Smoking ban initiative proposal gets to Kirkwood City Council
Arthur McDonnell
Promoters of a ban on smoking in indoor public places in Kirkwood have enough signatures on petitions to start the initiative process that could lead to a vote on the proposal.
The St. Louis County Election Board announced this morning that the petitions had 1,089 valid signatures, 54 more than the number the city charter requires to start the process. The supporters had submitted 1,357 signatures, Melanie Stilson, the board official who oversaw the verification of signatures, said.
The city council has until Sept. 5 to deal with the initiative. If the council rejects or takes no action on the proposal, it would go to voters. The election must be no earlier than 30 days after the last council step and no more than 120 days after that step.
Mayor Arthur McDonnell said he hoped the council would consider the initiative on July 16. City Attorney John Hessel has to complete a review of the initiative first, the mayor said.
With very few exceptions, the measure would allow smoking only in private homes, private vehicles and outdoors. Among exceptions are 20 percent of hotel and motel rooms designated smoking rooms, private clubs established before March 1 and retail tobacco stores.
The anti-smoking measure is a revised version of an initiative that voters defeated in November, 2006. Then 54.6 percent of about 14,300 voters rejected it.
Supporters would like a vote in November. If an initiative election is to occur then, the council must reject the measure by Aug. 25.
“We would like to get it on the ballot as soon as possible,” Debra Cotten, spokeswoman for Healthy Air for Kirkwood, the group sponsoring the petitions, said.
McDonnell said the city would save money by holding a vote in November. Then the county has a proposal on the ballot – a 0.1-cent sales tax for an emergency communication system – and Kirkwood’s share of the election cost would be much smaller compared with an election in February with Kirkwood paying the entire cost. In June 2007 Kirkwood spent about $21,000 for a special election when its proposal was the only item on the city ballot.
“There is no reason to throw out money,” McDonnell said.
Steven Sheridan, a spokesman for Choose Kirkwood, which opposes the initiative, said his group expects to circulate petitions for a competing initiative proposal. It would require owners of businesses where people can smoke to put up a sign at their entrances saying they are smoking establishments.
The initiative also would commit Kirkwood to follow county ordinances and state law on the subject.
Choose Kirkwood would begin circulating its petitions after the city says it is in proper form, Sheridan said. That word should come in about two weeks, he said.
A smokeless environment
I believe that non-smokers, like anyone else, have this right.
But how far does that right extend?
Should it take priority over someone else’s rights?
Court houses, publicly owned buildings and anywhere else an
individual might be forced to go should properly be included in any
smoking law.
What should not be included are places located in or on private property,
providing an individual is not compelled by necessity or law,
to frequent or work at that specific location.
Second-hand smoke is not a statistically significant health risk.
why do non-smokers have the right to a smokeless environment? at a government building? a public building like a library? at a private business? such as a bar with a private owner?
Ask the family members of the tens of thousands of American non-smokers that died last year from secondhand smoke if its a “statistically significant health risk.”
Also, Thomas, the argument about private businesses being exempt from regulations regarding public safety is so easy to refute, it’s laughable. Can a private business owner rob, assault, or kill his customers as long as he’s in his place of business? Of course not. The law is the law, wherever you go. And would you advocate that businesses should not have to follow fire codes, or that they should be allowed to serve alcohol to minors, or that sanitation and food preparation codes should be abolished, or that it’s OK to allow exposed asbestos, or that the electrical wiring does not have to be up to code, etc., etc.? These are all standard safety regulations that protect workers and customers in “private businesses” where no one is forced to go. Unless you’re arguing that those standards should also be abolished, your stand is not logical.
Thomas L.,
Sorry, but you couldn’t be more wrong. The National Cancer Institute says there is no safe level of secondhand smoke:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS
Why shouldn’t the right to safe air trump smoker’s “rights”? The government can and does regulate the safety of the food you can eat in a privately owned restaurant or bar. How is this any different?
The issue here is where does it all stop?
If citizens wish to smoke at a private business they should be allowed! And I’m not even a smoker. But like it or not, it’s a legal product. It has the potential to cause harm, true.. but so can legally served alcohol. Or fast food, for that matter.
If you believe there’s such a ground swell of support for “smoke free” establishments, go ahead and open one up yourself…I’m sure you’ll do really well.
The fact that Missouri still allows Smoking in any public place.. restaurant, bar, store, mall, is embarrassing. It’s 2009 folks!!! Cigarette smoke kills and non-smokers shouldn’t have to deal with it AT ALL. I just spent a week in Overland Park, KS where it’s smoke free and, contrary to popular belief, bars and restaurants do still exist and THRIVE in these environments! The bars were full of people enjoying themselves!!!
Wake up Smokers.. you are fighting a losing battle. Just like it’s unbelievable that 20 years ago people used to smoke in your office building.. 10 years from now we’ll look back and say, “Remember when people could still smoke in bars/restaurants.. I can’t believe people could do that”.
Like it or not, it’s coming and you are wasting your time and money fighting it. Spend your money on a the Patch and a bike or a pair of tennis shoes and think about your health for a change.
I agree. Anything that is harmful should be banned. Alcohol is the first thing on my list. People drive drunk all the time, there should be no bars allowed.
If you have employees, you are no longer free to do what you want in your “private” establishment. You can’t expose them to second hand smoke as a condition of their employment any more than you can make them breathe asbestos, work in a machine shop without safety glasses, or work as a window washer without proper harnesses and ropes.
This is a matter of employee rights. Why should waiters and waitresses have to damage their lungs because smokers are too inconsiderate to step outside for five minutes to get their fix?
Yes, workers have rights however the truth is:
1) OSHA has safe limits of most if not all chemicals found in cigarette smoke and the amount of exposure that OSHA to those chemicals in the ‘real world’ is le in any setting.
I’m personally sick of all of this healthy lifestyle crap. Do you know what it gets us? It allows everyone to live longer on Social Security. People are still retiring at 60 and 65, but they’re living longer and eating up the Social Security and the children are left to pay for the parent’s longer lives because they’re healthier. Screw that, I’d rather inhale some second hand smoke when I (rarely) go to a place that allows smoking and die at a ripe old age of 70-75 instead of 90-95.
My grandparents used to smoke and hang out in bars all the time and they’re putzing around in their 80’s.
OK, seriously now. With all of the other dangers in the world, second hand smoke is WAAAAAY down on the list. I’d say we start taking drunken driving more seriously. When Leonard Little can do what he did and get away with it, you know no one takes this crap seriously.