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.
Sorry for the repost accidentially hit submit.
Yes, workers have rights however the truth is:
1) OSHA has published safe exposure limits of most, if not all chemicals found in second hand smoke. The amount of exposure that it takes to arrive at those concentrations that OSHA deems safe threshholds is not possible in these employment settings.
2) A large majority of those that work in the service industry smoke themselves.
This is about choice, those that don’t want to patronize or work in a private establishment that allows smoking, then don’t. Let’s face the facts, we do not need more government in our lives. Those that say well I am entitled to a smoke free establishment, good for you, then go to one. There are smoke free establishments in the area, patronize them. Leave the rest to those that still have a brain and can make a choice.
We wonder why states are going bankrupt, they micromanage free citizens rights.
As a former smoker, I think it should be up to the establishment as to whom they wish to cater to. But, they should have to advertise if they allow smoking. I now prefer to patronize those that do not allow smoking, my food tastes better, and my eyes do not burn. Since I can now actually smell the food, I am usually hungrier when I go out to eat, and order more.
Let’s get the government out of restaurants altogether.
No more food safety regulations - that burger might have been on the floor and then spit on, but that restaurant has the right to serve it. You have the choice to not eat there.
No more worker regulations - your cooks and servers are now illegal immigrants and 12-year-old children working 14-hour shifts. What? You don’t like it? Go somewhere else!
Hell let’s get rid of smoke detectors while we’re at it - it’s another government intrusion. Be sure to block all the exits, too, in case there’s a fire - wouldn’t want the government telling me how to run our businesses.
If I have the flu and cough all over your food, what would you do? But when you blow toxic smoke into my face and food, it’s your right.
I’m going to start hocking up lungs on smokers from now on. When I need to sneeze, I’m going to try my best to shoot as much snot onto your table as I can. Hopefully I’m sick at the time.
If you don’t like it, you can find a new bar or restaurant. But you probably wouldn’t, you’d just complain about how rude I am, the irony of the moment totally escaping you.
I am an asthmatic and have been for all of my 51 years. I was born premature in 1957 and my lungs did not develop fully.
My parents smoked and their friends smoked in our house. I have not died from second hand smoke and I have smoked in the past. I have long since quit and still have no health issues. My asthma is more cold weather and allergy related now.
I do not think that bars and nightclubs or any other private property business owner should be applied by this law. If you want a smoke free bar, open one. The economy is for too bad now for this type of legislation.
I do not live in Kirkwood but I would not frequent an establishment that did not allow smokers. They have a right to be there too. You and I also have a right to not go into that establishment. It also would make them go outside of their own neighborhoods to other places and that takes tax money away from Kirkwood. According to the CDC 1 in 4 people smoke. Think about how much revenue is going to be lost in Kirkwood (pop. 26,818).
Karen,
I’m going to need to know where you plan on eating out next. I seem to be developing some sort of sinus infection and I’d like to share it with your lunch.
I’m sure you won’t mind. I mean, that’s my right, to soil your food. Of course, if you do mind for some strange reason, you are free to go elsewhere.
-sgt
You simply cannot compare the smoker’s decision to smoke with the non-smoker’s decision to not breathe smoke-filled air. They are completely different. The smoker’s decision necessarily affects everyone around the smoker. Therefore, one person’s “right” to smoke denies 20 - 30 people around the smoker their “right” to breathe clean air. What’s more reasonable - telling one person to kindly step outside to smoke, or telling 20 - 30 people to “go someplace else,” or “go open your own non-smoking bar / restaurant?”
I believe a private business such as a bar or tavern that is privately owned should be able to choose whether to be a smoking or a non-smoking establishment and publish that choice at the entrance. If you don’t want to be around smoke, don’t go to a defined smoking establishment.
I think it is incredibly hypocritical for the government to arbitrarily decide this issue when the states run on cigarette taxes and the government subsidized tobacco farmers. When the government legally ban cigarettes and stops making money from them, then they can legally ban smoking.
If smoking is so God-awful, illegalize it already and shut up! I’m so sick of listening to you non-smokers cry about it. You obviously out number the smokers, so pass laws and quit taking and spending our tax dollars!
The funny part is that the average Joe, won’t be able to smoke at his favorite bar, but the rich would be allowed to smoke at the bar in the clubhouse of their country club….