EDITORIAL: Smoke got in their eyes?
By Bill Settlemyer
In a recent editorial, The Post and Courier argued that a ban on smoking in Charleston’s bars and restaurants was “not needed.”
It’s position on this issue is so wrong that I hardly know where to start, but I’ll give it a shot.
Secondhand tobacco smoke is deadly. The medical evidence against secondhand smoke just keeps growing:
When smoking was barred in Helena, Mont., hospital admissions for heart attacks in that city dropped 58% within six months. When the ban was rescinded due to pressure from lobbyists, the hospital admission rate went right back up.
Secondhand smoke has long been associated with an increased risk of lung cancer. In 1992, a study by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concluded that secondhand smoke causes 3,000 lung cancer deaths a year. Recent studies now show that the risk of cervical cancer also rises with exposure, not to mention a host of other health risks.
Bar and restaurant workers are exposed to dangerous levels of secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoke is even more toxic than smoke inhaled directly from a cigarette. Bar and restaurant workers are exposed to this toxic atmosphere for hours at a time, day after day. Would you really want your college-age son or daughter to be exposed to this poisonous atmosphere on a regular basis? And what about those who make a career out of working at bars and restaurants? Don’t they deserve the same protections afforded to workers in other professions?
Presumably, The Post and Courier would trot out its “private enterprise” answer to this question, too. Bar and restaurant workers could just quit if they didn’t want to risk serious illness or an early death as a result of their chosen profession.
That’s an unenlightened answer, to say the least. I’ve commented to other business people that Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations would never permit workers in other types of workplaces to be exposed to the kind of poisons in secondhand smoke. Nor would most companies want the risk of lawsuits and other claims from injured workers, nor would they want to deal with lost productivity from smoking-related illness.
So why would owners of restaurants and bars take this risk? Why would they expose workers to this serious health threat on a daily basis? To be fair, until recently this hazard has been an accepted part of our culture, aided all along by heavy tobacco company lobbying.
Happily, that’s changing. Entire countries (Ireland and Italy, for example) have begun banning indoor smoking in workplaces, including bars and restaurants. Ten states have laws in effect requiring 100% smoke-free workplaces, and the list of cities in the United States following suit continues to grow, led by one of the nation’s leading tourism and convention destinations, New York City.
Smoke-free ordinances do not hurt business
In city after city, despite dire predictions of economic harm by opponents of smoke-free ordinances, the evidence continues to grow that business at bars and restaurants more often thrives than suffers after ordinances are passed.
Why? A little simple math tells the tale: There are more than twice as many non-smokers as smokers, and non-smokers prefer smoke-free bars and restaurants.
The famous Zagat restaurant guides did a large survey in their home town of New York City. Only 4% of the Zagat sampling said they were eating out less as a result of the smoke-free policy, while almost six times as many, 23%, reported eating out more given the smoke-free environment in the city’s restaurants and bars. An overwhelming majority, 73%, said the laws (both state and city) had no effect on their dining frequency.
“The economic numbers shouldn’t surprise anyone,” says the American Heart Association, “they merely confirm what other cities and states that have banned smoking in public places have learned. California, which banned smoking in restaurants and bars in 1998, also saw positive economic benefits as have other cities and states across the country.”
The city of Charleston should be a leader, not a follower
For the city of Charleston, there’s a related issue that will soon loom large: More convention groups around the country are looking for smoke-free cities for their meetings, both as a matter of principle and for the enjoyment and health of their members. With tourism being our No. 1 industry, that doesn’t bode well for Charleston if we don’t pass a comprehensive smoke-free ordinance soon.
City Councilman Paul Tinkler recently expressed concern about whether Charleston “would be the last place on earth” to address this issue. That may be an overstatement, but the real point is that Charleston should be a leader on this issue, both nationally and locally. As with the 2 p.m. bar closing issue a few years ago, if the city takes the lead, other local municipalities are likely to join in.
I’ve spoken with several leading restaurant owners who’ve told me they’re fine with a smoke-free ordinance, but they want “a level playing field,” meaning similar rules throughout the region. I agree, and so does the Smoke-Free Lowcountry Coalition, which is committed to seeking the passage of smoke free ordinances in all local jurisdictions. But based on the Zagat survey as well as a study by New York City (available online at www.nyc.gov/html/doh/pdf/smoke/sfaa-2004report.pdf), Charleston’s bars and restaurants will probably enjoy a net gain from the change regardless of how long it takes for adjoining cities and towns to follow suit.
In the past, I’ve made the tongue-in-cheek observation that it’s not always an advantage to be “a 200-year-old newspaper.” On the issue of smoke free ordinances, The Post and Courier is showing its age and would better serve the community by a closer examination of the accelerating national and international trends in favor of protecting the health of bar and restaurant workers and patrons.
Smoking is a deadly habit that costs billions of dollars each year in health care costs and lost productivity. There are few workplaces left that permit indoor smoking. Most of them are bars and restaurants, and it’s time for that to change here in the Lowcountry.
View as PDF
|
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Version