Smoker, it’s not about freedom, it’s about rules. There has to be rules because if everyone was allowed to run around doing anything they pleased, there would be total chaos! When you were in school didn’t your teacher force you to sit down and pay attention in class when maybe you would have preferred the freedom of going out to play? One’s public behavior should not be offensive to others. As far as choices are concerned, I have a choice to fly American Airlines or Delta, but last time I checked, they are both non-smoking. As it should be with restaurants, I should be able to choose any place to dine and not be offended by smoke.

I guess it won’t be enough until we ban everything we have. think about right now it’s smoking what will we want to stop next. I do not smoke and rarely drink, but I feel I have bigger issues to worry about.

Maggie,

Shouldn’t I be able to own a bar/restaurants and deny non-smokers entry?

jim63129 wrote: “Obesity is a health problem. Let’s ban fried foods!”

This is a red herring and has nothing to do with secondhand smoke. However, to digress for a moment: Obesity and lack of exercise has now been identified as a major health problem in the U.S. and is of concern. Among suggested responses is providing healthier school lunches and removing soda machines from schools, both reasonable. My own solution is to promote safe on-road bicycling for transportation, and I offer courses as a League of American Bicyclists Cycling Instructor in Ferguson where I live.

Returning to the issue: It’s perfectly reasonable to require the private workplace and places open to the public, both of which government already regulates to ensure safety, to be smoke-free. Apart from being a major health threat secondhand smoke (SHS) is also a major public nuisance. There is no reason to exempt SHS from regulation. The only reason it’s proving to be such a fight is the enduring power and influence of the tobacco industry and its supporters, many of whom - to their own detriment - are addicted smokers.

The industry used to claim that SHS hadn’t been proven harmful to nonsmokers but that argument was rebutted when the U.S. Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop, issued his first report on SHS in 1986 concluding that SHS caused lung cancer in exposed healthy nonsmokers.

Those who argue that smoking is a right superseding smoke-free laws because it’s a legal product ignore the fact that no legal product confers the right to harm someone else, e.g. a pen is a legal product but that doesn’t mean you can poke someone’s eye out with it!

Since the release of the USSG Reports like the one mentioned above, the industry and its surrogates have switched to other arguments, such as:

1) This is a private business decision in bars and restaurants
2) It’s a matter of choice and if you don’t like SHS find somewhere that’s smoke-free
3) It will put people out of business
4) The City has more important issues to address

None of the above is persuasive:

1. Private business decision -private businesses are subject to numerous government regulation, both before they open their doors to ensure compliance with electrical and other safety codes, and even once they open them, and this is especially true of establishments that serve food to avoid or limit food poisoning. Does anyone suggest putting up a sign outside a bar or restaurant that says “Eat/drink here at own risk due possible contamination”? I don’t think so.

2. Choice - Whether or not you “choose” to smoke [although for most smokers it's an addiction and not a choice] is irrelevant to the safety and health issue here. Government has a duty to protect the public health and welfare in every way possible and in the case of secondhand smoke it’s a relatively simple and inexpensive problem to address, unlike, for example, asbestos remediation.

3. Loss of business - The tobacco industry and its surrogates are using the fear of loss of business very successfully to defeat smoke-free air laws. That is their new big stick to beat them back. The evidence on this is mixed though, with numerous studies showing no or little impact, or a dip followed by a recovery. But when it comes to health and welfare that should take precedence. If we had a serious swine flu epidemic in St. Louis that required businesses to be shut down, they would be, just as happened recently in Mexico City at a cost of $500 million to the local economy. If a business was contaminated with asbestos it would be shut down until that it removed too, assuming that was economically feasible.

4. The City has bigger problems - Mort Hill made this last argument writing: “Our schools are in shambles, infrastructure is shot, the riverfront is a disaster and downtown is a ghost town. Their priority and solution is a ban on smoking in bars. Are they out of ideas?”

Those are all valid concerns and they need to be dealt with but that doesn’t take away from the need to address this long-overdue issue of secondhand smoke. Providing smoke-free air may well help the City by improving not only the health of its citizens but also its image, and help promote it as a destination.
When I first moved to St. Louis with my family in 1980 I spent the first few months exploring the metro area, and discovered that most of interesting destinations were in the City. Fortunately, many were smoke-free but when it came to shopping and eating out smoke-free was the exception, so we avoided spending money in those locations. I’ll welcome the day when I can go anywhere in St. Louis - including a bar or restaurant - knowing I won’t have to endure SHS exposure. But more importantly will be that all employees in those workplaces won’t have to endure secondhand smoke as a condition of holding a job either.

Smoker, what bar/restaurant do you know that bans a smoker from entry? None that I know of. Smokers welcome, smoke is not!

Mr. smoker,

I don’t have the freedom to drive 100 mph without consequences because it’s dangerous to others on the road.

I don’t have the freedom to yell “FIRE!” in a crowded theater — that isn’t on fire — without consequences because it presents a dangerous situation to those in the building.

I don’t have the freedom to urinate in your yard without consequences because it poses a health risk to the general public.

Get over the idea that free country means you can do whatever you want whenever you want. There are still rules and regulations that need to be enacted and enforced to ensure to safety of the greater population.

Yours in a smoke-free MO,
JPinSTL

Thank you, Martin, for stating the argument so eloquently!

Businesses are private not public. If you want public businesses, move to a country that supports that economic philosophy.

Mr. Ditka,

I assume, then, that you support restaurants no needing safety standards regarding food preperation.

Yours in washing hands after handling chicken,
JPinSTL

Raise the tax on cigarettes to $10.00 a pack and this is from a former smoker. Hardest thing I ever did was to quit but the best thing for my health and others.