Smoking ban forum discusses air filtration
Air filtration systems to curb second-hand smoke got an airing Monday night.
Bill Hannegan, a major opponent of banning smoking in indoor public places, suggested that air filtration systems could be alternative. He and St. Louis County Councilwoman Barbara Fraser, D-University City, the sponsor of the ban on the Nov. 3 St. Louis County ballot, spoke at a forum of the Clayton Chamber of Commerce.
Effective air filtration systems “produce air cleaner than outdoor air,” Hannegan said.
The filtration systems, Fraser said, “get at the issue of smell, but are not effective in eliminating fine particle concentrations and gases.”
Fraser said her smoking ban would protect residents, including those with asthma and other conditions that make people sensitive to second-hand smoke.
Major exemptions to the smoking ban in Fraser’s measure are casino gaming floors, smoking lounges at Lambert Field and some small bars.
The measure “is a result of compromise,” she said. “It is not a perfect bill,” she said. “Fair compromises made the bill possible,” she said.
Hannegan said second-hand smoke is a significant health concern. He said supporters and opponents could have worked out a compromise on a smoking ban that would both protect the public and not hurt businesses.
Some alternatives could involve air filtration systems and limiting smoking to areas that only would admit people more than 21 years old, Hannegan said.
Fraser said studies and experiences of businesses in Ballwin, which fully implemented a smoking ban in 2006, show that bans help rather than hurt businesses. Hannegan pointed to businesses in Ballwin that suffered since the smoking ban.
The chamber’s forum occurred at Clayton’s community center; about 20 people attended.
Herein lies the biggest difference between conservatives and liberals: If conservatives don’t smoke, they just do not go to places that have smoking and are fine. If liberals don’t smoke, they want to pass legislation to make sure nobody can smoke. Again, big government taking away freedom of choice and dictating habits all under the guise of being for the public good. What a load of trash!
> He said supporters and opponents could have worked out a compromise
Supporters of the smoking ban aren’t interested in a compromise. These neo-puritans are no different than the Women’s Temperance League.
If Councilmen Burkett, O’Mara and Erby had been allowed input on this law, a fair compromise might have been reached.
Same with guns Huck. If a person values freedom and doesn’t want a gun, he or she won’t purchase one. Folks of the other persuasion that do not like guns believe they should have the power to make sure no one owns one.
Anti-freedom on parade, be it smoking, guns, or government control of everything imaginable. Hold on tight, It’s only going to get worse….
Huck, this isn’t liberal vs conservative. If you had paid attention, you would have noticed this bill had bi-partisan support - 2 Democrats, 2 Republicans. Or are you calling Quinn a liberal?
No, the real difference is between views of the world. Hannegan sees only businesses that are closed, and chooses to blame it all on smoking restrictions. I know that the businesses that closed, in Ballwin for example, were in trouble before the clean air act was even discussed. The owner of Seventh Inn said her sales were down 30% long before the Clean Air Ordinance. By the way, she refused to open her books to prove it when challenged by an alderman. Her sales tax receipts don’t bear her out. So was she mistaken, or something else?
Councilman Fraser sees that other Ballwin businesses thrived, such as Bones French Quarter. Their revenues are up over 40%. For some reason, Mr. Hannegan refuses to acknowledge their existence. A recent study published on Steve Patterson’s blog showed Ballwin restaurant revenue was down slightly, in keeping with the historical trend. Neighboring Manchester, with no Clean Air Ordinance, was down much worse. Maybe Manchester residents went to Ballwin restaurants, just like a Wildwood business owner told Wildwood residents to do.
Studies from other communities, including Columbia, Missouri, show no devastating impact to businesses - except maybe to the tobacco companies. I can’t work up much sympathy for them, though.
Even Mr. Hannegan admits that second-hand smoke is bad for you. He thinks filters solve the problem. I ask him - what company certifies that their filters remove 100% of all toxic substances from smoke? And will they guarantee that nobody will breathe in the smoke BEFORE it gets to a filter?
Proposition N is about improving public health conditions. Businesses can and do thrive in a clean atmosphere. Vote YES on Proposition N.
The economic harm the Columbia smoking ban did to Columbia business is documented on the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis website:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/red/2008/01/Pakko.pdf
Mr. Hannegan -
It was obvious to me during the council meetings on Fraser’s bill(s) that Hazel Erby didn’t read the bill(s)…particularly the one that was “cleaner” with less exemptions…very similar to Clayton’s. To say that she wasn’t allowed input is a cop out. Any person on that council could have weighed in on the language. I would have welcomed a public debate. It’s unbelievable how some council persons clam up because of what I see is fear…fear that they’ll upset one group or another. In my opinion, they just didn’t care enough to weigh the issue deliberately and thoughtfully. Greg Quinn read the bill, Colleen Wassinger read the bill and yes, even though I disagree with his exemption, Steve S. read the bill.
Erby, Burkett and O’Mara were never given a chance to help craft the legislation. Fraser showed up and presented them with the completed unfair smoking ban. She had the votes she need and just pushed it through. If these more experienced councilmen had been involved, a fair law might have been drafted.
1) Pakko wrote his Columbia report with cherry-picked data. Comes from his Libertarian background. Was his report peer-reviewed for accuracy? Why does sales tax data show an increase in sales after one year in the restaurant business in Columbia?
2) In spite of all her protestations, Hazel Erby has never voted for any clean air bill. She couldn’t be bothered to review the material provided her. I seem to recall she chaired the committee - and you are saying she had no chance to provide input? Exactly whose fault would that be? She was provided with a “clean” bill, she voted against it. Had she voted for it, there would have been fewer exemptions. In County Council, it is votes that count. And hers have always counted against clean air. She can’t run away from her record.
The Federal Reserve Bank wouldn’t post a study on their website that wasn’t well done. On the other side, almost all the studies which show that smoking bans don’t negatively affect business have been conducted by public health people, not economists, been peer-reviewed only by other public health people, not economists, and have been published in public health or medical journals, not economics journals. I suspect no real economists were involved in the Michigan study Councilman Fraser cited last night.
Councilman Erby said she voted against the smoking ban because Councilman Fraser hadn’t given her a chance to read it.