Michigan Votes Forum

Senator Jacobs’ statement is as follows: Although I have about six pages of talking points and statistics on my desk, I just really rise today to say that I am going to be taking this vote in memory of my father who died from lung cancer a number of years ago. Today we are going to take action that will hopefully prevent many other deaths from cancer for our loved ones and the people who live in our districts. You know, I hope that what we do today will allow people to see their grandchildren married and their great-grandchildren born, which is something that up until today’s action, we didn’t actually have any control over it in this state. So I really want to really thank my colleague I know we are not supposed to use Ray Basham’s name, but from the 8th District for being so tenacious and so dogged on this issue. We are really going to be giving an incredible gift to the people of Michigan today, and I really want to thank everybody for voting for this as we go forward to pressing our buttons.

Senator Patterson’s statement is as follows: I would like to join today in the remarks of my colleague from the 20th District. I would also like to reiterate the position that I took was one of change not evolution. It came about because of the evidence becoming incontrovertible. I owe my colleague from the 8th District enormous amount of gratitude for his dogged determination and commitment to this issue to do the right thing. He has, in fact, been courageous, and there are times when it pains me to think that he has been, but I must admit it on this occasion.

Senator Gleason’s statement is as follows: I would add my voice to those who congratulate Senator Basham. I would offer this unique perspective. When you have issues which are not visible, when you go to work and visit businesses across this state, sometimes people do not understand that you are in a compromised situation. I know as an individual, as I’ve mentioned on several occasions, someone who has had a major surgery, a transplant, we have autoimmune issues. When we are put in these situations, whether it’s out at a restaurant or at work, it’s not readily visible that we have these particular concerns. So I would like to thank Senator Basham on a personal level. But also I would like to further state that we all watched this process come out of the House. I think we lost many of the advantages that we can offer citizens and workers of Michigan by not carrying out particular interest groups for this legislation. When I was watching the process in the House, when favor, when exceptions, when advantages were given to special groups, it seemed like the impetus for the bill itself fell apart. I would be tremendously remiss if I didn’t thank Representative Clack from Flint, Michigan, for joining her efforts with Senator Basham. This is not an issue that finds lines of demarcation easily. I would like to thank the Senator and the Representative who led this effort. These were trying times, and yet, it wasn’t necessarily for themselves that they advanced this cause, but for all of the citizens of Michigan. We were late to the party. Other states have done this. It’s nice to add Michigan to that list. We know the concerns that we have when we were involved with the package last week about health insurance reform. One of our main causes for the rise in the cost of health insurance is secondhand smoke. There will be collateral gains to this legislation. We are only touching on the surface of what benefits this will be offering to our state. So I would congratulate all of those who saw that this was important for the state of Michigan.

Senator Scott’s statement is as follows: I rise in support of this bill. You know, we talk about healthy Michigan, and this lets us know that we care about the health of our constituents in this state. I belong to a number of women’s groups nationally and one of the issues that we deal with is health. This is a great step in the right direction. I certainly want to thank the Senator from District 8 for being real steadfast in this because that’s what it’s about. You have a passion for something and believe in it. You have to keep standing, and I’m glad that my colleague kept standing. I’m glad that we had a Representative over in the House who authored this bill; that they could work together on it. I certainly do hope this bill remains as we have passed it in the Senate today. There are a number of our young people who are smoking, even in middle schools now. So this sends a message to them that smoking is not good for you. It is not healthy. I want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that we came together, bipartisan to support what will make Michigan healthier. We’ve done it in big states, bigger than Michigan, and they are surviving, and we will survive too. We’ll survive better because we’ll be healthier. So, again, I thank everyone who supported this bill. It’s a step in the right direction. It certainly gives me hope that one day my bills will pass too. Ray kept his back straight, and I’m going to keep mine straight. So thank you everyone. This is wonderful.

Senator Allen’s statement is as follows: I also rise in opposition to this substitute on a straight philosophical level. How much more mandate do we need to put on the citizens of our state? How many more regulatory environments do we need to put forward? And what is the actual role of government? I respect the lively and broad-based debate that has occurred, but I feel that restaurateurs and local businesses can make the best decisions in regards to what is the appropriate way to control smoking. I hail from Northern Michigan and we have one of the largest voluntary compliance of smoke-free restaurants in the state of Michigan. Where do we draw the line? Do we draw the line with restaurant smoking? How about food and the amount of calories that need to be consumed? What do we do in ergonomics standards? What do we do on more licensing and regulations on the citizens of this state? I respect the process and will be voting against this substitute. More licensure. More regulation. Where do we draw the line on the citizens of this state? This is a controlled substance. It’s perfectly well to be regulated by individuals. We have good laws already in place.

Senator Anderson’s statement is as follows: Members, we have reached a point here—and I know a number of members have already thanked the Senator from the 8th District for his efforts on this issue—and I did want to add a couple of comments now for his dogged determination in getting this legislation through. We would not be at this point today in history—and I do say in history—because I think this is probably one of the most important issues that we will debate in the entire year in this Legislature and in this Senate. I believe that it is such an issue that sometimes we overlook some of the other peripheral things and the other people who are affected. I know we are talking about, in many cases, the consumers and the citizens of Michigan who go into these establishments who are exposed to the secondhand smoke. We also, I think, tend to forget those folks who are working as waiters and servers and our children, in some cases, our grandchildren, our brothers and sisters, and our direct family members, wives and husbands. Those folks don’t have a choice whether or not they are working in that restaurant. It’s a choice between income or their health. They should not be forced to make that decision. I believe that it is the right thing to do, and this is the time to do it. Folks, if we do anything this year that makes a difference to the state of Michigan, this is the issue. I would urge everyone to support it, and I thank my good friend Senator Basham

Senator Bishop’s statement is as follows: First, I want to express my appreciation for the way in which the body handled this issue and the way that we were able to conduct a civil debate on the subject, an issue that seems to be growing in popularity as the day goes on. But as an individual member of this legislative body, I rise today to express my opposition to the present proposal. I have two specific objections, and these have been made earlier by other members, but I want to reiterate. First, this legislation is simply incompatible with the free-market principles that I and many of my colleagues hold dear. Second, this is a blatant overage by government into the private business environment and into the individual freedoms of our citizens. It is an absolute breach of what I have always believed to be the role of government. That is my personal opinion. The free-market principles which are at the root of our country and our nation’s economy have always been unique in the world. Historically, throughout our nation’s history, we trust our citizens and our businesses with the freedom to establish an environment that is mutually beneficial to both the business and the consumer. In the case before us today, we see a growing trend and it is nationwide. I will admit, to snuff out the use of tobacco, that, to me, is a noble cause as we can stipulate the harmful effects to secondhand smoke and the tragic toll smoking has had on so many of our citizens for so long. In fact, I think all of us can relate to a certain extent to the impact of secondhand smoke and cigarette smoke. We understand the facts, all of us do, but so does the free market. Here in Michigan is a great example of businesses across the state reacting to market pressures. They have to because that is what a business does. In this case, as you know, business is not going quite well these days. In a difficult economy and a competitive environment—the business environment—the number of non-smoking business establishments has grown dramatically over recent years. It has done so as business owners recognize the opportunity to capitalize on those citizens who prefer smoke-free environments. The market naturally reacts to business trends, and if it doesn’t, our strong-willed Michiganders will find a new place to spend their money. And in the case of the campaign for a smoke-free environment, the market has worked, as citizens continue to vote with their feet and businesses adapt to the demands of the citizens. And I would note that all of this is happening without a single bit of effort, without a single bit of intervention by the government. There is no question that government does have a right to intervene in certain circumstances. That is not in dispute, but I think we all agree at some point in time we have to draw the line somewhere, which leads me to my concern about the role of government and its slow creep in to our everyday private lives. Government, in this case, began with regulation of smoking. Then in its infinite wisdom began to mercilessly tax the product, and now government moves to ban its use entirely. This is a consistent pattern of government. It slowly intrudes into the private lives of individuals and businesses and ultimately attempts to govern every aspect of our lives. In effect, government is trying to protect us from ourselves. As a non-smoker, I understand and appreciate the concern about the smoke and its hazardous impact. I sincerely do, and my heart goes out to all of you who have had relatives who have been impacted directly. But I want you to know that even though I respect the sponsor’s intent, he is a dear friend and I have been on the receiving end of a lot of his internal lobbying—as we would like to call it—over the years, having had the opportunity to sit next to him for so many years. I want you to know, I, as a father, as a husband, over the years make choices every day—personal choices. It is my responsibility to take control of my own life. In this case, I oftentimes choose smoke-free environments if my family chooses to go out. There are plenty out there—plenty. In fact, if you go to smokefreemichigan.org, you will see that there are over 5,000 smoke-free establishments—bars and restaurants—out there for you to choose from, and that list continues to grow at a rapid rate. I think we have to ask the questions, the obvious questions: When will it stop? How much control do you want? And when will people have to stop thinking for themselves entirely? I personally believe enough is enough. Let’s get back to the fundamentals of government. Clearly, we have a lot of issues facing this state. Let the free market work. Trust people to make the right decision for themselves, and all the while, control the growth of government. That is our responsibility. If you agree with me and you do not agree with this proposal in front of you today, I want you to know that I have a proposal that I am prepared to offer after the conclusion of the vote on this to keep this issue alive, to address a proposal that would be a ban across the board but would restore free-market principles. If that is something that you are looking to support, I urge you to join with me today and defeat this bill before you now.

Senator Sanborn’s statement is as follows: I do want to echo the comments made by the Majority Leader. I think he has done a great job of articulating the position as to how the free market works, and it does, in fact, work. More and more restaurants, by their own choice, are going smoke-free on an even daily basis here in Michigan. Please forgive me for playing the role of the great Senator Harry Gast, who would have said exactly what was on his mind, but I feel compelled to do so. This is another case of government stepping in and sticking their nose where it doesn’t belong. It’s one more case why I love my country, but, God, some days I fear my government. Senator Cassis’ statement is as follows: Truly, I think today our Senate has passed legislation with enormous impact on our residents here today and our children and our grandchildren in the future. I want to thank the work of Senator Basham and the fine comments of Senator Jacobs. While I truly respect that some would advocate for protection of a minority of smokers over our well-being and the health of the majority, it is important to recognize some statistics and anecdotal feedback from restaurants around the state show that initially there may be a short downturn, due to smokers who temporarily don’t patronize their facility—their favorite establishment—but they do come back. Importantly—and I guess I have to say ironically—tobacco has become a tax aphrodisiac in our state to continue spending and not strictly for smoking cessation efforts. Questions have been raised: What’s the role of government? Well, I remember when I first raised my hand to become a member of the Novi City Council, I did so with great respect for the health, safety, and general welfare of all our citizens. In that regard, since I’ve been a legislator, we’ve looked at helmets—you’ve got to wear a helmet in Michigan if you are on a motorcycle, seatbelts, requiring children to be in safety car seats and booster seats. So again, on the respect to health, safety, and general welfare, I do believe and I doubt sincerely that today will be the last attempt to uphold health, safety, and general welfare in our state.

Senator Pappageorge’s statement is as follows: You know, no law is perfect. Certainly, this one isn’t and we spent a lot of time on the Indian casinos which proves that point. The concern always before we do our final vote is to understand and identify as soon as we can the unintended consequences that go with that law. I give you an example. Do we want to put cigar bars out of business? Do we want to end that industry, small as it is? So I would like to see what this substitute is that our Majority Leader spoke about. Now, procedurally, that’s tough to do because we have to vote “no” on this one to find out what else we might try and do without violating what we’re trying to do here, which is ban smoking in as many places as possible. So I think all of us will be torn on this vote. Do you vote “no” so you can see what the substitute looks like, or do you vote “yes” and never find out if the substitute might have taken care of some unintended consequences? So I would ask you to consider that when you vote.

Democrats are all concerned about 'Waterboarding' which saves countless American lives, but wants to limit law-abiding citizens behavior. Is this just the first step to making cigarettes illegal? I'm not a smoker, but it is scary to see how if you don't use it or don't like it, it seems perfectly ok to step on people's rights. What next?

Don't come to MY BAR because because I'm going to let my customers smoke in spite of the GUSTOPO!! I won't financially survive any other way! It's my building-my property-my business! A buzzer/lock on the door will slow down the Cigarette Police! I can't stand this country any more! See you in Mexico if I can ever sell everything!! This isn't America anymore! - A FED UP BAR OWNER!!

And isn't it interesting they passed this Bill 2 WEEKS AFTER WE ALL PAID OUR LICENSE RENEWAL!!---A FED UP BAR OWNER!!!

FINALLY! Why should the majority of people be subjected to these noxious fumes? Smoking is not allowed in any other public place.

I would LOVE to see a complete and total 100% ban of all tobacco products. Just think how that would impact the cost of health care since the "lung removal wing" at each hospital could be used for else. Other states have done this and bar and resurant owners have survived...so will this one. I look forward to this bill passing!

If every bar owner just ignores this stupid law they will never be able to enforce it. Then we can see how good the few bars do that actually ban a legal activity (that the state makes a fortune off of). My guess is that the price of licenses will be coming down.

" Is this just the first step to making cigarettes illegal?" Not a chance. The state makes way too much money off cigs. When will the sheepl learn that the state doesn't care about your health. They just want your money. After all, they are much smarter than you are.

cured cancer? has banning smoking cured anyone WITH cancer? WILL banning smoking cure anyone with cancer? will banning smoking stop anyone from getting cancer? i'd like to see empirical proof of this before giving away any rights or freedoms.

You can't even spell and you want to subject innocent folks to your so called singing? I don't want to hear morons try to sing so I am going to get a law passed to ban it. Your rights end at my ears. "I only go once or twice a year" That's true with most of you control freaks. You will still only go out a few times a year and the business will go down the tubes because you ruined them with this stupid law. Just because you are too old/lazy/fat or whatever to go out and have fun you want to ruin it for everybody. I guess the saying is true about folks like you...losers love company.

that went out of business after the draconian control freak smoking law went into effect in Florida and Ontarion. Casino Windsor...400 laid off the day after in went into effect, revenues down 40%. When you kick out 25% of your customers and the people they hang around with you are closer to 60%.

"The only loss of business that owners experience when going non-smoking is when they have a competitor who still takes smoking customers." That just shows that there is not a need for this law. Most of the rabid non smokers are also non drinkers and just all around non fun control freaks that don't patronize the local bar very often even if the owners are forced to do everything they want.

"They'll actually get MORE business in my opinion" Your opinion is worthless. What matters are facts and the facts show that this law will cause business to close and people to be put out of work.

You Say "If EVERYONE is required to be non-smoking you can't loose any business because it has no where to go!" Wrong. I have first hand experience in Ontario and what happened is that people started staying home. Lots more house parties every Friday and Sat nights. During the week you stop over someones house on the way home for a couple of cold ones. Sales of pool tables went up and home bars increased but the bar in the this town is still down 40 to 50%. Half of the staff was let go. This is after 5 years so don't be spouting any of your control freak nonsense here, you will be called on it.

Restaurants, Bars, Hotels and other similar establishments are places of *public* accommodation licensed by the state and other authorities. In other words, these private establishments are allowed to serve the public in exchange for following certain rules. It is well established that business owners must protect the health and safety of patrons (which is why we have health code inspections) as well as workers (e.g. OSHA/MiOSHA). Does it not seem to be a double standard to oppose smoking in places of public accommodation? On one hand do, we do all these things to protect our customers and valued employees. But yet we also oppose a smoking ban? If we were knowingly exposing our employees and customers to any other carcinogenic -cancer causing- gas and dust, which is what cigarette smoke is, the plaintiff's lawyers would be thick as thieves...lining up to sue us. And they would win.

Restaurants, Bars, Hotels and other similar establishments are places of *public* accommodation licensed by the state and other authorities. In other words, these private establishments are allowed to serve the public in exchange for following certain rules. It is well established that business owners must protect the health and safety of patrons (which is why we have health code inspections) as well as workers (e.g. OSHA/MiOSHA). Does it not seem to be a double standard to oppose smoking in places of public accommodation? On one hand do, we do all these things to protect our customers and valued employees. But yet we also oppose a smoking ban? If we were knowingly exposing our employees and customers to any other carcinogenic -cancer causing- gas and dust, which is what cigarette smoke is, the plaintiff's lawyers would be thick as thieves...lining up to sue us. And they would win.

If they would win a lawsuit why haven't the money hunger lawyer suied so body before for this. I know because they cannot and have not proved that Second Hand Smoke in a Bar has killed anyone. If they had a case they would surely go after the money.

I'm so happy about this. Can't wait for it to go through. The non-smoking issue is not a Democrat or Republican issue -- it's a health issue. People are asking why we don't legislate eating healthy food -- the difference here is, if someone is sitting next to me, gorging themselves like Fat B#st@rd in Austin Powers, it doesn't cause me, the waitress, or any of the other patrons any health problems like secondhand smoke does.

They're coming for your rights next. You sound like the ultimate narcissist. It ain't all about you. If you don't like the way I run MY business, stay out? This is your right. If you think you are smarter or that there is a market for your ideas, start a business and show us how good you are, otherwise, shut up.

"But yet we also oppose a smoking ban? If we were knowingly exposing our employees and customers to any other carcinogenic -cancer causing- gas and dust, which is what cigarette smoke is, the plaintiff's lawyers would be thick as thieves...lining up to sue us. And they would win." So called second hand smoke has never been proven to hurt anyone. I have a question for all you control freaks that want to tell me how to run my business into the ground. Why is there acceptable limits of carbon monoxide and other things that you can breath but so called second hand smoke is zero. Carbon monoxide will kill you very quickly, cigarette smoke takes a long time if ever to hurt the smoker. Passive smokers inhale six cigarettes a year By Robert Matthews and Victoria Macdonald PASSIVE smokers inhale the equivalent of just six cigarettes a year from other people's smoke, according to the largest ever study of actual exposure levels of non-smokers. The figure, which undermines previous warnings about the dangers of passive smoking, is a thousand times lower than that faced by direct smokers, and so tiny that it could not be measured statistically. Results from personal air monitors carried by more that 1,000 people in cities across Europe reveal that even the most highly-exposed passive smoker inhales the equivalent of 0.02 of a cigarette a day - 10 times lower than Government-backed estimates.

Synonyms for which are, "egoism" and "egocentrism" -- essentially, preoccupation with one's own self to the exclusion of interest in others -- it is interesting to see those who label others with whom they evidently disagree as narcissists telling those same others to shut up and not share their views in this forum. It's sort of like those supposedly "conservative" politicians who revel in assailing homosexuals but turn out to be gay blades, themselves. Now let's consider the term, hypocrite ...

Wellness Über Alles A new battlefront in the war to erase politically incorrect civil liberties is taking place across corporate America under the innocuous-sounding banner of "Wellness." Wellness certainly sounds nice; what kind of person is against wellness? That sounds as crazy as being anti-hope, or standing in the way of change. Obviously we all want to be well, but now it appears you won't have much choice in the matter. Be well or face consequences beyond the state of one's health. But always remember: We're doing this for your own good. The latest thing that's in our best interest is a renewed focus on quitting smoking, or as they say in more sophisticated circles, smoking cessation. And I'll take a brief time out to recognize that, indeed, quitting smoking is in a smoker's best interest, however, what's different this time around are the tactics employed. Before we discuss them, let's do a review of liberal social engineering programs from inception to execution. These steps should prove generally predictive of smoking cessation efforts currently underway. • A group of individuals anoints themselves as better-informed than the rest of us. They base this largely on the fact that they listen to the same programs on NPR and consistently vote Democrat. • The self-defined elite group comes to an agreement that the rest of us are not as enlightened as they. This is expressed in many ways, usually involving code words such as "clinging", "mean-spirited", or "greedy". If you hear these words being applied to you or your associates, this is a clear indication that you are not one of the elites. • The elites begin to develop a sense of responsibility for their lessers. This is often expressed in statements like, "It's just makes me so sad to see them like that. I wish there were something we could do to..." • The elites form a plan. The plan generally involves making everyone else behave like them. As enthusiasm rises, what were once "differences" become "problems" and finally metamorphose into a "crisis". When the word "crisis" appears, this usually signals the end of planning phase. The Plan predictably contains the following elements: coercion, moral superiority, lack of debate and voting, and a succession of "experts" who testify on its behalf. • The plan is imposed. If the legislative branch refuses, the judiciary is prevailed upon to conjure up a constitutional justification. • The plan begins to fail. This step is usually followed by demands for more resources to "properly implement the plan", (see the War on Poverty), and angry accusations at non-elite groups for their mean spirited, clingy refusal to change. • The plan fails. • The elites meet to form a new, better plan. The smoking cessation plan seeks to turn recalcitrant smokers -- those so far unaffected by health education, high taxation and appeals to self-interest -- into non-smokers through the imposition of a "smoke free campus". What this means essentially is that no one is allowed to smoke anywhere on company property. What are your options if you still stubbornly wish to assert your right to smoke? Put on your walking shoes; you're going on a hike. At this point you may well question my motivation for this cynical diatribe against change. Chalk it up to my basic lack of hope. Let me go on record as stating that although I did smoke as a younger man, I have not engaged in this self-destructive habit since New Years Eve 1994. I do not write this from the point of view of a disgruntled smoker forced to tint his car windows or purchase ergonomic walking shoes in order to continue the habit. I have no dog in this fight. As a conservative I don't see it as my job, much less my right, to make other people do things that are "in their best interest". As a conservative, my assumptions are: • I have no idea what someone else's "best interest" is; • Other people's "best interest", by definition, is none of my business. It's a little concept called liberty. And by the way, it's the cornerstone of the Enlightenment, and a document known as the U.S. Constitution. The Founding Fathers were very fond of liberty and fought a couple of wars with England on the very subject. Freedom is the right of emancipated adults to make choices for themselves and accept the responsibility for the consequences. Don't think that the good intentions of the elites stop at the point of preventing you from putting smoke in your mouth. There are all those bad choices people make about what to eat just begging for correction. The exercise of personal liberty, for all its flaws and imperfections, is far superior to the alternative, which for all my searching to avoid an over-used, often cliché term, is best defined as fascism. Not the jack boot, kick your door in at 3AM variety. But the more insidious, smiley-face variety described admirably by Jonah Goldberg as Liberal Fascism. So the next time some well meaning do-gooder comes along and tries to take away your freedom of choice remember to mention John Locke and George Washington. Point out that you're not monitoring their "lifestyle choices" and would appreciate it if they returned the favor. Instruct them that freedom is a messy proposition and doesn't come with the right to make other people's decisions for them. Tell them to put that in their pipe and smoke it (metaphorically of course, because we all know smoking's bad for you).

Homos are outlawed now also. Way too dangerous to engage in that risky behavior. Plus who knows if that guy cooking for you is infected and sneezing on your food. Man, this is fun, using your logic I can outlaw anything I don't like too. And don't even get me started on how much the fatso's are going to cost us when we get socialist medicine. Want that burger? Please step over here for your B.M.I. testing first. I might really like this if I never have to sit next to fat stinky people on a plane or be forced to watch them stuff food into their pie hole at the restaurant.

You Say "Synonyms for which are, "egoism" and "egocentrism" -- essentially, preoccupation with one's own self" I say..You betcha. I think I have earned the right to run MY business MY way without having some nobody try to tell me how to run it. If you don't like it you are free to leave, most of MY customers wouldn't like you very much anyhow.

"The non-smoking issue is not a Democrat or Republican issue -- it's a health issue" It's a control issue and the libs/dems/socialists are the best at it. You could go through life and never smell any cig smoke if you wanted to. You just want control over the few places that it is still allowed. Please seek help for your control issues.

I wanted to t write something that claimed my rights as a individual. But you did it, and with so much eloquence. What happened to that little catch phrase,"Why can't we all get along?" The smoking and non-smoking sections have been working fine, Businesses have right to cater to their clientele, without government intrusion. Let them decide. For the sake of not becoming a Markist state, with guards in the street, stop, stop, this over reaching government control. Thanks.

I am for this bill, but am also extremely conservative -- so conservative that I think Republicans are too liberal. Why can't you see that smoking should not be allowed in public places? Period. It's not a control issue -- it's a health issue. Non-smoking sections are a joke. I've been seated in a non-smoking section and there's still heavy smoke either in the air, or across the aisle where smoking is allowed. Once this law take effect, it will be easier to tell how bad the air in bars/restaurants/casinos/bowling alleys was, because we'll all be breathing cleaner air. So get over it and quit whining! It's not a political thing -- it's a health issue, and this law is WAY overdue!

I stand corrected. We are a democratic republic, and elect our representatives by a majority vote.

You wrote, "you twerp." So, name calling is your babyish way of complaining now? China's air pollution problem is mostly due to having new coal-burning power plants coming online almost every day. The point I was making is that our government, at times, does do good things, and HR4163 is one of them. In China 80% of the rivers are polluted and the air is full of toxic chemicals -- the businesses making the pollution are free to pollute, because they bring in so much tax money to the local, corrupt governments. Is this what you want for the USA? Businesses free to do whatever they want? If you want to be free to smoke anywhere you like, maybe you should move to China. Good luck finding clean air, drinking water, and goods free of lead and mercury.

I totally agree with you. I am a NON Smoker, and must say I hate it. BUT, I chose where to go, and what establishments to patron. I WANT CHOICE. I also will never understand why people would think that business owners, who put THEIR blood sweat and MONEY into their business cannot make their own choices. I do not understand why people think it is the governments right to tell business owners what they can and cannot do in THEIR business. I just don't understand it. And more importantly, I don't understand why as Americans, we want the government to make decisions for us.

republic. and don't you forget it. remember, democracy only lasts till the people figure out that they can vote themselves a slice of the treasury. they figured that out when the first welfare checks went out.

you believe in taking other's liberty away??? oh, yeah... just try and convince us of that...