[SeMissourian.com] Overcast ~ 26°F  
River stage: 10.59 ft. Rising
Thursday, Feb. 26, 2015

Cape voters reject public smoking ban

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Doc Cain, left, owner of Port Cape Girardeau and member of "Stand Up Cape, What's Next?", congratulates the crowd in his bar after unofficial results came in showing the smoking ban question was defeated 3,997 to 3,672, or 52.12 percent to 47.88 percent, on Tuesday, April 5, 2011.
(Kristin Eberts) [Order this photo]
Cape Girardeau voters narrowly defeated a hotly contested smoking ban Tuesday. The outcome was an apparent rejection of a well-heeled group of supporters who spent more than $83,000 to get out its message of the hazards of secondhand smoke.

The controversial issue, which has been debated since November when Citizens for a Smoke-Free Cape began gathering signatures to put it on the ballot, failed by just 325 votes, with 3,997 against and 3,672 voting in favor, with all precincts reporting.

At Port Cape Girardeau, Doc Cain hoisted a cigar in triumph in front of fellow members of Stand Up Cape, What's Next?, the group that raised only $3,000 but preached property rights and unfair government intrusion. He hugged his wife and shook hands in the bar, with several raising their arms in victory.

"This is a great day for Cape Girardeau businesses, especially those that allow smoking," Cain said. "It shows that you just can't come into our community and take over, force people to think the way you think."

The mood was decidedly more somber at Beef O'Brady's, where Smoke-Free Cape kicked out the media from a back room when word came that the ban had failed.

Spokeswoman Shelly Wood said later that group members met privately to gather their thoughts.

"Of course we're disappointed," she said. "We knew it would be a close race the whole time. We knew it was possible we would not win. But we're proud of the work we did in raising awareness about the dangers of secondhand smoke."

According to the city's charter, another initiative petition cannot be submitted to implement a smoking ban for one year. Wood said it was "too early to say" whether the group would try again a year from now.

Dale Humphries, left, with Smoke-Free Cape reflects on the defeat of the smoking ban for Cape Girardeau after hearing the report from Stacy Reliford, right, a lobbyist with the American Cancer Society, Tuesday, April 5, 2011 at Beef O'Brady's. Dan Carrigan, center, also waited for election results.
(Fred Lynch)
Cape Girardeau was the only Missouri city that defeated a smoking ban Tuesday, with O'Fallon, Springfield and Webb City passing similar bans on smoking. In Springfield, 53 percent of voters said yes; in O'Fallon it passed with 72 percent of the vote; and 56 percent of Webb City voters approved the ban there.

Some voters at the Cape Girardeau polls Tuesday, however, said they found the ban too restrictive.

"I feel it should be the right of the individual business person whether smoking should be allowed or not," said Robert Gentry, who owns the Corner Store on Broadway and doesn't smoke. "I have strong feelings about individual rights."

Greg Tlapek, a local Libertarian who has run for Congress in the past, even spent two hours walking city streets with a sign that simply said: "Vote no." He, too, said he is an advocate for individual rights.

"It is the owner's property, and if they want to allow smoking, they should be allowed," Tlapek said. "There are already a lot of restaurants that don't allow smoking. Surely we can tolerate the few that do."

But, as the vote indicated, not everyone agreed.

Laura Woldtvedt voted in favor of the smoking ban early Tuesday at the Arena Building.

"I'm very much an anti-smoking advocate," she said.

The ban, which would have taken effect in 60 days had it passed, was put on the ballot by the Cape Girardeau City Council after the signatures were verified. Some council members expressed concern then about the ban, saying it was overreaching and was not the government's place to outlaw the consumption of a legal product on the property of a private business owner.

Mayor Harry Rediger said Tuesday he had mixed feelings about the election results. He is not a smoker and understands that smoking is a health hazard, he said. But, in the end, his concerns about government interference were paramount.

"To me, this proposal overstepped its bounds," he said. "It should, in my opinion, have been a business owner's decision how it wants to treat its business."

Thirty-one percent of Cape Girardeau's registered voters went to the polls Tuesday, with 7,695 casting ballots.



Fact Check
See inaccurate information in this story?

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on semissourian.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

It lost because it went way too far.

-- Posted by tom on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 8:16 PM

My patriotism is renewed. ..And liberty for all! Thank you Cape.

-- Posted by FreeCape on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 8:20 PM

I agree, tom.

-- Posted by LiveAnotherDay on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 8:21 PM

The ACS spent roughly $22 per vote and still lost. A good investment????

-- Posted by CapeCrusader on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 8:23 PM

Wow. Common sense triumphs.

-- Posted by Marion_Morrison on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 8:23 PM

Looks like it's passing in Springfield at this point 51-49 http://www.news-leader.com/section/elect...

In my warped sense of humor - kind of funny, since they just commissioned a coal-fired power plant.

-- Posted by fxpwt on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 8:25 PM

Sad, very sad. Mark one up for the cancer people.

-- Posted by TheOneDude on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 8:28 PM

It is listed under 'City of Springfield Question 2'

-- Posted by fxpwt on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 8:28 PM

Very happy to see that private property rights for business owners won.

I'm irritated that Cape Girardeau citizens failed to see the high taxation future subtlety in the wastewater proposals and yet again essentially gave the city a blank check to poorly spend more money. Perhaps I am just becoming cynical, but the city has given me little reason to trust them on fiscal matters over the last decade.

-- Posted by eagle on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 8:29 PM

Cancer, tuberculosis, emphysema, heart disease plus costing this country MILLIONS of dollars in health care issues. Yes, you all really won something didn't you?

-- Posted by sledgehammer on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 8:30 PM

Smokers can continue being inconsiderate to those around them. Congratulations on your 'win'

-- Posted by SteveM on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 8:31 PM

SteveM..You can continue to choose not to enter an establishment that allows smoking. You win as well. Congratulations!

-- Posted by CapeCrusader on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 8:34 PM

What a waste of $83,000+. Way to go American Cancer Society.

-- Posted by retired1 on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 8:37 PM

Its a matter of choice...you don't have to patronize any place that allows smoking. Businesses are private property that allow people to come in for commerce. They can ask you to leave at any time. Show your support with your wallet.

-- Posted by insider63785 on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 8:38 PM

Maybe if they would have wasted 100K they could have won. I bet they will next time.

-- Posted by Hunter S Thompson on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 8:40 PM

If you want to talk about wasting money...check out how much tax payers are having to spend on health care for smokers each year.

-- Posted by sledgehammer on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 8:41 PM

$72.7 billion per year!


-- Posted by sledgehammer on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 8:45 PM

ibetyouareasmallman - offering another opinion - "society saves almost $30 billion a year in Social Security benefits and Medicare benefits that would otherwise have had to be paid out, had smokers lived."

from http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/col...

-- Posted by fxpwt on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 8:49 PM

As I have stated before, I don't smoke and am not a fan of cigarette smoke. I have been a supporter of the American Cancer Society in the past. I will still avoid places that allow smoking(personal choice-not imposed).

The only change for me will be who I donate money to in the fight against cancer.

-- Posted by one4kids on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 8:50 PM

Cape will remain in the Dark Ages. I ate at Logan's the other night in the non-smoking section and the smoke was so bad I could barely taste my food and had a sore throat after leaving. I will only be patronizing non-smoking establishments from now on. The wall at Outback between smokers and non-smokers is a joke also. It would also be nice if one of the bowling alleys decided to be smoke free.

-- Posted by semomom40 on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 8:51 PM

Great Job Cape Girardeau! I do not smoke and hate smokey bars, it truely is disgusting. At the same point, it is my choice to visit/not visit these establishments and the owner's choice to allow/not allow smoking. That is the point, plain and simple!

-- Posted by ,n sense on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 8:51 PM

Speaking to Red Devil! Too many comments posted before I had a chance to post!

-- Posted by prattang on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 8:52 PM

Lung Cancer, the number #1 cancer killer in America. Give it to yourselves, not me. I'll go to the smoke free places since you can't wait until you get outside to feed your addiction. Enjoy your freedom to kill yourselves and each other.

-- Posted by thewonder on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 8:53 PM

it would have passed easily if it was just restaurants and bars.. and not places like the eagles and bingo world..... they will learn from this though the next will be just restaurants..the next bars.. etc.. they just went for it all and lost.. but they'll be back...

-- Posted by peter_grant on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 8:56 PM

I agree with "Nobodys". Red Devil, that was just nasty of you.

-- Posted by prattang on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 8:56 PM

Still passing in Springfield - up to 53-47. Be interesting to compare the propositions side-by-side to determine whether the difference is a matter of people or of language.

-- Posted by fxpwt on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 8:59 PM

I dont get the "owner's choice' argument. If the woner wanted to save money by not washing dishes, would that be OK? No, its a violation of a rule he/she has to abide by.

-- Posted by TheOneDude on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 8:59 PM

@ Red Devil

I thought it was funny and held some truth in the point. If all of these individuals care so strongly about this issue, then someone will capitalize on the idea, and start a few restaraunts and bars that are smoke free. Maybe everyone should put there efforts on that idea rather than impeding on the rights of current business owners.

-- Posted by ,n sense on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 9:02 PM

It was too inclusive. If it was less strict I may have voted for it.

-- Posted by FunkDaddy on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 9:02 PM

Did I miss something? Red Devil is right. If the supporters are against going to a place that allows smoking then they should open their own place and post NO SMOKING on the door. It IS NOT right to tell a business OWNER what they can and can not do with their own establishment! You do not pay their taxes they do. You do not pay their employees and you do not pay for the equipment to run the business. If you do not want to go there then DON'T GO. There are more NON-SMOKING establishments than there are smoking so what are you complaining about?????

-- Posted by Hookie98 on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 9:05 PM

Protecting citizens rights? What about my right to go anywhere I want and not breathe your smoke? Why should I not be allowed to go somewhere because of your filthy addiction?

-- Posted by sledgehammer on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 9:06 PM

When I voted this morning, I looked at who else was voting - and I concluded that this initiative would fail. Seemed like every smoker came out and voted today.

-- Posted by Grit on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 9:06 PM

MKA001: Not a good comparison. It was his decision on whether to allow smoking, washing or not washing dishes was not his decision to make.

Maybe if you were an owner with all this money invested, you would understand him or her wanting to run their business, the way they wish.

-- Posted by Red Devil on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 9:08 PM

I like to go downtown to the bars. Which bars are non smoking?

-- Posted by sledgehammer on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 9:08 PM

You go Red Devil!!!!!! :)

-- Posted by Hookie98 on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 9:08 PM

@ ibetyouareasmallman (and I will ignore the smug attitude you name implies!): Perhaps we should reconsider "how much tax payers are having to spend on health care for smokers each year," by asking why are citizens supporting a government that taxes us to spend that money paying for peoples health care. Your view, it seems to me, suggests that because politicians have come up with all these things the government (meaning we, the people) pays for all this health care, then all of the things, choices and life styles thought to lead to some need for health care can be controlled from some central point. Witness, soft drink taxes, followed by obesity taxes, followed by each car being equipped with a "seat belt usage monitor" which generates a tax bill based upon miles driven without a seatbelt. Where will it end. Back to the question framed this way - why "should" taxpayers spend so much money on health care?

-- Posted by Wiley Penner on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 9:08 PM

@ MKA001

I do not think that anyone would argue that they want the freedom to eat off or for that matter serve dirty dishes. In order to have a valid or comparable argument, you must have something that one side would say is needed or wanted. If all patrons of the establishment would agree (i.e. washing dishes) then there is no arguement.

-- Posted by ,n sense on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 9:08 PM


-- Posted by sledgehammer on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 9:13 PM

Very surprising!

-- Posted by vietnamvet on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 9:15 PM

1. The ordinance was inclusive because its goal was to protect the health of employees. I'm sure glad my workplace is already smokefree.

2. The dishwashing comparison was a good one. What about pollution restrictions on manufacturing facilities? Should we abolish those, too, under the guise of "property rights?" Should we stop requiring car manufacturers to make low-emission cars?

3. Here's hoping the Missouri legislature will step in and pass a state-wide ban. If it can happen in North Carolina, it can happen here. (Notably, the ban in North Carolina is less restrictive than the proposed ban for Cape.)

-- Posted by OhDeer on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 9:16 PM

We beat the money machine. Goes to show you people are sick and tired of there liberties being taken away. These liberal groups can stay out of Cape Girardeau.

-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 9:17 PM

@ ibetyouareasmallman, again - Re: your "right" to "go anywhere I want and not breathe your smoke."

Answer: You don't have that right. You never did. You do, however, have the right not to go to a place that won't accomodate your wishes.

-- Posted by Wiley Penner on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 9:18 PM

Just goes to show if you want to win an election, then stay away from the main issue and make it into something that will fit your agenda.

-- Posted by Mowrangler on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 9:18 PM

I believe the health department has all of the say on dish washing. I don't believe we have the right to ban dish washing.

Anyone else remember back in the late '70's where a hot speakout topic was, some people wanting to ban fat girls from wearing shorts.

I bet that could even have a chance to pass today, if some wealthy non profit organization sent $80,000 our way.

-- Posted by Red Devil on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 9:22 PM

For what it is worth - the ordinance would have probibited smoking in public areas of a business, not "non-public" areas - like the kitchen or offices or breakroom of a restaurant. What protection did that offer for the employees? Don't try playing that "it was for the employees" card. It is not persuasive, and never was the purpose of this attempt by nannystaters.

-- Posted by Wiley Penner on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 9:22 PM

@ OhDeer

On point 2:

Once again, not a comparison. NO ONE would argue that they WANT pollution or WANT hihger emissions on cars. Those are both environmental restrictions that anyone possessing common sense would argue are good. There is NO ONE opposing the view except for possibly the owners, but they deal with the new regulations and pass the cost down to the consumer. Who would the bar owner pass the lack of patrons down to?

-- Posted by ,n sense on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 9:24 PM

There is an easy answer to this. Non-smokers need to organize and boycott establishments that allow smoking.Free enterprise works both ways. How long would Port Cape stay in business if non-smokers stayed away?

-- Posted by wrcactus on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 9:25 PM

Well, they can kiss my money good-by, If they don't care that those of us with lung and or heart disease have rights to then we wont be spending our money in their establishment.

-- Posted by hotshot202 on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 9:28 PM

A crowd of "Yes" supporters gathered at Beef O'Brady's. They began congregating in Beef's party room at about 6. They ordered no food, and few drinks. A few moments before the defeat appeared on my blackberry, they closed the door. Scott Moyers arrived, knocked on the door, and got kicked out. They opened the door eventually, flew out like a covey rise and talked disappointedly on their cell phones. They did not order drinks or food. I looked in the room before I left at 9, and saw six glasses of water, a couple glasses of tea, and no food. Them nonsmokers really know how to support a business.

-- Posted by Marion_Morrison on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 9:30 PM

Its not over yet Cape, our State Gov is looking at a state wide ban as we speak.

-- Posted by mogearjammer on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 9:31 PM

Wiley Penner, by my read, the ordinance did apply to break rooms and other non-public enclosed areas in places of employment. Here is the text: "Smoking shall be prohibited in all enclosed facilities within places of employment in the following areas. This includes common work areas, auditoriums, classrooms, conference and meeting rooms, private offices, elevators, hallways, medical facilities, cafeterias, employee lounges, stairs, restrooms and all other enclosed facilities."

-- Posted by OhDeer on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 9:31 PM

Wow. Some of the zealots about this issue, who lost, are really crybabying. I have no problem banning smoking in restaurants. I don't think that would have been a problem. Passing this ban as written would have cost tens of thousands of casino dollars; lost jobs at bars; lost tourism dollars. I defy anyone to prove to me that the bulk of bingo players would have been willing to sit for 3 hours without a smoke; loss to charities and Notre Dame. I'm sure that a sane smoking ordinance will come up again. Anybody who read the ballot had to say, Holy Cow! I won't donate to the ACS ever again, if this is how it spends it money. How about RESEARCH!

-- Posted by JungleJim on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 9:36 PM

Wow... what a bunch of sore losers.The majority have spoken. Now why don't we all just get along ? Maybe the smokers can be a little more considerate of the non-smokers, and the non-smokers can finally learn that the smokers do have rights.

-- Posted by pinkbunny on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 9:37 PM

My wife and I are non-smokers. We voted "no" on this ban. Had they sought to only ban smoking in restaurants, I would have voted for it. When they included the bars, bingo halls and service clubs, it went too far. If you don't like smoke, don't patronize the places that allow smoking.

-- Posted by bbqman on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 9:42 PM

Wonder what reason the crappy little bars and other business' are going to use when they go out of business?? Of course if the ban passed then it was always the bans fault. Never mind the bad business plan or crappy service or the economy!! Was always used as a point to show that smoking bans ruined business. What a joke. Feel free to post a list of places that supported the no vote and I will be sure to take my business elsewhere. Sure will laugh when port cape is run into the ground, which won't be long.

-- Posted by cartman on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 9:50 PM

Wow--I'm really surprised that it didn't pass but I'm glad that it didn't. I don't smoke, hate being around smokers but I am an adult and choose whether or not to go places where people smoke. Sometimes, government needs to remember that they govern for the people--not for political activists, not for special interest groups. Just hope civility will win and people will try to get along. I'm married to a smoker but he respects me enough not to smoke around me; in turn, I respect (don't like it) that he chooses to smoke. Neither one of us tries to impose his will upon the other.

-- Posted by Rob on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 9:56 PM

I really don't understand why the EPA says it can regulate CO2 emissions and even bovine flatulence, but it cannot regulate tobacco smoke. There must be thousands of times more dangers coming from the end of a cigarette than from an exhaled breath of air. This is another example of our governments straining after gnats while the elephant in the room just keeps on stomping away. As far as I am concerned any one smoking today is just showing their ignorance. By the way the same goes to those folks gobbling down fast foods and those who talk on cell phones and text while driving and while I am on a roll politicians who think putting our great great grandchildren into debt is the way to balance a budget. (Go for it Congressman Ryan!)

-- Posted by Observer1 on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 9:56 PM

Great news to hear this extreme smoking ban ballot initiative failed to pass! Glad to see some communities still have folks living in them who believe in common sense, and not an extreme ban that'd only hurt jobs and revenue of private establishments permitting(AND of course, one does NOT have to patronize or work in if they do not like smoke).

-- Posted by CoachMcGuirk617 on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 9:57 PM

ahem....private establishments permitting smoking. What I meant to say, before my parentheses note. And I need to move away from having that habit, haha!

-- Posted by CoachMcGuirk617 on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 10:00 PM

@mogearjammer ?? Our state government? Our general assembly has zero chance of passing a statewide ban on anything . . .much less smoking.

If you want the legislature to do anything which has the slightest chance of curbing smoking in the state . . .raise the state tax on tobacco (we currently have the lowest tax on tobacco products of any state nearby, maybe the lowest in all the states). It would help solve the budget problem and encourage people to cut back on tobacco use. . .(gasp) . .oh yeah that would mean raising taxes . . .sigh . . they will shake their heads, and say how awful things are . . .blame everything on the governor and come back from Jeff City feeling very pleased with themselves, having done nothing . . .except warning us that Jefferson County may be included in the 8th District . . .

-- Posted by one4kids on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 10:01 PM

I think that allowing smoking in public facilities is like forcing others to a habit that they don't agree with. Everyone knows that second hand smoke has detrimental effects on others. So what is different about someone having a beer and then forcing it down someone elses throat? How nice is that? Let's get real with this issue. We are not saying stop smoking all together (smoke outside). I am an ex smoker and realize that the smoker mentality is a defensive one in that everyone is against them. If they only would realize that life is so much better on the other side of the fence. I know. I smoked for ten years.

-- Posted by ipmr1999 on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 10:05 PM

Hehe,guess your $83,000 didn't help you out very much did it people of Smoke-Free Cape! You really had the audacity to compare contributions,trying to make the people from "Stand-Up Cape! What's Next" appear inferior to to your group!! Oh well,guess $3,000 is all we needed to defeat your idiotic scheme to take our rights away!

-- Posted by keveekev on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 10:15 PM

I am glad that Doc Cain loves all the smoke in his bar. Secondhand smoke is the reason I won't step foot in there. I hope he never suffers from lung cancer.It would be a high price to pay to turn a profit. Maybe now we can try a different approach and just raise taxes on tobacco products. At least that way our community could benefit from all that smoke.

-- Posted by jonib on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 10:15 PM


-- Posted by grandma73 on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 10:17 PM

I will continue as I always do. Stay away from any establishment that does not value my health. Have not been in Port Cape in years. No reason to go now.

-- Posted by notorepublicans on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 10:17 PM

They will just reword it, change it around a little bit, exclude a couple of things and put it right back on the ballot. They will continue to do this until some sort of smoking ban passes.

-- Posted by tigerfanforever on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 10:18 PM

In response to cartman,Port Cape is not going anywhere anytime soon!!! From the tone of your remarks,you wouldn't be welcome there anyway!!! So by all means,stay away,we don't want you there anyway!!

-- Posted by keveekev on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 10:20 PM

Since this issue began early last fall I felt very strongly that it would fail due to its overbearing restrictions. I am happy with the outcome in that freedom and liberty prevailed.

I applaud all those here who kept the language civil and the debate interesting. I understand the agony of defeat but its important to note that we should still remain respectful and considerate both here and at all these smoking establishments by smokers and non-smokers. The voters have spoken and, I must say, I am very happy tonight. Congrats to all those who stood solidly against this restrictive infringment and, to DOC CAIN and the "stand up Cape" group of which I will include myself as an unseen member.

VIETNAMVET,,,Like i said, "you may be suprised come Tuesday night" !!

-- Posted by GREYWOLF on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 10:20 PM

I feel like SEMO students probably didn't come out in force to vote in this election. There was little to no information around campus on how to sign up to vote on this election which was inexcusable on SEMO's part. I feel if SEMO would have done a better job to get the word out on how to vote this bill would have passed and I would have got to enjoy going out and not coming back smelling like an ash tray.

-- Posted by Joe Kurr on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 10:28 PM

I hope they decide to let the people who go to bars and bingo smoke all they want and stop all smoking everywhere else indoors.

-- Posted by skibum on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 10:32 PM

Here is to the smoking alliance of people who would not submit to another invasion of personal privacy and repression of personal freedoms! God bless you all!

-- Posted by Smitty_63701 on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 10:40 PM


-- Posted by Red Devil on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 10:43 PM

tigerfan, this is EXACTLY what anti-smoking lobbyists are very strictly instructed by Americans for Non-Smokers Rights to do, as a matter of fact! Read this pdf, and see for yourself(and I invite everyone else to read it as well):


-- Posted by CoachMcGuirk617 on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 10:43 PM

Honest question -- are there people out there that have had lung cancer (or any other kind of cancer) due to secondhand smoke? Are there any articles from respected medical journals that actually give an example of an actual person whose diagnosis was 'cancer, due to secondhand smoke'? I'd like to be more informed on this topic, so any links would be appreciated.

-- Posted by gomer on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 10:47 PM

Joe - why would it be Semo's responsibility to 'get the word out'? Shouldn't that have been the responsibility of the Smoke Free people?

-- Posted by gomer on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 10:52 PM

Only in Cape Girardeau would property rights be deemed more important than the community's health.

-- Posted by pbj12 on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 11:01 PM

Only in Cape would people have the audacity to try and push their selfish views upon the citizens of this fine town.

-- Posted by Red Devil on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 11:07 PM


At least half of the people in this town haven't lost their freaking minds. Score one for common sense!

Bring it back with fewer, more reasonable restrictions and it may pass.


-- Posted by slim_pickens on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 11:07 PM

Marion_Morrison Thanks for that report. I have said from the start that the Smoke Free People never go to any of the places they are complaning about anyway. I'm sure none of them even drink! Now they can all stay at Beef O Bradys and leave us all alone at our favorite bars. We win this time, but be assured they will return!

-- Posted by timexx on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 11:13 PM

Gomer- SEMO says they want to make us (college students)feel apart of Cape Girardeau. I would have thought they would have done a better job of encouraging students to vote in this election, not just for this issue but the other issues that were on the ballot. I wasn't here for the last Presidential election but does anyone know what the SEMO student turnout was?

-- Posted by Joe Kurr on Tue, Apr 5, 2011, at 11:26 PM

wow those folks at port cape sure do look healthy! thanks voters for protecting our health! oh cape. hahahahahhahahahahahahhaha

-- Posted by autumn on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 12:31 AM

Joe Kurr, if you had a view on this election either way and wanted to promote it on campus or even help students register to vote in Cape Girardeau, there are many resources out there for you to organize such an operation on campus. I'm not quite sure what you wanted "the University" to do as it sounds like you are possibly a student of the University and a person who is in one of the finer positions to organize such a campaign. Instead blaming others for not helping to promote your cause I recommend getting off your own rear end and organizing people with similar views of your own. Believe it or not less than 10 years ago smoking was still allowed in dorm rooms at SEMO until a group of Students such as yourself had the gumption to accomplish something themselves through campaigning and educating rather than waiting for some one else to do it for them and blaming ambiguous "powers that be" for not doing more.

-- Posted by Cap_Anson on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 12:41 AM

One in four people die of lung cancer in Los Angeles. This is not due to tobacco, but air pollution. I'll jump on the Smoke-Free bandwagon when I see the Car-Free initiative follow up. Until then, no hypocrisy. If we won't allow one thing on the premise of people's health (and leisure), then why the other merely because more prefer it? Smells of the basis for the repealing of prohibition . . .

I'll second that this is a legal, individual right and, moreover, there is the choice of smoking and non-smoking establishments. It's not as if smokers are forcing you to inhale, so why restrict them?

And, for the record, I find it hard to believe that a person sitting on the other side of Logan's couldn't eat due to the smoke given the distance between the two sections and the restaurant's exhaust and filtration system.

I don't recall one case in the Reagan 1980s when smoking was permitted most everywhere in Cape of an individual passing out or vomiting due to the smoke in public places. All of a sudden people became a lot more sensitive merely because it was PC to do so.

Lastly, on the in-progress state-wide ban: Good luck, this state is very red and very tired of gov't intervention (and this coming from a lib).

-- Posted by Mala on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 12:41 AM

Congrats to Cape on seeing that the top 10 (not just 9 of 10) least healthy Missouri counties are in Southeast Missouri. Good job. :(

-- Posted by Long Shadow on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 1:21 AM


Right! So let's see Fast Food-Free Cape next year. Sitting down to eat in Cape kills my morale because undoubtedly within eyeshot is someone eating several pounds of food in one sitting. And, again, Car-Free Cape so as to get people out of their automotive wheelchairs (what is a car but that?) and onto bikes or walking.

-- Posted by Mala on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 1:37 AM

ACtually Long Shadow, Cape Girardeau County ranks as the 21st HEALTHIEST county in the state out of the 114 counties.


-- Posted by Cap_Anson on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 1:48 AM

well once again the stupid smokers win and we will have to put up with the stinker habit everywhere we go. No justice!! I quess they will blame us for their lung cancer!!

-- Posted by linberg66 on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 4:15 AM

For all the "Breathe Easy" supporters I know you will be back. But you need to find a better solution to the problem. When you outspend your competition 25 to 1 and still lose there is a problem.

-- Posted by CrashTHEboards on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 4:22 AM

Touchy issue! I'm in the middle of this so I won't drown this out with how I felt about it, I just wish Cape could get more than 31% of it's registered voters out to vote on these kinds of things.

-- Posted by supertrooper on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 4:32 AM

Stupidity shines through in Cape Girardeau! People are just stuck in the Dark Ages around here!

-- Posted by B man on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 5:39 AM

B man: People around here are not stuck in the dark ages. We believe in freedom the foundation of this country. We do not believe in an organization heavily funded by major corporations coming in to our community in an attempt to take those freedoms from us. That might work in the Metro regions of this country but it does not work here. The big money went down in defeat.

-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 6:03 AM

Congratulations Cape Girardeau. Common sense prevailed and for now property rights and freedom of choice have been defended. The Breathe Free Cape lobbyists of big pharmaceuticals and proponents of gross exaggeration, hatred of smokers, outright lies and phony studies can take their traveling minstrel show elsewhere. It's only a matter of time when these interlopers and enemies of property rights and freedom of choice return. These people are much worse than the so called risks they seek to eliminate. The owners should decide. They have the financial investment. This is not a health issue. This was simply a fraudulent attempt by these groups to destroy property rights and freedom of choice. As for telling members and officers of private clubs they do not have the right to make their own policies in regard to smoking is heinous and overreaching at its worst. I believe this measure failed because of organized opposition dispensing their point of view and exposing the fraud and hypocrisy of the antismoking crowd. They are not used to reasonable people challenging their exaggerations, lies and propaganda. Lastly, the nonsmokers should be congratulated for voting against the ban. Many of them recognized the threat posed by this group and their blatant fanaticism and lack of credibility. Now smokers and nonsmokers have the right to choose. What reasonable person could oppose that?

-- Posted by james p on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 6:04 AM


Yes, I was surprised.

-- Posted by vietnamvet on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 6:37 AM

ibetyouareasmallman you said what would Jesus do? He would not be involved with Taxes or a smoking ban and Jesus would not be drinking down at the bars where you said you like to hang out.

-- Posted by iwillnotmoveback? on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 6:52 AM

It boils down to an owners rights, period. If you can't see that, then there's no hope for you.

-- Posted by truthdetector on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 6:56 AM

Greg..your logic makes sense....NOT>>>>since it is the owner's property then we can allow live sex shows and pot sold any store if the owner wants to....

let's just let you wild frontier people carry your six shooters around in your holsters, too...at midnight go outside the bars and fire them off..wow very macho..wooohooo

Smokers will be dragging their oxygen machines behind them on medicare..hey don't ask the govt to pay for your care..cause you don't want your freedom to pay for your own care.banned..pay for it yourself..if you are going to risk your health in the future..

irresponsible and childish logic...

It is sick that the Chamber is paying for support to do something so unhealthy...reflects on the lack of sophistication of this city..and it's leaders!

Another vote..in the Fall folks..it is not over

-- Posted by mindspace on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 7:00 AM

The losing group kicked out the media? Sounds like a bunch of sore losers.

-- Posted by SouthernHusker on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 7:04 AM

I plan on starting a petition to prohibit losers of the Smoke Free referendum from getting another ballot opportunity until 5 years has passed! Any signers?

-- Posted by Smitty_63701 on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 7:10 AM


live sex shows and pot(it shouldn't be) are illegal in this City and State! Last time I checked tobacco IS NOT! It is also illegal to carry a firearm into a bar in Cape as well.

As for your "irresponsible and childish logic"

the majority of my Family members who have passed away smoked. None were on oxygen and NONE were ever on medicaid! They all lived into their mid 80s and a few into there 90s and died in bed at home. The chambers function is to support businesses and new businesses and in this case they did just that. There will be NO vote in the fall either, as at least 1 year must pass before this issue can be petitioned again. Doesn't matter though, Cape voters will not pass this ordinance next year or the years after.

-- Posted by GREYWOLF on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 7:12 AM

Congratulations smokers!

It is nice to know that the businesses that allow smoking are more concerned about their rights than about their customers and employees health (both smokers and nonsmokers)and please don't tell me they can find other jobs. So nonsmokers, if you take your health as seriously as you say you do, please join me and take the smokers advice to not patronize those businesses that allow smoking.

-- Posted by rhoni on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 7:13 AM

rhoni. You have the choice not to patronize businesses that allow smoking. Smokers now have the right to make a choice. Sounds like a win win to me. By the way the majority of nonsmokers will continue to support the bars and private clubs allowing smoking. That's where many of their smoking brethren hang out. The nonsmokers who are overly sensitive and/or buy into the secondhand smoke fraud don't contribute to the economic viability of these businesses anyway. Feel free not to patronize smoking establishments. They won't miss you.

-- Posted by james p on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 7:23 AM

If SEMO students did not vote in this election it is their own fault for not educating themselves on the issues in Cape Girardeau. IMO, if the university did nothing to promote this election they did the right thing because it is not their place to influence their students' stances on public issues. Most importantly, the students need to take personal responsibilty to become informed and active participants in their community.

-- Posted by latergator80 on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 7:25 AM


The point about sex shops and pot selling is that since it is their own shops they should do what they want..so let's just let everybody do whatever they want..chaos..not true freedom..

ole doc cain may be shooting himself in the foot..followers of such leadership may prove to be more than he realized ..we will see..

if all you folks that want so much freedom without regulation should not be using our interstates...or ANY federal programs..

you can't have it both ways..i think you should start a new state..a state of total confusion...that is what you get if you live without regulating your life...

you could move to some third world country and see if you like their lack of regulations..

silliness..living in a free society means we have to show empathy and understanding for each other and the smoking situations in this business enviornment reflects that our leaders..DO NOT have concern!

-- Posted by mindspace on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 7:35 AM

I'm going to eat more at Port Cape just because I respect someone who stands up for the right to have choices. I don't smoke or drink but I still believe the gov wants to control not only these vices but others like being overweight. People have choices where they eat. Let them make the choice.

-- Posted by wolfwoman on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 7:44 AM

mindspace: What people are saying is they are sick and tired of a over regulated government imposing so many restrictions on businesses and gladually chipping away the freedom from the people. Majority of the people want laws and we must have law but the laws imposed must have common sense and not go to extreme and this smoking ban was extreme that is the reason it did not pass. The people have spoken loud and clear case closed.

-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 7:46 AM

Get your facts straight mindspace. Greywolf stated his relatives were not on medicaid. He did not say they were not on medicare. Are you aware these are two separate programs? Sounds like you fear freedom of choice. No one forces you to patronize an establishment that allows smoking. I have a novel solution for you. Don't go there. Sounds pretty simple to me.

-- Posted by james p on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 7:51 AM

This is one example of why our federal government was organized as a representative republic and not a democracy. It should be more difficult to pass a new law than a simple majority vote of the people who don't like something. Good job to all who came out to keep this over-reaching ordinance from passing. I don't like whiny, self-absorbed idiots. Maybe we could pass an ordinance prohibiting them from public places. I bet I could find a simple majority in favor of that. Fair enough?

-- Posted by slim_pickens on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 7:54 AM

Mindspace, perhaps you should read my post again!

My relatives were never on "MEDICAID". They were however on medicare, at least a few since medicare came into existance in 1965 and a few died before that. There is a difference just in case you were not aware. Your idea of "living in a free society is much different then mine. Sorry, I prefer mine!

-- Posted by GREYWOLF on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 8:00 AM

I'm glad to see Cape Girardeau still believes in individual responsibility.

-- Posted by Lexluth on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 8:08 AM

As someone who was not able to vote due to living in the county. It is good to see someone standing up for "personal property" and "choice". Therefore I will continue to exercise my "choice" and use my "personal property" ie money, and continue to patronize places that are smoke free.

If those who voted for this ban would just do the same it may make a difference financially to some places. Also a kind thank you to the manager of the places you patronize goes a long way.

-- Posted by gman on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 8:09 AM

If you are a non smoker and voted against this bill - the next time you eat in a restaurant and smell cigarette smoke from the smoking section - don't complain! Stupid, stupid, stupid!

-- Posted by tigergrad89 on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 8:20 AM

I think the fact that Cape was the only city to defeat the smoke-free ordinance says a great deal about the strong, ultra-conservative mindset in the city. Change is a four-letter word in the old boys network.

No worries, though. Withso many other MO cities smart enough to protect the public health on this issue, we will soon see a state-wide law. So smoke 'em inside while you can!

-- Posted by southeast on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 8:28 AM

I will admit that it's nice to go inside a restaurant and not have to deal with the smoke. There have been several times when I've been in restaurants and the smoke that traveled from the non-smoking section was so strong that it made me sick to my stomach to eat there. I wonder who many restaurants that allowed smoking will eventually switch to all non-smoking. Or will that ever happen, barring a state-wide smoking ban?

-- Posted by SouthernHusker on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 8:33 AM

Surprised but very pleased.

In 11 months the city council should start ordinance procedures writing a reasonable smoking ban allowing property owners of bars, casinos, private clubs and diners choice. And they will need to define a specific number of feet banned from the entrance of a building.

If the council doesn't want to shoulder the political responsibility, put the new smoking ordinance on the April 2012 ballot.

-- Posted by ncis on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 8:40 AM

stu...I don't think the council will ever enact a smoking ordinance on their own mainly because they may lose votes. After all, being a city council members is more about one's political clout than doing what's best for the city.

-- Posted by southeast on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 8:45 AM

Wow thats a lot of comments!!! You made me proud on this one. GO CAPE!!!!!

-- Posted by Ashy on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 8:47 AM

Look at the results by precinct. I think you're incorrect that conservatives voted against the ban. The most conservative precincts, Bethany, La Croix, Arena, Westminster, voted in favor of the ban, meaning this idea resonated with non-smoking, white, church goers. I believe that they are still extremely upset about the casino coming to town and saw this as a way to potentially hurt Isle of Capri. This measure was far too restrictive to get a win this time around, but as such, demonstrated that a more reasoned ban, i.e. not including the casino or private clubs, could pass without their help. They'll be back.

-- Posted by girardeaud on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 8:54 AM

You people smoke to your heart's content! When you get it burned down to the filter, make sure that you use your own ashtray and not throw your beloved cigarette butt out the window on other folks property. The streets, intersections, parking lots, doorway to most businesses, and sidewalks are cluttered with your trash. Smoke all you want but discard your trash properly!

-- Posted by arrestthem on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 8:57 AM

No problem, "smokers, draw one".

...but know it's a nasty habit - and you remind me of a big, dark, smelly void surrounded by a sphincter muscle.

-- Posted by Hawker on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 8:57 AM

I'm not a regular smoker, but I do enjoy a cigar occasionally, and I respect the rights of others to do the same.

I come to Cape at least two times a month, sometimes four or five. I usually come up to shop (Target, Schnucks and the mall mainly) and while in town I always make a point to stop in at BWW and Port Cape. I also like Buckners and Broussards as well.

Had this ban passed I would still come to Cape, but much less often, and only to frequent BWW and make the rounds at the downtown "establishments". The rest of Cape would not see a dime of my money. I'll save that for the areas that still believe in individual rights, freedoms, and common sense.

-- Posted by golfnmotorcycles on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 8:57 AM

Congratulations Cape! Now that we've stymied those liberal health nuts (oh, that's right, this is not a health issue) it's time to go for broke and push for legalized prostitution in Cape. We've already got gambling and we've just insured you'll be able to smoke almost everywhere, so why not push for legal public sex? Surely it's a lot healthier than smoking and, I hear, a lot more fun. And no problem getting our city "leaders" to support the initiative - clearly the Mayor, Chamber of Commerce, and Old Town Cape will have to be for it - just think of the impact on downtown with our new casino! What a joke. You think this vote will result in Cape being labeled as a defender of indiviual choice and personal freedom? Cape will now appear to the rest of the state and nation as an unenlightened, unhealthy, backwater community that is totally out of touch with reality. There is an old saying -"You are what you are PERCEIVED to be". This vote is a huge defeat for a healthier Cape Girardeau! My suggestion to all who supported this initiative is to BOYCOTT any public establishment that allows smoking - turn them over completely to the smokers! Soon enough the smokers will be totally incapacitated by their profoundly unhealthy addiction and the businesses will all go broke. Then smoking becomes a non issue.

-- Posted by chinook on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 9:01 AM

Legalize prostitution and I will move there tomorrow. Seriously.

I've been married, and that sex was too expensive and too routine, and I'm all about saving some coin.

-- Posted by golfnmotorcycles on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 9:17 AM


-- Posted by in the money on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 9:29 AM

I'll ask again -- does anyone from the Smoke Free contingent have an actual person's name that has, or had, lung cancer caused by secondhand smoke?

-- Posted by gomer on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 9:38 AM

Been watching the smoking ban and comparing it to some of the smoking ban proposals around the state - I'm amazed at the controversy and the media hype brought forth in this town compared to similar initiatives in other places around the state. Here it failed because people just can't seem to give up their cigarettes for an hour to go eat. Alot of the same people who are addicted to cigarettes are the same people who keep rolling debt at payday loan stores and they just can't seem to cut the expense of cigarettes down. To a few people, they say it's more about rights - these self-absorbed people don't seem to care about the rights of others around them - just themselves - many are the same individuals who think helicopters and satellites are following them around.

-- Posted by Beaker on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 9:45 AM

It's simple economics. The market will adjust to what people want, as long as there is no government intervention. If non-smokers really care as much as they would have us believe, they will avoid establishments that allow smoking, and it will be fiscally necessary for them to ban smoking. However, I doubt that any of the nameless people who are so passionate in online forums will actually follow through with such an action.

As far as those who are willing to violate the rights of private business in order to promote health, I like to quote Ben Franklin - "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-- Posted by sgodwin23 on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 9:50 AM

If you are a non smoker and voted against this bill - the next time you eat in a restaurant and smell cigarette smoke from the smoking section - don't complain! Stupid, stupid, stupid!

-- Posted by tigergrad89 on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 8:20 AM

You make no point. Nearly Every restaurant IS smoke free.

Besides Pilot House, which is not impacted by this law, I have never been to a restaurant that has bothered me. If it did, I would never go back.

-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 9:52 AM

Great election result....now have the City form the two groups under a Task Force , and resolve the main issues, and put a corrected ballot out for us to vote on.

-- Posted by CB1 on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 9:57 AM

dear smokers, you are the minority in this country, less than 20% of the population smokes now. When a statewide ban goes in place, all of your high-fiving will have been for not. good luck with that lung cancer!

-- Posted by burnt on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 9:57 AM

Pilot House's food is too good not tolerate the smoke. They have the best fish! Remember it is LENT. NO MEAT ON FRIDAY!

-- Posted by PO526 on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 9:59 AM


You are 100% wrong in your summary. The reason it failed is because the anti-smokers bit off more than they can chew. Fact is restaurants are already smoke free. The smoking people for some stupid reason went after bars. That is what turned people off.

Had they went with wording like "before 10pm" or other language to exempt bars, it would pass.

-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 10:00 AM

I grew up in a house with parents that smoke. Both of them are deceased now at a young age--my father at 64 from lung cancer and my mother at 66 from COPD-related illness. I have partial hearing loss in my right ear from all the ear infections I suffered growing up because of the secondhand smoke I was always exposed to. I have never smoked and truly HATE smoking. BUT . . . I am tired of my rights being taken away. I am glad this did not pass although I know a few changes will be made and it will be right back on the ballot. They will never stop until some type of a smoking ban passes.

-- Posted by tigerfanforever on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 10:01 AM

Wait till November 2012 when the more intelligent people come out to vote. It is not over till the fat lady sings.

-- Posted by jcjayof61 on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 10:06 AM

I am a non-smoker living in the burbs in the Big City where smoking is prohibited. I patronized bars and restaurants where there was smoking since it normally did not bother me. I believe in the rights of business owners so I'm with you smokers. Recently I went to a small restaurant bar in that I had not been in since it went to non-smoking. I was amazing how much cleaner and brighter the place was. There was the same crowd of regulars so they had not lost business. Just one instance, but there is something to be said about the side of non-smoking. I'm just saying...

-- Posted by SEMO72a on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 10:10 AM


I agree. There will not be a signficant loss of business if the city goes smoke free.

-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 10:15 AM

I don't smoke and not only dislike being around smoke, but it causes me to cough, my eyes to water and itch, and makes it hard to breath. BUT, I think this proposed ban was WAY, WAY, WAY too harsh in restricting individual rights and property owner rights. We can choose not to go where there is smoking and those business owners can decide how they are willing to make non-smokers more comfortable.

-- Posted by Grammy and proud on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 10:17 AM

I don't smoke and not only dislike being around smoke, but it causes me to cough, my eyes to water and itch, and makes it hard to breath. BUT, I think this proposed ban was WAY, WAY, WAY too harsh in restricting individual rights and property owner rights. We can choose not to go where there is smoking and those business owners can decide how they are willing to make non-smokers more comfortable.

-- Posted by Grammy and proud on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 10:18 AM

I'll ask again -- does anyone from the Smoke Free contingent have an actual person's name that has, or had, lung cancer caused by secondhand smoke?

-- Posted by gomer on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 9:38 AM

Rene Hicks

-- Posted by southeast on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 10:30 AM

It is very easy solution..Do as we do If there is smoking permitted just do not go to that place of business. That is why we quit going to Sands and several other places that we love to eat. The smoke bothers us so we take are $$$ elsewhere. And yes I know someone who died from second hand smoke. My father and he never smoked a day in his life. Lung cancer is very real, and from 2nd hand smoke. just pray that all of you that have such little knowledge of cancer never have to go through yourself or see a loved one suffer. Everyone is so angry over this..I was angry also when my father passed away. Like I said...SIMPLE SOLUTION...JUST DON'T GO TO ANY RESTAURANT OR BUSINESS THAT ALLOWS SMOKE

-- Posted by stlthoughts on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 10:30 AM

You've got it right, Beaker.

And Chinook, you missed a few things. I want to raise chickens in my back yard (my own property) and build a real high fence, even taller than Wayne Crites'

-- Posted by pedln on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 10:38 AM

After just returning from Chicago I can say the ban poses an interesting dynamic. No smoking there in clubs, restaurants, bars, etc. You can smoke outside as much as you'd like. So... while jogging by Lake Michigan or walking down ANY street, with your friends, on a school field trip, with your child, pets, etc, you pass through clouds of smoke. The outside of places are over crowded with smokers standing by the doors...again, clouds of smoke. Bus stops...smoke. Waiting for a taxi, smoke. Stop lights, smoke. Train station, smoke. Upscale shopping district, smoke. Family friendly Navy Pier, smoke. The streets, parking lots and sidewalks are COVERED with cigarette butts. So, after you stand behind, walk behind, pass through or exit through....you're still inhaling it. Stay home? Make cigarettes illegal? Chicago tried paying city workers to use street cleaning trucks to keep the areas less littered. But, that's too expensive. Some businesses have signs that read, No smoking within 10 feet of this building. So, the place next door is packed outside OR smokers stand off the curb in to the street. Never mind the stubborn drunk that challenges the owner by saying, I'm more than 10 feet away from your building. Then the cops are called and it's he said, he said. And, because I'm a curious person, I felt compelled to ask a few people if the city smoking ban has effected their business. The overwhelming reply was yes. 'We've lost a lot of regular's', or, 'The ban is a blunder and has caused lots of other issues in town'. Listen, I can't say that smoking is a good thing. It's not. It's a nasty, addictive, expensive habit that I'm certain most would want to give up if they 'could'. In the windy city, cigs are $9 per pack and that cost doesn't seem to have effected the smokers or the non-smokers for that matter. Smoking is still a hotly contested issue in a city of 7 million people.

Imposing on the rights of individual business owners is, in my opinion, overbaring and impractical. After seeing the outcome in another city, I'm not so sure a smoking ban is really a ban at all. I'm glad the Cape smoking ban did not pass.

-- Posted by kcgal on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 10:40 AM

This issue isn't about smoking. It's about a group of terrorists and those fighting against them.

If you voted yes, then you are a staunch proponent of slavery. May you perish sooner rather than later.

-- Posted by uberfan20 on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 10:43 AM

Geez CHINOOK , I would support legalized prostitution. Why you might ask? Simply because its prohibition has NEVER worked and never will! Why not legalize it and tax it like any other business. Its worked well in some Counties in Nevada and several Europian countries. I believe Cape will be perceived as a City that stands for true freedom of choice and civil liberties AND one that stands up to progressives and their agendas! You certainly can protest by not frequenting any smoking establishment. That is your right and apparently its your choice. Your "backwater" and "out of touch from reality" comment is ridiculous.

As for those who suggest the State lawmakers will soon be passing a no smoking prohibition here in Missouri, I think they will have a difficult time considering they JUST VOTED to prohibit smoking in the Capitol building but NOT in their private offices that are within the building. A Bit hypocritical in my opine. Simply put, most folks are tired of doogooders and progressives meddling into others affairs! I believe this is happening all over this Country and it makes me very happy. Freedom of choice prevails in Cape Girardeau.

-- Posted by GREYWOLF on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 10:49 AM

dear smokers, you are the minority in this country, less than 20% of the population smokes now. When a statewide ban goes in place, all of your high-fiving will have been for not. good luck with that lung cancer!

-- Posted by burnt on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 9:57 AM

wow, it's good to see how much you care about the health of citizens... this was a health issue right?

-- Posted by Producer1 on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 10:53 AM


-- Posted by stlthoughts on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 11:16 AM

Please post a list of all the eating establishments that are smoke free. Many who have recently moved here from other places are surprised that people still smoke in restaurants as it is not very common out West where smoking has become a less desirable habit.

-- Posted by semomom40 on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 11:20 AM

Still waiting for the name of that one individual who contracted lung cancer from exposure to secondhand smoke. The silence is deafening. Perhaps, the reason is there aren't any. This has never been a real health issue. That is the propaganda and lies spread by the antismoking groups as a cover for their agenda. It is very obvious that most of the smoking ban supporters are not really woried about any actual harm by secondhand smoke. They simply hate smokers. You should be on our side. After all, we pay draconian taxes on this legal product. Taxes the nonsmokers would have to pay otherwise.

-- Posted by james p on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 11:27 AM


"Wait till November 2012 when the more intelligent people come out to vote."

are you saying that you did not vote, or that you are not intelligent?

-- Posted by ManleyPointer on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 11:40 AM

Stay stupid, Cape!

-- Posted by GiantBigHeadGuy on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 11:40 AM

jamesp...I already posted one: Rene Hicks. Google it.

-- Posted by southeast on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 11:42 AM

I don't have a list of all of the smoke-free resturants in Cape, but I do know a few that let you enjoy a nice post-meal cigarette. To my knowledge there are only a few that the smoking section exisits and there is not a bar area. Here's what I came up with. Please add to my list if I'm missing anything.

Port Cape, Pancake House, Buffalo Wild Wings, Broussard's, Ryan's, Outback, Cracker Barrell

-- Posted by CapeCrusader on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 11:45 AM

semomom, I don't think smoking is a less desirable habit out west. Rather most of those States are filled with people who prefer to force their meddling habits on others. I just returned form California a few weeks ago. I saw just as many smokers if not more out there then here!

They were however outside as smoking is prohibited everywhere inside. I did notice that while in Northern Cali, many out of the out of the way county taverns allowed smoking and ignored the State wide ban. My friend whom I visited was until just recently, the prosecuting attorney in a N. California County and he overlooked it as long as he received no complaints. You also must remember that California is filled with progressives and meddlers.

-- Posted by GREYWOLF on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 11:46 AM

Like semomom, I would like to see a list of restaurants and bars where smoking is either allowed or disallowed. That way we can make our personal choice in the matter. And i really don't understand why bars have to be part of the ban since most bar patrons and bar employees i know are smokers.

-- Posted by travellin man on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 11:58 AM

Thank you Cape for standing up for what is right! Bars, gambling, dancing and smoking have been around forever with smoke lingering...it goes hand-in-hand. I'm a bartender, was worried that I may have to quit because I smoke. All of our bartenders smoke. We chose jobs like that so we can smoke. It's not up to a group of people to tell us that we can't. Most bartenders don't get breaks. If we did, we'd lose money. I can't imagine having to leave my customers for 5 minutes to run outside and smoke...and from the proposal, I couldn't even sit in my car and smoke!

With all that being said, I would have voted for a ban if it included just restaurants but only new ones that are opened. The others that have been here for ages chose to allow smoking based on their clientele.

And Doc, don't worry about people saying they won't patronize your bar...you've just gained two others just because you had the drive to STAND UP! I will help to promote Port Cape by sending my customers down there as often as I can by explaining what all you did! Thank you!!!

-- Posted by Topo_Gigio on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 12:01 PM

List of smoke free diners from Breathe easy website:


-- Posted by Cap_Anson on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 12:27 PM

Greywolf: I don't beleive there has been any other community in Missouri to reject a smoking restriction initiative. Therefore, if not progressive, then backwater in my opine!

-- Posted by chinook on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 12:28 PM

Hooray for Cape. I've lived in rural and metro areas and I'm back in SE Missouri for good! The values in St. Louis City and Kansas City are all liberal, nanny-state and they promise to take care of you with food-bans, smoking-bans, blah blah blah.

All the while their crime is the worst, their schools are the worst, their employment is nonexistant, their use of welfare is through the roof. Why would ANYONE listen to a liberal when it comes to running anything???

I hope rural Missouri never becomes like the big cities. Personal responsibility and freedom rule down here. Not so in St. Louis city. If you don't like the smoke - don't go inside!!!

-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 12:29 PM

WWJD???? Not judge people, nor force his ideas on others.

I would guess that yourasmallman, Probably, was a partier as a younger man, and now he wants to revist his parting days, with his Kids, and he is upset cause his wife, who is very religious will not let him take the kids to Smoking allowed restrauants.

Dude your married stay out of Bars, and places serving alcohol, besides would Jesus go to a Bar????

-- Posted by Archie Bunker on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 12:45 PM

I'll ask again -- does anyone from the Smoke Free contingent have an actual person's name that has, or had, lung cancer caused by secondhand smoke?

-- Posted by gomer on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 9:38 AM

Rene Hicks

-- Posted by southeast on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 10:30 AM

Do you have any medical documentation on that? Link?

-- Posted by gomer on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 12:57 PM

This is a dead issue for a year. DEAL WITH IT FOLKS!

-- Posted by eyesonu on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 1:14 PM

I've been googling Rene Hicks, and I see alot things where she says that's how she got cancer, but I don't see anything along the lines of medical documentation supporting it? I'm not saying she didn't, but is there a link with actual medical documentation stating that is how she got it, and not just her saying that is how she got it? I see alot of quotes from people in movements supporting her, but still don't see any medical proof or a diagnosis that that is how she got it. Anyone got a better link that what I can apparently find on my own?

Not taking sides, only trying to better inform myself.

-- Posted by gomer on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 1:16 PM

Gomer - Search the internet under people who have died from second hand smoke.

-- Posted by SEMO72a on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 1:28 PM

Gomer - Search the internet under people who have died from second hand smoke.

-- Posted by SEMO72a on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 1:28 PM

I did, but still don't see any medical evidence, just people saying it happens. I did find alot of people asking the same question that I'm asking though. Can you give me the link that has the speficis, because I can't seem to find it.

-- Posted by gomer on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 1:52 PM

I can't help myself here ya'l

Archie Bunker asked, "besides would Jesus go to a Bar????

Well Archie, as I recall Jesus is known to have turned water to wine and not just mediocre

wine. In fact, it was the best of wine. So, you might say, at least once he WAS THE BAR !

I mean no disrespect Archie Bunker...

-- Posted by GREYWOLF on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 1:55 PM

I do not live in Cape and I do not smoke. I also think that smoking is an expensive, nasty, unhealthy habit. However, I think that common sense prevailed. Why is everyone so quick for the government to "fix things" for us when a simple decision not to go to a "smoking" restaurant could fix it? We need LESS government, not more.

gomer.....It's just like global warning.....it's a farce. I know people that have NEVER smoked, but died from lung cancer. There is NO WAY to say with any certainty that you can get lung cancer, or any other diseases for that matter, from secondhand smoke.

Here's a thought.....if smoking is as bad as the supporters of this initiative say it is.....ban cigarettes.....get rid of them. Oh wait....we can't do that...the liberals won't have anything to tax!! The liberals don't want to get rid of things that are bad for us, they just want to tax them to control our lives because "they" know better how to run out lives than we do.

It's interesting in states where the cigarettes are tax heavily (i.e. Illinois - $9/pack) and the "income" from the taxes are supposed to solve the finanical woes of the state. Ask Illinois how the budget is going there!!! YOU CAN NOT TAX A SOCIETY INTO PROSPERITY!!!!! How hard is that to understand????? If the tax truly works, then you lose the tax revenue!!!! The liberals know that they can increase taxes on cigaretts because people will still smoke!

-- Posted by Rocket689 on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 2:10 PM

Haven't found much on secondhand smoke and cancer, but it does seem to be a hindrance for people with asthma.

-- Posted by gomer on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 2:13 PM

as an x smoker, I have distain for the smell of ciggarette smoke. HOWEVER, it is the right of a smoker to smoke in an establishment where smoking is allowed. Therefore, I choose establishments where they the owner have made it not allowed to smoke in their etablishment. It is not the governments rights or the peoples right to take away the rights of anyone else. I do hope that those who continue to smoke will one day see the adverse affects it has on their health even on the health of those around them whom they love, but it is still their right. Now, please, don't come back at me about drinking and driving. That is a condidion one puts themselves into where they have no control over a vehicle. We cannot stay off the roads but we can choose where we go to eat and socialize.

-- Posted by 4givn on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 2:48 PM

Altho I respect ppl's opinions.. being engaged to a Dr and yes, I smoke occasionally.. he did not support the ban. He said that effects of 2nd hand smoke are minimum to nil while your in a bar. Now if you are around a constant smoker such as @ work or someone @ home, yes there's that risk. I think if the ventilation is good it should be ok. In AZ if the place/bar is where you must be 21 to enter, then it's allowed. If its a restaurant/bar where children etc are allowed, then smoking is not permitted. We have just as much right if done right to smoke as you do drinking your alcohol and getting drunk. Have you ever heard of someone getting killed by a "smoking" driver? Sorry.......if this offends those who hate it. But I am glad it didn't pass.

-- Posted by harlywoman on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 2:49 PM

Congratulations, great job Doc Cain and Stand Up Cape. The underdogs win!!! Truth and integrity win everytime.

-- Posted by free2Bme on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 3:00 PM

gomer...With HIPPA regulations, how is it possible to provide a link to someone's medical diagnosis? I can't see oxygen, but I believe it exists. Here's a link to Rene's story:


She spoke at SEMO a few years ago and was very powerful.

-- Posted by southeast on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 3:01 PM

harlywoman...so by your own logic, a person who works in a bar or smoking section of a restaurant is at risk. Why doesn't this person's health matter? Ventilation does not work. See ASHREA's statement, the Surgeon General's statement, peer-reviewed literature, etc.

Although you are stretching the reasoning of this ordinance, I'll answer your other question with a question. Ever wonder why your auto insurer asks if you are a smoker? It's because distracted drivers cause more auto crashes than others. Smoking is a distraction.

But, smoke it up. I'm sure Dr. Hubby will provide all the free chemo you need. He'll most likely need it too if you smoke around him.

-- Posted by southeast on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 3:06 PM

Southeast! I have been purchasing auto insurance for 40 years and from many different companies.

One such policy I purchased 6 moonths ago on Mrs. Wolf's new car. In all those years and including this last policy (full coverage) I have NEVER been asked If I smoke cigarettes. I suggest you are wrong. I do not believe many if ANY companies raise rates due to smoking. Where do you get your info southeast. This statement causes me to question your credibility. You were the last I would suspect of being a sore looser.

-- Posted by GREYWOLF on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 3:24 PM

I don't know about car insurance but I can say with certainy that premiums for health insurance are higher for smokers. It just "might" be due to the research that shows smoking to be so dangerous to ones health. It is a pipe dream of smokers to say that the research is wrong, really! The dangers of second hand smoke are also very well documented. "There are none so blind as those who refuse to see." I have hope that a smoking ban will eventually be be the norm in Cape and believe it or not,life will go on.

-- Posted by luvbball15 on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 4:16 PM

Smoking is a almost a national sport in Japan. Yet the incidence of lung cancer is half that of the United States. The smoking rate in Japan is double the US rate. One of the highest smoking rates and one of the lowest lung cancer rates in the civilized world. Smoking laws are vigorously opposed and most restaurants don't even separate smokers from non-smokers. Smoking is common in the work place and many hospitals allow smoking. So, what does that say about second hand smoke? Maybe the American Cancer Society should do some research on that, if they have any money left over.

-- Posted by ParkerDaws on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 4:16 PM

southeast - if she's the only person in the country to have gotten cancer from it, and she openly talks about it and advocates for it -- you'd think she would release her medical records proving it, wouldn't you?

People can say whatever they want, but if they don't have any proof, how do we really know?

-- Posted by gomer on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 5:19 PM

I saw her video, but all it says it what she claims, nothing that would hold up in a court of law as 'evidence'. I did find a court case that was thrown out for lack of evidence from a guy that tried suing a place due to cancer from secondhand smoke> But his own Dr's couldn't specifically say, in their professional opinion, that secondhand smoke was the cause.

-- Posted by gomer on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 5:22 PM

Here is a list of restaurants that have smoking and non-smoking sections: Applebee's, BG's, Bella Italia, Broussard's, BWW, Olive Garden, Outback, Pagoda, Port Cape, Red Lobster, Ryan's, Sand's, Show Me's, Texas Roadhouse, all the Chinese, and all the Mexican. If you are a non smoker, then choose not to go there. None of these businesses will be affected if you don't go.

You have a choice to cook your own food or go somewhere people will cook it for you. Just as you would not expect someone to come to your house to tell you what should & should not be allowed, the same goes for the restaurant owner. Just because a place is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC does not make it a public place. They are private establishments.

On a final note, just because another initiative petition cannot be submitted to implement a smoking ban for one year, does not mean that the city council cannot write an ordinance this year. The council could also write an ordinance that insures the rights of business owners against such draconian attempts to limit individual rights.

P.S.: Could someone from the antismoking crowd please inform me on how an individual has the right to be served in any place they choose. I thought the owner reserved the right of service.

-- Posted by stagman29 on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 5:37 PM

Here's you're paper work:

------------- The Largest study on Second Hand Smoke ever done by Enstrom


"No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98."

"Enstrom has defended the accuracy of his study against what he terms 'illegitimate criticism by those who have attempted to suppress and discredit it.'". (Wikipedia)


------ Court rules that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is NOT a Class A carcinogen

William Osteen (US District Judge) ruling against the EPA

*The ruling shows by scientific definition that ETS is not a Class A carcinogen


"There is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA 'cherry picked' its data" ... "EPA's excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA's purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines" (p. 72)

-------- OSHA will NOT regulate something that's NOT hazardous


"OSHA has no regulation that addresses tobacco smoke as a whole, 29 CFR 1910.1000 Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS."

CDC Study shows cigarette smoke is 25,000 times safer than OSHA air regulations



US Senate discusses health official's inability to represent any REAL science


Study about health & Smoking Bans -- The National Bureau of Economic Research


"Workplace bans are not associated with statistically significant short-term declines in mortality or hospital admissions for myocardial infarction or other diseases."


"Conclusions: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS(environmental tobacco smoke) and lung cancer risk."

-- Posted by tom4444 on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 5:54 PM

You can beat them with a dead cat tom4444

But they will not believe the truth

But liars will always believe a lie

-- Posted by 44044 on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 6:26 PM

Sour grapes

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 8:15 PM

SouthernHusker, there tends to be a trend of restaurants, and sometimes bars as well, going smoke-free, after such a smoking ban effort fails. This trend occurred in Amarillo(Denny's, Cafe Marizon), and Indianapolis(Talbott Street bar, Crackers Comedy Club, and Broad Ripple location of Buffalo Wild Wings).

It amazes me that non-smokers annoyed by the smoke don't have the common sense to not patronize that business and let the manager know you are taking your business elsewhere until it changes its policy to prohibit smoking, if the smoking policy of one business is that bothersome to a patron. Finally Rocket, just to clarify your point, cigarettes only cost $7-9 if you live either in the city or in suburban Cook County(as both impose taxes on top of the state cig tax, and you get a triple whammy of all 3 cig taxes if you're dumb enough to buy in Chicago). In the rest of the state, it isn't that expensive, though I won't deny that IL's cig tax is higher than Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska.

-- Posted by CoachMcGuirk617 on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 8:19 PM

gomer...you really are one, aren't you?

To my nemesises (or is it nemesii), so long. I am off to CA to enjoy the smoke-free bliss.


-- Posted by southeast on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 8:33 PM

What a sad day. Half our city lost, not just a minority. I once smoked and was fortunately smart enough to quit, but going to smoke filled bars are a temptation to start again. I gladly avoid smoke filled restaurants and bars, but those businesses allowing this are just contributing to poor health and higher taxes on us all. Hopefully logic will prevail and smoking will become a thing of the past. Until then, may the smoke-free premises prosper!

-- Posted by Curious_1 on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 9:34 PM

Come on back you big government types and we'll kick your a$$es again. There are plenty of establishments that don't allow smoking, go to them.


-- Posted by Pops90 on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 10:14 PM

I am disappointed this didn't pass. It's something I've supported and it's something for which I am actually glad to be living in Illinois ;)

But as disappointed as I am, I can go along with (for now) the fact that the "majority" did not want it. And I put that in quotes because the true majority may not have opposed it, but the majority of the voters did. That's the beauty of this country..

-- Posted by redhawkstudent on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 10:53 PM

When people are asked for evidence to support their position, and they have none, they usually resort to name calling and temper tantrums. Wonder who that describes in this thread?

-- Posted by bam-bam on Thu, Apr 7, 2011, at 12:06 AM

I am a professor on campus and, when asked if my students would be voting, only one was aware that anything special was taking place on April 5. That student felt it unnecessary to vote because she believed that, because she viewed the matter as obvious, everyone who would vote would represent her view. Needless to say, she was expounding a Smoke-Free POV. Irony staked atop egocentrism. Undoubtedly, she was not the only one to stay away from the booths that day for said reason.

-- Posted by Mala on Thu, Apr 7, 2011, at 12:19 AM

Reading the above comment, it sounds like antis are doing a great job of deceiving certain groups(this case, college students) into believing the secondhand smoke garbage. What's so hard with voting with your wallet anyway for smoke-free businesses, and even trying to persuade the Cape Chamber of Commerce to put a no-smoking symbol next to establishments that have entirely prohibited smoking inside on future Cape tourism brochures, and/or the city of Cape Girardeau(if they list local restaurants and bars on their site) to put no-smoking symbols next to establishments that already are non-smoking? I remember Hays, KS did this(and also on the city website) before the Kansas state smoking ban took effect, and Fayetteville doing this to indicate which bars/restaurants were smoke-free. (Fayetteville of course abides with Arkansas law, which only allows smoking in any age-restricted establishment that is 21 and up)

I've seen multiple CoC's successfully do this on a city/town tourism brochure and I greatly appreciate this, since it alerts me beforehand of businesses that don't cater to smokers. But hey, at least two Cape smoke-free lists are already posted(newer list is the above one of the 2):



-- Posted by CoachMcGuirk617 on Thu, Apr 7, 2011, at 6:37 AM

way to go Cape you just proved how backward thinking you are. someday you may get with the rest of the country and do something right for you and your children.

-- Posted by runner50 on Thu, Apr 7, 2011, at 6:56 AM

All the talk is about food establishments that are smoke free. What about all of the other business? Like Wal-Mart, Target, K-Mart, The mall, and more. I would like to know what percentage of ALL of Cape business that are smoke free. I would say if it's not 90% or higher, then it's close to it. When enough of the towns and cities in Missouri go smoke free, then the rest of the state will too.

-- Posted by livesound1 on Thu, Apr 7, 2011, at 7:42 AM

what's the record on most comments for a news story?

-- Posted by TommyStix on Thu, Apr 7, 2011, at 8:30 AM
Response by Matt Sanders:

You're looking at it. This story has set the record.

FYI: SEMO students are not citizens of this town and as such do not vote in this city. They are registered in their hometowns.

-- Posted by stagman29 on Thu, Apr 7, 2011, at 11:57 AM


-- Posted by southeast on Wed, Apr 6, 2011, at 8:33 PM

Don't let the door hit you in the rear on the way out. Enjoy Pelsosiland.

-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Apr 7, 2011, at 3:27 PM

stagman29 - if they live in Cape, or in a Cape dorm even, they can register to vote as a citizen here. Most of them don't register though, but they have every right to. If you're 21 and live on Sprigg St, it doesn't matter if you are a student at Semo or not, if you register that as your address so you can vote - then you can vote, just like the person that lives across the street from you but isn't a student. They can't vote both here and from where they are originally from though -- but if they register to vote here, with their Cape address (even if it is a dorm), they certainly can vote here.

They also count in the census numbers too.

-- Posted by bam-bam on Thu, Apr 7, 2011, at 4:47 PM

The town of Emporia Kansas had a smoking ban on the ballot. The nursing school there, who got grant funds from Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, (that's the "charity" who pumped the big money for the ban into the Cancer Society) registered all the out of town students just for the election. The people of Emporia lost by 8 votes. Now they have all gone back to their home towns and left the businesses of Emporia DECIMATED by the ban.

And I have looked for two years to find a death from second hand smoke. There are none. And one in 1,000 non smokers gets lung cancer, eight smokers out of 1,000 do. Viruses are probably causing the gene mutation that we call cancer. No one knows what causes any cancer except cervical, and that has been proven to be caused by the Human Pampilloma Virus.

When pro ban lies about science and produces "studies" that are funded by pro ban, keep in mind the funding of this. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation holds tens of millions of shares of Johnson and Johnson stock. J&J sell Nicoderm, Nicorette, Nicotrol, Nicoderm CQ, and Commit Lozenges.

If these pro ban people want smoking stopped then they should be lobbying to ban the SELLING of the product. They don't because it would end the selling of nicotine replacement.

Next question?

-- Posted by smartin1955 on Thu, Apr 7, 2011, at 8:45 PM

Well, if we are going to ban habits based on what it costs taxpayers, it would seem that "junk food" costs more taxpayers due to medical costs than smoking. From CNN:http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/09/fact.check.obesity/index.html

* A 2009 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, along with RTI International (a nonprofit research group), found that the direct and indirect cost of obesity "is as high as $147 billion annually."

But this is not about healthcare costs it's about political correctness and controlling business owners and citizens, it is about fundamental, god given rights, that are protected by our constitution.

God also gives each of us free will. You are free to eat until you explode, you are free to enter a smoking facility, you are just a free to choose not to.

Enough of this "Nanny State"!

-- Posted by mobushwhacker on Thu, Apr 7, 2011, at 8:58 PM

I am a smoker myself but I have made my dining room non-smoking until 9 pm so that families with children and non smokers may enjoy their meal. After nine when the bar crowd starts coming in and the families go home, smoking is allowed. I think it is a good compromise. One that allows everyone to enjoy their meal. And it was my decision to make. I pay the property taxes, I should get to make the decisions that effect my business. Why cant we all just work toward finding solutions that work for everyone. All this hostility and name calling, from both sides, is unnecessary. Come on Cape, we are better than this.

-- Posted by Mojogirl on Fri, Apr 8, 2011, at 12:18 PM

Only in SEMissouri do people celebrate and rejoyce their total ignorance and stupidity. I hope the 3000 odd people will stick to their Yes votes and boycott places that allow smoking or so called "smoking sections". Let the idiots have their day, they will be paying for it down the road and don't let them take you and your loved ones with them. The big fish in the little pond think they are so smart and clever, but look like idiots to people in the know.

-- Posted by ArcticFox on Fri, Apr 8, 2011, at 1:27 PM

nothing to add. just wanted to be the 200th comment

-- Posted by peter_grant on Fri, Apr 8, 2011, at 1:55 PM

Since you have to act like an overgrown child and resort to name calling..I'd say your the idiot.

-- Posted by Mojogirl on Fri, Apr 8, 2011, at 2:19 PM

Why would a lobbying group for the maker of smoking cessation products dump over $80,000.00 into one city in S. E. Missouri (and $800,000,000.00 nationwide), then run their compaign out of their own PR firm instead of a local company? Probably not because they make millions whenever a smoking ban goes in. Maybe they were just very concerned with our health? ...NOT!!!

You can work some people like you got 'em on wages if you got enough well-financed propaganda.

Do you know that if someone steals your property in Missouri and you locate it at a pawn shop...you have to pay the shop to get it back!!! Another example of what lobbyists can do with enough (bribe) money. It may be time for the people to wake-up and smell the corruption.

-- Posted by riverdog on Fri, Apr 8, 2011, at 5:24 PM

The restrictive smoking ban was voted down in Cape for the following reasons;

1) A person's business that they have put their life and money is not a "public place" and the goverment should be very careful about puting restrictions on a legal activity on your private property.

2) This was in no way a "local effort". The campaign was waged with corporate money from a lobbying group attempting to sell their products with the goverment's help. It was run from their PR agency in the East. Their first two spokespersons were not residents of Cape and when that was pointed out they "dissappeared".

3) citizens are very tired of goverment interference with their daily lives and the gradual erosion of their rights. While it's undoubtly true that "the right to smoke" is not specifically mentioned in the constitution, it would have been ludicrous to propose since tobacco was used for currency at that time and was the country's largest export. Like it or not,we still have the FREEDOM to smoke in this country!

4) All the claims about second-hand smoke are bogus and the "studies" are paid for by BIG PHARMA. OSHA says that second-hand smoke puts 25,000 TIMES less carcinagens in the air than their LOWEST standards.

-- Posted by riverdog on Fri, Apr 8, 2011, at 5:32 PM

nothing to add. just wanted to be the 200th comment

-- Posted by peter_grant on Fri, Apr 8, 2011, at 1:55 PM

Just like peter_grant said, nothing more to add except I am trying to have the last word on the largest amount of posts on a Southeast Missourian article. Deep down though I feel someone out there will try and steal my thunder. LOL

-- Posted by gman on Fri, Apr 8, 2011, at 8:16 PM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account on seMissourian.com or semoball.com, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.


Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.

Precinct vote totals: Cape Girardeau smoking ban question

Should the city institute the "Cape Girardeau Smoke-Free Air Act," prohibiting smoking in places of public accommodation?

1 -- Red Star164311
2 -- Westminster447439
4 -- Centenary140183
6 -- Grace193264
7 -- Arena296401
8 -- City Hall102219
9 -- Church of Christ3061
12 -- House of Hope3097
13 -- Bethany290255
14 -- St. Andrew Lutheran212237
15 -- Bethany306292
16 -- La Croix572414
17 -- Arena527432
18 -- Fellowship247280

15 of 15 precincts reporting

Post a comment View all comments (4)

Gallery: Election Day
Voters in Cape Girardeau turned out on Tuesday, April 5, 2011, to cast ballots on three issues and await the election results.