It seems like an obvious conclusion. Michigan’s $8.5 billion share of the nationwide tobacco settlement should be used to improve health issues.

But voting for Proposal 4 is not the way to make that happen.

Michigan is one of only a handful of states that does not use any of its take from the 1998 tobacco settlement to reduce smoking. Instead, the Legislature has largely used the nearly $300 million the state receives each year on pet projects, such as the Michigan Merit Award Scholarship program, and to plug gaping budget holes.

Former Michigan Attorney General Frank Kelley certainly did not sue tobacco companies because the state needed money for scholarships. He filed suit because tobacco-related diseases cost the state, public hospitals and health care programs billions of dollars each year.

Proponents of Proposal 4 say the initiative would solve that problem, redirecting 90 percent of the settlement toward health care programs. But the measure starts Michigan down a dangerous path.

The proposal would amend the state constitution to give a quasi-public commission control over most of the tobacco settlement.

The commission, which would be controlled by special-interest groups, could allocate the money with little oversight by the state as to how it is spent. The state auditor general would have little authority to stop inappropriate expenditures, and state open records and meetings laws would not apply to the commission.

In addition, at a time when the state is facing at least a $1 billion budget shortfall next year, the proposal would prevent the state from making any cuts to the health care budget - even if across-the-board cuts are required to balance the budget.

Such a move puts a tremendous burden on other areas of the budget, including K-12 and higher education. Universities could see severe cuts if Proposal 4 is approved.

The proposal also would cut funding to the state’s Life Sciences Corridor, an initiative created to link the research efforts of MSU, the University of Michigan, Wayne State University and the Van Andel Institute in Grand Rapids. This program not only helps improve the health of the state and the nation, but strengthens the state economy as well.

Some opponents, such as ASMSU, MSU’s undergraduate student government, have focused their efforts against Proposal 4 on saving the Michigan Merit Award. And while the program, which has given MSU students some $40 million during the past three years, is a nice reward for good performance on state-mandated tests, it has its own flaws.

Researchers at Harvard University’s Civil Rights Project found most of the scholarship money is going to students who could afford to attend college anyway.

There is not a need-based component to the program.

The Legislature should retool the scholarship program and stop using tobacco settlement money to fill budget holes, freeing more funding for health care. But this constitutional amendment is not the best way to do this.

Instead, Michigan voters need to use their voice at the polls to support leaders who will spend settlement money properly.

For every dollar Michigan would spend on well-researched anti-tobacco efforts, it saves much more in health care costs.

But Proposal 4 would cost the state even more by giving special-interest groups unprecedented control over billions of state dollars.

The initiative simply is bad for Michigan’s health.