Bowling proprietors against Proposition N
By Gary Voss, Executive Director, Missouri Bowling Proprietors Association
and Tom Shucart, President, Greater St. Louis Bowling Proprietors
After years of watching 37 other states enact policy on restricting smoking in public places, St. Louis County voters will decide on Nov. 3 if Proposition N should be passed to ban smoking in some public places on Jan. 1.
Opinions are strong, for and against. But voters are being asked to make a decision on a weak and confusing referendum because it doesn’t totally ban smoking. The proposal passed by the St. Louis County Council exempts casinos, bars with limited food sales and Lambert Airport.
The owners of St. Louis County’s 21 bowling centers oppose Proposition N with the opinion that if smoking is to be banned, it should be prohibited statewide in all public places.
Health groups like the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association and American Lung Association agree that there should be no exemptions. Each has a long and strong history against smoking, and they told the St. Louis County Council in August they wouldn’t endorse it.
The Post-Dispatch editorial page also said that there should be no exemptions. In an Oct. 25 editorial, it said, “Just because big casinos have more political clout than bowling centers, they shouldn’t get a pass.”
Even the group Missouri Group Against Smoking Pollution says the proposed ban is weak. It says on its website about Proposition N: “It’s not as strong as it should be.”
Bowlers strive for the perfect 300 game. It’s the pinnacle of being the best. They do so with rules and regulations that make such an effort fair. There’s nothing about Proposition N that it’s the best policy or fair for everyone. America is the strongest country in the world because it doesn’t use litmus test practice to positions on freedom choices for everyone.
The county’s bowling centers aren’t late-comers to this issue. Many of use years ago started enforcing a policy to prohibit smoking on certain days or times of day. They made that choice without be forced to do so by law. That’s because they weighed public opinion and found there was a free market that allowed for their customers to make a choice.
The bowling proprietors don’t disagree with the research that secondhand smoke can be harmful. No one is perfect, and we sometimes don’t make the health choice that’s best for us. That’s why we’ve challenged proponents to justify their support exposing people to secondhand smoke in certain places.
The “something is better than nothing” argument is as weak as the language in Proposition N. Just as weak is St. Louis city, where the Board of Aldermen passed a no-smoking ordinance last week — but only if the ban is passed by county voters. For all of Mayor Francis Slay’s desire for city-county cooperation, this action just passes the buck.
And health groups oppose the city ordinance for the same reasons they oppose the county ordinance.
We will lose customers and revenue if the referendum is passed. Proponents say we won’t, but they’ve never produced any empirical evidence to support that claim. The most visible proof is seen with our neighbors in Illinois where business — and state government — lost revenue immediately in 2008 when a public smoking ban was enacted.
We’ve found from studies we’ve conducted with centers affected by smoke-free laws that we’ll initially lose business but will recover in a couple of years. Centers that didn’t go out of business made it an issue to adapt to the new law and have benefited from the new smoke-free market.
We live in the Show-Me State. Government should show us strong leadership instead of fickle compromise that benefits some at the expense of others.
Voters on Nov. 3 must make government adapt too. Vote no on Proposition N and tell government to come up with the best proposal for everyone.
After nearly two years here in Chicago, many small neighborhood bars had to allow smoking to get their customers back, especially during the winter. It’s fading into forgotten history.
There is a simple solution to all of this!
If smokers embrace electronic cigarettes, then the issue of smoking bans will be mute. There is no second-hand smoke, no odor, no carcinogens, no CO2, and no mess like ashes, butts, etc. from electronic cigarettes. If smokers of tobacco cigarettes would switch their habit to a non-tobacco electronic cigarette, we would have no further need to further infringe on the personal freedoms of any one group. Whether you are a smoker, or a non-smoker, you should learn more about this technology.
If you are smoker, consider it as an option. You won’t be inhaling all the chemicals and carcinogens that you currently do from your tobacco cigarette.
If you are a non-smoker, learn about the technology, and pass the information on to your friends who are smokers. The electronic cigarette is a win-win in so many ways.
You can learn all about this technology at my website, http://www.NoTobacco.net
Thank you.
SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE. Ask the anti-tobacco folks to tell you what truly is in second hand smoke…when it burns from the coal its oxygenated and everything is burned and turned into water vapor………………thats right water……….you ever burned leaves in the fall…know how the heavy smoke bellows off…….thats the organic material releasing the moisture in the leaves the greener the leaves/organic material the more smoke thats made……thats why second hand smoke is classified as a class 3 irritant by osha and epa as of 2006……..after that time EPA decided to change the listing of shs as a carcinogen for political reasons…….because it contained a trace amount of 6 chemicals so small even sophisticated scientific equipment can hardly detect it ……..they didnt however use the normal dose makes the poison computation when they made this political decision. However osha still maintains shs/ets as an irritant only and maintains the dose makes the poison position…….as osha is in charge of indoor air quality its decisions are based on science not political agendas as epa’s is. We can see this is true after a federal judge threw out the epa’s study on shs as junk science……… Wednesday, March 12, 2008 British Medical Journal & WHO conclude secondhand smoke “health hazard” claims are greatly exaggerated The BMJ published report at:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057
concludes that “The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer are considerably weaker than generally believed.” What makes this study so significant is that it took place over a 39 year period, and studied the results of non-smokers who lived with smokers…..
meaning these non-smokers were exposed to secondhand smoke up to 24 hours per day; 365 days per year for 39 years. And there was still no relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality. In light of the damage to business, jobs, and the economy from smoking bans the BMJ report should be revisited by lawmakers as a reference tool and justification to repeal the now unnecessary and very damaging smoking ban laws. Also significant is the World Health Organization (WHO) study:
Passive smoking doesn’t cause cancer-official By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent ” The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: ‘There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood.’ ” And if lawmakers need additional real world data to further highlight the need to eliminate these onerous and arbitrary laws, air quality testing by Johns Hopkins University proves that secondhand smoke is up to 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations.
The Chemistry of Secondary Smoke About 94% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a slight excess of carbon dioxide. Another 3 % is carbon monoxide. The last 3 % contains the rest of the 4,000 or so chemicals supposedly to be found in smoke… but found, obviously, in very small quantities if at all.This is because most of the assumed chemicals have never actually been found in secondhand smoke. (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80). Most of these chemicals can only be found in quantities measured in nanograms, picograms and femtograms. Many cannot even be detected in these amounts: their presence is simply theorized rather than measured. To bring those quantities into a real world perspective, take a saltshaker and shake out a few grains of salt. A single grain of that salt will weigh in the ballpark of 100 million picograms! (Allen Blackman. Chemistry Magazine 10/08/01). - (Excerpted from “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains” with permission of the author.)
The Myth of the Smoking Ban ‘Miracle’ Restrictions on smoking around the world are claimed to have had a dramatic effect on heart attack rates. It’s not true. http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7451/
As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that: “Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.” -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997
-harleyrider1978
While I understand and sympathize with bowlers that smoke and smokers in general, I strongly support the smoking ban. As a non-smoking avid bowler with asthma, I have difficulty breathing for days after leaving the smoke filled bowling centers. It is such a joy to travel the country and bowl in centers that do not allow smoking. The ability to not only breath clearly, but to see from one end of the center to the other. While the proposition may be weak, its a start! And I’m loving it!
Proposition N would prevent lighting up in most in most indoor public places, with the biggest exceptions being casino gaming floors, airport lounges and “drinking establishments” where food makes up less than 25 percent of gross sales. (St. Louis County Councilwoman Barbara Fraser, D-University City, who sponsored the bill, said it’s difficult to know exactly how many bars would be exempt, but she puts the estimate anywhere from 60 to 80.) The ban would take effect January 2011.