Has ordinance gone up in smoke?
Calabasas affirmed its position as a leader of the environmental movement last year when it passed an ordinance that prohibited smoking in public places. Many cities in America are taking similar steps by banning cigarettes in restaurants and bars, among other places. The trend is a healthy one, but we think the City Council is going too far if it extends the ordinance to prohibit smoking inside private apartments.

Discussion is underway on an amendment that would make it illegal for new apartment tenants to smoke inside their units. Residents who currently smoke in their homes would be allowed to continue with their habit, but new renters would see the nosmoking clause written into their leases.

Smoking is not a legal "right," as in the right to free speech or the right to vote. It harms those who do it and is unfair to nonsmokers who are forced to breathe the stuff. But what people do in the privacy of their homes, as long as it's not a crime, should be left up to them. Government stands on dangerous ground when it chooses to dictate how citizens live their lives.

Why the city wants to put more bite into the law is hard to understand. Smoking already is outlawed in all entertainment venues and public areas. Under the amended ordinance, even apartment balconies would be off limits because of the unwanted smoke that could waft through a neighbor's window. If the goal is to protect non-smokers from secondhand fumes, as was declared when the Calabasas anti-smoking movement began over a year ago, then that goal has mostly been accomplished. There's no reason to push the law into the privacy of homes.

What's further troubling is that the expanded ordinance would affect only apartment dwellers and not those who live in single family homes. This is renter discrimination and it's surprising that Councilmember Barry Groveman, a lawyer and the leader of the no-smoking group, would endorse such a move.

We prefer James Bozajian's approach. The Calabasas mayor says he fears "regulating an otherwise legal activity in someone's home," and has expressed opposition to a "blanket ban" on smoking in apartments, townhomes and condos.

We think the city's steps thus far have been appropriate. But isn't enough is enough?