http://statenews.com Cookie-cutter political philosophy and party-line votes are the norm in Lansing. Doctrinaire legislators rule the day mostly because they lack the experience in statesmanship to see beyond simple ideological or partisan ideologies. en-us Foundry4 Mon, 08 Sep 2008 06:42:53 -0400 Sat, 24 May 2008 19:06:52 -0400 webmaster@statenews.com http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/16997/view Read this before you congratulate our lawmakers for this bill: http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080514/COL04/805140321 Wed, 14 May 2008 23:41:44 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/16997/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17008/view New Laws: I propose that all people must wear bicycle helmets at all times. Each person must have at least two servings of vegetables with every meal. And, don’t even think of exercising less than 30 minutes a day. Thu, 15 May 2008 09:17:54 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17008/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17009/view How quickly we’re willing to give up our own rights or take away the rights of others. Last time I checked, freedom of choice is (was?) one of the defining characteristics of what distinguished our society from others existing at the time that our nation was founded and up to the present. I don’t smoke, don’t care to smoke, and don’t like being around smokers. But I’ll be damned if I’m going to force that choice on others in public places where I have the option to be present or not, and where I have the option to work or not. Because sooner or later the know-it-all idiots we elect are going to come after something that is dear to me, and I’d rather not have set up the precedent to permit that to occur… Thu, 15 May 2008 09:20:55 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17009/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17012/view The government already has health standards for businesses. Are those against smoking regulations also against having health standards for business? I assume you believe it’s a good thing to have the kitchens in restaurants checked to ensure we are not served food that was inproperly handled and avoid becoming sick. Or would you have the market regulate that as well? People would simply learn which restaurants have dirty or unsanitary kitchens after numerous people contract e coli and THEN nobody would go there. Plus, the freedom of choice arugment works both ways. I am for freedom of choice, but not when an individual’s freedom of choice infringes upon another’s. This seems to largely be the pervailing argument about abortion. Yes, women should have the right to choose what to do with their bodies just not when it comes to abortion and their decision effects the fetus which has no freedom of choice in the matter. The same arugment can be made for smoking. An individual has the freedom to choose to smoke, just not in places where it infringes on others’ right NOT to smoke. When someone in a bar lights up, everyone else is smoking with them. Thu, 15 May 2008 09:42:14 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17012/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17014/view Yes, these are totally comparable to the smoking ban, Mark. Well done. Thu, 15 May 2008 09:46:58 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17014/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17021/view Joe, When you enter a restaurant or bar, you can tell within seconds whether or not they allow smoking. You cannot tell if they are practicing safe and sanitary food handling methods. Your argument isn’t a fair comparison. “An individual has the freedom to choose to smoke, just not in places where it infringes on others’ right NOT to smoke.” You have no “right” not to be offended by legal activities in privately owned businesses. But all of this is pointless, because the Free Press article linked above is probably correct about what is going to happen. Thu, 15 May 2008 11:21:53 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17021/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17024/view Benjy- But they could put a sign that says “approved by” some private certification group or something to that effect. I agree that it’s not a perfect comparison, but the point is that the government restricts the use of private property for health reasons among many others. The question is when do they cross the line? This is one of the rare instances where a slippery slope argument actually has some strength, although I wouldn’t want to make my stand on governmental intrusion when dealing with something that benefits nobody and has been proven to cause cancer. Thu, 15 May 2008 12:18:21 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17024/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17025/view Alright, now that we finally got private business owners to cut out the smoking. Let’s see…hmmm, think man, think, there has to something I can push down the publics throat that will be good for them. Steak, maybe, yes..big fatty steaks. I can make the case that you eating a steak adversley effects me because…because, that’ it! You eating a steak effects me because it forces my health insurance to go up inorder to pay for your heart attack! Perfect, better get right on this while the mood to contiue the pursuit of non-happiness is afoot in the land. Know a doctor who has a bumpter sticker that reads “Eat Right, Exercise, Die Anyway” better make sure he takes that off his car. Thu, 15 May 2008 12:51:11 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17025/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17029/view Say what you like about the smoking ban issue, but note that this article is actually rather well written. Congratulations, Eric. Thu, 15 May 2008 13:50:21 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17029/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17030/view bbwhine- Your example is no better than the one cricized by Benjy. You have to acknowledge that the dangers of smoking extend beyond the increase to my insurance premiums. Thu, 15 May 2008 13:55:19 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17030/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17032/view Food safety is not any different; I would be much happier if the state gave accreditation for meeting standards, but did not make failure to meet the standards grounds for closing down your business. At that point, they could even have different levels of accreditation so business had some reason to do more than the bare minimum. Thu, 15 May 2008 14:22:11 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17032/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17033/view Bleed green, I have no idea if you are being sarcastic or not. But, look at transfat legislation. The old joke is that it would be a slippery slope and that eventually the government would take away your twinkies. Some places have! Thu, 15 May 2008 14:24:47 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17033/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17034/view puff puff Thu, 15 May 2008 14:31:58 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17034/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17035/view I was indeed being sarcastic, Mark. The difference between the things you mentioned and smoking is that doing (or not doing) the things you mentioned doesn’t affect ME. Not true of smoking. I was in Atlantic City this weekend (a place I don’t plan on returning to ever again), and the casino I was in had “designated smoking areas,” while the rest of the place was smoke free. Surprise, surprise, the giant, open floor plan DIDN’T prohibit smoke from wafting throughout the entire building. If someone wants to smoke, fine, but the burden of finding a place to do so should be on them (and not on the non-smokers to find a place that’s smoke-free). As for transfats, I think that’s another argument entirely. I, for one, am happy when harmful additives are removed from things I might be eating…but then, I wouldn’t eat a Twinkie if you paid me. Thu, 15 May 2008 14:48:19 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17035/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17036/view “If someone wants to smoke, fine, but the burden of finding a place to do so should be on them (and not on the non-smokers to find a place that’s smoke-free).” Sorry, Bleed Green, but that comment is ridiculous. You don’t NEED to go to a restaurant (or an Atlantic City casino). If a restaurant allows smoking, you can freely choose to go somewhere else. That’s what I do. I have no problem with the state government encouraging business owners to go smoke-free (maybe even with some sort of incentive) but mandating it shouldn’t be necessary. If you don’t like it, don’t go. Thu, 15 May 2008 15:26:18 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17036/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17039/view No one is telling people they can’t smoke. The right to purchase cigarettes and to smoke them is not being taken away. All that is being asked of you is that you step outside to do it. That’s not terrible. In fact, it’s quite considerate. Second hand smoke has been shown to have negative effects that not even very good ventilation systems can prevent. It’s about time Michigan caught up with the rest of the country (not to mention the rest of the Midwest). Thu, 15 May 2008 15:55:13 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17039/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17040/view Smokers don’t NEED to go to any of these places either, Benjy. When all restaurants ban smoking (and I can’t wait), smokers can choose to quit, stay home, or step outside for three minutes. Everyone will benefit. For the record, I do avoid places that allow smoking, but sometimes it can’t be helped (like when going to a non-smoking concert venue [the House of Blues] that happens to be located within a casino). Thu, 15 May 2008 15:57:42 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17040/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17043/view Tim: Acknowledged. Point is, yes smoking is intrusive and a unheathy, who cares. Choose smoke free, that’s what I do. Have you noticed that over the past few years the govt. is passing more and more restrictive laws? At one point in our country you could do almost anything without asking the govt. for permission unless it was clearly illegal like murder and making your own whiskey. Since probably the 70’s more and more activities require citizens to “ask permission” from the govt. It won’t be too much longer before you will have to request “by your leaves” before you can do anything. I understand the point of not having smoking but I think the point of freedom gets lost in here too. You can choose to not go to a business that allows smoking (that would be my choice) but why is it necessary for the govt. to dictate this. You can also choose not to work in an environment that allows smoking. Yup, you don’t have to work in a place you don’t like, you’re free to roam about the county as the ad says. Don’t think the health Nazi’s are going to stop with this ban. They have a vested interest in telling others what to do, their concern for health is secondary to control issues. Thu, 15 May 2008 16:04:28 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17043/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17044/view “Smokers don’t NEED to go to any of these places either, Benjy.” I totally agree. What exactly is that supposed to prove? By the way, you couldn’t help going to a certain concert? Really? If you want to smoke somewhere, go to a place that allows it. If you don’t want to deal with smoke, go to a place with a smoking ban. If you do want to smoke, but choose to go to a non-smoking establishment, then don’t smoke and don’t complain. If you don’t want to deal with smoke, but choose to go to a smoking establishment, just shut up and don’t complain. How is that difficult to understand? Thu, 15 May 2008 16:40:33 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17044/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17045/view “By the way, you couldn’t help going to a certain concert? Really?” Oh man, you’re not even worth it. Truly. Have a good day. Thu, 15 May 2008 16:57:06 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17045/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17046/view Bleed Green, If someone wants to smoke, fine, but the burden of finding a place to do so should be on them (and not on the non-smokers to find a place that’s smoke-free). The problem with this statement is that, if want to create a place were people can come and smoke and drink together, this law makes it illegal. Thu, 15 May 2008 18:04:56 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17046/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17048/view Wahh, wahh, the government is being mean to me. The government is comprised of people YOU elected. If you don’t like the output, perhaps you should blame the input. The fact is that the “oppressive” government is comprised of people who realize that smoking is harmful and needs to go the way of the dinosaurs. Welcome to American democracy – where the majority has the power to tell the minority that we don’t want murderous free radicals floating through the air. Deal with it or change the government instead of whining here. Thu, 15 May 2008 18:20:56 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17048/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17364/view There are plenty of laws concerning so many things. Many laws consider felony if you were to commit them: murder, rape, robbery, child abuse, etcetera, etcetera and etcetera. How come many never complain these laws? Of course, to control humans to behave. Yet laws concerning smoking in public and motorcicle helmet’s laws everybody is crying bloody murder. I can never understand people in this country. No wonder many outside consider us ridiculous. Sat, 24 May 2008 19:02:51 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17364/view http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17365/view By the way, I am a nonsmoker, and proud of it. Sat, 24 May 2008 19:06:52 -0400 http://statenews.com/index.php/comment/17365/view