[marklwood]

This is a wonderfully spirited and quite civilized debate which I am thoroughly enjoying.

Originally Posted by Musicman51

"Whenever smoking and smoker's rights are discussed."
I wasn't aware a smoker had "Rights". I thought it fell under the same catagory as driving. It's a privilege not a right. I must have missed it when i studied the constitution in school. I'll read it again, i'm sure it's there.

Amendment 8: It would be cruel and unusual punishment to make me go that long without a cigarette at my own bar

Or perhaps Amendment 5: Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.

or possibly

discrimination is any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, sex, language, religion, opinion, descent, or national or ethnic origin which discourages or prevents equal recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

Where exactly are the nonsmokers rights, based on the constitution or discrimination when it pertains to my PRIVATE property. Remember, I don't force anyone to come in, I only force them to leave based on age or irritation level.

Originally Posted by Musicman51

"On the business side, the scale is still leaning toward the smoking side if it is allowed by law."

Exactly, and now that smoking in my state is no longer allowed by law in public places, it's a level playing field for all indoor seating establishments. Which is a plus for the small independent business operator. He no longer has to compete with huge chain resturants and bars, because they are now also by the will of the majority to be smoke free. Private clubs fall under the clean air health act just established by the majority in my state. The only places that are exampt, are vehicles private of course, casinos, and your own home.

But first, is this a majority that actually go to a bar and spend money? Would those same people cry foul if we banned every fat person with a BMI over 1.00 from McDonalds? Even if the majority of people voted for this, the likelihood would be that people who aren't overweight don't go to McDonalds anyways, or they would be fat too. Do you think McDonalds would just lie down and take it, or do you think they would defend themselves as I do? And why are casinos exempt? Perhaps it is not really about the "good of the people" but about campaign financing. Let's see, I can get money from the anti-smoking lobby AND the casinos. The smokers don't vote, so this is a win win situation here. I might even be able to grab some money from those crazy MADD people. They will do anything to drive a stake in the bar business.

Originally Posted by Musicman51

As far as government and your rights, you would have no rights if it were not for government. You would have mayhem, confusion, and no rights at all essentially. We elect of government to represent the will of the majority. Non smokers are the majority. Majority rules. Now...if i wished to change this law, and i could if i were to find enough people who were smokers, and oppose it. But not going to happen in this case. Because as i said..majority rules.

To quote the oath I took when I joined the Army, the role of government is to "protect it's citizens from all enemies foreign and domestic" I would argue that anything further is an encroachment on my rights. If you chose to walk on a frozen lake, you assume the consequences of your actions. I don't need a law to tell me if I can, or can't, walk on that lake if I so chose. So would I say about a place that allows smoking. By implied consent, you are assuming the risk for going in there. No one is forcing you to.

You assume that the majority are not only smokers, but actually care about the issue. If it were actually cast as a ballot question with a yes, no, and I don't give a crap, which one do you think would win? The other side of this is what I had stated earlier. Bad habits don't stand alone. If you make a bubble chart with all the seven deadly sins smokers would be a majority in all of them. This would include sloth. Just too **** lazy to go out and vote.

Originally Posted by Musicman51

"And this is exactly what our (U.S.) founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the constitution. Property owners using THEIR property in a way that best suits them (as long as it does not interfere with their neighbors property rights)."

There are no laws that i know of that prohibit you from smoking on your own property if you so desire to.

That is exactly the subject at hand. My bar is not a public park. It is a privately owned business which I pay dearly to the government just to keep open. If I were infringing on the accountant on one side, or the car wash on the other, I would comply.

I am even nice to the people that live across the alley by keeping my back door closed so they don't have to hear the noise. Even though they were fully aware when they moved in, and told me so when I introduced myself.

Originally Posted by Musicman51

"We have a right to free speech on our property"
Yes and no... you do have the right of free speech on your property, as long as it does not interfere with the health and safety of others. You cannot for instance... umm lets say... stand in your front yard, and yell that a bomb will go off in 30 minutes, so everyone better get out. When in fact you know for a fact there is not one. Yes you have the right to say it, but not in the presents of others if it's an untruth. And here in lyes the non smoking VS: the smoking controversy. Notice, i didn't say "Smokers Rights VS: Non Smokers Rights" because smoking is not a right. When smoking interferes with the health and safety of others, its a no no. And that is what we have done here in michigan. It's that simple.

Most, if not all municipalities have laws regarding "your rights to quiet enjoyment of your property". This is what allows you to call the police on those kids next door having a loud party, or the durn dog keeping me up all night. That "Right" however is preempted in my case by zoning of my property as a bar. If I chose not to keep my back door closed, possibly to allow the smokers to congregate out there for a quick smoke, it would override their right to quiet enjoyment no matter how loud it was. They should have voiced their concerns when the property was zoned as a bar in 1972. Not born yet? Too bad, you chose to live there. Your choice would be to remove yourself from the offending circumstances.

I would say the same for the nonsmokers. You know full well that the place allows smoking. If that is not to your liking, don't go in there. If I had a person that was subject to vertigo from the flashing lights, i would respectfully say the same thing. If you know what the result is, avoid places with flashing lights. This is part of the atmosphere, and I won't just shut it down because you are here.

It is not your God given right to come in to my business.

I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. I not only don't allow anyone under 21 inside, I also won't serve pregnant women, or people with a prison ID. I have been called to the carpet about doctors recommending a glass of wine occasionally for a pregnant woman, but I don't care. I have that "RIGHT" in and on my own property.

The reason I said I would make it a private club is the fact that I am willing to put my money where my mouth is. I hear the rhetoric, but no one is willing to put their money on the line. If it was actually profitable to have a nonsmoking bar in a market that allows it, someone would already be doing it. I'm even willing to put up money to prove them wrong. If a smoking ban were to allow for private clubs, I would do so. And guess what, I bet I would be the only one making any money. Well, me and the VFW.

George, I truly am enjoying the debate. I don't wish to offend anyone. It is just nice to have a "civil disagreement" without a judge present.