Is it a good ― or sensible ― idea to ban smoking at all places, including bars and restaurants of all sizes, in a district frequented by foreign tourists? A debate has been heating up over the question since a member of the Seoul Metropolitan Council recently proposed a bill to prohibit smoking in the five areas designated as special tourism zones in the city.

If the council approves the draft revision to an ordinance on preventing damage from indirect smoking, people would be fined up to 100,000 won ($89) for puffing on a cigarette at streets, bars, restaurants and other facilities in the zones. The councilor who introduced the bill has argued that it would help protect the health of tourists as well as residents and enhance the environment in the designated areas in Myeong-dong, Itaewon, Dongdaemun, Jongno and Jamsil.

His proposal comes in line with a string of measures taken to tighten antismoking rules. Under a health promotion law enacted in 1995, smoking is prohibited at schools, hospitals and nursing facilities across the country. Through its ordinances, Seoul has added main squares, parks and bus stops to the list of nonsmoking places. Some of its 25 wards have separately banned smoking on main streets.

Some skeptics, however, note that the recently proposed bill appears to have gone too far, raising questions about its legality and practicality.

It may contradict the health law, which allows restaurants and bars with a space of more than 150 square meters to set up a smoking area. The Seoul Metropolitan Government was right to ask the council to shelve the deliberation on the bill until after this possible legal contentiousness is cleared. The councilor has claimed there will be no legal problem with the bill, which he says is supported by many of his colleagues. But it needs to go through a thorough legal review to avoid unnecessary confusion.

It may be only natural that the measure is causing grievances from both smokers and owners of restaurants and bars in the districts designated as tourism zones. While admitting the purpose of the bill is hardly refutable, shopkeepers and vendors in the targeted areas express concerns that the measure would lead to a further decrease in the number of foreign visitors, which has been declining amid the heightening tension between the two Koreas and the falling value of the Japanese yen. It may be overstated to say, as claimed by some merchants, that banning foreign travelers from smoking at all places in the tourism districts would give them a negative image of the city.

But it does make some sense to argue that overregulation might dampen the tourism industry, which should be further promoted to help boost the sluggish economy. Though it is unlikely to hurt their impression of the city, preventing smoking at every place in a certain area may cause inconvenience in a somewhat excessive way to some foreign tourists. Usually, travelers may not expect themselves to be banned from smoking in bars at night in districts specifically designated to promote tourism.

But it may be that many other nonsmoking tourists are in favor of the measure. Local residents also tend to be split in their views over the bill, depending on whether or not they smoke.

It seems that the most sensible idea, though not supported by everyone, is to permit smoking at certain places during certain hours in the tourism zones ― preferably in more alleviated conditions than those applied to bars and restaurants in other districts. The Seoul Metropolitan Council is certainly taking the right direction to strengthen rules to reduce exposure to secondhand smoke. But there seems to be room for its members to show some more flexibility in banning smoking in the five districts selected to attract more tourists.