Smoking ban

Great editorial! The Cape Girardeau smoking ban can be defeated only if all those who oppose it actually vote. In St. Louis, we couldn't manage to get enough smoking ban opponents to the polls. I hope the campaign against the Cape smoking ban proves better able to get out the vote!

Now have you ever been in a room with a smoker that hasnt had one in a couple of hours? or a person that needed a cup of coffee? Wake up. We all have our vices that will cause others illness so why not put a ban on spitters, or people who burn trash on nice days, I dont use my ac till its amost to hot to bare, and there is always someone buring trash not leaves or branches, trash which is illegal in Cape. How about banning people that are playing loud music from their cars while at a stop light or like the jerk at the gas pump that filled his truck up while it was still running and left his music up so loud that it hurt everyones ears, I was the only one that stood up to him yet his arrogance was just overwellming. If you really want to do some good in stopping things concentrate on your own back yard before you work on someone elses. Like public intoxication and bar fights. Limit the amount of drinks a person can have so they wont drive drunk and kill someone. I dont recall anyone getting hit head on while smoking. I dont smoke but i do drink coffee so i know what it feels like when i dont get my fix of caffine

Those persons already suffering from lung disease such as asthama do not choose to have the disease. Smoke from cigarettes can cause these people to have a deadly attack if exposed to cigarette smoke without treament. Oftentimes this treatment consist of steroids and other harmful drugs. These folks are protected in the workplace by the ADA act. Maybe those business who oppose the smoking ban will get a few civil lawsuits because of the discrimanatory practic of exposing these persons to smoke just as other businesses have had to be accountable for exposing people to asbestoes.

SEMISSOURIAN: It should be noted that this is not a 'smoking ban'. This is an ordinance restricting where smoking is allowed. Using the terms 'smoking ban' serve to make people think that we're going to ban all smoking in Cape Girardeau. This is not the case. /just nitpicking

Breathe Easy Cape has used the term "smoking ban" on many occasions in many forums.

Just nitpicking? Are you kidding me? You are very quick to give up the rights of business owners to decide. If a ban goes into effect and bars are forced to layoff employees and/or go into bankruptcy I guess you'll be there to bail them out financially. It is time to stand up againt the antismoking fanatics who are interested in one thing only. Social engineering. The secondhand smoke arguement put forth by these groups is usually cherry picking of the facts, gross exaggeration and often outright lies. A bar is not a health spa. If the owner decides to allow smoking you are in fear of your life go where smoking is not allowed. It's called choice. What's so hard about that?

If you are interested in reality go to http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/PASAN/StilettoGenv5h.pdf. These antismoking groups are not the puritans they portray themselves to be. Quite the opposite and extremely well paid and funded largely by pharmaceutical companies with a tremendous financial motivation. Their mantra is "**** the truth. Full speed ahead." Send these interlopers and enemies of private business owners and property rights a message. Vote No on April 5th. You'll be glad you did.

To those in favor of a smoking ban, name me one place you are FORCED to go to that allows smoking. I am curios to know.

@Fujiyama Mama: I'm not with Breathe Easy Cape and neither is the Missourian.

@James P: Yes, I am in favor of those sacred private business owners to be regulated. I'm For liquor laws, For heath codes and For a smoking ordinance. That doesn't make a fanatic, it just makes me more considerate than you are. You can walk outside to smoke, what's so hard about that?

Right you are SteveM. Those left coast folks bankrolling this ordinance have explicit orders to their suck-ups NOT to allow it to be called a ban:

http://www.no-smoke.org/goingsmokefree.php?dp=d13%7Cp137

Calling it a ban would be...I dunno.....the truth?

SteveM,

It is called a ban because it would BAN smoking in certain places. Just because you don't care for the use of the term doesn't nullify it's legitimacy.

It should be noted that this action is just another step toward their end goal, preventing anyone from smoking anywhere. I went to the CBE website long ago when the initial rumbling of a ban proposal began. On one of the pages it stated that this action is necessary in order to set a precedence to get a ban for cars, followed then by a ban for homes. The reasoning is simple, if they went straight for the end goal, not enough people would support it, thus it has to be done piecemeal.

Originally these organizations wanted to only ban smoking in public buildings, then it was supermarkets, then they wanted separate areas in resturants. Now some of the areas who banned smoking indoors have these groups pressuring to ban smoking in parks and other outdoor venues. It is past time to draw the line in the sand and stand up to these people and their breatheren, like the organizations who want to ban "fast food" establishments from operating within a certain distance from schools. This is America the land of the free, we do not need a Nanny to tell us what we can do.

Finally, the missourian clearly states what we've known all along: they are against this ordinance.

You're not a fanatic Steve? You simply believe in the more government intervention and regulations the better. Not a fanatic? Yet you believe bar owners and patrons should be criminalized for allowing smoking and/or smoking in bars. You can either stay out or walk outside for a breath of fresh air if it offends your tender sensibilities. Be afraid Steve. Be very afraid. If the government passes enough laws and regulations we will all be immortal and protected from all the evils in the world that are about to descend on us. I very seriously doubt any bar owner will miss your business. He will miss the business of smokers. That's a fact.

@ SteveM - I am aware that neither yourself or the paper are part of Breathe Easy Cape. Your original comment insinuates that calling it a ban is biased, or extreme. My point was that if the organization fighting to enact the ordinance finds the term 'smoking ban' to be an apt description, then why shouldn't the SE Missourian or anyone else?

@james p

"You're not a fanatic Steve?" Um, no. I never said that the more intervention, the better. Those are your alarmist words. I said that I favor sensible regulation, yes. I don't like feces in my food, I don't like kids underage drinking and I don't like smoke in public enclosures. That's not fanatic, that's reasonable.

"I very seriously doubt any bar owner will miss your business." I don't care. I'm not motivated by selfishness. Unlike smokers who hide behind "regulation, business owners rights, freedom, whatever" solely to justify a position of fear against change. Just because you want to selfishly keep exposing others to smoke, does not mean you've taken the higher moral ground here. You shouldn't be worried about business owners rights as wondering why you're so incapable of walking outside to smoke and why those around you mean so little. Non-smokers are business owners, too. If you cared about them that much, you'd not expose them to your smoke when they're in an enclosed building. Or do you only care about business owners when it Favors your habits?

The rest of your post is mostly exaggerated hyperbole and not worth addressing.

@Fujiyama Mama

I'll concede that the opposition may use that terminology, and if they do, they are also incorrect in its usage. I would hope that a newspaper would be more objective than that. Again, I was nitpicking, and definitely not wanting to argue with you. So I'll concede that point to you.

Impressive editorial!

Unfortunately ... even the greatest arguments or common sense will not, cannot get through to people who are too fanatic about this subject to be able to understand the word 'choice.' Government control of private business is favored, as long as it doesn't affect their own individual rights.

As for the frequent "You can walk outside to smoke" comments: Several years ago, I met a man visiting from CA. His daughter there had just been fined for smoking ... while mowing her own yard! So, don't believe that it will always end with just bans in buildings (including in some places, one's own condo).

In at least some WA areas, smoking in parks is banned (isn't that 'outside'?).

I'm still waiting smoking ban proponents...what places are you FORCED to go to that allow smoking? This is my second request.

Because you can choose where you would like to eat and drink, it doesn't seem unreasonable to go somewhere else if you don't like smoking. Smoking is a legal activity. That means that, unless it becomes illegal, it is an impingement on the rights of the individual to refuse them or a business to allow smoking. All you people in this county that are concerned about equal rights should know this. It's to be put to a vote and then it will become a law. Unfortunately, the law will fly in the face of something that is legal.

It'll pass!

Theorist,

How exactly is smoking a "nasty" habit? Is it because you don't like the smell of burning leaves? Is it because there is material left over in the ash tray that is unpleasing to your eyes?

As for me, I like the smell and taste of tobacco as it burns, just as I like the smell of oak burning in the fireplace. Certainly I wouldn't go out of my way to search through trash cans so I can look at the discarded food wrappings but I wouldn't call it "nasty" to see them.

I'm sure you think it is nasty when dogs eats feces, and many people would agree with you, but it isn't nasty to the dogs. You, and the others, associate the dog's taste buds as being the same as yours and then therefore the dog's actions are an abhorrent behavior that must be rectified by your superiority as a human. It is similar with the proposed ban, because you and others believe it to be "nasty", that action must not be allowed any where near you, even if it means trampling the individual rights of property owners.

Are you equating smoking to eating dog feces? Because if so, your analogy could use some work. LOL.

It's so nice that all the smokers are just looking out for the business owners (and not their own wants). Since smokers are more concerned with the business owners business, than my health, I'll vote for the BAN.

let me add another thought, people develope lung cancer but ways of radon and just plain genitics. the jerk down the street burns real garbage and plastic and it smells up the whole neighborhood. my husband has asthma and we have gone down there several times to have him put out the fire, but he just gives us the high sign and goes inside. he closes his doors and puts on his ac as we dont us the ac till it gets too hot to use just a fan, this is what needs to be banned, im not opposed to burning of leaves or branches, we all do that but plastic milk jugs and other garbage like bannana peels and just plain crap should not happen.

and on the other hand do the good citizens of cape know that the taxes on the ciggeretts are what is used on our fair city. if it were not for the ciggeret and alcohol tax your taxes on food and property would be higher.

instead of making a face at a smoker, smile and say CA CHING!!!!!!

Steve is not a fanatic. However, according to him eating dog feces and secondhand smoke are the same thing. The bar I frequent is a Mom and Pop bar. Most of the patrons are smokers. The employees are smokers. The owner is not a smoker. The patrons who are not smokers are opposed to a ban. The owner is opposed to a ban. Steve is the majority of one. Because he alone opposes smoking in Mom and Pop bars the ordinance should pass. People like Steve rarely, if ever, enter these establishments and contribute little or nothing to their economic survival. The so called health effects from secondhand smoke are grossly exaggerated and often outright lies. Further, this is about property rights. If the Mom and Pop bars lose revenue, have to lay off employees and/or close that is fine with Steve. Everyone suffers but Steve. Does his position make him feel "morally superior" because he doesn't smoke? Obviously. In reality, Steve is the one who is wholly inconsiderate of the rights of others. Steve has a choice to fequent non smoking establishments. He wants to make sure the smoker has no choice. Sound a little fanatic to you?

Nope - sounds like he wants Cape to be smoke free, as do many others james.

concered4all. Spare me the concern. If you choose not to smoke that is your right. It is not your right to tell owners, employees and patrons of private clubs and bars they cannot smoke and have no rights. Your secondhand smoke arguement is totally exaggerated and in many instances fraudulent. Private clubs and bars will be severely effected by a smoking ban. Many will be forced to close. This proposed ordinance is far too broad with no exceptions for bars and private clubs. That's the way these groups operate. No compromise. They never have enough restrictions, rules and regulations. Draw a line in the sand and stop them now. A mere irritant to some is not enough to pass laws destroying property rights and freedom of choice. These groups are radical and draconian. Far more dangerous than the exaggerated secondhand smoke threat.

CosmoKramer - Thank you for taking the time to see the bigger issue. Most people just jump on the band wagon without ever reading the ordinance for themselves.

I have a Juris Doctor Degree. I have taught High School, spent a year with the 1st Air Cav in Vietnam and done other things you can only imagine. You are going to tell me after several hundred years that a bar cannot allow smoking? A bar that you do not support or even come into? Are you insane! Nope! Just another self righteous bozo who hasn't earned the right. Hell! You don't even frequent these places. You just love to conrtol and whine due to your insecurities. They are legion.

I think that basements need to be banned, you know radon gas comes from basements, and radon gas causes cancer.

You know if the smell of smoke bothers two many people, maybe breathing ought to be banned.

You know how bad car exhaust is for you,

the people that work at drive up windows don't have a choice where they work, and they need to be protected, all of you people just don't care about them, get off your rears and go inside and wait on yourself.

Are is it that you can't go without your big gulp, but are to lazy, and don't care about the person at the window haveing to breath your stinking car exhaust.

jamesp...sounds like you are too educated to be wasting your time on these boards all day. I, on the other hand, have an 8th grade education, dodged the draft, and can't spell hi skool. Because you accomplished more than me, does that make your opinion more valuable?

Vote no on APRIL 5th

SteveM, are you a City resident? How many here can actually vote on this issue? Just wondering. I would also ask how many here who are against this prohibition frequent taverns and clubs here in the City limits?

No offense...but since when does a newspaper influence anything in your lives people? This leaflet of a paper has no credibility anymore and certainly shouldnt influence how you vote on anything!! Thing for yourself...and dont let a fledgling newspaper with no saturday edition and a failing circulation influence your life!! Pretty pompous of the SEmanurian to even have an editorial section anymore IMO!! Good luck at the polls....

I think it is unethical journalism for the paper to take a position on this topic. However, previous newspaper articles about ending smoking in public areas have obviously been biased to the business owners--or rather--newspaper advertisers. If smoke free cape was an advertiser, I am sure the paper would go the other way. It's just a shame that the people of Cape don't have a second resource for information, because it is obvious the Rust family and its staff have its own--not citizens--best interest at heart. Sad, sad, sad. While I understand the business case, the public health issue outweighs it. What this is about is control, any control, no matter how silly and uneducated a pro smoking argument is. Vote yes and improve Cape!

Proponents of a smoking ban contend that smoking in area restaurants is offensive. Well over 50 restaurants in Cape Girardeau offer completely smoke-free dining; including; Mollies, Saffron, Outback, Ruby Tuesday, Bob Evans, Panera, My Daddy's Cheesecake, Beef O'Brady, McDonalds, Burger King, Hardees, Steak n Shake, Taco Bell, Qdoba, Imo's Pizza, Pizza Hut, Pizza Inn, Paglia's, McAlisters Deli, Fazoli's, Pasta House, Culver's, Dexter BBQ, Cup n Cork, China Palace, Chan's, just to name a few. People can't find a place to eat in our community that's smoke-free? Really?

Smoking ban advocates tell us smoke in the workplace is a crucial health issue. Can anyone name a retail shopping establishment in Cape that allows customer or employee smoking inside the premises, except the tobacco shops? Is smoking allowed in any city, county, state or federal office building? In any public or private school building or medical office? Any bank, grocery store, pharmacy, furniture, shoe or carpet store? Any lumberyard or building material supplier? Both hospitals are smoke-free campuses, indoors and out. I'd like to know where all this harmful workplace smoking occurs in Cape.

This is a bogus issue. There is no real second-hand smoke problem in our community. What this comes down to is a small group of do-gooders trying to force a handful of restaurants and all the local bars to restrict their smoking clientele from engaging in a legal activity because the BreathEasy folks want people to stop smoking. Vote this ridiculous ordinance down.

roscoedm thanks for your comments. I couldn't agree more. I just read the bill and was flabbergasted at how many of the locations listed are presently non-smoking.

I checked stats several months ago and calculated that close to 80% of the restaurants in Cape are already smoke-free and non-smokers represent 70-75% of Cape. Exlcuding bars nearly everything else in the ban is 100% smoke-free.

I work in a 3 man office with 2 smokers. If this passes we will be moving out of Cape.

I live in PA, but am originally from swamp east MO. They implemented the smoke-free policy in NYC and Philadelphia about 5 years ago. Bars that made less than X percent of money from food were exempt from the smoking ban. All others were required to heed to the smoking bad. If you wanted to have a smoking section it had to be sectioned off, etc. Many places could not afford to build a separate bar, therefore they implemented no-smoking. When it was first implemented it did affect businesses and some restraunts and bars closed. The bars closed as the information about the ban was not distributed properly. Some patrons were under the assumption there would be no smoking at any restraunt or bar, period. So many smokers still went out to eat, but they did not stay for desert, after-drinks or coffee. They were not stopping at their favorite watering hole, since they thought they could not smoke. So be prepared, it will affect some of the businesses at first. My wife smokes, I smoke cigars (not acceptable except for a cigar bar). We deal with it, we go out to eat, then we leave. I do have to say it is nice having dinner w/o smoke being blown around.