P-D 2012-09-15: “St. Charles County Council won’t sue to put its smoking ban package on ballot”

Reminder: For a comment to be considered it must be accompanied by your full name: first name only or a pseudonym is not normally accepted. Please limit your comment to 1,000 characters (including spaces), and also avoid epithets and personal attacks.

RELATED STORIES

St. Charles County Council revisits smoking issue
St. Charles County Council move could limit smoking ban lawsuit
Lawsuit challenges vote on St. Charles County smoking ban
St. Charles Co. smoking ban could be tough or lax, depending on November vote
St. Charles County voters will decide on smoking ban, new county police agency

There’s been plenty of activity in St. Charles County recently, thanks to dueling ballot initiatives from both pro- and anti-smokefree air supporters, the latter supported financially by the Ameristar Casino. The latest twist came in today’s unusual County Council meeting which threw efforts up in the air again. Let’s hope the original two-part ballot proposal finally becomes a reality, although I must say that for once I agree with a St. Louis Post-Dispatch comment posted on-line by Bill Hannegan in which he wrote:

Bill Hannegan

“Veteran Missouri smoking ban advocate Martin Pion and I agree on one thing: public health laws do not belong on the ballot. We both agree that rather than put this issue to a public vote, the St. Charles County Council should decide to what extent public smoking can be tolerated in St. Charles County without gravely threatening public health. I believe smoking can at least be tolerated in “over 21″ workplaces as well as ASHRAE approved smoking rooms. Mr. Pion, in contrast, holds that secondhand smoke is such a health risk no public place can allow indoor smoking. But we both agree that the St. Charles County Council should review relevant information and make a decision. The property rights of St. Charles County businesses should not be subject to the preferences of voters who have not seriously studied this issue.”

What I believe is that nobody should have to be exposed to secondhand smoke to hold a job. Period. Below is the latest article by Post-Dispatch reporter, Mark Schlinkmann:

St. Charles County Council won’t sue to put its smoking ban package on ballot

John Stillman and Kandi Wetzel smoking at Rumples Pub in St. Charles in a 2011 photo by Roy Sykes, Journal.

BY MARK SCHLINKMANN • mschlinkmann@post-dispatch.com > 636-255-7233

ST. CHARLES COUNTY • The County Council won’t go to court to fight Elections Director Rich Chrismer’s removal of a smoking ban package from the Nov. 6 election ballot.
         The council in an unusual Saturday meeting also decided against putting before voters an alternative ban with exemptions for the Ameristar Casino, bars and other facilities.
         The upshot: No smoking restrictions are likely to be on the countywide ballot this year.
         After emerging from 90 minutes of closed sessions, Council Chairwoman Nancy Matheny said the council wouldn’t sue Chrismer because members didn’t want the county taxpayers to pay the legal costs of both sides amid tight finances.
         “The consensus now is we will not proceed with having anything on the ballot,” said Matheny, R-Weldon Spring.
         Then the council voted 6-0 to remove from its agenda the alternative bill lumping a ban with widespread exemptions.

Councilman Joe Cronin, St. Paul

         Councilman Joe Cronin, R-St. Paul, said there remains a way to get the council’s original package on the ballot — getting an anti-smoking group to sue Chrismer.
         “Hopefully a public health organization will come in and enter the fray,” Cronin said.
         Matheny and Cronin said the council’s two-proposition package blocked by Chrismer was the best choice.
         Under that plan, residents would first vote on a countywide ban with no exceptions. A second proposition would exempt any facility where all patrons and employees are over 21; that would cover bars and casino gambling floors. That exemption measure also would apply to private clubs and up to 20 percent of hotel rooms.
         “Voters had the ultimate choice — no regulations, strict regulations or weak regulations,” Cronin said. “Mr. Chrismer effectively took that choice from the citizens of this county and I hope they hold him accountable for that.”
         Chrismer, who wasn’t at the meeting, shot back in a telephone interview. He pointed out that he removed the two proposed county charter amendments because of inconsistent and confusing wording.
         “Maybe if they hadn’t been so sloppy and so quick to try to change the charter … they wouldn’t be in this situation,” he said.
         A clean-up bill to correct the wording errors was introduced Monday but some council members say they expect Chrismer to also cite other objections.
         Cronin also complained that “other entities are trying to dictate the public health policy by lawsuits, I think that’s morally wrong, and I hope the public holds them accountable as well.”
         Sitting a few feet away was Ameristar general manager Jim Franke, who filed suit Tuesday to try to keep the two-question proposition off the ballot.
         “I just don’t think the attacks are appropriate,” Franke said later, adding that the firm went to court “to protect our business” and many employees’ jobs.
         Ameristar and other critics of the two-proposition approach worried that voters might approve the ban but defeat the exemption. Ameristar fears it will lose customers if it goes smoke-free while competing casinos in St. Louis County and St. Louis remain exempt from smoking bans.
         Stacy Reliford, an American Cancer Society official active in a regional anti-smoking coalition, said “voters are going to be disappointed they can’t have a voice on this issue.”
         She said it was too soon to comment in detail on Cronin’s appeal for a private lawsuit. “That’s not really our typical mode of action,” she said.
         Matheny said the smoking ban alternatives could be discussed in closed session because they were related to possible legal action by the council.
         Meanwhile, the council voted in open session to put two other propositions on the ballot if a judge agrees.
         They would change the way council vacancies are filled and modify rules barring county officials from accepting items of value from companies and people having dealings with the county.
         The council previously had lumped the two in one proposition. Chrismer removed it, arguing that mixing two issues ran counter to state law.

5 responses to “P-D 2012-09-15: “St. Charles County Council won’t sue to put its smoking ban package on ballot”

  1. Regarding MOGASP quote “What I believe is that nobody should have to be exposed to secondhand smoke to hold a job. ” I agree, except even now, no one in St. Charles CO must be exposed to SHS to hold a job,, just like no one must be able to lift 50 lbs to hold a job. ( unless, of course, they freely chose to go to work for UPS) No one should be forced to be exposed to the risks of airborn disease exposure either, to hold a job ( unless they freely chose to become a medical worker in an infectious disease ward)

    Theoretically it’s much safer, regardless of your profession, not to work, than to work.

  2. And, adding on to Dave’s comment: Why should anyone “have to be exposed to unnecessary carcinogenic solar radiation to hold a job?” The answer, to be consistent, is that no one should be.

    Such exposure is neither inherent nor necessary to drinking or dining: If you’re going to justify smoking bans on such a basis then, for consistency, you’d have to support banning daytime patio dining. There’s no reason in the world why restaurants can’t serve their customers safely indoors without exposing workers to the hazards of outdoor exposure. Remember: awnings and sunscreen, just like ventilation, only provide *partial* protection.

    The simplest counter to my argument is simply a clear statement that you would be supportive of such a ban out of your concern for those workers. Simply saying “It’s not our issue.” isn’t a strong enough comeback: no one’s asking you to drop your work and campaign for patio-dining bans. I’m simply asking if you would support such an idea in principle.

    – MJM

  3. 2013 Great Depression strikes:

    Former tobacco control smoking cessation specialist degreed in 6 weeks. I am currently seeking employment in my profession or as closely related as can be made. I have recieved notice from my current employer that my services are no longer required due to Government economic cuts.

    It is my understanding that your deptartment is in need of professional marketing strategies in pro-tobacco campaigns.

    As a former task manager of any plan that came to mind,my services should help in growing your companies business and customer base.

    Best regards, Martin Pion
    Former Director of Missouri GASP

    Psst Ive also got a buddy Gene Borio and he is also starving.

    mogasp note: Actual name of writer substituted as required to be considered for approval.

  4. John, I may not support Martin’s views, but I’m pretty sure he’s not getting any “government money” for his work. Gene might be different story though: I think his interview several years ago with Philip Boucher indicated that he’d gotten funding from either TTAC or RWJF or some branch or other of the NicoGummyPatchyPushers, though Martin may know more about the details/truth of that than I do.

    Martin, for the record, at some point soon (or right here if it’s brief enough) why don’t you lay out MoGasp’s financial background? My sense is that it’s more “innocent” than most of the antismoking groups out there. (Heh, not that I’m fonder of all of your efforts….)

    – MJM

    mogasp reply: MoGASP started in 1984 as St. Louis GASP, later changing its name to Missouri GASP as it sought greater reach. The first meeting was in my home, attended by Paul Smith who was seeking financial help with a lawsuit for his efforts to obtain – not a smoke-free workplace – but just some protection from it in his immediate vicinity when he worked at Westinghouse Electric.
    MoGASP’s primary income has been membership dues, apart from a one-time grant from a local private foundation to do a series of nicotine measurements.
    MoGASP stopped collecting dues a few years ago because it proved too time consuming, and our overhead is very low. MoGASP operates out of my home office and whenever I’ve attended council meetings and the like I note my car mileage for my tax return but don’t claim anything from MoGASP. The same has been true for billed long distance phone calls in the past except I didn’t record the time or claim them on my taxes: it was too much trouble.
    After nearly 30 years I’m winding down my MoGASP activities. I think that’s long enough to try and obtain smoke-free air, and fortunately significant progress has been made.

  5. Thanks for sharing the background MoGasp. That was pretty much what I thought the situation was from things you’ve said over the years.

    – MJM

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s