http://www.statenews.com As a recent graduate of MSU, a current resident of East Lansing and a frequenter of many of East Lansing’s bars and restaurants, I support a comprehensive smoke-free law. en-us Gryphon 2.2.3b-tsn (woodward)/Foundry5 Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:11:28 -0400 webmaster@statenews.com http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/40701 It’s obvious that a smoking ban would not harm businesses, since many restaurants that are thriving around Michigan have voluntarily chosen to ban smoking. The greater issue here is that such a government-imposed ban is a direct assault on the private property rights of business owners. Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:35:07 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/40701 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/40716 “The greater issue here is that such a government-imposed ban is a direct assault on the private property rights of business owners.” Said business owners also cannot sell alcohol, cigarettes, or porn to minors either. Property rights are extended only by the law – which is not created by “government,” but by the people who form it. People like me, who are tired of going out to a bar, sucking in carcinogens, and reeking like a chimney at the end of the night. There will always be people who cling to archaic and deadly activities. Count on the reasonable and rational to severely limit those activities to places where they cannot be affected by them. Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:53:27 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/40716 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/40743 Does everyone understand why we don’t have smoke-free restaurants? The State Senate is majority Republican, the House is Democrat. The Senate won’t pass a bill exempting the casinos because they feel it would economically benefit Detroit districts, consequently giving Michigan Democrats more political power (and maybe even giving the city more districts in the future if population increases). The House won’t pass a bill without the exemption for the same reasons. Both sides are implicitly saying that there would, in fact, be a detrimental effect on some businesses with a full ban (at least in their view). This isn’t about public health; it’s just more bullshit political pettiness from Lansing. Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:50:18 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/40743 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/40780 Zeke, Only patronizing establishments that don’t allow smoking would be “reasonable and rational,” rather than looking to the nanny state to solve everyone’s problems. Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:24:24 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/40780 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/40919 Yes, because the only factor that informs my decision on where to go out at night is whether or not there is smoking. Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:28:06 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/40919 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/40992 “Only patronizing establishments that don’t allow smoking would be “reasonable and rational,” rather than looking to the nanny state to solve everyone’s problems.” Mmmmkay. So instead of engaging the legislative process via my constitutionally-granted rights and pushing for legislation to end smoking at my favorite BWW, I should just suck it up and hope they change their policies sometime in 2025? By your rationale, blacks should have just avoided segregated establishments to end separate but equal treatment, right? And instead of adopting drunk driving laws, we should have just supported bars that take away car keys at the door? Pull your head out of the clouds. The “nanny state” you refer to is driven by people like me, who feel that one bout with cancer was enough and would prefer not to see anyone else clsoe to me suffer through it. Cigarettes are the only product on the market that, if used as directed, WILL KILL YOU! And given time, those around you as well! Why on Earth would you be against restricting it from public spaces? Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:11:28 -0400 http://www.statenews.com/index.php/comment/view/40992