Two Steps Remain for St. Louis County No Smoking Proposal

There was no fanfare, little drama, and the St. Louis County Council's preliminary votes were unchanged when the no smoking proposal was finalized Tuesday night.

The Council with a 4-3 vote finalize a proposal for county voters on Nov. 3 to say yes or no about smoking in some public places. Bowling centers and bars would be affected if approved, but exemptions remain for casinos, bars with little food business and Lambert airport.

But two obstacles remain. The Council must get a judge's approval to put the proposal on the Nov. 3 ballot because they missed the election notification deadline. But even that isn't enough. County Executive Charles Dooley has until Monday to veto the bill.

And Dooley is on record saying he may do that. Not that he's in favor or smoking, but that the St. Louis City, St. Charles, Franklin, and Jefferson Counties would be havens for smokers to go since they don't have no smoking laws and have no such legislation pending before them. Dooley says he favors a statewide ban.

As expected, the area's restaurant and bar association spoke in opposition to the proposal. But what might get voters to defeat this is opposition from groups you wouldn't expect to oppose no smoking legislation:

The American Lung Assocation

GASP - (Missouri) Group Against Smoking Pollution

The American Heart Association

The American Cancer Society

They oppose the current proposal for voters because of the exemptions, wanting all or nothing. We all know why casinos are getting the exemption (Harrah's at present, River City when it opens next year) - the tax revenue it generates for the County.

But one astute proprietor noted how much power the casinos have over these Lords of the Council: No casino rep ever appeared at the three Council meetings to speak on this matter. They're getting their exemption quid pro quo (for those of you who were educated by the St. Louis Public School System in the past 20 years, it means, you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours).

BOWLING HOOD learned that Councilman Quinn voted in favor of no smoking despite the fact that his law practice is on retainer with a county bowling proprietor who opposes the proposal, and that Quinn has not returned calls or emails to that proprietor.

I guess you can't influence some votes. Too bad Quinn forgot that this proprietor is a county voter. If Quinn couldn't talk because of the business relationship, he certainly should have talked to this person as a tax paying voter.

As a matter of fact, Councilwoman Wasinger didn't return my email. She won't get my vote if she decides to run in 2010.

By next Monday, we'll see if a County Judge approves it for the ballot or if Charlie Dooley vetoes it. Bowling Hood will let you know.