Posted by Neponset on July 30, 2008 at 6:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think the bar owner should be the one to decide, but over all I think it is a good thing not to smoke in public places. I smoke and like to sit at bars, but don’t like to sit near folks smoking, especially those that light up and lay it in the ash tray and let it smolder - that kind of smoke seems to be worse.

Posted by Nonsense on July 30, 2008 at 6:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There is a big difference between outside pollution and inside pollution - at least outside you can get away from it and the quality of outside air is much better in the Charleston area than it is in larger cities. I think all people will be healthier once smoking is banned from all public buildings. Let all the smokers go into their own homes and literally smoke themselves to death without taking a lot of innocent people (including children) with them.

Posted by watchdog on July 30, 2008 at 7:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The best thing the City of Charleston has done, Smoking is stupid and it sucks.

Posted by lou9 on July 30, 2008 at 7:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A survey conducted by a group with an ax to grind against smoking - gee, what would the results be? You pay somebody to tell you what you want to hear and that's what you'll get.
Ms. Tysinger- if you don't like smoke, don't play in bars that allow it. You can get away from inside pollution - go outside. And a bar is not a public place. A private citizen owns it. He should be allowed to decide what legal activities he allows in his place. Why don't you anti-smoking nazis just band together and boycott business that allow smoking? If there are so many of you as you claim then your wallets will change the minds of business owners and government can concentrate on more important matters.

Posted by theronce on July 30, 2008 at 7:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you my all powerful daddy government. Now I will live to be 150.

Posted by geekboy on July 30, 2008 at 7:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A mental giant wrote: "Why don't you anti-smoking nazis just band together and boycott business that allow smoking?"

Godwin's law invoked. Game over. Thanks for playing.

Posted by whycantitbebetterhere on July 30, 2008 at 7:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What do they think they are doing to all of the smokers that they are making stand outside. In the winter I am sure it is not good for smokers to stand outside and freeze while they puff. I am sure breathing gasoline while you pump, cleaning agents while you clean the house, fingernail polish while you are getting your nails done, the papermill and chemical plant when you are outside or driving by, etc. is not good for you either. This is just about nonsmokers trying to get smokers out of the places they want to go. I think it is better to be outside, however, how about some amenities for the smokers - like a place to sit or a cover of some kind from the elements. Oops, if you build all of that the nonsmokers will complain that they want to sit there and they can't because there are smokers there. Well, there are some non-smokers whose perfume or body odor smell so bad I don't want to be around them either.

Posted by grannyofsix on July 30, 2008 at 8 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I have to agree with Thomas. Gas fumes are far worse and I am a non smoker I don’t allow smoking in my home. But the smell from diesel and gas is far more sickening the cigarette smoke

Posted by Tulane75 on July 30, 2008 at 8:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why would you need a survey to convince someone that inside air quality is improved when there is no smoking?

Posted by justjerry on July 30, 2008 at 8:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I will repeat what I have said before to the proponents of a smoking ban. Develop a business plan and come up with the cost to open a restauraunt or bar that you would like to own. Then, take all of your savings and any amount over the cost from the plan above either mortgage your home, borrow it from a bank or convince others to invest into your business. Open your business and then YOU can decide if it should be smoking or not.

These are private businesses and they should be allowed to let their patrons do anything legal that they want within their premises.

Posted by grannyofsix on July 30, 2008 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by Tulane75 on July 30, 2008 at 8:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Why would you need a survey to convince someone that inside air quality is improved when there is no smoking?

I think it is to justify the reason behind the ban. JMO

Posted by frugal4life10 on July 30, 2008 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks goodness for no smoking allowing law. Now we all can enjoy to dine anywhere. To smell smoking spoil my desire to eat, burn my eyes and headaches, smell awful on us. That is why we all only go to no smoking places to eat. Also, not good for us all to smoke and inhale second hand smokes. Save your money and your health by not to smoke. We all will live healthy more and save money on doctors bills. We all look younger for not smoking.

Posted by shoelaces on July 30, 2008 at 8:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Whycantitbebetterhere.......

"In the winter I am sure it is not good for smokers to stand outside and freeze while they puff."

I had to LOL when I read THAT little gem. As if a smoker cares about his/her health!!!

I don't like the idea of a "nanny state" with government telling me what I can and can't do. However, I like cigarettes and cigarette smoke even less. I am very happy to be able to go have a meal with my husband and kids without having to smell the smoke or smell like it when leaving.

And why are "african americans" disproportionately impacted by secondhand smoke? I need some studies on that one to back up this data.

Posted by BulldogTLC on July 30, 2008 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

justjerry wrote "These are private businesses and they should be allowed to let their patrons do anything legal that they want within their premises."

But with a smoking ban, it is NOT legal. So they can still do anything LEGAL that they desire.

Posted by dogwoodroad on July 30, 2008 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

before you know it, these laws will start to dictate what you can do in your own home. Maybe we can start putting video cameras in people's houses, so that the police can come arrest you for eating fried food. After all, obesity is bad for your health, too.

Posted by BulldogTLC on July 30, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

EvilGenius, there are a lot of people who go to bars and live a very helthy lifestyle. There is nothing unhealthy about having a couple of drinks, in fact many doctors encourage it. Not everyone who goes to a bar is looking to get trashed and stumble their way home.

Posted by drp7773 on July 30, 2008 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, and I bet if you cleaned out the dog pound more often it wouldn't stink like Ch*t I tell ya these folks are genius's....

Posted by RTC on July 30, 2008 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

David Harvey, general manager of Gene's Haufbrau in West Ashley, said the year-old Charleston ban has not affected business.

"People come in with kids at lunch. They didn't do that before," he said. "We smell cleaner when we leave."

And this is a good thing? Taking your child into a bar because there is no smoking allowed is ridiculous.
People who go into these types of establishments generally don't want to hear the pitter patter of little feet, nor do they want to hear children whining or screaming.
These smoking bans have just opened another can of worms.
They have also not asked many establishment owners about their business. Many are complaining that their business has dropped. There is no reason why there can't be smoking and nonsmoking establishments without forcing every business to comply.
Leave it up to the establishment owners, and then there will be plenty of choices for all.

Posted by zekemire on July 30, 2008 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I am not a smoker, and, have never been! But, all these smoking bans in private businesses is UNCONSTITUTIONAL! An owner of a bar, restaurant or club has the right to allow smoking in his place of business if he so desires! If someone has a problem with that, they will just have to go elsewhere, they have no Constitutional right to go into a specific bar, restaurant or club! Regardless whether a business serves the general public or not, it is not a government entity and is therefore PRIVATE PROPERTY!
If the aclu had any integrity, it would file lawsuits against the governments implementing these bans immediately! however, I guess this does not meet it's idea of civil rights! ABSURD ORGANIZATION!

Posted by grannyofsix on July 30, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here in the county I live in they just voted the smoking ban in all non private places. What few bars we have here have all gone private you pay between 1.00 and 5.00 a year for membership. They found a way around it.

Posted by iceman1978 on July 30, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

By having the no-smoking ordinance all you've done is force them outdoors as is seen in the photo. This way, rather than be inside a bar, they're outside and anyone walking by gets to smell it.

If it were up to me I would allow smoking in bars, place a 5 cent sales tax on cigarettes and use the money to help the bars pay for stronger ventilation systems. Last year I went on a cruise. Every evening I would go down to the jazz club after dinner. Maybe have some brandy and enjoy a nice cigar. The ventilation in that place was so well put together that it was installed all throughout the ceiling. When someone was smoking, it pulled the smoke in before it had a chance to drift over to the next table.

Posted by RTC on July 30, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

granny, they have forced the VFW in Mt. Pleasant to comply with the smoking ban. This a private organization, and they should have given the members the right to vote at least.
These men, of all people, should have a voice in this.
They fought for our country's freedom, and yet they are being denied it themselves.

Posted by VMI90 on July 30, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The smoking ban is a great thing for Charleston. The only way that I could be against it is if the establishments are required to have Smokeater filters that are checked and maintained regularly- they tend to really do the trick. One more thing- I really don't care about the rights of smokers- don't give me this "it's unconstitutional" BS- the folks that say this are the ones that say second-hand smoke does not cause cancer. For ever expert that says it does not, I can find 10 that says that it does.

Posted by VMI90 on July 30, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree totally with you, iceman about the filter systems. There is one bar in particular in N Chas that has a couple of the smokeater systems, and I cannot notice that people are smoking most of the time. Increase the tax by 25 cents a pack or more, then put them in. If you don't want to go that route, then smoking shouldn't be allowed in your establishment.

Posted by Thefutureisnow on July 30, 2008 at 10:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What is it with Southerners? They always have to be made to do the right thing. Slavery, Jim Crow, Voting Rights. That's why they are the butt of national jokes.

Posted by grannyofsix on July 30, 2008 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I had no idea they were even going into private establishments. So now we have to watch out, they will go to our homes now, and tell us we cant smoke in our own homes because we may have guest come in to visit as I have said before when did we become a non freedom state .
I dint smoke there is no smoking in my home BUT I have that right to say it not the state or county.
Iam not one of those who quit smoking then condemns those who do. \smoking is bad I know I did for 30 years and only quit because I had a heart attack from it I didn’t even quit when my husband died from lung cancer and he had quit 18 years prior.

Posted by BulldogTLC on July 30, 2008 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Its amazing the people that think government should regulate one type of pollution and not another.

Posted by VMI90 on July 30, 2008 at 10:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm not one of those, Bulldog- I think there should be more stringent requirements on pollution in the business world as well.

Posted by BulldogTLC on July 30, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

VM190, I am actually referring to the folks who get on here and bash DHEC for not doing enough to control and restrict pollution from coal plants, cements plants, etc. because they are harmful, yet have no trouble with people being exposed to second hand smoke.

Posted by yeahright on July 30, 2008 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thefutureisnow: There are indoor smoking bans all over this country and the world. Not just the South.

Idiot.

Posted by carolinapanther on July 30, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What is so hard about putting your cigarettes out before you go inside of a place? Its called manners! nobody should have to tell you that, but unfortunately we have to pass a law to make smokers show respect for others.

Posted by NativeSon on July 30, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Not only was this expected, I'd wager that their business and profits increased.

Since only about 26% of the area population smokes tobacco drugs, these silly townships who vote down smoking bans are sending the message that they only want to do business with 26% of the area and by so doing are telling the other 74% of paying customers that they don't want your business.

Every township that considered bans have heard all the same lame arguements. Those municipalities who went on to pass the bans found out that all those lame arguements weren't worth a pound of flatulence.

Posted by stephansdad on July 30, 2008 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

For those of you who think a smoking ban is an "infringement" on your rights, try being a father of an asthmatic child who would like to enjoy the simple things in life like eating in a restaurant, or going to a ball game without having to fight with the air.
Smokers, by a large percentage, seem to be the most selfish, righteous beings I have met.
HEY SMOKERS, the next next time you pull up to a stop light, look down at the street and count how many butts are on the ground, then talk to me about YOUR RIGHTS!
Smoke and kill yourselves in your own home, don't think I will allow you to harm my child.

Posted by berthelot on July 30, 2008 at 11:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Two things:

1) There are a handful of businesses that the ban does not affect, i.e. Club Habana (above the tinder box on Meeting St.) Why? Because a large portion of their income is from tobacco products. They are a tobacco store that happens to have a bar upstairs. What is to stop tobacco shops from opening up all over town and offering beverages as a side item?

2) A new problem is created in that you have to walk through a gauntlet of smokers to enter any bar or restaurant now.

Let smokers smoke in smoking bars and let non smokers avoid them.

Posted by FreeThinker on July 30, 2008 at 12:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Stupid law.
Restaurants were for the most part already No Smoking.
Bars, not so much.
Government meddling in private business is something that should be kept to a minimum. Let the bar owner decide whether to allow smoking. Then mandate that proper signage be placed so no one will accidentally walk in a smoking place.

I want to see the data used to show that 5-6 thousand people died from exposure to second hand smoke....

We, the people, allowed these city councils to mandate to us. I've heard so many say that business has not been effected or there was 'little resistence' when the ban was imposed.
People did not speak out. they are not speaking out now.
People were content to sit back and let anti-activist like Carriagan and the no smoke crowd dictate behavior laws.
What's next?

Posted by Girleygirl on July 30, 2008 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I thought this ordinance about smoking in the restaurants just started less than 3 months ago right? How in the heck were they able to get the results this fast? I think Lou9 is right. Folks with an agenda to do, that's how I see it!

Posted by HighDef on July 30, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

smokers need to start paying for their burden on our healthcare system and some life/health insurance companies are now testing for smoking , it's only a matter of time before we ban smoking in 99% of public places. I worked as a doorman at Big John's for a while and even standing outside I would still constantly get bloodshot eyes , sinus problems etc... and yes it was my choice to work in a bar. it was sad to watch the majority of patrons chain smoke for the entire time they sat... awful.
I'd love to see them all sit in their cars, windows up and hot box instead of out front of the bars, make em feel real stupid and they'll change.

Posted by FreeThinker on July 30, 2008 at 12:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

HighDef writes:' make em feel real stupid and they'll change.' [end quote]

helping you is it?

Posted by FreeThinker on July 30, 2008 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

seriously how can it not be it unconstitutional to mandate that I can not open a Cigar Bar or a Piano Bar where smoking is allowed in d'town Charleston?

Messes with free trade, the free market will decide which businesses succeed or fail witout the help of City Coucil.

The person who wrote about the cigarette butts scattered on the ground. I agree this is a littering problem. It is true on the beaches to. I don't hesitate to offer someone an 'ashtray' ie a can or some kind of container when I see them dropping their cig. butts in the sand. No one has been offended when I've offered them an ashtray.
Beach Butt Busters...:) or just plain Butt Busters would be a great way to help stop litter. There is a litter law in place...

But smokers need to be aware of tossing butts on the ground anywhere but especially on the beaches. You don't think someone will decide the next way to go after smokers is to ban smoking on the beach or sidewalk BECAUSE of the propensity for litter.

So yeah I'm a Butt Buster...

Posted by drp7773 on July 30, 2008 at 1:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why is it wrong to allow smoking and non smoking bars, all it would take is a sign at the door telling which one it is. For cripes sake you have to be a certain age to go into either and you are supposed to be an adult and being so you should be able to decide either way. Restaurants are different because there is no way to seperate the smoke from non smokers and I really think smokers finish a meal before they need a smoke. Yes I used to smoke and quit many moons ago, but I never smoked while eating at places where people would not like it in their faces. Compromise goes a long way.

Posted by notanotherdumbassposter on July 30, 2008 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Now if they can just get the other 6% taken care of by limiting what type of filth can enter an establishment.

Rule 1: You must have recently bathed.
Rule 2: You can't smell like a hooker doused in perfume/cologne.
Rule 3: You are properly groomed (hair, nails, etc)
Rule 4: If your butt crack shows out of your pants you can not enter.

I am sure there are more, but that is a start!

Posted by iceman1978 on July 30, 2008 at 1:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't like cigarette smoke in a restaurant but so long as it's only a few people I can tolerate it. What I actually wish the restaurants would start doing is asking people to leave when they can't make their children behave.

Posted by VMI90 on July 30, 2008 at 1:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

One issue that I haven't seen anyone address here are the workers of a smoking establishment. You need to protect their rights as well. And before you self-righteous, holier than now people say "Go work someplace else", what if all of the places hiring are smoking establishments? You are the same hypocritical bunch that would tell the same people "Get a job, you lousy bum." Sounds like hypocrisy to me.

Posted by notanotherdumbassposter on July 30, 2008 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

white bar, black bar, smoking bar, nonsmoking bar--does any one see the parallels. Especially when you consider how many say that smoking is also part of the elusive black culture.

Posted by HighDef on July 30, 2008 at 1:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

just blow smoke in their little faces iceman, that will shut them up !

All this talk of what are they going to check next is just hog wash, seriously are you scared of big brother listening in on your important conversations... paranoid. As far as some of the suggestions on regulations like showing butt crack, it's already happening in Louisiana, thugs/hicks get a warning for having their pants around their ankles and a fine the 2nd time around.

Posted by VMI90 on July 30, 2008 at 1:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I do agree with you there, iceman. How about a ban on screaming kids? I don't blame the kids- they are being kids...I blame their pathetic excuses for parents.

Posted by drp7773 on July 30, 2008 at 1:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

VMI90,
That arguement does not fly, with all the business's in the world that are smoke free why would you go pick the only one that draws in smokers to work. I have never seen where a Burger king ,Mcdonalds conenince stores, grocery stores and the list goes on and on that wasn't hiring all these are smoke free. Like I said earlier why isnt it right to have smoking and non smoking bars, place a sign at the door to choose, I would bet they both would have a good night and there would be a place for these non smokers to work.

Posted by iceman1978 on July 30, 2008 at 1:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

HighDef, In principle I don't agree with that kind of legislation but I understand why cities are starting to have "saggy pants bans." The fact that it's come to that doesn't say very much for our society.

Posted by BulldogTLC on July 30, 2008 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why isn't it alright to have a women's bar, a men's bar, a white bar, a black bar, a hispanic bar.... remember when everyone was fighting segregation?

Posted by VMI90 on July 30, 2008 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would respectfully disagree that your argument doesn't fly, DRP. If you read what I wrote, I clearly stated that if the only places that were hiring were smoking establishments...Hard to defend your position if you take that into consideration

Posted by drp7773 on July 30, 2008 at 2:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No how about this one, they shouldnt be able to sell alcohol because an alcoholic might need a job there because the bars (where alcohol is sold) places are the only ones hiring..

Posted by VMI90 on July 30, 2008 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What I would say about that, is that his (or her) consumption of the alcohol does not directly affect the overall health of his or her coworkers. That person is choosing to abuse their own bodies.

I firmly stand by my views on that, and I have yet to find an argument that even comes close to changing my mind.

Posted by drp7773 on July 30, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dang and I thought I was close , oh well tomorrow is another day

Posted by VMI90 on July 30, 2008 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey, we can respectfully disagree. That is what should be happening here- not like some of the childish name calling and insults that are constantly hurled around.

Posted by drp7773 on July 30, 2008 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

lol very true

Posted by VMI90 on July 30, 2008 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

At least college football starts very soon- you think it's heated here....but we can all agree that we love it!

Posted by FreeThinker on July 30, 2008 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I do love college football........and tailgating. Such fun to tailgate with friends..cook out, have a beer and good conversation. Have a beer? not in charleston.

VMI your entire argument of the non-smoker unable to find a job in a non-smoking restaurant/bar is just not logical. One can't debate because it is a false premise.
Before the smoking ban there was more non-smoking restaurants than smoking. Fifty percent, at minimum, are always hiring. So your argument is built on a false premise.
Ain't gonna' happen...

Posted by VMI90 on July 30, 2008 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Free- we will have to agree to disagree. I completely disagree with your argument, you with mine. I will not change your mind, and there is no way in the world that you will change my opinion. Agree to disagree...even though you're wrong....:) just a friendly jab!

Posted by Tulane75 on July 30, 2008 at 6:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why are the pro smoking ban people arguing with the people against the ban?

That ship has sailed and you won!

Posted by rollo on July 30, 2008 at 7:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There was a big story about ozone and the health probs it presents, that was @ two weeks ago. So, did this 'secret device' measure for ozone? What about CO2? Other hydrocarbons?
If the near total of all pollution(94%) can be eliminated by banning smoking, then why not do it? Outlaw burning tobacco! Because this study is a crock, that's why.

I've watched this debate for years, and I've never seen a definitive and comprehensive study that rebukes or rebutts the study on ETS that was released @ 1992 by the World Health Organization.