Good for the Royale!
Do they serve lunch? It is close to my work and might make a nice smoke-free alternative.

The Royale is just proving that the free market work in St. Louis is working and St. Louis does not need a smoking ban. Air filtration machines are another option venues like the Royale can try. These machines achieve results pretty close to being smoke-free while at the same time taking all sorts of other pathogens and carcinogens such as avian flu and radon from bar air.
http://www.air-quality-eng.com/tobacco.php

But gosh Jake! Grassroots movement! You hand out that honorific designation pretty freely this time. Really Smoke Free St. Louis City amounts to the American Cancer Society hiring an organizer to create “a grassroots movement”. Do you really thing local people worried and bothered by bar smoke took up a collection to pay the Smoke-Free St. Louis Director’s salary and benefits. I don’t think so.

Keep St. Louis Free!, on the other hand, is a real unpaid grassroots movement in which people Darla Maloney, Debbie Hopper and David Kuneman have spent their own time and money to fight for local property rights and freedom. Ask the Missouri Restaurant Association about us. We had a big part in shooting down Kurt Odenwald’s smoking ban twice and all by ourselves took on Odenwald’s attempt at an airport smoking ban. We successfully organized a conservative coalition against the Missouri Tobacco Tax, not primarily because we want our tobacco cheap, but because such tax money later funds groups like Smoke-Free St. Louis City bent on taking away our St. Louis freedom. We trudged thru the streets of Ballwin doing “lit. drops” and “doorbelling” in order to help boot Ballwin smoking ban author Charlie Gatton out office. I am sure our work provided at least the 50 or so votes Ray Kerlagon needed to beat Gatton. But we haven’t gotten mentioned in any Post articles by Clay Barbour or Phil Sutin over the past three years. I suppose because such real grass roots opposition to tobacco restrictions is just not supposed to exist. We don’t fit the template, no matter how hard we work.

Good for the Royale - it’s the owners right to determine what type of food they serve, type of beer they sell and if they allow smoking. That is something that the ACS “grassroots” movement won’t allow. They want to take the choice away from the owners.
Besides - what the ACS and St Louis Smokefree movement don’t want people to know is how they are funded. They are funded by Johnson & Johnson who push bans on communities. It seems that when bans go into communities, nicorette and the patch sales go through the roof. I would hardly call a Big Pharma backed organization “grassroots”.

Another smoke free establishment is further proof that smoking ban is not needed in St Louis or Missouri.

They are now 100% more likely to get my business. I was on the patio once for a fundraiser. Looking forward to coming down soon.

I’m so glad the Royale is going 100% smokefree! Hopefully the rest of our city will catch on. IL and NE are smoke-free now, I don’t want us to be last…

Didn’t Odenwald get voted out of office for trying to force a ban on St Louis County?

I haven’t been to the Royale in a long time but now I will definitely make the effort to support them.

As a former smoker I appreciate going to a bar and not needing a shower when I get home.

The Chicago aldermen vote 46- 1 for a smoking ban only because the ban had an air filtration exemption. Once Chicago went it was hard to stop a statewide ban. But the ACS pulled that exemption in the statewide ban. What a mean trick!
http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_ATTACH/MunicipalCode7-32_1.html#7_32_080

The ACS pushed the Illinois ban with its infamous 16 Cigarette Claim that even the Post-Dispatch dutifully printed. But now even Missouri GASP leader Martin Pion admits that he knew all along that the 16 Cigarette Claim was junk. St. Louis leaders are too smart to fall for such tricks at this point.

Tony, Odenwald and Gatton are both gone.

http://keepstlouisfree.blogspot.com/2008/01/martin-pion-rejects-american-cancer.html

I used to go to the Royal when it was all smoking and the place was always packed. We had to wait for a table many times. Then it went partially smoke free and the crowds diminished. We could always get a table without waiting. Now, I suspect the owner will be in for a very unpleasant suprise.

Now this is the way it should be. A property owner decides the needs of their clientèle and addresses it in a free and open market. Choice is a great thing. The ACS only wants to limit choice when there are plenty of options.

Also, I agree with the previous comments that referring to the ACS as “grass roots” is a real stretch. They are truly “Big Business” at its worst — a company trying to control the political process for their own gain.

I love this place, but hardly go anymore because it’s always so smoke-filled. Looks like I’ll be hanging out there more often.

Dave, Balaban’s banned smoking and it hurt them. But the great thing about St. Louis being a free city is that the Royale can always switch back if their ban doesn’t work out. With a government imposed ban, all choice is gone. The business owner is stuck.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/entertainment/stories.nsf/dining/story/DFF4825BF6A20588862573E10012BAEE?OpenDocument

Good my hair wont smell so nasty and gunky anymore nor my clothes.

Bill Hannegan wrote:

“The ACS pushed the Illinois ban with its infamous 16 Cigarette Claim that even the Post-Dispatch dutifully printed. But now even Missouri GASP leader Martin Pion admits that he knew all along that the 16 Cigarette Claim was junk.”

Bill Hannegan is being deceptive by a) suggesting that I have somehow supported the erroneous ACS claim and kept quiet about it until finally admitting it was false, and b) by quietly skating over his own flawed tobacco industry arguments concerning cigarette equivalents to downplay the importance of secondhand smoke pollution.

I am interested in promoting sound science to support the goals of Missouri GASP, which is why I took both the ACS and Mr. Hannegan to task for spreading disinformation. Below is the full text of my letter to the Post-Dispatch, which Mr. Hannegan cherry picked in his remarks:

“Bill Hannegan recently took the American Cancer Society of Illinois to task [St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Dec. 22], claiming that they had made an “entirely misleading claim” in an earlier letter promoting the Illinois Smoke Free Air law, due to take effect January 1, 2008. The ACS wrote that ”One eight-hour shift in a smoke-filled workplace is the equivalent of smoking 16 cigarettes.”

His response was that, based on one of the chemicals in secondhand smoke, a bartender in the smokiest bar inhales “about one-fifth of a cigarette per eight-hour shift, or one cigarette per 40-hour week.”

So who’s right? Neither.

The first U.S. Surgeon General’s Report on secondhand smoke, published in December 1986, examined the subject of so-called “cigarette equivalents,” which is what Mr. Hannegan is arguing about.

The section dealing with this subject [see pages 198-200] concluded that, because secondhand smoke consists of so many chemicals, it is impossible to establish a meaningful standard, and it dismissed the concept as having no validity. 

Does that mean there is no scientific basis for the efforts in Illinois to protect the public from secondhand smoke? No! There is plenty of solid evidence, which has been amassed over many years, to support taking such measures. The only real question is: Why has it taken so long?

The answer is the power of the tobacco industry and its many allies, not least smokers like Mr. Hannegan, who not only inhale the toxins in tobacco smoke but also the tobacco industry’s toxic lies.”

Sincerely,

Martin Pion, B.Sc.
President
Missouri GASP [Group Against Smoking Pollution]

So you knew, Martin, since back in 1986 that these cigarette equivalent claims were invalid. Yet you raised no protest when the American Cancer Society used its 16 Cigarette Claim to push the Illinois smoking ban. Why did you stay quiet?

I think it’s funny that Martin calls Bill a stooge for the tobacco industry, yet his group is probably funded indirectly by Johnson & Johnson. I love how the try to take the moral high ground yet anyone who stands up for peoples rights they attack personally. If they don’t work for “Big Tobacco” they under control of their evil product.

Hey Martin, let me get it out of the way for you - I don’t work for the tobacco industry and I don’t smoke their products. I also don’t believe your exaggerated health claims. While I believe that smoking is bad for your health, second hand smoke according to the unbiased studies I’ve read simply isn’t. If it was as bad as the ACS says, then we simply wouldn’t have a problem with Social Security. Matter fact, no of us should be alive to even debate it.

What is wrong with the way it is now - more and more places are going smoke free. Everyone has a choice - what is wrong with having a choice? People choose to spend time at and work at environments of their choice. You don’t like smoke, then don’t go to a place that allows smoking. Spend your money at the Royale and places like it. Vote with your dollars.

It was said before, the owner maintains his option to change back to allowing smokers to puff away. If a smoking ban hurts his business, he can allow smoking again. Isn’t freedom wonderful.

St. Louis Federal Reserve research economist Dr. Michael Pakko presented his findings concerning the Columbia smoking ban yesterday at a meeting of the Federal Reserve’s regional Business and Economic Group at the University of Missouri. Pakko separated out the economic impact of the Columbia smoking ban after its first year on restaurants that don’t serve food, restaurants that serve alcohol, and bars that don’t serve food. Bar were down 11 percent compared to the previous 6 years. Restaurants that serve alcohol were down 6.5 percent, and restaurants that don’t serve alcohol were unaffected. These figures make a smoking ban for St. Louis seem pretty unattractive.

http://www.columbiatribune.com/2008/Mar/20080329News002.asp

Dr. Pakko’s Columbia study:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/regecon/op/CRE8OP-2008-002.pdf

Steve will see significant loss of revenue as business will go where Freedom and Democracy ring with smoke filled voters enjoying specialty drinks in a new bar soon.To be announced in the coming months on the Southside. thanks for the opportunity Steve

I say just get rid of the smoke every place. It ain’t that expensive.
http://www.air-quality-eng.com/tobacco.php

If we can manage to keep St. Louis free, Steve can always switch back to his old ways if a new place cuts into his smoke-free business. When it comes to things like smoke in a bar, the free market works.

I don’t think it’s a bad move for the Royale - the market is adjusting and they are creating a niche for themselves. I don’t know the numbers, but the Atomic Cowboy and R Bar are others that are smoke free. I would guess it works for them, they have been smoke free for awhile. But it only works if there is no ban, if there is a ban the niche they have filled dissapears. The market works better when there are more choices.

Of course they also have a choice to switch back if nonsmokers don’t support them.

This is teriffic. I spoke to a friend of mine who owns a large drinking establishment in St. Louis County. He said he’d have no problem with a statewide or at least a St. Louis County/City ban.
Odenwald’s ban would have sent his business into the city.

Illinois is NOT “smoke-free.”

The smoking ban is being ignored all over the state now. Serious questions have been raised concerning the new law’s constitutionality. The courts have not been receptive to enforcing the new law. Prosecutors haven’t, either.

Excellent news and I hope other establishments follow Steve’s lead while others work on smoke-free ordinances. Air filtration devices seem to be touted a lot, especially in this comment section, but they really are not the answer. While the air may be visibly cleaner looking, the devices cannot remove toxins and gases from burning cigarettes. Even when the air looks clear, you will still notice the smell of smoke in your hair and clothes when you leave the environment.

Mrenner, this air filtration unit can run 2000 cubic feet of bar air thru electronic, HEPA and activated charcoal filtration per minute. The electronic and HEPA filtration get the particles and the activated charcoal gets the rest. It not only takes smoke, but also viruses, bacteria and radon progeny, out of bar air. It is used to bring welding shops into OSHA compliance, so it can handle cigarette smoke too.

http://www.air-quality-eng.com/m68.php

Mrenner - this is an easy one. If you don’t like smoke, don’t go to establishments that allow smoking. Don’t spend your money or your time there. Spend your money at establishments that don’t allow smoking. The market has given you a choice, you should excercise that choice.

I always chuckle at these posters that need dry cleaning, showers, and gag after being near a smoker. Do they do that everytime they cross a busy street LOL?

“Steve will see significant loss of revenue as business will go where Freedom and Democracy ring with smoke filled voters enjoying specialty drinks in a new bar soon.To be announced in the coming months on the Southside. thanks for the opportunity Steve”

I am a capitalist. I can not take a hit in revenue. I refuse to.

My house has smelled like an ashtray for three years. My bed, my fresh dry cleaned clothes even my cheerios. But still smoking was allowed in the place. For all these years I was terrified about the types of scenarios as the above comment would suggest. I can’t go out of business. Over 3/4 of my customers smoke when I hit my money making times.

Well. My initial thought was wrong. Way wrong.

Even though I had wanted to go smoke free from the beginning, I did not. I should have gone smoke free three years ago. The reason I finally made the decision is that the customers wanted it. Badly. The vast overwhelming majority.

Check the internal study I did of the customers:
http://www.theroyale.com/blog/2008/02/04/royale-smoking-study/

And if people are going to boycott my place and stay away because they have to step outside for a square, well, so be it. It saddens me if people are making that decision, but they are not. People are coming in droves. All the smokers who are good customers have continued to come, and have verbally expressed appreciation. The business is up. Way up. People are relieved. The threats of business declining has not happened. Not at all. It has jumped.

It is to be noted we did not see any bump when the Illinois laws went into effect. I was told that people would be heading over from the Ill side. These Illinois crew are not at my place, a place that is considered the city’s best neighborhood bar in the polls. We had smoking here up until April 1.

Funny that the comment says my business went down when I restricted smoking at the tables during dining hours. This is not true. It went up. But now it is spiking up for everyone can sit inside in comfort and the smokers can step outside when they need a drag. I have no problem with the tobacco, it has just been making me ill when it is smoked in my house.

Before I started to study this issue more, I was not expecting this. But this is the truth. It is good for business. Come see it for yourself.

And on a final note- I smoked the final cigarette allowed in the house. I don’t smoke, but I figured that I should be the one. Nice nicotine high.

So seriously- to all the smokers- you are welcome. I hope you come down. I love smokers. I do. And to imply that I hate freedom- well, that is funny. I can tell there is desperation in the air among the last wafts of the smoke.

God bless America,

Steven Fitzpatrick Smith