I'd be curious to know if it allowed for an exception if say a restaurant has seperate HVAC systems for smoking and non-smoking sections. I personally think this is a step in the right direcction.

The crux of the issue, though, is providing safe working environments so the seperate ventilation system doesn't fly in my book. Yes, I imagine that there will always be people willing to work in a seperated smoking section despite the long term effects to their health. When I waited tables years ago we fought over who got the smoking section because smokers are invariably on average larger tippers. It is a great step forward that this is now becoming a county-wide issue instead of a few municipalities having to stick their necks out. If this passes I think that in the long-run we will all win. Hopefully the City of St. Louis is next. My god, if Arnold can do it...

This is such fabulous news. I've been boycotting places that allow smoking for almost a year, so I'm a much happier person, but I do miss some restaurants.

I remember working at KFC back in the early 90's and having to deal more with bosses and their office smoking than the customers' smoking. When I took the job I have now (consultant), the one contingency was that I would not be sent to an office that allowed smoking.

This would be a very positive step for St. Louis County.

hln

I'm very excited about it. I play darts at Blueberry Hill and often skip because of the smoke.

the issue here is simple its my business i pay the rent if you choose not to patronize my business that is your choice, A public place is anything funded by the public my business is not funded by the county.Kurt wants to enforce his opinion into law they have no complaints on file and if no one has complained what are the council member debating. Kurt Odenwald says it is a health issue if that is the case why is Mc Donalds allowed to sell fried food its bad for you is it not ????
what about the poison beer and liquor damaging the liver. This is about your freedom of choice and nothing else. Government has no right to enforce rules that violate personal rights. The Nazi's in germany tried to tell people they have an obligation to the state to stay healthy is that what we want the govt telling next we can not eat any food that is unhealthy this is a dangerous precedent dont let them fool you into thinking anything else. stop looking for problems and fix the ones your constituents have filed complaints about and stop KURT ODENWALD from enforcing his beliefs on all of st louis county because he says its the right thing to do WHO MADE HIM GOD OF ME AND YOU

I CALLED KURT AND ASKED HIM IF HE HAS HAD ANY OF HIS CONSTITUENTS CALL OR WRITE TO HIM BECAUSE THEY WERE HAVING A PROBLEM WITH A ANY PUBLIC PLACE AND SMOKING HE SAID NO HE HAS NOT GOT ANY COMPLAINTS. SO I ASKED HIM WHY HE WAS DOING THIS HE SAID IT WAS THE RIGHT THING. MAYBE FOR HIM BUT NOT IN MY EYES IM WONDERING WHY THE CITY COUNCIL IS NOT WORKING ON REAL PROBLEMS AND REAL ISSUES THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED COMPLAINTS ABOUT ARE THEY TOO HARD TOO FIX OR ARE THE COUNCIL MEMBERS JUST LAZY. MOST MAJOR CHAINS HAVE BANNED SMOKING THIS IS AN ATTACK ON THE SMALL BUSINESS OWNER IM JUST LIKE YOU BUT I DONT GO AROUND ENFORCING MY OPINION ON OTHERS BECAUSE I CAN AND THE IS WHAT KURT ODENWALD IS DOING. GET A JOB AND DO SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE LIKE WORK ON REAL ISSUES THAT AFFECT ST LOUIS COUNTY AND SHREWSBURY HMMMM LETS SAY METROLINK WOULD BE START OR IS THAT PROBLEM TO HARD FOR OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS TO HANDLE

THOMAS JEFFERSON SAID EVERYTIME YOU CRY OUT TO GOVT FOR HELP YOU ARE GIVING THE ONE THING AWAY YOU HAVE YOUR FREEDOM OF CHOICE. LETS ALL SAY DEMOCRACY TOGETHER. WHEN DID THE WILL OF THE MINORITY BECOME GREATER THAN THE MAJORITY. GOVT NEEDS TO STAY OUT OF OUR LIVES YOU CAN CHOOSE WHERE TO WORK EAT SLEEP PLAY I SUGGEST PEOPLE MAKE THEIR OWN CHOICES ON WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR LIVES AND NOT GOVT DICTATE WHAT WHEN AND HOW YOU EAT SLEEP SMOKE OR DRINK WHY ARE THEY SO WORRIED ABOUT IT ANYWAY IF NO ONE HAS CALLED KURT ODENWALD TO COMPLAIN WHAT IT HIS MOTIVE MAYBE ELECTION FEEL GOOD ISSUE SEE LOOK WHAT IVE DONE I GOT SMOKING BAN IN PRIVATE BUSINESS BUT METROLINK GONNA COST 200 MILLION MORE OOPS SORRY SHREWSBURY THAT KINDA SLIPPED BY ME WHEN I WAS TRYING TO BAN SMOKING EVEN NONE OF YOU CALLED ME AND TOLD ME TO HELP YOU I DECIDED FOR YOU THAT I AM GOING TO DO THIS I AM THE RIGHT ONE IF YOU DONT SEE THINGS MY WAY YOUR WRONG WHAT KIND OF NONSENSE IS THIS ATTORNEY ARE ALL ALIKE THEY JUST WANT TO CLOUD THE ISSUES AND MAKE YOU THINK ITS FOR YOUR OWN GOOD IM NOT BUYING IT KURT

I want to fight the Indoor Clean Air Act. Is there anyone else doing this? Please advise me.

I do not want to live in a country or a city where a man cannot smoke a cigar in a bar.
God save us from the puritans!

What's your business Pat?

And just out of curiousity, what 'right' is there to smoke cigarettes? I missed that one in the Bill of Rights.

If you don't want to eat in a bar or restaurant that allows smoking, then don't go. It's your personal choice. No one is forcing you to. Its about freedom. I choose not to go to places that play country music. Maybe we should outlaw country music in public places because it offends people. That may sound absurd to some people, but a ban on smoking is equally absurd.

This message is for County Councilman Kurt Odenwald, R-Shrewsbury. I can see how you think that this would be positive step, but all your doing is taking away someone's freedom to choose. Young men and women of our Armed Forces are fighting all over the world trying to give people in other countries this right. And you are trying to take it away. Maybe it is the will of the people to ban smoking in public places. I don't know. Let the people vote on it. If the majority of the people want smoking bans, then the minority should have to go along with it. I personally think that this is just a way for you, Kurt, to get your name in the paper. That is weak. I think that the majority of the public does care one way or another. There are a lot more issues out there that need your attention. You should drop this and try to get something accomplished that will benefit everyone.

Funny, I didn't know country music triggered respiratory conditions. Learn something new every day.

Check out the real story on second hand smoke and smoking bans at www.nycclash.com.

Honorable Kurt Odenwald,
Several years ago the Old Town Donut Shop in Florissant changed into a non-smoking establishment. People predicted that business would be lost. They do a great business there everyday so apparently it didn't hurt them. It is nice to have coffee and a donut there without someone smoking. It was always a very clean place but I'll bet it is easier for the owner to keep it clean today because the residue from smoke doesn't have to be delt with at all. Keep up the good work on banning smoking in business places. I hope this applies to beauty salons as well.

I am a Republican voter---straight ticket from George W on down---who will switch parties next election if I find that you are speaking for the GOP. And I am not alone. Count on it.

I, for one, support a smoking ban in St. Louis County - first, most cities/states that have it in place (New York, California, Delware) have seen improvement in their business.

In addition, with freedom also comes responsibility - no one is expecting you to give up smoking entirely, and it is not unreasonable to give up smoking in a public place. (You do so in theaters and on airplane flights). No one has a "right to smoke", but *everyone* has a right to clean air.

Mr. Hannegan I am behind you 100%. Please advise me of what you have learned so far.

I for one think this smoking ban is great. All the smokers need to stop and think you cannot smoke in Department Stores, Grocery Stores, Malls,Doctor Offices and many other places and it has been like this for years. So stop complaing and go outside and smoke. It comes down to smoking stinks and is offensive to people with breathing problems. No one is telling you cannot smoke just not inside. I guess the smokers do not go to any of these places listed above, because they cannot smoke in Schnucks,Home Depot, Walgreens,Radio Shack, Best Buy, Dierbergs, Lowes, Etc.

So country music doesn’t cause respiratory failure. Driving can certainly KILL you. Even by your own demise! With or without alcohol!! I also don’t spend hours shopping for groceries or spend hours at the doctors office. I do sit and talk with friends for hours at a bar or hang out at a club listening to DJs and live bands. It is a *CHOICE* the *OWNER* of the establishment should make!!!!! I DON’T like country music and DON’T patronize their establishments.

Smokers rights? as I see it smokers have three rights. The first is to show everyone that they use poor judgment and appear to have little or no education and a low IQ. The second is to cause their own illness and eventually to cause their own death. Unfortunately their third right is to cuse their childern to become sick and die also

So I guess you eat a perfect diet, aren't overweight, exercise on a regular basis, and so on. You have no bad habits? You are perfect? It is a habit. Some people like the habit others are hooked. Similar to other chemicals that are addictive!

I lived in California from 1997-2003. When the statewide smoking ban went into place, all the doomsday predictions where made. I don't know if a single bar closed. In fact, many of my friends that smoked told me that they where smoking less without even realizing it, and didn't care. After a few months, it was non-issue. A business has safety responsibilities to the public and it's the city/county/states job to enforce it. Everything in a bar is regulated, the liquor license, the fire exits, the urinal height. The issue isn't about the right to smoke, its the perceived right of smokers to force everyone else in the room to smoke. Not to mention how impolite it is. Smokers can fight it, but your only delaying the inevitable.

The California smoking ban was STATEWIDE. That is a little different. Here, the smoking ban is COUNTYwide. If a smoking ban is enacted in the COUNTY, I, and others, will go to the city.
When was the last time time anyone in Post-ban California said, "I feel like going out for a drink. Let's go to Oregon!"
That ups the ante for bar owners in the county. If the law is enacted, customers WILL exercise thier options!

Council Memebers

I think you need to make up your mind about what fight you are fighting. The health of employees is not a concern of yours for the casino? or bowling alleys. Your exemptions of these businesses reflect that there is some pocket lining by big business. What is the difference if I smoke in a bar at a bowling alley or a bar next to my house? This whole thing boils down to Mr. Odenwald tring to throw dirt at Mr. Dooley, tring to run for county exec. Whats next Crispy Creme?

Isn't it wonderful that they will exempt personal residences from the ban!!

At least, for now, that is. Wonder what's next?

I work in a bar in St. Louis County and I am also a smoker. My job is paying for me to finish college. People who believe that this will not hurt businesses need talk to some of the Kreiger's bar and grills that have been affected. There businesses have dropped at least 30%, and have admitted that the only reason they survive is becuse they are a large franchise. This is an attack on small business owners. If they are so worried about how harmful ciggarettes are then maybe they should make smoking illegal, but wait if they did not then the county would lose all of the tax money that is made off of the sale of them harmful ciggarettes. If you do not want to be around the cigarette smoke then go to a non smoking facility, do not attack small business owners who are just trying to make it in an already declining economy. At least the casino will still be allowed to have smoking becuase they wouldn't want to hurt the money the county makes off of Harrah's. Just remember one by one they are slowly taking freedoms away, who knows what will be next. Pretty soon this country will be a lot like Orsen Wells 1984.

I love how those who are anti-ban always bring up the fat content of McDonald's food, and the damage done to the liver of those who drink alcohol. They seem to be missing the point.

We don't care one little bit if you smoke. But we DON'T want to smoke, and when you smoke near us, we have to inhale (and thereby smoke with you!) Your alcohol or hydrogenated fats consumption does not affect us one little bit...though you may slur your speech, smell bad, or even take up more than your assigned airline seat, these habits DO NOT affect the general public. Smoking does.

I do believe that some of the arguments on this board have been childish. But, 95% of them have held some merit. People arguing over their right to smoke against people arguing over their right to clean air. Is it a matter of rights, or is it more than that? Is it a feeling of personal bashing for those that smoke, or is it a feeling of those that don't complaining about it?

Here's my question. For those that smoke, you get "smoke breaks" at work, right? What about those of you that don't smoke, do you get breaks such as those?

And what do you people do, those of you that smoke, if you cannot smoke anywhere on the premises of a place, say at a hospital, if you feel the urge to smoke?

And for those that don't, how do you deal with stress if you do not smoke?

St.Louis came so close to having a smoking ban! The experience of fighting against it has made me radical about keeping St. Louis free. I want St. Louis to keep its small liberties, like smoking in bars. To that end I hope to further the growing, nationwide boycott of the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association and the American Heart Association. These groups take our money under the pretense of research and cures but deliver junk science and coersion. They are the big pushers of smoking bans like the one St.Louis almost suffered. Its time to hurt them back!

A huge study has just been released by St. Louis researcher David Kuneman that seems to disprove the previous link thought to exist between smoking bans and a reduction in heart attack rates. What makes this study especially interesting is the rift it has caused in the anti-smoking movement. Top anti-smoking expert Dr. Michael Siegel has reviewed the study and pronounced it “compelling evidence”. Other anti-smoking leaders believe Siegel has betrayed his movement and are telling him to be be quiet. Siegel is shocked at the lack of interest in the real science of environmental tobacco smoke among his colleagues and is rethinking the movement. Heart attack studies were a big part of Kurt Odenwald’s case for a smoking ban in St. Louis County. The undoing of this evidence by a local researcher is a big deal. I wish the St. Louis press would cover it.

Bill Hannegan
(314) 367-3779
hanneganlounge@safeplace.net

Excerpt from a letter by Mike Probst, owner of the French Quarter, to the Ballwin Board of Aldermen:

Some studies suggest that air filtration systems will not work. I am not sure I believe this. My family is a third generation owner of a welding shop. When you arc weld galvanized steel it puts out a very toxic gas. This gas will render you unconscious in a matter of minutes and can kill you within an hour. My cousin was welding galvanized steel inside a car wash several years ago. The only reason he is alive today is that another person happened to be at the car wash when he was there. The fumes had rendered him unconscious within 15 minutes. If the other person had not seen him and pulled him outside the doctors say he would have died. You can buy air cleaners that allow you to weld indoors and clean the air to a level that meets EPA and OSHA clean air standards for employees. This is the same brand of air cleaner that I have in my bar. How is it that it can clean the air of gases far more toxic than cigarette smoke to safe levels but not clean cigarette smoke to safe levels.
The French Quarter is a small, neighborhood tavern that has been in St. Louis County for over 44 years. It is now drawing in its third generation of customers. Make no mistake about it; a smoking ban will put it out of business.

Lets see how many clean air people show up at the French Quarter come January 2. I’ll bet not many. People who are afraid of a little smoke tend to be afraid of alcohol too. I plan to ignore this law the same way my grandparents ignored Prohibition. I hope others do the same.

NYC Bar Owner’s Letter:

I own a bar in Greenwich Village. My business is down 30% since 2002. Since nothing has changed but the smoking ban, I can attribute this precipitous drop to nothing else.

It’s remarkable to read that “A New York City official on Thursday will travel to Vermont to testify that Big Apple pub receipts have increased 12 percent since the city’s ban went into effect in 2003” since not even Mayor Bloomberg has been able to wrestle the actual statistic for bars ONLY out of the State’s finance department. (I heard that from his mouth myself last month.) The information they’re peddling combines tax receipts for bars and restaurants – including places like McDonald’s and Starbucks. This is like comparing a wolf to a Shih Tzu; anyone with any sense knows they’re completely different beasts.

New York officials are doing their level best to cover up the fact that for many small businesses the smoking ban is an unmitigated disaster. They say that compliance is at 98%. That’s such utter nonsense I don’t even know where to begin. They say that no one is hurting, using tax information that cannot possibly represent the truth, while fines for noise complaints and capricious health code violations slowly pick away at our sanity.

All I can say is this: I’m a life-long non-smoker and I hated the way my bar smelled. I, too, figured that I’d wait and see. That it couldn’t be THAT bad. I’ve had to cut 8 staff, the ones left work fewer hours, and I haven’t taken a paycheck since August. It’s that bad.

The pub owners in Vermont need to pull their heads out of the sand in time to save themselves. Or, like us, they’ll be fighting for their livelihoods while their plight is actively ignored by those who might help.

This includes, by the way, the media, which seems to have jumped onto the no-smoking bandwagon with both feet and no regard for journalistic integrity. Frankly, I’d be surprised if an opposing viewpoint ever sees the light of day.

Amy McCloskey
Owner
Madame X
94 West Houston St.
New York, NY 10012
(917) 888-9317
www.madamexnyc.com

The Wall Street Journal covered the release of the WHO report thus: (3/19/98)

SMOKING OUT BAD SCIENCE

“For the past 15 years the antismoking lobby has pushed the view that secondhand cigarette smoke is a public health hazard. This was a shrewd tactic. For, having failed to persuade most committed smokers to save themselves, they could use proof that passive smoking harms wives, children and co-workers to make the case for criminalizing smoking.

But the science fell off the campaign wagon two weeks ago when the definitive study on passive smoking, sponsored by the World Health Organization, reported no cancer risk at all. Don't bet that will change the crusader’s minds. The anti-smoking movement, after all, has slipped from a health crusade to a moral one.

It is now obvious that antismoking activists have knowingly overstated the risks of secondhand smoke.”

The evidence ling ETS with chronic disease is much more speculative
than that linking it to acute diseases like ear infections and respiratory effects. There are some studies have noted that ETS is only a weak risk factor for development of lung cancer and heart disease in nonsmokers after regular, long term exposure. But, simply put, the role of ETS in the development of chronic diseases like cancer and heart disease is uncertain and controversial. To state that occupational exposure of bartenders is the "“1 killer in the American workplace"” is without scientific basis.

What is to be gained by overstating the case against secondhand smoke? The Coalition for Smoke-Free New York would have been on firm scientific ground if it simply stated the ETS caused irritation of the eyes, nose and respiratory tract and aggravated preexisting asthma. Surely that is enough of a reason to justify the protection of all workers. By exaggerating, the Coalition only serves to give ammunition to those who are both generally skeptical of public health “meddling,” and to those who maintain that health advocates, motivated by “the end justifies the means” philosophy, frequently play quick and dirty with the facts in an attempt to justify the interventions they want. When they see an ad like the one the Coalition ran this week, these critics of public health may rush to defend existing smoking policies in restaurants and bars.

Public health policy is best advanced by policies that stick closely to the scientific facts - while recognizing that the best way to lose a legitimate argument is to overstate and exaggerate it.

Elizabeth M Whelan
President of the American Council
on Science and Health
August 1, 2000

Press Release

For Immediate Release: December 5 , 2005

Do Smoking Bans cause a 27 to 40% drop in admissions for myocardial infarction in hospitals?

December 5, 2005

Antismokers claim that studies have shown that bans bring about an immediate and drastic decrease in heart attacks among nonsmokers exposed to smoke at work.

This claim was never true to begin with - the cited studies never separated and analyzed nonsmokers as a separate group - and it has now been pointed out in the pages of the BMJ that even the claim of saving lives among the combined population of smokers and nonsmokers might be worthless.

While many making that claim may have believed their information to be accurate, it is now obvious that its basis has been thrown strongly into question. As Jacob Sullum noted in a December 1st reaction to the announcement, "An effect this dramatic (i.e. an immediate and pronounced drop of hospital admissions for heart attacks) should have been noticed all over the country..."

Just a week before the Chicago Aldermen were due to vote on a citywide smoking ban, two independent researchers working together, David W. Kuneman and Michael J. McFadden, unveiled a new study covering a population base roughly 1,000 times as large as the previous town-based studies. The new study indicates strongly that rather than a 30% decrease in heart attacks, statewide smoking bans seem to have literally NO EFFECT AT ALL on heart attack rates. Incredibly the data even indicates that California's statewide heart attack rate went UP by 6% in the first full year of their total smoking ban!

The data for the study and the basis of its design have been backed up and expanded by well-known antismoking researcher Michael Siegel who has come out in support of the researchers' approach as providing "compelling evidence that brings into question the conclusion that smoking bans have an immediate and drastic effect on heart attack incidence." His observation is echoed by researcher Kuneman who asks, "Ever wonder why you didn't hear about post ban heart attack declines in New York City? Or in Minneapolis or Los Angeles? Now you know!"

On December 4th the British Medical Journal entered the fray with the online publication of a Rapid Response by Mr. McFadden outlining the new research and posing sharp criticisms of the earlier studies and of the refusal of the authors of those studies to respond to previous criticisms and questions. McFadden points out that the data in the Kuneman/McFadden study are fully open for public examination and far less selective than the data in the earlier studies and notes with pride that he and his co-researcher have been quick to respond to all queries posted about their methodology on Dr. Siegel's web blog.

He also poses the wider ranging question of whether studies commissioned by the "Antismoking Industry" should begin to receive the same cautious reception accorded those commissioned by "Big Tobacco." The current study, as well as an earlier one by the duo, were unfunded and neither researcher receives grants for their work from either interest group. Kuneman sharply asks the question, "Why the difference between the studies? For one thing we weren't dependent on antismoking-targeted grants!"

At this point there appears to be very little, if any, real scientific support for the claim that protecting nonsmokers from normal levels of exposure to secondary smoke prevents any heart attacks. And it is this claim that has always provided the impressive numbers upon which ban advocates have pressed legislators to pass smoking bans.

Without those numbers proponents of extreme bans are left with little other than the widely discredited EPA figures relating ETS to lung cancer and a few isolated instances of hospitality workers who have come to believe that their own cancers were caused by working in smoking establishments. Samantha Phillipe, editor of the longstanding smokersclubinc.com newsletter, notes that while it's always a cause for sadness when someone becomes ill that it's even more sad when they are misguidedly advised to blame family and friends for their illness.

Without a compelling body of scientific evidence backing them up, smoking bans are an unnecessary and overbearing intrusion of government into the spheres of free choice, private property and free enterprise. And the Kuneman/McFadden study points up just how uncompelling even some of the strongest and most publicised evidence actually is.
References:

Article:
http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/hospitaladmissions.html

2)Mike Siegel's blog analysis and followup comments:
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2005/11/new-study-casts-doubt-on-claim-that.html

3) BMJ Response:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/328/7446/977#123038

4) Jacob Sullum's REASON column:
Hit and Run

###

Press Release Approved by Samantha Phillipe
President
The Smoker’s Club, Inc.
PO Box 814
Center Conway, NH 03813
info@smokersclub.com
http://www.smokersclub.com

HOME

American Cancer Society's Cancer Prevention Study:

Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98
James E Enstrom, researcher1, Geoffrey C Kabat, associate professor2
1 School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1772, USA, 2 Department of Preventive Medicine, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY 11794-8036, USA

Correspondence to: J E Enstrom jenstrom@ucla.edu

Abstract
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References


Objective To measure the relation between environmental tobacco smoke, as estimated by smoking in spouses, and long term mortality from tobacco related disease.

Design Prospective cohort study covering 39 years.

Setting Adult population of California, United States.

Participants 118 094 adults enrolled in late 1959 in the American Cancer Society cancer prevention study (CPS I), who were followed until 1998. Particular focus is on the 35 561 never smokers who had a spouse in the study with known smoking habits.

Main outcome measures Relative risks and 95% confidence intervals for deaths from coronary heart disease, lung cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease related to smoking in spouses and active cigarette smoking.

Results For participants followed from 1960 until 1998 the age adjusted relative risk (95% confidence interval) for never smokers married to ever smokers compared with never smokers married to never smokers was 0.94 (0.85 to 1.05) for coronary heart disease, 0.75 (0.42 to 1.35) for lung cancer, and 1.27 (0.78 to 2.08) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among 9619 men, and 1.01 (0.94 to 1.08), 0.99 (0.72 to 1.37), and 1.13 (0.80 to 1.58), respectively, among 25 942 women. No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98.

Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.

we have the right to life liberty and happyness.. to me its a good, becuase i want to live and be happy and being in places that are full of smoke dont make me happy. you still have the choice to smoke, and the right to, just not in buildings that do not have an inclosed area set for smokeing..

Smoking is injures for health.

I went to Austin,Tx for a New Years trip with my friends. We had gone not knowing that Austin had a smoking-ban in place. After the first night out at the bars we all noticed the difference ... our clothes didn't stink, our eyes didn't burn, our hair didn't stink, our breathing was fine. This ban is a wonderful thing. It will probably help smokers wanting to quit by not getting a visual of it. Smoking is a hazard that has been proven again and again, when it affects others around you, the smoker must be the one held responsible. I know smokers who enjoy the ban in Austin for all the reasons we did. This ban should happen in St.Louis as well.

I think we need recommendations to address tobacco prevention and cessation in children and adolescents, and smokeless tobacco products (snuff and chewing tobacco).

Bradley,
St. Louis is a big city! Why can't there be smoking, restricted smoking and smoke-free places? You like smoke-free places but I don't. Why force your preference on me. And if so many people hate and fear smoke, why not open a smoke-free bar of your own? It might do well. If other owners see you making money, they might go smoke-free. But getting the police to make every place smoke-free all at once will just create resentment. People will start to say, "If I can't smoke anywhere, I'll smoke everywhere." We don't need that in St. Louis.

I think smoking makes the lung weak and susptible to a range of chest disease including tuberculosis and asthma etc.

Personally, I would not be entirely adverse to a public smoking ban. However, I realize that this affects business owners, especially small business owners. I wonder if there is any sort of compromise to be had.

I live in the StL area. I am allergic to smoke; it usually gives me massive headaches and causes my eyes to swell and itch. As such, I can spend very little time in bars and dance clubs. This is a problem for me, because I like those places. I just cannot stay long in them.

Would a non-smoking area even be possible? I ask because I do not exercise a right to avoid smoking establishments as much as I am forced to avoid them. I dearly desire bars and dance clubs that I can go to. It seems that all of the non-smoking places I go to lack the music and crowd that I would like (I'm not looking for just non-alcohol, family environments). I know that I am not the only one as myself, either.

I want to have night life choices as well. I feel as though they are denied to me. There has to be some compromise between all smoking and a total ban. Any thoughts? Good ventilation systems? Separate rooms? Suggestions of non-smoking places that I might have missed?

I'm against taking away liberties (if anyone is), but I feel as if I have been denied the ability to participate in pleasurable activities like dancing.

Daniel,

The best answer for everyone is first-rate ventilation such as that offered by this firm:
www.tornex.com The Grateful Dead bar I go to, Magee's, is considering smoke-free nights. The Grateful Inn in Maplewood is already an excellent smoke-free bar. Hopefully there will be more like it in the near future without St. Louis having to resort to a nasty smoking ban. If I can help you decipher the local scene, please contact me at hanneganlounge@safeplace.net.

I think the financial & health benefit of quitting smoking are so many that various different ways have been employed to help drop the habit.

Hitler made a religion out of his hate for smoking. Read the history of the Nazi smoking ban in the British Medical Journal:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/3...

My comment to this:It's time to leave this country then.

Comments by William:

I do not want to live in a country or a city where a man cannot smoke a cigar in a bar.
God save us from the puritans!

Posted by William Hannegan on Mon., Feb 28, 2005 at 12:02 AM

If you can smell smoke in a bar or restaurant, you are breathing used air. Secondhand smoke is the least of your problems. That air has been in someone else's lungs, and may now be alive with viruses and bacteria that can kill in days, not years. Smoking bans take away the annoying smell, but leave the air full of living pathogens. The Influenza Epidemic of 1918 killed millions of people in months. An outbreak of avian flu could spread thru poorly ventilated bars and restaurants of St. Louis like wildfire. The ironic thing is that when a city puts in a smoking ban for the sake of public health, bars and restaurants turn off their ventilation systems and the infected air just hangs there to be breathed and rebreathed, an efficient means for the spread of new killer strains of pneumonia, SARS, influenza and tuberculosis that will sweep from other parts of the world to America.

Hopefully we will get something citywide after the county passes their ban.

It is just a matter of time really. I just hope it is earlier than later. I am killing myself by being in and above the business and honestly, it is necessary to have smoking in order to stay in business, unless of course there is a regionwide ban. Then it all evens out and one place won't suffer economically for being non smoking. We all know that bars and restaurants won't go out of business if it goes into effect. NYC, SF, Ireland etc still have their bars and restaurants. I hope they don't restrict lighting up outdoors though. I don't think it is quite that necessary, but I just hope they put something firm in soon either way.

There certainly are a lot of freaks with strange conspiracy theories on this law. It is funny actually.

I can't wait for this to happen. Such a positive development.

Steve, hundreds of pubs in Ireland have gone out of business due to their smoking ban:

http://www.westernpeople.ie/news/story.asp?j=30811
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=138622005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4228045.stm
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/badforbiz.html

Amy McCloskey again, from the bar Madame X in New York City. My posting went up Dec. 28, '05 and I'm sad to report not much has changed. The pundits said our lost revenue from smokers would be replaced by non-smokers grateful to finally be able to breathe in bars, and that smokers would finally get used to it and return in their old numbers, but that has not proven to be the case.

Sure, smoking isn't healthy. Drinking isn't either. But they're both still legal and my experience indicates that the two go together for a lot of people.

The market indicates that people want to smoke when they drink, otherwise I assure you there'd be far more voluntarily non-smoking bars (hey, it's a capitalist society - business goes where the money is).

My bar may be open to the public, but it's still a private business. That the leaders of this country use specious scientific "evidence" to force my private business to do something that goes against all financial logic is galling. Not to mention conflicting with the very tenets on which this country was built.

America was founded by people running from the moralizing "nannies" who told them what was good for them and who enforced their opinions with stifling laws. Why is it that we now seem hell-bent on inflicting that mistake on ourselves?

I'm glad some people enjoy inhaling these things.

-all found in cigarettes-
methane-also found in sewer gas
hydrogen cyanide-gas chamber poinson
arsenic-another poison
ammonia-toilet cleaner
formaldehyde-preserves dead bodies
acetone-paint stripper
codmium-found in batteries
tolucne-industrial solvent
methanol-rocket fuel

But my family and I do not want to breath them in. I know people say if you don't like it then don't go there. Then the same goes for you, you don't like that they don't let you smoke, don't go there.

The thing is you can eat with out smoking, it doesn't hurt you at all, but for me I can't eat with smoking, it is unhealthy and makes the experience unpleasent.

So I hope they ban it soon.

The REAL reason Kurt Odenwald withdrew the casino exemption is that Phyllis Schlafly and the whole Christian Right that she commands came down on the Council like a ton of bricks Monday night. Members of Missouri Eagle Forum, Missouri Family Network, Concerned Women for America and Casino Watch asked all their members to demand that the Council drop the casino exemption. Mrs. Schlafly was on the radio Tuesday afternoon laughing at Odenwald and the Council just before the meeting last night. She wanted to know who had come up with such an idea! Schlafly said she opposed the smoking ban altogether and thought the relaxed ventilation standards that come with a smoking ban might be more of a health threat than secondhand smoke. She also called Kurt Odenwald and his antismoking group "busybodies". She threatened to sick her Eagles on Odenwald anew if the Council didn't straighten up.

As someone whose number one reluctance to relocating to St. Louis, MO was that St. Louis is so far behind the times in regard to banning smoking in restraunts and bar. I still find the worst part of living in St. Louis the lack of clean air in places people go to eat or see a band. The comments about the smokers who don't want someone imposing their preference of wanting clean air to breathe on them is hilarious. They just want to keep imposing their bad habit on others who had enough character to not give in to peer pressure and start smoking, or had wised up and quit if not for themselves then for their family.

For all you smokers out there, who keep finding supportive articles on the internet to say smoking isn't bad (what ideas, intelligent and not, aren't supported somewhere on the internet?) how would you feel that everytime you went to eat or see a band, you had to smell like my farts after eating Mexican food? How would you feel, that when you got home, your clothes and hair still smell like my farts? Certainly I have a right to fart, but if I knew that my farts imposed this on you, wouldn't I be a real impolite person, and wouldn't you wish if I was going to fart, that I'd go somewhere where like the bathroom to fart so it wouldn't bother you? Seriously think about that.

I agree with Patrick - one of the main drawbacks if we move back to STL is the fact there is no smoking ban in place and most cities we are considering do have one in place. It makes such a big difference in the quality of life and I hope St. Louis can pass one in the coming year or few years.

Maria, St.Louis is a very tolerant, Bohemian town. I suspect you might be more comfortable in California.

In a state where consenting adults can engage in mind-bogglingly deviant sexual acts in the privacy of their homes, they won’t be allowed to smoke a cigarette afterwards.

good commentray about it here: http://constitutionalmatters.com/thevoice/oped/ca-city-may-ban-smoking-at-home

Hello. RCYET5 [url=http://www.tRCYET3.com] RCYET6 [/url] Thanks