Justices uphold Sullivan's smoking ban
Court strikes down criminal penalty for lighting up
The Post and Courier
Property rights advocate Tim Holbrook smokes a cigarette Monday at Seel's on Sullivan's Island. The S.C. Supreme Court upheld the city's smoking ban, but eliminated the criminal penalties for violations.
Previous stories
Isle of Palms draws closer to workplace smoking ban amid protests, published 09/04/08
Fresher, cleaner air; Since no-smoking ordinances adopted, breathing in bars and restaurants much easier, published 07/30/08
Town can't ban smoking, attorney says, published 06/26/08
The fight to allow smoking inside Sullivan's Island bars was snuffed out Monday, but you won't end up in the pokey for lighting up.
For the second time this year, the S.C. Supreme Court upheld the right of cities and towns to ban indoor smoking in public places.
The ruling, in favor of the town of Sullivan's Island, mirrors an earlier high court decision that addressed a similar ban in Greenville.
An attorney for the pro-smoking forces said an appeal is unlikely, meaning smoking bans already established in Charleston and elsewhere, and those in the process of being passed — such as on the Isle of Palms — appear on safe legal ground.
As in the Greenville case, the justices ruled towns such as Sullivan's Island can enact a workplace smoking ban because state law doesn't expressly preempt "regulation of smoking by a local government."
The court, however, did strike down Sullivan's Island's criminal penalty of $500, 30 days in jail, or both, for brandishing a lit cigarette. Opponents argued the town's ordinance went too far because it criminalized conduct that otherwise is not illegal under state law.
Who has bans
Jurisdictions with local workplace smoking bans include:
Aiken County, Aiken, Beaufort County, Beaufort, Bluffton, Camden, Charleston, Clemson, Columbia, Greenville, Hilton Head Island, Lexington, Liberty, Mount Pleasant, North Augusta, Richland County, Surfside Beach, Sullivan's Island and Walterboro.
Isle of Palms recently took steps to enact its own ban but the ban lacks final approval.
Still, the latter ruling was a hollow victory. The island's Town Council has already reworded its anti-smoking ordinance, erasing the criminal charge and replacing it with a local civil nuisance penalty of up to $100, a town lawyer said.
The only major difference on Monday from the earlier Greenville opinion covered a pro-smokers' argument contending any regulation of indoor tobacco smoke was preempted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and also by South Carolina occupational health and safety laws. The justices rejected that point, saying federal courts have declined to find OSHA preempts state law.
Also, the justices said nothing in state law regarding workplace safety indicates the Legislature "intended to preempt the regulation of indoor tobacco smoke in the workplace."
Sullivan's Island Mayor Carl Smith said the ruling was anti-climactic, given that the workplace smoking ban has been in place on the island since 2006.
"As far as I'm concerned, it's a dead issue," he said Monday.
Most of the island's bars and eating establishments have adapted and thrived since the ban was enacted, he noted, with some allowing smoking outside on decks or patios.
The only real victim of the ban was the longtime local favorite bar known as Bert's, where the legal fight started. It has since gone out of business, blaming their demise on a loss of freedom-loving smokers who no longer could light-up indoors.
Charleston attorney Paul Dominick, who argued the bar's case in front of the high court, said there would not be an appeal and the issue, therefore, is finished. Any lingering questions have been answered, he said, which "certainly ends the case."
Frances Cantwell, attorney for Sullivan's Island, said it now appears that all South Carolina towns and cities are safe to pursue their own indoor smoking bans if they wish, barring any attempt by the Legislature to revisit the issue.
The teeth to the Sullivan's ordinance, she added, isn't so much the minimal civil fines as it is the threat of having a business license revoked for any establishment deemed a repeat offender.
Local Sullivan's Island businesses seemed underwhelmed by the ruling Monday. Melissa Magwood, manager of Poe's Tavern, said her staff and diners seem happy in going without smoke during their meals or in their workspace.
Going smokeless "hasn't affected us one bit," she said.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly version
Comments
carolinadude (anonymous) says...
Thomas,
Again, mega dittos! As to intiative and recall for SC, it would require a constitutional ammendment. You're correct that it's certainly needed but not politically doable. It's sad that we can ban smoking but not illegal immigration.
September 9, 2008 at 4:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
carolinadude (anonymous) says...
Correction,
I should have referred to the measure as INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM AND RECALL in the above post.
September 9, 2008 at 4:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
NativeSon (anonymous) says...
Any business owner who supports indoor drug use of tobacco is either callous, mis-informed or totally ignorant (or a combination of all)!
1. Non smokers have a right not to breath that filth,
2. No child should be endangered by forced smoking, and
3. Businesses have seen significant increase in profits after going smoke free because their business is now open to 100% of the population instead of 26% (the % of smokers in the state).
So, do not repeat the stupidity of James Island council who recently refused to pass a non smoking ordinance on the premise that unscrupulous business owners could best decide for themselves whether to abuse children and other non smokers.
September 9, 2008 at 5:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jimmy1370 (anonymous) says...
NativeSon:
1. Can you point me to that in the Bill of Rights??
2. The only way a child would be endagered is if the parent took their own child into a place of business that allowed smoking. Go figure, the owner of a business running his business instead of the government.
3. This is where the free market takes over. Let a business decide whether they want to allow smoking or not. Then, let the people decide if they want to patron the establishment. Nobody is holding a gun to all these people saying you must eat or drink here.
The stupidity is to allow the government to impede ever more into our lives. I for one am for less government. Apparantly though, I am in the minority these days.
September 9, 2008 at 5:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DanniD (anonymous) says...
I hear ya jimmy1370....the parents are the ones endarging their children if they bring them to an establishment that allows smoking. I am sure there are much bigger fish to fry then to worry about what buisness allow smoking! Geesh!
September 9, 2008 at 6:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JourneyOn (anonymous) says...
Besides, if we really want to save innocent, bystander lives then close all the bars ban the sale of alcohol! There are far more DUI deaths in this state than second hand smoke deaths.
Just call it like it is. Call it the "I don't like to smell smoke" law not the "I'm trying to save your life law".
As for me and my family and our visitors, we will keep our smoke at home and our resturant dollars and our tax dollars and our accommodations fee dollars.
Personally, I don't think the government should have a say in this one. Let the business fend for itself. If the owner allows smoking and you don't like it - don't go. If the owner does not want smoking and you want to smoke - don't go. Plain and simple.
September 9, 2008 at 6:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Grinder (anonymous) says...
You took the words out of my mouth, Jimmy. N-Son, what if the business owner caters to a smoking crowd? Even if not, if he loses business because he allows smoking, How long do you think it'll be before he changes the rules? Maybe non-smokers would be happy, but what if the majority of his clientele come from the "26%?" Be careful when you use statistics... .
The growing dominance of the nanny state, with its safety nazis, must be held in check. When we cede personal responsibility and give up our right to adult freedom of choice, the foundation of liberty is compromised to the extent that it may not be recovered. Don't even ask me about motorcycle helmets... !
September 9, 2008 at 6:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CedarPosts (anonymous) says...
Smoking is stupid and there is no argument for stupidity.
To anyone who reads this and smokes, quit, I mean really quit and you'll soon see how offensive your smoking is to all the non smokers around you.
I smoked in college and it came down to cost Marlboro Man vs Bud Man and Bud Man won!
Thankfully I quit and realized that smoking would cost me, not just my health, and hard earned cash, but relationships, and jobs would have been lost had I continued to smoke.
September 9, 2008 at 6:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justjerry (anonymous) says...
If someone wants a place to go eat and drink that is smoke free I would offer the following suggestion. First, sit down and create a business plan. Then go to the bank and pull out your own money or convince the bank to loan you money to execute that plan. Then work 70 to 100 hours per week without a vacation for several years to build the business. Until you are willing to do that you have no right to interfere with the operation of a PRIVATE business that is allowing a LEGAL activity to take place within their walls.
September 9, 2008 at 7:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
theronce (anonymous) says...
Hey, all you nazis, wait till they come for you.
September 9, 2008 at 7:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RTC (anonymous) says...
I have said this over and over. Now that they have smoking bans people are bringing their kids into the bar sections of restaurants. It used to be that you could go into those areas just to be able to dine without listening to tired children whine, while mom and dad had to have one more drink for the road. Now, all of the bar areas are loaded with children, so the parents can watch the game and drink.
They have opened a whole new can of worms. Parents don't want their kids around smoke. That is understandable. My pet peeve is that they sure don't mind drinking, and then putting these same precious children into the car and driving them home. The children may or may not suffer down the road from exposure to secondhand smoke, but they sure can die in a heartbeat from a drunken parent driving them home.
September 9, 2008 at 8:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
zekemire (anonymous) says...
First, I AM NOT NOR HAVE I EVER BEEN A SMOKER! However, these absurd city and county laws and rulings by the SC Supreme Court that prohibit a free choice by private individuals and businesses is an afront to our State and US Constitutions! Regardless of the fact that bars and restaurants serve members of the general public, THEY ARE NOT PUBLIC BUILDINGS OR PLACES! They are privately owned, not government owned! Hopefully someone will have the gonads to take this to the federal courts and even the Supreme Court! If the aclu had any relevence, any real agenda for civil liberties, they would take this up and see it through to a constitutionally correct solution!!!! Same thing for the mandated seat belt laws!!!
September 9, 2008 at 8:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
abitskeptical (anonymous) says...
Being libertarian, I certainly do not favor the "nanny state".
However,there are all sorts of other restrictions, which are in place for the benefit of public health & welfare, that are imposed on private business restaurant/bar owners who serve the public.
I'm just saying....
September 9, 2008 at 8:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CedarPosts (anonymous) says...
Your personal right to do whatever you want STOPS at my nose!
Having indulged in my non smoking rant, I'll switch sides and give you the biz owners perspective as to why we need a smoking ban.
Being a bar/pub/restaurant owner/manager/partner since 1980 I'll tell you nothing pleases me more than the wave of smoking bans across the Carolina's.
I don't want smoking in my place of business and the reasons are simple.
1. The health issue of 2nd hand smoke.
2. I'm tired of employees complaining about having to work the smoking sections.
3. I'm tired of customers leaving because the only seating I have open is in the smoking section.
4. The fire risk.
5. If I hire smokers to work the smoke filled bar they are out sick more often and generally just a little bit more lazy.
6. I'm tired of explaining why the smoking section is without white table cloths.
7. I'm tired of telling the jerk with the cigar to take it outside and hearing his "I thought this was a smoking section" excuse.
If I ban smoking on my own, I fear losing ten percent of my business that is smokers, plus another 10% of those who are dining with smokers.
However, if its across the board banned from all restaurants then I'm in a win/win position.
September 9, 2008 at 9:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
outrage (anonymous) says...
coldbeer - Does this non-smoking ban include private clubs?
It has killed the businesses in Buffalo, NY. I just found out that the Mayor of a small town just sold his restuarant/bar after about 40 years in business. The pool hall across the street from that has lost 70% of its business. He tried to turn the pool hall private because the majority of his patrons were smokers, but they denied him that option.
The intrusions by the govt. are getting worse!
September 9, 2008 at 9:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
berthelot (anonymous) says...
James_Crackcorn
It is called Club Habana on Meeting Street (above the Tinder Box). It is the only bar that you can still smoke in because a large portion of their business is from tobacco products.
September 9, 2008 at 9:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
abc123 (anonymous) says...
Fireworks are legal in South Carolina...I should have the right to shoot fireworks in any restaurant/bar I want.
September 9, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RTC (anonymous) says...
outrage, in Mt. Pleasant they won't allow smoking inside of the VFW. This, of course, is a private establishment, and they didn't allow the members to even vote on this ban.
They also will not allow any of those cigar clubs to open in the area. "Smoker Friendly" is not smoker friendly anymore. I ask anyone, " Why would you want to go into a tobacco
store if you are a nonsmoker?"
They have carried this ban to the extreme. I still don't understand why they can't have both smoking and nonsmoking establishments? No one would be forced to enter an establishment that allows smoking. Public offices, hospitals, nursing homes, etc, are a whole different matter.
Again, leave it up to the establishment owners!
September 9, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
willie08 (anonymous) says...
I would rather people smoke inside and use ashtrays than smoke outside on the streets and pollute them with their butts.
However, being a nonsmoker, I really do like going into a bar and not having smoke blown in my face. However, I don't think it's the right of anyone to tell a business owner what is allowed inside their establishment, or when they are even allowed to close. This IS a nanny state.
We are all adults, and we should have the right to make our own decisions, so long as those decisions don't hurt others.
People MUST have a choice.
Imposing silly laws on the public is not going to do anything but aggrevate people.
However, for those of you who compare smoking to selling grocieries in a store. Um, where do you see the similarity?
Smoking cigarettes is a decision that jeopardizes the health of the person sitting next to you. That's why people want to ban it. Big difference.
September 9, 2008 at 9:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
willie08 (anonymous) says...
Posted by James_Crackcorn on September 9, 2008 at 7:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am a nonsmoker who thinks only drug addicted idiots smoke.
Crackcorn, do you really believe that? Ha Ha Ha!!
September 9, 2008 at 10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
abc123 (anonymous) says...
Obviously my remark was facetious. People get so bent out of shape over social issues. Unfortunately misspellings such as 'Americ' and name calling are what 'shoots holes in your credibility'.
Perhaps a way to appease both smokers and non-smokers would be to have smoking in a separate room with four walls. The smokers would get to smoke and the non-smokers would not be affected.
September 9, 2008 at 10:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CedarPosts (anonymous) says...
Truth is the people who don't smoke out number the ones who do, and the number of those who do smoke remains at about 23%.
Seems to me that a simple majority rules, therefore those who wish to suck on cancer sticks are free to do so as long as it doesn't bother the rest of us. And in a closed confined space it bothers the other 80% of the population.
It's not about rights, or freedom it's about the wishes of the majority of the voting public. If the majority of the public wanted smoking in public spaces, they vote the bums out and the law would be over turned.
I don't see anyone running to unseat a member of Sullivan's Island government on a "Pro-Smoking" agenda.
As for Crackcorny - he's a troll, part of the internet lunatic fringe, one blog away from a becoming an IED.
September 9, 2008 at 10:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
berthelot (anonymous) says...
List of activities that must be banned from "public" (privately owned) spaces:
Alcohol: Could lead to addiction and death.
Darts: Little weapons thrown by drunk people - a danger to others.
Loud music: Hurts my ears, eventually will lead to me going deaf.
Video games: May cause seizures in epileptics.
Cooking with trans fat: Causes heart attacks.
Dancing: Is lewd and contributes to the moral decline of our country.
As an adult I simply cannot avoid these things on my own, legislation is certainly in order.
September 9, 2008 at 10:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justjerry (anonymous) says...
Cedarposts - if the majority of your potential customers are non smokers as you contend then why not just go nonsmoking. There are a couple of restauraunts near me in North Charleston that are non smoking by choice and are very successful. The problem that I have about your argument about the majority rule is that the majority does not OWN the business, a private owner(s) does. I would not have a problem at all with every bar or restauraunt being non smoking as long as that was the choice that the owner made.
September 9, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
coolfreaknbeans (anonymous) says...
I still can't get past the statement..." brandishing a lit cigarette".I mean really.As if it's a weapon.I've posted this so much but here goes...Before these bans,people had a choice whether or not to be exposed to smoke.Now they have not much of a choice.While out in downtown in June the sidewalks were PACKED with smokers.So now because of the ban innocent nonsmokers(and their kids) are exposed to smoke just to get down the sidewalk.What fn sense does this make?To NativeSon- I don't agree with parents smoking around their children.But according to your views a law should be made to prevent parents from smoking in their own homes?Or near their children?We can't force people by law to use good judgement.
September 9, 2008 at 10:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cid95 (anonymous) says...
I don't smoke, but neither do I want a nanny state.
Private businesses are ALREADY regulated in many ways to provide a reasonably safe environment for employees and for customers and to fit in with community standards.
Examples: regulated opening and closing hours, sanitation, electrical, fire safety, noise levels, etc.
Smoking is something which affects others in the area. That's why it's being banned, it's just another thing on the list towards making a reasonable safe work environment.
It's for employees more than anything else - telling people "yeah, it's unhealthy to work here - so do you want the job or not?" isn't legal in today's America.
Either you have regulations towards a reasonably safe work environment or you don't. We do, and not having to breathe noxious smoke at work fits in with that.
September 9, 2008 at 11:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
willie08 (anonymous) says...
james_crackcorn, caffeine is also a drug. Do you drink coffee? Does that make you a drug addict?
Nicotine is addictive if you smoke for several years.
I smoked a 1/2 a pack for 4 years when I was younger, and I never got addicted. I quit with no problems at all.
In fact, I physically started feeling much better when I quit smoking cigarettes, and I couldn't even stand the sight of a cigarette.
I had a harder time when I tried to quit drinking coffee, as it was giving me horrible migraines.
As far as everything else you said, I totally agree.
September 9, 2008 at 11:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
berthelot (anonymous) says...
Cid95 said:
"telling people "yeah, it's unhealthy to work here - so do you want the job or not?" isn't legal in today's America."
Sorry, but that is not the case. What about the guys who breathe in brake dust all day? Coal miners? Loggers? Brick and tile workers? Demolition workers? Off shore fishermen? Roofers? Battery production workers?
It is not a safe world. The people who do these jobs are well aware of the risks and decide to continue anyway. There are regulations in place of course but that will not take away the hazards. Luckily we live in a country that doesn't force anyone to take up any particular occupation. If you don't like to breath in coal dust and feel uncomfortable in caves several hundred feet under ground then by all means, do not become a coal miner.
To say that this ordinance is for the "protection" of the workers is ridiculous. It is a foot in the door that will eventually lead your local government to think that they can legislate every aspect of your life and business.
September 9, 2008 at 11:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JF (anonymous) says...
My freind is deathly allergic to shrimp. Does he have a right to demand to tell the restsaurant he works at to ban shrimp to be sure he is in a safe work environment? How about highway workers breathing those exhaust fumes? Shouldn't we ban cars from the roads when particulate matter reaches dangerous levels? Shouldn't everything be safe? I am really tired of these Dudley -do -Rights protecting me from evil cigarette smokers!
September 9, 2008 at 11:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...
People without vices can be annoying and come across as self righteous, but then again, each to their own, but just don't show that so much better than me because you don't have a vice.
As far as smoking goes, I am sort on the fence about this and can see both sides of the coin.
In a way I feel that it is not the government business to tell a private business whether or not it can allow smoking.
On the other hand, there are people that work there that need a job, and patrons that would rather not be around smoke. And it is a public health concern.
So in the long run, I feel that it should be up to the businesses to make the decision, but I will not lose any sleep over this decision.
The problem I do have is not being allowed to smoke, and then not given the chance to take my drink outside to where I can smoke and drink at the same time. I feel that there should at least have a 20 foot buffer to where you are able to do both. So that's my two cents worth.
September 9, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
coolfreaknbeans (anonymous) says...
guidedbystewart said.."The problem I do have is not being allowed to smoke, and then not given the chance to take my drink outside to where I can smoke and drink at the same time. I feel that there should at least have a 20 foot buffer to where you are able to do both. So that's my two cents worth."
I think for once we agree!
September 9, 2008 at noon ( permalink | suggest removal )
mkris (anonymous) says...
I dont get it, seems to me with 77% of the population that doesn't smoke, why would a business allow smoking indoors? Sounds like a real stupid economic move to me. That said, why do the smoker's have a problem excusing themselves from a restaurant table and have a cigarette outside the building or on a porch? I smoke and even in restaurants that allow smoking I excuse myself abnd go outdoors or to the bar to have an after-dinner cigarette. My grandmother never allowed me to smoke indoors.
September 9, 2008 at 12:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
coolfreaknbeans (anonymous) says...
mkris-I agree.But these bans COMPLETELY ban smoking.No bar areas to smoke in.And like I mentioned above if there are no designated areas to smoke,even outside,it creates problems.I can't stand going into a restaurant or store and my family being forced to inhale smoke.(Due to a huge group of loitering smokers by the door.)I'd rather an area be dedicated to the smokers away from the sidewalk or door.
September 9, 2008 at 2:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
devilsadvocate77 (anonymous) says...
Smokers are not as smart as they think. For one thing they cannot read. It has been 30 years now that warnings have been printed on the sides of cigarette packs warning of all the hazards by smoking. Has not stopped them at all. I have yet to see someone walk up to a roaring campfire, stick their head in the smoke and say 'thats good smoke'. Its not natural for a human being to inhale smoke. Eat greasy burgers till your arteries harden, drink liquor till your liver rots, neither effect me. But blow smoke out of your mouth toward me, and you are invading my basic need to breathe clean air.
September 9, 2008 at 2:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
WSM (anonymous) says...
REDUCATION AND RELOCATION OF PEOPLE DANGEROUS TO OTHER'S HEALTH CONSIDERED, FURTHER ACTIONS DEBATED
In compliance with the latest smoking ban, Charleston County will forcibly relocate peoples considered to be "unhealthy" by County Council.
County Advisor Mullah Omar stated "We have had these issues of the infidels...I mean the lawless...who do not understand what is best for them, and do not want to follow the law. We had ways of dealing with those who refuse to act in their best intrests, but I don't think your county council is Progressive enough for that, yet."
The same dirty, nasty, and lowbrow practioners of the pastime of death dared to speak out against their own good, citing archaic reasons as "property rights" and governmental interference with private property. This speaks of a poorly educated mind, obviously home or Christian schooled outside the arena of competent educators of the Charleston County school system.
County Council is further debating Body Mass Index (BMI) standards for resturaunts and clubs. Patrons would be denied entrance to the clubs if they were found to be in violation. The debate among council is what actions should the county take?
One councilman was quoted, "In my opinion, anyone wih a BMI of under 18 is obviously eating disordered. I know that the clinical threshold is a BMI of 17, but we're going to err on the side of caution for your own good. I think that the CCSO should have a special SWAT team to swoop down on these people when they are not a danger to themselves or others. I'd call it a Bodymass Index Team, CHarleston. Some underweight a-cup coed from the C of C walks into Wild Wings in Mount Pleasant, and WHOOSH... off they go with her to forced feeding and 'protective custody.'"
Since many of the council are over an overweight BMI themselves, many observers have been calling the debating of council in dealing with the overweight as "stalling" and "favoritism."
A new relcation subdivision is being built for the human debris without the brains to figure out what is good for them. Although the P&C wanted to tour the grounds of the new facility, we were told that it was strictly off limits for the good of the "uneducated" who are there.
"After all," stated one councilman,"These people don't know what's good for them. The next thing you know, they'd say that marijuana should stay illegal!"
September 9, 2008 at 2:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Siava (anonymous) says...
devilsadvocate77, nobody is as smart as he or she thinks. :)
Anyhoo while we're on the banning wagon, I want a ban on people entering public buildings if they've got an infectious disease such as a cold or flu. A sick person hacking around my food or in my face or in the very air I breathe might make me sick too. Goodness knows I don't want to use up my company provided sick days (unless I want to go to the beach). I don't want to risk bringing home a sickness to my child so she can spread it around school because then she and her classmates will miss days too, and it's no fun having to stay home from work when the kids are home, too!
Seriously though, little by little the government continues to take away the power of choice. Banning tobacco wipes out that industry. That's A LOT of money and jobs. What do supporters of making tobacco illegal propose to take its place? I've read so many hisses towards tobacco about stupid it is and how it ought to be prohibited, but I haven't read any propositions on what should be done to replace the big chunk it would take away from the economy.
September 9, 2008 at 3:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Siava (anonymous) says...
DA77, I take that back. I'm pretty sure Stephen Hawking thinks he's pretty smart and he is. :)
September 9, 2008 at 3:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
berthelot (anonymous) says...
Hehe, good one stand828.
September 9, 2008 at 6 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cid95 (anonymous) says...
Berthelot:
"Sorry, but that is not the case. What about the guys who breathe in brake dust all day? Coal miners? Loggers? Brick and tile workers? Demolition workers? Off shore fishermen? Roofers? Battery production workers?"
Not correct analogies. A dangerous job which is prone to accidents (example: farmers and fishermen) and crime (example: taxi driver) is not the same as one with guaranteed bad air, day after day. Miners and others that work around air with high particulate concentration wear respiratory gear (I was required to when I held a job with lots of sanding).
Like I said - we either try to make a reasonably safe work environment or we don't. Don't = Rats in the kitchen, live electrical wires, no fire exits, smoky air, etc.
September 10, 2008 at 12:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
berthelot (anonymous) says...
Cid,
I was mostly responding to the following statement that you made: "telling people "yeah, it's unhealthy to work here - so do you want the job or not?" isn't legal in today's America."
It is not illegal to hire someone for a job that is hazardous to their health.
We don't shut down coal mines because of the hazards, we create regulations to help lessen the effects. By your reasoning a correct analogy would be to force bartenders to wear respiratory gear rather than ban smoking.
September 10, 2008 at 2:41 p.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.