Hole in the Wall
No Smoking, No Defecating
RECEIVED Fri., Nov. 7, 2003
Louis Black and I agree on a few things. We both don't care what kind of ads run in the Chronicle, and we both dislike cigarette smoke in Austin nightclubs ["Page Two," Nov. 7].
What we don't agree on is the smoking ban ordinance. Black sees it mainly as a personal freedom issue. I see it as a public health issue. The other interested party, the club owners, argued it as an economic issue and won. Let's be clear about that – if the club owners were certain that an all-out smoking ban wouldn't cut into club revenue, the ban would have passed in short order (does anyone really believe that Austin club-owners want their clubs to smell like cigarette smoke?). People would still be smoking outdoors, in their homes, and anywhere else where it doesn't affect other people, and life would simply be a lot healthier and pleasant for Austin clubgoers.
While I also generally agree with Black that there is "nothing progressive about supporting any ban on legal personal behavior," I don't agree with the implication that all such bans are necessarily regressive or bad. For example, taking a shit is clearly a right, yet Austin passed a 1990 ordinance banning urination and defecation in public places. I think that ban is a good thing because it's designed to make the environment healthier for others. It wasn't intended to impinge upon the rights of people who like to take dumps in the street, although that's clearly a side effect, and could be easily argued as the intent of the ordinance.
Similarly, the smoking-ban ordinance is about public health, not about the right to smoke.
What we don't agree on is the smoking ban ordinance. Black sees it mainly as a personal freedom issue. I see it as a public health issue. The other interested party, the club owners, argued it as an economic issue and won. Let's be clear about that – if the club owners were certain that an all-out smoking ban wouldn't cut into club revenue, the ban would have passed in short order (does anyone really believe that Austin club-owners want their clubs to smell like cigarette smoke?). People would still be smoking outdoors, in their homes, and anywhere else where it doesn't affect other people, and life would simply be a lot healthier and pleasant for Austin clubgoers.
While I also generally agree with Black that there is "nothing progressive about supporting any ban on legal personal behavior," I don't agree with the implication that all such bans are necessarily regressive or bad. For example, taking a shit is clearly a right, yet Austin passed a 1990 ordinance banning urination and defecation in public places. I think that ban is a good thing because it's designed to make the environment healthier for others. It wasn't intended to impinge upon the rights of people who like to take dumps in the street, although that's clearly a side effect, and could be easily argued as the intent of the ordinance.
Similarly, the smoking-ban ordinance is about public health, not about the right to smoke.
Jason Levitt
[Ed.'s Note: I didn't say banning behavior was necessarily bad. I did say it wasn't "progressive."]