protect the public health and feel the government has a responsibility to do so I would assume you are in favor of outlawing tobbacco and alcohol as well as mandating 30 minutes of aerobic excercise each day.

FreeSpeaker:

This bill is about protecting and promoting the public (“general”) welfare, which certainly fits well within the government role outlined in the Preamble to our revered United States Constitution. 

 There you are again "freespeaker" defending this legislative diarrhea.  Your argument that the Constitution supports this garbage is misguided at best.  In the same sentence the Constitution says "...Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".  By your interpretation of the preamble, the government would be able to do whatever it sees fit that is in the best interest of "public welfare".  They could make us all wear the same uniform because it would be in the public's best interest to not spend time picking out clothes in the morning.  Clearly this was not the intent of the Constitution which was designed to LIMIT the power of the federal government to very specific powers.

I doubt you "revere"  the Constitution.  Just by the way you say it I bet you find the Constitution to be an outdated document that gets in the way of real progress.

 Once again, the DEMOCRATS trying to control our lives because they know what's best for us poor little non-ivy league educated sheep! STAY out of our personal business!!! Contrary to what Democrats believe we can choose and there are enough non-smoking establishments already out there for the people who fear a little second-hand smoke that the rest of us should be allowed to think for ourselves. Besides isn't there another tax the Dems could levy on us that would be a better use of their time?

If you REALLY believe this reflects the majority opinion, why not let us vote on it?

Dktubbs:

 

Freespeaker, what other habits, behaviors and lifestyles would you outlaw to promote the "public welfare"?  

Murder, for one specific.  Reckless driving, for another.  The reckless discharge of a firearm also serves as a specific example.    

I believe that behavior reflecting willful, wanton and reckless disregard for the health and safety of other people generally should be closely regulated, and restricted.  Smoking in public places is one such behavior.  Neither you nor I has the right to endanger the health and well-being of other people in such places, as defined by law.  

Andrea:

 Once again, the DEMOCRATS trying to control our lives because they know what's best for us poor little non-ivy league educated sheep! STAY out of our personal business!!! 

I am not a Democrat, nor am I Ivy League educated.  But I do know for certain that my right to engage in a given activity ends at the point it endangers your life, health or welfare.  

The principles of American governance provide that when people do not voluntarily restrict their activities so as not to endanger the lives, health and welfare of others, then it is government's role to step in and impose restrictions.   

Smoking is a case in point.  Since smokers will not voluntarily regulate themselves and their own behavior to avoid infringing on the rights of others to their lives, health and well-being, it becomes appropriate and necessary for the government to step in and take charge by imposing regulation.  That is why I support this bill. 

bestgaffer:

If you REALLY believe this reflects the majority opinion, why not let us vote on it?

Our system of governance does not generally use direct democracy.  It is entirely appropriate for the Legislature to take up matters like this.  

However, If you really believe this bill does not reflect the desire of the majority of Michiganders, then you are perfectly entitled to circulate a petition to get the question on an election ballot and test your belief against the will of the voters.

I would think someone dedicated to choosing the lifestyles of others could come up with better examples than that.  Surely you want to ban trans fats and Big Macs don't you? How about skydiving and mountain climbing?  Maybe television viewing should be limited too as it leads to sedentary behavior.....  Businesses are not public, they are privately owned properties that you can choose enter or not.  You, my friend, have no right to determine how I use my property.   Of course, your sarcastic use of the adverb "revered" in refering to the preamble constitution indicates your respect not only for that document but also for individual freedom and liberty.  Frankly, I don't care if you give away your freedom, just don't attempt to take my away. 

 By the way, the proposal reads "Prohibit allowing private workplace or restaurant smoking"....of course, the definition of "private" has been significantly altered recently.

Dktubbs:

I would think someone dedicated to choosing the lifestyles of others could come up with better examples than that.

I don't go about choosing the lifestyles other people live.  They are free to choose their own lifestyles.  They simply are not entitled to threaten anybody else's health, as does smoking in public places, in the process.

Surely you want to ban trans fats and Big Macs don't you? How about skydiving and mountain climbing?  Maybe television viewing should be limited too as it leads to sedentary behavior.....  

Not at all.  Nor do I advocate the banning of tobacco at all.  But the obsession opponents of this kind of legislation have with banning those kinds of things, and personal behaviors that do not directly affect anyone else's health and well-being, makes me wonder if they aren't actually advocating exactly that, themselves.

I do advocate regulating behaviors that are known to threaten the safety, health and well-being of others, though. 

Businesses are not public, they are privately owned properties that you can choose enter or not.

Businesses may be privately owned, but once they invite the public on their premises to do business, they have an obligation to protect the safety, health and well-being of the invitees.  That is a well established matter of law.  

You, my friend, have no right to determine how I use my property.

First off, I am not your friend, nor do I wish to be.  

But you are quite right on one point:  I do not have any personal authority or right to tell you how to use your property.  However, I do have a right to lobby the government to enact regulations that will prevent you from using your property in ways that jeopardize the welfare of other people.  That is why I advocate passage of this legislation.

Of course, your sarcastic use of the adverb "revered" in refering to the preamble constitution indicates your respect not only for that document but also for individual freedom and liberty.

FYI, "revered" in that context is an adjective.  And I was not being at all sarcastic.  I revere our United States Constitution, as do all true American patriots.  I have reverential respect for individual freedom and liberty.  

That includes the freedom to protect and defend oneself against being exposed to others' behaviors that threaten harm in places where one is perfectly entitled, and even invited to be.  Since I am not entitled to take matters into my own hands on the smoking issue, I am petitioning the government to intervene for the sake of protecting the public health and welfare (which includes mine).   

Frankly, I don't care if you give away your freedom, just don't attempt to take my away.

Your freedom to behave as you wish ends where it imposes on my well-being, or anyone else's.

The issue is private property as in the title of the bill.  You have a choice to enter or not enter private property.  You have no right to demand someone not smoke in thier property any more than you have a right to demand they paint it blue.  Your logic is flawed and your reverence of the constitution is based upon your misunderstanding of it, that is if you believe your own statements.  The slippery slope you advocate follows the same flawed interpretation you have of the constitution.  Your advocacy of government regulating behaviors that effect "the well being of others" could easily be applied to other health issues like trans fats, Big Macs, skydiving and mountain climbing.  It's already being used to regulate helmet use. If you don't want to be exposed, stay out.  Pretty simple concept isn't it?  Be very careful giving away others freedoms as the worm always turns...

The issue of private property is not in the bill's title.  That is merely the Mackinac Center's tabloid style labeling of this legislation.  

In fact, the way the Legislature describes (summarizes) this bill is:

Health; smoking; smoking in places of employment; prohibit, and expand smoking prohibition in food service establishments. Amends heading of pt. 129 & secs. 12601, 12603, 12611, 12613, 12614, 12905 & 12915 of 1978 PA 368 (MCL 333.12601 et seq.); adds sec. 12606 & repeals secs. 12604a, 12605, 12607, 12615, 12617, 12909, 21333 & 21733 of 1978 PA 368 (MCL 333.12604a et seq.) & 6127 of 2000 PA 92 (MCL 289.6127).

Anyone genuinely interested in legislation should read the actual bill before commenting on it.

Couple things the "libertarians" who think that freedom means being able to do anything you want to should know.

1. The bill isn't titiled "Prohibit allowing PRIVATE workplace or restaurant smoking". That is the description authored by the administration of this site, which is a pro business, anti labor, site. The description is obviously worded to bring out the "no government" crowd, which it has.

2. If those opposed to this bill would like to vote on it, that would be great. The polls show a substantial majority of the people want smoking banned in workplaces and restaurants and bars, as it is in most public places now.

This bill, or the other bills similar to it, take no ones freedom away. It protects the freedom of people to breath unpolluted air in a place that is in the business of accomodating the public, and in their work environment. Smokers maintain the right to pollute their lungs, as long as they don't infringe on other's rights.

 Here we go again. The socialest Democrats wanting to control the people and take our freedum away.

But it is private property. And you who would give away freedom and the rights to use private property as the owner sees fit venture down a very slippery slope.  Next you won't be able to smoke outside in the "public" atmosphere (which I assume you are both in favor of)  As for voting away peoples ights, I believe the founders elected to install protections against the "tryanny of the majority".  It's quite simple "freespeaker" and "gypsy", don't patronize places that allow smoking, if there are enough of you, you'll convince the owner to ban smoking.  You accomplish two things that way, you don't have to breath smoke and you preserve someones freedom.  What could be better than that?

It is a business that caters to the public. To ask the public to pay for your services requires you provide for their safety. Private property owners have responsibilities when they open their property to the public for money.

If you think you can use your private property as you see fit, you need to have a conversation with the zoning commission in your locality. If you think freedom is the right to endanger others, you need to expand your knowledge base.

If you go to a restaurant and get food poisoning from the food, will your only recourse be to not go there again, or will you sue the owner for not providing for your safety? I'll wager on the later.

The freedom to smoke is not being infringed upon by limiting where you can do it, like the freedom to drive 70mph is not being infringed upon by limiting it to the interstate. You should be limited to exercising your freedoms where it does not endanger others.

Dktubbs:

But it is private property.

But it is private property which the public is not only invited, but solicited to visit, and where employees are required to be.  That makes it a place of public accommodation.  In such places, the public has a reasonable expectation to not be exposed to avoidable hazards, among them tobacco smoke.

The fact is, 80 percent of the public does not smoke tobacco.  If market forces actually worked -- if the market truly were rational -- in regulating these things bars an restaurants long ago would have banned smoking voluntarily, in order to attract the overwhelmingly larger portion of the population that eschews smoking.  But, as we have seen in this case and others, the market does not behave rationally, and people (including business owners) do not always make rational and responsible choices and decisions, sometimes to the great detriment of their employees, customers and the public at large.  So the government must step in to regulate their behavior.

The Founders were indeed well aware of the "tyranny of the majority."  They also clearly were well aware of the "tyranny of the minority."   That is why emphasis was placed on individual rights.  Individuals in our society have a right to breathe clean air in the places they are invited or required to frequent.  If protecting that individual right happens to inconvenience a minority, or a majority of the population, so be it.  

FreeSpeaker:

Dktubbs:

But it is private property.

If market forces actually worked -- if the market truly were rational -- in regulating these things bars an restaurants long ago would have banned smoking voluntarily, in order to attract the overwhelmingly larger portion of the population that eschews smoking.  

After that statement I don't think there is any point in discussing this any further.

gypsy:

It is a business that caters to the public. To ask the public to pay for your services requires you provide for their safety. Private property owners have responsibilities when they open their property to the public for money.

If you think you can use your private property as you see fit, you need to have a conversation with the zoning commission in your locality. If you think freedom is the right to endanger others, you need to expand your knowledge base.

If you go to a restaurant and get food poisoning from the food, will your only recourse be to not go there again, or will you sue the owner for not providing for your safety? I'll wager on the later.

The freedom to smoke is not being infringed upon by limiting where you can do it, like the freedom to drive 70mph is not being infringed upon by limiting it to the interstate. You should be limited to exercising your freedoms where it does not endanger others.

You are not required to enter an establishment that allows smoking.  Why would you go in a restaurant that allows smoking?  So you can complain?  So you can force others to bend to your whims?  The "food poisoning" example is a foolish comparison, although, if the owner posted a sign that said "Come in and get food poisioning at my restaraunt" I guess would support the customers right to go in and eat.  Again Gypsy, stay of the restaurant.  Of course, just like Freespeaker, I'm sure you will tell everyone that "market forces don't work".  That pretty much says it all.

This bill is not about the “right to smoke,” as some would like to (mis)shape the argument.  It is, in fact, about the right to work, eat and drink in establishments where health risks to employees and patrons alike are minimized.

The health risks associated with inhaling tobacco smoke are well established and well known.  They also are easily and cheaply minimized in a commercial environment simply by establishing a no smoking rule, which is exactly – nothing more, and nothing less – what this legislation proposes to do.  A majority of non-hospitality industry businesses already have done that very thing in their workplaces, for reasons their owners and managers well understand.

This is common sense legislation that should pass.  It is supported by a solid majority of Michiganders, who recognize and understand that very thing.

FreeSpeaker:

 

This bill is not about the “right to smoke,” as some would like to (mis)shape the argument.  It is, in fact, about the right to work, eat and drink in establishments where health risks to employees and patrons alike are minimized.

 

The health risks associated with inhaling tobacco smoke are well established and well known.  They also are easily and cheaply minimized in a commercial environment simply by establishing a no smoking rule, which is exactly – nothing more, and nothing less – what this legislation proposes to do.  A majority of non-hospitality industry businesses already have done that very thing in their workplaces, for reasons their owners and managers well understand.

 

This is common sense legislation that should pass.  It is supported by a solid majority of Michiganders, who recognize and understand that very thing.

 

 

It's about a person's right to use his private property as he wishes.  The business owner isn't forcing you to patronize him and he's not forcing anyone to work for him.  Give up your liberty...  I'll defend private property rights.

Of course I am not required to enter an establishment that allows smoking. I am not required to enter any establishment, but I am free to do so. The owner has invited me in, to sell his wares to me. By doing so, he is required to provide for my comfort and safety. The food poisoning analogy is a good example , in my opinion, of the owners obligation to his customers. I have yet to see a sign posted at a restaurant stating "no smoking not allowed". Most restaurants want all the business they can get.

I don't have to "stay out of the restaurant", I am free to enter any establishment I choose. Isn't freedom wonderful?

If you want to "defend property rights", it would be wise of you not open your property to the public.

This bill is not at all about “property rights,” as the argument is often (mis)cast by its opponents. 

Any property rights question the bill raises has been long settled, with the understanding that “we the people” do, indeed have the right to regulate how private property is used, in order to protect the public welfare.

This bill is about employees’ and patrons’ right to be protected from avoidable hazards by business operators who require or invite employees or patrons to be on their premises.  It is that simple.

Tobacco smoke is a known hazard to health.  Importantly, the tobacco smoke hazard in workplaces and business places is readily minimized – even eliminated -- by simply prohibiting smoking in that environment.  That is exactly what this bill (or one of its equivalents) would do.  It is sensible legislation supported by a majority of Michiganders and should be passed into law by the legislature.

Gypsy and Freespeaker obviously have a significantly different opinion on what constitutes private property than I.  I would guess they would also restrict my right to ban certain people from entering my business based upon Gypsy's statement that he is "I am not required to enter any establishment but I free to do so".  By me inviting someone to do business with me I don't have any obligation to provide for his "comfort".  Safety is a somewhat different issue.  Customers have a right to know the risk of entering and/or transacting with me then they can make an informed decision.  In reality, customers must assume risk when doing business with any establishment.  Some more obvious examples are downhill skiing, diving, mountain climbing expeditions etc.  Even driving a golf cart requires a customer to assume risks, that's why you sign a liability waiver.  If consumers really didn't have to assume any risk it would drastically limit market choices and life would be a lot less interesting....of course, if you want mama government to protect you from your own bad choices then maybe the trade off is worth it for those who would rather not accept personal responsibility.

I find the logic of both very difficult to follow.  Think of Gypsy's statement that "most restaurants want all the business they can get" and contrast that with the previous remarks regarding the failure of free markets.  It's quite telling that Gypsy ends his comments with "I don't have to stay out of the restaurant, I am free to enter any establishment I choose."  He values his freedom but neglects the freedom of the property owner.  It's hard to have it both ways.

Freespeakers reliance on his flawed interpretation of constitution and "the public welfare" is a dangerous path.  I made a remark about banning trans fats and Big Macs only half in jest.  Today this article comes out http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=325207139929170 .  This an example of the ridiculous results and unintended consequences of further empowering the government to regulate our behaviours and dole out our rights and freedoms as they see fit.  I suppose we'll need a "Freedom Czar" next.....

Being glued to an ideology, unable to think rationally and pragmatically must be terribly confining. It is no wonder someone with such a burden would be unable to follow logic, if it vears at all from their preconcieved and narrow focus.

To think that freedom means being able to allow people you employ, or do business with, be exposed to hazardous polluntants in the air, caused by other people you employ or are doing business with, is twisting freedom's meaning. Why would any business person want his customers exposed to second hand smoke produced by a minority of his customers? The answer is, for the same reason bankers took extraordinary risk with other people's money in credit default swaps and exotic paper. Greed. A basic human weakness.

So, in steps the "mama government". By the way, that's you and I.This bill will force businesses to protect it's customers and employees, because they won't do it on their own. They may lose a few customers or employees at first, but eventually they will return, and either learn to smoke where they are not harming others, or give it up all together. Businesses will fight this, but the reason they object is not freedom, it's greed. For those objecting to this bill on the grounds of freedom, and I don't doubt their sincerity, they are arguing for the freedom of one, (the employer/busness owner), at the expense of the freedom, and safety, of many, (the public). Not a very moral stance, in my opinion.

 Whatever Gypsy....I think you've exposed yourself.

gypsy:

Being glued to an ideology, unable to think rationally and pragmatically must be terribly confining.

The irony of that statement says a lot.  Few are more married to their ideology than gypsy and freespeaker.  The fact that they cannot see the logic in being able to make free choices as to whether to enter a bar that allows smoking vs. forcing the property owner to allow them to make others conform to their behavior does not display much rationality.  Freespeaker even indicates that since the majority approve of something, it must be good. 

It seems these two will not be happy until everyone else does just what they say.  Hmm...what does that sound like?

This bill doesn't prevent anyone from doing anything. It limits, in the name of public safety, where smoking can be done. It does not prohibit smoking. To describe it as imposing anyones will on another is failing to see the imposition smoking in a confined area places on others.

To force non-smokers to avoid restaurants, or employment, open to the public, or endure second hand smoke, in the name of freedom, is the true irony here.

Gypsy, understand that no one is debating smoking, the debate is about how a property owner is allowed to enjoy the use of his private property.  That would be the property he bought and paid for.  The same property that he pays taxes on in order to keep the state from taking it away from him.  Your position is just another form of taking via regulating how he can use his property.  You are so hell bent on forcing others to conform to your ideals that you can't even grasp the debate points.  In fact, you are so busy thinking about how to respond that you can't take the time to think about the issue, as evidenced by your misconception that this is about smokers rights.

Opponents of this legislation continue to misrepresent the bill as raising property rights issues.  It does not.  Any property rights questions that might be involved in this bill or similar legislation have long been resolved in American jurisprudence.

Properly, the question here is one of whether the Legislature will enact legislation that serves and protects the “general welfare” of Michiganders, as mandated by our State Constitution:

Article IV

§ 51 Public health and general welfare.

Sec. 51.

 

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.

Employees and patrons of a business have a right to be protected from avoidable hazards in a place of employment or business, especially those hazards that are not inherent in the work or transactions they are there to participate in.  Tobacco smoke is one such hazard.

The elimination of tobacco smoke is easy, and inexpensive:  One simply makes a “no smoking” rule and enforces it.  A majority of businesses outside the hospitality industry already have done that very thing.  That is what the legislature is being asked to do for the protection of hospitality industry employees and patrons by passage of this or a comparable bill. 

The hazards of tobacco smoke are well recognized and known.  By banning the smoking of tobacco products in places of employment and public accommodation (bars and restaurants), this legislation would fulfill the mandate of Article IV, Section 51 of the Michigan Constitution.

I have been accused of not "grasping the debate points", apparently because I do not concede this is a debate about property rights. Nice try, but no deal. There are no property rights involved in this debate. We are debating smoking in a business, and workplace, not a private residence. The word private was used in the description of this bill by the Mackinac Center to give credence to your argument. In fact, the bill is an amendment to the "Public Health Code." The property may be owned privately, but it is engaged in a public business, and as such, must meet certain requirements placed on it by the public, vis a vis the government.

So yes, we are debating smoking, not property rights. And the evidence is quite irrefutable that second hand smoke is harmful to the public.

And I thank you for consideration of my time spent "thinking about how to respond", but rest assured, it really doesn't take that long when you understand the issue.

gypsy:

So yes, we are debating smoking, not property rights. And the evidence is quite irrefutable that second hand smoke is harmful to the public.

 Then why don't they ban smoking?

Quite simple. Smoking can be done in places that don't expose the public to second hand smoke, and places that are truly private.