It probably is a good thing that the Lawrence City Commission will have an extra week to think about a proposed ban on smoking in local bars and restaurants. Last Tuesday’s action may have been a bit hasty, and the high community interest in this issue demands a thoughtful and thorough approach to its resolution.

The commission voted last Tuesday to ask voters to decide whether the city should ban smoking in restaurants and bars. While the approach certainly is democratic, it has some drawbacks. First, the commission doesn’t have the authority to put the referendum on the ballot. That can only be done by a petition signed by 25 percent of Lawrence voters who voted in the last election. Given the interest in this issue, it seems likely the smoking ban proponents could gather the necessary 3,764 signatures fairly quickly.

The plan put forth at Tuesday’s meeting was to have city staff help draft the referendum petition. This might give the city some control over the actual question that would go on the ballot, but the final decision would be up to those who pass the petition. And if the referendum passes, the city would be stuck with that ordinance for 10 years even if it is found later to have flaws. Again, it’s pure democracy, but maybe not the best way to run a government.

Putting this referendum on the August ballot would trigger a contentious three-month battle on this issue, but it won’t change the facts. Medical evidence supports the need to shield people, including restaurant and bar employees, from the effects of secondhand smoke. Basic private property rights argue in favor of giving business owners the right to decide how to operate their businesses and whether to allow smoking on the premises. People who don’t like smoke can patronize establishments that do not allow smoking.

This is the kind of issue city commissioners are elected to decide. Sure, it’s a hot-button issue and whatever the commission decides will make someone unhappy. There’s nothing new about that. Other commissions have dealt with similarly contentious issues. The sexual orientation clause in the city’s human relations ordinance in 1995 comes to mind and, to an extent, the approval of a public transit system in 1999.

Both of those issues became hot election issues before they eventually were decided by the commission. If the current commissioners aren’t ready to make a decision on the smoking issue now, they can bet it will be an issue, perhaps even a deciding issue, in city elections next year.

A commission vote on the smoking issue doesn’t preclude additional public input if local residents feel strongly that the commission decision was a mistake. Whether the commission votes for or against a smoking ban, those who disagree can use the referendum process to try to overturn the decision.

It’s tempting to turn this issue — and many others, for that matter — over to a referendum vote, but that denies the whole principle of representative government. Commissioners are elected to represent what they see as the will of the community. If they are unwilling to do that because they know their decision will make someone angry, they really aren’t doing their job.