photo by Leslie Cantu

Opponents and proponents of the smoking ordinance react to town council's final vote on the matter.

Summerville businesses are now “no smoking” zones, after town council voted 4-3 Wednesday to enact a smoke-free workplace ordinance.

Mayor Berlin Myers broke a 3-3 tie with a simple statement of, “well, I’m for it.”

Council members Mike Dawson, Aaron Brown and Kima Garten-Schmidt voted in favor of the ordinance.

Councilman Bob Jackson voted against it after voting in favor of first reading. After the meeting, Jackson said he was concerned about parity between businesses in town that would have to abide by the new regulation and businesses in the county that wouldn’t.

Because of the criss-cross of town and county boundaries in areas he represents, like Trolley Road, there could be businesses next door to each other that would be under different rules, he said.

Had Dorchester County Council voted in favor of first reading at its last meeting he would have been more likely to vote for the town ordinance, he said.

The vote followed yet another extensive public comment period in which many speakers who had appeared at previous town and county meetings spoke again. Public speakers were almost evenly divided, with slightly more in favor of the ordinance. A number of speakers came from outside the town limits to voice their opinions.

After the public comment period, council members had their turn.

Councilman Walter Bailey ripped into the ordinance, section by section. The debate, he said, is not about public health but about freedom.

Advocates made the smoking ban about employees because their original argument, about restaurant patrons, didn’t hold up when opponents said customers could simply bring their business elsewhere, he said.

But there are millions of people who have taken jobs that have some risk or danger – police officers, firefighters, cab drivers, roofers and loggers, to name a few, he said.

He asked why restaurant workers should be so special that the government would step in to protect them from making their own choice about where to work, he said.

Further, the ordinance wouldn’t protect a hotel maid who has to clean a smoking room, he said, which draws another unfair distinction.

By exempting private homes, the ordinance implies the town has the power to restrict smoking in private homes, if it wanted to, Bailey said.

Dawson, who introduced the ordinance, read from a prepared statement that addressed many of the arguments put forth in previous meetings.

He spoke directly to Bailey and Councilman Ricky Waring, who he said are particular advocates for the police and fire departments.

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration requires certain protective gear and equipment for police and fire workers, Dawson said. He asked whether Bailey and Waring would prefer the town have the ability to opt out of some safety standards, either in the name of freedom or to save money.

He spoke of other government regulations that protect people – zoning codes that prevent junkyards being built next to homes, building codes that forbid shoddy construction for the sake of quick profits, and food preparation rules that specify kitchen conditions.

He argued that the concern over police resources being stretched by enforcing the ordinance were misplaced. There are ordinances now prohibiting littering and jaywalking, but the police department doesn’t have to dedicate officers to enforcing those laws, he said.

Early in the discussion an objection was raised that council was improperly considering the ordinance. Because it tabled the ordinance last spring, it should have voted to take the issue off the table before voting for first reading, local attorney Rudd Smith said.

Town Attorney Mark Stokes said a council member should have raised that objection at the last meeting, prior to first reading. Because first reading occurred without objection, it was a valid vote, he said.

Journalscene.com ® is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Journalscene.com ® does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not Journalscene.com ®. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.

Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by reading our terms and conditions, and then signing up below!

• Santee Cooper announces 2012 refunding bond sale
• Santee Cooper announces organizational changes in operation and finance departments
• Santee Cooper employees pitch in on Day of Caring
• Aerial herbicide treatment on lakes under way
• Santee Cooper Board Authorizes Rate Study
• Santee Cooper announces refunding bond sale
• Santee Cooper, Florida Municipal Power Agency enter into letter of intent for share of planned V.C. Summer Station units
• Santee Cooper, Duke Energy Carolinas enter into letter of intent for share of planned V.C. Summer Station units 2 and 3