St. Louis’ Sidewalks Will Be More Crowded with Smokers Than in NYC?
Smokers are noisy & trashy. So says smoking advocate Bill Hannegan in emails arguing against smoke-free public spaces. Smokers are so bad we are best advised to keep them indoors rather than unleashing, he suggests.
Recent communication to Gary Weigert, President of the St. Louis Police Officers’ Association:
I am writing to warn you about the smoking ban proposed by Alderman Lyda Krewson and currently being considered by the St. Louis Board of Aldermen’s Health and Human Services Committee. Unlike the smoking ban proposed in St. Louis County, the St. Louis City Smoke Free Air Act of 2009 would ban smoking in all work vehicles. This ordinance would require St. Louis City police officers to park and exit their patrol cars in order to smoke. Given the dangers police officers are subject to when patrolling the streets of St. Louis City, this seems like an unreasonable and special restriction the St. Louis Police Officers Association should protest. Again, the proposed St. Louis County smoking ban contains no such restriction.
I’d say a non-smoking employee should not be forced to endure the smoke of a co-worker. Citizens who sit in a police car while filing a complaint should also not be subjected to the smoke of an officer. Our city vehicles should not be damaged by the smoking habit of employees. Besides police vehicles we have ambulances and service vehicles. City inspectors, for example, use city vehicles for official business. If these employees want to smoke in their private homes, fine.  The city has no responsibility to provide a smoking environment for employees that work outside smoke-free buildings.
Hannegan continues:
I also want to warn you that the St. Louis City Smoke Free Air Act of 2009 would continuously place bar patrons on sidewalks outside clubs, taverns and bars until 3:00 am. Since St. Louis City clubs, taverns and bars are often embedded in neighborhoods, the problems with noise complaints due to large numbers of patrons smoking outdoors will be huge.
Here is a link to a short video which documents the problems of noise and litter a smoking ban has brought to New York City. When this video was made, less than 20 percent New York City residents smoked. In contrast, 30 percent of St. Louis City residents currently smoke. The problems with smokers on the streets, especially for neighborhoods with bars embedded in them, will be far worse in St. Louis.
The video was created by a similar group trying to prevent Chicago from going smoke-free. So this video is a few years old since the entire state of Illinois went smoke-free on 2/1/2008. The implication is the streets of St. Louis will dissolve into chaos of noise & litter on par with NYC if we go smoke-free.
But if we look at the numbers we see just how exaggerated the scare tactic really is:
- New York City: 8,363,710 total population x 20%Â = 1,672,742 smokers on 304.8 sq. miles of land = 5,488/smokers per square mile.
- St. Louis: 354,361 total population x 30% = 106,308 smokers on 61.9 sq. miles of land = 1,717/smokers per square mile.
NYC has 320% more smokers per square mile than the City of St. Louis! In no way will we have widespread problems yet the claim is it will be “far worse” in St. Louis than New York. Only if 96% of the St. Louis population smoked would he have a fair comparison. Pure FUD.
Besides, I thought our smokers were all going to stay home to smoke causing every restaurant to go bankrupt? Now they are going to go out but they will clog sidewalks everywhere. Which is it? Neither really, but that is how Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt works.
Wikipedia has some good visuals to help understand the myriad of state laws that exist. The following is color chart used to show the variations:
The map below shows what states have what laws using the color chart above:
The world has not stopped spinning, the sun still rises in the East, alcohol is still consumed. Bars, pool halls and bowling alleys still operate in states shown in white above.   Even better than Missouri clearing the air would be if the United States joined the long list of other countries with varying laws on smoke-free workplaces. Wikipedia:
The Republic of Ireland became the first country in the world to institute an outright ban on smoking in workplaces on 29 March 2004. From that date onwards, under the Public Health (Tobacco) Acts, it has been illegal to smoke in all enclosed workplaces. The ban is strictly enforced and includes bars, restaurants, clubs, offices, public buildings, company cars, trucks, taxis and vans – and within a three meter radius to the entrances of these locations.
As I understand it people still drink in Ireland. People will still drink in St. Louis. St. Louis’ sidewalks will not somehow become more crowded with smokers than in New York City.
– Steve Patterson
Steve, I am not a “smoking advocate” and you know it. I am a property rights advocate who has become a spokesman for the bars and restaurants in St. Louis City and County. I have the full support of the Missouri Restaurant Association and the two local bar owners associations. I have never done anything concerning smokers rights. It is fine with me if every bar and restaurant bans smoking of their own free choice. Please stop smearing me like that.
Steve – For several years I lived half a block from Milos. During open window season I could hear all the activity on the patio. They close the patio at 10pm precisely to keep the neighbors happy. This law will put a lot of people out on the streets smoking and making noise until they close at 1am.
Now that is in a safe neighborhood. I wonder what are your thoughts on the committeeman that was shot just standing outside up north. Do you think its a smart idea just to “step outside” in a bad neighborhood.
I guess you should tell the police that “you may get shot, but at least you won’t die of any SHS related illness”.
Oh and about Ireland – I’ve been there recently and yes people do drink in Ireland. There are still pubs since the smoking ban, but not nearly as many. The town we stayed in had two pubs right down the road. They both closed right after the ban. I loved my trip to Ireland, but the pubs we went to in Larne and Belfast didn’t overwhelm me. The little local pubs simply don’t exist anymore.
“This ordinance would require St. Louis City police officers to park and exit their patrol cars in order to smoke. Given the dangers police officers are subject to when patrolling the streets of St. Louis City, this seems like an unreasonable and special restriction the St. Louis Police Officers Association should protest.”
Bill Hannegan must be smoking something other then cigarettes to come up with this stuff….Why do St. Louis city police officers think they should be allowed to smoke in their cars in the first place. I have lived in 2 countries and 4 cites in the last 12 years and St. Louis is the only one that let police officers (or any other civil servants) smoke in or around automobiles. What a great example these officers are setting for the kids in the communities they patrol. Smoking while driving distracts the driver and puts more lives at risk than getting out of your police car for a hit of tar.
As far as litter and noise goes…..if smokers can’t smoke in a responsible, quiet and litter free manner what the hell is wrong with them? Perhaps we need to ban smoking on streets and sidewalks as well?
Now that the Illinois ban is here, this is what we have. You would think that this neighbor would be elated that the bar across the street complies with the ban.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1nN-mQ01eo
Steve-
In regard to your comment to Ryan’s posting, I have to say that is going too far.
One should be able to smoke within their dwelling, whether it is a duplex, apartment or a loft. If the landlord forbids smoking that is within their rights and not a bad idea. Smoking leaves odors and stains walls. If I were a landlord, I would not want smoking tenants.
But legally banning smoking within someone’s home, with the exception of single family detached homes, is beyond reason in my opinion. The implications on personal freedom, enforcement costs and feasibility are staggering. I don’t even think a ban such as that would stand up in court.
I am still conflicted when it comes to smoking bans, but that suggestion is untenable.
Ryley – why do you care if police smoke in their cars? Do you really think that its a good idea for them to get out of their cars in neighborhoods that people take shots at them.
Oh and here we go again about the example to the “children”. Well then maybe “the children” should see people drinking alcohol or eating fast food. I am a father of two and half year old. We will send him to a diverse school were he can grow up with black, white, Chinese, straight and gay children and parents. I want to show him the world, not put him in a little box. I want to teach him tolerance – something a few people need to learn on this blog.
Oh and Steve, by the way. I don’t smoke cigarettes. But if it makes you feel better to put that label on me go right ahead.
Tony – Why shouldn’t Police (or any civil servant) be allowed to smoke in their cars? It’s dirty, gross, rude, smelly, inconsiderate, dangerous, sets a bad example and is completely unnecessary. Are STL police driving around in some kind of magic all contingency bullet proof cars I’m not aware of that makes things so much safer in side of them?
How far do we need to take tolerance? Things like same sex marriage and religious freedom make for better, stronger communities. On the other hand, smoking in public places is an example of how some people are not intelligent/considerate enough to make decisions in the best interests of that community. Those people need the help of legislation to guide them along.
As far as drinking and fast food go…..with proper education/moderation those things won’t kill you (in fact a little alcohol has been shown to have positive effects). Cigarettes….not so much.
Steve, so much of St. Louis City land is vacant, I am not sure your math is relevant. But what matters is that City bars tend to be embedded tightly populated neighborhoods, proportionally many more bars operate in St. Louis City versus St. Louis County, and a high percentage of City residents smoke. That translates into a lot of noise complaints.
St. Louis City bars are often as worried about losing their liquor licenses due to noise complaints as they are about losing customers due to banning smoking. Like some New York bars, many here would probably ignore the law to avoid the noise complaints. Like New York bars, they want to keep the bar smoke-free and patrons inside using air filtration:
http://nynnews.blogspot.com/2009/03/worlds-loudest-cigarette-six-years-of.html
“There are also growing instances of venues that do not rope off areas out front, or create special sections for them. Some operators have come to the conclusion openly or privately that it is easier and more cost effective to simply break the law. Smoking in clubs reported to be on the rise in New York City, either because enforcement has dropped off, or because the fines are low enough that paying them costs less than complying with the law or getting noise complaints. While this minority of operators might not openly reject the law, they have come to the conclusion that the cost of paying the fine is less than the cost of erecting smoking areas or subjecting their liquor licenses to revocation based on noise complaints from smokers standing outside. Some solutions have worked better than others, but one thing the clubs won’t do is discourage smoking by their clientele since by some operator estimates, smokers account for 40% of patrons.
There is an alternative that protects the health of patrons and operators, keeps noise levels down outside of venues and allows patrons to smoke all at the same time. There are air filtration systems on the market that have been approved by the Department of Health and are currently used by infectious disease wards in hospitals to clean the air. These systems reportedly are the size of a humidifier and one of them can keep 1,250 square feet of interior air cleaner than the air in Central Park, even if 60% of the people are smoking inside. The NYNA proposed that if a venue was primarily a bar, lounge or club and not a restaurant then they could have one filter installed for every 1,250 square feet of interior space and become exempt from the ban.”
Steve, the experience RBar had is a possibility. Smokers and friends stay outside and don’t drink/ nonsmokers stay inside and don’t drink
Um, so Gary Weigert LOST the election to former Mowka supporters in the SLPOA. That’s like old news. And really, want kind of power do you think SLPOA has? I’m sure Sgt. Weigert will find all of this quite bemusing.
No one cares about smoking from an urbanist blog. Write something about the San Luis — or perhaps McKee?
What happened to the anti-McDonald’s/JFlo energy?
Ryley
You are a prime example of intolerance. You can only tolerate what your ok with. You don’t like smoking – so it should hidden from the public. No one should ever have to see someone smoke a cigarette, cigar or pipe. Oddly, this is the same argument that has been pitched to the public for gay marriage. We can’t let children see gay people getting married, they’ll want to be gay too. If you remember, they voted a law in making it illegal (yes I voted against it).
Say what you will – smoking cigarettes, cigars, pipes and hookahs is completely legal. If you don’t like it, then don’t go to restaurants/bars and any business that allows smoking. Its just that simple.
Of course, I don’t like whiny know it all do gooders who just can’t wait to tell me how to live my life. Who just can’t wait to tell me how to raise my child. Who know what is better for me than I do. I’ll tolerate these people because I know I can either engage them or ignore them. Its my choice and I’ll never complain about them.
Someone else questioned if a car was much safer then stepping outside. I let you decided – you can drive a car through North St Louis at night or you can walk. Which do you think is safer?
There are non-smoking bars. Lots of them. And they continue to open at a greater and greater pace. Which is absolutely fantastic.
What I don’t understand is why are people insisting on using the power of the government to ban smoking from every and all public places? There are countless bars in this town, bars in which you may never set foot, where people can smoke and drink in peace. Why are you trying to take that away from them? How would you feel if smokers pushed their legislatures to FORCE all bars and restaurants to allow smoking? You wouldn’t like it, not only because you don’t like smoke, but it would bother you that someone else is trying to force their lifestyle choice down your throat. Seriously, think abou it.
No one suggests that smoking is a good thing. But it is what it is, and it’s legal. Instead of getting the government involved, why not leave it open to the business owner’s discretion? Why not refuse to patronize places that allow smoking? Why not start your own non-smoking bar/restaurant?
I’m not sure what is so hard to understand. Smoking is optional, endangers the lives of the smokers and everyone else, is stinky, dirty and people who smoke generally care much less about their community (evidenced by the they way they use it as an ashtray and garbage dump). Why would we choose to encourage this? Many things that are “legal” have to be regulated and controlled (firearms) because some members of the population fail to realize we are all in this together.
If people want to smoke I can’t stop them but they don’t need to follow me all over the city to do it. In the end the community will make the decision it wants to make via the democratic process. A smoke free community will prevail in the end it just may take STL a bit longer than nearly everywhere else.
The St. Louis City smoking ban pretty much came off an antismoking site on the internet. That is why it is so strict. The County ban was crafted by the Council itself and is much more reasonable. If someone from the SLPOA would contact the Health and Human Services Committee about the police car restriction, I am sure the committee would consider exempting them.
http://www.no-smoke.org/document.php?id=229
Ryley,
You still haven’t addressed any of my concerns. You hate smoking. That’s terrific. A lot of people do, including smokers.
But all you’ve done is illustrated the fact that most anti-smoking activists want to ban smoking simply because it’s “icky.” You’re passing judgment on another’s choice. You’re being, quite frankly, sanctimonious and self-righteous.
Again, why not just patronize non-smoking places. There’s a lot of them out there. Or start your own place. Keep all of those “filthy” smokers far, far away. It would be completely in your rights.
Smokers are already sneered at. I just feel that people should leave them alone. Them, and the bar and restaurant owners who welcome them.
Of course I’m passing judgment on smokers. It’s dirty, rude and dangerous. We can’t just let people run around doing whatever they want just because we live “in the land of the free.” We have to think about how our actions effect others and make decisions collectively for the greater good of all citizens. Should I be allowed to smoke in a playground filled with children just because it’s legal to buy cigarettes? It’s time to put our big-boy pants on people.
Just what exactly are your big-boy pants and whatever they are just leave me out of it.
I’m glad you speak for the collective greater good of us all. Since your speaking for me – just tell me what I need to do. I understand that since we live in the “land of the free” we should do anything that could possibly annoy somebody else. The collective has spoken and if anybody disagrees – well they get to wear the Big-Boy Pants.
Smokers – big boy pants
fast food eaters – big boy pants
gay or bisexual – big boy pants
sex other than procreation – big boy pants (don’t want to be spreadin around those diseases)
Alcohol consumption – big boy pants (one drink may be good, but most people will drink more than one – can’t let that happen)
inappropriate clothing – big boy pants (for simplicity, Ryley gets to decide what is inappropriate).
critical thinking – big boy pants (can’t have people thinking for themselves – thats why we have the collective).
Writing a blog – big boy pants ( it could lead to critical thinking and we have the collective to tell us what to do anyway)
Tony you seem very frustrated. Overreacting to the news that your actions effect others will not get you anywhere.
Again, what’s with the insults? Incivility is far more unattractive and disgusting than cigarettes.
Alack, I don’t know of any non-smoking gay bars or bowling alleys. Guess it’s time you open one.
This is about choice. You’re trying to eliminate it. I’m not really arguing for smoking, but I find the kind of smug and condescending attitudes of some of the anti-smoking advocates here sickening. What’s worse, I’m still not seeing any coherent argument for banning smoking in public bars and restaurants. All I hear is “I don’t like it” or “it’s gross.” Fine, but again, that’s no reason to eliminate the choice for people.
YOU don’t like smoking. Great. Then YOU don’t have to patronize places that permit it. Go to your non-smoking establishments. Again, more and more places are going that way anyway. You’ll get your gay bar and bowling alley soon enough.
Hey Ryley – not frustrated at all. Now it seems that frustration will be a thing of the past. The collective will take care of all my needs.
The “property rights” or “it’s my choice” argument is a bit of a strawman. Unless you are willing to take it to ridiculous extremes, there are plenty of activities that society prohibits on private property because of potential risks. We don’t allow restaurants to let cockroaches and mice live in their kitchens. We don’t allow restaurants to operate live fire shooting ranges next to their patios. It’s legal to own cockroaches and mice and to shoot guns. We just don’t allow these activities in and around restaurants because of the potential health effect on patrons. Of course, you could argue that people will in the long run choose not to go to restaurants with cockroaches and mice and shooting ranges, just like they won’t choose to go to bars with smoking. Why not post the results of a City Health Department inspection on the restaurant door and then let patrons decide on whether to eat there? But, we have decided that the risk to public health outweighs the right to make this choice. The City shuts down the restaurant instead of letting people make their own choice. The question is, then, why should smoking be any different? I’m not saying you can’t make a distinction. But, the line is not as simple as the property line.
Smoking is like peeing. It’s fine in private but doesn’t belong in public.
Steve, a study released earlier this year by researchers from the Rand Corporation, the Congressional Budget Office, the University of Wisconsin, and Stanford University, “CHANGES IN U.S. HOSPITALIZATION AND MORTALITY RATES FOLLOWING SMOKING BANS”, found that smoking bans had no effect on hospitalizaton, heart attack or mortality rates in communities that impose them. The researchers found that heart attack rates naturally fluctuate from year to year. Smoking bans had no influence on the fluctuation!
The studies the WSJ writes about were the result of researchers cherry picking the towns studied so that a dip in the heart attack rate followed a smoking ban. Please check it out, Steve!
http://keepstlouisfree.blogspot.com/2009/09/smoking-bans-make-no-difference.html
Chris, I’m very disappointed to see that you are an anti that is hiding behind the guise of smoking being a ‘basic health hazard’, when the activities you describe are UNSEEN activities that warrant a ban, and are true health hazards. OTOH, smoking is a SEEN activity that one can avoid, and restaurants and bars permitting smoking don’t hide the fact if one can permit it. Countless studies have disproven the allegation about secondhand smoke being dangerous, and a federal court even vacated a 1992 EPA report on SHS.
My home state of Illinois has already been ruined, because of a state smoking ban. I’d hate to see such draconian laws spread to places like Saint Louis, or the state of Missouri for that matter. What’s so wrong with a compromise law that both sides(anti-smoking, and pro-smoking) can live with, such as Saint Louis City Ald. Stephen Gregali’s proposal to restrict smoking in a fair manner:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8648725/BB0031
Wichita, Kansas has a pretty fair smoking ordinance, too:
http://www.wichita.gov/CityOffic…OCI/ Smoking.htm
Allan, I think you missed the point. We could easily make mice in kitchens a “seen” activity by simply posting health inspection reports and not closing restaurants. And, shooting ranges are “seen.” But, socieity long ago decided that simply making some activities “seen” and then letting the marketplace sort out the winners and losers is insufficient. Instead, we prohibit these activities in restaurants. The issue is not just property rights. The issue is public health. You even seem to acknowledge that point in citing second hand smoke studies. That is the argument – whether smokers place the health of non-smokers at risk.
Also reported in the WSJ: While smoking tobacco is known to heighten risk of heart attacks over a lifetime, there is some evidence that even short exposure to second-hand smoke can raise the risk of heart attacks. It can increase blood pressure, cause blood platelets to become sticky and injure cells that line the interior walls of blood vessels.
– –
One physician who has seen first-hand the effects of second-hand smoke on heart attack rates is Richard P. Sargent, a family doctor in Helena. He and some colleagues noticed a sharp drop in heart-attack admissions at the city’s main hospital about three months after a ban against smoking in bars, restaurants and casinos went into effect in June 2002. Then in December of that year, opponents succeeded in getting the ban revoked.
“We performed an ideal experiment,” Dr. Sargent recalls. “We turned [the ban] on, and we watched the heart-attack rate go down. We turned it off and watched it go back up.” The reduction was 40% in absolute terms—102 heart attacks per 100,000 person years after the ban, compared to 170 before the ban. Heart-attack rates rose sharply again after the ban was revoked.
– –
Should the life style choices of a few be allowed to destroy the health of many? “Our current position is to let the market take care of the issue,” says John Singleton, a spokesman for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco.
John
What your referring to is the Helena Miracle. That study like all of the other “heart attack” studies were small sample studies.
Its a very simple premise actually. You want to prove something, you look for the data that will back up your claim. The smaller the amount of data you use, the easier it is to prove your point.
For example – I want to prove that Albert Pujols is a bad baseball player. During a stretch of several games Albert didn’t hit any home runs, struck out several times and hit for a low average. In addition he committed 3 errors fielding his position. Do those numbers prove that he is a bad baseball player – well yes and no. The sample backs up my premise that he is a bad baseball player. You can’t argue with the numbers. He was a well below average player for that stretch of games. Should we trade him to another team based on those numbers? My guess is that everyone would say no. I think everyone realizes those numbers while accurate, are not representative of what kind of player he actually is. If you take the entire season or expand it to his whole career the picture is quite a bit different.
That is the difference between the Helena Study and Rand, Standford and Congressional Budget Office study. The Helena study dealt with something like 26 heart attacks one year and cut back to 22 (very small sample). The Rand study used the entire US to study how bans affected heart attacks. In a small sample, you can be fooled. Also of note – a similar study was done in England that used data for the whole country. It refuted claims of large decreases in heart attacks from a previous study that used only one hospital (and actually dismissed several months of data that would have impaired its results).
Also – Steve you should note that Bill as much as you would like didn’t pay for, didn’t participate or didn’t have anything to do the Rand Stanford CBO study. I’m not sure how his credibility should have anything to do with that study.
Steve, I am not part of any pro-smoking lobby. I am part of the St. Louis bar and restaurant lobby. The vast majority of St. Louis City bars and restaurants are with me and against you on this issue, Steve.
My 79 year old dad that has never smoked a cig in his life is voting against the county ban. It is a property rights issue. Leveling the playing field is not the way to go about this
I have spent Mon-Fri of the last two months in Midtown Manhattan and must say that there aren’t really that many smokers outside bars. In SOHO, the Village or East Side most smokers seem to smoke less than they used to before the ban and immediately afterward. Yes there are still a few people outside but it is much less than detractors lead you to believe.
As far as Ireland, my co-worker who commutes in from Limerick blames the decline on drunk driving laws. Local pubs in small towns have been dying off for years. A lot of pubs now offer free rides but it’s never going to be the same since people take DUI much more seriously. There is no shortage of pubs in large towns in Ireland or Great Britain where driving is unnecessary.
Gee Tony I now get it. I was at a party the other night and not one person died or got sick from cigarette smoke and therefore must conclude that these risks are overstated.
– –
But one fact remains clear and irrefutable, what smokers say when blowing smoke on you and others in public is simply “I have the right to screw up my life and yours too”. That’s not liberty for nonsmokers but it is certainly unacceptable social behavior.
Well John, my guess is that you miss the point entirely. One study uses a small town and the other study uses the entire US to study a trend. Which one do you think is more credible.
By the way if a smoker blows smoke in your face – that is unacceptable. Of course very few people are that rude to actually do that and you could avoid the slight chance that it happens by going to one of the many smoke-free establishments.
Tony and others seem to think ordinances to keep obnoxious habits and forms of commerce restricted are a novel and dangerous intrusion into civil liberties. In Roman times coppersmiths, tanners and others were relegated to unsavory parts of town due to the nuisance that accompanied their trades. Nothing new about restrictive ordinances. There are quite a few examples in English Common Law as well which is the progenitor or our system of laws.
Prostitutes and drugs are prohibited simply because of their supposed deleterious effect on society. The very bars which serve alcohol whose plight we hear so much about are extremely limited in number, location and hours of operation for various rationales. There is little public outcry to demand all night bars in any location an owner chooses to open a storefront. Given that why is legislating a restriction on where people may smoke a dangerous and obnoxious weed such a grave threat to everyone’s rights? You may still smoke where it does not impinge on others.
Get over it. Smoking bothers 3/4 of us and is no in any way beneficial.
3/4? Only 24.5 of City residents favor banning smoking in bars. You are the vocal minority.
Equal – I think you nailed the issue exactly. “Tony and others seem to think ordinances to keep obnoxious habits and forms of commerce restricted are a novel and dangerous intrusion into civil liberties.”
See what you think is obnoxious, some people enjoy. I happen to know a lot of law abiding successful happy people that enjoy a cigar. They would never think of smoking a cigar in a place that didn’t allow it. They would never think of smoking a cigar in a daycare or a school or in the middle of a restaurant. They would go to a place that welcomed them and wanted them to enjoy it. So why do you care if I go to a bar that you would never go to and enjoy a cigar. By doing so it improves my life, the business owner and the people that are employed there. Just because you don’t approve of it doesn’t give you the right to make it illegal.
Yes business does have to abide by a set of rules. A smoking ban crosses the line of public health. My wife when she was 6 months pregnant got food poisoning. She had to be rushed to the hospital. Obviously somebody didn’t follow the health code. We had no way to know that food hadn’t been stored or prepared properly. Yet we could easily avoid a smoking allowed restaurant if we so desired.
Here’s the link for the WSJ, I see why it wasn’t linked by the previous poster. The WSJ warns that the “Studies” may be flawed.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203803904574426921442513660.html
Tony, we do have the right to ban it. That’s the point of my post which you blithely ignored. Remember it’s not only annoying but dangerous to others. I actually do go to bars and I enjoy a couple cigars a month. That is of course a “law-abiding” activity no one is proposing to make illegal. But yes we do have the right to ban what we please in public locations. Any comments to the contrary are plain blather as seen in other states in the Union.
Chris, what is so hard to understand from my initial post? I do realize that issues such as mice in kitchens, and where shooting ranges can be placed need to be regulated. (which were your examples of basic safety regulations) Not to mention, the negative word of mouth about mice living in a restaurant kitchen, or even food poisoning, would shut down most restaurants anyway.
Regardless if you want to admit the truth, and not hide behind your hatred of smelling cigarette smoke(and I respect that there are many out there that don’t like smelling smoke), I’ve seen many, many studies that show second-hand smoke is thousands of times safer than basic OSHA standards regulating indoor air quality. What’s so wrong with someone wanting to theoretically smoke in a private club designed for smokers, and which would be a place that a non-smoker not wanting to breathe smoke would never think of entering? Bars that cater to a blue-collar crowd and allow smoking basically cater to that same crowd. Tony’s post on Sep. 25th nailed my views perfectly on the issue, that an activity(for this case, cigarette/cigar smoking) one may consider obnoxious, the next person may find enjoyable. I also second him in that anyone who smokes would never consider smoking in a place, where the owner voluntarily chose to prohibit smoking.
I hope you’re ready for all the bars and other businesses that will look the other way and illegally allow smoking, if a comprehensive smoking ban for Saint Louis city were to ever pass. I have seen many articles about how many bars in cities under total smoking bans look the other way, and allow smoking anyway, including in NYC. Not to mention, I’ve seen it occur in many Illinois and Ohio businesses post-state smoking ban, from my travels around both states. And Ohio ban defiance is well-documented on the site Smoke Choke Ohio, at http://www.smokechoke.com . I just wish that non-smokers who want smoke-free bars would actually try to better patronize such bars rather than not doing a good job of it, and which possibly could’ve prevented the closure of the former smoke-free bar rBar. (which has since reopened as a smoking establishment) I’m glad that some STL bar owners/entrepreneurs are trying to cater to the demand for smoke-free bars by going totally smoke-free, and/or opening up their own smoke-free establishment. However, I will never agree with broad government-imposed smoking bans covering virtually all private businesses, and where the language of such bans is often totally copied and pasted from anti-smoking websites. If every private business wanted to voluntarily go smoke-free tomorrow, I would not object to it.
BTW, if I theoretically had enough money to attempt opening my own business, maybe I would take that risk and open up the first smoke-free gay bar or bowling alley in STL. It’d just be hard to decide whether I should try my hand at running a bowling alley or gay bar first! 🙂
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.