OPINION: Smoking ban shrouded in misunderstanding

The Florence City Council rejected an ordinance Monday that would have banned smoking in public places. The 4-3 vote raised the prospect of revisiting the issue with a compromise to balance the rights of individuals and business owners with the need to provide a healthy environment in the city.

The ordinance, proposed by councilman Buddy Brand and councilwoman Octavia Williams-Blake, was misconstrued as a referendum on smoking.

Those who smoke have a right to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own home. This push was about keeping public places smoke free and preventing inconsiderate smokers from infringing on the rights of others.

Those involved in the debate seemed to misunderstand the finite difference.

Smoking and second-hand smoke cause hazardous health consequences, including cancer and death, and it’s certainly within the bounds of government to restrict it.

Legal challenges to the ordinance proposed in Florence, which was similar to ones adopted in 29 other jurisdictions across the state, have been rejected by the South Carolina Supreme Court.

Local politicians, including ones in Columbia, Charleston and Hilton Head, have voted to ban smoking in public because the State Legislature has been unwilling to consider bans.

The Florence ordinance was patterned after one passed in Greenville. If passed, a person who violated the proposed ordinance would face a fine of $10 to $25. A business that’s cited more than four times would face loss of its occupancy permit or business license.

Critics zeroed in on the severity of the penalties on business owners. In retrospect, they’re right. The penalty for a business owner should not be the loss of a license, especially in harsh economic times.

A phase-in period for a smoking ordinance should be 90 or 120 days, in our opinion, to give restaurants and bars time to adapt.

There also should be wiggle room about allowing restaurants and bars to provide a fresh-air patio for smoking. Non-smoking sections in restaurants do not work.

Other arguments about individual rights and the role of government were not as persuasive in the debate.

When governments pay billions in taxpayer money to cover health care costs, and when hospitals write off millions in uncollected bills because of conditions related to heart and lung disease, the public has more than a passing interest in the health of the community.

“I believe liberties extend about as far as your nose,” Florence Mayor Stephen J. Wukela said in voting for the ordinance.

And he was right. Workers in smoking environments often have no choice except to be subjected to health risks. Smoking might be legal, but common sense says a practice so nasty and dangerous should be limited to certain sections of society.

The council voted on a non-smoking ordinance in 2005. It was rejected, with members at the time encouraging customers and businesses to forge their own consensus on smoking. Some have. Unfortunately, most have not.

Tobacco has been a huge cash crop in the Pee Dee for decades. But this debate is not about the elimination of tobacco and its products. It’s about fresh air in public places.

For the sake of a healthy community, we support the no-smoking ordinance. We think it would be progressive and bold for Florence to become the first city in the Pee Dee to ban it.

We applaud city leaders for elevating the issue and ask them to tweak the ordinance for another vote in the near future.

— Unsigned editorials represent the views of this newspaper. Editorial Board members are Mark Laskowski (regional publisher), James Bennett (regional editor), Sam Bundy (sports editor), Kimberly Ginfrida (news editor), David Johnson (regional circulation director), Charles Tomlinson (Lake City News & Post editor) and Jackie Torok (metro editor).