Jump to content

Oakland County "chooses" To Ignore State Law On Smoking


Recommended Posts

This is amazing...they claim to enforce all laws equally but won't enforce the state law on smoking in restaurants or bars when the location of the violation is given to them on a silver platter, but yet they will waste their time and resources searching for an hunting down cardholders.

 

http://www.freep.com/article/20110501/NEWS06/105010489/Bar-owners-staff-health-officials-call-year-old-state-smoking-ban-drag?odyssey=obinsite

 

If this is'nt proof that Oakland County management is selectively enforcing state laws based on their personal bias I don't know what is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest finallyfree09

i found a couple of things to be interesting...

 

"There are 45 local health departments that enforce this law, and you've got dozens of interpretations," said Andy Deloney, spokesman for the Michigan Restaurant Association.

 

and...

 

"Deloney tells of one county that told caterers that there could be no smoking at private homes where they were catering parties or that fast-food restaurants could get fined if they allowed drivers going through drive-through lanes to smoke when they picked up food."We told our restaurants to throw those memos right in the trash," Deloney said.

 

there is a WHOLE LOT of complaining on the part of our govt about how our law was "poorly written" and "unenforceable" and that the authors of it did a terrible job in writing it. the law is "confusing" and there are so many "grey areas". and the worst part.... the mmj law leaves local municipalities to deal with the "mess" we have in michigan now.

 

who looks like a bunch of "bad law writers" now??? :lol:

 

the law that they wrote has DECIMATED the bar and restaurant industry in michigan. in stark contrast, OUR law does NOTHING to harm our fragile economy... unless you count prison guards losing jobs as harmful. :devil:

 

our law was written clearly and concisely to provide protections for patients and limitations for the police. yet time and again we get to hear about police ignoring the law and applying the old laws to patients and cg's that are within their limits and are doing no wrong. there are lots of patients ignoring parts of the law too... like plant count and amounts. its all because no one in govt has the guts to read the law and apply it AS WRITTEN. ballot initiatives are supposed to be interpreted very liberally for layman such as myself. :rolleyes:

 

then theres the outrageous stuff about smoking in drive thrus and whatnot. kind of like the outrageous things that are happening in oakland county eh?

 

our law is EASILY enforceable but they refuse to enforce it. their law was obviously doomed from the start and should never have been passed in the first place. ANY law that will literally DECIMATE an entire industry through it's enactment is a downright stooooopid idea.

 

a much broader comparison can be made here as well. every law that our govt passes that prohibits something, especially if that something is the simple act of causing harm to one's self, fails MISERABLY. laws that prohibit personal lifestyle choices will never work.

 

but ALL of the mmj laws are workable if the govt would let the free market reign and allow the new industry to take hold. its already here and has been for the better part of a century its just been in hiding.

 

as far as the smoking ban goes... rescind the law and write a new one that requires ALL bar and restautant owners to have a seperate room with filtered air for smokers. no room, no smoking. simple and to the point.

Edited by finallyfree09
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about a new law that just requires owners to post at their entrance , and in any advertising what they freely desire to provide , smoking , non smoking . or both . Yes businesses are open to the public but their privately owned on private property . The State really overstepped into a area where its authority diminishes freedom and individual rights of the business owner effecting his or her livelihood at the expense of a legal activity that lifted one opposing sub -group over another in a discriminatory manner .

Edited by Croppled1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share



×
×
  • Create New...