Final Revision: Speech to the City Council

[ehowton]

I took speech class in high school, and again as part of the Air Force's Technical Training Instructor Course at the Officer Training School on the Medina Annex in San Antonio. I tell people I'm good at public speaking, but I must admit, I haven't spoken publicly in over a year. I know *how* to speak - at what volume and what speed when giving an oral presentation, and I know how to stand, and what to do with my hands. I know how to make eye-contact and where to place the emphasis in my paragraphs. I also expect the butterfly's and wavering voice to calm down once I get started, but during last night's presentation, that didn't happen.

I know all the people on the City Council, and the Mayor. I speak at length with them easily and confidently, and am friends with several of them. But put these same seven people behind a raised desk staring down at you as if in judgment while you're basically cautioning them against tyranny in the presence of the Chief of Police, and the City Lawyer, and I was sure I was going to be arrested for my inflammatory words.

Freedom can sound a lot like treason.

But sometimes the training really does just kick in. I approached the podium, and did what I had to do. Several individuals told me I was magnificent. For that, I am thankful, for I was unsure I could mask my nervousness. Simply put, I'm out of practice. One of my old managers from work (who also happens to live in our town) showed up to support me; I had requested his assistance on the speech. And while I initially fought against his advice (if you compare this speech to my first draft you'll notice its far less accusatory) the night before the meeting I incorporated some of his changes for the better...despite the fact that meant I no longer had it memorized. I'd like to thank him, and all of you for your support when I first posted it, as well as the Mayor and City Council for allowing me their time.

It will be printed in Friday's newspaper:

Being a lover of liberty means sometimes supporting activities I vehemently disagree with - thankfully, I'm never divided, because my agenda in these matters are without question: If it infringes upon personal freedom I am against it. Thankfully, we have you - a governing body, that being, a group of representatives chosen by the people to carry out the will of the people, insofar as it complies with county, state, and federal law.

While I agree the government has the right to impose such sanctions in City operated areas, and government facilities, that right ends at private enterprise. You may be familiar with the terms "free market society" and "capitalism." Our nation is built on these inherently self-regulating concepts. Loosely defined, it is not the government’s job, or place, to tell a private business how to operate. Freedom of choice is what makes this country work, it is this nation's founding ideals. In this day and age many incorrectly argue that they also have the right to go to a restaurant without being assaulted by smokers. That's not a right, its a choice - the same choice you are considering limiting with this proposal.

My personal opinion on smoking is irrelevant, as should be yours. Personal feelings of council members on this topic should never enter into the decision making process. If it is the people's will to make our community smoke-free, I refuse to argue against their choice to do so. But if the people are divided, I implore you to err on the side of freedom, for while you wield the power to deny us choice, I have placed my trust in you to exercise that power with discretion and responsibility. If this decision is not going to be put to the people, then it is imperative your own beliefs in sovereignty are discharged, for your actions will be heard by all.

It amused me that I wore the Union Jack upon my chest as I spoke about liberty.

Comments

Your Speech

[lesabre500.livejournal.com]

Hi Tom,

Well done. That was really well said and you made a great point. I hope they listen to you. Also, I totally agree with you about this topic. They just passed laws here in Ontario that makes it illegal for anyone to smoke in their vehicles if there are kids under 16 in the car. That, I can understand but the govt. is going way too far - they now want it to be illegal to smoke in any public place around here! Christ, some areas are talking about making it illegal to smoke in your apartment too!! So, if I can't smoke inside at my place or anywhere outside, what do they plan on doing? Probably cattle prod us smokers into giant bubbles to smoke and asphyxiate each other. This anti-smoking BS is getting way out of hand. Glad to hear someone stand up for themselves and others concerning this.

Talk to you later, I have to go for now.

Steve

Re: Your Speech

[ehowton.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately Steve, that someone is not always me. We all have our different motivations for taking action on various items, and this case was no different. I smoke cigars, and quite infrequently these days, as it turns out. I'm really not affected by the proposed smoking ban, and in fact would better enjoy a restaurant smoke-free. But that's obviously not the point.

And for the record:

schpydurx = Tom aka ProfessorTom (http://www.xanga.com/professortom)
lesabre500 = Steve (You)
ehowton = Eric (Me)

Re: Your Speech

[celtmanx.livejournal.com]

I was wondering when you were going to correct him Tommy!!!

Re: Your Speech

[lesabre500.livejournal.com]

Sorry about the mix-up with the ID's I figured it out the other day but made an error. I got messed up when I started going from link to -- I goofed!

Anyhow, about the smoking issue. I agree. I don't want to have my Mom's health compromised or any other person's for that matter, or have a restaurant filled with smoke like a pool hall. Your main concern was having the right for the "people" to decide on this and not have certain laws forced down our throats without due process being involved. I just got side-tracked with my reply. However, I still say you wrote a great presentation and I hope they take your suggestion seriously. For some crazy reason, I'm interested in the US Constitution and how it applies in situations like this. It's a lot more interesting than Canada's, it pops up more often and there's a lot of history involved with it.

Thanks for keeping me on my toes though. I have to remember to think before I speak.

Have a fun weekend

Steve

Re: Your Speech

[ehowton.livejournal.com]

No worries. Next we'll work on the 'whitespace' at the end of your comments.

[melancthe.livejournal.com]

In this day and age many incorrectly argue that they also have the right to go to a restaurant without being assaulted by smokers. That's not a right, its a choice - the same choice you are considering limiting with this proposal.

That's very nice and all, but I'm curious as to how you reconcile the general consensus on the ACTIVE dangers of PASSIVE smoking (I'm happy to provide a vast amount of research data on it in case you're desperate, but I think this is pretty well-accepted publicly) with this?

Surely freedom that infringes on the health of others is a false kind of freedom? To draw a comparison between other kinds of non-harmful freedoms and an actively harmful one like passive smoking is surely a fallacy?

(I'm querying specifically with regard to issues like being "assaulted by smokers" in places like restaurants.)

[ehowton.livejournal.com]

Thankfully, in this nation, we still have the choice to not patronize any place of business we don't want to, no matter the reason behind it.

[melancthe.livejournal.com]

You're not answering my questions. How is it about "freedom" when what you're doing is actively harmful to others? Saying that it's about choice is a fallacy: choice is having the freedom to, say, to wear red or blue (ie. a choice that harms no one). Your so-called "choice" involves actively harming others.

I can't stress the ACTIVE HARM part enough.

[wardlejew.livejournal.com]

I hate to admit this, but I have to stand behind ehowton on this one. I despise smoking. I despise alcohol. I despise drugs. I have personal reasons as well as religious reasons behind those feelings. I made the argument before on E's blog, "Where is the line drawn?" It is proven that drinking alcohol is the cause of death on the roads, the cause of abuse in the homes, and the destruction of families and lives. Honestly, I think alcohol does more damage to the innocent then second hand smoke. Should we ban drinking like we do smoking, because it is an ACTIVE HARM? I don't have the answers. But I agree with ehowton -- Error on the side of freedom? I can avoid the restaurants that allow smoking, or I can choose to HARM myself by going there. I have that freedom. I can't avoid the drunk drivers leaving the bars. They drive the same roads I do! Again, I don't know if I have the answers...

In short. I believe our country was founded on correct principals, and we must fight to preserve our freedoms, which sometimes means letting others do things I don't agree with.

[dentin.livejournal.com]

I think it's important to look at this in terms of matter of degree. Being around others in general is ACTIVELY HARMFUL to me; in particular, I get sick purely because I'm around other people. Further, if I didn't go driving, I wouldn't be at risk of being hit by other cars. All interaction with other people is dangerous at some level.

Yes, second hand smoke has an impact, but that impact varies greatly based on density and other factors. In Indiana, there's a Red Lobster that allows smoking, but has separate sections; being in the non-smoking section is still unpleasant due to the residual smell, however there's no visible smoke or haze. While annoying, to say that the second hand smoke in that location is more dangerous than the diseases of the sniffling children at the neighboring table is completely fraudulent. In my experience, this is typical of most restaurants that allow smoking.

My point is that we live in an actively harmful world simply by existing. This is a classic slippery slope, where the extreme of preventing all active harm results in an unusable world on the one hand, while the other extreme results in an unacceptably risky world on the other.

Where do you draw the line? Libertarian policies generally draw it farther toward active harm than socially protective policies, but both of them pick places to draw the line.

Personally, I think a lot of this 'active harm' crap will be going away in the future, and be replaced by 'compensated harm'. A big problem with harm right now is that a lot of it, health in particular, is irreversible. People fear smoking not because it does damage, but because it does -damage they cannot fix-.

In not very many years, cancer and a lot of other currently deadly medical problems will be manageable. Not very many years after that, they will be irritating yet trivial medical concerns, like cavities. When the damage from second hand smoke and low level nuclear radiation are be trivially dealt with at your yearly doctor visit, how relevant will this level of 'active harm' really be?

[ehowton.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, even the red & blue choice is being taken away from us. Many schools have implemented the "no red" or "no blue" policies, as some say it can be seen as an allegiance to gang activity, and in this politically correct world in which we live, active harm sadly extends to ones perceptions of offense.

As for the answer to your question, I'm not pushing for the freedom to harm others, rather, the freedom to harm yourself. If you are a private business owner, and you decide to open a 'smoking tent' as a place for smokers to congregate, you do not have the right to go in there and demand they stop. What you do have as a tool at your disposal is the right to not enter. And if you do, you've done so with informed consent.

[celtmanx.livejournal.com]

Exactly, it is the owner of the establishment's freedom to decide if there will be smoking or not. It is our freedom to decide if we want to patronize the establishment or not.

[dentin.livejournal.com]

An incidental tangent, unrelated to the main thread: at just what point -can- I go in there and demand that they stop?

- If it's a place where you can go to shoot up heroin, but where you get kicked out immediately afterward? What if it's some other as-yet-legal-but-still-horribly-addictive designer drug?

- If it's a hangout joint set up for people with strong pedophile tendencies to meet up with each other? What if those people have no illegal material, do not exchange any illegal material, and have no arrests/convictions?

- If it's an extremist terrorist training camp?

- If it's a place where TB-resistant people can go to get a good solid dose of TB with intent to become a carrier?

- If it's a conference on how to build the most deadly disease possible that can be weaponized and is resistant to all currently known treatments?

At what point do you personally draw the line? Even the TB one is questionable - TB is rarely fatal, but it is incurable and irritating. At what point does the mere irritation of others override your "freedom to operate" limits?

[ehowton.livejournal.com]

The majority of your examples I don't see as victimless activities, (most sound like they would fall under existing conspiracy laws) which are going to carry more weight in any society.

[celtmanx.livejournal.com]

Most of your examples illustrate people that I would likely line up against a wall and shoot if my freedom to do so was not illegal.

[ehowton.livejournal.com]

Yes, that was his point. Some people feel that way about smokers, hence the question of demarcation.

[wardlejew.livejournal.com]

Let's face it those examples have spill over into society at a greater level than smoking. Smoke coming out of the place doesn't effect society very much. The rough line is "taking away someones freedom"(with or without intention)

But what about the more simple case of a place to get drunk? This does spill out into society.

[thesweetestnote.livejournal.com]

HOORAY!!!!! :D

[drax0r.livejournal.com]

I know this will come off as being trite, and I'd love to take a little more ink to respond, but I don't want to step on the novel E is writing in response.

In short: Nobody is forcing anyone to be exposed to smoke. None of the establishments within the scope of this argument are places where citizens are forced to go to conduct business.

This issue is not about the harms of smoking, it is about choice; the choice of businesses to set their own policy and the choice of the consumer to expose themselves to that 'harm'.

Everyone who walks into the smoky truck stop diner does so with informed consent to expose themselves to second-hand smoke.

With a vast majority of restaurants choosing to be smoke-free anyway, I think it's safe to say that they go to that diner because it's one of the last holdouts that allow them to dine as they like.

This is not a situation the government needs to involve itself in. The system is inherently self-regulating.

[ehowton.livejournal.com]

You can steal my thunder any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

[thesweetestnote.livejournal.com]

I'm gonna be a little booger here...lol. But red and blue inks are harmful to the environment. Gets into everything like our water supply eventually. Nothing's safe.

Drink Monster!

Irony

[ehowton.livejournal.com]

A MONSTER a day keeps the monsters away.

[thisbeliz1983.livejournal.com]

Your right, he didn't answer your question. Let me take a stab at it, though I think the comments preceding mine have done an excellent job. You can CHOOSE to patronize a place of business. You cannot CHOOSE to go to DMV every year or so to register your vehicle. For businesses, its a choice of economics. If you run a family friendly business that sees a lot of parents with young children patronizing your establishment, of course you will at least severely curtail if not ban smoking altogether in your establishment. However, if you run an establishment that sees more adult traffic (such as a bar, high end restaurant, etc.) then being more accepting of smoking in your establishment may benefit you financially.

Let me explain. There are many many people where I live (the beautiful state of CA) that smoke when they drink. Its a hassle to go outside, 20 feet away from the entrance to any building in order to smoke, AND you can't bring your drink with you, which means one of two things is going to happen. The first is you will consume less alcohol, which cuts into the bottom line of the establishment. The second more severe option (at least for the bar) is you will throw a party in the privacy of your own home where smoking is still legal and the bar will see NO profit from you or your friends, which can add up into the hundreds or even thousands of dollars each night. That is a lot of money lost, all because business owners are not given the freedom to run their own business.

Now don't get me wrong, I get the idea that second hand smoke is harmful, but it all goes back to YOUR choice to not patronize an establishment because of their policies. We live in a supply and demand world. If a bar, restaurant, etc sees a drop in sales due to a relaxed smoking policy, they will react accordingly. But the problem I have is it shouldn't be the government's decision, it should be the decision of the people who made the financial investment to start with.

[celtmanx.livejournal.com]

AWESOME SPEECH!!!

[ehowton.livejournal.com]

Thank you sir. As the President of the Chamber of Commerce said, "You could almost hear the patriotic music playing in the background."

[wardlejew.livejournal.com]

Well said. It is about the principle our nation is founded on. Our political leaders forget that way too much.

[ehowton.livejournal.com]

Thank you. I was nervous reminding them, however.

[scareypete.livejournal.com]

I have argued this many times as well, Infact If you dig a year or so back in my journal there is discussion of Last years proposed state wide ban on smoking in Virginia, that was over turned 2 weeks before it went active.

This Year the State of Virginia once again Passed an Anti-Smoking Ban It goes Active in December. I hope in the next 9 months people can deluge the gov't with requests that they respect the private property rights of the owners of establishments. Within the free market system you can effect change without using the governments Muscle to do their dirty work and fucking it up for all.

You and I are in complete accord on this though. I can't stand cigarette smoke. But I do love a good cigar once or twice year and I want that good cigar in a relaxing environment with a scotch and a Guinness.

Of course I also like Hookah. Although lately I have found that my smoking is more of an abdominal inhale than lung inhale and that much sweet hookah smoke is making me sick to my stomach far sooner than it used to.

But it is the government barging into our private property and saying gee you can't do this, you're going to jail or forfeiting large sums of money.

[ehowton.livejournal.com]

I hear its on the table in Texas as well. Perhaps I need to address the state next?

[scareypete.livejournal.com]

Yeah "Live Free or Die" New Hampshire banned public smoking in 2007. The Last hold outs of individual rights are being wiped 2-3 states per year.

[thesweetestnote.livejournal.com]

Great speech! If you ever run for office let me know. I'll wear the shirt.

They need to leave the bars and clubs alone. Restaurants are understandable. And I can certainly understand the "not smoking in the car with the kids" thing. That's just common sense. But the whole second hand smoking thing... na. There are more toxins in the environment we interact with everyday. The water is fucked and just driving to work exposes us to mass amounts of exhaust. There's shit sorry, pesticides and "enhancement" crap in the fruits and vegetables, the cows are on steroids, the chickens too. They tell you "free-range" - whatever that means. Too me just text on a package. So if I wanna light up... let me and walk away and go inhale some of that awesome clean city air. I promise to not do so if it's against the rules... but FOR PETE"S SAKE! Gimme a place to do so!!! In my car alone, a bar or in my backyard seem ideal.

Why am I thinking George Carlin at this moment?

Peace Out!

[ehowton.livejournal.com]

Great speech!
Thanks.

Restaurants are understandable.
I don't agree, and this was the entire reason for my presentation.

They tell you "free-range" - whatever that means. Too me just text on a package.
Yes. Unfortunately the FDA has stepped in and now allows certain levels of irradiated items be listed as 'organic.'

[thesweetestnote.livejournal.com]

Forgive. I was being biased due to the fact that even I'm a smoker, I hate to have smoke/smell around my grub. But I do understand it comes down to choice. I walk into the "Steak Shack" and it's smokey, I'm not gonna sit down and bitch about it.

Andrew Dice Clay said it best:
"Either you suck dick, or you do not suck dick"

[glodowg.livejournal.com]

It was professional, to the point and very profound. You did an amazing job. I expected nothing less!

[ehowton.livejournal.com]

Thank you so much for saying so! I often wonder what you're thinking behind that cool, calm exterior. Ooooh! Speaking of, LOVE the new glasses! I was trying to describe them to catttitude and she was all like, "Yes, I know. I was there." Oh. Right.

[joey-glover.livejournal.com]

impressive. truly articulate.

[ehowton.livejournal.com]

Thanks dude. I try.