Lighting up in East Ridge

So many over-the-top tobacco bans have been imposed around the United States in recent years that it is possible to lose sight of situations in which such bans are appropriate.

Marin County, Calif., for example, has just banned smoking in privately owned condominium and apartment complexes.

That goes too far in the direction of the nanny state. The flimsy pretext for the ban is that smoke might escape one apartment and enter another apartment whose tenants do not smoke. That issue could be settled by the free market, with tenants who are so inclined avoiding renting in apartment buildings that allow smoking or that have units that are inadequately insulated from adjacent residences. If landlords lose much revenue as a result, they will have a natural market incentive to limit or eliminate smoking in their facilities. They don't need the heavy hand of government to do that for them.

The city of East Ridge, meanwhile, is taking a much more sensible look at smoking.

It is considering a full or partial ban on tobacco use on city property. That is well within the city's rights, and East Ridge is looking at the ban for a variety of mostly sound reasons.

It obviously would reduce sanitation costs if smokers were not leaving cigarette butts strewn around city buildings and parks. It is also sensible for the city to seek lower health insurance costs for city employees, and one way to foster those lower costs is to forbid smoking by employees when they are at work.

Some of the justifications for the possible ban are a little more dubious. It seems a tad overblown to cite the perils of secondhand smoke in large, open parks, for instance.

But overall, East Ridge has valid cause to consider barring tobacco use on government property.

And it will not become part of the problem of the ever-expanding nanny state if it chooses to do so.

Upcoming Events