Email
Password
(Forgot Password?)
As more cities ban smoking in restaurants and bars, there is a newer product to the United States that makers claim you can still smoke indoors. It's under fire from cities across the country, the Food and Drug Administration and a metro parent.
If you've been to the mall lately, you may have seen a kiosk selling electronic cigarettes. We've found the kiosks at Independence Center and Oak Park mall.
If you walk past the kiosk at Oak Park, a salesperson will ask if you smoke.
At Smoke51 we were shown a product that closely resembled a real cigarette. It comes with a battery and filter and even comes in flavors.
"There's a heating element that steams water, nicotine, and flavor so you're going to see me blow out smoke but it's actually steam or water vapor," the salesman said.
There are many questions about how this product is marketed.
Jump to full article »
Steve Stenger, the County Council member who insisted that any ban include a casino exemption, said he expected the council to move next year to rescind it.
"With upwards of 65 percent of the people voting in favor of the ban, I think you can see the day coming to phase out that exemption," said Stenger, D-Affton. "Tuesday showed very clearly that most people do not want to be exposed to smoke in any public place."
Stenger predicted that the County Council would take action to eliminate the exemption shortly after the ban takes effect in 2011. If it chose, the council could change the ordinance on its own without submitting it to public vote again. . . .
The city and county exemptions drew attention on many fronts Wednesday.
Those who fought the bans said the casino exemption was unconstitutional, and could be used to invalidate the entire proposition.
At O'Connell's Pub off South Kingshighway, the talk was how to measure a bar's square footage so that it would be protected by the city's five-year exemption for bars under 2,000 square feet.
And in Maplewood, a restaurant owner who opposed the ban is adamantly against exemptions.
Bill Hannegan, an activist against both smoking bans, said opponents met Wednesday with lawyers to discuss ways to overturn them. . . .
And he said his group has discussed an initiative petition to address the most restrictive provisions of the city ban. His group, Keep St. Louis Free, views the city ban as more onerous than the county ban, which has the exemption for bars that make less than 25 percent of their revenue off food.
St. Louis County voters on Tuesday simultaneously made most public places there and in the city smoke-free.
With light turnout -- about 20 percent of the county's 705,000 registered voters -- about two-thirds of them favored Proposition N, which, with some exemptions, bans smoking in public places on Jan. 2, 2011.
The ban applies to the city also because the Board of Aldermen last month approved a similar measure, contingent on county passage. The city ban, including exemptions, also takes effect Jan. 2, 2011.
With the statewide ban in Illinois, Tuesday's vote means that two-thirds of the St. Louis area's population will live in an area that bans smoking in public places.
Meanwhile, Kirkwood voters overwhelmingly passed a separate ban that is more strict than the county's, in that it applies to all bar-restaurants. The county's ban exempts bars that don't sell a lot of food, but does allow municipalities to enact stricter bans. The county's exceptions also include casino gaming floors and the smoking lounges at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport. . . .
Voss predicted that his association would challenge the smoking ban in court. The ban, he said, "is so unfair."
Bill Hannegan, a leading opponent of smoking bans, said he and his supporters soon will consider whether to challenge the constitutionality of the exemption for casinos gaming floors. He called it "special interest" legislation.
Some Kirkwood bar and restaurant owners who fought the last smoking ban proposal there in 2006 did not wage a campaign this time.
"There was no organized opposition in Kirkwood, as far as I know," said
Here's the good news, smokers: You've got over a year to get used to puffing outside.
Voters in St. Louis County have overwhelmingly approved a ban on smoking in restaurants and most other indoor businesses. The vote means that smoke-free legislation approved by St. Louis aldermen -- which was contingent on a similar proposal passing in the county -- will also become law.
Both the county and city prohibitions will not go into effect until January 2011.� And both measures contain plenty of exceptions.
SUMMARY REPORT
GENERAL ELECTION
UNOFFICIAL RESULTS . . .
ST. LOUIS COUNTY-PROPOSITION N
**PROHIBITION OF SMOKING**
(Vote for ) 1
(WITH 479 OF 480 PRECINCTS COUNTED 99.79%)
YES . . . . . . . . . . . . 89,405 65.39
NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . 47,313 34.61
KIRKWOOD-PROPOSITION 1
(WITH 15 OF 15 PRECINCTS COUNTED)
YES . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,628 65.24
NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,466 34.76
SUMMARY REPORT . . .
VOTES PERCENT
PRECINCTS COUNTED (OF 480). . . . . 211 43.96
REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL . . . . . 705,716
BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL. . . . . . . 64,021
VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL . . . . . . 9.07
(WITH 211 OF 480 PRECINCTS COUNTED 43.96%)
YES . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,475 63.55
NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,216 36.45
(WITH 0 OF 15 PRECINCTS COUNTED)
YES . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 72.84
NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 27.16
ST LOUIS COUNTY
PROPOSITION N
SIMPLE MAJORITY
REQUIRED
Shall the Revised Ordinances of St. Louis County be amended by enacting and adding thereto a prohibition of smoking in enclosed public places in St. Louis County, all as set forth in Exhibit A of Ordinance No. 24,105 on file with the St. Louis County Administrative Director and the St. Louis County Board of Election Commissioners?
YES NO
EXCERPT
CITY OF KIRKWOOD
PROPOSITION 1
Shall the city of Kirkwood prohibit smoking in enclosed places of employment and enclosed public places for the purpose of reducing workers and citizens exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke?
With the election four days away, energized supporters and opponents of the Proposition N smoking ban have stepped up their campaigns and picked up more money - with the anti-ban committee thus far outraising supporters but the pro-ban committee picking up endorsements.
And their tactics differ - with supporters relying on electronics, operating a get-out-the-vote telephone and email campaigns , and opponents counting on radio and newspaper advertisements. Both are using rallies to try to attract attention.
Proposition N would ban smoking in most indoor public places. Siginificant exemptions include casino gaming floors, smoking lounges at Lambert Field and small bars.
Opponents of the smoking ban debuted a new radio ad today on KMOX, says Tom Sullivan, spokesperson for the Citizens Against Proposition N. Ads against the ban will continue through Tuesday on KEZK and KSIV.
The ads by Citizens against Proposition N so far have been paid for by Discount Smoke Shops and activist Bill Hannegan. . . .
Charles Gatton, chair of the County Citizens for Cleaner Air, said today that he expected that ExpressScripts to make a significant contribution to supporters of a ban. So far, the largest contribution to that committee has been $10,000 from BJC Healthcare.
With money in its pockets, the anti-ban group sent out a 240,000-piece mailing to voters this week and took out full-color page ads in all four Call newspapers, covering a large part of South County, Sullivan said. Another ad appeared in the St. Louis American.
It's a good time to be a St. Louis County resident who routinely votes. If you like attention and influence, that is.
Both sides in the battle over Proposition N, the county's smoking ban measure, are focusing their last-minute efforts on people who go to the polls -- not just in high-profile election years but also in so-called off years like 2009. With low turnout expected, reaching these voters is crucial for the campaigns.
Then there are the interested observers from St. Louis who will be closely monitoring the election results. The St. Louis Board of Aldermen voted 20-7 last week to approve a smoking ban that is contingent on the county enacting its ban. That means county voters will have the definitive say on the smoking ban issue for much of the region -- at least for now.
In St. Louis County, Ballwin and most recently Clayton have passed indoor smoking bans. (Clayton's ban doesn't kick in until July 2010.) Kirkwood voters will weigh in on Tuesday with Proposition 1. But most eyes will be on the county measure, added to the November ballot after the St. Louis County Council voted 4-3 in late August to bring the proposed smoking ban to voters. . . .
What about costs of this effort? As the Beacon reported this week, relatively little money has been spent on either side. The pro-Proposition N group, County Citizens for Cleaner Air, as of earlier this week reported raising only $12,336, spending $2,502.59, with $9,833.50 on hand. The opposition, Citizens Against Proposition N, reported raising $5,000, spending $11,867, with $104.85 on hand, and a debt of $11,972.
Both sides say they plan to push their campaigning in the final days.
Two sides of a proposed expansion of Maryville’s smoking ban aired their opinions before City Council members Monday night.
The proposal seeks to enact a workplace smoking ban, prohibiting smoking in public places and places of employment. Mayor Chad Jackson said the council sought public opinion as a means of gauging interest in the issue.
Those who favored an ordinance spoke first, led by Teri Harr, health education coordinator and patient advocate at St. Francis Hospital & Health Services.
Ms. Harr, part of a group dubbed Breathe Easy, urged city officials to take action to prevent exposure to secondhand smoke. She said the language would expand an ordinance the council approved in 2003 to ban smoking in restaurants.
Today's meeting was a lesson in how sausage -- and cigarettes -- are made.
As mentioned on this here blog earlier today, the St. Louis Board of Aldermen approved by a 20-7 vote a bill that would prohibit smoking in most bars and restaurants should voters in St. Louis County also approve a smoking ban on November 3.
The nearly-four-hour debate inside the board chambers was one of the longest in memory with aldermen attempting to attach no less than five separate amendments to the bill.
Doing their best to hold up passage of the bill was a block of south city aldermen -- Ken Ortmann (Ward 9), Stephen Gregali (Ward 14) and Stephen Conway (Ward 8) -- who did everything but read out of the telephone book in their attempt to delay a vote.
In the end, though, the bill passed with the addition of one amendment designed to aide small taverns defined as those establishments whose customer space (all areas besides kitchens, bathrooms and storage rooms) measures less than 2,000 square feet. Taverns under that size would have five years to adhere to the ban once it goes into effect.
As it stands now, the city ordinance would become law on January 1, 2011, but only if voters in St. Louis County approve a smoking ban at the ballots on November 3. . . .
The board debate was sparked by much grandstanding and hyperbole, but none more entertaining than a speech by Freeman Bosley Sr. (Ward 3) who explained to his colleagues how tobacco is processed. According to the alderman, tobacco is left to dry in barns where it attracts all types of vermin including "oppossums, rats, waterbugs and cockroaches."
"Then they come up and scoop up all that tobacco and grind it up with the insects and animals in there and then they spray it with formaldehyde," said Bosley. "When you smoke and you hear something pop and crackle in the cigarette, that's rat's eyeballs burning up!"
A proposal to ban smoking in nearly all Marion County workplaces received an endorsement from a City-County Council committee Wednesday night.
The 4-2 vote came after three hours of passionate debate about the importance of public health and the value of personal liberty.
More than 200 people, including bar owners and health professionals, packed the Public Assembly Room at the City-County Building to offer testimony. Proponents donned stickers that said, "Make All Indianapolis Workplaces Smoke Free," while opponents sported tags that said, "Save Indianapolis Bars."
The ordinance, which was introduced to the council earlier this month and has received support from leaders of the city's hospitals, would strengthen an existing ordinance prohibiting smoking in most restaurants and public spaces such as hotel lobbies.
It would extend the ban to currently exempted places such as bars, bowling alleys and private clubs. An amendment passed Wednesday reinstated an exemption for cigar and hookah bars, though licenses to operate those establishments would be capped. . . .
The changes would give Indianapolis a comprehensive ban similar to those in 11 other Indiana communities and 26 states, including Illinois and Ohio.
During the hearing, physicians from the Indiana University School of Medicine made a public health case for the ban, including the need to protect employees in workplaces where smoking is allowed.
Although dozens of laws passed by Missouri lawmakers took effect at midnight Thursday, there's one law that will be delayed for a couple of years -- fire-safe cigarettes.
The measure, passed in the spring, requires cigarettes sold in the state to be near self-extinguishing.
To sell down existing stock, cigarette retailers and wholesalers will have until Jan. 1, 2011, to bring inventory in line with the new law, State Fire Marshall Randy Cole said.
Two fatalities resulted from cigarette-related fires in 2007 in Missouri, Cole said. Another seven were injured and $2.5 million in property damage resulted from cigarette fires the same year. No deaths could be directly attributed to cigarettes that failed to extinguish during the last three years in Boone County, said Gale Blomenkamp, Boone County Fire Protection District division chief. . . .
All states except Wyoming have adopted fire-safe cigarette laws, though 16 states, including Missouri, have delayed implementation until 2010 or 2011, according to the national Coalition for Fire-Safe Cigarettes.
As the patchwork effort to ban smoking in most indoor public places continues across the region, the battle could be moving to the ballot box. And while some supporters of the smoke-free campaign say that taking the issue to voters is the next logical step, others who favor the smoking restrictions, as well as many who don't, argue that these votes are unnecessary.
The latest development came Tuesday, as the St. Louis County Council voted 4-3 in favor of giving county residents a chance to decide whether they want to ban smoking in indoor public places, with the biggest exceptions being "drinking establishments" where alcohol makes up at least 75 percent of sales, casino floors and designated airport lounges.
County Executive Charlie Dooley signed the bill Friday, and the council now needs to obtain a court order to put it on the ballot for a countywide election on Nov. 3.
"I would prefer a statewide ban, but at the same time I recognize that St. Louis County voters, on a very important health issue, want to be heard on this," Dooley said at a press conference. He added that "I believe the perfect solution to this would be no exemptions," but said that "the bill is the best [the council] can do...It's not perfect but it is what it is." Dooley didn't indicate whether he would campaign for the bill. . . .
It's been well over a month since Clayton passed its smoking ban, which covers most indoor public places and goes into effect in July 2010. Ballwin already has its ban on the books. The fight has now moved to Wildwood and Kirkwood.
The Wildwood City Council is considering whether to move forward with its proposed smoking ban that covers bars and restaurants, including areas within 20 feet of outdoor seating or serving areas of the eateries. . . .
Meanwhile, St. Louis aldermen will again take up a proposed citywide smoking ban in bars and restaurants after returning next month from recess. That ban would only take effect if St. Louis County passes its own prohibition.
The major voluntary health agencies and Tobacco Free Missouri have just aired ads on KMOX Radio in opposition to the smoke-free air bill which was approved on August 25. The aim is to persuade St. Louis County Executive, Charlie Dooley, to veto it and push for a stronger bill with no significant exemptions. Below is their press release. . . .
The American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, American Heart Association, and Tobacco Free Missouri are extremely disappointed that the St. Louis County Council has voted to send a confusing and badly flawed smoke-free proposal to the ballot. We oppose the proposal because it does not fully protect the public’s right to breathe smoke-free air, makes enforcement unworkable, and unfairly pits business against business. We now call on County Executive Dooley to reject this ordinance in its current form and to ask the Council to start over with a more deliberative process that yields meaningful health protection for St. Louis County.
We hoped the Council would send an ordinance to the people that would do what it was intended to do – truly protect workers and patrons from secondhand smoke, in a way that is easy for people to understand and easy to enforce. We thank the many residents who voiced their support for a strong and comprehensive measure that covers all workplaces, including bars and restaurants and urge everyone to continue the fight for smoke-free air.
Instead, the Council has passed a proposal that compromises the health of those employees and patrons most exposed to secondhand smoke. Smoke-free ordinances are intended to protect employees and customers of all businesses, not just some. Under this proposal, bars will be able to obtain a license from the county to allow smoking. In effect, this will give bars a county-issued license to harm the health of its employees and customers.
Additionally, the proposal contains ten loopholes and many flaws in the language. And as we have seen in many other communities, this leads to confusion and can create expensive enforcement issues and potential legal challenges.
The evidence is clear: In the end, a weak ordinance ends up compromising the health of workers and the public, offers false reassurance, and stands in the way of future efforts. With the abundant science about the dangers of secondhand smoke, exemptions for certain workplaces are no longer acceptable.