Two bars warned for violating smoking ban | News Tribune

By Jeff Haldiman

Saturday, March 26, 2011

Two Jefferson City businesses have become the first to have complaints lodged against them for violating the city’s smoking ordinance. On Friday, the business owners pledged they will now comply with the ordinance.

Read additional details in our newspaper or e-Edition. Newspaper subscribers: Click on an e-Edition article and log in using your current account information at no extra charge. For e-edition help, e-mail circ@newstribune.com. Click here to purchase the full version of archived articles.

Earlier in the week, city officials sent warning letters to Jameys Lounge, 900 W. McCarty St., and Chick’s Tap Room, 2713 Industrial Drive.

“The owners claimed they were exempt because they sell cigarettes at their establishment,” said city attorney Nathan Nickolaus. “That’s not true. The letters reminded them that 70 percent of their sales must come from the sale of cigarettes in order to be considered exempt of the ordinance.”

Nickolaus said the letter also pointed out that under terms of the city code, these businesses’ liquor licenses could be suspended or revoked.

More like this story

2warped757 2 years, 1 month ago

I quit smoking some years ago, and while I am pleased to be able to go out to an establishment that is smoke free, I still think it should be the right of the business owner to determine whether or not they want to allow smoking. I can choose to go somewhere that is non-smoking if i don't like the smoke.

rodinman 2 years, 1 month ago

I believe the city should not tax the sell of cigarettes/cigars. That way they can also be "smoke free."

connor 2 years, 1 month ago

The smell of coffee in the morning makes me sick, why is coffee not banned? Looking at fat people makes me ill they should be banned as well.

Not to mention tax soda, coffee, big cars and trucks and everything else 100%

The socialist are out of control and I am sure they will be pleased when Jefferson City, like New York and New Jersey, start loosing revenue from decreased sales and bar traffic over this farce.

connor 2 years, 1 month ago

I imagine the Tea Party is pro individual and property rights. I will ask them next time they have a rally but until then I will let them speak for themselves.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

what is wrong in letting the owners choose how to run their business?

JCLifer 2 years, 1 month ago

They have a choice. If they don't like the laws in Jefferson City, they should do what everyone else is told to do and just LEAVE.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

that would explain why JC needs to annex townships, land, hotels, etc to get more people and revenue. JC used to be a good town.

JCLifer 2 years, 1 month ago

Yes, Jeff City used to be a very good town. Now it is crumbling in many ways.

JOHNL 2 years, 1 month ago

If you don't want to smell the smoke, DON'T GO THERE! I quit smoking 11 yrs ago, but I don't tell others they have to quit because I don't smoke anymore. I still have the same friends, and some of them smoke... So what? They smoke so I can't hang around with them anymore? It's my choice. Not the city's or the governments right to tell me what I can or can't do. We as citizens allow the elected people ( our neighbors & friends ) to continiously tell us what we can & can't do. They all say the same things to get elected, then turn their backs on the people that got them elected! I'm considering moving out of this once great country while I still have that option, because the way things are going, we might lose that option as well.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

great idea, but it makes too much sense. we are letting the gov become a police state.

Festus_Hagen 2 years, 1 month ago

Well...it's against the LAW .

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

do you know every law in the books? even the gov does not know all the laws, let alone keep track of them all. some were never dropped, some are stupid, some like the lacey act can you put in prison for eight because of a lobster tail. we allowed JC to be stupid, but i'm not surprised.

Festus_Hagen 2 years, 1 month ago

No, I sure don't. But the bars knew the law, I do know that much. I'm not saying it's a good thing. I'm 100% against .gov interference. BUT ... that doesn't make it OK to break the law because it's an infringement. I don't like the seatbelt law, helmet law, no beer after 1:30 law, but it doesn't make it right to break them. Get active in a movement to overturn this like some folks did with the trash deal. My point is, just because it's stupid doesn't make it right to break it .

TheRickster 2 years, 1 month ago

Well Festus,,Please let us know your real name so we can watch as you drive home drunk!! It's against the law!!

Festus_Hagen 2 years, 1 month ago

It was a joke. Matter a fact I have not been to a bar in years, it's too expensive.

TheRickster 2 years, 1 month ago

Just my point,,you do gooders have to tell people what and where to do it! You have proved my point. Also,,maybe there can be a smokers night once or twice during the week at the bar's choice, so they can see when the real business is coming in!

JCLifer 2 years, 1 month ago

Monday night might be good. It wouldn't bother too many non-smokers if they can get it cleared out by thursday night.

rmsberengaria 2 years, 1 month ago

Good post John l, not much I can add on that one. Except to say When individuals, have a dream invest their money into a business pay the tax's and take all the risk it is their purview to decide what goes on in their business. Food safety I can understand but to impose what and who your clients/patrons are is absurd. Maybe Libertarian here but until the government is paying the property tax's and signing my paycheck it is the owners choice of smoking or not smoking.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

so much for property rights. whats worse it is complaint driven, the police state now has the citizens act as the police. so much for individual liberty.

MK 2 years, 1 month ago

I remember when I was a kid, going to local grocery stores and seeing people walking in the aisles smoking while shopping and stomping their cig butts out on the floor when they were done with them. I remember smoking on airplane flights and when I went to high school back east in a suburb outside of D.C. there was even a smoking section for students where you would find kids as young as 14 smoking without hassle.

connor 2 years, 1 month ago

All good and valid points MK. I support any establishment making their own choices to allow or not allow smoking. A law banning all smoking in all businesses is out of control.

jcmom69 2 years, 1 month ago

Concentrate on the more important things here in our city... the violence and the drugs.etc this is ridiculous!

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

private property rights are often neglected. this, and eminent domain laws, seizures by the police and alphabet organizations. i can understand about the violence and drugs problems in JC though. the smoking ban is a bit of emotional topic for some. i get disturbed about the loss of rights for property owners, small business owners, etc.

JCLifer 2 years, 1 month ago

I wish they would crack down on property owners for failing to maintain their properties, keep them clean, and abidng by property codes.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

that is very presumptive and even borderline arrogance. many times property is seized based on hearsay, rumors, and even outright lies. very little that the common person can do. gov seizing the property and then say its a blight, and then the owner gets nothing.

google missouri property rights and you will see what i'm talking about. strange, we usually agree on most topics. not today i see.

tonto 2 years, 1 month ago

The worst properties are empty and owned by the city and the housing authority. The next worst set is owned by absentee owners and banks. That's why nothing gets better.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

that would explain a lot of things. gov takes properties and it gets worse.

JCLifer 2 years, 1 month ago

Bingo! Many of the worst properties in this town are owned by the city and the housing authority. Government is not the solution to the problem. Government is the problem.

jcmom69 2 years, 1 month ago

I feel the need to clarify my previous statement.. Instead of picking on the small businesses who allow their customers to relax and have a nice time without incident, why not go get the real criminals out here in our community. Picking on the little guy cause it is easy and someone "tattled" on them.. Big F'ing deal.. Let me call about some drug interaction and see how long it takes punish them..Instead of focusing on some indoor "normal" activity, that effects only the ones who are inside the establishment seems rather irresponsible with all the malicious acts on our own streets we need to pay more attention to! JMO

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

truer words were never spoken. i think this is a way for the city to make money. it is easy to pick on the little guy that owns a small business. going after real criminals doesn't get the city much money.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

the way they enforce the law, complaint driven. do you see the writing on the wall? btw the Nazi Germany was the first country to have smoking ban laws. i am concerned about individuals rights including property rights.

JCLifer 2 years, 1 month ago

Got it there! Not only are smokers inconsiderate, but most of them are lazy too.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

hkchas, one i don't smoke, 2 you don't know me. 3. the Nazi is the first country with smoking ban. 4. you seem to have no concept or concern of individual property rights. 5. the people that wanted the smoke ban were from outside of JC.

JClifer, you don't know me either.

wow 2 years, 1 month ago

Let me get this right....the city officials are going to fine business owner's that do not comply with the "No Smoking Ban".... You mean there is actually a group of Snoopy Pooper's working for the city to enforce a city wide Smoke Free rule? Ok soooooo why aren't these same concerned people walking through the State Capital building making sure nobody is breaking the smoking rule there?

I don't smoke...that's my choice......I kinda like not having to dodge the smokers when I'm out in public....but I'm not against someone puffing their "Ports or Cowboy Stokes"...it's their choice. I do however feel like this...if there is a rule and it appears as if there is such a rule....... that prevents smoking in public and government buildings...then the rule applies to everyone and must be enforced that way. It either applies to everyone or it applies to no one!

locotony 2 years, 1 month ago

You are exactly right on the money here, Go to the capitol when legislature is in session and see how many Senators and congressmen are smoking in their offices. Are we fining them or the state of Missouri, nope, why because they think they can do anything they want.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

if i remembered correctly, they voted to allow smoking in their offices.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

here is a quote from paddymalonespub. you can look it up on NT article Smoking bans approved in Jefferson City, Fulton. Wed Nov 3, 2010.

"With all that being said, I still believe that telling a business owner that he must now work under a new set of rules, when he invested in this community under a previous set of rules, is not fair play. I ask you this; what if it was your business or livelihood? Would you want the government or the voters telling you that you had to change when you had established your business under a certain pretense? What is particularly surprising to me is that this constituency regularly supports political candidates who expound the virtues of free enterprise and less government regulation. Yet, in the case of the smoking ban, the voters supported a measure which restricts free enterprise and requires more government intervention. I have said many times, most people will gladly sacrifice the individual rights of others just so long as their own rights are not interfered with. This is blatant hypocrisy. But I don't know why I am surprised. Our government was not founded upon individual liberty for all; it was founded upon "liberty for the majority". If you don't believe me, just ask any Osage Indian."

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

apparently you can not read or understand the quote. "most people will gladly sacrifice the individual rights of others just so long as their own rights are not interfered with. This is blatant hypocrisy"
are you saying you agree with the majority all of the time? are you against individual and/or minority rights? as for me i'm all for democracy but there are always going to be people that disagree.

nozepicker 2 years, 1 month ago

it's a changing world folks. get used to it. i do think if eating and drinking places had provided more separation between smokers and non it wouldnt have become such an issue. when you ask for a seat in the non smoking area and they just take the ashtray off your table, that is poor customer service.

Daddy 2 years, 1 month ago

Exactly what property "right" is being taken away? Where might we find that "right" listed in the constitution?

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

the Fifth ammendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." then again i thought this was a capitalistic country, not communism, national socialism, or even some extreme version of Sharia law. don't forget the "pursuit of happiness" from the Declaration of independence.

tonto 2 years, 1 month ago

The owner can sell out and move somewhere else if they want to have a smoking bar. Private property rights are pretty secure in Missouri, but we are talking about running a busines and that's different. You become subject to regulation when you open a business and start charging money for food and liquor. You are subject to inspections, you have to have licenses, your servers have to wear clothes, you have to close by a certain time, and you need insurance.

asb 2 years, 1 month ago

Property rights come with responsibility. Public safety is one of the primary responsibilities required in 2,000 years of western law. Primary and secondary smoke are well established public safety issues. It's a community-based decision, which can change next week of somebody comes up with an affordable means of keeping smoke to the smokers. Until then these appeals to property rights are red herrings . . . and vote NO on Prop A!

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

vote yes on prop A. obviously you have no concept of it. eating brocoli helps public health, should we make petition to force people or busines to serve brocoli? did you read what the owner of Paddy Malones think of the smoking ban? the individual have responsibility too. its very easy to pick on the little man. there were plenty of smoke free businesses to before the ban.

here is a quote from paddymalonespub. you can look it up on NT article Smoking bans approved in Jefferson City, Fulton. Wed Nov 3, 2010.

"With all that being said, I still believe that telling a business owner that he must now work under a new set of rules, when he invested in this community under a previous set of rules, is not fair play. I ask you this; what if it was your business or livelihood? Would you want the government or the voters telling you that you had to change when you had established your business under a certain pretense? What is particularly surprising to me is that this constituency regularly supports political candidates who expound the virtues of free enterprise and less government regulation. Yet, in the case of the smoking ban, the voters supported a measure which restricts free enterprise and requires more government intervention. I have said many times, most people will gladly sacrifice the individual rights of others just so long as their own rights are not interfered with. This is blatant hypocrisy. But I don't know why I am surprised. Our government was not founded upon individual liberty for all; it was founded upon "liberty for the majority". If you don't believe me, just ask any Osage Indian."

asb 2 years, 1 month ago

That's the 2nd time his quote is in this thread, we get it. "Little Guy," "Property Rights," "Broccoli;" and my personal favorite, "Nazi Germany!" You wear these things out! It was a community decision on a public health issue.

Vote No on Prop A . . . we have the best, and one of the cheapest, trash/recycle systems around. Don't let libertarians and Ludites take away our excellent waste disposal system.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

i use an inconvient truth get over it. based on your response, you never own or ran a business. you like government intervention, lets see what happens when they intervine on you something you like. btw i am against forced mononpolies and coercion from the gov to say which business i must use. don't let communists and national socialists take away individual freedom. vote yes on prop A. you are interested in public health? lets ban cars, trains, powerplants that cause pollution, and lets make law that forces everyone to exercise while we are at it.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

well the patrons still chose to go there, even with smoking. some even choose to smoke. and just for you hkchas, the Nazi Germany was the first country to introduce smoke bans.

as other posters have commented, most businesses were already smoke free.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

i am stating a fact. Nazi Germany was the first country in the 20th century to impose laws against smoking. i can take care of myself thank you very much without a smoking ban. btw do you have anti-small business tourette's or nanny state tourette's?

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

again you can't read, i just said Nazi Germany was the first country to impose smoking bans. thats five now i think. you can google Nazi smoking ban that and read it yourself.

you want to save lives? then how about you propose to ban cars, alcohol, fast food, guns and dangerous jobs too. make a law that forces people to exercise or else. that will save many more lives. lets see how far that will get you.

pegassuss2525 2 years, 1 month ago

What of those who go to a restaurant to enjoy a nice meal only to have to breathe smoke from the smoking section even if we are sitting in the non smoking section. Or those of us that have to run the gauntlet of smokers standing around blowing smoke in our faces as we try to enter a building? As for the employees quiting? Have YOU tried to find a job recently? I would have to say to you, using your own words, if you don't like not being able to smoke in a restaurant or bar...go to a private club.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

there used to be choice in JC. strange i never experienced trouble with smoke in a restaraunt or having to wade through a bunch of chain smokers ever. maybe i'm just lucky or you are full of it. as say again, there were many businesses that had no smoking. if i'm not mistaken, did the ban affect private clubs as well? i think VFW and the American Legion was affected as well. yes i have found a job about a year ago. happy?

pegassuss2525 2 years, 1 month ago

Well I'm not full of it so you must be lucky.... Maybe you should have looked and smelled the air, then you would have noticed it.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

strange i don't see that many smokers or smell anything unless somehow i'm in a small room full of smokers. now when a car has a bad exhaust system i can smell that. a good rain clears everything and leaves that fresh smell. i guess i am lucky. smokers must avoid or something. i don't experience this supposed rude behavior of smokers. really, i don't

rmsberengaria 2 years, 1 month ago

Yes, and most likely your a big fan of PBS and NPR and read the "Nation Magazine", watch MSNBC or CNN and love Nancy Pelosi and call that an un-biased opinion. It could be you who has been bamboozled by them HKCHAS!

rmsberengaria 2 years, 1 month ago

LOL, ok I can go with that. Anymore, whatever I see on TV, papers, radio I go back and search the original source documents, government websites, writers, books and see the original evidence for myself. They all leave out important details to suit the slant they want to portray. Evidence of being bamboozled on the right or the left is evident every morning when I watch C-Span. Many on both sides are just plain ignorant of what they are saying or commenting on. They parrot whatever they watched on TV or read in the Paper the day before and take it as fact, sometimes they are correct other times selected for the ignorant masses consumption. But, by gosh if Lindsey Lohan colored her hair they would know all about it! LOL

Festus_Hagen 2 years, 1 month ago

So your saying if I'm in a room closed up with a bunch of smokers, forced to breathe that air, that it's as healthy to me as if they weren't smoking ? Stop trying to justify your nasty habit. Some of us don't want it around.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

someone said on this topic, if a place has smoking, Don't go there. there are plenty of businesses that had no smoking. most of the bars i have been too, i say over %50 were smoking, the other %50 didn't mind. btw i highly doubt someone will make you stay in room full of smoke. if some people were really like that, i would not go to that place of business.

pegassuss2525 2 years, 1 month ago

The dangers of second hand smoke is NOT fictional. My family is one of many that are adversely affected by it. We have two people who are highly allergic to it.

rmsberengaria 2 years, 1 month ago

Well I feel bad for you. Maybe you should just avoid any business's that allow smoking it is an easy choice....don't go there! So, do you burn wood in your fireplace or visit someone with a working fireplace? What would you do if we all still used coal to heat our homes up until the 50's as we did? Or you had to travel by trains powered by coal? Wow, just think of how much smoke and soot we had in Jefferson City as late as the 50's? It is funny but in my class no one had an allergy in the 60's - 70's could it be we pump so many atibiotics in our children from the time they are born that their immune system never has a chance to develop naturally?

pegassuss2525 2 years, 1 month ago

My mistake, I apparantly need to clarify my remarks but I thought that since we were discussing second hand smoke from cigarrettes that it would be understood. I have two people who are highly allergic to cigarrette smoke. This has nothing to do with their immune systems not developing naturally nor have they been "pumped full" of antibotics. They are two different generations. I'm glad that your class (which is a small microcosim) had no problems that you know of; but since then the chemicals added have almost doubled. I'm am refuting the statement that second hand smoke in this day and age is not dangerous. It is.

rmsberengaria 2 years, 1 month ago

Ok, you have singled out second hand smoke. Yes, some people do have allergic reactions and I still feel sorry for those who suffer from that. My point basically is....Our air and environment is 100's of times cleaner than in the 50's and 60's and that is a good thing. When homes where heated with coal and trains ran on coal this city was full of soot! My grandmother used to sweep her porches every day to clean off the soot and covered her furniture at night. Now today we have much cleaner burning coal applications that generate 40% of our electricity and most folks never even notice. Am sure there where allergy problems then but most folks just lived with it. There just seems to be a group of environmentalist that never stop the attack on anything that makes our life easier. LIghts, heat, water, whatever....and the more government and these groups foist on business more regulations the higher the cost is to the consumer. Anyway I still think it is the business's right to decide what policies on smoking they wish to pursue.

rmsberengaria 2 years, 1 month ago

Yes, that was a good thing now address the over regulation and out right attack on the human race by these environmentalist and the infringement of the right of others to enjoy lower energy costs and pursue their dreams without adding thousands of dollars worth of useless red tape just to own, make a product, drill for oil, produce one kilowatt of electricity. There has to be a Balance hkchas!

pegassuss2525 2 years, 1 month ago

Unfortunately my little girl can't "live with it" when she is exposed it becomes diffiult for her to even breathe shallow breaths. Just walking into a buliding past a smoker who happens to be standing right by the door blowing smoke out and holding the cigarrette down causes an issue. Are you saying that my little girl should have her life cut short because a smoker should be allowed to slowly kill her? Just exactly who should be held responsible for that?

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

i feel for your girls condition. you could sue the tobacco companies. but i have a problem with people "take for granted that it is the role of the state to tell people what to do in their private lives: what to eat, what to drink, whether to smoke, how to travel from A to B, even how to have s#x (always “safely,” of course)." i am not a doctor or medical expert, but some people have to use a oxygen mask, some have to live in a bubble, many have to use lots of medicine because they are allergic to almost everything. i would hold the tobacco companies responsible, but i'm not the courts.

JMO 2 years, 1 month ago

Suing a tobacco company because a child is allergic to cigarette smoke would be like suing Exxon for being allergic to gasoline. It wouldn't work. And Pegassuss, I am sorry you have this problem. Children with allergies can be quite a challenge. But making a law about smoking because of an allergy makes no more sense than making a law about peanuts. Many people are so allergic to peanuts they have reactions even from being in a small space with them. It's why airlines don't serve them anymore. If you child had a peanut allergy, you'd have to constantly be aware of her surroundings, just like you are with smoke.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

oops, i forgot about that JMO. there should be some way to get rid or treat allergies.

pegassuss2525 2 years, 1 month ago

I'm not saying they should have made a law because of allergies. I am saying that second hand smoke is dangerous. I love how my reply to Graceful's comment now has me demanding this ban. If someone wants to smoke, then so be it. I do hold smokers accountable for being lazy and showing a total lack of respect for others. One could walk away from the entry way, could hold the cigarette away from others, etc. I am constantly aware of surroundings due to the people with allergies in our family. My family is my responsibilty. However common courtesy, respect, to name a few is something we as human beings should show. Most smokers show an utter disregard for others,

JMO 2 years, 1 month ago

Oh, I thought you were supporting the ban. But I do agree it's bad for you. And as a smoker - soon I hope I'll be able to confidently say "former smoker" - I apologise for all those lazy ones. I always have tried to be as courteous as I could to non-smokers. The world would be a better place if everyone was courteous, regardless of the reason.

tonto 2 years, 1 month ago

It's in the Tea Party Constitution, the one they make up as they go along.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

what?! the 5th ammedment was made up? btw Nazi Germany was the first country to introduce smoking bans.

tonto 2 years, 1 month ago

Not the fifth amendment; how silly! It's the amendment that says you can run any business anywhere and anyhow you want. It's the one that says global warming is a hoax, there were nuclear weapons in Iraq right before GWB invaded, and secondhand smoke is good for you. The one that says money means everything.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

oh so we are communists now? let the mob choose what business we will allow and take away individual rights, who cares how much investment someone put into a business. apparently, you don't. global warming, snowing in march? there were no WMD's in Iraq, we should never sent troops there. smoke is as good as a car exhaust, lets ban cars. Money does not mean everything, but it buys stuff. if you don't like money, give it all away then. last time i check we are a capitalistic country that is thinking about being a quasi-socialist country.

tonto 2 years, 1 month ago

No, the Tea Party would drag us toward corporatism, the state-business partnership economy like they have in South Korea.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

not sure if that is good thing, but S. Korea's economy is sound. Tea party is not my thing, some of their beliefs are eh... i prefer coffee anyway. not starbucks though. btw business is a property, yes there are insurance, etc but this smoke ban is bit too far. there were plenty of smoke free businesses anyway, like Paddy Malone's, that did so by their own choice.

bluesfan13 2 years, 1 month ago

Unless that business is a strip club anyway. Then it's our duty to keep morals in check.

tonto 2 years, 1 month ago

Here is a link to a very long list of peer reviewed professionally organized studies that say you are wrong. Read and learn.

no-smoke.org/pdf/SHSBibliography.pdf

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

i know plenty of non-partisans and democrats that go to strip joints. heh

bluesfan13 2 years, 1 month ago

Perhaps they've lied to you about the vices of strip clubs as well.

You seem to be fine when it's you foisting your peculiar set of moral standards on others, but god forbid someone wants to restrict something you think is ok to do...

Smoking kills. Period. (Nudity doesn't, btw) If you don't believe that, then there's no point in even discussing this.

Now, that said, I don't believe that secondhand smoke is enough of a danger to impose government restrictions. If people want to kill themselves by smoking, more power to them. I do feel bad for kids in a chain-smoking household. I've seen way to many kids these days with asthma and other breathing problems, BUT, I don't have enough information to say that it came from smoking parents, or that its some other envronmental influence.

tonto 2 years, 1 month ago

Quite a few of the studies in the list I cited above have to do with the relative level of danger from second hand smoke to kids. The incidence of kids with asthma is higher in smoker houses, but the most noticeable difference is the lower incidence of all kinds of respiratory illness in kids from no-smoking homes..

bluesfan13 2 years, 1 month ago

I'll take you at your word, I haven't read the studies and didn't want to jump to my own conclusions as to why asthma is higher.

I do, however, believe that if something is legal to do in your own home, it should be legal for a buisness owner to allow it on their premisis. I don't like smoke and am glad that I can walk into any bar or eating establisment in JC and not have to come out smelling like a dirty ashtray, but as long as smoking itself is legal I don't think the governmnet should be able to force a buisiness owner to not allow it.

gzc721 2 years, 1 month ago

America is dying because of people like you. Second hand smoke may not actually "kill" you but it leads to other phsyical issues and diseases that do. You really do need to read up and lighten up.
I don't agree with taking away business owners rights to decide who they want for customers, but I also do not want to have to sit in the next booth with someone blowing smoke back my way. It is about respect, from both sides. If the restaurants had not made it impossible to be separated then it wouldn't be an issue. But when you walk in and a fake plant is the separation, then that is an issue. Just like the business owners and the smokers, I and other non smokers have rights too. Or did you overlook that when you were considering everyone's "rights"??

rmsberengaria 2 years, 1 month ago

You don't agree with taking rights away from business but I guarantee you voted to ban smoking in PRIVATE business's didn't you? Kind of makes your words ring hollow and hypocritical to say the least. By god you support business but when it is a ballot issue you are more than ready to take those rights away!

tonto 2 years, 1 month ago

That's right. Morals matter a lot. We wouldn't want any fat chicks or - the horror! - short, ugly old men stripping. We have to draw those lines at just the right place in the sand.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

JC used to be a place worth going to. no smoking in private places, well, that might be the next step. it irks me when someone invested money into a business and then some special interest group wants to change the rules. some businesses were already prepared like Paddy's because their clientele changed. others were not so fortunate. for asb, JClifer hkchas, and all those other people that want to take away rights that were taken for granted, one more thing, if you disagree with paddymalonespub quote about rights, Osage indians, and didn't bother to look at the rest of the quote, here is the final part:

"Now, unlike many on this website, I will tell you exactly who I am, and how you can get ahold of me if you disagree with me, rather than continuing an ongoing p*ssing match online, please come talk to me and we can discuss it further:

Allen Tatman, Paddy Malone's Pub, 700 W. Main paddymalonespub@aol.com 573-761-5900" i highly doubt any of you will call him though. ask him about the Osage Indians as well.

tonto 2 years, 1 month ago

We all got a good understanding of Mr. Tatman's point of view the first time you posted this. He makes it pretty clear and simple. We don't need to debate the issue with him personally, it's pointless.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

Tonto, i appreciate the fact that you seem to be the only one that acknowledged what the quote was all about. instead of making fun of it or totally ignoring it. if some people were irked because i posted several time, oh well, many posters as well as myself are stubborn. i do strongly believe in individual freedom as well as economic freedom.

as for others that say sell the business and move; i say this is poor class at best or callous. has anyone invested and ran a business? what if something was banned that you liked, would you move?

there is no question smoking is bad for you. however less people are smoking, there are many businesses chose to be smoke free. we will see what happens when the majority vote for something you don't like.

i would look forward to any future story the NTwill do on how the smoking ban affects businesses that allowed smoking. did it hurt or not. maybe as Spectators or The Mission, VFW and the American Legion.

tonto 2 years, 1 month ago

The experience in Columbia about a year ago was that business was down for a few months in the former smoking places. After two-three months things were back to normal. You know what that business is like, so you know that a few businesses can not survive even a couple of bad months. It's not fair, but nothing ever stays the same. Maybe those owners should have got out earlier.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

perhaps, but that still seems callous to me. it is impossible to predict and prepare against every possibilty when running a business. i call foul on this. one has to prepare for lawsuits, clientele changes, rough economy, regulation and of course intrusive laws. many people are very hesitant to start a business, which will likely slow the local economy. i know many businesses were becoming smoke free by their choice, i rather not mandate by law forcing every business.

Columbia is much different than JC, a large college town and a lot more people. people from JC go to Columbia for fun, very few people from Columbia go to JC for fun. jobs yes, but not for recreation. i do hope most of the businesses recover.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

who are you to say what one can and can not do? what if someone did that to you and your business? if you drive a car to poison the air with carbon monoxide. if you raise cattle you are hurting the ozone layer and cause climate change. so enough of this holier than though nonsense. no one forced the patron to go to bar that had smoking, last time i checked.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

i see you are callous and cold blooded towards small business owners, especially the local ones here in Jeff. but for some reason i'm not surprised. lets see what happens when a law affects your livelyhood, job, life, etc that you do not like or agree with. read Alan Tatman's quote and apparently you feel no remorse.

JCLifer 2 years, 1 month ago

Don't forget Ecco Lounge. They are busy as anything now that they have gone smoke free!

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

good for them, what about the other businesses? did you ask them?

JCLifer 2 years, 1 month ago

Keggley's was packed last week - first time I'd been there in years. We all enjoyed some chicken wings and cold beverages without having to breathe cancer smoke or stink up our clothes. Both upstairs and downstairs were very crowded.

Prison Brews stays real busy too.

LongHorns has added more tables and booths to serve more people since they remodeled and took out the smoking section. They still had a long line to wait to get seated last weekend.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

strangely enough, other places, business went down 30% like the Mission. now did you ask them or were just there when they were busy? Kegleys was busy, great, but you there one time since who knows when, what about after that?

Longhorns usually have a long lines on the weekend to begin with. so this does not impress me.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

i'm not which is worse, the good ole boys in the council or your attitude towards property rights and individuals. just because you went to a place one time and its packed does not mean it was because of the smoke ban.

did you read anything Alan Tatman thought about the ban? lets see what happens when the majority makes a law you disagree with. how would you feel if someone told you to LEAVE, especially after you invested time and money into something. certain places used to serve different clientele. you apparently like telling individuals who their customers should be. i'm sure you agree with the old boys at the council all the time.

JMO 2 years, 1 month ago

Yeah, okay, I kept my mouth shut, and I may regret this, but... I smoked for 14 years, quit for 8, smoked again for about 5, on and off. I'm currently working on quitting again. Why? BECAUSE IT MAKES YOU SICK! And anyone who says smoking doesn't make you sick is either an i d i o t or a liar. Everyone with a brain knows primary smoking is bad for you. No, I'm not dead yet. But after a single cigarette, I can tell the difference in how I breathe. I'm congested. I cough. My heart has to work harder. I get sinus infections. My triglyceride levels go up. And I could get cancer. Maybe I won't, but I could and it's way more likely than someone who doesn't smoke. Why did I start again after 8 years? Because, I'm stupid. But, they are also addictive. Not everyone who smokes has problems quitting. Not everyone gets addicted. But not everyone who drinks becomes an alcoholic either. I had no problem quitting the first time...didn't even want one. But this time I'm craving them - physically. It's an addiction.

To say second-hand smoke is not bad for you is naive at best. If primary smoking is bad for you, how can second-hand smoke not? Do you think all the bad stuff is neatly filtered out by the primary smoker's lungs? Do you think breathing the smoke from the lit end is healthy? Of course it's bad for you too. Now, I don't think it's as bad for you as being a primary smoker, but it's still bad!

When you get right down to it, I don't particularly mind the smoking bans in restaurants. Even when I did smoke, I didn't like sitting in or near the smoking section of restaurants. I didn't smoke during meals - really, if you can't go an hour without, you really need help. I tried to be a considerate smoker. Even in a bar, if the person next to me didn't smoke, I'd ask if they minded. If I was with a group of non-smokers, I'd move away. I don't smoke in my own home! I go outside. I have no burning desire (no pun intended) to make other people breathe my smoke. But, that being said, I don't agree it's appropriate to have a law stating no smoking in any business. The fact is, the days of smoking being socially acceptable is coming to an end. Even though I smoke, I think that's a good thing. Very soon, bar and restaurant owners are going to go smoke-free anyway, to take advantage of the non-smoking market. Paddy Malones is the only bar I've been to in years, not because it went non-smoking, but because I love the place. I, as a smoker, chose to not be in a smoke-filled place. Non-smoker's have the same right.

But it shouldn't be a law. To put it simply, I think a business owner should have the right to say what otherwise legal activity should be taking place in their business.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

good points JMO. i wish you luck on your road to quit smoking. i like Paddy's too, great food, great drinks and great people.

JMO 2 years, 1 month ago

Thanks! After a number of false starts in the last several months, I think I can do it this time. I've only had two cigarettes since last Thursday, both while with friends who smoke, of course. I may have to stay away from my smoking friends for a few weeks until my self-control is better. I really don't want to take pills or use patches, etc. if I can do this on my own.

tonto 2 years, 1 month ago

Good luck on quitting. It's really a hard thing to do. I never started but I have friends who have quit after many years.

JMO 2 years, 1 month ago

A small amount of arsenic isn't bad for you either. But a little bit every day over a long period of time will kill you.

JMO 2 years, 1 month ago

You know, I AM a smoker and I do not support the smoking ban...and even I think this is a silly argument. While you are clearly entitled to your opinion on secondhand smoke, I think you'll find the vast majority of the rest of the country disagree with you.

JMO 2 years, 1 month ago

I'm not talking about believe something just because others do. I'm talking about the fact that most people know and understand that second-hand smoke is bad for you. You know what I want? I want you, just ONE time on these boards, to admit you may not be all-knowing. You may be wrong on a subject. Other's positions may have value besides yours. Someone may know more about a subject than you do. Other people may have read valid studies. Doctors and scientists who say secondhand smoke is bad, may be right. Just maybe. But we can't always get what we want.

JMO 2 years, 1 month ago

I'm sorry. I shouldn't have gone there. But it just really starts to annoy when I am on the same side of the issue and I still end up arguing with them. Makes me want a cigarette. :-)

gzc721 2 years, 1 month ago

The second hand smoke is blown directly into the face of another person who then inhales it WITHOUT the benefit of a filter. Much like you can get high from being in a room with pot smokers you can have reactions and issues from being in rooms with cigarette smokers.
You must not have been raised in a home with smokers. If you were you would certainly remember being in the car and trapped in a fog of smoke that you had to breathe in and out repeatedly.

rmsberengaria 2 years, 1 month ago

The issue is not smoking is bad for you or can kill you it is about the rights of Business owners not Governments job to decide how best for a business to conduct his or her business! Why is that so hard for people like you to get through your head? Just like Liberals quick to pick winners and losers and think that is just fine!

JMO 2 years, 1 month ago

Why do people always have to make every issue a "liberal vs. conservative" argument. I consider myself quite liberal in many ways and my view on the smoking ban is clearly pretty much the same as yours.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

really, how many local businesses would actually do that? :/

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

i would say a lot. Rats carry diseases and other nonsense. Rotten meat can make people sick real fast. i have not heard of anyone dropping like flies because of smoking. there are smokers that outlived doctors.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

did they smoke and then just drop dead? to me that is the definition of dropping like flies.

overeating, not exercising, etc is not healthy either, you want to make a law on that?

JMO 2 years, 1 month ago

They don't list asbestos as the cause of death of a person who dies of mesothelioma either. Smoking isn't the immediate cause of death, it causes or contributes to the disease.

pegassuss2525 2 years, 1 month ago

I was raised with a smoker as well and it is a big deal. You got lucky so far.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

First Nationwide Study Finds No Link Between Smoking Bans and Reductions in Heart Attacks

reason.com/blog/2010/12/20/first-nationwide-study-finds-n

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

you trust wikipedia?

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

you don't like Rand, i don't like nanny states, and Scotland is the biggest Nanny state. google scotland nanny state.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

i consider this a freedom issue. you want more health? you want to make laws forcing people what to eat, say, drink or not to? where is this magical 23%. anyway less than 1% controls the US. people will gladly give up freedom for security/health and gain nothing.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

business owners should chose what to allow in their establish, especially when that thing was legal to begin with. yea smokers have the freedom to walk out. you have the freedom to choose not to go to wherever. you don't want poison? don't drive car, turn on the ac, most foods etc. where do you get this 23% at? just curious.

tonto 2 years, 1 month ago

Where were you intending to go with this? That's an interesting but not relevant study. First - NBER and Rand Corp are business research companies. They are not qualified in epidemiology, which is the relevant specialty. Second - that is a short-term study about heart attacks which can be tangentially but not directly related to tobacco. Tobacco is a long-term killer, it is slow and deceptive, and many people are able to use tobacco for many years without getting cancer. Cancer is the big killer, emphysema is next.

newone 2 years, 1 month ago

Im still waiting to hear about all of the places that have had to close due to this smoking ban....Newstribune, have you heard of any yet?

Daddy 2 years, 1 month ago

Went to Chilis this weekend and it was absolutely packed! Had a line going out the door. I asked the hostess how things were going with the smoking ban and she said better than ever! Congrats to the lawmakers they finally got one right!

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

@ newone i have heard from a reliable source that places like the Mission business went down 30%. hopefully NT or someone is doing some kind of research on the subject and do a story on this.

@ Daddy well good for Chillis's. if they are not packed on the weekend, its a bad day, its usually packed. its going to take more than one trip to find out anything, and of course the hostess will say yes things are great. try asking a local business, not a national chain restaraunt. i suggest asking the Mission, VFW, the American Legion, Kegleys, et al.

newone 2 years, 1 month ago

wcywing I did what you suggested, I called VFW, American Legion and Kegleys, VFW said that they have noticed a slight decreese in business but he couldn't be sure if it was due to the smoking ban or the bad economy (gas prices..ect), American Legion said they have noticed a decress only in the past few weeks because they had to raise thier prices due to gas prices and prices on food, she didn't feel the smoking ban had much effect on them at all and Mortimer's said they had noticed maybe a 3%-5% decress in business since the smoking ban but she also said that could be due to gas prices and people just not having the money to go out as much and the Mission I was not able to get a hold of anyone so I did the research and I think if someone expanded the research a little more and called more companies here in Jefferson City you would get the same responce.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

sounds reasonable, i appreciate it newone. thanks for the asking. i know a few phone calls is not scientific but hopefully the NT will do a story, maybe they will qoute you. that would be neat.

newone 2 years, 1 month ago

I would love for them to do a story on it also, all I heard before the smoking ban went into effect was how it was going to close businesses and I just didn't see that happening and I would love to know if any have. And if they have, is it due to the smoking ban or the bad economy, which we may never know I guess.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

really asking one or two businesses or just visiting one business one time is not enough information for any conclusion, or do believe everything someone feeds you? as i and others have said, hopefully the NT will do a report. what part of that do you not understand? its like doing a poll and 2 out 2 people and use that for a final result. hopefully someone from NT or some researchers will find out.

JCLifer 2 years, 1 month ago

I am sure there are a few businesses in town with faulty business models that have lower demands for their products or services. If you want to blame poor business on the smoking ban- than so be it. However, several examples of businesses that are doing very well since the smioking ban have been given. Keep digging, however, and you will probably find one or two ailing business to blame the lack of cigarette smoke as being the evil culprit.

There is none so blind as he who will not see.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

you are not the all knowing all seeing. your arrogance is more sickning than any cig, which is saying something. a bad business will fail with or without a ban. like Alan Tatman said, "With all that being said, I still believe that telling a business owner that he must now work under a new set of rules, when he invested in this community under a previous set of rules, is not fair play. I ask you this; what if it was your business or livelihood? Would you want the government or the voters telling you that you had to change when you had established your business under a certain pretense?" call him and tell him what you think. keep digging lifer and you might hit oil.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

i never said i was and Alan will be the first to say he is not all seeing. looks like you are ranting. you can't stand what i write. where are these scienfic results that only 23% smoke? just for you Alan also said "What is particularly surprising to me is that this constituency regularly supports political candidates who expound the virtues of free enterprise and less government regulation. Yet, in the case of the smoking ban, the voters supported a measure which restricts free enterprise and requires more government intervention. I have said many times, most people will gladly sacrifice the individual rights of others just so long as their own rights are not interfered with. This is blatant hypocrisy. But I don't know why I am surprised. Our government was not founded upon individual liberty for all; it was founded upon "liberty for the majority". If you don't believe me, just ask any Osage Indian." the nazi germany were the first to impose smokings bans. thats 7 i think.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

sorry i prefer Penn and Teller. however since you like wiki, check this out.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_Germany

JCLifer 2 years, 1 month ago

You seem to worship Alan Tatman. Is that who you are? He may be a nice guy and a sucessful business owner, but his opinion is no more or no less important than my opinion, or the opinions of the magority of voters in Jefferson City.

I think it is more arrogant for someone to think they should smoke a stinky, cancer-causing cigarette around other people. To think that you have the God-given right to knowingly force carcinogenic fumes on others and to make them have to breathe the stench of your cigarettes and get the stench all over their clothes, etc. is the height of arrogance. Perhaps the smoke has clouded your thinking?

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

i don't worship anyone, and i'm not Alan. he is much smarter than me. likewise your opinion is no more important than mine.

did i say smokers should puff smoke in somefones face? NO. i would punch him. i don't smoke lifer, get off whatever you are on. to think you have a "God-given right to knowingly force" others to run their business. lets see what happens when the majority does something you don't like or agree with. you have disagreed with what the council has done, i agree with you on most of that, or did you forget?

rmsberengaria 2 years, 1 month ago

Perhaps JCLIFER you should pay the tax's of the business owners, make the payroll, make the investment, employ people, provide a service and then you have a right to decide who comes into your establishment. Until then go somewhere where there is no smoking by the establishment! You like big brother 1984 telling free enterprise what to do and when to do it.

JCLifer 2 years, 1 month ago

Why would I want to pay the taxes for a business that I don't own? Are you suggesting some sort of government welfare program should be implemented for businesses? I think the government has bailed out enough businesses, and there is already plently of corporate welfare out there being paid for by the tax payers already. Besides, I have no idea what any of this has to do with protecting the health of customers and employees from carcinogenic fumes from cigarettes?

In some cases government needs to set regulations for businesses. That is why we have food sanitation laws and building codes to protect customers from unscrupulous business owners from serving rotting or contaminated food in rat-infested buildings that are in severe danger of falling down. That is why we have OSHA and other laws to protect employees from unscrupulous owners who might try to run their businesses in a way that would harm or discriminate against their employees.
We have had strong proven evidence that cigarette smoke is a harmful and health hazard. Since smokers are inconsiderate and refuse to go outside to smoke, that is why the smoking ordinance was passed by the voters.
Why are you so worried about the proven health hazards caused by 23% of the population who hasn't the will to stop smoking? It seems business owners would not want these types of people for customers or allow them in their places of business, especially if they refuse to take their filthy and unhealthy addiction outside to smoke.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

wouldn't that be up to the owners to choose what kind of customers come in? do you want me to tell you how to run your business? i have evidence that too much drinking can be dangerous and fatal, do you prohibition back? eating fatty foods is bad, do you want to make an ordinance to tell restaraunts what food to serve? do you want to make a law for everybody to exercise?

I think it is more arrogant for someone to think they should tell someone how to run their business, especially if you never done business there. To think that you have the God-given right to knowingly force your will on others and to make business owners have to choose the clientele instead of the other way around, etc. is the height of arrogance. Perhaps the smoke has clouded your thinking maybe?

yea, you may not want to run a business, but you like imposing your will on others, like its your business. are you sure you are not on the JC council?

rmsberengaria 2 years, 1 month ago

The point was lifer....You don't own the business nor pay their tax's, make the payroll, hire people, someone else had the dream to own his or her own business not YOU! If you don't want or like smoking GO SOMEWHERE ELSE! It is not for you or the City or Government to decide who is allowed in the business. OPEN YOUR OWN NO SMOKING BUSINESS that is what free enterprise is all about!

JCLifer 2 years, 1 month ago

The ability to change and adapt to new consumer preferances and regulations is the sign of a healthy successful business.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

that is true, however a large chain company like Chiles can do that easier than a small local company.

JCLifer 2 years, 1 month ago

A large chain has multiple levels of buracracy to go through to make any changes such as this. Then there are the studies, economic justifications, market analysis, competitive bidding process, presentation of porposals, accounting studies, competitiveness studies, etc, etc. etc.
I would think a small business owner would be way more agile at making changes and adapting to changing consumer tastes and demands. Otherwise, why would a person ever want to run a small business? They would be way better off to just purchase a franchise of a large chain and let the corporate office do all the thinking and approving of any changes that may be needed.

tonto 2 years, 1 month ago

I know quite a few small business owners so let me try to explain how that works.

Small businesses fail at an alarming rate because the owners resist change and adaptation. People go into business for themselves because they want to be the boss, and they want to make the decisions. The smarter ones find a model or a guru they trust and emulate but the rest are too bull-headed to listen to anyone else.

They don't like changing their minds, and it is not easy for them to adapt to a new situation. They joke about being unemployable, but it's their independence that makes them reluctant to let anyone else make decisions.

That's probably a part of why the smoking ban is so galling to them, it was not their choice and it was a change.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

you have to be independent thinking to be a small business owner, but being too stubborn can be their downfall. most bosses want to be the boss, which is reasonable, or else they wouldn't set up a business in the first place. of course listening to the wrong person can be disasterous as well.

another factor could be is they don't have as much capital as the larger companies. adapting to change probably means spending more money, which can also be a pain.

i know a lot of people that don't like change, especially over things they can not control. any kind of change and not just this ban, however thats another topic.

JMO 2 years, 1 month ago

I've never quoted Alan-never even been introduced to him though I like his place-nor cited what Nazis did. I admit that smoking is dangerous and secondhand smoke is bad for others. I don't disagree with the reasons behind the smoking ban. I agree that non-smokers should be able to go out without being in a business that allows smoking. That's why such businesses already existed without the law. Non-smokers didn't have to go businesses that allowed smoking if they didn't want to.

I also expect most large restaurants will do just fine. People don't spend long periods of time in restaurants. I expect that it's the smaller bars that will have a problem long term. But you know, I don't even care if the businesses do okay. I disagree strictly because I feel that a business owner should be able to say what is or isn't done in his own business.

JCLifer 2 years, 1 month ago

Just "man up" and quit the filthy disgusting addiction of smoking. Problem solved for all.

wcywing 2 years, 1 month ago

let the people make that choice. should they quit, probably.

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting

Or login with: