University of 'Tobacco-Free' Michigan vs. Michigan 'Nanny' State University

[XLFD]

Disturbing trends in academia continue to happen, that's to be expected with the infiltration of mostly unchecked 'progressivism' prevalent on many campuses. More disturbing, however, is when those trends filter down to the cities that are home to these universities, or are more broadly incorporated than they need be.  Our state's two largest universities in East Lansing and Ann Arbor  illustrated each very recently.

                            Albert Einstein, famous pipe-smoker, college dropout and genius, enjoying some fine American tobacco

On August 15, 2016, Michigan State University (MSU) officially became tobacco-free.  If you want to smoke, chew or vape, you'll have to make sure to step off the Michigan State University campus first.  The University of Michigan (UM) actually beat MSU to the punch with a similar law way back in 2011, but that only made the campus 'smoke-free'.  Students can still chew tobacco and use vaporizers anywhere in Ann Arbor.

That is, if you're three years older than Michigan's statutory age for smoking.  In a remarkable bit of municipal legislation, the city council of Ann Arbor passed with a 9-2 vote a new ordinance raising the minimum age to purchase tobacco products in the city from 18 to 21.

Third ward councilor Julie Grand (pictured left) introduced the legislation earlier this year and it was discussed and decided on August 4th.  Ann Arbor became the first city in Michigan to raise the legal age from 18 to 21.

You may ask why it has never been done before by another overreaching city; the simple answer is that it runs directly counter to state law.  Michigan's Tobacco Products Tax Act of 1993 states that local governments "shall not impose any new requirement or prohibition pertaining to the sale or licensure of tobacco products for distribution purposes."  (MCL 205.434)

Can it be any more clearer than that about the illegality of what just happened?  Apparently not, a councilor cited a recent analysis report by an Ohio State University law professor(legal advice from a Buckeye?!), discussing state-level preemption as a barrier to Tobacco 21 laws. The report indicates there is no apparent state-level preemption in Michigan, a questionable finding given the clear language of the law.

While the language of the law may allow some wriggle room for interpretation, the intent seems to be against local control over tobacco product sales and distribution.  Stephen Postema, the city attorney for Ann Arbor, said the Home Rule Cities Act “gives broad powers to the cities to govern themselves.” Postema wouldn’t expand on any specific legislation, nor would he comment on how much money his law firm will likely garner from the citizens of Ann Arbor in fighting state law so boldly.

At the meeting, a parade of experts and Tobacco-Free Michigan members from outside Ann Arbor bolstered the councilor's urges to change state law because it was for a good cause.  The two no-voters actually admitted they had really wanted to vote for the measure, it was the going-against- state-law-thing that made them vote nay.

Chris Rosenthal, an Ann Arbor tobacconist, spoke against the ordinance noting that some of his current customers are active servicemen under the age of 21. "Am I supposed to tell them no when they get back from deployment?"

Rosenthal went on to say he has given more than $100,000 worth of cigars to local charities, and noted it is indisputable that tobacco is bad for your health, but argued people under 21 are still going to buy tobacco products — they're just going to stop buying from stores in Ann Arbor.

Rosenthal had additional reasons to worry about the new ordinance.  Beyond moving the age up three years, the local rule repealed penalties for underage possession of tobacco products, pushing up to $500 of penalties (to the city's coffers) onto retailers who violate the ordinance which will take effect at the beginning of next year.

       J.R.R. Tolkien glorified pipe smoking wizards and hobbits in his famous tales loved by kids and college students everywhere puffing away

ANALYSIS: 

In full disclosure, I have never used tobacco in any form; I strongly discourage anybody taking up the nasty habit of smoking, and often go to extreme measures myself to encourage friends and family to quit.  And yet, I refuse the even-worse habit of forcing my beliefs on others through legislation and threats of force/theft.   

The two colleges have banned smoking on campus by anybody, which is a rather Draconian tactic by the anti-smoking forces.  Studies have shown that in America, people with high intelligence are actually more likely to smoke than your average intellect person.  Smoking may actually facilitate creative thought in some people, it may be the best way for them to deal with anxieties or focus their ideas.  What harm is there in letting these folks smoke if they are not inconveniencing others with second-hand smoke?

The new policy of MSU even bans chewing tobacco and vaporizers, which do not generally have negative second-hand effects to others.  They are effectively banning a substance which is legal and has no negative health issues on other people.  It's a "nanny state" solution to a non-problem, in an effort to wean students of any hint of nicotine addiction.

But this isn't as scary as the precedent that the City of Ann Arbor is trying to set.  The statute seems fairly clear in its intent to prevent localities regulating who can smoke, the State Constitution (Article VII, Sec. 22) says "Each city shall have power to adopt resolutions and ordinances relating to its municipal concerns, property and government, subject to the constitution and law."  This seems not only to run contrary to law, but also does not fall into the realm of a municipal concern in the first place. 

Let us not forget the Tenth Amendment, one of the original Bill of Rights staples, says that the powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states or the people, not the local city council violating a fairly clear state law. 

Let these nine councilors who voted for this ordinance foot the entire bill for defending their action when this ordinance gets challenged in court and eventually loses.  Let our state legislators clarify the law, so that local legislators do not take away the rights of an already maligned segment of our society, or go further down the slippery slope of ignoring other state laws because a handful of people feel a certain way. 

[XLFD]

The Ann Arbor City Council not only decided to thumb their noses at state law at their previous meeting, but at their meeting this week they decided to demolish a smallish building in their city for the price of $400,000.  The City Council voted 10-0 this week to accept nearly $300,000 in Federal Emergency Management Agency grant funds for the project, with $100,000 in matching funds coming from the city's stormwater utility fund.

For a proper reference, the City of Ludington demolished a bigger house and leveled the uneven two lot property at 808 E. Danaher for under $20,000 (they even received half of that from the neighbor, who received one of the lots in exchange).  How do you explain that one takes twenty times the amount of money to accomplish than the other job? 

There is a difference in the two situations, however, the City of Ludington was able to purchase the Danaher property from the county by just paying the back taxes which they had dramatically raised in the years before, whereas, Ann Arbor had to pay fair market value for the house ($170,000).  That still leaves $230,000 for demo. 

[Willy]

I don't believe pubic Universities are considered municipalities, so I'm not sure if they  come under the umbrella of requirements that cities, towns, villages, counties and townships qualify for. I'm not a smoker either but I'm getting tired of these progressives telling people how to live. A progressive is 1 fart short of being a communist and 1 billion brain cells shy of an imbecile.