West Michigan reacts to smoking ban

[320ibeamer]

they just passed a smoking ban in front of the library where i live. yup, communism.

[kitshay]

Hey, lets tax asswipe instead. Everybody has to use asswipe, then they will have more money to work with. Or better yet, lets take away our right to drink milk, after all that is bad for you also.

Some liberal is going to come up with if your sick with a cold or the flu, you will have to be locked up till your well again to prevent it from spreading, and of course charge you a fee or tax for doing so............dipshits, wake up, they are boxing us in.

[DDTrampled]

Enjoy your ban people. It has made a mess out of Minnesota. Bar owners and smokers are now second class citizens. Bar owners don't have the right to choose if they are smoke free or not and smokers have to stand outside and be called cute names by anti's complaining about smelling your smoke by the door.

[michiganriverman]

Continued from previous post. A total of 25 states, along with Puerto Rico and Washington D.C, have a state law in effect that requires

restaurants and bars to be 100% smokefree.

Regarding my post that stated "if the government hadn't passed it, the voters would have", I wasn't talking about how many states had put it to a vote.There would have been a petition drive to get it on the ballot. If the govt. hadn't done it, the people would have. Can you understand that, hilzor??

[michiganriverman]

Also, in states that haven't yet passed smoking bans, 375 cities and counties have done it themselves.

[HairyChestnuts]

@michiganriverman Nobody should have the right to vote on what others do on their own property. Would you like all the citizens of Michigan voting on what tv shows you can watch? Just because intolerent selfish idiots hold a majority, it doesn't entitle them to impose their intolerence on others.

[michiganriverman]

"Nobody should have the right to vote on what others do on their own property. Would you like all the citizens of Michigan voting on what tv shows you can watch?"

That's a stupid analogy. The public can't walk into my home like anyone can enter a bar or restaurant.

[HairyChestnuts]

Wrong again michiganriverman. Nobody has the right to enter a bar or restaurant except the owner and certain authorities according to their duties. You may enter with the owners permission, but the owner can likewise order you out, or have you removed if need be.

You still don't understand property rights, do you?

[michiganriverman]

Oh, you're right. I forgot that every time I go into a bar or restaurant, the owner comes to the entrance to personally check me out before he gives me permission to enter. You're really stretching, but failing miserably.

[hilzor]

@michiganriverman

He's not stretching, you're simply a moron who can't understand simple logic.

All businesses work as private property, even corporations. All businesses have the right to remove you from the premises if they see fit, for any reason they see fit. If you violate that order, you can be arrested for criminal trespass.

Owners don't come to check you out as you enter because the assumption is first that you're going to do legitimate business with them, unless you show otherwise.

[michiganriverman]

Why do you insist on being so obtuse? Everybody knows that you can be removed from a business if the owner has a reason to do so.

I was replying to the part about "you may enter with the owner's permission". Can you read?? You're the moron.

[hilzor]

@michiganriverman

If you leave your door open and permit anyone to come in, then YES, the public CAN walk into your home, just like they can walk into a bar or restaurant.

You can't even provide a decent rebuttal at this point.

[michiganriverman]

Damn, I didn't think anyone could be as stupid you appear to be! If I "permit anyone to come in" that's quite different than walking in to a bar or restaurant. Any people that walk into my home (even if the door is wide open) have been allowed to come in by me, PERSONALLY. If they just walk in, without me knowing about it, that's quite different from walking into a bar or restaurant, where you're allowed to enter just by the fact of the door being unlocked. You're dumber than a box of rocks.

[hilzor]

Actually, it isn't.

A bar or restaurant allows you to come into their place of business for purposes of legitimate business. You have no rights to be in there save what they give you.

This is why clubs, and bars with other more exclusive clientele can exclude any person they see fit.

If you have a sign on your door that says "enter at your own will", then the point still remains.

The amount of vapid thought running through your mind must be immense.

[michiganriverman]

I'd bet you have voted in the majority in the past in ways that other people haven't liked, just like I have voted in the minority before. (but I accept it and move on with my life) Sometimes you're in the majority, sometimes you're not. THAT'S LIFE! If you don't like "majority rules", then maybe you should move to some place where people don't have the right to vote. Then you can whine about EVERYTHING, but you won't be able to blame the "majority".

[HairyChestnuts]

Decrocracy does not extend to dictating what legal activities others do on their own property. Smoking is legal.

You still keep trying to justify the stealing of peoples property rights, and you still keep failing.

You have no valid argument. Just more selfish demands why others should lose their livlihoods just to please you.

[michiganriverman]

It IS a valid argument since it has been done before in other states. Just ignore what you don't agree with, right? "Others losing their livelihoods"? More of your Chicken Little impressions. "THE SKY IS FALLING, RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!"

Never mind, it was just HairyChestnuts and His Hysterics performing their same old tired tune.

[michiganriverman]

A quote from hilzor: "I hope you're aware that out of the 17 states that have a smoking ban, only 4 actually put the measure to a vote."

Wherever you're getting your numbers, they are false. Here are the TRUE figures.

A total of 19 states, along with Puerto Rico and Washington D.C, have a state law in effect that requires workplaces, restaurants, and bars to be 100% smokefree. MI and WI make it 21 this year.

[hilzor]

@michiganriverman

I'd amended and reposted the quote to include the proper number (which was from the wikipedia article on statewide smoking bans), but youtube wouldn't allow me to post it.

And by the way, it's actually 25 states.

And the point is still that only 4 out of those 25 actually put it to a vote.

[michiganriverman]

I stand by the numbers I posted. After the MI and WI laws go in to effect, 21 states will have smoking bans covering workplaces, bars and restaurants. The figure of 25 states covers restaurants and bars. What I'm not clear on is the fact that bars and restaurants are also workplaces, but since you know everything I'm sure you can explain it to me. If Michigan had put it to a vote, it WOULD have passed, since that's what the majority of the people want, and THAT'S why the govt. finally did it.

[hilzor]

And you're still missing the point in a hilariously inept fashion.

The point was that only 4 had actually put it to a vote, yet you claim this is "the will of the people" instead of the will of the politicians and lobbyist groups.

[michiganriverman]

You're an idiot. You act like the tobacco lobbyists have never had any influence on politicians for the last several decades!

Wake up and smell the fresh air.

[hilzor]

Again, as I've said before, if this was really about democracy (instead of lobbying groups like the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation), then more than 4 states would have put this up to a vote.

The fact of the matter is that Michigan, along with 21 other states, did not get a chance to vote on a smoking ban.

[michiganriverman]

You conveniently keep ignoring the huge amount of influence that the lobbyists who lie for the tobacco companies have had for many decades, and now you're whining about lobbyists who work against them. You're the ultimate hypocrite.

[hilzor]

No, simply pointing out the stupidity in your arguments by selectively focusing on only the lobbying groups that oppose your views.

You said that this is "what the people want", yet conveniently forget that only 4 states put this to a vote (16%). Meanwhile, the anti-smoking campaigns essentially forced legislation into place that taxed and put restrictions on legitimate, small businesses and individuals.

Democracy in action, right?

[michiganriverman]

"No, simply pointing out the stupidity in your arguments by selectively focusing on only the lobbying groups that oppose your views."

Explain to me how that's different from what YOU'RE doing.

Like it or not, the govt. passed these laws because they KNEW that's what the majority of the people wanted to happen. When laws are passed by the govt. that you approve of, I'll bet you aren't whining that they weren't put to a vote!

[hilzor]

I'm illustrating that this is not about the "will of the people", but the "will of the politicians".

I only complain about laws passed by the government that infringe upon the civil rights of others, as this smoking ban has.

[michiganriverman]

Deny it all you want to, but the politicians finally listened to what the majority of the people want. The stranglehold that the tobacco lobbyists have held on the govt. for decades is finally loosening. Maybe they don't throw as much cash at the politicians as they used to, or maybe some politicians have actually sprouted a pair of balls and stood up to them, and said "No, you aren't getting everything you want anymore".

[hilzor]

There is no "majority" here, because no one has ever taken into account what the majority wanted, given that only 4 states even put this up to a vote.

And, it wouldn't matter if the majority wanted this anyway, because it's still a violation of personal liberty and the ability of individuals to make self-regulating choices regarding their own health.

[michiganriverman]

I guess you have never read the polls that have been taken on the issue, or you just choose to ignore them.

If, as you claim, "it wouldn't matter if the majority wanted this anyway", please explain how the proposals got on the ballots in those states, the people voted for them, they became the law, and remain that way.

Stay in your little world of denial, you appear to be very comfortable there.

[hilzor]

Are you referring to the polls that take place before or after the ban?

Proposals usually get on the ballot by acquiring a minimum number of required signatures (usually paid for by lobbying money in the first place). Private interest groups usually go around and offer up money for workers in order to gather up the required signatures for the ballot proposals (which are usually in the 10s of thousands).

So what exactly, is your point?

[hilzor]

You seem to be under the (false) assumption that because proposals 1-4 may have had loose democratic representation, that the other proposals achieving the same effect ALL were a representation of the majority. It's a logical fallacy, and an ignorant one.

Either way, it wouldn't matter what the majority voted, because this is a matter of removing the civil rights of bar owners and bar patrons.

[DancingTigerBait]

hilzor--

Of those states that DID allow a vote, it was very corrupt. For example, the law passed in OH was voted to have certain exemptions, but the legislators didn't allow that. Also, the petition used to get the vote on the ballot was evidently illegitimate. Soooo...even those few states that did have a vote...um, not really.

FYI: Enforcement has proved to be very expensive and illegally fell on proprietors rather than on actual law enforcement--OH just had a ruling on that in court.

[ibilldavis]

very sad!

[123Larra]

wow, i see some ppl dont ever look into the REAL studies about the effects of SHS.This is a scam,it does not cause cancer and the so called deaths are made up,look for yourself and look in the right places that bebunk government scams,its about behaviour control and money for drug companies,ppl have been brainwashed and thats what they wanted,i know some great sites with tons of info and i can tell anyone how to get around this dumb tax too.selfrightous scum ppl if u ask me,sheeple nazis.

[michiganriverman]

If second hand smoke isn't harmful, then I'm sure you wouldn't mind having it pumped into your home 24/7 so you and your family can breathe that crap every second. You're an idiot.

[HairyChestnuts]

@michiganriverman Toffee isn't harmful but I'm sure you wouldn't like a shit load of it pumped into your house. SHS is harmless, but you have every right to not allow smoking inside your property, but you do not have the right to demand that other people do not smoke in theirs.

[michiganriverman]

First, if you believe that it's harmless, you've been thoroughly brainwashed by the tobacco companies. Second, I couldn't care less if you smoke in your home, your car, outside, etc. If the government hadn't passed the ban, the voters would have. People don't want to breathe that shit while they're trying to enjoy a meal. Don't bother talking about "non-smoking" sections, that would be like having a "non-peeing" section in a swimming pool.

[HairyChestnuts]

Clearly you have forgotten why George Washington used the resourses from his tobacco farms to fund his petty war for liberty. Did I say petty? Sorry, it meant a lot to some people, but obviously not you. You clearly are no lover of individual property rights (something the founding fathers rather liked). You prefer dictating your personal demands on others. A traitor to the constitution if ever there was one.

[michiganriverman]

By your logic, if a restaurant owner wanted to let meat and seafood sit out unrefrigerated and go bad, then serve it to you and your family, he should be able to do so, right? After all, it's his business and he should be able to do whatever he wants to, right? Are you as upset about the fact that he has to obey health department regulations regarding proper food storage as you are about the smoking ban? Any answer but yes says you are a hypocrite.

[HairyChestnuts]

There is a proven risk from eating bad meat, yet if you knowingly do so, then that's your own stupid fault for eating it.

There is no proven risk from secondhand smoke, but if you knowingly enter a place where people are smoking, then you have no right to complain. Obviously that goes over your head because you have some kind of mental problem that prevents yoyu from understanding the word "choice".

Let me help you, choice is something you make before you enter someone elses property.

[michiganriverman]

If you want to believe that secondhand smoke is harmless, go right ahead. Just don't expect those of us with a brain to go along with you. In your case, smoke must have killed off most of your brain cells, if you had much to start with.

Do you ever fly anywhere? If so, do you bitch and whine about that fact that you can't smoke on a flight? After all, the plane is private property belonging to the airline and they should be able to allow smoking if they want to, right?

[HairyChestnuts]

@michiganriverman I don't whine about not being able to smoke on flights, nor buses, not even bars and restuarents. I am against smoking policy being imposed on property owners. You, for example cannot CHOOSE to own & run a non smoking establishment because you have no choice, it will be non smoking regardless of your personal wishes.

Why are property rights so easily surrendered by fools like you.

[HairyChestnuts]

@michiganriverman And since you are so convinced that governments have every right to impose smoking policies on property owners. How would you feel if the same government was to order all properties to allow smoking (including yours)? I stand up for the property rights of all, smoker and non smoker. What do you stand for apart from demanding that everyone else should pander to your personal taste?

[hilzor]

False and insanely stupid analogy.

First and foremost, if he is letting the meat rot, he's doing so without you being aware of it. That is the point; by entering into an establishment where you are explicitly aware of a consequence, you cannot complain about said consequence.

[michiganriverman]

Hey genius, it's not the 1770's anymore. Or even 1950. Michigan is joining other states and finally moving into the 21st century. Times change. People evolve. Deal with it.

[HairyChestnuts]

@michiganriverman Moving into a time of government sanctioned persecution, stupidity and intolerence. Your marvelous Michigan has failed to observe the financial ruin these bans have caused everywhere they are imposed and is leading your state into even more economic ruin (at a time when the world is facing a major recession). Great move!

[michiganriverman]

Caan you provide some proof regarding your claims of "the financial ruin these bans have caused everywhere they are imposed"? I'm talking real proof, not some half-baked lies you pulled out of your ass. Saying smokers will quit going to bars is like saying junkies will quit going to their dealer. 100% bullshit! They'll adjust and they're certainly not going to quit going to bars, despite your best impression of Chicken Little.

[HairyChestnuts]

@michiganriverman England's ban lost over 2,000 pubs since the ban began in july 07. Scotlands ban started a year earlier and has suffered the same fate. Ireland was the same. New York, Ohio, the list is endless. Not one country or state has seen a benefit from smoking bans. And yes, smokers do stay away. This drop in trade was immediate, and never replaced by hoards of idiots like yourself. You'll see soon enough, if you ever actually go to bars. Which I doubt.

[michiganriverman]

Just because you say it, it doesn't automatically make it the truth. I said PROOF, not some so-called "facts" you pulled out of your ass and expect them to be taken as the truth. 

No matter what you believe, I go to a bar about once a week, and that will increase after May 1st. since I won't be leaving smelling like an ashtray and feeling like I have to take a shower as soon as I get home.

[HairyChestnuts]

@michiganriverman Then tell me, why did this bar not go smoke free volunatarily? If as you say the smoking ban is good for business, surely this bar owner would have gone smoke free years ago to make money. You have no arguments so you repeat the same rubbish we find everywhere bans are introduced. You are the ones plucking things out of your arse.

[supertypal]

they did all this where i live, was novelty for parents buying there kids a beer for awhile but the bars soon went under 128 closed down including 4 concert halls in just 6 months and theres a huge underground scene emerging housepartys and raves are becoming popular again and all kids drink and smoke underage with uncontrollable access to heron and cocane , the surviving bars have turned in to strip joints to keep there custom, the smoke ban is more trouble then its worth heh

[Goddess167989]

The governement should fear the people, not the people the governement.

[rcdESPANYOL4ever]

Thats true in Europe!

[Goddess167989]

Oh I know! Man, you should see France LOL The government is scared of them because the ppl don't stand for any bull

[UrielVS]

Hummm.. Banning smoking in bars... What the fuck? This shit as crazy as it can get. Forcing bans on private businesses is the biggest bullshit I've ever seen.

Here's a god damn suggestion for anti-smokers. Go else where ffs. Their are plenty of places these days that do not allow smoking. Yet you people who are in favor of this want to force everyone to abide by your own point of views. America will fall if people don't wake up and think for two fucking seconds.

[detoth67]

Here is a suggesting for ignorant trash like you: Stop whining!

If you want to smoke, you still can smoke. Just take it outside where you won't kill others with your selfish mental retardation

BTW- there are millions of laws on private business. WTF is wrong with your mind?

[Goddess167989]

Teflon pans cause cancer. Shall we cook outside with those as well?

You seriously must be communist and enjoy the governement getting you a good one up the ass. People who believe in FREEDOM stand against our personal liberties being taken away.

I think you should move to North Korea, you would feel more at home.

[detoth67]

Don't be an idiot! THis has nothing to do with communism! You don't even know what that word means!

Cook outside with teflon? Thats not even remotely the same thing as making you smoke outside.

Tell me where in the constitution it says you have a right to kill other people with your stupid habits? It doesn't! Tell me where in the ban where it says you can't smoke at all? NOWHERE!

Yeah, keeping you from smoking in a bar is exactly like North Korea, moron!

[Goddess167989]

Firstly, please learn to type correctly before attempting your childish act against other people who have more brains in their ass than you do in your head.

Second, you really must have all kinds of time on your hands. I suggest looking into employment. I know you would not like it if we took away your welfare benefits :)

Thrid, you are VERY uneducated. I suggest you do some research on North Korea.

You are extremely immature and I suggest your mommy and daddy monitor you online.

[detoth67]

" people who have more brains in their ass"

I'm happy that we both agree that you have you head up your ass!!! LMFAO! Nice set up, little princess!!!

SO you are saying that smoking bans in restaurants and bars leads to communist authoritarian dictatorships? HAHAHAHHAAA!!!

NK banned smoking PERIOD. Not smoking in bars.

Try again, kid. That was VERY weak.

[Goddess167989]

LMAO! You are so naive and stupid I can't help but be amused by it :)

[hilzor]

We have a right because you gave us that right. When you consent to entering into a restaurant or bar, knowing that smoking is permitted, you give up your "right" (read: privilege) to be free from those ill health effects. You made your own personal health choices, and what you are attempting to do is take away the rights of everyone else.

[detoth67]

@hilzor Actually you are far from the truth. You don't give up the right to be healthy just by walking into a restaurant.

Show me where in the law that it states that.

Your babbling hysterics are now irrelevant once the ban takes effect.

[hilzor]

Actually, you do.

You're failing to understand the basic philosophy and logic behind this. You have no "rights" in that establishment because it is a privately owned business. Moreso, it is not a place you work or something that is a necessity for the basic conditions of life. It is a place of leisure. As such, when you willingly expose yourself to the elements, you are negating any claims you have to being unwillingly exposed to said substances.

[detoth67]

"You have no "rights" in that establishment because it is a privately owned business"

That applies to YOU and your imagined sense of right to smoke wherever you want. There are many laws on health and safety on private businesses. The health dept has restrictions on cleanliness, food preparation, employee health and safety, etc... This is noting out of the ordinary.

You don't have a clue!

[hilzor]

@detoth67

I mean, for fuck's sake, you have to be pretty stupid not to see the insanely simple logic here.

Entity A allows X behavior on their property, with N known consequences. Entity B participates in X behavior, knowing N. Entity C, aware of N, tries to force X out of the picture, because they do not like N, even though they are aware it is permitted on that property. Thus, entity C is suppressing the rights and ability to make health decisions of entities A and B.

SIMPLE LOGIC.

[detoth67]

A doesn't have the right to do whatever he wants simply because he owns property. A free nation doesn't mean you can do anything you want without regard to harming others.

You sound like a 1st year pre-law student.

[hilzor]

@detoth67

And let me illustrate this even further, just because you're so incapable of understanding it.

YOU give smokers the right to expose you to secondhand smoke because YOU willingly enter into a place that permits it. YOU, making choices about your own health, expose yourself to the secondhand smoke BY CHOICE.

Tell me, logically, what the difference between a smoke shop and a bar is with the exception of alcohol. If smoking is permitted it one, why is it not in the other?

[detoth67]

YOU are incapable of understanding much. WHen the law says that you can't expose people to your stupidity anymore, then your babbling lack of logic has no relevance what-so-ever.

DO you understand? The new law jsut negated your bullshit!

You don't have the choice to harm others.

You're finished here.

[michiganriverman]

Are you really that stupid?? The difference between a smoke shop and a bar: The only people who are ever going to enter a smoke shop are smokers! That can't be said for a bar. Do you have another stupid question?

[hilzor]

What happens if a smoke shop wants to serve alcohol, or food? Does it no longer have an exemption?

Is it only exempt because it serves nothing save tobacco?

The problem with your argument is that it is logically defunct and void of coherence.

A smoke shop is perfectly capable of having people who don't smoke enter the premises. And, like a bar, everyone realizes that there is smoking going on in that place of business. Your argument holds no weight.

[michiganriverman]

"What happens if a smoke shop wants to serve alcohol, or food? Does it no longer have an exemption?"

Then it's no longer a "smoke shop". Serving alcohol makes it a bar. Serving food makes it a restaurant. Damn, it's like talking to a 5 year old. A retarded 5 year old, at that.

"A smoke shop is perfectly capable of having people who don't smoke enter the premises."

I'm sure it's POSSIBLE for a non-smoker to enter a smoke shop, but being a non-smoker, why the hell would they???

[hilzor]

@michiganriverman

So in other words, it's merely a game of semantics, without any room for logic?

Got it.

It must be an interesting life to lead, so hopelessly inept and devoid of reasoning skills.

[michiganriverman]

No, dumbass, it's not semantics. It's the fact that, to serve alcohol, you must posess a liquor license. Do you know of any "smoke shops" that have a liquor license? No? That's why they can't serve alcohol! They would also have to be regulated by the local health dept. to serve food. And YES, THAT'S WHY THEY'RE EXEMPT! Like I said, talking to you is like talking to a retarded 5 year old. I'm amazed you have the ability to turn on a computer, or does someone do it for you?

[hilzor]

More ad hominems, and still a weak point. Congratulations, your argument still fails. :)

[michiganriverman]

Your only point is on the top of your head. You could wear a thimble for a hat.

[hilzor]

What you are proposing is a removal of the autonomy of individuals in regards to make their own health choices. You are claiming that your privilege of not being exposed to secondhand smoke overrules the RIGHTS of individuals to make health choices for themselves.

Don't like smoke? Don't expose yourself to it. Because you have a false sense of entitlement, as is the case with all people who support this ban, you believe that your WANT is more important than someone else's RIGHT.

[detoth67]

That is babbling nonsense! You can still kill yourself if you choose. Now you don't have the opportunity to take others with you.

Your rights aren't being effected one bit. SO stop whining!

YOU have a false sense of entitlement that you can do what you want, when you want without regard to others.

Tell me where in the constitution it gives you the right to harm others. COne on! You think you have the right. Show me where it is! You can't because it doesn't exist!

[hilzor]

@detoth67

Actually, my rights ARE being affected. What has happened is that my rights to make health choices inside a business of leisure, as well as the rights of the business owner to allow those habits to be present have been taken away.

Oh, and for the record, I DON'T SMOKE.

[detoth67]

AGAIN,you claim you and business owners have the rights to harm others. Please put your money where your mouth is and tell me the precise clause in the constitution that grants you those rights.

What makes your perceived rights dominate over the rights of others? There are many laws keeping people like you from harming others and from businesses from harming others. This is nothing new or outrageous. Stop pretending you;re such a victim and grow a spine!

[hilzor]

Yes, we do, because YOU give us that right when you enter into a privately owned business of leisure.

Answer my question.

What is the difference between a smoke shop and a bar, save the consumption of alcohol.

If you can answer that question with a logically coherent statement, your position will have validity.

[detoth67]

WRONG again! That statement is rendered irrelevant since the ban passed.

Thanks for playing, YOU LOSE!

[hilzor]

I'm not speaking terms of current policies you mouth breathing knuckle dragger.

You forget that "rights" are not defined by legality, but by a broader metaphysical concept - an idea.

You still haven't answered my question, which simply demonstrates your ineptitude. Thanks for proving your own idiocy.

[detoth67]

Broader metaphysical concept? BWHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!

Yeah, tell that to a judge, retard! The law works on realities. Not your babbling drunkenness.

Again, your retarded claim is rendered IRRELEVANT by the law. That is the purpose of the law. To say that non-smokers have rights to health. Despite selfish losers like you thinking different.

[hilzor]

Just like all rights not provided previously under the law were then won in the courts, right?

You defeat even your own arguments.

[detoth67]

You're not even coherent anymore!

Still: "Broader metaphysical concept" LMFAO!!!!!

[hilzor]

Simply claiming something doesn't make it so.

If rights are not a broader metaphysical concept, then how were they granted to individuals through courts, when no previous written laws existed either implicitly or explicitly stating that they had those rights?

[detoth67]

If you can't define where your claimed right to smoke in public settings is stated, then you are just blowing smoke up all of our asses.

20% of Americans smoke and stupidly you think the non-existent rights of those 20% are more important than the rights of the other 80%

You don't seem to understand something simple: You can still be a retard and smoke LEGALLY. You just can't be an asshole and risk others by your stupidity.

[hilzor]

You are aware that not all rights are explicit, but implicit, right? What do you think "human rights" are?

And as predicted, you STILL haven't answered my question regarding the smoke shop vs a bar or restaurant.

Furthermore, would a smoke shop no longer be allowed an exemption if they served coffee, drinks, or food in any sort, even if it wasn't their primary means of making money?

Unless you can answer these simple questions, every single point you make will be moot.

[hilzor]

Honestly, your failures at your own arguments are so brutal as to the point where I almost want to believe you're simply trolling.

[detoth67]

Here is a question for you: would you build a barbeque indoors?

Is it against your (LMFAO) metaphysical rights if govt says you can't?

How about shooting a gun within the city limits? Are you victimized that you can't so that?

You're starting to bore me with your nonsense!

[hilzor]

Apparently you've never been to texas - there are plenty of places that have barbeques indoors. In fact, wood pit restaurants are fairly common throughout the US.

Are you proposing a ban on those cooking methods due to the exposure of smoke to restaurant patrons and workers?

Nice try with the egregiously stupid gun metaphor. The problem - nobody is willingly putting themselves in front of the bullet. You still haven't been able to skirt around that issue, no matter how much you may try.

[hilzor]

@detoth67

The constitution gives me the right to self-autonomy and the right to make health choices for myself

What you are failing to realize, and what makes you so profoundly ignorant is that you can't grasp the simple concept that you are violating that.

There is no "imagined right" to smoke wherever I want. The OWNERS OF THE BUSINESSES IN QUESTION GAVE ME THAT RIGHT, AS ITS THEIR PRIVATELY OWNED ESTABLISHMENT.

[detoth67]

Nope! You are WRONG! The constitution doesn't give you the right to self autonomy. It expresses what the govt can and cannot do. The problem with your lack of logic is that smoking bans in 37 other states have stood up to constitutional scrutiny.

You were told to state PRECISELY where in the constitution it says you have the right to smoke in public places and harm others. You FAILED!

You can still smoke, you just cant do it where you can harm others.

[michiganriverman]

After May 1st, you'll have a RIGHT to get up off your lazy ass and step outside for your fix. What a tragedy for you!

[HairyChestnuts]

A far bigger tragedy for bar owners. The UK smoking ban has resulted in the closure of over 2,000 pubs. Not one of owned by the anti smoking bigots that demanded the ban. And why did they close? Because the smoking customers that were banned, were not replaced by the whining anti smokers. It turned out that most of them were anti drinkers too.

[hilzor]

Again, moron, I don't smoke.

So do you have another insipid, stupid remark to post, or can we get on to a real discussion?

[michiganriverman]

And I'm supposed to give a shit whether you smoke or not because...........???? You can consider that comment to be for smokers who are whining about having to go outside. Happy now? Idiot.

[hilzor]

@michiganriverman

No, your assumption was clear. You assumed that my opposition to the ban was based upon some hysteria from being a smoker, instead of having a logical, tacit perspective.

[csuabo]

Move to Serbia, sweetie. PS Look on map..yep...north of Greece, south of Hungary....there it's 1953.

You can smoke where ever you want. I was smoked out of a train.

The thing is: Smokers were never considerate until they were FORCED to be. If these draconian laws didn't come forth in this part of the world, you bastards would be polluting our air space all the time. You could care less about civility or consideration. Stop bullshitting yourselves.

[Goddess167989]

Stop crying and man up dearie. If you don't smoke and go somewhere you KNOW there will be smokers, well that is your own fault and you can't bitch you stupid basterd. I am considerate to other people, but it is people like you that cause smokers to make that exception. If you like to hand your ass to the government and let them control you to the point where they tell you when and how you can wipe your ass, that is your problem, not mine. Real Americans stand for freedom, maybe you should too

[sx600]

I think our Legislators and our Governor have bigger things to worry about than this Like maybe JOB creation!!!! Granholm is destine for some big place in our presidents cabinet soon anyway, she could care less about the rest of us here in this state. And eveyone is worried about Palin. I really don't like the smoking but I think we have bigger fish to fry!!

[Goddess167989]

Well said. You are 100% right on that fact. I have seen so many families destroyed and children go hungry because of Michigan's unemployment rate. I live in a small town and even here, within 1 year 3 people committed sucide due to this. It is very sad.

[csuabo]

Boo hoo smokers. Welcome to the 21st century.

[Goddess167989]

This law is bullshit. I swear, this country is turning communist.

Deport damn Granholm back to Canada, along with her big ass mole.

[andrewh23]

These are state laws that are passed by the state legislature that you elected. If you want your will as opposed to the majority of the population expressed through their chosen representatives, what kind of government is that? The governor doesn't draft or pass legislation - she simply favors or vetoes it.

[Goddess167989]

Hey dude I voted....but not for THEM.

What a better way for the government to continue to take our decision privileges away than to pick a topic that they know they have at least half of the publics support. Some people might be happy with the outcome, but remember one thing people.... Once the government starts, they DON'T stop. Choose wisely who you side with.

[detoth67]

HAHAHHAHAHAA!!! The republicans in the state legislature pushed hard for this and you stupidly whine about Granholm!

Damn, conservatives are stupid!!!!

[Goddess167989]

Wow, all I have to say is Valium....lots of Valium my friend. I hope it helps you :)

[loungelizard5000]

I quit smoking 4 years ago, but I think this law is bullshit. With this states economy the wqay it is, THIS is what our state government is worrying about? Fuck that. It hurts buisnesses. Nobody that works at a bar or restaraunt that allows smoking has to work there. Was it smoking when they asked for the job? YES !!!!! No one that dosen't like smoke has to go into said restaraunt. It's that simple. Fucking morons. There are plenty of bars and restaraunts that are NONsmoking by choice already.