In cities across the United States, debates
over citywide smoking bans have gotten as hot as a lit cigarette. In Springfield? Not so much. Perhaps it was the venue, but during the
first public hearing on a proposed ordinance to ban most indoor
smoking, held at Pilgrim Rest Missionary Baptist Church last week,
the exchange was civilized. Almost two-thirds of those who spoke at the
meeting favored the ban, proposed by Ward 10 Ald. Bruce Strom. In
fact, most people in Springfield do. In August, a Smoke Free
Springfield-commissioned poll conducted by Lemont, Ill.-based Fako
& Associates revealed that 65 percent of citizens support a
total ban on indoor smoking in public. Supporters of the ban — mostly health
professionals, nonprofit officials, and individuals living with
respiratory illnesses such as asthma, armed with research studies
— laid out their case, generally on the grounds of concerns
over public health. “My office is near the smoking break
room. Although I do not go into the break room, my hair, clothing,
coat — even my workout clothes that I keep in a metal
credenza — smell of smoke. During a lunch-hour gynecologist
appointment, [the doctor] asked me if I smoked because he could
smell it on my clothing,” one woman said. The Fako poll also found that 17 percent of
Springfieldians are active smokers, though they’re not
putting up much of fight to keep smoke in the city. Many of the
people who spoke against the smoking ban at the hearing were
actually nonsmoking proprietors of taverns and restaurants,
speaking on behalf of their blue-collar patrons. Eric Lyons, the owner of a small tavern, the
Sportsman’s Lounge, says that he met before the hearing with
customers, some of whom have been coming to his bar for 47 years,
who told him, “We won’t come here. We might come here
for dinner, but not that often. We will go to the county.”
Lyons, like other business owners, fears that
his patrons will abandon his bar to imbibe at county pubs, which
are not affected by Springfield ordinances. For Ward 2 Ald. Frank McNeil, one of the few
aldermen to oppose the measure, the fundamental issues are
constitutionally protected property rights and individual freedom
of choice. McNeil says that business owners, not the
city of Springfield, should decide whether to permit smoking.
Furthermore, he says, more than 80 percent of Springfield residents
do not smoke, providing an opportunity for developers to build more
nonsmoking businesses. Most of McNeil’s colleagues on the City
Council have indicated that they support a total ban, although they
could still vote on a compromise. The second public hearing starts at 6:30 this
evening, Thursday, Oct. 27, in the City Council chamber in Municipal
Center West. The hearing will be televised on Insight Cable Channel 18.
This article appears in Oct 27 – Nov 2, 2005.
