• Judge upholds Springfield smoking ban
    14 replies, posted
[quote] SPRINGFIELD, Mo. -- Springfield's year-old smoking ban is legal and does not violate the rights of bar owners to allow their customers to smoke, an appeals court ruled Tuesday. Jean Doublin, owner of Ruthie's Bar in Springfield, had sued after voters approved the ban last year, contending the city ordinance conflicted with state law on the issue. Her attorney, Jonathan Sternberg, argued that a provision in the state Indoor Clean Air Act of 1992 that allows bars and taverns to post signs "making nonsmoking areas unavailable" essentially allows smoking in those establishments. Attorneys for the city argued that the Springfield ban, which prohibits smoking almost anywhere someone works or the public has access, simply goes further than state law in regulating smoking, The Springfield News-Leader reported. On Tuesday, a panel of Southern District Appellate Court judges ruled for the city. The state law "is not a statute that was enacted to permit smoking or to protect the rights of smokers," but instead is meant to prohibit smoking, the judge's ruled. Although Springfield's ban is more restrictive than state law, it does not "prohibit what the statute permits," the opinion says. City attorney Dan Wichmer said the judges' decision affirms the city's position. "To us the state law was a nonsmokers bill of rights and we were just furthering that law," he said. Sternberg said he will ask the Missouri Supreme Court to consider the case, but he's not optimistic because the high court turned down his appeal of a ruling in a similar case concerning a Kansas City smoking ban. Rep. Melissa Leach, R-Springfield, filed a bill during the last legislative session to exempt bars and some other businesses from smoking bans statewide. The bill died in committee but Leach has said she may file it again. Springfield voters have approved the ban twice, once in 2011 and again this year after opponents successfully got it placed on the ballot again. [/quote] [url]http://www.semissourian.com/story/1862501.html[/url] It's very good to see that very few people support stupid libertarian values.
While I'm not a fan of smoking in public, I do feel that a business owner should have the right to decide this for themselves, whether or not to allow smoking.
There shouldn't be any bans on smoking in buildings (aside from maybe state owned buildings/property and hospitals), privately owned establishments of any kind should be allowed to decide for themselves whether they allow they're patrons to smoke or not.
Good, this is law in the UK (actually smoking in any building) and it's brilliant not to have to walk into a pub or other buildings and not have to put up with the disgusting smell and damaging second hand smoke effects. The longer this law is kept the better for everyone, except smokers. Which is bad in itself anyway.
[QUOTE=Ylsid;36428366]Good, this is law in the UK (actually smoking in any building) and it's brilliant not to have to walk into a pub or other buildings and not have to put up with the disgusting smell and damaging second hand smoke effects. The longer this law is kept the better for everyone, except smokers. Which is bad in itself anyway.[/QUOTE] It's also infringing on the rights of property owners. People here in the US are always yelling about freedom until it comes to something they don't like, then they don't give a damn about rights.
[QUOTE=Ylsid;36428366]Good, this is law in the UK (actually smoking in any building) and it's brilliant not to have to walk into a pub or other buildings and not have to put up with the disgusting smell and damaging second hand smoke effects. The longer this law is kept the better for everyone, except smokers. Which is bad in itself anyway.[/QUOTE] Its nice to not have smoke blowing in your face, all they have to do is go outside so what's the big problem people shouldn't be moaning because their life choice is affecting ours.
If you don't like the bar or restaurant find one that suits your tastes. I wish you could still smoke and eat in Canada cause having a cig with a nice meal is amazing
[QUOTE=Bentham;36428936]It's also infringing on the rights of property owners. People here in the US are always yelling about freedom until it comes to something they don't like, then they don't give a damn about rights.[/QUOTE] I don't like lung cancer, does that make me freedom hating?
Its simple, if pub allows smoking and you hate smoking dont go there.. I'm sure there will be enough non smokers to allow business to open up non smoking pubs. Stop being lame seriously, some people enjoy having a drink and a smoke.
[QUOTE=Flem;36429394]Its nice to not have smoke blowing in your face, all they have to do is go outside so what's the big problem people shouldn't be moaning because their life choice is affecting ours.[/QUOTE] Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure they are making efforts to get rid of that as well in some areas. And this doesn't even mean that every restaurant would allow smoking. Some bars will, maybe some restaurants. They'll react based on the demands of their customer base, because that's their job as owners, to make decisions about what is and isn't allowed. [editline]21st June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=viperfan7;36429967]I don't like lung cancer, does that make me freedom hating?[/QUOTE] Wow, way to twist my words. You're saying you don't think that private commercial establishments shouldn't be able to decide reasonably what is and isn't allowed? If a bar allows smoking, you can go elsewhere, just like if another bar disallows smoking, the smoker can go elsewhere.
[QUOTE=zombieslaya;36427923]There shouldn't be any bans on smoking in buildings (aside from maybe state owned buildings/property and hospitals), privately owned establishments of any kind should be allowed to decide for themselves whether they allow they're patrons to smoke or not.[/QUOTE] Then they should be held accountable for the health risks that are past on to their customers. If smoking did not give off smoke then there would not be a problem.
Smoking is bad.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;36434814]Smoking is bad.[/QUOTE] But it's not forcefully harming anyone else if it's in a bar because you can simply not go into that bar if you dislike smoking. I hate smoking, it killed my grandfather. But I recognize the right to smoke on private property.
[QUOTE=Chevron;36434447]Then they should be held accountable for the health risks that are past on to their customers. If smoking did not give off smoke then there would not be a problem.[/QUOTE] If they put up a sign warning an individual that the premises allows smoking on the door then the person already accepts the health risks involved by going in and not leaving, as they have had ample warning. I hate smoking, I think it's disgusting and stupid, but if you want to let people kill themselves slowly in your bar then I just won't go there, let them kill themselves. I'd rather they encourage smoking in closed bars and ban it on the streets if they're going to ban it, getting a face-full of cancer always makes me cough.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.