| |
|
|
|
Health groups say 'no' to smoking ban in St. Louis County
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
8/27/2009
The American Cancer Society, American Lung Association and American Heart Association are calling on St. Louis County Executive Charlie Dooley to reject a smoking ordinance approved Tuesday by the County Council and to instead ask the council to start over on a new one.
The council ordinance that was approved 4-3 would send the proposal to voters. It could go on the ballot Nov. 3.
In addition to its plea to veto the ordinance, the American Cancer Society feels so strongly that the proposal is flawed that it is paying for a radio commercial against the bill.
"We just feel really strongly that it's so weak it shouldn't be on the ballot and we really need Exec. Dooley to veto it," said Stacy Reliford, regional director for the American Cancer Society.
The proposal passed by the council would ban smoking in some indoor public places but would allow smoking on casino floors, in smoking lounges at Lambert - St. Louis International Airport and in "drinking establishments" that earn 75 percent or more of their sales from alcohol.
Dooley has not said whether he will veto it and has five days from the day of passage to either sign or veto the bill. Dooley in the past has said he supports a state-wide ban.
The council's smoking proposal has drawn fire from both proponents of a ban who say it is too weak and from some businesses and others who oppose any ban. To get the proposal on the Nov. 3 ballot, a special order by the court would be necessary.
The American Cancer Society, American Lung Association and American Heart Association are seeking a ban in all enclosed public spaces.
The three health organizations said in the statement they released jointly that they are " extremely disappointed that the St. Louis County Council has voted to send a confusing and badly flawed smoke-free proposal to the ballot. We oppose the proposal because it does not fully protect the public's right to breathe smoke-free air, makes enforcement unworkable, and unfairly pits business against business.
"We now call on County Executive Dooley to reject this ordinance in its current form and to ask the Council to start over with a more deliberative process that yields meaningful health protection for St. Louis County. "
The statement goes on to say that the organizations support an ordinace that would "truly protect workers and patrons from secondhand smoke, in a way that is easy for people to understand and easy to enforce. We thank the many residents who voiced their support for a strong and comprehensive measure that covers all workplaces, including bars and restaurants and urge everyone to continue the fight for smoke-free air. "
The statement says that the council's proposal "compromises the health of those employees and patrons most exposed to secondhand smoke."
Because many taverns will be able to obtain a license from the county to allow smoking, "this will give bars a county-issued license to harm the health of its employees and customers. "
The statement also says the wording and "loopholes" would lead to "confusion and can create expensive enforcement issues and potential legal challenges. "
The statement concludes: "The evidence is clear: In the end, a weak ordinance ends up compromising the health of workers and the public, offers false reassurance, and stands in the way of future efforts. With the abundant science about the dangers of secondhand smoke, exemptions for certain workplaces are no longer acceptable. "
In the St. Louis area in Missouri, Ballwin and Arnold have versions of smoking bans. Clayton approved a ban that will go into effect next summer. St. Louis city officials said they would consider a ban if the county adopts one. The Kirkwood City Council has voted to put its proposed smoking ban on the November ballot, and the Wildwood City Council is considering a draft ordinance and intends to hold a public hearing Sept. 24.
|
|
|
| | |
| | |
|
|
