http://missouriinsight.com/site/2012/06/....

Keep Voting Suckers.

Quote:

Some City of St. Louis Smokers Are More Equal Than Others
June 22, 2012
By Brian

When can you smoke in a public place in the city of St. Louis? When you’re a politician, attorney, or judge going to an invitation-only public venue, of course!

The 109-year-old downtown Missouri Athletic Club may wriggle free from the city’s smoking ban.

Quote:

City officials have prepared an agreement which exempts the private, invitation-only establishment — long frequented by judges, attorneys and politicians — from the municipal no-smoking ordinance.

The club, known as the MAC, has flouted the law since it was enacted Jan. 1, 2011, openly leaving ashtrays in the lounge, hosting hazy boxing matches and allowing men in suits to gather weekly at the bar with tumblers in one hand, cigars in the other.

The city cited and fined the club twice. The citations ended up in municipal court, where attorneys began working out a deal.

On Thursday, city Health Director Pam Walker presented a draft agreement to her advisory commission, the Joint Boards of Health and Hospitals, arguing that the nonprofit MAC is a unique entity, governed neither by rules for private clubs nor by those for businesses.

Remember, public smoking bans are all about protecting the poor little children who are the employees from the health impact of working in a smoky environment, since those “adults” can’t rationally decide the personal risk versus the paycheck reward.

So the employees get to inhale the politicos smoke where the politicos can smoke, but:

Quote:

If approved, the agreement would bar smoking in the employees’ lounge, but allow club members to continue to smoke in four locations: The Art Lounge, in the first floor lobby; The Jack Buck Grille, inside the club’s first-floor restaurant, after 2 p.m.; the private dining rooms next to the Sportsman’s Club, after 2 p.m.; and in the Missouri Room, three times a year for special events.

The employees can only have secondhand smoke on the job.

So, to recap:

The city of St. Louis has a smoking ban.
City “leaders” have flouted the ban, so now…
city leaders are exempting themselves from the ban.

But you, citizen, must obey the law, or the city leaders and their delegates will punish you.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-....

Quote:

St. Louis leans toward allowing smoking at Missouri Athletic Club

The 109-year-old downtown Missouri Athletic Club may wriggle free from the city's smoking ban.


City officials have prepared an agreement which exempts the private, invitation-only establishment — long frequented by judges, attorneys and politicians — from the municipal no-smoking ordinance.

The club, known as the MAC, has flouted the law since it was enacted Jan. 1, 2011, openly leaving ashtrays in the lounge, hosting hazy boxing matches and allowing men in suits to gather weekly at the bar with tumblers in one hand, cigars in the other.

The city cited and fined the club twice. The citations ended up in municipal court, where attorneys began working out a deal.

On Thursday, city Health Director Pam Walker presented a draft agreement to her advisory commission, the Joint Boards of Health and Hospitals, arguing that the nonprofit MAC is a unique entity, governed neither by rules for private clubs nor by those for businesses.

If approved, the agreement would bar smoking in the employees' lounge, but allow club members to continue to smoke in four locations: The Art Lounge, in the first floor lobby; The Jack Buck Grille, inside the club's first-floor restaurant, after 2 p.m.; the private dining rooms next to the Sportsman's Club, after 2 p.m.; and in the Missouri Room, three times a year for special events.

Two MAC representatives declined to comment and referred a reporter to the club's general manager, Wallace Smith, who did not return telephone messages Thursday afternoon.

The MAC's West St. Louis County location, in Town and Country, already is smoke-free.

Area bar owners and smoking ban activists — on opposing sides of the issue — quickly expressed their anger Thursday.

"Anytime those exemptions are given, that's a step backwards," said Cindy Pulley, a health educator who worked on policy issues for Tobacco-Free St. Louis who called the decision "ridiculous."

"This is the whole problem with government," said Joe Finn, owner of Pat's Bar & Grill in the city's Dogtown neighborhood, adding that the ban is killing his business. "All things are equal, but some things are more equal than others.

"I don't have the money — I don't have the clout — to make these backroom deals."

Others wondered what such a ruling would mean for the region. Could private city veterans' halls, for instance, ask for similar exemptions? Is this kind of agreement even legal?

"I'm not against the MAC, but I think what they're doing is illegal," said Keep St. Louis Free Director Bill Hannegan, who lobbied against the smoking ban. The state constitution, he said, bars ordinances that single out businesses. "We'd like to see the MAC fight the law, not get themselves an exemption."

Walker, who supports a total smoking ban, told the health board Thursday that she didn't like the agreement but feared that the club would sue and challenge the validity of the law as a whole.

"My lawyers are very, very nervous about the complexity of the law surviving a close judicial review," Walker said. "They feel strongly that the MAC is a unique situation that does not fit clearly into the exemptions of the mandate."

The city law bars smoking in all public places, and also in "all enclosed facilities" at places of employment in the city.

It exempts a few kinds of locations: private residences, casino gaming floors, tobacco stores, bars smaller than 2,000 square feet that serve "incidental" food — and private clubs without employees.

Of the roughly 1,300 city bars and restaurants, 131 were granted official exemptions.

But none was granted an exception for being a private club with employees. The law does not exempt those establishments.

The MAC argues it should be exempt, Walker said, because it does not allow entry to the public at large, and therefore is not governed under the law.

Yet the law defines it as a place of employment, with employees.

Assistant City Counselor Barbara Birkicht said she was barred from speaking to the media and declined to further clarify the discrepancy.

Birkicht's boss is City Counselor Patti Hageman, an appointee of Mayor Francis Slay, who is a member of the Missouri Athletic Club.

By the end of the meeting, health board members expressed reservations.

"I'm uncomfortable with the whole thing," said Will Ross, associate dean at the Washington University School of Medicine. "I think this induces moral hazard. They're getting a pass on these certain issues, because of history and tradition?"

"No," said board chair Jerry Paul. "They're getting a pass because the ordinance isn't sufficiently clear how to deal with this organization."

But Paul agreed that the exemption is "distasteful" and could be read as playing favorites.

"How is it fair to Charlie's bar on the south side, that they can't smoke?" he said. "And yet this is a privileged organization that manages to get around it. I could make a case that it's just plain not fair."

The board decided to tour the MAC next week and meet again to further discuss the issue.

Walker, who said she has the sole authority to make the final decision, said she's unsure what she'll do if the board advises against the agreement.

It is a predicament, Hannegan agreed. The MAC, he said, has a contingent of "die-hard" cigar smokers. A ban could send them packing.

"From what I understand, they can't afford to lose any membership," Hannegan said. "And the city can't afford to lose the MAC.

"It's such a prestigious organization. It's such a St. Louis establishment."

It's a private club where in a few areas they want to remain able to smoke cigars. What's the big deal?

Quote:

But none was granted an exception for being a private club with employees. The law does not exempt those establishments.

Is there a part of this that's hard to understand?

If you pay someone to work there, then it's not entirely private, at least according to this law.

It's a private club. I know several members including my brother. I've been there several times. WTF is a big deal if they have a smoking lounge to smoke some cigars in and play gin rummy for a
little spare change. So you wanna dictate next that I can't have a cigar while I'm golfing???

The MAC is a nonprofit private club which over the years has given back to the community millions.

Quote:

But none was granted an exception for being a private club with employees. The law does not exempt those establishments.

Still, is this part hard to understand?

I don't want to dictate anything, but carving out niche exceptions "because they gave back millions" is how people get French Revolution'ed.

Other private clubs should be exempt too or none. Not just 'theirs'.

Actually the ban is bs. Let the market determine it. But all private clubs at least should be exempt. I'm just tired of the PC police. And I won't go in a place to eat that has smoking, but that's my choice. I've been in the MAC 50 times and have never noticed a smoky dining room and I've only been in one bar that allows smoking there.

The ban is BS, agreed. The reason the city will cave is because they're afraid the whole ban would get struck down if they fought any of it.

This isn't a rant against the MAC, it's the city government that's screwing people.

No one has the money or time to sue the city (except MAC), so they'll placate the rich while violating the rights of everyone else.

If anyone actually believes the anti-smoking propaganda then blue collar workers can be poisoned by the "elite" at will.

Of course the propaganda is total garbage--so we are left counting angels (uh--hypocritical angels) on the heads of pins.

Restaurants evolved smoking and non-smoking sections by sheer selection pressure. Bickfords here in Mass was the last to do that before the blanket ban was passed circa 2005?

If it wasn't mandated at the point of a gun, NO BAR IN THE WORLD was going smoke-free - and no one forces anyone to work in a smoky bar. **** the "save the workers" bull****. Get your laws off my body.

I grew up going to the MAC... my dad is longtime member (non-smoker.) I always wondered why there was so much smoking going on at an "athletic club." I wonder if these exemptions extend to the west county annex.

West County is smoke free. MAC downtown is smoke free except for a few smoking rooms. Think old guys playing cards and smoking cigars while sippin a few single malts.