Civil disagreements, with Lynne Varner and Bruce Ramsey of the Seattle Times editorial board, is a weekly feature of the Ed Cetera blog. Here Bruce and Lynne get fumed up about a propposal to ban smoking in Seattle parks.

Lynne Varner, left, and Bruce Ramsey

Bruce Ramsey: Lynne, I can't believe you buy this idea. Somebody sitting outside on a park bench having a cigarette should be given a ticket? Why? The smoke doesn't hurt anybody. It's blown away in the wind.

Even with secondhand smoke indoors, as in a tavern, there was a real dispute whether it was actually dangerous, because of how diluted the smoke was. I recall when the smoking ban was being debated, the proponents didn't talk about the health of the customers but about the bartenders, who were around indoor secondhand smoke 40 hours a week.

But you want to ban outdoor secondhand smoke? Why? (And if it's OK to ban it in parks, why not on the sidewalk? The parking lot? Etc. Where does it end?)

I have asked some colleagues who support this, and their answer is that sometimes, outdoors, they get a whiff of smoke, and they don't like it, and they think it should be banned.

You can get a whiff of a lot of things outside, starting with diesel fumes from a truck. Smoke from a bonfire or a barbecue. The smell of a cow pie.

A whiff is not a brush with the Grim Reaper.

It abuses the language to call this a health measure. If it is passed and rigidly enforced in this city of 600,000 people, it won't add one minute to the life of one person, with the possible exception of the person smoking--and that is none of the government's business.

This is a control measure. It's an I'm-more-progressive-than-you measure. An intolerant measure. And guess who wants it? People who used to be called liberals. They should look up "liberal" in the dictionary.

Lynne Varner:Bruce, smoking is a public health problem costing taxpayers tens of millions a year in healthcare and related costs. Seattle is right to consider public policy measures to tackle this challenge. Bicyclists are required to wear helmets, motorists to have car insurance and drinkers to refrain from driving. These are all legal recreational outlets - as are cigarettes - that must comply with public safety rules. Requiring smokers to contain their smoking to areas outside of city parks would not be an overreach.

I heard Seattle was thinking of following Tacoma's lead so I called City Councilman Tom Rasmussen who chairs the Council's Parks and Seattle Center Committee. He believes a smoking ban in city parks can be done by administrative fiat if Parks Superintendent Tim Gallagher is willing to create such a rule.

Seattle would not be the first to do this. About 430 cities and towns nationwide ban smoking in public parks, playgrounds and beaches. In Washington state, that figure includes Bainbridge Island, Gig Harbor, Puyallup and Poulsbo. have banned smoking at outdoor parks, playgrounds and beaches. Two years ago, Los Angeles extended its smoking ban, which already covered beaches and playgrounds, to include municipal parks. Chicago has banned smoking at its beaches and playgrounds, though smoking is still allowed in many parks.

I see this effort as continuing an approach to contain the harmful effects of smoking. Smoking is already banned in offices, restaurants and on airlines. Smoking in parks bothers children playing there as well as many adults, some of whom have allergies that are exacerbated by smoke.

With any rule or law, there must be a public good at stake that is greater than just feeling good. In this case, it is about public health and containing the costs of maintaining our health. There is also balance here. Just as office workers or restaurant goers step outside for a puff, smokers can step outside of the park, or go home where they remain free to kill themselves slowly on cigarettes.