Attention Michigan restaurant and bar owners

I would just like to put it out there that to the best of my abilities, I will travel and patronize any restaurant or bar that disregards the smoking ban and allows it’s patrons to light up.

Disregarding the smoking ban has already been happening in Ohio. Not only are a bunch of limp wristed busybodies hell bent on screwing over property rights making a list, but even some business have flat out defied the fines:

Bill Delaney got his first violation on May 4. Since then, he has been issued another 54 tickets at Delaney’s Lounge in Toledo.

The 68-year-old, non-smoking, non-drinking Tea Party member hasn’t paid a dime and proudly defies the ban, placing big glass ashtrays across the bar and on every table, and even putting a sign in his front window: “This is a smoking establishment.”

I can only hope Michigan proprietors will follow suit.

And like I said – I will attempt to travel to and patronize any establishment (road trip, anyone?) that allows people to light up in their place of business.

19 comments for “Attention Michigan restaurant and bar owners

  1. May 4, 2010 at 9:12 pm

    Well good luck with your misguided decision to break the law and ignore the will of the people, but you’re going to have a couple of problems finding someone dumb enough to break the law. The first thing is they will lose money. Based on how crowded the bars and restaurants were on May 1, it has increased business. Second, they won’t be serving food or alcohol for long because they will lose their license to do so.

    If you find some idiot willing to ignore the law make sure you publish it so I can blog about it and bring it to the attention of their local health department.

    • jgillman
      May 4, 2010 at 9:31 pm

      “If you find some idiot willing to ignore the law make sure you publish it so I can blog about it and bring it to the attention of their local health department.”

      Somehow, it doesn’t surprise me you would be willing to be THAT guy. Perhaps in another life you would simply point to the floorboards and yell “JUDEN!”

    • May 5, 2010 at 2:53 am

      Well good luck with your misguided decision to break the law and ignore the will of the people

      Really? Will of the people? How about the will of a busy-body legislature that thinks it knows what is good for us?

      Even if it was a vote of the populous that put this law into effect, screw them.

      In order to prevent democracy from becoming a tyranny over minorities, individual rights must supersede all democratic voting and all regulations. Rights must come first. Laws should come second, and only to protect those rights; nothing more.

      Stuart Hayashi

      Democracy is not a system of liberty, but a form of tyranny: the tyranny of the majority.

      Robert Garmong

      So, yeah. The tyranny of the majority can quite frankly blow it when they decide to infringe on individual liberties. But like I said, it was the legislature that voted this in, not the people direct.

      but you’re going to have a couple of problems finding someone dumb enough to break the law. The first thing is they will lose money. Based on how crowded the bars and restaurants were on May 1, it has increased business. Second, they won’t be serving food or alcohol for long because they will lose their license to do so.

      If you find some idiot willing to ignore the law make sure you publish it so I can blog about it and bring it to the attention of their local health department.

      Did you see the quote from the freep article that I posted?

      • May 5, 2010 at 7:49 am

        That is correct, the will of the people. Not only does the public support the ban in poll after poll, but the majority of people elected to represent us support it, too.

        “Even if it was a vote of the populous that put this law into effect, screw them?” Wow, you must really hate this country. You certainly have no respect for the law.

        Poisoning the person seated next to you is not a right. I do support a person’s right to smoke, especially in the privacy of their own home. The reality is that secondhand smoke kills. In fact, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has classified secondhand smoke as a Group A carcinogen containing 4,000 chemicals, including 43 cancer-causing chemicals. In Michigan alone 2,000 people die each year from secondhand smoke. As such, I firmly believe that smokers’ rights end when their personal choices negatively impact the health and well-being of nonsmokers. This is especially important given that secondhand smoke is the third leading preventable cause of death in the U.S.

        This law is not about the state trying to interfere with a business decision. It is about the state protecting the public’s health just as it does with regulations about how restaurants store, handle and prepare food. We don’t leave it up to businesses to decide if they will require their employees to wash their hands before preparing customers food, what temperatures they should maintain their food at, or what procedures should be taken when handling food. We require certain regulations be followed to protect the health of the public. It is no different with secondhand smoke.

        “But like I said, it was the legislature that voted this in, not the people direct?” Not only do you hate this country, you also don’t know how the greatest form of government works either.

        “Did you see the quote from the freep article that I posted?” Nope. Why would I bother?

        You know what, who cares what you think because the debate is over, but I’m not going to let you continue to spread lies about it either.

        • jgillman
          May 5, 2010 at 8:35 am

          What is it about liberty that you progressives do not like?

          You have no more interest in the affairs of a business owner than what you are willing to agree with to do business with them, be it working or otherwise. Yet you assume that because a democratic action has taken place, tyranny is quite alright.

          Public health can be served by patrons who dislike smoke staying out of some establishments. Period. You MUST agree with that, OR you refuse top recognize private property rights. Its very simple.

        • May 5, 2010 at 1:00 pm

          Wow, you must really hate this country. You certainly have no respect for the law.

          I’ll support individual liberties over illegitimate laws any day of the week. I would imagine that would mean quite the opposite of your claim that I “must really hate this country”.

          As such, I firmly believe that smokers’ rights end when their personal choices negatively impact the health and well-being of nonsmokers.

          What about the rights of business owners to decide what they do or do not allow? As has been asked MANY times before, what gives the non-smokers any right to dictate by force what a business can do? If someone doesn’t like the smoking in an establishment, they are free not to patronize it.

          No one, and I say again, no one, has a right to patronize or work for any particular private establishment.

          This law is not about the state trying to interfere with a business decision.

          It absolutely is.

          It is about the state protecting the public’s health

          As was mentioned by my dad, if it is really a health issue, then why the exceptions?

          We don’t leave it up to businesses to decide if they will require their employees to wash their hands before preparing customers food, what temperatures they should maintain their food at, or what procedures should be taken when handling food. We require certain regulations be followed to protect the health of the public.

          Guess what, I’m not even going to defend these regulations. If a business were to partake in activities which involuntarily harm patrons, they have the right of recourse by A) The courts and B) Not further patronizing an establishment.

          Believe me, a rational business isn’t going to want to harm it’s customer base. It’s ok, things won’t go willy nilly if the government isn’t involved.

          It is no different with secondhand smoke.

          You’re right – well, sort of. It’s pretty obvious whether or not smoking is allowed in an establishment, so the involuntary harm issue is kind of moot. Refer to part B) where I talked about not patronizing an establishment.

          “But like I said, it was the legislature that voted this in, not the people direct?” Not only do you hate this country, you also don’t know how the greatest form of government works either.

          Really? How did the people directly vote this in? They didn’t. They elected politicians who voted this in. I’m inclined to believe that YOU don’t know how the system works.

          “Did you see the quote from the freep article that I posted?” Nope. Why would I bother?

          Because I put the quote right in my post. It’s in the middle. You might need to see an optometrist.

          You know what, who cares what you think because the debate is over, but I’m not going to let you continue to spread lies about it either.

          You’re right, it is over – this law is clearly a violation of individual liberties. As for the lies, I’m waiting for you to point out the ones I’ve made.

          • May 6, 2010 at 9:04 pm

            “I’ll support individual liberties over illegitimate laws any day of the week?” Who gets to decides if it’s illegitimate, you? I have a right to breathe healthy air. Again, you must really hate this country. This is a country of laws.

            “What about the rights of business owners to decide what they do or do not allow?” Do they get to decide if they want to follow the health code or not? The answer, by the way, is no.

            “What gives non-smokers any right to dictate by force what a business can do? “ That’s as easy one; The Michigan Constitution. Where do the employees go to escape deadly secondhand smoke?

            Once again, this law is not about the state trying to interfere with a business decision. It is about the state protecting the public’s health. Why the exceptions? Simple, there are people out there, like you, making false claims about it hurting business when it is simply not true. All or nothing does not make sense to me. When people see the workplace smoking ban does not hurt business, casinos will be smokefree, too.

            Secondhand smoke is more dangerous to patrons and employees than employees failing to wash their hands before preparing customers food, maintaining their food at improper temperatures, or improper food handling procedures. We require certain regulations be followed to protect the health of the public, and now that include secondhand smoke.

            “Believe me, a rational business isn’t going to want to harm it’s customer base?” I don’t know what that means. A business that cares about its customers and employees will do the right thing and follow the law.

            So, you think every single law is supposed to go on the ballot? Again, you really do hate the framers of the Constitution.

            Like I said, the debate is over, but I’m not going to let you continue to spread lies about it either. The law protects the public health, and that is the duty of the Legislature. I know you hate our form of government, but I suggest you read Article IV Section 51 of the Michigan Constitution. I’m at a loss as to what individual liberty is being violated. The freedom to poison everyone in the room? If you want to poison your lungs, fine that’s your right, but you do not have a right to poison someone else’s lungs.

            If you think it’s such a violation of individual rights, file a lawsuit.

          • jgillman
            May 6, 2010 at 9:57 pm

            They are by default interfering with a business decision. It cannot be more clear. You may SAY that water is not wet, but it does not make it so.

            Employees can go to another workplace. It is called freedom of association.

            Go run a business. Make those decisions you deem important, then deal with the asshats who presume to know better than you how you may sell your product. Your limited perspective makes you quite blind.

            “I’m not going to let you continue to spread lies about it either. ” so what.. what will you do.. scream at the top of your lungs? You have a child like temper thing growing it seems..

          • May 7, 2010 at 11:18 am

            Who gets to decides if it’s illegitimate, you?

            Well it’s certainly not mob rule, or you.

            I have a right to breathe healthy air.

            You have the right to not enter my business.

            “What gives non-smokers any right to dictate by force what a business can do? “ That’s as easy one; The Michigan Constitution. Where do the employees go to escape deadly secondhand smoke?

            I suppose you would have been completely OK with Plessy v. Ferguson? Because a government is granted a power doesn’t mean they should, or they should use such powers for things they shouldn’t.

            As for employees, they can go work elsewhere.

            Once again, this law is not about the state trying to interfere with a business decision. It is about the state protecting the public’s health. Why the exceptions? Simple, there are people out there, like you, making false claims about it hurting business when it is simply not true. All or nothing does not make sense to me. When people see the workplace smoking ban does not hurt business, casinos will be smokefree, too.

            Since you leftists like to use Europe as an example, I’ll use them for an example too.

            After carrying out a survey on bars and restaurants where smoking is banned in Spain the National Committee for the prevention of Tobacco Addiction (CNPT) has discovered that the number of premises where smoking is prohibited has gone down to 26% compared to 38% last year.

            So…. why would the number of non-smoking establishments go down? Because it’s economically advantageous.

            So no, the casinos will not go smoke free sans legislative changes forcing them to be as such. That’s not a lie – it’s economic fact. Human nature doesn’t change from Europe to Asia to North America.

            “Believe me, a rational business isn’t going to want to harm it’s customer base?” I don’t know what that means.

            Let me put this in terms that someone who had a healthy diet of solder can understand: Businesses don’t make money if they harm their clients.

            So, you think every single law is supposed to go on the ballot? Again, you really do hate the framers of the Constitution.

            Where did I say that?

            So here’s a question: Do you have the appropriate non-smoking signs in place where you work?

  2. May 4, 2010 at 9:51 pm

    Oh my God, you have got to be kidding? Comparing the workplace smoking ban to the Holocaust? Unbelievable.

    • jgillman
      May 4, 2010 at 10:25 pm

      A Snitch who would turn in an ordinary citizen and make them face the consequence of whatever current “victimless” law exists from the hands of tyrants. You would gladly (by your own words) bury the dreams of a business owner, and perhaps wreck their livelihood, for the satisfaction you have served the state well.

      Indeed..

      Sie dienen ihrer master gut Bürger

      • May 5, 2010 at 7:58 am

        First, it’s not a “victimless” law. It’s obvious you not only have no respect for the law but no respect for this country. I’m at a loss as to how this can be called tyranny just because you don’t like the law. This was a 10-year debate, and only after our elected representatives were presented with the overwhelming evidence did it receive the bipartisan support it deserved.

        How am I “burying the dreams of a business owner, and perhaps wrecking their livelihood?” The results from the 37 other states and entire countries are pretty clear, it does not hurt business.

        Only an ass and an idiot would compare the Holocaust to a workplace smoking ban.

        • jgillman
          May 5, 2010 at 8:54 am

          because the debate raged 10 years, you would throw away 200+ years of freedom?

          You are at a loss, because you do not understand what true “rights” are. And frankly, the very fact there are exemptions for certain businesses undermines the stated public health argument.

          Now lets look at your “ass and an idiot ” statement. You would be an upstanding patriot by turning in someone who exercises his private property rights in the manner of free association, and commerce as a “lawbreaker.” My logical argument has already been made that the law is neither moral based on its premise of health concerns nor has it been equally applied. This makes it an application that is unjust. Such things are commonly referred to as tyranny. Your comment that you would “snitch” merely makes you THAT loser who would have done the same “because it was law” at another time. no big surprise there “citizen.”

          But hey what the heck.. As I have seen from your posts, and your comments elsewhere you simply support a broad socialist view of government. It fits your philosophy, as it is decidedly an untidy and indefensible position. Resa Ipse Loquitor.

          • May 6, 2010 at 9:14 pm

            “You would throw away 200+ years of freedom?” What freedom is being thrown away, the freedom to poison everyone in the room?

            Like I told your son, there are people out there, like you, making false claims about it hurting business when it is simply not true. All or nothing does not make sense to me. When people see the workplace smoking ban does not hurt business, casinos will be smokefree, too.

            I would be an upstanding patriot by turning someone in for breaking a law that was debated in the Legislature by our elected representatives, approved by a majority of those elected officials and signed by the elected governor, in accordance with the U.S. Constitution and the Michigan Constitution.

            Only as ass and idiot like you would compare a constituently passed law you don’t like with the Holocaust where six million people wee murdered.

            What I am is a proud liberal Democrat, and liberals have helped make this country great.

          • jgillman
            May 6, 2010 at 10:05 pm

            You still cannot grasp the fact that if I do not wish to host you, or someone who dislikes smoking in my environment, it is within MY right as controller of MY PROPERTY to exclude you. that would save you any grief of having to breathe smoke if it occurs there. No one forces patronage, nor do they force you to be employed in such environments. Well as long as YOU GUYS aren’t in power they don’t.

            You would be an upstanding citizen indeed. Much like those who snitched on those other folks of another time who merely wanted to be left alone. It was your proud liberal fascist tradition which helped those millions find their way to slaughter. A belief that government would always be right to the point of exterminating those who offended them. You are the type which has given the democrats a bad name. you cannot fathom the true freedom the founder intended for the people in this country.

            But hey what the heck.. do tell how do you feel about that Arizona legislation? Curious how much of a supporter you might be of proper border security that is mandated by federal law, and NOW state law.. Let me guess… Floor boards and “HISPIAN!!!”

  3. s baker
    May 17, 2010 at 4:13 pm

    This is against our constitution. It goes against our very principles that made this country great. This is gangster mentatlity and no matter how much a person wants to lie claiming it’s about health…it’s bunk. It’s a take over of our government.

  4. June 8, 2010 at 11:51 pm

    I just want to know why it’s okay to still smoke in the casinos? MONEY talks and now smokers walk. NOT RIGHT!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.

Loading Facebook Comments ...