Getting back to the original topic of the post--

The Michigan smoking ban is still technically alive in the Senate, although since the chamber is under GOP control, passage will not be easy. It passed the state House with the bare minimum, despite widespread Democratic (which controls the chamber) and some Republican support.

The anti-smoking advocates are probably not happy about the bill's exemptions for casinos, cigar bars, racetracks and bingo halls, but these were needed to move the bill. They've stayed publicly silent on them.

If anything, the Senate will likely expand the exemptions if it acts on the bill. The Detroit casinos demanded they be treated the same as Michigan's 20 Native American casinos (which are considered soverign nations and therefore exempt), and the fact a casino in Windsor, Ontario, laid off 300 in 2006 after the province banned smoking was a concern.

The racetracks and bingo halls, as gambling establishments, wanted the same treatment. I doubt the bill would have gone anywhere without the casino exemption.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: MRM,

Using Jack's logic that MY cigar smoke is harming others, I wonder how his liberal friends would feel if I used that arguement to make abortions illegal.

After all, the actions of one person are dictating the health and well being of another. In some states, New York for example, if you commit a crime, say murder, and your victim was a pregnant female, you can now be charged with 2 counts of murder if that fetus dies. One count for the woman and one count for the fetus. When the state legislature passed that law it in all forms was stating that at one time that fetus was a living being. After all, you can not murder something that was not living in the first place. Therefore, according to the laws of the State of New York, life now begins at conception. More on this in a bit....

Now, the liberal left declare that my cigar smoking is a risk to another living being's wellbeing (the non-smaoking cocktail waitress) and push through laws that regulate where I can and can not smoke. I am no longer allowed to smoke in a privately owned business establishment called a bar because it is a risk to that non-smoking employee who chose to work there knowing that there is exposure to tobacco smoke when it was still legal to smoke there.

By the fetus being declared a living being by the lawmakers, then logically New York State should ban abortion also. After all, the actions of the pregnant mother and the abortion doctor are causing a risk to another living being, the fetus. Therefore, that doctor should be fined and that clinic should be forced to not allow abortions.

Now, here's the big differnce between the two scenarios: the waitress made the CHOICE to work there and put herself at risk whereas the fetus did not choose to be conceived or aborted..that choice was made for him or her.

I bet the liberal left would go NUTS if someone proposed that idea! I bet their response would be, "How dare you infringe on a woman's right to choose?!?!?" Well, I say, "How dare you infringe on a busines owner to decided what he allows in his business or my right to enjoy a cigar with my Jack Daniels?!?!"

So, according to the liberal view, it's not okay for me to smoke a cigar and infringe on the well being of a non-smoker, but it is okay for a woman to abort a pregnancy and infringe on the well being of her fetus. Isn't that what's called "Hypocrisy"???

Oh, and Jack...as far as the rat dropping comment is concered, when the day comes that I can walk into my local 7-11 and buy a pack of rat droppings off the shelf, I'll give you that part of your arguement back.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: The EVP,

quote:

So, according to the liberal view, it's not okay for me to smoke a cigar and infringe on the well being of a non-smoker, but it is okay for a woman to abort a pregnancy and infringe on the well being of her fetus. Isn't that what's called "Hypocrisy"???

The mind boggles.

Look, first of all, I dunno about "the liberal view". I don't presume to speak on behalf of the "liberal left" -- my comments here reflect my views only.

Second, I'm have no idea what your point is about abortion, why you thought it would be appropriate to insert it into a thread about smoking bans, or how it's in any way pertinent. Have you somehow gotten the dumb idea that if a person supports smoking bans, he'll also support abortion, just to be consistent?

And third, you begin your post by manufacturing a premise based on convoluted logic and a mistaken assumption, then use that premise throughout your argument (whatever it is you're arguing for -- against smoking bans, against abortion?). New York does not have the constitutional right to ban abortions. What the legislature can do is show concern for the rights of the unborn by passing feticide laws that provide for charging the killer of a pregnant women with two counts of murder. Many states have such a law.

quote:

Oh, and Jack...as far as the rat dropping comment is concered, when the day comes that I can walk into my local 7-11 and buy a pack of rat droppings off the shelf, I'll give you that part of your arguement back.

I have no earthly idea what the hell you're talking about.

quote:

smokers have rights.

I pursue happiness by smokeing.

So, if you pursued your happiness by groping women in subway cars ... ?

quote:

I have the right to do with or do to my body as I wish.

You do indeed. You just can't always do it in public.

quote:

being native american, smokeing tobacco is part of my religion

As the Massachusetts Appeals Court recently recognized and so ruled. But the smoking has to be part of a religious ceremony in a location normally used for such purposes. Your local saloon doesn't qualify.

quote:

Amendment Nine

Applies to the legislative process and the expansion of government power. Paraphrasing Justice Scalia, the ninth amendment isn't a source of rights, it tells us how to read the Constitution.

quote:

state constitution

Same reply.

Anything else?

I'm a NYC polie officer, and on 9/11, Im had the unfortunate position of witnessing the event. I saw people jumping from the twin towers, and the collapse of those bldgs. Among thousands I was enveloped the the dust clouds, and whatever else was spewed. 3000 people lost their lives. As we now know, as a result thousands more are getting sick. The one thing that struck me was how fleeting life is. Further, I have attended numerous training seminars on terrorism. The one constant is that our Middle Eastern cousins are intent on bringing us to our knees. Their ultimate choice of weapon is exploding a nuclear device. Whether by a dirty bomb or actual atomic bomb, this is the avenue by which they intend to travel. The second constant is not a question of if,but when. What has been lost beyond the initial casualties is the fact the geometrical effect is now countless. Experts have exerted that illnesses, both physical and emotional, will not play out until 10 to 20 years later. Whether or not they succeed, I ask you Mr. White, do you think exposure to second-hand smoke really matters.

quote:

I ask you Mr. White, do you think exposure to second-hand smoke really matters.

Ummm ... yes.

I still don't understand how the fact that No one is forcing people to work in a Cigar friendly establishment is being glossed over. It's not as though the wait staff and bartender are chained up like sweatshop workers.

quote:

Originally posted by trogdor:

yea, if your so anti smoke why are you in a cigar forum?
troll?
asshole?
what?

I don't think you all realize that Jack isn't stating personal opinion (in most of his posts in this thread)...he's accurately relaying the law, the Constitutional justification, and the decisions of the Supreme Court...It's not his word against yours here, he's pointing out what the law has decided when presented with the same arguments you're offering.

I think Jack and I are miles apart on most issues, but here, he's pretty darn close to what my studies have revealed...To attack him personally is uncalled for when he is simply offering some information most people don't have available to them or don't have the time to research themselves...

jag

I don't agree with Jack on too many things, but I don't disagree completely with him here. I don't like everything he says, but I don't know, I just don't see it as an inconvience not to be able to smoke in public resturants and such places. I mean, that's why you have a home and also smoke shops and cigar bars. Personally, I would go to one of those places instead of a public place where you know the majority of people don't want you. Just my opinion...

quote:

the word abortion can not be found in the constitution, yet we are told that a woman has a "right " to one. The constitution does say the "right" to own guns shall not be infringed, yet it is infringed up the ass.

Ok you are right so what do we do about it.As Americans hell as human beings.I leave you with these famous quotes from IMHO The greatest President of all.

quote:

Originally posted by trogdor:

well, sorry, but the law is an ass

the word abortion can not be found in the constitution, yet we are told that a woman has a "right " to one. The constitution does say the "right" to own guns shall not be infringed, yet it is infringed up the ass.

my feeling - don't take away my rights while pulling your's out your ass.

I'll agree with you there, I don't like a lot of the laws we have and consider many of them intrusive...I'm glad to see your direct your frustration at the law and not another board member...

I think it's curious that you only look to smoking, guns, and tobacco, though when you get frustrated...Everything you do every day is regulated...from the electricity that powers your morning alarm clock to the radio station that plays when it's time to get up...try and find a product in your bathroom without some sort of warning or caution...if it's not on the product, it was on the wrapper...you're in your taxed for your dwelling and drive to work in one of the most heavily regulated products around, from it's construction, to the fuel it can burn and the speed you must follow...You work in a place full of regulation, from employee protection to income tax, and eat food that has passed numerous inspections, storage, and safety requirements...

I could do this all day...I think my point comes across...But don't be mad at me for pointing it out...I sure didn't pass any laws...and while Sheepshead may be a bit extreme, he makes a valid point as well...your options are to return the power to the state or local govenrment, which is no guarantee that you'll get the freedoms your after, or give the power back to the people, which is no guarantee that you'll enjoy the protections you take for granted now. Or, the liberal view, which I can't discuss while keeping a straight face...

There's an election year coming up...it's a good time to use your frustration as positive energy helping the guy you think will best represent you get into office...If you're serious, there's more you can do than voting...or, you can simply complain, that's allowed in this system as well...

jag

quote:

Originally posted by trogdor:
_____
Ok let's see

the worker's in a bar or resteraunt can not be denied clean air... is that the argument.

what about workers at chemical plants, auto plants, steel mills, slauter house's, et all
where's the equal protection of the law?
this no smokeing stuff is just a smoke screen.

Now I can't tell if you're sincere are just being argumenative...I'll offer an explanation if you honestly can't see the difference between a restaraunt and a chemical plant, let's consider in a chemical plant, the workers assume a risk, both the plant and the worker are insured, there is elaborate safety precautions including ventalation, containment, and personal protective gear, and everyone in the plant is an employee with an assumed risk. And the industries you mentioned are some of the most heavily regulated...the argument should be if you can impose such safety measures here, it should be a no-brainer to impose a simple smoking ban in a restaraunt...

Now, in a restaraunt, you have a public patronage there that has not made any concessions to smoke inhalation. You have a staff that (typically) has no insurance from the establishment, and the establishment has no insurance for long term helth issues. While there may be a smoke-eater, it is generally insufficient to reduce the impact of second hand smoke, and you have a staff that does not assume the risk of harm from second hand smoke. The amount of public money spent on the long term care of people with medical problems resulting from smoking is enormous compared to those that work in industry, and smoking is a voluntary activity...no one needs to smoke.

This argument can continue back and forth for a long time, however I get the suspicion you're getting more frustrated and adamant to your point.

I keep saying, I don't like the bans any more than you do, however there's a pretty solid history behind them and they're getting tougher and tougher to defeat. I'm just trying to shed a little light on the topic...

jag

I think you have a point there Jag that those industries are heavily regulated but what about the other "high risk" public activities. Correct me if I am wrong (and I freely admit I might be) but in attending a baseball game don't you assume the risk and forego the right to sue for being hit by a foul ball when you buy the ticket. Similarly I have heard that in entering an amuseement park your ticket is a contract and has a waiver on the back.

If I enter a resturant where there is smoking then I am assuming the risk. If I did not want to I would not eat there.

quote:

Originally posted by SAXON9075:
I think you have a point there Jag that those industries are heavily regulated but what about the other "high risk" public activities. Correct me if I am wrong (and I freely admit I might be) but in attending a baseball game don't you assume the risk and forego the right to sue for being hit by a foul ball when you buy the ticket. Similarly I have heard that in entering an amuseement park your ticket is a contract and has a waiver on the back.

If I enter a resturant where there is smoking then I am assuming the risk. If I did not want to I would not eat there.

Regardless of what those tickets say, you can definitly sue if you get hit by a foul ball. I'm not sure who you would be sueing exactly, but I'm 100% positive you can sue as I've seen it happen probably 10 or more times.

quote:

Originally posted by jms2788:

quote:

Originally posted by SAXON9075:
I think you have a point there Jag that those industries are heavily regulated but what about the other "high risk" public activities. Correct me if I am wrong (and I freely admit I might be) but in attending a baseball game don't you assume the risk and forego the right to sue for being hit by a foul ball when you buy the ticket. Similarly I have heard that in entering an amuseement park your ticket is a contract and has a waiver on the back.

If I enter a resturant where there is smoking then I am assuming the risk. If I did not want to I would not eat there.

Regardless of what those tickets say, you can definitly sue if you get hit by a foul ball. I'm not sure who you would be sueing exactly, but I'm 100% positive you can sue as I've seen it happen probably 10 or more times.

You can sue, you won't win...children will always win, but as an adult at those games you do assume the risk (called an Expressed Assumption of Risk) and in effect give up your right to civil suit should you get hurt in a "forseeable" fashion...baseball, a foul ball is forseeable, the lights falling into the crowd ala The Natural is not foreseeable. Children always have a right, and can never assume the risk, but sporting events, fitness centers, public pools, amusement parks...by participating an adult is effectively giving up their right to sue...

JMS, I'm wondering, actually assuming, that the cases you are referring to are either children, or are settled before going to court. There is a certian public relations aspect that wouldn't be good for a professional sports team to have someone die from a foul ball or a hockey puck and say, "oh well," the negative impact to the stadium, team, and sport, is worth paying some despite the fact the injured party would have little to stand on in court.

Making the connection of this type of risk to second hand smoke is difficult at best...that's where public policy plays a factor...with the stigma around smoking, it's easier for lawmakers to "create" enough risk to allow a ban...it's easy to say that, "the detrimental effects of 20 years of second hand smoke to a bartender will be significant and costly too public healthcare"...no one's solidified it and we've seen enough medical problems from smoking that the connection is easily assumed...couple that with more non-smokers that smokers and you get bans passed pretty easily.

But there certianly is a difference in situations where people are employed and take on risk then patrons to a ball game...training, insurance, experience, equipment, etc...I suppose a good enough lawyer could make the connection...I'm still wet behind the ears...

jag

I will inquire, but you are probably correct that it was either a child or settled out of court.

Where did you go to school, Jag?

quote:

Originally posted by jms2788:
I will inquire, but you are probably correct that it was either a child or settled out of court.

Where did you go to school, Jag?

The only other way I could see a suit is when, for example, you have seats at a a hockey game right behind the glass, and the glass breaks and you get hit...or you're right behind the endzone and a football game and the kick goes over the net...the glass and the net are there to protect you and they failed...that creates an interesting case where honestly, the best lawyer will win...

I'm still in law school...and this thread has been kind of interesting as I just took exams in Constitutional Law, Torts, Criminal, Property, and Contract Law, and this topic has pretty much covered them all...

Currently, I attend Thomas M. Cooley Law School...I'm debating transferring to get out of Michigan, this thread topic being one of many reasons, so who knows where I'll be 6 months from now...

jag

Eh, it's not that much better anywhere else. Smoking bans are all over the place.

You can't smoke anywhere around here in public, yet you can buy Dutch Master's at my school bookstore. So, you can't smoke tobacco, but apparently drug use is no problem. I don't get it.