But before the City Council decides to pass a law banning smoking in city-owned outdoor spaces, it should re-examine a couple of things.

One is that there is little scientific information linking secondhand smoke in outdoor places with disease. Though the U.S. Surgeon General has concluded that any exposure to secondhand smoke is not healthy, there are few studies that quantify the risk from being near a smoker outdoors.

If there were scientific evidence establishing a demonstrable relationship between secondhand smoke outdoors and disease, the Salt Lake Valley Health Department would have legal authority to ban it. But until more conclusive scientific evidence can establish a rational cause-and-effect link between outdoor tobacco smoke and disease, the health department is urging local governments to adopt the kind of smoking bans that Salt Lake City is considering.

There is, however, solid scientific evidence tying disease to indoor secondhand smoke. That being the case, it is puzzling that the City Council and the health department don't ban smoking in partially enclosed spaces like bus shelters before they go after outdoor smoking in city parks and golf courses.

It also seems reasonable to ask whether wood-burning fireplaces and stoves, to say nothing of automobiles, pose a greater threat to public health than outdoor smokers do.

Finally, there's the question of children of smokers. They are the real victims of secondhand smoke, especially when they are confined in a home or car with a smoking parent. Does the city want to discourage these parents from taking their kids to the park or the ball field for some fresh air and exercise by not allowing the parents to smoke in these places?

Sure, increasing the social stigma about smoking - which is really what this proposed ban is about - may discourage kids from taking up the habit. But the council should consider the trade-off for kids whose parents already smoke.