Tobacco.org

Cities set to move on smoking bans  

--- Now that the state's top judges say smoking bans are legal, some city leaders are thinking of snuffing out cigarettes.

Though a smoking ban is already in effect in unincorporated parts of Aiken County, city leaders in North Augusta and Aiken held off because of legal challenges in other parts of the state.

But the South Carolina Supreme Court says smoking bans are OK

Jump to full article »

Daniel Rubin: A.C. deals a strong message 

After Atlantic City's unanimous vote to ban smoking on the gambling floors of all 11 of its casinos, the chant arose from 80 clapping, hugging, crying casino workers, thank you, thank you, thank you.

What are the odds last week's hurrah was heard in Harrisburg?

We may know tomorrow, when six legislators meet in the Pennsylvania Capitol to hash out differences in House and Senate bills to ban indoor smoking.

At risk is the health of nonsmokers and the right of Philadelphia to make its own laws. . . .

What happened in Atlantic City is part of a ripple that's rolling across the country - the world, actually, she said. If they can stop smoking in France. . .

Godshall said his group was willing to back any bill that gives local governments the right to enact antismoking legislation tougher than the state's.

"I just don't understand," he said, "how any legislators get away with voting to protect an out-of-state industry that kills 20,000 Pennsylvanians a years." . . .

"Hopefully, we're helping our next generation," she said. "Pennsylvania has an opportunity to step up to the plate."

Why do I get the feeling the result will land in foul territory?

Jump to full article »

COPLAND: Smoke Test for Supremes 

Later this year, the Supreme Court will hear the case of Altria Group v. Good in order to look at state lawsuits that claim that tobacco companies engage in deceptive trade practices when they advertise cigarettes as "light" or "low tar and nicotine." The case will "decide whether tobacco companies are vulnerable to state law suits arising from the claims on their labels."

The tobacco companies argue, convincingly, that such claims are preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965. Under that law since 1967, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission has regulated cigarette packaging and advertising, including claims about tar and nicotine levels. . . .

Although Judge Weinstein inevitably will continue to attract similar cases before him, Thursday's decision does stand as a major rejection of stretching our federal anti-mob laws into lawyer-driven class actions that target legal businesses. But the state law claims proliferating around the country are based not upon RICO but often ambiguous state consumer fraud statutes. For the fate of those lawsuits, we'll have to wait until the Supreme Court speaks.

--Mr. Copland is the director of the Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute. He owns shares in Altria.

Jump to full article »

Snuffing out smoking  

Columbia will enforce a ban on smoking in public restaurants and bars on July 1 in light of a recent State Supreme Court ruling.

The city council of Columbia created the ordinance based on its findings that "secondhand smoke is the third leading cause of preventable death in the U.S., killing 53,000 Americans prematurely each year."

The new ban is a revamped version of the original ordinance, which had been put on hold from November 2006. Violators of the newly enforced ban will face a civil penalty instead of a criminal penalty.

Jump to full article »

Public smoking issue breathing again now that cities decide fate 

Earlier this week, the state Supreme Court granted cities and towns the authority to ban indoor smoking in public places. The ruling, which stemmed from a ban enacted by the city of Greenville, now has smokers and nonsmokers alike wondering whether their city will be next to outlaw public puffing.

So far, the idea hasn't sparked the interest of leaders in several Spartanburg County municipalities, but city officials say the issue could come up later.

Jump to full article »

Court ruling could prompt review of local smoking bans 

Beaufort County's smoking ban, which includes possible jail time, differs from the smoking ban upheld by the S.C. Supreme Court on Monday.

Part of the decision Monday that gave local government the right to pass smoking bans in public places said it is unconstitutional to "criminalize conduct." However, some local smoking bans do just that.

Only state law can make an infraction criminal, in that a possible penalty would include jail time.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: Enact smoking bans 

With the recent ruling by the S.C. Supreme Court that local governments have the authority to ban smoking in public places, Rock Hill and York County should waste no time in enacting smoking bans. . . .

Ample precedent exists for smoking bans. Hundreds of cities and counties nationwide have bans of varying toughness.

It's a simple matter of government protecting the health of residents. We hope the city and county will move quickly to do just that.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: Local smoking bans were reaction to an epidemic 

more South Carolinians die each year of smoking-related illnesses than from AIDS, liver disease, breast cancer, car accidents and several other causes combined. Data show that 5,992 people died in 2004 of smoking-related illnesses. That is nearly twice as many as a select group of causes, including murder, suicide, infant death, illegal drugs and fires.

Smoking bans were enacted to protect those people and employees who don't smoke and don't enjoy being around it. Communities reacted to an epidemic by performing the tough work that the state legislature should be doing -- regulating smoking. What the state needs is an adequate state law that makes bans uniform.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: State high court upholds local laws on smoking bans 

The South Carolina Supreme Court struck a strong blow for home rule and the power of local governments with its decision to upheld a ban against indoor, public smoking passed by Greenville City Council last year. . . .

“This is a great day for protecting everyone’s right to breathe clean air in South Carolina,” Carrigan told the AP. Greenville city manager Jim Bourey told the AP that he expects the ban to go into effect Tuesday. But Bourey also said most restaurants and bars already had voluntarily complied. That’s probably how it should be anyway. But, even more importantly, we think the court ruling takes a big step in defining the power of local governments.

Jump to full article »

SCOPPE: On smoking, sloppiness, arrogance and poetic justice 

Whatever language you use, the Supreme Court's unanimous decision upholding Greenville's workplace smoking ban dealt a stunning blow to the sloppy, shortcut-laden way the Legislature does business. . . .

On Monday, the court essentially said, "We don't care what you intended to do; you didn't do it." Except it couldn't say that exactly, because that would suggest that it knew what the Legislature intended, and as the justices are quick to remind us, "the cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the Legislature." . . .

Here's the great irony: The votes were almost certainly there in 1997 for the Legislature to write a pre-emption law that actually did prevent local governments from banning smoking. For that matter, the votes were probably there four years ago. But to correct a mistake is to admit you made one, and if there's anything our Legislature dislikes more than it likes playing fast and loose with the rules, it's admitting its mistakes.

For once, that turned out to be a good thing.

Jump to full article »

Supreme Court ruling points out flaws in local smoking bans 

Beaufort County's smoking ban, which includes possible jail time, differs from the smoking ban upheld by the S.C. Supreme Court on Monday.

Part of the decision Monday that gave local government the right to pass smoking bans in public places said it is unconstitutional to "criminalize conduct." However, some local smoking bans do just that.

Only state law can make an infraction criminal, in that a possible penalty would include jail time.Smoking bans in both Beaufort County and Bluffton are worded that people found in violation can be fined up to $500 and face up to 30 days in jail, making it a criminal matter.

Gary Kubic, Beaufort county administrator, said the county may reevaluate its ordinance but that he had not examined the court decision and there are several issues involved, such as workplace hazards from secondhand smoke.

"Quite frankly, we've had little objections (to the ordinance)," Kubic said. "If it can improve our ordinance, we'll sure look at it."

Other nearby governments have their own versions

Jump to full article »

Greenville Smoking Ban Back On  

Maybe the signs that stayed up for months on Main Street were wishful thinking.

South Carolina's Supreme Court voted unanimously Monday to uphold Greenville's smoking ban. City leaders say they were confident all along their ban on butts would hold up in court. "We felt the law was on our side," says city manager Jim Bourey.

The city is not the only one breathing easier now. Some supporters say they, too, were hoping the plan would stick. "I'm not a smoker, and I don't like going into restaurants or anything that has smoke," says Joni Catanese. "It irritates me. It's bothersome"

Jump to full article »

Cities and counties that have passed smoking bans 

South Carolina cities and counties that have passed indoor smoking bans and the dates they were passed. Columbia has withheld enacting its ban pending the Supreme Court's decision. Clemson's ban is set to take effect in July:

-Sullivans Island: May 16, 2006

-Liberty: Oct. 9, 2006

-Greenville: Oct. 30, 2006

Jump to full article »

• Columbia on track to curtail smoking 

Columbia City Council, buoyed by a state Supreme Court decision Monday, will press ahead this week on activating a dormant 2006 ordinance that would prohibit smoking in public buildings.

Mayor Bob Coble said he asked the city's attorney to brief the seven-member panel Wednesday on a ruling that upholds a municipal ordinance that bans smoking in Greenville's restaurants and bars.

The Supreme Court reversed a lower-court decision that initially sided with business owners who claimed the city of Greenville enacted a local law that exceeded the authority of state law.

Winning attorney Ron McKinney said the case is significant because it is the first time the S.C. Supreme Court has had before it the issue of second-hand smoke being a health threat, and no one questioned that assertion.

"Ten years ago, this would not have happened," McKinney said, explaining that in recent years overwhelming scientific evidence has confirmed the threat.

Jump to full article »

Cities can ban smoking, Supreme Court rules 

The high court issued its ruling on a case challenging Greenville's smoking ban.

It reversed a ruling last year by a Circuit Court Judge John Few of Greenville, who said a state law passed in 1996 expressly prevented local governments from creating their own rules on smoking. He attributed his decision to the wording of the law and said it had nothing to do with smoking.

But the Supreme Court disagreed unanimously.

Jump to full article »