While some Charleston City Council members have been trying for years to ban cigarettes in private businesses, even some state lawmakers who agree with such bans don't believe local governments now have the power. Tougher anti-smoking measures being considered include a proposal in the House to make it illegal to light up a cigarette in any restaurant in South Carolina. A Senate bill that takes a different approach would give cities and counties the authority to make that kind of decision. Obviously, the concept of "home rule," which some lawmakers still have a hard time accepting, says decisions on smoking bans should be at the discretion of local governments.

Sen. Chauncey K. Gregory of Lancaster tells us he agrees with an attorney general's opinion that local governments are now prohibited from stopping smoking in private businesses. He proposes to change that by eliminating the section of state law in question that now reads:

"Nothing herein shall affect the right of any person having ownership or otherwise controlling private property to allow or prohibit the use of tobacco products on such property." He also would remove from that same law an anti-home rule provision that now keeps local governments from superseding state law when it comes to the regulation of tobacco products.

The Gregory bill is scheduled for consideration Wednesday before the Senate Medical Affairs Committee. The senator tells us he doesn't have any local governments in his district clamoring for the right to ban smoking in private places. Rather, he said, the legislation is part of a package of tougher anti-smoking provisions he has introduced. The senator also will try again at budget time to increase the tax on tobacco products. State law now prohibits smoking in certain public buildings, such as hospitals and schools -- with some exceptions -- and Sen. Gregory has legislation that would make those bans even stricter.

Rep. Todd Rutherford of Columbia is a co-author of a bill before the House Judiciary Committee that would forbid anyone from possessing "lighted smoking material in any form in a restaurant." The legislator was quoted by The Associated Press as saying he eats out a lot and "just gets sick of people smoking everywhere. It affects your clothes, you stink when you leave. You can't enjoy your meal." The proposed fine would between $50 and $75.

There is, and should continue to be, a huge distinction between private business and public facilities such as hospitals and schools. We'd wager Rep. Rutherford and his colleagues can find any number of restaurants that don't allow smoking that they can patronize. Certainly most restaurants have non-smoking sections.

As advocates of "home rule," we can't fault Sen. Gregory's legislation that unties the hands of local governments if there is a movement to regulate smoking in private establishments. We just hope local governments would then leave the decision up to the marketplace.