Smoking ban is another blow to our freedom to make our own choices
Hail, all hail, to the State. The State has banned smoking. Don’t you feel safer? The State has banned cancer. Don’t you feel healthier? You no longer live in a country where people choose their own fate. The State will choose it for you.
If you’re a business owner, you can’t decide whether to allow, or not allow, smoking inside your business. Or whether to have smoking and non-smoking sections. The State has decided that for you. All power to the State! You are not allowed to get cancer. So don’t fear it. It’s been banned. You are not allowed to get it. All power to the State. Granholm, has signed it (the smoking ban). The fascist government has passed it.
It’s the law. So don’t mess with it. Just smoke in your bathroom. But be sure you put it out before exiting, or the person in the other room might die. Or he might not. The State will decide. Don’t worry about it. It’s not worth it anyway, is it? Slavery, I mean. Wake up, enslaved ones. The New Hampshire state motto is: “Live free or die.” Not cancer-free, or smoke-free. Just free. Have you forgotten that? Of course you have. You will regret it. Dan R. Eller Ypsilanti
Comments
bedrog
Mon, Jan 11, 2010 : 3:23 p.m.
@malorie...and "libertarianism" is sooo persuasive in this complex, non- isolationism prone world!... BTW what's ron paul up to lately, (aside from that brilliant bit in BRUNO)?...oh wait, he DOES have a regular feature on a conspiracy-theory/black helicopter/flouride in the water radio show in austin texas that's good for a chuckle when im there.
M.
Tue, Jan 5, 2010 : 11:28 a.m.
"And stop using this like it's the big brother syndrome taking over. It's people forcing common sense on you since you couldn't use it yourself. Deal with it." I thought "common sense" being "forced" on you was part of the "big brother syndrome" (libertarianism).
Freemind42
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 4:19 p.m.
Why is it that every argument against this type of legislation is a slippery slope argument? Come back with a logical debate and I'll take you seriously.
Freemind42
Mon, Jan 4, 2010 : 4:12 p.m.
What about the freedom of the non smokers? Have any of the people commenting on here actually tried to look at this from a viewpoint not their own? I am a smoker and I understand how annoying it is for the people who don't smoke. Just step outside and stop being a jerk for a second. Also, to get to the real point of the legislation, it's a public health issue not only in that smokers cost the people more money than any other social group because of health costs but it is an unsafe work environment for people who work in the service industry. Stop crying because you think that any Democratic legislation leads to an Orwellian apocolypse.
stan
Fri, Jan 1, 2010 : 11:26 a.m.
This is not an infringement on freedom. It's nice to see that Michigan finally got with the times and followed 37 other states.
bedrog
Fri, Jan 1, 2010 : 10:44 a.m.
bunkum...if i had to choose between a government that protected my health vs a private citizen that'd try to destroy it,while dim wittedly and perversely destroying his own, the government would win. oh wait!it has!! good! happy new year!
smokedbacon
Fri, Jan 1, 2010 : 1:17 a.m.
Smokers please pass this along lets make them eat what they try to justify! Ok Smokers lets give up. Yes we fully agree that second hand smoke has affected millions in the US with all forms of smoking related illnesses brought about by employment where smoking was allowed. So since this was a occupational hazard induced by employment then all these people should receive workers compensation for it! Yeper, free medical screenings for life. Free medical care for life, compensation for any loss of occupational wages, compensation for pain and suffering, free burial expenses, full coverage till the day they die! How many people have ever received a dime of workers compensation for second hand smoke exposure? Well my goodness the health care professionals would have to change their tune along with the legislators as if they really believe what they say there could be no argument as to not justifying payment to these workers! Well we all know what would happen dont we? Yes anti smokers would lose their jobs in a flash to never be heard from again! Yes do it, the NEWEST MONEY TRAIN TO TAKE FROM compliments of the anti smokers that will now loose everything as legislators will be saying what in the H did we do in opening pandors box!
StopThink
Wed, Dec 30, 2009 : 2:58 p.m.
What a load of crap! I grew up in a household where vulgar talk was the norm. So does that mean I can sit down next to a family and start dropping f-bombs as much as I want? I mean, hey, it's freedom of speech right? I'm smart enough to know that when my rights harm someone else, they're no longer rights. Too bad smokers can't see through their cancer cloud. Forget about it smokers, you're going to lose this every day. We've had to put up with your crap for YEARS and when saying anything would get the death stare all because we didn't want to breath your smoke that YOU KNOW CAUSES CANCER! Well, too bad. Go cry somewhere els. I have no pitty for you. And stop using this like it's the big brother syndrome taking over. It's people forcing common sense on you since you couldn't use it yourself. Deal with it.
Bill Wilson
Wed, Dec 30, 2009 : 2:22 p.m.
"The laws of Autonomy created in the wake, are largely being minimized by the bigots and zealots of Public Healthism, they are laws we found at the expense of millions who died without them. No one has the right to make health choices for others and no one has a right to demand rights to the detriment of others, especially with the convenience of a lie, as we find in the toxic effect of second hand smoke." Thomas, I've gotta agree. Look at the foolish laws that apply to eateries. Why should we be forced to wash dishes with hot water? People used cold water for thousands of years with little or no ill affect. Same with dishsoap. When the bar gets busy, we should be allowed to simply rinse and re-use the glasses. The alcohol kills any germs we might miss, eh? And why should we be forced to have separate water lines to feed the kitchen sinks and bathroom toilets? No one has ever conclusively linked food related illness to our use of single lines, so I agree, those who bring the suit should pay!
outdoor6709
Tue, Dec 29, 2009 : 11:59 a.m.
If citizens think smoking is so bad, why not pass a law saying possesion of tabbaco products in Michigan is a crime, punishable by a $200 fine?
Thomas Laprade
Tue, Dec 29, 2009 : 12:23 a.m.
The controversy of second hand smoke could be ended quickly by a simple act of legislation. Anyone presenting information represented as science or health reliant information, which is later found to be false or misleading, would be rewarded with a mandatory ten year jail sentence. I can guarantee the bandwagon of smoker hatred would end overnight and the profiteers would be making deals in self preservation convicting each other. Similar to the last time their ilk rose to prominence and Doctors were hanged at Nuremberg. The laws of Autonomy created in the wake, are largely being minimized by the bigots and zealots of Public Healthism, they are laws we found at the expense of millions who died without them. No one has the right to make health choices for others and no one has a right to demand rights to the detriment of others, especially with the convenience of a lie, as we find in the toxic effect of second hand smoke.
Raspel
Mon, Dec 28, 2009 : 10:25 p.m.
Erik's comments impressed me the most as he is a smoker, but several people have made some great comments and analogies here. It all boils down to this: the right to not be involuntarily exposed to the noxious and proven toxic effects of airborne tobacco smoke must always taker precedent over the smoker's so-called right to cause this pollution. If it only harmed the smoker, I don't think this would be an issue.
Gill
Mon, Dec 28, 2009 : 10:14 p.m.
Is shooting people in a business legal? Is lighting a business on fire legal? Is spraying pesticide in a business while people are in it legal? Is knocking down a business while people are in it legal? Since every country on the planet has one of these as illegal, I guess every government on the planet must be fascist. Small children will grow up with having no smoking allowed in public places. They will be the ones to unknowingly appreciate the ban most, as it was not a stupid and rude activity that was taken away from them.
David Briegel
Mon, Dec 28, 2009 : 6:28 p.m.
I agree with you Sue. Good post. I use the analogy of "passing gas".
TFF3
Mon, Dec 28, 2009 : 5:17 p.m.
Good article Dan and I agree completely. I am a non smoker, but a business owner should be able to decide what type of clientele he/she wishes to attract. Many establishments already are non smoking, or have smoke free nights. If it was worth it to their business, they would ban smoking. Many haven't, meaning their smoking clients are their best customers. And before anybody expresses their RIGHT to a smoke free environment.....just stop. Nobody is forcing you to patronize a smoking establishment.
John Galt
Mon, Dec 28, 2009 : 2:51 a.m.
They can pass all the laws they wish. Good luck enforcing them....They can't handle the serious crime, let alone the ticky-tack stuff they are passing lately.
Nick Bell
Sun, Dec 27, 2009 : 10:18 p.m.
Health inspections are put in place to ensure that a restaurant is doing good business. So that when they tell you they are selling you a meal, it is good food, not a pile of disease. This is similar to making sure a car is safe or that a computer works. The government should work to keep economic transactions fair and just. If health inspections were about just public health, they would ban the fatty, greasy food that leads to heart disease, which kills far more Americans than smoking does. But because there is a market for that food, it is allowed. If smoking is so bad that it is a public health crisis, why not ban it entirely? That would be a true health safety approach. Of course politicians have no desire to do that, because it is far easier to make moving off of tobacco taxes, increasing the state's coffers by the sale of a deadly vice. And so as long as it is legal, establishments should be able to decide for themselves is smoking is allowed. No one is forcing anyone to inhale second hand smoke in bars and restaurants. If you choose to go to an establishment that allows it, you are CHOOSING to inhale second hand smoke. If you don't want second hand smoke, you should just not go to those kinds of places. Patronize places that voluntarily ban smoking. Use your dollars and the free market to change businesses, rather than supporting laws that take away choices like this one.
theodynus
Sun, Dec 27, 2009 : 9:47 p.m.
Nick, if that's true, then I hope you're just as up in arms about the requirements for restaurants to pass health inspections, for the state to prohibit a chemical waste dump from opening up next to your house, or any other restriction put in place to protect your health.
David Briegel
Sun, Dec 27, 2009 : 9:21 p.m.
Erik, Great post! It's just common courtesy and decency! Fascism? You can't be serious! Most people don't even know the meaning of the word! Smoking costs all of us dearly by driving up the cost of insurance and health care. And the state has always had the right to stop you from doing harm to others!
Nick Bell
Sun, Dec 27, 2009 : 9:20 p.m.
I am sorry Erik, but you are wrong. This is entirely about freedom. This ban prohibits smoking on private property, taking away the rights of property owners without any compensation. Going to a restaurant or bar is not a right; it is a privilege extended to you by the property owner. He or she should have the right to set all the rules of entry, including allowing or banning smoking. If one doesn't want second hand smoke, they shouldn't go to places that allow it. Taking away rights in order to force one's morals and values onto others is simply wrong.
erik
Sun, Dec 27, 2009 : 8:55 p.m.
Angry and saddened as I am by the smoking ban (as a long-time and very, very happy smoker), the smoking ban isn't about freedom, much less about fascism. My freedom to put in body what I so choose ends at the point at which other people are going to end up with that substance in their bodies against their will. Smoking truly isn't just a personal choice if we smoke around other people. Admittedly, I love having places to smoke together with other smokers, but that doesn't mean I have a right to infringe on the literal air that other people breathe.