Thursday, December 30, 2010

Compliance With City Smoking Ban

What we are telling bar owners who call us:

Any establishment that limits its patronage to those over 21 should retain the right to allow the use of a legal product on their private property. This is even more strongly true of private clubs, Union Halls, and VFW Halls. I believe ordinary citizens, and even officials with the Health Department, understand that. But a law has been passed that must be enforced to some extent. As long as any nonexempt establishment posts "No Smoking" signs and removes all ashtrays, the establishment is in compliance with this law. The St. Louis City Smoke Free Air Act of 2009 does not compel any establishment to act as a police officer. Though free to do so if they wish, no owner is under any obligation to make a patron stop smoking or force a smoking patron to leave. If signs are posted and ashtrays removed, only the smoker, not the establishment, is in violation of the smoking ban. I believe such an interpretation of the enforcement provisions of the St. Louis City Smoke Free Air Act of 2009 will hold up in court.


It is clear the the Board of Aldermen intended to exempt all establishments with less than 2000 sq. ft. of "people space" that sell more alcohol than food from the ordinance for five years. Having sat through the deliberations of the Board of Aldermen, it is clear they accepted the state of Missouri's definition of a bar and did not wish to impose a food percentage restriction beyond that definition of "bar". Any establishment of less than 2000 sq. ft. of people space that sells more alcohol than food should consider themselves exempt under this law.

Finally, Health Director Walker indicates that fully-enclosed tents will be counted towards people space. The St. Louis City Smoke Free of 2009 never mentions tents specifically, but does regulate fully-enclosed spaces to which the public has access. As long as any tent is not fully- enclosed on all four sides, it should not be counted toward the 2000 sq. ft. limit.



County Bars Have Unlimited Time To File

It is being reported that only 50 County bars have so far filed for a smoking ban exemption. I called the St. Louis County Health Department. They told me bars have an unlimited time to file.

Thursday, December 23, 2010

Dana Loesch's New Tattoo

I have always felt that the Tea Party Movement was not a mere rebellion against taxes but rather a fight against dark spiritual forces threatening freedom and life in America. Dana Loesch confirms this with her new forearm tattoo: Ephesians 6:12-14

The cited verse reads:

"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand."


Monday, December 20, 2010

Smoking Ban Wont Cut St. Louis Heart Attack Rate

The St. Louis City and County smoking bans were sold on the premise that the St. Louis heart attack rate would plummet due to the bans. Turns out, according to a just published study, that's not going to happen.

From Dr. Michael Siegel's blog:

"A new study by researchers from the RAND Corporation, Center for Studying Health System Change, University of Wisconsin, and Stanford University is the first to examine the relationship between smoking bans and heart attack admissions and mortality trends in the entire nation, using national data. All previous U.S. studies only examined one particular city. In contrast, this study examined data from the Nationwide Inpatient Survey (NIS), which is nationally representative and includes 20% of all non-federal hospital discharges in the United States. The study appears in the Winter 2011 issue of the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management.

Without a doubt, this is the most definitive study yet conducted of the short-term effects of smoking bans on cardiovascular disease.

To give you an idea of the scope of this study compared to previous ones, the Helena study involved a total of 304 heart attack admissions in one community over a period of six months. This study examined a total of 673,631 heart attack admissions and more than 2 million heart attack deaths in 467 counties across all 50 states over an 16-year period.

This study fails to find any significant short-term effect of smoking bans on heart attack admissions or heart attack mortality, although a small effect cannot be ruled out. The study refutes the claims from previous studies that smoking bans result in a short-term reduction in heart attacks in the range of 20-40%, as many anti-smoking groups are asserting. It also refutes the conclusion of the Institute of Medicine that smoking bans result in immediate, substantial declines in heart attack admissions."

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/12/new-study-of-national-heart-attack.html
http://reason.com/blog/2010/12/20/first-nationwide-study-finds-n

_________________

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Compliance with the St. Louis City Smoking Ban

What we are telling bar owners who call us:

Any establishment that limits its patronage to those over 21 should retain the right to allow the use of a legal product on their private property. This is even more strongly true of private clubs, Union Halls, and VFW Halls. I believe ordinary citizens, and even officials with the Health Department, understand that. But a law has been passed that must be enforced to some extent. As long as any nonexempt establishment posts "No Smoking" signs and removes all ashtrays, the establishment is in compliance with this law. The St. Louis City Smoke Free Air Act of 2009 does not compel any establishment to act as a police officer. Though free to do so if they wish, no owner is under any obligation to make a patron stop smoking or force a smoking patron to leave. If signs are posted and ashtrays removed, only the smoker, not the establishment, is in violation of the smoking ban. I believe such an interpretation of the enforcement provisions of the St. Louis City Smoke Free Air Act of 2009 will hold up in court.


It is clear the the Board of Aldermen intended to exempt all establishments with less than 2000 sq. ft. of "people space" that sell more alcohol than food from the ordinance for five years. Having sat through the deliberations of the Board of Aldermen, it is clear they accepted the state of Missouri's definition of a bar and did not wish to impose a food percentage restriction beyond that definition of "bar". Any establishment of less than 2000 sq. ft. of people space that sells more alcohol than food should consider themselves exempt under this law.

Finally, Health Director Walker indicates that fully-enclosed tents will be counted towards people space. The St. Louis City Smoke Free of 2009 never mentions tents specifically, but does regulate fully-enclosed spaces to which the public has access. As long as any tent is not fully- enclosed on all four sides, it should not be counted toward the 2000 sq. ft. limit.



Thursday, December 09, 2010

Question for Surgeon General Benjamin

Is cigarette smoke a uniquely dangerous smoke? My sons box at a gym that burns incense, one son blacksmiths and another welds. My daughter is going to a party with a bonfire. Should their smoke exposure concern me as far as heart disease? Or is cigarette smoke the only kind that can be lethal in very small doses?


Tuesday, December 07, 2010

Councilman Burkett's Bill

Dear Members of the St. Louis County Council,

I hope that you will support Councilman Burkett's bill to exempt bars in casinos that would otherwise be exempt if located in St. Louis County outside a casino. St. Louis County voters clearly voted to allow smoking in these establishments and there is nothing wrong with the Council correcting glitch in a law so that the law more perfectly fulfills the obvious will of the voters. I don't believe any County business would have any objection to Councilman Burkett's attempt to make the County smoking ban more fair in its application and more reflective of the will of County voters.

Sincerely,

Bill Hannegan

Wednesday, December 01, 2010

St. Louis Smoking Ban Exemption Discussion

Dear Mayor Slay and Directors of the St. Louis City Health Department,

I attended the deliberations of the Health and Human Services Committee during which the exemptions to the St. Louis City Smoke Free Air Act of 2009 were crafted. During the 3 hour meeting, after proposing a bar exemption based on square footage, Alderman Craig Schmid explicitly rejected tying the exemption to any percentage of food sales, saying he wanted "to encourage lots of food" and not just drinking. Furthermore, the later exclusion of kitchen space by the full Board of Aldermen from the square footage totals clearly showed that the aldermen had in mind the exemption of venues with substantial food sales. It was clear to those present at the committee meeting and final deliberations of the full Board of Aldermen that the aldermen intended to allow smoking for five years in establishments in which drinking was the main attraction. Hence not restaurants. But they clearly believed such exempted drinking establishments might have food sales of 50 percent or more.

Sincerely,

Bill Hannegan
314.367.3779
314.315.3779

City Health Department Smoking Ban Discussion

Department of Health Smoking Ban Press Release

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Delay Granting License

Missouri Gaming Commissioners,


Please find attached the study by St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank economists concerning the negative effect of the Illinois smoking ban on casino revenues. These economists determined that casino revenues plunged 20 percent due to the smoking ban. Even casinos in the middle of the state were hurt. How could a Cape Girardeau casino subjected to a smoking ban escape a similar ill effect?

Commissioners, it would be wise to not grant a license for a Cape Girardeau casino until the smoking ban issue in Cape Girardeau has been resolved. Though smoking bans have rarely been defeated at the ballot box, a smoking ban in Cape Girardeau could be defeated by a strong effort from casino supporters. Whether casino supporters will join and help fund a successful campaign against the proposed smoking ban remains to be seen.

Cape Girardeau Ban Goes to Vote

The Southeast Missourian confirmed today that the Cape Girardeau smoking ban which includes casinos will be voted on. How could theMissouri Department of Economic Development have ignored this looming economic factor given the recent smoking ban experience in Illinois? From the Southeast Missourian today:

"City Clerk Gayle Conrad confirmed that the petition had a sufficient number of signatures to get the issue on the ballot. Cape Girardeau County Clerk Kara Clark Summers verified 2,571 of the signatures that the group collected. The required number is 2,441, or about 10 percent of registered voters.

Once Conrad officially certifies the signatures, the Cape Girardeau City Council has 60 days to act on the proposed ordinance. If it votes it down or ignores it, it will go to a vote of the people."


Monday, November 29, 2010

New Casino Site

Dear Mayor Slay,


The report favoring Cape Girardeau as the best site for a new casino is flawed. It does not take into account the Cape Girardeau smoking ban that includes casinos which will surely pass this April. The report also does not consider the likely exemption of casinos from the Illinois ban this session. A smoke-free Cape Girardeau casino could wind up competing with Missouri and Illinois casinos which allow smoking. This situation, according to St. Louis Federal Reserve economist Tom Garret, would cause a 20 percent decline in casino revenues similar to the losses suffered by the Casino Queen due to the Illinois smoking ban. The report says nothing about this likely scenario.

Please find the Cape Girardeau smoking ban which goes on the ballot this April attached. Also attached is the bill put forward by Chicago representative Daniel Burke lifting the ban on smoking in Illinois casinos.

Sincerely,

Bill Hannegan
314.367.3779
314.315.3779 (cell)

Friday, November 26, 2010

Missouri Gaming Commissioners

Missouri Gaming Commissioners,


Please find attached the proposed smoking ban for Cape Girardeau which goes on the ballot in April. It is very likely to pass since nationally smoking bans have only been defeated 4 times at the ballot box. This ordinance specifically includes casinos.

Please also find attached the Illinois House Bill 1846 which lifts the smoking ban on Illinois casinos. Sponsored by Rep. Daniel Burke of Chicago, it has a good chance of passing this session.

Commissioners, a smoke-free Cape Girardeau casino could end up competing with smoking-allowed Illinois and Missouri casinos. I don't believe the Missouri Department of Economic Development took this possibility into account when they compiled the report released today.

I wanted you to have full information as you consider whether or not to award a 13th casino license.

Sincerely,

Bill Hannegan

New Missouri Casino Report

Economic Analysis

Cape Girardeau gets a smoking ban on the ballot soon that includes casinos. It is very likely to pass unless casino interests generously fund opposition to the ban. Smoking bans have only been defeated at the ballot box 4 times. Across the river, an Illinois lawmaker has told me that Illinois casinos have a good chance of allowing smoking again this session. So a smoke-free Cape Girardeau casino will likely have to compete with smoking Illinois casinos. Does the study take this into account?

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

More Camp Zoe Analysis

"If they succeed in seizing Camp Zoe, we can expect the same tactics to be used against music venues nation-wide," Dan Viets told Pro Libertate. "This is a major test case that is being watched very carefully by people who hold music festivals and other large events, and who might find their property and profits subject to seizure without even being accused of a crime, let alone convicted of one."

Those seeking to steal Camp Zoe -- and their stenographers in the local press -- are betting heavily that the mainstream public won't rally to the defense of a counter-culture outpost owned by an bass-playing entrepreneur in dreadlocks.
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2010/11/stealing-camp-zoe-federal-forfeiture.html

Sunday, November 21, 2010

DEA, Jimmy Tebeau and Camp Zoe

This long post about the DEA, Jimmy Tebeau and Camp Zoe on the RFT blog really nailed the DEA to the wall on Zoe. Here is a link to RFT article:
http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/atoz/2010/11/camp_zoe_site_of_schwagstock_f.php

This is really right on!


Jerry says:

"When you go to get a building permit in your county, will they issue it to you if there is something wrong? If Camp Zoe was the largest open drug air market in the Ozarks why did they continue to let it happen for 4 years??????? Collect sales tax from it? Put kids lives in danger? Does your tax dollars pay for Jimmy to train and protect us or law enforcement? From what this blogs says, these were big time drug dealers and the cops knowingly and willing let this happen for 4 years. Why did they want Jimmy to do their job? The lady who went to pull her daughter out of Camp Zoe was there what 1 hour and knew that there was drugs. How long did it take you to know drugs were being sold down there? Before you got your tent up? Have you been watching the news? Drug cartels will cut your head off if you try to stop them. Do you think Jimmy wanted to put his family at risk? Or his patrons? 4 YEARS why so long? The first drug purchase that an undercover agent made at Camp Zoe they should have made an arrest! The next permit Zoe wanted issued they should have said NO! We are sorry but we cannot issue you this permit. We have had undercover law enforcement in the crowd and something needs to be done to get a handle on the drug use! If someone smokes pot or serves a minor in a bar, they ticket the owners, if they think they were not trying to control it and give them a warning. 3 warnings and they take away their license. They do not seize the property. The State sends undercover, underage kids all the time into establishments even for cigarettes. They arrest the employee that served it on the spot and gives the place a fine. Why do people not understand and get it threw their thick head. Jimmy is NOT a Drug Enforcement Agent! Your tax dollars pays for the DEA to fight the war on drugs NOT Jimmy! If they need to shut the place down and no more Schwagstocks fine. But do not let them take his land. Let him sell it and get his money out of it. That is why you take a risk and make investments. His bank accounts have been frozen he cannot pay his staff, bills, property taxes and he has been charged with no crime. It is bullshit and everybody should fight like hell so that this does not keep happening to people. If the feds really need the money to fight the war on drugs so badly. They would Drug test everybody who is on or applying for government assistance. 25 year ago when I was in high school, we use to go to the doobie drive up (bus stop at the section 8 housing complex) anytime of the day and get weed, mdma, coke anything we wanted and from what I hear you still can today. I guess the feds are not able to take their own land so it will never stop. I also think that if they drug test all the people living in government housing. 1/2 the war on drugs would be won. Because then maybe work & food will be more important than drugs. The government could make so much money off that. Can you imagine? Not having to feed and house the people who are abusing the system. But giving it to the people that really need it. Wow! then I would think the war on drugs is worth it."

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Protect O'Fallon Businesses with Free Choice

Dear Mayor Hennessy and O'Fallon City Councilmembers,

I want to warn you that a substantial number of bars in St. Louis County and St. Louis City will be legally be able to continue to allow smoking after Jan 2nd next year. Furthermore, due to the unfairness of both the City and County laws, and their weak enforcement provisions, a large amount of noncompliance can be expected from St. Louis bars and restaurants included in these bans. I strongly suggest for the sake of O'Fallon businesses that any smoking ban legislation put on the ballot exempt "over 21" venues so that no O'Fallon business is left at a competitive disadvantage with similar businesses in St. Louis City or County.

St. Charles County residents favor such an exemption. The most recent survey by the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services shows that only 31.2 percent of St. Charles County residents favor a total ban on smoking in bars and cocktail lounges. This survey lines up almost exactly with a Gallup Poll released last August which found that only 31 percent of Americans favor a total ban on smoking in bars.
http://www.dhss.mo.gov/County_level_study/Maindownpdf.php?key=0414139399939&cnty=929&profile_type=2&chkBox=C&dtdb=clstudy_1_gdbm%20&cndb=cntydb&urdb=clsurldb&lbdb=clstudy_2lbldba&lbdbs=clstudy_2lbldba&pth=/web/data/County_level_study/
http://www.gallup.com/poll/141809/Americans-Smoking-Off-Menu-Restaurants.aspx

Research shows that even when imposed statewide, smoking bans cut bar revenues and bar employment. The effect of a smoking ban is even more harmful when neighboring businesses face no such restriction or ignore those in place. Please do not be swayed by the false assurances of professional smoking ban advocates such as Pat Lindsey. Smoking bans do hurt businesses. The best way to protect O'Fallon businesses is to allow free choice to O'Fallon adults with an "over 21" exemption. The Tennessee smoking ban features such an exemption. Please find this law attached.

Sincerely,

Bill Hannegan
314.367.3779
314.315.3779

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Illinois Might Roll Back Ban

Letter to Illinois House Executive Committee

Dear Chairman Burke and Executive Committee Members,

Please amend the Illinois smoking ban in a way fair to all businesses.

Rather than selectively exempting casinos, please consider reinstating the Chicago air filtration exemption statewide:

"Any public place or place of employment otherwise subject to this Chapter whose owner or operator can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the commissioner of public health and the commissioner of the environment, that such area has been equipped with air filtration or purification devices or similar technologies as to render the exposure to secondhand smoke in such area, notwithstanding the fact that smoking may be occurring in such area, equivalent to such exposure to secondhand smoke in the ambient outdoor air surrounding the establishment. The commissioner of public health and the commissioner of the environment are jointly authorized to promulgate regulations specifying what types of technologies, when and if available, and taking into account any applicable Federal and/or State standards, satisfy the requirements of this paragraph."
http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_ATTACH/MunicipalCode7-32_1.html#7_32_080

Or please consider an "over 21" exemption such as the Tennessee smoking ban provides. Please find the Tennessee smoking ban attached.

I am very glad to see Illinois moving in the direction of increased freedom and property rights concerning this issue.

Sincerely,

Bill Hannegan
314.367.3779
314.315.3779 (cell)

Monday, November 15, 2010

New Illinois Report Blames Smoking Ban

"However, the numbers continue to suggest that the biggest contributor to the drop in Illinois casino revenues is the indoor smoking ban," the report concludes.

http://www.suntimes.com/business/2890786,CST-NWS-gamb13.article

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Americans for Forfeiture Reform

This afternoonI talked with Eapen Thampy at Americans for Forfeiture Reform www.forfeiturereform.com

He tells me that the Feds took all the money Jimmy had to pay the bills and mortgage at Zoe. Nevermind hiring a legal defense. Right now Zoe needs contributions just to stay afloat.

_________________

Saturday, November 13, 2010

Help Camp Zoe at This Website

"Dear friends and family of Camp Zoe. We are sad to report the federal government is apparently attempting to shut down Camp Zoe. They raided the campground on Monday, November 1, 2010 around 7:30 a.m.. They had a search warrant looking for gate revenue from the Spookstock 9 (Oct. 29+30) festival weekend and any financial records. They came in with 70+ officers from the IRS, DEA, Homeland Security, Highway patrol, and local & regional police officers."

http://www.campzoe.com/

Complaint against Camp Zoe and Jimmy Tebeau

Camp Zoe Complaint

Friday, November 12, 2010

Smoking Dope In the Fox Theatre

St. Louis Police Officers and 45 private security people refused to enforce the smoke-free policy or marijuana laws at a recent Widespread Panic concert at the Fox Theatre. A City police officer present told me that they were not asking people to put out their indoor cigarettes or joints. I asked, "Isn't this a smoke-free show?" He replied, "We could enforce that and we could have a riot too!" So how is Jimmy Tebeau supposed to do better than the St. Louis City Police Department at his Camp Zoe shows

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Can the Government Really Steal Camp Zoe

Jimmy Tebeau is a friend of mine and his band has played at parties at my house. This must be devastating to him and I can't believe the government can take his property without charging him with any crime!

http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2010/11/camp_zoe_schwagstock_drug_investigation_seizure.php

Monday, November 08, 2010

Creve Coeur Clubs Exempt



This ordinance only extends the County ban to one Creve Coeur bar, the Hive, and turns the burden of enforcement of the ban over to the Creve Coeur police. Councilwoman Kistner looks pretty dumb right now. The answer to these bans is to put an over 21 workplace exemption on the ballot, which most County residents support.

Sunday, November 07, 2010

More on Creve Coeur Smoking Ban

 

Basically, Creve Coeur private clubs are being screwed with a phony private clubs exemption that makes the ban sound reasonable. Mr. Jordan of the Creve Coeur American Legion Post explains that the law exempts private clubs with no employees, yet unpaid officers of the club such as himself are considered employees. Hence all private clubs will be included in the ban. Someone needs to call Councilwoman Kistner on this.

Kirkwood Veterans Are Steamed!

 

Letter to Councilwoman Kistner Concerning Private Clubs

Dear Councilwoman Kistner,

Ventilation and filtration systems are readily available to Creve Coeur bars and private clubs which can substantially clear tobacco smoke from their indoor air. Please find attached a 2008 study which demonstrates this. Shouldn't private clubs be allowed to install such technology, if they have not done so already, rather than face a smoking ban? Shouldn't they be allowed that option?

Bill Hannegan
314.367.3779

Wednesday, November 03, 2010

Letter to Creve Coeur Councilwoman Kistner

Dear Councilwoman Kistner,

The St. Louis County smoking ban passed by a strong majority last year in part due to its reasonable exemptions for "over 21" entertainment venues like casinos and bars, as well as its exemption for old folks living out their last years in nursing homes. All private clubs were rightly exempted. The County ban lined up with what St. Louis County residents, Missourians and Americans generally want: no smoking in most restaurants but free choice in "over 21" establishments and private clubs..

In fact, the latest Gallup poll released in August found that only 31 percent of Americans favor a ban on all smoking in bars.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/141809/Americans-Smoking-Off-Menu-Restaurants.aspx

Likewise, a 2007 Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services poll likewise found that only 30 percent of St. Louis County residents, and only 27 percent of Missourians, favor such an extreme restriction.


Councilwoman Kistner, your proposed smoking ban for Creve Coeur removes most of the County's reasonable exemptions and turns over enforcement of the ban to the Creve Coeur police. I find it particularly unconscionable that you seek to ban all smoking in the Creve Coeur American Legion hall established just after World War II, yet your ordinance exempts a cigar bar that is open to the public. How can you justify restricting the freedoms of Creve Coeur veterans in their own private club, yet tolerate tobacco smoke in a for-profit business the public can enter without charge? Our veterans deserve better than to be hassled by Creve Coeur police in their own private club!

Furthermore, your ordinance entirely bans smoking in nursing homes, yet state law clearly permits such homes to allow indoor designated smoking areas. Local ordinances cannot ban what state law permits. I hope a legal challenge would soon be brought against this Draconian aspect of your ban if it passes and is enforced in its current form. Really Councilwoman Kistner, many people enter nursing homes at the end of their lives with little choice, often against their will. To send them out into the rain, wind and cold is really a mean thing on your part that I hope you will reconsider.

Sincerely,

Bill Hannegan
314.367.3779
314.315.3779 (cell)

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Clayton Park Smoking Ban Legal Challenge

I am working with a group of lawyers putting together a challenge to the Clayton smoking ban in public parks. The team of lawyers is lead by Beavis Schock, who recently successfully challenged Paul McKee's Northside plan.
http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2010/07/12/story2.html

Any Clayton resident who currently smokes in any Clayton park, and wishes to continue to do so, should contact me: keepst.louisfree@gmail.com

We need as many plaintiffs as possible.

Sunday, October 10, 2010

AQ Test to Answer Wash U

The PD and Wash U say air filtration doesn't work against tobacco smoke. I thought of an easy test last night that would prove them wrong:

The smoking room of local tobacco shop has the best air filtration system around that I have heard of , better even than the five unit system at DD's. I'll get six cigar smokers to smoke there for an hour. It takes an hour to smoke an average cigar. During the first half hour of this smoking session, the filtration system will be off. At the end of that half hour, an AQ scientist will measure the smoke in the air. For the next half hour the filtration system will be on full blast. After a half hour of filtration, the air will again be tested. If the PD and Wash U are right, the air at the end of hour should be at its worst. But I doubt that is what will happen.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Alderman Waterhouse Explains Troupe's Draconian Public Drinking Law on Reardon

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Quincy Troupe's Proposed Public Drinking Law

Quincy Troupe's Drinking Law

I just read thru Alderman Quincy Troupe's proposes public drinking law a couple times and it is pretty confusing. Doesn't this law ban drinking beer at any picnic in Forest Park except a licensed picnic event? And what about tailgating at Ram's games? Nonintoxicating beer is banned too? So you can't sit in the park with an O'douls and read a book.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Three "smoke specific ventilation systems" in a restaurant




These ceiling fans would qualify as "smoke specific ventilation systems" for the new Wash U secondhand smoke study. Martin Pion wasn't sure to what extent ceiling fans were the subject of the new research. He is currently checking and will let us know.

Friday, September 10, 2010

Wash U Secondhand Smoke Study

SHS SummaryFINAL9.8


We have no idea if the Wash U study tested any reputable air purification systems. The units in the tested establishment may well have been inadequate and poorly maintained. The Double D Lounge has five perfectly maintained air purification machines that remove all components of secondhand smoke from bar air. I challenge Wash U to test the air at the Double D Lounge.

Wednesday, September 08, 2010

Wash U Secondhand Smoke Study Proved Nothing About Ventilation

I challenge the Wash U researchers to test the air at the Double D Lounge which has five of the most powerful air purification systems ever made running 24/7. These units remove all the components of secondhand smoke from bar air. If the air at Double D Lounge is found to be polluted, then I'll concede their point.

Till then, we have no idea what "ventilation systems" were in use in the establishments tested since the establishments tested remain unnamed. "Ventilation systems" could mean anything?

Some lesser filtration systems get the particles but leave the nicotine behind. Dr. Walt Sumner, President of the St. Louis Academy of Family Physicians says it is the particles that are harmful, not the chemicals.

Maybe by "ventilation systems" they meant purifans:

http://www.purifan.com/

Wash U Releases Secondhand Smoke Study Today


Very few St. Louis establishments have adequate air purification systems installed to deal with secondhand smoke. The Double D Lounge has the best system of any bar in St. Louis City or County. That system runs 24/7 and is scrupulously maintained. Wash U didn't study the Double D Lounge. So what can this study tell us except that bars with lousy ventilation and no purification systems are smoky?


If this study finds that ventilation and air purification are ineffective against secondhand smoke, then why does OSHA allow workplaces to clear car exhaust and welding smoke with the same technology? Why does Barnes hospital use the same technology to keep its operating rooms free of viruses and bacteria?

Wednesday, September 01, 2010

Monday, August 23, 2010

Missouri Senators Versus EPA

Missouri businesses need to back up our Missouri senators in their stand against new EPA ozone rules. I am proud of Senator Bond's fighting spirit when he says:

"This administration must be realizing that its job-killing, big-government agenda isn't what the voters want. But I want to ensure these EPA regulations are stopped, not just delayed until a more convenient time after the election."

I am calling the offices of Bond and McCaskill tomorrow and am encouraging everyone possible to do the same.

These new ozone standards would threaten many Missouri businesses. In the paint business, for example, voc restrictions due to these new rules could outlaw many of the oil-based paints necessary to preserve traditional architecture in St. Louis. If these rules go through, I hope the paint companies challenge this ruling in court the way the tobacco companies successfully challenged the 1992 EPA Report.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/political-fix/article_4766e5b8-aee7-11df-bf0b-0017a4a78c22.html

Monday, August 16, 2010

Brentwood Smoking Ban Passes

It will be interesting to see if Mayor Kelly and the Brentwood Board of Aldermen have violated the Special Laws Clause of the Missouri Constitution by writing and passing a special law they freely admit was only intended to equally hinder three Brentwood businesses. Donna mentioned to the press tonight that she is exploring such a challenge.

Margaret Gillerman once again does a really fair article about the ban in the Post-Dispatch.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_c9f50f9d-44e0-5883-b4ba-fd0b83468df2.html?mode=story

Brentwood Board of Alderman Votes Tonight

Thursday, August 12, 2010

Gallup Poll: Brentwood Smoking Ban Too Strict!

Dear Brentwood Board of Aldermen:


A Gallup Poll released last Friday found that only 31 percent of Americans favor a complete ban on smoking in bars.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/141809/Americans-Smoking-Off-Menu-Restaurants.aspx

This new Gallup Poll backs up a 2007 survey by the Missouri Department Health and Senior Services which found that only 30 percent of St. Louis County residents favor a ban on smoking in all bars.

Clearly voters, including Brentwood voters, believe the proposed Brentwood smoking ban is too strict.

Furthermore, the proposed smoking ban will put a new burden on the Brentwood police and fire departments who will be charged with the costly enforcement of the Brentwood smoking ban in all Brentwood businesses, independent of the County smoking ban. Is it really necessary for Brentwood police and fire departments to duplicate and supercede the costly smoking ban enforcement of St. Louis County Department of Health? Especially since the proposed Brentwood smoking ban would only include two bars and an American Legion Hall not currently included in the County ban!

The "over 21" Double D Lounge has spent a great deal of money installing the most effective air purification system of any bar in St. Louis City or County. Don't they deserve an exemption? Sidelines is an old-timer's bar not bothering anyone. Why bother them? And can't the war veterans at the American Legion Hall make their own decisions? Why put Brentwood through all this trouble and expense just to restrict three adult establishments?

Sincerely,

Bill Hannegan

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Gallup Smoking Ban Poll Just Released

A Gallup Poll was released last Friday which found that only 31 percent of Americans favor a complete ban on smoking in bars.

Gallup sums up the finding:

"Currently, half of U.S. states have broad bans on smoking in enclosed public places, including workplaces, restaurants, and bars. The rest have more limited restrictions, such as requiring designated smoking areas in restaurants and workplaces, or prohibiting smoking only in government buildings and schools. A careful review of these laws could reveal that some states go further in restricting smoking than the American public would prefer, while others don't go nearly far enough."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/141809/Americans-Smoking-Off-Menu-Restaurants.aspx

The Brentwood Board of Aldermen votes on a smoking ban the includes all Brentwood "over 21" bars and private clubs, including the American Legion Hall, on Monday night. Most Americans don't want a ban that strict!

Monday, August 02, 2010

Vote YES on Proposition C




Tomorrow Missouri voters will be the first in the nation to weigh in on the subject of government mandated health insurance. The Show Me state will have the opportunity to show Washington and the rest of the country that it is NOT acceptable to force Missouri citizens to purchase something that they do not want, that it is not the role of Congress to determine for each individual what product is necessary for his or her well-being. Essentially, Proposition C is an issue of freedom: whether or not Missourians will have the freedom to discern for themselves what is in their best interests.

Please vote for freedom by voting YES on C!

Monday, July 19, 2010

Letter to County Councilman Barbara Fraser

Dear Councilman Fraser,

I found an interesting survey conducted just before the November 2006 election in Ohio. The survey found that smoking bans with exemptions are preferred by both the general public and likely voters over complete bans. This supports our contention that the exemptions in your St. Louis County smoking ban made it more popular with County voters than it would have been had a strict smoking ban that included bars had been proposed. Here is the relevant passage from the attached survey:

"Smoking Ban without exception
Yes 42.6 47.7
No 46.9 43.9
Undecided 10.5 8.4
Smoking Ban with exceptions
Yes 51.4 52.5
No 33.8 36.1
Undecided 14.8 11.4

A proposed ban on smoking in public places without exceptions garners 43% support from the general public and 47% opposition. However, the figures are reversed among likely voters, where the proposition leads 48 to 44%. This was the only example where the preferences of the public in general and likely voters differ for ballot proposals.

A proposal to ban smoking in public places with some exceptions was more popular, with a majority of both the general public and likely voters supporting it."
http://www.uakron.edu/bliss/docs/FallPollReportFall2006draft2_2_.pdf

Councilman Fraser, this survey lines up very nicely with the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services 2007 survey which found that though 58.3 percent of County residents support a smoke-free workplace law, only 30.2 percent want smoking banned in bars and cocktail lounges. Both surveys are evidence that County residents do not want a smoking ban that includes all bars as smoking ban proponents contend.

Sincerely,

Bill Hannegan
314.367.3779

Thursday, July 15, 2010

Letter to Dr. Elizabeth Klein

Dear Dr. Klein,


Thank you so much for sending a copy of your bar employment study.

Right off I do find it irregular that your study does not mention the highly influential work of economist Dr. Michael Pakko. Dr. Pakko's economic studies have long been consulted by Midwestern journalists, business and political leaders, and the general public, on the St. Federal Reserve Bank website and his writings on smoking bans have been published in the Federal Reserve Bank publication the Regional Economist. The St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank has even put out a video concerning his Illinois smoking ban study that is available on You Tube! When St. Louis City was considering a smoking ban last year, Dr. Pakko's standing as a research economist at the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank gave his Columbia and Illinois casino smoking ban studies preeminence over studies conducted by public health professionals. His work had a huge roll in the exemption of bars and casinos from the smoking bans recently passed in St. Louis City and County, and in smoking ban deliberations in cities and states across America. Why does your study pretend his research does not exist?

I would like to further point out that your study can only provide reassurance to communities with low smoking rates. (The Minnesota smoking rate in 2007 was the fifth lowest in the nation, 17 percent, well below the national average.) Such communities according to the research of Dr. Chad Cotti and Dr. Scott Adams are not likely to see a large declines in bar and restaurant employment due to smoking bans. But Dr. Cotti says his research does indeed warn of catastrophic declines in bar employment in places with high smoking rates like St. Louis City. Last year Dr. Cotti predicted that a strict smoking ban in St. Louis City would cause a 19.7 percent decline in bar employment and the closure of many establishmens. Please find Dr. Cotti's statement attached.

Dr. Klein, your research is being used to assure political leaders, business owners, journalists and the general public that smoking bans don't hurt bars. Yet your research is consistent with big bar employment declines in communities with high smoking rates and with harm to individual establishments in communities with lower smoking rates. I think you should warn people that such blanket reassurance is something a study concerning overall employment numbers in two Minnesota cities cannot possibly provide.

Sincerely,

Bill Hannegan
314.367.3779