Smoke ‘em While You Can
Although both Saint Louis City and County have recently passed a smoking ban (albeit a relatively mild one in the city), this has not placated anti-smoking crusaders in Missouri. Instead they are emboldened, now proposing a statewide ban on smoking in almost all public places. From the Saint Louis Beacon:
State Rep. Walt Bivins, R-Oakville, is leading a bipartisan cadre of at least 20 legislators who’d like to see smoking banned from most public places by next year.
In an announcement this week, Bivins and co-sponsor Jill Schupp, D-Creve Coeur, say their aim is to create “uniform statewide smoke-free standards in bars and restaurants.”
But the bill, HB 1766, is generating lots of attention because it goes much further.
The measure also would outlaw smoking at public “aquariums, galleries, libraries, and museums,” as well as sports arenas, convention halls, bingo facilities and “At least eighty percent of hotel and motel rooms that are rented to guests;”
The few exemptions include private residents not used for day-care facilities, tobacco stores, those 20 percent of hotel/motel rooms and “outdoor areas of places of employment.”
Public smoking is already banned in some form in 23 localities in Missouri, including Saint Louis, Kansas City, Columbia, and Springfield. Furthermore, even in places with no smoking ban, many businesses either forbid smoking completely or offer patrons a nonsmoking option. So, what is the necessity of this bill?
The irony, of course, is that if smoking were so widespread that no nonsmoking options existed for drinkers and diners, a smoking ban could never get a hearing in the first place. It is only when there are already many nonsmoking businesses, and smokers are a small group, that the majority can impose its will upon them so thoroughly.
I am a smoker, but I have been trying to quit lately. However, if this bill passes, I think I might have to start smoking two packs of Pall Malls a day … out of spite.
These people DO NOT go away. It’s almost to the point where they believe people should be protected from the brutal horror of SEEING someone else smoking.
At least with county bans, it leaves the option for St. Charles, etc. to cash in, and for the city and county to see the foolishness of their decision.
Comment by Joe Nonnenkamp — February 2, 2010 @ 3:22 p.m.
[...] Cross-posted at Show-Me Daily. [...]
Pingback by Rough 'ol Boy » Blog Archive » Smoke ‘em While You Can — February 3, 2010 @ 9:14 a.m.
Nothing like the nice, cool, calming, draw of spite.
Comment by Jake Voss — February 3, 2010 @ 9:56 a.m.
I actually do find spite cool and calming on occasion. As Murray Rothbard used to say when asked how to write effectively, I “let hatred be my muse.”
Comment by John Payne — February 3, 2010 @ 10:03 a.m.
In the interest of fairness, the St. Louis County ban is also a relatively mild one, as these things go. It is basically the same thing as the city ban.
Comment by David Stokes — February 3, 2010 @ 4:33 p.m.
The Tobacco Control folk knew what they were doing when the put the issue on a low turnout vote. Look at Kirkwood that passed their very strict ban 70/30. In 2006 they turned down a ban by 55/45. Its not that suddenly 35% of the population changed their minds. For a majority of people this is a non-issue. If they are forced to make a decision more often than not they vote against restrictions. Its simply that tobacco control can turn out their voters. If it had been like the 2006 vote with a high turnout their voters would have been diluted. I would love to see this issue be taken to the city voters. If would be done it should be done in November. There should be a healthy turnout at the polls and I beleive that the city voters kill any ban that was put out there. St Louis has a far higher smoking rate (30%) which would put it right at half of all voting age residents. Look at Kansas City, they passed their ban by a 51/49 margin on a 12% turnout. If there had a been a slight uptick in voter turnout in KC – it would have failed.
David Stokes mentioned about the county ban being similar to the city ban. The city ban is far more intrusive. The county exempts most bars, private clubs, VFW Halls, cigar bars and tobacco shops. The city on the other had only exempts tobacco shops and some bars (they haven’t defined what constitutes a “incidental food service” yet.) A place like Brennen’s Tobacco Shop in the Central West End will not be exempt. They are over the 2000 ft size space limit. Their alcohol sales are far to high to exempt them as a tobacco shop. In the city we have a business were a customer can buy a drink and enjoy a cigar in the same building. Next year, they will either have to move outside the city limits or go out of business.
Comment by Tony Palazzolo — February 8, 2010 @ 7:03 a.m.