Bailenforcer
Regular Member
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.
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.
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
Last edited: