Private establishments are regulated in many forms.
Further regulation should be given voter approval.
Further regulation should be given voter approval.
Doug wrote:Private establishments are regulated in many forms.
Further regulation should be given voter approval.
So you're saying it should be put to a public vote? Okay I understand: I was under the impression you were saying that the state/county/city have no right to ban smoking in bars/restaurants. Sorry about the misunderstanding.
BTW Doug are you a smoker? Full disclosure: I don't smoke because lung cancer has killed all four grandparents, six of my aunts/uncles and a cousin. All were smokers. My family history is nasty with it.
- 8,908
I went to school in texas, there was a local ban on smoking there... what they allowed the Fridays/chili's and other bar and grills to do is window off the bar area from the rest of the seating area.
So the ordinance allowed for smoking in designated areas as long as they were completely sealed off from the other areas.... this worked really well and most everyone was satisfied... I'm sure the business weren't happy about paying for the improvements but it was there choice if they wanted to offer a smoking section.
Also, after 10:30 bars that sold a certain percentage of sales of liquor after that time were able to allow smoking.
So the ordinance allowed for smoking in designated areas as long as they were completely sealed off from the other areas.... this worked really well and most everyone was satisfied... I'm sure the business weren't happy about paying for the improvements but it was there choice if they wanted to offer a smoking section.
Also, after 10:30 bars that sold a certain percentage of sales of liquor after that time were able to allow smoking.
Does anyone remember how Ballwin and Arnold's smoking bans came into effect? Public votes or board of aldermen/mayoral proclimations?
- 10K
dweebe wrote:Does anyone remember how Ballwin and Arnold's smoking bans came into effect? Public votes or board of aldermen/mayoral proclimations?
I'm pretty sure that neither were the result of public vote.
First tax it, then ban it:
Mo. high court: Tobacco tax hike can appear on ballot
By Virginia Young
POST-DISPATCH JEFFERSON CITY BUREAU
10/11/2006
JEFFERSON CITY – State voters will decide next month whether to raise the tax on cigarettes by 80 cents a pack and triple the tax on other tobacco products.
The Missouri Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Wednesday that supporters had collected enough signatures on initiative petitions to place the question on the Nov. 7 ballot.
The plan would raise about $350 million for health care and smoking cessation.
After the court victory, supporters were jubilant. Though a smaller tobacco tax failed four years ago, they said they were optimistic that this one would pass.
"Despite every attempt, ‘Big Tobacco’ will not win in Missouri," said Cindy Erickson, spokeswoman for the sponsoring coalition, the Committee for a Healthy Future. It is made up of health care providers and nonprofit groups, such as the American Lung Association and the American Cancer Society.
Opponents already have blanketed the airwaves with television ads opposing the tax. Many convenience stores and gas stations display "No on Amendment 3" placards.
"We’ve been running a full campaign, with the full anticipation this would be on the ballot," said Patrick Cacchione, a consultant for an opposing group called Missourians Against Tax Abuse.
The group includes cigarette-maker R.J. Reynolds Co., as well as tobacco farmers and retailers.
The high court’s decision affirmed a ruling from the Cole County Circuit Court, which said voters’ signatures should have been counted if their addresses had changed but they still lived in the same county.
Under a 2005 law, voters can file a change of address as late as Election Day and still vote in that election.
The court also said signatures should be counted if the person wrote down the wrong congressional district number or date.
Supporters needed 8 percent of registered voters from six of the nine congressional districts.
Secretary of State Robin Carmahan determined the petition fell 274 signatures short in the Fifth District – the Kansas City area. But the Kansas City Election Board later found 263 more valid signatures.
The group that circulated the petitions found 1,058 additional valid signatures. The circuit court ruled that 1,004 of the signatures should have been counted and ordered Carnahan to place the issue on the ballot.
In Wednesday’s ruling, the Supreme Court brushed aside opponents' arguments that the proposal would unconstitutionally restrict the Legislature’s ability to change the amount of funding for existing programs.
The court said the plan does not appropriate money other than the revenue it generates through tobacco taxes.
Senate President Pro Tem Michael Gibbons, R-Kirkwood, said Wednesday that he fears that as smoking declines, revenue to support the initiative’s health care programs will drop as well, leaving a funding gap.
Some opponents and Republican budget leaders contend the amendment would require the state to provide health care for people whose income falls below 200 percent of the federal poverty level.
"It creates a constitutional mandate for health care that all Missouri taxpayers will be paying," said Ron Leone, executive director of the Missouri Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Store Association.
Erickson, former head of the American Lung Association of Missouri, called that "an absolute lie" aimed at confusing voters. She noted that the high court said the petition only appropriates the revenue it generates.
Missouri’s current cigarette tax is 17 cents a pack – second lowest in the country, behind South Carolina.
The earlier plan would have increased the tax by 55 cents a pack. It narrowly failed in November 2002.
Erickson said the latest proposal was different because it would protect the new funds by changing the constitution instead of state law.
"The main thing we learned was, the public wants accountability on how these funds will be spent," she said.
Financial disclosure reports due at the Missouri Ethics Commission on Monday will show how much money the opposing groups have spent on the campaign.
There are several reasons why the Tobacco Tax should not occur.
http://www.nomo3.com/front/unfairness
http://www.nomo3.com/files/haslags_report.pdf
On banning of smoking in private establishments, I do feel that this should be put to the people. Then again if a ban was enacted it can be argued that the ordinance is tyranny of the majority. Certainly the passing of an ordinance by the City Council is tyranny of the minority. This can be argued in many ways.
I am a smoker yet my reason for opposition of the smoking ban is more of a philosophical one. There are too many other issues of public concern which need to be addressed. This is a matter of private choice and there is no immediate reason to address this issue. The movement to ban smoking in private establishments is simply a diffusion of policy from the East and West Coasts. There is no relevant reason to enact smoking bans in private establishments.
In short we have more important issues to address..... like valet parking on Washington Avenue!
http://www.nomo3.com/front/unfairness
http://www.nomo3.com/files/haslags_report.pdf
On banning of smoking in private establishments, I do feel that this should be put to the people. Then again if a ban was enacted it can be argued that the ordinance is tyranny of the majority. Certainly the passing of an ordinance by the City Council is tyranny of the minority. This can be argued in many ways.
I am a smoker yet my reason for opposition of the smoking ban is more of a philosophical one. There are too many other issues of public concern which need to be addressed. This is a matter of private choice and there is no immediate reason to address this issue. The movement to ban smoking in private establishments is simply a diffusion of policy from the East and West Coasts. There is no relevant reason to enact smoking bans in private establishments.
In short we have more important issues to address..... like valet parking on Washington Avenue!
I would like to see the government justify its use of force against private property owners. Talking about lowering the risk of cancer doesn't sound so rosy when bar owners are threatened with jail time for allowing their customers to light up on their property. Those who don't like the smoke can frequent other bars and restaurants that don't allow smoking. The market has already catered to nonsmokers in the Grove with the Atomic Cowboy, the Church Key, and from what I've heard, soon to be rBar. There is no need for these busybody puritans to be imposing their values on the rest of us with the barrel of a gun rather than persuasion.
I have absolutely no respect for these condescending, controlling types. Apparently the rest of the country is not as smart as they are, so they need to make decisions for us
. Thanks for the consideration, but I am capable of weighing the costs and benefits of smoking, eating a medium-rare burger, eating fast food, drinking alcohol, etc on my own. (see the quote below)
I have absolutely no respect for these condescending, controlling types. Apparently the rest of the country is not as smart as they are, so they need to make decisions for us
. Thanks for the consideration, but I am capable of weighing the costs and benefits of smoking, eating a medium-rare burger, eating fast food, drinking alcohol, etc on my own. (see the quote below)I do oppose the smoking ban. I am a non smoker.
My reasons for opposition have been previously stated by others. I just don't like the idea of the government dictating what private owners do in their own establishments. I understand the restrictions on alcohol, but there are already restrictions on cigarettes.
But cut the crap with the personal choice b.s. Smokers are infantile with their 'right to smoke'. It's not a right, it's an addiction. You're filling the pockets of a company that provides you with means to satisfy that addiction. What we really need to start considering is the legality of a company that makes cigarettes. With what we've learned, should smoking be legal? Hell, if you can't smoke marijuana, which does less harm to your body and is less addicting, why are cigarettes legal? (and for the record, I'm for the legalization of marijuana, despite only having tried it once before, not for personal gain obviously)
The only personal choice that there is, is my personal choice as a non-smoker to subject myself to a smokers second hand smoke. My personal opinion is that they should eliminate 'non-smoking' sections in restaurants. Your establishment is either smoking, or non.
My reasons for opposition have been previously stated by others. I just don't like the idea of the government dictating what private owners do in their own establishments. I understand the restrictions on alcohol, but there are already restrictions on cigarettes.
But cut the crap with the personal choice b.s. Smokers are infantile with their 'right to smoke'. It's not a right, it's an addiction. You're filling the pockets of a company that provides you with means to satisfy that addiction. What we really need to start considering is the legality of a company that makes cigarettes. With what we've learned, should smoking be legal? Hell, if you can't smoke marijuana, which does less harm to your body and is less addicting, why are cigarettes legal? (and for the record, I'm for the legalization of marijuana, despite only having tried it once before, not for personal gain obviously)
The only personal choice that there is, is my personal choice as a non-smoker to subject myself to a smokers second hand smoke. My personal opinion is that they should eliminate 'non-smoking' sections in restaurants. Your establishment is either smoking, or non.
^ I think you have pretty well summed up my opinion on the matter trent. A smoking ban is foolish. Along with a business or liquor licence, let each establishment officaly state whether it is smoking or non-smoking, and lets leave it at that. You will know walking into a place, well this place either allows smoking or it does not, no in between. If you don't like it, then don't go there. The businesses will make the best decission for them, money wise. Besides, there are two sides to this story, what "right" do non-smokers have to eat a dinner in a place without smoking. BTW, I am a non-smoker.
- 10K
Smoking ban issue resurfaces in St. Louis County
By Phil Sutin and Paul Hampel
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
01/26/2009
The mayors of five adjacent cities in St. Louis County have reignited the smoking ban issue, asking the County Council to ban smoking in public places.
The council rejected a ban three years ago. Whether the new effort succeeds might depend on whether the city of St. Louis, St. Louis County and St. Charles County could enact a ban simultaneously. None of their leaders wants to go it alone and put their bars and restaurants at a disadvantage against competitors in a neighboring jurisdiction.
The mayors of Clayton, Creve Coeur, Olivette, Overland and University City are behind the new effort.
A letter they sent last month to the County Council and other county mayors stated: "Smoking in public places is a critical public health issue in our communities and across the entire county."
Link
In all honesty, I'd go out a heck of a lot more if I didn't have to phone or email each potential hangout and ask if smoking was allowed, if there was an adequate non-smoking section that's walled off, if the information was available on restaurant/bar websites, etc. My friends are sooooo tired of 1) my refusing to go out to eat and lounge with them and 2) if I do decide that I might join the fun, my badgering them about establishments' non-smoking truthiness.
I'm probably one of the few concert-goers in the area who literally -- literally -- jumped up and down in glee when Illinois went smoke-free because it meant that I could see Flogging Molly, et al, at Pop's without wanting to burn my clothes afterwards. Then again, FM is at the smoky Pageant this year because Pop's was already booked. Thanks a lot "Faceless" band on Feb. 25.
I'm probably one of the few concert-goers in the area who literally -- literally -- jumped up and down in glee when Illinois went smoke-free because it meant that I could see Flogging Molly, et al, at Pop's without wanting to burn my clothes afterwards. Then again, FM is at the smoky Pageant this year because Pop's was already booked. Thanks a lot "Faceless" band on Feb. 25.
- 2,093
^I have yet to go to Pop's since they became smoke-free. But I was surprised the first time I went to Fast Eddie's in the new smoke free Illinois. I thought it would still smell like Marlboros until 2014 or so but it didn't. I guess a building can recover quicker than a lung though. And the outside area was fabulous.
- 923
We have a smoking ban in Melbourne. I love it. You go out, come home, and don't have to Febreeze all your clothes. My eyes don't water from irritation - it's fantastic.
That said, I'm PHENOMINALLY concerned about government overstepping their bounds on telling businesses how to operate themselves. They've already proposed a law here to arrest parents who smoke in the car with young children. How much longer before random home inspections of registered smokers to see if they're causing child abuse?
If only there were a way to stop the slippery slope...
That said, I'm PHENOMINALLY concerned about government overstepping their bounds on telling businesses how to operate themselves. They've already proposed a law here to arrest parents who smoke in the car with young children. How much longer before random home inspections of registered smokers to see if they're causing child abuse?
If only there were a way to stop the slippery slope...
southsidepride wrote:^I have yet to go to Pop's since they became smoke-free. But I was surprised the first time I went to Fast Eddie's in the new smoke free Illinois. I thought it would still smell like Marlboros until 2014 or so but it didn't. I guess a building can recover quicker than a lung though. And the outside area was fabulous.
Last I checked, Pop's is not smoke-free. Since its the only place I can go grab a beer after work on a Saturday night at 5am, I've been a few times in the last couple months, and every time I have gone it is just as smoky as it used to be. Maybe during concert times its different, but since it has been cold, people have been smoking inside.
- 1,610
kustramo wrote:southsidepride wrote:^I have yet to go to Pop's since they became smoke-free. But I was surprised the first time I went to Fast Eddie's in the new smoke free Illinois. I thought it would still smell like Marlboros until 2014 or so but it didn't. I guess a building can recover quicker than a lung though. And the outside area was fabulous.
Last I checked, Pop's is not smoke-free. Since its the only place I can go grab a beer after work on a Saturday night at 5am, I've been a few times in the last couple months, and every time I have gone it is just as smoky as it used to be. Maybe during concert times its different, but since it has been cold, people have been smoking inside.
Unless there is an addendum for music venues, Pop's SHOULD be no smoking (along with the rest of the state) as of January 1, 2008. I can't imagine bowling alleys and casinos being no smoking and not a music venue. It is still in Illinois, yes? Or did Gov Rod sell Saguet, too?
- 2,772
I, too, was gleeful when smoking was banned in Illinois, being a lifelong Illinoisan and all.
But now, as I become more and more wary of government intervention in every aspect of our lives, I now oppose it. It should be up to the owner of the establishment. How could you argue with that? If you don't smoke, and don't want to smell like smoke, don't go. We should not be able to dictate that someone who has put their blood sweat and tears in to a restaurant or bar cannot allow smoking in their establishment.
The safety of the workers was mentioned in the argument to ban smoking in Illinois. Do we need the government to play our parents?
Maybe instead the state should require smoking establishments to have a checkbox next to a statement that reads something like "I understand that by working in this establishment, I will be exposed to potentially dangerous second-hand smoke."
Perhaps we could even require that waiting areas in restaurants not be exposed to cigarette smoke. Even then we are stepping in their boundaries, but I wouldn't mind it (had a large group waiting at Michael's on Manchester the other day, and we had to wait in the smoking section).
Believe me, you will never hear me get angry over going in to a restaurant in Illinois and not having to smell someone else's smoke, but that doesn't mean I necessarily think it's right.
But now, as I become more and more wary of government intervention in every aspect of our lives, I now oppose it. It should be up to the owner of the establishment. How could you argue with that? If you don't smoke, and don't want to smell like smoke, don't go. We should not be able to dictate that someone who has put their blood sweat and tears in to a restaurant or bar cannot allow smoking in their establishment.
The safety of the workers was mentioned in the argument to ban smoking in Illinois. Do we need the government to play our parents?
Maybe instead the state should require smoking establishments to have a checkbox next to a statement that reads something like "I understand that by working in this establishment, I will be exposed to potentially dangerous second-hand smoke."
Perhaps we could even require that waiting areas in restaurants not be exposed to cigarette smoke. Even then we are stepping in their boundaries, but I wouldn't mind it (had a large group waiting at Michael's on Manchester the other day, and we had to wait in the smoking section).
Believe me, you will never hear me get angry over going in to a restaurant in Illinois and not having to smell someone else's smoke, but that doesn't mean I necessarily think it's right.
- 1,610
JuiceInDogtown wrote:I, too, was gleeful when smoking was banned in Illinois, being a lifelong Illinoisan and all.
But now, as I become more and more wary of government intervention in every aspect of our lives, I now oppose it. It should be up to the owner of the establishment. How could you argue with that? If you don't smoke, and don't want to smell like smoke, don't go. We should not be able to dictate that someone who has put their blood sweat and tears in to a restaurant or bar cannot allow smoking in their establishment.
The safety of the workers was mentioned in the argument to ban smoking in Illinois. Do we need the government to play our parents?
Maybe instead the state should require smoking establishments to have a checkbox next to a statement that reads something like "I understand that by working in this establishment, I will be exposed to potentially dangerous second-hand smoke."
Perhaps we could even require that waiting areas in restaurants not be exposed to cigarette smoke. Even then we are stepping in their boundaries, but I wouldn't mind it (had a large group waiting at Michael's on Manchester the other day, and we had to wait in the smoking section).
Believe me, you will never hear me get angry over going in to a restaurant in Illinois and not having to smell someone else's smoke, but that doesn't mean I necessarily think it's right.
This is completely off topic, but would you mind if I were looking at a hardcore porn magazine in a waiting area of a restaurant with your son/daughter sitting across from me? I think they are equally invasive and pervasive. Or me playing with a can of spray paint while you are waiting for your table...either way, you'll have to change your clothes when you get home.
Back on topic, I'm pro-smoking ban in St. Louis/St. Louis area/Missouri/United States
- 2,772
ricke002 wrote:JuiceInDogtown wrote:I, too, was gleeful when smoking was banned in Illinois, being a lifelong Illinoisan and all.
But now, as I become more and more wary of government intervention in every aspect of our lives, I now oppose it. It should be up to the owner of the establishment. How could you argue with that? If you don't smoke, and don't want to smell like smoke, don't go. We should not be able to dictate that someone who has put their blood sweat and tears in to a restaurant or bar cannot allow smoking in their establishment.
The safety of the workers was mentioned in the argument to ban smoking in Illinois. Do we need the government to play our parents?
Maybe instead the state should require smoking establishments to have a checkbox next to a statement that reads something like "I understand that by working in this establishment, I will be exposed to potentially dangerous second-hand smoke."
Perhaps we could even require that waiting areas in restaurants not be exposed to cigarette smoke. Even then we are stepping in their boundaries, but I wouldn't mind it (had a large group waiting at Michael's on Manchester the other day, and we had to wait in the smoking section).
Believe me, you will never hear me get angry over going in to a restaurant in Illinois and not having to smell someone else's smoke, but that doesn't mean I necessarily think it's right.
This is completely off topic, but would you mind if I were looking at a hardcore porn magazine in a waiting area of a restaurant with your son/daughter sitting across from me? I think they are equally invasive and pervasive. Or me playing with a can of spray paint while you are waiting for your table...either way, you'll have to change your clothes when you get home.
Back on topic, I'm pro-smoking ban in St. Louis/St. Louis area/Missouri/United States
It is not illegal to see someone smoking if you are under the age of 18. It is illegal to show porn to minors, as it should be. If it were a bar that advertised "Food & Porn," people under the age of 18 would not be allowed in, per state (and probably federal? laws).
The answer to your question, though, if showing porn to minors was not illegal, and it was done openly in the restaurant; I wouldn't take my kids there.
That's not really even a good comparison.
Food and porn..hm. There's an idea.
I'm with Juice and Migueltejada.
I don't smoke, and I hate going to smokey places, and I hate the way I smell when I get home...but...I believe it's up to the individual business owner to decide whether or not he allows smoking in his place of business.
I don't smoke, and I hate going to smokey places, and I hate the way I smell when I get home...but...I believe it's up to the individual business owner to decide whether or not he allows smoking in his place of business.
- 2,093
I would say I agree with Juice as well. I'd rather the business decide it than the govt. On the other hand with almost all other public places going smoke free it has made bars the "last refuge" if I may borrow a phrase from our friend at Dirt Cheap.
I'm in my mid 30's and it's amazing for me to remember how you could smoke in the mall, movie theatre lobbies, just about anywhere when I was a teenager. Now that almost all public buildings that aren't bars or restaurants prohibit smoking altogether people who would normally go hours without a cig blaze up big time if they are having a few drinks. Of course it's worst in winter (the most evil season overall
) when outside bars and patios are shuttered
I don't smoke but I'm also not so sensitive to it that I can't stand a little of it. If there were some way to limit the number of cigarettes a patron could smoke I'd be all for it.
I'm in my mid 30's and it's amazing for me to remember how you could smoke in the mall, movie theatre lobbies, just about anywhere when I was a teenager. Now that almost all public buildings that aren't bars or restaurants prohibit smoking altogether people who would normally go hours without a cig blaze up big time if they are having a few drinks. Of course it's worst in winter (the most evil season overall
) when outside bars and patios are shutteredI don't smoke but I'm also not so sensitive to it that I can't stand a little of it. If there were some way to limit the number of cigarettes a patron could smoke I'd be all for it.
Come on people it should be banned immediately and you know it. It's disgusting, filthy, offensive, and unhealthy without question. And don't tell me it's no more offensive blah blah blah than speeding or running a stop sign. Your smoke is just as offensive to me as this would be to you if I walked over to your restaurant table and crapped on your plate of steak and lobster. Oh, well then you say, I just should just not go to those establishments where smoking is permitted, simple as that. Well wait a minute, I should have a right to crap anywhere I want just like you think you should have the right to smoke anywhere you want !!
ginbudjim wrote:Come on people it should be banned immediately and you know it. It's disgusting, filthy, offensive, and unhealthy without question. And don't tell me it's no more offensive blah blah blah than speeding or running a stop sign. Your smoke is just as offensive to me as this would be to you if I walked over to your restaurant table and crapped on your plate of steak and lobster. Oh, well then you say, I just should just not go to those establishments where smoking is permitted, simple as that. Well wait a minute, I should have a right to crap anywhere I want just like you think you should have the right to smoke anywhere you want !!
I dislike smoking. I find it disgusting, it smells, and it offends my senses.
However, there is a large gap between crapping on my food and smoking near me. I choose to go to places where there is no crapping on the food - that is, everywhere. I can also choose to go to nonsmoking places. Most places are and will remain smoking. Fine with me- I won't go there or I'll sit in nonsmoking.
I know, I know, don't feed the trolls.
ginbudjim wrote:Come on people it should be banned immediately and you know it. It's disgusting, filthy, offensive, and unhealthy without question. And don't tell me it's no more offensive blah blah blah than speeding or running a stop sign. Your smoke is just as offensive to me as this would be to you if I walked over to your restaurant table and crapped on your plate of steak and lobster. Oh, well then you say, I just should just not go to those establishments where smoking is permitted, simple as that. Well wait a minute, I should have a right to crap anywhere I want just like you think you should have the right to smoke anywhere you want !!
No, but you should have the right to patronize or not patronize any establishment you wish to. If enough people stop going to restaurants that allow smoking then they will change. Its called Capitalism, let the market drive business decisions. People do a lot of unhealthy things, drinking causes liver disease, eating fattening foods causes heart disease, yet those are still legal (for now...). I don't like having the government tell me how to run my business, because where do you draw the line. Like someone said before, its a slippery slope.
I remember just a few years ago when Odenwald was promoting the smoking ban and it was to be illegal everywhere EXCEPT for the casinos. Give me a break, so some small business owner can't have smoking but a huge casino with billions of dollars (and billions in lobbyist monies) can. I'm glad that didn't pass.