Vote Yes on Prop N
This Tuesday voters in St. Louis County will determine how soon much of the Missouri side of the region goes smoke-free. Well, mostly smoke-free.
If passed, Prop N would prohibit smoking in enclosed public spaces, including bars, restaurants, concert venues and indoor and outdoor sports facilities. It would also ban smoking on sidewalks and other outdoor spaces within 15 feet of an entrance to a public building.
The ordinance would exempt casino gaming floors; cigar and tobacco stores; hotel and long-term care rooms that have been designated for smokers; designated smoking areas of Lambert St. Louis International Airport; and bars that receive 25 percent or less of their gross sales from food. (Source: West End Word)
I think many on both sides of the issue can agree the county and the city’s bill have too many exemptions and the wider a smoke-free policy is the less disadvantage any business may be. That is where agreement ends.
Despite the flaws I hope that voters in St. Louis County support Prop N so our region takes another step closer to being totally smoke-free in establishments open to the public.  The pro-smoking groups will tell you the smoking rate in St. Louis is higher than in other parts of the country. That is about all I’ll believe from them. The fact is many places want to go smoke free but are afraid to do so on their own. They need the law to make it so competing restaurants in their immediate vicinity are also smoke-free.
Secondhand smoke is a public health threat, just like unsanitary restaurant kitchens or unsafe stores.
For workers who spend their days and nights in smoke-filled bars and restaurants, the danger is magnified.They include many young people working at their first jobs. Often, those workers aren’t offered health insurance and aren’t in an economic position to quit.
People shouldn’t be forced to risk their health just to earn a living. (Source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch Editorial)
I agree, this is about the health of our community. To me this is an important step in the right direction.
– Steve Patterson
“The fact is many places want to go smoke free but are afraid to do so on their own. They need the law to make it so competing restaurants in their immediate vicinity are also smoke-free.”
How do you figure many want to but are scared. That is simply FUD from the pro-ban side. In St Louis County 60% of restaurants are smoke-free. The ones that do allow smoking usually limit it to the bar area. Doesn’t seem like they are scared to go smoke-free to me.
The exemptions are just a front to get the ban passed in the first place. Next year, the ban lobbyists will return as the “coalition for smoke free _____” Once these lobbyists find gullible lawmakers and get a foot in the door, there’s no stopping them. The Colorado “coalition for smoke free casinos” is traveling nationwide.
Steve if that was the case then over half of all restaurants wouldn’t be smoke-free to begin with. There is a market for both smoking allowed and smoke-free. As you happily point out there are more non-smokers than smokers. The market hasn’t ignored this simple truth. Twenty years ago – you could smoke in any restaurant in any dining area. Now, over half don’t allow it all and the rest that do restrict it to the bar area. Very few allow it in the dining areas.
Why would you know how to run a restaurant better than the owner. I have a business degree, years of management experience, run my own business and I am not qualified to tell them how to do it.
Steve, thank you for your observations. Yes, like you I’ve had restaurant owners tell me they’d like to go smoke free. Chris Sommers, owner of PI pizza restaurant, has shared some stories with me as well. But the core to this is that second hand smoke is bad for you – even Bill Hannegan admits that.
I’ve had a number of people tell me that Proposition N is flawed because it has exemptions. Those exemptions were a political necessity to get 4 votes on County Council. Nothing prevents communities in St. Louis County from enacting stricter ordinances on their own – for example, Kirkwood’s Proposition 1 contains several stricter elements.
You have published a study on your blog that shows solid evidence that business does not suffer when a smoke-free ordinance is enacted. The only businesses that can demonstrate harm seem to be the tobacco-related businesses – tobacco farmers, tobacco companies, and tobacco retailers. While I have empathy for anyone economically damaged, the fact is, they chose to be in a business where their product, when used as directed, results in the death of their customer. If that is the choice of the customer, so be it. But it is NOT the choice of nearby people to be poisoned, and it need not happen any longer. Vote YES on Proposition N.
I’m not sure what you consider “so many” asking for a smoking ban. Quite frankly I’ve talked to dozens of restaurant and bar owners about these bans. Out of those only one said they were for the ban. I talked to several that already ban smoking and they are against the ban. They feel its their business and their choice.
I’m not going to speak for Joe Edwards – but from what he has said in the past he is in the camp that thinks its going to happen sooner or later. I think his concern is that his businesses are split between the city and county. He doesn’t want a ban in one and not the other. I’m not sure how he feels about what could happen with the differences in ordinances between the city and county.
As to the “solid” study that you put up several months ago about Ballwin. It wasn’t a study, but a graph of revenue in Ballwin that clearly showed hospitality revenue dropped sharply after they put in their ban.
Of all the studies done on economic impact of smoking bans I have never read one that didn’t show harm done to business done by an economist. The only exception is family restaurants are typically not harmed.
Steve – I think that thought went a little over the deep end! Just what is a pro-smoking advocate? Just how do they target a business? Is that why they showed up by the dozens at the city hearings – they didn’t want to be in the debate.
What happened in Ballwin – well you can listen to Harry Beli who happens to know a thing or two on how to run a successful restaurant tell you want happened. He was even willing to go on KMOX against the ban.
http://keepstlouisfree.blogspot.com/
Well Steve, you should be careful with that business owner, we might target him 🙂
You know we have that power.
So your suggesting that we should erode our freedoms, strip away property rights because you know one business owner who is scared to go smoke-free. Makes sense to me. While we are at it, lets close all the pools because I know someone who can’t swim.
After nearly two years, the hoopla and fanfare in Chicago are fading into forgotten history. The many small “mom and pop, shot and beer” neighborhood bars ignoring the Illinois ban have had no complaints. The only complaints are from neighbors of the bars that comply. Back when the ban first started, nearly every bar in the state was warned about “anonymous” complaints. The local police are more concerned about the city ordinace prohibting patrons from loitering in front of bars, a practice that was common when neighborhoods were undergoing racial changes.
Tony P. –
“Hospitality revenue dropped sharply after” is BS. You obviously don’t know how to read the data or you’re not looking at it correctly. First, what is your definition of “hospitality?” Ballwin doesn’t have any hotels or motels so that leaves restaurants and bars. The numbers CLEARLY show that Ballwin has been on a minimal but steady decline WAY before the CAO went into effect. Manchester, on the other hand, saw an 8% drop where Ballwin was 4.4%, I believe…similar to prior years without the CAO.
As for Harry Belli. With all due respect to Mr. Belli, he’s clueless about what’s happening in Ballwin. Charley Gatton and I both have heard him state in public meetings that the move of CitiCorp killed his lunch business and the plethora of restaurants in Chesterfield Valley was killing him, too. The only fact I didn’t hear him discuss was the reconstruction of Clayton Road by MoDOT. Why don’t you ask him how many restaurants have been in that location?
Mr. P. – I’ve seen actual numbers for individual restaurants and bars in Ballwin over time. The MAJORITY of them are doing BETTER and the others are holding their own. Restaurants or Bars, like Fricks, who would have failed on their own are still going to fail. The Clean Air Ordinance has nothing to do with it. Frankly, I’m tired of both you and Mr. Hannegan regurgitating the same old stuff while completely ignoring the POSITIVE economic activity amongst our businesses SINCE the CAO.
Steve P. – Thank you for your support of Prop N. I wanted it perfect, too, but I agree with Charley. If a municipality feels that one class of business is being discriminated by another class in this ordinance, WRITE A BETTER ONE AND QUIT WHINING!
Tony P –
One other thought. You say the report printed here some months ago wasn’t a “study”. No, Mr. P., it was information compiled directly from sales tax revenues. Having done many sales tax reports in my past work experience, these reports are produced by the business and submitted to the state. The report printed here is far more valuable for two BIG reasons. It’s local and it’s based on actual sales tax receipts – not predicted by some ‘placed on a pedestal by Bill Hannegan and Tony P.’ economist. I think it would be in your best interest to stop challenging me on knowledge about Ballwin.
Jane
If you want to go by the chart thats okay by me. Actually that chart showed a steep drop off after the ban. Now is it all the ban that caused the all of the drop, probably not. A study done by an economist would factor in as many variables as possible. Which economist “did we put up on a pedestal”?
By the way, I don’t claim to know your city. It was Steve that promoted the graph several months ago. It is funny that your bashing me for “thinking I know more about your city than you do”. You people think you know how to run a restaurant better than the owners do.
Tony P. –
Again, you’re reading something entirely different than I am because I see NO steep drop off anywhere on any of the Ballwin charts from the June story. I’ve also got access to more specific numbers which show an overall increase of 8.42% in restaurant/bar sales – no fast food included – just sit down restaurants w/bars and bars. As you’ve heard Brian at French Quarter tell you, they’re up substantially in one year. So you can point out that they had to reinvent themselves but they did it and it’s paid off and it was relatively simple. You need to remember too that we held off the full enforcement of our CAO one year for bars…Harry’s West, too. He’ll tell you that his restaurant was already smokefree. There was only smoking in a separate bar…much smaller area than his dining area. Harry’s West was on a downward slide prior to the CAO going into effect for him. I’m not telling anyone how to run their business…far from it. I’m just giving you the cold, hard facts. Our CAO is a convenient scape goat for the decline in his business. He himself cited two other reasons and I’ve given you yet a third for the decline. That’s not telling him how to run his business.
As for the “economists on a pedestal” comment. I was not referring to a specific economist but according to you two, only economists know what they’re talking about and only certain economists. You dismiss ANY study done by public health organizations, etc. Numbers are numbers, Tony. Frankly, as I’ve stated earlier, predictions by economists in my mind aren’t as good as actual sales figures. We can go back and forth on this. You continue to regurgitate Harry’s West and to some extend, Seventh Inn and both restaurants have been closed for some time. Harry’s West closed May 2007 and The Seventh Inn burned down suspiciously in November 2006. Three years ago. The majority of existing restaurants at the time of the CAO have done better…10 out of 13 had increases in sales.
Jane
All due respect, but numbers are not numbers. Simple addition and subtraction does not give you an accurate picture. That why I said that just because hospitality sales declined right after you ban was enacted does not necessarily mean its the ban. There could be other factors at work. When Harry Beli tells me the smoking ban was that killed his restaurant I believe him. For one, why would he lie about it. He is a successful restaurateur and a non-smoker. He doesn’t strike me as the type that can’t take responsibility for his actions. If he was, then he wouldn’t be as successful as he is now. If it wasn’t the ban, he wouldn’t wanting to stop the the current one.
Your a public servant elected to do a job. Now I’m not sure what I would listen to if I’m looking at economic impact, an assistant professor at a nursing school or a trained economist. Surely you wouldn’t want a economist giving you medical advice. I’ve read far too many “peer reviewed” economic reports done by health care people. This is the only issue that for some reason health care people have suddenly become economist.
Economist tell us that smoking bans on average hurt business. Now that doesn’t mean all business. A family restaurant is probably not going to be affected. One that serves alchohol is going to be affected somewhat and a bar even more.
Last weekend, my wife and I went to Lorusso’s. They have a smoke-free dining area and allow smoking in the bar. The bar is sealed off from the rest of the restaurant. We had our dinner and after ward went to the bar. I enjoyed a cigar and we had a couple drinks. There were several people doing the same thing. If this ban passes, next year he won’t have that business. We would still go to eat, just not stay after dinner. I’m just not sure why you don’t think he will lose revenue. This sounds like the same set up as Harry’s West. If it is what the Fed reports, they will lose about 6.5% of revenue. He might be able to make the cuts needed to survive or he might not.
Tony –
You and I will not agree on this issue. To say that predictions are better than actual sales numbers is ridiculous. Again, out of 13 restaurants, 10 had increases in actual revenue from .41% to 63.91% with an overall increase between FY 2006 and FY 2007 of 8.42%. 8.42% Tony. Sit-down restaurants and bars, Tony. A pizza place went down 1.24% and the other two restaurants were lunch only places – pretty darn tough and they were…to my knowledge…non smoking to begin with. They have a limited demographic that they appeal to.
Further, we’ve attracted new restaurants. You can believe Harry all you want to. But just as you say my numbers don’t mean it’s because of the ban although I disagree, neither do Harry’s claims. It would be impossible for him to discern that. You’ve chosen to completely ignore the move of a large corporation, CitiCorp, out of the area, the explosion of restaurants similar to Harry’s in the Valley, and the reconstruction of Clayton Road. Mix that all with a lousy location and it was destined to suffer eventually.
I’ve deducted that Harry doesn’t own Maggie O’Brien’s anymore. Why?
You also neglected to defend your “steep decline” comment. That’s what drives me crazy about you and Bill. You dissect information and mold it to your argument. You state things that aren’t true so they get media attention. I’m just requesting that when you talk about Ballwin, a disgruntled restaurant owner certainly serves your cause but it is not the authority on our city and its experiences with a very positive public health decision. You ignore the truth because you can’t handle it.
Thanks.
Tony –
Oh, missed a point you made. What’s this about an “assistant professor at a nursing school”? That’s not where the numbers here on this site came from nor the numbers I have in front of me, Tony. I have numbers showing historical sales tax figures for Ballwin restaurants between 2004 and 2007. I believe I might have 2007-2008 I just have to locate it. No nurse was involved in either of these factual (not predictions) factual reports.
Amazing…and I thought only political pundits spun like you do.
As a pipe smoker, I’m voting no. Where can I meet with friends who enjoy a smoke and a beer? There are too many restrictions on smoker as it is. If passed, I will not spend any money in St. Louis County, if I can help it.
Jane
The assistant professor of nursing comment is not aimed at Ballwin. Its aimed at nearly all of the economic data showing bans do not hurt business. If you look at the authors of these “economic studies” that ban proponents push they are not done by economist to be published in economic journals. The graph in Ballwin is just that, a graph of economic data. A true economic study would factor out all the variables (such as the loss of business to Chesterfield Valley, inflation etc). Although its hard to ignore the decline in revenue right after the ban was put in place.
However, I’ve always said this: There is a market for smoking and non-smoking venues be it a bar, restaurant or hybrid. Saturday night, we went to Larusso’s, had dinner (all of his dining area is non-smoking). After we retired to the bar, had a couple of drinks and I enjoyed a cigar as did a great many other patrons(the bar is area is sealed off and separately ventilated). If this silly law passes, I will no longer be able to do that and he will lose a chunk of his revenue. Larusso’s serves a niche. I have always stated that I don’t believe that its a bad decision to go non-smoking. We just don’t need a law forcing all to be the same. Its the right of the business owner to choose. Its the right of the employee to work there and the right of the patron to spend their money there.
Harry Beli sold Maggies, don’t know why and quite frankly I don’t care. It has been there for decades as Harry’s has been on Market. Restaurant business is a tough business to be in. If he wasn’t a solid businessman he wouldn’t have one much less two successful restaurants that thrived for decades. He is a non-smoker and his protest is that it will hurt business. He has stated that other factors were involved, but the smoking ban is the biggest and is what caused it to be unprofitable.
Tony –
With all due respect, your idolization of economists baffles me. How many economists have been involved in the economic crisis we’re currently in? For me, I’ll trust the doctors AND public health people. The stats I’ve referred to are exactly that. Statistics and again, statistics are real numbers and can be relied on to dispute the often-repeated rumor that Ballwin has been hurt by the ban.
Now your term “steep” has turned into “decline right after”. Again I ask, steep? Smaller “hill” than others before and after the CAO. Ever think about what time of year the CAO went into effect? January 2? I know I don’t go out (except for work) when it’s freezing outside nor after the holidays! I’m broke! That same blip can be seen every January. As I said as well, 10 of 13 restaurants/bars are up. Some substantially. Two of the 3 that did not go up are both lunch-only venues.
The biggest problem I have with Harry is his broad brush prediction about Ballwin without knowing Ballwin first hand. I’m a stickler for telling the WHOLE story which has not been told because it doesn’t fit the sound bite you’re looking for. The Clayton City Council obviously wasn’t impacted by Harry’s story and they have many, many successful restaurants. How about Joe Edwards? Successful? Very. Chris at PI? As well. And Harry’s West closed in May of 2007 – Over two years ago. Forever in the restaurant business. It’s old news.
Whatever the outcome today – I wish you well personally. If you keep hanging around in smokey bars, you might need it. Take care.
Oddly enough, Joe Edwards allows smoking – why doesn’t he ban smoking? He could make the decision today if he liked.
Why do I rely on economic data from economist. Well, I can cite several studies done by economist that have been published in economic journals. They can’t introduce bias into the equation and have it published. For the most part they agree from studying the effects of smoking bans. Depending on the type of business there are varying degrees of impact. A family restaurant probably isn’t affected at all. A restaurant that serves alcohol is impacted. Bars are hit harder and casinos get hit the hardest.
It’s interesting that this debate revolves around the economic impact of smoke-free air and is also limited primarily to the impact on businesses and sales tax revenues. There is absolutely no consideration of the adverse impact on the country’s economy due to the sickness and death caused by secondhand smoke. And there IS a cost, a substantial cost that we all bear.
But it’s the wrong argument to make. This is a clear-cut health and welfare issue, with people dying from involuntary secondhand smoke exposure, just like smokers die, but in lower numbers, as you’d expect. It’s an easy problem to deal with as well, without the need for any kind of questionable technology “solution” that is being offered to sidetrack the solution of simply passing a comprehensive smoke-free air law that takes the pollutant out of the environment but doesn’t prevent access by anyone.
I don’t see it as any different to drinking and driving laws which are also not designed to prevent people from using the public roads but to prevent users from putting others at risk.
I can immediately anticipate the “private property” crowd jumping in here. The “private property” we’re talking about is privately-OWNED but the owner, by virtue of wishing to invite the public in to conduct business, must then conform to safety and health regulations not imposed on true “private residences.” In fact, this last category is exempted even from Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights latest “100%” Model Ordinance (May, 2009), except if used for daycare etc.
This whole argument against smoke-free air laws was originally started by the tobacco industry which viewed them as a direct threat to profitability by making smoking an undesirable social behavior. It is now continued by both industry surrogates and others who have allowed their judgement to be clouded.
As I’ve said repeatedly, the first U.S. Surgeon General’s Report on secondhand smoke, The Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking, released by Dr. C. Everett Koop in Dec. 1986 (available on-line), with its conclusion that environmental tobacco smoke was a cause of lung cancer in exposed healthy nonsmokers should have been the end of this debate. The fact that it didn’t is a testimony to the power and influence of the tobacco industry and its supporters. And the weakness of government to act on a major public health issue.
Martin Pion, President, Missouri GASP
http://www.mogasp.wordpress.com
We'r ed hardy outlet one of the most profession
of the coolest and latest ed hardy apparel, such as
ed hardy tee ,ed hardy bags,
ed hardy bathing suits, ed hardy shoes,
ed hardy board shorts ， don ed hardyt,ed hardy tank tops, ed hardy for women,
ed hardy swimwearand more,
ed hardy clothing. We offers a wide selection of fashion
cheap ed hardyproducts. Welcome to our shop or just enjoy browsing through our stunning collection available wholesale ed hardy in our shop.
our goal is to delight you with our distinctive collection of mindful ed hardy products while providing value and excellent service. Our goal is 100% customer satisfaction and we offer only 100% satisfacted service and ed hardy products. Please feel free to contact us at any time; we are committed to your 100% customer satisfaction. If you're looking for the best service and best selection, stay right where you are and continue shopping at here is your best online choice for the reasonable prices. So why not buy your ed hardy now, I am sure they we won’t let you down.