Smoking ban in Michigan: Fail

For those who might not know, the state of Michigan recently passed a ban on smoking in all restaurants AND bars. Casinos were excluded from the list after a revise was made, and beginning this week all places in my hometown will require that smokers go outside for their fix. Our papers have done a lot of coverage on the ban from its beginnings to its passage. I'm not pleased. I'm not a smoker, but I feel this is a complete abuse of public policy and the law. Below is a letter to the editor written by a man in Chelsea that explains my feelings perfectly...

Most people on both sides of the smoking ban issue miss the underlying and truly troublesome aspect of the recently enacted smoking ban legislation in Michigan. If you are making your arguments for or against it because you like smoking, don't like it, or even know someone who died because of smoking, then you are throwing a dangerous and blinding emotional plea into a serious public policy debate.

This will lead you to say things like "I'm glad they banned it. I don't want to be around smoke." In that world of public policy discussions, one could also make statements such as, "I like vodka. I think they should outlaw schnapps." Or my favorite futuristic statement, "I don't like french fries. I am glad the health care reform of 2013 bans them."

Most importantly, let's simply look at the new law's treatment of bars and restaurants, even though more is included in the final law. Essentially, the recent public act lumps private businesses in as public places. The common argument for those in favor of these bans is that second-hand smoke is harmful (we will take that aspect as true). However, they leave out the crucial component that this argument for a state law is based on the premise that you are being exposed to this harm against your will and thus the public needs a law to protect individuals.

Despite the opinion of many singles "in heat," in a true legal sense, bars and restaurants are not places that you have to enter ever. No one is forced to go to a bar. Even if that were true, one would then have to convince me that you have to go to a bar that allows smoking. Remember, before this law, any business in Michigan could ban smoking at any time. Many, in fact, had done so.

If you are not forced to go to these places (i.e. they are not a government building or hospital or even -- and I'll stretch it here -- an airplane), then the argument for the policy falls apart. These are places you choose to patronage and drown your liver. Why do you get to drown your liver, but someone else doesn't get to dirty their lungs and drown their liver?

A more disturbing aspect is once you deem a private business that chooses what to serve a "public" space, you open a dangerous door and break down the free market determining business outcomes (preference theory). If the activity is a legal activity in all other places, then it is irrational to determine consumer choice on a premise of public health at a place where all choices one makes directly affect health (i.e. the food you eat and the amount of liquor you drink).

Under the new law, for these rational choice theories to exist, the government will need to take continuous polls of customers and health experts to determine what that business should do for all health related choices. You have taken the free market out of the free market.

Why not have bars that are for smokers and bars that are not. Oh wait, that's the way it was before the ban. If your argument is that you can't find a bar near you without smoking --and you just "have to go to a bar" -- then you are saying again that your convenience overrules another person's preference and the result should be state law.

If you are arguing that employees deserve a smoke-free environment when working in a bar, then again, you have to convince me that employees have no choice but to work as a bartender or waiter in a bar that allows smoking. Even if you could do this task, wouldn't a more sensible approach be to just ensure there are equal numbers of bars that are "smoking" and "nonsmoking" per capita in a particular area?

This could be done through liquor licensing which, under current law, determines how many places can serve alcohol in a local area per capita. It's clear the sponsors of this legislation were not thinking of logical solutions, especially given the fact the law actually stops any new cigar bars from opening in the state. I mean who expects to be around smoke when going to a cigar bar?

I know in an era of term limits and emotion-based democracy, this might be overly rationale or too much to think about. However, I would like to think the founders were right in originally making one body of the legislature known as the Senate as the body to stop mass emotional lawmaking. Perhaps the progressives of the early 20th century made that impossible when they made the Senate popularly elected?

Of course, rational debate is the core of my argument, so I encourage disagreement. However, if you are going write a response to tell me that smokers stink or smoking is bad for your health, etc., then don't respond because you need to re-read my statements.

In addition, if you truly want to ban all smoking, then promote a law that makes cigarettes illegal. Although extreme, it would actually make more sense as a public policy debate. I suspect that is what the backers (i.e. American Cancer Society) really want, but they were afraid to say it because it suddenly begs the question: Why focus on smoking when the No. 1 killer in the United States is heart disease and obesity? Perhaps these same people would be willing to ban people over a certain weight from going to McDonald's?

In addition to the complete lack of logic in the law's formulation, we can all look forward to its wonderful reliance on "self-righteous" enforcement. Due to a lack of funding for direct enforcement from health departments, you will be able to watch those lovely people approaching smokers to say, "I really want to drink more beer and eat more salty pork rhines, so go smoke outside!"

Know your rights, or you'll lose them.

Posted via email from Pass Fail Meter