The statewide smoking ban took effect just a little over a year ago on May 1, 2010. Some argue that it has been successful, while others argue that it has been detrimental. Regardless of which side of the debate you fall on, I have a suggestion that most should find appealing. I propose that the state allow smoking licenses for bars, similar to liquor licenses. This proposal will not negate the benefits realized from the ban, and it will provide an economic and revenue boost that will help the state and local governments.
The details of my proposal are flexible, as this is just a starting point that is not yet based on thorough analysis of all of the possible consequences. If anyone has an objection to any part of my proposal, please do not hesitate to raise such concerns. I by no means feel what I’ve outlined below is perfect.
The details are as follows:
- Licenses shall be apportioned on the township and municipal level, based on population.
- Every township and city shall receive one license, with an additional license being apportioned for every 10,000 residents.
- Licenses shall be sold to establishments based on an auction system.
- Licenses will expire every two years, at which point another auction will occur.
- To qualify for the auction, establishments must receive at least 60 percent of their revenue from alcohol sales.
- The auction will be a silent auction, with all qualifying establishments being able to submit whatever bid they would like to pay for the license, without knowledge of the other bids.
- If multiple licenses are allocated to the same township or city, all licenses will be sold during the same auction. If there are multiple licenses, the top bidders in the silent auction will be awarded the licenses at the price of the lowest winning bid. For example, if there are two licenses, and top bid is $40,000, and the next top bid is $30,000, both establishments will receive the license at the cost of $30,000.
- Half of the revenue generated from the auction will go to the state education fund, while the other half will go to the local township or city.
- Establishments that receive the licenses must have top-of-the-line smoke mitigation systems in place.
If this proposal took effect, the vast majority of establishments would remain smoke-free, so those who favor the smoking ban would still have numerous options of where to frequent. The goal of the proposal though is to help maximize economic activity, and with the ban currently in place, there are residents who prefer to stay home rather than go out. If those residents were provided a single option of a bar at which they could smoke, they would take it.
For the business owners, this proposal should be preferable to the status quo. The auction system means that bars that receive a license will not have an unfair competitive advantage over other bars, as the cost of the license should even things out. Plus, the places that get the licenses will most likely lose their nonsmoking clientele in return for gaining customers who want to smoke. Those nonsmoking clientele will then spend their money at the nonsmoking bars.
I would love to hear any feedback that you may have. I have never been a smoker, and would not go to a bar that received a smoking license, but I know many individuals who would. And so I’m willing to give up a few of my options if that results in greater economic activity for the state.
If you’re a nonsmoker, would you object to a few establishments being able to allow their customers to smoke, if the majority of bars (and all restaurants, bowling alleys, other venues, etc) were still smoke-free?
If you are a smoker, would having a few locations that allow smoking result in you going out more often? If you are a business owner, would you fight against this proposal, or welcome it? I welcome all comments and criticisms.
Since the ban became law, my husband and I have greatly broadened the range of places we go for meals and entertainment. We're spreading our money around to any number of places that would never have gotten our business before. Obviously we're just two people, but I suspect that there must be others like us. If smoking is re-instituted at any of our new "favorite" locations we will no longer visit there and neither will others who feel the same way. As far as smokers having the "right" to smoke around me in public, it's my understanding that your rights end where mine begin, and I have the "right" to breathe unadulterated air.
This isn't meant as snark, as I know that there is a philosophical argument that supports always allowing the free market to determine the results. If you ascribe to that philosohpy, I hope that you don't take challenges to the philosophy as a personal attack. And my default position is to trust the free market, but when the free market results in sub-optimal consequences, I understand that government does have a role to play in protecting the people.
The current law is ludicrous. Cigarette smokers can't smoke in a cigar bar? You can only smoke a cigar that costs more than a dollar in a cigar bar (or something like that, I read it once a year ago). Why can't smokers smoke in open air patios at establishments? Now you want to sell licenses so people can do what they want on their OWN PROPERTY? How is that different from extortion? Liquor licenses, common for decades, are also bizarre. Do you have any idea the shenanigans that go on under the radar to get liquor licenses where politicians/city officials want them to be? It's highly political in the long run and now you want to push smoking licenses into that same category? Harumph. Property owners should be able to do what THEY want to do on their OWN property. As it stands now, a guy owning 40 acres who has a one-man business in a 100 sq. ft. office in the center of it cannot smoke in it. That's crazy and a good example of government tyranny. You can argue that it's "healthy," but too often governments use that "we know better than you" excuse to limit the rights of their citizens.
You state that the free market would result in some bars being smoke-free, but I would need a convincing argument to persuade me to agree, since prior to 5/1/10 your statement would not accurately describe most regions in Michigan. You are advocating pre-5/1/10 policy, yet you state that the outcome would be different than the pre-5/1/10 results. How? Why? I agree that certain aspects of the smoking ban are less than ideal (such as your cigar bar example), which is why I'm trying to find a solution that both sides can agree with. I can empathize with your side, and feel that the status quo is not much of a compromise, but what you are advocating is just as non-compromising as the status quo, just favoring your side.
A big story in last year's campaign was Sen. Rand Paul semi-arguing that businesses should be allowed to have "No Blacks" signs in their windows if they want, as it is their business, so the government should not be able to tell them what to do with their "OWN PROPERTY". He argued that such business owners would obviously be immoral, but that the government should not limit their freedom to discriminate. In reality though, the government is justified in limiting business owners' freedoms in regards to discrimination (if you need me to explain why, I can). Now there is a difference between banning discrimination and banning smoking, but I bring up the former to show that your argument is not automatically correct. Such a position should be the default, up to the point where it can be shown to have an actual negative impact on others, which advocates of the smoking ban have said there is. In regards to liquor licenses, I would strongly support reforming the system to eliminate corruption. And corruption does not have to be an inherent part of licensing.
But I would not support banning all cigarette use. I may place more value on personal freedom than you, which is not to say that I am right and you are wrong. It's a difference of opinion, and the law should be based on popular vote. If democracy led to cigarettes being banned, I don't think that would be outside the government's authority (although I'd vote on not banning them), as they do have the power to ban things that a majority want as long as it doesn't take away the Constitutional rights of others. That's why medical marijuana users and providers should stop being targeted by law enforcement officers. The democratic process resulted in a majority of citizens feeling that medical marijuana should be legal, and there is nothing inherently wrong with medical marijuana- it is people that decide whether it should be more or less legal than other substances like tobacco or heroin. So the government should respect the will of the people. Sorry about the tangent. Your point is very well taken, as I look at it once again. You are correct that cigarette use in public does more than just indirectly affect others- it directly affects the people that you noted like those with asthma. That's a well-presented position.