CM Life’s editorial staff should probably try a tactic other than stating “x number of states have passed x legislation, so we should too” for half of the piece when promoting legislation within the state of Michigan that will restrict freedoms.

The problem is with the other half, they totally missed the train to logic land. They attempt to legitimize the legislation on economics by making statements such as “it could increase revenue” or “there’s no documentation of lost revenue, so why should owners be against it.”

Isaac Morehouse from The Mackinac Center pointed out (http://tinyurl.com/5k4gt3): “The Hayekian idea that millions of decisions made by millions of individuals every second could never be accurately predicted or planned by any central governing entity shows not only great wisdom, but great humility. Hayek knew enough to know he didn’t know enough.” Keep in mind that F.A. Hayek was a brilliant economist revered by many. Statements indicating that some central authority is smart enough to lead the economy to a specific result are doomed to be wrong.

If we are going to play the economic argument game in regards to this legislation, let’s take a look at what’s going on in Spain. It turns out that the number of restaurants and bars where smoking is prohibited has gone down. Certainly this wouldn’t be the case if it was economically advantageous for businesses to be smoke-free, now would it? Care to check it? Here’s a link: http://tinyurl.com/57f738.

Now of course the prima facie non-economic argument for this legislation is that non-smoking employees and patrons are affected by second-hand smoke, and thus smoking should be prohibited in these establishments.

However, other than being an emotional play, the argument lacks substance, as:

1) These businesses are privately owned.

2) No one is forced to patronize or work for these businesses.

3) The owner of a business is the only one with an inherent right to control conditions of employment or patronage.

People, and the government, need to get off this kick that because a business opens its doors to the general public, the public is entitled to patronize an establishment on their own (emphasis added) conditions instead of those of the business.

Jason Gillman Jr.
Traverse City senior

E-mail the author: Jason Gillman Jr.