Should Goose Creek Ban Public Indoor Smoking?

Is the right to breathe smoke-free air while earning a living a basic human right being denied those who work within the City of Goose Creek? 

With our state's unemployment rate at 10.7 percent, should endless assaults by hundreds of potent secondhand smoke toxins upon the lungs and circulatory systems of Goose Creek workers at Gilligan's, Waffle House, Wings Etc, La Hacienda and Golden China continue to be part of the price of them keeping their jobs?   

While some businesses worry that going smoke-free would mean fewer customers, especially nightclubs, in cities having already passed ordinances, most soon discover that their smoke-filled business was actually depriving them of the spending and income from many of the 78 percent of adults who don't smoke.

We customers can vote with our feet, but should Goose Creek night-life remain primarily the smoker's domain? 

Should smokers have the right to make non-smokers wishing to listen to live music, dance, sing karaoke, play pool, or watch big screen sports with fellow fans come home stinking to high heaven, and waking-up with sore, burning throats?

Among South Carolina's 15 largest cities, 11 have already enacted ordinances protecting the rights of their workers to breathe smoke-free air while earning a living.

1. Columbia - 130,000 - Passed
2. Charleston - 120,000 - Passed
3. North Charleston - 100,000 - Rejected May 14, 2008 by 6-4 vote 
4. Rock Hill - 70,000 - Passed
5. Mount Pleasant - 65,000 - Passed
6. Greenville  - 63,000 - Passed
7. Hilton Head Island - 50,000 - Passed
8. Summerville  - 45,000 - Passed  - Enforceable July 12, 2011
9. Sumter- 43,000 - Passed
10. Spartanburg - 40,000 - Passed - Enforceable Sept. 1, 2011
11. Florence - 35,000 Passed - Enforceable Nov. 1 2011
12. Myrtle Beach- 33,000 - Not yet considered
13. Aiken -  30,000 - Passed
14.Goose Creek - 30,000 -  Rejected February 10, 2009 by a 4-3 vote
15. Anderson - 27,000 -  Early stages of consideration 
 
I understand that North Charleston Mayor Summey recently quit smoking.  And two weeks ago I had the pleasure of eating fish and chips at his wife's smoke-free restaurant near North Charleston High School.

Is Goose Creek about to become the brunt of more jokes?  Are we about to earn the title and distinction of being the "Lowcountry's Ashtray"?

In that all recent science indicates that even brief exposure to secondhand smoke produces "immediate adverse effects" upon human tissues, including the lining of blood vessel walls, couldn't Goose Creek Code Section 91.4 today be used to end indoor burning of tobacco? 

Section 91.4 reads, "It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to ignite, kindle or set any fire that creates a substantial risk of injury to any person or damage to property of another within the city.”

Goose Creek Code Section 91.28 orders the Fire Chief to remedy fire hazards, while city officials pretend the fiction that indoor smoking isn't already the city's leading cause of preventable fires.

Does it make sense for Goose Creek Code Section 93.042(G) to require businesses to keep their sidewalks clean, while ignoring their smoke-filled indoor air?

The City has ordinances proclaiming where and when drinkers can drink alcohol, while ignoring where and when smokers can smoke.  Why is drinking a city health and safety concern while indoor smoking is not? 

Goose Creek Code Section 93.146(F)  declares "the escape of smoke, ... noxious acids, fumes [or] gases ... within the city or within one mile therefrom in such quantities as to endanger the health of persons of ordinary sensibilities..." to constitute an unlawful nuisance.

Does any elected Goose Creek official dispute that smoking is our city's leading cause of preventable death?   If so, why force innocent workers to breathe smoke's 3,500 chemical particles and more than 500 gases, which include 81 known cancer causing chemicals?

Goose Creek Code Section 93.146(H) declares the following to constitute an unlawful public nuisance: "Any use of property, substances or things that ... "substantially annoys, injures or endangers the comfort, health repose or safety of the individual by emitting or causing any foul, offensive ... nauseous, noxious or disagreeable odors, ... or stenches extremely repulsive to the physical senses of ordinary persons which annoy, discomfort, injure or inconvenience the health of any appreciable number or persons within the city."

I strongly suspect that the majority of Goose Creek workers and residents — just "ordinary people" — find the stench and stink of public indoor smoke extremely repulsive.  If so, why ignore enforcement of their rights and the express language of ordinances already on the books?

Does the Goose Creek Police Department already have all the authority it needs to immediately end all public indoor smoking? 

If any member of City Council sees this as a freedom and liberty issue, ask yourself this.  Is the freedom and liberty to burn tobacco indoors — smoke producing fires proven to harm and kill innocent workers — putting the smoker's rights above the worker's right to health and life?

Ninety Percent of Adult Daily Smokers Chemically Dependent

Frankly, even as a three-pack-a-day smoker, I had mixed emotions anytime there was talk of amending the S.C. Clean Indoor Air Act so as to ban smoking in all public places throughout the state.

On one hand, it was frightening to reflect on the prospect of standing outside in the heat, rain and cold to get my 60 daily nicotine fixes.  On the other, I wondered if scores of local sanctuaries, including my law office, might aid me in at last breaking free.

Keep in mind that smokers are not the enemy.  In fact, year after year, roughly 70 percent of surveyed smokers state that they want to quit but just can't seem to pull it off. 

According to the CDC, each year about 40 percent of Goose Creek smokers make a serious quitting attempt of at least 24 hours.  Sadly, within a year roughly 95 percent will have relapsed to smoking.

Chemical dependency upon smoking is a brain wanting disorder, illness and disease.  As real and permanent as alcoholism, it's scheduled to shorten the lives of roughly half of adult Goose Creek smokers by an average of 13 to 14 years. 

Would making Goose Creek a quitting sanctuary help motivate and aid successful quitting?  The evidence suggests it would, even more so if the city used the opportunity to promote and support cessation.

One other factor rarely mentioned is a smoke-free ordinance's potential impact on youth smoking prevention.  Imagine the message sent to children and teenagers when they see adults smoking inside a business or restaurant. 

The addiction warning label on random Canadian cigarette packs reads, "WARNING: Cigarettes are highly addictive.  Studies have shown that tobacco can be harder to quit than heroin or cocaine." 

When I read that warning I can't help but ask myself, if smoking nicotine truly is in the same addiction league as heroin, if heroin were legal would we allow addicts to shoot-up in front of children and teens?   

It makes me wonder how many public invitations to smoke nicotine I helped burn into young impressionable and watching minds during my 30 years of bondage.  

Goose Creek's Ordinance History

On February 10, 2009, a proposed Goose Creek smoking ban was defeated by the narrowest of margins, 4-3, with the Mayor casting the tie-breaking vote against it. 

According to the Gazette, "Council members John McCants, Esarey and Mark Phillips voted in favor of the ordinance; Heitzler and council members Marguerite Brown, Sal Gandolfo and Jerry Tekac voted against."

On November 10, 2009, citizens asked City Council to reconsider its decision based upon new evidence of the risks posed by secondhand smoke. During airing of their concerns, Mayor Heitzler twice mentioned that it is possible to put the issue on the ballot and have an advisory referendum on the issue. 

So what's your opinion?  How would you vote?  What do you think?  Should Goose Creek hold out and become the largest city in South Carolina to turn its head to public indoor smoking, or should it pass an ordinance expressly banning smoking in all indoor public places?  For and against, I look forward to your views. 

Breathe deep, hug hard, live long!

John