On the first of May, after years of lobbying by anti-smoking crusaders, most public workplaces in Michigan will be smoke-free. A majority of Michigan legislators thought that now is the perfect time for the bill, passed 24-13 in the Senate and 75-30 in the House, because all more important matters of the state are settled, education is fantastic, the roads are in excellent condition, Michigan’s economy is on the up and, by golly, small businesses—bars and restaurants—are booming!
Most irritatingly, the bill exempts the gaming floors of Detroit’s three casinos. Advocates of the ban view the exemption as a compromise without which the bill would not have passed. This admission is true, but it seriously undermines the premise of the bill: combating the dangers that secondhand smoke poses to Michigan workers. Granholm and legislators care about workers’ health, just not workers whose employers rake in lots of money for the state.
I take issue with the bill itself for multiple reasons, and I think Edmund Burke and John Stuart Mill would too. Burke would not appreciate such a heavy-handed government approach to protecting people’s lungs. And with his affection for nice and traditional things, he seems like a man who would enjoy a cigar and a glass of bourbon (my shallow political theory at its finest). There are plenty of smoke-free bars to which more health-conscious patrons may flock.
And there’s something to be said for this tradition of smoking in bars: we’ve been doing it for centuries. Would Rick’s Café Americain in Casablanca be the same shady, wonderful venue without a cigarette dangling from Humphrey Bogart’s mouth?
Mill has a more compelling philosophical argument. We could think that his utilitarianism would compel John Stuart Mill to support the impending smoking ban in Michigan bars and restaurants. But we would be wrong.
It’s hard for me to reconcile Mill’s utilitarianism with his liberalism, but I think Mill’s idea of utilitarianism is more individual. What can I, as an individual, do for the greater good? Mill might advocate people to individually not smoke indoors to protect bartenders and waiters/waitresses. He would probably not support a bill that impedes on so many people’s rights to, you know, destroy their own lungs, to lower health risks for others.
“The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign,” says Mill in On Liberty. That’s my stand on victimless crimes.
A final argument against the ban concerns the money bars and restaurants will lose—and the jobs they may have to cut because of this. Inhaling smoke all day for a paycheck sucks, but a paycheck might be better than no paycheck. However, this style of thinking is similar to the argument against raising the minimum wage: jobs might be cut to compensate, and a low-paying job is better than no job. And I hate that argument. But perhaps a reader can rationalize it for me.
Sources: Mill, On Liberty, and http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/12/granholm_gets_smoking_ban_will.html
This is an interesting take on the issue. I think your personal argument about the idea of having take a job where one may have to give up their personal safety in order to make a living. The point about exempting the casinos, but not, say, hookah bars, is also an interesting note.
I like this topic and post a lot. As for me, I hat smoking and being around smokers, but you’re absolutely right about the casinos. Just because they make a lot, and I mean a lot, of money for the state, why should they be exempt? I think this ban does infringe on the rights of the people and if people don’t like smoking, they should find a smoke-free bar or club, which, to my understanding, there are a lot of.
This is a very interesting topic. It also applies to the University’s campus which is planning to go smoke free in 2011, a fact which some of my friend’s that smoke are absolutely outraged about, claiming an infringement of their personal rights. This is interesting to think about what some of the social theorists we have discussed in class would think about such a ban. I certainly agree that Burke would be firmly set against such government involvement. I also agree that Mill’s liberalism would allow him to justify the government involvement when it is acting for the greater good, which this act would certainly be. Personally I agree with the ban, why should workers or anyone that matter be subjected to others harmful behavior when they dont have to be. The fact is that second hand smoke is harmful, just as drunk driving is harmful. Although that comparison is a little extreme I think that the same argument applies.
I agree with the smoke-free bill and think it would be better for the whole of the community, health wise, to ban smoking in all public places. For example, my roommate has a allergic reaction to second hand smoking and his lungs clogs up, which is very dangerous. But when looking at the whole of the situation at hand, when banning smoking, many stores and clubs/bars would lose a lot of business and that would hurt the economy severely. Also, i would have to agree with Andrew Gillespies post that Burke would not agree with Government involvement. But i would have to disagree that banning smoking is the best thing to do here at the University. Because everybody has their very own freedom of choice and the University does not have to be concerned with the health of the students, but should be concerned about the education. Also, students are not allowed to smoke in the building, so they smoke outside, in the open. Causing less damage to students then if they were to smoke inside the building or on the bus.
– Ali Nasser