Despite its resurgence in the Michigan legislature, the proposed smoking ban still is a bad idea.

However, the state could more reasonably use smoking as cause for supplementary taxation or tax breaks.

This would better serve the state’s primary objective of improving public health without violating the rights of business owners. Providing a tax break for bars that go smoke-free would be preferable; the current economic climate is not conducive to another tax on businesses.

By and large, criticisms of the Michigan smoking ban are correct. Taken as a question of health risk, the risk is voluntarily imposed: Patrons decide to visit a business. If they prefer not to be around smoke, they ought not to solicit that bar – it’s the owner’s call, as it is his establishment.

And if people truly prefer only smoke-free bars, then the law would be superfluous. The market would adjust.

A stronger argument for the smoking ban focuses on the health of employees, who consistently work in smoke-filled conditions.

Again, however, the risk seems insufficient to warrant legislation; unless second-hand smoke exposure can be deemed ‘inhumane,’ the conditions do not badly abuse employees.

The environment may be unpleasant, but displeasure is not reason for legislation against the owner. At best it is reason for the employee to find another job.

However, though inadequate for a ban, the arguments do correctly note that the elimination of smoking would benefit public health, to some extent.

If Michigan considers public health valuable to the state – and it should – then the state should enact a scheme of incentives to encourage bars to go smoke-free. Or it should consider putting in place a “tobacco license,” similar to a liquor license, that is required for businesses with smoking.

This would not force business owners’ hands. Right now, the taxation scheme likely would be limited to marginal benefits or burdens, as neither the Michigan legislature nor businesses can afford much loss in revenue.

But the scheme still is a good one, and it could be more significantly implemented in a better economic climate.

E-mail the author: defaultuser