Posted on 12/06/2007 5:29:42 AM PST by ShadowDancer
Michigan House Passes Ban On Smoking In Bars, Restaurants
POSTED: 7:47 am EST December 6, 2007
UPDATED: 8:10 am EST December 6, 2007
Smoking in Michigan workplaces, including bars and restaurants, would be banned under legislation passed by the Democratic-led state House.
The vote is a victory for supporters, who have been pushing the measure for a decade.
But it may not get very far in the Senate because majority Republicans oppose it.
Backers say a majority of state residents want a broad workplace smoking ban, and point to the harmful effects of secondhand smoke on employees and patrons.
Opponents say smoking is legal and government shouldn't interfere with the rights of private property owners.
Casinos, horse tracks, bingo halls, cigar bars and smoke shops would be exempt from the smoking ban.
Yep, 100% dead on. Never told you, but Ruby Tuesday and a few other nationwide chains waited until just before the election (the one with the ban) to build here. We’d never had them here before.
The nationwide chains OWNED the Delaware Restaurant Association and forced their support of the ban there.
"Two drink minimum.
"Two drink maximum."
I had an ashtray (and used it copiously) in the delivery room where my two kids were born (1982 and 1984).
God, I miss that.
The somebody else being governmental bodies treading on age-old custom with rumor and innuendo as a basis and excuse.
Then those people should start their own bars and restaurants, rather than using the guns of government to enforce their will on the rest of us.
Fabulous.
Now leave me one bar I can go to and smoke.
Now if we could only get rid of fat people and people who talk on their cell phones while driving and people who do anything else we don't do.
The idea and strategy to begin this country started in taverns.
I would just bet there might have been drinking and smoking going on.
How much of a delight will it be when they go red-meat, potato, desert, coffee and butter free?
Yes.
“Icky” alert.
Too many statists on here.
Under Hillarycare, those actions would have earned you a trip to jail.
Thanks for the ping!
And some DU’ers posing as ‘conservatives’ on FR. ;^)
I can't answer for Dave, but I hope you won't mind if I butt in and give my own opinion.
Unfortunately, I don't have a neat and clear line which separates when the government can regulate and when they can not. However, there are some general principals I refer to when thinking about these issues.
First, I think as a general rule it is better when the government is limited and individuals have liberty. This doesn't mean that individuals must never be restrained, nor that governments should never be empowered to act. It just means that it is usually better to let people make their own decisions and arrange their lives according to voluntary cooperation.
Governments are clumsy, inefficient, coercive, and have a tendency to be abusive. So if we really think the government should be involved in something, I think several conditions must be met -- as a minimum.
*First, there should be no reasonable alternative to the government solution.
*Second, any government intrusion should be as limited and minor as possible.
*Third, both the government solution and goal it is designed to achieve should be balanced against our core values like private property rights, free expression, privacy, etc.
Finally, whoever is promoting an increase in government power should have the burden of proving that it is the right thing to do.
Not very controversial requirements, at least not for a conservative. Don't you agree?
Since people who want to avoid smoke in restaurants can simply choose not to eat at smoky restaurants, I don't really see why the government should be involved. People can easily detect the danger and just as easily avoid it. With this in mind, why do you nevertheless believe that a government solution is required?
If government can regulate business about controlling behaviors which negatively influence other people, can then government tell gays they can’t get married? What about abortion?
First of all, I think we would both agree that governments shouldn't have the power to regulate behaviors which "negatively influence other people". This would be such a broad power that the government could regulate all advertising, menu choices, speech, etc. Certain specific "negative influences" perhaps, but a general power in this regard would be unwise.
Second, I think it's pretty easy to distinguish between the smoking ban issue and gay marriage and abortion. Gay marriage involves the granting of special government privileges...the government has to be involved in that matter, since it is a government ceremony that is at issue. As for abortion, this involves an act that is directly harmful to a non consenting person. It doesn't really have anything to do with customers who knowingly and voluntarily enter a smoke-filled restaurant, unless perhaps restaurants now grab people off the street and force them to sit in the smoking section.
So did the beer hall putsch.
None of those things leave a lingering stench.
Some posts on FR leave a lingering stench.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.