No smoking at all in Michigan?
No smoking at all in Michigan? Save Email Print
Posted: 11:55 PM May 8, 2008
Last Updated: 12:21 AM May 9, 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
ATF agents raid the Warsaw home of a known white supremacist

Granger man turns hobby into business with D'Avella Family Winery

Update: Woman and children recovering after car crashes into store window

U93 kicks off annual Roofsit campaign to help prevent child abuse

Part of Cleveland Avenue closed in St. Joe

Man hospitalized after motorcycle accident

80-year-old Niles man shot, robbed at home; suspects arrested

Golfer Chris Smith and family still in shock over weekend accident

Post Your Comments
First Name:
Location:
Enter Comments: characters left
Email (optional):
By posting this comment I have read and agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy:
You must agree to the Terms of Service to continue.
Read Comments
Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
Posted by: Brian Location: Plymouth Michigan on Jan 16, 2009 at 12:39 PM
As a non smoker I should have the right to go to a restaurant and not leave stinking like you cigarettes. Most smokers are very inconsiderate of others, besides the fact that they throw their buts everywhere.

Posted by: Tami Location: Fulton County on Jun 5, 2008 at 10:42 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 10:59 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 03:16 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 03:13 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 04:33 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 08:58 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 08:13 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 09:26 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 06:28 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 06:24 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 06:15 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 02:56 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 08:02 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 08:29 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 02:24 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 12:53 PM
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 12:18 PM
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 12:18 PM
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 11:24 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 06:14 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 05:20 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 04:41 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 02:12 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 01:43 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 01:22 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 12:55 PM
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 12:46 PM
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 12:29 PM
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 11:01 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 10:36 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 08:07 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 07:02 AM
to LQ. You really should see someone about anger managment.

Posted by: Joyce Location: Coloma on May 13, 2008 at 02:54 AM
I wish they would just stop making tobacco.

Posted by: svengali Location: elkhart on May 12, 2008 at 10:07 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 09:31 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 08:09 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 07:07 PM
smokers are brain dead cry babys

Posted by: Frank Location: SB on May 12, 2008 at 04:20 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 03:12 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 02:30 PM
Indiana people should butt out.

Posted by: To Shemp on May 12, 2008 at 02:09 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 08:32 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 07:17 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 06:06 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 08:16 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 01:53 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 01:03 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 12:48 PM
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 May 11, 2008 at 10:53 AM
It is your choice to smoke, no one is telling you cannot. Where are you getting that from? You want to inhale over 3000 toxins, and shorten your life and increase your chance of getting lung, throat gum cancer x100 is still your choice. If you want to be one of the 400,000 Americans that die every year to smoking related disease, then go for it. No one is stopping you. Also, there is no ban on using smokeless tobacco either. I'm not sure where you're getting your facts from, but you better check them, you're way off. BTW, get ready to pay ALOT more on your insurance preimum as a smoker. Most Insurance companies are adding a $1000.00 premium/year for smokers. Everyone's paying more because of smokers and their related deseases and non smokers are tired of paying for your addiction to a paper tube with some crushed leaves in it.

Posted by: To Kathy on May 11, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Thank you for reinforcing our argument supporting smoking ban. You're right, when we found out that asbestos caused lung cancer, we outlawed it. When we found that lead in paint poisned our children we banned it. NOBODY is telling people they cannot smoke. Smoking is still your choice; just not in places where it harms other people. You want to kill yourself, fine, but I don't want to breath your posion anymore. As far as the rest of your rant when I'm in a resturant, I don't see anyone trying to shove cheesburgers in anyones mouth, but we cannot escape your smoke. This is not big brother, this is the majority of the population saying were sick of breathing your stink. 80% support this ban, get over it.

Posted by: Pat Location: Dowagiac on May 10, 2008 at 10:58 PM
To smoke or not to smoke. Please that is my choice not the government.How many other things to we do that is harmful in one way or another.If the State of Michigan passes no smoking ban then it should not allow any tobacco to be sold in the state. This includes the smokeless tobacco. Where is the taxes from tobacco sales going to come from?

Posted by: Tom Location: Leesburg on May 10, 2008 at 10:34 PM
If someone takes away the "right" of a smoker to smoke in public, how does that harm the smoker? If a smoker takes away the right of a non smoker there is no doubt that it harms the non smoker. Science and medicine back that up as indisputable fact. So someone please tell me how the smokers can possibly be the victims here when nothing is being done to them to cause them harm. Also just a side note. One of the reasons this ban is being supported by Michigans govenor is because it has been proven in other areas that these public smoking bans tend to make a marked decrease in young people picking up the habit. Sounds like it helps way more than it hurts. Especially since most of you smokers know you need to quit for your own good also.

Posted by: Kathy on May 10, 2008 at 07:57 PM
I agree that some families have suffered from smokers. There have also been those who have suffered from working around asbestos, diesel fumes, emission particluates, not seen with the human eye, drunk drivers, too much sugar, too much caffiene, too much junk food that is too high in fat, and the list could go on!! Do we want BIG BROTHER to take over all of our choices? And that is what smoking is, a choice. I personally feel that there should be smoking establishments and non-smoking! People make a choice to do things that are not healthy for themselves, and they should be able to go to places that let them do it if need be. Just as an unhealthy eater can go to theres. I don't see any bans on Dunkin Donuts or Crispy Creme, and they are pure sugar!! It all goes back to what a persons personal preferences are! So, I guess Michigan had best pass laws banning those high fat donuts and, Whoppers, Big Macs, greasy chicken, alcohol, and all legal drugs that can a choosing person!

Posted by: mitch Location: mishawaka on May 10, 2008 at 05:26 PM
File your law suit...there has never been one dealing with smoking bans that has won clear up to the supreme court.

Posted by: Mike Location: Elkhart on May 10, 2008 at 01:09 PM
To Tom: the opposite of what you said is also true, then. A non-smoker's rights end where it infringes on a smoker's rights. I love when people say that phrase and don't think about the other way around. Equal protection under law means that smokers have the SAME rights as non-smokers, not fewer.

Posted by: Liz Location: Mottville on May 10, 2008 at 12:54 PM
How many more of our rights are going to be taken from us by "Big Brother" before people stand up and say, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!

Posted by: Paul Location: To AngelWife on May 10, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Just one question, if you say "and if this is the way we are going to allow our state to be run, then i say so long". Where are you going to go? Ill, OH, much of Indiana, and now 36 states have some type of smoke free laws on the book, and the other 14 have it some form to be voted on. You're going to have to go to another county. Even that will be tough, most of Europe are now smoke free. Germany passed not only bars resturants, but public parks too. Even home of the smoke filled pubs Ireland have gone smoke free. I was a smoker, and I'm a single father also. I never smoked in my home, but I took my son to resturants. After I had quit I realized how appaling some of these places were. Why the didn't blow smoke in my sons face, it was pretty bad. As a mother, do you want your kids to smoke? Think about it.

Posted by: bucktown mom Location: Buchanan on May 10, 2008 at 09:39 AM
I see alot of people complaining about smoke in bars, right there is a bigger issue than smoking. People drive themselves to the bar, drink for several hours, then drive themselves home, or kill someome on their way home. Your life is at far greater risk from your buddy sitting next to you drinking, then from me smoking my cig. Get a grip! If you don't like smoke, don't frequent places where there is smoke. I don't drink, but I have to deal with drunk drivers (which IS illegal) on the road on any given night if I decide to go out to eat or such. I have no choice. They break the law, they put my life in danger. So, I vote that we make drinking in public illegal to keep all of those drunks locked up their homes to do their dirty deeds. Sound fair to you?

Posted by: Tom Location: Leesburg on May 10, 2008 at 01:56 AM
Willis I was never confused about anything. Only responding to everyone who claimed to have a "right" to smoke. And by the way liberties is just another way of saying freedoms which is just another way of saying rights. So quit splitting hairs. The fact is a smokers rights, liberties or freedoms end where they infringe on a non-smokers rights, liberties or freedoms. And business owners don't have the liberty of maintaining or allowing conditions that are hazerdous or harmful to the public. Therefore the public smoking ban which makes it illegal for business owners to allow smoking( which is harmful to people) in their establishments. They won't be stopped from allowing any legal activities at all.

Posted by: Tator on May 10, 2008 at 01:55 AM
enough is enough people smoking is the least of our worries! Let us smokers alone so we don't have to file a class action law suit.

Posted by: Z Location: Indiana on May 9, 2008 at 11:53 PM
Lupe that is a perfect example of my point all along. As a business owner, you had a choice! You had the liberty (thank you Willis) to make the decision of allowing a legal activity to take place in your restaurant. I didn't say inspections would not be invasive. Inspections are kind of invasive by design. But if there were defined standards and you knew the cost of operating to those standards and decide it is worth the investment, you can make that decision. Having that choice is what I thought this country was about.

Posted by: Paul Location: Michigan on May 9, 2008 at 11:25 PM
Unbelievable some of the irrational thinking in here. Thinking that they are going to ban smoking in your home, or go to jail. Fact is there is way more non smokers than smokers now, and were sick of smokers rights effecting our health. I know smoking is a difficult addiction, I was addicted for 20 years. If you're crying about this, get ready for the extra 1000.00 dollars a year you're going to start paying extra in medical insurance. Yes, it's coming so get ready. Smoking will cost you between 4 and 5,000 per year, not to mention kill you in the process.

Posted by: Lupe Valez on May 9, 2008 at 10:59 PM
I used to think it would be great if smoking sections were completely separated-perhaps by glass/plexiglass partitions and have sufficient vent fans, and such to actually make the smoke stay in the smoking areas. But business owners didn't want to do that because it's costly to implement and maintain. And municipalities didn't want to set such standards because they would be costly to write out and costly to continually inspect or enforce.(And you think a "ban" is invasive?) So, I figured out how impractical it would be. But the fact remains that SMOKERS declared smoking to be hazzardous by suing the tobacco companies, and winning- so apparently the courts of our land agree. That's after the Surgeon General said so anyway, but what would he know. He's also said that "breathing any amount of second-hand smoke harms nonsmokers." Sure, HE said we should make all public places smoke-free, but do we have to just wait until there's another costly lawsuit to prove it to the smokers?

Posted by: Steven Location: Grand Rapids,Mi on May 9, 2008 at 08:40 PM
Mitch the smoke that comes into the grand stands is very strong and black So your science is not good on your part.They need to ban tractor pulls until they get smoke free turbos

Posted by: Willis on May 9, 2008 at 08:22 PM
Tom, and the rest of you, you all seem to be confused about the difference between RIGHTS and LIBERTIES. Rights are things laws say you can do or have. Liberties are the things laws don't touch. Liberty is what this country was based on, not rights. The rights were written in to keep the government from getting too pushy and trying to infringe on liberties. As an example, telling business owners what legal activities they can and cannot allow on their property.

Posted by: Z Location: Indiana on May 9, 2008 at 08:15 PM
No Brian, I do not want YOUR restaurants to be made into little glass cubes so you smokers have to inhale more smoke. You should read closer as I clearly states something about ADEQUATE VENTILATION creating a situation in which both non smokers and smokers can dine in the same establishment. Shame on you for being a moron with no reading comprehension. If you need so much control in your life move to Iran. Some of these comments are just down right scary...

Posted by: obama 08 on May 9, 2008 at 08:12 PM
wah wah you smokers are brain dead you are drug addicts plain and simple. most smokers only think of themselves they throw there waste where-ever most cant even due with out to sit down for a meal. they light up order food and then sit there and let it smoulder away money up in smoke dont even consider where the smoke is going they think if you dont like it you can go some where else screw you. go outside better yet quit your addiction save your 200 a month?? try good health you might like it.

Posted by: Julie Location: Indiana on May 9, 2008 at 07:41 PM
I think it should be legal to smoke in bars that are clubs only, not restaurants. I only smoke in public when I drink. I think there would be a ton of pissed off people if they ban smoking in bars in Indiana. I understand it's better health-wise, but smoking and drinking go hand in hand. If you don't like it, don't go to a bar! Don't take away our freedom to enjoy a cocktail and a smoke!

Posted by: angelwife Location: sawyer, mi on May 9, 2008 at 07:10 PM
i am a smoker! im a wife and mother, my husband and i both smoke, we do not smoke around our child, if we are home and want to smoke, we take it outside, but from the way things seem to be going, we will be able to anymore if our government has anything to say about it, so what do we do? send the kids outside so we can smoke in our home? id rather keep my house smoke free and light up outside. i am offended at the way the non smokers look at us. if i am with someone that does not smoke, then i will not light up around them, that would be rude. i have never blown my smoke in someones face, i would however like to at some of the comments i have read on here. wake up people, there are more important things to worry about. gas prices, crime on the streets of our cities, murder, rape, theft, the list goes on. i have lived in michigan all my life, and if this is the way we are going to allow our state to be run, then i say so long.

Posted by: Anonymous on May 9, 2008 at 06:38 PM
Robert, what about the motorcycle helmet law in MI? Is that endangering the rest of the public? If businesses want to remain smoking places why can't they? Then it is peoples choice to go in. It is true that smoking households with little kids make the kids sick more often. They get more colds, more coughs, more ear infections. And we all know how bad it is for a fetus. However, there are far worse situations that we allow kids to live in. We CANNOT correct them all! I hate the smell of smokers and I have never been one, but there are more important issues to enforce besides people smoking. How about child sex abuse. 4 in 10 children are sexually abused. Now that is an issue!

Posted by: Tom Location: Leesburg on May 9, 2008 at 06:34 PM
I keep reading postings here claiming that there is some "right to smoke". I'd like one of these legal experts to explain where this magical right has come from. We have the right to PURSUE happiness. But we can't infringe on someone elses rights while we pursue it. There is no constitutional right to smoke! And to those who keep saying that "because there is no law against it that makes it a right". When they pass a public smoking ban that would be the law against it, therefore making it not a right. And public smoking bans are going into effect all over the country because the MAJORITY of people don't want to have to deal with disease causing second hand smoke in public. That is THEIR RIGHT.

Posted by: Brian Location: South Bend on May 9, 2008 at 05:10 PM
Oh, I see Z, you want us to section up our restaurants into little glass cubes so us smokers are forced to smoke even more smoke??? It has a bad enough affect on our health already without having to keep on breathing it in an out. Shame on you, shame!

Posted by: Z Location: Indiana on May 9, 2008 at 04:44 PM
Some people posting make it sound like people are blowing nerve gas around. Smokers and non-smokers have the same rights. One person (Tami, 3:30 PM) stated this very well. This is America in 2008. Do we REALLY need these sweeping "one size fits all" policies to protect us when the same thing can be accomplished with Plexiglas and exhaust fans? Instead of the government spending money enforcing a ban it could be spent to add health inspectors to audit establishments that allow and make sure the sealed off smoking areas were properly separated, exhausting the required cubic feet per minute of air, etc... Then smokers and non smokers could patronize the same establishment and everyone is happy. Even the government because they created jobs and keep getting their cigarette tax revenue. Also, I am not a smoker and hate cigarettes as I said in an earlier post but if someone wants a smoke with their dinner it is their choice. It just has to be managed, not taken away all together.

Posted by: Betty on May 9, 2008 at 04:20 PM
Also, smoking causes greenouse carbon dryoxide so its killing polar bears and stuff like polar bears I think they're kind of cute even though there was this show where a guy almost got ate by one but that was his fault for hanging around polar bears. He didn't smoke, though, and neither should you.

Posted by: JASON Location: SOUTH BEND on May 9, 2008 at 04:05 PM
I AM A SMOKER, I AM OK WITH THE BAN. IT IS NOT FAIR FOR SMOKERS TO POLLUTE THE AIR OF NON-SMOKERS, I ALSO THINK THAT IF IT WERE NOT FOR OUR TAX MONEY HUNGRY POLITICIANS THEY WOULD BAN THE SALE OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS IN OUR STATES. WITH THE COST OF GAS NOBODY WOULD DRIVE TO ANOTHER STATE TO BUY THEM AND IT WOULD MAKE A DRASTIC CHANGE IN PUBLIC HEALTH.... IF OUR GOVERNMENT REALLY WANTED TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH THAT IS... BUT HEY, SMOKING JUST ALLOWS THE GOVERNMENT TO TAX A HIGHLY ADDICTIVE SUBSTANCE, AND LETS THEM COLLECT A DEATH TAX EARLIER:) MONEY MONEY MONEY...

Posted by: Beef on May 9, 2008 at 04:01 PM
Smoke is better than vitamins

Posted by: Mitch Location: Mishawaka on May 9, 2008 at 04:01 PM
Steve, I see science is not your strong subject. There is a whole lot of space between you and the tractors called volume. the volume between the smoker standing next to you and the tractor down on the track is totally different and the cig smoke is much more toxic at the volume you are getting.

Posted by: Mitch Location: Mishawaka on May 9, 2008 at 03:58 PM
Smoking has never been nor will be a right. The only constitutional right you have to use something that can harm or kill somebody else is a gun. Smoking is an addiction. It is dangerous and you can do it from your home if you wish. What about the rights of smokers children?

Posted by: Mary Location: sb on May 9, 2008 at 03:38 PM
Johnathon, you say, "dont we have the freedom to choose?" You should realize that when a smoker lights up at the table next you you, non-smokers have no choice at that point. So you are basically saying that smokers have rights and non-smokers have no rights. I'm sure you would say they can just not go out. Like that makes sense. So many times, we'd go out to eat, with our newborn baby, and we'd tell them non-smoking. So many times, they'd put us right next to the smoking section. That was so annoying especially having to wait for that table for 30 minutes. They usually didn't have another table avialable right away. The right to breath unpoluted air belongs to all. If you wish to polute it, do it alone.

Posted by: russia us Location: usa on May 9, 2008 at 03:33 PM
Steven is right1 Tractor pulls are far worse. It is outside and has nothing to with other people. The same babies cry about cigarettes and then burn their leaves..Also the taxes we pay on cigarettes are outrageous. those taxes pay for many things. take away cigarettes you take away good tax money. THEN YOU ALL WILL HAVE SOMETHING TO CRY ABOUT..Give me a ticket to Russia or Canada now. There is more FREEDOM!

Posted by: Anonymous on May 9, 2008 at 03:31 PM
I agree with Steve, too. We need to outlaw tractor pulls. I'm allergic to cat hair, so we need to outlaw cats.

Posted by: Tami Location: Indiana on May 9, 2008 at 03:30 PM
Fact #1 Some people smoke. It is a part of their daily lives; fact #2 Some people don't smoke, it is, also, a part of their daily lives. It is wrong to take away each other's rights, and it doesn't matter whether 60% is for it & 40% not. You have smokers & you have non-smokers. That is why it is so hard to understand!! It is wrong to have to pay so much on cigs. as it is wrong to have to pay for the price of gas.Here I am a wife/mother who is helping to make ends meet who has been smoking for 25 yrs, who has tried to quit plenty of times. Boy, I would hate to think I might be in prison someday for this smoking CRIME. And that is what the public has made this to be. On the bill that says 80% of the votes were in favor of the ban, was EVERYBODY in the state of Michigan able to vote on this? I know of someone who was called at home some time ago in Indiana & told them he was against the ban & they hung up on him! Smokers are not low-down, gross charactors despite how you make us feel.

Posted by: Crispin Location: Westside on May 9, 2008 at 03:28 PM
Jim, your right on the money there. These smokers are always complaining about not being able to smoke or burn their leaves, they just like to get up everyones nose I think. good for michigan, about time we saw some common sense from those people!

Posted by: Anonymous on May 9, 2008 at 03:27 PM
I agree with Betty. Seeing an abortion at a restaurant would turn my stomach.

Posted by: Jim Location: South Bend on May 9, 2008 at 03:19 PM
Why do all of the non-smoker nuts cry about cigarette smoke whe they are the one's who cry the loudest when burning of leaves was outlawed. Go figure, this is the new popular pc thing to do. If these laws were passed to stop any other activity or group the feds would be here by the bus load to protect someone's rights. But it's just smokers who gives a damm. Why don't they outlaw the sale of all tabbaco then the cry-babyies will have to pony up the lost tax ,then you will here a them realy cry.

Posted by: charmers Location: tongle on May 9, 2008 at 02:47 PM
Jonathon, i guess your bein saracastic there, but for your information, the USA is NOT communist. Communists are Godless heathens from Russia and you should know they smoke a LOT. Not like us GOD FEARING PATRIOTS who beleive in FREEDOM. When I meet my maker He's sure as heck not gonna complain about MY Lungs, how bout you? My concsience clear, like MY AIR!

Posted by: Steven Location: Grand Rapids,Mi on May 9, 2008 at 02:28 PM
Here's a thought....Ok Elkhart County Fair made it non smoking in the grandstands...Right? Well the last time I checked about carbon deoxide is that it kills people faster than cigarette smoke.Why do they allow tractor pulls? All that smoke from the turbos goes right into the stands....That's far worse than cigarette smoke,So they need to make tractor pulls illegal...Think about it.I don't go to the fair anymore because I can't smoke in the stands plus that smoke from the tractor pulls.I'm allergic to that smoke. One more thing,You people that say your allergic to cigarette smoke is a big joke. My Aunt was allergic to the smoke,but my Uncle smoked in front of her beside her and all around her for many many many years.I'm quitting smoking because up here in Mi. cost is 5.00 a pack and can't afford it.. but I won't change my mind ever about the Elkhart Conty fair....Your outside,not inside....Oh I respect the Non Smokers too.

Posted by: Robert Location: Elkhart on May 9, 2008 at 01:58 PM
People, limits on your freedom is nothing new or wrong. There are many actions that are limited for the well being of the public. There is a reason that you can not fire a gun in city limits, there is a reason that you can not drive a car down I-94 at 100 MPH, and there is a reason that you should not be allowed to smoke in public. And that reason is that it is dangerous to other people. Why is that so hard to understand?

Posted by: russia us Location: usa on May 9, 2008 at 01:54 PM
We have the right to smoke. Why take it away? Are we not free anymore?

Posted by: Betty on May 9, 2008 at 01:38 PM
You guys argue like this is abortion or something well i sure dont want to go into a restaurant and see someone having one at the next table, so good for you michigan!

Posted by: Johnathan Location: Middlebury on May 9, 2008 at 01:32 PM
I'm sorry, when did we become a communist country? I must have fallen asleep for longer then I thought. Isn't this the USA? Don't we have the freedom to choose?

Posted by: chuck Location: Malboro county on May 9, 2008 at 01:31 PM
When these nosmoker types start talkng, all I hear is "I hate America.". This is the land of the free people, FREE means, able to what you want. We fought 2 world wars,smoking all the time. Smoking has NEVER been proved to hurt anyone,tobacco is just a leaf, like any other,and they dotn ban burnign those do they ?? Its just the govermet excusing taxing our FREEEDOM! WE should start organizing Smoke-ins like the hippies used to do. Make our nation great again, smoke!

Posted by: Anonymous on May 9, 2008 at 01:25 PM
Insurance companies lose money when you get sick. You wanna battle the insurance companies?

Posted by: steve t. Location: elkhart on May 9, 2008 at 01:17 PM
If the smoking ban was truly fair, then businesses that choose to could have "smoking only" facility's. Imagine restaurants and bars that have big signs at the door "If smoking offends you don't enter" Then non-smokers and smokers alike have their own places and don't even have to associate.Problem is- this would be too fair. The state will impose their Morals on others, and this is the biggest travesty of justice.

Posted by: Adam Location: South Bend on May 9, 2008 at 01:14 PM
In the USA we enjoy many freedoms. We have rights to those freedoms but some are limited when they cause harm to others. Smoking does cause harm, this is not open for debate. We should stand for the rights of all people who choose not to expose themselves to smoke, not just kids. We have the freedom to drive but not the freedom to drive at any rate of speed we desire. The higher the rate of speed, the more fatal the damage can be if there is an accident. Patronizing a smoke free establishment can be enjoyed by both smokers & non-smokers. This is not true the other way around. How about this, take something you feel strongly about then interact with someone with an opposing position. What this really boils down to is our lack of consideration for others. This extends beyond just smoking. Most people are too caught up in their own stuff to consider others. I guess it is just human nature to be selfish. So all you smokers who disagree, let's step outside (that's all we're really asking).

Posted by: Larry Location: Elkhart on May 9, 2008 at 01:08 PM
Ohio has been totally smoke free for at lease one year. The last couple of times I have been there all the business's are as busy as they ever have been. It appears the key is to provide a place for the smokers outside with protection from the elememts, I have seen open style porches with LP patio heaters and large ash trays. In talking to a restaurant owner he said the main reason this was passed was to protect the restaurant personnel from working in a smoking environment all day long. When you look at it that way it makes sense, with all the rising health care costs.

Posted by: Charmers Location: Tongle on May 9, 2008 at 01:00 PM
Oh really Sue? how so? because I value our childrens health??? That makes me self righteous, little miss whaaa wahha I wont vacation in michigan, aww, well head a little further north and smoke your cancer bongs up there, I'll stay right here and enjoy MY freedom for CLEAN AIR. Amen!

Posted by: Anonymous on May 9, 2008 at 12:59 PM
We won't miss you Sue or your filthy cigarettes,stay home and cry.

Posted by: DJ Location: SJ on May 9, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Ok, all you smokers that pollute MY breathing air that are ticked that MY HEALTH and rights aren't as important as your right to smoke, put a freakin' plastic bag over your heads while you smoke and keep it to yourself. I've lost both grandparents and my father to smoking and my hubby has emphasemia due to smoking. My lungs are damaged from growing up in a smoke filled home--I've never touched a cigarette. And yes, there are times where I have had to leave an establishment where I was supposed to meet friends because the dirty, nasty smoke was so bad I couldn't breath. But that's ok right--as long as SMOKERS are able to run free, those of us with lung issues must either hunt out a non-smoking establishment, stay at home, or suffer through breathing issues. If smoke could be contained and kept away from others, fine--light up and die as you wish. BUT when one person's right negativly affects many others, the gov't should have the right to step in and make the majority safe

Posted by: MD on May 9, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Whether you smoke or not, that is not the issue. The real issue is that business owners are not being allowed to choose what LEGAL activites they will allow on their PRIVATE property. If you don't like the fact that a restaurant allows smoking, don't go there, and tell the owner why. If there had been incentive for a retaurant to go non-smoking, they would have already done it. This is governemtn interfering where it has no right, and we must fight it together. What happens when government wants to take a legal activity YOU enjoy away? PS I am a non-smoker

Posted by: Bill Location: Osceola on May 9, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Matt from Indiana...the number one entry here is 100% correct...no more has to be said...Thanks for your service to this country and a great post.

Posted by: non-smoker Location: elkhart on May 9, 2008 at 12:44 PM
Sue, Do you think they really care. They have plenty of others who are willing to visit their smoke free state!

Posted by: non-smoker Location: granger on May 9, 2008 at 12:40 PM
I wish you would all quit whinning about your rights. Don't you know nobody has rights and we haven't for a long time. But smokers wake up and smell the roses instead of the air polluted by cigarette smoke!

Posted by: Sue Location: Indiana on May 9, 2008 at 12:24 PM
If this happens I will no longer spend my vacations in Michigan. They will be losing out on the money I spend up there year after year. To Charmers, sounds like you're the whiny, arrogant, self righteous one.

Posted by: Michigan Resident Location: MI on May 9, 2008 at 12:24 PM
I think this is a great idea! Either they need to do this or make the smoking laws stricter where they have to really seperate the smoking and non-smoking areas. I have never smoked in my life and I have lung cancer. Second hand smoke really does hurt us. Why do the people who chose not to smoke have to suffer for what smokers do. I am only in my 30's and have this. I can no longer be around any smoke because I will not be able to breathe. That makes it so I am not able to go to certain places. Then you have some people that just don't care because sometimes I have to carry around oxygen and they'll sit there and blow their smoke right towards me and don't seem to bother them that I'm sitting there coughing and having trouble breathing because of their smoke. Also people smoking by their young children are just wrong. Especially locked in a car with all the windows rolled up.

Posted by: Z Location: Indiana on May 9, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Our founding father's would roll over in their graves if they could see what has become of our "free" country. I am not a smoker and personally hate the things. But if someone wants to take the financial risk of starting their own business and permit smoking that is their choice. It should be posted that it is a smoking establishment so customers can make a choice on if they want to go into that establishment. These "one size fits all" policies that are intended to protect us do nothing more than slowly chip away at the freedoms that make this country great. Understand the precedence these policies set and consider what could be next. A dry state with no alcohol permitted? After all, that can kill. What about gambling? People get hooked, lose their life savings, and off themselves. Obviously all this should be banned too, right?

Posted by: Anonymous Location: LaPorte, IN on May 9, 2008 at 12:16 PM
I feel sorry for those who are addicted to cigarrettes, but there are people dying because of smoker's smoking around them. I personally believe that there should also be a law making it illegal to smoke around children and in cars. Those poor children have absolutely no say so on the air that they are forced to breath. People there are 2000 chemicals in those nicotine sticks and 60 of them are cancer causing. Those chemicals "are shared" in your second hand smoke.

Posted by: Tom Location: Leesburg on May 9, 2008 at 12:07 PM
It's great to hear Michigan is making the right decision. This is a HEALTH issue not a smokers rights issue! In the early 1960's We found out smoking was bad for us. Yet their were still those stubborn fools who had to insist it was just "the government trying to spoil our fun". So many young people began smoking and got addicted in spite of the warnings. Now 40 years later they want to deny that second hand smoke is dangerous and again claim it's "the government trying to ruin their fun". Well, there is no constitutional right to smoke and a PUBLIC smoking ban isn't TAKING AWAY anyones rights. IT'S UPHOLDING THE RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC TO BE SAFE!! This IS NOT big brother or big government taking control. This is the majority ruled government making laws to protect us from the careless minority who don't care if their poisoning someone besides themselves and therefore have to be stopped by the law.

Posted by: Janell Smith Location: FL MI. on May 9, 2008 at 11:58 AM
They are taking away not only the right of smokers here.They are taking away the right of the business owners.By telling them what and can't be done in there business.I've never seen on the door of a bar.Smokers only!!They keep putting higher taxes on smokers.Where would they get all this tax money.If all the smokers stopped smoking?Last I knew this was the land of the FREE.These business are hurting bad enough right now,with the higher prices of everything else right now.These lawmakers should be worrying about more important issues.Like Gas and food prices going through the roof.

Posted by: michelle Location: south bend on May 9, 2008 at 11:51 AM
whatever happened to america?????? aren't we still free to make our own decisions. next, they will be telling us that we cannot be out past 12!!!!!! it is ludacris!!!

Posted by: Anonymous Location: Elkhart on May 9, 2008 at 11:38 AM
I think this is great and I am looking for the day that it is banned in all 50 states. I do agree that if you wish to smoke you should be able to, but why do I have to avaoid places I would like to go because you choose to do something that will impact the health of my family? Your right to smoke should end where I start to breath. It is ridiculous that you thnk you have th right to a habit that is killing people around you.

Posted by: Paula Location: Indiana on May 9, 2008 at 11:32 AM
I do think this is just big government. If they truly believed most people wanted this they should put it on the ballot to be voted on. I can not for the life of me understand why are rights are being taken away. You have a choice to enter an establishment whether it allows smoking or not. Why is such a choice being taken away by the owners and the customers? We must remember other countries usually did not lose all their rights at once. One at a time like this.

Posted by: Anonymous on May 9, 2008 at 11:24 AM
Where are my rights as a non smoker to breathe clean air? I'm sitting at the bus stop minding my own business,then someone comes up and sits next to me and fires up a cigarette,do I have to go sit somewhere else or deal with the rude iddiot smoker taking away my clean air? Face it, smokers chose their own destiney on this issue by being rude and invading nonsmokers space .Smokers are so addicted to nicotine that they stand up for their cancer sticks that are cutting there lives short. I hope every state bans these DEATH STICKS !!!!

Posted by: rick Location: niles on May 9, 2008 at 11:23 AM
wow. i had to smoke half a pack to get through the story.

Posted by: pauline Location: martin mi on May 9, 2008 at 11:11 AM
i think they should ban smoking in all bingo halls. you can't play bingo for smoke getting in your face . i hope they ban it every where . people at bingo that smoke just sit and cough. can't play for the coughing .but i do have kids that smoke . wish they would quit .

Posted by: STAND UP Location: South Bend on May 9, 2008 at 11:03 AM
What is wrong with you people. Giving your rights away. Complaining about smoking, why don't you park your car and never drive again, I don't like the way it smells either. As you thrown your stones remember you probably sprayed hairspray today, started your car, ate fast foods, left your air cond on so it would be cool in your home when you got there. Their are some people that must have something to complain about and someone to follow. As a non smoker I believe if you don't wanna smoke then don't. I think it should be up to the owner as far as if they wanna let it be smoking or non. Letting the government take our rights away, next you'll be complaining because you have no rights. People have lost their lives fighting for our rights. oh let me guess it wasn't one of yours.

Posted by: zfish Location: Stevensville on May 9, 2008 at 10:54 AM
I would like to know how the survey was conducted. Statistcs can and are manipulated to whatever outcome the surveyor wishes. People don't seem to mind growth hormones in their food and all kinds of trace chemicals and drugs in their drinking water, but tobacco smoke is a different story. Wake up people, our country's technical advances has created many more ways to kill us or change our body's original genetic makeup than just smoke or smoking. Bottom line, this issue is all about governmental control of the people.

Posted by: Charmers Location: Tongle on May 9, 2008 at 10:49 AM
About time. The tide has turned, it used to me anti-smokers were the whiney ones. Now, Smokers are one of the whiniest, arrogant, self righteous groups out there. Crying crocodile tears on the constitutuion about not being able to POISON their fellow patriots. Forcing your foul stench on others is like being lung rapists! Good for Michigan taking some steps to put these pro-death smokers in there place, dont like it? move to Canada!

Posted by: Jo Location: Warsaw on May 9, 2008 at 10:49 AM
Why should Indian run casinos be exempt? Was this included in a treaty?

Posted by: Anonymous on May 9, 2008 at 10:31 AM
You people in Michigan should have faught the motorcycle helmet law. It's all downhill from there. Why don't you just except the communist dictatorship of your government. Spread the wealth to those who refuse to work and keep alive everyone as long as possible - of course except for the babies,kill them all off. Just remember it is a Democrat you have to thank for it all.

Posted by: Smoker Location: south bend in on May 9, 2008 at 10:27 AM
I am starting to realize that we are living in a communist country. No smoking, no cell phones while driving, pretty soon you will be told when and where you can eat, use the restroom, go out, be back in your home, etc. Smoking has been around for years and now all the sudden its ban because of these so call DO GOODERS - evidentally they have nothing better to do than dictate peoples lives.

Posted by: Non-smoker Location: Elkhart on May 9, 2008 at 09:55 AM
Non-smokers have rights also!!!! Not to have to endure the hazardous smoke that smokers put into our lungs!

Posted by: Paul2 Location: South Bend on May 9, 2008 at 09:34 AM
Watch out people, BIG brother is coming. Our government is going over the wall liberal and is telling us that they know how to live our lives better than we do. They are doing this in every issue out there. Go out and vote for a government that will stay out of your lives and buisness.. I don't smoke and I don't care to breath it, but I can choose for myself to not be near it.

Posted by: steve t. Location: elkhart on May 9, 2008 at 09:28 AM
I'm a guitar player in a local band. When Fort Wayne started their ban, the bar I was playing went from an average 400 per night to 40. No, the non smokers didn't come out.Lotsa small neighborhood bars and restaurants have went under because of it. Some entertainment venue's are trying to hold on but most WILL fail.They succeeded in lowering their tax revenue's substantially just to make some people happy. The local newspaper there continues to report that the ban has had no effect on business??? My point is the ban has put a lot of people out of work.Why can't they just put up a sign on the door that say's "we allow smoking-Enter at your own risk" ??? Non smokers don't have a problem with it now, but wait until big brother outlaws big mac's because they are "bad" for you. If you don't support us now when our rights are taken away, don't expect smokers to support you later. BTW, When you outlaw smoking in my home and you come to take me away, you'd better bring a couple of swat teams,

Posted by: Non-Smoker Location: Granger on May 9, 2008 at 09:23 AM
Way to go Michigan!!! I love going to the casinos however, they are one BIG SMOKE PIT! If you ask someone who sits down beside you not to smoke they are offended and say they have a right. Well I have a right also!

Posted by: William Go Tell Location: Buchanan on May 9, 2008 at 09:21 AM
L, you should only be allowed to shoot your gun in your house; guns kill! My guess is all your sex has been in your house; DVD players rule!

Posted by: LCB on May 9, 2008 at 09:08 AM
Michigan keeps voting in Democrats, and they keep getting terrible leadership. You think the idiots would learn? Oh well, let them suffer under the worst governor in the nation and a smoking ban. How is that Democrat-ruined economy working out?

Posted by: Rob Location: SB on May 9, 2008 at 08:47 AM
So whats next? Red meat, contact sports, bad language, spicy food....virtually anything that is not good for you? All you people who support this are sheep and morons. You have no idea what your doing...

Posted by: Harry Location: South Bend on May 9, 2008 at 08:42 AM
We definitely need to put a stop to this 'Big Brother' thing, right now! This is supposed to be a 'free' country. I'll bet that most of these do-gooders have never had to actually 'fight' for this country, but they are taking away our rights, one by one. Wake up people!! Read: Deadly Road to Power. Order on-line at www.Amazon.com And David, have you looked at the lungs of anyone that works in coal mine? Have you looked at the lungs of a VietNam Vet. that was exposed to Agent Orange? Also, let me know, when you find that 'clean air' you're talking about. Why don't YOU stay at home.

Posted by: L Location: South Bend on May 9, 2008 at 08:42 AM
That is awesome. Smoking kills. I like sex and shooting guns but I am restricted to where and when those can take place. Should be no different for smoking. Do it in your own home. I don't want to have to breathe smoke from anyone. If you can smoke in public then we should all be able to have sex in public and shoot our guns in the city limits or anywhere we please. You smokers need a lesson to be learned. Go smoke in your own home where children are not exposed to that obscenity.

Posted by: Louise Location: Traverse City on May 9, 2008 at 08:39 AM
How can you write on this issue without mentioning the health and safety of workers? This ban is about protecting the workers from second hand smoke. They have a right to work in a clean and healthy environment. You expect your server to wash their hands before bringing you a meal but you can turn around and blow smoke in their face?? I don't think so.

Posted by: Anonymous Location: niles on May 9, 2008 at 08:35 AM
I believe people should have a choice, if the goverment keeps going down this path what is gonna be next..

Posted by: shemp Location: south bend on May 9, 2008 at 08:34 AM
Now that Senator Jelinek can sure make a silk purse from a sow's ear can't he? Now that I see his reasoning I wonder if we just banned all manufacturing and automobiles what that might do for our economy with such clean air? Oh wait a minute; Michigan is already way down the road with reduced manufacturing and automobile production...good job Mr. Jelinek!

Posted by: Harry Location: Benton Harbor on May 9, 2008 at 08:33 AM
This is great! I think it's the best thing that could happen. I sick and tired of having to walk through the smoking section just to get to the non-smoking section. Sort of like the old rule where the blacks had to sit in the back of the bus. If the bar owners don't like it, then let them start a Smokers Only Bar. I'm sure the non-smokers won't mind a bit; there's probably a Non-Smokers Bar right across the street.

Posted by: Paul Location: Michigan on May 9, 2008 at 08:31 AM
Ok, let's hear all the smokers tee off on Michigan. I used to be a smoker and now realize how I was infringing on the rights of non smokers, and the workers in these places. This is a public health issue, not an individual rights issue. We had to pass laws to get people to wear seat belts. We had to pass laws to get auto makers to put in air bags. Also, I worked on this bill, and Mr. Jelinek is right 80% of the people are in favor. And the last time I checked we live in a democracy where the majority rule do we not? Congrats to Senator Jelinek who has continually said he personally does not support the bill, but voted per his constituents. FACT is most every business see's an increase of traffick after they go non smoking. They may lose 10 smoking regulars, but gain 50 new non smokers.

Posted by: Melissa Location: Niles on May 9, 2008 at 08:30 AM
This not be a good idea. I believe that it is an infridgement on my rights as a smoker. Think about it, if I know an establishment is non-smoking, I will not frequent it out of respect of the business owners request, so if you dont want to be around the smoke in a bar where most people smoke, don't go in there. When I light up, I am not breaking the law, now the state is trying to tell me I cannot smoke in public? I feel it should be up to the business owner. Businesses will end up losing a lot of patrons and money if this passes. Smokers have, over the years, been treated terribly in the fact that our rights keep getting taken away.

Posted by: Rabid Irish Fan Location: Standing Tall on May 9, 2008 at 08:22 AM
I remeber seeing a lot of people from Michigan ripping on Elkhart and thier smoking ban. I guess you live in a communist state now too, enjoy. Hoosiers for a smoke free USA. Now if industry would cool it a bit with thier dirty air.

Posted by: Steve-O on May 9, 2008 at 08:07 AM
Hip Hop Hooray!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now we need to work on the minimum driving age and raise that to 18 yrs.

Posted by: David Location: White Pigeon on May 9, 2008 at 08:03 AM
Smoking in Michigan should be banned; I'm in favor of it. Why should I be forced to breath smoke, it's been proven to cause lots of health problems, that in it's self says alot. If we don't have our health to function we will die. It's that simple. If you would like to see the inside of the lungs after death of a smoker it's not a pretty sight. I have seen the affects; I've worked inside of a hospital and have seen many autopies that have been preformed and what a nasty/gross looking sight. I would rather breath clean air, than smoke and do damage to my health like that. I hope you get the point. NO SMOKING IS THE BEST FOR ALL OF US. NO SMOKING IN THE USA. if you wnat to smoke; smoke at home and don't pollute others environment.

Posted by: Non Smoker Location: SW Michigan on May 9, 2008 at 07:58 AM
I agree with Grosse. It is legal to smoke in this country and banning it is against constitutional rights. I have two small children and agree that there should be limits in certain areas, mainly those that are designated "children" places such as parks or kid friendsly resteraunts like McDonalds.. but that is already in affect. Establishments such as bars and casinos that are adult only enviornments would lose way too much business if this law takes effect.. The last thing we need is something else adding to our economy woes. I don't buy that non smokers clam up in there house because they don't want to be around the smoke.. I have never heard someone say that in my life..

Posted by: silver Location: michigan on May 9, 2008 at 07:56 AM
ok, i can see it from both sides, i used to smoke, but im pregnant so i quit. i love to go to kareoke and stuff like that, but i cant cuz of all the smoke at the bars here. if you choose to smoke, thats fine, but the people who dont smoke shouldnt have to suffer either. they should make it to where there are smoking rooms, and non smoking rooms to make everything fair. that way everybody wins.

Posted by: j Location: bh mi on May 9, 2008 at 07:44 AM
its about time! I went to eat out the other day and the only opening was the smokers section I thanked the waiter but i walked out and went some where else.

Posted by: Anonymous on May 9, 2008 at 04:07 AM
Anyone who smokes must be an idiot for having to first of all SPEND that kind of money to smoke, for killing their own lungs, and the REAL idiots who smoke in front of children or while pregnant. It's disgusting. I would love it if we banned everything. Those who smoke can get out of my state, thanks. I would much rather not die from lung cancer, like you choose to do!

Posted by: Bear Location: mishawaka on May 9, 2008 at 02:51 AM
just ban all tobacco products and wait till the federal government and state shift the taxes collected from that to our pay checks.

Posted by: Richard Location: Michigan on May 9, 2008 at 02:50 AM
Jilenik needs to be voted out, who is he to tell people how to live there lives!!!

Posted by: Richard Location: Michigan on May 9, 2008 at 02:44 AM
Is there anything you do not want to ban? What ever happened to the right to pursue happiness, or any other right we used to have!!! Every choice we ever had is being taken away one at a time, If you don,t like it dont do it!!!!

Posted by: Diane Location: South Bend, IN on May 9, 2008 at 12:42 AM
It's a shame that this twisted government is forcing smokers to hide in their own homes in order to have a cigarette. Get real, people. It is still legal to smoke a cigarette in the United States. This isn't too much unlike prohibition, is it? Why don't people worry about more important things, and let the government take care of more important things, like the fact that millions of retired Americans are living in homeless shelters because they lost their homes to forecoloseure and can't afford rent, or elderly are having to decide between perscriptions they need or food. How about our disabled veterans living in squalor because their pensions don't allow enough for basic living necessities. It's time the whiners who don't like the smell of smoke step down and worry about more important things, or stay home themselves, if they don't like the smell of smoke from 50 feet away in a public establishment. That way, they can smell their own stink instead of others.

Posted by: N. Location: Mishawaka on May 9, 2008 at 12:30 AM
Legal until when? Let all those liberals in Michigan be re-elected year after year and sure enough there's no smoking to the n'th degree; then they move onto the nation. One example of liberal thinking which tries to make everything in everyone's life fair and it ends up unfair. I'm all for separating areas of smoking from non-smoking...that's reasonable and healthy. But to ban it everywhere, get in people's businesses, and eventually their cars and homes, is socialism. And it looks like people are swallowing it hook, line and sinker.

Posted by: Matt Location: Indiana on May 9, 2008 at 12:10 AM
This is CRAZY!!! I am a non-smoker who has fought for the rights of this country (Iraq and Afghanistan) and the right to smoke is up to the individual not the government. Family established gatherings should be smoke free, but bars and restaurants that sell alcohol should have the right to decide their own smoking policy. I love how we have become such elitists that we are now trying to destroy the one entity that provided us the monotary resources to become the country we are today. History has a tendency to repeat itself!


Five Day
WNDU News Poll
There are currently no active polls at this time.
Click here to view other polls on our site and past poll results.
MichianaGuide.com