Patterson to ignore smoking ban

[Johnlodge]

Voters choose representatives at the state level. Those representatives passed a law. Now Patterson is going to use taxpayer money to fight a law passed by the people the taxpayers chose to make decisions on their behalf?

PS you may remember I was against the bill when it was being debated. Yet I still think Patterson is being an idiot.

[artds]

Voters choose representatives at the state level. Those representatives passed a law. Now Patterson is going to use taxpayer money to fight a law passed by the people the taxpayers chose to make decisions on their behalf?

PS you may remember I was against the bill when it was being debated. Yet I still think Patterson is being an idiot.

To be fair, he's not really fighting the substance of the law but rather the method of its enforcement. He's telling the state, "either have one of your agencies enforce it or, if you want the counties to enforce it, then provide us funding."

As I stated, though, I believe this is a weak argument.

[iheartthed]

Patterson says the law amounts to an "unfunded mandate" if county health departments must oversee and enforce the ban and that Oakland County doesn't have the resources to enforce it.

Ha! This galaxy's greatest county doesn't have the money to enforce a smoking ban??? And he wants to sue the state for making a rule and not providing the funding to enforce? Does the state provide funding to enforce speed limits? Does.not.compute.


ETA: Oh yeah, it's called grandstanding.

[artds]

Ha! This galaxy's greatest county doesn't have the money to enforce a smoking ban??? And he wants to sue the state for making a rule and not providing the funding to enforce? Does the state provide funding to enforce speed limits? Does.not.compute.

Yes, they do, as they're required to by law. See sections 25 and 29 of the Michigan Constitution.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...nstitution.pdf

This is what Brooks is talking about when he refers to an "unfunded mandate". The only problem with his argument is that the law isn't mandating that the counties do anything. It appears to simply give the counties' law enforcement arms the discretion to fine someone for violating the new law, but doesn't appear to require them to establish any kind of enforcement mechanism or program to ensure that restaurant owners are complying with the new law.

[jt1]

Ha! This galaxy's greatest county doesn't have the money to enforce a smoking ban??? And he wants to sue the state for making a rule and not providing the funding to enforce? Does the state provide funding to enforce speed limits? Does.not.compute.


ETA: Oh yeah, it's called grandstanding.

Maybe he should also ask the MSP to quit patrolling in this communities. If OC can't afford this then I think there is an argument that MSP can't afford to have a presence in OC.

I really can't wait until the old jackass drives his drunk ass into a tree and dies.

[artds]

Here's an FAQ document on the new law for anyone who is interested.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/md...L_314723_7.pdf

I think there's been the most confusion over how restaurant owners/staff are expected to comply with the law, so I'll post the relevant portion here:

What do business operators need to do to comply with this law?

• Business operators shall prohibit smoking in areas where it is not permitted. Compliance is determined by the following

• Clearly and conspicuously post “no smokingâ€� signs or the international “no smokingâ€� symbol at each entrance and in other areas where smoking is prohibited under this act. These other areas may include outdoor areas such as patios or rooftops where patrons are intended to receive service or consume food, beverages, or both.

• Removing ashtrays and other smoking paraphernalia from anywhere where smoking is prohibited. “Smoking paraphernaliaâ€� means any equipment, apparatus, or furnishing that is used in or necessary for the activity of smoking.

• Informing individuals smoking in violation of this act that they are in violation of state law and are subject to penalties.

• Refusing service to an individual smoking in violation of this act.

• Asking an individual smoking in violation of this act to refrain from smoking and, if the individual continues to smoke in violation of this act, ask him or her to leave.