Legal challenge to Kansas City smoking ban fails
The state Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to Kansas City’s smoking ban in indoor public places. The court did not accept to an argument that the city could not ban smoking in places where it was allowed or not mentioned in a state law.
Charles Gatton, chairman of County Citizens for Cleaner Air, the campaign committee for a ban in St. Louis County, said on Thursday said the court’s decision makes clear that “there is no question about the legality of” the county smoking ban proposal.
Although the court has dealt with one major issue on smoking bans, others may arise, Bill Hannegan, an opponent of smoking bans for St. Louis and St. Louis County, said. County voters will consider a smoking ban Nov. 3. A committee of St. Louis aldermen sent a city smoking ban to the full board.
In Kansas City, Georgia J. Carlson, operator of JC Sports Bar, violated that city’s smoking ban to set up a test case. She argued the state law gives bars an exemption and the city could not prohibit smoking there.
Kansas City Associate Circuit Judge Richard Standridge in January ruled Kansas City could impose stricter requirements. The state law did not prohibit other entities from regulating smoking, he said.
The western district of the Missouri Court of Appeals in June agreed. And in August, the state Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
Meanwhile, the Clayton Chamber of Commerce has scheduled a short debate for Oct. 26 between County Councilwoman Barbara Fraser, D-University City, the sponsor of the smoking ban, and Hannegan. The session will start at 6:30 p.m. at the Clayton community center, 50 Gay Avenue Clayton.
The candidates to fill a vacancy in the 73rd state representative district in the Richmond Heights area also will debate. They are Stacey Newman, a Democrat, and Daniel O’Sullivan Jr., a Republican.
Assistant Clayton Fire Chief Paul Mercurio will make a three-minute presentation about the proposal on the Nov. 3 ballot for a 0.1-cent sales for a countywide emergency communications system.
Charlie Gatton is wrong about the legality of Councilman Fraser’s smoking ban. Look for her smoking ban to be challenged on the constitutionality of its casino exemption if it passes.
Bill - you mean the same exemption that is legal in the Kansas City ordinance will be not be legal in the St. Louis County ordinance?
You know, as long as you keep paying the attorneys, they will keep telling you what you want to hear. How many bets did you lose - I notice that Ballwin and Clayton still have smoking ordinances, despite your promise to have them gone by last month.
> Assistant Clayton Fire Chief Paul Mercurio will make a three-minute
> presentation about the proposal on the Nov. 3 ballot for a 0.1-cent sales for
> a countywide emergency communications system.
Who is giving the presentation for the other side on this issue?
A casino exemption has never been challenged in Missouri. An attorney I spoke with believes it violates the Special Laws Clause of the Missouri constitution.
Bill - have you read Prop. 4? It contains a severability clause. I understand that to mean that if any clause if ruled invalid, the rest stay in force. So if you are foolish enough to go to court and try to get the ordinance thrown out, if you are successful all that would do is eliminate the casino exemption. I don’t think that would make you real popular with Harrah’s.
Wino, I am not promoting any lawsuit. I am simply warning Harrah’s that they should not feel safe if this passes.
As we all know, in the USA you can sue (or be sued) by anyone for anything!
Just because you sue Mr. Hannigan, doesn’t mean you’ll win.
Why don’t you do something productive with all the time and energy you have?
I am glad to help out the bar owners that are worried sick about this law.
Bill, stop giving legal opinion. You aren’t a licensed attorney. In the area of regulating health and safety a governmental entity only has to show a rational relationship to any classification scheme (casino exception). If there isn’t one articulated, the courts are free to make one up. It is in this area that government is granted its greatest leniency in such classification schemes. If you waste time challenging this issue, I’d recommend that the governmental agencies seek to sanction you and your sycophants for pursuing a frivolous suit and appeal. Maybe make you guys donate to the Cancer Society, eh?
Mr. Kasoff -
What is the other side of the E-911 issue? The only one I can see is not having enough information. That can be solved by asking any firefighter, police officer, first responder, EMT or Paramedic, ER Doc. Bottom line on this issue, there is a need to communicate among agencies and hospitals. That can’t be done today. An upgrade of the emergency communications system is desperately needed. For all of our sakes.