Let the FUD Campaign Begin
Voters in St. Louis County will have a smoke-free measure on their November ballot. Those addicted to nicotine to campaign against the measure.
The measure does have flaws — exemption of casino floors and bars that serve little food. A state-wide smoke-free measure, more likely once we
The rhetoric will be high, pure FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt).
From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:
Bill Hannegan, who fought the county bill, said he thought opponents would have a real chance of defeating it at the polls.
People are angry about “the way it was handled and the unfairness of the law,” he said.
“For example, bowling alleys are out of luck. You can smoke on a casino gaming floor but can’t smoke at all in a bowling alley. Bowlers will be angry about this.”
This bowler will be pleased. What Hannegan should have said is the nicotine-addicted bowler will be angry.
Next month the St. Louis Board of Aldermen will resume consideration of a bill that would create a smoke-free St. Louis, triggered by a measure in St. Louis County. Hopefully the existence of the ballot item in the county will help the city measure pass. In turn, I hope a passed city ordinance would motivate county voters to pass their measure. If anything the fragmentation in our region may stretch the opposition forces thinly. Now is the time for officials in St. Charles County and Jefferson County to push their own measures.
The poll this week, in the upper right sidebar, asks both if you support or oppose the St. Louis County ballot measure and if you think it will pass or fail.
If passed St. Louis County would go smoke-free in January 2011.
– Steve Patterson
Steve
Why is it when somebody opposes a smoking ban they are addicted to nicotine? I know a great many people who don’t smoke that oppose any smoking ban. Most people still believe that any law diminishes the rights of property owners and patrons to choose. Your right about the fear aspect. Pro-ban groups have pushed fear in order to secure bans. I’m sure before this is all over, we’ll hear that a computer estimated that thousands of St Louisians will die if we don’t have a ban.
City aldermen know that Lyda Krewson’s smoking ban will hurt City establishments far worse that Barbara Fraser’s will hurt those in the County. Economist Dr. Chad Cotti predicts that Lyda’s smoking ban will cut 19.7 percent of bar jobs in St. Louis City. Economist Dr. Michael Marlow predicts that up to 53 percent of City restaurants and 83 percent of City bars will suffer revenue losses due to Lyda’s ban. Plus bar owners are warning of the noise complaints a smoking ban will bring since City bars are embedded in neighborhoods, not strip malls. Look for the smoking ban to continue to stall in St. Louis City.
The cancer epidemiologist who conducted the largest, longest-running and highest- quality secondhand smoke study ever done has written to St. Louis City aldermen advising that air filtration could responsibly be considered as a way of addressing the possible health risks of secondhand smoke in City venues.
http://keepstlouisfree.blogspot.com/2009/08/cancer-epidemiologist-writes-to-st.html
The people who own bowling alleys are not pleased!
http://bowlinghood.blogspot.com/2009/08/bowling-proprietors-protesting-st-louis.html
Steve
I smoke cigars – it is nearly impossible to get addicted to cigars. You have about the same chance as becoming an alcoholic from a drink or two a day. Of course I may be delusional.
Actually over the decades – a majority of research has shown that second smoke is not a health hazard. I think the total of a recent review that I read was for 60 studies – 51 showed no correlaton, 1 showed a negative correlation and 8 showed a positive correlation. Organizations such The American Cancer Society and American Lung Association have been funded by the pharmaceutical industry to push bans. It increases their market for nicotine replacement products. The city ban would make it illegal to use e-cigarettes that give off nothing more than water vapor. The reason why – they are a direct competitor to nicotine replacement products. When the ACS and the ALA get up and tell you how bad it is….remember they are getting paid to do it.
I also realize that many people simply don’t like it. The market is doing a wonderful job seeking your business.
The people that are against it includes far more than those that smoke. They do it for far more reasons than they are addicted. We can do each other a favor. You don’t call me an addict or a big tobacco lackey and I won’t call you an whiny little ……..
The anti-smoking ban crowd like Bill and Tony always say the same thing to non-smokers: go to a non-smoking bar. I have, and so have most of my friends. Meanwhile, a family friend who runs one of the smokiest, nastiest bars in the city openly wonders why his business is down so much in the last year–seriously, it’s empty on the weekends when I do stop by. Be careful what you ask for.
I voted “no opinion” because I don’t care. If a place is too smokey for me, I leave. They don’t get my patronage and I don’t breath their air. Seems like a fair exchange to me.
If you’re going to ban smoking at some establishments for whatever reason, presumably to protect public health, why not ban it altogether for the same reason?
Why do people feel it is okay for the government (local or otherwise) to tell BUSINESS OWNERS what they can and cannot do in THEIR BUSINESS?
I am a non-smoker who is quite bothered by smoke, but it is not my job, duty, or right to tell people who have sunk thousands of dollars in to a business that they work like hell to maintain that they can’t allow people to smoke in said business.
Then again, I voted for McCain. A lot of us stupid conservatives (I’m sure several liberals do, too) believe people should be able to do what they want with their business…and choose whether or not to offer health care, etc.
Oh, and of course, the people who are for the smoking ban are doing it for selfish reasons. Plain and simple, no justification or reasoning for it – it is selfishness at its best. “I don’t like to smell/smell like cigarette smoke, therefore no one should be allowed to allow it in their place of business.”
Ridiculous and embarrassing.
As to bowling alleys – I’m not a bowler, but a few months ago during one of the radio interviews somebody called in about one in South County that went smoke-free. Frankly I have no idea about gay bars that are smoke-free. I agree that in the classic bar market is probably still under served for non-smoking customers. They like restaurants will catch up. Quite frankly, if bars are your concern. You may not want a smoke-free bill to pass. I would be very surprised if the city bans smoking in bars when the county clearly won’t even if the bill is voted in. Bars will become the only market for smokers. It would be a good bet that some of smoke-free ones now will switch to accommodate the market.
Joe
That nasty smoky bar that nobody goes to can easily go smoke-free if they wish. If that is indeed their problem, than they should make the switch. We are not against bars and restaurants going smoke-free – quite the opposite. We are just against a law that forces everyone to do it.
Steve
Question – when you walk into a restaurant – do you know if they are using the correct temperatures to store and cook food? Do you know if they are using firesafe construction or that the fire extinguishers are fully charged?
Can you tell if they allow smoking or not?
Curious to your answers!
Steve
So you are saying that you can spot if a restaurant or bar allows smoking. However you didn’t answer the other question. Could you know if a restaurant was using correct temperature to cook and store food? Do you know fireproof carpet from regular carpet? You can’t theorize that it done correctly because restaurants get cited all the time for many indiscretions.
Steve, your response;
[slp — yeah! and I hate those laws that tell business owners they can’t chain exit doors or the materials they use in their interior can’t go up in flames too quickly or produce too much smoke. Let the owner and market decide if people want to patronize or work in a firetrap. Damn government intervention!]
Obviously condescending and to be taken lightly, but this is a bit ridiculous, isn’t it? Obviously these laws are in the name of public safety – so in an EMERGENCY (like a fire), people can get out without, ya know, dying. Sitting in a smoky restaurant is your choice.
“slp — the point is public safety trumps individual freedom”
If this was a true statement – then pools should all be closed. People drown in those things. There serve no purpose other than recreational use. They add nothing to a productive society. Amusement parks should close – ditto the problems. Might as well close down the ballpark – foul balls injure people all the time. While we at it – close down all organized sports. The risk of injury to the participants is statisticaly relevent (beside we all have to pay for their injuries with increases healthcare premiums).
You still haven’t answered my question: Can you spot a restaurant that stores and prepares its food at incorrect temperatures? Its an easy question – requires little more than a yes or no.
Bully for you that you “cross off” and give “bad marks” to places that allow smoking. Its what your supposed to do – give your money to places that cater to you.
I am rather undecided about the ban myself, but I do feel a bit skeptical about it. This sort of regulation seems a bit intrusive for my taste, the sort of feel-good but pushy idea that turns people off liberalism. It doesn’t help that the city is struggling economically as it stands. I kind of wonder whether such an ordinance might prove the last straw.
I do not smoke. I hate cigarette smoke actually, I find it gross and an annoyance.
I however am not worried about the effects of second hand smoke to my health… if anything maybe the smell of my clothing. However, even if I was I would simply not go to these establishments they way you do.
That said, I find the stripping of owners rights sad. Where does that end? If should be able to do what I want to do on my own property. As long as people know upfront that a place allows smoking they can choose for themselves to go or not.
Side note Steve, your giving a place a bad review for allowing smoking seems a little silly. I know for a fact that some of the places that you have given a bad review on urbanspoon for allowing smoking are totally and completely smoke free in that section. This coming from a person who has a very sensitive nose for it. I think you do it just to make waves and push a smoking ban.
This leads me into my next thought. Why does it always have to be an all or nothing plan of attack when it comes to cleaning up the air? What is wrong with placing more stringent limits on how smoke is dealt with first?
You don’t tell people they cannot have stairs in a building because people fall down stairs. You tell them you can have stairs, but you have to put up a railing and it has to be ‘this’ tall and blah blah blah.
The issue to me is property rights and not letting the market decide the issue. A vote can be swung any which way you want, but the real test is who is spending their dollars where and why. The Royale does plenty of business. Others will follow suite and it will be a natural progression, not a heavy handed government intervention brought on by fear and annoyance.
Garrett, couldn’t have said it better myself.
Excellent post Garret – love the stairway analogy. If you don’t mind I’ll use it sometime.
I can answer your question – Anti-tobacco has tried and for the most part been successful at putting out the message the air filtration doesn’t work. It was deemed a suitable solution to smoke and nothing short of a ban will do. The argument is that it doesn’t get everything – which is actually quite true. It gets rid of 99.97 (hepa standard). If they agreed that filtration worked, then bans would not exist and smoking wouldn’t be regulated to second class citizen status.
This is an all or nothing issue because it has to be. If there was a compromise other than an all out ban – they wouldn’t have the funding they need to push bans.
Steve – I guess you are not going to answer my question. I’ll try one more time – Can you tell if a restaurant is storing and cooking food at the correct temperatures when you walk in?
So then there is a difference – the health department monitors hidden risk. Those risk that any reasonable person wouldn’t and couldn’t know of in advance. Thanks for setting that straight.
this is still a debate?
nearly every major city outside of the south has gone smokefree.
i’m a former smoker but even as a smoker I loved going to smokefree cities (which is, again, nearly all of them at this point) — I smokes less because I had to step outside, my nonsmoking friends weren’t bothered, none of us went home totally reeking of cigarettes, etc
i lived in Ireland when it went smokefree, I lived in Ohio when it went smokefree, both times smokers thought it would be a huge deal (including myself in Ireland) – both times everyone adjusted in about a week, grumbled for about 2, then it became a non-issue, and most of us grew to appreciate it.