Email
Password
(Forgot Password?)
After reading your editorial in the April 25 edition, I implore you to correct and clarify the statements made about the Pershing smoking policy. Your editorial asked “someone” to listen to students. In fact, we listened: to the many residents who asked us remedy the situation, which we did and have already been thanked for doing so; . . .
Only after repeated efforts to address the problem through encouragement, education and requests for actual enforcement of the UMHC smoking policy proved ineffective did we decide on this restriction. For clarification, “the administration” for MU and UMHC are NOT the same. The UMHC administration bears responsibility for hospital employees but although under not any duty to do so, Residential Life (which reports to the MU administration) is providing a smoking area in our efforts to be “good neighbors.” Through this policy, we are finding a way to both provide space for our residents who smoke — picnic tables in the courtyard — while still honoring the requests of those students who do not smoke. Lastly, the conspiracy theory about a subversive attempt to pilot a campus-wide smoking ban is inventing news, not reporting it.
Jump to full article »
Fullerton College passed a ban for students earlier this month, but it's is only the latest among dozens of two-year schools around the country now nixing tobacco on campus. Even one community college in North Carolina - epicenter of the tobacco industry - is in the process of going smoke-free.
"California is leading the nation, definitely," said Kimberlee Homer Vagadori, college project coordinator for the California Youth Advocacy Network. "We have a lot more campuses and a lot more work to be done."
Unsurprisingly, many smokers are skeptical if not downright hostile to the changes.
"People who want to smoke are going to do it anyway," Fullerton College student Melissa Baker, 19, said. . . .
Around the country, other colleges from Maine to New Jersey to Missouri are also becoming smoke-free.
"The tobacco-free campus movement is real and is changing the way community college students, faculty and staff are thinking about a healthy campus environment," said Ty Patterson, vice president of student services at Ozarks Technical Community College in Springfield, Missouri. . . .
The American Cancer Society publishes a how-to guide for campuses that want to prohibit smoking. Among the recommendations: Find students to spearhead the effort. Phase it in slowly. Combine it with stop-smoking programs.
There's a hierarchy of non-smoking campuses. In California, for example, nearly 40 of the 110 community colleges require outdoor smoking to be limited to designated areas.
Other schools ban smoking on the main campus but permit it in parking lots
A big part of Kansas City's bar culture may soon go up in smoke.
Some pool players are looking for pool tables in other places because of the city's new smoking ordinance, which will ban smoking at bars and restaurants.
Rob Blair, co-owner of the Peppermill Bar and Grill in south Kansas City, said the smoking ban will kill a major part of his business -- pool leagues.
"It's huge. It's what this bar is built on. We're not a pool hall, we're a neighborhood bar and grill, but our pool tables are our biggest draw," Blair told KMBC's Jere Gish.
On Tuesday, Missouri received a $146 million payment as a part of the agreement. In all, the Show Me State has received $1.4 billion from the Master Settlement Agreement over the last decade, according to the attorney general's office.
Nixon, a Democrat, said in a statement that his state has little to show for the money that has flowed from tobacco companies into state coffers.
Money from the Master Settlement Agreement, he said, has not resulted in "substantial resources into programs to keep Missourians, especially young people, from taking up the smoking habit or to help them kick the habit once they're hooked."
"The Iowa and Kansas City victories add to the growing momentum across the country and around the world to protect all workers and the public from the serious health hazards of secondhand smoke," William Corr, executive director of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said in a statement after the votes.
The Kansas City ordinance was largely citizen-led, a clear rebuke to a City Council measure that took effect in late March. That measure allowed smoking in bars at all hours and in restaurants with liquor licenses after 9 p.m.
"This was not a government initiative but a citizen one," said City Council member Cathy Jolly. "The people of Kansas City voted to protect their own health, and that is very exciting."
Missouri received an additional $146 million from tobacco companies on Tuesday as the state's payment from the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement.
The MSA was a deal struck between leading tobacco companies and state attorneys general who had been suing the companies for years trying to recover government costs associated with people who became ill from smoking or tobacco-related illnesses.
With Tuesday's payment to Missouri's coffers, the Show Me State has received nearly $1.4 billion in the past 10 years.
If anyone got singed in last week's smoking ban election, it was the Big Tobacco/small business alliance and those who saw the issue as a struggle over private business rights. In a free market, that is, where do you draw the line? . . .
To set a campaign-blurred record straight, the tobacco company contributed to the smoking ban campaign only after being asked to by local businesspeople, who were upfront about doing so with the media. They went to Reynolds because smoking-ban proponents dealt the casinos out of the bill to keep them from contributing to the campaign against it. . . .
"There has not been a lot of successful rollbacks of smoking bans," Singleton says. "There've been a few -- one of the first I can remember was Beverly Hills. One of the reasons there haven't been more is these small businesses are hit hard by a smoking ban, and sometimes they go out of business pretty quickly. So they're not around to fight. The other reason is they don't have a lot of resources as small businesses for prolonged legislative fights."
Now that Kansas City voters have made their decision on a comprehensive smoking ban, leaders in neighboring North Kansas City are prepared to revisit the issue.
Mayor Gene Bruns said Monday that he planned to bring the smoking ban issue up for discussion at Tuesday night's City Council meeting. (The Neighborhood News was printed before the meeting)
In late 2006, the council considered a smoking ban in all public places but backed off after several North Kansas City restaurant and bar owners voiced opposition. They contended that a smoking ban would drive away customers.
Kansas City voted this week to make its bars and restaurants smoke-free, joining Ballwin, Columbia and a handful of other Missouri cities that have done the same in recent years.
Illinois joined at least two dozen states when a statewide ban took effect in January.
With all this action on the smoking front, can St. Louis be far behind? . . .
But a smoke-free future in this smoke-friendly city could be a long way off. Aldermen here say they won't ban smoking in restaurants unless St. Louis County does the same. A proposed smoking ban there went down in flames in 2006.
"St. Louis has the most dedicated opposition to a smoking ban than any city in the country," said Bill Hannegan, head of Keep St. Louis Free, a group that formed in 2005 to help defeat the proposed St. Louis County ban.
Since the early 1990s, when city government buildings went smoke-free, little has happened to advance a smoke-free policy for restaurants and bars.
Opponents in St. Louis, like those in cities around the state and country, have long said that smoking bans would hurt businesses, particularly small neighborhood bars. Two city aldermen are themselves pub owners.
"Die-hard smokers want to smoke when they drink," said Mario Mazzola, manager of Famous Bar on Chippewa Street, which sells cigarettes and cigars behind the bar. "It would definitely hurt our business."
Opponents of a ban point to recent research showing that business at bars in Columbia, Mo., dropped 11 percent after a smoke-free policy took effect there.
Tuesday’s vote in Kansas City to ban smoking from bars and restaurants wasn’t the only smoke-free action yesterday. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids put out a press release highlighting the Kansas City vote along with a vote by the Iowa Legislature.
According to the release, Iowa Governor Chet Culver has indicated he will sign the Iowa legislation into law, making Iowa the 24th state to pass a strong smoke-free law that includes restaurants and bars. The law will take effect July 1.
Here's what happens when a mayor and City Council with true courage are in charge of laws on smoking: They ban it on the gambling floors of casinos. No, not in KC, in Atlantic City.
Yes, one of the leading gambling hot spots in the nation soon will have smoke-free gaming floors.
Go here for the full report.
Update: Just to show that The Star is not the only "nanny" around, here's the editorial from the Philadelphia Inquirer on the casino smoke-free law.
The Atlantic City action puts to shame the weakness showed by KC Mayor Mark Funkhouser and the City Council. They exempted casinos from the city's current smoking ban.
Kansas City voters go to the polls Tuesday to decide whether or not to impose a smoking ban. It's a petition-driven initiative that proposes banning smoking in public places, like restaurants and bars, while excluding casino gaming floors and the concourses of the Truman Sports Complex. But what about people who perform in bars, like musicians? KCUR's Laura Spencer reports. (5 min)
The Iowa Legislature and Kansas City, Missouri, voters on Tuesday delivered victories for health and the public's right to breathe clean air by enacting measures to make most workplaces, including restaurants and bars, smoke-free. Governor Chet Culver has indicated he will sign the Iowa legislation into law, making Iowa the 24th state to pass a strong smoke-free law that includes restaurants and bars. The law will take effect July 1.
Kansas City voters, by 52 to 48 percent, approved a ballot initiative requiring that workplaces, including restaurants and bars, be smoke-free beginning in two months. Kansas City voters rejected a deceptive campaign against the initiative that was funded almost entirely by the R.J. Reynolds tobacco company, which contributed more than $200,000 to the losing effort.
The Iowa and Kansas City victories add to the growing momentum across the country and around the world to protect all workers and the public from the serious health hazards of secondhand smoke. . . .
Iowa joins 23 other states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico in passing smoke-free laws that cover restaurants and bars. . . .
A growing number of countries have also passed nationwide smoke-free laws, including Bermuda, Bhutan, France, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, the United Kingdom and Uruguay.
By a narrow margin, the controversial smoking ban has passed in Jackson County. The ban was approved by voters 52 to 48 percent. That means smoking is banned in all enclosed spaces in the city including bars, restaurants and businesses.
The new ban will replace the one that went into effect on March 24 that allowed smoking in bars and in restaurants after 9 p.m. Smoking will also be allowed on casino gaming floors, that is until neighboring cities issue their own bans. Smoking at the Truman Sports Complex won't change much because smoking has already been limited there. . . .
Many Kansas City restaurants and bars asked patrons to vote no on Question Three. But former City Council member Alvin Brooks said when it comes to this issue, voters are aware of the health risks and want to have cleaner air.
It’s time to do the right thing, Kansas City. Which ever way you intend to vote on Question 3 please don’t forget the local business person who will be most affected.
In my opinion, voting NO on question 3 is the right vote. The existing city council law is more than a fair compromise and would remain in effect if we vote NO. Don’t be afraid that the city will look stupid to other cities as one writer suggests. Who’s eyes will we look stupid in, New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco. Do we really care what they think?
However if you insist on imposing your will upon the small business local bar and restaurant owners and inflicting financial harm on them (and they will be harmed) then you should be ready to patronize them when the smoke clears.