House OKs statewide smoking ban

By MIKE SMITH
The Associated Press

INDIANAPOLIS -- The Indiana House approved legislation Monday that would establish a statewide ban on smoking in most enclosed public places, a move that surprised many lawmakers.

The measure passed on an unrecorded vote but at least 60 lawmakers supported it. The legislation was attached as an amendment to a major health care bill that if approved might eventually be funded by an increase in cigarette taxes.

The amendment by Rep. Eric Turner, R-Gas City, would prohibit smoking in most enclosed public places, sports arenas and indoor places of employment. It would not apply to retail tobacco stores, bars, public areas that are leased for private functions or businesses that have no employees other than the owner.

It also would not apply to personal residences, unless they were licensed to provide day care.

Turner said the restrictions were modest compared with those in some states, and local ordinances restricting smoking in Indiana could be stronger than the state provision if it becomes law. Some local jurisdictions, including Allen County, Bloomington, Fort Wayne, Indianapolis and New Haven have smoking restrictions in some public places.

Smoking restrictions are scheduled to go into effect in West Lafayette on July 1.

"I think this is a beginning," said Turner, who has supported some anti-smoking legislation in the past.

Rep. Matt Pierce, D-Bloomington, said that Bloomington's anti-smoking ordinance has not hurt the city's economy.

"People eat, people drink, people enjoy themselves," Pierce said. "People breathe clean air. I think we should do anything that promotes clean air in Indiana."

House Minority Leader Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, did not vote because he was one of two lawmakers counting those who stood up to vote for the amendment. He said he believed the provision probably went too far, especially on businesses, but said passage of the amendment was a "substantial statement" and had bipartisan support in a House controlled by Democrats 51-49.

"It's a huge thing to do without public testimony," Bosma said.

The bill includes major health initiatives that could ultimately be funded with a cigarette tax increase, and it still has a long way to go. The overall bill was eligible for passage in the House on Tuesday. If approved, it will likely go to a joint House-Senate conference committee where compromises will be sought.

The bill is the primary vehicle for a top priority among many lawmakers in both parties and Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels -- providing health care to more Hoosiers. If a proposed cigarette tax increase is revived to fund that and perhaps other health initiatives, the tax increase likely would be placed in another bill during the waning days of the session.

It's a narrow issue, I've found. I'm not going to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with me, and their going to pass whatever they want to pass. I can't make any effect if no one starts with rationality, I know. But ... I just can't concede the point by keeping my mouth shut! It's like an old scab I have to pick at because down deep, very fundamentally, I'm convinced there's clean skin underneath. Ensue the rage of a perpetual optimist:

Someone: These public places that you're referring to, where you're claiming to have a right to fresh air, are these "public" places owned and operated by individuals? Are they restaurants and bars that other people own, and if so how can you claim that your rights trump theirs? You must have clean air on their property, but they aren't able to use and operate their property as they see fit.

If you think about it, you'll find that rights aren't dictums to have things, such as clean air, provided for you at other's expense. Rights are the legal guarantee that any individual may dispense with his bodily, mental, and physical property without coercion, coercion such as would be enforced on the rightful property owners were this bill to pass.

This is one of the worst fallacies I've seen parroted perpetually throughout campaigns for a smoking ban. A place does not belong to the public or any group of people other than those who actually own it. And inviting people into one's building does not grant them any stake in its ownership.

Just imagine if you invited your neighbors into your home for a dinner party, and instead of respectfully declining they demanded that you ban smoking in your house. Better yet, they pushed a law putting the force of government behind their demand. 

The word "public place" in this context is advance warning to the rational individual to run in the opposite direction for fear of regulation by a nanny state.

This post from Galileo Blogs recently came to my attention. I guess this is where I'm supposed to give up  ;-}  I'll have to watch Galileo, his insight and experience could be very helpful.

"Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Regulation Destroys

As an investment professional focused on the electric utility industry, the most regulated industry in the United States, I have accumulated numerous examples over the past 12 years of the inanity of regulation.

My experience, based on frequent personal interaction with both the regulators and the regulated, is that regulators, nearly to the person, are less competent than the people they regulate.

Imagine a 50-something highly educated and accomplished CEO of a $25 billion market capitalization company kowtowing to a 30-something attorney and political hack who happens to hold life-and-death regulatory power over his business. I've seen it, and variations of it, many times.

Executives of regulated companies have to flatter the regulators at conferences and meetings, spend countless hours educating the regulators on the simple basics of how their industry operates (so as to reduce the destructiveness of new regulations), and regularly second-guess their own actions for fear that a regulator or his political boss will be offended by them.

The results are several, the least of which is the many man-years of wasted time and unproductive employment at large corporations (e.g.: the full-time regulatory affairs teams at utilities and every other large corporation).

More ominously, innovations are delayed many years or never implemented at all. For example, in the utility world, numerous innovative technologies that could be deployed on the electric transmission infrastructure, such as high-speed Internet access, are never deployed because they require regulatory approval, and to get that the utilities must agree to "share" profits because, under the principle of regulation, the transmission lines really belong to the "utility ratepayers."

Even if the regulator is well-meaning (many of them actually are) and accomplished/intelligent (a rarity), by virtue of existing at the behest of politicians, they end up being destructive (which is why the only honest regulator would have to immediately quit his job). As an example, during the height of the California power crisis, a federal regulator appointed by Bush who publicly denounced price controls, imposed them anyway when he got a personal phone call from Bush. He knew the price controls would cause blackouts, and they did. He implemented them anyway.

A whole body of economic and philosophical literature provides good reasons why regulation is bad. Regulators are disinterested or "mis-interested" (corrupt), they are risk-averse, they cannot hold all the relevant information in their heads to regulate properly, etc.

I agree with all that, and add to it the image of a highly successful chief executive clapping with eager obsequiousness at the conclusion of a meaningless speech by a well-meaning but ignorant regulator who would never be hired by the utility she is regulating.

I hate to end on such a negative note, so I will add that quite a lot of innovation still gets pushed through eventually despite such regulation (even in the utility industry, thankfully). But the cost of the lost innovation and waste is enormous and growing."

Galileo further adds the methods by which utilities are regulated:

"Burgess,
You ask a good question. In brief, here are the ways utilities are regulated:

(1) Most prices, including the price to distribute electricity, and in a majority of cases, the price of electric energy, are set by state, federal and/or local utility boards. The proportion of prices that are directly set by these boards constitutes approximately 80% of the total revenues of utilities. The remaining prices, which are of "unregulated" electric generation, are allowed to be generally determined by market forces, except that prices are capped and even where there is no explicit cap regulatory officials can decide after-the-fact that prices were "too high" because they reflect "market power." So, even in the "unregulated" 20%, prices are still more tightly regulated than nearly all other sectors of the economy. For the strictly-regulated 80% of prices, they are set by the utility boards according to a formula that reimburses utilities for their cost of operation, along with a fluctuating, bureacratically determined "adder" that is the allowed profit.

The basic regulatory pricing principle is "cost-plus". Utilities are provided reimbursement of their costs with an allowance for a pre-determined, acceptable "profit".

(2) All investment decisions are regulated by the utility boards. This includes any upgrades of distribution and transmission infrastructure, as well as the majority of generation investment. Essentially, you can't build most infrastructure unless it is pre-approved. For generation infrastructure, pre-approval is not always required, but it does always require going through a bruising "NIMBY" (Not In My Back Yard) political fight with sundry local and state officials who do not want "eyesore" infrastructure built in their neighborhoods. In this aspect, utilities are no less disadvantaged than other large capital intensive industries that have to build large objects that politicians don't want in their districts (e.g.: oil refineries, gas terminals, etc.). However, the additional involvement of state utility boards in the process makes it even more difficult for these things to be built by utilities.

As indicated by my description above, these are the two key metrics by which I would measure the degree of regulation of an industry: (1) How freely can companies set their own prices? (2) How freely can companies invest in their business? The latter question also includes mergers, divestitures and other strategic decisions, such as whether to go private. Utilities also suffer extra layers of regulation in this area. In addition to the normal approvals for these activities that a typical industry faces (such as federal antitrust approval by several agencies), utilities must gain approval of often more than one state regulatory body and at least one additional federal regulator (the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission).

A result of all this regulation, specifically the "cost-plus" method of reimbursing expenditures, and the need to gain prior approval for major investments and strategic decisions, utilities have become incredibly conservative, risk-averse organizations. Chiefly, you can see this in their failure to innovate aggressively. I describe just one example in my post of such a failure to add high-speed Internet capability to the grid. Other examples include the failure to computerize the grid, which would massively improve its efficiency, or to try more radical new technologies, such as micro-generation. Micro-generation is where buildings or houses produce their own power. If utilities were completely free, and could earn unrestricted profits and charge prices solely determined by the market, it could pay to have a system consisting of a combination of large generating plants (like we have now), with peaking power supplied by small, local generators that would also serve as back-up generators and improve the grid's reliability.

Because of all the regulation, utilities operate as a bureacratic organization, in the classic sense as defined by Ludwig Von Mises. They are devoted to following rules, and changing rules when necessary, rather than taking entrepreneurial risks. There is still some market forces at work with utilities (more now than in the 1970s due to some modest deregulation in the 1980s and 1990s) so that they are more efficient and entrpreneurial compared with a truly government-operated enterprise, such as public education. Yet they are closer to that end of the spectrum than a truly entrepreneurial organization.

The only other industries that were regulated in a similar manner as utilities historically were telephony and insurance. All three industries were primarily regulated by 50 different state jurisdictions, with a layer of regulation at the federal level. Of these three hyper-regulated industries, utilities are the most regulated, with insurance second, and telephony having broken free of most of the shackles.

I can't think of any nominally privately-owned enterprises that are more regulated than utilities (I am open to your input on this). Certainly, public schools or the post office face more government control, but they are government-owned and operated.

As a final thought on the issue you are interested in, the direction of society, I think it is important to distinguish between rules/regulations and technology. America keeps moving forward because its technology and entrepreneurial innovation are free enough to flower, despite the existence of multiplying, oppressive rules. In essence, entrepreneurs are able to "work around" rules faster than they can be enacted by government. Needless to say, this process is uneven, with some areas more heavily squelched by government than others. I also would not imply that America's progress is inevitable, that despite whatever fascist rules are imposed, society will advance. That is certainly not true, and is a mistake made by "empiricist" observers of America's economy. (A good friend of mine is an example of this type of observer. He seems incapable of seeing any rule as being bad, because he keeps pointing out how far and fast our standard of living keeps improving. Of course, the argument he can't seem to understand is that America's economy progresses ***despite*** these rules!)

As a final, final thought, I do think that much of our global growth is attributable to the unleashing of entrepreneurial energy caused by the collapse of communism. Almost anything is better than the suffocation of communism, so that even in Russia, with its drift toward a new statism, there are enough cracks in the sidewalk for some entrepreneurial flowers to blossom. Of course, China has much more fully moved away from communism, and it is becoming an economic juggernaut. The rest of the world, including America, benefits tremendously from trading and investing with this emerging economic giant."

From the Baltimore Sun: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.russia14jan14,0,5753647.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines

Russia tightens grip on energy reserves

Kremlin pushes out foreign developers as it seeks control over oil, natural gas

By Alex Rodriguez

Originally published January 14, 2007

MOSCOW // Russian authorities have never been known for their eco-friendliness, but late last year inspectors swooped down on the vast Kovykta natural gas field in east Siberia and came away with a long list of alleged misdeeds, including excavation violations and illegal logging.

Few in Russia, however, believe that the government has suddenly gone green.

Kovykta is Russia's largest natural gas field, storing enough natural gas to keep the world's largest energy consumer, the U.S., supplied for two years.

And while its 1.9 trillion cubic meters of gas are being developed by joint venture involving British Petroleum, Kovykta is seen as the Kremlin's next move in a methodical campaign to elbow foreign oil majors aside and commandeer the country's energy sector.

A consortium led by Royal Dutch Shell once oversaw the world's largest oil and natural gas development project, an energy venture called Sakhalin 2 in the Russian Far East. But after relentless pressure from Russian authorities that included a series of environmental inspections and a permit revocation, the consortium buckled and sold a majority stake to Russia's state-owned natural gas monopoly, Gazprom, for $7.45 billion.

The Dec. 21 sale was viewed as a milestone in the Kremlin's quest for energy sector dominance and a sobering message to foreign oil companies that their role in developing Russia's vast energy wealth will be second-tier.

Analysts say Kovykta, being developed by BP and its Russian partner, TNK, is next in line. Russian environmental inspectors have asked prosecutors to begin acting on their findings, and a Russian agency that governs subsoil natural resources licensing will decide this year whether to revoke TNK-BP's license on the grounds that it isn't producing the levels of natural gas it initially promised.

"TNK-BP is in a situation where they just don't have much of a choice," says Nadezhda Kazakova an analyst with MDM Bank in Moscow. "With energy sector revenue now linked to the state, it's hard to see how the state will let [Kovykta] go."

Russia once desperately sought the involvement of foreign oil majors in its energy sector. After the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia's shaky economic outlook forced the Kremlin to bring in international oil giants like Shell to develop difficult-to-reach oil and natural gas deposits.

As an enticement, the Kremlin under Boris N. Yeltsin signed so-called production sharing agreements that set restrictions on how much of the profit would be set aside for the state.

Under President Vladimir V. Putin, the Kremlin has adopted a radically different energy strategy that calls for state dominance over oil and natural gas, collectively the engine behind the Russian economy. Putin's approach allows foreign oil majors to bring their capital and technical know-how to Russia, but their holdings in Russian energy ventures should be limited to minority stakes.

With Sakhalin 2 firmly in the Kremlin's grip, observers say, authorities are turning their attention toward Kovykta.

Rosprirodnadzor, Russia's environmental watchdog agency, has accused TNK-BP of illegally piling mounds of fill onto the banks of the Lena River and unauthorized logging. The agency has asked Russian prosecutors to take up the case.

TNK-BP faces an even bigger problem from Rosnedra, Russia's subsoil licensing agency. TNK-BP's license requires the company to produce 9 billion cubic meters of natural gas from Kovykta by this year. That mark is attainable, TNK-BP officials say, but should be amended since the local market for gas, the Irkutsk region, requires only 2 billion cubic meters.

To comply with the 9 billion cubic meter requirement, TNK-BP would have to burn off what the local market doesn't consume.

Kovykta's full potential could be realized if TNK-BP were allowed to export natural gas to energy-hungry China to the south. However, Gazprom, which under Russian law is the only entity permitted to export natural gas, has balked at the idea, saying gas exports from Kovykta shouldn't begin until 2015.

"We are talking right now with both Gazprom and with Russian officials," said TNK-BP spokeswoman Maria Drachova. "We never give up hope."

Industry observers warn that Russia's strategy could backfire. Russia's energy sector still needs participation from Western majors to realize its potential. State-owned giants like Gazprom continue to be hamstrung by stifling inefficiency, and lack of infrastructure investment that impedes growth of Russia's energy sector.

Reducing foreign developers to the role of minor players, said William Ramsey, deputy executive director of the International Energy Agency, is only going to further discourage those companies from doing business in Russia. [emphasis added]

In regards to the recently proposed and happily defeated minimum wage increase. A government enforced increase in wages is not going to benefit anyone. Employers have a certain budget for employing labour and when the price of that labour increases, no matter how incrementally, they have to off-set the cost in some way in order to maintain their profit. Either they'll have to charge more for their product or cut costs in producing it or both. The most likely method of which is simply to reduce labour, as it's the source of the problem.

In other words, if an employer has to pay more per employee, he'll make due with less employees. Just like when anyone finds a necessary increase in their budget and they have to do without something to cover the costs. The same holds true if you were to argue that a company should take that money out of their profits, because a company doesn't just sit on a pile of money. They use their profit to invest back into the company in research and development, invest it in general, or pay dividends to their shareholders. There isn't an unlimited supply of money and rearranging where it goes does not create more of it.

So when you applaud the wage increase consider your own job, are you a necessary asset to your company or are you expendable to pay for someone else pay raise? And if you think it's OK, your position is secure you could use the money, consider who's paycheck you're receiving by governmental mandate.

It's disgusting that the government puts us in this position, of sacrificed and sacrificee, by rearranging wealth.

Update [8.18.2006 @ 5:53 pm]: I've submitted various forms of this post [edited depending upon the space I'm allowed] as letters to the editor to Purdue's Exponent, The Journal and Courier, and The Indianapolis Star.

Update [8.22.2006 @ 1:37 am]: I've got a confirmation call from all three newspapers, and my letter was published today in The Exponent. We'll see about the others, but I'm tinkled pink about it! Of course I'm keeping print copies; I may just frame them! ^_^
After reading over it in the paper, I really wish I could have expanded a few points and made my argument more explicit, but I think it was good for this format that I remain brief. I'm not sure, since I know what I meant to argue by each statement, but did my brevity do disservice to my clarity? I'd really appreciate an outside opinion on this, since it's my first LTTE.

Update [8.23.2006 @ 5:36 pm]: The Indianapolis Star has published my letter today. I'm going to run down to town today and pick up a paper. Still waiting on The Journal and Courier to see if I'm 3 for 3!

Update [8.25.2006 @ 5:33 pm]: An here's a link to the LTTE page in The Journal and Courier where mine is printed [scroll down to "Sacrifice comes with increased wages"].

Update [8.25.2006 @ 5:33 pm]: An ARI press release.

Comments Posted to Original Blog:

Mike N said...

Hi Amanda. I think your LTE is just fine. You made your points well. Don't worry about being more precise as that would mean a longer letter and editors generally chop them up destroying your more precise meaning anyway.
Keep up the good work.
Mike N

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 7:45:00 PM

softwareNerd said...

Way to go. With this kind of hit rate, buy a whole lot of frames at CostCo, and keep a few walls ready!

Thursday, August 24, 2006 4:42:00 PM

Amanda Carlson said...

Thanks, Mike. It's reassuring to know other people understand what I'm writing, then I know I'm not just projecting my own intentions onto the peice.

Thursday, August 24, 2006 4:50:00 PM

Amanda Carlson said...

SoftwareNerd: I could just go, like, crazy-cat-lady and keep piles of newspaper around my house. :-D Save the frame money.

Thursday, August 24, 2006 4:58:00 PM

Watch, I command it. ---> Linky

Scott isn't always right, but he uses his head well. And this video alone is enough to put him on my top ten "list of people who are human".

A taste: "I've never really understood people who say gas costs too much."

This cartoon by Cox and Forkum very elegantly sums just about all I have to say to the bastard, where ever/who ever he is, who is screaming, "PRICE-GOUGING! I demand reparation, O Legislators, for I am being gouged!"

Seriously, I just read this update from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce about the anti-price gouging legislation that recently passed 389-34 in the House:

"Among the bill's highlights:

• Directs the FTC to define "price gouging," "wholesale sale" and "retail sale" through rule-making within six months of enactment.
• Provides for strong civil enforcement by the FTC and by states' attorneys general, and criminal enforcement by the U.S. attorney general and the Department of Justice.
• Provides for civil penalties for price gouging.
  • For "wholesale sale" violations, the penalties are three times the ill-gotten gains of the seller, plus an amount not to exceed $3 million per day of a continuing violation.
  • For "retail sale" violations, the penalties are three times the ill-gotten gains of the seller.
  • Requires any civil penalty imposed to be deposited into any either account or fund used for paying compensation to consumers for violation of state consumer protection laws or into a state's treasury general fund.
• Provides for criminal penalties.
  • "Wholesale" violations will be punishable by a fine of up to $150 million, imprisonment for up to two years, or both.
  • "Retail sale" violations will be punishable by a fine of no more than $2 million imprisonment for up to two years, or both." [Bold added]
    

People are calling it toothless especially in light of the more recent FTC report on price gouging which says very basically:

"In its investigation, the FTC found no instances of illegal market manipulation that led to higher prices during the relevant time periods but found 15 examples of pricing at the refining, wholesale, or retail level that fit the relevant legislation’s definition of evidence of “price gouging.” Other factors such as regional or local market trends, however, appeared to explain these firms’ prices in nearly all cases. Further, the report reiterated the FTC’s position that federal gasoline price gouging legislation, in addition to being difficult to enforce, could cause more problems for consumers than it solves, and that competitive market forces should be allowed to determine the price of gasoline drivers pay at the pump."

But still ... I have to laugh or I'll cry. People are just so god-damned eager in their demands for the government to tell us what to do and how to do it.

I've been coming across articles about gas prices and the government's response a great deal recently. But I don't have the strength of stomach to sift through all of them, identify the fallacies, address them, and provide links. There's just too much garbage and it's too repetitive for such meticulosity to be of worth. I'm just going to write my own ideas on the matter.

So, what's the problem here? For some reason [I'm going to leave the reason to the economist] the price of gas has increased which is costing Americans more money. This upsets the American because he needs gas to fuel his car to get to work to earn money to buy things like bread and milk etc. He feels his rights are being violated and demands that the government resolve this atrocity. The government responds by demanding that the oil companies refund some of their profits, lower their prices, and/or repeals the companies tax breaks/subsidies.

Forgive me if this sounds old hat, but I'm going to address my arguments specifically toward those who are calling for oil company blood. Mostly because I'm angry and frustrated and need to articulate myself.

Firstly, there is no such thing as a right to oil. Even if oil is the only means to your job; there is no such thing as a right to a job. Even if a job is the only means to your survival; there is no such thing as a right to survival. By virtue of the fact that man must act in order to live you have the right to act, and to the consequences of those actions, so long as those actions don't interfere with other's right to act and retain the products of their actions (ie murder, theft, fraud). Every freedom and right that you have is derived from this most fundamental right. Free speech, free association, freedom of religion, and of press, etc. are all just examples of your broader right to do as you wish without infringes the rights of others. The right to property, and the sole direction of it, is simply the corollary right to the products of your actions. This is what is meant by life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is your life to maintain and do with as you please.

This means you can seek a life/job/oil, but no one is obligated to provide you with such. At first this may sound cruel [I know many who've claimed so], but examine the alternative. Who will provide you with this life/job/oil? Your means for living must come from somewhere; if not from yourself then from whom, at whose expense? Who are you going to make your slave? I posit that the cruelty, the brutish ignorance, is not that these things aren't provided for you, but that anyone would claim it must be.

Lets tie this principle back to the oil companies. It is their oil, not yours. They buy it, store it, refine it, package it, ship it, and however they so choose - sell it. No one has any authority to demand that they do any of this in any way; least of all the government whose prerogative it is to protect rights, not violate them. The oil companies are under no obligation to sell you oil at a price that you like, and you are under no obligation to buy from them. They are not your slave, you are not theirs; as humans you must interact mutually.

The oil company willingly produces gas and sells it in order to make a profit. Just as you willingly do what you do in order to make a profit. Imagine the consequences of what you're demanding of the oil company in regards to your own business. If you're a construction worker, what happens when consumer thinks your manager is charging too much for houses? A lawyer; what happens when everyone has a 'right to representation', who's going to set your pay? Oh, you're a teacher. Well, I think you know what happens when every child has a 'right to education' and the government sets your pay. But the oil companies are different you say, they're rich. Would you dare claim it isn't wrong to usurp the property of an oil company because they have more of it and can 'afford' to lose some? Stealing from a millionaire or a teacher is stealing all the same.

If it isn't profitable for you to buy gas and drive to work, then don't do it. Do something that is profitable. For example, I purposefully live near where I work and go to school. I walk, ride bike, bus, and when I absolutely need better transportation I buy a cheap efficient scooter/motorcycle. It's mine and your choice to drive a car or not, and accept the expenses of that or not.

Hark! In the distant I hear the faint whine of, "but they're gouging..." Yes, and exactly what is gouging? I've yet to hear any complainant offer a definition for this. The closest I can figure is that it means that consumers feel they're being taken advantage of. But, how is that? The oil companies aren't lying to you about their product or prices, they're not forcing you to buy it. I damn well know you can choose not to have a car, or not have responsibilities that necessitate a car. So, please, tell me where is this gauging. I'm begging to be enlightened.

No, what "gouging" is, is a term people throw around to justify legally endorsed and executed theft. It's better if it's not defined, then it can mean whatever you imply it to mean. If no one looks too carefully, you can magically get the government to steal for you just by chanting "gouging".

And, what's that you say? Oil companies receive subsidies from taxpayers and so they 'owe' you? Ah, taxes! I'm glad you brought it up! You are entirely right to feel cheated when it comes to taxes, you are being stolen from. Imagine it, the government forcibly takes [dare you not to pay your taxes if you take issue with my terms] money from everyone every year, removes a percentage for administrative costs and the expense of performing this great scandal, then distributes to the rest on services you could very well have gotten yourself. That is at it's best; at it's most honest it steals from the rich and/or industrious to give to the poor and/or lazy; charity at gunpoint.

The oil companies shouldn't receive subsidies. More to the point they shouldn't be taxed and regulated to death so that begging stolen money is the only way to stay in business. And, you shouldn't have to beg stolen money in the form of exemptions every year either. There's no reason why both you and the oil company shouldn't keep and do with your money as you like; except enforced charity. But taxes are another vile story that will be told at a later date.

If you live in the West Lafayette area and also oppose the recently passed smoking ban I encourage you to voice your opinion. Kris Knigga has set up an e-mailer for those who want to declare their opposition to the common council. This is his letter (he has a form that automatically fills in the blanks):

From: (your name here)
To: The West Lafayette City Government
Subject: About the smoking ban...

Dear (recipient name),

As a member of the West Lafayette Community, I would like you to know that I do not support the recently passed smoking ban.

I believe that dining in a restaurant or visiting a bar is not a fundamental right, but a luxury. People in our community can choose where they will dine or with whom they want to do business. If a non-smoker decides they don't wish to patronize an establishment that allows smoking, they are free to do so. This makes the smoking ban solely a matter of convenience, not of necessity.

In the same way, no employee is forced to work at an establishment that allows smoking. As Americans, we have the freedom to choose for whom we will work and can choose to work in a smoke-free environment if we do not appreciate second-hand smoke. In fact, Tippecanoe County's largest employer, Purdue University, chooses to be smoke free, along with many other businesses. So again, this is a matter of convenience, not of necessity.

Freedom of Association is an inherent right that Americans hold, guaranteed to us by the Bill of Rights. To deny business owners and smokers the choice of participating in a legal activity goes against the very spirit of our nation. We must uphold the principle that it is never acceptable to deny rights to one group of people simply for the convenience of another group.

Furthermore, I believe that the economic harm caused by this ban will outweigh any good that might come of it. I believe that this ban will result in restaurant and bar business being shifted to Lafayette, causing a loss of business in our city. West Lafayette already has smoke-free establishments for those who choose to visit them. By forcing all restaurants and bars to be smoke-free you take away an advantage that smoke-free establishments hold with non-smokers.

For all of these reasons and more, I ask you to do what you can to repeal the smoking ban before it can take effect.

Thank you for your consideration,

(your name here)
(your street address here)
West Lafayette, IN

The first three paragraphs I agree with entirely. While I still agree with the next two paragraphs, I think they miss the key issue here (which is of rights), though they're probably the arguments that will be the most convincing. For example, Kris argues freedom of association. Though he's correct, I'd say the more pertinent argument is the right to property, because of which one is able to have freedom of association. (Freedom to associate comes from the right to own property and dispense with it as one chooses). By dictating how an individual may or may not run their business the government of West Lafayette is violating the citizens' right to do with their property as they see fit.

I understand, though, Kris is directing his letter to the most pressing of the fallacious arguments used by those in favour of the ban.

Tonight is the second reading for the smoking ban. I'm going for something a little more philosophical in my approach this time because the last meeting dissolved into a mess. No one there had any concept of what rights, justice, and liberty are. They were arguing as though this were an issue of equally valid claims that needed to be finely compromised to get the maximum amount of satisfaction for everyone (including those that don't deserve it at the expense of those that do). This is what I had prepared to say:

We are not granted rights out of generosity. As the founding fathers knew, rights result directly from man's nature, and the character of man is such that he must act in order to secure his life. This concept of 'right' is exemplified by an American's stated unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You may note that actual gratification is not guaranteed; the act of pursuing values and by implication, the consequences of those actions are.

The merchants of West Lafayette have a right to their business and the operations of such by virtue of the fact that they own it. Desiring a smoke-free environment on someone else's property does not mean you have the right to it. And inviting the general public onto one's property does not imply the public has any right to the property or it's functions, it is not a 'public place' no matter that you call it such. So let us clarify this legislation, it is not the needs or desires of business that you are compromising, but their rights, for the desires of others. In judging this bill you are not balancing equally valid interests, you are balancing the rights of some citizens with the wishes of others.

Another point, the rightness or wrongness of enacting this legislation has nothing to do with the decisions of other governmental bodies. The purpose of legislation and enforcement is to protect individual rights, previously defined as derived from the nature of man. The decisions of neither Madison, nor Bloomington, nor Montana, nor 85% of the population can change the nature of man and his rights. The opinion of no person or group can change the fact that this legislation makes children out of citizens.

Update [4.3.2006 - after the council meeting]: The proposed ordinance passed 5-1. I'm going to stay out of politics from now on. I haven't got the stamina for beating my head against a wall.

Our city council has been tossing around this legislation for a while now, since about November (old articles from the campus newspaper can be found here). It was barely voted down in late January, due mostly to 'ambiguities' in the wording and heavy complaint from local business. So, recently they've introduced a revised version (Linky). This is the pertinent article. The council met on Monday (Mar. 6) to discuss passing this legislation again and I attended the meeting to speak against the ordinance myself. I only got two/three minutes, so I tried to attack mostly their fundamental justifications for it (in the actual ordinance, everything after "WHEREAS"). This is what I'd prepared to say:

The reason the proposed smoking ban is being considered as a beneficial ordinance to the citizens of West Lafayette is: A.) smoking and second-hand smoke are health risks and B.) it is the responsibility of this city council to ensure an environment free of smoke-risk.

The second of those statements is false rendering the first irrelevant to legislation. If Mr. X desires a smoke-free environment because of the inherent risks, then it is in Mr. X's every right to abstain from entering into such environments. No one is forcing Mr. X to suffer a smoke-filled room; if he enters a bar or restaurant or club or 'place of employment' where smoking is allowed by the owner of the building, then he does so by choice. Yet, according to this legislation, Mr. X would have this council force another citizen to provide that environment. It is not the needs or desires of business that this legislation is compromising, but their rights, for the desires of others. And, contrary to popular opinion, it is not your obligation to protect my health and welfare, it is my own. If you pass this legislation in the name of public good, then please count me out of the public, because setting the precedent for violating property rights is not in any one's best interest.

Greg Ehresman owns Triple XXX, Mary Cook owns Harry's, and Derrick Raymer owns Where Else?. If they wish to allow their patrons to smoke on their property, it is not for anyone else to say otherwise. It is not the prerogative of any governmental body to dictate what citizens may freely choose to do on private property, whether they're smoker or non-smoker, business-owner or customer.

I've often heard the argument that if left to themselves businesses wouldn't offer non-smoking services. To that let me point out that businesses very seldom fail to capitalize on such consumer demands. And that, if it is found businesses can't make a profit from catering to non-smokers, it is a failure of the demand for such a service rather than of the business.

Update [Same Day]: Take a wild guess at who was quoted in the Exponent today! ^_^ Though, I'm a sophomore transfer student, not a freshman.