The debate was lively and the vote divided, but ultimately council gave staff the go-ahead to explore the next big thing in local tobacco control -- banning smoking in city parks, beaches and playgrounds.

And, as often happens when politics and social engineering bump against each other, the discussion had its funny moments.

My favourite the other night came courtesy of Councillor Scott Duvall, who's worried society is going overboard with its anti-smoking jihad.

A smoker himself, at home Duvall is forced to light up in his garage. He seems genuinely bewildered by the pesky contradictions and hypocrisies linked with tobacco use and abuse.

"We're allowing people to sell cigarettes but we're not allowing them to smoke anywhere," Duvall complained, sounding like a naive consumer discovering there's no reverse gear on his new lawn mower.

Councillor Brian McHattie, a dedicated anti-smoker, came a close second with his hyperbolic concerns that cigarette butts in parks are a lurking danger because kids might take it into their heads to eat them.

Talk about blowing smoke. I guarantee you, if a kid ate one butt, he sure wouldn't help himself to another. It's not as if they taste like Smarties.

I also got a charge out of the way Councillor Sam Merulla, another smoker, tried to bring the lofty proposal down to earth by pointing out it's unrealistic to think a smoking ban in parks and playgrounds is enforceable.

Merulla noted people aren't supposed to have sex in public parks and yet condoms turn up there. They're not allowed to drink booze yet beer bottles are found. They're not permitted to shoot heroin, but syringes are discovered.

Merulla's right, of course. But surely that's more of an argument for establishing a red-light district than discouraging a smoking ban.

Dr. Elizabeth Richardson, the city's medical officer, helpfully explained the thinking behind the review.

She said kids are exposed to some second-hand smoke in the recreational areas being studied, but the real idea is to "de-normalize" smoking in their eyes.

In other words, the less they see of it, the more aberrant smoking will seem to them.

Richardson says it's also about being good role models for kids.

I suppose that makes sense as far as it goes. But it's a very selective approach to correcting social ills.

If the idea is to protect growing children and transform adults into robo role models, surely the logical extension of the argument is to make junk food off limits in public places, too. (Of course, the way things are going, that may end up being debated on the council floor one day.)

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against making public parklands out of bounds to human chimneys. In fact, I support it. Not because I'm afraid kids are suddenly going to develop an unhealthy appetite for cigarette butts or because they need to be protected from the terrifying sight of an adult blowing smoke rings.

No, it's the litter aspect I can't stand.

For some reason, smokers don't seem to see their cast-off butts as garbage. People who wouldn't dream of carelessly tossing a piece of paper out their car window or onto the sidewalk, think nothing of flicking their roaches anywhere they please. It's as if the whole world is their ashtray.

You can see their puffed-up sense of entitlement in any designated smoking area you pass, even those where ashtrays are provided. Cigarette butts cover the ground as thick as goose crud. You see the same unsightly dreck in public parks, by public benches, on public walking trails.

I suppose when it comes to smoking, everyone has their own level of intolerance and that's mine.

And since smokers can't seem to police their own increasingly restricted rights, Big Sister (a slightly less menacing figure than Big Brother) is always ready to step in and do it for them.

Andrew Dreschel's commentary appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

adreschel@thespec.com

905-526-3495