Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on August 1, 2007, to prohibit a business owner, including the owner of a bar or restaurant, from choosing to allow smoking in his or her establishment. The bill would apply to all "public places," including government facilities. However, tobacco specialty shops, "cigar bars," "hookah bars," vehicles, the gaming floor of casinos, the non-food areas of race tracks and licensed bingo events would be exempt. See also House Bill 4163

The vote was 65 in favor, 39 opposed and 6 not voting

(House Roll Call 453 at House Journal 52)

Click here to view bill details.

banning classes that teach how rotten the USA or the hiring of instructors like Ward Churchill? When they're in college, they're not kids anymore. If their roomies don't object, why does Lansing have the right to tell them what they can and cannot do? Nanny state!

Should be 'is' between 'the USA' and 'or the.' Sorry for the omission.

go for it

I lived in a supposedly smokefree room with a supposedly smokefree roommate who was using the smokefree room as an incentive to quit. That resolve lasted less than 1 month. Despite repeated complaints from me directly to her and to my resident assistant, the roomie continued to smoke and invite all her smoking friends in to smoke as well. My school was very lax about enforcing their policy about smokefree rooms. Laws help by giving "teeth" and legitimacy to school policies and by enforcing behavior of the few smokers out there who still insist on being rude.

We could try teaching the history that this country was found on. About how they didn't want a nanny state and took off on a quest for freedom. Maybe even throw a little bit in there about the constitution.

to ENFORCE manners? call martha stewart if you can't get the guys to quit smoking in YOUR ROOM. complain to the deans office. that usually gets the SMOKERS out of the NON-SMOKING ROOMS.

Rep. Clemente, under Rule 31, made the following statement: “Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I did not vote on Roll Call No. 453 because of a possible conflict of interest.”

Rep. Sheen, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: “Mr. Speaker and members of the House: Smoking Ban No Vote HB-4163 I do not smoke and I agree that smoking is a health hazard. However, this legislation is an abridgement of private property rights and will result in more people smoking at home, exposing more children and more non-smoking spouses to secondhand smoke. That is not the desired result, but it is never the less a by-product of this legislation. This legislation is unconstitutional in that it bans a legal product from consumption in a privately owned business, restaurant, or public place, which is a violation of business owners and citizen’s constitutional right to do as they choose with their private property and personal health choices. This legislation opens the door to all kinds of other regulations and restrictions on private property and individual health choices. Will we now regulate the amount of food a person can consume or fat content a restaurant can serve on its menu? If this legislation is really concerned about the problem of secondhand smoke on non-smokers, it will be extremely detrimental to children, relatives, and spouses living in the home, because the only place one can smoke will be in the car, in the home, or outside. This legislation is flawed, unconstitutional, and will reduce restaurant and bar patronage hurting business owners, because their former customers will have no where else to go but home. It will create as many problems as they purport to solve and I cannot support them.”

Rep. Agema, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: “Mr. Speaker and members of the House: Another billed substituted at the last minute to confuse the body of the legislature. It is not my job to tell what owners can and can not do with their property. We lose our freedoms one law at a time and our income one tax at a time. If tobacco is a legal substance, it’s legal. Why are we having this discussion in an economy that is going down the tubes with yet further restrictions on businesses. Truly our priorities are warped. We pick winners and losers and the politicians do it for their own advantage.”

You overpaid government twits go find real problems or real jobs? It's time part Part Time, Minimum Wage Legislature.

REP SHEEN, THANK YOU FOR BEING ONE OF THE FEW LAW MAKERS LEFT WHO SEEMS TO HAVE HEARD OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Exactly how does this bill propose to violate the Constitution of the U.S.A. or the Constitution of Michigan? No more made up crapola, please. No more hysterical , rhetorical rants. Just the facts, for a change. Cite the constitutional provisions that presumably are violated, and the case law precedents that confirm such violations are inherent in this bill.

PRIVATE PROPERTY are you having trouble with? It's my business, I pay the taxes, I pay the mortgage, I pay the wages, I pay the fees and other such nonsense, I get to work at 7 in the morning and usually leave at about 11 at night. So why do you think that you should be able to use the iron fist of government to force me to do something just because you think it's a good idea?

With the concept of private property and private property rights. But you have made the claim that this proposed law is unconstitutional, and support your claim only by babbling "private property, private property, private property," over and over again. You babble about how hard you work. You babble about how you pay taxes. Babble, babble, babble. That will not do to validate your claim that this proposed law would violate either the U.S,. Constitution or the Michigan Constitution. The only way you can validate your claim is to cite specifically what provisions of those constitutions would be violated. But that is only the first step. Your claims have been raised before and tested in the courts. So to support your claims, you also must cite the specific governing court cases that validate your position. The world is waiting for you to answer: What specific constitutional provisions would this law violate? What court cases that govern law in this area validate your claims?

THATS not the point commie. It may or may not be, but the fact is that it is JUST WRONG. A slippery slope indeed. What would you think if I walked into your HOUSE and demanded that from now on, there will be no TV watching because its bad for you. (all crap and violence) Now you've paid the mortgage, the taxes, the cable bill and everything else. But all of a sudden its not fully YOURS anymore! GET IT MORON? Didn't think so..........Voted for Grandlarceny didn't 'cha? Good luck all....... signed, moved out of state (Thank God)

But you are a complete absurdity. If you moved out of Michigan, why are you concerned about my state's business?

Since when does the standard become that Government can do whatever it wants unless it violates a provision in the Federal Constitution? Limited government is the ideal, not the problem. Tell you what, let me flip your "request" for case law, and ask that you prove that such a law IS constitutional (citing, of course the case law upon which YOU rely) and, even more importantly, tell me again why it is a governmental function to regulate how property owners use their property in this manner. Your turn.

In khalifornia they already can tell you that you can't smoke in your own condo. Soon they will be able to enter your home to check for smoking if you have a child. as novelist C.S. Lewis put it, "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." Expansive government and socialism – no matter how well meaning, in some cases – are ultimately incompatible with individual liberties.

A different tune, having completely lost in your argument that this bill proposes an unconstitutional law. So you want to debate this on the basis of you philosophical position that the government has no business ever interfering with or involving itself in your life. If you believe that balderdash, so be it. Live a happy little life. But I won't debate over that idea with you. It is useless to debate issues like that with idealogues who refuse to recognize the realities of life. You demand to debate that question is nothing more, and nothing less than senseless argument that waste's everyone's time.

Good idea. Don't debate on a topic you know you can't win. I'm very happy that you find contentment wrapped in a snug blanket of government oversight/control of your life. The truly weak-minded often simply accept whatever the legislature does, being careful to not rock the boat or question if a law makes sense, vs. merely nodding dutifully and thanking those in elected office for looking out for your, and everyone else's best interests. You would make a great lemming. However, unlike you, I tend to believe that people are capable of looking out for themselves and their best interests without the state being looked to wrap them in a bubble-wrap cocoon to ensure their survival. P.S. Don't forget to don your protective hockey helmet when you roll out of bed to take the bus to the unemployment office to collect your check.

of fecal matter. Give it up on your nonsense rants against this bill. Learn to deal with real life situations with real life arguments, for a refreshing change.

still can't support his position on this bill. he thinks that it's the government's job to provide him healthcare, and that it's the bartender's job to enforce the law. 1. it is not against the law to purchase tobacco. 2. it is not against the law to CHOOSE TO SMOKE IT. 3. it is not against the law to CARRY tobacco on your person where ever you go in this state. 4. but it IS against the law to DECIDE TO USE THE TOBACCO PRODUCT IN A BUSINESS WHICH OPERATES AS A BAR. 5. it is ALSO against the law for the bar owner and his employees (who are not state law enforcement agents) to allow you to smoke. they MUST stop you BY LAW because smoking damages your health. where in either constitution does it say that the law my mandate anyone other than LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENTS TO ENFORCE THE LAW? the truth is, among all the other issues you can't answer to, IT DOESN'T. you just support this law because you hate to see ANY FREEDOM OF CHOICE. no smoking in bars, no helmetless riders, no O.R.V.'S on the roads, no private schools, no armed citizens, no freedom of choice at all on any subject. simply 'toe the democrat party line'.

reading the michigan constitution. art. 10 section 2 deals with eminent domain, which is where the constitution convers the taking and use of private property for 'public good'. art. 4 section 36 deals with where the tax revenue on tobacco is sent. nothing on CONTROLLING THE USE of tobacco, or forcing bartenders to control your use of tobacco. art 4 section 40 deals with how old you must be to consume and possess alcohol. nothing on CONTROLLING THE USE of alcohol, or forcing bartenders to control your use of alcohol.

§ 1 Political power. Sec. 1. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal benefit, security and protection. History: Const. 1963, Art. I, §1, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964. Former Constitution: See Const. 1908, Art. II, §1. § 2 Equal protection; discrimination. Sec. 2. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be denied the enjoyment of his civil or political rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof because of religion, race, color or national origin. The legislature shall implement this section by appropriate legislation. History: Const. 1963, Art. I, §2, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964. § 3 Assembly, consultation, instruction, petition. Sec. 3. The people have the right peaceably to assemble, to consult for the common good, to instruct their representatives and to petition the government for redress of grievances. History: Const. 1963, Art. I, §3, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964. Former Constitution: See Const. 1908, Art. II, §2. § 4 Freedom of worship and religious belief; appropriations. Sec. 4. Every person shall be at liberty to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. No person shall be compelled to attend, or, against his consent, to contribute to the erection or support of any place of religious worship, or to pay tithes, taxes or other rates for the support of any minister of the gospel or teacher of religion. No money shall be appropriated or drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious sect or society, theological or religious seminary; nor shall property belonging to the state be appropriated for any such purpose. The civil and political rights, privileges and capacities of no person shall be diminished or enlarged on account of his religious belief. History: Const. 1963, Art. I, §4, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964. Former Constitution: See Const. 1908, Art. II, §3. § 5 Freedom of speech and of press. Sec. 5. Every person may freely speak, write, express and publish his views on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of such right; and no law shall be enacted to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. History: Const. 1963, Art. I, §5, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964. Former Constitution: See Const. 1908, Art. II, §4. § 6 Bearing of arms. Sec. 6. Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state. History: Const. 1963, Art. I, §6, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964. Former Constitution: See Const. 1908, Art. II, §5.

for good government. "Fundamental Beliefs and Principles which make for Good and Proper Government 1. That there is a connection between morality and freedom and that without virtue and morality the government of a free people cannot be maintained. ". . . where the Spirit of the Lord is there is Liberty" (2 Cor. 3:17 ) 2. That all things were created by God, therefore upon him all mankind are equally dependent, and to him they are equally responsible. 3. That all men are created equal: Equality before the law. Equality of rights. 4. That the proper role of government is to protect life, liberty and property rights, not provide equal things and when government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression. That it is a violation of the Constitution for government to deprive the individual of either life, liberty, or property except for these purposes: Punish Crime and provide for the administration of justice. Protect the right and control of private property. Wage defensive war and provide for the nation's defense. Compel each one who enjoys the protection of government to bear his fair share of the burden of performing the above functions. 5. That men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation and of pursuing their own happiness. 6. That to protect man's rights, God has revealed certain principles of divine law. Divine law is designed to promote, preserve, and protect man's unalienable rights. 7. God's law is the supreme law of the land and man's law must conform to it. 8. That the God-given right to govern is vested in the sovereign authority of the whole people. Government at all levels only possesses certain granted powers and is in itself NOT sovereign. 9. That the majority of the people may resort to force if necessary to throw off a government which has become tyrannical. 10. That the United States of America shall be a Constitutional Federated Republic. 11. That the substantive purpose of the constitution is to secure the rights of man under it. The formal purpose is to provide the mechanical structure to provide order and stability within which these rights may be enjoyed and to protect the American people from the frailties of human nature in their rulers. 12. That Life and Liberty are secure only so long as the rights of property are secure. 13. That the supreme power delegated to government should be seperated into three branches, legislative, executive and judicial. 14. That the seperation of powers should be maintained by a system of checks and balances. 15. That only limited and carefully defined powers should be delegated to government--all others being retained in the people. 16. That efficiency and dispatch requires the government to operate according to the will of the majority, but constitutional provisions must be made to protect the rights of the minority. 17. That strong local self-government is the keystone to preserving human freedom. 18. That a free people should be governed by law and not by the whims of men. 19. That a free society cannot survive without a broad program of general education. 20. That the core unit which determines the strength of any society is the family; therefore the government should foster and protect its integrity. 21. That the burden of debt is as destructive to freedom as subjugation by conquest. In that regard a Credit Money system of Gold and Silver coins (however stamped and wherever coined) is the currency of the Constitution and paper money or bills of credit are anethema to freedom and should be forever abolished. That the Dollar is 371.25 grains of silver and is the standard. All other coins--whether gold or silver--are to regulated against this standard. 22. That the Constitution of the United States it to be held up as an example and blessing for the entire human race. 23. That the tradition of individualism and voluntarism can be the means of accomplishing much individual and social good and should be relied upon whenever possible and is thereby consonant with liberty."

where you CAN'T do it... show me where in the constitution that it shows YOU where you CAN. good luck with that.

get the "fecal matter" out of your ears and understand that I allow smoking in my business. I don't care what you think. I don't want nanny staters like you for customers. There are alot of freedom loving folks left here. I will gladly serve them if they choose to come to my establisment. If you weren't such a sniveling little lib you would have some friends and you wouldn't be so concerned about controling everyone that knows how to enjoy themselves. i know it hurts when you're sitting home on Friday night watching pbs in your birkenstocks and just knowing that down at the corner bar there are a bunch of good decent people having fun and maybe even smoking. Get A Life Twit

michigan are NOT secure as long as the legislature deems it necessary to control the private property of others and what still others may do on your private property. 1. bars are private property. 2. 'THE PUBLIC' is not allowed in bars, only patrons who meet specific circumstances. so that gets rid of the 'public good' theory. 3. the owner of the bar reserves the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason. therefore he is not compelled to serve 'THE PUBLIC'. 4. if a bar owner so chooses, he may limit his clientele to ONLY those who smoke a particular brand of cigar and drink only a certain brand of scotch. that is HIS right to do, not the goernments. what bothers the liberals around here is that NO bar owner so far HAS chosen to go SMOKE FREE without a push from the government. now, that PUSH was a threat to close down the business if the establishment allowed smoking. that THREAT was backed up by people with guns. how you liberals support this, or even TOLERATE it is news to me. but i guess it's all part of being a liberal. you guys are liberal with everything else but liberty and freedom.

the liberals are VERY liberal with the right to have an abortion... and they are very liberal with liberty for criminals... other than that, you got it right on the money. signed, a TRUE conservative.

Basis for the Exercise of Public Health Powers In the United States, governments at every level— federal, state, and local—exercise public health powers. Depending on the level of government, public health powers are based on different authorizations. States and, by delegation from the state, local governments base their authority to regulate and provide for the protection of public health on the police power to provide for the health, safety, and welfare of the people. This police power is a plenary power that the states have by virtue of being states. Governments are created so that they may exercise this power. As a plenary power, it requires no grant by the state constitution, though several states do mention the police power in their organic law. State governments are the original governments in the nation, antedating the federal government, and they hold the police power because they are sovereign governments. The police power is inherent of government, and it has been so regarded by the United States Supreme Court in the bedrock public health law case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, decided in 1905. The case upheld a Massachusetts law that enabled the city of Cambridge to require all adults to be vaccinated to prevent the spread of smallpox against a claim that the law violated the defendant's right to life and liberty without due process of law. The case also demonstrates that the public health powers of local governments are derived by delegation from the state legislature, as in situations where city boards of health may pass an ordinance to prevent the spread of communicable disease. Unlike state governments, which have the plenary police power, the federal government is a government of delegated powers, and the power of Congress to pass laws on particular subjects must be sought in the federal constitution. The federal government exercises vast public health powers, both to regulate public health and to provide for public health services. Although other provisions of the Constitution may be drawn on, federal public health powers, in the main, rest first on "commerce power"—the power of Congress to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes," under Article 1, Section 8, clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. It also rests on the so-called "taxing and spending power"—the power to "collect taxes … to … provide for the… general welfare of the United States," under Article 1, Section 8, clause 1.

is from the people. Basis for the Exercise of Public Health Powers In the United States, governments at every level— federal, state, and local—exercise public health powers. Depending on the level of government, public health powers are based on different authorizations. [all government powers are listed in the constitution and given by the people. to 'assume' other 'PLENARY' powers is to proceed counter to that constitution.] States and, by delegation from the state, local governments base their authority to regulate and provide for the protection of public health on the police power to provide for the health, safety, and welfare of the people. [so, where is this POLICE POWER? show us where it comes from in the constitution. if you can't, it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL.] This police power is a plenary power that the states have by virtue of being states. [the states HAVE no power, other than those enumerated in the constitution.] Governments are created so that they may exercise this power. [nice try. governments are created to protect life, liberty, and property. all threats protected from must be COMMON threats, that is THREATENING ALL THE PEOPLE. smoking in bars doesn't qualify. smoking AT ALL doesn't qualify.] As a plenary power, it requires no grant by the state constitution, though several states do mention the police power in their organic law. [but michigan doesn't. so we must take it that the writers of our constitution didn't want that police power exercised here.] State governments are the original governments in the nation, antedating the federal government, and they hold the police power because they are sovereign governments. [really? where does it say that the state government has these plenary powers? certainly not in our founding document, and certainly not in any PRECEEDING documents.] The police power is inherent of government, and it has been so regarded by the United States Supreme Court in the bedrock public health law case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, decided in 1905. The case upheld a Massachusetts law that enabled the city of Cambridge to require all adults to be vaccinated to prevent the spread of smallpox against a claim that the law violated the defendant's right to life and liberty without due process of law. [smallpox is a COMMON enemy. everyone can get smallpox. not everyone smokes. try again.] The case also demonstrates that the public health powers of local governments are derived by delegation from the state legislature, as in situations where city boards of health may pass an ordinance to prevent the spread of communicable disease. [yes, they may, but smoking is not a communicable disease. neither is second hand smoke. at best, all you can do is prove it's an IRRITANT. is the police power of the state to be put towards eliminating an IRRITANT?] Unlike state governments, which have the plenary police power, the federal government is a government of delegated powers, and the power of Congress to pass laws on particular subjects must be sought in the federal constitution. [as must the state. to act against the state constitution, which lists powers, real and delegated, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.] The federal government exercises vast public health powers, both to regulate public health and to provide for public health services. [all against diseases, not irritants. and the owner of a bar does not work for either the state or the federal government, yet YOU are willing to give him POLICE POWERS to stop others from smoking on his property. why?] Although other provisions of the Constitution may be drawn on, federal public health powers, in the main, rest first on "commerce power"—the power of Congress to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes," under Article 1, Section 8, clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. It also rests on the so-called "taxing and spending power"—the power to "collect taxes … to … provide for the… general welfare of the United States," under Article 1, Section 8, clause 1. [it must also rely on iminent domain, the power to TAKE AND USE PROPERTY FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD. that's what the state is trying to do here. besides, how do you make a PUBLIC GOOD case here on such small numbers of citizens effected? truth is, you don't.] once again, nice try, lib. now, how is it a matter of INTERSTATE COMMERCE whether or not a citizen of legal age performs a legal act in a privately owned establishment? how is it a matter of INTERSTATE COMMERCE if the state wants to give a PRIVATE CITIZEN A PARTICULAR POLICE POWER WITHOUT COMPENSATION? how is it a matter of INTERSTATE COMMERCE if the state wants to take the FREE USE OF PROPERTY from a citizen without compensation? it isn't. but it IS a violation of the michigan constitution. you've read that, haven't you?

read the governor's guide to the planning board. "Two powers inherent in our national and state governments since the founding of this country are the power of eminent domain and the police power. The federal government, which can only exercise those powers granted to it by the U.S. Constitution, has the power of eminent domain, but not the police power. The states, which are “plenary” powers and can exercise any power of government unless superseded by federal law, have both the power of eminent domain and the police power. The power of eminent domain allows a government to take title to private property against the owner’s wishes. The police power allows a state or local government to regulate private activities, including the use of private property, for the purpose of protecting public health, safety, morals, and the general welfare. especially THIS PART. Both of these powers are vital for the healthy functioning of a system of self governance, but both can be abused and are not absolute. now that you have been EDUCATED, please tell us how even PLENARY POWERS gives a bar owner the police power to stop us from smoking in his bar at the demand of government without compensation? does that make ALL BARS state run establishments? does that make all bar owners and employees AGENTS OF THE STATE WITH ALL POLICE POWERS INCUMBENT? it seems to me as if you are stepping on a lot of toes and trampling a lot of liberties to get a very small benefit to a very select group of people. that's probably why this type of legislation has never passed here before, and where it has, it has met with rapid constitutional challenges that it cannot always withstand. now, i see you are using the 'zoning' laws to make a constitutional case. the zoning laws have met with more constitutional query, and disdain, than even the search and seizure laws. you have yet to make a constitutional case based on what is actually in the constitution. your ZONING theory only works if EVERY COUNTY AND MUNICIPALITY IN THE STATE has the same zoning ordinance. meaning, you are taking a LOCAL issue and presenting it as a STATEWIDE issue. if you are so upset by smoking, have your county board pass a zoning ordinance that prohibits smoking in your county. it's that simple.

issue. half the people involved in abortions die. this is a 'right' protected by the left that is 50% fatal to the direct participants. smoking is nowhere near that fatal, and the loony leftists cannot prove that SECOND HAND SMOKE is fatal at all. yet they wish to SECURE YOUR RIGHT TO HAVE AN ABORTION, AND REMOVE YOUR RIGHT TO SMOKE IN BARS. go figure.

When the Founding Fathers said that “WE THE PEOPLE” established the Constitution to “promote the general Welfare,” they did not mean the federal government would have the power to aid education, build roads, and subsidize business. Likewise, Article 1, Section 8 did not give Congress the right to use tax money for whatever social and economic programs Congress might think would be good for the “general welfare.”

then I want every chubby in this state to have to get on a scale before ordering dinner at any PRIVATE restaurant. If the government is going to be your mommy, I want them to do a good job. Then we will go after anybody that talks on a cell phone in the car. Then it will be time to whack those dangerous folks that have a radio in their car, you do know that they can distract you and then you could hurt me. Don't even get me started on the problem with those folks that have epilepsy or heart problems, no driving for you from now on. Do you know how many people have been hurt by older folks having heart attacks and seizures on the road? It's staggering. Same goes for anybody with an I.Q. below 95, no more operating a dangerous motor vehicle for you, the government is there to make sure we never get hurt and they have the nerve to allow stupid people to pilot a 3000 pound missile down our streets? Unbelievable!

down to this simple comparison: One option is the option advanced in the bill, namely the State dictating to the establishment owner how to manager his/her business (a "taking" of a private property right in anyone's book) vs. the less-intrusive, non-"taking" option which is allowing BOTH establishment owners AND patrons to make their own individual decisions about how to manage their business or which businesses should get their money. The first option is intrusive and protested by some. The second option is NOT intrusive and, in terms of a hierarchy, therefore, is the least intrusive, yet equally efficient means of ensuring that (even if "health" is your avowed concern) the citizenry is not exposed to things (i.e. second-hand smoke)from which they desire to be safe. The constitutionality of one option that is intrusive is to be weighed against other options that are less intrusive and, if a less intrusive means is available to achieve the same result, that means should be the one chosen. Surely even YOU can't disagree with that. To conclude otherwise would only serve to demonstrate that you are less interested in "protecting the innocent" than you are in exercising "control" over all things you can think to control ("control" for the sake of control).

our 'supporter' is trying to use local zoning authority to promote better health. the only problem with this is trying to get EVERY zoning authority to pass such ordinances. this law ALSO bypasses zoning authorities ability to actually pass 'smoking zones' for their citizens who do smoke. which TAKES power away from the people. the federal constitution says that ANY power not specifically given to the federal government by the constitution goes to the states, and any power which the state constitution doesn't specifically give that state automatically goes to the people. so, seeing as since the FEDERAL constitution takes precedent, the power to decide whether or not people smoke in bars belongs to the PEOPLE, not the government. as recently as THIS YEAR, the debate over whether or not the government is responsible for our health has raged in the courts. so far, the people are winning.

The poster wrote: “the State dictating to the establishment owner how to manager his/her business (a "taking" of a private property right in anyone's book)” Actually, regulation of a business operation is not a ”taking” in anyone’s book. Especially, it is not a taking in the book used by the courts, which have upheld all kinds of laws and regulations that govern how private businesses operate. The only people who seriously regard regulation as a “taking” of property rights in this day and age are those who stand on the extreme and radical political fringes of our society. The remainder of your argument about “least intrusive means” to secure a benefit is interesting, and worth considering. The question is this: Will (least intrusive) voluntary means protect Michigan bar and restaurant employees from the hazards created by secondhand smoke in their workplaces? I believe if you look around you, the only conclusion you can reasonably reach is that voluntary means are not working on anything approaching a wide scale. In other words, your “less intrusive” solution is a failure. If you continue to argue for the voluntary solution which has been shown not to work in this case, you are in effect arguing from the position that you don’t believe employees’ deserve protection from health or safety hazards on the job. That seems like a radical and extreme position for anyone to take in this day and age in this nation.

feel the need to protect someone from something he voluntarily exposes himself to? you voluntarily expose yourself daily to the HAZARDS of driving. the SANE AND RESPONSIBLE thing would be to avoid the exposure to that inevitable danger and NOT DRIVE. the state knows what the death statistics are, they help compile them, yet they DO NOT FEEL IT TO BE THEIR DUTY to 'protect' you from them, unless they can earn revenue from it. now, you would have the state give that DUTY TO PROTECT YOU FROM YOURSELF to a third party, without compensation. they CAN'T get the police involved, because SMOKING IS LEGAL. they CAN'T take the bar away, as it is LEGALLY OWNED AND OPERATING. but they feel they CAN insert an UNCOMPENSATED THIRD PARTY to assure that you don't hurt yourself. in this case, they have chosen the MOST INTRUSIVE method of stopping people from smoking. must they be so ABSOLUTE in their prohibition, and so DRACONIAN in their methods?