One of the more comical aspects of the mess in California is that despite the state's terrible financial crisis, legislators continue to busy themselves with utter nonsense -- such as defrocking the official state rock. When I wrote a post about the idiotic campaign, I had not seen Ron Bailey's Reason piece, which after noting the bill's origination with trial lawyers, dubbed California "The Laughingstock State."

I like to think that at least here in Michigan, legislators would be more down-to-earth and in touch with that Midwestern spirit of common sense. While I know it would be unreasonable to expect that of all legislators, you'd think that Republicans in this hardest-hit-of-hard-hit states would at least have the sense not to pass legislation which would hurt businesses while encroaching on personal freedom.

And you'd be wrong. Michigan's draconian smoking ban (a bill which passed in May and was immediately signed by Governor Granholm), not only had vigorous Republican support, but the bill had thirteen Republican sponsors. The following Republicans are named in the text as having introduced this obnoxious legislation:

Reps. Ball, Calley, Crawford, DeShazor, Green, Haines, Knollenberg, Lori, Marleau, Moss, Proos, Schuitmaker, Paul Scott.

Q: Where can't people smoke?

A: Public places, such as an auditorium, arena, theater and concert hall, food-service establishments and place of employment, unless exempted.

Q: Will smoking be allowed in private clubs such as Veterans of Foreign Wars halls?

A: No. If the place has employees and serves food or drink, it is considered a public place.

(Much as I like to laugh at the California legislature, I'd actually prefer it if the Michigan legislators frittered away their time renaming state rocks, as I'd feel safer.)

While it's only been in place a few months, the ban is already hurting businesses:

For Kyprianides, the impact hit like a bomb as soon as the ashtrays were removed and "no smoking" signs were affixed to the interior wall. For many bargoers, a drink or beer go hand-in-hand with a cigarette, he said.

"I was down $2,000 or 80 percent of my business on the first day," he said. "I would say 25 to 30 percent of my customers are smokers and they represent 90 percent of our business. The remaining non-smokers have not stepped up to fill the void."

That's a similar story being heard around Michigan, according to Andy Deloney of the Michigan Restaurant Association.

In addition to a slide in business, Deloney said some bar and restaurant owners are being harassed by local municipal officials when the law is supposed to be enforced by the county health department.

Meanwhile, other businesses hurt by the ban are boycotting the state lottery.

But what inspired me to write this post is the fact that there remain pockets of resistance, and I was delighted that one of them was featured on the front page of today's Free Press. The elderly war veterans who fought for our freedom are still standing up for it, God bless 'em:

BARAGA -- The veterans at the American Legion Post 444 see it as pretty straightforward.

Smoking tobacco is legal. They own, run and risk failure at their post's tavern in tiny Baraga at the base of the Keweenaw Bay in the Upper Peninsula.

So they get to decide whether patrons get to smoke.

That wasn't an issue before May 1, when a statewide ban on smoking in places of employment took effect (with a few, minor exceptions and one major one: Detroit's three casinos).

Now Foucault-Funke Post 444, where the ashtrays never came off the tables and smokers line the bar each afternoon and evening, is at the center of what could be a decisive showdown for the new state law and -- as the vets see it -- for the individual liberty and self-government they fought to defend.

Earlier this month, the post sued the Western Upper Peninsula Health Department to strike down as unconstitutional the department's order to end indoor smoking.

"It's not about the smoking," said post spokesman Joseph O'Leary. "It's about the right to choose to allow the use of a legal substance on our property."

The new state smoking ban, Shepard said, is just one more encroachment on personal freedom, a decision handed down by out-of-touch politicians 500 miles away. She likens it to restrictions on gun rights and creeping government intrusion generally.

"We're not a communist country yet, but we're only one step away from it," she said.

The leaders of the Baraga post said they didn't go looking for a confrontation with the state or local health authorities. But when the new law was signed, they decided it was time to take a stand.

"These are guys who put their lives on the line for their country," said O'Leary, an honorary member of Post 444.

"They said, 'Wait a minute. This is our property. This is not heroin. Nobody in the world who doesn't like smoke has to walk through that door.'

"They just decided, enough is enough."

When May 1 came, Post Commander Rick Geroux issued a notice to members and employees that, until ordered by a court, the new restrictions would not be observed on its premises.

During the next two months, several citizen complaints were filed about the post's noncompliance, and local health department officials sent notices of violation. Geroux responded with a news release July 16 that described the new law as unconstitutional and un-American.

Further, the exemption for Detroit's casinos (which was based on their need to compete with American Indian casinos not covered by the state law) is "wildly unfair" to the Baraga post, which lies within a mile, and competes for customers, with two alcohol-serving, smoking-acceptable tribal facilities, Geroux said.

After getting a cease-and-desist order from the health department July 20, the post decided to sue.

Post spokesman O'Leary, also the Baraga County prosecuting attorney, believes noncompliance with the law, especially in the libertarian-leaning Upper Peninsula, is more widespread than health officials acknowledge. The legion post has been targeted, at least in part, because it is openly defiant, he said.

That high profile has helped in some ways, as well, generating donations to a legal defense fund and drawing support from all over the state.

American Legion - Foucault-Funke Post 444
505 Superior Ave., P.O. Box 160
Baraga, MI 49908

But I guess my thinking is behind the times; they're already trying to implement numerous food bans.

In the interests of fairness, I thought it was worth briefly examining the thinking of the bill's leading Republican sponsor, who made the bill his first piece of legislation upon his election last year:

Rep. Paul Scott, R-Grand Blanc, is making the smoke ban bill his first piece of legislation, along with a bill that would repeal the Michigan Business Tax surcharge. The smoke-free bill is expected to be introduced to the House on Thursday.

Scott, whose campaign focused mostly on the economy, said he chose to introduce the smoking ban because of concerns he heard from constituents.

"It's a health issue," Scott said. "People are dying from secondhand smoke. There's no doubt about it. I don't understand how you can make exceptions when it comes to public health. If you agree this is a public health issue, you can't then turn around and say we're going to make exceptions for people to be contracting cancer."

The second hand smoke study was junk science:

http://www.junkscience.com/news/mirrors.html

http://www.junkscience.com/news3/sexton.html

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5811

In response to smokers who are aware of the risks and still want a social place outside their home to smoke, Scott said, "To me it would be an odd argument for them to say they don't care, that's their own prerogative.

"I just think, given the data we've seen of what this does, we really can't deal in extremes anymore, and that we're just behind. Michigan's behind in a lot of things."

Since when?

Since guys like Scott came along and decided that personal freedom is behind the times? And if "health" trumps the rights of the individual, then what's to stop the government from banning smoking anywhere? Or reenacting Prohibition? (And while they're at it, why not reenact sodomy laws as an AIDS prevention measure?)

To the argument that government shouldn't be getting involved in the private sector, Scott answers that what's important is the good of the community:

"For a lot of conservatives, this isn't the role of government; government shouldn't be getting involved in the private sector," Scott said. "This is kind of thought of as a Democratic bill. I don't have a problem throwing my name behind it, because I believe it's right for the community."

I think the problem comes down to diametrically opposed views of what we call "leadership." Some people think that the purpose of "public service" (often a euphemism) is to do those things that the voters and taxpayers want done. To serve the people. Others think that public service means doing what they deem to be best for them, which is not the same thing at all. If you believe that you have a right to decide for people what is best for them (even though they don't like it), then engaging in deception just goes with the turf.

Which means that from a lefty perspective, Yglesias is right.

The most malignant aspect about communitarian statism is the way it tends to transform people who might otherwise oppose it into supporting it. The grim irony is that Republicans end up saving these awful programs by making them work. It's the very tempting "we all pay" argument. As I have tried to point out, that falls into the trap of using socialism to justify socialism:

...they want me to pay not only for [other people's] junk food, but for the additional consequences of eating it. The result is communitarianism, and a nation of busybodies and government informants.

Sorry, but I refuse to allow socialized medicine to turn me into a little fascist. Regardless of what the government might make me pay for; I will still refuse to support restrictions on what people do with their bodies, what they put into them, how they screw or how often, etc. I cannot support the argument that "it costs all of us because we now have socialism," because that is just using socialism (which is one wrong) to accelerate the destruction of freedom (which is another wrong). It is not an individual's stupid or unhealthy behavior that costs us; it is the unjust laws that compel us to pay.

It's socialism that costs all of us, dammit!

As far as I'm concerned, those who buy into the busybody notion that unhealthy behavior "costs all of us" because of these socialistic laws are doing little more than trying to make socialism work. (Which has long been the Republican approach to entrenched socialist programs.)

They may mean well, but they can't make socialism work. Instead, by trying to make it work, they prolong it. Prolonging socialism only makes it worse.