tracyann

Wed, Dec 9, 2009 : 2:19 p.m.

gogmagog8-that's how it is at WCC as well. No smoking on campus, period.

Peggy Lampman

Mon, Dec 7, 2009 : 11:45 a.m.

Great article--enjoy hearing the voices filtering through the smoke. Also enjoyed being able to cast a vote-- Come on Ann Arbor--Get out and vote! Thanks Jessica. Peggy

gogmagog8

Fri, Dec 4, 2009 : 9:13 p.m.

Tracyann -- Just to be clear, U-M is not banning smoking IN campus buildings (which I must, somewhat grudgingly, support) BUT ALL SMOKING on campus grounds...meaning...you can't smoke outside either, on the sidewalk, sitting on the grass, etc., etc. It is the height of absurdity.

treetowncartel

Fri, Dec 4, 2009 : 11:39 a.m.

Smoke em if you got em!

tracyann

Fri, Dec 4, 2009 : 9:53 a.m.

U-M wouldn't be the first college to ban all smoking on campus. WCC did that about a year or so ago. Of course, that didn't stop many people from smoking right outside the entrance to buildings. That was fun to walk through.

Grand Marquis de Sade

Fri, Dec 4, 2009 : 9:42 a.m.

I wish I could help you bub but my head is spinning from the absurdity of the whole thing. But since you mentioned cars, BBQs, etc. it's worth mentioning that California was looking into banning fireplaces and wood stoves. Unbelievable.

gogmagog8

Thu, Dec 3, 2009 : 9:42 p.m.

"Sheeple," indeed...! Thanks for making my night a little brighter Grand Marquis. And what say you about the plans to make all outdoor smoking illegal and subject to fine on University of Michigan property? Oh they like sheep...have gone astray. I just can't really even wrap my head around what all this means. It feels like such a profound, authoritarian over reach cloaked in the moral piety of public health. I just can't follow the reasoning of banning smoking outdoors...where does this all end. I can only assume that the argument is about "second hand smoke"...right? Or is it something more pernicious like "looking out for the welfare of individuals?" The latter terrifies me. I can make my own decisions (btw...I don't smoke!) And the former is equally absurd: what about car exhaust, barbecue grills, my neighbors fire pit, my other neighbors wood burning stove....???!!! I am really confused...really confused... Someone please help me understand.

Grand Marquis de Sade

Thu, Dec 3, 2009 : 8:02 p.m.

OK... so the owner of the Cloverleaf made a business decision that he hopes will improve his traffic and table turnover. Big deal. I hope that he does experience the increase in business and revenue that he expects but this is hardly newsworthy. The big news here are the poll results that are included along with the story. Am I reading this correctly? 80% of people believe that the government has the right to tell private property owners that they and their patrons can't enjoy a legal product in their building? Don't tell me about liquor licensing etc. Alcohol is an acute intoxicant that can be lethal if consumed in excess (in hours and not years as with tobacco). I find it absolutely astonishing that the majority of people (sheeple?) have so little regard for individual liberty and private property rights. There are restaurants and bars that allow smoking because there is a demand for establishments that do. Period. Nobody forces people who find cigarette smoke offensive to patronize these places. If a business owner feels that allowing smoking is detrimental to the bottom line, as the owner of the Cloverleaf evidently did, they will decide on their own whether to continue to allow smoking. This is the correct way for this matter to be decided. Do we really need the heavy, coercive, and instinctually authoritarian hand of the state to intervene? You people had better think really hard about just how much control you want the state to have over your lives. Of course I shouldn't expect anything different from the residents of a city that seems to be populated exclusively by smug busybodies with too much time on their hands.

ex smoker

Thu, Dec 3, 2009 : 7:50 p.m.

I think that a possible solution to this problem would be for the state legislature to pass a law which would require businesses to purchase an expensive license in order to allow smoking inside. That way, a very few bars would probably pay for the license but most places would be smoke free. This is better than an outright ban because it has an option for some places to continue to allow indoor smoking. And let's face it, Michigan is *cold* in the winter and it kind of sucks to go out for a smoke. Let's let smokers have their places. We dont ever have to go there. My idea has the added advantage of adding some badly needed revenue for the State of Michigan which hopefully is losing cigarette tax revenue as more and more people quit smoking.

gogmagog8

Thu, Dec 3, 2009 : 4:11 p.m.

One can eat and breathe OUTSIDE in the open air without being bothered by someone smoking...conversely, one can smoke outside in the open air without being impinged upon by another's MORAL values system. I find the mindset whereby others feel they have the right to control someone else's behavior -- behavior that has no impact on anyone but the person making the willful choice -- in the open air to be horribly problematic. Of course, the Majority ALWAYS wants to dominate the Minority...maybe it is just part of some deeper (and darker) human impulse. Oh well...I hope folks make a big stink about it at the U-M. Also, please let's not hold Berkeley up as some kind of model...yikes!!

tracyann

Thu, Dec 3, 2009 : 2:10 p.m.

The argument about banning drinking in bars is not even comparable. Unless you are drinking then driving, the only person affected by the alcohol is the one drinking it. When someone is smoking, everyone else around them is essentially smoking by default.

Rhe Buttle

Thu, Dec 3, 2009 : 9:33 a.m.

Hey gogmagog8 - I suggest you look at other campuses and college towns. My MBA (1982) from UC Berkeley (yes, bazerkley) and the city was non-smoking in all public areas, EVEN THEN. So it can be done, and it makes a nicer environment. It seems to me that people breath and eat long before they take up tobacco. Smoking - a religious ritual by the native idigenous peoples of North America - was never intended for daily use. But they're finally getting their revenge, aren't they?

gogmagog8

Wed, Dec 2, 2009 : 11:47 p.m.

I CANNOT WAIT to see what happens when they TRY to make all the U-M property, inside AND OUTSIDE smoke free...for those of you who were not aware, it is coming VERT SOON. It seems to me to really be the height of ideological totalitarianism. I am an ex-smoker...appreciate that I don't have to smell smoke indoors any longer...BUT NO SMOKING OUTSIDE. Jesus...this just seems completely and utterly intolerable. Will there be an uprising...I HOPE SO...!!!

treetowncartel

Wed, Dec 2, 2009 : 5:42 p.m.

I am an advocate for the market driving the change. Also, people fail to realize how much those sinners pay in taxes.

Graz

Wed, Dec 2, 2009 : 9:56 a.m.

As for the debate between bars being smoke-free and restaurants being smoke-free, there isn't much in the way of comparison. I'll preface this with saying I have an occasional drink and I used to smoke, so I say a person going into a bar and drinking is already making an unhealthy choice by consuming alcoholic beverages, so someone complaining about the smoke in there is being a bit silly. The only people that have a valid complaint is the people working in there. But eateries should be smoke-free as it's a different environment. People aren't already making an unhealthy choice by patronizing the place. As for "nanny-state interference", yeah, we didn't need any nanny government making any laws about lead in paint or in drinking water pipes or seatbelts in cars or access for disabled people to public places or safety rules in the workplaces or even keeping poisons out of our food. I'm sure that every single business in the world would have made the decision to lose some profits to spend money to make things safe and accessible for everyone. The last bit was sarcasm for those that may not have gotten that already.

Cash

Wed, Dec 2, 2009 : 6:13 a.m.

J Neils Mongolian Grille in downtown Ypsilanti has been smoke free since opening! Also KeyStone Underground, the martini bar is elegant AND smoke free. YpsiGirl did a nice write up about KeyStone...but there are GREAT special price nights and live jazz music nights that make it affordable and entertaining as well. http://www.ypsigirl.com/2009/05/ypsilantis-only-martini-bar-key-stone.html Both are in the old Kresge Dime Store at the corner of Michigan and Washington downtown. This is a Dave Curtis venture and again BOTH are smoke free! Thanks to Dave for working night and day to give us healthy food options and a elegant martini bar right in downtown Ypsilanti....all in HEALTHY air!

voiceofreason

Wed, Dec 2, 2009 : 2:39 a.m.

As a person who occasionally has a cigarette or two while I am out at the bar drinking, I recently found one thing rather strange. Having a beer at one of the new downtown non-smoking bars, I stepped outside for a smoke. In the five minutes I was standing outside, I had three passersby stop right in front of me, stare at me, and make a loud fake coughing noise. This childish behavior by smug fortysomething AnnArborites should be reason enough to allow each establishment to choose.

tdw

Wed, Dec 2, 2009 : midnight

how does banning smokeing create a " even playing field for everyone"? It seems that giving everyone the choice to go to or not go to a smokeing or non-somkeing establishment is a 'even playing field".Also I myself have lived in more than 2 major cities where it is up to customers to decide what type of place they want to go to.There are also major cities that have passed laws that just would'nt fly in Michigan

annarbor28

Tue, Dec 1, 2009 : 10:18 p.m.

I've lived in 2 major cities where smoking was banned in restaurants, and it was a lot easier to breathe in them. The employees of the restaurants (who need the employment) were not subjected to the smells and risks of secondhand smoke. Smokers adjusted. As a nonsmoker, I don't go to restaurants where there are smoking sections. I see no reason to smell it or breathe it in. I am sure that nonsmoking establishments gain and lose customers because of their rules. I never saw an article about someone having to close due to its smoking policies, but I lived in places where the laws created an even playing field for everyone. It's really easier than you think, and Michigan is really a hold-out. I wonder why this is happening, as so many jurisdictions have passed these during the past 2 decades. What's up with Michigan and smoking? And even Ann Arbor and smoking?

tdw

Tue, Dec 1, 2009 : 9:34 p.m.

I've been around a lot of smokers I'm also a former Detroit cop.I've never seen anyone kill,maim,fight,steal,rob,,wreck,do something sexualy stupid,drown,beat someone,distroy a family (the list goes on and on ) with tobbaco being a factor.( alcohol coccaine yes ).I'ts like TV shows, if you don't like it,don't watch it.If you don't want be somewhere where's somke, don' go there

zollar

Tue, Dec 1, 2009 : 8:49 p.m.

Good smoker's, head over to the Fleetwood, Smoke yer selves silly. Unless heart/lung complications catch up with you first. Enjoy em while you can.

ypsicalling

Tue, Dec 1, 2009 : 7:08 p.m.

And there goes 1/3 of their business -- over to Fleetwood

Macabre Sunset

Tue, Dec 1, 2009 : 5:29 p.m.

Is there any way (since the discussion forum for this was removed) we can figure out what the discussion rules are here? Some of you remove comments that seem fairly mild compared to others, and don't even post when you've done it. Others are far different, and when they do go to the extreme of removing posts, they make a post about it, and why it was done. Consistency would be nice, so I could figure out where you want to draw the boundaries. I thought my reply to stopfood's comment was entirely appropriate - that his tactics were welcome because they would lead to faster laws banning public drug use. But it was removed without comment, anonymously. Ugh. Consistency would be quite welcome.

Snarf Oscar Boondoggle

Tue, Dec 1, 2009 : 4:13 p.m.

w0w!!..... there _are_ two of us! TripleVSix Nanny-state supporters take note: the free market system is working. It was the owner's choice to make this change, based on free market reasons, and his clientele will vote with their wallets to tell him whether or not he did the right thing. He didn't need the government to tell him whether or not to do it. [ed: more precise this could not be]

stopfoodignorance

Tue, Dec 1, 2009 : 3:45 p.m.

So what I do when I come across a place that had banned smoking is stand right in front of the door with a couple of my buddies and chain smoke 2 or 3 cigarettes every time we go out to smoke. That way we can make sure that you people who want to force those of us who do smoke into being uncomfortable with our habits in public still get your fair share of second hand smoke.

Macabre Sunset

Tue, Dec 1, 2009 : 3:35 p.m.

Then you have to be consistent, and say cocaine should be legal. Either adopt the libertarian stance or don't. Cigarettes pose a bigger threat because of the established harm of second-hand smoke. The question of whether second-hand smoke causes harm was settled decades ago. Even the drug-delivery companies agree at this point. Nicotine is also one of the most addictive substances known to mankind. Far more addictive than cocaine or alcohol or caffeine. And, for now, the delivery systems used with alcohol and caffeine do not cause others harm.

Atticus F.

Tue, Dec 1, 2009 : 3:26 p.m.

Macabre, you could make the same argument about alcohol being an addictive drug...But I see no reason why we should ban drinking alcohol in bars. I just think that people should be able to decide for themselves, regardless of weather they are making healthy or unhealthy decisions...And I dont think it's the governments job to police people into making healthy decisions. If you believe that being around smoking is that dangerous, then I would suggest staying away from smoking establishments... But nobody is forcing you to walk into smoking restaruant and breath second hand smoke. thats your own personal decision to make.

Macabre Sunset

Tue, Dec 1, 2009 : 3:17 p.m.

Nicotine is an addictive drug. That's not exactly controversial - do a little Googling if you don't believe me. A cigarette is a drug-delivery system. I don't think it's controversial to say that cigarettes would be banned if not for the political fallout. The pro-smoking lobby likes to compare drug bans to banning lard in cooking. With some success - I believe New York has banned use of artificial trans fats. Which may be the right approach. I don't know. It does confuse the issue. However, most foods do not kill, and are, in fact, good for you. In moderation. People are fat mostly because they eat too much and don't exercise. And don't get me started on second-hand lard. I think you're better off running with the fumes from buses argument the tobacco lobby also likes to throw out there.

Atticus F.

Tue, Dec 1, 2009 : 3:11 p.m.

I for one dont want to live in a world where there are laws that force people to live a healthy life style! Whats next, monitoring peoples dinner table to make sure they are not cooking with lard? Maybe we could BAN CHEESE while were at it! after all cheese is over 90% fat...Forget the fact that it has been part of western civilization for 3000 years. My point is that if you dont want to be around smoke, then dont go to places that allow smoking. It's that simple.

TripleVSix

Tue, Dec 1, 2009 : 3:07 p.m.

Nanny-state supporters take note: the free market system is working. It was the owner's choice to make this change, based on free market reasons, and his clientele will vote with their wallets to tell him whether or not he did the right thing. He didn't need the government to tell him whether or not to do it.

Macabre Sunset

Tue, Dec 1, 2009 : 3:01 p.m.

Yes, and the owner should be able to decide whether cocaine use is allowed on weekends. And schools should be allowed to decide whether they remove asbestos insulation from classrooms. If cigarettes had been invented ten years ago, they would be as illegal as any other drug/drug delivery system. It's only because so many congressmen smoke and receive money from the tobacco lobby that this activity remains legal. Smokers need to understand that the writing is on the wall, and no one wants to see them shooting up in public in the meantime.

Atticus F.

Tue, Dec 1, 2009 : 2:49 p.m.

Have any of you people considered the feelings of the people who do want to smoke in a restaruant? The "smokers paridise" remark made me think; If the place is loaded with 99 people who want to smoke, and then Micheal Paul Golden walks in, and his needs trump the rights of the other 99 people who are there. My point is that the inority of customer should not be dictating what the majority are doing. That being said, I believe Micheal Paul Golden did the right thing by walking out of a restaruant that allows smoking...But I also believe that he shouldn't insist on forcing the owner to ban smoking...That decision should be left to the owner. BTW, I do not smoke, and I do believe the owner was completely within his rights to ban smoking.

David Martel

Tue, Dec 1, 2009 : 2:46 p.m.

I hope more go non-smoking too! This was a debated topic after a post I put on AnnArbor.com a few months ago. http://www.annarbor.com/community/news/opinion/smoking_in_public_places/

Wolverine3660

Tue, Dec 1, 2009 : 2:24 p.m.

HURRAY!!!!!! :)

Jessica Webster

Tue, Dec 1, 2009 : 2:05 p.m.

Texorama - you're right! I got the hours from the internet, but a quick walk down to the restaurant proves me wrong. I've edited the story to reflect the correct hours. Thanks for the catch!

texorama

Tue, Dec 1, 2009 : 1:52 p.m.

I believe you have the hours wrong--I just ate a meal in there last night at 6:15. And I went in because it was smoke-free.

Jessica Webster

Tue, Dec 1, 2009 : 1:43 p.m.

Top Cat - that would be great. We love how many beers they have on draft, but never go because we hate breathing in all that smoke.

Michael Paul Goldenberg

Tue, Dec 1, 2009 : 1:35 p.m.

It's about time. I recall walking into the Clover Leaf for breakfast one morning, not realizing it was a smoker's paradise. Suffice it to say, I turned around and walked out in seconds. There are a number of really good breakfast places I've had to eschew, both because I personally find cigarette smoke irritating and because my son has allergy-related asthma (and smoke is definitely not good for him). This state has lagged in banning smoking in restaurants, bars, concert venues, etc., but I see the light at the end of the tunnel.