Praising the virtues of passing special education millage, smoking ban. Questioning the logic of children hunting
Musings on the news of the past week:
No taxpayer revolt here. Not in Washtenaw County, anyway, on the issue of a special education millage renewal. We congratulate local educators for the strong, informative campaign they ran in favor of the renewal. But even more, we congratulate taxpayers for their show of support for crucial funding in support of programs that serve children with special needs. School districts didn’t even want to think about what the impact on their budgets would be if this request had been voted down. They had some $14 million in stake. But as election results came in last Tuesday night, their worries faded. Voters approved the renewal by a wide margin, 77 percent to 23 percent. In these difficult economic times, no millage request, even a renewal, is no sure thing. However, this area has a long history of supporting special education, and it is gratifying to see that continues to be the case. The request was a modest one that taxpayers already were paying, and they made it clear that they valued continued services to the most vulnerable part of the student population over a tiny savings on their tax bills. Good for them, and good for our schools.
If we made a list of all things that need to be reformed in the state of Michigan, the minimum hunting age for children wouldn’t be one of them. That’s why we’re more than a little mystified to see lawmakers in Lansing considering a proposal that would allow children of any age to hunt with a firearm. Current law allows a child between the age of 10 and 12 to receive an apprentice license and hunt with a firearm as long as he or she is accompanied by a licensed adult. That seems reasonable and appropriate to us. But Senate Bill 207 would eliminate the minimum age requirement in favor of a new “mentored’’ youth licensing program. We doubt there are many people in Michigan who would consider it a legislative priority to get 7-year-olds out in the woods with firearms, though there probably are some who could handle a weapon responsibly under the guidance of a parent. We’d say the Legislature ought to leave the age limit right where it is and turn its attention to the many, many more important issues it has before it right now.
Where there’s smoke - there’s a health risk. That’s why smoking was banned in Michigan restaurants and bars last year, and as we recently passed the one-year anniversary of the ban, public health experts continue to herald it as an important step forward. Kenneth Warner, a public health professor at the University of Michigan who has studied tobacco policy since the 1970s, told AnnArbor.com last week that it’s quite possible there’s “no general source of environmental pollution as dangerous to so many people’’ as second-hand smoke. While the ban has generally been well-received in Ann Arbor, the Michigan Restaurant Association continues to advocate against it, and would still like to see it repealed. It says it recently surveyed 300 of its members, and about 100 of them said the smoking ban has hurt their business. Tenuous as the economy continues to be, if some restaurants are seeing slower business, we question how much of that can be directly traced to a prohibition on smoking. The restaurant industry is welcome to continue to measure the impact of the smoking, but one year in, we continue to think it’s good public policy and see no cause to talk about repealing or revising it.
Comments
catfishrisin
Mon, Apr 30, 2012 : 2:36 p.m.
Harleyrider...is there any science you don't consider "junk science"?
Elno Lewis
Sun, May 8, 2011 : 3:12 p.m.
"Kenneth Warner, a public health professor at the University of Michigan who has studied tobacco policy since the 1970s, told AnnArbor.com last week that it's quite possible there's "no general source of environmental pollution as dangerous to so many people'' as second-hand smoke." Based on HIS opinion? Yeah, right. It seems this guy should be able to back this up with some factual data--but we just get his opinion. He's a policy guy, not a scientist--why does his opinion even count? I am not in favor of smoking, but there are lot of things killing us faster than second hand smoke (and it has yet to be proven that second hand smoke is even killing anyone) that we do nothing about. Fear mongers. They get us into wars. They get corrupt politicians elected. They profit. And the general population continues being suckers for them...
Harleyrider Davidson
Mon, May 9, 2011 : 11:17 a.m.
He gave an opinion because theres no FACTUAL BASED evidence that second hand smoke harms or kills anyone...........In fact the EPA report was tossed as JUNK SCIENCE by a federal court and 2 congressional independent comittees. What we do have going on is a Tobacco control created public health threat! CALLED PROHIBITION!!
Harleyrider Davidson
Mon, May 9, 2011 : 11:14 a.m.
All this is in a small sealed room 9×20 and must occur in ONE HOUR. For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes "For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes "Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes. Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up. "For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes. So,OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets : Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA
Harleyrider Davidson
Mon, May 9, 2011 : 11:13 a.m.
They have created a fear that is based on nothing Prof. Philip Even, recently retired director of Paris's renowned Necker Institute, has now, as "a free man," given an interview to Le Parisien about secondhand smoke. Linked and translated by CAGE Canada at: <a href="http://cagecanada.homestead.com/InterviewWithPrEven.html" rel='nofollow'>http://cagecanada.homestead.com/InterviewWithPrEven.html</a> -- "There are about a hundred studies on (passive smoking and lung cancer)… 40% claim a total absence of harmful effects. The remaining 60% estimate that the cancer risk is multiplied by 0.02 for the most optimistic and by 0.15 for the more pessimistic … Clearly, the harm is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low. ... (Heart disease) the four main causes are obesity, high cholesterol, hypertension and diabetes. To determine whether passive smoking is an aggravating factor, there should be a study on people who have none of these four symptoms. But this was never done…. For asthma, it is indeed a contributing factor ... but not greater than pollen! ... The 2002 report says that serious health risks are now proven, but without showing the evidence. Where are the data? What was the methodology? It's everything but a scientific approach. It was creating fear that is not based on anything. ... The anti-smoking campaigns and higher cigarette prices having failed, they had to find a new way to lower the number of smokers. By waving the threat of passive smoking, they found a tool that really works: social pressure. In good faith, non-smokers felt in danger and started to stand up against smokers. ..."
DBlaine
Sun, May 8, 2011 : 7:39 p.m.
"Based on HIS opinion? Yeah, right..." Well Elno, given that's he's a professor of public health, his opinion is informed by his knowledge of, let's see, perhaps public health... If you'd like to go spend several decades studying public health, then you too can be an expert. Until then...
jcj
Sun, May 8, 2011 : 2:19 p.m.
@ David and ERMG This year hunters in southern lower Michigan could purchase up to 5 antler-less deer licenses per day with no season limit. Lowering the age limit will have no affect whatsoever on deer population. But will give a few who are ready the opportunity to join their fathers/mothers in an age old sport. I have been a hunter since age 8. That's 53 years. Lowering the age to anything below 8 years old is not necessary and in most cases not safe. Right now a 10 year old can hunt deer with a bow but not with a gun until 12 years old. I would like to see the gun/bow age minimum both at 10 years for deer and and the small game age set at age 8.
jcj
Sun, May 8, 2011 : 4:03 p.m.
Good Luck and Good Day!
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, May 8, 2011 : 3:37 p.m.
Thanks for the info. Though I'm very familiar with the operation of an M16 and old enough not to need the course, I ought take one anyway. My wife and I will be on a one-couple mission to reduce the population of these flying rodents. Good Night and Good Luck
jcj
Sun, May 8, 2011 : 3:29 p.m.
You may want to look at some of the info on the DNR site. <a href="http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10363_10859---,00.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10363_10859---,00.html</a> Hunter safety is required if you were born after January 1, 1960 and you want to purchase any Michigan hunting license,
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, May 8, 2011 : 3:15 p.m.
Thanks for the info. I'm off to buy a gun--seriously. Unfortunately, apparently, I can't hunt from the comfort of my backyard deck? Good Night and Good Luck
jcj
Sun, May 8, 2011 : 2:59 p.m.
ERMG There are two goose hunting seasons in southern Michigan. Oct. 9 to Nov. 14 and Dec. 4-11 Daily bag limit - 2 The problem you may or may not be up against is you must be 450' from a dwelling.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, May 8, 2011 : 2:50 p.m.
Thanks for the info on the antlerless license--had not idea--obviously not a hunter. But will become one the day I can shoot Canadian Geese--SERIOUSLY!!!! And thanks for acknowledging this has nothing to do with managing the deer population. Good Night and Good Luck
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, May 8, 2011 : 1:46 p.m.
"As I understand it, the hunting age bill is an attempt to increase the number of hunters." So let me understand the logic. Do we really believe that a family who would put a weapon (hunting or otherwise) in the hand of a six-year old would not do the same when the child turns ten? Yeah, right. Or that the number of deer kills will go up substantially because six year-olds will be able to hunt? Yeah, right. BTW, JFK, Elvis, and Osama are all in Roswell, New Mexico, too. If the purpose of this is to better regulate the deer population, I have a simpler solution: allow hunters to bag more than one and issue more doe permits. And, while we're at it, can we have a Canadian Goose season? Good Night and Good Luck
David Briegel
Sun, May 8, 2011 : 2:49 p.m.
I detest the filthy, fouling fowl, geese!
David Briegel
Sun, May 8, 2011 : 1:38 p.m.
Tony, Rare is the day that I would find myself agreeing with you on any 3 issues but today is a pleasant exception. The smoking ban and more importantly, the school funding issue are fine examples of progress for the good of society. You might mention the irony of our home town nerd, your favorite nerd, being completely out of step with 77% of his constituents! My only concern is the overabundance of deer. There must be a way to allow for greater harvesting without letting 4 yr olds hunt! Maybe the laws limiting the harvest should be examined, but then, what would the DNR agents have to do?
jcj
Sun, May 8, 2011 : 1:25 p.m.
@KJMClark Very well said! @Tony Just curious how many days you have spent in the woods hunting? How many kids of any age have you taken hunting? How about making a list of ALL of the worthless proposals before the lawmakers? About 1 year ago then State Sen. Bruce Patterson introduced legislation that would establish a state licensing board for journalists. I think that is a great idea. How about you?
David Briegel
Sun, May 8, 2011 : 4:31 p.m.
Tony, I'm like you in the hunting realm. I've shot at a few things and never killed anything but time! I could hit a target or a bottle but that's about all! I may join Ghost but unfortunately I suspect the geese will be safe!
Tony Dearing
Sun, May 8, 2011 : 3:22 p.m.
I hunted with my dad when I was a kid, although I don't remember exactly how old I was the first time he took me hunting or what the law was back then. I enjoyed the hunting and the time with my father, but as a child, what I had no patience for was all the work involved in cleaning guns and keeping them properly maintained when you got home. My dad was a stickler for that. My brother had more interest in that than I did, and he stuck with it, but I didn't. I'm not sure time or space would permit a list of all the worthless proposals before the Legislature, but we've editorialized on a number of them, and will continue to occasionally.
KJMClark
Sun, May 8, 2011 : 12:24 p.m.
As I understand it, the hunting age bill is an attempt to increase the number of hunters. The DNR doesn't have that many ways to control the deer population - hunting is the primary control. But the deer population has been increasing faster than the hunter population. It isn't so much that they want young kids hunting as that they want to remove barriers to responsible hunting. They think there are some kids, who grow up in hunting families, who could be ready younger than 10. This is a bigger issue in the vast majority of the state that's more rural and suburban. Car/deer crashes are a constant problem. Most of us in urban areas never think of slowing down around sunset, but in rural areas you have to think twice about buzzing down the road when the deer are moving.
Ricebrnr
Sun, May 8, 2011 : 12:44 p.m.
Thank you for pointing this out. Far be it for the so called journalists and editors of this rag to leave the comforts of their offices or city limits to get the full scope of an issue before injecting their elitist urban and narrow viewpoints into it. The issue may be trivial to them but it was important to someone anf it is often in the little things that any progress and attention is made. The character of our elected officials does not only reside in alleged big issues.