advertisement

Statewide smoking ban bill proposed in Missouri House

Wednesday, February 3, 2010 | 4:01 p.m. CST; updated 6:00 p.m. CST, Wednesday, February 3, 2010

JEFFERSON CITY — Missouri smokers could face harsh restrictions under proposed legislation.

A House bill proposed by Rep. Walter Bivins, R-St. Louis County, would make it illegal to smoke in enclosed public places like bars and restaurants, and certain outdoor venues — in and within 15 feet of playgrounds and bus stops, for example. Citizens could still light up in private homes and tobacco retail outlets.

Bivins' said his bill has received support from both the American Lung Association and the American Cancer Society.

"This is their bill," Bivins said of the Lung Association and Cancer Society, "this is their language."

Rep. Stacey Newman, D-St. Louis County, a co-sponsor of the bill, said the St. Louis County smoking ban was already met with support, and "it was very much wanted by the people."

"The time has come for this," Newman said, "we have full support from voters, from the American Lung Association, from the medical community."

Bivins said he is "hopeful to get (the bill) through unscathed," but acknowledged that critics — including Senate President Pro Tem Charlie Shields, R-St. Joseph — fear this is the wrong economic time for such legislation and businesses will suffer as a result.

"I'm not convinced a statewide smoking ban passes, even though I do believe it will happen in the coming years," Shields said. "Larger cities have taken the step, but there is still much resistance from businesses, such as restaurant owners from across the state who are already facing challenges."

Newman said these fears were "largely unfounded," and pointed to New York City's similar ban as a successful example.

"There's never a right time," Bivins said, "and this is as good a time as ever."


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

John Erkle February 3, 2010 | 8:05 p.m.

The new Tobacco Prohibition

I would like to take the time to tell the entire community about a falsehood so big that everyone who believes in freedom should be appauled.
This falsehood is so big it resonates from historical fact forward to this day. This falsehood is so big billions of dollars have been spent to make it believable to those of us who dont take the time to look up the facts.
We all remember reading about alcohol prohibition,but did you know there was also tobacco prohibition going on before alcohol became such a target of the last nanny staters.
Our great grandparents lived thru prohibition and the great depression,they also lived thru tobacco prohibition.

Heres a time line starting in 1900,dont be surprised to see the same thing playing out today nearly 100 years later.

1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. "Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity" (Dillow, 1981:10).

1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.

1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. "You can't do that on Fifth Avenue," the arresting officer says.

1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: "Business ... is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do."

1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee.

1930: hitler institutes laws against smoking.This one you can google.

Now onto the falsehood......

We have been told for years by smoke free advocates that second hand smoke is the cause of everything from johnnys ear ache to cousin ED'S lung cancer. But wheres the proof!!!

Remember they claim 50,000 deaths a year yet,there are no bodys not even mass graves of the dead to second hand smoke.We await the names of these victims.

A simple stroll down historys road say 10 years or so and we start to get at the truth......

A federal Judge by the name of osteen got a case dropped in his lap in North Carolina,the case was that of EPA'S study on second hand smoke/environmental tobacco smoke.The judge an anti-tobbaco judge by reputation spent 4 years going thru the study and interviewing scientists at EPA and came to the conclusion :

(Report Comment)
John Erkle February 3, 2010 | 8:07 p.m.

JUNK SCIENCE

''EPA's 1992 conclusions are not supported by reliable scientific evidence. The report has been largely discredited and, in 1998, was legally vacated by a federal judge.Before its 1992 report, EPA had always used epidemiology's gold standard CI of 95 percent to measure statistical significance. But because the U.S. studies chosen[cherry picked] for the report were not statistically significant within a 95 percent CI, for the first time in its history EPA changed the rules and used a 90 percent CI, which doubled the chance of being wrong.

This allowed it to report a statistically significant 19 percent increase [a 1.19rr] of lung cancer cases in the nonsmoking spouses of smokers over those cases found in nonsmoking spouses of nonsmokers. Even though the RR was only 1.19--an amount far short of what is normally required to demonstrate correlation or causality--the agency concluded this was proof SHS increased the risk of U.S. nonsmokers developing lung cancer by 19 percent.''

So here we find that second hand smoke was made a political scapegoat by EPA.Lets not forget how EPA has reworked the global warming studys just this last summer. Where its top scientists paper was rebuked because it didnt carry the EPA'S stand that global warming was real.

The political shenanigans surrounding SHS/ETS go deep not only with the government and its health agencies but also to the big pharmaceutical companies and non-profit orginizations aka ACS,ALA,AHA and a meriad of others. All lobbying for smoking bans and their weapon of choise Propaganda paid for by big pharma and tax dollars. Studys made to order that second hand smoke is deadly. Take a memory note here too,over 250 studys on shs/ets have found it safe.

Yet a simple look at the chemistry shows us that its:

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.)

(Report Comment)
John Erkle February 3, 2010 | 8:07 p.m.

Now, how odd that when we search the smoke free activists sites not one of them mentions that water vapor and air are the main components of second hand smoke. Is this just a fluke or an outright omission to further their political healthscare against the general public.

The last informative tid bit I have for you is what does OSHA have to say about all this secondhand smoke stuff.

Here is where it gets interesting,it seems John Banzhaf, founder and president of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) decided to sue OSHA to make a rule on shs/ets not that OSHA didnt want to play ball with him,its just that the scientific facts didnt back up a rule to start with.

Now for a rule to happen Osha has to send out for comments for a period of time and boy did the comments fly in, over 40,000 of them....Osha has whats called PEL'S and limits for an 8 hour period of exposure to chemicals in indoor environments...[epa is in charge of outdoor air]

This is where second hand smoke really becomes a joke,remember its nearly 94% water vapor and air.....now lets get to the facts of toxicology and dose makes the poison:

According to independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke........

They did the figures for what it takes to meet all of OSHA'S minimum PEL'S on shs/ets.......Did it ever set the debate on fire.

They concluded that:

All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes

"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes

"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes

For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time

The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

So,OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

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

WHAT! DILUTED BELOW PERMISSABLE LEVELS

(Report Comment)
John Erkle February 3, 2010 | 8:08 p.m.

By the way ASH dropped their lawsuit because OSHA was going to make a rule and that rule would have been weak and been the law of the land,meaning no smoking bans would ever have been enacted anywhere,simply because an open window or a ventilation system would have covered the rule.

Let me also tell you that the relative risk for shs/ets by the SG report of 2006 was a 1.19 ''EPA study is whats used to call it a carcinogen''......milks is a 2.43 and that glass of chlorinated water your about to drink is a 1.25 yet these things aren't determined to be a carcinogen....The gold standard in epidemiology is a 3.0....Now had the SURGEON GENERAL included 2 other shs/ets studys the relative risk for disease from shs/ets would have been nearer a.60-.70 meaning it would have a protective effect against ever getting disease.

But,what each of us has is years and years of exposure and the knowledge that our kids all grew up around shs and generations of others,yet we are here alive not dead from a lousy 30 minute exposure to shs as stanton glantz tries to claim.....thats another story and its just as crazy as all the rest of smokefree's claim about shs/ets.

Oh! have you heard the one about ''laugh'' thirdhand smoke or third hand drinking.
Like I said their claims border beyond that of any reasonable persons commomsence.

The next time you see a healthscare claim
consider the source.Especially if it comes from a government or non profit agency!

disclaimer; I am a victim of the smoking bans like tens of millions of smokers and non-smokers who liked to hang with their friends in a public accommodation. We have in effect lost our freedom of association because of the bans.
Property owners have lost their right to their property rights by these laws based upon psuedo-science and propaganda.I dont work for any tobacco company nor do I get anything but the satisfaction that I can make the smoke free activists cringe when the truth gets out.

(Report Comment)
gene b February 4, 2010 | 1:25 a.m.

The spamming's getting worse and worse.

>>"I would like to take the time to tell the entire community about a falsehood so big that everyone who believes in freedom should be appauled."

Harley's despicable boilerplate is, as always, appalling.

Take the time? Take the time??

How much does it take to post the same boilerplate at sites all over the internet?? And what community, exactly? His boilerplate has nothing to do with Columbia or MO. He sprays it all over the country like a dog on Flomax (google him or the text).

This unknown jerk has no known education, CV or even a name--and he's out to "educate" Columbia, and "debunk" 50 years of open, peer-reviewed science by real, accountable scientists--with names(!)

So why does he only have the guts to spam message boards, but _never_ to stand up and present his drivel in front of legislators? Because then he'd have to expose himself and his tripe, which is all BS. Anonymous spamming is so much easier.

(Wikipedia does a good job of documenting the reality behind his tobacco-derived PR in "Industry-funded Studies and Critiques": http://tinyurl.com/yhrmxub)

This kind of fanatical, profligate fax-blasting--if used by other groups like White Power maniacs, Holocaust Deniers, Flat Earthers, etc.--will destroy message boards.

Many sites have stopped posting his spam.

(Yet the boilerplate gets posted anyway, by, uh, "someone else." Or some variation of "harleyrider1978," his original moniker. Big surprise.)

(Report Comment)
John Erkle February 4, 2010 | 9:13 a.m.

Gene borio,hows it going buddy,things doing ok over at tobacco.org............how many millions did ya get for xmas gene from the taxpayers to run the tobacco control propaganda program......I see your still spamming comments sections pushing your propaganda over at wikipedia,nice thing about wiki you can change the story anytime it needs to be changed,just what tobacco control loves,besides silencing other peoples opinions like you keep trying to do.....sorta makes you a freedom of speech opponent doesnt it.......

(Report Comment)
Virgil Kleinhelter February 4, 2010 | 6:34 p.m.

geneb
Harley, who seems to be, John Erkle must be getting to you. How would you know that Harley is posting all over the Internet unless you were also doing the exact same thing? If a person finds good information that should be known, why not post it to get the truth out?
What difference does it make where someone is from. If what has been found is true, you are from New York. Why should you be the privileged one? I think it a funny thing. A guy named Gene Borio has a web site that is funded by the RWJF, as in the RWJF set up by Johnson & Johnson, the largest maker of Smoking Cessation Products. This Gene Borio has an e-mail address that is geneb@……I won’t print the address completely. If anyone cares to see the full address they need only go to Tobacco.org to see all they want to know about this geneb. All I have to say is if anyone is getting paid for spreading this type of accusations they are overpaid. Looks like Harley isn’t the only one spraying. One thing Harley isn’t doing, is calling people names and trying to degrade them. Why does a person need to have a recognizable name? You don’t seem want yours known and what does education have to with being civil and well mannered. What is wrong with being self-educated? You have no room to talk when you are guilty of the same and being ill-mannered to boot. If you are profiting from your rants against people who disagree with you, then you are the one who needs to reveal your bias and grow up. Stop acting like a spoiled child because you find yourself being shown up for spreading misinformation you profit from. If Wikipedia is all you have you have propaganda.

(Report Comment)
Virgil Kleinhelter February 4, 2010 | 6:47 p.m.

Tobacco Control organizations like the American Cancer Society, ASH, Tobacco Free Kids, etc., have become nothing but Perception Management firms. They are PAID to CREATE "truth". Created truth is controllable. Perception Management, aka social engineering, uses select information involving falsehood and deception. Really smoke and mirrors to get people to believe what they want the "truth" to influence emotions. The difference between real and perception is like a stick of dynamite and the A-bomb. Wars can be created using Perception Management! Small business owners are experiencing this with legislation against their Constitutional rights. It has never been about health, just profits for big Pharma, makers of smoking cessation products!

(Report Comment)
Rick Hyer February 5, 2010 | 2:56 p.m.

39 States now prohibit smoking indoors - simply because cigarette smoke is as dangerous to breathe as asbestos. Workers that have to breathe this pollution 8 hours a day need legislation to clear the air. Congratulations for our Elected Officials to FINALLY take action on this proven cancer-causing indoor air pollution.

Remember Smokers - this doesn't mean you cannot smoke - in fact you can smoke more if you want. You just have to be considerate and take it outdoors. Not such a big inconvience when you consider the inconvience of innocent people coming down with life threatening diseases due to inhaling second hand smoke 8 hours a day.

(Report Comment)
Bill Hannegan February 5, 2010 | 5:00 p.m.

Smoking ban proponents are now saying that bans cut heart attack rates. But the latest and best studies don't support that claim.

http://mogasp.files.wordpress.com/2010/0...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19698233/SSRNi...

(Report Comment)
Bill Hannegan February 5, 2010 | 9:35 p.m.

Rick, a smoking ban doesn't stop people from smoking in bars:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009...

Here is the Ohio smoking ban violators link mentioned in the article:

http://www.smokechoke.com/

(Report Comment)
Travis Fisher February 19, 2010 | 2:05 p.m.

Anyone who says second hand smoke is not harmful clearly has not worked in a poorly ventilated bar that allows it. As a non-smoker I certainly feel my health has deteriorated since working in a bar as a direct result of second hand smoke. This bill would be of great service to those working in the bar and restaurant industries. Furthermore, I highly doubt this ban will bring much harm to the bar or restaurant owner if everyone is forced to comply. Citizens in other cities forced to comply with this ban probably do not find it too difficult to step outside for a minute to enjoy a smoke. I support this bill!

(Report Comment)
John Schultz February 19, 2010 | 3:13 p.m.

Travis, did anyone force you to work at this bar or were you free to find another workplace to avoid the secondhand smoke?

In case you are not from Columbia, you might do well to familiarize yourself with a sales tax study conducted by Dr. Michael Pakko, an economist and researcher with the St. Louis branch of the Federal Reserve, one year after Columbia's ban was implemented. It says:

"In January 2007, an ordinance took effect in Columbia, Missouri, banning smoking in all bars, restaurants, and workplaces. This paper analyzes data for sales tax collections at eating and drinking establishments from January 2001 through December 2007, including the first 12 months of the smoking ban. The analysis accounts for trends, seasonality, general business conditions, and weather. The findings suggest that the smoking ban has been associated with statistically significant losses in sales tax revenues at Columbia’s bars and restaurants, with an average decline of approximately 3½ to 4 percent. Businesses that serve only food show no statistically significant effects of the smoking ban. Those that serve food and alcohol, or alcohol only, show significant losses with estimates in the range of 6½ to 11 percent (with the larger losses associated with bars).
Some individual businesses within each category may have been unaffected, whereas others are likely to have incurred much greater losses."

You can read the full report here:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/publicati...

(Report Comment)
joe doubleblow March 2, 2010 | 9:49 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
debra neff June 9, 2010 | 2:54 p.m.

I am sick of hearing about you can't smoke hear and you can't smoke there. Everyone complains about tax revenue being down, well how much tax is generated from smoker? They are charged a cigarette. tax and then taxed on top of that. I feel that if a town, county, city, state ect. don't want smoking in their town, county, city, state, ect. then don't you sell cigarettes in that town, county, city, state, ect. and don't you dare benifit from those very taxes that are generated from the very thing your trying to do away with.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements