These days, Toronto and Vancouver are fussing their way toward making the pablum of anti-smoking regulations palatable. Certain that they are in the right about their smoking bans, city councils in both places seek a way to quiet down the unruly wards under their care -- those overgrown youngsters of all ages who are too tender to make their own lifestyle choices without state interference, yet (damn it!) old enough to vote.

Both city councils have passed sweeping anti-smoking bylaws in the last year that affect restaurants and (in the case of Toronto) even drinking establishments. Both cite health concerns as the reason for the draconian and controversial new rules. Neither has had the cajones to start enforcement immediately, no doubt hoping that opposition to the change will die down after a few months as business owners and customers "get used to" the idea of a city-wide butt-out, and resign themselves to the caring control of municipally elected officials.

Selling the proposition of the new smoking bans is not an easy matter, as the twin cities of tobacco control have discovered.

All sorts of constituencies have to be dealt with: smokers who'd like to smoke, nonsmokers who object to smoking, restaurant and bar owners, convention and tourism interests, civil libertarians, health interest groups in and out of government -- the list goes on.

Not all of these groups can be satisfied, whatever the outcome of the municipal tobacco wars. But councillors know that the golden key to the smoke-free city of tomorrow is the backing or at least the cooperation of those groups who have power and economic clout. In this case that means restaurateurs, bar owners and those in related businesses. Where they lead, their customers will surely follow. Or so the logic goes.

In Toronto, council roared in with a tough bylaw that included drinking establishments -- here was city hall as stern pater familia, and with the balls to prove it. Cast in the supporting role of mom ("I approve, dear, but don't you think you're being just a teeny bit harsh?") was Mayor Barbara Hall, who advocated some accommodation for smokers. She was overruled, and the most sweeping municipal anti-smoking bylaw in North America made it through.

The reaction was predictable. The hospitality industry was up in arms. Didn't city hall know how disastrous this would be? People will stay home and drink beer, speakeasies will open, business will be lost to surrounding cities that still allow smoking. It's not fair! But sitting off in a corner was a downcast Torontonian with beer glass in one hand and cigarette in another muttering sheepishly, "guess it's time I finally quit, eh?" If only the barkeeper could be eased into cigarette prohibition, that Torontonian would come back and spend his money as if nothing had ever happened.

So the groundwork was laid for phase two. Let it not be said that City Hall fails to listen to the Concerns of the Public and the Business Community. We'll allow smoking, said the city dads and moms, but only in hermetically sealed closets that cost oodles to construct and keep smoking patrons out of the social whirl (which is where they belong, anyway). "Time Out" is a kinder and more effective method than spanking, when it comes to disciplining both smokers and business owners.

There the matter stands, for now. City hall waits. The affected businesses and their patrons can't honestly say that smoking's not allowed. Will they keep up this childish resistance, or will they settle down and become sensible?

The answer to that question will determine all. If opposition to the smoking ban cools at this point, the ludicrous conditions set for smoking sections will virtually assure a smoke-free, smoker- unfriendly Toronto. Especially if the strategy of "harmonization" (persuading other cities to follow suit so that smokers have no where else to go) is successful. We'll see.

Vancouver is taking a different approach. It rejected the blanket ban put forward by its chief public health officer in favour of a bylaw that exempted premises -- such as bars and pubs -- which are not accessible to children. The big ban can come later.

Then it granted a stay, a few months of non-enforcement so that businesses could manage the "transition". In the meantime, the "harmonization" project was put on fast-forward. Vancouver's intrepid chief public health officer quit his job to become the chief public health officer of neighbouring Burnaby, the city most easily reached by Vancouver smokers seeking refuge. Burnaby has now passed a smoking ban. So have Delta, Richmond, and New Westminster. Twelve other Lower Mainland municipalities have proposals at various stages of preparation or approval. The wagons are circling.

A court challenge to Vancouver's ban has been put forward by the B.C. Restaurant and Foodservices Association, but the objection is tepid. The association simply argues that the ban discriminates unfairly between one class of establishment that serves food, and another. As far as the association is concerned, Vancouver city council has basically done a Good Thing -- as long as it's all or nothing. That is, smoking should be allowed either everywhere or nowhere, it doesn't matter which.

That posture has given the anti-smoking nannies on Vancouver city council some courage. Councillor Lynn Kennedy says that if the city loses the court case, it will have the green light to go forward with the more comprehensive smoking ban it intends to eventually enact anyway.

Kennedy and her crusaders are no doubt hoping that by then, smokers will have to drive over the Alberta border before they can find a place where they won't be fined for lighting up. Vancouver and the Lower Mainland are proving to be better bets for successful "harmonization" than sprawling Toronto.

So Tweedle Dee Toronto and Tweedle Dum Vancouver push their identical and identically repressive agendas through, each in their own way.

For those who don't like it, there's only one course of action. Opponents of intrusive government and of these smoking bans in particular -- nonsmokers and smokers alike -- must simply tell the politicians where to stuff their blithe social engineering project. We must clearly tell our elected officials that we didn't elect them to stand in loco parentis. That they've blown it, and we won't take it. That they've lost our vote unless they back down fast. That we'll keep writing letters until their mail boxes collapse under the weight. That we'll support the businesses who support us by letting us smoke, and take a pass on the others. That we will defy smoking bans.

If we do this, these bans simply won't stand for long. If we don't, we'll deserve what we get. It's as simple as that.