No deal yet on smoking ban in Michiga...

No deal yet on smoking ban in Michigan bars and restaurants

There are 105 comments on the WZZM Grand Rapids story from May 26, 2008, titled No deal yet on smoking ban in Michigan bars and restaurants. In it, WZZM Grand Rapids reports that:

The Michigan House could vote soon on whether to allow exceptions to a proposed statewide ban on smoking in workplaces.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WZZM Grand Rapids.

First Prev
of 6
Next Last
Brian Deuel

Colorado Springs, CO

#1 May 26, 2008
Just another example of the "nanny state" mentality of the Legislature in Michigan. Keep protecting us from ourselves...

(p.s. I'm an ex-smoker)

“OH what fun!!”

Since: Feb 08

Grand Rapids

#2 May 26, 2008
I am just tired of the government "looking out for our best interests" what a bunch of C R A P !!! they are looking for ways to push us into more and more socialism ways and I hate it!! If you don't want to breath second hand smoke don't go to a smoky bar.....go to your coffee shops and singles dances they are mostly if not all non smoking. And there are many restaurants that serve drinks and are smoke free!!
Also I'm an ex-smoker!!!

“Go Red Wings!!!”

Since: Oct 07

Plainfield Township MI

#3 May 26, 2008
My opinion 101 wrote:
I am just tired of the government "looking out for our best interests" what a bunch of C R A P !!! they are looking for ways to push us into more and more socialism ways and I hate it!! If you don't want to breath second hand smoke don't go to a smoky bar.....go to your coffee shops and singles dances they are mostly if not all non smoking. And there are many restaurants that serve drinks and are smoke free!!
Also I'm an ex-smoker!!!
Me too! I'm an ex-smoker, and I am TOTALLY against this ban. In this economy why should the government be trying to restrain business owners from choosing what group of people they wish to serve? I like non-smoking establishments, and I tend to go to them. Sometimes I go out with my friends who smoke, and we go to a bar that allows smoking. I make my own choices, I don't need a "Nanny" government making my decisions for me. Our state government has already proven that they are unable to help businesses in MI. Why do they think that restricting a business owner's rights is business friendly? Bet I have the answer...it is a "feel good law" at this point in time and a way to divert attention from their inability to achieve their basic goals...like a balanced budget. Watch out antis...one of these days they will restrict something that you care about.
Allen

Seattle, WA

#4 May 26, 2008
There is interesting information, I've read it, on the health benefits of nicotine and smoking on the internet. Search: <health benefits - smoking>
Nick in Shelby

United States

#5 May 26, 2008
I hope that this smoking ban passes. It should put all businesses on the same playing field and increase revenues at some businesses.
As for allowing exceptions, I don't think they should. Why should some businesses get out of the ban and not others. I hope eventually smoking becomes illegal also because the smokers are endangering the health of everyone, including small children and infants.
dip stick

Colorado Springs, CO

#6 May 26, 2008
I can think of a lot of things we encounter every day that does more harm then second hand smoke...
Holan

Holland, MI

#7 May 26, 2008
So many Nazi's pushing their self serving wishes on others.
there are smoke free places, go there! or don't go to a smoking allowed establishment- its your choice.
here in America, we have choices, or at least we used to until the smoke Nazi's came along and imposed their minority will on the majority who love freedom and love the choices that come with it.
Whats next smoke Nazis, Jews?, Homosexuals ? People who think like you ?
You disgust me, your not Americans and don't deserve the freedoms America has to offer.

I know you smoke Nazis will report this and ask to have it removed, thats another trait of a socialist, censorship.
your agenda can't stand up to scrutiny, so you will have it silenced.
Heil!
whasever

Jenison, MI

#8 May 27, 2008
how come the people without a real job get to tell the people who risk their homes, and bet the lively hood on their ability to run a small business how to run that business?????

“Taz say Hi”

Since: Jan 08

Holland,MI

#9 May 27, 2008
The only thing that would put them all on a level playing field would be to let the business owner decide which segment of the populace he wishes to serve, without any requirements to set aside space for non smokers. There is presently no requirement for a restaurant or bar to set aside a minimum of space for smokers, so it's impossible for an establishment to go totally smoking, but they are allowed to go smoke free. That's not a level playing field.
Nick in Shelby

Watervliet, MI

#10 May 27, 2008
You people complain that business owners should be able to do what they want, however, that is simply not true. Why do you think that restaurants have health inspections. I don't see people complaining about that. There is a reason for those, and that is for the health of the customers. This is just like a smoking ban.
fluteman greg

Palo Alto, CA

#11 May 27, 2008
Nick in Shelby wrote:
You people complain that business owners should be able to do what they want, however, that is simply not true. Why do you think that restaurants have health inspections. I don't see people complaining about that. There is a reason for those, and that is for the health of the customers. This is just like a smoking ban.
Health inspections at restaurants are for "unseen" hazards such as food contaminants. Smoking IS NOT an unseen health hazard, especially if it's posted that smoking is permitted. Personally, my disagreement with smoking bans are aimed at "adult only" establishments such as bars where there isn't ANY rational reason for smoking bans, other than to rob property owners of individual liberties. People who enjoy going to a bar without SHS can choose a non-smoking bar and leave owners who want to permit smoking alone.
John in Stanton

Mount Pleasant, MI

#12 May 27, 2008
Having a ban on smoking at worksites is an effective public health initiative to protect the health of employees. In addition, studies have shown drops in heart attack rates in communities that have such bans. As to profitability, research again and again states that smoking bans many times increase the profits of businesses. This is simply good public health policy that is long overdue.
fluteman greg

Palo Alto, CA

#13 May 27, 2008
John in Stanton wrote:
Having a ban on smoking at worksites is an effective public health initiative to protect the health of employees. In addition, studies have shown drops in heart attack rates in communities that have such bans. As to profitability, research again and again states that smoking bans many times increase the profits of businesses. This is simply good public health policy that is long overdue.
More anti propaganda. Slavery was abolished years ago and NOBODY is forced to work in SHS environments. Many workers smoke anyway. There is NO JUSTIFICATION to have smoking bans in adult only establishments, other than attempt to control society to believe as antis do.

Health is not an issue when the owner posts a sign that says smoking is permitted and people CHOOSE to enter.
dip stick

Colorado Springs, CO

#14 May 27, 2008
What more could possibly motivate a business to go non smoking then increased profitability. If that is so true then why waste allt he energy and time trying to force them into it...
Nick in Shelby

Watervliet, MI

#15 May 27, 2008
John in Stanton wrote:
Having a ban on smoking at worksites is an effective public health initiative to protect the health of employees. In addition, studies have shown drops in heart attack rates in communities that have such bans. As to profitability, research again and again states that smoking bans many times increase the profits of businesses. This is simply good public health policy that is long overdue.
Finally, someone that knows what they're talking about.
whasever

Jenison, MI

#16 May 27, 2008
John in Stanton wrote:
Having a ban on smoking at worksites is an effective public health initiative to protect the health of employees. In addition, studies have shown drops in heart attack rates in communities that have such bans. As to profitability, research again and again states that smoking bans many times increase the profits of businesses. This is simply good public health policy that is long overdue.
if you believe in a free market, then the market will drive these changes...if you don't believe in a free market state the FACT that you're a communist. Otherwise speak (or type) when you actually know something...when I take all the risk to own and run my Bowling Alley I'm betting that I know my customers better than you, I don't need someone legislating controls that affect my profitability!

“Go Red Wings!!!”

Since: Oct 07

Plainfield Township MI

#17 May 27, 2008
dip stick wrote:
What more could possibly motivate a business to go non smoking then increased profitability. If that is so true then why waste allt he energy and time trying to force them into it...
Exactly...the antis are too dumb to understand it. If a business owner feels they will make more money by going the non-smoking route...they have every right to do so. However, if that same business owner feels that they will lose business by going the non-smoking route...that should be their decision.

Oh, and by the way antis...who is going to pay to enforce this Nazi smoking ban? How will it be enforced? Will there be undercover smoke cops just waiting for a smoker to light up so they can haul his a s s to jail? Will there be sting operations where cops offer someone a cigarette in the bathroom and then WHAM...BUSTED!!! Oh, I can see the headlines now...MAJOR SMOKING BUST AT MOM AND POP BAR. ALL CUSTOMERS HAULED TO JAIL.

Good-bye to business owners' rights. Hello to socialism...They tried this stuff in the USSR folks...IT DIDN'T WORK FOR THEM EITHER!!! Welcome to the NANNY NATION!

Speaking for many non-smokers (NOT ANTIS) this is a crock of what my dogs leave out in the backyard!

“Non smoking freedom loving vet”

Since: Apr 08

Chicago

#18 May 27, 2008
Trying to ban smoking in bars is pretty pointless. Here in Chicago, many small bars ignore the ban to keep their customers. Mayor Daley calls it "silly". The local cops prefer that people stay inside the bars instead of lingering on the streets with the panhandlers, underage people, and anyone else who cannot or will not go inside. Smoking in the bar is the "lesser of two evils" especially in areas where real crime is an issue. The only bars getting hassled are the ones that invite the news media to enter and enjoy smoking, although they can't drink on TV. The first of those bars beat the ban in court. Other cases are coming up. America is still the "land of the brave" Most of the bars getting cited are those in rural areas where the local cops have plenty of time to harrass bar customers.

“10k yr old politician”

Since: Apr 08

Grand Rapids MI

#19 May 27, 2008
We have a secret weapon here in Michigan, his name is Neko. When the Nazi Antis try to enforce their stupid laws we will turn him loose. May God have mercy on their souls.

“Taz say Hi”

Since: Jan 08

Holland,MI

#20 May 27, 2008
Nick in Shelby wrote:
You people complain that business owners should be able to do what they want, however, that is simply not true. Why do you think that restaurants have health inspections. I don't see people complaining about that. There is a reason for those, and that is for the health of the customers. This is just like a smoking ban.
Health inspections of restaurants are to protect the customer from known, proven, food born diseases. People actually get sick from the pathogens that cause those problems. SHS is NOT a known pathogen. The so called "proof" that it is harmful is based strictly on flawed statistical studies. The EPA did some testing a number of years ago and came to the conclusion that all the hazardous substances in SHS are in too low a concentration to be harmful, far below their standards of exposure. A federal judge in the early 90s went over the studies that were cited in a lawsuit concerning SHS and came to the conclusion that the people citing studies were cherry picking, that if all the studies were looked at together, the conclusion was that SHS did no harm.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Grand Rapids Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Old things and places we remember from the Gran... (Feb '09) 2 hr Soph 1,142
Truly Disturbing Racism and The Silence That Fo... 16 hr Gville Jim 9
Local News Women (Apr '09) Sun T-Man 2,823
News Donald Trump defends use of "sch****ed" against... (Dec '15) Sat MrsMrs90 89
Does anyone know why the Chez Ami Bowling alley... (Sep '14) Sat MrsMrs90 6
News Construction has few blacks, report says (Aug '07) Sat MrsMrs90 613
Is Obama a hypocrite? Jan 13 Gville Jim 49

Grand Rapids Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Grand Rapids Mortgages