|
NAVIGATION
|
NEWS TIPS!
RightMichigan.com
Who are the NERD fund donors Mr Snyder?Tweets about "#RightMi, -YoungLibertyMI, -dennislennox,"
 |
The cost...By JGillman, Section News
One of our most esteemed regulars, Corinthian Scales, has in one of his comments pointed out another brilliant article by economist Walter E Williams.
Michigan has come to a fork in the road, and instead of left or right, it has driven itself into the ditch. It should be noted that in the case of the new ban on smoking, it does come at a financial cost.
The cost to nonsmokers to impose their will on smokers, say, in a restaurant, bar or airplane, is zero, or close to it. They just have to get the legislature to do their bidding. When the cost of something is zero, there's a tendency for people to take too much of it. You say, "Williams, in my book, there can never be too much smoke-free air!" Here's a little test. Say your car's out of gas and stuck in a blizzard. You wave me down for assistance. I say, "I'll be glad to give you a lift to safety, but I'm smoking in my car." How likely is it that you'll turn down my assistance in an effort to avoid tobacco smoke? You might be tempted to argue, "That's different." It's not different at all. The cost of a smoke-free environment is not what you're willing to pay. Perhaps we wont be stuck in the blizzard, but we will wind up with revenues to the state treasury being reduced.
Something to remember, is the 26 year tobacco settlement plan that is based on smoking. Michigan with a greater number of smokers, has benefited from the plan to the tune of about $300 billion a year, but that number could decrease.
Add to this, the state has become somewhat dependent on those funds..
Our politicians have not recognized the temporary nature of this windfall and placed most of it in a reserve fund. Every penny so far has been spent, and legislators have actually borrowed against future settlement cash to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on wrongheaded "economic development" programs, tourism industry subsidies and to avoid spending cuts. McHugh, in the statement above is correct. Our legislators, in the stead of discovering cuts to be made refuse to allow their "little precious" to be put away for later use. Of course they may have now caused "precious" to become even more so, as revenues from the settlement will sure fall more quickly as a result of more government caused business failures, and simple reduction in cigarette use affecting the settlement revenue. Having been a smoker, I can tell you that this type of legislation WILL change habits. An after work beer and a smoke at a bar will not translate to an after work beer in the local watering hole alone. Bar patronage will decrease. It will be significant in its effect on business. And businesses such as bars and nightclubs have already been suffering under increased pressure of lowered alcohol limits, stepped up police action etc.. Aside from the economic impact, it is unenforceable. The 5th and 14th amendments have issue with it naturally.
Amendment V
Amendment XIV: Perhaps the state's attorneys have looked at the use of precedence, and the courts that seemingly at a whim "rewrite" the constitution, and decided it would be acceptable, this would be a sad precedent, allowing even more intrusion. Ski Hills break legs, motorcycles dont have safety belts, amusement park rides break, speed limits are too high, TV alpha waves cause brain damage, and a million others.. What next? But what the heck, as noted in the Williams article, it only comes at a cost. I guess our legislators are willing to pay for it. Let it cost them their jobs, and a future in further eroding our protected constitutional rights.
Share This:
The cost... | 6 comments (6 topical, 0 hidden)
The cost... | 6 comments (6 topical, 0 hidden)
|
 Related Links+ does come at a financial cost.+ become somewhat dependent on those funds.. + Also by JGillman |
