EDITORIAL: Smoke-free areas big issues in our community
In recent years, a number of restaurants, hospitals and other businesses have become “smoke-free facilities.”
I’m glad those restaurants post that information on their doors because I know which ones I won’t be opening as often. (Unless the food is especially fantastic.)
I don’t smoke, but I often eat out with people who do. My Southern etiquette won’t let me make them uncomfortable, especially if I’m the one who invited them out to dinner or lunch.
Nonetheless, this is a big issue in our community.
I’ve gotten several unsigned letters recently regarding smoke-free eateries and seen many posts about smoking on Hartsville Today. Some want outdoor dining areas to be smoke-free. Another online post says city residents should vote for mayor based on whether a candidate smokes.
Others suggest that there should be a directory or list of smoke-free places, and I’m all for that. Most smokers would be too. At least, then I’ll know where I can go when I am with certain friends and family.
The next logical question would be, “Does the City of Hartsville want a smoking ban?”
Private industry has dealt with the issue so far. Some businesses post “Smoke-free” signs or advertise to that effect.
In Florence a few years ago, several smoke-free businesses joined together to advertise in the paper that they were proudly smoke-free. A group of citizens tried to get a ban passed to no avail.
The City of Sumter succeeded in passing a smoking ordinance in April banning it from restaurants, bars, public places and workplaces.
“It is the intent of the ordinance to protect individuals who are gathering in these public areas to be in a smoke-free environment,“ said Sumter City Manager Deron McCormick in an interview with The (Sumter) Item.
In the United States, 440,000 die from smoking-related illnesses each year. Two recent large studies also suggest that cities that implement smoking bans have a decrease in the number of heart attacks of 17 percent in the first year and 26 percent in years two and three.
Thirty-one states now forbid smoking in workplaces, restaurants or bars, according to the American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation.
South Carolina is not one of them. Our state has few smoke-free workplace laws, according to the S.C. Tobacco Collaborative, an organization that promotes smoke-free ordinances.
That’s not a surprise given that the General Assembly can’t even pass a cigarette tax.
Smoking’s popularity has fallen nationwide. In 1965, 42 percent of Americans smoked. Today, that number’s just 20 percent.
So a smaller and smaller minority is being reprimanded for their actions. Smokers are bearing the brunt of nasty comments online along with higher taxes.
In February, the federal exise tax on cigarettes jumped more than 50 cents per pack to expand coverage to an additional 4 million low-income children under the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.
Many times people in the fire of this debate forget that smokers vote with their dollars too. Many will drive a few extra miles to eat at a decent restaurant with a smoking section. Most don’t mind being quarantined to a back room.
Studies have shown the bans have little overall economic effect but affect certain sectors disproportionately.
“The dollar impact on the farm sector of a reduction in cigarette demand will be smaller than that experienced by manufacturing, wholesale, retail and transportation businesses, but tobacco farms and their communities may have the most difficulty adjusting. Many tobacco farmers lack good alternatives to tobacco, and they have tobacco-specific equipment, buildings and experience,” according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Economically, bar owners have more to lose than restaurants. Among those customers, smokers tend to spend more than nonsmokers. Probably because they are at the facility longer while they have one more cigarette (and perhaps another drink).
Smoke-free locations do help people quit smoking if they are already on that path. For others, it may help reduce the total number of cigarettes smoked.
For that, I’m glad.
While I would like my smoker friends and family to quit, I can’t take that freedom away from them. Legally, they can smoke all they want.
Last time I checked, America was about civil liberties and the rule of law.
South Carolina’s heritage is steeped in tobacco production, and it’s hard to imagine this state without the golden leaves along the roadside.
That may be in the cards depending on how involved citizens become in their communities. Will they bully individual establishments or bring the issue to the public forum for a vote?
Lisa Chalian-Rock, editor of The Messenger, can be reached by phone at (843) 332-6545 ext. 19 or by email at .
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
What about the impact of first and second hand smoke on the cost of healthcare overall? Rights? We should have to discuss the right to lower increased healthcare costs as a result of treating smoke related diseases, not the right to light up.
The whole smoke-free movement is way out of hand. It’s another symptom of our uptight, anal-retentive culture. The idea of a smoke free bar is asinine! Bars are supposed to be dimly lit, seedy, smoke filled places. Otherwise, why would anyone want to go?
Smoker here.
My Opinion:
I respect a non-smokers right not to be around smoke. I wish they would would respect me enought not give their opinions on my smoking habits.
I don’t smoke in restruants, I smoke outside even in a place that has a reserved section. But when will people stop trying to step on my rights to have their own way? Because some organizations don’t want you to smoke even outside!
GG did someone make you go there, held a gun on you maybe? I wager if a person opened up a smokers only restaurant you would be there next day with the aclu to shut em down. Never mind that 99.99% of the eating joints were non smoking, a do gooder just has to do good.
All of the anti smokers spiel brings to mind the screeching of a reformed prostitute who having gotten too old and ugly to ply her trade suddenly comes up with religious zeal to get attention. No, i am not nor never have been a habitual smoker. But i do despise a sanctimonious descendant of a donkey braying non-stop that their “rights” are more precious than another persons.
Camster, I wanted to touch on this but not to stray far off the subject. “helping smokers quit!“ For some smokers it is hard to quit or stay a quitter. Its a hard habit to break and some (I) find it really isn’t that hard to do without where its required. Wish it was as easy to quit as it is getting started. How dare any company be allowed to manipulate a product to keep people addicted?!
On your thought to the editor, I’d like to expand. Dear Editor (Lisa) don’t let your Southern charm and niceness cause you to not stand up for your rights! ![]()
It could just bite you.
Just saw snowbird’s comment…..maybe the reason we don’t see protective statements like the ones you mention, is because they’d have to be followed by, or replaced with, real research….like this:
Secondhand smoke exposure increases risk of demensia, depression and memory loss (http://environment.about.com/b/2009/03/05/secondhand-smoke-linked-to-depression-dementia-and-memory-loss.htm)
Secondhand smoke exposure linked to younger age of colon cancer diagnosis (http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/ColonCancer/8411)
And absolutely, it is Public Health’s responsibility to inform us all about the healthrisks - tough to do when budgets have been cut for yet the third time this year. Support increasing the SC Cigarette tax so more money will go toward informing the public, preventing youth from starting to smoke, and helping smokers quit!
It stuns me that some will bend over backward not to be ‘rude’ to smokers, who are being so rude by even asking nonsmokers to be in their presence while they smoke their cigarette!
Secondhand smoke is deadly. Yes, people die from breathing secondhand cigarette smoke. The more they breathe, the bigger the health consequences (unlike smoking, which wrecks havoc even for someone smoking a cigarette or two a week).
The Surgeon General said THREE YEARS AGO that there is NO SAFE LEVEL OF EXPOSURE to secondhand smoke. It is a Class A carcinogen.
How rude to expect your healthy friends (ruder still to expect your unhealthy ones) to endure your deadly addiction at such great physical cost.
I think Miss Manners would say that any non-smoker was well within the boundry of good manners to request that the smokers in their presence refrain from doing so, in whatever venue. That said, there should be no concern about asking smokers to have dinner in a non-smoking restaurant.
An analogy…it is unhealthy and unwise to drink water that someone has used for ....hmmm…other purposes. Why would it be bad manners to ask someone to refrain from soiling your drinking water? No more is it bad manners to ask them to refrain from soiling your breathing air. Yes, smokers who insist on smoking in your presence are the one who need a lesson in manners….not you, dear editor.
JMO: From a smokers point of view!
GG, you are absolutely right!
Very concise!
There should definitely be smoke free areas, with clean air to breathe. I don’t feel that violates my rights at all. I feel it is only fair to non-smokers (and children) who don’t want to smell worse than ashtrays. Not to mention the definite second-hand smoke.
Total silence from the antismoking mass media droids, of course, on this pivotal, long-range study that shows yet another benefit of smoking. The reasons are obvious, and they need no further comments. If the intention of “public health” is to inform the public about the consequences of smoking on health as it proclaims, why don’t we see “warnings” such as: “Smoking Protects against Parkinson’s Disease,“ or “Smoking protects against Alzheimer’s Disease,“ or “Smoking protects against Ulcerative Colitis” and so on, alongside with the other speculations on “tobacco-related” disease? Isn’t the function of public health to tell the citizens about ALL the effects on health of a substance? Obviously not. “Public health,“ today, is nothing more than a deceiving propaganda machine paid by pharmaceutical and public money to promote frauds, fears, and puritanical rhetoric dressed up in white coats.

Advertisement