Published: May 08, 2011
At long last, on Monday, the Florence City Council will consider the final reading of an ordinance proposed by four members of Council and myself that prohibits smoking in closed buildings and spaces in the City of Florence. This ordinance follows similar smoking bans passed in over 30 cities in this state, including Columbia, Charleston, and Greenville. Such ordinances have been challenged and upheld on a number of occasions by our State’s Supreme Court.
This ordinance also follows a similar one that failed to pass the Florence City Council nearly a year and a half ago. The current version was initially introduced in February of this year and gained sponsorship by five members of council after the sponsors of the previous ordinance agreed to compromises that, among other things, removed the forfeiture of a business license as penalty for violation of the ordinance and allowed smoking on open decks. Council has received public input on a number of occasions and the proposal has been debated thoroughly among Council members and in the pages of this newspaper.
Most recently, during our regular meeting of council in April, opponents of the legislation offered an additional amendment that would permit smoking in dedicated smoking areas contained within a building, provided the area is not open to the public and employees are not required to be present in the area, and provided that the area is equipped with ventilation to the exterior of the building. The sponsors of the legislation accepted this amendment provided such a designated smoking area was certified by the city as meeting the requirements of the ordinance.
Unfortunately, not even this concession was sufficient to win support from the legislation’s opponents.
Opponents of the ban challenge the science that demonstrates the health dangers of second-hand smoke. Parents, however, do not require scientific certainty to recognize the danger that smoking presents to the lungs of their children.
Opponents condemn the ordinance’s restrictions on personal liberty. However, one need not study John Stuart Mill or the Federalist Papers to understand the simple principle of common law that an individual’s right to recklessly swing their fists in the air ends where their neighbor’s nose begins.
Liberty does not protect an individual’s conduct when it subjects their society to danger. So long as humans live in civil society, individuals must accept some responsibility for the health and welfare of their community.
Society elects representative government to draw the difficult lines between individual freedom and public welfare. Having been so elected, I will do so until relieved of that duty by the voters.
To be sure, I would have preferred a much stronger piece of legislation, one in line with the initial ban I co-sponsored a year and a half ago. Certainly, there are members of council that would prefer no legislation on this issue at all. I am nevertheless satisfied that this council has compromised to produce legislation that both protects the citizens of Florence from the hazards of cigarette smoke and carefully avoids unnecessary limitations on individual liberty.
Government can and should protect its citizens from the dangers of cigarette smoke and I encourage council to join me in passing the smoking ban.