(Introductory note: About ten years ago this time, Branson was considering the adoption of a smoking ban, which this column pertained to. The Ole Seagull was sure wrong about the e-cigarettes and time has proven how wise they were when they included their prohibition in the definition of “Smoking” in section 58-331 of the Branson Municipal Code.)
Some people, no matter how the proposed Smoking Ban Ordinance (SBO) was worded, would be against it because they believe big government is violating or impinging on a perceived right. Folks, this isn’t big government! It is small-town America with elected officials who went through a very public, basically “face-to-face” process to get the information they needed. They used that information to revise the proposed ordinance before formally presenting it, giving the public another opportunity to be heard.
“But Seagull, from the very beginning, it was preordained that there would be an SBO?” “Of course there was in terms of an SBO, but not its final content. However, with SBOs in dozens of cities throughout Missouri, in hundreds of cities throughout the United States and statewide bans in states such as Florida, coupled with the medical issues not only for the smokers, but for those impacted by the secondhand smoke, one can, even if they don’t appreciate it, see the logic why.”
“Then why go through this process?” “To come up with a SBO that fits Branson, its businesses, citizens and tourism industry.”
“Did you ever see ‘the community and tourist surveys which concluded that Branson becoming smoke free would be important and supported?’” “No, but that was a rhetorical question, especially when those surveyed, unless the Ole Seagull misses his guess, were not even aware of the proposed SBO or its contents.”
To an Ole Seagull, the revised SBO parallels similar SBOs elsewhere. Most of the changes in the revised SBO have addressed the initial concerns relating to smoking rooms in hotels, the size of the nonsmoking buffer, and the penalty for violations. A major area, at least for two businesses, is the fact that smoking in their smoking patio areas, which they have invested thousands of dollars in, even as they have voluntarily prohibited smoking within their primary establishment, would still be banned by the revised SBO.
The owners have suggested two ways to mitigate the situation. An Ole Seagull would suggest a third: Language exempting “Patios dedicated to smoking that does not require non-smoking patrons to pass through them when entering and exiting the primary entrance to the business or to gain access to the public restrooms.”
“But Seagull, they did leave in ban against ‘e-cigarettes.’ Is there a similar ban in most other SBOs?” “Haven’t researched it, but an Ole Seagull would doubt it.”
Because something can cause confusion, there is no reason to make it a “crime” without any credible evidence that it harms the smoker or others. Absent medical evidence to the contrary, why not give the benefit of the doubt and flexibility to those who are using “e-cigarettes” and permit them to continue to do so. If credible medical evidence develops in the future, it will be relatively simple to add such a prohibition. He feels that relatively few want it, but those few are in power and will use the momentum of passing an SBO to ram it down Branson’s throat. [Well, the Ole Seagull was certainly wrong on this one.]
“With that said, ‘Do you support the proposed SBO?” “For what it matters, an Ole Seagull will go before the board, fully realizing the futility of doing so, when it formally considers the ordinance, and ask that they exempt e-cigarettes. Although he might not like the decision, he does respect the process, the general contents of the revised SBO and, if the patio issue is addressed to the satisfaction of the businesses involved, e-cigarettes or not, fully supports it.”
Comments