Enforcement of Michigan’s Non-Smoking Law

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
The development of the strategy
Conclusion
References

Introduction

This paper is aimed at identifying a plan and strategy for the enforcement of the Michigan non-smoking law that has recently been signed by the governor of this state. This strategy needs to address political, legal, and economic factors which may affect the outcome of this program. Furthermore, it is necessary to take into consideration various compliance variables such as clarity of rules, the attitude of enforcers, the behavior of regulated parties, etc (Harrington & Carter, 2008, p 257). The prohibition of smoking in public areas has long been one of the major concerns for policy-makers and administrative officials, because mere adoption of the smoking bans is insufficient in itself, and governmental agencies should ensure that everyone complies with them. Due to various reasons not all attempts of the state succeeded in achieving this goal.

The development of the strategy

The major steps to be taken

As Christine Harrington and Lief Carter (2008, p 267) argue one of the most significant compliance variables is the clarity of rules which must accurately explain who are the subjects of this law, what are the responsibilities of the parties, and what are possible sanctions. This is why law enforcement agencies should notify the owners of private and public institutions about the recent amendment to the state legislation. In this case, there are several organizations, answerable for this task: Michigan Department of Community Health and local health departments. It is advisable that they provide private businesses with specific instructions concerning the application of this law and fines that can be imposed in default of compliance. The main purpose of governmental agencies is to make sure that there is no way to evade the new rules or misinterpret them. This will lay the ground for the successful outcome of the program.

Another obstacle, which should be surmounted, is the reluctance or inability of law enforcers, themselves to perform their duties (Harrington & Carter, 2009, p 267). It should be taken into consideration that local health departments may not have sufficient resources to see to this task as they may be understaffed. Certainly, these officials do want to stop smoking in public areas but they may have other issues to address. This is why it is vital for the authorities to give them some financial assistance so that their employees could monitor bars, restaurants, and other institutions which are liable to the non-smoking law. This strategy will leave practically no leeway for the violation of the smoking ban. At least, this possibility will be reduced to a minimum.

The authorities should also take into consideration the role of beneficiaries, in other words, the non-smoking visitors of restaurants, bars, etc. The thing is that they will also acquire certain rights when this law will take effect. For instance, they will be able to file a complaint or even issue a suit against a “food service establishment” or other institution which allows smoking in enclosed areas (the State of Michigan, 2009). Thus, their rights must be clearly articulated to them. In this way, the government may gain the support of these people. The local authorities should raise their awareness about this legislative bill and its implications for non-smokers.

On the whole, the outcome of such a campaign depends mostly on the active participation of beneficiaries (Miller & Jentz, 2009, p 91). It should be noted that regulated parties or the owners of restaurants do have some resources to avoid detection or to block the enforcement of the law, for example, by providing smoking rooms for the employees, or by saying that they do not bear any responsibility for the workers, who smoke in enclosed areas. This is actually one of the provisions of the new non-smoking law (the State of Michigan, 2009). It might be quite difficult to prove that they turn a blind eye to this misconduct without the testimony of other visitors. One cannot deny the fact that the local health department will be unable to supervise all public areas, and the role of whistle-blowers will become immense.

Sanctions against violators

David Rosenbloom enumerates various law enforcement techniques that can be used against those, who are reluctant to abide by the rules; they include financial penalties, cease-and-desist orders, industry guides, etc (2007, p 109). The main objective of administrative sanctions is to convince people that compliance with the law is more profitable than its violation. This law advocates the use of financial penalties, namely inobservance can entail a $ 100 fine whereas subsequent violation may result in more severe charges (the State of Michigan, 2009). Yet, we can also advocate the use of cease-and-desist orders. Their essence lies in the following: the governmental agency requests a private business to put an end to a certain activity (indulging), otherwise, this business may face a legal action like the suspense of license. The combination of these law enforcement techniques can produce a more profound effect. It will be more fruitful than mere compulsion.

External environment

The implementation of administrative law is hardly possible without a thorough analysis of the external environment. One of the major concerns is that the prohibition of smoking would result in considerable losses for many enterprises (Tollison & Wagner, 1992). One should not overlook the fact that the economies of many US regions rely on the manufacture of cigarettes. However, this misgiving is usually not justified as the products of tobacco companies usually enjoy considerable demand even despite the restrictions of the state. It is also hypothesized that a smoking ban would inflict a severe blow on food service establishments as they will be unable to retain a large portion of their target audience. Still, by prohibiting smoking in public areas, they may as well attract new customers, who prefer a smoke-free environment. They may even increase their profitability.

The only factor that requires scrutiny is the protests of smokers, themselves because this law infringes upon their rights and liberties. Therefore, it might be prudent to assign a certain area for them. This policy will not do harm to anyone elses health. There is very little probability that smoking will ever be eliminated in the United States and it is of crucial importance for the conflicting parties to reach a compromise.

Conclusion

Judging from this discussion, it is possible for us to conclude that the enforcement of Michigan non-smoking law can be effective under several indispensable conditions, in particular: 1) clarity of rules, 2) sufficient resources of law enforcers, themselves; 3) active participation of beneficiaries or non-smokers. Most importantly, effective implementations of this bill cannot be achieved without offering certain opportunities for the smoking population, whose needs should not be overlooked.

References

Harrington C.B & Carter L.K. (2008) Administrative Law and Politics: Cases and Comments. Washington:CQ Press.

Miller R.L. & Jentz A. (2009) Fundamentals of Business Law: Excerpted Cases. New York: Cengage Learning.

Rosenbloom D. 2003 Administrative law for public managers. NY: Westview Press.

State of Michigan. (2009) Enrolled House Bill No. 4377. Web.

Tollison R. & Wagner R. 1992 The economics of smoking. Munich: Springer.

Click Here To Order Now!