Editor,
In 2004, I proposed to the St. Mary’s County Commissioners that St. Mary’s enact a smoking ban in St. Mary’s County. I had the support of Dr. Eisenhower, the St. Mary’s County Health Officer. Although this timing was prior to the more recent U.S. Surgeon General’s Report on the effects of Second Hand Smoke, there was already ample evidence of the dangers of second hand smoke.
However, much to my dismay, our County Commissioners decided to go “against” protecting the health of our citizens in St. Mary’s County and instead did not support my proposal. Shortly thereafter, Dr. Eisenhower invited me to a Public Health Board meeting at St. Mary’s Hospital in Leonardtown, Maryland. It was there that this Health Board voted unopposed to support me in my efforts to have St. Mary’s County, Maryland become smoke free in restaurants and other similar areas as La Plata, Maryland recently did. St. Mary’s continues to avoid adopting a non smoking legislative policy in Restaurants even though the overall majority of our citizens are for it.
One of the members of the Health Board who was an attorney did not disagree when told that citizens who are exposed to second hand smoke may have a right to file a civil suit and or a criminal complaint from an exposure to second hand smoke.
In most States, including Maryland, assault is when a person acts in a threatening matter. Battery is when a person causes physical harm to that person. The most recent Surgeon General’s report, “which can be used in Court testimony”, and under current Maryland law can and will demonstrate that unwanted exposure to Second Hand Smoke is a form of Assault and Battery. The recent report from the Surgeon General clearly stated that even a “brief exposure” to second hand smoke is harmful to a person. Therefore, any Judge or Jury who must make a determination in accordance to the definition of law would have no choice but to find the plaintiff in this type of case to have due cause and merit and the case would likely be in favor of the plaintiff.
In is my opinion, that because of the recent Surgeon General’s Report, I would not be surprised to see this type of case filed in the future. The damages obtained from a case like this could be staggering. In particular if the person is not a smoker. Then, we must consider a female plaintiff carrying her child who is not a smoker. The evidence from the dangers of second hand smoke brought forth during trial before a jury with a number of women on the jury panel, who most of which have had a child of their own, would be easy pickings for even a second year law student.
The States that tax cigarettes, typically called “sin” tax should be a plaintiff in any case as well. In my opinion, here is why – We all know that our States, not to mention the Federal Government love to tax us. The more they can turn you upside down and empty “your” pockets, the happier they are. How would you like to get some of your money back? When the State tax cigarettes which they “disguise” for ignorant people as a way to stop or reduce people from smoking, they become an accessory to your assault case. This means they did not cause the actual assault, but they contributed to it. This is because our State legislators, as in any State, make our laws. They can easily write a law that prohibits nicotine in cigarettes in our State. Other States can do the same. Why don’t they? They love your high taxes that they collect. They love the money they collect from tobacco groups who lobby them. They are just as addicted to tobacco money as some of them are to nicotine.