|
|
||
|
|
The Michigan Smoking Ban:
Ushering in the New
Era of the Nanny State
By Robert E. Martin On December 18th Governor Jennifer Granholm signed Public Act 188 into law, banning cigarette smoking in restaurants, bars, and private offices located in public buildings effective May 1st of this year, in essence threatening the economic well-being of a significant industry within this state, in dire economic times no less, while more significantly stripping citizens of their property rights. The measure was approved by the House of Representatives on a vote of 75 to 30 and in the Senate by a margin of 24 to 13, meaning that a meager margin of 12 men have decided to embark upon a Draconian road of prohibition that holds untold economic consequence, not to mention serious civil rights implications. In the larger Great Lakes Bay region, the only legislators opposing this move were Ken Horn, James Barcia, and Tony Stamas, with the remainder advancing the expansion of the ‘Nanny State’ and throwing such apparently antiquated notions as freedom of choice and tolerance out the window in favor of government control over the marketplace of commerce and a philosophical intransigence that quite frankly takes on the odious stench of fascism, ever so subtle. Irony and hypocrisy are plentiful. With revenues from tobacco taxes at $1,179.9 million according to the most recent statistical studies I could find for 2005, tobacco represents 5.1 percent of all Michigan taxes, leading one to ask how the legislature can justify banning an activity that the State hypocritically derives so much revenue from? Many senators purportedly changed their stance on this issue because of alleged mounting evidence pertaining to the dangers of second-hand smoke, which is where the fascism of ‘selling the lie’ kicks in for the Health Nazis. Corrupt science has two characteristics. First, instead of starting with a hypothesis and data to support the conclusion, it does the exact opposite and starts with a desired conclusion, selectively selecting data in order to support the hypothesis. Secondly, it stifles dissent by excluding opposing points of view from the process. Of the 30 studies on Spousal Smoking referred to in the leading EPA report, only six found any significant association between secondhand smoke and cancer in non-smokers married to smokers. Moreover, the studies used by the EPA were limited to only 11 studies done in the United States. Because of this, U.S. District Judge William Osteen in July 1998 ruled against the EPA in a decision that clearly showed how the myth of secondhand smoke hazards should join the ranks of other urban legends. Specifically, Judge Osteen's analysis showed the EPA had reached its conclusion prior to any research, and then adjusted standard scientific practices in order to validate its faulty conclusions. The court found "there was no substance to EPA's Carol Browner's claim that second hand smoke caused 3,000 deaths annually in the US. Moreover, Judge Osteen's decision coincided with European Community and World Health Organization studies that questioned the secondhand theory. As for the other side of the equation that requires politicians to balance competing interests, the 2002 County Business Patterns Reports (from the 2002 US Census) lists the Bay, Saginaw, Midland metro areas as being one of the Top 10 employer industries for "food service and drinking places", with over 16,000 employees. (The second largest is Educational Services at a little over 12,000). The claim is widely circulated that moving to a non-smoking environment will not economically impair this industry, yet in Ottawa, Canada, 60 out of 210 bars have gone out of business since a smoke ban was enacted there. In British Columbia, their short-lived ban (80 days) cost the hospitality sector $8 million. And finally, what about the hypocrisy of banning 2nd hand smoke on the one hand and then allowing unprecedented amounts of mercury discharge into the Great Lakes from the Defarge Cement Plant in Alpena, low level radioactive waste disposal close to the great lakes, and slurry pits to exist on the Saginaw river without adequate protection? Is this type of paternalism wise when it comes to setting public policy? If prohibition on all of the intoxicating pleasures in life is the goal, then shouldn't proponents state the simple truth? Corollary question: When will it stop? The Mayor of New York City is already proposing the same argument against 'greasy spoon' restaurants serving ‘deep fried food’, and even added salt to the list of items for government to regulate. Meanwhile, the amount of harmful carcinogens engendered by burning a bag of charcoal in the backyard at a summer barbecue is documented as being more significant than that of inhaling 2nd hand smoke. “If smoking is bad, we should ban the activity itself,” notes Rep. Ken Horn. “I have more concerns over first hand smoke than second hand smoke. I don’t dispute the health argument; however, there are other factors such as diet, drinking of alcohol, work stress, and sedentary lifestyle that are not assessed in studies on second hand smoke.” “As a former small business owner, I also have great empathy for the businesses that will suffer from this law. I see this proposal as an actual government taking of private property. I’ve seen studies on the economic impact from both sides. We know that when Ohio went smoke free in work places, border areas in Michigan and Indiana increased their business by as much as 65%.” “Creating an exemption for casinos and cigar bars is hypocritical. If private property rights can be trumped by second hand smoke concerns, as proponents of the bill argue, there is no science or logic in arguing that casino chips somehow make a person immune from the effects of second hand smoke.” “I’m drawing my line in the sand here. I’ve heard a radio news report of a movement to ban WiFi from public places because a man is allergic to the signal. While a rather bizarre case, it continues to beg the questions, where does it stop?” “This legislation literally redefines what private property ownership in Michigan means,” states Horn. “Where ‘public place’ used to mean government owned building such as the county courthouse and school buildings, ‘workplace’ is added as a definition in legislation. As a first generation American, I am outraged at the notion that we can, as a people, so easily give up the inherent rights that should be presumed with property ownership.” “We can no sooner give up our right of property ownership than we can our right to free speech and our right to assemble. If people aren’t frightened by this loss of liberty, they should be.” Perhaps writer Fran Lebowitz summed up the core issue best when she wrote, “I understand that many people find smoking objectionable. That is their right. I would be the very last to criticize the annoyed.” “I myself find many things objectionable. Being offended is that natural consequence of leaving one’s home. I do not like after-shave lotion, adults who roller-skate, children who speak French, or anyone who is unduly tan.” “I do not, however, go around attempting to enact legislation and put up signs. When it is necessary to go out of the house people must be prepared, as am I, to deal with the unpleasant personal habits of others.” “That is what ‘public’ means. If you can’t stand the heat out in public, get back in the comfort of your own kitchen.”
|
|
|
|
||
|
home |
Out & About |
Dining |
Events |
singles |
classified |
archives |
advertising |
||
