Florence City Council votes down proposed smoking ban
Alternative content
Florence City Council votes down proposed smoking...
Florence City Council members have voted down an ordinance that would have imposed a smoking ban in most public places.
Patricia Burkett/News 13
The crowd listens as Florence City Council considers a smoking ban.
Published: November 9, 2009
Updated: November 10, 2009
Florence City Council members voted 4-3 against an ordinance that would have imposed a smoking ban in most public places.
Voting against it during Council’s regular meeting Monday afternoon were councilmen Ed Robinson, Billy D. Williams, Bill Bradham and Steve Powers. Voting in favor of it were Mayor Stephen J. Wukela, Councilwoman Octavia Williams-Blake and Councilman Buddy Brand.
At least 12 city residents signed up to speak about the ordinance before council members voted, though not all of them did. Of the 10 who addressed council, five were for the ordinance and five against.
The ordinance would have prohibited smoking in such places as restaurants, bars, educational and health care facilities, common areas of apartment buildings, as well as many other places.
The council members who supported the ordinance, along with Wukela, said smoking poses a public health issue. They, and many residents, say smoking bans have worked in other areas across the state and across the country, and many of them believe the ban could work just as well in the city.
Williams Blake said before the vote that the ordinance is not about people’s right to smoke
“This ordinance is designed to protect employees and the public from the hazards of inhaling secondhand smoke,” she emphasized. “The city of Florence has already shown its commitment to a smoke-free work environment for our employees. Since we are protected, we should not feel at rest until every employee in this city has the same protection as each council member.”
Williams-Blake reiterated that the ordinance had been adopted by 28 other cities and counties in the state and has been upheld twice by the S. C. Supreme Court.
“I’m very pleased to see the turnout of supporters and non-supporters we had today,” Williams-Blake said following the vote. “This shows that people are passionate about the issue.
“I’m disappointed that it didn’t pass. I think the new alliance among councilmen Powers, Robinson and Williams is ‘interesting.’ But I don’t think this is the end. I think we can regroup under the spirit of compromise. Nobody here disagreed today that smoking is harmful”
Wukela said he believes it is the right choice for Florence.
Among others, the proposed ordinance would have prohibited smoking in such enclosed public areas as galleries, libraries, museums, bingo facilities, elevators, convention facilities, conference centers, exhibition halls, educational facilities (public and private), health care facilities, hotel and motel lobbies, licensed childcare and adult daycare facilities, and polling places.
Smoking also would be banned in apartment lobbies and hallways, condominiums, trailer parks, retirement facilities, nursing homes and other multiple-unit residential facilities, private clubs when being used for a function to which the general public is invited, restrooms, lobbies, reception areas, hallways, and other common-use areas.
In addition, smoking would have been prohibited in public transportation facilities, including buses and taxicabs and ticket, boarding and waiting areas of public transit depots, retail stores, service lines, shopping malls sports arenas and rooms, chambers, and places of meeting or public assembly, including school buildings.
The ordinance included certain outdoor areas “when the use involves a gathering of the public, regardless of the number actually assembled for the event, performance or competition,” as well. This includes amphitheaters, ball parks and stadiums when in use for athletic competitions or public performances, parades and special events on public streets and city property (although the city manager has the discretion, but not the obligation, to establish designated smoking areas in or in proximity to the parade or event area), dining areas in encroachment areas on public sidewalks, plazas and parks and dining areas on decks, balconies and patios of restaurants and bars, public places and public sidewalks abutting acute care hospital property lines, and zoos.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
The 2006 surgeon generals report has been debunked at every level by pier review. It uses the epa shs study as its basis for everything it tries to claim.Which was tossed out as junk science by a federal judge and later when the libs tried to get it tossed in an appeals court they knocked it down on,but not on the merits of what judge osteen said….what the judge said was junk science stood….When SG carmona was cornered over his claim of 60,000 deaths a year to second hand smoke he couldnt name one name….....Then he added all those numbers were computer generated and we have no actual names…......Gene if youd like to provide one name of death by shs/ets….......Im waiting…....and as soon as you do…....whatever doctor filled that death certificate out is gonna lose his medical liscence.
SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE just like the anti-tobacco zealots that push off trash science as medical fact.
“Posted by reddog . . .
Alright Kids, the fact is I can pull report after report that is in favor of either side”
No you can’t; not independent reports. The point is that the mass of non-tobacco-funded reports establish the harms of secondhand smoke. I know you’re tired of the fight, poor guy, but you’ve been gulled. See the 2006 Surgeon General’s Report that assessed the literature.
This “debate” is manufactured. If you can’t see that, you’ve been gulled already, kid.
Alright Kids, the fact is I can pull report after report that is in favor of either side, But it is getting a little bit annoying with the two of you playing your little school yard game of I got you last. Please just drop it because it is at the point where nobody is listening to either one of you.
Gene what I really find invigorating is that you one of the head tobacco control guys has to follow me around and do damage control daily. Sometimes you even bring your accomplices along tag teaming and rubber stamping each others comments….The one thing it does prove is that my war on anti-tobacco is working and I will spend even more hours in the day to shut you guys down by posting the truth…..and exposing your lies….I dont get paid nor any restitution just the simple fact I hate liars and propaganda artists trying to create a socialist world to their liking…We free americans will fight to maintain liberty and freedom for all of us and maintain the lifestyles we all choose to lead….To this end I will keep comming and comming til your smoke free socialist world is gone from political existence…..And the way its looking right now,next year will be the end of your movements advances.
You done made the voters mad.
I stopped smoking nearly 12 years ago after having done so for about 35 years. I stopped for the very same reason I started, it was the fashionable thing to do, (in addition to the health issues). People that don’t smoke are smarter than those that do smoke for obvious reason. Anybody should know drawing smoke into your lungs can’t be good for you, but I did it anyway as many people did and still do. Having said all that smoking is a choice and not a choice that government should make for you. Going to a place where people smoke is a choice as is not going. If the person that owns a business doesn’t want smoking fine, post a sign. If he doesn’t care one way or the other segregate smokers from no-smokers or simply understand you may loose business. Of course you may loose business either way you go unless you have an area where smokers can go and be truly un- intrusive.
At least your comming along,second hand smoke is a joke….......and thats the best you can come back with….......perhaps they added it to their commentary so they wouldnt be blasted to he..ll by the tobacco control folks…that seems to be the standard when researchers do a study these days…....ask dr. siegel…..he still sits on the fence and gets reamed by both sides while trying to maintain a slite tobacco control stance…..tobacco control is well known for blackmaling the opposition into silence.professional dogging by the smoke free groups against any who dares make a statement aginst the official shs stand is villafied and crucified by the establishment…..The who tobacco control treaty basically told the countries either sign on or lose world bank loans…then the MSA deal shut down the tobacco companies from being able to say anything against what tobacco control threw out for public consumption…......you guys are indeed a work of art.
Harley, do you even listen to yourself?
If “SECONDHAND SMOKE IS A JOKE,“ then why do you hold up as a gold standard a study that says, “The harmful effects of cigarette smoke are well known, and there are many reasons to avoid it. “
You not only gush nonsense, you contradict yourself all the time. You simply look foolish.
Get back on your bike. Science and logic are not your forte.
Gene its impossible to be allergic to second hand smoke,it contains no proteins…..besides studys have shown smokers and children of smokers benefit from the smoking by getting lowered atopic problems.
More ill informed smoker bashing. I do not think the authors would argue with me that smoking over the last 60 years smoking has more than halved (UK 1948 66% of the population, 2009 22.5%) but asthma has risen by 300% (again in the UK). So smoking is not the primary cause of asthma and atopy, I assume the doctor’s cars and industrial pollution. The inconvenient truth is that the only studies of children of smokers suggest it is PROTECTIVE in contracting atopy in the first place. The New Zealand study says by a staggering factor of 82%.
“Participants with atopic parents were also less likely to have positive SPTs between ages 13 and 32 years if they smoked themselves (OR=0.18), and this reduction in risk remained significant after adjusting for confounders.
The authors write: “We found that children who were exposed to parental smoking and those who took up cigarette smoking themselves had a lower incidence of atopy to a range of common inhaled allergens.
“These associations were found only in those with a parental history of asthma or hay fever.“
They conclude: “The harmful effects of cigarette smoke are well known, and there are many reasons to avoid it. Our findings suggest that preventing allergic sensitization is not one of them.“
www.medwire-news.md/.../...gic_sensitization_.html
This is a Swedish study.
“Children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7)
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children.“
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubm…pubmed/ 11422156
Gene have you lost it or what…....the propaganda artists are smoke free…......you should know this well over at tobacco.org…....your livlihood was made from it….....besides do you have a back up plan after all the bans get repealed next year….your going to need a job…Unless your in prison with the rest of the public health nazis pushing the unconstitutional laws….remember italy last year where the top anti-smoking crusaders were put in prison…..
—“If you bother to check, before the EPA Report and the activity of the RWJF on Smoking Bans there were no studies connecting SHS to any disease.“
What drivel. You know nothing. Zero. How dare you presume to make such statements. Your ignorance and/or willingness to propagandize is astounding—it’s no exaggeration to call you people Flat Earthers. A book could be written about the development of knowledge of ETS’ harms—and of the industry’s hidden knowledge from the 1960s to today.
The 1972 Surgeon General’s Report addressed previous studies, including ones showing the significantly higher tar and nicotine levels in sidestream smoke, and its adverse effects on nonsmoker allergies and lung ailments. It also addressed carbon monoxide levels and their effects on heart disease.
The 1975 and 1979 SGRs continued looking at ETS science, until the fateful year of 1981, which saw the Hirayama, Trichopoulos and Garfinkel studies that so terrified the tobacco industry and spurred a major publicity blitz against the Hirayama study—even though it was assured by their own scientists that Hirayama was correct.
The evidence continued to mount, until, in 1986, the SGR concluded,
“1. Involuntary smoking is a cause of disease, including lung cancer, in healthy nonsmokers;
“2. The children of parents who smoke, compared with the children of nonsmoking parents have an increased frequency of a respiratory infections, increased respiratory symptoms, and slightly smaller rates of increase in lung function as the lung matures”
Let’s not omit the tobacco industry’s own research and knowledge.
This 1982 letter from a PM employee to a major exec concerned PM’s secret German research lab:
“Last week I visited with INBIFO. The results from the first side stream smoke experiment are available and confirm the previous observation that this smoke on equal TPM is more irritating and/or toxic. The histology demonstrates more advanced lesions in the nasal epithelium and hyper and metaplasia in areas which are not affected by main stream smoke. The extent of cornification observed in these animals has never been seen before.“
INBIFO scientists drew the following conclusions in their July 29, 1982 report of the inhalation study:
“The systemic toxicity of mainstream and sidestream smoke impaired the body temperature, food and water uptake, body weight development and increased mortality . . . . Puffed and nonpuffed sidestream caused almost identical reactions, but the reaction to mainstream was much less pronounced than to sidestream exposure.“
Just the iceberg’s tip; yet VERY few INBIFO studies were published.
The ensuing normal, mainstream studies were just confirmation. . .
This message is just a VERY brief, scattershot summary. Judge Kessler has a wider history of these matters in her 2005 verdict in USA v. Philip Morris, et. al.
http://coop.dcd.uscourts.gov/99-2496-082006a.pdf
(I post this info not to inform you, the uninformable, but for normal people.)
Advertisement