05.28.2008 11:35 am
Should St. Charles ban smoking in enclosed public places?
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
A city advisory commission on health issues wants the City Council to ban smoking at bars, restaurants and other enclosed public places. A majority of council members are opposed, with some worrying that businesses in the city could suffer if St. Charles acts on its own without neighboring communities doing the same. Should the council pass such a prohibition, let city voters decide in a referendum or leave the law the way it is?
Actually they just did another study,thinking people would go to the East side to smoke……….not true well first of you you’d be crazy to go all the way over there..but no smoking in restaurants and bars actually brought a higher class of people and the places businesses went much higher
For more on the Kansas City lawsuit Councilman Bob Kneemiller referred to:
http://keepstlouisfree.blogspot.com/2008/05/kansas-city-lawsuit-may-strike-down.html
Why does Pat Lindsey continue to push smoking bans even though by now she must know that smoking bans cause more drunk driving deaths?
Hannegan- The Adams & Cotti study about smoking bans increasing drunk driving fatalities just doesn’t pass the “sniff test”. The fact is that drunk driving fatalities have decreased significantly over the past 20 years. The assumption in the study that you cite is that people must be driving out of communities with smoking bans so that they can smoke while they drink. This, obviously has them driving to communities WITHOUT smoking bans, where the alcohol related traffic fatalities have diminished. This studies results simply make no sense!
As we know, “there are three kind of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics”.
The study suggests several possible explanations. Whatever the explanation one accepts, St. Charles can count on more drunk driving deaths if a smoking ban goes in. Isn’t that unacceptable?
First of all, I just don’t believe the statistics about drunk driving fatalities and smoking bans. As I said, it doesn’t make sense. If fatalities overall are going down, where are these lonely smokers driving?
Second, even if it were true, this would result in far fewer deaths than environmental tobacco smoke causes. There are about 16,000 alcohol related traffic fatalities in the US every year. A national 13% increase would be an additional 2080 deaths. Yes, this would be a tragedy, but environmental tobacco smoke exposure causes 35,000 ischemic heart disease deaths (heart attacks) every year. In the cold-hearted world of statistical analysis, this is a “no-brainer”.
mombo, I don’t believe secondhand smoke causes heart disease. The dose is just too low. But even if it did, bar and restaurant smoking bans don’t decrease the overall smoke exposure of nonsmokers. So why would a smoking ban lower the heart attack rate?
Please read the summary of this very large study that Big Tobacco had nothing to do with:
http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications.php?publication_id=3523
Banning smoking in public establishments is another way of making revenue for the City of Saint Charles. Just who and how will this non-smoking ban be monitored? What are they going to do hire a police officer to monitor these public establishments and the moment you light up you’re handed a ticket for $25.00, or will they install cameras to monitor the public?
This is nothing more than another way to violate our civil rights while having a surefire way of generating revenue for the city. What’s next?
Will I get a ticket for smoking while driving in my car or standing in my own front yard?
Scooter, a smoking ban is a lousy way for St. Charles to try to make money. Columbia police handed out 45 tickets for smoking in the first 13 months of the Columbia ban. But Columbia lost many businesses during that time due to the ban and Dr. Pakko estimates that Columbia lost 60,000 dollars in tax revenue during the first six months of the ban.
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2007/12/12/columbia-dining-tax-revenues-dissipate-smoking-ban/
I don’t think St Charles would do this to make money. Money however is part of the issue. Some very well paid people are pushing this issue on the council. The money filters down from big pharma for their own economic interest. Yet they would make you believe that it is a citizens grass roots effort. They claim a vast majority of people want this. They even claim that smokers want this. They claim to speak for you and me. I know of no smokers that want this. Most of the non-smokers that I know don’t care or are against it. I know of only a couple non-smokers who are for it.
The ACS has hired two full time people in St Louis to get a ban. That is not a grass roots organization. That is special interest willing to kill choice for money.