KEEP ST. LOUIS FREE!

Letter to Tobacco Free St. Louis Directors

2012-01-28T17:23:00.001-08:00

Tobacco Free St. Louis Directors:

In late 2010, the St. Louis County Department of Health signed a $545,000 contract with Saint Louis University for the services of Tobacco Free St. Louis, a 5o1c3 nonprofit anti-smoking organization based on its campus. Please find the scope of work for this contract attached.

In exchange for $545,000, Tobacco Free St. Louis agreed to:

"Develop and implement an education and advocacy plan to educate St. Louis County Council members about the need to remove exemptions for St. Louis County's current smoke-free ordinance, which becomes effective in January, 2011.

By January, 2012, amend St. Louis County's current smoke-free ordinance to induce all workplaces, restaurants and bars."

Yet according to a statement today by Tobacco Free St. Louis Director Charlie Gatton, "Tobacco Free St. Louis (TFSTL) is a volunteer organization. Money comes from dues and fund-raising, such as the annual Trivia Night event. It IS NOT funded by the CDC grant."

http://mogasp.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/2012-01-27-stl-beacon-areas-with-most-smoking-related-illness-have-most-exemptions-to-smoking-ban/#comments

If Director Gatton is right and Tobacco Free St. Louis has received no money from St. Louis County's CDC grant, then where did the $545,000 actually go and what has it been used for? $545,000 is a lot of money and should be accounted for.

Also, members of the Tobacco Free St. Louis Board of Directors have in the past week begun directly lobbying and publicly pressuring St. Louis County Councilmen at Council hearings, as well as in print, on the radio and on television, to revise existing legislation in violation of 501c3 lobbying rules. I have no desire to ever stifle free speech, but those who directly lobby lawmakers should pay taxes on their funds as do ordinary citizens seeking legislation change. http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=163392,00.html

Sincerely,

Bill Hannegan

Home phone: 314.367.3779
Cell phone: 314.315.3779

Kansas Drunk Driving Fatalities

2012-01-02T10:29:00.000-08:00

Letter just sent to Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels concerning drunk driving deaths and a possible Indiana smoking ban:

Dear Governor Daniels,

Research from the University of Wisconsin has warned that strict smoking bans (ones that include bars) cause an increase in drunk driving fatalities. Please find this research attached. Researchers conclude:

"Using geographic variation in local and state smoke-free bar laws in the US, we observe an increase in fatal accidents involving alcohol following bans on smoking in bars that is not observed in places
without bans. Although an increased accident risk might seem surprising at first, two strands of
literature on consumer behavior suggest potential explanations—smokers driving longer distances to
a bordering jurisdiction that allows smoking in bars and smokers driving longer distances within
their jurisdiction to bars that still allow smoking, perhaps through non-compliance or outdoor
seating. We find evidence consistent with both explanations. The increased miles driven by drivers
wishing to smoke and drink offsets any reduction in driving from smokers choosing to stay home following a ban, resulting in increased alcohol-related accidents. This result proves durable, as we
subject it to an extensive battery of robustness checks."

Governor Daniels, Kansas imposed a strict smoking ban in 2010 and saw its number of drunk driving deaths soar 36 percent.

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/12/31/3345352/drunken-driving-deaths-soar-kansas.html

The same thing could happen in Indiana if any smoking ban passed does not exempt "over 21" establishments. Please avoid this loss of life by exempting "over 21" establishments as does the current Tennessee smoking ban. Please find the Tennessee smoking ban attached.

Sincerely,

Bill Hannegan
Home phone: 314.367.3779
Cell phone: 314.315.3779

Reasonable Marijuana Regulation in Missouri

2011-12-30T07:55:00.001-08:00

Keep Columbia Free called and asked us to join the effort to reform marijuana laws in Missouri. To this end, we suggested that the editors of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch publish John Payne's strong op-ed and help begin the discussion statewide.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/guest-commentary-marijuana-laws-should-spare-adult-smokers/article_b69c95b5-b138-512f-aaa6-78f52d608407.html

EPA Overestimates Air Pollution Life Risk

2011-12-26T15:28:00.001-08:00

Enstrom091611

Letter to Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels

2011-12-20T14:23:00.000-08:00

Dear Governor Daniels,

I read online that you are considering supporting a smoking ban for Indiana. I wanted to warn you that smoking bans across the country have done grave economic harm to adult venues such as bars and casinos.

Please find attached to this e-mail a number of studies, all conducted by PhD economists, which find that smoking bans do indeed harm businesses such as bars and casinos. While I am sure the American Cancer Society has presented to you many contrary studies which find that smoking bans do no economic harm, I have to warn you that these contrary studies have been conducted almost entirely by public health professionals, not economists, and have been published in public health journals, not economic journals. As economist Dr. Jonathan Tomlin pointed out in Forbes Magazine, these amateur studies are "riddled with statistical shortcomings and... flaws."

http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/04/economic-impact-bars-restaurants-opinions-contributors-smoking-ban.html

Please allow me to suggest to you the preemptive exemption for "over 21" workplaces in the Tennessee smoking ban. Such an exemption would greatly reduce any economic harm threatened by an Indiana smoking ban. Please find the Tennessee public smoking law attached.

Governor Daniels, the latest Gallup Poll shows that while most Americans do favor a ban on smoking in restaurants, Americans also favor some sort of compromise accommodation of smokers in adult venues such as bars and casinos. Only 31 percent of Americans favor a total ban on smoking in bars and casinos. I am sure similar numbers hold true in Indiana as well.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/141809/americans-smoking-off-menu-restaurants.aspx

Bill Hannegan

Home phone: 314.367.3779

Cell phone: 314.315.3779

Links to Attached Studies:

The Effect of Smoking Bans on Bars and Restaurants: An Analysis ofChanges in Employment

Adams, Scott and Cotti,Chad D. (2007) "The Effect of Smoking Bans on Bars and Restaurants: AnAnalysis of Changes in Employment," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis& Policy: Vol. 7: Iss. 1 (Contributions),Article 12.
DOI: 10.2202/1935-1682.1628

http://www.bepress.com/bejeap/vol7/iss1/art12/

TheImpact of Smoking Bans on the Hospitality Industry: New Evidence from StockMarket Returns

Jonathan T. Tomlin (2009) “The Impact of SmokingBans on the Hospitality Industry: New Evidence

from Stock Market Returns,”

The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis &Policy: Vol. 9: Iss.

1 (Contributions), Article 13.

http://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/bejeap/v9y2009i1n13.html

The Economic Impact of a SmokingBan in Columbia, Missouri: An Analysis of Sales Tax Data for theFirst Year

MichaelR. Pakko, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Regional Economic Development,2008, 4(1), pp.30-40.

http://65.89.18.138/publications/red/2008/01/Pakko.pdf

The Economic Impact of the New York State Smoking Ban on NewYork’s Bars

Ridgewood Economic Associates, Ltd., 2004

http://heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/19885.pdf

An Analysis of the Economic Effect of the Lexington-FayetteCounty, Kentucky Smoking Ban of 2004

Richard Thalheimer, Thalheimer Research Associates,Inc., 2005

http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/PDF/KYLexingtonThalheimerreport6_8_05.pdf

A Report on the Impacts of the City of Dallas SmokingBan on Alcoholic Beverage Sales March 2003 to March 2004

Terry L. Clower, Ph.D. & Bernard L.Weinstein, professors of appliedeconomics at the University of North Texas in Denton, 2004

http://www.scribd.com/doc/75958890/Dallas-Ban-Report-Full

The Revenue Performance of Casinos after a Smoking Ban: The Caseof Illinois

Thomas A. Garrett,Michael R. Pakko, 2010, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2009/2009-027.pdf

Impact of Smoking Bans on Restaurants

National RestaurantAssociation, 2004

http://www.minnesotansagainstsmokingbans.com/smoking_issuekit_200409.pdf

No Smoking at the Slot Machines: The Effect ofa Smoke-Free Law on Delaware Gaming Revenues

Michael R. Pakko, 2005,Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2005/2005-054.pdf

The Economic Losers from Smoking Bans

Michael L. Marlow, Regulation, 2010

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv33n2/regv33n2-4.pdf

Smoking Ban Studies by PhD Economists Finding Business Loss

2011-12-18T09:10:00.001-08:00

Letter sent to City of Indianapolis & Marion County City-County Council December 6th:

HonorableIndianapolis & Marion County Councillors,

Please find attached tothis e-mail a number of studies, all conducted by PhD economists, which findthat smoking bans harm businesses such as bars and casinos. Based in part onthese studies, St. Louis City and St. Louis County opted to exempt casinos andsome bars from their separately enacted smoking bans. And just last week, againbased in part on these studies, neighboring St. Charles County refused to enacta smoking ban unless it contained an exemption for "over 21"establishments such as bars and casinos.

Honorable Councillors,many studies have been conducted by health professionals and published inpublic health journals arguing that smoking bans do not hurt bars or casinos,yet as economist Jonathan Tomlin pointed out in Forbes Magazine, these amateurstudies are "riddled with statistical shortcomings and... flaws."

http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/04/economic-impact-bars-restaurants-opinions-contributors-smoking-ban.html

In light of the bestprofessional economic research concerning smoking bans, I hope Indianapolisbars, and bars all across America, will continue to enjoy freedom of choiceconcerning their smoking policies.

Sincerely,

BillHannegan

Homephone: 314.367.3779

Cellphone: 314.315.3779

Links to Attached Studies:

The Effect of Smoking Bans on Bars and Restaurants: An Analysis ofChanges in Employment

http://www.bepress.com/bejeap/vol7/iss1/art12/

TheImpact of Smoking Bans on the Hospitality Industry: New Evidence from StockMarket Returns

Jonathan T. Tomlin (2009) “The Impact of SmokingBans on the Hospitality Industry: New Evidence

from Stock Market Returns,”

The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis &Policy: Vol. 9: Iss.

1 (Contributions), Article 13.

http://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/bejeap/v9y2009i1n13.html

The Economic Impact of a SmokingBan in Columbia, Missouri: An Analysis of Sales Tax Data for theFirst Year

MichaelR. Pakko, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Regional Economic Development,2008, 4(1), pp.30-40.

http://65.89.18.138/publications/red/2008/01/Pakko.pdf

The Economic Impact of the New York State Smoking Ban on NewYork’s Bars

Ridgewood Economic Associates, Ltd., 2004

http://heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/19885.pdf

An Analysis of the Economic Effect of the Lexington-FayetteCounty, Kentucky Smoking Ban of 2004

Richard Thalheimer, Thalheimer Research Associates,Inc., 2005

http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/PDF/KYLexingtonThalheimerreport6_8_05.pdf

A Report on the Impacts of the City of Dallas SmokingBan on Alcoholic Beverage Sales March 2003 to March 2004

Terry L. Clower, Ph.D. & Bernard L.Weinstein, professors of appliedeconomics at the University of North Texas in Denton, 2004

http://www.scribd.com/doc/75958890/Dallas-Ban-Report-Full

The Revenue Performance of Casinos after a Smoking Ban: The Caseof Illinois

Thomas A. Garrett,Michael R. Pakko, 2010, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2009/2009-027.pdf

Impact of Smoking Bans on Restaurants

National RestaurantAssociation, 2004

http://www.minnesotansagainstsmokingbans.com/smoking_issuekit_200409.pdf

No Smoking at the Slot Machines: The Effect ofa Smoke-Free Law on Delaware Gaming Revenues

Michael R. Pakko, 2005,Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2005/2005-054.pdf

The Economic Losers from Smoking Bans

Michael L. Marlow, Regulation, 2010

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv33n2/regv33n2-4.pdf

Smoking Ban Debate Fails Again In St. Charles

2011-11-30T16:28:00.000-08:00

Smoking Ban Debate Fails Again In St. Charles

Occupy St. Louis

2011-11-27T23:39:00.000-08:00

Occupy St. Louis is right to protest that big corporations have sold out America. Indeed they have. We all know big corporations have sent so many American jobs overseas. Plus Big Box corporations and chains like Walmart and Home Depot have destroyed Main Street mom and pop stores. Real American freedom comes from small, independently owned businesses that Wall Street has no use for. Occupy St. Louis needs to stand up for the widespread distribution of the means of sales and production that is traditional Main Street America, the real source of American freedom

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/occupy-group-holds-meeting-at-galleria/article_4c19f04e-ec00-5060-a8a6-79fde0dcc66c.html#ixzz1ez1RG8jh

O'Fallon VFW Post 5077 down 30 percent due to smoking ban!

2011-11-27T13:42:00.000-08:00

The O'Fallon smoking ban is taking its toll. I called VFW Post 5077 in O'Fallon about Monday night's smoking ban vote. They report being down 30 percent due to the O'Fallon smoking ban! They also said they would not have minded the ban if the Post had voted on it, rather than the general populace.

St. Charles County Nov. 28th Smoking Ban Flyer

2011-11-25T04:35:00.001-08:00

FinalSt.CharlesCountyFlyerWithContactInfo _4_

Why the Pepper Spray?

2011-11-21T20:40:00.000-08:00

My friends and I have been arrested at protests where we refused to walk. The police never had any trouble carting us off. Why the pepper spray?

Open Letter to St. Charles County Council

2011-11-13T13:33:00.000-08:00

Dear St. Charles County Council Members:

Councilman Cronin announced on Veterans Day that he will propose that a smoking ban including bars and VFW halls be placed on the ballot. County Councilmen, St. Charles County bar owners and veterans groups have the right to allow the use of a legal product by adults on their private property if common sense ventilation and exhaust systems are in place. St. Charles County business owners are depending on you to protect their property rights by considering all the evidence and deciding under what conditions these business owners can continue to allow indoor smoking. Public health laws are almost never turned over to voters for a good reason. Most voters do not have the time, interest or information to make such an economic and public health judgement. Turning over the fate of St. Charles County bars and VFW halls to a free for all popularity contest driven by who can spend the most advertising dollars would be an irresponsible thing to do.

Furthermore, Councilman Cronin also seeks to offer voters a chance to specially exempt Ameristar Casino from the smoking ban. I must warn the Council that the Special Laws Clause of the Missouri Constitution forbids any special exemption of individual business from public health laws. It is wrong to ask St. Charles County voters to consider a constitutionally suspect measure that will likely lead to a legal challenge. Such a successful challenge was brought when Louisville Metro Council similarly exempted Churchill Downs from a smoking ban. Councilman Cronin's Ameristar exemption would likely suffer the same fate. http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20071221/NEWS01/71221014/Judge-throws-out-Louisville-s-smoking-ban

Councilman Cronin also stated on Friday that St. Charles County bars and VFW halls have no basis to worry about the economic impact of his smoking ban. But recent Missouri smoking ban experience argues otherwise.

For instance, bar owners in Springfield Missouri report revenue losses of up to 75 percent due to the smoking ban! VFW bingo is specially mentioned in this article as being hurt:

http://articles.kspr.com/2011-10-29/smoking-ordinance_30337606

A recent survey by Tobacco Free St. Louis reported losses of up to 75 percent among non-exempt St. Louis County businesses blaming the St. Louis County smoking ban.

The Clayton smoking ban has caused Clayton restaurant revenues (by law Clayton has only restaurants, no bars) to remain flat despite the reopening of Highway 40.

A study by a St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank economist found that the Columbia smoking ban cut overall restaurant revenues 3.5 percent, the revenues of restaurants that serve alcohol 6.5 percent and the revenues of bars 11 percent.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/red/2008/01/RED_1_2008.pdf

Given the clear economic danger a smoking ban presents, I suggest that the St. Charles County Council continue to allow adult free choice in St. Charles County private businesses and clubs, particularly veterans groups, and instead simply forbid smoking in venues when minors are present. Ameristar Casino, St. Charles County bar owners and veterans groups would have no objection to such a common sense restriction.

Sincerely,

Bill Hannegan

Home phone: 314.367.3779
Cell phone: 314.315.3779

A Website to Nowhere

2011-10-26T19:45:00.000-07:00

For close to a month ads have been running on KMOX. A man and a woman apparently sitting in a bar are concerned that people are smoking. After the man states that he thought there was a smoking ban, the woman explains that there are loopholes in the law. He states that it’s not fair or healthy. The narrator goes on to tell listeners to go to http://smokefreestl.org to find information on helping close the loopholes.

It’s a typical ad that is meant to drive users to the website. The ad is designed to appeal to listeners to take action. What I find baffling is if a listener actually went to the website they would find little information. The website as of 10/26/2011 has not been updated since July. Even then most recent updates have been links to newspaper articles. Anyone going to the site wouldn’t find any useable information.

The website is that of the nearly defunct Smoke-Free St Louis Organization. They were very active in 2009 helping to pass the St Louis City smoking ban. About two weeks before the Board of Alderman voted on the ban SFSTL lost its funding. I noted then that once nobody was paid to show at the aldermanic meeting all participation stopped. Over the next two years there have been only a couple of postings to the site.

When you look at the cost to write, pay voice actors and produce the ad how they could make such as simple mistake. Even worse, the ad ran many times daily for a month and no one ever thought to correct it. I can only guess to how much was spent on the campaign. It had to be tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands. Can you imagine a private company spending its advertising budget to promote a product that didn’t exist!

I have mixed feelings on this latest use of stimulus funds. As someone who opposes smoking bans, I’m happy they are not using taxpayer money in an efficient way to reduce our freedom. As a taxpayer it really upsets me that I along with all Americans have to pay this money back.

Tony Palazzolo

Secondhand Paint Smoke

2011-10-09T13:43:00.000-07:00

Is it plausible that burning paint with a torch outside could cause this sort of catastrophic effect described by this mom? I am very sceptical:

http://blogs.webmd.com/health-ehome/2011/10/my-children-had-lead-poisoning.html

American Cancer Society Missouri Tobacco Tax Increase Proposal

2011-10-02T17:42:00.000-07:00

American Cancer Society Tobacco Tax

By this initiative petition, the American Cancer Society seeks to ensure for itself a permanent source of Missouri taxpayer funding for it lobbying activities.

Tobacco Free St. Louis Warning Letter

2011-09-22T18:05:00.000-07:00

Dear Tobacco-Free St. Louis Directors and Officers,

All this year the singe focus of Tobacco Free St. Louis has been its escalating lobbying campaign meant to induce County municipalities to pass strict smoking bans, and to force the St. Louis County Council to eliminate all exemptions from St. Louis County's Indoor Clean Air Code. This lobbying campaign has culminated in an attempt by Chairwoman Fraser, detailed this week in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, to enlist a federal agency to pressure the Council on this matter:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_ababeaef-313f-51ff-85b5-433d14bacd63.html

Clearly a 501c3 educational charity such as Tobacco Free St. Louis is not allowed to devote itself to influencing legislation in this way: http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=163392,00.html

While I do not wish to limit the speech or tactics of any group trying to influence St. Louis County government, it is wrong for any group lobbying to restrict the freedom of County businesses to enjoy the advantage of 501c3 tax-exempt status unavailable to the threatened businesses. I therefore ask that Tobacco Free St. Louis either abide by the lobbying rules governing 501c3 charities, or voluntarily give up its tax-exempt status. All I am asking for in this matter is fairness.

Sincerely,

Bill Hannegan

Home phone: 314.367.3779
Cell phone: 314.315.3779

Lets Face It

2011-08-25T08:52:00.001-07:00

Lets Face It is the slogan for the anti-tobacco campaign for St Louis County. It comes from the 7.6 million dollar stimulus grant to St Louis County. They have run commercials over the past several months. One commercial caught my attention. It wasn't that the message was new or unique. It was what the message included. The commercial is several young people making statements. One of the statements is "smoking makes you look cool". The message is that people say all kinds of weird things that aren't true. The statement that I found odd was "One day I'll find calculus useful." Now we have a government agency making fun of a higher education. Are we now using tax dollars to dissuade people from higher learning? Now I don't believe that anyone is going to drop calculus because of this commercial. Of course I don't believe that anyone is going to quit smoking either. One idea did pop in my mind. Of course they don't like people with higher math skills. The entire anti-smoking campaign is built on the general populations lack of math skill. If you understand how to read the research you understand that the "risk" is so small that it can't be measured. You would understand that driving to a restaurant or bar is hundreds of times more risky. You would ask questions that they can't answer honestly. I'm sure this was not their intent. I don't have a problem with programs that help people stop smoking. Does it really take millions of dollars to advertise a website that regurgitated all the quit smoking strategies. Even worse it pushes people away from far more effective methods of auricular therapy, electronic cigarettes and cold turkey. The message is that the only way to do it is with pharma nicotine replacement drugs and counseling. Its really a taxpayer paid advertisement for pharmaceutical solutions. I wouldn't have a problem if it was effective. I wouldn't have a problem if it disseminated unbiased information. I wouldn't have a problem if as a taxpayer I didn't have to pay this money back. Lets Face It, they are more interested in pushing pharma products then helping people quit. Lets face it, it's a complete waste of money.

Tony Palazzolo

Councilman Steve Stenger

2011-08-03T20:54:00.000-07:00

Back in March, Tobacco Free St. Louis head Pat Lindsey assured everyone that the elimination of exemptions was such "a done deal" by County Executive Dooley and the Health Department that she didn't even need to lobby anymore, as if an exemption free ordinance had already been written.
http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2011/03/county_smoking_ban_exemptions_st_louis.php

New Tobacco Free St. Louis head Barb Fraser recently warned the County Council that they owed the elimination of the exemptions in exchange for the $7,000,000 of Stimulus money the County Health Department got to fight smoking.
http://mogasp.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/2011-07-27-p-d-st-louis-county-council-is-urged-to-end-smoking-ban-exemptions/

I am glad to see that Councilman Stenger has resolved to do his own independent thinking on this issue. Check Jason Rosenbaum's Patch article on Stenger:

http://clayton-richmondheights.patch.com/articles/stenger-smoking-ban-changes-wont-come-immediately

Barbara Fraser and Tobacco Free St. Louis

2011-07-17T20:45:00.001-07:00

Dear Board Members of Tobacco Free St. Louis,

An article by Brett Blume of KMOX identifies Barbara Fraser as the new head of Tobacco Free St. Louis. If this is so, I hope the Board will remind Ms. Fraser that her new position puts limits on her former ability to lobby for smoking bans. I am all for Ms. Fraser's freedom to promote specific smoking ban legislation as a private citizen or councilman, but she now can no longer do that as the head of a tax-exempt educational charity. Her statements at the July 13th press conference clearly constitute the "lobbying" or "attempts to influence legislation" in St. Louis County that is beyond the legitimate educational purpose of a 501c3 charity.
http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=163392,00.html

I hope in the future Ms.Fraser will work to educate the St. Louis public concerning the dangers of tobacco smoke and the possible benefits of smoking bans in general, but leave the fight for specific new laws for St. Louis County to grassroots political groups who can legitimately undertake that fight.

Sincerely,

Bill Hannegan
Home phone: 314.367.3779
Cell phone: 314.315.3779

Barbara Fraser heads Tobacco Free St. Louis

2011-07-16T07:59:00.000-07:00

I checked with reporter Brett Blume at KMOX yesterday and he confirmed that Barbara Fraser has replaced Pat Lindsey as the head of Tobacco Free St. Louis. I am not sure this was a smart move. Everyone liked Pat Lindsey, but a lot of hard feelings on County Council remain due to her handling of the smoking ban issue in 2009.

Letter to Stacy Reliford

2011-07-13T21:45:00.001-07:00

Dear Chairman Reliford,

I was alarmed that the survey released today by the American Cancer Society is so at odds with previous research concerning St. Louis County. The latest survey by Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services found that only 30 percent of County residents favored a total ban on smoking in bars and cocktail lounges. This finding was backed up by a 2010 national Gallup Poll which found that only 30 percent of Americans favor a total ban on smoking in bars. I find the sudden change of local opinion your survey implies implausible.

I am also disappointed that the Mellman group was chosen to conduct your phone survey. In its website self-description, the Mellman group reveals itself to be more of a PR/advocacy firm than a neutral research group! They make this promise to paying clients like the American Cancer Society:

"Whether winning for you means getting more votes than your opponent, selling more product, changing public policy, raising more money or generating more activism, The Mellman Group transforms data into winning strategies."
http://www.mellmangroup.com/

I have to wonder if the "win at all costs" philosophy of the Mellman group led to some bias in the questions asked or the selection of those called. Perhaps you could release the survey in order to resolve any doubt.

Chairman Reliford, I was also surprised to learn today in the KMOX report that former County Councilman Barbara Fraser was chosen to head Tobacco Free St. Louis. This choice bodes ill for St. Louis County small bars since Ms. Fraser has privately stated that casinos are "too powerful to include in a smoking ban". I hope you and she are not working to ban smoking in all St. Louis County mom and pop bars, but exempt the "powerful" casinos! As you know, the only fair and rational exemption is an "over 21" exemption that treats all businesses equally. To exempt only casinos is just wrong.

Sincerely,

Bill Hannegan

Home phone: 314.367.3779
Cell phone: 314.315.3779

Dr. Varun Puri's Statements in Suburban Journal

2011-06-21T14:02:00.000-07:00

Dear St. Charles County Councilmen,

In a Suburban Journal article yesterday, Dr. Varun Puri made statements in support of a St. Charles County smoking ban that need qualification. While Dr. Puri rightly suggests that no one in the scientific community contends that all secondhand smoke exposure is without ill health effects, the extent of those ill-effects is indeed still in dispute as is the ability of ventilation/filtrations systems to reduce secondhand smoke exposure to an tolerable level. As evidence of this ongoing dispute, please find attached a letter written in 2009 by Dr. Geoffrey Kabat, Senior Epidemiologist at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, to the St. Louis County Council, which questions the extent of the life risk of second smoke and makes this statement about the use of air filtration to address the health concerns of secondhand smoke:

"Yet, since the available evidence suggests that the effects of environmental tobacco smoke, particularly for coronary heart disease, are considerably smaller than generally believed, lawmakers may therefore have greater latitude than generally believed to consider the segregation of smokers and nonsmokers and the use of air filtration as adequate and responsible ways to address the health concerns of environmental tobacco smoke in workplaces such as bars and restaurants."

Please also find attached a letter from Dr. Roger Jenkins, a scientist at the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, who led the largest study ever conducted concerning the actual smoke exposure of employees in bars and restaurants in 16 US cites, as well as tests of the effectiveness of restaurant ventilation systems against secondhand smoke. St. Louis was one of the cities tested. Dr. Jenkins sums up his findings:

"Overall concentrations of ETS were fairly low: the highest concentration of particles measured in any facility were still 1/7th of the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit...The data from the study indicated that it is possible to reduce ETS in the non‐smoking section to levels that are comparable to those encountered in similar facilities in which smoking is prohibited altogether. The findings suggested that effective segregation of smoking and non‐smoking areas in hospitality facilities is both achievable and economically viable if sufficient attention is given to overall system design, robust air exchange rates, directional airflow, and the use of appropriate heat recovery systems."

Let me further add that even Surgeon General Carmona in his 2006 report reserved judgement concerning the ability of air filtration systems to remove smoke from bar and restaurant air saying that their effectiveness needed more widespread demonstration to be accepted. Local bar employees report that such systems can indeed remove the sight and smell of smoke, and tests conducted by the casinos have found that their best air filtration systems are able to render indoor air as clean as the air outdoors despite indoor smoking. Please find this casino research attached.

Councilmen, please do not let overblown statements in the press by smoking ban advocates bully you into not considering technologies that could provide a legitimate basis for a rational smoking ban exemption such as the City of Chicago included in its ban. Though I believe OSHA's ruling concerning secondhand smoke in the workplace should be accepted as final, rational options short of a total County ban exist which can allow business owners, employees and patrons continued free choice and should be explored.

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24602

Sincerely,

Bill Hannegan
314.367.3779
314.315.3779 (cell)

Thank you County Executive Ehlmann

2011-06-14T21:34:00.000-07:00

Dear County Executive Ehlmann,

Thank you for doing the right thing and vetoing the proposed smoking ban today. In your letter to the County Council, you explained that "when a regulation is passed to improve public health, exceptions to that regulation should be rationally related to the same public health good."

Let me suggest that an "over 21" exemption for all workplaces, such as the one in force in the State of Tennessee, in contrast to a casino exemption, would pass any fairness or rationality test. Government often allows adults to freely choose risks in employment and recreation that minors are not allowed to accept. For instance, OSHA allows adult workers to choose riskier jobs in exchange for hazard pay and, of course, government allow adults, but not minors, to purchase cigarettes. An "over 21" exemption would not be "picking winners" by favoring any one type of business over others, but rather asking all individual businesses to make a choice. Any casino, bar or restaurant could allow smoking if those not capable of accepting risk, minors, were kept out. Please find the Tennessee smoking ban attached. Here is the Tennessee exemption:

Another rational exemption would be a ventilation/filtration option offered equally to all businesses. Prior to the Illinois smoking ban, the City of Chicago's smoking ban exempted those establishments that could get their indoor air as clean as the air outdoors. Clearly this exemption has a rational basis and has many precedents in OSHA's regulation of other industries. Here is the exemption to the Chicago ordinance:

"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

Again, County Executive Ehlmann, thank you for your brave action today!

Sincerely,

Bill Hannegan
314.367.3779
314.315.3779

Councilman Pepper's Letter to St. Charles County Executive Ehlmann

2011-05-29T18:16:00.001-07:00

from	Jim Pepper jpepper@ofallon.mo.us
to		executive@sccmo.org
cc		jcronin@sccmo.org, nmatheny@sccmo.org, jwwhite@sccmo.org, jbrazil@sccmo.org, pwynn@sccmo.org, thollander@sccmo.org, jdaugherty@sccmo.org
date		Sun, May 29, 2011 at 4:25 PM
subject		Absurb Smoking ban

I, cannot for the life of me, understand why there are those of you that wish to BAN smoking in PRIVATELY owned businesses! We do not live in a fascist state I hope.

Is it because it is the "in" thing for a small group of zealots to dictate to the rest of us what they feel is right for you?

Their premise is based on out and out lies supported with outlandish false reporting!

Where are the rights of business ownership when you are considering this onerous and draconian piece of legislation?

Where is the responsibility of patrons to make a choice as to which establishment they wish to enter?

What happened to the right of free assembly for peaceful purposes of like minded individuals?

If I wish to open an establishment, legally catering to a certain venue, invest my own money along with a lot of hard work to make it successful, where do you have the right to tell me I cannot do something?

If you wish to regulate somewhat, then address that, not banning it entirety.

Years ago, a government banned smoking and oppressively pushed vegetarianism as a means to change society. That government was Nazi Germany!

What would you do if you put out an open invitation to a get together at your home and someone arrived and proceeded to tell you what to do in your own home?

Common decency will not allow me to express fully what I would say or the physical action I would take.

Government should support local businesses, not restricting them or driving them out of business.

Get the "Nanny Staters" off our backs! PLEASE!!

Jim Pepper

Council Member Ward 2

(636) 696-9184

St. Charles County Councilman Cronin Admits Restricting VFW s

2011-05-26T11:35:00.000-07:00

Mr Cronin

Thank you for your response. I believe the issue is not if the private clubs are included or not. The wording of the ban I believe to be very misleading. It appears to give private clubs such as VFW halls an exclusion. In another paragraph it seeming takes it away. If private clubs wish to ban smoking they can do it at anytime (as can bars and restaurants). What I ask is that you alter the legislation one way or other to clear the issue up. From a PR standpoint I would believe that you and the county council wouldn't want a showdown with veterans. They deserve to know clearly were they stand.

Thanks

Tony

From: jcronin@sccmo.org
To: tonypalazzolo@hotmail.com
CC: Council@sccmo.org; SEhlmann@sccmo.org
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 18:13:43 -0500
Subject: RE: [LIKELY_S-P-A-M]Smoking Ban and Private Clubs

Mr. Palazzolo.

Thank you for contacting the Council. Speaking for myself, I can tell you that the private club wording was taken from a "model" ordinance very similar to that what is currently law in O'Fallon and Lake St. Louis.

Again, speaking for myself, I will tell you that the past three national commanders of the VFW have suggested to membership that they consider making all 8,300 VFW posts smoke-free according to Joe Davis the VFW director of public affairs.

And please remember sir that all we are considering is allowing the voters to decide this controversial issue a year from now. Everyone will have lots of time for debate and close study before voting on this.

Regards, Joe Cronin SCCC1

From: Council
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 7:49 AM
To: Hollander, Terry; Daugherty, Jerry; Joe Brazil; Cronin Joe; Joe Cronin; John White; Nancy Matheny; Paul Wynn
Subject: FW: [LIKELY_S-P-A-M]Smoking Ban and Private Clubs

From: Tony Palazzolo [mailto:tonypalazzolo@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 5:29 PM
To: Executive; Council
Subject: [LIKELY_S-P-A-M]Smoking Ban and Private Clubs

Executive Elhmann

After reading through the proposed smoking ban I have found the wording to be confusing. The smoking ban has been advertised as a including exemptions for the casino gambling floors, cigar bars, tobacco shops and private clubs.

The wording the ban itself goes to length to include private clubs as a definition. It seemingly gives private clubs an exemption from the smoking ban. In section H section 3 the wording "

Private clubs that have no employees present

on the premises of the club, except when being used

for a function to which the general public is invited;

This would then preclude nearly all private clubs as most VFW, Amvets and other private clubs nearly always employ bartenders. Even if the club did not pay and the only compensation was from "tips" then the club would lose the exemption.

I similar tactic was used in the City of St Louis. Most that read the bill believed that private clubs were exempted from the legislation. They only found out later that they had lost the right to allow smoking. As you can imagine that many of them felt betrayed that they risked their lives for freedom only to have it quietly stripped away.

As a person who believes in freedom I don't agree with smoking bans on any level. I believe that the success of this country is based on our ability to make our own choices. If my reading is correct on than I would ask that under definitions that section "K" be removed. Private clubs shouldn't find out after a vote that they were tricked into sitting on the sidelines as happened in St Louis City. They should be allowed to fight for freedom for which they fought. If this is not possible I would ask that you veto a bill if it comes to your desk.

Tony Palazzolo

St. Charles County Smoking Ban Flyer

2011-05-26T10:59:00.001-07:00

Revised St. Charles County Flyer

Proposed St. Charles County smoking ordinance.

2011-05-26T10:53:00.000-07:00

Bill No. 3726

Notice that smoking is banned in bars and private clubs, but not casinos.

Ameristar Casino Smoking Ban Exemption

2011-05-10T21:27:00.000-07:00

Dear County Executive Ehlmann,

I read online that Councilmen Cronin and Hollander are proposing a smoking ban with an exemption for a single named business, Ameristar Casino. Is such an exemption of a single named business from a public health law legal? A similar exemption was granted to Churchill Downs by the Louisville Metro Council a few year back. A judge later struck down not only the exemption as lacking a rational basis, but the entire law as well since passage of the law clearly depended on the exemption of the racetrack. Similarly, Councilman Cronin has made it clear the smoking ban would not be passed by the St. Charles County Council apart from the Ameristar exemption.
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20071105/NEWS01/71105015/Judge-Smoking-ban-must-apply-Churchill-Downs

Councilmen Cronin and Hollander justify the casino exemption as a means to protect Ameristar Casino from competition with Harrah's casino in St. Louis County where smoking is still allowed. I would like to point out that smoking is also still allowed in St. Louis County bars and even bowling alleys. Don't St. Charles County bars also then have a well-justified concern that the proposed smoking ban would send their smoking customers elsewhere, either to Ameristar or to St. Louis County bars? Indeed, the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank has published research showing that smoking bans hurt not only casinos but also bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. Please find this research attached. Recently the Pub, a Lake St. Louis smoking bar, bore this research out when it fell victim to the Lake St. Louis smoking ban. Obviously the Pub's smoking customers went to locations where smoking is still allowed.

Finally I would like to point out that public health laws are never put on the ballot and for good reason. Voters do not have the time to research and evaluate the competing claims of business owners and public health advocates. In this case especially, the public health concerns of smoking in entertainment venues have been so overstated in the press that it is hard to imagine that a public vote on a smoking ban could be fair to St. Charles County business owners. Furthermore, mom and pop bars and restaurants do not have the resources to make their case to the voting public in competition with wealthy advocacy groups such as the American Cancer Society. Removing Ameristar Casino from the smoking ban would only further ensure that funding for a competing campaign against the smoking ban will not be available. Is that fair?

Shouldn't the Council instead simply review the arguments for and against a smoking ban and then take a vote yourselves. The Council is really in the best position to hear the arguments of concerned business owners and then put in place the least burdensome regulation necessary to ensure public health. If a smoking ban is considered necessary, I would suggest an exemption for all "over 21" or "over 18" businesses such as the Tennessee smoking ban features. That way those establishments most threatened by smoking bans, both casinos and bars, would be excluded. And any worried establishment, including a restaurant, could be excluded from the ban by simple refusing minors admission to the establishment. Please find the Tennessee law attached.

County Executive Ehlmann, bar owners are worried sick about these looming smoking restrictions. But they do believe public health can be protected in a way that is legal and fair to all businesses, and in a way that respects property rights and adult free choice. It is really up to the County Council, not voters, to make that happen.

Thank you very much for considering my arguments concerning this issue.

Sincerely,

Bill Hannnegan
314.367.3779
314.315.3779 (cell)

Tobacco Free St. Louis a Tax-exempt 501c3

2011-03-11T11:20:00.000-08:00

Tobacco Free St. Louis is not allowed to lobby due to its tax-exempt 501c3 status, yet it accepted a half million dollar contract to lobby the County Council for a strict smoking ban. Pat Lindsey has not returned the RFT reporter's phone call concerning this contradiction.

From the RFT article: In late 2010, the county department of health inked a contract with Saint Louis University for the services of Tobacco Free St. Louis, a nonprofit anti-smoking organization based on its campus. But the scope of work included in the organization's $545,000 contract -- which Daily RFT obtained this morning via a public records request -- includes a component directed at the county's own elected officials.

The contract calls for the Tobacco Free Coalition to "develop and implement an education and advocacy plan to educate St. Louis County Council members about the need to remove exemptions from St. Louis County's current smoke-free ordinance."

http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2011/03/stimulus_st_louis_county_council_smoking_ban.php

STL Beacon Smoking Ban Article

2011-02-13T20:36:00.000-08:00

Once again a fair and balanced smoking ban article from the Beacon.
Why is the St. Louis press so much better on this issue than the KC press?

'Hannegan, Nigro and other smoking-ban opponents said they might be able
to live with a policy like Tennessee's, whose smoking ban exempts places
with a 21-and-over age restriction.
"It won't make anyone perfectly happy, but it does seem that's a rational
basis to where to draw the line," Hannegan said.'

http://www.stlbeacon.org/issues-politics/176-Missouri_Issues/108124-statewide-ban-on-smoking

In Defense of the MAC

2011-02-10T09:16:00.000-08:00

Most recently the Missouri Athletic Club has failed to comply with the St Louis City Smoking Ban. The City Health Department responded by issuing the first ticket for noncompliance with this young law. The MAC while somewhat quiet on the issue replied that they didn’t believe that they were subject to the law. The law as written excludes only private clubs with no employees. The MAC has employees and therefore is included in the ban.

I think there can be no doubt that the MAC is subject the smoking ban. Now the question becomes who is going to blink first. The MAC is a century old fixture in the city. Members of the MAC hold many important positions in the community. They are leaders of the community and hold influence on local politics. If they make a stand will the city do as threaten and shutter the MAC club? Will the MAC be able to force the City to make amendments to allow smoking in private clubs?

The MAC actually may hold the upper hand. The MAC like all private clubs such as VFW and AMVET outpost will not be allowed to legally allow smoking. Yet the alderman wrote into the bill one exemption for a “private club”. The VIP room at Lumiere is the only private club exempt from the smoking ban. If they city can give an exemption to three year old private club then why couldn’t they give exemptions to the likes of MAC, VFW and AMVETS. If they MAC makes a stand and can pull in VFW, AMVETs and all other private clubs they may force the city to alter the law.

I don’t believe the city wants to get into a public fight with the MAC. First I don’t believe they would actually go forward and shutter the MAC. There are far too many important people that are members. The city must make a decision on this because everyone is watching. The city has only one option beyond shutting it down and that is giving them an exemption.

The city gave the Lumiere VIP room an exemption then I believe they will give all private clubs an exemption. I believe that the MAC can’t lose if they press this. I for one hope they keep up the fight.

Barb Fraser: 20 questionable exemptions

2011-01-28T21:20:00.000-08:00

Did you hear Barb Fraser on the Mark Reardon Show? She says 20 of the 111 granted County exemptions are questionable. That isn't much of a basis to scrap a law.
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2011/01/24/mark-reardon-show-monday-january-24th/

City vs. County Exemption Lists

2011-01-27T20:34:00.000-08:00

Dear County Executive Dooley,

Please check this out. Though the St. Louis City smoking ban exemption requirements are stricter than the County's, thus far 250 establishments have applied for exemption in the City. The City requires that establishments have less than 25 percent food sales, plus prohibits the entrance of those under 21 and limits exemption to those establishments under 2000 square ft. The County only requires that food sales be under 25 percent, yet the County so far has fewer applications than the City. I don't think the number of exemptions for the County is really out of line. And I am sure some of the current County exemptions will be revoked over the next few month if the exemption process is allowed to proceed as provided in the County smoking ordinance.
http://www.studlife.com/news/region/2011/01/24/local-businesses-react-to-new-smoking-ban/

County Executive Dooley, County establishments have taken out kitchens and fired kitchen staff in order to gain these exemptions the voters allowed them. It is only fair to give this law a chance to work just as it was voted on.

Sincerely,

Bill Hannegan
314.367.3779

The Ritz-Carlton Flouts the Smoking Ban

2011-01-27T09:53:00.000-08:00

I got a call from a Clayton business owner last Friday that the Ritz-Carlton planned to hold a cigar event in violation of the Clayton smoking ban. He said Clayton officials knew about the event and at first moved to stop it, but then relented and let it go on. Like many Clayton business owners, this owner is still furious at the Ritz-Carlton Cigar Club for selling out other Clayton businesses in order to secure their own exemption from the Clayton smoking ban. As we know, Pat Lindsey got wind of this and called the police. The Ritz got a $1000 ticket, but according to a poster on the Post-Dispatch website, flouting the law paid off for the Ritz:

"I have a family member that is a manager at the Ritz and spoke with that person yesterday. They, apparently, believed that they were in complete compliance with the law. They also said that there were plenty of county lawmakers who attended the event, that the event cost them $10K to put on, anyway, and most importantly, in this person's opinion, that the publicity they received from the violation garnered them an additional 30+ members to the Cigar Club.

The manager said they estimated those 30 members would generate around $50K in additional income for the Ritz. "

Dooley Precedent

2011-01-26T15:47:00.000-08:00

If County Executive Dooley gets the County smoking ban substantially changed or gets a new ban passed, won't that be the first time the County Council has scrapped a voter approved law less than a year after its implementation? A lot of us assumed that a law put in by voters couldn't be touched for at least a year. The O'Fallon City Council and the Cape Girardeau City Council will be watching Dooley on this. Both have smoking bans on the ballot they would like to change as soon as possible.

Dooley Should Blame Health Department

2011-01-26T12:34:00.001-08:00

County Executive Dooley is wrongly blaming the County smoking ban itself for the current confusion when he should be blaming the County Counselor, the County Heath Department and the Department of Revenue. These folks set out to enforce this year old law in complete confusion, making stuff up as they went along, without apparently having read the law first. Are bowling alleys exempt? Pool halls? Didn't they have a year to figure that out? Instead inspectors came up with freewheeling nonsense about walling off bars, air filtration in the bar, requiring certain fast-shutting doors, special signage asking for complaints concerning smoke in nonsmoking areas and under 21 requirements. Not of which is in the law!

We never said anything about this since the Health Department was being nice and letting a lot of stuff go. But now County Executive Dooley is getting ready to scrap a law the public voted for due to the chaos these County officials caused. So now I have to point this out.

Dooley to Nail Hot Shots

2011-01-25T19:23:00.000-08:00

Word from behind the scenes is that County Executive Dooley will try to amend the smoking ban with a square footage limit like the City's to exclude places like Hots Shots from the exemption. What has happened to County Executive Dooley? He used to be pro County business!

Gatton Spins Election at Council Meeting Tonight

2011-01-25T19:04:00.000-08:00

I spoke at the County Council hearing tonight along with two bar owners. I reminded the councilmen that Keep St. Louis Free enthusiastically endorsed their Voodoo Lounge exemption (not a mom and pop bar, I said) and that other County establishments deserved the same chance at exemption. I also said the exemption list would likely shrink as bars had to offer proof they met exemption requirements. I suggested they look at the list 6 months from now.

Jane Suozzi, Charles Gatton, Pat Lindsey and another Prop N guy spoke saying that the bar exemptions need to go. Gatton even suggested that Prop N would have passed even more strongly without the exemptions. But the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services survey shows that County residents don't favor a complete ban on smoking in bars. I remember Tony Palazzolo cursed when he heard Barb Fraser had exempted bars from her ban. "Now it seems reasonable and it's going to pass!", he said.

Please Review Exemptions After 100 Day Deadline!

2011-01-24T18:59:00.000-08:00

Dear County Executive Dooley,

County establishments currently exempt from the smoking ban have to prove to the Director of Revenue within 100 days that they qualify for an exemption from the smoking ban. Many, many establishments like Hot Shots, though they clearly believed they would be exempt at the time the smoking ban passed in 2009, might well not remain exempt after the Director of Revenue reviews their application. Why not wait to see how many establishments are still exempt after the 100 day deadline? The number might be close to former Councilman Barbara Fraser's original projection. Why not hold off action until then? Here is the 100 day requirement set forth in the smoking ban:

"2. Any drinking establishment granted an exemption under subsection (b) above shall submit to the Director of Revenue, no more than one hundred (100) days after issuance of a certificate of exemption, a signed and notarized statement by the owner or operator identifying the actual gross revenue and liquor sales for the previous ninety (90) days of operation. The Director of Revenue shall suspend or revoke any certificate of exemption issued under subsection (b) if this certification is not timely provided or if the certificate fails to demonstrate that the drinking establishment derived a maximum of twenty-five (25) percent of its gross revenue from the sale of food during that period."
http://www.stlouisco.com/doh/IndoorCleanAirCode/Chapter_605_INDOOR_CLEAN_AIR_CODE.html

Sincerely,

Bill Hannegan
314.367.3779
314.315.3779

Letter to County Executive Dooley

2011-01-24T09:59:00.000-08:00

Dear County Executive Dooley,

The County smoking ban has been in place for less than a month. Hot Shots, along with many of the other currently exempted establishments, might not keep its exemption for long as the Health Department and Department of Revenue sort things out over the next few weeks. Back when she proposed this law, Barbara Fraser stated her ban would probably exempt 60 or so drinking establishments and the final number exempted may well be close to that. But why go after locally owned Hot Shots at this point when Harrah's Voodoo Lounge just got voted an exemption by the Council? Please be patient with this law as the people voted it in, unless you want to make it truly rational and fair by exempting all "over 18" establishments. That would simplify everything, be in accord with the will of County voters, and would indeed tighten the current smoking ban which now allows smoking in establishments those under 18 can still enter. An "over 18" exemption would treat all County businesses equally since any business could allow smoking by simply keeping kids out. The Tennessee smoking ban exempts "over 21" workplaces and so keeps kids away from smoke without unduly limiting personal freedom or hurting the bar business. Please find the Tennessee smoking ban attached.

Sincerely,

Bill Hannegan
314.367.3779
314.315.3779

Clayton Officials Join Rebellion Against Local Smoking Bans

2011-01-22T10:01:00.001-08:00

I have gone over the Clayton smoking ban and find nothing that allows cigar smoking in the Ritz-Carlton ballroom tonight. Word is that Clayton authorities initially moved to stop the cigar smoking event, but later decided to flout their own law tonight. I am glad that the Clayton smoking ban is apparently being rolled back, even for one night.

A lot of Clayton businesses still resent that the Ritz-Carlton Cigar Club sold them out in exchange for an exemption by the Clayton Board of Aldermen from Mayor Goldstein's smoking ban. We believe that if the Ritz-Carlton Cigar Club had joined the Clayton Restaurateur's Alliance in opposition to the smoking ban, the whole smoking ban process in St. Louis could have stopped. St. Louis City and County, as well as Clayton itself, might not have a smoking ban right now if the Ritz-Carlton Cigar Club had been loyal to fellow Clayton businesses.

ClaytonSmokingBan

Letter Mississippi Senate and House Public Health Committees Chairmen

2011-01-21T10:08:00.000-08:00

Dear Representative Holland and Senator Bryan,

I am writing to warn you concerning promises made to your committees by public health officials that a statewide smoking ban would slash heart attack rates in Mississippi. Previous small studies did seem support such a promise. But a just published comprehensive, national study by researchers from the Rand Corporation, University of Wisconsin and Stanford University now shows that this hope has no basis. Heart attack rates are actually as likely to rise as to fall in communities that impose smoking bans. Mortality and hospitalization rates are also unaffected by smoking bans. Surprisingly though, emergency room visits for asthma attacks do increase as people smoke more in homes and cars near sensitive nonsmokers, especially children, rather than in ventilated bars and restaurants. Please find this new study, Changes in U.S. Hospitalization and Mortality Rates Following Smoking Bans, attached to this e-mail.

Please also find attached studies by St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank and University of Wisconsin economists which show that smoking bans do negatively impact the hospitality industry. Studies which find smoking bans do not harm businesses are almost always conducted public health people, not economists. When economist look at smoking bans, they find economic damage. Such economic damage from smoking bans is discussed by economist Dr. Jon Tomlin in a recent Forbes Magazine column. Testimony from economists such as Dr. Tomlin caused St. Louis to exempt bars and casinos from its recently passed smoking ban. I thought I would send this information along to your committees as you consider a smoking ban for Mississippi.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/04/economic-impact-bars-restaurants-opinions-contributors-smoking-ban.html

Sincerely,

Bill Hannegan
314.367.3779

Letter to County Health Director Gunn

2011-01-20T18:08:00.000-08:00

Dear Director Gunn,

I read that in a recent Post-Dispatch article that some controversy exists as to whether or not pool halls can, in some instances, be exempted from the County smoking ban as a drinking establishments. Director Gunn, I attended all public deliberations by the County Council concerning the smoking ban, and was privy to many of the private deliberations of the Councilmen, and it was clear to everyone involved at all times that some pool halls would be exempt under the then proposed smoking ban as drinking establishments or bars. I want to point out to you today's Post-Dispatch/Suburban Journal article, "Behind the 8 Ball, Pool Halls Struggling", in which some pool halls are twice referred to as bars, not sports arenas:

"Jason Bowman, a spokesman for the American Poolplayers Association, said bars with pool tables seem to be have better numbers. More serious players may not spend as much on food and drink, but bars and taverns that devote themselves to the casual league players may be more successful, Bowman said.
On league nights from Sunday to Thursdays, the 28 tables are filled with billiards players intent on cinching shots. It helps that Baxter's is a bar and serves food, Lay said.
http://www.stltoday.com/suburban-journals/illinois/news/article_f25d1078-2e04-5b31-a62d-76424d8859fa.html

Clearly common sense language and thinking is on the side of classing establishments with many pool tables, whose main revenue source is the sale of alcohol, as drinking establishments or bars, not sports arenas.

Sincerely,

Bill Hannegan
314.367.3779
314.315.3779 (cell)

Compliance With City Smoking Ban

2010-12-30T19:17:00.000-08:00

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

2010-12-30T13:23:00.000-08:00

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.

Dana Loesch's New Tattoo

2010-12-23T03:15:00.000-08:00

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."

http://parkerspitzer.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/20/dana-loesch-tea-party-movement-is-the-unattached-conscience-of-political-parties/

RFT: Camp Zoe Legal Issues Discussed on KWMU

2010-12-21T14:26:00.001-08:00

The RFT continues to do a great job covering the Camp Zoe theft.

http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2010/12/st_louis_public_radio_legal_ro.php

Smoking Ban Wont Cut St. Louis Heart Attack Rate

2010-12-20T20:31:00.000-08:00

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
_________________

Compliance with the St. Louis City Smoking Ban

2010-12-15T10:36:00.000-08:00

Question for Surgeon General Benjamin

2010-12-09T21:15:00.000-08:00

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?

Councilman Burkett's Bill

2010-12-07T10:43:00.000-08:00

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

St. Louis Smoking Ban Exemption Discussion

2010-12-01T18:41:00.001-08:00

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

2010-12-01T17:27:00.000-08:00

Department of Health Smoking Ban Press Release

Delay Granting License

2010-11-30T21:10:00.000-08:00

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

2010-11-30T09:55:00.000-08:00

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."

http://www.semissourian.com/blogs/1565/entry/38528/

New Casino Site

2010-11-29T07:49:00.000-08:00

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)

Missouri Gaming Commissioners

2010-11-26T12:32:00.000-08:00

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

2010-11-26T10:37:00.001-08:00

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?

More Camp Zoe Analysis

2010-11-23T08:59:00.001-08:00

"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

DEA, Jimmy Tebeau and Camp Zoe

2010-11-21T18:43:00.000-08:00

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."

Protect O'Fallon Businesses with Free Choice

2010-11-18T16:36:00.000-08:00

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

Illinois Might Roll Back Ban

2010-11-16T19:02:00.000-08:00

Letter to Illinois House Executive Committee

2010-11-16T11:21:00.000-08:00

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)

New Illinois Report Blames Smoking Ban

2010-11-15T09:40:00.000-08:00

"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

Americans for Forfeiture Reform

2010-11-14T15:57:00.000-08:00

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.
_________________

Help Camp Zoe at This Website

2010-11-13T21:38:00.000-08:00

"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

2010-11-13T11:26:00.000-08:00

Camp Zoe Complaint

Smoking Dope In the Fox Theatre

2010-11-12T20:05:00.000-08:00

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

Can the Government Really Steal Camp Zoe

2010-11-11T19:13:00.000-08:00

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

Creve Coeur Clubs Exempt

2010-11-08T21:55:00.000-08:00

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.

More on Creve Coeur Smoking Ban

2010-11-07T23:10:00.001-08:00

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!

2010-11-07T19:43:00.001-08:00

Letter to Councilwoman Kistner Concerning Private Clubs

2010-11-07T10:21:00.000-08:00

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

Ventilation works!

2010-11-06T10:04:00.000-07:00

Ventilation

Letter to Creve Coeur Councilwoman Kistner

2010-11-03T13:30:00.000-07:00

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.

http://www.dhss.mo.gov/County_level_study/header.php?cnty=929&profile_type=2&chkBox=C

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)

Prop B

2010-11-01T19:25:00.000-07:00

For those still wondering about Prop B, this criticism of Prop B is pretty good:

http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2010/07/28/guest-column-puppy-mill-cruelty-prevention-act-would-hurt-hobby-breeders/

Clayton Park Smoking Ban Legal Challenge

2010-10-12T18:34:00.000-07:00

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.

AQ Test to Answer Wash U

2010-10-10T10:09:00.000-07:00

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.

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

2010-09-22T18:58:00.000-07:00

Quincy Troupe's Proposed Public Drinking Law

2010-09-21T20:08:00.000-07:00

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.

Three "smoke specific ventilation systems" in a restaurant

2010-09-16T18:41:00.000-07:00

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.

Wash U Secondhand Smoke Study

2010-09-10T11:00:00.000-07:00

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.

Wash U Secondhand Smoke Study Proved Nothing About Ventilation

2010-09-08T19:42:00.000-07:00

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

2010-09-08T10:49:00.000-07:00

http://www.stltoday.com/news/science/article_5cbb6762-bb36-11df-85d7-00127992bc8b.html

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?

Brentwood business owner challenge Mayor Pat Kelly

2010-09-01T20:17:00.000-07:00

Brentwood bar owner Donna Wideman goes after Mayor Pat Kelly on the Mark Reardon show:

http://cbskmoxam.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/donna-wideman.mp3?dl=1

Missouri Senators Versus EPA

2010-08-23T19:47:00.000-07:00

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

How could Brentwood aldermen vote yes after watching this?

2010-08-18T19:12:00.001-07:00

Brentwood Smoking Ban Passes

2010-08-16T22:47:00.000-07:00

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

2010-08-16T08:02:00.000-07:00

Gallup Poll: Brentwood Smoking Ban Too Strict!

2010-08-12T22:16:00.000-07:00

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.

http://www.dhss.mo.gov/County_level_study/header.php?cnty=929&profile_type=2&chkBox=C

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

Gallup Smoking Ban Poll Just Released

2010-08-11T21:06:00.000-07:00

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!

Vote YES on Proposition C

2010-08-02T20:24:00.000-07:00

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!

Brentwood Smoking Ban Flyer

2010-07-29T17:58:00.000-07:00

Brentwood 2 Smoking Ban Flyer

Brentwood Smoking Ban

2010-07-23T21:00:00.000-07:00

Letter to County Councilman Barbara Fraser

2010-07-19T23:50:00.001-07:00

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

Letter to Dr. Elizabeth Klein

2010-07-15T09:07:00.000-07:00

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?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYuYNR-kTU8

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

Martin Pion's reply and my answer

2010-07-04T11:11:00.000-07:00

Dear Bill,

Thank you for copying me on your e-mail to Diana Benanti of the Smoke-Free St. Louis City Coalition.

As a physicist who has spent considerable time studying the effectiveness of ventilation systems at eliminating the risks posed by secondhand smoke I disagree strongly with your conclusion. Ventilation systems may reduce the risk but not to an acceptable level. Only a totally smoke-free environment in a building can do that.

I have the data to back this up, obtained by an independent environmental consulting company for Missouri GASP, but it has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal. I hope to get around to submitting it as a paper one day, but I have no doubt as to its validity.

However, another peer-reviewed paper I coauthored that also relates to the effectiveness of smoking rooms and some of the same basic science was published in March 2004 by the British Medical Journal in it's international publication Tobacco Control under the title "Airport smoking rooms don't work" and may be found here:

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/13/suppl_1/i37

Sincerely,

Martin Pion, B.Sc.

President, Missouri GASP

Dear Mr. Pion,

No one argues that any ventilation or filtration system can perfectly eliminate smoke exposure in a space where people are smoking. But we based our campaign against the St. Louis City and County smoking ban on the belief that air filtration and air cleaning systems, such as those installed at Herbie's Vintage 72, could hugely reduce the presence of all secondhand smoke components in bar air including all carcinogens and all gases.

It is very distressing to realize that Clayton and St. Louis City aldermen and County Councilmen were being told all along that the effect of our air cleaning and filtration systems was merely cosmetic and that dangerous particles and gases were readily passing through the air filtration and air cleaning machines back into bar air. The implication is that the machines at Herbie's only made the situation more hazardous by removing the sight and smell of smoke, thereby making patrons and workers feel comfortable and safe, yet allowing threatening particles and gases to accumulate!

I would like to know if Smoke Free St. Louis has any evidence for this charge against air filtration and air cleaning technology. Clearly their misrepresentation has already hurt local air filtration companies and will hurt the St. Louis bars and restaurants which have installed this air cleaning and filtration technology come January.

Bill Hannegan
314.367.3779

Letter to Smoke-Free St. Louis

2010-07-02T11:40:00.000-07:00

Smoke-Free St. Louis:

Smoke-Free St. Louis has lobbied the Clayton Board of Aldermen, the St. Louis County Council, and the St. Louis Board of Aldermen with a false claim still present on your website:

"While ventilation systems can help reduce the smell and sight of cigarette smoke, they are not capable of getting rid of all of the carcinogens. Most cancer-causing particles and all cancer-causing gasses are too small to be trapped by filters."

http://smokefreestl.org/thefacts.html

Air filtration systems have installed in Clayton, St. Louis City and St. Louis County bars and restaurants that are capable of removing all the components of secondhand smoke, including all carcinogens, from the air. No particle of any sort is too small to be captured. Can you provide some documentation of your claim?

Bill Hannegan

314.367.3779

Jace Smith's Misstatement in News-Leader

2010-06-27T21:33:00.000-07:00

Dear Springfield City Council,

Jace Smith, director of Missouri State Advocacy for the American Heart Association, in his News-Leader June 26th op-ed, "Support Workplace Smoking ban in Springfield", cites a study published last October in Journal of the American College of Cardiology which found that smoking bans cut heart attack rates 17 percent in communities that impose them. But the Kansas University researchers who conducted that study now admit they made a mistake and have published a correction of their study in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. The corrected rate of decline is 8 percent. Boston University researcher Dr. Michael Siegel points out that 8 percent is "a rate of decline not significantly different from the levels of decline in heart attacks that are being observed in the absence of smoking bans, which have varied between 5 percent and 10 percent per year in many communities."
http://content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/content/full/54/20/1902-a
http://kansas.watchdog.org/2777/smoking-ban-advocate-says-some-claims-just-smoke/

Springfield Councilmen, smoking ban proponents in both St. Louis and Springfield argue that only strict smoking bans should be passed in order to cut heart attack rates. I wanted to let you know that the most comprehensive study yet conducted concerning the public health effects of smoking bans has found that smoking bans do not decrease mortality rates, hospital admissions orheart attack rates in communities that impose them. The study was conducted by researchers from the Rand Corporation, Stanford University, the University of Wisconsin and the Congressional Budget Office. The National Bureau of Economic Research has already circulated this study, CHANGES IN U.S. HOSPITALIZATION AND MORTALITY RATES FOLLOWING SMOKING BANS, as a working paper, and it will soon be published in a major medical journal. http://www.nber.org/papers/w14790 Please find this study attached.

The researchers summarize their study:

"U.S. state and local governments are increasingly restricting smoking in public places. This paper analyzes nationally representative databases, including the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, to compare short-term changes in mortality and hospitalization rates in smoking-restricted regions with control regions. In contrast with smaller regional studies, we find that workplace bans are not associated with statistically significant short-term declines in mortality or hospital admissions for myocardial infarction or other diseases. An analysis simulating smaller studies using subsamples reveals that large short-term increases in myocardial infarction incidence following a workplace ban are as common as the large decreases reported in the published literature."

I also want to alert you to the October publication of a major heart attack study in the European Journal of Epidemiology. The study also found no association between heart attacks and smoking bans. Please find this study, ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SMOKING BANS AND INCIDENCE OF ACUTE MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION, attached to this e-mail. Dr. Michael Siegel of the Boston University School of Public Health says of this study:

"Importantly, this published study was not considered by the Institute of Medicine committee which reviewed this issue and released its report in October of last year. It was also not considered in published meta-analyses on this topic. Because of the high sample size of this study, it is likely that inclusion of this study in the previous meta-analyses would have negated their results."
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/01/published-study-finds-no-effect-of.html

Councilmen, when St. Louis City and County were considering a smoking ban last summer, we asked Dr. Geoffrey Kabat, PhD, Senior Epidemiologist at Department of Epidemiology and Population Health at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, who conducted the largest secondhand smoke study ever done, completed too late to be included in Surgeon General Carmona's 2006 Report, to summarize his secondhand smoke research as it relates to smoking bans. Dr. Kabat wrote to the St. Louis County Council:

"Yet, since the available evidence suggests that the effects of environmental tobacco smoke, particularly for coronary heart disease, are considerably smaller than generally believed, lawmakers may therefore have greater latitude than generally believed to consider the segregation of smokers and nonsmokers and the use of air filtration as adequate and responsible ways to address the health concerns of ETS in workplaces such as bars and restaurants. If it is possible, through segregation of smokers and
nonsmokers and the use of air filtration, to reduce all components of environmental tobacco smoke in establishments where smoking is permitted to the level of the air in non-smoking establishments, there is reason to believe that any risk would be undetectable."

Bar owners across Missouri fear the 11 percent business loss experienced by bars in Columbia. The best science does seem to indicate that workplace smoking can be tolerated by lawmakers if proper ventilation and air filtration is in place.

Sincerely,

Bill Hannegan
314.367.3779

E-mail to Springfield Mayor Jim O'Neal

2010-06-21T10:40:00.000-07:00

Dear Mayor O'Neal,

Smoke Free St. Louis City and One Air Alliance have tested the air in St. Louis and Springfield bars that allow smoking and found their air on averageVERY UNHEALTHY according to the EPA Air Quality Index. This is a tough standard for a bar to be judged by. It is a standard set to reflect 24 hour air conditions from which there is no escape and which the very elderly, the very sick, and the very young are all forced to breathe. Yet affordable, readily available air filtration technology can make the air in a bar that allows smoking clean as the air outdoors. So I plan to suggest this exemption for St. Louis City which could also work in Springfield:

"Any public place or place of employment whose owner or operator can demonstrate to the Director of Health that the air within said public place or place of employment, despite indoor smoking, consistently tests to be ofMODERATE or GOOD quality as designated by the EPA Air Quality Index."

Both St. Louis and Springfield usually have either GOOD or MODERATE air quality according to the EPA Air Quality Index, so the exemption basically requires places that allow smoking to have air as clean as the air outdoors.

http://airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=airnow.local_state&stateid=26&tab=1

Sincerely,

Bill Hannegan

314.367.3779

314.315.3779