ST. LOUIS — A City Hall panel approved a smoking ban proposal, but it could be years before some establishments have to follow the revamped measure — if at all.
After a lengthy debate on Wednesday, the Board of Aldermen’s Health Committee endorsed sending the plan, with amendments, to the full board, which could hear it later this month.
The bill sponsored by Central West End Alderman Lyda Krewson would be activated only if St. Louis County approves a ban of its own. That means, in effect, county voters could decide the issue for the city as well when they cast their ballot on a smoking ban proposal next month.
First, Krewson’s bill would have to pass the whole Board of Aldermen, which is far from a certain.
An amendment added Wednesday, however, could make it more palatable to those worried about hurting local businesses in down economy.
The provision would give small bars — defined as drinking establishments 1,500 square feet or less — five years to comply. In the meantime, those exempt taverns would have to post a sign, “WARNING: SMOKING ALLOWED HERE.”
Like the county version, the city smoking ban would exempt casino floors and certain hotel rooms.
The bill passed the committee unanimously, but not after Krewson was peppered with questions at a three-hour meeting Wednesday, the final of five hearings on the bill.
“More than any other bill in the 12 years that I have been an alderman,” Krewson said.
Jake, Alderman Quincy Troupe adjourned the September 29th meeting of the Health and Human Services Committee to wait for an Economic Impact Statement from the Ways and Means Committee. When the committee met again on Wednesday, Alderman Troupe asked about the statement but was given no answer. Where is the statement? You need to press the aldermen on this.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Enlighten-
As a non-smoker, I enjoy an environment around me that does not stink like smoke, or make me stink like smoke. I also prefer to not smell like a skunk. And I do not like overbearing fish smell. As a consequence, I do not pick up stray skunks, I do not work in or visit fish markets, and I do not go to bars for a family meal.
Most people seem to be like me. However, I have learned that some are unable to make their own decisions. As a solution, people of a certain mental persuasion believe they are ordained to make the decisions for all of the others. They often wrap it up in some sort of baloney about how they are enforcing their agenda for my own good.
While the concept of an authoritarian government run society is really hip, cool, and popular now I am left wondering who is it that gets to pick how my health is properly provided for, I mean, since I should not be allowed.
No one makes you consume the smoke filled air of a bar. They also do not make you go there and drink. They don’t make you eat the deep fried onion rings, or the chicken wings. In fact, there is clearly no mistaking a bar for a healthy place.
As for your 99.99% – the vast majority have figured out a way to stay out of bars on a regular basis, a healthy choice from many angles.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think that this is the start of socialism, since when has smoking in a BAR been a big deal till now?!?! I mean its called a BAR for a reason. I have 2 bars myself and think these bans are ridiculous which is why Ive started selling Crown7 at my establishments. So basically people could smoke in my bars and I dont have to worry about the smoking bans!!!
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sorry – food product not protect.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Why Not -
You’re way out there. So you’re telling me that anyone that’s supported a smoke-free ordinance in the 28 states that have them are all Nazi’s? I truly resent the implication. And I can only speak for myself but would bet that 99.9% of those desiring smoke-free indoor public areas could care less about the fat in fast food or hot dogs or whatever. BIG difference between something you consume as a food protect and the smoky, toxin-filled smoke that everyone consumes in a smoky room. No slippery slope here.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
YES, It is true, HITLER was the first to impose a smoking ban. We need to look past the “smoke screen” here. The people pushing these things have “progressed” past smoking in most place. The hip and cool thing now is bans on hotdogs, bans on fat, and taxes on sugar. Let’s all jump on the fascist bandwagon so we can dictate proper living to the infidels.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jerry -
So those in favor of indoor smoke-free air are uneducated? The U.S. Surgeon General is uneducated? Sorry, but I’ll buy into his opinion based on research and facts before I’ll even give your uneducated comment a second glance.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It comes down to this. Socialists will vote to ban smoking in St. Louis County, non-socialists who embrace private business owner property rights will vote no.
Which are you, a socialist or non-socialist?
Vote “NO” on Nov. 3rd on PROP N-St. Louis County’s Clean Indoor air ordinance, and PROP 1 in Kirkwood.
Government, stay out of my life and out of my pocketbook.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
jenny-O – I agree, except make the signs say “No Smoking Allowed” in establishments which do not allow smoking.
It is a legal activity – post the signs where it is forbidden.
From a former smoker.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“WARNING: SMOKING ALLOWED HERE.” Simple enough, put that on any business front that allows it and those who don’t want to be around the smoke are made aware before they enter. Why do people insist on having the government run every single aspect of our lives? Smoking is terrible, it is addictive-but it is LEGAL. If the government was so worried about our health why not make it illegal?
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mr. Forbes,
The study I linked to showed that smoking bans do not reduce the overall smoke exposure of nonsmokers.
Concerning the heart reductions you mention, arecently released study 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”, finds 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!
To quote from the study:
“We find no evidence that legislated U.S. smoking bans were associated with short‐term reductions in hospital admissions for acute myocardial infarction or other diseases in the elderly, children or working‐age adults. We find some evidence that smoking bans are associated with a reduced all‐cause mortality rate among the elderly (‐1.4%) but only at the 10% significance level.
We also show that there is wide year‐to‐year variation in myocardial infarction death and admission rates even in large regions such as counties and hospital catchment areas. Comparisons of small samples (which represent subsamples of our data and are similar to the samples used in the previous published literature) might have led to atypical findings. It is also possible that comparisons showing increases in cardiovascular events after a smoking ban were not submitted for publication because the results were considered implausible. Hence, the true distribution from single regions would include both increases and decreases in events and a mean close to zero, while the published record would show only decreases in events. Thus, publication bias could plausibly explain why dramatic short‐term public health improvements were seen in prior studies of smoking bans.”
http://keepstlouisfree.blogspot.com/2009/09/smoking-bans-have-no-effect-on-heat.html
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ridiculous Mr Hannagan for you to believe that smokers would be displaced to places that nonsmokers will be – the opposite is true. Nicholas does not realize what he wants is the poor situation we face now.
The Kansas City Star just reported that heart attack rates went down 17% on the first year of a smoking ban and down over 33% in the 3rd year of a smoking ban.
Hope the city approves the ban, even it it’s silly form of allowing some big exemptions. It is a chance for this region to catch up the the rest of the country and the rest of the developed world.
Vote YES for both (any and all) ordinances to restrict smoking.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Your are right Nick, a large study of American smoking bans by British researchers which found that bans do not reduce the overall exposure of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke and actually increase the overall secondhand smoke exposure of young children, especially low-income children, as smokers are displaced to private cars and homes. The researchers state:
“While bans in public transportation or in schools decrease the exposure of non smokers, bans in recreational public places can in fact perversely increase their exposure by displacing smokers to private places where they contaminate non smokers, and in particular young children. Bans affect socioeconomic groups differently: we find that smoking bans increase the exposure of poorer individuals, while it decreases the exposure of richer individuals, leading to widening health disparities.”
http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/3523
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m an ex-smoker, and I don’t enjoy second-hand smoke at all. With an occasional exception, we eat in non-smoking restaurants. But I don’t feel it’s government’s place to tell a business owner how to run his business. Smoking is NOT illegal, and I’m quite tired of these neo-puritans going after cigarettes with the same zeal as the Women’s Temperance League chased men out of saloons.
The funny thing is, with smoking prohibited almost everywhere in public, smokers will only be able to smoke in two places: at home, and in their cars, both of which are poorly ventilated areas where children are present. Wouldn’t that be an even more serious health hazard than smoking in a well ventilated bar full of adults?
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If you want to buy into the second-hand smoke crap, feel free, ignorance is bliss. As long as there are 60 KNOWN cancer causing pollutants in the air we all breath (most being released by corporate America) you can’t make a case against cigarette smoke (or a flawed study). Until you eliminate ALL pollutants in the air and not just one, no one will be breathing “easier” as these uneducated people would want you to believe. And yes TLg5 I agree, let’s keep “bought and paid for” government out of our lives because they DO NOT work for us.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To use the old arguement of the business owner’s right to control his own property is “PLANTATION MENTALITY”. In other words, if I own it I make the decisions about it. Well, did you know business owners used to own slaves, and before that women?? Come on, let’s make some progress here, it’s 2009. Remember when business owners had the right to refuse to serve blacks?? Remember, THE SURGEON GENERAL HAS SAID, “THERE IS NO SAFE LEVEL OF SECOND HAND SMOKE!” So, the logical person concerned about their health, the health of the workers and paying customers, will vote YES on Nov. 3rd.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mr. Nicholas,
Please come up with a reasonable argument for your side instead of regurgitating the same tired lines.
YHS,
JPinSTL
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Vote “NO” on Nov. 3rd on PROP N-St. Louis County’s Clean Indoor air ordinance, and PROP 1 in Kirkwood.
Help keep the government out of your life.
Sorry, Jean and Adam, but I am a non-smoker who wants less government.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is all very simple. Those who don’t like smoke, don’t go where they allow smoking.
Those who like to smoke, go where they do. It’s very simple, one side is demanding everything, and they won’t even use all of it. It’s territoriality.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hey, you Kirkwood voters, don’t forget to vote YES for Prop 1-Kirkwood’s Clean Indoor Air Ordinance. With the county passing Prop N and Kirkwood passing Prop 1; we’ll really be making progress in the region. The two together will add 15 ft. from the door language to Kirkwood’s well worded policy that focused on Indoor Air only!!! Come on Wildwood, what are you doing?
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Vote “YES” on Nov. 3rd in support of PROP N-St. Louis County’s Clean Indoor air ordinance. It is time to move the St. Louis region foward. Support Clean Indoor Air in Public Places. Please join the effort to pass PROP N, sign up on the weblink, http://www.smokefreeSTL.org. Happy Hour at the new Pi Pizza in Kirkwood on Tues. Oct. 29th, (5:00 – 7:00) the newest smoke free establishment in the area!
Report this comment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0