At City Hall, surprise move sidelines smoking ban bill once again
ST. LOUIS — After a twenty-minute grilling from colleague Stephen Conway, Alderman Lyda Krewson was poised for a long hearing today in defense of her bill to ban indoor smoking in the city.
Instead, she got an early — and unexpected — exit.
Once Conway had finished his cross-examination of Krewson — a meandering question-and-question session that segued from patio smoking to the economic impact of a ban — Alderman Charles Quincy Troupe suggested the Health Committee adjourn so it can take a better look at the potential fiscal consequences.
A surprised Conway seconded the motion. It passed the Health Committee 7-2.
Just like that, Krewson’s optimism about the bill’s chance of passing out of committee today went up in, well, smoke.
“I assume they wanted to kill the bill or stall the bill,” Krewson said after the truncated meeting.
That’s not the case, Health Committee chairman Greg Carter said. Though Troupe’s motion to adjourn came with a proviso to examine how city finances could be affected, Carter allowed that it will give some north St. Louis alderman more time to talk to bar owners in their wards about the proposal.
Krewson’s proposal has cut a middle-ground that has irked both sides of the smoking debate.
Groups such as Smoke Free St. Louis say the plan — which would only go into effect if St. Louis County passes a ban of its own — lacks teeth. Conway says a provision allowing smoking on patios provides preferential treatment to bars in the Central West End — Krewson’s ward — which have more outdoor seating than, say, taverns in Bevo or Carondelet.
Even so, Krewson thought she had a good chance to pass the bill today — so much so that she already had a tally of which votes she thought were on her side.
“You know,” Krewson said, “I’m an accountant.”
The Committee has seen a statement from University of Wisconsin economist Chad Cotti warning that, based on his national study of the employment effects of smoking bans, a City/County ban would cut City bar employment 19.7 percent. Cotti says that such a loss would come not just from layoffs, but from City bars closing. Cotti’s statement, made back on June 1st, presupposes that smoking would be banned everywhere in St. Louis City and County. If smoking were still allowed in casinos and in County bars as Alderman Krewson now proposes, damage to City bars would be even more extreme!
http://keepstlouisfree.blogspot.com/2009/09/st-louis-city-smoke-free-air-act-of.html
Here is a link to Cotti’s smoking ban:
http://www.bepress.com/bejeap/vol7/iss1/art12/
When will we understand what supply and demand means in this country, and honor a business owner’s decisions. If there is demand for non-smoking establishments they currently have the option to run a business as non-smoking. Just don’t tell me that your one hour jaunt to a bar is going to give you cancer, or the staff didn’t have any choices and were forced to work at these locations. There ought to be smoke-free options for both patrons and staff, and there are. Stop telling people how to run their business, and stop patronizing places you don’t enjoy. It’s that simple.
This might not happen now, and hopefully not with Krewson’s plan, but a ban WILL happen sooner or later. It is better if you prepare for the transition to a public smoking ban now, than to waste all your energy fighting it.
Keep up the good work Alderman Krewson despite the caterwalling and the tantrums this is an issue that will eventually pass. It is the inexorable march of progress and enlightenment. Bars and restaurants will go the way of the smokey plane, theatre, office building, government building, and grocery store. The same arguments apply and will eventually be accepted. Those trying to stop it are trying to hold back the wind. They may have temporary success but they will ultimately lose nonetheless.
This sucks. Every chance we have to make St Louis a healthy, progressive city gets taken away. SMOKING ISNT HEALTHY!! It isn’t healthy for smokers or those who have to breathe the second-hand smoke.
This issue isn’t about freedom, it’s about health. Let’s make St Louis a healthy place to live and enjoy!
Yello
The list isn’t endless but St. Louis and the State of Missouri are among the last major areas that allow smoking. Why are we always behind? Friends come in from California and about fell over when the hostess asked if we wanted smoking or non-smoking. The no smoking sign hasn’t kept Busch Stadium from filling up has it?
“Stop telling people how to run their business, and stop patronizing places you don’t enjoy. It’s that simple.” Seriously? How many places can you name right NOW that are non-smoking? It’s not a matter of not going where you don’t enjoy yourself. You can’t go ANYWHERE and get away from the smoke! Even in establishments that have both, it’s a JOKE….a non-smoker is 3 feet away from floating smoke. Have any of you that oppose this ban thought of the people it really affects? What if your wife, husband, sister, daughter could not tolerate smoke? What if we told you - just don’t go to a restaurant with them..? Would you like THAT answer? Seriously - what is the big DEAL? Smokers are polluting the air….non-smokers aren’t…..seems logical to me that the smokers should be the ones inconvenienced, not the other way around.
> It is the inexorable march of progress and enlightenment.
For more information on the roots of this attitude - and this movement - see here:
http://www.wctu.org/
I can’t remember, how did that 19th amendment thing work out?