Another Ban Failed: SC State Update Page 1

Read Newest Articles: SC State Update Page 2

---

ISSAC J. BAILEY A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE
Government smoking ban not way to go

Jul. 27, 2007

I hate cigarettes.

Smoking is a nasty and dangerous habit, though in a small way I am complicit in America’s smoking obsession. I picked tobacco during a summer job in rural Berkeley County. Black tar was stuck on my fingertips at the end of every day.

I’ve already begun telling my kids how horrible cigarettes are.

It irritates me to no end when a whiff of smoke makes its way into my booth across the restaurant from the smoking section.

It saddens me that thousands of people die every year from smoking-related diseases and that millions of others continue increasing their chances for a variety of cancers and heart disease by smoking.

I’m no friend of Big or Little tobacco, even though they fed many Grand Strand farming families for decades.

Still, I’m not convinced government-mandated smoking bans should be supported. Such bans, like the one passed this week by Surfside Beach, are emotionally charged but often don’t pass the smell test once scrutinized.

The bar should be high for the government to limit freedom. We should support government intervention when a clear and incontrovertible public health concern has been proven, the public can’t reasonably be expected to protect itself and it isn’t an unnecessary burden to small business. Banning smoking in public places is less of a problem, considering we all share those spaces. But I can choose not to work or eat where smoking is allowed.

Additionally, many private businesses are limiting smoking because their customers are demanding it. Others thrive because they let smokers smoke freely.

“The evidence is clear [that] smoking bans, especially one-size-fits-all ones, kill establishments,” wrote Jeremy Richards, a Georgia history professor, in an essay posted on my blog. He’s been studying the progression of smoking bans. “In Delaware, even supporters of the state’s smoking ban admit the ban drove some establishments into extinction.”

The health-related concerns are hardly clear-cut. A report that studied smoking from 1960 to 1998 found that there was no causal relationship between secondhand smoke and tobacco-related deaths, Richards found.

“Anti-smokers speak of deaths from secondhand smoke,” Richards wrote. “Ask them for the bodies, the death certificates, the graves. They cannot produce them. … It is hard to find victims when nonsmoking bartenders inhale the equivalent of 1/10th of a cigarette per shift.”
ONLINE | For past columns and to read Bailey’s blog, go to MyrtleBeachOnline.com.
Contact ISSAC J. BAILEY at ibailey@thesunnews.com or 626-0357.

---

Lawmakers left smoking laws in the hands of local governments Tuesday after a House committee failed to take action on a proposed statewide ban.

“It’s a huge victory because these guys came in here today with the intent of passing a pre-emptive law that would have thrown out all the local laws,” said Dan Carrigan, executive director of the Charleston-based Smoke Free Action Network. “The people in Charleston are going to get a taste of smoke-free air, and that is what the people in the tobacco industry desperately wanted to prevent.”

The 25-member committee had 17 members present at one point during the meeting, but several left and the committee had to adjourn for lack of a quorum.

Attendance started dwindling after the committee voted to grant home rule power but before it had a chance to take a final vote on the legislation that could have advanced it to the House floor. None of the members present Tuesday were from the Charleston area.

The early adjournment also prevented the committee from taking up a second bill that would have stopped people from smoking in cars if children younger than 10 are passengers.

Rep. Todd Rutherford, D-Columbia, said the legislation is likely dead for the year.

The bill would have allowed bars to apply for smoking licenses as long as children could not enter, unlike the more restrictive local bans.

“I’m disappointed,” Rutherford said. “I thought we were working toward an effective compromise for the state, but there are still those who think it’s OK to die from secondhand smoke.”

Still, Rutherford said he would try to revive the legislation this year, a difficult task con- sidering lawmakers will adjourn for the summer in just a few days.

Lisa Turner of the American Heart Association said the committee’s inaction is good news because local bans will have a greater health impact than what the state was considering.

“The people have already spoken by passing those local ordinances all across the state,” she said. “People in your own community, they are going to enact an ordinance more easily enforceable, more acceptable, because it’s made neighbor to neighbor.”

Rep. Murrell Smith, R-Sumter, said he was opposed to the committee’s decision to allow local governments to enact various bans.

“We’re going to have a hodgepodge of laws governing this situation,” he said. “It does not make sense. … This is just ridiculous how we’re going to let this occur.”

Reach Yvonne M. Wenger at ywenger@postandcourier.com or (803) 799-9051.

---

May 26, 2007
By Yvonne Wenger

COLUMBIA — Pending legislation in the South Carolina General Assembly would topple local smoking bans and replace them with a less-restrictive statewide prohibition.

Bars would have to apply to the state Department of Revenue for a smoking license under an amended Senate bill that is scheduled to be considered by the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. The bill allows completely enclosed smoking sections that require a separate ventilating system, floor-to-ceiling walls, an entrance way with doors and access restricted to those under 18. Free-standing bars would be permitted to be smoking establishments as long as children are not allowed to enter.

However, the committee will have to work on details of the proposal, including how to handle bars that serve food and restaurants that serve alcohol.

The bill would not stop people from smoking at home, in hotel rooms designated for smoking, specialty tobacco stores, cigar bars or private clubs. But people would no longer be able to smoke in vehicles while a child 10 years old or younger is riding along, under a separate bill that will also be considered Tuesday by the committee.

Supporters of a statewide ban face a fight from municipalities with stricter anti-smoking laws, such as the forthcoming ban in the city of Charleston and the one on Sullivan’s Island, which is in the middle of a court battle. It will also be a tough sell for opponents who believe counties and municipalities have the right to govern locally.

Some in the industry are also worried that a ban allowing the restrictive smoking sections would be cost-prohibitive and lead to unfair competition.

“Our position is while we believe it ought to be a business owner’s decision, if the issue is truly a health issue, then the state should adopt a workplace ban not just in bars and restaurants but any place that has employees,” said Tom Sponseller, president of the Hospitality Association of South Carolina.

But, he said, a statewide ban is more favored in the industry than allowing counties and municipalities to set the rules that have, for example, driven smoking patrons from Sullivan’s Island to Mount Pleasant.

Rep. Chip Limehouse, R-Charleston, favors the legislation, especially considering noted health consequences associated with secondhand smoke and the fact that about 70 percent of the state’s population doesn’t smoke.

“It’s not about wiping out smoking altogether,” Limehouse said. “This is about doing what’s right and reasonable for all our citizens. In the past, all our laws were weighted in favor of smokers.”

To become law this year, the bills would need a vote on the House and Senate floors before they could go to the governor for his signature. However, that’s still feasible even with the few remaining days before the Legislature adjourns for the summer.

---

No state smoking ban.
 
Committee snuffs out restaurant smoking ban

May. 09, 2007
By Zane Wilson, The Sun News

A House committee likely killed, at least for this year, a bill that would ban smoking in restaurants and bars.

The House Judiciary Committee voted 9-5 to send the bill back to a subcommittee. That means a similar Senate bill also has little chance of passage because it would have to get through the same committee.

The bill as originally written would have banned smoking in all restaurants and bars except “cigar bars.” The measure would also have allowed cities and counties to have stricter rules.

The subcommittee changed the bill to add a special exemption for “smoking bars,” which would get a $100 permit to operate. The change also disallowed any local smoking ordinances.

The issue has been a controversial one with restaurant owners, who have been divided. The S.C. Hospitality Association told the committee about half its members want the state to pass a law against smoking in restaurants and half think it should be up to them to decide.

Rep. Fletcher Smith, D-Greenville, said the special bar exemption helps people who want to smoke in bars but doesn’t help employees who are exposed to secondhand smoke.

“They have no health insurance but this state really doesn’t care,” he said.

Rep. Murrell Smith, R-Sumter, said the important thing is to stop the local ordinances. The restaurant and bar owners, especially the chains, object to the differing rules, he said.

“You can’t have a hodge-podge of different laws,” he said.

About 10 cities or counties have passed smoking bans for restaurants and bars. A lawsuit over one of those ordinances is working its way through the courts.

Rep. Todd Rutherford, D-Columbia, who wrote the original bill, moved to kill the amendment allowing for smoking bars and quashing local rules, but his motion failed on a 7-7 tie. Rep. Alan Clemmons, R-Myrtle Beach, and Rep. Thad Viers, R-Myrtle Beach, voted against the amendment.

---

Tom Sponseller, president of the Hospitality Association of South Carolina: 803-765-9000

Senate bill sponsor Sen. Greg Gregory, R-Lancaster: 803-212-6330, SFG@scsenate.org

House bill sponsor Rep. Todd Rutherford, D-Columbia: 803-734-9441, JTR@schouse.org

---

Smoking bill in trouble
Final stop for legislation may be on the shelf

April 23, 2007
By Tim Smith, CAPITAL BUREAU, tcsmith@greenvillenews.com

COLUMBIA — A bill that would ban smoking in restaurants statewide is all but dead this year after two senators placed objections on the legislation.

“It will probably kill it if they continue to object,” said Sen. Larry Martin, a Pickens Republican who supports the bill and chairs the Senate Rules Committee.

Sen. Joel Lourie, a Columbia Democrat, and Sen. Robert Ford, a Charleston Democrat, placed their objections on the bill, which was passed last week by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Any legislation must pass at least one chamber this week for a good chance at passage this year because of legislative rules.   

With the Senate scheduled to debate its version of the budget this week, any contested matters don’t stand a chance of being debated, Martin said.

Lourie said he objects to the fact that the bill would not allow local governments to pass their own smoking bans.

“I think this closes the door on any municipalities ever being able to go completely smoke free in public places,” he said.

Martin said he thought the most “direct and prudent” thing for lawmakers to do on the issue was to ban smoking in restaurants and avoid “the local option controversy.”

“If it’s either local option or nothing, I’ve got an idea that coming out of the Senate it’s going to be nothing,” he said.

Lourie said he wants to wait until the South Carolina Supreme Court rules on whether local governments can pass their own smoking ordinances.

Circuit Judge John Few struck down a Greenville smoking ban in March, ruling that local laws violate the state’s constitution. Circuit Judge Deadra L. Jefferson, however, decided that Sullivan Island’s smoking ban was fine. Sullivan’s Island was the first town in the state to ban smoking and the first to get sued.

Lourie said he expects the Sullivan’s Island case to be heard first by the justices.

“I think it makes more sense to see how that plays out before taking any further action,” he said. “I’d rather see what happens there before further restricting local governments’ smoking bans.”

Lourie said if the court rules in favor of Sullivan’s Island, residents in that town and others can craft their own smoking laws, unless the Legislature passes the bill first. He said if that were to happen, the court’s ruling might only affect Sullivan’s Island and other towns would not be able to pass their own ordinances.

If the justices rule against the town, he said, lawmakers can come back next year and take up the issue again.

The original legislation allowed local governments to ban smoking to clear up any ambiguity by judges, he said.

The amended bill passed last week went the other direction, banning smoking in restaurants statewide but allowing it at other locations. Lourie said anti-smoking organizations oppose the bill.

Under the legislation, a bar section of a restaurant could allow smoking if it can be closed in such a way that no smoke would drift into the rest of the restaurant. Such eateries would have to apply for a special permit.

Bars also could allow smoking with a $100 permit from the state Department of Health and Environmental Control. Such bars could not allow patrons under the age of 18.

Lourie said he doesn’t think it is fair that bar employees have to work in smoke but restaurant employees don’t.

Those caught smoking in restaurants as well as the restaurants’ owners could be found guilty of a misdemeanor under the bill, punishable with a fine of at least $50.

---

Panel OKs statewide smoking ban
Senate gets bill that make restaurants smoke free, lets bars get special permit

April 18, 2007
By Tim Smith, CAPITAL BUREAU  tcsmith@greenvillenews.com

COLUMBIA — A bill that bans smoking in restaurants statewide but allows it in bars with a special permit is headed to the Senate floor.

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday approved the bill 13-3.

Cities and judges across the state have offered different opinions about public smoking in the past year.

Circuit Judge John Few struck down a Greenville smoking ban in March, ruling that local laws violate the state’s Constitution. Circuit Judge Deadra L. Jefferson, however, decided that Sullivan Island’s smoking ban was fine.

Some senators said they want to settle the issue before the South Carolina Supreme Court does.

“The Supreme Court is going to do something,” Sen. Larry Martin, a Pickens Republican, told other members of the committee Tuesday. “I’ll be very surprised if they don’t rule locals have the authority.”

Sen. Greg Gregory, a Lancaster Republican who sponsored Tuesday’s amendment to ban smoking statewide, said the bill responds to a complaint among those who visit eateries.

“People don’t want to smell smoke in restaurants,” he said.

Under the bill, smoking in restaurants would be banned, but their bar section could allow smoking if no smoke could drift into the rest of the restaurant. Such eateries would have to apply for a special permit.

Bars also could allow smoking with a $100 permit from the state Department of Health and Environmental Control. Such bars couldn’t allow patrons under the age of 18.

Those caught smoking in restaurants as well as the restaurants’ owners could be found guilty of a misdemeanor under the bill and fined at least $50.

The legislation would pre-empt any local ordinances.

---

S.C. senator: Limited smoking ban has a chance
4/9/07
COLUMBIA, S.C. – A statewide smoking ban that a South Carolina Senate panel approved just might strike the balance necessary to get a majority of senators on board, the legislation’s sponsor said.

Bill would ban smoking in restaurants statewide
4/6/07

Smoking would be banned in restaurants statewide, but bars could obtain a smoking license, under a new Senate proposal that cleared a subcommittee Thursday.

The Senate bill replaced a measure that would have given municipalities the authority to regulate smoking, and was immediately criticized by municipalities that have already passed stricter anti-smoking laws.

Some tobacco opponents criticized the Senate plan, while others noted that it would ban smoking in restaurants across the state.

Several Charleston-area business representatives testified before the subcommittee, asking that the state allow smoking in bars.

‘I think they’ve done a good job of balancing the issues,’ said James Rittinghouse a cigar shop owner who is among those suing Charleston over the city’s tough new anti-smoking law, which blocked his plan to open a cigar bar.

Republican Sen. Greg Gregory of Lancaster sponsored the measure and testified before the subcommittee, whose chairman, Democrat Bradley Hutto of Orangeburg, voted in favor, as did Democrat Darrell Jackson of Hopkins.

Republican Kevin Bryant of Anderson cast the dissenting vote, said J.J. Gentry, attorney for the Senate Judiciary Committee.

‘I’ve always been an opponent of smoking in public places. There’s no safe level of second-hand smoke,’ Gregory said. ‘This is just really trying to chip away a little more at smoking in public places.’

Gregory said the original bill that would have given local governments the authority to regulate tobacco would have never gotten out of the subcommittee, which was deadlocked 2-2 on the issue. Republican Sen. Jake Knotts of West Columbia was absent for the vote Thursday, Gentry said.

‘What the amendment did was grant the power to the state, or just reaffirm that the state has it, and ban smoking in restaurants throughout state,’ Gentry said.

Cities and towns including Charleston and Sullivan’s Island have taken the position that municipalities have the power to regulate smoking.

Charleston Mayor Joe Riley said any new state law should protect public health and ‘should also respect Home Rule and allow local governments to determine if they wish to adopt their own measures in order to protect the public health and safety of their citizens.’

Under the Senate bill, bars could apply to the state for a smoking license issued by the state Department of Revenue, which also issues liquor licenses. A bar would have to be ‘stand-alone’ or fully separated from a restaurant, Gentry said.

Gentry said the Department of Revenue likely would have to decide how to handle a bar that serves food. The Senate bill would prohibit smoking in bars located within restaurants.

Hotels would still be allowed to have smoking rooms, he said.

‘I think it caught a lot of people off-guard today,’ said Tom Sponseller, executive director of the South Carolina Hospitality Association.

He said the association believes in owners’ rights first and foremost, but if smoking is truly a health issue, then a ban should be implemented statewide, he said. ‘Our people like that much better than a city-by-city ban,’ he said.

Lisa Turner testified before the subcommittee on behalf of the American Heart Association, and learned of the changes to the Senate bill as she was testifying.

‘We were kind of blindsided, in the public health community,’ she said.

‘It would offer (restaurant) workers and patrons a lot more protection than we have now,’ said Turner, but the proposed statewide regulations would be weaker than some local ordinances that also ban smoking in bars.

Dan Carrigan of the Smokefree Action Network said he was horrified to learn of the bill changes, and said he’s convinced that tobacco lobbyists were responsible.

‘The tobacco industry knows that when you exempt certain segments, such as bars, you’re able to maintain social acceptance,’ he said.

Last July, Sullivan’s Island became the first town in the state to ban smoking. Bert’s Bar on Sullivan’s Island sued the town, and Circuit Judge Deadra Jefferson upheld the ordinance.

The decision is being appealed. Meanwhile, Circuit Judge John Few overturned a smoking ordinance approved by Greenville City Council.

The state Supreme Court is expected to settle the issue, namely, whether the state’s Clean Indoor Air Act gives municipalities the right to ban smoking.

‘I really think that the state Legislature ought to let municipalities govern themselves,’ said Sullivan’s Island Councilman Everett Presson. ‘We don’t need the people in Columbia who are elected from very small single-member districts come down and tell us how we ought to be running our business on Sullivan’s Island.’

Mount Pleasant Town Council will consider a smoking ordinance on Tuesday.

‘This issue is not going to go away,’ said Councilman Gary Santos, who put the issue on the agenda. ‘I’ve always thought that the state should take this issue up.’

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

---

Sheheen in the middle as smoking ban fight heats up

March 17, 2007
MARTIN CAHN
Will South Carolina go the way of New York when it comes to fighting cigarette smoke?

In March 2003, former New York Gov. George Pataki signed a bill banning smoking in virtually all businesses statewide. The bill, which went into effect that July, included fines of up to $1,000 per violation. Smoking is even banned in company cars.

Here, Kershaw County Medical Center has banned smoking throughout its health care system.

Kershaw County recently considered a policy that would have banned smoking within 25 feet of all county buildings; smoking is already banned within county buildings. In order to accommodate smokers, however, the county’s safety committee suggested small roofed shelters be erected to protect smokers from wind and rain. Concerns about compromising security, especially at the government center and courthouse, however, sent the idea back to the safety committee. It has yet to be reconsidered by council.

All city of Camden buildings are tobacco free, said City Manager Frank Broom.

“There is no tobacco use in any form,” said Broom. “We do designate smoking areas and provide ash trays in areas outside the buildings for the use of our own employees and members of the public.”

Broom said council has not considered a citywide ban in the past.

“Council members have thought aloud on both sides of the issues, but the consensus is that we need to let the larger towns with deeper pockets pay for the test cases first,” said Broom.

For now, though, businesses and other public venues can pretty much do what they want.

That would have changed if State Sen. Vincent Sheheen had had his way this week.

Sheheen, whose district covers Kershaw County, offered an amendment to a bill in the S.C. Senate revising the state’s Clean Indoor Act of 1990. That act primarily covers smoking bans in relation to public schools. Sheheen’s amendment wouldn’t have gone as far as a statewide ban but would have provided an option for county or citywide smoking bans in South Carolina.

Sheheen said he wrote the amendment for two reasons.

“First, I believe cities and counties are best able to judge what’s best for them on these issues. What’s good in Myrtle Beach might be different from what’s good in Union,” said Sheheen. “There’s also some confusion in the law on whether or not local governments can do this. Some cities are doing (bans), but we need to clarify things.”

Beaufort County and the cities of Bluffton, Charleston Columbia, Greenville and Sullivan’s Island have some form of smoking ban, according to Charleston Regional Business Journal. Several lawsuits have been filed.

“There have been some local grumblings about the bans, but that’s exactly why we need local control,” said Sheheen.

The bill to revise the Clean Indoor Act was first introduced by Sen. Darryl Jackson of Richland County in early January, providing for two relatively small changes: deleting provisions allowing smoking in certain private offices and teachers lounges at schools and adding a provision making it unlawful for a person to smoke in outdoor areas of public schools and preschools and to provide a penalty. The bill was co-sponsored by senators Joel Lourie, part of whose district is in Kershaw County; Chauncey Gregory of Lancaster County; Michael Fair of Greenville County; Robert Ford of Charleston County; and Jake Knotts of Lexington County.

The Senate later approved an amendment by Sen. Robert Hayes Jr., of York County, which struck certain portions of the original bill but added that school districts should provide or refer students, staff and other offenders to smoking cessation services and ensure that tobacco use prevention programs are an integral part of a school district’s substance abuse prevention efforts.

Then, on March 8, the Senate approved Sheheen’s amendment that took things further than ever before: a county or city government could enact ordinances prohibiting or restricting smoking in businesses or establishments open to the general public.

A week later, a third amendment struck Sheheen’s provision from the bill.

It was Jackson, the bill’s original sponsor, who made the motion. His motion passed, with Sheheen, Lourie and senators Phil Leventis of Sumter County and Larry Martin of Pickens County dissenting, and the bill was sent on to the State House of Representatives.

Sheheen said Jackson didn’t kill his amendment out of malice.

“He was supportive of my amendment, but opponents of it had enough votes to kill the whole bill,” said Sheheen, explaining that his measure had to be removed in order to save the bill. “I told him beforehand I thought the amendment might kill the bill and that if he had to strike it, I would understand.”

Such political maneuverings doesn’t mean the idea for allowing local governments to enact city or countywide bans is dead. Sheheen said legislators often have to bring up issues repeatedly to eventually get them passed. He said his amendment could end up tacked on to some other form of tobacco legislation or be introduced as a wholly separate bill.

“But this really was a great opportunity, and I am upset that it didn’t get an up or down vote,” he said.

Now that Jackson’s bill has moved over to the S.C. House, there’s still a chance for something like Sheheen’s amendment to come up. Sheheen said State Rep. Laurie Slade Funderburk of Camden had indicated her support for his amendment.

Whether state representatives decide to place something like Sheheen’s amendment back on to the bill remains to be seen. In the meantime, the governments of Camden and Kershaw County will wait and see what happens next, along with smokers, non-smokers and the owners of restaurants, bars and other public venues.

---

Senate fails to give cities right to ban smoking
Part of legislation that would allow such action removed

March 13, 2007
By Paul Alongi, STAFF WRITER  palongi@greenvillenews.com
Legislation that prohibits smoking in teachers’ lounges and private offices at public schools passed the state Senate on Tuesday, but without two lines that could have allowed Greenville to revive a smoking ban struck down by a circuit court judge last week.

The excised provision would have allowed counties and municipalities to restrict smoking in businesses and “establishments open to the general public.”

Mayor Knox White, who supported the city’s smoking ban, said the provision’s removal “limits its progress” but that he remains optimistic. A Greenville ordinance that survived for little more than two months banned smoking in bars and restaurants.

State Sen. Mike Fair, R-Greenville, opposed the stripped-out provision of the state legislation and said that removing it restored the legislation to its “prior sanity.” The original purpose, he said, was to provide smoke-free campuses.

“For those interested in seeing this one pass, it gives us a sigh of relief — a smoke-free sigh of relief,” said Fair, who co-sponsored the original bill.

Absent a legislative solution, local smoking ordinances appear headed for a state Supreme Court battle.

Two circuit court judges have issued conflicting opinions, both focused on the state Clean Indoor Air Act.

Circuit Judge John Few overturned Greenville’s ban last week, saying that the state law pre-empts it. In an earlier decision out of Sullivan’s Island, Circuit Judge Deadra L. Jefferson found no language suggesting the General Assembly was trying to prevent local smoking laws.

Few is among eight candidates vying for a spot on the state Supreme Court.

Howard Duvall, executive director of the Municipal Association of South Carolina, said the ultimate solution would be legislation that affects the entire state.

A bill that would have banned smoking in restaurants and bars statewide failed 55-52 last year to pass the state House of Representatives.

Paul Alongi can be reached at 298-4746.

---

S.C. Lawmakers Nix Provision Allowing Cities To Restrict Smoking

March 13, 2007

COLUMBIA, S.C. — Lawmakers have removed part of a proposal that would have given local governments the authority to restrict indoor smoking.

Instead, senators approved a bill banning smoking on school property.

Senator Darrell Jackson says the state should allow municipalities to ban smoking in bars and restaurants but that issue should be debated separately from the school smoking ban.

The decision comes less than a week after a judge ruled Greenville’s smoking ban violated state law.

Judge John Few wrote that the state’s smoking laws supersede anything local governments can do.

His ruling came three months after another judge dismissed a lawsuit challenging a similar smoking ban in Sullivans Island.

Both sides say a decision from the state Supreme Court or legislative action could clear up the issue statewide.

---

Smoking Ban Challenge

3/9/07
Live 5 News
The debate over smoking bans in South Carolina cities looks like it’ll head to the State Supreme Court.

A circuit judge in the upstate says Greenville’s ban on smoking is illegal. That contradicts what a Lowcountry judge said about Sullivan’s Island’s ban, thus the high court will get the case.

At issue, a law South Carolina passed in 1996 that expressly prevented local governments from creating their own rules on smoking.

The judge in the Greenville case based much of his decision on one sentence in a 1996 amendment to the Clean Indoor Air Act that had been passed six
years before.

The act outlawed smoking in certain public areas like preschools and government buildings, except in designated areas. But legislators amended the act to say that no laws, ordinances or rules dealing with tobacco could supersede state laws or regulations.

The City of Charleston is facing a lawsuit against its smoking ban, which is set to go into effect in July. City officials say they’ll closely watch this case.

Mount Pleasant is also set to discuss a ban at its council meeting next week.
Read

---

SC: Greenville Smoking Ban Overturned.

---

1/14/07
Dear Congressman,
I’m a Ohio Yankee……who vacations in SC every winter and fly’s the South Carolina flag next to my Ohio and U. S. in his yard… who also smokes.
I’ve noticed you want to take away my freedom to use a legal product in your State.
Will your bill also ban second hand smoke from autos, barbeques, airplane exhaust, etc…
These are also KNOWN bigger health risks to humans! Will you also propose a ban on makeup, deodorants, perfumes, etc. next? Are you aware of the numerous studies showing the chemicals in these items to be TOXIC and absorbed through our skin, how about the Toxins in the fast “dead” food we consume?
Is it fair when I have to pay the same airfare to Myrtle as the obese person next to me, when they take up a part of “my seat space” and it cost more fuel to carry their extra weight ? I try to be tolerant of others!
I don’t even have a problem with my segregation (smoker’s style), and sitting in the rear of the restaurant.
People make choices and have options, if your State goes smoke free, I will go elsewhere to vacation where the area is more smoker friendly and would love to take my money.
You might not be concerned with the $ 3000 to $ 4000 I spend in your state, but if more smokers bypass you the impact of a 10 or 15% loss on your tourist economy might get your attention. I’m sure your citizen’s would love to have you raise their taxes to make up the difference.
It seems were losing our common sense, compassion and tolerance for one another.
We’re turning into a nation of “social terrorist’s” for those that don’t agree with us, instead of “live and let live.”
Thanks for your attention, I’ll be watching to see how you and the other officials decide our vacation plans.
Harry Danik
Cleveland, Ohio

---

Statewide smoking ban is a possibility in the S.C. House

Jan 5, 2007
JEREMY HSIEH

COLUMBIA — A statewide smoking ban may be debated in the S.C. House of Representatives during the upcoming legislative session, House Speaker Bobby Harrell, R-Charleston, said Thursday.

But President Pro Tempore Glenn McConnell, Harrell’s counterpart in the Senate and a Charleston County Republican, said a state ban is philosophically inappropriate and that bans passed by counties and municipalities — such as the Beaufort County and the Town of Bluffton bans that take effect next week — conflict with state law.

Beaufort City Council officials said they plan to consider a ban early this year, and the Hilton Head Island Town Council will consider one in February.

McConnell’s comments echoed Harrell’s sentiment that the House is more “sympathetic” to the idea of a statewide ban than the Senate. The new legislative session begins Tuesday.

On the legality issue at least one judge disagrees with McConnell. Circuit Court Judge Deadra Jefferson dismissed a lawsuit filed against the Town of Sullivan’s Island last month challenging its smoking ban, though the suing party said it would appeal. Beaufort County’s smoking ban is modeled after Sullivan’s Island’s.

The Clean Indoor Air Act of 1990 was likely the state law McConnell thought local smoking bans conflicted with. The suing party in the Sullivan’s Island case attempted to prove that the law, which forbids smoking in some indoor areas including schools, government buildings and theaters, also blocks local government from adding additional smoking restrictions.

Philosophically, McConnell frowned on unnecessary government intervention of property owners’ rights.

“The market will take care of it,” he said, adding that enforcement of such a ban would divert police from more important matters, likening it to New York City’s trans fat ban in restaurants.

“I’d rather have police patrolling streets … than patrolling kitchens,” Harrell said.

---

Lexington to weigh smoking ban

Dec. 10, 2006
DAWN HINSHAW and CLIF LeBLANC

County is S.C.’s latest to consider restrictions in public places, joining 3 counties, 8 cities.

Some Lexington County Council members say they plan to join a growing, statewide anti-smoking debate in the new year.

The movement has caught fire among local governments that say they put public health above personal rights, even if that means fighting as far as the state’s highest court.

The effort to stop smokers from lighting up in restaurants and bars started in May in the beach town of Sullivan’s Island. Now three counties and eight cities, including Columbia, have passed or are considering restrictions.

“I hate to infringe on people’s rights,” said Lexington Councilman Jim Kinard. “But people who don’t smoke have rights, too.”

City and county council members say they are responding to their constituents.

“The support was just overwhelming,” said Everett Presson, a member of the Sullivan’s Island Town Council, which approved the ban on smoking in restaurants and bars by a 6-1 vote.

The Sullivan’s Island ban produced a lawsuit that is expected to end up in the S.C. Supreme Court.

The anti-smoking push is supported by the state organization that advocates for municipalities. The S.C. Municipal Association is paying the lawyer who argued the Sullivan’s Island case, said association director Howard Duvall.

Proponents of local anti-smoking laws say a victory in court would assert the right of city and county governments to enact a law stronger than a weak state law.

“The responsibility for this should be at the state Legislature — but they failed,” said Beaufort County Councilman Mark Generales, who sponsored a smoking ban expected to be passed into law there Monday.

The local governments say they are protecting employees who work in smoky environments.

Patrons are split.

Some say smokers should go outside; others say customers have a right to enjoy smoking when they are out on the town, especially in bars.

STRUGGLE FOR CONTROL

A U.S. surgeon general’s report issued in June concluded there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke increase their risks of heart disease or lung cancer by as much as 30 percent, the report found.

Fewer than a quarter of S.C. adults smoke, a number that has been steady for five years, according to state health statistics.

Generales, the Beaufort County councilman, and others say a network of health advocates has offered assistance in passing the anti-smoking ordinances.

“I wish we could say we were up here orchestrating this grand campaign,” said Dan Carrigan of Charleston, the director of the Smokefree Action Network.

“But it’s great the way communities are coming forward. We are there offering support.”

Sullivan’s Island leaders decided to enact a smoking ban in restaurants and bars after watching Charleston City Council wrestle with the issue for several years, only to let it die.

“I just decided if there’s one place in the state where we could get this done, it would be Sullivan’s Island,” Presson said. “We have an environmentally minded citizenry.”

Bert’s Bar, an institution in the well-heeled community just outside Charleston, filed a lawsuit to fight the new law. The case was argued in October before Circuit Judge Deadra Jefferson, who is expected to rule soon.

Tom Sponseller, head of the S.C. Hospitality Association, said his group would prefer a state law to a patchwork of local laws.

“We don’t particularly like the local ordinances, not because of the issues of smoking or nonsmoking, but because of the competition it might create between communities,” he said.

“It should not be done city by city or county by county.”

State Rep. Todd Rutherford, D-Richland, who was three votes shy of passing a no-smoking law for restaurants in the S.C. House last year, said he will take another shot at a ban when the Legislature reconvenes in January.

STATE LAW OBSTACLE?

At the local level, anti-smoking advocates have a steep legal hill to climb.

The state’s 1990 Clean Indoor Act does not permit a ban on smoking in restaurants, according to a Jan. 26, 2006, opinion from the state Attorney General’s Office.

That law, amended in 1996, lists places where smoking is prohibited — primarily schools, government buildings and health care facilities.

Attorney general’s opinions do not carry the weight of a court ruling. But the January ruling was enough to indefinitely postpone enforcement of Columbia’s ban, Mayor Bob Coble said.

If the judge in the Sullivan’s Island case rules a ban can extend to restaurants, Columbia likely will activate the ban it approved in November, Coble said. Columbia excluded bars from its ordinance.

If the Lowcountry town loses its court case, the capital city probably would join an appeal, he said.

LEXINGTON TO JOIN DEBATE IN 2007

A move toward a ban also is quietly afoot on the nine-member Lexington County Council.

Asked about the issue, four members say they ultimately would back some kind of restriction, but they recognize a conflict with personal freedom.

Councilman Johnny Jeffcoat said he will propose the idea to council early in 2007, though he hasn’t decided how strict the ban should be.

He expects strong opposition from smokers.

Councilman John Carrigg, a smoker up until a few weeks ago, would favor only an across-the-board ban that included bars.

“You ought to have an even playing field for everybody,” Carrigg said. “If you make it an even playing field, are you hurting people’s businesses? I think, no, you’re not.”

Kinard, on the other hand, would favor a ban only in businesses where the public gathers, not in those where only the work force is exposed to smoke.

A fitness buff, Kinard grew up with parents who were heavy smokers but has never smoked himself.

“I always sit in nonsmoking areas,” he said. “It just gives me a headache.”