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