Differences between Dooley, Slay could doom smoking ban
Slay, left, and Dooley
ST. LOUIS — Mayor Francis Slay and his counterpart across the county line are congenial political allies, rarely — if ever — openly sparring on a local issue.
But on the push for a regional indoor smoking ban, differences between the mayor and St. Louis County Executive Charlie A. Dooley appear to extinguish any hope of changes.
On Friday, Central West End Alderman Lyda Krewson introduced a bill that would ban smoking at bars and restaurants in the city — but only if the county passed a similar restriction.
The legislation is in line with what Slay — whose family has a deep history in the restaurant business — has said he would support. Slay believes that a regional ban would not place city businesses at risk of losing customers, an argument that seems to discount the potential of them gaining customers adverse to smoke.
Either way, in order for the mayor’s support to be meaningful, the county also has to embrace a smoking ban.
That does not appear likely.
Proponents of a smoking ban on the County Council do not appear to have the four votes required for approval. (Let alone the five needed to override an executive veto.)
A Dooley spokesman last week indicated the county executive does not support a local indoor smoking ban — even if the city does it first.
“What Charlies has said consistently is the only way it works is if its a statewide ban,” Dooley aide Mac Scott said.
And action in Jefferson City is what ultimately might force city bars and restaurants to go smoke-free — because waiting on the county doesn’t look like it will change much.
Get a clue, “non-smoker.” Smokers aren’t going to your house and smoking. They’re going to the premises of a third party and doing what that third party allows. You, on the other hand, want to go to the third party’s place and tell her what she can do with her establishment.
If you don’t want your children inhaling smoke, then you shouldn’t be irresponsible and taking them to smoky restaurants. Take some responsibility for yourself and yours, and leave others and theirs’ alone.
While we are banning offensive smells could somebody please include hazelnut coffee. It makes me sick to my stomach.
As a lifelong Californian, when they passed the no smoking laws I couldn`t have been happier. It didn`t hurt businesses at all. When I visit Missouri, I`m shocked anyone would dare light up indoors. It`s gross! Hopefully, you`ll wise up enough people like we did here and indoor smoking will be a thing of the past. Indian casinos still allow smoking indoors here. I`ll never enter one though. Cough cough……… (GO RAMS!)
I should not have to tolerate the smell of hazelnut coffee when I take my children to Bread Co. I hate the smell of hazelnut coffee sticking to my clothes. But I’m going to keep going while demanding that the government makes Panera remove the smell of hazelnut coffee from its restaurant, because I said so, and because I have no other coffee choices.
I’m sick of hearing how “smokers” are a pox on society. I’m sick of non-smokers deciding that every single public establishment has to serve only their needs. There are, and should continue to be, some establishments that still allow smoking. Many, many restaurants have gone totally non-smoking all on their own regardless of any county or city ordinance. I choose not to go to them. I do NOT condone taking more and more freedoms of choice away from us (and that’s not a political issue for me).
If that’s the direction the “majority” wants to go, then let’s ban all fast-food places. Why? You think they don’t affect you? You’re wrong. The health care costs alone have skyrocketed due to the increase in diabetes, heart disease, and other issues associated with being over weight, high cholesterol, and on and on. You’re affected because you are assisting in care for all citizens who can’t afford health care through your taxes - whether they’re retired on Medicare, a child on Medicaid, or simply on Welfare. Better yet, rather than increase taxes on a select set of people, such as we have on cigarettes, let’s put a tax on all fast food. As for “cleaning up the air” - let’s get rid of all airplanes, factories, etc.
Most of you have the idea that you don’t smoke and shouldn’t suffer second-hand smoke. Well, I don’t use airplanes, so why should I suffer from their contribution toward the depletion of the ozone layer?
My point is that ya’ll need to stop blaming the smokers for things that don’t really mean all that much to you and figure out where the bigger issues lie. The detriment of your health is affected much more your food choices and by the air quality you breath daily than my cigarette you might encounter sitting in a restaurant 50 feet away from me. So you go to a different restaurant than I do … big deal. Let me have my select few to frequent and I’ll stay out of your majority non-smoking establishments. It’s not necessary to take choices away from everyone just because you think your opinion is the only one that counts.
The airline stewardess filed a class action lawsuit against the airlines in the 70’s for their statistically significant rate of breast and lung cancer!!!! They’re not on respirators because they’re DEAD already.
Do you get the point now Hampton? Second-hand smoke is a HEALTH issue, not political or economical.
Jeanie, please read the literature and cut out the hyperbole.
This entire issue is appalling. I’m one of the lucky non-smokers who is now suffering from COPD as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke. I chose NOT to smell like an ash tray & spew toxic fumes on everyone and their brother who happened to be in my vacinity, but I’m a victim of a chronic illness which will most likely result in my premature death from emphysema or lung cancer. And I spend about $300 on medications a month so that I can breath on a daily basis! Thanks so much to all of you smokers who insist that polluting indoor airways is your right! My pulmonologist tells me that the incidences of non-smokers with this smoking disease is skyrocketing and in many cases, non-smokers have more problems because their subjected to the toxic particulates which the smoker is protected from by the filter on the cigarette. It’s also appalling that Kansas City and Columbia are saavy enough to see the forest through the trees, but St. Louis is not. It’s also appalling that business owners claim that they are going to lose money when there is absolutely no statistical information to back up that claim. No revenue has been lost in any of the cities who have gone smoke-free. And it’s appalling that the AFL-CIO would put the rights of the minority (yes, today smokers amount to about 20-25% of the population) ahead of the majority. So, addicts, put that in your pipe and smoke it in your car, in your home, in your yard, but not in public! And you’re right, I’m damn angry! I’m 51 and thanks to your noxious fumes, I’m going to be dead in about 15 years!
I don’t smoke…but I did and I resented places that wouldn’t let me smoke.
But that is neither here nor there. If I owned aplace not matter it be a bar or rest. or what, if I am paying for the building and the bills and TAXES on that building just what gives ANYONE the right to tell me who can smoke or not smoke in it. If you don’t like smoke DON’T COME IN.
Almost every economic study Smokefree St. Louis City sites was performed not by economists by rather by public health advocates and published in a public health journal, not an economics journal. When real economists look at this issue, they find that smoking bans always cut bar employment up to 16 percent.
http://www.bepress.com/bejeap/vol7/iss1/art12/