LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Reader responds to voting down of smoking ban

I feel a strong conviction to write this letter in response to the Florence City Council voting down the proposed smoking ban on Nov. 9, 2009. I would like to publicly commend Mayor Stephen Wukela, Octavia Williams-Blake and Buddy Brand for their votes in favor of the proposed smoking ban. I extend my gratitude to you for your outward concern for the overall health of those of us that choose not to smoke by voting in favor of the smoking ban.

For the members who voted against this proposal, what was your line of reasoning? Were you aware of the fact that exposure to secondhand smoke significantly increases a non-smoker’s risk of developing lung and other cancers in addition to other health problems such as decreased respiratory function, heart disease and stroke? You must not have been aware of the fact that the National Cancer Institute reported that secondhand smoke is responsible for an estimated 38,000 deaths among non-smokers each year. This includes 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 35,000 deaths due to heart disease, and is responsible for lower respiratory tract infections in an estimated 300,000 children each year. The health of the citizens within our community should be important to all of us. A vote against the ban, doesn’t support this premise.

Twenty-eight other cities in South Carolina have passed similar smoke-free ordinances. In looking at legislation in South Carolina cities comparable to Florence, (Columbia, Greenville, Charleston, Sumter and many more), Florence is the only city without ANY smoking regulations in either the workplace or in restaurants in the state of South Carolina. It is contradictory to know we have a variety of reputable hospitals, a medical mile even, and no ordinance for exposure to known carcinogens.

Tobacco use remains the single largest preventable cause of death in the U.S. . One-third of all cancer deaths could be prevented if people simply avoided tobacco. I am one of those that choose to avoid tobacco. Many employees do not have that choice. Many non-smokers are forced to work in an enclosed area and inhale the carcinogens for 8-10hours/day sometimes even longer. This is not fair. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Healthy People 2010, a comprehensive, nationwide health promotion and disease prevention agenda, includes the goal of reducing the proportion of nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke from 65 percent to 45 percent by 2010 . Florence appears to be behind much of the nation with efforts to minimize exposure to second hand smoke.

I have nothing against people who choose to smoke. I do have a problem when I am forced to inhale second hand smoke. My family will not step foot in many establishments that allow smoking. Smokers argue they should have the right to smoke. I argue that people should have the right to breathe clean air. Smoking is not a life-supporting activity. Breathing clean air is. As a community, we owe it to one another to lessen the detrimental effects of second hand smoke. This could be a matter of life or death. It would be great if we had council members that had the same priorities.

Jennifer John
Florence