West St. Louis County led in smoking ban votes
West St. Louis County townships provided more votes last Tuesday in St. Louis County for banning smoking in indoor public places, but the strongest sentiment for the ban came from townships in the central part of the county.
The St. Louis County Election Board on Friday made public township-by-township results on the smoking ban and on a 0.1-cent sales tax for a countywide emergency communications system. The breakdown was from unofficial final results with slightly revised numbers from Tuesday night’s figures. The board’s staff is working on the official count and has until Nov. 17 to complete and certify it.
The smoking ban received 27,147 favorable votes in west St. Louis County townships, 1,006 more votes than those cast for the ban in central St. Louis County townships. The percent of voters favoring the ban was 71.55 per cent in central St. Louis County and 65.37 percent in west St. Louis County.
Support for the ban was weakest in north St. Louis County townships where it received 17,415 yes votes, a 56.77 percent favorable margin. In Midland Township, mainly the Overland area, the ban passed by only two votes.
The sales tax received support from more than 60 percent of the voters in all but two of the 28 townships. In Oakville and Tesson Ferry townships 58.97 percent and 59.96 percent of the voters, respectively, backed the sales tax.
Below are the township-by-township results:




Now, maybe we can move on to including the casinos in the ban. I can’t wait until that happens. It would be great if the entire state was smoke free.
Why do you want to force your opinions and morals on anyone else? Is your life that shallow that you have to control others lives? If you don’t like smoke, don’t frequent the establishment. If you feel you must, then live with it. We smokers have to live with you. You don’t hear us squawking about your perfume or aftershave.
Alright. We have already taken the all-important steps of: creating the false impression that a desire equates to a right b) you have the “right” to eat anywhere you want c) you have the “right” to work anywhere you want and d) the “right” to tell a business person how to run their business regardless of your intention to ever patronize their establishment. Let’s take this to the next logical level and decide en mass what foods and goods we want everyone to be able to supply and vote for one standard menu and bill of fare that each restaurant and retailer may offer to its customer. Then Hoping4Peace and the rest can sleep easier knowing they have done their job in making decisions the rest of the state/country/world is apparently too unthinking to have done.
HeHeHe all the smokers are crabby this morning! Just wait till they can no longer go to Denny’s and light up with their coffee!
Thank you West County! Thank you EMail Senders! Thank you BALLWIN!
Jane Suozzi
New Crusade -
You said it in your own words. The false impression that your desire to SMOKE is a right is WRONG! This isn’t about rights, it isn’t about the economy (which I think will improve with smokefree ordinances as it has in Ballwin) IT’S ABOUT HEALTH ! Kill yourself with your smoking, just don’t take me with you.
As for the rest of the state, country, world, you’re in the clear minority. Some of Missouri, MOST of the country, and Some of the world did their THINKING - CLEAR thinking without the smokescreen put up by the tobacco industry - and has secured cleaner air in indoor places !
jb199….. It’s not about morals or opinions. It’s about the KNOWN health risk second hand smoke poses to the population. BTW, perfume and aftershave have not been identified as health risks - smoking and second hand smoke clearly have.
Do you smoke in your own home? Maybe, if you live by yourself. Probably not, if you have family that you care about. What’s different here? You don’t give a rat’s ass about the general population?
I am a smoker and I have no problem going somewhere that doesn’t allow smoking and I do live in Chesterfield, there are already probably 75% that don’t allow it in their establishments…we are not crabby Dan, we are simply saying that these owners who want to allow smoking in their own business’s should be allowed to do so.
I am very annoyed by children when I go to a restaurant, they are usually crying, chatting without stop or sitting there staring at me saying hi, and I can say hi once, but turn the kid around after that. So I say, if we are going to pass laws on what a business owner can do then let’s go…like if someone is fat, and the owner doesn’t want fat people there, put a scale at the door, and let no one be charged with discrimination because it is a law that fat people can’t eat there.
Okay so it sounds silly but like the poster above said, if people don’t want to go around smoke they could have just went somewhere else.
I’m sure those of you who are so gung ho on thinking this is a victory, well you will have to deal with walking in and out of the establishment thru the smoke of the people outside…don’t complain when it happens because it is what you asked for
This law was pushed by politicians who are hopelessly ill-informed. For instance, Barbara Fraser thinks smoking bans save more people each year than die from active smoking and that air filtration units don’t get the gases of secondhand smoke? Wow. Charlie Gatton thinks that people who cite the 1998 WHO Report want people to smoke around kids “kids to toughen them up”. Jane Suozzi obviously has not done a bit of homework concerning the possibilities of air filtration technology outside of what Martin Pion has handed her and won’t read anything else.
BearGirl - It’s about health - not irritations or annoyances. Because my kids are now teenagers, I’m annoyed too by crying babies, etc. I’ve been there, though, and I know how it is. You need to read the ordinance - smokers will not be allowed at the entrance to an establishment - only on patios if provided.
Bill - Got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? Martin Pion has shown you nothing but respect but here you go, telling me I’m spoon fed. Frankly, Bill, you need to look at Martin’s credentials. He’s a scientist. He’s spent 25 years studying this subject. Maybe we should put “economist” after his name and you’ll feel differently. Tony P. goated me into revealing my identity - I think that may be the only ill-informed decision I made on this issue. Have a great day, Bill. We love you, too.