Don't get me wrong here: I'm no friend of smoking. I think it's a filthy habit, and I don't want anyone doing it around me. But I also believe that we live in a country where most freedoms are valued - even the freedom to be stupid. I think folks should have the right to do what they want to do, as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others, and as long as they're willing to pay the full cost of doing so.
But anyhow, I was thinking to myself, that for the council to just "punt" this to the voters to me shows a lack of political courage.
So knowing that our newly elected Councilman Lathan Watts recently opposed extending our drinking hours here in Lewisville, dismissing it with an almost puritanical "nothing good happens after midnight", I guess I figured he would be for passing this ordinance.
I suppose I need to work on not judging people.
As it turns out, Lathan Watts and I agree almost 100% on this one issue. Here are his comments from The Leader:
"This is what they elected us for"
"I voted against spending taxpayer money to put the issue of a smoking ban on the November ballot because I believe the democratic process and the representative form of government we have places the responsibility for this decision and others like it in the hands of the mayor and city council who ultimately answer to the voters via elections. If there is a broad support for a smoking ban in Lewisville, the supporters should voice their desires to their councilmen to propose an ordinance. Then we could have a public forum at the next council meeting to hear public comment and take a recorded vote on the issue."
"If citizens were displeased with my vote or any other council members’ votes, they could make that clear both at the meeting and at the ballot box the next time we face re-election. Moreover, any ordinance passed by the council can be repealed by the citizens of Lewisville via petition process. I am fully aware that a vote ‘for’ or ‘against’ a smoking ban in Lewisville would displease a large portion of the population, and it would be easy for me to avoid this tough decision by passing the buck to a general election, but very rarely is the right thing to do the easy thing to do. I also think it sets a bad precedent for the council to abdicate its responsibility when an issue is controversial."
...
"As a citizen, I would encourage places of business to go to a smoke free environment by speaking to the manager or writing a letter or placing a phone call; however, as a councilman, I cannot legislate my preference to every restaurant owner in town. Each business owner knows his customer base better than I do and which business model will be most successful. I do not think that government should mandate one business model to an entire industry. Free market principles will settle this issue through consumer demand without government interference."
Wow. Now you know that I disagree with a lot of our Young Republican friend's philosophies, but I think he hit the nail on the head here.
First, the issue itself: Although during the years of Republican domination of our Federal government, we've somewhat gotten used to the false argument that certain extremely complex problems will be solved by the free market, this is truly a case where it will. The question is whether to ban smoking in restaurants and bars. I think doing so would be a bad move. Regulating? Sure. Banning? No. Like Lathan, I prefer a non-smoking environment. And a restaurant gets only one chance with me. Fortunately, we just don't have a problem here in Lewisville, and any non-smoker that wants a smoke-free environment has choices.
Secondly, although I do think that there is occasionally good reason for a city to take an issue to the voters, or for voters to demand to be heard, I do think that punting this to the voters shows a lack of courage and decisiveness. If there is an issue that is just so controversial that you feel it necessary to get the voters buy-in, then you need to talk to more constituents. If you're still in doubt, make the executive decision to go with freedom.
Although I don't buy the argument that an election wastes taxpayer dollars - at least not in this case, since there is already an election scheduled, and we would be splitting the costs with the county, I do agree with Lathan ON THIS ONE THING, and I don't mind saying so.
I now say this, not in judgment of Lathan, but of my own luck at influencing anything at the city level: Now that I've said this, you can almost bet there will be an election, and that majority rule will trump minority freedom. Somebody please make me eat my words - or at least smoke them.
Okay, I'm gonna take the bait and be the anti-smoking Nazi here... I think local governments SHOULD ban smoking in all public places. Smoking is indeed a nasty habit, and one that affects others in the form of second hand smoke and smelly cigarette odor. If I walk into a restaurant or bar that allows smoking, I have to go home, change clothes and shower in order to not smell like nasty cigarette smoke. Now, like most non-smokers, I'm a good sport about this, and so I don't complain. After all, lots of people have come to associate bars with smoking and therefore have come to expect that this is just part of the deal with going to certain bars and restaurants. Some places have always been smoky, and so it seems like an unfair intrusion for the government to come in and force changes by telling bar-owners that they can't allow it.
However, I personally think that the current system of putting the burden on the majority of non-smokers to accomodate smoking is unreasonable. Nobody should have to work in a smoking environment, and I think it's unreasonable that cigarette smokers should just expect other people to put up with thier nasty habit. If I went around flinging poo at people, or farting in people's faces, nobody would argue that I was doing something that was not only nasty, but that shouldn't be allowed in public. So why do smoker's get a free pass? I think it's because over time we've come to accept it as normal and okay. But really it's not. Now, I don't think it's necessarily the government's role to protect us from ourselves, but I do think they should be protecting us from the bad behavior of others.
Anti-smoking Nazi out!
Poster
Thread
Anonymous
Posted: 2007/8/30 22:21 Updated: 2007/8/31 7:18
Re: Sorry guys!
I agree but lets take it a step further and ban alcohol also. maybe then we wouldn't have to smell like what some drunk jerk is drinking and spilling on us. And maybe just maybe the DWI rate would fall. Drunk drivers would not kill our loved ones or drive off with the body stuck in the car with them and say they didnt know they hit something. But I guess that will never happen.
Poster
Thread
Anonymous
Posted: 2007/8/27 13:03 Updated: 2007/8/27 15:33
The REAL Issue Behind this Proposed Ordinance
Mr. Southwell, I congratulate you on your integrity in showing your agreement with my good friend, Lathan Watts. He does (and you also) have this one right. Council members should have the guts to take this one on and reap what they sow from it. I am glad at least one of the members sees his job that way.
Poster
Thread
Anonymous
Posted: 2007/8/28 11:06 Updated: 2007/8/28 18:28
Our republic
Since we live in a republic, and not a democracy as we so often confuse, we elect representatives to take care of government business. Thus, city councils and on up are the folks we send to take care of the important stuff while we sit at home and eat pie. Nobody should have to vote on city ordinances. It is a waste of money to hold votes on every little item that comes up, unless of course a petition movement is created that would deem it necessary. The Lewisville council just needs to own up and vote on the ordinance themselves instead of wasting your city's money holding additional elections.
The Calendar
Our Polls
Our Videos
Our Podcasts
On The Facebook
In the Twitter
Country Radio
This past Wednesday, on the way to my office, I picked up a copy of the Lewisville Leader, and saw the headline 
Sorry guys!
Re: Sorry guys!
