Last week, the Iowa Supreme Court struck down Ames’ citywide ordinance banning smoking in public restaurants. This decision was based on Iowa code 142B.6, which says state law pertaining to smoking restrictions supercedes any local law or regulation inconsistent with the state’s provisions.

However, a divided Ames City Council left the ordinance on the books May 13 by a vote of 3-3.

Anti-tobacco advocates rightly urged the council not to repeal the ordinance. The ban will be legally unenforcable; however, if the ordinance is repealed, advocates of a smoking ban would have to start all over again if the state law is changed.

After all they have done to fight for the rights of Ames citizens to be free from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke, it would be a shame to waste their laudable efforts.

State Sen. Herman Quirmbach, D-Ames, said leaving the ordinance in place despite its unenforcability will “give the state a chance to straighten out its act” in respect to state code on smoking restrictions.

According to the final opinion of the Iowa Supreme Court, which can be found at the Iowa Judicial Branch Web site, www.judicial.state.ia.us, when the City of Ames took its case to court, it did so with the argument that it has the authority under the home rule power to prohibit smoking in public places under local government jurisdiction.

The Iowa Constitution is the source of the municipalities’ home rule power. It says “municipal corporations are granted home rule power and authority, not inconsistent with the laws of the general assembly, to determine their local affairs and government.”

It’s odd the Legislature didn’t add 142B.6 to the books until three years ago, when a number of Iowa cities had just begun to consider bans on smoking.

This law effectively stymied any efforts of these cities to make their own rules about such an important, yet controversial health issue as the involuntary exposure of their citizens and workers to secondhand smoke.

Here’s a question for you: could this decision have anything to do with the millions of dollars our government receives from big tobacco corporations? In exchange for funding, maybe the Iowa Legislature agreed to make sure the right to smoke in restaurants and bars remained relatively safe and socially acceptable for their numerous, severely addicted customers so they could keep raking in the dough.

Perhaps all this is just politics as usual. But the Legislature is wrong for taking the power out of individual cities’ hands. The only people who know best are the ones actually involved in the pollution of the air they breathe through secondhand smoke.