Smoke-Free Establishments

[Sailor]

I figured I'd add this on the tails of another thread that started talking about smokiness...

Where can one sit and enjoy a hearty brew or a nice cocktail in smoke-free environs?

Edited to compile list of places mentioned in replies:

Big Bob's Pizza [pizzeria and bar, Gaslight Village]

Churchill's Bar & Bistro [70 Ionia SW]

Cygnus [bar and restaurant, 27th floor of Amway Grand Hotel]

Founder's Brewery [235 Grandville Ave. SW]

Green Well [bar and restaurant, 924 Cherry St.]

Mezze [cafe and bar, 38 W. Fulton]

New Holland Brewing Co. [downtown Holland]

Nightclub Moxie [70 Ionia SW.]

Olive's [bar and restaurant, Gaslight Village]

One Trick Pony [bar and restaurant, 136 E. Fulton]

Rose's [bar and restaurant, Gaslight Village]

San Chez [bar and restaurant, 38 W. Fulton]

Schmohz Brewing [Patterson just N. of 28th St.]

Stray Dog [coffee, 1035 Wealthy SE]

For lunch-type places, see http://www.smokefreemichigan.org/pages/GRAND_RAPIDS.htm

[radicaljoy]

I figured I'd add this on the tails of another thread that started talking about smokiness...

Where can one sit and enjoy a hearty brew or a nice cocktail in smoke-free environs?

[bigbobspizza]

Rose's, Olives and ourselves in Gaslight Village.

[luma]

The new Founder's Brewery sounds like just what you're after. Great brew, nonsmoking. As such, I drink elsewhere, being a dirty smoker and all...

[GRDadof3]

One Trick Pony.

[oakesLife]

San Chez & Mezze

[MuskeMI]

New Holland Brewing Company (Downtown Holland)

Schmohz Brewing (Patterson just N of 28th St)

The Green Well (Cherry(?))

Also, check out http://www.smokefreemichigan.org/

[GRDadof3]

New Holland Brewing Company (Downtown Holland)

Schmohz Brewing (Patterson just N of 28th St)

The Green Well (Cherry(?))

Also, check out http://www.smokefreemichigan.org/

[Sammie1]

Moxie/ Churchills

[Sailor]

Chuck E Cheese. (they actually serve beer there, so you could in essence grab a brew)

http://www.smokefreemichigan.org/pages/GRAND_RAPIDS.htm

[GRDadof3]

Looks like it might be all of them in the near future:

http://blog.mlive.com/grpress/2007/12/stat...ill_bannin.html

Still has to clear the Senate, which apparently it's not expected to pass.

[RenZone]

Looks like it might be all of them in the near future:

http://blog.mlive.com/grpress/2007/12/stat...ill_bannin.html

Still has to clear the Senate, which apparently it's not expected to pass.

[luma]

Looks like it might be all of them in the near future:

http://blog.mlive.com/grpress/2007/12/stat...ill_bannin.html

Still has to clear the Senate, which apparently it's not expected to pass.

[luma]

Just ran across an interesting piece regarding second hand smoke. Here's a look at how the EPA's study regarding second hand smoke was assembled: http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html The short version is this - the study wasn't a "study", but rather a meta-study which is essentially a survey of available studies on record. This is a totally legitimate way to handle a large public health study, but not if you first toss out any study that disagrees with your pre-determined desired outcome. Especially interesting was that the entire study was eventually scrapped by a federal judge who found the cherry picking of included studies invalidated the whole thing.

Short version - second hand smoke is stinky, but there is precious little evidence to support the fact that it's going to kill you any time soon.

[NorthEnder]

I've been writing my state senator and state representative on the issue of needing a mandate to ban smoking in establishments, but I doubt they care.

I just don't understand why smokers rights are more important than non-smokers rights. A smoker can still go to a bar, step outside to smoke, and go back in, but if i want to enjoy a smoke free night, i can go to about 10 establishments, or not go out at all.

[houseofdon]

I've been writing my state senator and state representative on the issue of needing a mandate to ban smoking in establishments, but I doubt they care.

I just don't understand why smokers rights are more important than non-smokers rights. A smoker can still go to a bar, step outside to smoke, and go back in, but if i want to enjoy a smoke free night, i can go to about 10 establishments, or not go out at all.

[N1P]

Just noticed the new sign on Grand Coney declaring themselves Smoke Free!

[luma]

I've been writing my state senator and state representative on the issue of needing a mandate to ban smoking in establishments, but I doubt they care.

I just don't understand why smokers rights are more important than non-smokers rights. A smoker can still go to a bar, step outside to smoke, and go back in, but if i want to enjoy a smoke free night, i can go to about 10 establishments, or not go out at all.

[blueradon]

According to WOODTV - Steak 'n Shake is smoke free as of today.

I hated going there because of the smokers.

[starrfish]

People who choose to poison themselves still have a right to do so. Limiting the areas where one can partake in this activity isn't about trying to take away a smoker's right, it's about trying to ensure the air quality in public places is relatively safe for everyone. With more and more establishments going smoke-free, it seems like business owners understand that the economics of going smoke-free is nothing to fear.

I read this as "not everybody is just like me so we should pass laws to make everybody just like me". Pretty much every new bar opening these days is opening smoke-free - you are already winning this battle.

A non-smoker can go to the bar and step outside to enjoy the smoke-free air. And stay there.

[GR Jackson]

One thing I don't understand is how much money the state govt. tries to make on taxing cigarettes, and then continually tries to ban it. They have a lot of cash on the line, and would lose quite a bit if people stopped smoking, yet they keep acting anti-smoking. It is at best a short sighted strategy to tax the hell out of smokes.

[suydam]

One thing I don't understand is how much money the state govt. tries to make on taxing cigarettes, and then continually tries to ban it. They have a lot of cash on the line, and would lose quite a bit if people stopped smoking, yet they keep acting anti-smoking. It is at best a short sighted strategy to tax the hell out of smokes.

[doogur]

I've been writing my state senator and state representative on the issue of needing a mandate to ban smoking in establishments, but I doubt they care.

I just don't understand why smokers rights are more important than non-smokers rights. A smoker can still go to a bar, step outside to smoke, and go back in, but if i want to enjoy a smoke free night, i can go to about 10 establishments, or not go out at all.

[doogur]

As expected, it's pretty much DOA in the senate: http://blog.mlive.com/grpress/2007/12/sena...moking_ban.html

As a smoker (and a libertarian), I say good riddance. As this thread has demonstrated, there are loads of places to go that are smoke free already - I don't see why the government needs to dictate what the proprietors of individual bars and restaurants should allow.

[doogur]

One thing I don't understand is how much money the state govt. tries to make on taxing cigarettes, and then continually tries to ban it. They have a lot of cash on the line, and would lose quite a bit if people stopped smoking, yet they keep acting anti-smoking. It is at best a short sighted strategy to tax the hell out of smokes.