Smoking ban

Last Friday, the Michigan Senate voted to ban smoking in bars, restaurants and even casinos and bingo halls.  This was somewhat of a surprise action since in December they shelved the idea although the Michigan House was pushing a lame bill similar to the Senate's.  This is another example of the government, this time at the State level, overreaching their mandate and playing nanny to the public.

For the truth in advertising caveat, I do not smoke nor do I like the smell of smoking in private or public.

It is beyond me that the lawmakers choose to tell private entrepreneurs, who are the absolute bedrock of the American economic system, what they can and cannot do with a legal product.  If cigarettes are so bad for adults, who know the risks yet choose to smoke, make them illegal and stop the subsidies to the tobacco farmers.  The political class does not have the guts to do that so they hit the private business owners in the pocketbook.  We do not need less economic activity in Michigan at this time.

There have been a number of cockamamie justifications for this usurpation of private rights; lets look at them.

This is a safety hazard for the people that don’t want to breathe second hand smoke.  While the statistics seem to bear that out, I’m somewhat suspicious of any stats provided by the government that show more government involvement in our lives is beneficial.  Even assuming there is some additional danger from second hand smoke, I have the right, without government telling me, not to go to an establishment that I find offensive.  But Timo, think of the poor workers who are exposed to second hand smoke; what of their health risks?  This is a stretch at the very limit of logic.  With the turnover in the restaurant and bar business in the wait staff, there are plenty of job opportunities available if the wait staff does not want to put up with second hand smoke.  But Timo, the staff may have to leave a job and/or owner they like just because they can't stand the smoke.  Tough.  Life is a series of choices; the government can't make them all for everyone.  If the owner of the establishment can’t find help, they have three choices:  pay more, put up a no smoking sign, or close down.  I have great faith that entrepreneurs can find the best solution for their situation without the government mandating a fix.

Another absurd justification is that even the Europeans are banning smoking now.  It never ceases to amaze me that anything the socialistic Europeans do should be mimicked here.  That is ridiculous; they are called the Old World for a reason.

The major justification for this intrusion into private industry is that it is up to the government to promote healthy lifestyles and ensure unsafe practices are banned.  I freely admit that there are some safety laws that intrude on private citizens that make sense.  These include such things as speed limits, lead content in paint, driving on a specified side of the road, as well as many other examples.  However, the concept of logical consequence, which the politicians fallaciously use frequently, does not follow here—if some control is good, more control is better.  Balderdash.  People should be able to decide for themselves what to do in most cases.  If I want to go to a bar that doesn’t allow smoking I can go to Jimmy’s.  If I want to go to a cigar bar, let me go (if one exists in town).  If I don’t want to go to a bar because of their smoking policy, either for or against, let me make the choice.  If I want to open a bar that specializes in Dominican cigars, let me do so.  If no one comes or I can’t find help, let me go bankrupt for my stupidity.

Hopefully the inclusion of the smoking ban in casinos and bingo halls was purposely a poison pill put in by cowardly politicians that didn't want to voice their opinions publicly and the House will toss this bill where it belongs.  Michigan does not look silly, despite the views of the Detroit Free Press editorial staff, protecting the rights of their citizens and business establishment by allowing the proprietors to make reasoned decisions.  Let your representative know this is idiotic.

Comments

[rukidding]

I agree with the legislature on this one. The long term health effects and costs from smoking are way too high.

In addition, if we are trying to attract entrepreneurs and creative individuals to Michigan, then being on the wrong side of the smoking debate would be another disincentive (among many) to them moving here. These people are looking for healthy and active lifestyles, not smoking couch potatoes who do not want to attend college.

Michigan has the natural attributes to attract newcomers, but out-of-date and frankly backward attitudes about education, health, physical fitness, and other topics will continue to hold the state back economically.

By the way; having recently traveled to parts of Europe for the first time, I was extremely impressed and would have to say in many ways they are light years ahead of us. This country has many great things going for it, modesty is not one of them.

[EmersonsZen]

Timo--

Your blog reminds me of the banning of ephedra. After it caused about 30 or so heart attacks in a 6 month period, it was banned.

When I first heard this on the radio, my thought was, "How many heart attacks does smoking cigarettes cause *each day*"?

If those in power can ban ephedra that quickly, then what is the holdup in banning tobacco?

I'm guessing that the tobacco lobby puts more money in our lawmaker's pockets than the ephedra lobby.

But do we ban alcohol, so that that innocent deaths caused by drunk drivers are lowered/eliminated?

Before you know it, they'll be banning the playing of tag on the elementary school playground. Oh, wait...

[Bob]

Here in Chicago, after four months of waiting for all these new non smoking customers, many bars are ignoring the ban. Any fines that may someday be imposed are considered another cost of doing business. As the weather gets warmer, the crowds outside the bars are getting larger, the local cops consider it as "stupid", as they have real crime to deal with, hoping it will be overturned as soon as possible.

[Timo Kokko]

The problem I have with the nanny state mentality on smoking is the same one I have with the global warming crowd; I have a hard time trying to ferret fact from fiction. When the American Cancer Society funded 40-year study of non-smoking Californians living with a smoking spouse showed no ill effects of second hand smoke and when the World Health Organization's 10-year study showed no harm, why do we believe statements made by celebrities or people with a dog in the fight that say second hand smoke is harmful? With the political correctness running amok in the US, it is harder and harder to figure out what is true and what is an out and out lie. With the consistent overreaching by government, I still believe private entrepreneurs should be allowed to choose their smoking policies. I don't think there is any question that smoking harms the smoker, but people have the right to be stupid if they choose.

Rukidding brings up an interesting point I haven't thought of; are young, bright people who are considering moving to Michigan turned off by the smoking laws here? As I'm neither young nor bright anymore, I don't know the answer to that. If it is true, it is a far more powerful argument than the canard of the danger of second hand smoke.

I'm happy to hear that the bars in Chicago are doing what is best for the customers; i.e., giving the customers the choice to smoke or not.

[rukidding]

Thank you Timo for considering my thought about bad habits being a disincentive to attracting new entrepreneurs. There is a economic term called "economies of agglomeration." It basically means like industries will cluster together (i.e. Silicon Valley or Research Triangle) because of the economic efficiencies that develop in the cluster. For Michigan to be successful in its economic transition such clusters need to develop here.

Among other things, the well-educated workers in scientific, technology, and research industries are looking for exciting, trend-setting, unique places to live where there are numerous active and passive recreational opportunities. The Governor's "Cool Cities Campaign" was a good step in the right direction for keeping college graduates in the state and attracting others to consider moving here.

Announcing to the world (even in a subtle way) that Michigan is a chain-smokers paradise full of couch potatoes where nature centers, parks, and golf courses are being underfunded or closed is sending exactly the wrong message...unless our goal is to be the Great Lakes equivalent of Appalachia.

[Jerry Scarborough]

Can we get real for just a moment? Actually, many young, recent college graduate, entrepreneurs smoke. And, this bill, as passed by the Senate, has no exceptions,

So, we have small businesses like the Downtown Smokers Club, which sells cigars, and provides a back room where they can be smoked. I suppose they can still sell them (until the next big anti smoking push), but the new legislation would prevent the smoking of them at that location. This is a business already suffering from Lansing's never ending sewer project. This bill could, indeed, kill it. That's a good message to young entrepreneurs. And there are other businesses like this one in this area, and in other towns in Michigan. It seems incredible that we will now ban smoking in a business whose business is smoking. What's next? Maybe banning liquor sales at liquor stores.

Mike Bishop had a pretty good quote at the end of LSJ's article on the Senate bill. He talked about the intrusion of government, and people being able to think for themselves. He was spot on.

[rukidding]

Yes, let's get real for a minute. The places that are the most successful at attracting new entrepreneurs are those that cater to healthy and active lifestyles. Of course some recent college graduates smoke. I never said none do. But if this state wants to be on the cutting edge of economic growth, then it needs to wake up and start thinking about how it is perceived elsewhere.

[Populista]

I think this is a consistent position with other government edicts. If the government can tell you what you can smoke, what is wrong with it telling you where you can smoke it?

[Timo Kokko]

Rukidding,
I understand your argument and you may indeed be right that people may not want to move to an area that does not ban smoking, but intuitively I believe they would value freedom of choice more. I'm not sure freedom of choice implies Michigan is a chain smoking paradise that gets rid of golf courses, but I could be wrong.

Populista,
I see no where in the Constitution that says the government can tell you what to do, or where to do it, with a legal product. We have started accepting these incremental violations of basic freedoms because "its for the children", or "its for the better good of everyones health, welfare, happiness or whatever." It is not the governments place to regulate stupidity, although they are certainly trying.

We could do without most of the laws Congress, as well as the States and municipalities, passes. The Federal governments job is promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Promoting life does not mean controlling how that life is to be led.

If the government wants to control smoking, there is an amendment process to the Constitution, which as we all know was tried with alcohol with miserable results. Tobacco should either be made illegal, or the free market should take care of the problem which ever way the free market leads it. Jimmy's in Lansing is a good example of the market at work. They choose to outlaw smoking and seem to be doing very well. The first time I visited that fine establishment was after they put in the no smoking clause so I have no comparison to know if they are doing better or worse; I wish them well.

[Jerry Scarborough]

rukidding,

Cool Cities provide work and recreational opportunities for a wide variety of people. I know many 20 and 30 somethings who consider themselves non-smokers, but still enjoy a good cigar once in awhile. Where's the crime in providing those people a place to gather, and smoke?

If the Senate bill passes, it would be a crime, if the person providing the gathering place is doing so as a business. This isn't about bars, restaurants, or casinos. This is about providing consenting adults a place to gather indoors. Somehow I don't see how that damages Michigan's image.

[Michael Motta]

Timo,

Your arguments against what you call the "nanny state" elsewhere, the poo-pooing of the "it's for the children" or overall welfare, and all that would seem to apply especially well to marijuana, public nudity, softcore porn, and maybe even hardcore porn.

Would you be in favor of legalizing marijuana? Public nudity? How about deregulating pornography?

I'm not being flip about it, just curious as to how libertarian you are as opposed to how conservative you are.

[Populista]

Timo, I said consistent, not correct. I'm in agreement with Michael Motta, I don't think anything should be outlawed. I think it should all be legalized and taxed to death.

[Harry F Dunn]

Whenever a law is passed like the smoking ban law, there are always people who will object to it. If we were all the same and thought the same, it would be a very dull life. People will fight this law just like they did with the seatbelt law but eventually it will just become a way of life like it has with the seatbelt law and life will go on.

[Timo Kokko]

Michael,
I think you have a very good question, moving from theory to practicality and I do recognize you are not being flip about it.

As far as marijuana, I am in favor of legalizing it and taxing it equivalently with alcohol or tobacco. I may be one of the few people that lived through the 60s that hasn't tried it, but it does not seem to be more damaging than alcohol; however, I must admit I am not a physician and don't know if the articles on gene damage are true or not. If there is some significant physiological damage to the chromosomes that could be passed on, then I would be against legalizing it. Otherwise, I think it should be legal.

Public nudity should also be legalized. I think we in the US have an overinflated concern with nudity in general. Most of us are born nude and it is a natural state. The majority of us in the nude are horrifying sights, not sexually arousing at all. I suspect a bit more public nudity would diminish the titillation currently associated with a "peak."

Porn, both hard and soft core, approaches the line. At the gut level, I believe they should be legal, but controlled. The stuff shown on public TV nowadays certainly approaches soft porn already, so the genie is out of the bottle there. Recognizing it is hypocritical, I think there needs to be some sort of control over hard core porn. Child porn should definitely be outlawed and prosecuted to the fullest. Perhaps porn districts like they have in Amsterdam or Bremerhaven would work.

Reading the above, I sure sound more Libertarian than Conservative, but I think I am more of a Conservative.

[Timo Kokko]

Harry,
I'm opposed to the seat belt law, although I think you have to be a moron not to use a seat belt. As I said earlier, government should not try to regulate stupidity; it is too prevalent to control.

[MSUGeek]

Isn't it amazing that the government has caused smokers to quit by hiking cigarette taxes? Now we face a deficit this year because cigarette taxes are down (among other things). Now by restricting smoking, the revenues will further dwindle. Where will it all end?

[Michael Motta]

Timo,

Nice job. On the deregulation of pornography (or even just nude photography that's both titillating and artistic), I was thinking more along the lines of viewing by minors rather than their being employed/exploited. Although one could make a case that minors in basic Hollywood productions are no less exploited than would be minors participatory at least in milder nude photography such as if one of these high school aged stars were to appear in Playboy or something.

At first I thought you still worked for an insurance company or something (I was trying to piece things together) but then later I decided maybe you were retired. So I'm wondering both in general and in your case how much you think a person's taking public ownership of what some might call radical or at least unconventional political positions is risky professionally. Following up on that I wonder how much political participation is quelled, and private life placed ahead of it, by the fear of professional reprisal.

[Populista]

Michael, you hit the nail on the head right there. In my profession, I am usually surrounded by conservatives, and have had to keep quiet about my political views while they shouted theirs from the rooftops. Annoying to say the least. But there are always bills to pay.

[Timo Kokko]

Michael,
I am retired but in my last job was employed by an insurance company.

The question on politically radical or counter-culture views in the business world is interesting. As I did not find my views to be radically out of step with the "silent majority", I'm not sure I'm a good person to evaluate how much a risk a political philosophy that was totally out of line with the corporate world would be. I do know some of the younger people that worked for me had ideas and ideals that were considerably removed from my comfort level, but the quality and quantity of their work was far more important than their youthful idealism. I'm sure I would never have publicized radical views that would have been in conflict with my company while I was employed though, even had I harbored any. It seems somehow disloyal to go against the hand that feeds you; privately, no problem.

[Michael Motta]

Populista, thanks for chiming in on that, and likewise to Timo.

Populista cites what I might call latent harrassment, that is harrassment that's not manifested, but is ready-at-hand. I think her statement also goes beyond latent harrassment and into the possibility of being fired based upon political views.

Timo cites loyalty/disloyalty to a company, which I find even more troubling than Populista's candid offering. I'm not a big flag-waver, nor do I have one of those ambiguous "Pride" bumper stickers with the red, white and blue scheme (I do have an ACLU bumper sticker though). So I'm not going to throw the whole patriotism thing out there. However, it seems to me that where a private "duty" and public duty come into conflict, public duty should hold sway. In other words, to me it's nobler to stand for what you believe in terms of public discourse than it is to "stand-down" in favor of a single corporation, regardless of whether they employ you or not.

Following the standard "company line" out of a sense of duty strikes me, with all due respect, as authoritarian passivity rather than conscientious engagement, and is a model I suspect all too many may follow. This renders some of the philosophical justification for free speech moot, since a good part of the advantage of having free speech de jure is that it be practiced de facto.

[Timo Kokko]

Michael,
I am terribly disappointed that a reasonable sounding guy like you would have an ACLU sticker near you, much less on your car.

Your opinions on public vis a vis private comments are interesting, but (as you probably knew) I donn't agree. If I take a company's money to do a job, my responsibility in intercourse with that company is to support it. If I can't support the company, I can feel free to leave the company and seek employment elsewhere. My private opinions are not, and should not, be expressed publicly in anyway that imply they are related to the company. However, I can freely discuss my opinions in public in any way that does not suggest I am supported by or speaking for my company. I recognize that there may be companies that have different standards than those with which I have had the pleasure of working with, but not a single time have I been called on the carpet for my public comments or opinions; although my bosses have frequently disagreed with my views.

[Timo Kokko]

Michael,
A PS to the previous note. I just heard about one Dr. Boyce Watkins, who apparently is a PhD at Syracuse University who made a rant about racism and Obama. It wasn't significant what he said one way or another, but he used the imprimatur of Syracuse to make his statement, implying that the University agreed with him. I don't know if they did or not, but it appeared to be an opinion, which should have stated as such, and not used the University to lend it credence. Same with me. I can make any statements I want, but as long as I'm taking money from my company, I cannot associate my personal thoughts in anyway with the company.

[Michael Motta]

Timo,

I wasn't suggesting that one present one's views as if one is company spokesperson. Nor do I think Populista was suggesting that's what she'd do if she were to use her real name. We're talking about speaking as Joe or Jo citizen while having as an accidental quality also being employed by company X. The statements may not even have anything to do substantively with the company.

For instance, let's say I work for a company that collects garbage and I'm an atheist who writes cultural criticism in his leisure time. I don't even address the garbage biz, but as it turns out, the owners of my company are evangelical Christians. Do I owe a duty to their views? Or is my duty to engage my culture to the best of my abilities and conscientiousness a higher duty? To me, no question the latter is a greater duty.

This would become even more apparent in bold cases of applied ethics, in which I may see a societal activity I deem a wrong, while the owners of my company think it's fine. To me, I would be more obligated to speak out against it than to gag myself out of duty (which I suspect in some cases may be sophistry for "fear of reprisal").

I think calling a self-gagging a duty is more frightening than calling it fear since it's attempting to turn fear into an ethical reason for doing something. Fear may be an understandable reason for failing to speak out, but it shouldn't thereby be granted the ethical status of "duty".

[Timo Kokko]

Michael,
I obviously missed your point originally. I absolutely agree that speaking out, if it is a significant or moral issue, is the way to go. If it is not a significant issue, it is likely not worth the potential risk of ostracism, or potentially worse, from the company. However, I can't imagine that there are many companies that would in fact retaliate against an employee speaking their mind on a subject that did not intentionally draw attention to the company. I may be naive, but I certainly have not faced that problem.

[Michael Motta]

Timo,

Okay, I think we're "all good" then. I just wanted to add something about your possible naivete. In today's age, as opposed to just a decade ago or less, apparently at the very least human resources departments are alleged to scour such places as informal as MySpace to as formal presumably as letters to the editor and the like. I don't think it takes much imagination to expect that some of this goes on with current employees in addition to prospects.

The problem I see with this is the homogenization and sterilization of public discourse such that the novel is discouraged and blandness encouraged. If life becomes one big job interview or promotion evaluation, we're all going to look and act like those lines of sorority and frat students I recall seeing trying to impress others either for a job or social position. Of course everyone knows it's a show, and the same folks "dressed conservatively" at 1PM are bound to be engaged in menage a trois, bong hits, or worshipping the porcelain goddess by 1AM. As such, to me this is an excercise not so much in finding out about a person's character as it is in finding out how much of one's character one is willing to squelch in order to "be a good fit".

One brief anecdote that you might appreciate Timo, especially since it involves a liberal group . . .

In the summer after my sophomore year at MSU, I took a job as a canvasser for PIRGIM (Public Interest Research Group in Michigan - a sort of environmentalist group). Not long after I was hired, there was a meeting in which national management (PIRG I guess, or similar) showed up from out of state. Well I was a fresh young s.o.b. who had been learning the Socratic method and generally the idea that one question all things. So instead of just sitting quietly on my thumbs as a peon, I was raising my hand and pestering, as if I were in class! After the meeting, I was taken aside and told I wasn't a good fit! That was the end of my stay with PIRGIM! I wasn't heartbroken, but it was rather enlightening.