[Edit: Just to clarify, this is not about cell phones. This is about personal freedom. Comments should answer the more general question posed in paragraph two.]

I’m going to pose a question to my audience. It is a contentious, divisive question. It may well spawn some comment wars. In truth, I kind of hope it does. Not that I’m encouraging angry “flame wars.” But I would like to see some lively (yet courteous) debate. “Why?” you might ask. Because I’m undecided on the issue and I want to see the pros and cons offered. That’s what debate is all about, right?

So here’s the issue: Where do we draw the line between personal freedom and responsible governance?

A community here in the DFW metroplex has proposed an ordinance making it a ticketable offense to use a cell phone while driving in a school zone. Talk radio is all ablaze with the personal freedom crowd attacking the city. They call it a slippery slope. They equate it to smoking bans in liberal cities on both coasts. Some have brought up seat belt and helmet laws in the same context.

However, I dare say that 99% of those bawling about the cell phone ban are in favor of banning abortion and most would prefer our government close it’s iron fist around illegal immigrants.

The difference between a cell phone ban and abortion is, admittedly, elementary. But what I want to know is where is the line? If helmet laws invade our personal rights, what about speed limits? Driver’s licenses? Vehicle taxes? If anti-smoking laws are draconian, why not legalize pot? Cocaine? Meth?

Let’s hear it? After a few days, I’ll come revisit the issue, give my opinion, and try to sort out the best points from both sides.