I'm not a smoker.

In fact, the one time I did put cigarette to lips -- chalk it up to curiosity -- I felt so profoundly poisoned and wretched afterwards that I haven't even been the tiniest bit tempted to light one up again.

That makes me one of the lucky ones. Doctors who study addiction say nicotine is a habit harder to kick than heroin or crack cocaine. No kidding. The joke is that it isn't the nicotine that brings the slow, painful, expensive and undignified death, it's all the ammonia and cadmium and what-have-you that tobacco companies put into their smokes to help sink that hook as deep as possible.

Sure, cigarette companies are breathtakingly amoral profiteers whose products have killed an incredible number of people. That's not news. But despite this, it's my view that informed adults should have the right to make lousy choices. Government can and should tax the bejesus out of tobacco products to recover their health-care costs, and sue for more if necessary. But by that logic, we should also be taxing and suing makers of fatty foods. Also televisions. Maybe it would be easier to just pay people to exercise. I'm not sure what that policy would look like either, but I wager it would be a cost-effective one in the long run.

Tobacco policy in British Columbia is just like the rest of our drug policy -- a stupid hodgepodge of historical accidents, pandering, fear and greed. Especially here on the North Shore.

Skill-testing question: Where can you light up north of Burrard Inlet?

OK, that was actually a trick question. The answer, naturally, depends on where you're standing when you shake out that pack of Luckies.

In the two districts, the rules are actually pretty consistent: you can't smoke in or at businesses, cabs, transit vehicles, bus stops, parks, fields, beaches, swimming pools, pretty much any municipal property, patios, or within six metres of a building's doors, windows or air intakes. Phew!

If this mouthful sounds draconian yet familiar, it's because largely the same rules are in effect in Vancouver, Richmond, Surrey, White Rock, Port Coquitlam, Pitt Meadows, Delta, Anmore, Belcarra, Squamish, Whistler, Pemberton and, well, you get the picture. It's not quite unanimous yet, but it's certainly an emerging regional consensus.

Well, almost. The City of North Vancouver remains one of the last bastions of on-patio and in-park puffing -- and not by accident.

Officials from Vancouver Coastal Health came to all three North Shore councils at the beginning of 2008 to pitch a single North Shore bylaw. It was well received, but each council was a little leery of being the first to jump, lest they put their local patio-owners (i.e. bars) at a disadvantage. Nevertheless, West Vancouver passed their bylaw in July of 2009, and the District of North Vancouver followed suit in May of 2010. And the city? Let's hear from Mayor Darrell Mussatto, speaking at a public hearing held on the matter in 2008:

"I do believe we should have a look at this for a year to see how it goes and most definitely we should be working with the other municipalities on the North Shore to have a unified bylaw," he said.

Alas, somewhere over the following two years and seven months the mayor's craving for low-tar tri-municipal unity seems to have slacked. This past November, he was part of a slim council majority that voted down the idea altogether.

The reason the city skunked the districts is no mystery. Bar owners have been extremely vocal in their opposition to the ever-stricter smoking restrictions, and they have shown up at council time and again to argue their case. Who can blame them? What with a sluggish economy, the HST and drunk driving penalties most bar-goers struggle to understand, it's not a happy time in the hospitality industry. Driving away a band of loyal clients will only makes matters worse.

The problem is that bars and pubs and restaurants in the districts -- not to mention much of Metro Vancouver -- are facing the same pain, plus the tougher smoking rules. For the city to wait for its neighbours to toughen up and then welch on its turn was a totally cynical attempt to give its businesses a leg up.

Both West Vancouver's Mayor Pam Goldsmith-Jones and North Van district's Mayor Richard Walton tactfully avoided criticizing the city, and said their bylaws may have actually improved the business atmosphere in their bailiwicks by attracting more non-smokers back to their locals. Artful spin, but they do have a point. Only about eight per cent of North Vancouverites smoke and that number has crept down year after year. Unbelievably, tobacco smoking is now less popular than voting.

Dr. Brian O'Connor, North Shore health officer and quarterback for the common bylaw project, certainly feels time is on his side. He admitted he was disappointed at the city vote but, undaunted, he cheerfully told me he would simply have another crack at "an opportune moment."

This newspaper has come out quite a few times in favour of amalgamating the North Shore's municipalities. This unsavoury story is certainly a good argument for it, with a parochial city council putting greed ahead of fairness, common sense and the health of its residents.

But for the record, I'm not quite as convinced as some of my colleagues that all the hoped-for amalgamation benefits would actually come about. We might be able to shed a handful of highly paid staff positions, but I suspect the survivors would start accruing new staff pretty quickly as their workload suddenly triples. Studies that followed the smush-togethers of greater Halifax and greater Toronto don't give a clear picture of tax dollars saved. Under larger, broader governments, some local activities are more efficient, some less so. At best, it's a wash.

But local government doesn't solely deliver services. They also have to listen to their constituents -- advice about the services desired and accountability for the services actually delivered. The more remote you make that government, the less able it is to listen and respond. No one is suggesting we throw the keys over to Burnaby and let Metro run the whole region, are they?

It's also worthwhile for municipalities to compete. With all the fuss and to-do over tax rates, it's good for them to look next door and ponder what they're doing to attract businesses. Not so good, though, to have a race to bottom on health and safety regulations.

It's a fine balance, creating a government close enough to street level to be responsive, but also broad-based enough to resist special interest pressures. The city's cop-out on smoking regulations illustrates both of these demands -- councillors were doing their jobs by listening to the constituents who came forward. In fairness, nobody came out to rebut the bar owners. But city council failed to look at the big picture of the North Shore, the region as a whole, and the larger public health issue. Making the city a magnet for cigarettes is great for smokers and our local pubs, but it's terrible policy for everyone else who enjoys a tipple or a walk in a public park.

So this isn't a call for amalgamation. Bigger governments make one-size-fits-all decisions that at least make for a level playing field, good or ill. Smaller governments generate a confusing collage of locally supported decisions. This circles me back to asking whether or not government should be allowed to force people into good decisions about their health.

As things stand, the City of North Vancouver still has what its smokers have: the freedom to make bad choices.

balldritt@nsnews.com