An individual alderman should be aware of the provisions of the laws their entity is passing – ignorance should not be an excuse. That said, few elected bodies have members marching in lockstep on every issue. There's a fine line between enforcement and harassment. In this case, it's pretty apparent that Ald. Vollmer did not support the law when it passed, and is doing the minimum legally required to comply with it, like many other business owners. Whether this is “right” or “wrong” is obviously one of personal opinion. I'm in the camp that believes that it's hard enough to get good people to serve in government, especially local government, and the last thing we should be doing is “making an example” out of them outside of their elected duties.

We obviously disagree. Ald. Vollmer may not embrace the ordinance, but apparently is trying to comply, by asking the Health Dept. for their opinions and approval. My “picking on” response was also aimed more at Steve and the focus of this post, since I have no direct knowledge of Ald. Vollmer's actual position(s). While I agree that non-compliant businesses need to be called out, the focus really should be on the egregious violators, initially, not on the ones (like these) making a good-faith, if technically-flawed, effort to comply. I'd actually expect to find more flagrant violations in the Grove and in some of the larger facilities on the north side.

I agree, “our system of gov't has worked reasonably well because issues are freely and openly debated,” much like how they are on this blog. Disagreeing with both/either you and Steve, as long as it's done with respect and with a focus on the facts, is a fundamental part of that debate.

I also “personally have no issue at all with holding elected official's feet to the fire” when it comes to their official duties. They're elected to represent me/us, and I don't want someone pursuing an agenda that I don't support, or worse, will harm me.

My initial response to this post was that it was a poor attempt at gotcha journalism. I have no idea how many, if any, other aldermen may own businesses affected by the new law. But given how the law is written and the need for “interpretation”, I'm more interested in those businesses giving the proverbial middle finger to the law than I am with one actually trying to comply, elected owner, or not.

And, I agree, the “last people who should be given a 'free ride' on laws they don't like are those in positions of gov't power.” Given how information has evolved on Milo's attempts, it sure doesn't look like anyone is getting a 'free ride' here. The real issue is that Steve thinks that they haven't gone far enough, the owners think that they have, and the Health Dept. is trying to come up with the final answer – pretty much par for the course given how the law was written!

The world does not revolve around the wishes of Mr. Steve Patterson. St. Louis still has quite a few smokers and we deserve a known place to congregate. People are able to then vote with their feet as they have done since Mangia chose to ban smoking prematurely and has now lost a ton of business. I've heard some bars are allowing smoking after 10PM in spite of the ban. Why should we spend public dollars policing the bar scene? Fast food, obesity is a huge threat to public health yet I don't see any efforts to crack down on that problem nor address our urban food deserts. Rather this is simply an attack on a practice with is less socially acceptable by some. Maybe if you don't like smoking don't go to a bar as I don't like fast food and don't consume it.

So what are you, the gatekeeper to the comments? And now you point out now Milo's is not technically in violation of the ban? So all of the harassment is for no reason? The condescending, arrogance you display is over the top, I certainly don't need a lecture from you.
Sorry you don't like my comparisons, but the strident approach of those who support nonsmoking irregardless of others rights warrants extreme comparisons. Look at the response to Milo's, now after reports to the CSB and a general trashing of Milo's you're saying that you were wrong?
How big of you.
And please don't try to tell me what I'm thinking, I disagree with Steve on the way he handles smoking, but he knows I'm with him on many, if not most issues.
Vietnam combat veteran, 9th Division, Mekong Delta, doesn't matter any more than Afghanistan, but just so you understand that everyone has a right to speak, you are not the arbitrator of values and thought. That is what Stalin and Mao tried to do. Read history.

The focus should be on the unnecessary harassment of Milo’s. You admit now that Milo’s is no big deal over “technical issues” It would have served Steve better, instead of an all out attack on Milo’s some 5 days after the law is enacted, instead to have a discussion of just how, as a society,we can help these businesses transition towards a healthier lifestyle. (Design is a factor)
The whole vendetta approach doesn’t sit well with me, I don’t smoke, and don’t
really care about the issue, I simply avoid places I don’t like, for whatever reason. I generally prefer pleases with limited or no smoking, but will not preclude others.
You are the one who attacked me, my original post talked in general terms, not pointed at anyone, unless they felt they were guilty. If you think I was talking about you, then it is on you and your mind, not me. I was content to leave it there.
Your attempt to pigeon hole me is absurd. I have introduced new ideas, where are your new ideas soldier? And that is the problem, the nonsmokers seem to have this linear, destroy the bastards’ attitude towards smokers. I see no real discussion.
I think smokers have tried to introduce counter arguments, but it is one of those times in history, for what ever reason, non smokers have an upper hand and are lording over the smokers in ways I consider marginal.
It has probably been 2000 years or more smokers have been around nonsmokers, glory be, and now it is time to crucify the culprits.
If anything Alderman Vollmer would probably like some help, Milo's has been there as long as I remember, I'm thinking 30 years or more. It is hard to run a successful small business. Change is difficult. Not just for Milo's.

A Tanqueray and tonic sounds good. Antiquated zoning, hell bring back antique zoning I say. The zoning of early St. Louis (and classical zoning) was free form. Much of St. Louis today could benefit from a zoning that allows people to open commercial establishments as they wish (with minimum restrictions of course). Michael Allen has a portfolio of store front buildings added to residential structures, but that is only part of the story.
It is an organic economic freedom that also keeps centralized business interests from controlling commerce.
The strict control of vendors is an extension of policies conducted within the framework of current zoning laws.
And don't get me started on the mythological free market system.

I believe the update on this blog clearly shows that Milo's is technically not in violation of the smoking ban. What's the problem?

Your fear of the consequences of civil discussion about gov't on a private internet forum smacks of a dictatorship much more than a group of free citizens exercising one of our great American rights: freedom of speech.

I honestly cannot think of anything more American, capitalist or correct than holding elected officials accountable for the laws they pass. Steve didn't write the law, pass the law or enforce the law. He took a picture and asked a question.

Only a true dictator would have issue with that. =p

LOL…I'm not suggesting Mr. Vollmer embrace a new smoke-agenda. Only that he should be expected to follow the new ordinance liek everyone else. That he was opposed to the ordinace would be precisely teh reason to follow up and ensure he's following it!

Do you think I waste much time in my store checking up on clerks who I know are on board with the store's policies?

If elected officials are allowed to pick and choose the ordinaces they want to follow, espcially ones they persoanlly don't agree with, how in the world can we expect private citizens to not do the same?

If Steve had misrepresented the facts, I would be inclined to agree with your continued suggestion that this post crossed a line of decency and common sense. It appears that Mr. Vollmer has his enterprise in compliance with the smoking ban. Good for him. It looks like he has gotten some attention along teh way, too.

'”private internet forum” is an oxymoron, it can't be both “private” and a “forum”, nor should anyone expect true privacy on the interwebs.” … private as in “not state,” not as in “exclusive and selective”…sorry…

Never said Steve misrepresented the facts, just disagreed with his premise.

I'm not the one who fears discussion. Here is what a true discussion might contain: How do we help the transition to various, diverse, small businesses into success creating healthier environments? What is the relationship between a neighborhood tavern such as Milo's and the surrounding community? Or another question, does smoking have any special significance in the neighborhood? Or, is there a way to include smokers into the stream of culture without taking away rights in an extreme manner? And so on. That would be an intelligent discussion that would begin to touch the social, cultural and economic issues based on health concerns.
A cop won't even give out a speeding ticket every time, and mostly not stop people going 5, maybe 10 miles over the speed limit.
Nonsmokers policy geeks seem to prefer harsh judgment, irregardless of the circumstances.

Bar staff can't wear ear plugs and hear drink orders. Plus permanent hearing loss is common due to bar noise, but verified cases of chronic disease due to bar smoke are rare. If it it is possible that no patron or employee in the whole history of New York City has ever died to environmental tobacco smoke exposure in bars and restaurants, that is also true of St. Louis.
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears…

Show Me conclusive evidence that exposure to second hand smoke over a period of, let's say, 3 hours per week has caused a death. The claims that “second hand smoke causes heart disease which may cause death” is not applicable here.

Yes, Steve, a perfectly healthy person ought to show no ill effects to, which is essentially, brief exposure to second hand smoke. As I've stated previously, “if your health is so poor that you can't handle it, maybe you shouldn't be out in the first place.”

Again, why weren't city residents allowed to vote on this issue? Why did the aldermen find it prudent to do it for us? I am not being represented on this issue.

Hey Robby, if you're serving in Afghanistan, you're first priority should be lobbying for a safer workplace for YOU and your buddies. Where I work, I'm not too worried about IED's, although being around second-hand smoke was a choice this non-smoker had to make in exchange for a better paycheck in a crappy economy, probably not much different than the choices you had to make when you enlisted in the ALL-VOLUNTEER military, the one where there's a high likelihood that you'll be collecting hazardous-duty pay. Life is a fatal disease – none of us are getting out of here alive. Every job has its risks, be it soldier, server, miner or politician. We trade these risks for a paycheck. We may even like or love what we do, but few of us have the option of working for free.

The difference with the smoking debate is that a false connection is being made between worker health and customers' personal preferences – most voters could care less about the busser's health, otherwise they'd be demanding that they be paid better, they're only voting for a smoke-free experience for themselves. It's just easier/more PC to make the health argument than to try and that argue stinky and obnoxious needs more government regulation. Plus, most workers in a smoke-filled environment are making an educated choice that the paycheck is worth more than the longterm risks of the smoke, and more than a few are smokers themselves and prefer to work around other smokers – self-selection. It's not much different for the strippers on the east side – they're not dancing out of a love of physical expressioin, they're doing it for the money.

Second-hand smoke is, immediately, pervasive and obnoxious to many people. What it is not is immediately lethal. There is consensus that longterm exposure is probably a bad thing, but there is little evidence that occasional exposure is all that bad, any worse than many other things in our carcinogen-filled world, otherwise the first-hand smokers would be dropping like flies and smoking would already be illegal. If you truly “sympathize with [the] “less gov't” position. It should be this way. . . . gov't will be required to protect the rights of all citizens”, how do you address the concept of treating smokers, a distinct minority, as second-class citizens?! Of telling individual business owners what they “should” or “shouldn't” do? Don't get me wrong. As a non-smoker, I appreciate having a wider range of smoke-free places to patronize. I just know that I'm trading this “win” for losing patio dining in nicer weather, since those will be the de facto smoking areas in the vast majority of establishments.

One other thought…Should individual business owners be told they “should” require employees to wash their hands? Food poisining probably won't kill you, right? A little stomach discomfort is akin to red eyes and runny noses, no?

In my mind, reasonable people would wash their hands and not smoke indoors because that is the respectful and right thing to do. There should be no reason for such a nanny state to exist.

Unfortunately, not everyone feels they have such responsibilities as citizens, I suppose. Some people feel they can do what pleases them no matter the consequences to others. When public health is in question, the reliance on common sense and decency unfortunately can't be relied on, therefore gov't intervention.

Rather than publicly accuse Joe of breaking the law, wouldn't you have done better to call him first?

Did you warn him in your call that you planned to file a complaint against his establishment and blog about his noncompliance. He might have gotten back to you sooner.

I did read your original post. I meant warn, not just call.