Smoking Ban Violates State Law

[wickedartglass]

A down town bar has filed a lawsuit against the city.
The owner says the city smoking ban (this ban includes the e-cig) violates our state law.
State law states that smoking is legal in bars in Missouri as long as a non smoking section is provided.
This was aired on KY3 local news you can fine the story at KY3 Breaking news, weather sports for Springfield MO and the Ozarks - ky3.com
The Springfield Mo ban is to go into effect June11th.
I hope this gives our business owners a starting point to stop the ban.
I will have to do some research and see what info I can find on the lawsuit.
I will keep you informed on what I find.
Hugs.

 

[Lab]

one way around this law for bars is simple.. make it a private club.. cheap one yr membership fee that covers the cost of making a membership card..

 

[Nicko]

I can never get over how the government thinks they have a right to tell private business owners what legal activities can be allowed or not allowed on private property. The government do not own private property. So who the hell do they think they are? God?

 

[Vocalek]

Can you provide a direct link to the story? I have been searching the web site using terms such as "lawsuit, smoking ban, bar, etc." and have not found it.

 

[malyden]

try this link Bar files lawsuit against city smoking ban | Springfield News-Leader | News-Leader.com

 

[Vocalek]

I have contacted the owner of Ruthie's Bar to let her know that there is an additional legal argument that they might use to overturn the entire ordinance. The text of the legislation included smoke-free electronic cigarettes. However, the text that appeared on the ballot only talked about smoking, and did not say a word about bannning e-cigarettes. Therefore, the citizxens were not fully informed regarding what they were voting on. She told me that she would contact her attorney to let him know of this.

Update: The owner of Ruthie's Bar, Jean Dublin, contacted the attorney handling the suit and had him call me. He is intrigued by this additional argument. They have a hearing on an injunction against the ban in the next day or so. If the injunction is granted, they will probably go ahead and settle the issue with the city and get the bars exempted from the ban. If the injunction is not granted, he will look into adding this argument into the overall suit.

 

[sqirl1]

heard about this, this one is pretty close to my home too, just about 2 hours down I-44 from me, if this becomes a situation similar to whats going on in Tacoma-pierce county today, just let me know and I MIGHT drive up there. it all depends on my money situation and whether or not I work that day

 

[wickedartglass]

Thanks malyden for helping with the link.
And thanks so much Vocalek for all the help and sharing info.
I have been having internet problems so havent been able to get on to do any searches.
I will try to keep up with the case.
Hugs

 

[wickedartglass]

Update - Greene County Associate Circuit Court Judge Jason Brown hopes to rule by Friday whether the city's voter-approved no-smoking law will go into effect on Saturday as scheduled. Brown held a hearing on Wednesday on a lawsuit by a bar owner who argues that the ordinance conflicts with state law.

I will let you all know if I hear anything on Friday.

 

[JWebb]

Let us know what happens, they are banning the hell out of this in the St. Louis area, first the cities and municipalities in St. Louis City and County, 93 muni's in the SL County area, now they are targeting St. Charles County.....

 

[JWebb]

They got around the State law in St. Louis County and city by banning the bars as well. How they did it I don't know. The bar owners are furious in St. Charles County because they are excempting the casinos and not the bars. How are they doing this if the state law provides these exceptions? Can local cities and counties add lanquage to the legislation that goes further than the state and the state is just the minimum standard?

 

[wickedartglass]

Ok another update from today.

Judge Jason Brown ruled against a downtown bar owner's request to delay implementation of a voter-approved smoking ban.
Attorneys for the business owner argued city ordinance is trumped by state law.

I talked to a guy that works at Smoke51 at the mall a few days ago.
He says Smoke 51 also has a lawsuit against the city for this ban.

He said he thinks it goes back to the voters again in Aug.
I havent found anything on this yet but will let you all know if I do.

 

[Vocalek]

Here's an opinion piece on the subject: Anti-smoking activists won't stop with partial bans | The Daily Caller

 

[rothenbj]

"c) outdoor areas of places of employment; providing for the imposition of a fine of $50 per violation for any person violating said ordinance by smoking, upon a finding of guilt or admission of guilt; upon a finding of guilt or admission of guilt, providing for fines ranging from $100-$500 per day against the owner, operator, manager or any agent who controls a public place or place of employment or any business, and allows smoking to occur on the premises; providing for revocation of any license or permit issue to the business or public place that permits such violations; requiring that businesses and public places place signage advising of the prohibition on smoking?"

That just about includes everywhere if someone wants to push the issue. I don't know of any city, town, township, borough, etc. in the country that doesn't hire employees- road crews, policemen, firemen, et al. There place of business IS the municipality.

Another place never to visit.

 

[Bill Godshall]

A judge allowed Springfield's smoking ban (that includes an e-cig usage ban) to take effect, but the case will continue
Springfield smoking ban takes effect | Springfield News-Leader | News-Leader.com

Smoking Ban Underway: Non-smoking signs have now replaced ash trays in Springfield bars, restaurants and public places - kspr.com

 

[Vocalek]

Where did they get the fire-proof signs?

 

[Rickajho]

Re: the argument at:

Bar files lawsuit against city smoking ban | Springfield News-Leader | News-Leader.com

"The City of Springfield has no power to enact any ordinance prohibiting something a state statute expressly or implicity permits, and any ordinance doing so is ultra vires (beyond the power of the city), invalid and unenforceable," the suit said.

My understanding of City versus State laws, especially in context of that type of argument, is that a City always has the right to pass more restrictive laws than what may (or may not) be on the State books. Unless someone can find a State that has a law which expressly states "banning smoking is prohibited" a City within the State always has the right to pass more restrictive laws than what may (or may not) be on the State books. Ultra vires isn't a valid argument.

Not saying I agree with it. But isn't this the way any challenge argued this way has been shot down?

Rick

 

[Demarko]

Re: the argument at:

Bar files lawsuit against city smoking ban | Springfield News-Leader | News-Leader.com

"The City of Springfield has no power to enact any ordinance prohibiting something a state statute expressly or implicity permits, and any ordinance doing so is ultra vires (beyond the power of the city), invalid and unenforceable," the suit said.

My understanding of City versus State laws, especially in context of that type of argument, is that a City always has the right to pass more restrictive laws than what may (or may not) be on the State books. Unless someone can find a State that has a law which expressly states "banning smoking is prohibited" a City within the State always has the right to pass more restrictive laws than what may (or may not) be on the State books. Ultra vires isn't a valid argument.

Not saying I agree with it. But isn't this the way any challenge argued this way has been shot down?

Rick

In many cases, Washington State does NOT allow that. One particular case I'm aware of is Gun Control, but undoubtedly there are others I'm just not familiar with them.

 

[STLsport]

As a Springfield,MO resident myself, this infuriates me.

Any more updates? Anything I can do?

 

[Bill Godshall]

As one who has been involved in local and state legislation for the past 25 in many states, and several lawsuits (in Allegheny County Court, and in PA Court) over the issue of state preemption of local smokefree workplace ordinances, its my understanding the Missouri statute explicitly permits local governments to enact smokefree workplace ordinances.

Large tobacco companies have (for 30 years) lobbied for statewide smoking laws that contain lots of exemptions (i.e. allow smoking in many workplaces), and that preempt local governments from enacting local ordinances that ban smoking in additional workplaces.

While Americans for Nonsmokers Rights is totally wrong on the issue of e-cigarettes (as they're trying to ban their usage indoors), the organization has done an excellent job of monitoring and providing objective information about state preemption of local smoking laws. Following are some pertinent weblinks.

Preemption - no-smoke.org
http://no-smoke.org/pdf/preemptionmap.pdf
http://no-smoke.org/pdf/HistoryofPreemption.pdf