Both sides have been gearing up for the April 5 election for months, the day local voters will end the debate about whether a smoking ban will pass in the city.

One side gathered 1,200 signatures to get the ban on the ballot. The other side vowed to fight back, launching an oppositional website, forming a committee and lashing out at what it called "overly restrictive" ordinance language.

There has been the constant back-and-forth in the local newspaper, one side -- which recently collected a hefty $10,000 donation from the American Cancer Society -- warning of the serious health hazards of secondhand smoke, while the other argued that the ban would hurt business and was really an issue of personal property rights and unnecessary government intrusion.

Welcome to Springfield, Mo.

Cape Girardeau isn't the only Missouri community that has residents grappling with a smoking ban, where the arguments on both sides are as similar as the funding sources, website designs and group names. In fact, four Missouri cities will be deciding on smoking ban proposals April 5: Cape Girardeau, Springfield, O'Fallon and Webb City.

And eyes from across Missouri will be zeroed in on those election results, with smoking ban advocates saying favorable results will indicate growing momentum that could lead to an across-the-board statewide ban.

Ban opponents, however, are hoping voters will put the brakes on such bans that generally are aimed at bars and restaurants.

"More and more, communities across the state are recognizing the importance of reducing secondhand smoke exposure in workplaces," said Nancy Mueller, board chairman for Tobacco Free Missouri, a coalition of citizens and organizations such as the American Cancer Society, the Missouri State Medical Association and the Missouri Public Health Association.

More than a dozen smoking bans have been implemented in Missouri in the past two years, including St. Louis, Fulton, Warrensburg, Maryville, Brentwood and Creve Coeur. A total of 18 municipalities in the state have smoking bans that prohibit smoking in all bars and restaurants.

"We are seeing some great momentum, and I think other communities are seeing the success," Mueller said. "They realize it's an issue of protecting their citizens from secondhand smoke, which the evidence shows kills people."

Not surprisingly, not everyone sees it that way.

Bill Hannegan is the key organizer of Keep St. Louis Free, a group that identifies itself as a protector of personal property rights and being against unnecessary laws. Hannegan fought smoking bans in St. Louis for years before one was implemented earlier this year.

Hannegan acknowledges that smoking bans tend to pass in most communities and he can only find four instances where voters have rejected such bans.

But he still doesn't like it.

"Does the fact that smoking bans are popular mean that bar and property owners have no property rights?" Hannegan said. "These bans are trendy right now. Does that obliterate the property rights of business owners? ... It's the tyranny of the majority."

But public-health advocates and state legislators believe such local bans eventually will help lead to a statewide ban in Missouri similar to the one in Illinois and 26 other states. According to the American Nonsmokers Rights Foundation, nearly 48 percent of the entire U.S. population already live under bans in all workplaces, including restaurants and bars. Smoking bans have been enacted in 47 of the country's 60 most populated cities, according to the foundation.

Some action has already started at the state level in Missouri.

State Rep. Jill Schupp, D-Creve Coeur, introduced legislation earlier this year in the Missouri House that would prohibit smoking in all enclosed public buildings, including restaurants, bars, government-owned vehicles and private offices. The legislation, House Bill 438, would also restrict smoking in some outdoor areas as well, including within 15 feet of building entrances, bleachers and grandstands at outdoor arenas, public transportation stations and playgrounds.

Schupp isn't holding up hope, she said, that her bill will get passed this session -- it hasn't even been granted a hearing yet and has yet to be put on the calendar. But Schupp, who co-sponsored a similar bill last year, said it's an important issue whose time will come.

"We know it contributes to disease and it's a multibillion-dollar cost to the nation to deal with the diseases of smoking," she said.

And Schupp doesn't mind the opponents decrying government intervention, she said.

"Thank goodness the government intervenes on some issues," she said. "The government intervenes on the temperature food should be cooked, it intervenes with signs that tell us how fast we can drive. There are all kinds of reasons for our health, well being and safety in our nation that government intervention is essential. This is one of those areas."

But she noted some disappointment in the actions of her fellow Missouri House members, who earlier this session voted 113-45 against including a smoking ban in Capitol offices in Jefferson City. That came shortly after Jefferson City residents voted for a smoking ban in the city.

"I think it was a horrible irony," Schupp said. "Now the only place you can go in Jefferson City and have a cigarette is in your legislator's office."

Schupp remains undeterred. She said she respects communities that have passed bans and thinks if cities like Cape Girardeau and the others join the smoking-ban movement, the momentum will propel the issue to a serious statewide discussion.

Asked if she intended to introduce a similar bill next year, she said: "Yes, I will. Absolutely."

Schupp will have her work cut out for her convincing her fellow legislators, especially those across the aisle.

Rep. Wayne Wallingford, R-Cape Girardeau, said he doesn't favor a smoking ban of any kind and intends to vote no in the local election next month. He believes it is up to the business owners to decide if they want to allow customers to consume a legal product.

"Those businesses know better how to run their businesses than the state does," he said. "As long as it's legal, I don't think voters or anyone should tell a business how it can operate."

In the meantime, the debate will continue.

In Springfield, both sides will square off in a public forum this week. The names will be different from in Cape Girardeau, but the discussion will likely sound the same.

Dave Myers, who organized a group there called Live Free Springfield, will echo Doc Cain, who owns Port Cape Girardeau. Both men publicly oppose local smoking bans on different sides of the state.

"Our contention is it's not about health," Myers said. "We're not pro-smoking. Personal property rights are something this country was founded on. From the beginning of this country's existence, we have considered the rights of property owners as cherished. They should be able to do with their property what they want to, as long as it's legal. These bans go too far."

On the other side will be Carrie Reynolds, spokeswoman of Citizens for Clean Air Springfield, who will face off against Myers. At a League of Women Voters meeting in Cape Girardeau last month, Cain squared off against Shelly Wood, a spokeswoman for Citizens for a Smoke Free Cape.

"We definitely see it as a public health issue," Reynolds said. "It's a worker's issue. We're trying to inform voters that this is an issue that will protect our citizens. We're really trying to focus on this issue as being good for public health."

In both places, voters will settle the matter in 30 days.

smoyers@semissourian.com

388-3642