Seeing through mist of oil derricks will be vapid exercise

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. -- It's not crazy to ask voters whether to ban offshore oil drilling in Florida's waters.

And it's not crazy to ask voters whether to expand the ban on indoor smoking to include vaping.

But it is crazy to ask both those questions in one take-it-or-leave it ballot measure.

Welcome to Crazyville. This week, the Florida Constitution Revision Commission, which meets every 20 years to update and theoretically improve the state constitution, is lumping offshore drilling and indoor vaping in one ballot question for November.

It's a good tactic if you want both measures to fail.

Rather than let each question live or die on its own merits, the 37-member commission has muddied the waters and clouded the issues -- both literally and figuratively -- by getting vaping voters to suddenly have a reason to be more tolerant of the environmental dangers that oil derricks pose a couple miles off Florida's beaches.

Ballot amendments are supposed to be about a single issue, and I guess you can say that e-cigarette vapors and offshore oil extraction are both about "emissions." But there's a big gulf (or is it Gulf?) between crude oil wiping out miles of tourist beaches and being in a room with somebody's raspberry-scented water-misted exhalations.

It's safe to say that the potential dangers of inhaling second-hand vape mist is far less conclusive than a repeat of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill -- this time much closer to shore.

"Although more research is required, current evidence regarding passive exposure to electronic cigarette vapors shows the potential for health impacts," concluded a 2016 study published by Public Health Study Research and cited in the Florida measure's legislative review. "Those passively exposed to the vapors of electronic cigarette users are exposed to numerous pollutants at levels above background and at concentrations that are associated with potential adverse health effects."

What about second-hand ballot confusion? Isn't this polluting democracy in a harmful and unnecessary way? Voters shouldn't have to face whether to sort out these odd-couple issues at the end of a long ballot that will pick the state's next governor, a highly contested U.S. Senate race and voter-generated initiatives on expanding voting rights, casino gambling and the homestead tax exemption.

Voters will already be punch-drunk by the time they confront this dog's breakfast of unrelated issues shoehorned into confusing 75-word explanations at the end of the November ballot.

The vaping-oil drilling measure isn't the only strange pairing engineered by the revision commission. There's another ballot amendment doozy that hamstrings public universities from raising their fees in the same measure that expands death benefits to the families of first responders killed in the line of duty.

Good luck finding a common thread in those two issues.

In another irrelevant pairing, if you want to vote for expanding the rights of the families of crime victims, by guaranteeing that they will be notified before key court hearings, you must also vote for raising the retirement age of judges in Florida from 70 to 75.

And in another, if you like the idea of requiring civics education in public schools you also have to give the state the power to circumvent local school boards to establish more charter schools.

Why stop there?

The Florida Constitution Revision Commission could even be more creative.

How about a constitutional amendment that bans tattoos to minors being paired with a requirement for spring-training pay for minor league ballplayers in Florida? After all, they're both "minor" issues.

Or what about a constitutional amendment that establishes a tax deduction for breast implants while preventing future Florida Constitution Revision Commissions from giving us two things to consider at the same time?

Oh, wait a second. On second thought, the linkage on that last one is pretty clear.

Frank Cerabino writes for The Palm Beach Post. Email: fcerabino(at)pbpost.com.

Story Filed By Cox Newspapers

For Use By Clients of the New York Times News Service