No-smoking issue dominates Springfield City Council meeting again

KY3 TV ^ | 8/26/03 | Christine Bielawski

[Just another Joe]

SPRINGFIELD -- Six months of discussion still has not settled the issue of whether smokers should be able to light up in businesses open to the public. The latest proposal would let voters have the final say next year on a total ban everywhere, even bars and bowling alleys, starting in 2005.

On Monday night, about 25 smokers, business owners and industry association representatives told the city council that's a bad idea. The council heard from only one person -- a doctor -- in favor of the proposal. Some people said the proposed total ban would move the city forward too fast. Some said it should be done sooner. Some suggested exempting some buildings from the total ban.

Tracy Kimberlin, director of the Springfield Convention and Visitors Bureau, agreed to head up a committee of people on both sides of the issue that will try to present a compromise proposal to the city council. Kimberlin’s stake in the issue is that some groups, like bowling associations, might not hold tournaments or meetings in Springfield if smoking isn’t allowed in public places. Kimberlin’s committee will meet on Sept. 3 at the Springfield Area Chamber of Commerce on St. Louis Street at Hammons Parkway. Representatives of the Missouri Restaurant Association and the Missouri Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association said they want to meet with the committee to see if they can get some relief for their members who have been, or might be harmed, by the current law or the proposed one.

The city’s current smoking ban is seven weeks old. It bans smoking in restaurants except those that derive at least 50 percent of their profits from liquor sales, or sell at least $200,000 worth of liquor each year, or sell liquor and have a separately ventilated area for smokers to dine, or have fewer than 50 seats. Some owners of restaurants that don’t meet one of the exemptions say they have lost a significant amount of business since the law went into effect.

Three proposals to amend the ordinance are before the city council. One would give an exemption until July 7, 2006, to restaurants that can show they lost at least 20 percent of their business from July to September, compared to the same three months last year. The second proposal would ban smoking, as of Jan. 2, 2005, in all businesses open to the public. The third proposal would put the second proposal on the ballot on Nov. 2, 2004, at the same time as the general election ballot for president, governor and other state and federal offices. The city council could vote on the three proposals at its meeting on Sept. 15, although it’s likely to delay the votes if it’s presented with a compromise to consider.

Representatives of the Knights of Columbus and the Sertoma Clubs told the council that bingo halls should be exempted from a total smoking ban. Proceeds from bingo games benefit some charities and non-profit groups. Bob Chancellor, a former city councilman, told the council that those groups would lose funds because bingo players tend to be smokers -- and he doesn’t believe they will keep playing bingo if they can’t smoke at the same time.

One man said he is part of a group that is collecting petition-signatures to recall all nine council members. Greg Roberts said Operation Springfield Shield believes the council is “out of control.”

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I'm a regular-sized guy, thanks.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I like to think of myself as a classic liberal.

[Just another Joe]

Thanks for all the input to the debate. NOT!

So, you think of yourself as a classic liberal? Seeing the thoughts you've added to this thread you should really take away the 'classic' from that label.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Smoke em if you got em.

[Just another Joe]

Smoke em if you got em.

I do, thanks.
Anything to add to the actual debate on private property rights?

[Eric in the Ozarks]

My feelings about smoking are health-related. Private property is the basis for Western Civilization.

[Great Dane]

An ungergrad friend of mine who went on to medical school came up with a theory that healthy males had "20 pack-years" (a pack a day for 20 years) before irreversible damage would occur to lung tissue. He further theorized that 15 years of smoke free breathing was required before lungs would repair themselves. I can't think of a single thing smoking adds to life on Earth. American Indians should be paying reparations...

Theorizing doesn't count for much...... facts do, and the facts are still being debated.

[Madame Dufarge]

You're right off the Obnoxious-O-Meter.

Quit! presuming to lecture adults on how their lives should be led (while you still can.)

[Protagoras]

Because some so called conservatives have merged with liberals in agreement that fascism is good as long as it's for their pet cause.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

No lecture intended.

[Protagoras]

I like to think of myself as a classic liberal.

Which of course means that you oppose any violation of private property rights and therefore oppose anti-smoking laws. Correct?

[1Old Pro]

ARE YOU ENCRYPTING YOUR MESSAGES?

lol, ME TOO.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

The effects of smoking have been proven since 1964. Maybe you missed that development.
The 20 pack years theory was for his Ph.D and was based on cadaver research in med school.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Private property 100 percent. Where does your share of air stop and mine begin ?

[Just another Joe]

Where does your share of air stop and mine begin ?

Where the business owner says it does.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Can't top that one.

[Protagoras]

Private property 100 percent. Where does your share of air stop and mine begin ?

At the property line of the private property.

So do you or do you not oppose the laws?

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I hope to see a day when no one smokes. More than 75 percent of Americans do not. Private property, the right to buy and sell and own real estate and personal property is to be respected.
However, whould you argue it is the right of a theater owner to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater because he owns the place ? I could give other coralations but you get the picture.

[Protagoras]

However, whould you argue it is the right of a theater owner to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater because he owns the place ? I could give other coralations but you get the picture.

It's not a correlation and therefore I don't get the picture.

Are you for or against these laws? It seems to be a problem to get a straight answer.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Smoking stinks and I vote with my feet. I don't think, in my heart of hearts, Springfield should have the authority to ban smoking in restaurants.
If I were a restaurant owner, I'd be ticked. However, if I worked at the restaurant, Id be pleased.