Home » Board of Aldermen »Smoke Free »STL Region » Currently Reading:

Proposed Smoking Ban Ordinance for St. Louis City

April 17, 2009 Board of Aldermen, Smoke Free, STL Region 65 Comments

Normally I’d not do another smoking related post so soon after the one earlier this week.  But, I agreed to publish the proposed ordinance to ban smoking in the City Of St. Louis.  28th Ward Alderman Lyda Krewson sent along the following note with the draft board bill:

Attached is a draft of a proposed smoke free air ordinance I plan to introduce soon.

I hope you will consider joining me in this effort.  Most states already have smoke free air legislation, including our neighbors, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska & Arkansas… and of course, well known places such as California, New York, France and Ireland.

The following link gives a quick map and summary of the current laws in the U.S.  All but 15 states have some form of smoking ban, to provide smoke free air.


Many think this legislation should be done at the state level, and frankly I agree.  But Missouri is unlikely to move this forward.  Many legislators consider it a ‘city issue’.  Kansas City, Columbia, Kirksville, Nixa and others already have a broad smoking ban.

It seems clear to me that Mo’s largest city needs to provide leadership on this issue!

The science is clear… second hand smoke causes or exacerbates a wide range of adverse health effects, including cancer, respiratory infections, and asthma.  Banning smoking in public work environments is about the health of workers… not about smokers.  About smoke… not smokers.    It is a health safety issue, not a social issue.

The attached draft Board Bill says that  it will become effective in the City, when St Louis County passes a similar ordinance. I am not interested in creating an advantage/disadvantage for a city vs. county establishment.  Let’s take the leadership role on this. Maybe we can move the whole state?

I look forward to our discussions about this ordinance.  The pressure not to do it will be heavy…   I hope you will join me in this effort.

Thanks Lyda

Lyda Krewson
28th Ward Alderman

314-231-7318 (work)
314 607 3452 (cell)
[email protected]

You can view a PDF of the proposed bill here.  One of the most important clauses is on the last page:

This Ordinance shall be effective on such date that a similar smoking ban ordinance becomes effective in St. Louis County, Missouri.

So we can pass the ordinance in the city but until St. Louis County passes a similar bill we will keep things as is.  This prevents the challenge of city establishments losing customers to the county.  Read the language and share your thoughts in the comments section because Alderman Krewson will be reading them.


Currently there are "65 comments" on this Article:

  1. publiceye says:

    From Mayor Slay on Wednesday (http://tinyurl.com/dlzf6c):

    “Alderwoman Lyda Krewson, whose central corridor ward includes some of the City’s best restaurants and most popular bars, has informed her colleagues – and some members of the St. Louis county government – that she plans to begin a new public discussion of smoke-free public places in St. Louis. The vehicle for the conversation is a bill she is introducing that will restrict smoke in public spaces like bars and restaurants in the City, when St. Louis county does the same thing. She says, and I strongly agree, that including the county in the conversation sidesteps many of the usual arguments about creating advantages and disadvantages for the businesses of one jurisdiction or the other. Neither of us will support an ordinance that hurts the City’s small businesses.

    “As the discussion begins, I want to remind its participants of two things:

    “First, the biggest impediments to a reasonable and speedy regulation are going to be the zealots on both sides of the issue. The most likely outcome in St. Louis – as in nearly every other place with a law – is going to be some sort of compromise. Smoking is, after all, a perfectly legal activity.

    “Second, the outcome is, I believe, a foregone conclusion. There is going to be some sort of smoke restriction in the City soon. The nature and scope of the restriction will be the subjects of the discussion. I hope that the discussion remains civil, though there are plenty of examples around of a local propensity to scream through public discussions. We can only hope that this particular conversation is an exception.”

  2. Tony Palazzolo says:

    I’m not even sure what to say about this bill. I’ve examined smoking bans across the country and this one is harsh.

    A couple of key points on this one – smoking is banned everywhere including tobacco shops. Even Illinois who to date had the most fanatical ban exempted tobacco shops. Since we had our first baby, one the few chances I get to go out is on Thursday nights. I go up to The Hill Cigar store and enjoy a cigar. We sit around, talk about life and enjoy a drink and a smoke. Now that is going to be illegal. I’m not even sure what purpose this serves other than to put the shop out of business.

    The other is fifteen feet – most bans make it ten feet. Fifteen feet puts the only place someone could smoke is in the road. At fifteen feet, that knocks out a good chunk of outside smoking areas.

    I’m also not sure about this assumption that business won’t be affected if the county does it as well. There are several economic reports that show business is affected in statewide bans. The casinos in Illinois that fared the worst were in the middle of the state.

    I understand that many of you don’t like smoke. As always, I’m not sure why you feel that it has to be banned everywhere even in places that you won’t go.

  3. As I read it this would also put Nara and Petra Hookah Lounges out of business…

    [slp — from Wikipedia; “Due to several state anti-tobacco laws, many Hookah Bars have made the transition from smoking traditional shisha to smoking herbal shisha because it contains no tobacco, tar or nicotine and is legal indoors in areas specific to the prohibition of tobacco smoking.”]

  4. Jimmy Z says:

    Regardless of my thoughts, this is going to be a political fight. In the past, the mayor has opposed a city-only smoking ban, partially because his family has a long history in the restaurant industry:

    “From Slay’s January 4 blog: ‘A reader of this blog wrote in to ask that I repeat my position on smoke-free restaurants in the City. That’s fair enough. I do not smoke. I prefer dining in smoke-free restaurants. I wish every restaurant in the City were smoke-free by its own choice. With that said, I would support a national, statewide or City/county policy that restricted smoke in restaurants. I would not support a local ordinance that put restaurants in the 62 square mile area of the City at a financial disadvantage to their unrestricted competitors in St. Louis county by requiring that only City restaurants install expensive air-handling technologies or banning smoking.'”

    I guess it boils down to where the power really lies, in the Board of Aldermen or in the Mayor’s office.

  5. zink says:

    Following in the footsteps from Doug from above. That’s ridiculous, actually it’s recockulous if the Hookah lounges can’t use tobacco.

    People aren’t pissed about tobacco, people don’t want SMOKE. That’s like telling bars they can still serve beer, as long as it contains less than 1% alcohol. AKA pointless.

    I hate smoking. Yet I hate the government, especially if they are being prudes.

  6. Tony Palazzolo says:

    Well at least we know this is not about money. If it was then she would have exempted Casinos. The City and state will lose millions when smoking is banned in Casinos. St Louis Area Casinos took in an extra $20 million in revenue when Illinois banned smoking and that doesn’t include sales tax, employment tax and the influx of business that came into St Louis. The Landing had the best summer in its history last year.

  7. Brian S. says:

    Perhaps the cigar/hookah establishments and distance will be some of the compromises the Mayor alluded to.

    [slp — I don’t think many draft board bills become ordinances exactly as first written. I applaud Ald. Krewson for taking on this hot topic and for putting it out for discussion prior to introduction at the Board of Aldermen.]

  8. Reginald Pennypacker III says:

    The Hookah Lounges will go out of business on their own as soon as the fad dies out. See: the cigar craze frome the mid-90’s.

  9. Bob says:

    Statewide bans are easier for locals to dodge. Here in Chicago, many small neighborhood bars, especially in areas where real crime is an issue, ignore the ban. The local police consider groups of people congregating outside a bar, previously discouraged, more of an issue than people smoking inside a bar, bothering absolutly no one, as evidenced by complaints. The only complaints are from neighbors of bars that comply. People complaining to local police are told “we have real crime, call the state”. Al Capone is laughing in his grave. No local police officer is going to tell all the patrons of a bar to go outside.

  10. CarondeletNinja says:

    Seems like there ought to be some easy way of solving this issue. If only there were some sort of ballot, or voting initiative, so that a majority of the populace might be able to decide which way to progress on the issue. Some sort of “democratic process” if you will. Man, if our forefathers would have thought of something like that, we, as a nation, would be in like Flynn…

  11. Pete says:

    This is coming sooner or later, hopefully it won’t take much longer to come into effect here. Many areas of the US have had smoking bans in effect for many years, and generally compliance comes with very little problem. Let’s please consider the health of the 80 percent or more of the adult population who don’t smoke. They shouldn’t have to avoid many establishments for pleasure or for work because of poor air quality that can easily be improved.

  12. john says:

    “Designed to Fail” is exactly the point, it is consistent with our MO. City admitting it’s dependent on the County (“it will become effective in the City, when St Louis County passes a similar ordinance”), what’s new? “The science is clear”, so is the result. What a mess.

  13. Dave says:

    I’m very for a smoking ban in the city and county. However, even I agree that the bill would need to be re-written to allow for cigar bars, hookah bars, etc… Obviously anyone going to these establishments would be well aware that smoking is allowed, and therefore it would be the choice of the customer to decide whether or not they wanted to be exposed to smoke.

    Anyone else think providing a smoking-ban may help in the attracting of conventions to the city as well?

  14. Mark Groth says:

    Alderperson Krewson says: “Many think this legislation should be done at the state level, and frankly I agree. But Missouri is unlikely to move this forward. Many legislators consider it a ‘city issue’. Kansas City, Columbia, Kirksville, Nixa and others already have a broad smoking ban.

    It seems clear to me that Mo’s largest city needs to provide leadership on this issue!”

    The only thing clear to me is that Kansas City is the largest city in the state (2000 census 441,545 residents). St. Louis’ 2000 census counted 348,189 residents. I wish our city leaders would understand this when speaking direct to city-specific issues. This isn’t a “metropolitan region” issue, this is a St. Louis issue.

  15. Charley says:

    I don’t think the Mayor is that naive to truly believe this will be a polite discourse. Visit Hannegan’s friend’s website for a preview of what is to come:


  16. Brian S. says:

    “Anyone else think providing a smoking-ban may help in the attracting of conventions to the city as well?”

    I doubt it, but it might help make it more likely that visitors and conventioneers will enjoy their stay here.

  17. Tony Palazzolo says:


    The convetion issue was looked at a few months ago by Bill and I. Smoke-Free St Louis tried to bring the issue up. They had a list of thirty companies all tied to anti-tobacco that won’t come to a city that doesn’t have a ban. Bill was to go on and debate Diane Benati on KMOX. According to the convention center – it has never come up as a issue. No one has ever not come to St Louis because it doesn’t have a ban. There are enough places downtown that are voluntarily smoke-free to serve customers. I contacted a guy from the IPCRA which is the organization for cigar and pipe retailers because I had heard they wanted to come to St Louis. On two different occasions they approached St Louis about doing a convention here. The sticking point – the convention center is non-smoking. They have to allow smoking at their conventions. In other cities, they were granted exemptions for their convention. St Louis wouldn’t do it. A little irony that a convention didn’t come here twice because of smoking is not allowed. They estimate that it would have injected between 6 – 8 million dollars each convention.

    [slp — what we don’t know is how many convention planners have marked St. Louis off their lists due to a lack of a city or state ban.]

  18. Tom Smith says:

    The Missouri courts are about to strike down all municipal bar/restaurant smoking ordinances in the state. The state says that bars, taverns, restaurants that seat less than 50 people, bowling alleys, and billiard parlors “are not considered a public place” for the purposes of smoking regulation as long as they post signs saying “Nonsmoking Areas are Unavailable.” Cities can’t redesignate those places as “public places” and ban smoking in them completely.


    How shortsighted of our aldermen and mayor not to consider this. Cities and counties can’t ban smoking in the places the state explicitly says can have as much smoking as they want.

    [slp — Already covered: “SECTION FIFTEEN. Severability Clause. The sections, conditions, and provisions of this Ordinance or portions thereof shall be severable. If any section, condition, or provision of this Ordinance or portion thereof contained herein is held invalid by the court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate the remaining sections, conditions, or provisions of this Ordinance.]

  19. Charley, that was a cheap shop. That lady has no use for me because I talk about OSHA and push air filtration.

  20. I just got off the phone with the Illinois Licensed Beverage Association. Lyda Krewson and Lewis Reed owe it to St. Louis to call them. They say mom and pop bars across the state have been badly hurt by the smoking ban. The Illinois Casino Gaming Association says Illinois casinos across the state are down 20 percent due to the ban.

    “SECTION SIXTEEN. Effective Date

    This Ordinance shall be effective on such date that a similar smoking ban ordinance becomes effective in St. Louis County, Missouri.”

    Very clearly Alderman Krewson’s smoking ban would not depend on County Executive Dooley and the St. Louis County Council passing a ban. Even if a number of County municipalities passed smoking bans with exemptions, that would satisfy the requirement of the law to start the strict ban in the City.

  21. What about a reasonable compromise concerning the public smoking policy in St. Louis? This possible public smoking law for St. Louis would keep secondhand smoke away from children and substantially protect workers from secondhand smoke, yet not favor one type of business over another:

    Warning signs shall be put up within and at the entrances of any building when smoking is allowed in that building.

    No minor shall be allowed access to any building when smoking is allowed in that building.

    12 air changes per hour of air filtration and air cleaning, or some equivalent air purification process, shall be ongoing in any building when smoking is allowed.

    This law is modelled on the compromise Tennessee public smoking law recently passed:

  22. If smoking is banned in City bars, we’ll put an exemption for filtrated adult venues on the ballot. Since only 24.5 percent of City residents favor banning smoking in such places, it should pass.

    Meantime, 100,000 fliers against the ban are going out to city bars and restaurants.

  23. Mike Murray says:

    The issue is smoke free air everywhere in St. Louis City and County for the majority who want it. The rest is a smoke screen.

  24. The majority of St. Louisans don’t want smoking banned in bars. And the vast majority of restaurant owners that allow smoking, including those in Lyda’s ward, want the freedom to continue to allow it. Lyda should have talked to bar and restaurant owners in her ward before she went ahead with this.

  25. Tony Palazzolo says:

    The opinion poll done by the Missouri State Health and Senior Services last year mirrored what gallop polls have said nationwide. Typically around 75% of the population thinks smoking should be allowed in bars and cocktail lounges. The same polls also show that a slight majority about 60% nationwide and locally 56% think that smoking should be banned in restaurant dining areas. I personally don’t believe that an opinion poll should be the basis for or against a ban. Personally I believe that its up to the owner to decide. They’ll decide whats in their own best interest be it to allow or disallow smoking or to bread or not bread their wings.

  26. Tom Smith says:

    Relying on the “Section Fifteen” severability clause is bogus. When the courts strike down all bans on smoking in bars, small restaurants, billiard parlors, bowling alleys, tobacco shops, etc., it’ll strike down this ordinance’s definition of “public place.” That would leave the ordinance utterly without effect. State law says that despite a severbility clause, if the main effect of a law is what’s being struck down, the whole law is invalid. Only if it’s amended to exempt the places required to be exempted by state law could this ordinance stand up.

    Since Kansas City, every smoking ban ordinance passed in Missouri has exempted all the required areas in one way or another (Belton, Blue Springs, Gladstone, Liberty, Raymore, Parkville). Even many enacted before did so, too (Arnold, Maryville, Springfield).

  27. Please read St. Louis Federal Reserve economist Dr. Michael Pakko’s short article on smoking bans published in The Regional Economist. It shows that local small business owners have good reason to worry about a City/County ban. http://stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2008/a/pages/smoking-ban.html

  28. Margie says:

    Every negotiation has to start somewhere. Lyda’s bill is a good place to get the dialogue going. I applaud her efforts.

  29. “…what we don’t know is how many convention planners have marked St. Louis off their lists due to a lack of a city or state ban.”

    A firm that plans conventions for public health groups like the ACS told me that lack of a smoking ban will cause some public health groups not to come and some freedom oriented groups to come. If you believe in St. Louis freedom, they said, St. Louis can be sold to certain big national groups as a convention destination.

    The America’s Center told me that no group had ever mentioned lack of a smoking ban. But they did say that they had lost the IPCRA convention due to the smoking ban at the America’s Center.

  30. This a letter from a 28th Ward restaurant employee to Alderman Krewson and also sent to the entire St. Louis Board of Alderman!

    Dear Ms. Krewson,

    Greetings! My name is Yvonne Angieri, and I am currently a full-time student at Saint Louis University and a manager at Herbie’s Vintage ’72, which recently opened in the Central West End.

    I am writing to you today because it has come to my attention that you support instituting a smoking ban in the city of Saint Louis.

    I would like to begin with a disclaimer: I am not a smoker, nor do I care for the smell of smoke. I do, however, believe that private property owners should have the right to decide whether or not to offer a either a smoke-free or a smoking environment to their clientele.

    As a non-smoker, it has often been unpleasant in the past for me to work in establishments that permit smoking. At Herbie’s I have been lucky to have a markedly different experience. When Herbie’s opened in October, the owners decided to install two air filtration systems in the bar and one in the private cigar lounge so as not to deter non-smoking guests from dining at the restaurant. I have heard hyperbolic praise of such machines in the past, and was prepared to be disappointed yet again. Instead, I was most pleasantly surprised by the effectiveness of the air filtration system. After a busy Friday or Saturday night, I can leave the restaurant with virtually no smell of smoke in my hair or my clothes! As this is precisely what has caused me so much aggravation in the past, I have had to reevaluate my opinion of air filtration.

    Instead of a ban on smoking, I suggest that giving smoking establishments the opportunity to clean their air using effective air filtration would be a preferable alternative to forcing restaurants and bars to alienate longstanding clientele that a restaurant such as Herbie’s currently draws. Such an alternative would provide the opportunity to achieve the harmony between smoking and non-smoking guests that Herbie’s has been able to reach.

    Thank you for your time and attention to my concerns.


    Yvonne Angieri

  31. Todd says:

    As far as the 15 foot issue goes, Washington state has a 25 foot rule, and in practice it seems to work out fine. Usually this just means that people just smoke outside, not right next to the door.

    As a Californian soon to move to St. Louis, I hope this passes. Living in a state (or city) with a smoking ban is wonderful for nonsmokers. You can go to any bar or restaurant and not have to breath vile smelling air or come home smelling disgusting and needing to take a shower. The majority of people don’t smoke, and it’s insane and rude to force us to put up with the vile-smelling and cancer-causing tobacco smoke created by a minority of people (less than 25% in MO).

  32. Todd says:

    Is this Bill Hannegan guy a shill for an air filtration company or something? One wonders if “Yvonne Angieri” exists, or if she does whether she actually wrote that letter herself.

    • Gabe Angieri says:

      Long after the fact, Yvonne Angieri does exist; she is my sister. And yes, she did write the letter herself.

  33. Todd says:


    Did you even read the article you linked to? The author writes, “The independent effect of local smoking ordinances is estimated to be very small and is not significant.” Based on the best data availalbe, your author concludes that there is no evidence of a statistically significant economic impact on bars and restaurants by enacting a city or county-wide smoking ban.

  34. Jimmy Z says:

    Bottom line, nicotine is both a psychoactive and a carcinogenic drug. The real conversation should be why is this one drug allowed to remain “legal” and available without prescription, or at all? If it’s more dangerous than many other drugs that do require prescriptions, or are totally illegal, limiting where it’s consumed, or even raising taxes precipitously, doesn’t “solve” the problem, it just makes it more inconvenient for its users/addicts and/or makes them into criminals! The short answer is obviously taxes – it’s a reliable revenue source for the state and federal governments, plus it’s a profitable crop for some farmers. The larger issue is that, much like the failed attempt at the prohibition of alcohol and the current efforts at gun control, the argument remains “If _____s are outlawed, only outlaws will have _____s.” Still, the government seems willing to invest a lot of effort in trying to eradicate the use of many other recreational drugs. The real answer should be all in or all out – either outlaw/regulate ALL “dangerous” drugs (and triple the size of the DEA) OR let adults decide which risks they’re willing to assume (we already have plenty of laws addressing negative consequences) – decriminalize drugs like marijuana and tax them heavily.

  35. Tony Palazzolo says:


    Funny how out of the entire article you latch on to the one sentence that says in a warm climate such as California that employment is not affected at a restaurant. Well this isn’t California and you can’t sit outside year round. If you read the rest of the article it shows that even in California, bars were affected by their bans. St Louis will get much harder than California on two counts. We are in a colder climate and have a higher smoking rate.

    The economic study on Columbia showed that bars lose an average of 11% revenue. I’m quite sure you don’t own a business or else you would know that 11% of your revenue is enough to make it unprofitable. Its enough to put you out of business. This study comes from the Federal Reserve and it actually exist.

  36. Bob says:

    The only way many small Illinois bars are surviving is by ignoring the Illinois ban. If they are going down, it won’t be without a fight. The bars that comply aren’t snitching. There aren’t enough non smoking patrons to go around.

  37. Mayor Slay writes:

    “Neither of us will support an ordinance that hurts the City’s small businesses.”

    But even a statewide smoking ban will hurt the corner bar and the casino. Call the Illinois Licensed Beverage Association and the Illinois Casino Gaming Association and ask them.

    I have talked Lewis Reed extensively about smoking bans and the City of St. Louis. He believes in free choice for adults. I believe this is the strongest law he could support without violating his principles:


  38. The zealots on our side of the issue are pretty happy with the Tennessee law because it does not favor bars over coffee shops and restaurants. Tiffany’s in Maplewood wants to allow smoking as much as any bar! And a place like the Pageant could still allow smoking.

    When I worked with one of the Kansas City councilmen on a compromise public smoking law, we thought it more reasonable to disallow smoking while a minor had access to the building. I would rather minors just be kept from any room where smoking is allowed and that room have 12 air changes per hour of HEPA and carbon air filtration.

  39. I got this note from St. Louis City restaurateur Harry Belli:

    I noticed that in the paper today they talked about their surveys and 70% said that they would support a ban on smoking in public places and restaurants, however they don’t ask if they would allow smoking in the bar area only. Most people don’t want smoking in the restaurant where they eat but don’t mind smoking in bar areas. However the surveys do not separate the two and it is misleading to the people responding. Just thought I would share this with you.

    Harry Belli

  40. JPRossJr says:

    Today my neighborhood organization sponsored a volunteer park clean-up in Carondelet Park. I spent an hour picking up almost nothing but cigarette butts by the Boathouse. I felt like I barely dented the pile. Other volunteers, including children, came back and reported on the staggering number of cigarette butts they found. I cannot fathom what could possibly being going through the mind of a smoker when s/he tosses a cigarette butt to the ground. In the case of my little spot in the park today, there was a trash barrel not more than 10 feet from where I was.

    It’s the same when I’m in the car. Hardly a day goes by when I don’t see at least one cigarette butt come flying out the window of a car in front of me. I don’t believe most smokers would toss out a bag of fast food trash on the road or in the park. At least not in any proportion different from the non-smokers who would do that. So what makes so many smokers feel it’s appropriate to drop cigarette butts for the rest of us to look at, and in my case, pick up?

  41. My main problem with the bill is that it’s dependent on the county to do something similar. Why? This assumes that there will be more people choosing to go to the county just to smoke in a bar or restaurant than there will be people coming in to the city to avoid smoke. It seems to me that leading on the issue has as much potential to impact business in the city positively as it does negatively. I say remove the county dependency from the bill and we might have a winner!

  42. Lyda Krewson and Mayor Slay should not turn over St. Louis City public health policy to County Executive Dooley. Why should Dooley decide when St. Louis City gets a smoking ban?

    Also, the way our side reads the law, County Executive Dooley wouldn’t have to get involved. If Clayton passes a ban, that would be sufficient to trigger a City ban. And the County ban could exempt bars and still trigger a stricter City ban.

  43. john says:

    Smokers are disgusting. Often when cycling I’m behind a car that empties its ashtray of death weed onto the street and the ashes are flying everywhere. Who wants or needs these rejects
    (Uncle Sam cashin’ on their weaknesses)?. The point of this “the science is clear” legislation? Pass the buck to the next governmental unit and claim the “see I do care” label. Welcome to the Lou.

  44. If this law passes, city businesses will immediately begin contributing to and lobbying Charlie Dooley and the County Councilmen against a ban. City business owners will be crowding into County Council smoking ban hearings, talking to the press and pleading their case to Dooley along with County businesses.

    I can hear the City business owners line up in front of the County Council, taking their turn at the microphone, saying, “I live in the City and I own Joe’s Bar & Grill in the City, and I am asking County Executive Dooley not to put me out of business!”

    [slp — Places that have a greater than average customer base should not wait for the ban to make changes to reduce their dependence on addicted customers. These places are probably so offensive to the non-smoker that much of their business is smokers. As smokers die we have a new steam of addicts but is this really a stable customer base? Prepare now by doing things to build up a non-smoking clientele.]

  45. Can you imagine the owners of Duff’s, or Riggazi’s or Herbie’s scheduling meetings with Mike O’Mara or Barbara Fraser, asking them to postpone a ban?

  46. Bob says:

    Here’s a novel idea from Ireland. Using all the closed pubs for youth activities.

  47. Jimmy Z says:

    A national solution? It looks like the FDA will actually get to regulate tobacco and its use as drug: http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20090420/NEWS01/904200327/1008/NEWS01/FDA+likely+to+get+power+over+tobacco

  48. Jimmy Z says:

    When it comes to littering, there’s the law and there’s reality. This article found out that Florida collects an ofaverages only $71,000 a year in littering fines (http://www.tampabay.com/incoming/article994215.ece). I would be surprised if Missouri and/or the city collects even a fraction of that. So until things change, our world will remain one giant ashtray!

  49. h. mills says:

    Bill–(Streeter, not Hannegan) Yes, the county dependency is total reeking bollocks. We elect our officials to govern and create laws to protect the masses in this city. The county has their own (crappy) government, there’s no reason why the city can’t go it alone on this one. Its like us waiting on Kansas City to ban smoking…oh WAIT. They did that, and we still haven’t.

    American Academy of Nursing
    American Academy of Pediatrics
    American Heart Association
    American Legacy Foundation
    American Lung Association
    American Medical Association
    American Public Health Association
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
    National Association of Chronic Disease Disorders
    National Cancer Institute
    Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
    National Institute on Drug Abuse
    Tobacco Free Kids
    Foundation for a Smoke_Free America
    AND MANY OTHERS will NOT hold conventions in St. Louis city because of our lack of clean indoor air legislation. The American Public Health Association holds one of the largest health conferences in the nation each year, and their business alone provides upwards of $13 million in revenue for the city they choose. St. Louis is a prime location for conferences, given our central location and the fact that St. Louis is an inexpensive city compared to other major metropolitan areas.

  50. Tony Palazzolo says:

    Hmills – your looking at several entitites that might hold a conference here if we instituted a ban. I know of a one that tried twice to hold their national conference here and didn’t because smoking is banned at America’s Center. If they would give them an exemption – they would hold their conference here either next year or the year after.

    I also understand that most of those listed profit from smoking bans.

    [slp — the American Lung Association profits? Huh? I don’t want one conference coming here and polluting our conference facility. Glad they weren’t given an exemption. That building cost us too much to have it damaged by a group of smokers. Others need to use the building too.]

  51. john m says:

    The final word for this is “huh?” I find that hard to believe. Oh yes, because you happen to subscribe to the notions of any of those institutions, you will suspend your natural skepticism towards power and simply see them as godlike in their ideals and initiatives. That is a very naive position for any of us to take.

    Why is hard to believe that non-profit(s) can and do profit. The delivery of the message they are sending is not subject to the taxation of a normal corporation, but inside a non-profit, profit motive by the individuals is very much alive. Most importantly to the point, a non profit is legally allowed to make a profit, form subsidiary corporations, and engage in commercial activities.

    Many people simply do not understand the fiscal realities faced by a non profit to diversify their revenues through commercial enterprise, subsidiary corporations and aggressive investment techniques.

    The corporate governance of a non-profit closely resembles that of a commercial enterprise. You have no right to attend a board meeting of these non profits. You are not privy to the actual information inherent internally. The motives involved apparently go unquestioned by so many of you as to how they gained their position of your trust. I am rightly suspicious of anyone that has all of these powers and none of the accountability of even an oft criticized governmental office, where at least I can vote on things or people and or fight for a record release or benefit from someone else doing so.

    Why is it so hard to believe that overzealous commitment to ideology or the manufacturing of uncertainty and fear can be tools of personal self preservation. We may be a part of something like this and not even know it ourselves. But what seems so easy for us to do is analyze others under the same guise. As exemplified in a comment found around here in relation to Bill H., “Is he a shill for an air purification company” or something to that effect. So if you are one side of the debate and you look across the table and see that possibility, how can it not be possible in you? It may not be profit motive, but you could suspend scientific fact for a personally held belief. Which in my observation is far stronger than fact.

    I don’t want to diminish the good work that people do, but please don’t pass off your ignorance as fact and I will attempt to reciprocate the gesture. There are two things I see in all of us that must be checked with vigilance. One, The Ends Justify The Means. Two, Life should be fair. It doesn’t and it isn’t.

    [slp — like the ideology & fear mongering that all restaurants & bars will cease to exist without cigarette smoke?]

  52. john m says:

    Point taken. exactly. But if you remember, I am not against it. More for the reason of common courtesy. Enough non-smokers don’t like smoke in their eyes. Good enough for me.

  53. Bob STL says:

    Baltimore. Indianapolis. Houston. Kansas City. Minneapolis. Chicago. Anchorage. Boston. Dallas. Los Angeles. Charleston. Seattle. Ft. Wayne. Cincinnati. Omaha. Columbus. Portland. Phoenix. Des Moines. Louisville. Cheyenne. New York….and on and on…

    All smoke-free.

    Will St. Louis finally join them, or will we do nothing because we are content with the label of a second-rate city?

  54. Jimmy Z says:

    “Will we do nothing because we are content with the label of a second-rate city?” No, we’ll do what we do based on politics, who knows whom, money, politics, scientific arguments, emotional arguments, arm twisting, politics, what the county and/or the state does, money, CYA and where you went to high school! 😉

  55. Tony Palazzolo says:

    If a St Louis is a second class city because business owners are free to allow a perfectly legal activity in their business – then so be it. If St Louis is a second class city because adults have to choices if they are smokers or non-smokers then so be it. If St Louis is a second class city because the power of the government isn’t used to enforce preference – then so be it.

    And Steve yes, smoking bans do indeed hurt business. I have yet to see research from (and this is important) an economist that shows business is not harmed. There are a ton of economic reports (and again this is important) from so called public health advocates who are not trained in economics. Even the Fed showed a 11% loss to bars in Columbia after the ban.

    And yes – Organizations such as the ACS do “profit” from bans. They had a hand in drafting this smoking ban. Beside smoking, they banned “warmed” tobacco products. That is they ban e-cigarettes which work by vaporizing nicotine in a cartridge. E-cigs have zero emissions – none, zilch, nada. The ACS received millions from Johnson and Johnson every year and J&J consider E-Cigs to be competition. Why else would they ban e-cigs which have the same emissions as nicotine gum or the patch?

  56. Jimmy Z says:

    Customers speak, business listens, and no law is required – Cicero’s goes part way: http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/gutcheck/2009/04/ciceros_delmar_loop_university_city_clayton_smoking_bans_st_louis_food_blog_restaurants_news_042909.php

    [slp — I won’t go there because the smoke doesn’t know to stay in the bar area. Smoke after 10pm will pollute the environment so the next day at lunch you can still tell. We so need to be smoke free!]

  57. kathy says:

    Do you have any idea what a ban in Bars would do? You might as well put a ban on alcohol. I am a bartender in a neighborhood bar that has been there for nineteen years. We might as well shut the doors if the ban passes. You can’t go outside to smoke without disturbing the neighbors,You can’t take a drink outside because of open container laws. Put a sign in the window that states “This is a smoking establishment” and leave it up to the customer to enter or not. Illinois bars have been destroyed by the ban. People do still smoke and they do have certain rights. Making people go out in the weather to do something that is legal is insulting. If it bothers certain people then don’t come in a bar. We have a lot of non-smokers who defend the smoker and their rights. Leave the bars out of it. We are happy the way it is now,In business.

  58. Too bad Ciceros still smells like an ashtray 24hrs a day. FAIL.

  59. Dustin Bopp says:

    I personally dislike cigarette smoke and I choose as often as is practical for me to go to smoke-free establishments. However you look at it, though, it is a public health issue. Should we start allowing business not to conform to building and safety codes but allow them to operate because they put up a sign? How about, “The owner has chosen this to be a non-building code compliant establishment, sorry if it falls on your head or you can’t get out in a fire. You may choose the compliant bar down the street if your physical safety is your concern. This is America?” Then one day when all the unsafe bars fall down all we will have left are the safe ones — free market!

    Whether “property rights advocates” like it or not a business that is serves the public and employs people is subject to certain standards (and no, Mr. Hannegan I don’t think filters cut it if I still have to stand next to somebody in a bar puffing in my face). And yes, Mr. Palozzolo smoking is perfectly legal — which I believe it should be. But it’s also perfectly legal to piss in your soup at home but illegal to do so in a restaurant.

  60. Dustin Bopp says:

    And I don’t buy the economic argument either. It has always been cheaper for society not to do the right thing. Like it would have been cheaper for businesses to not be required to adhere to health regulations too. Do I feel for the small business owner that fears losing revenue? Sure. I understand these are real people afraid of losing their livelihood and not some abstraction that should “sacrifice for the greater good. They hear the horror stories. And the “facts” can be twisted either way.

    In my mind, someone’s “right” to create dirty air does not trump another’s right to breathe clean air. Problem solved. Next issue, please.

  61. Nancy Fawcett says:

    Ms. Krewson-If you're going to ban smoking in all public places in St. Louis, why don't you also ban liquor. Drunken drivers kill more people than second hand smoke ever will. Apparently, you like to drink, but you don't smoke.

    Nancy Fawcett-Chesterfield

    • Chris says:

      Ms. Fawcett,

      Your comment is just plain wrong. From the American Lung Association's Website:

      “Every year in the U.S. over 392,000 people die from tobacco-caused disease, making it the leading cause of preventable death. Another 50,000 people die from exposure to secondhand smoke.” [http://www.lungusa.org/stop-smoking/]

      From Mothers Against Drunk Driving Website:

      “In 2008, an estimated 11,773 people died in alcohol-impaired traffic crashes.” [http://www.madd.org/Drunk-Driving.aspx]

      I'll do the math for you: 37 times more people died from smoking than from drunk driving in 2008.

      Stupid, uninformed comments like yours are what fires up the anti-smoking movement.


Comment on this Article:



This message is only visible to admins.

Problem displaying Facebook posts.
Click to show error

Error: An access token is required to request this resource.
Type: OAuthException
Solution: See here for how to solve this error