Springfield, MO - Compromise on E-cigs offered by ALA/AHA/ACS

[JustJulie]

Springfield voters passed a smoking ban last year, a rather stringent one that also included e-cigarettes. Live Free Springfield, which originally fought the ban, managed to get enough signatures on a petition to force the Springfield City Council to reconsider the issue.

Faced with the possibility of the City Council actually reversing the smoking ban, the antis are finally willing to agree to some compromises . . . one of them would be to remove e-cigarettes from the smoking ban. Seems reasonable to me since I doubt most voters realized that e-cigarettes--which don't produce smoke--were included in the smoking ordinance to begin with.


​Smoking ban supporters say they'll accept limited changes | Springfield News-Leader | News-Leader.com

Below is the email sent to the Springfield City Council.

From: Stephen Hall [mailto:Stephen.Hall@heart.org]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 1:57 PM
To: Oneal, Jim; Council
Cc: Jace Smith; 'Misty.Snodgrass@cancer.org' (Misty.Snodgrass@cancer.org); 'Leah Wiggs' (LWiggs@breathehealthy.org)
Subject: Proposed Route to Compromise on Smoke-free Issue
Importance: High



Please see the joint letter (attached and pasted below) from the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association and One Air Alliance regarding a route to compromise on the smoke-free issue. Attached, you’ll also find a joint media statement that is being released to state and local media later today. We look forward to your response.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friday, March 16, 2012

Dear Mayor O’Neal:

The American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, and One Air Alliance have been working on the smoke-free issue in Springfield for years, committing our resources to achieving a comprehensive ordinance that protects workers and preserves the right of all people to breathe clean indoor air in public venues. Those efforts were validated by voters at the polls last April, as a majority of Springfield voters turned out to show their support for public health.

After participating in City Council’s public hearing on Monday evening regarding the status of the smoke-free ordinance, our groups were surprised to learn on Tuesday of council’s intention to move forward with a workshop on March 22 and carve out exemptions for a number of entities. This unexpected process could result in new language that completely undermines the will of voters and the rights of workers. We want to ensure that the voices of voters are respected, employee health is protected, and public health organizations are not excluded from this process. Therefore, we propose a route to compromise contingent on several conditions.

To allow a compromise to move forward, we ask Live Free Springfield to withdraw its repeal petition. Once that occurs, the following amendments could then be carved out from the current voter-approved smoke-free ordinance using the provided language attached to this letter. These amendments would need to be approved with a unanimous vote of the council, as outlined in the city charter:

The removal of current language pertaining to e-cigarettes, which also allows theater groups additional options for on-stage performances.
A new exemption for private clubs, when not open to the public, and that have no employees present. (Please see the attached definition language.)
A new exemption for retail tobacco shops with a minimum of 70% of tobacco-related sales. (Please see the attached definition language.)

This is our final attempt to compromise on this issue. No additional exemptions or amendments would be agreeable from our perspective. Furthermore, we stand by our previously-stated legal opinion that the city charter protects voter-approved ordinances from amendment or repeal by the council with anything less than a unanimous vote. Should you move forward on approving amendments or fully repealing the current law without that unanimous vote, we reserve the right to pursue immediate legal action.

We would appreciate a written response to this request for compromise via email by 5 p.m. on Tuesday, March 20. We will also follow-up to answer any questions you may have and gauge the progress on the effort to compromise. Ultimately, if a compromise cannot be reached, we ask that you return this issue to the voters, where it originated, so that their will can be expressed again.

Please be advised that this letter has been copied to all members of the council and will be released simultaneously to state and local media.

Respectfully,

Misty Snodgrass
American Cancer Society

Jace Smith
American Heart Association

Leah Wiggs
American Lung Association

Stephen Hall
One Air Alliance

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

___________
Stephen D. Hall
Communications Director
Out-State Missouri & Wichita, Kansas

American Heart Association
Midwest Affiliate
2446 E. Madrid
Springfield, MO 65804
417.881.1128 - phone
417.551.1645 - cell
417.881.8972 - fax
Stephen.Hall@heart.org



facebook

facebook.com/AmericanHeartAssociationSpringfield

facebook.com/AmericanHeartAssociationWichita

The files mentioned in the email were too large to upload here, so here are the links for Scribd. (These are public documents.)

Springfield, MO Joint Letter to Mayor O'Neal from AHA, ALA, ACS, and One Air Alliance- 03.16.12 PDF

Official Statement - 03.16.12 - FINAL PDF

Definitions Spring Field, MO PDF

 

[Tom09]

Interesting, seems as if the three letters feel like sitting in a burning house. First time that I could read the word “compromise” in this context...

 

[Tasselhoff]

It is at least a move in a good direction. Julie could you repost this over in the Show Me Vapers sub-forum . There are few over there that would take this as welcome news. Thanks for sharing

 

[TennDave]

Very interesting that the alphabet soup organizations are willing to compromise and take e-cigs out (if I'm reading this right) of indoor bans- this is a first for them that I know of.

 

[JustJulie]

Interesting, seems as if the three letters feel like sitting in a burning house. First time that I could read the word “compromise” in this context...

I agree, Tom. The ANTZ playbook is don't compromise.

It is often best, to walk away with nothing rather than to support a perceived
“step in the right direction” approach. Along the way, never accept a compromise that will prevent you from reaching that ultimate goal of 100% smokefree indoor public places and workplaces. Preemption, ventilation, smoking rooms,
age provisions, and “accommodation” compromises, for example, create roadblocks to achieving 100% comprehensive
smokefree workplace laws in the future. In some cases, where the community is not fully educated on the issue, taking
incremental steps (starting with smokefree workplaces first, then restaurants, then stand alone bars) is a wise approach.
But as we take these incremental steps, take great care to ensure these laws are still effective. In other words, areas
covered under the law should be smokefree in their entirety. Remember the goal is to pass and implement a smokefree
law that brings about true health protections and social norm change.

The above is a quote from "Fundamentals of Smokefree WorkPlace Laws," downloadable here: http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/PDF/CIA_Fundamentals.pdfd

Live Free Springfield rejected the compromise 3/20:

Live Free Springfield expressed that while it appreciates One Air Alliance's effort, the amendments aren't quite good enough.

"They are good and we thank them, but it completely ignores businesses and people who have lost their jobs and it continues to ignore hardships upon business owners and the city in terms of sales tax revenue," says Dave Myers.

http://ozarksfirst.com/fulltext?nxd_id=620352

And, Tasselhoff . . . I'll pop over and post a link to this discussion in the Show Me subforum.

 

[kristin]

Very interesting that the alphabet soup organizations are willing to compromise and take e-cigs out (if I'm reading this right) of indoor bans- this is a first for them that I know of.

That's how we see it, too, Dave. As Julie mentioned - they don't compromise, so it's the first time we've ever seen e-cigs used as a carrot instead of being beaten with the stick.

 

[Martö]

Ah Springfield, Mo the California wanna be, ban everything it's bad for you.. That city is so messed up from the redlight camera debacle to the smoking ban and water rights among some others.

Live free isn't going to compromise, They are like many other Americans tired of other people telling you what you can't and can do. The ball is already rolling down the hill.

supporters of Springfield smoking ban say compromise offered is too little too late - ky3.com

http://ozarksfirst.com/fulltext/?nxd_id=620352

Best news sources for Springfield.

KOLR10 http://ozarksfirst.com

KY3 KY3 Breaking news, weather sports for Springfield MO and the Ozarks - ky3.com

 

[kia2]

Just a note on this, the Council had a petition to basically change the law back to pre-ban, and removing e-cigs from the equation. It seems to concentrate primarily on advertising and keeping tobacco products away from minors. It goes to their voters June 5, I believe, as the Council failed to pass it (hope they have a lot of vaping voters). Here is their summary of the Council meeting, items 20 and 21 of the summary is what to look for. Here are the changes as proposed: 2012-063 and 2012-064.

 

[Martö]

No person shall possess lighted smoking materials in any form, including but not limited to the possession of lighted
331167 cigarettes, cigars, pipes or other tobacco products In the following

They are striking out so much of the ordinance. So what is the definitions going to be left up to the courts?

What???? Are we doing some copy and paste????

520 (11) The total cost of smoking to the county economy is about £54.300.000.00 annually. This translates into about $1.000.00 each year for every family of four in the
521 county.

So many errors in the proposed law the whole thing needs to be fixed. I don't know why they have to babble on and on about statistics it's invalid in making a law.

 

[kristin]

Here is where a big budget would come in handy. Imagine if we could place full page ads in the local paper promoting e-cigarettes and smokeless as tobacco harm reduction and urge voters to vote against it because it includes people who actually quit by using these products.

 

[Luisa]

Here is where a big budget would come in handy. Imagine if we could place full page ads in the local paper promoting e-cigarettes and smokeless as tobacco harm reduction and urge voters to vote against it because it includes people who actually quit by using these products.

Why not just a quarter of a page? Every ECF member could donate a quarter for a quarter.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Public hearings tonight on exceptions to smoking ban (Springfield, MO)
http://ozarksfirst.com/fulltext?nxd_id=628962