Although only one person spoke against the ban at the Monday meeting, the issue was controversial from several perspectives, particularly among bar and restaurant owners who fear a loss in business to nearby communities.

Other opposition was presented by people who see it as an unnecessary government intrusion and think the government has no right to tell businesses how to run their operations.

Similar complaints were made before California enacted a similar law. Those businesses feared a leakage of tourism to nearby states, but that never happened. Reports indicate that restaurateurs found an increase in business after the smoking ban, primarily among families who previously avoided going to restaurants because of the presence of smoke.

There are some who see the smoking ban as limiting the rights of others to smoke where they please. On the other hand, the smoking ban should be looked at in the same way speeding laws and other traffic regulations keep the public safe. It is not denying anybody's right to smoke smokers are free to smoke at home or on their property. The ban simply protects those people who prefer not to be in the presence of smoke while working or dining. It is a health issue, not a rights issue.

By enacting the smoking ban a full-year ahead of the recently passed state smoking ban, the city is making a statement that public health is valued.

A troubling segment of the Monday meeting involved the city attorney stating that the city ban could not be more restrictive than the state ban. That is not correct the state ban is simply a base point and local laws can be more restrictive than the state law. The city attorney should have been up to speed on the nuances of the ordinance when it was likely he would be asked to give an opinion to the council.

Grand Island has become a healthier community by enacting this law. The council members who stood up for the community should be thanked for their courage and vision.