Law would end puffing smokes at workBy Jessica Johnson (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Isle of Palms — City Council moved forward Monday with snuffing out smoking in businesses east of the Cooper. Council voted 5-4 to direct Nick Sottile, city attorney, to draft a smoke-free workplace law similar to those already in place on neighboring Sullivan's Island and Mount Pleasant. Dick Cronin, Brian Duffy, Mike Loftus, Ralph Piening and Carol Rice voted in favor of an ordinance that would apply to all island businesses with at least one non-related employee. If all employees are family members, the law will not apply. Council members Marty Bettelli, Ryan Buckhannon, Dee Taylor and Mayor Mike Sottile voted against. Council members in favor of a ban said they wanted to protect the health of employees, while those against said that businesses should be able to govern themselves on this issue. "This is really about safety for employees and giving them a safe workplace," Duffy said. "We know the risks associated with secondhand smoke." But Bettelli said people who don't like smoke could avoid smoking establishments. "These are privately owned businesses," Betteli said. "The less government interference with those businesses the better." Smoking already is banned in city buildings. Sottile said he hoped to have a draft of an ordinance ready for the regular August or September council meetings. Isle of Palms is the last community east of the Cooper to discuss a workplace smoking ban. Sullivan's Island, Charleston, including Daniel Island and Mount Pleasant restrict smoking in the workplace. Results of a recent indoor air quality survey by Medical University of South Carolina showed that air pollution decreased 94 percent in 34 area bars and restaurants after smoking was banned. No public comments were allowed at the special meeting, but about 32 people sat in the audience with signs taped to their shirts that read "Vote NO on the ban and YES for freedom." Reach Jessica Johnson at 937-5921 or jjohnson@postandcourier.com. |
Article tools |
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net 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 charleston.net. 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 website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 15 comment(s)
Posted by lou9 on August 12, 2008 at 7:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The anti-smoking Nazis have invaded the Isle of Palms.
Posted by justjerry on August 12, 2008 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"We know the risks associated with secondhand smoke." If they are considering passing this then they obviously do not.
These are PRIVATE businesses, they do not need intrusion by public officials.
Posted by newbattleaxe on August 12, 2008 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Once again, I have a concrete, local example of Liberals vs. Conservatives in government to discuss with my teenager.
Posted by drp7773 on August 12, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And they want to raise the tax on cigs to pay for things that all people use, and now they harass and stick it to the burden tax payers even more.
Posted by coolfreaknbeans on August 12, 2008 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is so stupid.Once again the gov't is getting in our personal business and trying to take away our freedom to choose.Everyone knows that fried foods aren't good for us either.You think here in SC they'll ban that too?My personal favorite is when(and it happens so often)you see a complete lard azz lecturing people on how unhealthy smoking is.
Posted by coolfreaknbeans on August 12, 2008 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Amen ColdBeer!
Posted by outrage on August 12, 2008 at 12:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Okay, when are they going to allow a business to put up a SMOKERS ONLY, OR SMOKING-ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK signs!
I can not remember the city in California, but they banned smoking in your home! I know one of the city councilmen downtown made a comment about "they are lucky we allow them to smoke in their homes" a couple of years ago.
What is going on in this country?
Posted by MindBath on August 12, 2008 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You hang on to your ignorance about this because you want to. That's the only possible explanation. One huge smokescreen of bad analogies and conclusions.
It's not about whether smoking is bad for you (like fat or riding motorcycles). It is about whether it is bad for the other people working in the same space as you.
It's not about whether smoking is legal. Drinking is legal, but there are limits on where you can drink. As there should be.
The idea of private businesses being forced to create a safe workplace is not something new dreamed up just to "get" smokers. You should look up this organization called OSHA and see what they're up to.
Read up on the days when "private" employers were not infringed on by government to maintain safe working conditions. And take a quick study course on analogies for God's sake.
Posted by iceman1978 on August 12, 2008 at 1:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We have the smoke-free workplace now without this regulation. I work in N Charleston and people who smoke have to step outside of the building to a designated area.
Posted by LadyTarHeel on August 12, 2008 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Early: Your earlier comment about if you are 10lbs or more overweight then you can't eat at fast food restaurants or eat snacks at work wouldn't work. I'm am more than 10lbs overweight and it's not because I eat alot and do not exercise. I watch what I eat and I work out daily. It's this thing known as steroids and people with disabilities or illnesses (like myself) who require them would be unjustly discriminated against. Smoking is a choice, being overweight because of an illness is not. Not saying that all people who are overweight are sick (even though they think they are most times).
Posted by MindBath on August 12, 2008 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't know any business in the area, including the one I work for, who locks or blocks the fire exits. Still, I see no reason to remove the regulation that exits be accessible. It may look like government intrusion, but workplace safety laws have largely helped our society and our economy by ensuring that the most people have access to the most jobs.
My workplace is smoke-free. But if I want to engage in a discussion about laws which affect everyone, I cannot simply look at my own situation. That this is such an issue tells me there are still some workplaces where non-smokers are breathing unwanted smoke.
Posted by LadyTarHeel on August 12, 2008 at 3:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Early, I wasn't taking your comment directly. Sorry if it seemed like I was. I sometimes just get tired of people stereotyping all overweight people. I agree with you that most of the time obesity is preventable. It's not okay to be a fat kid these days. My god daughter is overweight and she is teased all the time and she isn't really too much overweight. She's just very tall for her age and her mother lets her eat as much as she wants when she wants it. Which I yell at her for because it's not teaching her or her brother good eating habits, something I wished I had learned at a younger age myself. Like I said smoking is a choice. Obesity in most cases is a choice as well, but it can't give anyone else lung cancer or other breathing problems.
Posted by FreeThinker on August 12, 2008 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mindbath..I see what you are saying but I disagree..there is a difference in these targeted businesses. They are hospitality businesses. It is entertainment, socialization and completely voluntary to enter either as a consumer or a worker. Cigar and martini bars are popular but these mandates shut the possibility of opening one East of the Cooper or in Charleston.
As someone above suggested signage stating that this is a facility where smoking is allowed. Enter(or work) at your own risk is such a simple common sense approach.
We do not need more laws.
And on the IOP the ONLY places that allow smokers are Banana Cabana, ACME only in the bar(which is totally separate from dining) and the Windjammer. The restaurants haven't been allowing smoking inside for quiet awhile.
I think in this particular industry the business owners of ENTERTAINMENT type business such as bars should be allowed to decide if they want a smoking or no smoking places of business.
Hurray for those who voted NO to this ban. These bans have started something that we never needed in the first place. the free market was aligning to customers needs.....
I do wonder if their ban will include the VFW like in Mount Pleasant. I shudder to think city council is going to mandate to a group of veterans who fought for our freedoms only to sit and see individual choices mandated away by vigalante city councils.
Government has a way of creeping in more and more when given a chance and mandating no smoking in ALL BARS is too much.
Stop this intrusion into the entertainment and hospitality industry..our last great place to relax and spend the dollars we have left after taxes.
Posted by MindBath on August 13, 2008 at 8:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Free, I read this article to mean a ban on smoking in office settings and such. I have no problem with smoking in bars, though I am opposed to allowing it in restaurants.
Posted by MichaelJMcFadden on August 14, 2008 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dear Editor, On Equal Representation...
Jessica Johnson's August 12th, "Law would end puffing smokes at work," included a very sad note at the end: "
No public comments were allowed at the special meeting, but about 32 people sat in the audience with signs taped to their shirts that read 'Vote NO on the ban and YES for freedom.' "
It is a sad day for America when a view is deemed to be so unpopular that its proponents have to be reduced to taping signs on their shirts to get their view across to legislators and the media. There are some very good arguments out there against government-imposed smoking bans. Those advancing those arguments generally don't have the backing of any "Big Tobacco" money or other means to get their case heard in front of the public, but it should be the responsibility of our legislators to make a special effort to see that those views are given equal representation before laws are passed.
To see an example of the "other side" of the argument visit
http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/257....
and read the free "Stiletto" that you will find there. It is a short printable booklet designed to expose the lies that drive the smoking bans and to get people angry at how they're being manipulated.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com