I don't smoke. I consider it a disgusting habit, and question the sanity of those who engage in it. I've watched too many friends and family members die of smoking-related illnesses.

But I oppose the half-hearted "smoking ban" measures that are being proposed and implemented here in Houston and other places in the US.

As Houston debates whether to ban smoking in bars, cities across the country are enacting their own smoking bans, adding fuel to a movement that has gained momentum during the past few years.

In the two weeks since Mayor Bill White released a draft ordinance to extend the city's ban, which council members will consider today, at least four smaller municipalities across the country, as well as France, have banned smoking in restaurants and bars.

Houston's decision could affect how state lawmakers approach the issue, said Joe Cherner, an expert on the smoking-ban movement and founder of BREATHE — Bar and Restaurant Employees Advocating Together for a Healthy Environment.

"If Houston passes a strong law, Texas will pass a law within a year," he predicted, based on how other states have reacted to bans by their largest cities.

Houston's existing law prohibits smoking in dining areas of restaurants but allows it at bars. Customers can smoke at bars within restaurants so long as the smoke doesn't drift into the dining area.

The mayor's proposed changes would extend the ban to bars but include some exemptions such as cigar shops, outdoor patios and some private functions.

Council members also will consider various amendments to the proposal. One would exempt stand-alone bars that were in operation before Sept. 1, and others would extend the ban to cigar shops and most outdoor patios.

The council is divided on the issue, so it's unclear which, if any, of the proposals has the best chance of being approved.

We have the evidence that smoking is harmful, and (arguably) that second-hand smoke is equally dangerous. And yet smoking continues to be legal in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Governmen continues to raise revenue off of the addiction of its citizens to a clearly dangerous substance. I find that unacceptable.

So I will come flat out and say it -- either we need to accept the liberty argument that people should be free to smoke, or we should accept the argument that cigars, cigarettes, snuff, chew, and other such products are so irredeemably dangerous that their production, sale, and possession should be banned. Quit the half-hearted measures and just do it.

Or just don't do it, and repeal all restrictions on the basis that adults have a right to do with their bodies what they want to do with them.

The middle ground on this issue is not principled and not in the public interest. Either be willing to follow the logical outcome of every study of the effects of tobacco on the grounds of public health, or admit that liberty dictates allowing people to make dangerous choices and businesses to cater to those choices if they desire.