Customer Service: Subscribe Now | Manage your account | Place an Ad | Contact Us | Help
 GreenvilleOnline.com ? Weather ? Calendar ? Jobs ? Cars ? Homes ? Apartments ? Classifieds ? Shopping ? Dating
 
  • Search the Upstate:
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Greenville News
305 S. Main St.
PO Box 1688
Greenville, SC 29602

(864) 298-4100
(800) 800-5116

Subscription services
(800) 736-7136

Newspaper in Educ.
Community Involvement
Our history
Ethics principles

Send:
A story idea
A press release
A letter to the editor

Find:
A news story
An editor or reporter
An obituary

Photo reprints:
Submit a request

RSS Feeds
Top Stories, Breaking News
Add to My Yahoo!
Local News
Add to My Yahoo!
Business
Add to My Yahoo!
Sports
Add to My Yahoo!
Opinion
Add to My Yahoo!
Entertainment
Add to My Yahoo!

Get news on your smartphone!
Get the latest headlines and stories from The Greenville News on your smartphone or PDA.

[ Point here ] [ Learn more ]

Advertisement
Wednesday, November 1    |    Upstate South Carolina News, Sports and Information

Smoking ban OK'd
Bars, restaurants, other public buildings will be smoke-free Jan. 1

Published: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - 6:00 am


By Paul Alongi
STAFF WRITER
palongi@greenvillenews.com


What's your view? Click here to add your comment to this story.

Smokers in Greenville's bars and restaurants will have to snub out their cigarettes, cigars and pipes or risk a $50 fine starting at noon on New Year's Day.

The City Council voted unanimously Monday to go smoke-free in nearly all of the city's public buildings. When the law takes effect, it will be the first time in city history it will be against the law to light up in bars and restaurants.

Supporters say the ban will protect children, employees and nonsmokers from second-hand smoke, while encouraging smokers to quit. Critics contend the law will hurt city businesses and that it infringes on private property rights.

A 1987 ordinance outlawed smoking in department stores and other public buildings, but an exception was made for restaurants and bars. However, Mayor Knox White said separate sections for smoking and nonsmoking customers isn't working.

Advertisement

"It's just intolerable," he said, "and the medical evidence is just overwhelming."

In a half-hour public hearing before the vote, supporters outnumbered critics 9-5.

Doctors showed up in their white lab coats to argue the health benefits of the ban. Business owners led the charge for the opposition.

Linda Hamilton now is a doctor, but she said she was speaking out on behalf of a profession that hasn't had much of a voice in the public debate -- waitresses.

"They have a right to work in a healthy environment," she said.

Addy Sulley, who owns Addy's Cafe and Restaurant, said he voluntarily abolished smoking on one floor of his downtown establishment. Business, he said, dropped off by 60 percent.

"It was totally a disaster upstairs," Sulley said.

In a last-minute change, the effective date was narrowed down to the minute -- noon on Jan. 1, 2007 -- to address the "midnight issue," said City Attorney Ron McKinney. A previous draft made it effective on Jan. 1 but didn't specify the time.

The ordinance also made this year's Dec. 2 Christmas parade smoke-free and will allow City Manager Jim Bourey to ban smoking at other outdoor events, such as Fall for Greenville, beginning Jan. 1.

Bourey said he is confident that the city has sufficient resources to enforce the ban. The city already has a smoking ordinance, he said, and he expects most people to comply with the new one voluntarily.

"We don't think it's going to be a quantum leap in enforcement," he said.

The ban extends 10 feet from building entrances. McKinney has said the provision targets smokers who light up while sitting or standing outside but not people walking by.

Businesses face a $100 fine for the first offense and a $200 fine for each offense thereafter within a year.

Some places won't be subject to the ban: retail tobacco stores; private residences unless used for child care, adult care or health care; some motel rooms; some nursing home rooms; and private clubs that have no regular employees.

Hattie Reyes, who has a son with respiratory problems, quietly pumped her fist outside council chambers after the vote. She expressed hope that Greenville's vote will build momentum for other cities.

"Somebody has to start the ball rolling," she said. "Why not Greenville?"


Business concerns: Restaurant owner Addy Sulley said his business dropped off 60 percent when he abolished smoking on one floor of his establishment.
PATRICK COLLARD / Staff


Article tools

 E-mail this story
 Print this story
 Get breaking news, briefings e-mailed to you

Related

Related news from the Web


Sponsored links

 

StoryChat Post a CommentPost a Comment   View all CommentsView All Comments

Boatrocker "And I'm sorry but someone's got to say it here: Each and every one of you strongly supporting this ban on smoking - you are a bunch of sorry individuals. So afraid of the possibility that you might run into cigarette smoke and incapable of using your own actions and judgment to avoid it, you need the government to step in and protect you. It really says volumes on your character, and none of it is good."

What makes a self-righteous smoker like you an arbiter of character, when you exhibit no hint of it, yourself? You sound like a baptist- forcing your views on others is a personal right, while others' attempts to force their views on you is persecution. Talk about sorry.

Boatrocker Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:50 am

Boatrocker "Traveler...are you serious in trying to make some relevant connection to smoking and defecating in any building? That is absurd!"

Why is that absurd?

"That comparison is ridiculous . . . ."

Why? Explain.

Boatrocker Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:33 am

Jenn Traveler...are you serious in trying to make some relevant connection to smoking and defecating in any building? That is absurd! Of course a business owner would not only throw you out but have the right to. That comparison is ridiculous and only proves that supporters of this ban are grasping at straws for reasons why it makes sense. I support a situation in which we could find a happy medium, such as a time imposed ban, or a food service situation, but the rest is over the top. Please people...try to think outside of yourselves! I mean really! We are all trying to co-exist in the same spaces, and we will disagree on a number of things but who is to say what is right or wrong? Come on. Its really simple to compromise and make a comfortable situation for us all to peacably exist.

Jenn Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:27 am

Traveler80 Some have suggested that a legal action like smoking should not be prohibited in private businesses by the government. Even though second-hand smoke has been proven to be harmful, and lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in South Carolina (it outnumbers the second, third, and fourth leading causes COMBINED) - some contend it should still be allowed. People who don't want to be exposed "don't have to go to those places," right?

Well, what if I decide to start defecating in the middle of restaurants while people are eating and having a good time? It's legal for me to use the bathroom, after all. Sure, there might be harmful bacteria in my feces that could get into people's food, but they can ignore it or go somewhere else, right? What if the manager tells me to leave? HOW DARE HE! It's MY right to defecate where I please, isn't it?

That sounds silly, because the bathroom is the appropriate place to use the restroom. People respect others and follow the rules. Our society is more civilized than to allow people to defecate wherever they please. Plus, it's a public health concern to have people spread their feces everywhere. I fail to see how smoking should be viewed any differently!

Traveler80 Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:30 am

MStStephen Come January 1st, I will DEFINITELY NOT be going downtown anymore for my recreational needs, peroid. City Council has spoken: Smokers are not welcome downtown at all. I feel bad for all the businesses that will have to deal with the loss of revenue, but hope that they decide to relocate outside of the city.

The argument posted here that compares second hand smoke regulation to health inspections for sanitation is ludicrous. People who would work or visit a restaruant or bar CANNOT READILY SEE if there is a vermin infestation or bacterial conamination - this is why there are professional inspections done. But anyone, just by looking (or for that matter, even calling and never setting foot inside) can tell if smoking is going on.. and easily avoid it.

Here's a thought experiment that shows exactly the intent of city council on this smoking ban, and how this is an affront to private property rights. There could exist a hypothetical business downtown, let's say a bar and restaurant called "smokies place", that, since opening, specifically caters to smokers. This place's publically known theme would be " a place where smokers gather". Anyone who would go there would know, just by reading the an advertisement or the front sign, that smoking goes on there. Anyone applying for a job there would immediately know that smoking will be going on (and it would be up to them if they wanted to endure this "occupational hazard"). Under the City's new rules, such an establishment cannot exist, period. The fact that their law allows no compromise, no exceptions, no options at all, not even for a cigar bar (not to mention the fact that they crammed this down our throats in a record two weeks) clearly says that city council is more concerned with punishing those who smoke than making city life safer.

And I'm sorry but someone's got to say it here: Each and every one of you strongly supporting this ban on smoking - you are a bunch of sorry individuals. So afraid of the possibility that you might run into cigarette smoke and incapable of using your own actions and judgment to avoid it, you need the government to step in and protect you. It really says volumes on your character, and none of it is good.

MStStephen Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:25 pm

Post a CommentPost a Comment   View all CommentsView All Comments

Advertisement


GannettGANNETT FOUNDATION

Copyright 2005 The Greenville News.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, updated June 7, 2005.

USA WEEKEND USA TODAY