On April 17, the state Senate Judiciary Committee reported out a revised version of a bill, S. 186, originally intended to remove a confusing section of state law and make it clear that local governments around the state are free to create their own smoke-free ordinances to protect their citizens and workers.

Then a funny thing happened. The original bill had strangely morphed into one that would pre-empt local control. In its place would be a confusing set of statewide standards that would allow bars to get a permit to allow smoking on their premises.

Not so funny, actually. It would be more accurate to call the proposed bar permit “a license to kill.”

The 2006 U.S. Surgeon General’s report on the health impact of second-hand smoke makes it clear that there is no safe level of indoor smoke. What’s more, bars are the worst offenders in terms of high concentrations of second-hand smoke, which raises the risk of breast, cervical and lung cancer as well as stroke and heart disease. This is why cities, states and entire countries are moving rapidly to enact comprehensive smoke-free laws that do not permit indoor smoking in any workplace.

And remember, the health of workers is a paramount concern. How would you feel about your college age son or daughter working regular shifts in a smoke-filled environment?  If you’re not concerned, go online and read the Surgeon General’s report.

And what about people who make a career out of working in smoke-filled establishments?  For either group, the prognosis is not good.

Friends of the cigarette lobby?
The restrictive pro-cigarette lobby language in S. 186 is clear in its intent. What is less clear is why any of our senators (I say again, “our” senators) are pushing this legislation.

The will of the people of South Carolina on this issue has already become apparent, with two major cities, Greenville and Charleston, passing comprehensive smoke-free ordinances and other local governments around the state acting or planning to act to protect workers and citizens from indoor smoke.

The bottom line? This legislation is a rude slap in the face to thousands of respected people and organizations around the state who have worked with their elected local leaders to pass smoke-free ordinances. 

I was just one of many advocates for Charleston’s smoke-free ordinance. I invested my time by writing about the issue, meeting with Charleston Mayor Joseph Riley Jr. and several members of city council and talking to other business and civic leaders (including restaurant owners) about the health and, yes, business benefits of going smoke-free. 

My effort, like that of many others, spanned several years. Supporters of the ordinance who appeared before Charleston City Council included organizations like Trident United Way, the League of Women Voters, the NAACP, the Medical University of South Carolina and the Hollings Cancer Center as well as many others.

So you can imagine my dismay when I read that Sen. Glenn McConnell dismissed concerns about pre-empting local action by saying, “Nobody stops me on the streets and says they want home rule.”

Well, of course not. That’s an abstract concept to most people. Let’s take a more realistic example: Suppose Sen. McConnell showed up at the Charleston City Council meeting where ordinance supporters were working hard for passage and said, “By the way, if you pass this ordinance, I’m going to try to prevent you from enforcing it by supporting legislation that would pre-empt your city’s right to protect your health.”

That’s what “home rule” is really about, and I’m sure that those citizens who had worked so hard to secure passage of Charleston’s ordinance would have roundly condemned the idea of thwarting the will of the people of Charleston and their elected leaders on this issue.

I’m also sure Sen. McConnell would find the same sense of frustration in Greenville or any of the other local jurisdictions around the state where action has been taken on this issue.

Paternalistic attitude out of date
I’ve singled out Sen. McConnell only because of his comment quoted above. In reality, his attitude reflects the long-held view among far too many legislators that the General Assembly ought to be able to do whatever it wants to do regardless of what the folks back in their home districts want. It’s a paternalistic viewpoint totally out of step with the capabilities and responsibilities of county and city governments around the state.

I recall an example of this some years ago when some members of the Charleston County legislative delegation proposed to pass a law requiring Charleston County Council to approve the county school district’s annual budget. 

I discussed the proposal with the late Barrett Lawrimore, then council chairman. Lawrimore told me that he and the council didn’t want this responsibility because they had no practical way of properly reviewing the district’s budget. He also said that no one from the General Assembly had asked his opinion before filing the legislation, nor was he given the courtesy of being notified that a law was being proposed that would expand the responsibilities of county council.

The performance of our state legislators is vital to the future success and economic growth of our state. When I speak with them, I try to make a point of thanking them for their service, which includes a lot of time away from home and a great deal of personal sacrifice and hard work.

That said, we the people and the elected representatives of our counties, cities and town have a right to expect more from the General Assembly when it comes to respecting the role of local governments in making our state a better and more prosperous place to live.

Bill Settlemyer
President and CEO
Setcom Media Inc.

Comments (2) >>

A retired USN Master Chief Corpsman (FMF)
written by Richard Hernandez on April 27, 2007

Second hand smoke kills. This is not a debate about smoker's rights or individual choice by non-smokers to work or not work in any employment situation. Smokers can smoke until they turn blue (literally...ever heard of emphsema and chronic bronchitis?), just don't smoke where I have to breathe the second hand smoke. The facts are that 75% of the population of South Carolina are non-smokers. The majority of the voters of South Carolina approve of banning smoking in all public places. Some would argue that private business owners have a right to decide whether or not to allow smoking, however, no one has the right to harm another. The tobacco lobby is working overtime to influence our legislators. With this legislation they have been successful formulating the best ordinance money can buy...for them. The losers are the people of South Carolina who will continue to suffer the health effects of second hand smoke. I didn't spend 30 years and 9 months serving my country to let the tobacco lobby and our legislators place profits over public health.

A US Navy Nuclear Submarine Veteran.
written by Dennis Lloyd on April 24, 2007

As an ex smoker and now long time non smoker I feel the need to reply to your comment. You have failed to understand why the state of South Carolina became involved. I applaud our lawmakers undertaking the rulemaking in order to standardize the smoking bans. Far too many "controlling" individuals were taking steps to "make it thier way" while ignoring the rights of the people it abused. Not fully understanding your role in the control of people and thier rights, I find it sad that you have chosen to take the position of executioner while owning a somewhat popular but not mainstream news orgainization. The truth remains, people have the right and freedoms to gather and enjoy thier simple pleasures even if it is smoking. Smoking havens have the right to exist for smokers, you cannot snuff them out! Workers have the choice not to work in these establishments, not the right to demand employment then claim it is unhealthy for them. Remember the job was made possible by the smokers! Smoking laws are closing down many of these establishments and creating employment losses. The State of South Carolina is proudly working for the rights of individuals. This is how our fine country works, whay not place your efforts in elimination on illegal aliens.

Write comment

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment