4'
Monday May 19, 2008
The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com
Cbe icbigan 4ail
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@umich.edu
GARY GRACA KATE TRUESDELL
MANAGING EDITOR EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
EMMARIE HUETTEMAN
EDITOR IN CHIEF
Unsignededitorials reflect the official position of the Daily's editorialboard. All other signed articles and illustrations
represent solely the views ofttheir authors.
A breath of fresh air
New smoking legislation is a fair compromise for all
Laws allowing restaurant patrons and bar-goers to puff inside look likely
to soon go up in smoke. The state House of Representatives is expected
to vote this week on legislation that would outlaw smoking in places of
employment. Though smokers may be worried about maintaining their habit
while out on the town, the positive health consequences for Michigan employees
far outweigh a little inconvenience for smokers.
HARUN BULJINA
E-MAIL BULJINA AT BULJINAH@UMICH.EDU
5T-J\
LFROM THE DALY
Running on empty
Gas tax breaks short-sighted pandering
q
I
The state House, which
first passed its own bill sug-
gesting a similar ban last
year, is scheduled to vote
next week on the Senate's
version which passed earlier
this month. After months of
waiting, this represents real
progress - the Republican-
controlled Senate was often
to be considered the major
barrier to any real movement
on the issue.
While the two bodies still
need to iron out a few details,
reconciling their respective
version, it appears that soon
smoking in places of employ-
ment will soon become a thing
of the past.
And that's good news.
Though smoking is certain-
ly a personal decision, that
decision impacts restaurant
employees in ways that are
out of their control. A report
from U.S. Surgeon General
Richard Carmona last year
made it clear that a total ban
on smoking in the workplace
is the only way to protect
workers from the ill effects of
second-hand smoke. Restau-
rant and bar employees who
are forced to breath in toxic
fumes all day at work are suf-
fering because of the "indi-
vidual choices" of a few. The
ban will remedy this prob-
lem by giving all employees
the right to work in a healthy
environment, a measure that
recognizes that the boundar-
ies of personal freedom end
where others' begin.
The ban's opponents point
to the inconvenience for
smokers. But right now it's
employees of restaurants and
bars who are being not just
inconvenienced but endan-
gered because they can't leave
their smoke-filled environ-
ments. The little extra effort
it takes smokers to simply step
outside seems like a manage-
able compromise.
There are a few discrepan-
cies between the two versions
of the bill. The House version
exempts certain businesses
from the ban such as cigar
bars and horseracing tracks,
where as the Senate's ban
affects all workplaces. Propo-
nents of the House's version
argue that businesses spe-
cifically geared toward smok-
ing, like hookah and cigar
bars, hire employees who
understand that they will be
exposed to ambient smoke
and should therefore not be
subject to the same set of
rules. While that point is fair,
it's not a sticking point large
enough to warrant holding
up such a vital piece of public
health and workplace safety
legislation.
It would never be reason-
able to prohibit smoking com-
pletely - as the adage goes, to
each his own. But it is simply
not fair to subject employees
to the dangers of second-
hand smoke. A person makes
a choice to be a smoker - a
non-smoking bar employee
does not. This legislation, by
cleaning up the air in work-
places and creating a healthy
working environment, rep-
resents a fair middle ground
for smokers and non-smokers
alike.
Drivers across the country
may be pumped at the
prospect of actually see-
ing the price of gas fall for the first
time in months, a miracle that may
happen if gas tax breaks proposed
by some politicians actually come
to fruition. While these breaks
may ease the immediate strain
on driver's wallets, Americans -
especially Michiganders - should
question the motives of those who
propose these breaks. Summer tax
breaks need to be seen for what
they really are: short-term suck-
ing up in an election year. Gas tax
breaks offer little long-term relief
to the fuel crisis and endanger an
already-precarious economy.
Last month, presidential hope-
fuls Hillary Clinton and John
McCain both proposed plans that
would relieve voters of paying
the national per-gallon tax of 18.4
cents. Following suit, a group of
Republicans in Michigan's House
of Representatives have been
working this month to create a
similar plan to temporarily elimi-
nate the state's 19-cent tax at the
pumps.
Accusations that Clinton and
McCain are lobbying for this break
as a means of grabbing more votes
have been widespread - and well
deserved. It's not a coincidence
either that state representatives,
who are up for election every two
years, picked this year to support a
similar measure.
If decidedly sketchy motives
aren't reason enough to question
such tax breaks, the short-sighted
economicsinvolvedshouldbe.Sup-
ply and demand economics shows
us that making it cheaper to pur-
chase oil, which is already in short
supply, will only push the price
further up in the future. So while
this summer might be a blissful
vacation, tax-adjusted prices after
the November election could be a
brutal wake-up call.
Making gas more affordable
diminishes the only advantages
coming from roughly $4-per-gal-
lon gas prices: Interest in alterna-
tive automotive technology has
flourished. Faced with soaring
prices, the public has been forced
to make real efforts to reduce
consumption through things like
carpooling and choosing more
fuel-efficient vehicles, practices
which are initial pragmatic mea-
sures in a move toward long-term
sustainability.
It's also crucial to question
where this tax money goes and
what will be lost by cutting it. In
Michigan, for instance, Demo-
crats have argued that losing this
revenue could result in losses and
layoffs for public schools. Troll-
ing for votes shouldn't be seen as
reason enough for repealing these
taxes, which provide crucial fund-
ing to important programs.
Saving a few pennies at the
pump might be nice, but in the
end, the hidden costs and likely
long-term impotence of such pro-
grams make it evident that this
solution is running on empty.
I
I
I
I
Editorial BoardMembers:
Anindya Bhadra, Harun Buljina, Robert Soave