Home » Smoke Free »STL Region » Currently Reading:

Poll: Will Area Businesses Be Ready On January 2nd For New Smoke-Free Laws?

December 26, 2010 Smoke Free, STL Region 26 Comments

nosmokingsymbolOne week from today, Sunday January 2, 2011, new smoke-free laws will begin in the City of St. Louis and St. Louis County.

In the city it is ordinance 68481, the St. Louis City Smoke Free Air Act of 2009.  There are a few notable exceptions, small bars in particular:

7. Bars in existence on the effective date of this ordinance in which only persons aged twenty one (21) years old or older are permitted to enter the premises, the square footage of the entire floor area of the level of the building on which the bar establishment is located is two thousand (2000) square feet or less. The square footage shall not include kitchen areas, storage areas and bathrooms. The bar shall prominently displays outside of the premises at each entrance and above the bar the following sign in lettering that is black bold Arial font at (ninety-eight) 98 point size: “WARNING : SMOKING ALLOWED HERE”. This exemption for bars shall expire five (5) years after the effective date of this ordinance.

So a place that is 2,200 square feet with 400sf of that in kitchen & bathrooms cannot be exempt? I can see a lot of confusion over this exemption.  But clearly places that believe they are exempt need to post a sign outside indicating as much. On January 2, 2016 their exemption goes away.

Conversely all other establishments are required to indicate they are smoke-free:

SECTION NINE. Posting of Signs

1. “No Smoking” signs or the international “No Smoking” symbol (consisting of a pictorial representation of a burning cigarette enclosed in a red circle with a red bar across it) shall be clearly and conspicuously posted in every public place and place of employment where smoking is prohibited by this Ordinance, by the owner, operator, manager, or other person in control of that place.

2. Every public place and place of employment where smoking is prohibited by this Ordinance shall have posted at every entrance a conspicuous sign clearly stating that smoking is prohibited. Every vehicle that constitutes a place of employment under this Ordinance shall have at least one conspicuous sign, visible from the exterior of the vehicle, clearly stating that smoking is prohibited.

3. All ashtrays shall be removed from any area where smoking is prohibited by this Ordinance by the owner, operator, manager, or other person having control of the area.

I can imagine many smoke-free businesses failing to indicate they are smoke-free as required.

St. Louis County’s law has similar requirements for signs:

Signs clearly stating smoking is prohibited must be prominently displayed on the outside of the establishment at all public and employee entrances. A person having control of a place shall clearly and conspicuously post “No Smoking” signs or the international “No Smoking” symbol (consisting of a pictorial representation of a burning cigarette enclosed in a red circle with a red bar across it) near all entrances where smoking is prohibited pursuant to this chapter. Such signage shall consist of letters not less than one inch in height. (605.050)

St. Louis County has a different exemption for bars:

Drinking establishments which are in operation on or before the effective date of this chapter; provided, however, that no smoke infiltrates into areas where smoking is otherwise prohibited, and further provided that each such drinking establishment has posted in a place visible to the public from its exterior a certificate of exemption issued by the Department of Revenue. Click here to apply for this exemption.

Confused yet? Take the poll this week (upper right) on how ready you think area businesses will be next week.

– Steve Patterson

 

Currently there are "26 comments" on this Article:

  1. Aa says:

    Why must businesses show “no smoking” if smoking establishments are the exception to the rule?

     
    • Robby Dodson says:

      Because there's going to be a learning curve for patrons…? And, I would imagine, so the server can point to the sign for the few pig-headed idiots who don't comply with kindly reminders…?

       
  2. Fenian says:

    The signage requirements will definitely be an issue. Similarly, the CCW law in Missouri requires signage prohibiting concealed carry to be 11″ x 14″ with 1″ lettering. The majority of signs I see on establishments do not fit those legal requirements. These signs that do not follow the law are arguably not worth the paper they are written on.

    That being said, will the City cite businesses who post smoking signs that do not fit the legal size requirements? What if the font is only 95 point?

     
  3. JZ71 says:

    Like any other law, it will boil down to enforcement. People are required by law to shovel their sidewalks, and we see how well that works!

     
  4. HL4 says:

    No surprise the City of St. Louis has no information posted on their web site. Nothing! How is anyone supposed top know if they are in violation of not. The ordnance indicates you contact the Health Department. How? Who? When? What is the proof that no smoking is enforced or not? The City needs to look at St. Louis County's web site. They made an attempt to put some information on their site. Come on Slay and BOA try and get this one right.

     
    • Robby Dodson says:

      If you wanna pay more in taxes to have a fully staffed City Hall able to hold business owners hands and guide through this tough world we live in, then start the petition…

      This ordinace is not that hard to figure out…research and read, this story has been all over the media…

       
      • JZ71 says:

        If it's a new city law, it should be available easily on the city website – that would require, at most, a half day's work by a web geek. Not having anything on the website means multiple phone calls to be answered by multiple people (aldermen and city staff), and more staff on the enforcement side. If you trust the media to get things exactly right, you're sorely misinformed . . .

         
        • Robby Dodson says:

          Just Googled it. Took me exactly 10 secs to find the new ordinance in the entire electronic library of City ordinances…

          This month the City began launching a new web site that should be up by end of Jan 11. Not sure if that is complicating things re information on the City site. Obviously the City should be as proactive as possible on this…

          If you believe the media is completely lying to you, you're paranoid…

           
          • I linked to the ordinance in my post as well as to the county Health Dept FAQ page. The city's Health Dept page (http://stlouis.missouri.org/ci…/) has no mention on the front of the law passed in 2009 but starting on Sunday. However, the top of the page talks about a heat advisory and where to find cooling shelters.
            The License Coolector should have been required to contact all licenses businesses, directing them to an informational website explaining what they must do to comply.

             
          • JZ71 says:

            I don't believe the media is intentionally lying, I'm just not sure they are always totally accurate. They're, at best, journalists, and at worst, just talking heads. If they're trying to explain a technical issue in which they're not trained, the tendency to over-simplify or rephrase the professionals can distort reality. You're a lawyer, you know that what's written in law is the law, not a narrative description of what the law is trying to accomplish. How many times this fall did the media do an adequate job of explaining Prop. A? How many people know that we need to vote again in May? And just wait until they try to explain redistricting . . .

             
          • How many press releases issued by the St. Louis Dept of Health in 2010? Zero! Story ideas must be fed to the media.

             
          • Robby Dodson says:

            I agree with that JZ. Local news media will bring attention to issues generally. IMO, the over-simplification and rephrasing stems less from the source (news media are all college educated) than from the general population trying to be reached (mostly not college educated). It seems the 'public squares' in a democracy usually tend to the lowest common denominator in order for all to participate. Also the reality that only so much information can be packed into 30 or 60 sec spots causes every issue to be reduced to a sound byte. Even my fave news source, PBS's News Hour, is only able to scratch the surface of issues during their 10 min segments.

            IMO, there has been enough attention drawn to the no-smoking ordinance in public, that responsible business owners should not be able to claim ignorance of the new law with a straight face. You know these folks (owners)talk to each other and this ban has to be a hot topic.

            And I'm not excusing the City here. I find it hard to believe that nothing has been done to communicate the specific change in the law. I wonder if information was sent out to license holders? Anything attempt at communication at all?

             
  5. Tiredofpolitics says:

    The city police have a hard enough time enforcing basic traffic rules. What makes you think that they'll care about this issue?

     
    • Robby Dodson says:

      I believe I remember reading that enforcement would be accomplished during routine inspections. I'm pretty sure the City Police would only be involved if requested by the owner of an establishment. I have not read anything re 'special visits' by City Inspectors due to complaints from patrons.

       
      • JZ71 says:

        So it's going to be (not) enforced in the same way handicapped parking is enforced in private parking lots?! I doubt many owners will be calling; I'd expect a lot more non-smoking advocates and offended customers to be calling.

         
        • Robby Dodson says:

          Yes, JZ, that's the way I understand it.

          I think calling the City Police Dept. for a violation of the no-smoking ordinance would be a bit ridiculous barring threatened violence by smokers.

          There seemed to be little brewhaha that I can remember in NYC when a similar ordinance was enacted. In my experience, people tended to see how smoking violated the space of non-smokers and just went outside. Plus, it seemed most smokers didn't want the drama of confrontation over something like smoking.

          Again, I am sharing my experience and not some universal truth that is backed up by evidence. It just seemed like the whole thing ended up not being a big deal in NY.

           
  6. Bill Hannegan says:

    As long as any nonexempt establishment posts “No Smoking” signs and removes all ashtrays, the establishment is in compliance with this law. The St. Louis City Smoke Free Air Act of 2009 does not compel any establishment to act as a police officer. Though free to do so if they wish, no owner is under any obligation to make a patron stop smoking or force a smoking patron to leave. If signs are posted and ashtrays removed, only the smoker, not the establishment, is in violation of the smoking ban. I believe such an interpretation of the enforcement provisions of the St. Louis City Smoke Free Air Act of 2009 will hold up in court.

     
  7. sebben says:

    That square footage exemption is a bit unclear. The entire level must be less than 2000 sq.ft. but it doesn't include restrooms, kitchens, or storage. That could've been clarified more easily, but then what do you expect for a city ordinance, etc. Also, I don't see the sign requirement happening easily. I can't tell you how many times I've seen places that don't even have the proper signage for restrooms or stairs, and even the inspectors miss it. Finallly, I'm against anti-smoking laws as I think it should be up to the business owner (non-smoker here). But, I wonder if we'll see an increase in butts lying on the sidewalks and streets as I've seen up in Chicago as a result of the smoking ban. Just food for thought. Would love to hear any rebuttals.

     
  8. Rigg Scott says:

    If bars are fined then the owners will understand the laws, otherwise it will remain confusing.

     
  9. ??? says:

    Do you know if Hot Shots in Maryland Heights is exempt or grandfathered? I went there for lunch today, and they have ashtrays on the tables & patrons smoking away. I would think that more than 25% of their revenue comes from food, but i could be wrong…

     

Comment on this Article:

Advertisement



[custom-facebook-feed]

Archives

Categories

Advertisement


Subscribe