Statewide smoking ban again debated
Bill could weaken local government laws in place
COLUMBIA — The battle over where smokers can light up will take another turn today when a panel of lawmakers decides whether to advance a statewide ban, which could weaken laws already in place in Charleston and elsewhere.
Forces are clashing on the controversial topic, and how the S.C. House Judiciary Committee meeting will play out has a lot to do with who shows up and who speaks up.
Meanwhile, the state holds its breath as the S.C. Supreme Court decides whether local governments are able to pass their own bans. The committee could decide to wait to take statewide action until after the court rules.
If passed, the statewide ban would topple 11 local no-smoking laws, including those in Charleston, Sullivan's Island and Mount Pleasant, and prevent local regulations from being any more restrictive than the state rules.
At a glance
THE ISSUE: The S.C. House Judiciary Committee will consider two bills that limit smoking. The first calls for a statewide ban that would replace local prohibitions and allow for more exceptions than places such as Charleston allow. The second bill would not allow people to smoke in their cars when children 10 and younger are riding along.
THE PROBLEM: The bills are aimed to protect the public against secondhand smoke, but some believe they infringe on personal freedoms. Further, a statewide ban, as proposed, would supersede local laws.
WHAT'S NEXT: The committee will vote on whether to send the bills to the full House. Some members might want to wait to act on the statewide ban bill until after the S.C. Supreme Court rules on whether to uphold local bans. There is no timeline for the high court decision.
The committee also will consider whether to allow smoking in specialty tobacco stores, cigar bars and private clubs. As drafted, the smoking ban bill would permit smoking in bars with enclosed sections that have separate ventilation systems or in free-standing bars that don't let children enter.
Many issues, though, would have to be sorted out by the committee, such as how to handle bars that serve food and restaurants that serve alcohol.
As written now, neither of the bills up for consideration would stop people from smoking at home or in hotel rooms designated for smoking.
Also on the table when the Judiciary Committee convenes is a bill that seeks to stop people from smoking in cars passengering children 10 and younger.
Rep. Leon Stavrinakis, D-Charleston, said Monday that he has an open mind. He is one of three local members on the 25-member committee.
Although Stavrinakis is leaning toward voting down the bills, he said he is at odds over the right of counties and municipalities to govern locally and passing a uniform state law. In the balance hangs protecting the health of state residents and supporting personal freedoms.
"I can't say I've made up my mind," he said.
The other two local committee members, Reps. Seth Whipper, D-North Charleston, and Ben Hagood, R-Sullivan's Island, could not be reached for comment.
Dan Carrigan, executive director of Charleston-based Smoke-Free Action Network, said the statewide ban is being masqueraded as an anti-smoking law when in reality it is friendly to the tobacco industry by allowing people to smoke in more places than local government bans currently allow.
"This is not some grand solution that these guys just thought up — it is a sell-out," he said.
Rep. Todd Rutherford, D-Columbia, said it is no such thing.
"I think anything we could do to save lives we should do," he said.
Rutherford said the legislation is not being pushed by the tobacco industry. He said it is an attempt to work out a compromise to get a minimum level of standards in place throughout the state.
"Smoking in public places is killing people," he said.
Last year, the committee failed to take action on both the bills during a May meeting that died for lack of a quorum as members trickled out the door. If approved today, the next stop for the bills would be the House floor.
Reach Yvonne M. Wenger at 803-799-9051 or ywenger@ postandcourier.com.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly version
Comments
granny2 (anonymous) says...
Neither bill would stop people from smoking in their homes. Boy that is good to know, I would hate for the cops to have to drive around and check peoples homes all the time to see if they were smoking. Doesn't matter to me either way but why so much time spent on stopping smoking and noting is done about people drinking and driving killing people.
January 15, 2008 at 7:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hey_U_Guys (anonymous) says...
I find it incredibly rude for people to smoke while I am trying to eat a meal. If people want to smoke at a bar or club, that's one thing, but I have a REAL problem with smoking being allowed in public restaurants. I like how alot of restaurants name themselves so and so "Bar and Grill". BS. When I used to go to Player's Place, I could only stay for like an hour due to the clouds of smoke EVERYWHERE. Not to mention the fact that my son and I have asthma. Have some damn common courtesy and don't smoke in a restaurant. Some of the casinos in Biloxi, MS have smoking levels. Now THAT'S cool. When we visit our family in March, I can gamble without coughing up lung biscuits due to all the smoke.
January 15, 2008 at 8:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bigwhip (anonymous) says...
Dear Lord, please tell me that I did vote for the right person in Columbia that will save me from the perils of freedom;from the dreaded disease known as "not taking the responsibility of my own actions".
January 15, 2008 at 8:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
algorelost (anonymous) says...
The problem I have with charleston's local law is it give a monopoly to club habanna, allowing them to be the only smoking bar. If I wanted to open a smoking bar, I would not be allowed to.
January 15, 2008 at 8:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
carlosthedwarf (anonymous) says...
This is so ridiculous. I'm a non-smoker and even I'm with the smokers on this one. The bottom line is that if these people think that tobacco is such a dangerous substance, okay. Fine. Ban the substance. But don't go around telling people you can't smoke here, you can't smoke there.
January 15, 2008 at 8:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyfigueroa (anonymous) says...
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PUBLIC RESTAURANT!!!!!!!
Private/corporate owned bars, grills, restaurants should be allowed to have who & what they want in their establishments. I say let the market dictate who is right and wrong.
I'm so sick and tired of everyone complaining of second hand smoke. I can't bring my kids, smoke makes me sick, or I can't work in a smoking environment.
If a restaurant doesn't serve beef, and you want beef, are you going to use the long arm of govt. as a weapon to force them to serve beef? Or are you going to go to a restaurant that serves you what you want how you want it?
If you don't like what a business is doing go to another one. Many of you espousing the glory of this law(s) are the first one to complain about the govt. infringing upon your personal liberties.
Bigwhip says it best: {"Dear Lord, please tell me that I did vote for the right person in Columbia that will save me from the perils of freedom;from the dreaded disease known as "not taking the responsibility of my own actions".}
SIGNED BY a proud NON-smoker.
January 15, 2008 at 9:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CHRISJIII (anonymous) says...
Where does the government get off telling people where they can and cannot smoke. It's not the government's business, nor that of a group knuckleheads who see themselves as the barometers of socially acceptable behavior. Stay out of other people's private lives. If non-smokers don't like the smoke don't go to bars where smoking goes on. Stay in your smoke free environment and leave the smokers alone. After all smokers have the very same civil rights as non-smokers.
January 15, 2008 at 9:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Speedy (anonymous) says...
Beef won't give you cancer or emphysema. Smoke will. There is no way to keep your smoke to yourself, so when it affects other people, there should be laws against it.
This state is so backwards that they want to allow smoking in bars and restaurants, but make it illegal to smoke in a car with children.
Employees of bars and restaurants should not be subject to secondhand smoke either. Yeah, I know they make the choice to work there, but give them a break. They should not be forced into a career change just because you have a disgusting habit and want to share it with everyone.
Check the side of your cigarette pack where it says, "Smoking is harmful to your health and causes cancer." That applies to everyone who has to be around you when you smoke.
January 15, 2008 at 11:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mggoose2000 (anonymous) says...
Put it to a vote. The popular vote will decide. If more people that don't smoke, vote for the bill, then the ones that do smoke will have to abide by a "democratic" vote/decision or whatever you want to call it. What happened to the "majority decision rule"? We are being told what to do by "minority rule". If there are more non smokers voting than smokers, they have nothing to bitch about.
January 15, 2008 at 11:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RTC (anonymous) says...
I have noticed that since the smoking ban was started in MT.P., people are now taking their children in the bar sections of local restaurants. It is so nice to see the kiddies sitting next to mom and dad, as they slug back the cold ones and scream at the games on the multiple screens.
Leave it up to the establishment owners, and keep the kids out of the bar sections. Such hypocrites! Don't you light up near my child, but let me drink all that I want, and then I will drive my kids safely home. Yeah, right.
January 15, 2008 at 12:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ImplantedYankee (anonymous) says...
For the longest time I was in the camp of allowing businesses dictate their own rules and allow market forces to take their course. While there are legions of people who would love to be able to go (or work) someplace smoke-free, the market has not responded. The idea of having smoking and non-smoking "sections" is a joke, and employees aren't allowed to pick their "sections" anyway. No business owners are willing to take the risk of going smoke-free, leaving those of us who do not want to breathe the smoke nowhere to go. Why should I lose the freedom to enjoy a meal in a restaurant because someone else thinks they should have the "freedom" to smoke up the place? It amazes me that a lot of the same people who insist that it should be illegal to use cell phones in the car want it to be legal force a carcinogenic haze on the rest of the population. THAT's hypocrisy.
January 15, 2008 at 12:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyfigueroa (anonymous) says...
High fat diets, excessive alcohol and many other factors do indeed cause many harmful health issues to include cancer, so your argument is flawed. Also, a business owner has an obligation to himself, shareholders, employees and customers. And that obligation is to ensure financial success and if that includes allowing smoking in their establishments they should have the right to do so. Your argument about employees is also flawed. Employees know prior to accepting a position if the restaurant allows smoking. A server, cook or other employee DO NOT have to change their livelihood in order to work in a smoke-free environment. They just have to find work in a smoke-free workplace. IT'S JUST THAT SIMPLE!!!! Case in point, when looking for work many years ago, I toured the Bosch and Bayer (Bushy Park) plant. The fumes made me ill for days. When offered the position, I declined and sought work elsewhere. I wasn't going to accept the position and then try to use the long arm of govt. to make the company change their practices.
And for your information Speedy, I'm a non smoker; however I'm a Libertarian and a firm believer in personal responsibility and protection of personal liberties and not just when it suits me.
January 15, 2008 at 12:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RTC (anonymous) says...
There are compromises that can be made. Let there be smoking and non-smoking restaraunts and bars. Then a person has a choice. The owners simply have to post a sign stating whether they are smoking or smoke-free. That is not so hard, and then everyone can be happy.
There are so many serious problems out there that there is no need to tie up the courts with agendas like this.
Murderers cannot be brought to trial because of the backlogs, but yet the time can be taken to debate subject matters like this. I know there are different courts, but the point is the same.
January 15, 2008 at 12:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyfigueroa (anonymous) says...
Yankee: "Why should I lose the freedom to enjoy a meal in a restaurant because someone else thinks they should have the "freedom" to smoke up the place?" You have the FREEDOM to choose to go to ANY restaurant of your choosing, yet you want to deny the same freedom to the business owner who CHOOSES to allow smoking.
"No business owners are willing to take the risk of going smoke-free, leaving those of us who do not want to breathe the smoke nowhere to go" ABSOLUTELY FALSE. Many of the large chain restaurants have already gone 'smoke-free'. Money talks and BS walks. STOP patronizing establishments that you have a problem with. Spend your money in places you like. No one is holding a gun to YOUR head to take your family Breck's, yet you are completely willing to hold the proverbial govt. gun to the restaurant owners' heads.
As mggoose so eloquently puts it "What happened to the "majority decision rule"? We are being told what to do by "minority rule". If there are more non smokers voting than smokers, they have nothing to bitch about."
You people want to make this a war between smokers and non smokers. What this TRULY? A situation whereby certain people (non-smokers) want to infringe upon the rights of others (business owners) and use the govt. to do so.
January 15, 2008 at 1:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hey_U_Guys (anonymous) says...
Oh boo hoo.
January 15, 2008 at 1:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hey_U_Guys (anonymous) says...
If these smokers want to fill their lungs with toxins, so be it. But don't do it in a f***ing restaurant.. What I REALLY hate is these places that have "smoking" and "non smoking" sections, have no barrier walls. Or my favorite...Applebees. They have the bar in the middle of the room surrounded by the "non smoking" and "smoking" sections. Why give the patrons a choice? They are still exposed to the smoke and nasty lung biscuit hacking people. There's nothing like eating a nice meal and listening to cancer patient 1 in the corner coughing up all sorts of lovely items. MmMm, deteriorating lung tissue and phlegm, YUMMY.
January 15, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ImplantedYankee (anonymous) says...
ey: Wrong on the other harmful health issues. No one is forcing those on me like smokers are.
Wrong on the obligation to himself, shareholders, etc (profits in general). All the predictions of dire financial straits for bars and restaurants before New York passed it's smoking ban never came to pass subsequently. In many cases, business increased. If the ban is universal, smoking patrons cannot just move to a different jurisdiction.
Wrong on employee choice. If someone is a waitress or bartender by trade, they do not have the choice to work in a non-smoking establishment for the very reasons I already mentioned. There aren't any! Breck's is hardly the only place to go in Charleston.
Wrong on my freedom to go any place I choose. There aren't any non-smoking places I can choose. Until the ban passed downtown, my only choice downtown was to go places that had less smoke than others. Nearer to my home, the same choice remains, with the exception of fast food, which has never permitted smoking in my lifetime. I'd agree with you if 75% (or even half) of establishments were smoke-free. I'd be happy just to have a handful. Since the choice doesn't exist, neither does your argument.
As for majority rule: It's happening -- or did you all forget that it is our elected officials considering and passing such laws. Since three-quarters of Americans don't smoke, it's high time this majority is being manifested in the law.
To be totally honest, I simply don't care about anyone's perceived right to smoke. I think such a right ends where my right to breathe clean air begins. Smoke at home. If you don't like government interference in business, let's also consider disbanding the department of health, the FDA, etc. If we are going to permit a carcinogenic haze, a few outbreaks of E. Coli are no worry.
January 15, 2008 at 1:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
carolinapanther (anonymous) says...
Ban smoking indoors!! let the smokers cry about outside where smoke belongs!
January 15, 2008 at 1:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyfigueroa (anonymous) says...
My argument still stands. You choose to go out to a particular restaurant, just as you choose to pay to see a particular movie or buy a type of shirt. ABSOLUTELY no one is forcing you to go into Applebees hence no one is forcing you to breathe in smoke.
YOU GOING OUT TO EAT IS NOT A RIGHT, IT IS A CHOICE. The ONLY governmental interference should be govt. buildings whereby citizens may or may not HAVE to go to conduct business. i.e. courts, tax offices, govt schools, etc. Privately owned clubs, bars or restaurants are not places where you have to pay taxes, go to court or educate your children.
The govt has no right to tell a business owner whom to serve. I have a business and I serve who I choose. If you don't like it go somewhere else. If more and more like you choose another establishment and I go out of business then MARKET FORCES have made the choice not government. Now a smart business owner may CHOOSE to go smoke-free and be the only game in town, hence cementing his popularity and increasing revenue.
"There aren't any non-smoking places I can choose." Nothing you can choose? Why? You can only eat at Applebees? And this thing about no businesses being smoke free is a fallacy. Of course it is so easy to ask someone to prove a negative. There may be more smoking than non-smoking, that's where MARKET FORCES come into play. Use your money and your feet to make a statement. Spend your money where you are being served the way YOU want. Don't make me as a business owner kowtow to your whims because you are too lazy to do enough research and find family & lung friendly restaurants.
January 15, 2008 at 3:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Speedy (anonymous) says...
Early-
I'm sure that any rate of cancer caused by beef is a lot less than that of cigarettes. Last time I checked, ground chuck doesn't have warning labels plastered all over it. Plus, I only eat organic steroid and antibiotic free beef.
January 15, 2008 at 4:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
carolinapanther (anonymous) says...
eyfigueroa, the simple solution is to keep smoke outdoors where nobody has to smell or breath polluted air. I cant believe in 2008 we still have people that think it is ok to smoke indoors!
January 15, 2008 at 7:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pacomarj (anonymous) says...
Restaurant with smoking - only get to serve smokers and the non-smokers willing to go into the restaurant.
Restaurant without smoking - serve everyone.
I don't like the argument that if I don't like the smoke, go somewhere else. It seems smokers want to be welcome everywhere, but non-smokers can only enjoy the few establishments that are non-smoking.
It has been really nice recently to go into restaurants and not have to be around cigarette smoke. I get seated in areas that I've never been able to sit in before. I go out to eat at least twice every weekend and to stick to just non-smoking restaurants that are not fast food, is not easy. There are some, but not enough to have a good variety.
January 15, 2008 at 7:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ImplantedYankee (anonymous) says...
ey - Your argument doesn't even sit. It falls flat on its face. What is it with Breck's and Applebees? Are those the only two restaurants you know of? It's not about being Lazy. The choices for non-smokers just aren't there. As for going out not being a right -- that's nonsense. You act as though it's your birthright to be able to spew your poison on everyone else. I consider it my birthright not to have to breathe it. I shouldn't have to be trapped in my house because of a small minority of people who have neither the good sense nor consideration not to do something that is both harmful to themselves and to others.
Your argument about the government not having a right to tell a business whom to serve is the same one that bigots used to try to close their doors to black not too many years ago. Do you think that was right as well? Don't make me and the rest of the non-smoking majority kowtow to the whims of the small minority of cluebirds who are still smoking in the 21st century.
I'd choose another place to go if such a place existed, but I've been all over this town and the choices just aren't there -- that is until downtown's ban took effect. I think the freedom for a business owner should be the freedom to go smoke free without the fear of losing business. The only way to make that happen is for a universal ban. In the meantime, I will be going downtown for my meals where I can smell and taste my food.
January 15, 2008 at 8:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
carolinapanther (anonymous) says...
Smart people dont smoke!!!!!!!1
January 15, 2008 at 8:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
carolinapanther (anonymous) says...
wpc3iop, there already is a law against drinking and driving. other than that, drinking alcohol does not make the person next to you breath in the alcohol. nobody has died from 2nd hand drinking. KEEP THE SMOKE OUTDOORS!!!!!!!!!
January 15, 2008 at 8:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
charlestonnative1963 (anonymous) says...
Smoking.....that is WHY I used to prefer leaving Charleston for other places,,,,so I could eat in health...for the past year it was GREAT! I could eat right here...in the HOly City and on SUllivans and Mt. Pleasant...I thought we have finally arrived....but lo, SC politics rears its ugly head again and they will probably go backwards
January 15, 2008 at 9:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
charlestonnative1963 (anonymous) says...
WHY on earth would een a smoker want to smoke and eat at the same time? Smoke sucks!
January 15, 2008 at 9:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyfigueroa (anonymous) says...
yankee: before you spout YOUR venom, get something straight. i don't smoke. will never smoke. can't stand smoking.
my argument wasn't pro-smoking. quite the opposite, i wish no one smoked.
my argument was pro-personal liberties. i'm not going to have you dictate to me who i can serve in my restaurant. you don't like it, kiss my butt. go somewhere else. spend your money elsewhere. don't give me this I HAVE A RIGHT TO BE SERVED THE WAY I WANT IN YOUR ESTABLISHMENT.
believe it or not you can be refused service for almost any reason, it's just that no one in the politically correct society will be willing to be labeled as bigoted, racists, sexists or any other 'ist'.
no one wants al sharpton on their doorstep so doors are open to everyone.
no one wants to lose $ so doors are open to everyone.
January 16, 2008 at 8:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
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.