St. Louis County Smoking Ban Issue Going to the Voters - KTVI

An indoor smoking ban in St. Louis County will be decided by the voters. That was the announcement from County Executive Charlie Dooley Friday morning.

[generalsn1234567]

Be careful of the fine print on the ballot. The tax exempt American Cancer Society tricked the voters of Ohio into voting for a ban with exemptions, only to have them removed AFTER they were voter approved. If they got away with it once, you know they’ll do it again.“Thank you American Cancer Society, we never knew all you do” The private vets clubs of Ohio who thought they were exempt according to the ballot learned what they do. I'm sure they are remembering them with with their donations and estate plans.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_ne...

[Smokey]

Try an electric cigarette from Crown7. You can get the nicotine and it is LEGAL indoors-and the government doesn't get the huge tax money they get from regular cigarettes.

[Mary]

Not until we bar individuals with obvious health problems demonstrated by sneezing, coughing, and nose blowing in public places thereby spreading germs to others, will it be fair to say that we are concerned about health issues. To vote for a ban only proves how easy it is to brainwash those non-thinking already influenced individuals.

[Tinamarie Clauser]

I understand all the points that have been made about why smoking should be banned in St. Louis County public places, but that takes away from the rights of people that smoke. I know people that have quit smoking and it helps to not be around smokers, but you have people all over that have quit something but we can go around banning everything just so it will make it better for those few people. If it's being done for health reasons it wont work. I know a man that quit smoking over 10 years ago and has been diagnosed with lung cancer, plus if we ban cigarette smoking in most or all public places to respect the health of people that don't smoke, then there will be alot of other things that will have to be banned, like driving vehicles. The air we breathe everyday can cause help problems, even lung cancer.

[Marie]

Not only is secondhand smoke disgusting, but it can cause lung cancer just the same as firsthand smoke, especially when it comes to long-term exposure. Along with that, there is a significant incidence of individuals who are allergic to smoke, such as my niece, who immediately experience bronchoconstriction as a result of being exposed to secondhand smoke; if not bronchoconstriction, other reactions such as itchy, burning, watery eyes or migraines. Secondhand smoke is deadly and should be banned publicly. It's time for a healthier St. Louis, and this is one great step in the right direction.

[mdb]

I think they should do more about the person sitting next to while your out for dinner that has had way to much to drink then gets in the car and drives.Id rather sit next to a smoker then a drunk

[Matt]

I still believe that the decission should ultimately should be in the hands of the establishments owner.

[fredra1766]

I am fed up with Gov. telling me how to live my life!
As for this ban, stuff it!!!!!!!!!!

[Stop the madness]

Please....why throw your beliefs on us smokers..lets aim for non smoking establishments for those who do not like smoke and to be even kieled, lets have smoking establishments for those who smoke. Give us an indoor room at the boat, give us smoking sections at restaurants, don't try and take it away from us, we are grown adults and I for one am sick and tired of people trying to push thier goody goody feeeeeelings on others, leave us alone, we have rights too!!!! As far as the health risk goes to non smokers, try and pass a restaurant or some other establishment for yourselves to go to, again, just leave us alone!!!!!

[Matt]

I believe that it should be up to the establishments owner to decide if there is smoking in his business. If a smoking ban will increase his revenue then he will ban smoking, if his customers are smokers, then let him keep the smoking. After all he pays the bills let him make the decissions.

[Vin Mann]

The Banners are cowards. If they truly believe tobacco is a hazard then they should outright outlaw it. If they wish to let people have a choice to use tobacco then they allow privately owned establishments to choose if they want to be smoke free or allow smoking. Why not allow all establishment to post that they are either smoker friendly or smoke free. Then the public can vote with their dollars which places they wish to do business with. Are there not enough smoke free only patrons out there to keep those "smoke free" establishments open?
To all you anti-choicers why not just patronize the the "smoke free" places only and let the smoker friendly places wither into obscurity?

[M J Vatterott]

Again Government and left wing advocates want to control your life. I don't smoke but I respect the right of those people who do smoke.

[generalsn1234567]

Just a reminder of the sources of the bans, more concerned with "social change" than the bans themselves:

http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp...

And what the 99 million dollars was going to. Note on page seven the "inside -out", provision going for patios later, AFTER business owners spend thousands of dollars to accommodate their smoking customers, clearly showing that they have ABSOLUTLY NO CONCERN about local issues or businesses.

http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamentals....

Here's the "model ban" from page eight that many communities copied, pasted, and passed. It's the "smoking ban for dummies" It only takes a few minutes minute to fill in the blanks naming your community, the administrators names, and blanks to customize it to your community by the width of your sidewalks, so it looks like local leaders worked tirelessly for extended time to originate it.

http://www.no-smoke.org/document.php...

[Brittany]

Hmm i find this very interesting.. Those who smoke know how nasty and unhealthy of a habit that it is.. So why subject others to your bad habit?? I hope the smoking ban is voted for because everybody has the right to a life with clean air and healthy options. I myself am i smoker and i have respect for those that were smart enough to not get involved with cigarettes. I have kids and no matter how much i may want a cigarette on the road i never smoke around them.. It's very unhealthy and we need people to stop being so selfish and to look at the bigger picture.

[the count]

Tobacco is a LEGAL substance. Until it is declared an illegal substance there should no ban on it's use. Check the facts you anti-smokers, the WHO declared that second hand smoke is not a public risk. (That report was buried.)

[Brittany]

Vin Mann wrote:

The Banners are cowards. If they truly believe tobacco is a hazard then they should outright outlaw it. If they wish to let people have a choice to use tobacco then they allow privately owned establishments to choose if they want to be smoke free or allow smoking. Why not allow all establishment to post that they are either smoker friendly or smoke free. Then the public can vote with their dollars which places they wish to do business with. Are there not enough smoke free only patrons out there to keep those "smoke free" establishments open?
To all you anti-choicers why not just patronize the the "smoke free" places only and let the smoker friendly places wither into obscurity?

It's not only the tobacco that is a problem.. its the tons of other chemicals in cigarettes that are the problem. U should google it sometime.

[Thomas Laprade]

"Most of the people voting are not the people who regularly support the bars and restaurants day in and day out. Why should these people make the decisions that should be made by the owners, staffs, and patrons about using a legal product on private property?"

[Vin Mann]

Brittany wrote:

<quoted text>
It's not only the tobacco that is a problem.. its the tons of other chemicals in cigarettes that are the problem. U should google it sometime.

Brittany,
We agree on many thing. I believe no one should ever be force into a situation were they would experience second-hand smoke, rude language and behavior, indecent exposer or other disorderly or disrespectful conducts. If a privately owned establishment invites you inside his business and makes you aware that such activities may be going on inside you should be allowed to refuse the invitation. I do not allow smoking, drinking, cussing, sexual harassment or excessive noise inside my own home or car. I mind my own business as for what you allow inside yours. I don't smoke cigarettes but enjoy an occasional cigar with a drink and am mindful that even cigareete smokers don't like cigar smoke. I have found and patronize bars (in Illinois) that typically have a very respectful clientele and are currently ignoring the ban when the crowd is small. They utilize a smoke eating filter system and my clothes rarely smell of smoke. Everyone knows what they are walking into. When the crowd is large I find myself on the outside patio with the more respectful patrons.
There are many bars doing business in many different ways. There are several up the street that would be better suited to you(snooty, loud, and disrespectful). Why do you want to poke your nose into how my bar does business?
Is it that you prefer my crowd but without the smoke? Did you ever think that maybe my crowd doesn't want you around?
Why don't we agree to stay away from each other and enjoy our own company.

[koko]

this rocks

[Smart Smoker]

Brittany, please don't write on this blog anymore. Your writing is making all of us smokers look ignorant.

A smoking ban has nothing to do with smoking and everything to do with BIG government. Every adult has personal choice to patronize or not patronize any establishment. If you are offended by nudity, don't go to a strip club. If you don't like drunks, stay away from the bars.

The rules should be decided by the owners, not the voters. Who are we to tell someone how to run their legitimate business or manage their investments?