People Ban: MO Columbia/Boone County page 2

City council sets meeting to discuss smoking ban

September 08, 2006
Michael Sewall

The public smoking ban in Columbia is a step closer to consideration by the City Council.

The Columbia City Council met Tuesday and approved a public hearing on Oct. 5 about the proposed smoking ordinance. Unless further investigation is required, the council will most likely vote on the smoking ordinance following the public hearing Oct. 5, city spokeswoman Toni Messina said.

“The council members felt it was an important issue that many people would want to talk about,” Messina said. “They didn’t want to cut anyone’s time short.”

The proposed ordinance would prohibit smoking in public bars, restaurants and other institutions in Columbia. The ordinance would also ban smoking in outdoor patios.

During the past year and a half, there has been much debate in response to the proposed ban. Coalitions pleading both sides of the argument have raised awareness and attended public hearings regarding the issue to argue their own positions.

One of those coalitions, the Boone Liberty Coalition (BLC), issued a position paper on the proposed smoking ordinance on June 9. The paper briefly outlined four main oppositions to the ban and provided recommendations for better solutions. The first of the four points discussed freedom of choice.

The coalition’s stance, according to the paper, is that employees and customers are able to choose where to work and patronize.

“Smoking is a bad choice, but it is (an individual’s) choice,” said John Dupuy, co-founder of the BLC.

Dupuy said the more civil liberties that are given up to the government means more control over your life.

That argument loses significance because of other approved government regulations on business, said Dean Andersen, co-chair of the Boone County Coalition on Tobacco Concerns.

Anderson said employee protection laws regarding lead, mercury and asbestos are similar to a smoking ban.

“We regulate business all the time when it is in better interest of the public,” he said.

The second part of the position paper states that the free market is working to remove smoking from businesses. A survey taken by the BLC shows nearly two-thirds of restaurants in Columbia already voluntarily ban indoor smoking. If the trend continues, more than 80 percent of restaurants could be smoke-free in five years.

Despite a vast selection of restaurants to frequent, Andersen felt that the health of employees is just as important as customers and those who work in smoke-free areas.

“People have had to quit their job because of secondhand smoke,” he said. “People shouldn’t have to choose between their job and being exposed to second-hand smoke.”

Economic impacts of a smoking ban have also been heavily discussed. Dupuy said he believes that after contacting restaurant and lodging associations, they are definitely on his side and see the ban as a property rights issue.

On the other hand, Andersen said he thinks there are many businesses that want to go smoke-free but do not want to upset their customer base.

“Many business owners want the city to take care of the ban so they don’t have to appear as the bad guy,” he said.

But, as Dupuy puts it, the restaurant business is a truly competitive industry.

“A restaurant owner is basically an entertainer,” he said. “You do what the customers want.”

Finally, the issue of health risks is addressed on the position paper. Both Andersen and Dupuy agree smoking is unsafe but want different solutions to the problem. Dupuy offered alternative solutions to public smoking, such as furthering education on the harms of secondhand smoke. He said it was a bad answer to simply take away rights.

“The smoking industry is evil,” Dupuy said. “But you do not want to fight evil with evil.”

---

Columbia Consider Extensive Smoking Ban

July 17, 2006
Bob Priddy

Columbia’s city council takes a look at an ordinance tonight that would ban smoking in most public areas, including outdoor arenas and outdoor patios. One member of the city board of health who voted against sending the idea to the council says it’s a private property issue, and that people who expose themselves to second-hand smoke do so willingly in the places where the ordinance proposes to ban smoking. The head of the board says the ordinance is in the public’s best interest.

---

July 10, 2006
By David W. Kuneman

Today, on the news, 5 kids have been reported drowned at Castlewood State Park. One kid got sucked into a river current, and some of the other kids tried to save him.

A few days ago, the news reported that Coast Guard statistics find our Lake of the Ozarks has more recreational accidents/ square mile of water than any other body of water in the US. And further, even in absolute numbers, the only body of water under Coast Guard control with more accidents is the Atlantic Ocean.

Every few years, we see a report of someone drowning in a motel swimming pool.

We have accidents and deaths from snow skiing, and ice fishing, too, all in public places where the public is allowed to go.

We have accidents at dirt track motocross events open to the public, which cause injury, but I don’t recall if anyone has ever died.

Sports athletes have been injured and some have died, here in Missouri.

The point is, it’s legal for people to assemble under the First Amendment and participate in these kinds of risky activities even though statistics show they can result in injury and death. And unlike secondhand smoke studies, there are no studies finding going swimming does not elevate your risk of drowning, for example.

There are no studies finding those who do not go ice fishing are just as likely to fall through the ice, go into shock, and drown, as those who do.

And there are no studies finding those who do not go snow skiing are just as likely to run into a tree, and die from substantial internal injuries, like Sonny Bono did.

And our health departments know these cause risk of injury and death, but do not cry out for banning swimming at our public parks, or closing all motel swimming pools, banning motocross, ice fishing, or closing the Lake of the Ozarks to all recreational traffic and water skiing. We could reduce injury and death among our young, if we banned all scholastic sports.

Why?, because we don’t have pressure groups trying to intervene in these risky activities.

While, increasingly, our lawmakers are trying to stop someone from going into a bar or restaurant where smoking is allowed.

If it’s OK to risk your life or health on these other recreational activities I have just made examples out of, it should be OK to go into a bar or restaurant where someone is smoking too, …if that’s what you want to do for recreation.

And if it’s OK for our state to operate a facility which has just again been shown to cause death when kids go there for recreation, then it’s OK for an owner to operate a smoking facility where people can go for recreation.

These smoking ban fights we get into are the height of hypocrisy. If our lawmakers insist of protecting us from secondhand smoke, then under the 14th Amendment, ( equal protection) they have a duty to protect us from all other risky behaviors we willingly engage in too. They can’t have it both ways.

David W. Kuneman Webpage
http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/

(c) Copyright 2006 The Smoker’s Club, Inc. Please repost with link back to this original article.

---

Baseless stats don’t prove secondhand smoke’s harm
June 27, 2006

Editor, the Tribune: The proposed smoking ban submitted to the Columbia City Council by the local health board has drawn considerable comments, pro and con. Probably the most flagrant violation of reality is the myth of secondhand smoke, ballyhooed by uninformed and agenda-driven proponents of smoking abolition.

The University of Missouri “Coalition” and others paid former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders to address fewer than 150 people from the Columbia area on smoke-related topics. She quoted statistics of 53,000 people dying from secondhand smoke each year in the United States. There was no documentation, no proof, just arbitrary numbers. Another writer wrote 1,200 Missourians die of secondhand smoke every year. No proof, just numbers. Questions for all: What are the signs, symptoms and treatment for secondhand-smoke inhalation? How many death certificates can these experts produce that state secondhand smoke as cause of death?

A challenge for coalition supporters: Produce a certified physician at the public hearing of the city council who can produce documented evidence that secondhand smoke leads to serious injury or death. No suppositions, no distant experts, no whiny testimony, just factual documentation. I would submit this is not possible. Ask any physician to provide written diagnosis of illness or injury from secondhand smoke, sans autopsy, and have it published by the Tribune.

Most people who say smoking bans do not affect businesses do not own businesses that permit smoking. Those who own businesses can choose to ban smoking without expert help from the government or coalitions.

Gary Wineteer
2800 W. North Shore Lane

---

Strike up the ban
June 11, 2006

St. Louis Post-Dispatch and other antismoking groups call for more bans in Missouri “Strike up the Ban”

Particularly upsetting were the remarks by Stan Cowan “Can you show me in the Constitution where they have the right to smoke,” said Stan Cowan, program coordinator for the tobacco use prevention program, Missouri Department of Health. “It’s not a constitutional prerogative to smoke in the presence of others and force them to breathe in that air. People do have a right to clean air.”

David W. Kuneman, Director of Research for the Smokers Club wonders which part of the Constitution Mr. Cowan is referring to: ” I don’t see where the Constitution guarantees anyone the right to smoke-free air either. I do see where the Constitution guarantees any owner the right to associate with smokers, smokers have the right to assemble on private property, and smokers and owners have the right to demonstrate the common belief smoke does not harm nonsmokers.” Kuneman goes on to say, “What this article frames as a negative attribute of Missouri, I find to be a positive one. For the most part, Missourians still respect people with different attitudes towards smoking.”

---

May 31, 2006

Editor, the Tribune: Kevin Gamble’s snide and condescending call for a smoking ban for the good of public health begs us to return “to the present day and the present issue.”

OK. Smoking is legal today in known places that are visited by customers who are aware that smoking takes place on the premises. If you do not wish to patronize – something you seem to be good at – these places, then don’t go to them.

Buck up, buddy. I don’t go to the local vegetarian restaurant and ask for steak. Go to any of the myriad of smoke-free restaurants that cater to your needs. Leave me to mine.

One of the “quaint historical ideas” you wish us all to relinquish is freedom of choice. You seem to believe you must have total access to all establishments to fulfill your sense of freedom. Why should your opinion supersede everyone else’s common-sense approach that provides choice to all?

Every time I hear from a self-righteous crusader who knows best for all, my blood pressure spikes to unsafe levels. Should I demand a public ban of your opinion “for the public health?”

No, I’ll just buck up. It’s the price paid for living in a republic based upon the freedom of choice.

David Hemmann
2100 Woodlea Drive

---

Smoking ban splits council

May 28, 2006
LEE LOGAN

Opponents of the proposed smoking ban may need only to persuade one more member of the City Council to stop legislation prohibiting smoking in most public places.

Three council members either oppose the ban or have concerns about the effects of the legislation. The good news for ban supporters is that there are a number of undecided members on the board.

At the June 5 meeting, the council will hear a report from the Columbia/Boone County Board of Health about the ban, which would prohibit smoking in bars, restaurants, bingo halls, bowling alleys and seating areas in arenas. Last month, the board added outdoor patios to the list.

All of the council members interviewed said that though they had not seen the Board of Health’s proposed ordinance, they had opinions on the issue.

Fourth Ward Councilman Jim Loveless said he hasn’t made up his mind, but has concerns about the ordinance.

“I would very much like to see all venues where the public can go visit be smoke-free,” Loveless said. “I just struggle with whether or not the city council should mandate that change.”

Fifth Ward councilwoman Laura Nauser said she is opposed to the ban.

“We have so many regulations in our life,” Nauser said. “I just feel it should be taken care of in the marketplace.”

During his March election campaign, Second Ward Councilman Chris Janku said he probably wouldn’t vote for the proposal. Janku was unavailable for further comment.

At least one member, Sixth Ward Councilwoman Barbara Hoppe, has publicly supported the ban. After attending a speech by former U.S. Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders in Columbia, Hoppe told the Missourian she finalized her decision. She said Elders’ speech reinforced her belief that businesses would not lose money from the ban and it would not violate smokers’ civil liberties.

Other council members haven’t taken as strong of a stand. First Ward Councilwoman Almeta Crayton said she doesn’t have any feelings either way and wants to hear all the arguments before making a decision.

Third Ward Councilman Bob Hutton said he is also undecided.

“My feelings are that I can go either way,” Hutton said, “which is putting me on the head-hunters list for both sides.”

Hutton said that in making a decision he will weigh individual property rights, the effects of secondhand smoke and the role of employees. Hutton said he would be comfortable with the council voting on the ban or sending the issue to the voters.

Nauser said she is unsure about how the council will handle the proposal because it has not yet discussed the issue as a council. The council’s next meeting is at 7 p.m. June 5 at the Daniel Boone City Building, 701 E. Broadway.

---

By LEE LOGAN
May 26, 2006

If you ask members of the Boone Liberty Coalition, Columbia doesn’t need a smoking ban ­— most restaurants will prohibit smoking within the next several years anyway.

The coalition, which opposes the proposed ordinance that would ban smoking in most public places, conducted a study that polled more than 220 Columbia restaurants. The study showed that in the past three years, the number of nonsmoking restaurants has increased by 11 percent.

At that rate, more than 80 percent of Columbia restaurants would be nonsmoking in five years. Coalition member John Dupuy said this would leave a small niche market that would cater to the smoking population. He said the figure makes sense because roughly 80 percent of Columbia residents don’t smoke.

“It’s reasonable to assume that, given enough time and enough public awareness, most restaurants will become nonsmoking,” Dupuy said. He said that if the trend doesn’t continue in the next few years, the City Council would always have the option of looking at the issue again.

David Sohl, a member of the Columbia/Boone County Board of Health, said he hasn’t read the study. If it’s accurate, he said, the City Council should pass the ban rather than contest the inevitable.

Sohl said much of the board’s conversation during debate on the bill centered on employee health, but it also took financial concerns into account.

“Any time you go and buy something, healthcare costs go into that,” Sohl said. Employees who suffer problems from secondhand smoke drive up that cost, and restaurant owners pass it on to consumers, he said.

Dupuy said restaurant workers would not be affected because as nonsmoking restaurants increase, it would be harder to find a job at a restaurant that allows smoking. He also said many restaurant workers jump from job to job anyway.

The board finished work on its recommended ordinance last month and sent it to the City Council. The final proposal would not only ban smoking in all bars and restaurants, but also on patios.

Sohl said the board wanted to eliminate the effects of smoking, even in outdoor settings where the impact would be reduced. The board also thought it was a fairness issue.

“It makes it fair for all restaurants,” Sohl said. “Even those that don’t have access to outdoor seating.”

Dupuy said a ban could cause unintended consequences. He said some places such as Grand Cru Restaurant, which offers a humidor but makes less than 50 percent of its revenue from tobacco sales, would be hurt.

“While there may not be an overall economic effect, it would affect businesses that cater to the niche market,” he said.

By MATTHEW LeBLANC of the Tribune’s staff
April 12, 2006

After months of debate and sharp criticism from business owners, the Columbia/Boone County Board of Health has sent a proposed ordinance that would ban smoking in most public places to the Columbia City Council.

The ordinance, actually an amendment to an existing city law, would ban smoking in retail stores, banks, elevators, restrooms, libraries, hospitals, bingo halls, bowling alleys, bars and restaurants. The measure was tweaked slightly yesterday to also include a ban on smoking on patios.

Though its members wrestled briefly with the question of whether smoking outdoors creates a health hazard, the board voted 6-2 to send the measure – along with the added restriction – to the city council as an information-only report.

“It’s time to say we sent this on,” board member Tom Rose said.

The idea to ban smoking in the city began as a public relations campaign by a local anti-tobacco group in 2004 but has blossomed into a divisive issue pitting health advocates against business owners, who argue they should be free to run their bars and eateries as they please. The proposed no-smoking ordinance has been revised a number of times; health board members recently added an exemption for not-for-profit clubs with dues-paying members.

At last night’s meeting, board members discussed the overarching intent of the ordinance. Chairman Michael Szewczyk said the purpose of the measure is to ensure patrons of local businesses and the employees who work there are protected from secondhand smoke.

In the end, the board voted to send the proposal to the city council even though members couldn’t agree on whether outdoor secondhand smoke is dangerous.

“This is a board of health, and we should be looking only at issues of health,” said Jean Sax, one of the board members who voted against sending the ordinance on to the council. She also voted against adding the clause to ban smoking in outdoor dining areas, saying she isn’t convinced secondhand smoke is a problem there.

Nathan Voris, a veterinarian, was the other board member to vote no. He said after the meeting that he doesn’t think city government should tell businesses how to operate.

“It places a burden on businesses,” Voris said of the ordinance.

That position could have some support among members of the city council, which will see a report on the ordinance written by Szewczyk in the next few weeks. The council is not required to vote on the ordinance when it receives the report.

Fifth Ward Councilwoman Laura Nauser said today a smoking ban would be an unnecessary intrusion of government into local business.

“Personally, I’m not for it,” she said. “I have a belief that business owners should be able to decide whether they should allow smoking or not.”

Second Ward Councilman Chris Janku was noncommittal.

“I’m waiting,” he said. “I’ll have a lot of questions, but I don’t have any feeling one way or the other.”

When the report will make its way to the council is unclear.

Reach Matthew LeBlanc at (573) 815-1720 or mleblanc@tribmail.com