Originally published March 16, 2010 at 11:54 p.m., updated March 16, 2010 at 11:54 p.m.
Sharissa Rockwell (left) talks to Stephen Long, a customer at The Pub in Lake Saint Louis. They worry that a smoking ban may hurt business.
Related Link:www.lakesaintlouis.com
The sign posted on the door of The Pub in Lake Saint Louis
The smoke from the ash trays curled toward the ceiling Tuesday afternoon as the regulars at The Pub, a small bar in Lake Saint Louis near Interstate 70 contemplated a possible smoking ban in their city.
“It’s over the top, it really is,” said Stephen Long, a long-time customer who sat at a table with a cigarette in hand. “I understand that in some restaurants. But a bar—especially a little bar like this that doesn’t serve food.”
Meanwhile, across town on Highway N at his Danatelli’s Bistro, Don Baker, also was worried. “I’m concerned about it, let’s be realistic, I have very good customers who are smokers,” Baker said.
Both were reacting to the Lake Saint Louis Board of Aldermen voting 4-2 Monday night to approve a smoking ban that could affect restaurants, bars and other public places in the city.
The ban could be the first smoke-free law in any community in St. Charles County. If it’s signed by Mayor Mike Potter, the bill will be in effect in six months.
Potter was not at the aldermanic meeting and couldn’t be reached for comment early Tuesday afternoon. He has until April 5 to sign or veto the bill.
The bill would ban smoking in all city facilities and in city vehicles and in all “enclosed public places.” The places include retail stores, restaurants, bars, schools, health care facilities, banks, professional buildings, nursing homes and even laundromats.
Exempt from the bill are private homes, about 20 percent of hotel or motel rooms, outdoor spaces, private clubs, cigar bars and retail tobacco stores.
Fines for violations could range from $50 for individuals to $500 for businesses.
The smoking ban has been a hot topic at The Pub and at Danatelli’s for some time.
Long and Sharissa Rockwell, a bartender at The Pub, say the small bar caters to people who know that smoking is allowed. A sign with three-inch letters saying smoking is allowed was pasted on the front door.
And Long, Rockwell, and Baker agree that the ban may prompt customers to drive to bars or restaurants nearby.
“The real problem with it is that customers can drive a mile point 22 on their speedometer to Dardenne Prairie, a mile point five to O’Fallon or Wentzville three miles away,” Baker said.
“I personally probably will not come here as much,” Long said.
Loss of customers may mean a loss of sales tax revenue for the city, they said. “Because of the way the economy is, this is one of those places that can’t take a lot more stress,” Rockwell said. “We’re already stretched out as it is.”
Baker said smoking bans may be inevitable. His restaurant now only allows limited smoking in designated areas. But any ban should be on a state or countywide basis first rather than a local ordinance, he said.
St. Charles County officials are contemplating a smoking ban, perhaps placing a measure on the ballot.
County Councilwoman Cheryl Hibbeler, District 1, said the council may take up a discussion of a possible smoking ban at an April 12 work session. But no details have been finalized on any kind of a ballot measure.
“I definitely would want to put it on the ballot to let the people decide,” Hibbeler said Tuesday.
But Hibbeler said there has been some discussion about waiting until the end of the current session of the Missouri General Assembly before any concrete proposal is decided on. She said, however, that she doesn’t expect anything to come of the legislative session.
She said the feedback she’s gotten from constituents suggests they would be supportive, similar to St. Louis County residents, who have already approved a ban of their own.
“I don’t think that St. Charles County residents are that different from St. Louis County residents,” she said. She said they may even be more supportive.
Some Lake Saint Louis residents are supportive. But there was also a mixed reaction from city residents interviewed on Tuesday.
“I love it. More power to them, keep our air fresh and unpolluted,” said Jenny Villard, who was riding a bicycle with her daughter, Josie, on Tuesday afternoon. Villard said it’s even more important in a restaurant.
“If I’m in a restaurant and I have a hint of smoke it makes my eyes sting--it ruins the whole ambiance for me,” she said.
David Southern, however, said he wasn’t for a ban, even through he’s a non smoker. He was waiting with his dog for children getting off a school bus.
“I really don’t,” Southern said. “If they start banning that, what else are they going to ban?”
But Southern conceded that he has concern about the pros and cons about second-hand smoke. Perhaps restaurants could partition rooms off between smoking and non smoking sections, he said.
Richard and Carol Fee, out for a walk, don’t think its right to take smokers rights away.
“But I feel like they should have designated areas for smoking in pubs and restaurants,” said Carol Fee, who added that she was a former smoker.
Meanwhile, Rockwell said talk at The Pub was about putting a roof over an outside deck to protect smokers from wet weather.
“I’m sure we will make the best of it if it does happen,” she said.
Comments
palin4prez (anonymous) says...
Now we just need this is St. Peters, St. Charles, and St. Louis!
March 16, 2010 at 10:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Towncar07 (anonymous) says...
I throughly disagree...and read my comment in the Comment Section below the POLL survey tab.
March 16, 2010 at 11:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
obamain2012 (anonymous) says...
I think the whole entire U.S. should go smoke free. Nobody should be allowed to smoke anywhere not even their own houses or cars.
The U.S. Government always knows best.....
March 16, 2010 at 11:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rune04 (anonymous) says...
I think it was decent of them to exempt private homes in the bill. I can't tell you what a warm and fuzzy feeling that gives me. It almost makes me feel I have rights left.
March 16, 2010 at 11:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
palin4prez (anonymous) says...
This has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. It has to do with ones' health and not wanting to come home smelling like an ash tray. Food is so much more enjoyable without smoke looming overhead and for those in the work in restaurant industry who inhale everyone else's smoke daily, this ban would be music to their ears. There are so many studies that support second and even third hand smoke (the Globe did an article on this recently) - we need to be supporting the positive option, not the option the can hurt the general public.
March 16, 2010 at 12:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rune04 (anonymous) says...
I beg to differ. This is definitely a rights issue. It may be your opinion that this is the correct thing to do, but if I own a business in LSL, I should have the option to allow my patrons to smoke. You can use the phrase "the positive position" in almost any debate for either side.
March 16, 2010 at 12:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
generalsn (anonymous) says...
"Rune04 (anonymous) says...
I think it was decent of them to exempt private homes in the bill. I can't tell you what a warm and fuzzy feeling that gives me. It almost makes me feel I have rights left."
Don't get too comfortable. Now that these ban fanatics found gullible lawmakers and got their foot in the door, they'll keep returning for more. Patios next, AFTER businesses spend thousands to accommodate their smoking customers, then your home.
March 16, 2010 at 1:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ingersolll (anonymous) says...
I'm glad to hear about the smoking ban. I'm going to find out what restaurants there are in LSL so I can patronize them.
March 16, 2010 at 5:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rune04 (anonymous) says...
ingersolll, that is your right to do so have at it. I on the other hand, will not.
March 16, 2010 at 5:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Towncar07 (anonymous) says...
...and if you refer to my Post on the vote page...if they should have Tiki Lanterns, and you find the fumes overwhelming, at least you can console yourself that at least it's not tobacco smoke.
Nobody seems to get it...if the place can provide air control. with sectioned seating, anyone should be able to enjoy the experience at no harm. Trouble is, that some look on the very act of smoking, not even near any smoke, makes them complain.
How about the Electronic Cigarettes? Looks like smoking, but gives off flavored water vapor...is that guilt by association? Stay tuned for the answer will come.
March 16, 2010 at 9:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
obamain2012 (anonymous) says...
The 2nd hand smoke from electronic cigarettes will give you cancer just like cell phones will.......... ;- )
March 16, 2010 at 9:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
richinstl (anonymous) says...
This "lost business" argument is crap. If smokers leave your business over having to step outside to burn one, then your drinks, food or atmosphere is lacking something. Besides, they will gain new customers who are coming to their business because they know they don't have to be exposed to smoke.
March 17, 2010 at 12:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Towncar07 (anonymous) says...
Nobody gets the idea of accommodation...the business sets up his space with the state of the art air filtration, segregates the areas both inside and out...and let the maximum number of people enjoy themselves.
Instead, it is just a blanket NO Smoking...period. It is one thing to make a business decision based on choice...and I really grind at the idea of FORCE.
How much more business could I generate, if I gave people a worthy choice, rather than have patrons turn away just for one reason?
It does not have to be a cramped room with no air and only a thick cloud...it could be an open room with a marketing choice. Give a perosn a choice, and they will the embrace will come from both sides. Meanwhile, sit next to a bank of kerosene Tiki Lanterns, and be happy it is just not tobacco smoke. (see my post in reader/vote poll)
March 17, 2010 at 2:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rune04 (anonymous) says...
This "lost business" argument is crap.
Tell that to the bar owners in Ballwiin whose businesses have not fully come back yet.
March 17, 2010 at 4:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
palin4prez (anonymous) says...
Just FYI...having worked in restaurants, even the state of the art air filtratration doesn't cut it. Smoke still looms in the air - you are still wiping nasty black crap off on your rag from the glass on top of the pictures in the restaurant. Smoke is smoke, and it hangs in the air, no matter how much you try and filter it out....it stinks and it is bad for all who breathe it in. Oh - it causes cancer, too, if you don't know that already.
March 17, 2010 at 7:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Towncar07 (anonymous) says...
Then I suggest that something be done with all airborne combustion...a lid on hamburger grills, kerosene lanterns, lawn mowers, etc... pretty soon, we will be having wood grubs and clover for dinner, and for relaxation we can walk to nowhere, because there is nowhere to go, and nothing to do if you get there.
State of the art air filtration works, if done properly...but that takes money, and if you want to get by on the cheap, then not only cut out the cigarettes, but also no grilled meats, or grills for that matter. But it is the SMELL isn't it? You love the smell of a grilling steak, but a burning tube of tobacco...well see it;s just what you want to smell. I suggest that the film you are wiping off is not just from cigarettes, but also from everything grilled. And what about that grease?
March 17, 2010 at 9:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )