Pro-Taxpayer

As a fiscal conservative, my vote in support of the smoking ban reduces the amount of money our state spends on its biggest line item - Medicaid. Budget experts agree we will see a net savings of taxpayer dollars as a result of this - dollars I would prefer to see spent on priorities like education, roads, and tax cuts.

Pro-Life

The two physicians in the state Senate, Dr. Tom George and Dr. Roger Kahn, agree that this is the single best thing we could have done to encourage a healthier Michigan. While both Senator Cameron Brown and I have voted for a total public smoking ban in the past, this legislation, with its minor exceptions, satisfies those fiscal and public health goals.

Consistent Record

Unlike others in the race for Secretary of State, I vote based on my principles, not political expediency. My voting record consistently reflects my values. My pro-taxpayer, pro-life principles guide me in the Legislature the same way they will guide me as your next Secretary of State.

Regardless of whether you support my decision on this issue, I wanted to let you know what my guiding principles were on the vote. If you have a moment, I would appreciate hearing your thoughts as well.

Sincerely,

Michelle McManus
State Senator

Guiding principles?
Oh you mean like ""Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?

"Encourage" a healthier Michigan?
We aren't talking encouragement here Michelle, we are talking a legislative mandate!

I wonder what other measures our "dear leaders" will choose to "encourage" us with?

First, I agree with you and respect your side of the issue.

BUT second, a limitation on smoking in public spaces or accommodation CAN BE MORALLY JUSTIFIED IN LIBERTARIAN - pure libertarian - philosophy, just as banning abortion can be justified such.

The key is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (or let's be more concrete and say property)".  

"Limited government" is justifed when and only when it protects individuals from other individuals or collectives from deprivations of life (murder law, and even negligent homicide, or abortion, or any number of public safety regulations where genuine safety issues are measurable and significant), liberty (slavery laws, or even anti-coercion and certain anti-discrimination laws if limited), property (anti-theft laws), etc.

It seems that everyone on the "litmus test" side recognizes the rights of smokers and businesses but ignores that second-hand smoker has a real, significant impact on other individuals.  The counter to that is "Well, they can choose to go to another business"...  they can, but that choice itself is forced upon them.  We regulate, legitimately, things like the fact that a waitress must have clothes in all but highly limited situations (harms no one but forces a choice on families), or completely ban, say, marijuana use.  Now you may believe in drug legalization, but you're not going to litmus test out Republicans that don't, are you?  The philosphical base for their regulation in that case is certain drugs so inherently change individuals as to make them dangers to other individuals (I can say I personally have witnessed this for individuals using cocaine and heroine, but also never seen it for marijuana, so I think you need careful case-by-case review).

Be careful of your litmus testing - it will destroy the party if it goes to far, or doesn't have sound philosophical reasoning.  There is no philosophical or Constitutional reason a State can't choose to regulate time and place with smoking - where's the Constitutional prohibition.

I know this issue generates passion.  I'm a smoker myself.  But I think carefully about liberty, and I don't have a "right" to smoke in a way that impacts other people - a ban in commercial areas is at least limited ("Narrow tailoring" is a principle of limited government) to the purpose it protects - individuals against second hand smoke.  If government were to go further, like a total ban or in homes etc., then this law would violate liberty because the further regulation would only serve to protect individuals from themselves and exceed the proper mission of government.