By Bill Burks

As a citizen and taxpayer, I also have a vision. My 'vision' foresees another 1,000+ DUI arrests over the next year while the council is busying itself with ignoring those costly health and public safety factors associated with alcohol. Given the fact this council wishes to accept congratulatory pats on the back for "protecting" public health and safety, they likewise share the blame when innocent people get injured, beaten, maimed and terminated by drunks. Fair enough?

Clearly, drinking alcohol, even in excess, has become a socially acceptable behavior. Why is that? Is it because 2 of 3 adults drink alcohol, or 1 in 12 adults are alcoholics, thus making it an "acceptable" risk? For those of you who like statistics, the cost of smoking related issues is $148 billion a year, and the cost of alcohol related issues is $184 billion a year. Based on those numbers, some of you will need to manufacture a different argument since you'll now be arguing against facts.

Last Sunday, there were 14 DUI's listed in the Independent, yesterday there 4 DUI arrests, and Saturday morning 6 more arrests for DUI. In less than a week, the score on my 'vision' is 24-0. I'll keep score between now and June 9th and report back on the Council's courage and vision.

Hall County ranked 2nd among the state in DUI arrests. That proves our officers do their job well. I would challenge you to ask any officer the following questions.

"How many domestic disputes have you responded to when the resident's had one too many cigarettes?" Then ask, "How many domestic disputes has he responded to that have been fueled by alcohol and placed him in danger?" Can you recall the last time you sent those close to you out the door by saying, "Be careful out there tonight, there's a lot of smokers on the road."

Its been said, "a true and outright conflict can only be said to arise when one enactment compels what the other forbids." "Ma'am, put the cigarette down and step out of the vehicle." "But, offither, I always crave a cigarette when I'm driving drunk." "Ma'am, the council members aren't concerned with your drunkenness, my job is to ticket smokers." You really think smoking is a health and public safety issue?

Why did the council feel the urgency to enact this bogus piece of local legislation a full year before the State? And why should the council not reconsider a grandfather clause for those establishments that wish to allow smoking, those had built successful, profitable, tax-paying businesses because their clientel enjoyed that atmosphere, smoke and all? I believe elected (and appointed) officials should keep their collective noses out of an owner's ability to run a legal business. Without question, those businesses were built because people enjoyed the atmosphere, those customers that disliked the smoke simply chose a different location.

I find it pathetic to read the phoney reasons given by some of the council members. "365 days of clean air," by Mr. Ramsey. Please. As you breathe the clean air over the next year, don't forget to apologize to the thousands of people in the interim who will have been abused, beaten, and violated due to your tacit approval of the drinking laws. Mr. Ramsey, your concern for the "rights of others" is laughable.

The obvious inability of Mrs. Haase to mask her utter disdain for smoking is not only deplorable, its bothersome to witness an elected official with that mind set. Not only were myself and others embarrassed by many of her recent comments, she outwardly displayed qualities that no elected official should possess. In fact, why doesn't she display some courage and tell the public exactly the course she'd like to take regarding the complete banning of tobacco? She obviously desires the total banishment of tobacco products in every scenario. In businesses, in vehicles, in a person's own front yard, even in a person's own home. Clearly, that's her intention, why doesn't she just state it publicly? Mrs. Haase, enlighten us to which minority group you'll choose to target next?

In the history of the U.S. Constitution, only one Amendment has ever been repealed. That Amendment being the prohibition on booze. It's not too late for this council to reconsider their premature ban on smoking. Wouldn't the more prudent, and certainly less combative solution be to follow the lead of the State? Otherwise, public outcry, criticism, and constant reminders of this council's motives will continue, as will political reprisals for the next 15 months.

Please be reminded, this is simply an examination of two social behaviors, and the manner in which people respond to them. The smoking ban is not a health issue, it is not a safety issue, it is a political issue. If you disagree, consider the outcry if the council decided to issue a ban on alcohol.