Editorial:

Statewide smoking ban should be instituted

Published Feb. 9, 2010

A statewide smoking ban is working its way through the Missouri legislature.

The ban would prohibit smoking at virtually every public place in Missouri and areas within 15 feet of the entrances to such places. Only private homes, tobacco shops, smoking-designated hotel rooms and certain outdoor workplaces would be exempt.

Passing this legislation would be good for everyone involved.

Although Senate President Pro Tem Charlie Shields, R-Kansas City, cites businesses losing money as a reason not to pass the bill, which might not be true. Businesses that lose smoking customers due to the ban could also gain non-smoking customers who previously avoided the place of business because the smoke bothered them.

In addition, businesses wouldn’t have to worry about losing patrons to nearby establishments that aren't covered by the local ban, because the ban would be statewide, keeping people from traveling to the nearest exempt place they can find.

Fourteen Missouri cities including Columbia have adopted similar policies, though Columbia has exemptions, such as restaurant patios and balconies. Those exemptions should be added to the language of the House bill, because they are not explicitly cited. Creating that exemption adds a fair balance for smokers visiting venues so people would be able to step outside to smoke.

In St. Louis County, from where the bill's Republican sponsor Walt Bivins hails, the smoking ban law passed by 65 percent, and a statewide ban has seen a lot of support.

Missouri also has the second lowest excise tax on tobacco at 17 cents per pack, so losing smokers wouldn't greatly impact Missouri's overall tax revenue.

From a non-economic standpoint, a smoking ban is the right thing to do for everyone's health. Smokers and non-smokers could benefit from a statewide ban.

The Institute of Medicine reported smoking bans are effective at reducing risks associated with secondhand smoke, such as heart attacks and heart disease, though they don't know how great the effect on secondhand smokers is.

According to epigee.com, smoking is the most preventable cause of disease and premature death but one in five deaths worldwide can be attributed to tobacco products. Laws such as this could stop people from taking the first steps to tobacco addiction, because it wouldn’t be as prominent a part of the social scene.

Sure, it's one thing if someone chooses to smoke, but secondhand smoke affects nearly everyone around the smoker. And those who choose to not smoke but can't seem to escape it are not amused by smokers’ ability to blow smoke rings or any other potentially lung damaging shape.

In fact, 10 percent of those who die of complications from smoking are secondhand smokers, which adds up to about 50,000 deaths per year in the U.S.

Also, laws like this might help people quit if they have the desire.

Among the 44.5 million Americans surveyed by the centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2005 who smoke every day, 40.5 percent of them reported they tried stopping for at least one day in an attempt to quit in the last year. Perhaps with this law they can go to a bar and not have "I only smoke when I drink" syndrome or get a stronger urge from the smell of nearby smokers.

Missouri is historically easy on smokers. In 2008, Missouri received straight Fs in the annual American Lung Association's assessment, and the Fs were part of a trend. Categories listed in the assessment include smoke-free air, cigarette taxes, health coverage and tobacco prevention and control.

Missouri has one of the highest percentages of smokers in the nation — not exactly a statistic to be proud of. Straight Fs doesn't exactly translate to bragging rights either, but it's not about the scores and statistics these organizations set in place. It's about the people these statistics effect.

We've all seen the Truth advertisements and read the surgeon general's warnings, but those are all recommendations. A firm "no" might be what Missourians need to stop the chain that is Missouri's bad-smoking habits.

Comments (19)

1:26 a.m., Feb. 9, 2010

Bill Hannegan said:

The Institute of Medicine's report on smoking bans and heart attacks has largely been negated by two huge heart attack studies. The most recent was just published this October in the European Journal of Epidemiology. http://www.scribd.com/doc/25173255/Full-Text http://www.scribd.com/doc/19698233/SSRNid1359506

1:45 a.m., Feb. 9, 2010

Bill Hannegan said:

Not all epidemiologists believe secondhand smoke is an important cause of lung cancer or heart disease in healthy nonsmokers. Dr. Geoffrey Kabat, Senior Epidemiologist at the Department of Epidemiology and Population Health at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, who was co-author of the largest secondhand smoke study ever done, wrote to the St. Louis County Council this summer that his research indicated that "even in studies which are methodologically the most robust and trustworthy, we are not able to detect unambiguous evidence of an effect of ETS on the risk of heart disease or lung cancer. This does not mean that there might not be an effect, but that any effect is apt to be small and close to the limits of what epidemiologic studies can detect." http://www.scribd.com/doc/18788267/Kabat-St-Louis-County-Letter2 Finally, bars have good reason to fear smoking bans. University of Wisconsin economists have found that smoking bans, even if statewide, can cut bar employment up to 14 percent. http://www.bepress.com/bejeap/vol7/iss1/art12/

1:51 a.m., Feb. 9, 2010

Michael J. McFadden said:

Anyone who thinks this ban is a GOOD thing, or anyone who thinks it's a BAD thing, should read the "Lies Behind The Smoking Bans" at: http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/257.html Just click on the top item, "The NEW Stiletto" and you can read it online and/or download it to print out, bind, and bring to your favorite bar/restaurant for the staff and patrons to read. If the Maneater or anyone else has any specific substantive criticisms of anything within it, please share them with the world right here. I'll come back: I stand behind what I write. Michael J. McFadden Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

11:29 a.m., Feb. 9, 2010

Pete said:

Yes I'm certainly going to take the word of the "smokersclub" as to whether smoking should be restricted in any way. How about a link to respected scientific or medical sites such as the Centers for Disease Control or Surgeon General. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/index.htm http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/ Let's get a statewide smoking ban sooner rather than later. It's only a matter of time, and a matter of common sense.

12:53 p.m., Feb. 9, 2010

Diogenes said:

Be aware Bill Hannegan is a St. Louis area pro-smoking zealot that posts comments in newspaper websites across the country. His primary claims are that secondhand smoke is not a health threat, that smokefree ordinances will harm businesses, that ventilation is a solution, that smokefree movement is a conspiracy of Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, etc. Regarding his "two major studies" 1) James Enstrom's source of data was the American Cancer Society's Cancer Prevention Study I (CPS-I), which is obsolete data. During the course of his analysis, ACS researchers repeatedly advised Dr. Enstrom that using CPS-I data to study the effects of secondhand smoke would lead to unreliable results and that he should use the more current CPS-II. - The analysis is based on a small subset (10%) of the CPS-I data. - The study suffers from a critical design flaw: the inability to distinguish people who were exposed to secondhand smoke from those who were not. - Participants were enrolled in 1959, when exposure to secondhand smoke was so pervasive that virtually everyone was exposed to SHS, whether or not they were married to a smoker. - No information was collected on other sources of SHS exposure besides spousal smoking. - No information on smoking habits after 1972 was included in the analysis, even though the observation period continued for another 26 years. - Study participants were, on average, 52 years old at enrollment. Many spouses who reported smoking in 1959 would have died, quit smoking, or ended the marriage during the 38-year follow-up, yet their surviving partners are still classified as "exposed" to SHS in this analysis. - Much of the follow-up of CPS-I through 1998 pertains to older age groups where the effects of many environmental risk factors become less apparent. Enstrom previously submitted his paper to the Journal of the American Medical Association, which rejected the paper with the following statement. “The editors believe that this opinion piece is full of speculative assumptions of doubtful scientific value. We could not judge the merits of your criticisms because your own data and methods were so inadequately described. I should add that your article contains pejorative comments that should have no place in responsible scientific discourse.” Letter from the Journal of the American Bates No. 2073788479, http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/kiv85c00 - The British Medical Association, publisher of the British Medical Journal made a statement: “The study is fundamentally flawed.” http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/EXT-Press+Release+Archive-Public (cont)

12:56 p.m., Feb. 9, 2010

Diogenes said:

- Even the study's co-author Geoffrey Kabat recognizes that SHS exposure is bad. “For COPD, in both men and women, we found a 60 percent increase in people who had heavy exposure. That is suggestive of an effect.” “[But] there's no reason why you should be subjected to inhaling other people's tobacco smoke. People should have the right not to breathe this extra form of air pollution.” http://www.healthcentral.com/news/NewsFullText.cfm?id=513218 Enstrom has ties to the tobacco industry. As early as 1975, he had solicited The Council for Tobacco Research (CTR), a tobacco industry front group, for funding and conintued to be in regular contact with the Tobacco Institute, Clean Indoor Air Research group (a Philip Morris group), and Philip Morris for more than 25 years 2) If Hannegan would actually read the Tuscany Italy heart attack study, he would realize in their closing paragraph, the authors state: "The implementation of smoking bans in public places represents a milestone in the history of public health. The releationship with a decrease of both active and passive smoke is unquestionable, with conclusive evidences on the reductions of a number of health outcomes after the enforcement. In particular, a decrease of cardiovascular events in the long run is expected, given the conclusive association with chronic SHS exposure." - The only part Hannegan shares is that the authors did not find a statistically significant decline in heart attacks in the short-term of within one year. Yet, they did find a decline and they are of the opinion the decline will be significant over a longer time span.

1:36 p.m., Feb. 9, 2010

Wino said:

Here are some facts that Mr. Hannegan hopes you won't uncover - the four leading causes of death in Missouri are ALL tobacco-related. To wit: Heart disease: 26.4% Cancer: 22.9% Cerebrovascular disease(Stroke): 6.0% Chronic lower respiratory disease (COPD): 5.7 Mr. Hannegan and his friends seem to want to share their disease-producing effluent with anyone nearby. I specifically want to thank the City Columbia for their work on reducing the impact of second-hand smoke - many people attending Mizzou games and celebrating afterwards have commented on how nice it was in the bars and restaurants in Columbia. Next year, the St. Louis area will join you, for the most part - maybe completely, if HB 1766 and SB904 are successful.

3:43 p.m., Feb. 9, 2010

Bill Hannegan said:

Diogenes, I am not pro-smoking. I am merely defending the right of the business owner to allow the use of a legal product on his private property, especially if effective technology to remove the smoke has been installed. If business owners all voluntarily ban smoking, that is fine with me. And yes, I often read articles online about proposed smoking bans, and try to supply important information that has been left out. What is wrong with that?

4:10 p.m., Feb. 9, 2010

Bill Hannegan said:

Diogenes, I don't claim that secondhand smoke is not a health threat. But I do believe the health risks of secondhand smoke have been overstated in order to pass smoking bans. It is important for lawmakers and voters to have accurate information before they decide on the smoking ban issue. When they decide based on bad information, it calls into question the validity of the law passed. For instance, St. Louis County voters were told that a smoking ban would cut the heart attack rate in St. Louis County up to 40 percent. Even I would vote for a smoking ban if that were true! But new studies show that it is not true. Yet St. Louis County bars are stuck with a restriction that could put them out of business if they comply. I have a big problem with that!

5:40 p.m., Feb. 9, 2010

Alex said:

Smoking bans do harm businesses. If they helped businesses, then the government wouldn't have to force a ban. Why do business owners have no rights here? If you don't like smoking, then get the hell out of the bar and stop bugging me.

7:13 p.m., Feb. 9, 2010

Diogenes said:

Bill H - That's a big IF regarding effective technology to remove the smoke. I'm sure you're aware of the ASHRAE Position Document of June 30,2005 on Environmental Tobacco Smoke. This can be found at http://www.ashrae.org/docLib/20090120_POS_ETS.pdf Among their conclusions: - - At present, the only means of effectively eliminating health risk associated with indoor exposure is to ban smoking activity - - No other engineering approaches, including current and advanced dilution ventilation or air conditioning technologies, have been demonstrated or should be relied upon to control health risks from ETS exposure in spaces where smoking occurs… - - Because of ASHRAE’s mission to act for the benefit of the public, it encourages elimination of smoking in the indoor environment as the optimal way to minimize ETS exposure. Regarding the owner's right of a legal product on private property. This disregards that this legal activity is causing harm to other people, especially those with respiratory or cardiovascular conditions. Also, when private property is open to public entry, more stringent standards come into play, e.g. food safety, fire codes, etc. Why should stopping a preventable source of air pollution known to be a human carcinogen and cardiovascular risk be exempted? ... and what's wrong with your prolific postings to newspaper websites across the country is that you don't "supply important information that has been left out", but rather supply intentional misinformation.

9:18 p.m., Feb. 9, 2010

JANE BOWMAN said:

HAVING JUST MOVED TO ST LOUIS FROM CALIFORNIA, I HAD FORGOTTEN THAT SOME STATES STILL ALLOW SMOKING. I PRAY THAT THIS BAN GOES INTO EFFECT SOON SO I CAN GO OUT TO EAT OR TAKE MY GRANDKIDS BOWLING AGAIN SOON. I CAN BE AROUND ANY SMOKE HAS I GET PUT IN THE HOSPITAL FROM THE EXPOSURE. IT IS SAD BUT I WAS IN MY 20'S BEFORE I COULD GO BOWLING.

1:43 a.m., Feb. 10, 2010

Bill Hannegan said:

The ASHRAE statement was made in 2005. Today air filtration technology exists that can make the air inside a venue that allows smoking cleaner than the air outdoors. Business owners should be allowed to install this technology rather than ban smoking.

9:52 a.m., Feb. 10, 2010

Diogenes said:

Bill H- So ventilation technology has improved since 2005 enough to remove all the toxins in secondhand smoke? Please share the names of the companies that are marketing such technology. Wouldn't you think ASHRAE would issue a new statement on this breakthrough? Has technology jumped quantum leaps since September of 2007? That's the date when Roswell Park Cancer Institute released their air quality report on a new casino across the river from you in East St. Louis. The casino owner boasted their multi-million dollar ventilation produced air cleaner that outdoor air. But, sampling revealed the air to have 172 micrograms/cubic meter of fine particulate matter, 16 times that of outdoor air, and fell in the EPA category of "very unhealthy" The owner said the high reading was due to dust from sheet rock in the new construction. So, a follow-up sampling a few weeks later found similar high readings. And this was from only 7% of the people smoking at any given time. The report can be viewed at http://www.tobaccofreeair.org/documents/IllinoisCasinoAirMonitoringReport.pdf Now let's suppose there is a miracle ventilation system, how would it handle the smoke you exhale before it would reach my lungs if I was located between you and the unit? I prefer to rely on the expertise of ASHRAE and health physicists like Jim Repace.

2:48 p.m., Feb. 10, 2010

Bill Hannegan said:

Back in 2007 I dealt with such stealth air quality tests when I blew the whistle on James Repace for floating conflicting death tolls on press releases 3 days apart. http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/stories/2007/11/19/editorial2.html

3:04 p.m., Feb. 10, 2010

Bill Hannegan said:

I suggested to casino officials that they respond to these stealth tests by having casino air tested by a nonpartisan air quality firm in St. Louis under proper scientific conditions. Casino officials contacted the firm but tests couldn't be conducted in time to influence legislation. But we do believe proper testing would have shown that the air inside the Casino Queen was cleaner that the outdoor air of East St. Louis.

2:06 p.m., Feb. 12, 2010

Wino said:

Per Mr. Hannegan: "But we do believe proper testing would have shown that the air inside the Casino Queen was cleaner that the outdoor air of East St. Louis." And what are the other nine impossible things you will believe before breakfast?

11:25 p.m., Feb. 12, 2010

Michael J. McFadden said:

Pete wrote, "Yes I'm certainly going to take the word of the "smokersclub" as to whether smoking should be restricted in any way." Not at all Pete. I asked YOU and anyone else to read something *I* wrote and criticize it if you feel there's anything wrong with it. I assume you're intelligent enough to be able to do at least a little reading and evaluation on your own rather than taking predigested "statements from authorities" as your Bible. Simply visit http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/257.html and I invite you, Diogenes, or anyone else to show me up for the fraud that you might like to claim I am. Come back with specific substantive criticisms of my facts, research, or analyses and show the world. Meanwhile, I don't hide behind anonymous names like "Pete" or "Diogenes" - I state openly who I am and what my "competing interest" might be, and I'm willing to stand behind and defend every word I write. So have at me... if you can find anything to aim at. Michael J. McFadden Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

1:47 p.m., Feb. 16, 2010

Michael J. McFadden said:

I see no substantive criticisms available from Diogenes, Pete, et al. Not too surprising... pretty standard actually. - MJM

Post a comment