From: johnpolito@comcast.net
Date: Wed, 03/30/05
Legislature can help reduce state's smoking
scourge
Wed., March 30, 2005 Editorial in The State - SC's largest
daily
newspaper
TALK OF BANNING smoking in Columbia restaurants, like
similar
proposals in Charleston, has largely overlooked a major problem: In
1996,
the Legislature passed a law whose primary purpose was to prohibit
cities
and counties from taking such actions.
This morning, a Senate subcommittee will take up a bill
sponsored by
Sen. Greg Gregory to overturn that ban, which was muscled
through the
Legislature under pressure from cigarette companies and
restaurants after
Spartanburg banned smoking in restaurants and other retail
businesses.
The ban on local bans never should have been passed. It's
not the
purpose of this editorial to say whether local elected officials
should ban
smoking. What we are saying is that they should be allowed to make
that
decision. Local councils are best able to decide whether a ban on
smoking is
appropriate in their communities - just as they're best suited to
decide for
their communities whether strip clubs should be banned, whether
bars should
be forced to close at 2 in the morning and whether smelly chicken
farms
should have to stay far from neighbors' property.
Sen. Gregory's bill is one of several the panel is
considering today
in an attempt to address the appalling fact that 83,000
high school students
in our state are regular smokers - the third-highest
rate in the nation. The
bills are drawn from an American Lung Association
report that outlined
several ways states can protect the public from the
dangers of smoking - and
that found South Carolina was one of just four
states that were failing in
all categories of protective
efforts.
One measure, sponsored by Sen. Joel Lourie and 21 of his
45 Senate
colleagues, would prohibit minors from possessing cigarettes, and
increase
the fines for selling or giving cigarettes to minors. It's hard to
fathom
how we could make it illegal for stores to sell cigarettes to kids,
but not
prohibit kids from buying, possessing or smoking those cigarettes.
But
previous efforts to outlaw possession have been rejected by
legislators
worried that they would end up punishing parents instead of the
children.
Obviously, there's a risk of that anytime the state fines a minor.
But that'
s a risk worth taking (and one we do take when it comes to alcohol)
in order
to protect our children from activities that we universally agree
are
dangerous.
Another bill would prohibit tobacco companies from giving
away free
cigarette samples. State law already forbids cigarette companies to
give
their products to minors, but critics note that it's hard to enforce
such a
law; the handful of states that have tried them have found that
outright
bans are more effective.
Even the Gregory bill could discourage teen smoking, if it
results in
smoking becoming a less socially acceptable option for our
children. (It
also could lead to local laws that would protect minors who
work in
restaurants and other businesses from the dangers of second-hand
smoking.)
These are not radical ideas. It is common sense to let
communities
govern themselves, and to protect our children from the pain and
suffering
that cigarette addiction ultimately causes - and ourselves from
the
financial cost the state must bear when tobacco slowly kills its
victims.
What's radical is not having these laws on our books. This morning,
a
handful of state senators should take the first step toward changing
that.
| 
