Are private clubs that require a membership fee exempt from these non-smoking rules? If so, could smoking bars charge a token membership fee to enter and qualify for the private club exemption?
AIKEN --- Looking to light up? Aiken smokers will have to take it outside now that the city has passed an ordinance banning smoking in all places of employment and enclosed public areas.
Local restaurant and bar owners say the new ordinance passed Monday infringes on the rights of business owners.
"It's got to stop where the government can tell me how I can run my business," said Sam Erb, the owner of The West Side Bowery.
Mr. Erb's restaurant has been nonsmoking for 16 years, but until Monday customers were allowed to smoke in the bar, which is separate from the dining room. Mr. Erb said restaurant owners across the city have taken it upon themselves to make their establishments smoke-free.
"Bars are different," he said. "Bars promote people to come in and sit and watch football games and baseball games. They buy drinks and food, yet they're required to go outside to smoke."
The result of that would be "they'll just keep on going and go home to smoke and watch the game," he said.
Mr. Erb said he feels the smoking ban is going to "help the restaurants but hurt the bars."
The inclusion of bars in the city's smoking ban makes Aiken's ordinance tougher than the county restrictions.
Aiken County's ban, in place since June 2007, allows people to light up in bars and restaurants as long as the business has a separate ventilation system.
Now that the city of Aiken has its ban in place and North Augusta has a similar ordinance pending, the county council is looking at the issue again.
"We've asked our attorney, Jim Holly, to come back to us with an ordinance proposal that either replicates the Greenville (S.C.) ordinance or incorporates what North Augusta and Aiken have put in place, which is pretty much in line with the Greenville ordinance," County Councilman Chuck Smith said. "Our goal is to standardize the ordinance throughout Aiken County, so you don't go from one jurisdiction to the next and you're faced with different ordinances."
The city of Aiken and North Augusta had delayed tackling the issue, opting to see how the state Supreme Court would rule on Greenville's smoking ban. The court determined earlier this year that the ordinance met all state requirements, allowing Aiken and North Augusta to go ahead with their plans.
County Councilman Scott Singer said the county got out in front of the issue when it passed the ordinance ban last year, but he said he wants "to make sure we don't go too far" with any new ordinance.
"Although I do think there are some benefits to having some consistency between the two major municipalities and the county, ultimately you have to decide, does the health and welfare of the public outweigh personal rights?" Mr. Singer said.
The issue will go before the county council for a second reading and public hearing at its next meeting in August. North Augusta's ordinance is up for a second reading and public hearing at the city council's Monday meeting.
Reach Michelle Guffey at (803) 648-1395, ext. 110, or michelle.guffey@augustachronicle.com.
Comments
Are private clubs that require a membership fee exempt from these non-smoking rules? If so, could smoking bars charge a token membership fee to enter and qualify for the private club exemption?
Too much govn't control of private business!
Good Idea PT. I think the owner should decide how to run his bar or restaurant. If he allows smoking inside that's his business. He's not hurting the public, because he's not forcing them to come inside and eat.
Good for the city of Aiken!
PT the other day it said private clubs were exempt as long as no employees were present or some crap like that. I didn't understand that 1... then how is the business open??? lol
freespeech... you have a point, but there are many smoking lounges across this country, that is a type of business and as long as no children are allowed a small business owner or a large for that matter should be able to open the kind of establishment it wants. How would you like it if someone banned you from something in your own home... or a law is passed saying you cant have company over for dinner if you smoke or DRINK BEER in your home while you ahve company because it could lead to a fight, thats dangerous to your health.. shouldnt that be the company you have comings choice to whether or not they want to come eat in your home? Beer is horrible and causes all kinds of problems, drunk driving killing people, fights and violence from drunks, but thats ok to fill a ton of people with liquor and send them out on the public and they have no choice about it, but God forbid you have a choice to patron a smoking or non smoking establishment!!! If you think seeing women naked in public is offensive you dont go to a strip club.. you dont want to go to a bar where people are smoking, go to the non smoking bar down the street... THAT SIMPLE!!!! IMO, even when I was a non smoker I would rather be around smoker because I have the choice to leave and visit another establishment, what choice does the a family driving home have against the drunk driver leaving the non smoking bar??? NONE... I wouldrather take my chances around a smoker! Now when alcohol is banned as hard as smoking I will agree, but it is hypocritical to concentrate so much on the smoking choice of a business owner and allow something so much more dangerous. How many lives are taken by drunk drivers?? And most of them were leaving a bar!!!!! Smokers do not wipe out a whole family in 5 seconds!!
At least one university study (Wisconsin, I think) has shown that cities and counties that enact smoking bans in bars experience higher DUI car crashes than counties that don't have the bans. Why? Because people who like to smoke while they drink will drive outside the city to a jurisdiction where smoking is allowed. Then they have farther to drive to get back home. Voila, more miles, more crashes. So goes the wisdom of politicians.
Great point little lamb!!! I am so glad someone understands it is not the fact no one cares about non smokers, its more about choice of abusiness owner for a type of business and how no one is focusing on the worse dangers caused in the exact same establishments they are trying to protect people from second hand smoke in!!!! It is not against the law to make and sell the cigs but no one can provide a place for them to be used in.... if they did that with alcohol and your personal home was the only place it was allowed.. the dui death rate would drop dramatically!! More innocents are killed by drunk drivers and raging violent drunks than second hand smoke in a bar.... no I have no stats to support this.. just common sense.
The choice of how to run a business was decided when no races could be excluded because of race. While it seemed necessary at the time, the law opened a can of worms. The no smoking ordinances are on the same line, and there are more restrictions to come.
I like the private idea. I think some bars have done that to get around business hour restrictions. The only thing I do not get is if businesses can just claim to be private to avoid laws, why don't all businesses do it? What are the steps they take to get to be private?
Does the health and welfare and tax dollars outweigh the fact that cigarettes should be banned if they are that bad for you. They get to do the politically correct thing without losing the tax dollars. Gotta love politicians.
Surprising research by two University of Wisconsin economists, published this month in the Journal of Public Economics, finds that communities that impose a ban on smoking in bars experience, on average, a 13 percent increase in drunk-driving fatalities. The researchers suggest that the increased death toll is because smokers will drive farther to find venues in which they can both smoke and drink, as well as bar patrons drinking
more and being more affected by alcohol when they cannot smoke. Furthermore, the study found that the rate of drunk-driving deaths increased the longer the ban remained in place.
http://www.econ.iastate.edu/calendar/papers/CottiPaperDrunkDriving.pdf
Federal Reserve economist Dr. Michael Pakko studied the economic effects of a smoking ban that included bars in Columbia, Missouri. Dr. Pakko found the Columbia bar business down 11 percent due to the smoking ban. Restaurants that serve alcohol are down 6.5 percent. Though many Columbia businesses were already smoke-free before the smoking ban was imposed, Dr. Pakko shows that the smoking ban caused a 3.5 to 4.0 percent drop in the Columbia bar and restaurant business overall. Dr. Pakko determined that Columbia lost $60,000 of tax revenue due to the ban during its first half year. Aiken could suffer similar losses.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/regecon/op/CRE8OP-2008-002.pdf
http://research.stlouisfed.org/econ/pakko/mpbans.html
http://www.columbiatribune.com/2008/Mar/20080329News002.asp
Recent research has shown that a smoking ban would not reduce the overall exposure of non-smokers to secondhand smoke and would actually increase the exposure of young children to smoke as smokers are displaced to their cars and homes.
http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications.php?publication_id=3523
An alternative to smoking bans
It is clear that separation of smokers from non-smokers combined
with air exchange technology is a complete solution to this largely
artificial problem. All it takes is regulating authorities setting the
standards for indoor air quality on passive smoke, and the technology
does the rest. Such air quality standards are common in industrial
and environmental contexts. But, to date, no country in the world has
set them for smoking areas. It seems clear that the reasons are not
scientific, nor are they economic or technical: they are political.
The anti smoking agencies do not want safe standards that would still allow
people to smoke...they simply want a ban that will push smokers
outdoors like outcasts.
The Mayor and Council were elected to run the business of the city, not the city's businesses.
Council is not in the health businness and shouldn't be
Ploliticans love to control and manipulae are behaviour.
They were elected to serve us..not the other way around
http://smokersclubinc.com
http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com
www.ventilatedsmokingrooms.ca
The Augusta Chronicle ©2012. All Rights Reserved.
