Smoking Ban for St. Louis County

debaliviere · PostFeb 24, 2005#12005-02-24T21:58+00:00

Man, I sure hope this passes and the City adopts the same ban. It would be so nice to not have to smell like an ashtray after going out to the bars. Maybe then we'd get better scores in all of those lists of "unhealthiest cities"!

Odenwald wants smoking ban

By Clay Barbour

Of the Post-Dispatch

02/24/2005

St. Louis County could be smoke free by summer.

St. Louis County Councilman Kurt Odenwald, R-Shrewsbury, introduced legislation today that would ban smoking in public places throughout the county.

Dubbed the ?Indoor Clean Air Ordinance,? Odenwald?s proposal would apply everywhere, from the airport to colleges and universities. It would also serve as a bookend to legislation he authored in 1990 to ban smoking at all elementary, secondary and pre-schools.

?I don?t think the climate was right to do this four or five years ago,? Odenwald said. ?But I think people are ready for this now and I think I have the votes on the council to get it done. This is not an issue of smoker?s rights versus those of non-smokers. It?s a public health issue and I think most people understand that.?

The county council will take the issue up in late March.

smsplanstu · PostFeb 25, 2005#22005-02-25T04:26+00:00

I personally favor the ban because I am a second hand smoker and hate it, but since I have come to college it is amazing how clearly I can breathe. I love not having to cough when someone lites up when I'm trying to sleep. Cigeratte smoke permeates everywhere! Once the ban passes people with asthma and may other breathing problems will no longer have to leave a restaurant. Their right to the pursuit of happiness will not be violated anymore, and common property such as air will be better protected.

The nicotine free,

..............

debaliviere · PostJun 22, 2005#32005-06-22T15:47+00:00

I'm hoping this passes and a similar ban proposed for the city.

Smoking bill is coming in St. Louis County

By Clay Barbour

Of the Post-Dispatch

06/22/2005

After months of study, debate and negotiations, a final draft of the proposed St. Louis County indoor smoking ban is expected to be introduced next week to the County Council and it appears that bars and restaurants will be hardest hit.

According to members of the county's Justice and Health Committee, the latest draft of the legislation prohibits smoking in bars and restaurants countywide.

There had been discussion that some small bars would be exempted from the proposal. However, according to the ban's architect, Councilman Kurt Odenwald, R-Shrewsbury, the committee could not find a fair way to give small bar owners a break.

The legislation, which will be voted on by the committee during next week's meeting, does allow casinos, bowling alleys and the airport to maintain some designated, separately ventilated smoking areas.Advertisement

codascoram · PostJun 22, 2005#42005-06-22T16:16+00:00

I really don't like this ban. Do I like smoking? No. Do I smoke? No. That still doesn't give me the right to censor someone's behavior. If you don't like smelling like smoke after going to a bar or club, either don't go there, or fabreeze your clothes when you get home. This is the way prohobition got started and we all know how that ended up. Just because someone's behavior is self destructive doesn't give us the right to eliminate it. People may talk about second hand smoke, but more people are killed by drunk drivers than by 2nd hand somke in any given year, yet there's no talk about installing breathalizers in cars. Let the smokers have their smoking section or outside. The only place in the area where bans make sense are in places like the botanical gardens and the zoo, where the butts can kill the plants through pollution, and the animals who eat them.

debaliviere · PostJun 22, 2005#52005-06-22T18:15+00:00

It's quite a stretch to compare a ban on smoking in public places to prohibition.

People who don't smoke should not have to breathe in second hand smoke when they go out for dinner or a drink. It's not fair to restaurant/bar patrons, and it's certainly not fair to people who work in those establishments. If someone wants to destroy his lungs outdoors or in the privacy of his own home, so be it.

jfknet · PostJun 22, 2005#62005-06-22T23:25+00:00

DeBaliviere wrote:It's quite a stretch to compare a ban on smoking in public places to prohibition.

People who don't smoke should not have to breathe in second hand smoke when they go out for dinner or a drink. It's not fair to restaurant/bar patrons, and it's certainly not fair to people who work in those establishments. If someone wants to destroy his lungs outdoors or in the privacy of his own home, so be it.

Agreed 100 percent!

trent · PostJun 23, 2005#72005-06-23T00:07+00:00

Erato, the new wine bar on S. Grand, is smokeless on the inside. So is Mirasol, on the East Loop. I frequent these places quite often, because I can't stand smoking and none of my friends smoke. So why should we put up with it.

I see both sides, but ultimately I think it will hurt the restaurants and bars who cater to both smokers and non smokers. Mostly the bars and party hot spots. Although, I definitely won't be complaining if this is passed.

stlmike · PostJun 23, 2005#82005-06-23T05:10+00:00

I am not a smoker. I am against the ban, though. People give second hand smoke way too much credit. It is another overexaggerated paranoia americans tend to have. Another american trend?: When we don't like something we try to shut it out all together, despite the fact that we know perfectly well that one persons enjoyment is another persons punishment. Let's not do this in our bars. If bars were meant to promote a healthy lifestyle, well.. they would not be bars. I think the bar crowd tends to be smoker-friendly (Note: obviously I realize that not every bar hopper is a smoker, but plenty are, and plenty of the non smokers are equally not concerned about the second hand smoke (again, plenty not all)). I think there is something to be said about the fact that smokers will always enjoy a gathering place where no one will give them any sh*t for their habits. New Yorkers visiting Chicago feel like they've died and gone to heaven when they can light up, publically, and have a drink at the same time. Please, lets not enforce our distastes on others. If a bar wants to be smoke-free, thats its business... and i seriously doubt if it would be profitable for that bar, testifying to the fact that bar-goers are a smoke friendly crowd. If a bar wants to be smoke free, fine. But lets not get hasty and draw out a LAW about it! Leave it to the bars to decide if their crowd wants it or not.

steve · PostJun 25, 2005#92005-06-25T18:04+00:00

DeBaliviere wrote: " It's not fair to restaurant/bar patrons, and it's certainly not fair to people who work in those establishments."

What about fairness to the bars' owners'? As the proprietors of such establishments, shouldn't they decide whether or not to permit smoking? Some restaurants and bars are already smoke-free. I don't think the government should force this ban on restaurant owners in the interests of "public health." Patrons and workers can go elsewhere if they're so concerned with second-hand smoke.

Look at it this way, how much pollution is thrown up in the air by our cars? Is it healthy to sit in traffic for an hour breathing in all that pollution? The answer is no. Do we ban SUV's? Do we ban the gas guzzlers? Do we ban urban sprawl? Abso-feaking-lutely not. It's about allowing people to live they way they want to live. The selfish freaks who buy Hummers create all kinds of negative externalities that we tolerate. The self-destructive freaks who smoke (myself included) should not be treated otherwise. Live and let live.

jfknet · PostJun 26, 2005#102005-06-26T13:32+00:00

stlmike wrote:I am not a smoker. I am against the ban, though. People give second hand smoke way too much credit. It is another overexaggerated paranoia americans tend to have. Another american trend?: When we don't like something we try to shut it out all together, despite the fact that we know perfectly well that one persons enjoyment is another persons punishment. Let's not do this in our bars. If bars were meant to promote a healthy lifestyle, well.. they would not be bars. I think the bar crowd tends to be smoker-friendly (Note: obviously I realize that not every bar hopper is a smoker, but plenty are, and plenty of the non smokers are equally not concerned about the second hand smoke (again, plenty not all)). I think there is something to be said about the fact that smokers will always enjoy a gathering place where no one will give them any sh*t for their habits. New Yorkers visiting Chicago feel like they've died and gone to heaven when they can light up, publically, and have a drink at the same time. Please, lets not enforce our distastes on others. If a bar wants to be smoke-free, thats its business... and i seriously doubt if it would be profitable for that bar, testifying to the fact that bar-goers are a smoke friendly crowd. If a bar wants to be smoke free, fine. But lets not get hasty and draw out a LAW about it! Leave it to the bars to decide if their crowd wants it or not.

I can understand this argument. I wouldn't mind it so much if they had a seperate area, and the smoke didn't linger into the other area. It's the only real vice that bothers other people because smoke is involved. If they made a cigarette that didn't put off noxious smoke then I would be all for it LOL. Fortunately the number of people smoking seems to be dwindling. The bars are the only establishement though that I would give any leniency towards. I remember sitting across from some people a couple months ago, and three people were smoking and blowing the smoke right at our table and we had to move. It's really a matter of time though, as the perceptions are changing towards smoking fast. I mean you're breathing in smoke, and if that's some how good for you I guess I could go out and suck on my cars tail pipe instead ha ha.

trent · PostJun 27, 2005#112005-06-27T04:55+00:00

I still can't believe there are people who smoke with the knowledge of what it does to you in mind. It's unreal. It's almost like watching people drink bleach.

yuppiegal · PostJun 27, 2005#122005-06-27T13:45+00:00

I wasn't sure if I should reply to this or not, but I am a smoker, so obviously, I am against the ban. They want to ban smoking in bars because it is dangerous, but then so is drinking and driving. Are we going to reinstate prohibition as well? That affects me because I am on the road with these people. The portions that restaurants now serve are 3 times what a person should eat, so are we going to rip the french fries off of an overweight person's plate. That affects me with rising health insurance costs. People complain about second hand smoke, but there is a wait to get a table on Delmar where the exhaust is noxious at times. Bottom line is I think the government is trying to overstep it's power.

trent · PostJun 27, 2005#132005-06-27T17:00+00:00

Yuppiegal,

I'm neither for, nor against the ban. But you're arguing different aspects. I can't really be for the ban because I think it will affect the small businesses. But saying that this is akin to prohibition isn't the case at all. The government isn't overstepping their bounds, because there are laws against public intoxication. As for the public health aspect, it is illegal to drink and drive, and those that are caught are punished.

As for the food argument, that also doesn't hold water. Your smoking causes my health insurance to go up as well. What people eat is up to them, just like what you put into your body, even if it's smoke. But the argument against smoking in public places is that it doesn't allow non-smokers to choose what goes into their bodies. You aren't allowed to drink alcohol anywhere you want, you aren't even allowed to eat food anywhere you want.

I don't view any of this as smokers rights. Because frankly I think that's a load of hogwash. I view this as business rights. The right to run your own establishment. If you, as a restaurant/bar owner want to allow smoking, that is your right. It's also my right not to pay patronage there, either. I think this is the government reaching into a place they shouldn't go, and that's telling the small businesses of the country what they can and can't do within their own facility. Because smoking is legal, a business should have the right to allow smoking on their property.

Expat · PostJun 27, 2005#142005-06-27T17:16+00:00

Trent, good points. You have clarified the issue nicely. My personal preference is to have restaurants as non smoking. I have gotten used to strictly no smoking restaurants where I live now. It is great. And it doesn't seem to hurt their business at all. And when I travel, it surprises me to enter restaurants that are smoky. I recently visted a small city in the south that allows smoking in restaurants. I think it made the restaurants and the whole town seem seedy. I don't like cig smoke, yet, I think people should be able to light up at a bar. A bar is a place to let loose a little. Apparently, there isn't a market for smoke free bars, because you don't see many of them. I fear that a smoking ban could hurt the bar business - but not restaurant business.

bwinstl · PostJun 27, 2005#152005-06-27T21:16+00:00

Please look at the bigger picture:

The issue here is not about whether or not you want to take in a little second hand smoke.

I'm not a smoker, nor am I anti-government. That being said, the issue (the bigger picture I spoke of) is about liberty; one of our unalienable rights. Nevermind your stance on the effects of 2nd hand smoke and your desire to inhale it - take that one up with the manager of your favorite eatery. This is a decision which should be left to the individual business owner and not government! Stop being so self-centered that you and your like-minded cronies expect life to be on the upswing if government creates legislation to make things more comfortable.

"Any man who would give up a little freedom for a little security deserves neither." -Ben Franklin

I say fight this move by STLCO at every turn or sit back and watch governmental control seep in to every aspect of your life. Sure the lawmakers mean well (it's highly dubious that they are trying to turn us into a communist state) they simply think they are doing what we want because no one stands up to say otherwise.

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free." -Ronald Reagan[/quote]

Expat · PostJun 27, 2005#162005-06-27T21:40+00:00

The government has already done a good job of seeping into aspects of my personal life and they have done it to win a few votes.....don't get me started

trent · PostJun 29, 2005#172005-06-29T21:28+00:00

Yeah, I don't quite think the smoking ban isn't the next step towards communism. And I'd hardly equate smoking with an inalienable right.

But I'm also for legalizing marijuana, despite never smoking it myself. I just think that this is a bad move. It succeeded in places where they made the changes more broad, not just in the county, but the state. WHen Missouri is ready for that, then go ahead. But I don't see that happening anytime soon. This just moves the business out of STL county.

debaliviere · PostOct 10, 2006#182006-10-10T17:59+00:00

Columbia, MO is instituting a ban - could we be next?:

Columbia, Mo., bans smoking in public buildings

ASSOCIATED PRESS

10/10/2006

COLUMBIA, Mo. (AP) -- Smoking in bars, restaurants and other public buildings will soon be off-limits in Columbia.

After nearly five hours of debate, a divided City Council voted 4-3 early today to curtail public puffing out of concern about the affects of secondhand smoke. The vote took place after 1 a.m.

The new law goes on the books Jan. 9 and applies to bars and restaurants as well as other public buildings, such as nursing homes, sports stadiums and bingo halls. It amends an existing city ordinance that prohibits smoking in city-owned buildings.

More than 60 people spoke at a hearing Monday night and early Tuesday, with about two-thirds of the speakers in support of the change.

"This is not an effort to vilify smokers in any way," said Dean Andersen, co-director of the Boone County Coalition for Tobacco Concerns. "This is a health issue, not a moral issue."

Opponents, including the Missouri Restaurant Association, said the measure amounts to an unfair intrusion of local government into private business.

The council also approved an amendment to allow smoking on patios at public establishments where no more than half the patio is designated for smoking.

Mayor Darwin Hindman and council members Chris Janku, Bob Hutton and Barbara Hoppe voted for the ordinance. Council members Almeta Crayton, Jim Loveless and Laura Nauser voted against it.

urban elitist · PostOct 10, 2006#192006-10-10T18:32+00:00

DeBaliviere wrote:Columbia, MO is instituting a ban - could we be next?

For the love of all that is holy, I hope so.

doug · PostOct 11, 2006#202006-10-11T16:08+00:00

This is BS.

The City will never ban smoking, period.

Establishments have the right to ban smoking but ordinances should not force them to do so.

Why don't we ban liquor as well?

dweebe · PostOct 11, 2006#212006-10-11T16:12+00:00

If France can ban smoking in indoor public places, then it can happen anywhere. From Reuters:

France to stub out smoking in public from 2007

Sun Oct 8, 2006 12:51 PM ET

PARIS (Reuters) - France will ban smoking in most public places from February 1, 2007 and also in bars, restaurants, hotels and discotheques less than a year later, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin said on Sunday.

"We have decided to ban smoking in public places from February 1, 2007," he told RTL radio and LCI television.

He added that bar-tabacs, discos and other such places would have until January 1, 2008 at the latest to comply with the rules.

In a report presented on Wednesday, several parliamentarians called for a total ban from September 1, 2007 at the latest, without exception. But a smoking ban will cause problems for the many tobacco shops in France.

Villepin declined to comment on the impact it would have on government tax revenues, saying that public health considerations outweighed any such fiscal impact.

In the report, the parliamentarians said that each year between 2,500 and 5,800 people died of the consequences of passive smoking -- inhaling the smoke of smokers. Some 66,000 smokers die each year.

Ireland imposed the world's first nationwide public smoking ban in 2004. Italy, Sweden, Scotland, Norway and Spain have followed suit to varying degrees.

Maybe if there was a smoking ban, there would be more patios and outside dining/drinking options?

bastiat · PostOct 11, 2006#222006-10-11T16:17+00:00

“Another tendency which is extremely natural to democratic nations and extremely dangerous is that which leads them to despise and undervalue the rights of private persons . . . they are often sacrificed without regret and almost always violated without remorse . . . among the same nations in which men conceive a natural contempt for the rights of private persons, the rights of society at large are naturally extended and consolidated; in other words, men become less and less attached to private rights just when it is most necessary to retain and defend what little remains of them. It is therefore most especially in the present democratic times, that the true friends of liberty and the greatness of man ought constantly to be on the alert to prevent the power of government from lightly sacrificing the private rights of individuals to the general execution of its designs. At such times no citizen is so obscure that it is not very dangerous to allow him to be oppressed; no private rights are so unimportant that they can be surrendered with impunity to the caprices of a government. The reason is plain: if the private right of an individual is violated at a time when the human mind is fully impressed with the importance and the sanctity of such rights, the injury done is confined to the individual whose right is infringed; but to violate such a right at the present day is deeply to corrupt the manners of the nation and to put the whole community in jeopardy, because the very notion of this kind of right constantly tends among us to be impaired and lost . . . the principle of public utility is called in, the doctrine of political necessity is conjured up, and men accustom themselves to sacrifice private interest without scruple and to trample on the rights of individuals in order more speedily to accomplish any public purpose.”

– Alexis de Tocqueville

dweebe · PostOct 11, 2006#232006-10-11T16:44+00:00

Doug wrote:This is BS.

The City will never ban smoking, period.

Establishments have the right to ban smoking but ordinances should not force them to do so.

Why don't we ban liquor as well?

You are resorting to hyperbole. The term ban is misleading.

This is not a ban on smoking. All this is limiting where you can do it. You will still be able to smoke in your home, apartment, car and outside; just not inside in public spaces.

Just like there are limits on drinking. People under 21 can't drink. Bars close at certain times. You can't carry a drink out of a bar. A bartender can't serve you if you're stumbling drunk. There is no ban on liquor, just limits.

There are limits on driving. People under 16 can't drive. You can't drive if you don't have insurance. You can't drive 100mph or the wrong way down a street. You have to observe streetlights and stop signs. Once again limits for public safety.

doug · PostOct 11, 2006#242006-10-11T17:47+00:00

This will ban the ability of private establishments to offer smoking areas like the bar or even during dinner. Private business should be able to decide if smoking is appropriate and consumers should make their dining decisions based upon this market.

A bar is not a public space as it is a private establishment. Banning smoking in public spaces, as in public goods such as government buildings and on the street, is something completely different. This is a ban on smoking in private establishments.

dweebe · PostOct 11, 2006#252006-10-11T17:55+00:00

Doug wrote:This will ban the ability of private establishments to offer smoking areas like the bar or even during dinner. Private business should be able to decide if smoking is appropriate and consumers should make their dining decisions based upon this market.

A bar is not a public space as it is a private establishment. Banning smoking in public spaces, as in public goods such as government buildings and on the street, is something completely different. This is a ban on smoking in private establishments.

So there should be no laws in private establishments? The government should only be able to regulate and control public spaces. Is that what you're basicly saying?

What are the differences between liquor controls (21+ etc) and smoking controls (not inside)?