The smoking ban and the ballot box

Philadelphia City Councilman Michael Nutter doesn't ask for the smoking section when he goes out to dinner. And soon enough, no one else in the city will either, thanks to a bill to which the Council is expected to give final approval today. It's good to see someone looking out for the thousands of employees who work in restaurants and bars in the city. There are obvious health concerns associated with spending an eight-hour workday in a closed environment full of second-hand smoke. Proponents of the ban point to this as the main reason people shouldn't be lighting up during a meal. Oh, and the fact that it is a common courtesy to others. So long as Mayor John Street does not throw a hissy fit over the bill --ÿhe has threatened to veto the measure, saying it has been too severely weakened by amendments -- the antismoking bunch will have their way. Restaurants will kick the habit beginning the first of the year, while bars will have until January 2008 to comply. Chalk up a win for cleaner air, but what about the restaurateurs who just want to cater to their customers' demands? Shouldn't people be able to run their business as they see fit? Who are 10 members of the City Council -- that's how many supported the bill on its first passage, while seven were opposed -- to dictate what can and cannot be done in a private establishment? Alas, the stumbling block for the smoking ban that seemed like a no-brainer. Darn individual liberties getting in the way again. The ban is a terrific idea as a matter of policy -- I'd rather not have to deal with smoke when eating out -- and should be enacted. But the dissolution of liberty as a matter of principle should not be left in the hands of a group that could fit around one dinner table. The way this tobacco drama is playing itself out in Philadelphia is a mirror image of what has already happened in many major cities across America as well as eight states, including California and New York. Legislative bodies have taken it upon themselves to police the air. And in the case of something as petty as cigarettes, that's going a bit too far. Yes, the health risks associated with the workplace exist, but there are also risks to operating heavy machinery, and the government is certainly not going to eliminate backhoes. Smoking is not an issue that should be decided by government officials. Instead -- here's a novel idea -- the people should decide. Put the smoking ban to a vote. Polls conducted earlier this year have shown support for a ban -- after all, less than one quarter of Americans smoke. Chances are, Philadelphians would approve restrictions on public smoking if they were placed on the ballot this November. Then at least we can all know that limits to our freedom stemmed from democratic means. If Councilman Nutter were to seek a public vote up or down on the ban, he could present the case for the original measure, which was pronounced dead on arrival back in March. Since then, a delicate process of backscratching has produced the amended bill that will be voted on today, and in the process, some of the teeth have been taken out, thus Street's whining. So throw it out. Start over with the original no-smoking ordinance and let the people, not the council, decide. A public vote would not be original. Just last month, voters in Austin, Texas, approved a no-smoking measure. While the vote was tight, 52 percent to 48 percent, it had the support of roughly 33,000 people. Some difference compared to 10 City Council members. And Austin's bill goes further than what is proposed in Philadelphia. Clubs and other private establishments which would be exempt from the ban here must be smoke-free in the Texas capital. Other states are considering similar votes as well. A group is pushing to get Initiative 901 on the November ballot in Washington state. The statewide ban would supplement efforts that have already been successful in several counties. Antismoking advocates are doing the same thing in Ohio, where bans exist in 14 cities. Cutting out the smoke in restaurants and bars has worked elsewhere and has generally not led to a decline in business -- New York and California have seen continued growth in the restaurant business -- granted, there exists little causal relationship. It makes the workplace safer and the environment more pleasant for the majority of customers. It is something that should happen here in Philadelphia, but it is not a measure that should be watered down and rammed through City Council. A smoking ban should be a ballot initiative in this November's election, and voters should support it.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.