“If you had asked me two months ago if I thought the voters in St. Louis County would have this opportunity in November, I would have said no,” said Robert Blaine, medical public policy specialist at the University. “So I think it’s a significant step forward.”

The signature virtually assures the ban will go on the county ballot, meaning students registered to vote in Missouri who live west of the Brookings parking lot can vote on it. The bill’s sponsor, County Councilwoman Barbara Fraser, D-University City, has said the final step of getting a court order is all but a formality.

The measure would ban smoking in most indoor public places in St. Louis County. The ban would exempt bars—places where 75 percent of sales come from alcohol—casino floors and smoking lounges at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport. Areas west of the Brookings lot, including a major chunk of the Delmar Loop, would fall under the ban.

On Aug. 4, the University pushed the County Council to put as comprehensive a ban on the ballot as possible. Despite the final measure’s exemptions, Blaine said the University supports putting it on the ballot and letting voters decide the issue for themselves.

“I think the University would encourage any individual to educate themselves about this issue and make a decision on their own,” Blaine said.

The final bill was its third version, after weeks of heated debate, close votes and bill amendments.

Read Student Life on Monday for full details.

Washington University Associate Professor of Medicine Walton Sumner speaks out in favor of the County Council’s smoking ban bill at the County Council meeting Tuesday night. Sumner is one of several school community members who have spoken in favor of the ban. (Matt Mitgang | Student Life)

The St. Louis County Council voted 4-3 Tuesday evening to approve a bill that would put a smoking ban on the November ballot, three weeks after Washington University endorsed the bill.

The bill sponsor, Councilwoman Barbara Fraser, D-University, praised the council’s vote. The bill’s passage “means the same thing [to students] as it means to citizens of the entire county, that we’ll have cleaner air,” Fraser said after the meeting. “They can go to restaurants and go to places where there will be clean air.”

County Executive Charles Dooley said he will decide in the coming days whether he’ll sign the bill. If he signs it, the county must get a court order to put the measure on the ballot. The measure would ban smoking in all indoor public places except bars—places where alcohol makes up 75 percent of sales—casinos and certain spaces at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport.

At the Aug. 4 council meeting, Blaine gave the University statement endorsing the bill. Blaine said the University wants the council to protect workers and customers from the ill health effects of secondhand smoke with the strictest ban possible.

“We recognize the dangers posed by secondhand smoke, and as an employer, the University has taken its own steps to protect our workers and eliminate smoking on our campuses,” Blaine told the council, mentioning the school’s recently announced tobacco ban for all five campuses.

Students living on campus or in St. Louis County and registered to vote in Missouri would be able to vote on the ban. Most of the Danforth Campus lies in St. Louis County, as do many popular social spots for students, including most of the Delmar Loop.

Many school community members are praising both the bill and the University’s endorsement, especially in light of the University’s tobacco ban, which takes effect in July 2010.

“It’s good that someone spoke up and said this was in the interest of our employees,” said Martha Bhattacharya, a postdoctoral fellow in developmental biology, who also spoke in favor of the county bill on Aug. 4.

But the bill has been controversial, with several crowded and heated council meetings last summer. Opponents say a ban will harm local businesses and perhaps force some to close.

Walton Sumner, associate professor of medicine, said he understands libertarians’ concerns over a ban’s potential economic effects but said he supports the county’s bill.

“I hope that the libertarians in the debate will acknowledge that there are property seizures going on every time a smoker or non-smoker gets sick in a room that is thick with smoke,” said Sumner, who spoke before the council Tuesday night. “Part of our job is to protect public health, and I hope we get there.”

Many students approved of the University’s tobacco ban. Others, including Student Union, criticized officials for not seeking student input and said the University was being too restrictive.

Some who opposed the University’s ban actually support or are open to a county ban because the University’s ban will be more restrictive, applying to all tobacco products and both indoors and outdoors on all five campuses.

“I don’t think they should ban smoking on campus. I think that’s a bad idea,” said junior Kenny Hofmeister, who criticized the University’s ban and the lack of student input in the University’s decision in an op-ed submission on April 17. “But I don’t disagree with banning smoking city- or countywide, as long as it’s indoors.”

Some students support a county smoking ban and don’t oppose the University’s ban, but do oppose the lack of student input in the school’s decision.

Another factor influencing campus opinion on the bill is the large number of people at the University from states and cities with bans, including Bhattacharya, a former San Francisco, Calif., resident.

“When I got here, that was one of the things that really affected where I chose to go in the area, and to this day I haven’t tried certain restaurants,” Bhattacharya said.

Blaine acknowledged that the county ban would further reduce the number of places where smokers living on campus can go. But he said there will still be some places.

“I just think the University’s position is that [where students go to smoke] shouldn’t be in close proximity to those who don’t want to be exposed to that hazard,” Blaine said.

Opinions on whether the University should have taken a stance on the bill are mostly positive. Those who disagree with the University said the school has the right to voice its stance.

Nancy Mueller, associate director of the Center for Tobacco Policy Research (CTPR) in the George Warren Brown School of Social Work, said CTPR supports the concept of comprehensive policies to protect citizens from exposure to secondhand smoke, though the Center did not take a specific position on the county ordinance.

Smoking bans popped up across the region over the summer. In July, Clayton enacted a smoking ban with no exemptions for indoor public places, effective July 2010.

The city of St. Louis is also considering a public indoor smoking ban. The bill, sponsored by Alderwoman Lyda Krewson, D-28th Ward, would impose a ban without a ballot measure. St. Louis includes the medical school and the Central West End, a popular social spot for students.

St. Louis’ ban would only take effect if St. Louis County enacts its own ban. If both bans succeed, all University campuses and most surrounding indoor public places would become smoke-free.

The University, Blaine said, has endorsed only the county bill. But he added that the University hopes that “other municipalities will take these issues into consideration.”

Other anti-smoking measures the University has backed in the past include a 2006 state referendum to raise tobacco taxes. The University invested large amounts of money to promote the measure, Blaine said, because Missouri’s tobacco tax was the second lowest in the United States at the time. The measure failed by a 51 to 49 percent vote.

Blaine said the University also backed a failed effort that same year by the County Council to pass a smoking ban.

Correction: For the record (8/26/09, 1:23 p.m.)
An earlier version of the article incorrectly stated that the Center for Tobacco Policy Research was located at the medical school; in fact, it is located in the George Warren Brown School of Social Work. Further, an earlier version of this article stated that the CTPR supported St. Louis County’s indoor smoking ban bill. While the CTPR supports the concept of smoking bans, they do not endorse specific pieces of legislation. Student Life regrets the errors.

Robert Blaine, medical public policy specialist at the School of Medicine, said at Tuesday’s council meeting that the University applauded the council “for tackling the important public health issue of clean indoor air.”

“We encourage the council to keep this issue moving forward and to place a smoking ban that is as broad and as comprehensive as possible on the November ballot,” Blaine told the council. “We believe all individuals deserve the right to work in an environment free of secondhand smoke.”

The bill, sponsored by Councilwoman Barbara Fraser, D-University City, would put a smoking ban for all indoor public places in the county except bars and casinos on the November ballot.

The council voted 4-3 on Tuesday to move forward with the bill, and a final vote was to occur on Aug. 18.

But Fraser said Friday that the council will reintroduce the bill next Tuesday due to a procedural problem this past Tuesday that could open the bill to a legal challenge. The decision pushes a potential final vote to Aug. 25, likely causing the council to miss the deadline that same day for putting items on the ballot. In such a case, if County Executive Charles Dooley then signs the measure, the County Council must get a court order to put the measure on the ballot.

Fraser originally wanted a bill with no exemptions for casinos and bars, but that version did not have enough support from the seven-member council.

The University’s support for a countywide ban comes after the school announced a tobacco ban for all of its campuses, effective in July 2010.

While some in the school community praised the ban, others criticized the administration for approving the ban without student input. Student Union Senate passed a resolution late last school year objecting to the lack of student input.

Blaine was one of about 65 people to address the council at the heated three-hour meeting.

Supporters of the bill said a ban would improve public health by reducing patrons and workers’ exposure to secondhand smoke. Supporters maintained that a ban would not harm local businesses but attract some new customers, who avoid those places because they allow smoking.

Opponents, meanwhile, said that a ban would drive business away from the county and force some businesses to close. Opponents also said the ban would violate business owners’ right to choose whether to allow smoking.

Smoking bans have popped up across the region this summer. Clayton approved a public indoor smoking ban in July with no exemptions. Clayton’s ban goes into effect in July 2010.

Other cities considering bans include St. Louis, Kirkwood and Wildwood. St. Louis’ ban would go into effect only if St. Louis County approves its own.

Read Student Life this fall for full details on this story.