2012-09-22 P-D: “Anti-smoking activist sues to put smoking ban back on St. Charles Co. 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.

This story made page A2 of today’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch, keeping the secondhand smoke issue on the front burner. The Ameristar Casino is evidently not sitting on its hands, acting once again to try and head off a public vote on this issue. Let’s hope the judge ruling on this next Tuesday will do the right thing, despite the howls of protest expected from opponents of smoke-free indoor air.

Anti-smoking activist sues to put smoking ban back on St. Charles Co. ballot

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

ST. CHARLES COUNTY • An anti-smoking activist launched a last-ditch legal push Friday to return a countywide smoking ban package to the Nov. 6 ballot.

Don Young at a St. Charles County Council meeting in November 2011, with the electrolarynx he uses to talk.
Photo: Martin Pion

         Don Young, a throat cancer survivor and former smoker, filed suit in St. Charles County Circuit Court to try to force County Elections Director Rich Chrismer to put the two-proposition package back on the ballot.
         Circuit Judge Ted House set a hearing for Tuesday morning on the issue. Tuesday also is the last day under state law that a judge can add something to the ballot.
         The suit was filed following County Councilman Joe Cronin’s suggestion last week that a public health group should go to court on behalf of the propositions after the council declined to sue Chrismer. Young, of St. Charles, didn’t say Friday whether any such group was helping to pay his legal fees.
         The council voted Aug. 27 to put the two questions on the ballot, but Chrismer refused to do so, citing inconsistent and confusing wording. Young asserted in his suit that Chrismer has a “clear legal duty” to follow the council’s directive and is “unilaterally denying voters the right to vote” on the measures.
         Chrismer insists that he has such authority.
         Meanwhile, Troy Stremming, an Ameristar Casino executive, said his company plans to press its contention at the court hearing that the Council’s propositions are legally flawed. Ameristar and a bowling alley owner had filed suit against the ballot plan prior to Chrismer’s action.
         Under the council’s plan, residents in November would first vote on a countywide ban on smoking in enclosed public places and workplaces 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. The same measure would exempt private clubs and up to 20 percent of rooms in a hotel.
         Ameristar officials and other critics of the council’s approach worry that voters might approve the ban but defeat the exemptions.
         The council chairwoman said the council didn’t want to sue another county official because taxpayers would have to pay legal bills for both sides. The council will consider on Monday night a bill to correct the wording inconsistencies cited by Chrismer.
         If a judge overrules Chrismer, it’s unclear who would pay the $300,000-plus cost of reprinting the countywide ballots.

2 responses to “2012-09-22 P-D: “Anti-smoking activist sues to put smoking ban back on St. Charles Co. ballot”

  1. Is any of the federal grant money Young Choices Inc. received in 2010 being used to fund this legal challenge? If so, that is a violation of federal law.

  2. As I may have noted here before, I’d be at least *relatively* comfortable with a ban vote if at least one of two conditions were met:

    1) It was voted on only by the workers who are being used as the lynchpin for pushing it (since there is virtually NO evidence that today’s diluted exposures would have any effect on casual patrons.) (There’s actually none for the workers either, but most people think there is.)

    and/or

    2) There was a six month “level playing field” on all the media input on the issue that the population was exposed to by groups against and for smoking bans: TV ads, show plotlines, press releases, etc. See Lie #2 at TheTruthIsALie.com to get an idea of what that might entail.

    – 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