No smoking at all in Michigan? Save Email Print
Posted: 10:55 PM May 8, 2008
Last Updated: 11:21 PM May 8, 2008
Reporter: Erin Logan
Email Address: erin.logan@wndu.com

A | A | A

Smokers have been getting used to fewer places to light up.

Many bars, restaurants, and public places are jumping on the ban bandwagon, but in the state of Michigan it could be lights out everywhere.

The Senate passed a House bill that would make the state smoke free.

The idea of this scenario has set some people off. No smoking whatsoever in bars, restaurants, public places, even some casinos. There are three non-Indian run casinos in Detroit, so the ban would apply there.

Others say, a ban like this should've already happened.

This strict smoking ban bill goes back to the House for concurrence, and could take effect as early as July.

Smoking or non? It's a topic that continues to get people all fired up with or without a cigarette in hand.

Debbie Markunas says, “I like the smoking rooms and non smoking rooms.”

Dennis Grosse, owner of Featherbone Restaurant and Lounge in Three Oaks, Michigan says, “It should be driven by the marketplace, not by the law.”

Michigan State Senator Ron Jelinek says, “People say this is big brother, this is big government telling you how to live it and it is.”

Jelinek says he listened to his constituents before he voted in favor to make Michigan a smoke free state.

He says, “Somewhere in the low to mid 80's percent of people in Michigan surveyed say they're in favor.”

Joan Crumbliss, a nurse and an ex-smoker, says she believes it.

She says, “So many families have been affected by people who have suffered terribly because of the effects of smoking.”

She also sympathizes with her smoker friends and restaurant owners like Grosse, whose job is to make everyone happy.

Markunas says, “I'm not happy about it. I'll probably go out less.”

Grosse says, “Ironically, you'll find a lot of non-smokers on the smoking side.”

If this strict ban does happen, Grosse says business will shift out the door and across the state line to Indiana, where the ban is less restrictive.

Grosse says, “I think, ironically, in a state like Michigan that's struggling financially, to put that burden on us is just ridiculous.”

Senator Jelinek predicts just the opposite.

Jelinek says, “This may be good for the Michigan economy to see people who stay home because they're being chased away by smoke.”

Grosse says there should be a choice -- smoking on one side and non on the other.

He says, “Last time I checked, smoking was legal in the United States.”

More Stories
Man impersonates police officer, assaults woman in Elkhart County

McCain picks Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as VP

Man beaten at Mishawaka gas station

Local reaction to McCain's VP, Democratic National Convention

Family and friends say goodbye to Army Staff Sergeant Kristopher Rodgers

Should the rash of gun violence concern the public?

Job cuts announced at Mishawaka Hummer plant

Bicyclist killed in St. Joseph County

Post Your Comments
First Name:
Location:
Enter Comments: characters left
Email (optional):
Email will not be displayed on site. For station contact purpose only.
Read Comments
Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
Posted by: Tami Location: Fulton County on Jun 5, 2008 at 09:42 AM
People need to mind there own business. Yes, I agree, ban smoking in eating establishments, but we should be aloud to smoke outside anywhere, including the park. Good grief, smoking has been aloud way before I was born, I'm 46. Why all of the sudden they want to ban it? Smoking is not only addictive & bad for your health, (not as bad as they tell you, since whenever they want to try to get a point across it seems they like to magnify the picture), but it is also fun, & relaxing, too. I will probably die smoking, since I will die anyways. Also, I can't believe us smokers had stayed quiet for so long about OUR rights & aloud them to ban smoking in some places by giving them an inch & now they want to take a mile!! Reminds me of some spoiled brats I know.

Posted by: DENNIS Location: MACOMB on May 17, 2008 at 09:59 PM
IT IS ABOUT TIME 32 OTHER STATES HAVE THE BAN. I AM SO TIRED OF WASHING MY CLOTHES EVERY TIME I COME HOME FROM A BAR. CONGRADS TO THE SENATE REST ASSURE THE HOUSE WILL PASS IT. SO GET USE TO IT THE 22% OF THE POPULATION THAT SMOKES.

Posted by: no more GOV. Location: MICHIGAN on May 17, 2008 at 02:16 PM
If you can't work in smoke don't punish me, find a new job ann arbor lib.

Posted by: Leave us alone Location: michigan on May 17, 2008 at 02:13 PM
Work on saving our state not on where we can smoke Dum Dums. If you don't like the smoke stay out if you know its there, or find another job if you don't like where you work because of the smoke . Keep the gov. out of our lives ! Whats Next.....Lets ruein all the Bizz. in Michagan, live your life and I'll live mine law makers.

Posted by: Tamara Location: Ann Arbor on May 16, 2008 at 03:33 PM
I'm happy this is finally happening. I'm one of many of my friends who wait for outdoor events and frequent the very few non-smoking venues in the Ann Arbor area. I have been a club goer for years in the non-smoking cities of LA NYC Denver... and can't wait to frequent Detroit and Ann Arbor once the smoke clears. I cant breathe in it.. and have a friend who DJs and has asthma and it limits where she can work. There is really no upside to people smoking indoors that i can see. And I don't really see it as a deep American right to smoke indoors. There are noise restriction laws, and drinking limits. This isnt a ban its a limit, and I think its fair.

Posted by: Tom Location: Leesburg on May 16, 2008 at 07:58 AM
Free, You've got to be kidding!! It's petty for someone to not want to get smoking caused diseases from others second hand smoke?! Of course it IS incredibly petty for someone to not be willing to go without a cigarette while they eat in order to keep the people around them safe. So who's really being petty here? I don't care what other people do either, unless what they're doing is causing harm to others.

Posted by: Anonymous on May 16, 2008 at 07:13 AM
I agree with Free. I'm not perfect. If I want to urinate on his front lawn, kick his dog, slash his tires or teepee his house, he can live with it.

Posted by: Free on May 15, 2008 at 08:26 PM
Petty,Petty,Petty! You are all so petty. Let people live their own lives. Are all of you so perfect ands have no faults? Must be nice if that is the case. I do not care what other people do with their lives it is their business no one elses. If they want to smoke live with it if they want to drink live with that if they want to over eat live with that. Stop being so darn petty and live your own life.

Posted by: Jill Location: Monterey on May 15, 2008 at 05:28 PM
As a current smoker, I totally agree with the ban. I may choose to smoke, but doesn't mean others should have to breathe it. I think no family style restaurant should have smoking, too many times i have seen families (with kids) sitting in the smoking section. who is looking out for the kids who don't have a choice?

Posted by: albert Location: south bend on May 15, 2008 at 05:24 PM
Now I am a smoker and it is a terrible habit! I wish they would just ban cigarettes period! That would make it a lot easier for people that wanna quit, QUIT!!

Posted by: To, non smoker? on May 15, 2008 at 05:15 PM
If you don't smoke why do you come across as being so angry about this issue?

Posted by: non smoker on May 15, 2008 at 01:56 PM
I can't believe this, I am a non smoker but they are taking away the rights of the smokers, if you don't like it go somewhere else, they have do. So shut up.

Posted by: Alicia Location: Elkhart on May 15, 2008 at 07:02 AM
Several people have so far brought to light the fact that this issue is truly going to make a difference for the workers that bring you your meals and are forced to breathe smoke-filled air throughout their work day. Almost every smoker has commented that those who don't wish to breathe smoke should 'stay at home' or go to a non-smoking section. On the other hand, what I haven't seen is a rebuttal from a smoker offering a solution for the workers. Are they supposed to take up smoking so that it doesn't matter anyways? Call in sick on days they think smokers might be there? This issue isn't about taking away rights, it's about providing people in their workplaces the option to breathe clean air. If they choose to refuse the option, they can smoke in a private place such as home, or a back patio; it does not work the other way around. I understand smokers are upset, but if you want to win supporters, stop thinking only of your 'rights' and come up with an alternate solution for workers.

Posted by: obama08 on May 14, 2008 at 07:29 PM
non smokers good to hear from you but remember smokers are drug addicts the ruin there life and others around them the justify there habit any way they can. one you do not here from them is there rational of throwing the stinking butts any where they feel like or lighting up and leting smoulder away money up in smoke. pretty sad isnt it. most smokers are very inconsiderit of anyone else

Posted by: D Location: SB on May 14, 2008 at 01:24 PM
Smokers, smoke all you want...in the privacy of your own home. I would rather not see your filth or smell your stench while you die little by little each day.

Posted by: Tom Location: Leesburg on May 14, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Ever notice that all the anti smoking ban people only repeat the same pointless phrases. "It's our right. Big brother is taking our rights. The government can't take our rights away". But they never look at the real point, that this is a health issue and it is about public safety. And NO ONE has the right to threaten public safety. So just to answer the next one ... NO IT'S NOT YOUR RIGHT!!

Posted by: Linda Location: Michigan on May 14, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Granholm said we will be blown away and with dems wanting big government it is only a matter of time until they are telling us what to do and when to do it. We are blown away alright we will be just dust in the wind.

Posted by: Anonymous on May 14, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Anon,I will laugh at your fueneral if you die from lung cancer due to second hand smoke.Will that change your tune?

Posted by: Anon on May 13, 2008 at 10:24 PM
Smoke Free USA you are a nut case. The only moron is you. People can smoke of they want this is America last time I looked and I am a non smoker but I refuse to tell people how to live their lives. It is THEIR life not yours or mine. It is morons like you that make the world stink.

Posted by: SMOKE FREE USA!!!!!! on May 13, 2008 at 05:14 PM
Amanda, thank you for proving once again how self-focused and delusional smoking makes a person. Yes, alcohol is toxic WHICH IS WHY IT IS REGULATED AND CONTROLLED! And yes, it is dangerous to drink and drive-WHICH IS WHY IT IS AGAINST THE LAW! Good grief!If you really have a good argument, let's all hear it, but stop spitting out the same stupidity over and over. Yes there are a lot of toxins in our air, but only a moron would think that justifies not removing some of them. Yes, other things are dangerous, but only a moron would think that justifies allowing something dangerous. To be bringing up things like drinking and driving, or poor eating or leaf burning is just your pathetic brain's way of trying to tell you YOU HAVE NO CASE. You loose! It's wrong and you know it and you're just PO'd that you have to stop. Grow up already!

Posted by: Tom Location: Leesburg on May 13, 2008 at 04:20 PM
Atheist, the volume of music in bars IS usually regulated by the local government and has been for years. Just like many other things. Like the amount of people allowed in, what kind of pyrotechnics are allowed in the show, how many exits they have to provide. They are even regulated on how the bathrooms are arranged for handicap accessibility. So why would anyone think the government doesn't have the authority to tell them whether they can allow toxic smoke to be spread around their place of business?

Posted by: Non-Smoker Location: Canton, MI on May 13, 2008 at 03:41 PM
I am all for this ban. I choose to drink but don't force you. I can choose to eat but don't force you. However, I choose not to smoke so why should I have to breath in your fumes and risk my health? New York City, Chicago and the state of Florida all are non-smoking areas. The state is not taking away your right to smoke, just protecting the well-fare of others who choose not too. You can still go outside the building and smoke. It's a proven fact that smoke inhalation causes health problems so why should we increase the risk of the majority of the population.

Posted by: Joe Location: Edwardsburg on May 13, 2008 at 01:12 PM
Actually, Atheist, I use loud music as an example and I really don't care for loud music, However, if you go out to listen to a band at a bar or other venue and you DON'T wear earplugs, you are indeed foolish. Also, you are paying for a ticket to go to this event, to listen to music. I don't go to a restaurant to get lung cancer, just a cheeseburger. But nice try. Please, can anyone else try to justify smoking in public in this day of age? With what is known about the poison in cigarettes, it's selfish and rude to smoke in public. Keep the smoke to yourself, please. Thanks.

Posted by: To Athiest Location: Above it all on May 13, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Uh, in a loud bar you can wear earplugs.....I take it you haven't heard of those either.....Wearing an O2 cylinder not so easy..

Posted by: Amanda on May 13, 2008 at 12:22 PM
FACT!! Alcohol kills more people than smoking. Just as you all say that smoking affects everyone else thats around the smoker and thats why this ban is good...well let me ask you this....What about the drunk that leaves the bar gets in his car and kills a family of four???? When I smoke and drive Im not incapable of driving. So why dont we ban alcohol too you effin hypocrits!!!

Posted by: Atheist on May 13, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Joe, you make my point prefectly. Should we ban loud music in bars, or should we let the business owner decide whether to have loud music or not? I think the business owner should decide, and if I don't like his policy I can choose not to go there. The same with letting a business owner decide whether to allow smoking or not. And what about all those poor workers who have to be subjected to the loudm harmful music? Interference such as this is a slipperly slope, people! Wake up!

Posted by: Anonymous on May 13, 2008 at 11:46 AM
I am a smoker and Im on the fence with how I feel about the ban. I agree that restaraunts and bars non and smoking areas are rediculous there are no walls dividing the 2. So I feel that they should try that first. have seperate rooms for smoking and non and put in better vent systems. And if that doesnt work then make all public buildings smoke free. But dont make it so I cant smoke outside. That is my air too and my freedom. Not to mention its outside!!! And if you non smokers think that my ciggarette is the only thing polluting your air GET REAL!! And about business getting more non-smokers to come out and spend money well wrong again because you will be losing all the smokers too so it will Im sure even itself out if not go down hill.

Posted by: Joe Location: Edwardsburg on May 13, 2008 at 11:29 AM
Oh, and comparing smoking and eating unhealthy food make NO sense whatsoever! Me eating a cheeseburger harms me and my heart, no one else. You smoking effects your lungs AND mine!

Posted by: Conley Location: Warsaw on May 13, 2008 at 10:01 AM
Every time some community finally catches up with the rest of the country and makes a move towards a safer more attractive place to live and work, all the tar-suckers come out of their nicotine stupors to barf out ridiculous nonsense about their "rights" being infringed on, and Big Freakin Brother scaring them in their toxic nightmares. All proof that SMOKING CAUSES BRAIN DAMAGE. The ONLY RIGHT involved in these laws is the right of the public to work, live and perform their duties without being murdered by a minority of sniveling little fools. *FACTS: 1) smoking kills 2) second hand smoke kills 3) smoking restrictions reduce the number of youth taking up the habit 4) the majority of citizens WANT this protection 5) in no other state has the smoking restrictions caused a loss of business-in fact businesses found their business increased >BTW-I don't like stinky leaf smoke either. Burning leaves is stupid and should also be outlawed-nation wide.

Posted by: Joe Location: Edwardsburg on May 13, 2008 at 09:36 AM
As a resident of the state of Michigan I say "Thank you" to our state legislators! People who smoke STILL do not get it. Government CAN tell business how to operate. It tells them how many handicapped parking spaces you must have, it tells you how old you patrons need to be to drink alcohol, it tells them when they can establish hours of business. Again, I made this comparison before here; I LOVE to listen to loud music. It may damage my hearing, but that is MY choice. My "right" to listen to loud music STOPS when it interferes with others "right" to have quiet. Same with smoking. Smoke all you want, but if your smoke interferes with others who want no smoke, you must stop. If only everyone who smoked would put their cigs out if a non-smoker or child enter a room, we wouldn't need government to step in. But let's be honest with ourselves...smokers...do you ever do that? Buy the way, all this talk about "My right to smoke...yaddaX3," Folks, smoking is a choice, not a right.

Posted by: M Location: V on May 13, 2008 at 07:07 AM
That's right Pat, if Michigan has any revenue, it's from smoking and drinking taxes. They'll have to set up a police patrol specifically targeting smokers and handing out tickets left and right to make up for the lost income. We'll call them smoking guns. Glad to see Stewie is your role model Frank.

Posted by: scott Location: south bend on May 13, 2008 at 06:02 AM
to LQ. You really should see someone about anger managment.

Posted by: Joyce Location: Coloma on May 13, 2008 at 01:54 AM
I wish they would just stop making tobacco.

Posted by: svengali Location: elkhart on May 12, 2008 at 09:07 PM
this is funny stuff...poor smokers will have to keep their cancers to themselves...aww...poor babies...

Posted by: m Location: sw michigan on May 12, 2008 at 08:31 PM
Can you still smoke outside the establishments. What about in "beer tents" at festivals that are outdoors?

Posted by: Anonymous on May 12, 2008 at 07:09 PM
Hey Frank, I was hoping idiots like you would die off from smokers by now, Can you do your part?

Posted by: obama08 Location: s-bend on May 12, 2008 at 06:07 PM
smokers are brain dead cry babys

Posted by: Frank Location: SB on May 12, 2008 at 03:20 PM
Excellent news! My goal of seeing smoking eliminated everywhere in public is one step closer to reality. Face it folks..it is a filthy habit.

Posted by: Todd Location: Mishawaka on May 12, 2008 at 02:12 PM
Businesses have never had the say of policy when it comes to public safety or concern. Policy has always regulated it. Businesses are responsible for their craft and not for public policy.

Posted by: ASH Location: Michigan on May 12, 2008 at 01:30 PM
Indiana people should butt out.

Posted by: To Shemp on May 12, 2008 at 01:09 PM
Shemp, "you miss the point of protecting freedom of choice" What point, no one is telling you cannot smoke. How many times must this be repeated? "you're quite the stat man/woman(?); let's see 3,000 toxins, 100 times odds, 400,000 deaths, and $1,000 per;" I'm a man, an ex smoker, now a smoking cessation consuler voulenteer in spare time. I know ALOT about smoking stats, the effects, and how smokers are in denial that smoking wont hurt them, when the odds are against you and you will most likely die of a smoking realated desease, not to mention just lower your quality of life. "I'm just confused about one thing. When will I get my check from you so I can buy a pack of smokes (I'm jones'n for my paper tube with crushed leaves, man)? I pay (and everyone else that has a job) pays for smoking every week in addition medicare, and medicade costs. Look up how many billions of dollars are spent on COPD patients. When my googling affects your health, let me know.

Posted by: Anon Location: Here on May 12, 2008 at 07:32 AM
Smoking is not a constitutional right. So file your lawsuit, tater. Jim in SB, where do you get your stats that non-smokers were the majority of those complaining about the leaf-burning ban? Can't really say, can ya, pal? As I drive down the road, I witness smokers driving and most of them have a window cracked for ventilation. Hmmm, seems natural, right? You're blowing smoke out of more than one orifice, it seems. So why would anyone want to sit in a building with multiple smokers blowing smoke at you and no ventilation? The systems that places such as Friday's have in their bars are a joke. Just go in there to order a drink, and you come out of there smelling like you rolled around in an ashtray.

Posted by: Lq Location: South Bend on May 12, 2008 at 06:17 AM
William of Buchanan, you poor soul you. Guns don't kill. The person behind the gun kills. And statistically speaking, smoking kills more people nation wide than the use of guns. It is almost exponentially more. Looks like smoking is more hazzardous and lethal. So that mean cigarettes don't kill it is the person smoking them. To prison with all smokers. Any argument that a smoker has for losing their so called rights is absurd. You can still smoke in the privacy of your own home or car. Just not in public places where children and other people can be harmed by the poisonous gasses expelled by the burning cigarette. Better yet, if you persist to smoke and slowly kill yourself over time, save us all a bunch of money and take the gun and end it yourself. Then my tax dollars won't be spent on all these lawsuits out there over cigarettes and smoking and those dollars can be used for education and and protecting the environment.

Posted by: Dave on May 12, 2008 at 05:06 AM
I am not a smoker and haven't been for over 30 years, but it should be up to the business to ban smoking and not government. If someone does not like the smoke they can frequent another business. That is "their" choice. All I see is government intruding into the public's lives more and more. And many in the public go with it because it makes it more convenient for them, until a law comes up that they find unfair. I find that suppoters of bills such as these hypocritical, especially those in politics.

Posted by: Bob the Builder on May 11, 2008 at 07:16 PM
I got one, I think women with ugly feet should not wear sandles. But most liberal females have ugly feet so that will never pass. While we are outlawing stuff that seems like a good one

Posted by: Ben Location: Michigan on May 11, 2008 at 12:53 PM
I understand and agree ( coming from a smoker) the ban as far as restaurants and work places. I would have no problem with that. The problem I do have is with leisure activities. Working for most is a requirment. Consumtion for food is a requirment. Bars, billards hall,bowling alleys etc etc are not. I understand the second hand smoke issue and I agree with it 100%. All this being said, If you do not want second hand smoke (for non smokers) do not work for a employer that cares more about the bottom line rather than the health of their employees. Basically do not put your self in that positon. Smokers have had their reign, now it looks like it may be the time for the non smokers. The middle ground would not be cost efficent as to say just a ban. Other than second hand smoke how are non smokers paying for the addiction? If you are a non smoker you will not have to pay the $1000 extra. BTW there are over 4000 toxins. http://www.stopsmokingsteps.com/2007/12/18/added-toxins-in-cigarettes/

Posted by: Pete Location: South Bend on May 11, 2008 at 12:03 PM
This is not the end of the world. Most states have smoking bans that are quite similar, some are tougher. People will still have plenty of places to smoke. Now they just won't be able to smoke where is can harm other people's health. I hearing hysterical stories about prohibition of smoking or cigarettes from some smokers. All I can say is get over it. The sky isn't falling, you can still smoke, just away from non-smokers.

Posted by: shemp Location: south bend on May 11, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Hey Pat, although you miss the point of protecting freedom of choice, you're quite the stat man/woman(?); let's see 3,000 toxins, 100 times odds, 400,000 deaths, and $1,000 per; I'm just confused about one thing. When will I get my check from you so I can buy a pack of smokes (I'm jones'n for my paper tube with crushed leaves, man)? My concern is your addiction might be googling statistics on the internet, but that is OK as no one is telling you cannot.

Posted by: To Pat on