Add another venue to the list of St. Louis establishments that offer Marth Brothers & Co. air filtration:
Balaban's has reopened as Herbie's 72.
Part of the reason cited for Balaban's demise was an attempt at a smoking ban:
Marth Brothers has just finished installing air filtration in Herbie's 72 in both the regular bar and the $1000 cigar club in back. But Marth Brothers & Co. tells me the ownership might opt for another unit both places if the smoke proves thick. http://www.marthbrothers.com/Indoor_Enviro_Solutions.html
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Add another venue to the list of St. Louis establishments that offer Marth Brothers & Co. air filtration:
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 7:19 PM
Monday, October 20, 2008
Another article concerning St. Louis freedom and property rights, Medical Evidence Helps Hold Off Smoking Bans in St. Louis Region, appeared in the October issue of the Budget & Tax News:
"Despite the smoking ban juggernaut that has run over other towns, the St. Louis Board of Aldermen and St. Louis County Council have both declined to impose such a ban on area bars and restaurants.
Smoking ban opponents have shown these St. Louis leaders an extensive array of medical and economic studies doubting the dangers of secondhand smoke and warning of the likely harm a smoking ban would do to St. Louis businesses."
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 10:30 PM
Thursday, October 16, 2008
I hope people will click on this link to an article in Budget and Tax News, St. Louis Bars & Restaurants Try Clearing the Air, which features the excellent campaign Marth Brothers is waging to clear the air of St. Louis bars and restaurants of lingering tobacco smoke. These great machines clear the air of environmental tobacco smoke, including not only the haze and odor, but also all possible carcinogens as well. Marth Brother air filtration machines can make the air of a venue that allows smoking cleaner than the air outdoors. Yet these machines are available to any St. Louis venue for merely $5 per day.
Go to the Marth Brothers website to see before and after photos of smoky bar air rendered clear in minutes by Marth Brothers machines:
Michael Marth has such confidence in air filtration technology that he helped to craft the Chicago air filtration exemption which would allow smoking in any venue that made its air cleaner than the air outdoors through air filtration technology. Mike Marth knew his machines could do the job and meet that tough air quality standard:
Keep St. Louis Free is considering having the air in a bar featuring Marth Brothers air filtraion tested twice. Once with Marth machines turned off and then again with the air filtration running full blast to scientifically document the air cleaning power of this affordable technology.
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 8:19 PM
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
A mailer from Citizens for Steve Stenger just arrived at homes in the 6th district. The mailer accuses County Councilman John Campisi of missing 3 weeks of County Council meetings back in 2006 when Odenwald's Lambert Airport smoking ban was up for a vote.
Back then Odenwald was putting pressure on Council Republicans to vote for his airport smoking ban. But Campisi was getting calls opposing the smoking ban from labor leaders, members of the St. Louis Airport Authority and grassroots opposition generated by flyers posted in the airport lounges by Keep St. Louis Free. Campisi also learned in those weeks that the St. Louis Airport Authority had just had the lounges tested and the lounges passed the tests with flying colors. They constituted no threat to public health. Since they constituted no threat, Darlene Green was considering a lawsuit against Odenwald's ban. The lounges were City property and only pubic health hazards justify such a restriction by the County Council of City property.
The Lambert smoking lounges cost $500,000 to install and would cost that much again to remove. By not showing up for those meetings, Campisi saved the County a lot of grief and money. Those three missed meetings were a deal for St. Louis County.
Here are the tests which proved Odenwald's Lambert Airport smoking ban unnecessary:
Global Environmental Study - Smoking Lounge Evaluations 9-16-2006
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 7:10 PM
Thursday, October 09, 2008
The campaign to clear the air of St. Louis bars and restaurants of tobacco smoke through air filtration got featured in the October issue of the Heartland Institute's Budget and Tax News. This publication is mailed to a almost all state and national lawmakers, and many city councils across the country as well.
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 12:18 AM
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Here is a McCain ad challenging the possible use of a "Truth Squad' that includes St. Louis Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer and St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch to silence St. Louis free speech. I came across it on the Political Fix blog:
What do you think Bill McKenzie?
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 8:22 PM
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
If air filtration can remove influenza from indoor air and so protect St. Louis public health, perhaps St. Louis government should offer tax credits to businesses that offer their workers and customers this protection.
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 12:13 PM
Once again the Political Fix blog of stltoday.com gives the smoke-free St. Louis tavern the Royale free advertizing.
The Royale has gotten plenty of promotion from the St. Louis press and some even from Mayor Slay:
Good for owner Steven Smith. Whatever bump he gets in business from this attention though should not be credited to his smoking ban.
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 11:59 AM
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
It seems that these surveys just keep coming and coming. They come from many different sources and pretty much all say the same thing. Most people that smoke want to quit. Like we needed to spend 1.4 million oftax payers money to figure that out. Which is also not surprising is that how it was released to the press. The constant in these surveys is that they want a means to an end. They want to ban smoking in all public and private places. The press release proudly pronounces that over half of people support a ban at restaurants and bars. I'm not surprised because the same result was released by Smoke-Free St Louis just last month. What they are counting on is that most people won't look at the actual results. The real results are this - yes over half think that smoking should not be allowed in restaurants. That is how the question was asked. There is a big difference in "think that smoking should not be allowed" and "supports a comprehensive law". What make it even more interesting is the question that was asked. In the indoor dining area of restaurants, do you think that smoking should be allowed in all areas, allowed in some areas, or not allowed at all? Most restaurants allow smoking in the "bar area" only. This question ignores that and would seem to "trick" people into advocating for a ban. As a matter of fact, I think that smoking should only be allowed in the bar area of a restaurant. I also am against making it a law and forcing my beliefs on owners and other patrons. According to this survey and how they publish it, I am for a smoking ban.
When it comes to bars its quite different. When asked this question: In bars and cocktail lounges, do you think smoking should be allowed in all areas, some areas or not at all? Only 26.7% said that smoking should not be allowed at all in bars and cocktail lounges. This would absolutely negate the headline that a majority of people want smoking banned at restaurants and bars.
An even more telling statistic that came out of this survey was if people wanted a stronger workplace policy amongst those that work indoors. Only 12.6% of people surveyed want a stronger policy against second hand smoke. While I was surprised at this number I probably shouldn't have been. What I've known for a long time is that simply put - most people don't care. There are the vocal minority that want smoking banned everywhere including places they wouldn't go. On the other side, there are those such as myself that want to leave it up to the business to decide. The vast majority in the middle don't care. People in Missouri are happy with how it is.
Now this is where it gets interesting. When asked again if they would support a smoke-free law in Restaurants they received a 63.5 yes. When they also ask if they would support it in all work places it drops down to 56%. Of course when asked if smoking should be allowed in bars more than 70% say that it should be. What this says is that people in general don't want smoking around them when they are eating. Of course - another question asked if people had not gone to a restaurant because it allowed smoking. To that question only 14% said they had avoided a restaurant because it allowed smoking. Contrast to to 8.5% of people that said the avoided a restaurant because it didn't allow smoking. This simply states something that most people already know. There is a market for both smoking and non-smoking.
Confused - you should be because how could over 70% of the people say that smokingshould be allowed in bars, but 56% of the people would support a law banning it everywhere. When asked if smoking shouldn't be allowed in restaurants 56.5% said that shouldn't. When asked if they would support a law banning smoking in restaurants 63.5% said they would. How can more people support a law banningsmoking when 7% less think it should be allowed. Either 7% of the respondents were confused by asking the same question 5 different ways or they think that it should be allowed and illegal. I'm going with confused on this one.
There were several questions regarding health and SHS. Overwhelmingly people feel that SHS is bad for you. This doesn't mean that SHS is actually bad for you, it what the general population believes. At one time people thought that bleeding aperson would get out the bad blood. People thought that because that is what they were told. This is the same for SHS and what people think. Most people aren't exposed to the actual research. Whats important is that even with the thought that SHS is deadly still a significant percentage of people still think that a ban is a bad idea. Imagine what the numbers would be if people saw the research. Or if they read the SG Report that said something like 107 times that there is no relationship between SHS and illness. This survey would have drastically different numbers.
In the end, it is a choice people have to make. They make it at where they eat and drink. They also make it were they work. The whole idea of a ban is to protect everyone from SHS. According to this study, only 11.5% of people have been around SHS at work in the past 7 days. You have to assume that some of those people are smokers. That leaves a very small percentage of people to protect. With a 88.5% of workplaces not being subject to SHS they have plenty of options - if they want it.
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 8:27 PM
A new survey by Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services finds that only 27.5 percent of Missourians think smoking should be banned in all adult venues. This represents an even lower level of support than the 29 percent of Americans who said that they would support a strict smoking ban in all bars and cocktail lounges in a 2007 Gallup Poll.
I am sure that a far smaller percentage of Missourians would insist on a smoking ban in venues that feature the sort of air filtration Marth Brothers and Company now provides in many St. Louis bars and restaurants:
Air filtration is the real answer to the smoking ban issue!
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 6:02 AM