MyFox
 

dazednconfused's Blog

by dazednconfused from Michigan

Last Post 57 days, 8 hours Ago


Smoking Ban
May 10, 2008 | 8:48 AM
Category: Political
Report This Post

It is a violation of rights for Government to ban smoking in establishment across our state.  The rights of Americans are being infringed upon continuously.  We have to wear seat belts, I remember the days when cars were not equipped with them.  Should I have an accident and not live because of a seat belt that should be my choice, we all pay through the nose for car insurance, health insurance, taxes, etc.  in this state.  Real estate has bottomed out yet my taxes rose, even though the taxable value of my home decreased?????  Michigan raised the cigarette tax, now want to DICTATE where someone smokes.  I don't provide my hard earned dollar now to any business that does not allow smoking, (even the times that I had quit).  I certainly won't be frequenting them now.  GRANHOLM CUT THE CIGARETTE TAX IF YOU WANT TO INFRINGE UPON MY RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN.
5 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 5
Page 1 of 1
Tallmanok2 read my blog view my photos
May 11, 2008 | 7:55 AM

Daze,

I think that no one will be dropping taxes. Our government is built on taxing the other guy. If they taxed us all at the same time we would overthrow the government.
carolej60 read my blog view my photos
May 11, 2008 | 2:05 PM

Until they make cigarettes illegal the smoking ban can go straight to you no where. If I stop smoking I would put at least 100 good people out of work, most with families and mortgages, car notes, insurance, etc. The goverment would lose all the tax money they collect. Then where would the economy be? lol
LocalBlogger read my blog
May 12, 2008 | 9:26 AM

I am not a smoker. I hate being around people while they smoke.

That said, I am against a smoking ban in bars/restaurants etc. People CHOOSE to go to those places to eat/drink, nobody makes them go. If enough people choose not to go, the business will suffer, nobody else.

Last I checked, smoking cigarettes was not illegal. As long as the country continues to allow cigarette companies to provide the tools for people to kill themselves slowly, I see no point in banning the activity in any public place.


I'm against seatbelt and helmet laws as well. I CHOOSE to wear my seatbelt every day and if I rode a motorcycle, I wouldn't be caught without a helmet every time I rode.
Zoot_Suit read my blog
May 13, 2008 | 6:35 PM

AH HAH, so that is what it boils down to... ban the smokers from having a good time so that the non smokers can stay at the bar longer to get drunker, THEN to go out driving to kill school children.

You holier than thou nonsmoking liberal RETARDS who never served a day in uniform EARNING their RIGHTS as smokers want to turn this place into a communist state.

I have one question for you; what is the difference between a communist and a democrat? Answer: The spelling!

Take it from a smoker who spends THOUSANDS of dollars every year in restaurants what is going to happen to the states economy. What new liberal laws are they going to pass to protect your liberal cowering in fear of the agitated smoker who snaps and goes postal.

Cigarettes ARE HOMICIDE SUPPRESSION INHALERS! Don't mess with my medicine that keeps people like you alive! (just a figure of speech... kinda) :-)

SMOKING is a RIGHT! Not a privilege like... say driving.
Leave us smokers alone, second hand smoke STILL HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN, or has any one else noticed that smoking rates have gone WAY down over the past few decades yet still cancer rates have INCREASED, smoking is NOT to blame, we need to look at other possible causes like maybe PLASTIC, you laugh, but look at what usage has been on the rise since smoking rates have declined.
We have known for about a hundred years that oil causes cancer.
Look at what most of our daily dining ware is; both regular and disposable (fast food, junk food) have you ever noticed that when you pour cola into a plastic cup that there is an oily film floating
chazwynns read my blog
May 14, 2008 | 6:56 AM

National prohibition of alcohol (1920-33)--the "noble experiment"--was undertaken to reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, reduce the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and hygiene in America. The results of that experiment clearly indicate that it was a miserable failure on all counts. The evidence affirms sound economic theory, which predicts that prohibition of mutually beneficial exchanges is doomed to failure.

Mark Thornton is the O. P. Alford III Assistant Professor of Economics at Auburn University.

The lessons of Prohibition remain important today. They apply not only to the debate over the war on drugs but also to the mounting efforts to drastically reduce access to alcohol and tobacco and to such issues as censorship and bans on insider trading, abortion, and gambling.[1]

Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became "organized"; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant. No measurable gains were made in productivity or reduced absenteeism. Prohibition removed a significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased government spending. It led many drinkers to switch to opium, marijuana, patent medicines, cocaine, and other dangerous substances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Prohibition.

Those results are documented from a variety of sources, most of which, ironically, are the work of

Page 1 of 1


Write your comment below:




dazednconfused

RN Republican

Member Since: 5/10/2008


 

RSS: XMLWhat is RSS?