In Lowcountry, some folks like to smoke; others like to snuff out freedom
NORTH CHARLESTON — As gin joints go, this one is decidedly old school.
The doors have no windows, the floors are concrete and the beer is cold. Nothing fancy, just a pool table, a couch and a few booths. It's dark, the way it's supposed to be.
At the bar, a guy tosses back a slug of his drink, takes a drag off his cigarette like it's his last breath of freedom, and shakes his head as if to say what is this world coming to?
"There were these people in here from Mount Pleasant the other day," he says. "I asked them what they were doing all the way over here, and they said, 'You can smoke in here.' "
You'd think the Great Depression had set in again, but this time the prohibition is on smoking. The morality police have set up a precinct in the Lowcountry. And with a Supreme Court ruling in their favor this week, it looks like they will continue to rule. Any chance of an appeal on smoking bans in Charleston, Mount Pleasant or Sullivan's Island has gone up in smoke. The Isle of Palms will probably follow suit.
Unless you want to wander out to the Edge of America, or find some little bar in the hinterlands of the county, North Chuck is the last place you can light up. It has become the Wild West of the metro area, the last frontier. It's pretty bad when you walk into a restaurant, have a hostess ask "Smoking or non?" and think it's adorably quaint.
Here at The Mill, the old-school joint off Park Circle, the smoking debate comes up from time to time. There are folks here who don't smoke, and don't particularly enjoy the smell of it, but they seem to understand something that a lot of other people don't.
This isn't about smoking, it's about government intervention, it's monkeying with the free market. They find it funny that the same folks who say government should stay out of your life are the same people trying to tell everyone else what to do with their bodies, who to marry, when and where they can smoke. Hypocrites, all of them.
Don't want to come out of a bar smelling like smoke? Don't go in.
Can't taste your food while inhaling someone else's smoke? Frequent restaurants that don't allow smoking. Vote with your money, not your politicians, and stay out of other people's business.
These folks don't buy all this it's-for-your-health business.
"It's like the seat belt law," says Brian Nelson, bartender at The Mill. "They say they do it for safety but then don't require people riding motorcycles to wear helmets."
Yeah, it doesn't make sense. But then, politics rarely does. It's all about who makes the most noise, who stirs people up with their propaganda. It's like this presidential election. Doesn't matter if they are telling the truth, the victor is the one who talks loudest, feigns the most outrage, plays the victim best.
Sure, even smokers realize it's a nasty habit, but they want to know why somebody else's rights trump theirs. Show them where in the Constitution it says they have a right to tell a restaurant or bar owner how to run their business.
Keith Summey gets it. The mayor in these parts says the smoking question should be left up to individual businesses, and the city council backed him up earlier this year. God bless him, folks here say. At last someone remembers that America is the land of the free — or at least understands his constituency.
Folks at The Mill joke that these people will go after alcohol next. If not that, it'll be the noise coming from a bar. (Too late, that one is already happening.) They have an answer for that, too: if you don't want to hear noise, don't move in next door to a bar.
And what if people decide movie theaters shouldn't show R-rated movies because they might want to take their kids there. Where does it end?
Someday, someone is going to gripe about something these anti-smoking folks love — say, broadcasting political propaganda disguised as talk radio, or Starbucks. Who'll be crying about their lost freedom then?
But that'll be a different story, won't it?
Reach Brian Hicks at 937-5561 or bhicks@postandcourier.com.
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. Charleston.net 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 65 comment(s)
92 comments
Digital library launched 13 comments
MoveOn.org to hold rally for health care reform 93 comments
Cost for Sanford trips $70,000 59 comments
Suspect expected to plead guilty 29 comments
Former Wando High football standout dies during workout 15 comments
Attendance up at SC Confederate, military museum 26 comments
Homeland Security: Suspension of Sanford's classified access an "error" 1 comments
Posted by Cid95 on September 12, 2008 at 2:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The gov't already regulates how a business owner runs their business. Sanitation, fire, employee age, construction standards, occupancy, electrical, etc.
The goal of all that is to provide a reasonably safe atmosphere for customers and, especially, employees.
Having air not filled with noxious smoke is in line with that.
You can't ignore a pervasive airborne carcinogen just because some people like it any more than you could ignore rat feces in the food storage area if some people liked it.
Posted by sgtpsycho on September 12, 2008 at 5:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
North Chuck: not a member (yet) of the United Socialist States of Amerika. Why don't we cut to the chase and call each other "comrade?"
Posted by sgtpsycho on September 12, 2008 at 5:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh, yeah, and a postscript. If anyone thinks all these nationwide no-smoke laws have anything to do with smoking you have your zippo up your *ss. One Day, They Will Come For You...
Posted by DanniD on September 12, 2008 at 6:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Great article. People need to find something else to cry about instead of worrying about what other people are doing. Some people really need to get over themselves. Like the article says, if you don't like the smell of smoke, than don't go near it. Simple.
Posted by jimmy1370 on September 12, 2008 at 6:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Cid, should we ban smoking in your own home if your have children??
"The goal of all that is to provide a reasonably safe atmosphere for customers and, especially, employees.
Having air not filled with noxious smoke is in line with that."
Change customers & employees to children. Now you have the government stepping in your house.
Posted by DoaMM on September 12, 2008 at 6:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We're losing our freedom one added law at a time, folks...
Posted by NativeSon on September 12, 2008 at 7:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Dear smoker: Your right to do anything ends where the next guys rights begin. I see no problem with you smoking any where you please ~ just do not exhale!
As far as children, no one has a right to molest them even with second hand tobacco smoke. If you LOVE your children you would not even consider smoking around them. By the way, the opposit of LOVE is SELFISHNESS!
Posted by jimmy1370 on September 12, 2008 at 7:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
N-Son, you did not answer the question. Should we ban smoking in homes of people who have children?
Posted by lantanagurl on September 12, 2008 at 7:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I like being able to breathe, which I personally enjoy WITHOUT the carninogens. My money gets spent where there isn't smoke and I spend alot of money. enjoy lung cancer and emphesema, not to mention the stench that goes with the cigs? not me! BTW, government already steps in your house. big brother has been watching for a very long time.
Posted by Ella_Menneau on September 12, 2008 at 7:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Don't want to come out of a bar smelling like smoke? Don't go in.
Can't taste your food while inhaling someone else's smoke? Frequent restaurants that don't allow smoking"
Without government intervention, these places wouldn't exist. Generally I'm all for smaller government, but in this case, they really are representing the health and welfare of their constituents. Man up, smoker boy and go outside. It won't kill you as fast as cigarettes will.
Posted by JourneyOn on September 12, 2008 at 7:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Quote of the day, "Vote with your money, not your politicians." Hear! Hear!
My household will gladly give our tax and accommodations dollars to Mayor Keith. I doubt he will have a budget shortfall this year.
As for second hand smoke, look at the generations of children who are now well into retirement years who have never had any ill effects from it. It's genetics. Just like some people will wind up with heart disease from too much red meat and others can eat it three times a day with no heart problems. Know and manage your own genetic risks and leave me to mine.
Now, do you really want to do something for my safety? Let's talk about DUI bombed and buzzed drivers out there who want to play demolition derby with you and your family in your family car.
Posted by Nonsense on September 12, 2008 at 7:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Keith Summey - yeah, there's a good example - a very overweight chainsmoking politician. Let's all follow his example.
Posted by coolfreaknbeans on September 12, 2008 at 7:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
jimmy1370-Ive challenged people with that very question.I never got a real response either.It's common sense and freedom of choice.I could understand if people were smoking where you had no choice but to go to.Like the DMV or grocery store.
Posted by Riptide on September 12, 2008 at 8:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well for one thing I never heard of anyone dying healthy. I’ve seen the most fit and healthy people in life die early and for whatever reason I’ve seen the most unhealthy people living longer than they should. No one is getting out alive so quit crying about it.
As for freedom, this is relativity new in history. History is written in tyranny and bondage. For what ever reason, some people do not like to see other people make choices in their lives. I’ll give you an example; take the pro-choice crowd, they use to be called the pro-abortion lobby but for PR reasons that didn’t sound good so they did an Orwellian thing and now they called pro-choice. Are they really about choice? With all these government funded Planned Parenthood places in this country, what if we can have a adoption agency in the same building or across the street how would they react to this. I’ll tell you, they would have blood shooting out of their eyes. These people are not about choice but all about control.
The same is true with the gun control lobby or the wealth redistribution lobby. It’s all about control.
Posted by berthelot on September 12, 2008 at 8:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Jimmy has valid question that deserves a response. You people all seem to feel that it is up to the Government to protect you from smoke (funny in what is supposed to be a "Conservative", limited Government state). Would you allow them to monitor your home to make sure that you aren't smoking around your children? After all, these children don't have a choice and it is the responsibility of the Government to make sure they are protected. While they are at your house they will of course "monitor" every other aspect of your home and personal life.
If you really want to be Conservative then you will let the market determine itself: Anti-smoking business owners will operate businesses that prohibit smoking. Others will open businesses that allow smoking. You have the right to not patronize either one. You should not presume to have the right to go into someone else's business BY CHOICE and then demand that they conform to your beliefs.
Posted by tigerrecord on September 12, 2008 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This whole debate has gotten out of hand.
First, we can all agree that smoking is terrible for you. We all know this. It smells terrible, and can infuriate non-smokers beyond compare. I for one don't enjoy the smell of them, and would prefer to walk out of a bar not smelling like cigs.
Second, were not talking about causing an expansive, Obama-like, reach on our local governments. Their not reaching further and further into your tax dollars to declare these ordinances and their certainly not setting up a task force to make sure Ol' Red isn't smoking at The Mill. No one wants to diminish your personal rights (or privileges, depending on how you look at it). I certainly don't give a damn (from a health perspective) whether you smoke or not, but it sure does make it difficult to enjoy life in a public place, whether privately owned or not, when you have a bunch of arrogant, smoker's rights victims blowing their remains.
Third, let's be realistic. Take a look at downtown and MTP. They are better of in business these days. I know that I go places now that I used to skip purely based upon smoke. It's better for us, it's better for our environment.
AND GUESS WHAT! If these bans reduce the amount of people smoking, it reduces the amount of cigarettes purchased. Which also reduces the tax dollars your putting into the "big govt." Do me a favor, as a non smoker, quit wasting my tax dollars on the fact that we have to regulate cigarettes and Big Tobacco. Ever thought you might contribute more because of your "RIGHTS."
Get off your high horses you hypocrites.
Posted by ln1959 on September 12, 2008 at 8:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
berthelot....Great post.
I am not sure which state it was, but I think it might have been Virginia, that if you where smoking a cig in your car and there were kids in it, you could be fined. That did not go over well, and that politician did not get voted back in.
I don't listen to Rock and Roll, so I don't go into a Rock and Roll bar. I don't listen to Country music, so I don't go into a Country music bar. I don't smoke, so I don't go into a R&B bar that allows smoking. Its call my choice of where i wont to be. So if someone wonts to sit, have a drink and smoke a cig, then they should have that right. If you don't like the smell of the smoking, then don't go in the bar. There are many bars that are non-smoking.
Posted by RTC on September 12, 2008 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Exellent article, Mr. Hicks.
I think he brought up most all of the valid points concerning this argument.
I have never heard of this particular establishment to which he refers, but I do know alot of people that are taking their business to N. Chas.
Summerville, Goose Creek, and Moncks Corner don't have smoking bans do they?
Posted by MP on September 12, 2008 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Your freedom ends when you are doing something that jeopardizes my life.
Posted by Satanssybil2007 on September 12, 2008 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
wow isnt that amazing those liitle snobs from Mt P came all the way to N Chuck for a beer so they could smoke inside!!! bet you would not catch them residing in N Chuck! Hey Sgtpsycho........couldnt agree with you more!!! Oh yeah and one more thing before the Mt P snob police jump all over my comment i grew up in one of the prominent neighborhoods in Mt P and still live in one of them!!!
Posted by coolfreaknbeans on September 12, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
MP I see the point your trying to make but where does it stop?Should govt say smokers can't smoke around their kids in their own homes?My neighbors dog poop in their yard infringes on my wanting to not smell steeping dog crap.People on motorcycles not wearing helmets infringe on my right to not see splattered brains.But no helmet equals visibly splattered brains.Helmet wearing equals brain containment.
Posted by Tulane75 on September 12, 2008 at 9:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why would someone drive 20 miles to smoke a cigarette? Am I missing something?
There must be something more to the story, as he could have had a beer and a smoke in Mt. P.
The beer and the smoke must not be the issue!
Posted by Satanssybil2007 on September 12, 2008 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
from MP - Your freedom ends when you are doing something that jeopardizes my life.
Yo MP driven on 526 lately? That is playing russian roulette with your life.......what cha gonna do about that? Take your holier than thou attitude and shove it up your glorified a**.......dont want to patron a place that allows smoke dont. Smokers dont patron themselves to smoke free places and if they do they respect the rules and ont smoke. why would you patron a place that does allow smoke? Look queendom of the diluted get over yourself and drop the overrated drama queen act!
Posted by devilsadvocate77 on September 12, 2008 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am not a smoker, never have been, never will. I just don't like it, there is nothing appealing about it. My problem is cigarette smoke infringes on my right to breathe smoke-free air, the basic element to sustain life. You cannot contain cigarette smoke. Granted it is less likely to be a nuisance outside and I really have no problem with smoking then. But don't tell me I should chose another eatery if I don't like the fact they allow smoking. I am in the majority here, 70+% of the population that does not smoke. I ride a motorcycle and wear a helmet. If I didn't wear one and crashed, my head would get splattered and I like my head intact. But it would be my accident would only involve me. Your smoke involves me. If you can figure a way to contain your smoke into your own personal space, have at it. Otherwise its your funeral.
Posted by whalernut on September 12, 2008 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why the hell can’t these politicians keep it up to the owner of the establishment? It is his or hers business. Not the Govt. And to be honest with you all I am a smoker and I don’t really care if I smoke in a bar or not. But it is the choice of the owner of the bar or REST. Not the business of small town lawyers. They should just post signs that say smoking is prohibited or permitted.
Posted by Satanssybil2007 on September 12, 2008 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
AMEN whalernut
Posted by dalexan743 on September 12, 2008 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Business owners do not own the air in their establishments. The air we breathe is a natural resource, and just like all natural resources it should be protected from toxins and other contaminants. This issue only gets complicated when we put our own selfish personal habits in front of the welfare of our environment.
Posted by RTC on September 12, 2008 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Satanssybil2007, you must know then that the snobs are not the natives, but the yuppies and the newbies. I go to N. Chas. all the time to shop and dine.
I don't believe that anyone should be forced to breathe smoke, but I do believe that establishment owners have the right to decide.
I am sick to death of going into MP restaurants and having to contend with kids in the bar sections that were formally smoking areas. It's not that I don't like children, but I don't believe that they should be allowed in bar areas.
The outside dining areas are no better. People eat outside, so they can smoke, and here comes yuppie mom with the kiddies who starts complaining because people are smoking outside.
Some people will never be happy until they can have everything their way.
Posted by marriott99 on September 12, 2008 at 10:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
my drinking buddies in Mt Plez will step outside to have a smoke. They don't seem to mind much.
Posted by eyfigueroa on September 12, 2008 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
yes CB, yes.
That is EXACTLY what they mean.
Posted by justjerry on September 12, 2008 at 10:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am wondering how many of the folks who constantly complain about smoking establishments have considered risking their own money and working their tails off to open and operate a bar or restauraunt. I already have a good feeling what the answer is so don't bother.
It is really simple. If you don't like smoke and it is a place that allows smoking don't go in. I am allergic to cats. If I go to someone's home or business and they have a cat I don't tell them to get rid of their cat just so I will not sneeze and have watery eyes.
You want a non smoking bar to go to, put your money and time on the line and open one up. Until you are willing to do that, stay out of other people's business and shut up!
Posted by berthelot on September 12, 2008 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
devilsadvocate77
I think the devil should look in to hiring a new advocate because your argument is weak to say the least.
1)"My problem is cigarette smoke infringes on my right to breathe smoke-free air, the basic element to sustain life"
This would be true if the smoke came to you. You are going to the smoke. No one is forcing you to allow smoking in your home or place of business. You are free to ban it. You have the right to choose what air you breath, but not the right to choose what legal activity people are allowed to engage in at a privately owned business. ColdBeer has the best line for this: You MUST go to The Plex tonight. Of course no one can force you to go anywhere, you do so purely out of choice.
2)"I am in the majority here, 70+% of the population that does not smoke."
This is why we have a Representative democracy rather than a Direct democracy, to protect individual liberty from majority rule. James Madison wrote an essay on the matter called Federalist No. 10 as an argument for the ratification of our Constitution. It is considered one of our nations most important political essays.
3) "I ride a motorcycle and wear a helmet"
You are in the minority on that issue, most of us drive cars. If the "majority" were to determine that motorcycles are a danger to car drivers because they are less visible and should be banned from public roads (restricted to private "recreational" tracks) you might have a different opinion of majority rule.
Posted by hollyplay on September 12, 2008 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
WOW! I thought I was reading an article from the City Paper before I realized that, yes, the Post & Courier does actually have a writer on staff who is not afraid to make sense.
If you don't like smoky bars - DON'T GO THERE!!!!
I don't like kids - so I don't hang out at Chuck E. Cheese (even though I LOVE that dang whack-a-mole game!).
There are too many programs that the government should spend their time revising (welfare, food stamps, pork-barrell spending) instead of wasting time trying to control the environment inside a privately owned business.
Posted by Marianne0558 on September 12, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A) What is so difficult about going outside for 5 minutes to smoke a cigarette?
B) Since there are plenty of dining establishments that don't allow smoking, why can't these yuppies dine there instead of "exposing themselves to death?"
C) Restaurant/Bar owners DO own the air inside their establishments by default. If you don't want to smell the smoke, breathe the smoke, go somewhere else.
D) As a smoker, I respect the laws and go outside whenever I choose to smoke. I have a 2 year old daughter and have banned smoking around her. Both my and my husband are smokers and we do not smoke around her. We smoke outside only. Not even in our car. Why? I grew up with two parents who smoked IN MY FACE for my entire childhood. Imagine eating breakfast first thing in the morning, eggs, all the good stuff, with your mother and father sitting at the table, both smoking and blowing it in your face. It's gross.
E) No one should tell me not to smoke. I know it's bad. It's still my right to do what I want with my own body and money.
Posted by coolfreaknbeans on September 12, 2008 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ColdBeer-The points you brought up were right on target and the point I was trying to make.RTC-I can't stand it when people bring their kids into inappropriate places-get an fn sitter or stay home!I also can't stomach when non smokers sit in a smoking section and wave their hand around dramatically and fake cough.Don't sit there people-don't go in!It's your choice!If I enter an establishment with my kids and it reeks of smoke,I turn around and leave.It's really simple.I hate craft stores and whiny,begging,unsupervised kids-so I don't hang out at Michaels or Chuckie Cheese.
Posted by hollyplay on September 12, 2008 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Great idea, Coldbeer...I'll get all of my fellow helmetless, smoker, Harley-riding buddies to start making weekly trips to Chuck E. Cheese with me to scarf up all the prize tickets at whack-a-mole. Do they sell beer there? We'll take them over, one by one!! Bikers love pizza too!
Posted by RTC on September 12, 2008 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Exactly, people! Geez, I'm glad that some people see the real point here.
cool, I don't hang out in bars, but I have young adult kids that meet up with their friends at places like Kickin Chicken. My daughter said that you can't move in the one in MP, since the smoking ban was enforced, because of tripping over the kids.
I ask all of these people, "Why do you bring your kids into a place where people are getting plastered, screaming obscenities at each other and at the ball games? You are drinking and then driving your kids home. So afraid that they might catch a whiff of smoke, but they don't care enough about their kids to not drink and drive with them in the car. Freaking hypocrites!
Posted by shoelaces on September 12, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't like the government telling me what people can choose to do to their own bodies. If people want to lessen their quality of life with smoking so be it. If people don't want to live long enough to meet their grandchildren so be it. If people want to put a harmful substnce into their bodies so be it.
BUT why should I have to be subjected to it too? If I am in an establishment NOT smoking that isn't infringing on anyone's rights and it isn't polluting the immediate area. It's a win win situation. But if someone is in that place smoking that does infringe on my rights.
Again, I don't like the government telling what people can or can't do with regards to their bodies...except in this case. I like going to places and not smelling stale or fresh cig smoke. I don't like it when we go to other counties and smelling it.
I know I can choose to eat elsewhere but what if there is no "elsewhere" that serves what I want???
Posted by Marianne0558 on September 12, 2008 at 11:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Order to-go.
Posted by berthelot on September 12, 2008 at 12:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Right on ColdBeer, as I said earlier if you let the market determine itself then the problem will be solved without trampling any rights.
Trans fat is next on the agenda, you watch. Will McDonald's serve me a burger without trans fat? Isn't it my right to walk into any eating establishment and order food that has no trans fat?
Isn't it my right to bear no personal responsibility for any decision I make and still be taken care of by the Government? Of course it isn't.
Posted by Maxine on September 12, 2008 at 12:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
(posted by shoelaces) I know I can choose to eat elsewhere but what if there is no "elsewhere" that serves what I want???
---------------------------------------------------------
Would you like some cheese to go with your "whine"-?
Posted by JF on September 12, 2008 at 12:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Amen Mr Hicks
Posted by halfsheli on September 12, 2008 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
CB -- the word is "beaucoup"; it's french. pronounced (bow' ku) American's have hijacked the word and now use the pronunciation (boo koo).
Those of you who say things like I don't like the government interfering in my life, but it's okay in this situation crack me up. HYPOCRICY abounds. Just wait till they want to ban something you do like to do.
I am a born-again non-smoker after being on the smokey side for 8 - 10 years. If available, I will generally now choose a non-smoking "side" to a bar if they have it (smoking side still very tempting). If not, I hunker down in there with the smokers. They are still my kin! Otherwise, I sit in the non-smoking section or stay HOME!
Posted by halfsheli on September 12, 2008 at 12:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Shoelaces: If you are craving a particular dish, then cook it at home. That way you can make sure it's healthy: low fat, low carb, all natural, etc. And, it's LESS EXPENSIVE! Of course, you will have to wash your own dishes, though.
Other than that, it's a win-win!
Posted by theronce on September 12, 2008 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
cb, I think that "beau coup" may be closer to the correct spelling, possibly French.
Posted by theronce on September 12, 2008 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
cb, I just checked an online dictionary. They listed "beaucoup" first and followed it with "boocoo" and "bookoo" as also acceptable.
Posted by theronce on September 12, 2008 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Control is certainly part of it. Enhancing one's own self-image is another. I have less freedom than my parents did when I was a child. I have seen freedom legislated and decreed away as an adult. Too few people recognize it, and many of those who do like myself do not quite know what to do about it. At the same time, personal responsiblity and pride in that also has decreased. I do not know what to do about that either. I am certain, based on what I've observed, that these same people who are so willing to curtail the freedom of their friends and neighbors will also have that same freedom removed from themselves. One of these days, it will be one precious to them. Go ahead.
Posted by drdcrimj on September 12, 2008 at 1:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That's why as a non-smoking resident of North Charleston who is allergic to cigarette smoke I try to NEVER eat in restaurants in my own city. Too bad, but I need the clean air.
Posted by halfsheli on September 12, 2008 at 1:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There are plenty non-smoking options in North Charleston:
Three good eateries in Park Circle:
Evo (mind-boggling brick oven pizza)
Sesame (sandwhiches and more casual entrees)
Madra Rua Irish Pub (non smoking side)
Posted by grannyofseven_2 on September 12, 2008 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Can anyone say probation? Ok I am being funny, but the reason I say this is people who can’t smoke in BARS will start having keg parties beer parties whiskey etc. in their homes why? Because when the smokers leave the bars will close down two have closed down here in my town and I don’t live in Charleston but our city and county people voted no smoking. People are now gathering in the homes and it is getting bad. But oh well no bars doesn’t mean no violence or Due’s BTW I am not a smoker or do I drink. But it’s JMO
Posted by grannyofseven_2 on September 12, 2008 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ops DUI sorry about that
Posted by devilsadvocate77 on September 12, 2008 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Berthelot
Well lets use your Plex example (but unfortunately they closed recently). What if a band was playing there that was one my favorites, lets say metal band Lamb of God....their only area appearance, ticket price reasonable. But I know they allow smoking and do not want to be exposed. So where are my rights to attend this event? Its not like I have a choice of venues because the band is only playing one location in my proximity. So instead maybe I would be forced to drive to Atlanta or Charlotte to see them otherwise or find a smoke free arena. So I have to spend gas money, higher ticket price, hotel, the whole gamut. For what, so you can continue to smoke? All you are being asked to do is wait til a little later or not at all to smoke. Or you can take your cigarette outside the door of the Plex and I can continue breathing. If you can't wait 2-3 hours to have a smoke, then admit you are addicted and weak.
Clean air is a right! Did you ever sit next to a campfire and then the wind changes direction and suddenly your are engulfed in smoke? I doubt you just sit there. You get up and move out the smoke. Smokers are notorious for holding lit cigarette at arm lengths or blowing there smoke away from themselves by turning their head toward other people. Try looking down next time you are at a red light at a busy intersection and see the hundreds of cigarette butts on the ground. So lets recap:
Cigarette smokers are
1) inconsiderate because they blow their smoke all over
2) care little for other humans rights to breathe clean air
3) litterbugs
Nuff said for today.
Posted by WSM on September 12, 2008 at 3:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
CHARLESTON AREA GOVERNMENTS TO CRACK DOWN ON OBESE, HEALTH HAZARDS TO THEMSELVES AND OTHERS
Charleston area local governments are getting together to craft laws to help improve society by removing a health, safety, and asthetic risk from our lives: fat people.
Of the pending intra-governmental regualtions, Councilmember V. I. Lenin stated, "Its high time we did something about the obsesity epidemic in this country. I'm proud to be a member of a do-something body! Why, how in the world are we to attract business and tourism to an area where people obviously consume too much food? Think of the inflation of food prices due to scarcity, the slowness of traffic infrastructure because we all know that fat people drive little cars, and those little cars can't haul all of that ass at a decent speed."
Mount Pleasant resident Jenni Huger-Merriweather was asked by our roving reporter outside of Starbucks, and she told us her opinion. "I hate to see all of those fat people. Like, you know, that too much of anything is so totally bad. Think of what happens to the athsethic harmony and feng shuei of things when you see a fat person in a pair of capris that are disgustingly too tight! And lets not even begin to talk about those poor Wal Mart people...It never bothers me personally because I wouldn't be caught dead there...with those awful polyester stretch pants! THAT should be illegal. Your right to be fat ends where the vision of my eyes begins! I know, sometimes we all lose control from time to time, but that's why I have bulimia, so I can correct my mistakes! After all, who wants to be fat when you can be flat?"
An insurance industry spokesperson, Ebbie Scrooge, gave us his insider insight on the economics of being too fat.
"You 'betcha that fat people cost us money. In fact, I'm looking for any excuse to cut acounts payable...I mean reduce health risks for our clients, by making certain behaviours unattractive: Like not paying an accident claim. I know, it sounds small, but think about it: We all know that fat people drive little cars, and if that person...even though they are not at fault...had been driving a larger car, we would have lower medical claims and lower life claims. So, our message is this: 'Get fat and die.'"
He went on, "Its not just cars. Think about how much efficiency you lose. Why have one person take up the space of two in an elevator or airline seat? In fact, I think a councilman's reccomendation for the Bodymass Index Team CHarleston was a great idea, and we just need to include fat people in the mix, not just skinny ones."
Reporter for this story is F. Domino, and can be reached at fdomino@largeinandcharge.com
Posted by grannyofseven_2 on September 12, 2008 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
WSM I like your style but, the unfortunate truth is it is happening Yes I am FAT and losing but as long as I am considered obese I have to pay and extra FAT tax on my insurance I stopped smoking 5 years ago guess I could stop eating too. Or become bulimic and anorexic again I did that 25 years ago and lost 85 pounds and I was only 175 pounds to begin with but at my age and health its wheat bread and water then purge
Posted by Marianne0558 on September 12, 2008 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Cigarette smokers are
1) inconsiderate because they blow their smoke all over
2) care little for other humans rights to breathe clean air
3) litterbugs"
A) I am a smoker.
B) I don't blow my smoke all over. WHEN I smoke in the public, I go outside and away from others.
C) I care very much about other people breathing. I don't smoke where it's not wanted. I don't smoke around people who don't like it. Again, refer to B.
D) I don't litter my cigarette butts. I knock the cherry off and throw them away. Thanks for generalizing. Shows what a bigot you are.
Posted by carolinapanther on September 12, 2008 at 4:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If a parent smokes in a car with the windows rolled up or smokes in a house with children, then DSS needs to take custody of the children! Every child deserves the right to breathe clean air!
Posted by KidYendor on September 12, 2008 at 4:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
North Charleston needs to promote its availability to smokers to entice those from smoking ban towns to come and enjoy and spend money. They should have "no no smoking bans here in North Charleston" commercials on TV and the newspaper to spread the message. We can rack up some business. Go for it N.C. and our mayor. Just crack the door an inch and turn on the exhaust fan and that will keep the air clear enough for all. We don't want smoking bans in North Charleston, thank you very much.
Posted by carolinapanther on September 12, 2008 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah good idea KidYendor, keep all the white trash in North Charleston!
Posted by Marianne0558 on September 12, 2008 at 4:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm pretty sure there is trash of all colors all around the lowcountry.
Posted by Girleygirl on September 12, 2008 at 5:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you for the article Brian. You said a mouthful
Posted by RTC on September 12, 2008 at 5:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I suppose that anyone that smokes is white trash?
So, all of the residents that live in N. Chas. are trash?
Sorry, but that is one malicious and ignorant comment.
Marianne, you are right, trash comes in all colors and lives everywhere.
Posted by yeahright on September 12, 2008 at 6:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
An alternative to the smoking ban:
DHEC require statewide that all restaurant owners provide adequate ventilation (i.e. "smoke-eaters") if they want to allow smoking. Business owners assume responsibility for their patrons safety and well-being when they open their doors to the public to do business. Second hand smoke is a proven health hazard, as is a dirty kitchen, allowing too many patrons in, etc.
Posted by RTC on September 12, 2008 at 6:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It may be outdated, but according to the SC Clean Air Act, these smoking bans are not valid.
Posted by vtsusa on September 12, 2008 at 7:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Your air... my air... blah, blah.
How many of you on here drive cars, motorcycles, any form of gas vehicle? Probably all, huh?
Well then you are polluting my air!?!
Emissions from vehicles pollutes the air far more than cigarette smoke.... and before you say well that is outside...where do you think the air inside comes from?
So... we should ban all cars, trucks, etc??
Allow the businesses the freedom to choose and nonsmokers you then have the freedom to choose go or don't go...
I don't like sanctimonious SOBs, but have to deal with them as they are everywhere!
Posted by scconservative on September 14, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't like sanctimonious SOBs either and they predominate the collective borg party...the LowCountry has been infested by the relocation/swarming of these nanny state party members and one effect is this idiotic invasion of goobermint into personal freedom areas. It will only get worse if not stopped. Here's a piece of advice for those that relocate to the LowCountry and don't like it...go back to NJ/NY/PA or any other of your crappy utopias we don't want the goobermint to control our lives...just go away!