Lansing Mall -- Asked to leave

Bailenforcer · Nov 14, 2010

Ignorance of history is what got us here.

Actually the smoking ban is called Gleichschaltung, This is a method of usurping the constitution by using proxies to do it for the Government. Since a direct smoking ban would be defeated by a constitutional and civil rights lawsuit they instead force commerce to do it for them. This was first tried successfully in the Weimar Republic, which we later know as Nazi Germany. Gleichschaltung was a clever way of disregarding the constitution and if challenged they would blame those they forced into doing it, thus the proxy.

I am not and never was a smoker and consider it a nasty disgusting habit. BUT! I defend the right to smoke as long as, my rights are not infringed. So I don't go to smoked filled bars as much choice allows. If we allow this Michigan version of Gleichschaltung to continue it will soon be tried on our gun rights.

Those ignorant of history are destined to repeat it.

WARCHILD said:
That's not exactly the point. As with many laws, the general public doesn't understand / know what the law entails. If the general populous would "read" these laws; they may take more offense to what they really represent, false sense of our government "caring" about our health.

The smoking ban is not against the people who smoke. I do smoke and this bill doesn't directly effect me. It is directed towards the business community as a whole.
I have read the law and here are the condensed portions that you may/may not take offense to as the reality of what they did sets in.

The ban prohibits "public" access businesses to allow smoking.
The ban is enforced by the health department...NOT law enforcement.
If I am caught smoking in a business, the only thing that can happen is refusing
to leave when asked; and then it's only a trespass charge...similar to OC.

The business on the other hand can have their licenses revoked by the health dept. for allowing it to happen and their only recourse is the authority to sue me in civil court for damages.

What this law has done, as with many others; the government regulation of what a private business owner can do with his business and property. This law effectively put many businesses "out of business" with this ban. Granted many of the whole were "bars, gentleman's clubs and the like. But it doesn't matter what kind of business it WAS... These people are having their rights removed by a supposed "concern" by our government to "care" about the health of the populace.

If it were their true concern, do you not think they would concentrate more on putting the tobacco industry out of business?

It's my personal choice to smoke. It should be the business owner's choice to allow me to smoke; not the damn government intrusions into our freedoms.

rant off.... JMO

RenegadeMarine · Nov 14, 2010

A friend of mine owns a very popular bar in Hazel Park. I asked him the other day how the smoking ban has effected his business. He said he is losing $15,000 a month!!

eastmeyers · Nov 14, 2010

RenegadeMarine said:
A friend of mine owns a very popular bar in Hazel Park. I asked him the other day how the smoking ban has effected his business. He said he is losing $15,000 a month!!

Yeah and now Country Boy, which has been a 24/7 resturant for around 50 years or so, is no longer 24/7, it is always dead now, it was always PACKED 24/7 before, they have lost more than 50% of their income, and now their prices are higher. (Hazel Park)

mark-in-texas · Nov 14, 2010

TheQ said:
I don't think we should be a protected class. I don't think any of the following should be a protected class either.

Smokers

Race/Color/National Origin (Black, red, yellow, green, purple, orange, whatever)

Sexual Choice (Gay, Lesbian, Bi, BDSM -- Heck, I fall into that too)

Gender/Sex

Age

Familial Status

Disability

Veteran

Genetic Information

Damn! I guess that means all of the protected classes!. They all involve telling a private business what they can and cannot do with their business! This is wrong!

Come on folks, seriously, what are we going to claim? Gun toting is in our genes? Please!

I know this isn't a popular opinion, especially if you are a protected class member. Heck, the opinion may offend some people. I'm sorry, deal with it.

* For the record, I'm not a racist, bi/gay hater, misogynist/misandrist, anti-old/young person, anti-handicap/special need, anti-veteran, nor anti-anything! I think we should just all be the same and we definately shouldn't have the government trying to force us to be the same!

I think there should only be one protected 'class'-----free citizen!

Slave · Nov 14, 2010

RenegadeMarine said:
A friend of mine owns a very popular bar in Hazel Park. I asked him the other day how the smoking ban has effected his business. He said he is losing $15,000 a month!!

Damn!! Are they really? That sucks.

Bronson · Nov 15, 2010

Around here the smoking ban is killing the local VFW halls and other places that have BINGO. The BINGO players can play for bigger winnings and still smoke over at Firekeeper's Casino. The really unfortunate part is that many of these service group halls use the money they make from BINGO for local charities so now the charities are suffering too.

Ain't unintended consequences grand?

Bronson

Slave · Nov 15, 2010

I always thought that banning anything legal was just stupid.

I bartended for years, and I qlways loved the smokers, I am a non smoker.

The smokers where more laid back, if their food was late, they just smoked on extra.

Now, my friends who still tend bar saw a sharp decline in tips due to people who don't smoke being more pushy, and just plain less people.

Ban smoking in a restraunt? Stupid, but okay, keeps minors away from smoke. I can kinda understand.

Ban smoking from a bar with the crap loads of drinking? There are no people under 21! If it's a pool hall, no one under 18.

You can go to war, can buy a handgun, you can carry it, you can drink until you black out, but you can't smokee.

Stupid. Hopefully our new gov't can get this dumbness over turned, at least partially.

Beerme · Nov 15, 2010

and what was freak carrying?
His 10/22 as usual?
I wonder why you guys drew attention to yourselves and the mall did not like it.
I oc'd in lansing mall all the time with my sidearm, never hassled, I even have talked to some of the guards about it.
so if he was carrying that useless toy of his than i understand why they did not like it.

autosurgeon · Nov 15, 2010

Beerme said:
and what was freak carrying?
His 10/22 as usual?
I wonder why you guys drew attention to yourselves and the mall did not like it.
I oc'd in lansing mall all the time with my sidearm, never hassled, I even have talked to some of the guards about it.
so if he was carrying that useless toy of his than i understand why they did not like it.

You just cannot let it go can you? We all are tired of your rants about what others carry.

Beerme · Nov 15, 2010

autosurgeon said:
You just cannot let it go can you? We all are tired of your rants about what others carry.

I firmly believe that the people that carry like that are causing more harm than good for the movement.
what legitimate self defense purpose does a ruger 10/22 hold?
seriously?
it is just a form of drawing negative attention.

Slave · Nov 15, 2010

Beerme, I understand what you are saying, but you can't draw a line like that.

Either something is legal, or it is not. You can't pick and chose. Either we can bear arms, or we can't.

Beerme · Nov 15, 2010

Slave said:
Beerme, I understand what you are saying, but you can't draw a line like that.

Either something is legal, or it is not. You can't pick and chose. Either we can bear arms, or we can't.

im not saying he cant
but what i am saying that it is his choice to do so and it draws the wrong kind of attention
just like kimber guy ocing his ar15 when hes bored.
they absolutely can and i will support that but they are just begging for attention instead of trying to help the cause or legitimately defend themselves if need be.

detroit_fan · Nov 15, 2010

Beerme said:
im not saying he cant
but what i am saying that it is his choice to do so and it draws the wrong kind of attention
just like kimber guy ocing his ar15 when hes bored.
they absolutely can and i will support that but they are just begging for attention instead of trying to help the cause or legitimately defend themselves if need be.

I agree, carrying that in a mall is working against the cause imo. It's legal, but very poor judgment if you ask me.

WARCHILD · Nov 15, 2010

FYI: Just so you know and hopefully kill this,
He was NOT carrying the 10/22.

nuff said

TheQ · Nov 15, 2010

Beerme said:
and what was freak carrying?
His 10/22 as usual?
I wonder why you guys drew attention to yourselves and the mall did not like it.
I oc'd in lansing mall all the time with my sidearm, never hassled, I even have talked to some of the guards about it.
so if he was carrying that useless toy of his than i understand why they did not like it.

Dude, go lay in the corner before I put you on ignore.

You and freak have issues that you two need to work out in private. Though, without bias, it seems the issues lie mostly with you.

For the record, freak was not carrying his Ruger in the mall.

All of us were carrying hip-mounted sidearms and as pointed out, warchild was wearing his hat.

TheQ · Nov 15, 2010

Beerme said:
they absolutely can and i will support that but

Apparently you don't. If you did we wouldn't have had these posts and the quoted sentence wouldn't have had a "but".

I bet you don't like I carry 2 magazines with 19 rounds each. Why do I need all those rounds? YEESH!

Beerme · Nov 15, 2010

TheQ said:
Apparently you don't. If you did we wouldn't have had these posts and the quoted sentence wouldn't have had a "but".

I bet you don't like I carry 2 magazines with 19 rounds each. Why do I need all those rounds? YEESH!

actually I carry 3 mags with 17 each
one in gun
2 in mag pouch.

and i could care less if you put me on ignore so I am not sure why you would threaten me with it...

Bikenut · Nov 15, 2010

It's funny that some folks just cannot understand that rights mean that other people have the right to do things that I don't agree with... or to do those things in ways I don't agree with.

And if a person is intellectually honest then they must realize the truth contained in the paragraph above works both ways.

But then if a person is convinced that their way is the only way... then they don't understand what rights are.

And any sentence that contains words to the effect of: "I support their right to do it but I don't think they should do it." is an oxymoron.

WARCHILD · Nov 15, 2010

Think pink...as in Floyd...talking to...

another BRICK in the WALL...:uhoh:

detroit_fan · Nov 15, 2010

Bikenut said:
And any sentence that contains words to the effect of: "I support their right to do it but I don't think they should do it." is an oxymoron.

What about those people that protest the soldiers funerals and call them horrible names? What about the kkk, the nation of islam, the radical muslim clerics? You don't think it's fair to say that they have the right to do and say what they want, but to also say that you disagree with them and don't think they should?

Lansing Mall -- Asked to leave

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Bikenut

Guest

Regular Member

Regular Member