Michigan Votes Forum

 Good. let us people vote on it.

 Oh yes, please give me more Big Brother government dictating what rights we can and cannot have.  Please dictate to private businesses what they can and cannot allow.  While they are at it they should just throw the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights into the shredder.  Why not?  They don't follow their oath of office anyway! 

Whether we vote on this in a referendum or not, this bill should pass. The public has a right to work or dine in air not filled with second hand smoke.

A referendum should not be necessary for the legislature to do the right thing.  However, we now have an obstructionist Senate majority, which tends to block any progressive legislation. So in order for "right thing" bills like this to pass citizen referendums probably will be necessary.  That is a sad commentary on what is supposed to be a representative democracy.

If the workplace smoking ban goes to a public referendum, chances are it would pass handily, according to current public opinion polling.  If that is the only way we can get such legislation on the books, so be it.  But we should remember the lesson about obstructionist legislators when it comes time to exercise our term limits power as voters.

 This is absolutely stupid.  Why don't you guys try worrying about our state's crisis and the economy that you morons screwed up in the first place and quit trying to tell business owners what to do.  It's obvious you people can't succeed in business (which is why you are a politician) or else you would have by now.  Do you have any idea what this is going to do to small businesses across the state?  Maybe if you dined outside of your "upscale resturaunts" you would realize that most commonplace bar/rest.'s have smoking and non-smoking sections.  Which means that they are seperated by walls, hence no smoke reaches people that it shouldn't.  This is really getting ridiculous, we don't need you tools telling us what to do in society.  Our country has been great for hundreds of years in a democratic government not a dictatorship.  Now you are dictating that we can smoke in a smoking section of a bar.  And im not sure who you are polling but everyone and work and emailed, smokers and non-smokers alike, would rather deal with smoke than you fools telling us what to do.  The good thing about technology though is that we can get the voting records for you "great politicians"  (sarcasm) to a lot of people in a quick manner.  Looks like you might be ones looking for new jobs along with all the employees that will be getting laid off at bars due to lack of customers.  You people, as well as granholm, are a bunch of dip$#!ts. 

 Why are our government officials so willing to strip the citizens of their rights. It is not up to the government to determine what is good for us. Wether or not to allow smoking in a privately owned establisment should be left up to the owner. Three out of the five resteraunts in one of my local towns are NON-SMOKING, and the numbers are growing all the time. This is one of the most rediculous laws that have been passed, and I for one am tired of the legislature stripping away my rights. What is next, will they make Michigan a "DRY STATE" in order to stop drunk driving? The premise is the same. I understand why non smokers don't want to be around smokers but there are better ways to handle this. They have the right to go to a non-smoking establishment, just as I should have the right to have a cigarette with my beer if the owner wants to allow it (if the owner doesn't allow it I will go somewhere else, simple isn't it?). The legislatures time would be better spent fighting unemployment and crime, not stripping me of my rights.

Smoking in privately owned bars or restaurants that are open to the public deprives non-smokers of their right to a safe environment. The owner of an establishment that invites the public in has a responsibility to provide for the public's safety, and an employer has the responsibility to provide a safe work place. These are well established tenants of our laws. There is no right to smoke, like there is no right to yell fire in a crowded theater. One person's pursuit of happiness cannot come at the expense of another's right to life.

dallas1950:

 Why are our government officials so willing to strip the citizens of their rights. It is not up to the government to determine what is good for us. Wether or not to allow smoking in a privately owned establisment should be left up to the owner. Three out of the five resteraunts in one of my local towns are NON-SMOKING, and the numbers are growing all the time. This is one of the most rediculous laws that have been passed, and I for one am tired of the legislature stripping away my rights. What is next, will they make Michigan a "DRY STATE" in order to stop drunk driving? The premise is the same. I understand why non smokers don't want to be around smokers but there are better ways to handle this. They have the right to go to a non-smoking establishment, just as I should have the right to have a cigarette with my beer if the owner wants to allow it (if the owner doesn't allow it I will go somewhere else, simple isn't it?). The legislatures time would be better spent fighting unemployment and crime, not stripping me of my rights.

Why not can the whining? 

First of all, every one of those objections has been well answered by legal precedent and the Michigan Constitution. 

Second, no smoker is being deprived of the right to smoke by this legislation.  Smokers merely are being restricted in their "privilege" to inflict their toxic smoke on other people.  That seems like a more than reasonable tradeoff and balancing of interests among citizens, which is something we have formed our governments to do, regardless of what idiotic ideas one may have to the contrary.

Third, this law has been passed, and will become effective on May 1, 2010.  It is long overdue, favored by a majority of Michigan citizens and voters according to reliable polling data, and will bring our state into the majority of states (now 38 out of 50) that have chosen to protect their citizens' interests with similar legislation.

In short, this legislation is a good start.  It is time to move on and continue dealing equally wisely with other matters that affect the interests of Michiganders.