The Utah County Board of Health voted this week to ban smoking in public parks. This rule will do little or nothing to keep even one puff of smoke out of anyone's lungs. But it is an extension of government power.

Let us stipulate that smoking is unhealthy, and it's better for people to avoid the practice. But the new rule needs to be put in perspective in Utah Valley. We've all heard of victimless crime. This is a criminal-less crime.

Utah has the lowest percentage of smokers in the United States. Utah County has the lowest percentage of smokers in Utah. And the numbers have been dwindling fast.

So there are almost no smokers to target. An ordinance against smoking in Utah County is like a law against nude sunbathing in Alaska in January.

One might question the evidence brought forward by advocates of the smoking ban: the number of cigarette butts found littering area parks, especially around playground equipment. But are people lighting up in broad daylight on local playgrounds? It's unlikely that many Utah County mothers are puffing on cigarettes while their little ones cavort on the jungle gym.

More likely the butts are left by teenagers hanging out and sneaking smokes after dark. There are already laws and regulations against underage smoking.

Arguably, the bigger problem is that the health department has now thrown an unnecessary shadow into outdoor public spaces.

Smoking is a legal activity; tobacco is a legal substance. If the governments of the United States and the state of Utah allow smoking, how can one county agency ban it? And in the open air.

Smoking foes warn of the dangers of secondhand smoke. That argument may have force in an enclosed space, where people cannot easily choose a more satisfactory seat. Restaurants come to mind.

But a park is outdoors. Aside from what the smoker himself voluntarily draws into his own lungs, the noxious ash and gases are dispersed in the air and blown away by the breeze. Parks, it may be argued, are very big spaces with plenty of room for everyone, even members of minority groups -- like smokers.

If the health department can criminalize an otherwise legal outdoor activity that does not affect the public health generally, are there any boundaries to its power? Does it need to be consistent?

For instance, if secondhand smoke outdoors poses such grave risk, then tickets must be issued to anybody with a barbecue, whose sooty carbon dares to invade the next picnic pavilion.

But why stop there? Why not raid fast-food joints that sell charbroiled burgers? The carbon is a known carcinogen that the health department should ban. And what about doughnut shops with their high calories? Or supermarkets? After all, high-fat and sugary foods pose far greater health risks to the population than those scarce smokers who now and then light up in a public park.

Health board members argued in Provo about which entity is best suited to regulate public health in city parks -- the county or each city. It's a good question. Why shouldn't each city pass an ordinance to keep the process closer to the people? Language was inserted in the new regulation to address this concern. Rather than passing a smoking ban for its own parks, a city can overrule the county's ban. This is an odd inversion of traditional government practice, though it's likely to have popular support in a virtual nonsmoking population. Nobody's going to get excited about it.

So much for minority rights.

This push to extend government influence comes at the worst of times. The county has just enacted harsh budget cuts, for example. The sheriff's office took the biggest hit, and its resources will be strained to the max. But now one more job has been dumped in its lap.

Are deputies now going to be diverted from important tasks to go collar a grandpa puffing tobacco in a county park?

What about city police departments? Towns all over the valley are slashing budgets. Will they be required to police their parks for smokers?

With this very question, Eagle Mountain had opposed the countywide smoking ban, maintaining that cities should be allowed to form their own policies. (But then nobody from Eagle Mountain showed up at the public hearing to say their piece.)

Perhaps Eagle Mountain officials have more important things to do right now than worry about a handful of outdoor smokers. In truth, all local governments have greater concerns. The economic crunch has cities, counties and states scrambling for ways to preserve essential tasks.

Is enforcing a smoking ban an essential task?

---

What do you think?

Is a ban on smoking in public parks going too far?

Is it a good idea, or an unwarranted intrusion into individual rights?

Send your comments to dhpolls@heraldextra.com or call 344-2942. Please leave your name, hometown and phone number with your comments. E-mail comments should not exceed 100 words; voicemail comments should be no longer than 30 seconds. Anonymous and unverifiable responses will not be published. You can also comment online at our home page at heraldextra.com. The Daily Herald will publish results on Dec. 7.