Ban on smoking benefits state
Eric Gregory
Cookie-cutter political philosophy and party-line votes are the norm in Lansing. Doctrinaire legislators rule the day mostly because they lack the experience in statesmanship to see beyond simple ideological or partisan ideologies. This past week, however, for the first time in quite a while, I saw a slight shift in this trend.
Back in December, the Michigan House of Representatives passed a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants. It was clear, however, that the bill would not come up for vote in the Senate any time soon. That was because the bill was sent to the Government Operations and Reform Committee, which is chaired by Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, instead of being sent to a supporter of the bill, Sen. Tom George’s, R-Kalamazoo, Health Policy Committee.
Bishop, in true doctrinaire fashion, said that even though he personally agreed with the content of the bill that he could not support it because it imposed unnecessary government restrictions. He would not let the bill come to vote in his committee.
Of course, there certainly is a place for philosophy guiding government action. There are many government policies that are decided on largely philosophical grounds and not empirical ones: abortion, gay marriage/civil unions, death penalty legislation (although empirical data does make itself into the debates on all three).
The philosophy that prevented the smoking ban from taking effect, however, was divined from some kind of ill-defined talking points handbook. Throw in some vague language about free markets and nanny government and stir.
The Republican majority in the Senate argued that this bill would hurt business at bars and restaurants. Bishop’s predecessor, former Senate Majority Leader Ken Sikkema, R-Wyoming, now with Public Sector Consultants, prepared a report on smoke-free research that contradicted the claim on businesses.
That report found that in the 24 other states that have passed smoke-free laws the businesses continue to thrive, and that the public support of the law continues to grow.
A funny thing happened, however, when Public Sector Consultants published their data: The tone in Lansing about the smoking bill changed. Sen. Bruce Patterson, R-Canton Township, who once opposed the bill, came out in favor of it. He gave credit to data in the Public Sector report that cited earlier U.S. surgeon general findings that secondhand smoke is a public health hazard.
This was a move that took some guts. Two powerful lobbying groups: the Michigan Chamber of Commerce and the Michigan Restaurant Association had both come out against the legislation. These are two big gorillas in state policy-making, and any Republican or Democrat who consistently acts against their interests could find themselves in hot water come November.
The Senate majority leader’s tone changed too. Bishop agreed to let the bill come to a vote, even though he continued to be against it. Nine Republicans and 16 Democrats voted to pass the bill and send the Senate version back to the House. Gov. Jennifer Granholm issued a statement that the Senate approval “sends a strong message across Michigan and the nation that we place a high priority on the health of our citizens.” After this bill looked dead in December it looks like it will finally become law. This is a rare thing in Lansing: Dispassionate debate about empirical data trumped the ideological impetus that usually prevails in state policy-making.
This is a welcome change in my opinion. It is too often that, before a bill even comes up to vote on the floor of the Senate or the House, it is clear which way certain lawmakers are going to vote.
No amount of debate or evidence will change their minds either way. Instead of arguments based on facts, we normally see two juxtaposed sets of muddled philosophies.
Instead of a lot of hot air, we now have legislation in the works that gives Michigan a historic opportunity to both protect public health and help stimulate our economy.
For once, I would like to congratulate our lawmakers for making a good decision and for making it on evidence and not just principle alone. In the light of last year’s budget battle it may have become too easy to underestimate the lawmakers in Lansing, but this week I am proud of their work.
Eric Gregory is a State News columnist. Reach him at ericwgregory@gmail.com .
Published on Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Comments
Mr. Pants
05/14/08 @ 11:41pm
Read this before you congratulate our lawmakers for this bill:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080514/COL04/805140321
Mark
05/15/08 @ 9:17am
New Laws:
I propose that all people must wear bicycle helmets at all times. Each person must have at least two servings of vegetables with every meal. And, don’t even think of exercising less than 30 minutes a day.
Juan
05/15/08 @ 9:20am
How quickly we’re willing to give up our own rights or take away the rights of others. Last time I checked, freedom of choice is (was?) one of the defining characteristics of what distinguished our society from others existing at the time that our nation was founded and up to the present.
I don’t smoke, don’t care to smoke, and don’t like being around smokers. But I’ll be damned if I’m going to force that choice on others in public places where I have the option to be present or not, and where I have the option to work or not. Because sooner or later the know-it-all idiots we elect are going to come after something that is dear to me, and I’d rather not have set up the precedent to permit that to occur…
Joe
05/15/08 @ 9:42am
The government already has health standards for businesses. Are those against smoking regulations also against having health standards for business? I assume you believe it’s a good thing to have the kitchens in restaurants checked to ensure we are not served food that was inproperly handled and avoid becoming sick. Or would you have the market regulate that as well? People would simply learn which restaurants have dirty or unsanitary kitchens after numerous people contract e coli and THEN nobody would go there.
Plus, the freedom of choice arugment works both ways. I am for freedom of choice, but not when an individual’s freedom of choice infringes upon another’s. This seems to largely be the pervailing argument about abortion. Yes, women should have the right to choose what to do with their bodies just not when it comes to abortion and their decision effects the fetus which has no freedom of choice in the matter. The same arugment can be made for smoking. An individual has the freedom to choose to smoke, just not in places where it infringes on others’ right NOT to smoke. When someone in a bar lights up, everyone else is smoking with them.
Bleed Green
05/15/08 @ 9:46am
Yes, these are totally comparable to the smoking ban, Mark. Well done.
Benjy Compson
05/15/08 @ 11:21am
Joe,
When you enter a restaurant or bar, you can tell within seconds whether or not they allow smoking. You cannot tell if they are practicing safe and sanitary food handling methods. Your argument isn’t a fair comparison.
“An individual has the freedom to choose to smoke, just not in places where it infringes on others’ right NOT to smoke.” You have no “right” not to be offended by legal activities in privately owned businesses.
But all of this is pointless, because the Free Press article linked above is probably correct about what is going to happen.
Tim
05/15/08 @ 12:18pm
Benjy-
But they could put a sign that says “approved by” some private certification group or something to that effect. I agree that it’s not a perfect comparison, but the point is that the government restricts the use of private property for health reasons among many others. The question is when do they cross the line? This is one of the rare instances where a slippery slope argument actually has some strength, although I wouldn’t want to make my stand on governmental intrusion when dealing with something that benefits nobody and has been proven to cause cancer.
bbwhine
05/15/08 @ 12:51pm
Alright, now that we finally got private business owners to cut out the smoking. Let’s see…hmmm, think man, think, there has to something I can push down the publics throat that will be good for them. Steak, maybe, yes..big fatty steaks. I can make the case that you eating a steak adversley effects me because…because, that’ it! You eating a steak effects me because it forces my health insurance to go up inorder to pay for your heart attack! Perfect, better get right on this while the mood to contiue the pursuit of non-happiness is afoot in the land. Know a doctor who has a bumpter sticker that reads “Eat Right, Exercise, Die Anyway” better make sure he takes that off his car.
Mike
05/15/08 @ 1:50pm
Say what you like about the smoking ban issue, but note that this article is actually rather well written. Congratulations, Eric.
Tim
05/15/08 @ 1:55pm
bbwhine- Your example is no better than the one cricized by Benjy. You have to acknowledge that the dangers of smoking extend beyond the increase to my insurance premiums.
Mark
05/15/08 @ 2:22pm
Food safety is not any different; I would be much happier if the state gave accreditation for meeting standards, but did not make failure to meet the standards grounds for closing down your business. At that point, they could even have different levels of accreditation so business had some reason to do more than the bare minimum.
Mark
05/15/08 @ 2:24pm
Bleed green,
I have no idea if you are being sarcastic or not. But, look at transfat legislation. The old joke is that it would be a slippery slope and that eventually the government would take away your twinkies. Some places have!
MSU2000
05/15/08 @ 2:31pm
puff puff
Bleed Green
05/15/08 @ 2:48pm
I was indeed being sarcastic, Mark.
The difference between the things you mentioned and smoking is that doing (or not doing) the things you mentioned doesn’t affect ME. Not true of smoking.
I was in Atlantic City this weekend (a place I don’t plan on returning to ever again), and the casino I was in had “designated smoking areas,” while the rest of the place was smoke free. Surprise, surprise, the giant, open floor plan DIDN’T prohibit smoke from wafting throughout the entire building.
If someone wants to smoke, fine, but the burden of finding a place to do so should be on them (and not on the non-smokers to find a place that’s smoke-free).
As for transfats, I think that’s another argument entirely. I, for one, am happy when harmful additives are removed from things I might be eating…but then, I wouldn’t eat a Twinkie if you paid me.
Benjy Compson
05/15/08 @ 3:26pm
“If someone wants to smoke, fine, but the burden of finding a place to do so should be on them (and not on the non-smokers to find a place that’s smoke-free).” Sorry, Bleed Green, but that comment is ridiculous. You don’t NEED to go to a restaurant (or an Atlantic City casino). If a restaurant allows smoking, you can freely choose to go somewhere else. That’s what I do. I have no problem with the state government encouraging business owners to go smoke-free (maybe even with some sort of incentive) but mandating it shouldn’t be necessary. If you don’t like it, don’t go.
Smoker
05/15/08 @ 3:55pm
No one is telling people they can’t smoke. The right to purchase cigarettes and to smoke them is not being taken away. All that is being asked of you is that you step outside to do it. That’s not terrible. In fact, it’s quite considerate.
Second hand smoke has been shown to have negative effects that not even very good ventilation systems can prevent. It’s about time Michigan caught up with the rest of the country (not to mention the rest of the Midwest).
Bleed Green
05/15/08 @ 3:57pm
Smokers don’t NEED to go to any of these places either, Benjy.
When all restaurants ban smoking (and I can’t wait), smokers can choose to quit, stay home, or step outside for three minutes. Everyone will benefit.
For the record, I do avoid places that allow smoking, but sometimes it can’t be helped (like when going to a non-smoking concert venue [the House of Blues] that happens to be located within a casino).
bbwhine
05/15/08 @ 4:04pm
Tim: Acknowledged. Point is, yes smoking is intrusive and a unheathy, who cares. Choose smoke free, that’s what I do. Have you noticed that over the past few years the govt. is passing more and more restrictive laws? At one point in our country you could do almost anything without asking the govt. for permission unless it was clearly illegal like murder and making your own whiskey. Since probably the 70’s more and more activities require citizens to “ask permission” from the govt. It won’t be too much longer before you will have to request “by your leaves” before you can do anything. I understand the point of not having smoking but I think the point of freedom gets lost in here too. You can choose to not go to a business that allows smoking (that would be my choice) but why is it necessary for the govt. to dictate this. You can also choose not to work in an environment that allows smoking. Yup, you don’t have to work in a place you don’t like, you’re free to roam about the county as the ad says. Don’t think the health Nazi’s are going to stop with this ban. They have a vested interest in telling others what to do, their concern for health is secondary to control issues.
Benjy Compson
05/15/08 @ 4:40pm
“Smokers don’t NEED to go to any of these places either, Benjy.” I totally agree. What exactly is that supposed to prove? By the way, you couldn’t help going to a certain concert? Really?
If you want to smoke somewhere, go to a place that allows it. If you don’t want to deal with smoke, go to a place with a smoking ban. If you do want to smoke, but choose to go to a non-smoking establishment, then don’t smoke and don’t complain. If you don’t want to deal with smoke, but choose to go to a smoking establishment, just shut up and don’t complain. How is that difficult to understand?
Bleed Green
05/15/08 @ 4:57pm
“By the way, you couldn’t help going to a certain concert? Really?”
Oh man, you’re not even worth it. Truly.
Have a good day.
Mark
05/15/08 @ 6:04pm
Bleed Green,
If someone wants to smoke, fine, but the burden of finding a place to do so should be on them (and not on the non-smokers to find a place that’s smoke-free).
The problem with this statement is that, if want to create a place were people can come and smoke and drink together, this law makes it illegal.
Jorge
05/15/08 @ 6:20pm
Wahh, wahh, the government is being mean to me. The government is comprised of people YOU elected. If you don’t like the output, perhaps you should blame the input.
The fact is that the “oppressive” government is comprised of people who realize that smoking is harmful and needs to go the way of the dinosaurs. Welcome to American democracy – where the majority has the power to tell the minority that we don’t want murderous free radicals floating through the air. Deal with it or change the government instead of whining here.
Mr. Anonymous
05/24/08 @ 7:02pm
There are plenty of laws concerning so many things. Many laws consider felony if you were to commit them: murder, rape, robbery, child abuse, etcetera, etcetera and etcetera. How come many never complain these laws? Of course, to control humans to behave. Yet laws concerning smoking in public and motorcicle helmet’s laws everybody is crying bloody murder. I can never understand people in this country. No wonder many outside consider us ridiculous.
Mr. Anonymous
05/24/08 @ 7:06pm
By the way, I am a nonsmoker, and proud of it.