This is too much, isn't it?

I've railed before about the recently implemented Decatur smoking ban. It's not that I'm missing the second-hand smoke from restaurants and bars (in fact, that's a relief), but I still bristle over the manner in which the ban came about.

In case you've missed my earlier rants, ... The nuts and bolts version is that 3 of the 5 city councilmen decided they didn't like smoke in public places, so they banned it. No debate, no discussion. Actually that's not 100% accurate. 3 fer and 3 agin people were allowed to speak at the council meeting, but the "group of 3" had already stated that their minds were made up. One of them even had the audacity to say the whole motivation behind the ordinance was (I'm paraphrasing here) that he'd gotten tired of smelling smoke. I agree with him, but don't these 3 realize they were not elected to codify their personal likes and dislikes. I truly believe most of Decatur would have gotten behind some kind of ban if it had been presented in a less dictatorial fashion.

Anyway the ban is now in place and though some are still grumbling, life seems to be going on just about like before. Or so I thought. Evidently the "group of 3" isn't satisfied with the ability to decree lifestyle issues from on high. Not only must the city do as they say, but they're not even willing to let anyone criticize them:

Two weeks into Decatur's ban on smoking in public places, it appears members of the City Council don't want to hear — or read — complaints about the new ordinance, some residents say.

During a council meeting Monday, Council President Billy Jackson ordered four demonstrators to lose signs critical of the ordinance, claiming they constituted an unreasonable distraction for councilmen and others attending the meeting.

After a brief exchange, the demonstrators left the council chambers when Jackson requested the presence of Police Chief Kenneth Collier and refused to conduct further business until the signs were removed.

The big chief says the signs are an "unreasonable distraction", so he calls the police and refuses to conduct further business until they're gone?!?! How power-crazed is this guy? Well in his own words:

"If they were not willing to remove their signs in an orderly manner, then I was going to have to remove them. It's that simple," Jackson said after the meeting.

I found that statement chilling.

In reality, though, as I read the article I kept trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. Surely, I thought, he had something of a legitimate reason for removing the signs. And honestly, I've seen pretty big and bulky signs at sporting events and I do agree that some of them could be bothersome to other people sitting nearby -- maybe not enough that I think they should be banned, but I could at least see his justification. Then, though, I saw a picture of the signs.



I am beyond appalled.