Poll: When Will St. Charles County Go Smoke-Free?
Interesting news from St. Charles County last week:
The fate of a proposed countywide smoking ban is now up to County Executive Steve Ehlmann.
The County Council voted 4-2 on Tuesday night for legislation to put the proposal on the November 2012 election ballot. Ehlmann has yet to signal whether he’ll sign or veto the measure, which would apply to bars, restaurants and most other indoor public places. (STLToday.com)
With St. Louis City & County now smoke-free, with some unfortunate exceptions, it would be nice to see more of the region become smoke-free.
He [Ehlman] has 10 days to veto or sign the bill. If he does neither, the bill is automatically approved. (Patch.com)
This is the subject of the poll this week:Â When Will St. Charles County Go Smoke-Free? Â The poll is located in the upper right corner of the blog.
I hope Steve Ehlmann doesn’t veto this bill so the question goes to voters in November 2012.
– Steve Patterson
Hopefully never. Â I hate the fact that the government can tell a private business owner that he/she can not allow a legal activity in their establishment.Â
Hopefully never. I hate the fact that the government can tell a private business owner that he/she can not allow a legal activity in their establishment.
While, philosophically, I agree with you, the tyranny of the majority seems to be headed toward more restrictions. If it goes to a vote, it probably will pass. Yet, personally, as a non-smoker, I also enjoy being able to go to many more smoke-free places – philosophy collides with preference. The one, huge, unintended consequence I struggle with is the increase in smoking in outdoor dining areas – I like being outside, but not around smokers . . . .
I quit smoking on 8-4-2007. I dislike smoke as well, but I still think that we should be able to choose to go to a smoking establishment.
I completely agree. You are right that it is certainly a conflict. Should we be able to tell you where you can smoke? Probably not. But should you be able to hurt my health with your choices? I certainly don’t think so.
Its a sticky situation indeed.
While, philosophically, I agree with you, the tyranny of the majority seems to be headed toward more restrictions. If it goes to a vote, it probably will pass. Yet, personally, as a non-smoker, I also enjoy being able to go to many more smoke-free places – philosophy collides with preference. The one, huge, unintended consequence I struggle with is the increase in smoking in outdoor dining areas – I like being outside, but not around smokers . . . .
I quit smoking on 8-4-2007. Â I dislike smoke as well, but I still think that we should be able to choose to go to a smoking establishment.
Steve, how can you justify the Ameristar exemption?
Steve, how can you justify the Ameristar exemption?
It’d be nicer to see St louis get rid of the ridiculous smoking ban
It’d be nicer to see St louis get rid of the ridiculous smoking ban
Sorry, many of us like not having to deal with other’s smoke while in public. Smokers can smoke in their own residences.
The City ordinance bans smoking in private clubs as well.
As it should, private clubs have employees and their health is important.
you don’t want to deal with smoke? go somewhere there isn’t smoke like the rest of us. you do not have the right to enforce your preferences on others. sorry, but you are wrong, being egotistical, and a bit narcisistic.
Clearly I disagree. My point is the selfish addicted smoker does not have any right to force their smoke on the general public. Kill themselves in their private homes, just don’t think everyone else must put up with it.
Sorry, many of us like not having to deal with other’s smoke while in public. Smokers can smoke in their own residences.
The City ordinance bans smoking in private clubs as well.
As it should, private clubs have employees and their health is important.
I completely agree. You are right that it is certainly a conflict. Should we be able to tell you where you can smoke? Probably not. But should you be able to hurt my health with your choices? I certainly don’t think so.Â
Its a sticky situation indeed.
None of my friends who smoke, smoke indoors. They go out in their garage or in the yard. They don’t want to contaminate their homes – it seems fair that they should smoke outside of restaurants and bars.
Kay
None of my friends who smoke, smoke indoors. They go out in their garage or in the yard. They don’t want to contaminate their homes – it seems fair that they should smoke outside of restaurants and bars.
Kay
you don’t want to deal with smoke? go somewhere there isn’t smoke like the rest of us. you do not have the right to enforce your preferences on others. sorry, but you are wrong, being egotistical, and a bit narcisistic.
Clearly I disagree. My point is the selfish addicted smoker does not have any right to force their smoke on the general public. Kill themselves in their private homes, just don’t think everyone else must put up with it.
I think the absurd notion of the “persecuted smoker” is hilarious. If I want to sit in my house and drink a quart of scotch every night, I have a “right” to do just that without government intervention. If I finish the scotch and then go for a drive, my self-destructive behavior becomes a menace to the health and safety of others. If I’m popped by a cop for DWI, would I then be a “persecuted drinker”? Does my “right” to enjoy delicious liquor of the peaty Highlands anywhere and everywhere outweigh a reasonable expectation of other citizens to not be killed by a drunk driver?
As far as disputing the deleterious effects of second hand smoke is concerned, that is another equally absurd notion. It has been soundly established that second hand smoke is a significant danger to health. Smoke all you want. You don’t get to make other people smoke too.
I think the absurd notion of the “persecuted smoker” is hilarious. If I want to sit in my house and drink a quart of scotch every night, I have a “right” to do just that without government intervention. If I finish the scotch and then go for a drive, my self-destructive behavior becomes a menace to the health and safety of others. If I’m popped by a cop for DWI, would I then be a “persecuted drinker”? Does my “right” to enjoy delicious liquor of the peaty Highlands anywhere and everywhere outweigh a reasonable expectation of other citizens to not be killed by a drunk driver?
As far as disputing the deleterious effects of second hand smoke is concerned, that is another equally absurd notion. It has been soundly established that second hand smoke is a significant danger to health. Smoke all you want. You don’t get to make other people smoke too.
Winna, winna, chicken dinna! Teh peaty highlands! *snort* That was a good one.
Please make St. Charles county a smoke free county. Let them smoke outside
Please make St. Charles county a smoke free county. Let them smoke outside
Winna, winna, chicken dinna! Teh peaty highlands! *snort* That was a good one.