Smoking ban will likely be put to county voters
On Tuesday, the Saint Louis County Council voted to adopt and perfect a measure that would put a countywide smoking ban before voters in November, if the council votes for its final passage on Aug. 18.
More than 60 people spoke during the public comment portion of the council’s meeting, with speakers nearly evenly divided in favor of and against a smoking ban. Their comments lasted for nearly two hours.
The proposed ban, introduced by council member Barbara Fraser (D-University City) on July 21, would prohibit smoking in public buildings, health care facilities, indoor entertainment and recreation facilities, such as sports arenas and bowling alleys, shopping malls and retail establishments, restaurants (except outdoor areas), convention facilities, and public transportation, among other similar places (you can download the ban here).
Council members Michael O’Mara (D-Florrissant), Hazel Erby (D-University City), and Kathleen Burkett (D-Overland), were visibly frustrated by Fraser’s brevity in pushing the measure forward, and said so.
O’Mara questioned the motives of pushing the ban to council vote so quickly, and said that perhaps the measure was put forward “for political purposes.”
“It would be unfair to sit here tonight and vote on something we have not spent time drafting,” Erby said.
Burkett was even more direct. “Just what does this bill contain?” she asked Fraser during the meeting.
Several versions of a smoking ban were considered, and with a last-minute voting switch made by councilmember Steven Stenger (D-Affton), the version exempting casinos and some bars from the ban is the one that would be put to voters — not the version with fewer exemptions.
Stenger serves a district in which River City Casino will open in 2010. He was the swing voter in all votes on the smoking ban made by the council that night.
WHAT THE PUBLIC SAID
More than 200 people packed the council’s meeting. Of those, at least 30 were Harrah’s Casino employees who had been bused from work. Six of those employees spoke against the ban at the beginning of the meeting, followed by Harrah’s General Manager Michael St. Pierre.
“The facts are clear. We will lose a substantial portion of our revenues,” he said. “We will lay off employees as a result of this.”
Many people speaking for and against the smoking ban said they thought such a ban should have no exemptions, rather than favoring some businesses over others.
“I’d like to talk about fairness,” said Marty Ginsburg, the owner of Sports Page Bar & Grill in Chesterfield, and who has attended many of the council’s meetings concerning a smoking ban.
“If this is supposed to be about health and safety, Ms. Fraser, then why allow smoking in casinos?” he asked. “Give me a level playing field.”
A number of bar owners made a show of force at Tuesday’s meeting, to voice concerns about the potential loss of business if the ban passed. “We are not in favor of putting any of the bills on the ballot that you are considering tonight,” said Jeff Gershman, a spokesman for the Independent Restaurant & Tavern Owners Association of Saint Louis.
“Closing restaurants is not the cure for cancer or any other problem,” said one businessman.
A litany of elected officials from nearby areas spoke as well, all of whom urged the council to put the issue to voters. Brian Fletcher, the mayor of Ferguson, called it an “opportunity to let the citizens decide.” Furthermore, he said, don’t make casinos exempt from the ban. “I don’t hear casinos up here saying give ‘em a vote; you gave us a vote for gambling,” he said.
Of those speaking for a smoking ban, many came from a medical background. Dennis Fuller, an associate professor at Saint Louis University who specializes in speech pathology, said he teaches patients to speak after their tongue, larynx, or voice box has been cut out because of smoking-related cancers. He asked the council, after hearing from many people about property rights and business concerns, “to prioritize those, as stated before, in the public interest of health.”
Robert Blaine, a medical public policy specialist at Washington University, who said he was speaking on behalf of himself and Washington University, said “We encourage the council to keep this issue moving forward.”
One consistent issue was whether the government should intervene in health matters on private property. The message from hospital workers and medical professors was that the government should get involved.
A woman who identified herself as a medical social worker at Missouri Baptist Medical Center said, “It is the role of government at local, state, and federal levels to protect the health of the people.”
Others disagreed. Kelly Owens, a restaurant worker, nonsmoker, and member of Campaign for Liberty, a group that advocates individual liberty, said the issue before the council was not one of health but of choice.
“It is your right to protect private property,” she said. “If you do decide to ban smoking, I would like to know when you will ban everything else that is not good for me.”
Near the end of the two-hour-long public comment session, a school-age girl, the youngest speaker by far, said that she had lost several family members to smoking, but though smoking is harmful, the government shouldn’t ban it.
“The right to property is inalienable,” she said, “as long as an activity is legal on some private property, it should be legal on all private property.”
Jake Smith, who identified himself as a nonsmoker who lives in Maryland Heights, voiced a similar view.
“This has nothing to do with health, and everything to do with property rights,” he said. “What gives four out of seven people the right to infringe on the rights of others?”
An earlier, shorter version of this article was posted Aug. 5 in order to report the council’s action as early as possible. This article expands upon that coverage.