Some folks smokin' mad, others support town ban

By Prentiss Findlay
The Post and Courier
Thursday, June 14, 2007



Reader poll

Did Mount Pleasant go too far in banning smoking?

  • Yes. Government intrusion is out of control 41% 375 votes
  • No. I should not have to breathe other people's smoke. 58% 538 votes

913 total votes.

MOUNT PLEASANT — Smoker Friendly tobacco shop cashier Sue Tracy said she'd go to jail before paying a fine for lighting up on the job, an action banned under a new town smoking ordinance.

"It's not Russia, telling us what we can and cannot do," she said Wednesday.

Business owner Bob King said the smoking ban would have "an identifiable financial impact" on his store, where customers and staff smoke. He declined to say how much the ban would cost him. "I'm sure there's going to be some lawsuits. This isn't over," King said.

Discontent about the smoking ordinance, which council approved Tuesday, was apparent Wednesday at Coleman Boulevard businesses such as Art's Bar & Grill, where John DuBose was having lunch and a cigarette.

"There's been smoking in bars for hundreds of years. Smokers have rights, too. If you don't like it, go somewhere else," DuBose said. He pondered the impact of the ordinance, which takes effect Sept. 1. "I'll have to go outside, I guess. I don't want a $100 fine."

Under the provisions of the Mount Pleasant ordinance, businesses that violate the smoking law can face a maximum fine of $100 per offense. After state

assessments and court charges are added, the maximum fine is about $250. Police will enforce the ordinance. A business can apply to the town for a 90-day extension of the Sept. 1 compliance date.

Local ordinances regulate indoor smoking in businesses. The state Clean Indoor Air Act already bans smoking in schools, health-care facilities, government buildings, public transportation, theaters and performing arts centers.

Smoking ban supporters included Allison Tysinger, who sings at Art's on Friday night. She said a smoky bar is an occupational hazard. "I can feel it physically for the next several days, the extra cough and chest congestion," she said.

The new rule applies to clubs such as American Legion Post 136, where past commander Edd Burkholder enjoyed a beer and a cigarette. He said the town smoking ordinance is un-American. "It's not right. It's not fair," Burkholder said. Government intrusion on smokers' rights is like gun control, he said.

But Dan Carrigan of the Smoke-Free Action Network said local government has to step up to the plate on the smoking issue because the Legislature has declined to act on the issue. The town of Sullivan's Island, where smoking has been banned since last July, and the city of Charleston, where smoking will be banned starting July 23, have been sued by businesses seeking to overturn their smoking ordinances. The state Supreme Court is expected to decide the issue.

North Charleston has declined to ban smoking, and that's where Jerry Aden said he will go. Aden enjoyed a cigarette after lunch at Alex's restaurant. "It's like Prohibition. It's going to hurt the businesses," he said.

Town resident Dr. John Simkovich said he prefers smoke-free restaurants. "I think it's a wonderful thing to have in place. I think it's probably the best thing we could do to help improve the health of our community," he said. There's no safe level for secondhand smoke, which causes cardiovascular and respiratory problems, he said.

Resident Barbara Zia, president of the state League of Women Voters, said she was pleased with the council's vote. "It's an issue of protecting public health, protecting workers," Zia said.

photo

Hank Kurkowski (center) lights a cigarette inside American Legion Post 136 in Mount Pleasant on Wednesday. Beside him are Edd Burkholder (left) and Bill Flanagin. All are from Mount Pleasant.

Food and beverage staff and entertainers are particularly vulnerable to the long-term effects of secondhand smoke when they work in establishments that allow patrons to light up, Zia said.

She said she recently attended a conference in Washington, D.C., which has gone smoke-free. Restaurant and bar business there was booming, she said. "I really don't think there is going to be a negative impact in terms of business," she said.

Sullivan's Island and Charleston both have a maximum fine of $500 and/or 30 days in jail for their smoking ordinances. Mount Pleasant dropped its maximum fine from $500 and/or 30 days in jail to $100 and no jail time.

The local ordinances exempt private residences and smoking rooms at hotels and motels. Mount Pleasant and Charleston allow for smoking on stage as part of a theatrical production. Retail tobacco stores are exempt on Sullivan's Island and in Charleston, which also exempts cigar bars.

Reach Prentiss Findlay at 937-5711 or pfindlay@postandcourier.com.

Share this story:
E-mail this story E-mail this story  Printer-friendly version Printer-friendly version  

Copy and paste the link:

Comments

cede (anonymous) says...

I live in Florida and the smoking ban has been in effect for sometime. It really isn't so bad. People fought it here too but you run into the comments from both sides. The smokers say it isn't fair and the non-smokers say it has never been fair to have to be around it. It takes a little time. When I came to visit Mt. Pleasant recently and went to a restaurant and they said "smoking or non-smoking" I was in shock -- hadn't heard that for a long time!

June 14, 2007 at 9:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

RTC (anonymous) says...

Do people realize that there are numerous food establishments in Mt. Pleasant that have not allowed smoking for years? Most places that do allow smoking have separate areas and some have installed smoke-eating devices. Leave the smoking decision up to the establishment owners. This is nothing except a couple of crybabies on town council who want to get their own way. I say go eat somewhere else!

June 14, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

abacosol (anonymous) says...

These same arguments have been going on probably since the fisrt smoking ban started in California and spread eastward. It is a fact that there is virtually no ill-effect on businesses (restaurants and bars anyway)as the few "smoker only" type patrons are quickly replaced by the refreshing non-smoker types. There are always areas for smokers to go to light up very close by. As a life-long non smoker I applaude these restrictions. Non- smokers should not have to breathe second hand smoke when they want to visit a restaurant or bar.

June 14, 2007 at 2:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

lisagary (anonymous) says...

Bar, restaurant and club business is booming in EVERY city that has instituted an indoor smoking ban. It will happen here too. Smoking is not a right; it's a deadly, toxic, dirty habit that has far-reaching health effects on nonsmokers who are forced to breathe secondhand smoke. The willingness by our lawmakers to tackle this issue, and to stand firm in the face of opposition, is to be commended for the progressive, forward-thinking action that it is.

June 15, 2007 at 9:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

palmetto (anonymous) says...

First - I am a non-smoker, 5 day a week exerciser/runner, health nut. Now for the rest.

People seem to think that the outcome somehow justifies the means.. crazy talk.

That is like believing in war because we win.

Smoking is a right, and ownership of private property is a right.

Non-smokers are not Forced to breath secondhand smoke. Is someone locking you in a room with smokers? Or did you choose to go to that restaurant that allows smoking.

Progressive.. as in Communism.

Welcome Nanny State!

Save us from ourselves!

We can't choose to go to non-smoking restaurants so force those evil restaurants that allow smoking to stop it for us!

Idiotic.

June 15, 2007 at 10:11 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Notice about comments:

Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.

Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!

Full terms and conditions can be read here.

Thank you for your interest in this story. The comment thread for this article has been closed.


Hot Topics

 



.Link.