Much of St. Louis region going (mostly) smoke-free by January 2011
November 3rd voters in St. Louis County approved a clean air bill covering their county (65% yes). Prior to their vote the Board of Aldermen in the City of St. Louis passed a bill doing basically the same thing in the city, which is separate from St. County.
Both will go smoke-free on January 2, 2011. Contrary to reports, the citizen vote in the County is not triggering the city bill – in fact the County bill is delaying the effective date in the city by one day. The city’s bill called for an effective date of January 1, 2011 unless the County ordinance began sooner. From section 15 of the city’s bill:
This Ordinance shall be effective on such date that the Saint Louis County enacts Smoke Free Air legislation, or on January 1, 2011, whichever date is later.
Since the county effective date is 1/2/2011 it is one day later in the city. The city’s language was poorly worded but the 2nd actually makes more sense anyway because you don’t want to try to change the policy on the night everyone is celebrating New Year’s. I’d have made it effective on 12/31/2010 but such measures usually start at the start of a year, not the end.
The City’s law exempts small bars for five long years from the effective date. So they will go smoke-free on January 2, 2016. Here is the exemption language:
Bars in existence on the effective date of this ordinance in which only persons aged twenty one (21) years old or older are permitted to enter the premises, the square footage of the entire floor area of the level of the building on which the bar establishment is located is two thousand (2000) square feet or less. The square footage shall not include kitchen areas, storage areas and bathrooms. The bar shall prominently displays outside of the premises at each entrance and above the bar the following sign in lettering that is black bold Arial font at (ninety-eight) 98 point size: “WARNING : SMOKING ALLOWED HEREâ€. This exemption for bars shall expire five (5) years after the effective date of this ordinance.
A bar is defined in the ordinance as:
“Bar” means an establishment that is devoted to the serving of alcoholic beverages for consumption by guests on the premises and in which the serving of food is only incidental to the consumption of those beverages, including but not limited to, taverns, nightclubs, cocktail lounges, and cabarets.
My concern is that as most places goe smoke-free all the smokers are going to crowd into the small bars that permit smoking this exemption. If that happens the non-smoking patrons of those places may shift to non-smoking bars to avoid the increase in smoke. If this does happen that means these small bars will be increasingly dependent upon smokers. Instead of adjusting their business model to prepare for the coming smoke-free deadline they will be worse off than today.
Note that a new bar opened after January 2, 2011 it will be smoke-free regardless of the size. Other exemptions include:
2. Not more than twenty percent (20%) of hotel and motel rooms rented to guests and designated as smoking rooms. All smoking rooms on the same floor must be contiguous and smoke from these rooms must not infiltrate into areas where smoking is prohibited under the provisions of this Ordinance. The status of rooms as smoking or nonsmoking may not be changed, except to add additional nonsmoking rooms.
3. Private clubs that have no employees, except when being used for a function to which the general public is invited; provided that smoke from such clubs does not infiltrate into areas
where smoking is prohibited under the provisions of this Ordinance. This exemption shall not apply to any organization that is established for the purpose of avoiding compliance with this Ordinance.
4. Outdoor areas of places of employment.
5. Tobacco retail stores as defined by this Ordinance.
6. Casino gaming areas as defined by this Ordinance.
I’m not overly bothered by these exemptions — except that last one. Employees of casinos are not immune from the dangers of 2nd hand smoke. Interestingly, the issue of casino workers exposed to smoke may get resolved in the courts.
Wynn Las Vegas is the second major resort operator to be hit with a lawsuit recently over secondhand smoke dangers. (Source)
One suit involved a pregnant casino employee. A woman should not have to quit her job to protect her baby’s health (unless her job is something like a race car driver, stunt woman, etc). Next steps will be to remove the casino exemption, pass similar measure in other Missouri Counties in the St. Louis area. Ideally the state will finally pass a state-wide measure.
We’ve got a little more than 13 months until places must go smoke-free. Hopefully some will make the transition sooner rather than waiting until the deadline. By going smoke-free before the deadline establishments can probably get some extra PR for doing so. Along those lines, establishments that go smoke-free prior to the deadline may want to consider advertising that fact here. Come January 3rd 2011 nearly every place will be smoke-free so by doing so early and advertising it they stand a better chance of not getting lost in the crowd of places.
On the other hand one restaurant owner told me before Tuesday he wanted to go smoke-free but wanted the law to require it. He will continue as a smoking establishment until the deadline — he doesn’t want to offend his regulars. He is glad it will become law so he is finally able to go smoke-free. I can respect that. I told him I’d visit him in 2011, but not before.
– Steve Patterson
I spoke with an attorney today who specializes in Missouri smoking ban litigation. A challenge to the constitutionality of the casino exemption of the St. Louis City Smoke Free Air Act of 2009 will likely be our next step. If successful, the City smoking ban will be struck down altogether.
Steve, a court will not impose a broader law than the Board intended. The Board voted down an amendment that included casinos. So, though the law includes a severability clause, if the casino exemption is successfully challenged, the result will not be to include casinos in the ban, but rather to void the entire law.
Since only 30 percent of County residents and 24.5 percent of City resident favor smoking bans in “over 21” venues, the casinos can stop the smoking ban movement in St. Louis by funding an inexpensive initiative to allow smoking in all “over 21” City and County venues.
Casinos deserve exemptions only if “rights” can be bought and sold. The design of the smoking ban speaks volumes on how corrupt the region’s political system has become and the special exemptions are ridiculous at best. The idea that legislation is written so poorly to potentially allow a court to overturn what a 2:1 majority of the voting public wants (ie. clean air) is absurd. But once again the City has demonstrated that its future is dependent on what the County wants, not the other way around.
– –
The State of MO needs to lead and place this issue to a vote. It is unfair for businesses in StL County-City to compete with those in surrounding counties who are allowed to appeal to our lowest standards.
I understand what Bill is saying. He thinks that if the court finds that exempting a specific type of business is found to be unconstitutional, that they will strike down the entire law. However, if that were the case, this law would need to include a dictionary of every type of business that exists. It would have to specifically list every make and model of car that is covered by the law, every address that is required to comply, etc. etc. Obviously, it does not do that for good reason. Therefore, if the court finds the casino exemption invalid, it will simply require the language on the exemption to be stricken from the law, meaning the law simply won’t mention anything about casinos. And, then the city might come at the casinos with a lawsuit saying they are not following the law because they are not specifically exempted from it (if the exemption were stricken).
I’d imagine from the casino operators point of view, they don’t want any sort of challenge in court because the best case scenario if a challenge does occur is that the law will become more vague about the requirements of casinos. And, they would not want a more vague law about their exempted status. They want to be ensured they don’t have to comply.
My guess is that while Bill is saying they will challenge the constitutionality of the exemption, as soon as he files it he will get a call from a casino operator asking him to back-off on the lawsuit.
I suppose time will wait to see.
First, as a non-smoker, I’m glad that most spaces here will soon be going smoke free – it’ll make my life a lot more pleasant. Second, I appreciate your law-of-unintended-consequences analysis of exempting small bars – it makes a lot of sense, and it’ll be interesting to watch it play out. And three, while I stand by my first statement, I need to raise the issue of the tyranny of the majority – on Tuesday, while the smoking ban was passing here, the gay marriage ban was passing in Maine. In both cases, the majority ruled, imposing their will on an adult minority, capable of making educated choices. What’s next? Shunning fat people? Those who don’t exercise? Imposing new standards on non-christians? Bringing back slavery? Repealing the ADA?
Just because you can get the majority of the voters to agree with you, doesn’t always make it right. The fundamental (and only?) role of government is protecting its citizens’ health, safety and welfare. If tobacco is as dangerous as the non-smoking advocates assert, it needs to be treated like any other lethal, addictive drug and be made illegal, not taxed heavily and its use restricted to increasingly limited areas. And if it’s not really all that dangerous, just smelly and obnoxious to be around, smokers deserve the right to be left alone and to die prematurely – none of us has the right to be able to go anywhere we want in the country and to expect every business to conform to our own individual epectations of what’s “right”. I find the hypocrisy on this issue to be becoming increasingly absurd . . .
Steve, the casino exemption violates the Special Laws Clause of the Missouri State Constitution. Since tobacco shops have a special relationship to smoking, the challenge wouldn’t touch them. If St. Louis City exempt casinos, it should also exempt all “over 21” establishments as the Tennessee smoking ban does.
“[slp — I was, of course, disappointed in the Maine vote. But here is the difference: harm from 2nd hand smoke is scientifically clear. Nobody is going to be stricken with cancer if gay marriage is approved.]”
thank you. there is no comparison to be made here.
““[slp — I was, of course, disappointed in the Maine vote. But here is the difference: harm from 2nd hand smoke is scientifically clear. Nobody is going to be stricken with cancer if gay marriage is approved.]â€
thank you. there is no comparison to be made here.”
Actually there is a comparison! People that vote against gay marriage do so with any number of reasons. In my mind most of them are laughable. The best one is it will affect their marriage if gays are allowed to be married. Or is gay marriage is allowed all sorts of straight people will suddenly become gay. Or we will be promoting a gay lifestyle. In the end, it boils down to the fact that they don’t like it. Intolerance toward gays or intolerance toward smokers is still intolerance. Either one is easily avoidable if you don’t approve.
Well Steve, the same arguments have been made with the health risk involved with the “gay lifestyle”
There are people that feel that it is their duty to change you – help you become a straight person. Included in that is enacting laws that discriminate against you.
If you haven’t realized, the whole ban movement is based on the assumption that they have the duty and the right to do anything to make people quit smoking.
Sorry about your friend. I don’t know if he was a smoker or not. That doesn’t mean it not intolerance. Alcohol ravaged the men in my family. It led directly the death of my father, both my grandfathers and my brothers suicide. That doesn’t mean that we need another prohibition because they made poor choices. Intolerance is intolerance no matter toward what you group you point it at.
Tony P –
It’s not about intolerance of smokers – it’s about public health. Intolerance implies irritation or annoyance. Even your associate, Mr. Hannegan, has admitted second hand smoke is harmful.
I can easily say the same thing about smokers in public and yes, PUBS (bars) are PUBlic. I find many smokers intolerant of the logical desire to breathe smokefree air. What would you suppose is the percentage of smokers that step outside their own home (if they don’t live alone) to protect (or be considerate of) their family and friends?
John –
I’m offended at your comment that the regional government is corrupt because the casinos were exempted. I can’t speak for the county council but if you’ll read today’s Post – you’ll clearly see that some on the Council did not want the Casinos coming in here and throwing millions at this ballot issue. Several of us had spoken before the Council urging a clean bill. The votes, however, were not there we understand. In Ballwin, fortunately, we don’t have a casino. That being said, however, our Clean Air Ordinance is exactly that. CLEAN. Very few exemptions and they are very minor. For example, the VFW can have smokey bingo nights if the bartenders and workers there are VOLUNTEERS and not paid to work. This means that they voluntarily subject themselves to the environment. And BTW, I didn’t receive a penny for my time on Prop N. The American Cancer, Lung and Heart Associations did not help us either – the bill was not perfect in their eyes. I’m a bit more pragmatic – 97-98% of workplaces going smokefree is a huge step in the right direction. We’ll now work to clean it up unless Mr. Hannegan gets that done for us.
While I’m thinking of Mr. Hannegan – Bill – I’m really concerned about your “over 21″ idea. Do those over 21 not have asthma? Are their lungs any different than that of a person under 21? Don’t places like O’Connell’s serve people younger than 21 lunch? Those businesses that limit admittance to those over 21 are mainly doing that to prevent underage drinking and to make the laws against serving to minors easier to enforce. Frankly, that “solution†is no solution at all and I can understand why the County Council rejected it.
Actually the over 21 is an excellent idea. Adults making adult choices would be the only ones allowed to enter. Yes people with asthma would probably need to avoid a smoky bar. Just because a few people for whatever health reason can’t enter is no reason to keep everyone from doing what they enjoy. Just because some people can’t swim is no reason to close all pools.
Tony –
Thank you. That’s real considerate of you. Actually, my daughter is a life guard. The people that can’t swim stay in the shallow or they ask for a VEST. I’m an adult…52 year old adult and your last post was absolutely ridiculous. You need to have a few honest conversations with some workers subjected to second hand smoke for a significant amount of time. OR, just read the posts from some of them – they do exist.
P.S. “For whatever health reason”……no reason to keep EVERYONE – 20% of population that smokes, you mean, from doing what they ENJOY, you mean addicted to.
I thought we had gotten to the point where intelligent debate was occurring. You just ruined it with that one.
Okay Jane, sorry to have ruined it for you.
If we used the asthma people can’t go into a place were smoking is allowed theory to ban smoking. What is wrong with closing pools because some can’t swim. In fact, not all pools have lifeguards. In fact, even with lifeguards people still drown. When I was twelve, an adult man drowned. They pulled his dead body out of pool and pretty much dropped him at my feet. I’ll never forget the way his eyes looked. We knew the family and he could swim. Shouldn’t we mitigate that risk by closing pools for certainly hundreds of people drown every year in pools around the country.
I always wanted bungie jump – but alas I weight too much. They should probably not allow anyone to do it because some people weight too much.
If we don’t allow anything that doesn’t have zero risk or everyone can’t participate in to happen we would confine ourselves in little padded (presumable safe ) rooms.
But thats not how we live our lives. People make choices all the time. I choose to exercise in the morning because its good for me. I choose to eat a hamburger because I like it (even though I know its bad). I play hockey because I enjoy it (yes I have broken bones before doing it). Everything you do from the moment you wake up involves risk. You could slip and fall the shower. You could cut yourself with a razor. You could get into a car accident on your way to work. You could catch the flu from a coworker. You could swallow a chicken bone in that chicken sandwich.
Yet on this one issue you assume people can’t make choices. For some reason, the public just isn’t armed with the knowledge and the reasoning skills to make a simple choice. I assume people can make good decisions and you assume they are not smart enough.
Tony –
There’s no point. Eliminating second hand smoke is simple. Just go outside. All of your other analogies affect only the person that drowned, or cut themself with a razor, or swallowed that chicken bone. Second Hand Smoke is generated by one human being and has an impact on another human being. PERIOD. I’m not assuming people can’t make choices…they do everyday now despite the fact they have few non-smoking bar venues to chose. Example, there’s only one Pagaent. It allows smoking. At least Bill Hannegan knows that second hand smoke is harmful. You still seem to think it’s only an annoyance.
Sorry, Tony. Meaningless debate takes up too much time.
We have voted to make the same decision about keeping our citizens health as have 37 other states and most other major cities. St. Louis has a reputation for being a great place to raise a family, but the overabundance of indoor smoking challenged this reputation: no one wants to take their kids to a smoky bowling alley, or a restaurant where the smoking section is completely continuous with the non-smoking one. I agree with Jane – this is a HUGE step forward, and there are plenty of examples of situations where exemptions were removed after the initial laws were passed. Now that the major metropolitan areas of Missouri have all restricted smoking, I think we’ll be looking to Jefferson City for a full ban, and I hope they can resist the tobacco and casino lobbies like most other states have. Then, there will be no need to have each county raise the same silly “this is unfair!” argument. Personally, I only go to bars on a list of St. Louis’s smoke-free bars. The more that convert to being smoke-free, the more places will gain my business. Frankly, 10 years from now, we’re going to look back on this and laugh — “can you believe we still allowed people to spew pollution in public places?” like about airplane smoking.
CCAir supporter – good for you. That is exactly what your supposed to do. Spend your money were the environment suits you. Thank you for not being a zombie, walking into a bar were smoking is allowed and whining about it.
About that family thing, I have an almost three year old. We don’t seem to have a problem going out to eat with him. There are plenty of choices in this city and even more in the county. As to bars, I don’t take him to bars. I guess our city is taking a beating as a good place to raise a family because a place you can’t take your family allows adults to be adults.
Jane – its only a risk if you walk into a bar that allows smoking. No one is forced to walk into a bar that allows it. No one is forced to use a razor. No one is forced to go into a pool. Yet people do and they die. Tell me why shouldn’t we close pools since we can document that in fact they are dangerous even though only to those that accept the risk. I thought the point was risk control.
by the way – I agree that SHS is a risk. That you increase your chances of getting lung cancer by 25%.
Of course a non-smokers chance of getting lung cancer is 1-10,000 so your chance of getting lung cancer if you spend a lifetime around SHS is 1.25 – 10,000. Most people get confused about this, they think the 25% means that you have a 25% chance of getting lung cancer. Of course they would, you have Barbara Fraser stating that half million people die every year of SHS.
Jane, all smoke from any source, indoor or outdoors, is a concern. I am suggesting keeping kids away from tobacco smoke altogether and greatly reducing the exposure of adult employees to smoke.
For years I would only smoke in the bar once a week at the Jake’s Leg show at 20 North. Many of my friends also only smoked at the bar. Smoking was one of the reasons we went to the bar. I now know that the smoke at 20 North, and later Magee’s, was a real problem for some people. I really believe that the air filtration we put in at Herbie’s would have solved any problem smoking presented at 20 North.
Tony – You totally missed my point. Why should I even have to decide whether to take the risk? I shouldn’t have to analyze an establishment based on first impression, middle impression OR end impression. A sign on the door saying it’s smoking would give me a hint but the way it is now, I have no clue whether there’s a hoard of smokers at the bar or a few. What about the Pagaent. Can’t even listen to a band play w/o doing so in harmful air? Frankly, I think it’s unforgivable knowing the information that is known about second hand smoke for ANY business owner INCLUDING BAR owners to allow smoking knowing the harm it can cause. A restaurant owner came in to get permission for his restaurant, in Ballwin, and he answered “Smoke make food taste bad” when questioned whether the smoking restrictions were a concern to him. (He spoke english but a little rough).
Bill – As for the filtration system – hasn’t it been proven that they don’t remove the carcinogens in the air effectively? And, I’ve asked it at least a half dozen times and you’ve completely ignored the question – how is that air filtered from the cigarette hanging out of that smoker’s mouth while it takes its sweet time going 10-15-20 feet away where the filtration system is located?
Neither of you answer the tough questions. I think you know the answers but they don’t suit your agenda. You know that many smokers smoke outside their own homes. You know that those filtration systems don’t nullify the effect of second hand smoke efficiently. You know that non-smokers are doing what you’ve been asking us to do for a very long time – “Go elsewhere”.
I lived with a smoker for several years. He NEVER smoked in the house. He NEVER smoked in the car. He’s lived in NYC, LA, Martha’s Vineyard, Florida and he’s been a blackjack dealer at Ameristar. Even as a smoker, he was MISERABLE in that environment. He often took his clothes off in the garage they were so bad. If your clothes are absorbing that crap, what’s it doing to your lungs? Anything he touched had stains on it. The white phone was yellow, the keys on the keyboard, his pillow was gross. The door he used to use to go outside to smoke was gray around the handle and had to be scrubbed often.
You both treat smoking like it’s a pleasure that you have a “Right” to. I’m sorry, it’s very selfish. Clean Air Ordinances don’t take way your right to smoke. If you’re both all about level playing fields when it comes to exemptions on a ban, I’m right there with you. How can you not see that telling us to “go elsewhere” when it’s a verified health hazard is clearly tilting the scales in your direction. It’s not level NOW. Think about someone else besides the smoking patrons and look at it from the clear side.
Tony –
As for your argument about 1 in 10,000 get lung cancer. Thataboy for cherry picking a fact if indeed it is one. How about the effect on the heart, asthma patients, the eyes, etc. etc. etc. How is that statistic calculated? Lung cancer only from second hand smoke? How about my 54-year old brother, waiting for a lung in Atlanta, he has pulmonary fibrosis which comes from foreign particles getting into the lungs and then the lungs gunking up (for the lack of a better word) around those particles eventually prohibiting the lungs from drawing in air and functioning correctly. He can’t walk without oxygen now. My brother DIDN’T SMOKE! They don’t know the cause of his fibrosis and they don’t have a cure…only a lung transplant will prolong his life.
You both are very cavalier about the health risks. And Tony, you in particular, are trying to compare this risk – generated by one party affecting another to risks while shaving? Give me a break. Illogical.
“As for the filtration system – hasn’t it been proven that they don’t remove the carcinogens in the air effectively?”
No, the best ones get everything. They keep all the components of smoke from building up in a venue. But no, if someone blows smoke on you, they don’t stop that.
A cancer epidemiologist wrote to both the St. Louis Board of Alderman and St. Louis County Council saying that air filtration could be responsibly be considered as an alternative to a smoking ban.
http://keepstlouisfree.blogspot.com/2009/10/cancer-epidemiologist-writes-to-st.html
Jane
Sorry about your brother, but are you really implying that second hand smoke is the cause?
That is not a cherry picked number, but an illustration of how statistics are used to scare people. Its a simple trick really, confuse the increased risk for absolute risk. If truly being exposed second smoked meant that 1 in 4 would get cancer then I would be on your side. If you asked a worker if they would rather be unemployed or go from a 1 to 1.25% chance of lung cancer in a lifetime – I’m sure they would easily assume the risk.
On heart attacks – you’ll never believe me but you should read some of Micheal Siegel’s blog. He is a tobacco control expert. He is for bans, but us concerned that the junk science will derail the TC movement. Actually a very interesting read for anybody on either side of this issue. http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/
Nobody is saying smoking is good for you. Matter of fact I’ve talked to my brother who smokes cigarettes till my face was blue to quit. My nephew just started smoking and I won’t allow him to smoke around me (not worried about the smoke, just don’t want him to think that I approve).
I’m not implying anything about my brother except to say that if second hand smoke has been confirmed as a health hazard and preventing it in public places is easy, then why not do it? The cause of my brother’s illness may be asbestos – although he can’t recall ever being around asbestos – any sort of particulate matter in the air – he has worked in manufacturing – in some of those manufacturing areas, the employees smoked. They may never know. Tony, you’ve reduced the issue of increased heart ailments to heart attacks. There are several diseases linked to second hand smoke. And your comment about being unemployed with no risk and employed with some risk, the employee will decide to take the risk” completely contradicts your side’s argument about “you know what you’re getting into” when you take a job where there’s smoking. You made my point! Why should an employee have to take that risk? It’s BS, Tony.
What needs to happen is for you to recognize the lies told by the tobacco industry – there’s far more “junk” science there than you’ll ever find in thousands of medical studies. I suppose the economists should have done those medical studies and then you’d believe them.
Jane
I think you miss the point. The point is that first, everything has a cost including freedom. What tobacco control has done is to inflate the health risk to make it seem that we need to do this (like Fraser saying 500,000 Americans die from SHS exposure which is far more than smoking related disease). Why would they take the risk, the question is why wouldn’t they. SHS is a far less risk than simply working in a restaurant. The act of cooking releases carcinogens into the air. They cook over fire, and heated oil. I’m an insurance agent, I sell workman’s comp and they have assigned a risk to everything. Simply sitting at a desk typing has a risk. If you work in construction – the risk is far higher. People accept those risk willingly in order to earn a living.
I wouldn’t want an economist doing a health study. Thats my point with public health advocates doing economic studies. They are not qualified. You should read some of the health studies, by a long shot they do not all support SHS has a health risk and they are not funded by Big Tobacco. The WHO study is the biggest and best and found no correlation.
Your a politician, you should know that no movement gets this far without funding. The pharmaceutical industry isn’t funding this out of the goodness of their hearts. T
Here is a thought: It seems that Bill and Tony argue the issue on the fundamental that Libertarianism would argue against any sort of regulation. For argument sake, let’s suppose that libertarianism says the less laws, the better off we all are. OK, fine, that’s understood.
With that in mind, I think what we clearly see is that most people in the country, in the midwest, in Missouri, and in St. Louis don’t believe in that political argument, and don’t want to live in a libertarian world. Most people, for better or worse, actually enjoy when the government steps in to change things in our world.
So, regardless of all this back-and-forth they said this, you said that, this study says xyz, this statistic shows, etc, etc, the point is that most people in our community would rather a law be made to protect everyone rather than having some philosophical fundamental embraced in the way their community operates.
I might be alone on this one, but I typically believe most people are rational, and when presented facts and ethical systems, they tend to make a reasonable decision about something specific. I think the vote in the county supports my belief, not because 65% of people supported a smoke-free law, but because the media has flooded information on this issue for the past 2 years, and that at some point along the way, most of those people would have heard the arguments, and made an informed choice. Television, newspapers, and yes, even those in the pubs have discussed this issue for years now. The E-911 tax wasn’t in the media for 2 years, and probably didn’t need to be. But, the smoke-free issue was in the media, and did need to be.
We should all be settled that this passed with a spotlight on it for the past few years, and even then, even with it all the media, the decision was still made by many people that our society ought to do this.
Jason
Your right and wrong on this issue. The people are split over what they want the government to do and not to do. Hence the debate on health care. Half the people want the government to step in and the other half think that the government shouldn’t and couldn’t do it.
As to what will happen with smoking bans – we will see. I think it has in common with two issues, marijauna and ethanol.
Marijauna has been illegal for a very long time. The reasons long since forgotten why it was made illegal in the first place. Some point to the cotton industry scared of competition from hemp. They did pay for the movie Reefer Madness that made pot users out to be violent and rape happy. It was made illegal and has stayed that way for decades. Now there is a movement to decriminalize, medicinal purposes and lastly to legalize and tax it. It is gaining momentum.
Ethanol just a few years ago was going to be our savior. It would wean us off of importing oil. It would produce less greenhouse gases. It would make America energy independent. It had such momentum that companies put billions into making refineries. It had the science to back up their claims. What we eventually found out was that the science was funded by the corn industry. We found out that essentially we had been duped. Not only did ethanol have less energy than gas from oil (you recieved 23% less mileage from it) but the energy it took to make actually made it an overall energy deficit. It also raised food prices since corn is a staple of our food supply. It crashed and we would produce zero ethanol except laws were enacted that forced ethanol to be in our gasoline supply.
The science of second hand smoke has been well reported. The unfortunate side of it has been controlled by tobacco control. There is a lot of credible medical research that shows that second hand smoke is not a real threat. I think what will happen eventually they will step over a line and it will come crashing down. I just don’t know if will be like pot for decades or will it be like ethanol that was short lived.
The election is over and we lost. People against the issue didn’t get out and vote and those for it did. Not much you can do about that. Would it have been different if it had been high turnout vote. I think so, it you look at Kirkwood that solidly beat a smoking ban in 2006 on a high turnout election. It lost this time solidly. This much I know. If the roles had been reversed, Jane, Charlie and Tobacco Control would have spun it that voter rejected it because it didn’t go far enough.
Its law now, but you bet that its not over. They have already started to work on getting rid of the exemptions.
Jason, you are assuming that the media gave an accurate and thorough depiction of the issues surrounding the smoking ban, including the most important data about the extent of the health risk caused by SHS in public places. I wonder what percentage of the voters on Tuesday could give you, at the very least, the EPA’s estimate for the number of people who are diagnosed with lung cancer each year from second hand smoke in public places. The number of people who have read this study or even a summary of it must be even smaller. If you haven’t read the studies, I don’t know how you can claim to be knowledgable on the issue.
While I don’t necessarily agree that every voter would need to know a specific figure from a specific study, I will argue that Bill was probably featured in the media more frequently than anyone supporting smoke-free legislation. And, I definitely recall him mentioning that study. If anything, it could be argued that those against smoke-free laws received more face-time on the media, and therefore the voters were more knowledgeable about why NOT to pass this legislation versus why TO pass the legislation.
I guess I don’t understand the value system being applied here to determine the future of our community.
Our forefathers created an electoral college because they thought the general population wasn’t knowledgeable enough. Yet, I heard many testify in the County Council that it wasn’t right for this to be put to a vote, and I heard many saying in the City Council that it wasn’t right for the council to make the decision.
It seems to me the problem is not whether or not to become a smoke-free community, but whether or not we, as a people, are going to stick to a value and ethic system, or if we are going to continue to use whatever fact or means happens to be available to continue the mindless throwing of propaganda onto the plate of the public.
We have bigger questions to answer. For instance, is it right or wrong for a council to make a decision, or ought they allow the people to make decisions? Some would have problems with voter turnout and complain that not enough people vote for that to be effective, others would complain that council’s are too dumb to make the right decisions. Which is it? What do you believe? Can you stick to that belief system, or is it so flawed that you may change depending on your audience?
I find these questions much more fascinating than the questions and answers in the current debate.
All –
I’m responding because I’m on my lunch hour. Otherwise, I wouldn’t bother. The last question first. In my opinion as an alderman for the last 13 years in Ballwin, our government is a representative form of government. You elect representatives, aldermen or councilmen, to make decisions on your behalf. Along with public opinion, I feel, they use a review process, learn about the subject, and make informed opinions. In this instance, The County Council has tried and failed to make what should be their decision on this important health topic. It’s no different than asbestos laws, food preparation laws, etc. Period. It is not a “rights” issue. In my opinion, again, the idea of putting it before the voter was implemented because there was stalemate on the Council. I can’t speak for Barbara Fraser, but I feel she had the pulse of the public – she knew this was an important health matter – she also knew that some on the council had made up their mind to NEVER pass a clean air ordinance. They used excuses like it’s not clean enough – but didn’t take the time to examine just how clean the bill first offered to them was. It was very similar to the Clayton bill which the Council passed at their level as they should.
When Mr. Hannegan and Tony P. talk about the money the Pro Clean Air Advocates have at their disposal – I’d be curious to know who that is. the County Citizens for Cleaner Air Committee had assistance from BJC – a local healthcare system. Not chantix, not nicoderm, not whatever. The notion that this movement wouldn’t have gotten this far without funding is BS. There was no such funding in the Ballwin matter, I haven’t looked at Clayton’s issue but it didn’t go to a vote so the councilmen made the decision without outside influence. As for the failure of Kirkwood’s first attempt, I can tell you as Charley Gatton has told you, the interview conducted by one opposing business owner – a bakery at that – was not conducted correctly. I have spent the last few years here and in the community, dispelling the rumors spread by the likes of Hannegan and his partners in crime. Hannegan has taken credit for the defeat of Charley Gatton by blasting Charley for his support of clean air. Yes, Charley lost. Would he have had Hannegan not stuck his nose in Ballwin’s business? They came after me, too, and Tim Pogue. My opponent didn’t even know that Manchester Road was a state highway and suggested a “toll” to make revenue for the city. Never went to board meetings, not involved in the community and didn’t spend the time making the effort TO learn.
I’ve gotten windy with my response but in a nutshell, Councilman and Aldermen are elected to represent their districts and wards and to make the tough decisions. They must assemble all views on the issue to the best of their abilities. They must weigh each against the other and they must validate the claims. Perception often rules and that’s a shame. Many perceive that clean air ordinances harm business. I contend that it’s not about the economics and even if it was, I feel that CAO’s help the economy in less tangible ways – overall health of employees – less maintenance costs – etc. If a business owner MARKETS the clean air, the MAJORITY – NON-SMOKERS , will eventually come. It’s also about quality of life which is intangible as well. There is not a price that can be placed on it.
When Ballwin was considering its CAO, I admit I was torn. I was hearing the businesses, I was hearing the public, I was reading the Surgeon General’s report. Unfortunately, only those that perceived their “ox was being gored” showed up to voice that displeasure. Those desiring smokefree air would be more subtle – would stop me in the grocery store and say “Jane, do the right thing and that right thing is to pass this important health measure. Since my yes vote, I have become stronger and stronger (obviously) in my conviction that I did the right thing – the right thing for ALL.
Tony – one additional statement – I don’t SPIN. I call it like I see it and I spend an enormous amount of time studying it before I do so. Rarely do I announce my decision prior to making it. I wait until that vote has been called so that I can absorb every ounce of information regarding same. Too often I hear an elected official say “I’ll never vote YES on that” – or “I’ll veto if…..” as the Wildwood Mayor did. Sad, very sad.
Jason-
Not all libertarians want a full libertarian slate. There are some who prefer a libertarian federal system with a strong regulatory framework at the local and state level.
A lot of it goes to the heart of what the roles of the state, city, or federal government should be. After all, we have layers of governement, and not all those layers are best used in every aspect of governing.
Jane
The money that I speak of is through grants to organizations such as the ACS and the ALA. The ACS through a couple of years ago had been granted over $800 million for smoking bans. That was just from Johnson & Johnson. Phizer has its smoke-free states program and other pharma companies have their own programs. They didn’t spend their money this time – held on to it.
But who do you think funded Smoke-Free St Louis City – it was from the grant money to the ACS. That why they could put up billboards, advertise in bus stops and run commericals. They had been lobbying the board in St Louis City for over two years. They cut the grant off recently.
Here is what I saw at the city hearings. Dozens of business owner pleading their case against the ban. A few citizens asking for them not to put a ban on. Then for the ban were a dozen or so Smoke-Free St Louis people asking for the ban. Most of them just about to graduate college. The people that owned businesses, invested in the community didn’t want it. A couple of college kids saying they couldn’t live here if there wasn’t a ban saying they had to have it. The Alderman were pretty blunt about the casinos. It was just too much money the city would lose to ban it. When they voted to strip the casino exemption it was the aldermen that wanted the ban the most that wanted the casino exemption. One alderman even stated that they could let people keep smoking in bars forever – yet the casino had no such sunset clause.
The only one I respected was Kacie Starr Triplett – at least she stuck to her principles even though I didn’t agree with her position.
Tony –
I wasn’t involved in the City hearings…only the County hearings as I live in the County. Is your answer to my telling you that the county effort wasn’t funded by anyone other than BJC, LTI Trucking, PI, Express Scripts and private donations a diversion to the city issue? Is your answer to the funding facts (or lack thereof) on the Ballwin issue four years ago the city issue? Tony – we’re not talking about all the bans in the entire United States. We weren’t talking about the Board of Aldermen’s decision in the city – or at least, not much. This article was written specifically about the County Prop N vote. Our campaign for Prop N was well underway when we learned of the City’s vote and trigger mechanism tied to the County. To answer my comments with comments about another jurisdiction baffles me. Just shows that you’re really not interested in addressing my input because again, it doesn’t suit your agenda.
P.S. I was one of those unpaid volunteers collecting petitions of support at the Missouri Botanical Gardens on behalf of the City smokefree initiative. I wasn’t paid, Tony. Not for my time, not for my gas from west county, nothing. At another meeting in the City, I provided, at my expense, Ballwin information handouts. I did get a T-shirt! Woo Hoo!
Jane Suozzi: “As for the filtration system – hasn’t it been proven that they don’t remove the carcinogens in the air effectively?â€
You are putting business owners across St. Louis County through all this grief and you are asking me at this point? Don’t you do your homework?
Bill –
I was looking for you to admit that Herbie’s filtration system has been proven to be ineffective. You’re in denial. I don’t consider filtration systems to be an efficient or effective solution. There’s cost involved – no cost to step outside. In Martha’s Vineyard, they first tried smokefree legislation by allowing certain businesses to create separate smoking rooms, etc. The state then passed a statewide ban nullifying those rules. I can’t speak to the specifics, my boyfriend lived there (he’s a smoker) and he said that the businesses were pretty P.O.’d that they had gone to the expense to have the rules changed later.
Your filtratration systems require maintenance. You’ve already said…finally…that they cannot eliminate smoke blown in someone’s direction…DUH! Allowing filtration systems opens up a HUGE enforcement issue. Totally impractical. I feel, as many others do, that these exemptions are impractical, too. JUST STEP OUTSIDE ! VERY SIMPLE SOLUTION!
And, gee, Bill. You really did wake up on the wrong side this morning. Go outside and get some fresh air. Maybe it’ll make you see clearer (and be a little nicer, too).
Who were the seven Ald. that voted against Board Bill no. 46? I know Ortman was leading the charge…but who were the other six? Anyone know?
I for one am extremely happy to see that the the city will go smoke free. The only things that could have made me happier were 1) if those changes were to have become effective in January 2010, and 2) if bars were not given a five-year transition period. This break for bars was a bullshit concession.
Second hand smoke is a danger. People clearly have a right to smoke but they should be prohibited from doing it in public spaces. It’s really not rocket science folks. And even if it were, I think some of the above commentary suggests that we would be seriously in need of a different brain trust to flesh out the issues.
You go Jane! You go! If I was scoring at home, I'd say you just won by TKO.
That was a real long read but was some excellent dialogue on the subject. Thanks to Tony, Bill, Jane and Steve. That being said, I couldn't be happier that this passed. Glad to see that MO has finally caught up with the rest of the world.
I do disagree with those who think the majority of the population is intelligent enough to make sound decisions–a large majority of these people think the earth was made in 7 days by a space god with the ability to hear over 6 billion conversations at once–so smart is not an adjective I'd use to describe most people. I think the smart ones are the minority. And more than anything, I think most people want to be lead. It's easier for them that way. Original thoughts require work.
The general public and government need more public servants like Jane and less of those like <fill in your favorite>.