Folly snuffs out smoking ban
FOLLY BEACH — Smokers can exhale — and inhale — after Folly Beach City Council rejected a smoking ban Tuesday in a 4-3 vote.
Walterboro and Beaufort passed a smoking ban Tuesday night, joining Charleston, Mount Pleasant and Sullivan's Island, while North Charleston voted earlier this month against a smoking ban.
"North Charleston got it right, I believe," Folly Councilman Tom Scruggs said. "Let the businesses decide their destiny, not this government."
Of the nearly 25 people who spoke during a public hearing immediately before the vote, 17 were against the ordinance that would have prohibited smoking in indoor workplaces.
"I don't drink, I don't go to bars, but I do believe this is a matter of private property rights," resident Fred Holland said. "Some day we've got to quit letting the government rule our lives."
Many of those opposed to the ordinance work in the food and beverage industry, including Richard Weatherford of The Sand Dollar.
"I've been in business for 34 years, and chances are I'm going to go out of business if you all pass this," he said.
Those in favor of the smoking ban cited public health. They included resident and physician Darlene Rawls, who said any council member who voted against it should visit a person on oxygen, or someone going through chemotherapy.
The three council members who voted for the ban were Laura Beck, Dave Stormer and Charlie McCarty. Those against it were Scruggs, Eddie Ellis, Tim Goodwin and Mayor Carl Beckmann Jr.
E-mail this story 
Printer-friendly version
Notice about comments:
The Post and Courier is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. The Post and Courier 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 "suggest removal" 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 Web site.
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Comments
This article has 26 comment(s)
Posted by KidYendor on May 28, 2008 at 1:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Those of us who support personal responsibility and the reversal of government intrusion should visit North Charleston and Folly Beach businesses soon to show our thanks for the wise stance taken against proposed smoking bans thrown at us by smoking Nazi communist dweebs. Goodbye Charleston and Mount Pleasant it was nice knowing ya.
Posted by carolinapanther on May 28, 2008 at 5:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
KidYendor, I hate to tell you but their are more non smokers than smokers. Non smokers lets show our power by eating out in Mount Pleasant and Charleston.
Posted by NativeSon on May 28, 2008 at 6:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Is this one of the reasons that South Carolina is considered such a backward state as to be equated with underdeveloped third-world countries.
Health of ALL citizens should be paramount in our priorties.
Posted by CMLMADDOG on May 28, 2008 at 7:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If you don't like smoke, don't go to places that allow it.
Simple as that. Freedom to choose where to spend your money.
Posted by lou9 on May 28, 2008 at 7:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Way to go Folly. I'm glad to see at least one town got it right. If you don't like smoke, don't patronize establishments that allow it. If you work in the restaurant business and you don't like smoke, go get a job in a restaurant that doesn't allow smoking. There are plenty of them around. If the anti smoking zealots are the majority as they claim then they can make businesses bow to their will with their wallets. I'm sick and tired of people wanting the government to control every facet of our lives.
By the way, just because a business owner invites you to patronize his establishment that doesn't make it a public place. A private citizen pays the rent, taxes, utilities, salaries, and other expenses to run his business, not the government. Restaurant and bar owners should be allowed to decide on their own what legal activities they want to have in their establishments.
Posted by justjerry on May 28, 2008 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Folly Beach and North Charleston are on the right page with this one!
For those of you who want a smoke free restauraunt I have a simple solution. Take your life savings and sign papers to borrow a whole bunch of other money and open your own restauraunt or bar. Then you can make it non smoking and do whatever you want with it.
It is not your place to tell people what LEGAL activities they can allow in their place of private business.
Posted by beth1070 on May 28, 2008 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have an idea..maybe Charleston and Mt Pleasant should also ban sun bathing...that causes melanoma dontcha know.
What the heck ever happened to a long lost thing called personal accountability???? It's like nobody is accountable anymore for their own choices and actions, so the government feels the need to step in and be the "big brother". When we allow things to pass like smoking bans and seatbelt laws, and when we allow stupid lawsuits to go through the courts, we are removing accountability for our own actions and inviting the government to dictate what we can and cannot do. George Orwell knew exactly what he was writing about and "1984" is here boys and girls!
Posted by eyfigueroa on May 28, 2008 at 11:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"What the heck ever happened to a long lost thing called personal accountability???? When we allow things to pass like smoking bans and seatbelt laws, and when we allow stupid lawsuits to go through the courts, we are removing accountability for our own actions and inviting the government to dictate what we can and cannot do."
AAAAAMEN!!!!!!
Posted by GG on May 28, 2008 at 12:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Who out there really thought the FB tokers would ever outlaw smoking in their city? They always take their lead from the ideology of the 60's.
Thank goodness MP, SI, and CHS realize the benefits of not having second-hand smoke being FORCED on the non-smokers who just want a nice meal or who want to have a drink or two at the local bar.
And don't repeat the diatribe of some of these posters who push non-government interference. If the government didn't pass this ban in MP and other cities, no smoking restrictions would never happen in any businesses b/c most owners wouldn't want to risk the profit margin. We all know that.
Posted by halfsheli on May 28, 2008 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I love smoking bans. I await bans on trans fats, walking barefoot, and introducing allergens into my system by planting pollen-ridden flowers in my garden. I can not control my own actions, and I need for my sovereign body to make sure that I don't engage in harmful behaviors around others. I only wish that that omnipotent governing body would come into my home and regulate activities there. You know, for my own good. Oh well. One day soon. Afterall, the barriers of personal freedoms are slowly crumbling.
Posted by trod1 on May 28, 2008 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Very simple!if you don't like smoke don't go to places that allow it. its your choice.or you can go there sit and b#tch about it. while everyone else there enjoys there dinner.
Posted by yeahright on May 28, 2008 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"I can not control my own actions"
Spoken like a true addict. That's why these bans are imposed. Not for YOUR own good, but for people around you who don't want your addiction forced on them.
And before you say "leave it to the business owner", 99% of restaurant owners could care less about the long-term well being of their patrons. Their concern is the immediate bottom line.
If it were legal to blow poisonous darts into other's necks, and a significant portion of the population were hopelessly addicted to blowing darts, they'd be welcome at most establishments.
It should also be illegal to blow poisonous smoke in another's face.
Remember when you could smoke on airplanes?
Seems proposterous now.
But if it weren't made illegal, you addicts would still be blowing smoke in my face on my next flight.
Posted by trod1 on May 28, 2008 at 12:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Thank goodness MP, SI, and CHS realize the benefits of not having second-hand smoke being FORCED on the non-smokers who just want a nice meal or who want to have a drink or two at the local bar."
BULLCRAP no one FORCED your butt go there in the first place.Oh whooa is me im forced to breath this smoke.im a victim whaaaaa.wish you guys would grow a pair and choose a different bar then.
Posted by trod1 on May 28, 2008 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I can not control my own actions"
Like going to a different business to drink or eat?thats a choice also.like your car or your feet made you go there?
Posted by trod1 on May 28, 2008 at 1:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It should also be illegal to blow poisonous smoke in another's face.if somkes being blown into your face you are defiantly to close to the others table in my opinion.
Posted by halfsheli on May 28, 2008 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My car has a very strong sense of what is right and wrong. It often takes me to places where I can not control my own actions and where other poor victims have been brought (against their wishes) to inhale poisonous substances. If only their cars would take them to establishments that have a non-smking area. If only those people had other choices...
Posted by yeahright on May 28, 2008 at 1:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Look, I'm not for government bans. This should be regulated by DHEC, and bars that allow smoking should be forced to install an effective ventilation system that makes the air safe for everyone. I suspect this expense would be just as damaging as the ban for most small business owners, however.
Posted by volsfan on May 28, 2008 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I used to live in California where the whole state had a smoking ban on one condition...If you owned and operated a bar (or resturaunt) and you the owner were the sole employee you could have smoking in the place. This took some getting used to but I finally learned to smoke outside and watch my beer from the window. Seems to me that it is the workers, not the patrons, that are pushing the issue. Too bad their tips depend on how much service you receive while sitting there smoking away.
Posted by justjerry on May 28, 2008 at 4:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
yeahright
I would make a simple suggestion to you personally that I made generally before. Take your own money, or develop a business plan that will encourage others to invest, and open a non smoking bar or restauraunt. When you have your own investment financially and personally then you should decide whether or not to have a smoking ban. Business owners care about the immediate bottom line because that is what they are in business for, to make money. If their customers want to smoke AND they choose to allow it then it is their business and no one else's.
Other people's addiction is not 'forced' upon you if you go into a private establishment of your own volition. If it is that bothersome to you then don't go in or open your own place. There are 2 restaurants in my neighborhood in North Charleston that are non smoking and doing very well. There are three other establishments that allow smoking that are also doing well.
The key is that NC was willing to allow people (business owners) to make their own choice as to what legal activities to allow their customers to engage in. Once the business owners made that decision, then their respective patrons make a decision whether or not to go in.
Requiring upgraded ventilation systems is the same as a ban due to the large cost involved.
Posted by CaptPete on May 28, 2008 at 6:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Safety is the main issue. Special attention will be placed on those who ride bikes and are caught walking in public while being drunk in Folly Beach.
Posted by NativeSon on May 29, 2008 at 7:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It has been proven beyond question that businesses which ban smoking have increased their business and significantly improved their bottom line!
Posted by justjerry on May 29, 2008 at 8:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
NativeSon - that is not an accurate statement in the least. There are many, many restaurants that have either closed or significantly lost business due to smoking bans across the country. Locally several restaurants in the City of Charleston attempted to go non smoking before the ban was put into place and had to return to offering smoking areas due to the drop in business. If what you said were true there would be no uproar from business owners when bans are proposed. A business owner is there to make money and if their clientele were strong enough to make money by having a non smoking establishment it would make no sense to allow smoking.
Posted by lou9 on May 29, 2008 at 10:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
NativeSon - That is a load of garbage. Where is the proof? Who did the study? If a restaurant or bar owner could increase his business by doing one thing that would cost no money to implement he would do it in a heartbeat. The reason they all don't ban smoking is because that argument is a load of b.s.
Ask the former owner of Bert's Bar if banning smoking increased his business.
Posted by yeahright on May 29, 2008 at 1:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
justjerry- that's one way to look at it. The other would be to open a truly "private" club that caters to smokers.
You seem to think the right to smoke supercedes the right to an enviroment that is not hazardous to one's health. Which is typical of an irrationally thinking addict.
And spare me the argument that we should all stay home if we don't want to breath your smoke. It's small-minded to suggest that anyone who doesn't want to breath toxic fumes for 3 hours can't go to the local sports bar to watch a football game because of "addict's rights".
We're not talking about cheap cologne stinking up the joint. We're talking about a proven toxin.
Posted by justjerry on May 29, 2008 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
yeahright - I never said stay home and I never said that I am a smoker. What I said is that if you want to go to a restauraunt or bar to eat, drink, watch a game, play pool or do whatever and you are bothered by a smoky environment then you should open your own establishment. Put your own money or credit on the line if you want a non smoking establishment. A business is private and only they should have the ability to decide what legal activities are allowed in their establishment. Period.
The issue is not about the right to smoke, that is already established as tobacco products are legal to buy, sell and use. The issue is whether or not the government should be allowed to impose laws on a private business owner that prevent him from making money as best as he legally sees fit. Any restaurant that allows smoking unless it is owned by a government agency already is a truly private club.
And yes, smoke is a proven toxin to smokers but the risk of cancer from exposure to second hand smoke is negligible and the studies are far from conclusive for either side. It may be unpleasant to some but the likelihood of getting lung cancer from going to see a few games or working in a bar is slim and none.
I am all for non smoking restaurants, I prefer to dine in them because smoke bothers me while I eat. But if a restaurant allows smoking and I don't want to be bothered I go elsewhere. It is their decision to allow it and mine to not go in if I do not want to.
Posted by yeahright on May 29, 2008 at 8:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
justjerry-I appreciate the clean debate...not how these threads usually proceed.
Your argument seems to be that because addicts outnumber those who aren't addicts(in bars and restaurants), and business owners cater to the majority, non-addicts should open "non-smoking" restaurants if they want to enjoy a ballgame without enhaling poisonous toxins.
Having a filthy, rat infested "private" kitchen is also legal. Should DHEC not have the right to inspect commercial kitchens and shut down those deemed unacceptable?
This risk is just as "negligible" as second hand smoke.
And your "slim to none" assessment is hardly proven.
You use the word "unpleasant" to describe cigarette smoke. That shows me that you don't understand my point. Cheap colgne is "unpleasant". We're talking about POISON.
I don't know a single smoker who is happy that he smokes, doesn't want to quit, and most don't smoke inside their own home. Why is that? Because they know it's toxic? Yet they're perfectly content to smoke a pack at Joe's Tavern, because Joe will allow whatever the majority wants as long as he's making money, and they can go home to a clean, safe environment after a 6 pack.
This is a matter for DHEC, and establishments allowing smoking should provide adequate ventilation to provide healthy air, or have a smoking area outside, where ventilation is free.
BTW, a private establishment is one that requires membership. An establishment open to the general public assumes the responsiblity of providing a safe environment for patrons and employees, not one clouded with toxins.
Do you really expect me to believe you're a non-smoker?