Smoking at my cigar shop now ILLEGAL

[L.Whip]

the ban has been in for a few months now in MD for bars/resturants, it is already causeing more problems than before, loitering outside, now folks have to walk through the smoking section to get inside the places, before smokers had their OWN sections (I never even knew there was smoking going on) (as I always sat in "non-smoking")

unbelieveable.

 

[Mike33]

Its not so much an exemption as a case of the state of Missouri defining tobacco shops as PRIVATE business.
It is clearly defined in the wording of the law passed by voters that smoking is banned in all PUBLIC places.

Hmmm.....I wonder what the difference would be b/w a cigar shop and a restaurant? Maybe the attorney was referencing this state statute:

The Indoor Clean Air Act (gotta love the title ) says:

"The following areas are not considered a public place:

.... (4) A place where more than fifty percent of the volume of trade or business carried on is that of the blending of tobaccos or sale of tobaccos, cigarettes, pipes, cigars or smoking sundries."

So this would seem to exempt tobacco shops in the state of Missouri. But, it also says:

"Nothing in sections 191.775 and 191.776 shall prohibit local political subdivisions or local boards of education from enacting more stringent ordinances or rules."

That would seem to allow cities to enact whatever smoking regulations they want. I'm sure the attorney is right and I am probably missing something, but I've always thought these types of bans cover every place of business unless they specifically exempt them, like the casinos and the stadiums in KC ban. The KC ban didn't exempt tobacco shops on the ballot, so I would think it would fall under the smoking ban.

Anyways, hopefully I can talk to you guys about it on Sat. as I would like to know what statute it is.

 

[JHolmes763]

From what I'm reading, the ban covered PUBLIC places. What you quoted clearly says cigar shops are PRIVATE. No matter how strict they make the rules, they only apply to PUBLIC places (well, at least this rule, which someone said was clearly written with PUBLIC in the text).

 

[Mike33]

Well so much for finding loopholes. The KC ordinance exempts retail tobacco store:

"Sec. 34-475. Where smoking is not regulated.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Article to the contrary, the following shall not be subject to the smoking restrictions of this Article:

(c ) Retail tobacco stores"

So it was never going to ban smoking in cigar shops. Great communication by the city

 

[OpusXKC]

Well so much for finding loopholes. The KC ordinance exempts retail tobacco store:

"Sec. 34-475. Where smoking is not regulated.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Article to the contrary, the following shall not be subject to the smoking restrictions of this Article:

(c ) Retail tobacco stores"

So it was never going to ban smoking in cigar shops. Great communication by the city

That is the current text of the ban but in place by the city council. The text of the new ordinance, which was voted on is linked as "updated" language for KC Ord Chapter 34 . in the edited inital post.

Note the exception above is not included in the revised text. Also the revised text is not the valid statute until June 30th of 2008.

--Revised Sec 34-475, to be enacted as of June 30, 2008--

Sec. 34-475. Where smoking is not regulated.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Ordinance to the contrary, the following shall not be subject to the smoking restrictions of this Ordinance:

(a) Private residences, not serving as enclosed places of employment or enclosed public places;

(b) Twenty-five percent (25%) of hotel and motel rooms may be permanently designated as smoking rooms or a higher percentage adjusted by the hotel or motel when on a given date it has a seventy-five percent (75%) or greater occupancy rate due to the booking of guests for conventions or meetings and needed to meet the demands of the convention or meeting, provided the hotel or motel cleans those added rooms in a manner sufficient to remove the odor and particulate residue of smoking from those rooms before they are again occupied as non-smoking rooms.

© Any location where this ordinance is not yet in effect pursuant to Section 34-480.

EDIT -- I'm no lawyer, but it seems Outlaw has a good one. If he says that they are exempt due to state law, I believe them. Either way, I'm not going to stop smoking :thumbs:

 

[Mike33]

Well so much for finding loopholes. The KC ordinance exempts retail tobacco store:

"Sec. 34-475. Where smoking is not regulated.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Article to the contrary, the following shall not be subject to the smoking restrictions of this Article:

(c ) Retail tobacco stores"

So it was never going to ban smoking in cigar shops. Great communication by the city

That is the current text of the ban but in place by the city council. The text of the new ordinance, which was voted on is linked as "updated" language for KC Ord Chapter 34 . in the edited inital post.

Note the exception above is not included in the revised text. Also the revised text is not the valid statute until June 30th of 2008.

--Revised Sec 34-475, to be enacted as of June 30, 2008--

Sec. 34-475. Where smoking is not regulated.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Ordinance to the contrary, the following shall not be subject to the smoking restrictions of this Ordinance:

(a) Private residences, not serving as enclosed places of employment or enclosed public places;

(b) Twenty-five percent (25%) of hotel and motel rooms may be permanently designated as smoking rooms or a higher percentage adjusted by the hotel or motel when on a given date it has a seventy-five percent (75%) or greater occupancy rate due to the booking of guests for conventions or meetings and needed to meet the demands of the convention or meeting, provided the hotel or motel cleans those added rooms in a manner sufficient to remove the odor and particulate residue of smoking from those rooms before they are again occupied as non-smoking rooms.

© Any location where this ordinance is not yet in effect pursuant to Section 34-480.

EDIT -- I'm no lawyer, but it seems Outlaw has a good one. If he says that they are exempt due to state law, I believe them. Either way, I'm not going to stop smoking :thumbs:

Doh! Guess I should've read a little bit further :blush:

Oh I believe them too, I just want to know what the state law is that gives them that exemption; I'm always trying to learn :thumbs:

 

[OpusXKC]

Oh I believe them too, I just want to know what the state law is that gives them that exemption; I'm always trying to learn :thumbs:

Me too, I love learning legal loopholes. Loopholes make the world go 'round

 

[JayDee]

just declare your shop a "hotel" and use 25% to smoke the other 75% for the humidor

 

[vortex]

All loopholes and civil disobedience notwithstanding, it's time to take back our f%&#ing country. The problem with the "tyranny of democracy" is that the majority can tell the minority where to get off. Most people don't smoke so if the representatives are removed from the equation(pure democracy), the non-smoking population will ban smoking with nary a thought.

 

[Mike33]

Just saw this in the paper this morning; doesn't look good:

Linky

 

[Wurm]

Dr. Archer sounds like an ass.

 

[LilBastage]

Not good, not good at all.

I still don't understand all these bans in tobacco shops. It's like banning drinking in a bar, it makes no sense at all.

What's even more disturbing than the ban is the "discourse" in the responses to the column. Unfortunately it seems that calm, reasonable discussion of issues has gone the way of the dodo...

Do judges in KC often comment in the newspaper about ongoing cases? I've never seen a quote in a newspaper here or in Indiana from a presiding judge about an ongoing case. It's really not relevant, I just found it odd.

 

[Mike33]

Not good, not good at all.

I still don't understand all these bans in tobacco shops. It's like banning drinking in a bar, it makes no sense at all.

What's even more disturbing than the ban is the "discourse" in the responses to the column. Unfortunately it seems that calm, reasonable discussion of issues has gone the way of the dodo...

Do judges in KC often comment in the newspaper about ongoing cases? I've never seen a quote in a newspaper here or in Indiana from a presiding judge about an ongoing case. It's really not relevant, I just found it odd.

I had thought that cigars shops were going to be exempt, but it appears not. I agree, it makes no sense whatsoever to ban smoking in a cigar shop. I'd like to hear the reasoning behind not exempting tobacco stores from the ban....

As far as the judge thing, I can't say that I have seen any comments from them in the press. I think the quote in the article is from the ruling though, not him commenting to reporters. Could be wrong, but that's how it sounded to me.

 

[LilBastage]

Not good, not good at all.

I still don't understand all these bans in tobacco shops. It's like banning drinking in a bar, it makes no sense at all.

What's even more disturbing than the ban is the "discourse" in the responses to the column. Unfortunately it seems that calm, reasonable discussion of issues has gone the way of the dodo...

Do judges in KC often comment in the newspaper about ongoing cases? I've never seen a quote in a newspaper here or in Indiana from a presiding judge about an ongoing case. It's really not relevant, I just found it odd.

I had thought that cigars shops were going to be exempt, but it appears not. I agree, it makes no sense whatsoever to ban smoking in a cigar shop. I'd like to hear the reasoning behind not exempting tobacco stores from the ban....

As far as the judge thing, I can't say that I have seen any comments from them in the press. I think the quote in the article is from the ruling though, not him commenting to reporters. Could be wrong, but that's how it sounded to me.

Now that I've read it again, I think you may be right.

I wonder what this is going to do to my favorite cigar shop and the events.

 

[Rebel Herfer]

Just a thought on Civil Disobediance: Why not get all of your patrons to protest in front of the home of the judge or legislatures while smoking cigars. It appears to be legal and it would drive home the point that cigar smokers vote and contribute to the community. How's that for an "event" at you favorite B&M Alan. See if they don't reinstate the cigar retailer exemption. Sidewalks are still legal, right??

 

[Mike33]

Not good, not good at all.

I still don't understand all these bans in tobacco shops. It's like banning drinking in a bar, it makes no sense at all.

What's even more disturbing than the ban is the "discourse" in the responses to the column. Unfortunately it seems that calm, reasonable discussion of issues has gone the way of the dodo...

Do judges in KC often comment in the newspaper about ongoing cases? I've never seen a quote in a newspaper here or in Indiana from a presiding judge about an ongoing case. It's really not relevant, I just found it odd.

I had thought that cigars shops were going to be exempt, but it appears not. I agree, it makes no sense whatsoever to ban smoking in a cigar shop. I'd like to hear the reasoning behind not exempting tobacco stores from the ban....

As far as the judge thing, I can't say that I have seen any comments from them in the press. I think the quote in the article is from the ruling though, not him commenting to reporters. Could be wrong, but that's how it sounded to me.

Now that I've read it again, I think you may be right.

I wonder what this is going to do to my favorite cigar shop and the events.

I don't know....maybe moving to Riverside is back on the table ???

 

[LilBastage]

Just a thought on Civil Disobediance: Why not get all of your patrons to protest in front of the home of the judge or legislatures while smoking cigars. It appears to be legal and it would drive home the point that cigar smokers vote and contribute to the community. How's that for an "event" at you favorite B&M Alan. See if they don't reinstate the cigar retailer exemption. Sidewalks are still legal, right??

I wonder how long they would be after something like you describe?

Being a pain in the ass when you're already looked down upon by the people that pass stuff like this is really counterproductive. The ballot box is the only thing that matters and it's obvious in the case of KC (and many other areas) the people who want the ban showed up in greater numbers than those that opposed it.

The fight against these bans has to be done reasonably and with great care. The PR battle is already lost, carving out the exemptions takes nuance and subtlety. An "in your face" approach will only steel the resolve of those that pass this sort of thing because it only annoys them further and fully supports their position that smokers (of any kind) are inconsiderate boors.

I see activism of all kinds up here. While it may appear that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, that only tends to occur when that wheel appeals to the base emotions of those in charge. Proclaiming our right to smoke with calls of "from my cold, dead hands" accomplishes nothing with these type of people. They're adult children. They're incapable of reason and logic. They only feel. If they ain't feeling it, they ain't buying it.

The call to action has to occur before this type of stuff is passed, not after. Even then, it's going to be very difficult to stop smoking bans completely. Exemptions may be able to be negotiated, but even that is getting harder and harder.

 

[vortex]

I agree, Alan, that reasoning may not help in this case. I also feel this is just a symptom of underlying and more systemic problems. I understand there are health concerns and equal employment opportunity issues. But there often seems to be no desire to mediate or compromise. It's like the point is total submission.

But perhaps with persistent offers to compromise a middle ground may be reached.

One can hope cooler heads will prevail without any ring-kissing.


So is there anything new to report?