Posted on 08/27/2003 4:11:13 PM PDT by 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.”
Why is it anyone's business besides the business owners?
How about the value of private property rights, and the added value of excluding neurotics from the patronage so that everyone else can enjoy themselves?
Granted, I didn't devote a whole lot of time.
But then, I'm pretty much convinced of Google's political correctness.
To smokers........ a whole bunch, besides what does value have to do with it.
Quit !
If those were voluntary exceptions, I'd say they're pretty reasonable. That's a LOT of places exempt. Any chain restaurant, like Fridays. O'Charley's, Ruby Tuesdays, Outback, is going to sell over $200,000 in retail liquor sales per year, so they're exempt. They don't even have to have a separate vent system. Aunt Ethel's Diner is exempt, because it has fewer than 50 seats, as does any Waffle House. A Ruth Chris' Steak House MIGHT have trouble meeting the volume requirement, but I'd bet most places could slide in under one of those exemptions.
But still, it should be left to the owners of the restaurants to decide.
Michael
If they were voluntary exemptions we wouldn't be having any problems with it.
Quit !
This entire debate isn't about whether smoking is good for you or not. It's about private property rights and how far the government can go taking them away without proof.
Freedom of choice?
Smokers are content to stay out of "no smoking" establishments.
Anti-smokers are not happy with staying out of smoking establishments.
It's not rocket science.
Being tiny and feeling inadequate does not give you license to be a controlling twit.
Quit!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.