Springfield MO joins the "smoke free"

Log in

SmokingPipes.com Updates

New Cigars




PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

Status
Not open for further replies.

simpledesign

Might Stick Around
Mar 31, 2011
91
1
Anit-smoking bill was passed today making Springfield, MO a "smoke free" city.
(Springfield, MO) -- Voters in Springfield have passed an ordinance to make all businesses in the city smoke-free.
On Tuesday, the proposed "Question 2" on the ballot (official wording below), passed. 53.35 percent (11,201) voted "yes" while 48.29 percent (9,795) voted "no."
The smoking ban makes lighting up illegal in Springfield inside any enclosed business or private club. Smokers can't take a drag within five feet of a playground, and smoking will only be allowed in fewer than a quarter of hotel rooms.
Supporters of the ban say it's a public health issue.
"I don't feel like anybody is going to go out of business," said Melanie Donnell, who is a supporter of the ban. "I feel like in this day and age there is a lot more non-smoking community than there is a smoking community."
The other side focused on the rights of consumers and businesses, noting the ordinance will close up shop on a lot of jobs.
"So you're going to be talking about a loss of revenue right off the bat. For anybody to say that there's not an economic impact, they're wrong," said Dave Myers, a coordinator for Live Free Springfield.
Live Free Springfield did a lot of last-minute campaigning against the proposed smoking ban at a few locations Tuesday, being outspent by about five-to-one.
"[I'm] disappointed for the citizens of Springfield," said Myers Tuesday night, following the ban's official approval. "I've been on the phone for hours and hours, yesterday alone, so I've been talking a lot."
Supporters spent time the last few days putting up signs and door hangars.
"We've just been getting out and talking to voters and reminding them to vote and just passing out our information and literature," said Carrie Reynolds, spokesperson for Clean Air Springfield.
Organizers for Live Free Springfield say this is about jobs. They know of several businesses planning to file injunctions to sue the city now that it's passed.
The City of Springfield would then make a filing in court and would be responsible to defend a vote of the people.
A city spokesman didn't provide specifics on how much this would cost, but the legal proceedings would require staff time and resources to prepare.
The ordinance states that the ban will go into effect 60 days after adoption.
The Health Department will enforce the ban, informing the public, offering resources and information during the transition period and assisting businesses as they work toward compliance.
This will be a combination of regular inspections, like usual and customary restaurant inspections, as well as a complaint-based enforcement system.
Statement released by Clean Air Springfield:
“Today, because of the dangers posed to the health of our entire community, Springfield residents voted to limit exposure to secondhand smoke. This victory stems from a citizen-led initiative petition and results in smokefree work environments and indoor public places in Springfield.
Unlike many other personal behaviors, smoking impacts more than the person making the choice. The U.S. Surgeon General has stated that ‘there is no risk free level of secondhand smoke.’ It’s a proven cause of serious health problems, including lung cancer, heart disease and asthma – even in non-smokers.
As we move forward in the coming days, we are firmly committed to working with the appropriate officials and groups on implementation activities to ensure citizens and business owners understand the law and can comply fully. We look forward to June, when everyone in Springfield will be able to breathe smokefree indoor air in public places and at work.
Tonight, we celebrate historic progress for the city of Springfield – a moment when citizens came together to ensure their right to basic health protection from secondhand smoke.”
"Question 2" Wording:
[Shall the City of Springfield, Missouri prohibit smoking in enclosed public places, places of employment, private clubs, within five feet of outdoor playgrounds and within five feet of outside entrances, operable windows, and ventilation systems of enclosed areas where smoking is prohibited, and exempt the following places from smoking prohibition: a) private residences, unless such residence is used as a child care, adult day care, or healthcare facility; b) not more than 25 percent of the hotel or motel rooms rented to guests as smoking rooms; and c) outdoor areas of places of employment; providing for the imposition of a fine of $50 per violation for any person violating said ordinance by smoking, upon a finding of guilt or admission of guilt; upon a finding of guilt or admission of guilt, providing for fines ranging from $100-$500 per day against the owner, operator, manager or any agent who controls a public place or place of employment or any business, and allows smoking to occur on the premises; providing for revocation of any license or permit issue to the business or public place that permits such violations; requiring that businesses and public places place signage advising of the prohibition on smoking?]

 

hobie1dog

Lifer
Jun 5, 2010
6,888
233
67
Cornelius, NC
I get to watch us gradually reach a "police state" and the end of mankind. Sex will soon be banished as there is a health hazard issue(could get VD), and then there are the religious issues...boy ole boy, it's gonna get shitty.

 

hilojohnny

Lifer
Oct 2, 2010
1,607
0
I cannot believe the pervasive idiocy that runs rampant in this country....I have blood shooting out of my eyes!.... :crazy:

 

wizbang

Might Stick Around
Mar 4, 2011
67
0
This worries me. I live in St. Charles MO and I would be heart broken if that hapened here. My sister (a cigarette smoker) would be pissed lol.

 

simpledesign

Might Stick Around
Mar 31, 2011
91
1
well apparently it's already happened in Columbia and KCMO.....so I guess I would start rallying the troops

 

papipeguy

Lifer
Jul 31, 2010
15,778
35
Bethlehem, Pa.
The law suits will cost the city $thousands. Tax revenue will be down. Jobs will be in jeopardy. And all for what? Cleaner air? Follow a bus sometime. Helping those who don't want their brand of help? Ban sugar, salt and other food additives?

This makes me sick to my stomach. Most, if not all, pipe smokers I know are considerate of their surroundings and this stuff has to stop.

Write your representatives and reclaim your rights. Just sitting by idly will empower the Pleasure Nazis and they'll take as much ground as they can.

 

nativeson

Might Stick Around
Sep 24, 2010
57
0
A lot of the problem here is the Sugeron General. There is no risk free level of second hand smoke???? Nor is there one for gasoline fumes, x-rays, alcohol, bug spray, or mercury. But there are SAFE levels. OSHA even has a safe level of second hand smoke for work places, I think. The Surgeon General should be ashamed for misleading the people with this "risk free" red herring. Clean Air Springfield should publically appologise for using such dis-information to steal rights and privledges from their fellow citizens by lableing them an immanent threat to the health of those same FELLOW citizens.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.