Local Issues and Governments

Re: 2009 House Bill 4752 (Prohibit allowing private workplace or restaurant smoking )

gypsy — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 11:34:59 GMT

You have your facts wrong. Please permit me to correct them.

Smokers do pay more for insurance. Insurance companies are not restricted in the name of fairness to not charging smokers more than people who do not smoke.

Why should a non-smoker be limited in his or her choice of restaurants or place of employment because of smokers? And how am I going to know which foods are unhealthy if the seller doesn't have to devulge the true ingredients through government oversight?

I also don't smoke, and I also respect the rights of those who do, as long as they respect my right to not breath their second hand smoke.

This is not, as has been previously established, a property rights issue. A business does not have the "right" to endanger it's customers and employees. This is a public health issue, and as such, this bill is an amendment to the Public Health Code. I favor it's passage.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4752 (Prohibit allowing private workplace or restaurant smoking )

Dktubbs — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 22:08:24 GMT

Well, thier decision does harm others because society eventually pays for it, especially in todays era of lack of personal responsibility. Insurance companies are restricted from charging smokers more in the name of "fairness", same with obese people.

If you are concerned about your health, don't go into places that allow smoking. And if you really want to help society don't purchase food products from companies that sell unhealthy food items.

I don't smoke, I only respect the rights of those who do. But more importantly I respect the rights of property owners, including business owners to make decisions on how their property is used without you, or anyone else unduly restricting those rights. You have choice to enter an establishment that allows smoking or to stay out. Vote with your dollars. Stay out. Better yet, open your own non-smoking establishment and provide a non smoking atomosphere for you and freespeaker and maybe me and maybe even people who smoke but respect your rights to ban smoking in your establishment.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4752 (Prohibit allowing private workplace or restaurant smoking )

gypsy — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:48:35 GMT

To help you "get it right".

I do care that smoking pollutes the lungs of those not smoking when done in a confined area, such as a restaurant or workplace. I care about the burden smokers put on the health system, like I care about the burden obese people do. But I don't want laws to forbid someone from making a bad life style decision, as long as their decision doesn't harm others. That's just the price we'll have to pay for being human and having weaknesses. I'm not concerned about being "bothered" by someone else smoking. I am concerned about my health being damaged, and other people's health being damaged, by someone else's bad choice.

I care about my rights, and your rights. I want you to be able to enjoy your rights as I enjoy mine. You apparently assume I drink, so I"ll assume you smoke. I won't pour my drink on you, and you don't blow your smoke on me.

This bill should pass to allow us both to enjoy our rights and our weaknesses, just not impose them on each other.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4752 (Prohibit allowing private workplace or restaurant smoking )

Dktubbs — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:14:03 GMT

gypsy:

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

So, let me get this right. You don't care that smoking pollutes the public air and you don't care that it burdens society with additional health care and social welfare costs. Your concern is that you can go into your favorite watering hole and not be bothered by someone smoking. I get it. The only "rights" you care about are your own.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4752 (Prohibit allowing private workplace or restaurant smoking )

gypsy — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:03:08 GMT

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

Re: 2009 House Bill 4752 (Prohibit allowing private workplace or restaurant smoking )

changeagent — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:45:31 GMT

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?

Re: 2009 House Bill 4752 (Prohibit allowing private workplace or restaurant smoking )

gypsy — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:21:28 GMT

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.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4752 (Prohibit allowing private workplace or restaurant smoking )

FreeSpeaker — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:02:11 GMT

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.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4752 (Prohibit allowing private workplace or restaurant smoking )

Dktubbs — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:04:14 GMT

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.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4752 (Prohibit allowing private workplace or restaurant smoking )

gypsy — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:54:03 GMT

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.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4752 (Prohibit allowing private workplace or restaurant smoking )

changeagent — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:42:40 GMT

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?

Re: 2009 House Bill 4752 (Prohibit allowing private workplace or restaurant smoking )

Dktubbs — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:22:20 GMT

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

Re: 2009 House Bill 4752 (Prohibit allowing private workplace or restaurant smoking )

gypsy — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:09:06 GMT

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.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4752 (Prohibit allowing private workplace or restaurant smoking )

Dktubbs — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:48:19 GMT

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.....

Re: 2009 House Bill 4752 (Prohibit allowing private workplace or restaurant smoking )

FreeSpeaker — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:31:49 GMT

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.