Dear Editor:
I have been a supporter, albeit a rather quiet one, of the Pulaski County Smokefree Coalition for several months. And, I have read the back-and-forth statements and accusations in this newspaper regarding the coalition’s efforts to provide a health environment in the county.
It would be a shame if any CJ readers actually believed some of the falsehoods being perpetrated by those who appear to have little or no regard for the health and safety of the people of Pulaski County.
Most recently (Oct. 8), it was Raymond Godby and over the past months it has been, ad nauseam, Willie Ramsey. They choose to ridicule and insult community leaders who are knowledgeable and concerned about the effects of smoking and are trying to protect the health of non-smokers. It is no coincidence that Kentucky, which has one of the highest smoking rates in the country, is also near the top of the list in lung cancer deaths.
Mr. Ramsey seems to be frozen in time and stuck in the 1950s, prior to the release of literally thousands of reports of documented links between smoking (including the effects of secondhand smoke) and various diseases and death. Organizations such as the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Cancer Institute and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, along with numerous state and local organizations, provide a wealth of information on this subject. Anyone who is willing to avail himself/herself of this knowledge should not be pretending to be an expert on the subject.
There are numerous aspects of this subject that could be addressed, but I would like to single out just one at this time. It is based on comments that have been made by Mr. Ramsey and, in his Oct. 8 letter to CJ, by Raymond Godby. According to Mr. Godby, “(Gloria) Sams said an ‘indoor air ordinance’ that forces an unwanted law against individually-owned property is not in opposition of property rights. This is another example of her many misrepresenta-tions.”
If Mr. Godby was aware of the law, he would understand that Mrs. Sams is absolutely correct. Both he and Mr. Ramsey keep harping about “individual property rights,” and claim that a smoking ban in privately owned places of businesses, including restaurants, violates these rights. It needs to be understood that there is a marked difference between what “rights” one has in the privacy of his/her own home, and the “rights” this same person has when opening up his/her property to be used as a business, open to the public.
First, the person must obtain a business license in order to be allowed the privilege of operating a business establish-ment. At that point in time, the property rights provided to the person regarding his/her own home cease to apply, and new ones come into play. By LAW, the business owner must provide a safe environment for the customers. It doesn’t matter if this is a little mom-and-pop sandwich shop, or a nationwide chain such as Cracker Barrel. OSHA, the EPA and the local health department have the RIGHT, under LAW, to close down an establishment that does not provide adequately for the health and safety of its employees and customers.
Is there asbestos falling from the rotting ceiling? CLOSED!
Is there lead-based paint chipping off the walls or tables? CLOSED!
One can see, by reading the health department’s evaluations of the local restaurants here in the CJ, that a low enough rating dictates: CLOSED!
And, no, it is not sufficient to put a sign on the door stating that the environment is unsafe or that the food may be unfit to eat, and that potential customers should enter at their own risk!
The claim of “individual property rights” has never been honored in the courts as providing an exemption from the many state and federal laws enacted to protect the health and safety of the public.
Nor have the courts accepted the argument that people who don’t like the smoke should work or eat somewhere else. Politics, corruption and payola are the primary reasons why the Food and Drug Administration does not (at least, as yet) oversee tobacco products, which are loaded with an extremely addictive drug – nicotine.
This is a far more dangerous drug than many that the FDA controls. Nevertheless, the courts have consistently upheld the rights of cities, counties and states to enact smoking bans in public places, including public buildings and restaurants.
The plea of property rights has no standing in these cases, as the welfare of the employees and customers supersedes both “property rights” and “smokers’ rights.”
It is unfortunate that his discussion continues here in Pulaski County. If smokers realized (and most do) how much discomfort, sickness and death result from secondhand smoke, common courtesy would be the reason enough for them to refrain from poisoning the air that we all must share.
Most smokers, fortunately, are understandably considerate of others. It’s hard to believe that anyone would argue that his/her “rights” to dispense deadly poisons into the air should be placed above the health of the citizens in the community.
Sincerely,
Bill Lippert
Ridgeview Drive
Somerset, KY 42503
