The RIGHT way to limit smoking – Update

In January, I reported on a Traverse City business which had made a choice to limit smoking to certain times and days. It drew a little conversation from a typical fascist liberal who felt it should still be the government’s responsibility to limit individual rights. Well in following up on this we find there will be a change upcoming.Nancy Freund of Little Bo’s has gone the extra step and made her business completely smoke free as of February 22. She has done so WITHOUT the government mandating it, and is likely to reap benefits as a result.  Though it may not work for some businesses, a smoke free environment can be quite popular for some who wish to patronize her type of business yet have difficulty breathing in a smoky environment.

We applaud her and her efforts to control her environment independent of “big brother” government interference  in the affairs of her business.  This move also has another advantage over a government mandate..  If her business suffers because of her policy change, she can always modify it.

9 comments for “The RIGHT way to limit smoking – Update

  1. February 11, 2009 at 10:21 am

    Gee, I sure hope you weren’t referring to me when you called the person who wants to do the right thing and protect the public health with a workplace smoking ban a “fascist liberal.” I am proud be called a liberal, but I am certainly not a fascist.

    So, would the Republican who introduced the ban in the new legislative session in the House – Rep. Paul Scott, R-Grand Blanc – be a “fascist liberal?” Would the eight Republican Senators – Senators Jelinek, Kahn, George, Birkholz, McManus, Pappageorge, Cassis and Patterson – who vote for House Bill 4163 that bans smoking in bars and restaurants be “fascist liberals?”

    Would the nine Republican members of the House who voted for the ban be called “fascist liberal?” I don’t believe they or I are “fascist liberals.”

    But, I guess when have no facts on your side you have to stoop to name-calling. This is a public health issue, and the Legislature has a constitution obligation to protect the public health.

  2. jgillman
    February 11, 2009 at 10:47 am

    Oh I wouldn’t resort to “name calling” I am simply calling it what it is. I do not name call generally, though I might poke and prod a bit.

    You assume that government has the right and obligation to control the activities of an individual or entity. Is that not fascist? Fascism, though commonly associated with “right wing” activity with some definitions, is better described as this: fascism – 1. the tenets of a centralized, totalitarian, and nationalistic government that strictly controls finance, industry, and commerce, practices rigid censorship and racism, and eliminates opposition through secret police.

    The very same thought process which guides your opinion that government has the right to run and control your life and business is in the process of nationalizing the market as a whole. The very same process which holds me as a business owner accountable for the actions (choosing to enter my place of business or not) of other individuals is now in charge. Now certainly those who elected Barack Obama couldn’t bear to see their beloved “Omnipotent O” being called what he is, but I have simply put it out there.

    And while you might equate your brand of liberal-fascism to those “Republicans” who have made the mistake of even considering these statist laws seriously, the remainder of their records STILL hold them at a higher level of personal freedoms than your own personal taste appears to be. However, this does not mean they will be held unaccountable.

    All the Liberal-Fascists who call for the choice of a woman to kill an unborn child when the CHILD has no choice complain like the rotten wretches ( <-THIS is name calling) they are, when we don't consider their health for walking into or applying to work at a place where we might be enjoying our own personal liberties. Name calling ? no. Calling Liberal-Fascists what they are by definition? yes.

  3. February 11, 2009 at 11:17 am

    No, government has the right and obligation to protect the public health and well being of citizens, and that’s what the workplace smoking ban does. So, no it is not fascist anymore than it’s facist to recall dangerous products, tell a restaturants how many parking spots it must have and what temperature it must store raw meat at.

    You should stick to the name-calling based on that rant.

  4. jgillman
    February 11, 2009 at 11:39 am

    Parking spots? Seriously, you reveal the VERY Fascist “control” side of your ideology.

    The government has NO such “right.”

    If we are talking about public places which are “owned” by the public, I would cede the argument in your favor. However, as private property is one of the main protections this country’s founders wished to enhance through the constitution, I would hardly assume the function of any government entity by takings through this method would be acceptable.

    You apparently support “takings” through control and nationalization Thus.. Liberal-Fascist.

    No name calling.. I am sure you are a nice person.. Just wrong.

  5. February 11, 2009 at 12:53 pm

    Apparently you have never been to a planning commission meeting because the government certainly does have the right to require a certain number of parking spaces, as well as requiring the proper setbacks, sewer taps and height restrictions. But I have no idea how you jumped to the ridiculous conclusion that makes me a fascist, it is a taking of property or its nationalization. Parking lots are owned by the business, and are not publicly owned.

    The number of parking spots may have been a bad example; – valid but bad, but the other two were good ones. I’ll add more that protect the public health – taken right from a restaurant inspection form – Cross Contamination, Dispensing Utensils Properly Stored, Hair Restraints, Garbage Containers or Receptacles Covered, Adequate Number and Necessary Toxic Items Properly Stored and the most important: banning toxic substances, like secondhand smoke.

  6. jgillman
    February 11, 2009 at 1:10 pm

    I understand the planning process perfectly well. I know there are people who feel it is their duty to manage, zone and centrally articulate THEIR purpose for a community. It does not automatically make it right however. Your argument suggests that if enough folks said NO MORE CARS within the city limits within the framework of government, that it would OK to enforce such an ordinance.

    If you DON’T agree, then at what point do we stop the government from absolving us of our constitutional rights? At what point is it OK for US to exclaim that government has crossed the line?

    Liberal-Fascist thought process only knows the relative state of things. Thus you find it OK to curtail smoking by force simply because it is ok for government to intrude in other areas? Sad.

    As to dirt and disease.. you suggest the same process of keeping the bugs out of the soup be used to infringe on an owner’s right to run his or her business. You are incorrect, in that the “bugs” might be an invisible aspect of a patron’s visit, whereas anyone who walks into a restaurant which allows smoking surely can tell if it is one.

    However the fact that you as well as other Liberal-Fascists do not feel we can manage our own affairs well enough to look out for our health. Your relativistic thought process is a crippler in a free society.

    As I stated earlier ..you are wrong.

  7. February 11, 2009 at 2:50 pm

    Those people are called Planning Commissioners, and it is their duty to protect the public; to see that a structure is built property, safe and meets all laws and regulations. It is right, and the laws they are enforcing are ones that the people want and are Constitutional. I don’t see how “no more cars within the city limits” meets those two tests, and writing it in all caps only makes it a more ridiculous apples and oranges comparison.

    No one is depriving you of your constitutional right to smoke, but the law will protect the health of innocent bystanders. You do understand that secondhand smoke is a toxin; there is no debate on that. I would think when the deadly smoke from your cigarette – or anyone’s if you don’t smoke – goes up someone else’s nostrils then you are violating that person’s right to breathe healthy air and are endangering their healthy.

    Just because you own a business does not give you the right to endanger other people’s health. That is not a right. Of course someone can tell if they walk into a restaurant which allows smoking, but that’s not the point. The employees should not have to choose between receiving a paycheck and their health. Many people simply cannot be around secondhand smoke because of breathing ailments, so why is it OK to deprive them of their rights?

    I can’t speak for “Liberal-Fascists” because I don’t know any. But what this liberal knows is two things: you are wrong, and if you look at who voted for and against this ban, you will find it is not a partisan issue.

    By the way, it was nice of you to highlight the Traverse City restaurant for doing the right thing. TC is very progressive, and they want to ban it locally.

  8. jgillman
    February 11, 2009 at 4:12 pm

    See the Next Post for further Discussion.

Comments are closed.

Loading Facebook Comments ...