2013-04-23 P-D etc. re. HB 1021 which punishes smoke-free cities and counties

Reminder: For a comment to be considered it must be accompanied by your full name: first name only or a pseudonym is not normally accepted. Please limit your comment to 1,000 characters (including spaces), and also avoid epithets and personal attacks.

Today’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial page included a Fair or Foul comment by Kevin Horrigan, Deputy Editorial Page Editor (please see below). It focuses on the effort to penalize local jurisdictions that have addressed, or may in future address, the issue of smoke-fouled indoor air in public places and workplaces.

Below that are appended a long list of news outlets which have commented on this story. Rep. Kathie Conway has certainly garnered a lot of attention by merely wanting to protect private businesses from busybodies wanting to limit how a legal product can be used. Next thing you know, we’ll be shutting down or penalizing private businesses for allowing lewd behavior that people find offensive. A simple solution for that is to just put up a sign!

FOUL: Bossy is as bossy does

Because they believe that local governments shouldn’t dictate what owners of private businesses can do, a group of St. Charles County state lawmakers want to dictate to local governments about how they split up local tax money. See, only some people get to be bossy.
         Missouri is one of the last places in the country where indoor-smoking bans are still controversial. In St. Charles County, O’Fallon and Lake Saint Louis have adopted such ordinances. A countywide indoor smoking ban has been stalled for a couple of years.
         If House Bill 1021 passes — and that’s not likely, inasmuch as there are only four weeks left in the session — any jurisdiction that bans smoking in workplaces would have to forfeit all sales and property tax revenue from those businesses. The funds would go to local school districts instead.
         “If these municipalities and counties are going to hurt the income of small businesses, maybe their bottom line should be affected as well,” Rep. Kathie Conway, R-St. Charles, the bill’s lead sponsor, told the Post-Dispatch’s Mark Schlinkmann.
         As shoddily written, HB 1021 would apply to all businesses in the county. Ms. Conway said she plans to rework it so it applies only to places that serve food and beverages. That’s good: Major employers tend to like smoking bans, and you wouldn’t want them to get the idea that the county is run by Neanderthals.

— Kevin Horrigan

My thanks to Stan Cowan for the following relevant trove of references and articles which he sent today. Even the San Francisco Chronicle picked up on it. To anyone in a state with progressive laws on smoke-free air this must seem pretty weird.

Jefferson City News Tribune
April 22, 2013
http://www.newstribune.com/news/2013/apr/22/lawmaker-seeks-penalty-smoking-bans/
ST. LOUIS (AP) — The growing number of Missouri communities banning smoking in public places could face stiff financial penalties under a proposal from a state lawmaker.
The measure sponsored by Republican Rep. Kathie Conway of St. Charles County would require cities and counties to turn over to local school districts the property and sales tax revenue they get from businesses affected by tobacco restrictions.
“If these municipalities and counties are going to hurt the income of small businesses, maybe their bottom line should be affected as well,” Conway said.
Conway told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (http://bit.ly/ZzXbGi ) that she is seeking to protect the rights of the owners of bars, restaurants and other businesses to decide for themselves whether to allow smoking.
The bill introduced April 2 is opposed by the Missouri Municipal League and anti-smoking groups.
Richard Sheets, deputy director of the Missouri Municipal League, said the measure would punish all residents of a city or county by denying them tax revenue.
“This is a local issue that should be vetted through the local process of elected representatives,” Sheets said.
Stan Cowan, a board member with Tobacco-Free Missouri, said the bill “is essentially trying to intimidate city and county governments to slow down or not pass smoke-free ordinances.”
Seven other Republican House members from St. Charles County are co-sponsors with Conway. The other co-sponsor is St. Louis Democrat Penny Hubbard.
O’Fallon and Lake St. Louis have smoking bans in St. Charles County. The St. Charles City Council will hold hearings next month on a smoking ban that likely would exempt Ameristar Casino.
The St. Charles County Council in 2012 voted to put on the November ballot a two-question countywide smoking ban package. However, it was blocked by the county elections director and a circuit judge. The sponsor wants to try again next year.
St. Louis city and county have smoking bans.

Missouri House bill proposes penalty for smoking bans
Penalties proposed for communities with smoking bans.

Staff St. Louis Business Journal
April 22,2013
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morning_call/2013/04/missouri-house-bill-proposes-penalty.html

A group of St. Charles County legislators are proposing a measure that would financially penalize cities and counties with local smoking bans.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Kathie Conway, R-St. Charles County, would require cities or counties to turn over all property and sales tax revenue collected from businesses affected by the smoking ban to local school districts, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports.
Conway said she’s trying to protect the rights of small businesses. The measure is opposed by the Missouri Municipal League and anti-smoking groups.

Bill seeks to burn cities with smoking bans

Staff Kansas City Business Journal
Apr 22, 2013
http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/blog/morning_call/2013/04/bill-seeks-to-burn-cities-with-smoking.html

A bill submitted in the Missouri House would punish cities and counties with smoking bans by taking away some tax revenue, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports.
The bill by a group of St. Charles County representatives would force cities and counties with smoking bans to turn over to school districts sales taxes from businesses affected by the bans. Rep. Kathie Conway, R-St. Charles, said that if municipalities and counties want to hurt the income of bars and restaurants, their bottom lines also should take a hit, the report says.
The bill, introduced April 2, has little chance of passing. It is seen as a message to St. Charles County, which is considering a smoking ban.

Missouri Rep. Kathie Conway Proposes Penalty for Cities With Smoking Bans
By Sam Levin
Tue., Apr. 23 2013
Riverfront Times
http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2013/04/kathie_conway_smoking_bans_missouri_penalities.php

Opponents of smoking bans in Missouri argue that the government should not regulate the policies of private businesses. And now, Missouri State Rep. Kathie Conway has her own government proposal that she says would send that message very clearly: Punish cities that enact overreaching no-smoking ordinances. How?
Take away the tax revenue the city gets from establishments hurt by the smoking bans.
“The goal is to protect private property rights,” Conway, a Republican from St. Charles, tells Daily RFT. “I just really wanted to get the conversation going.”
On the latter, she’s definitely had some success.
Conway’s House Bill 1021, which had a hearing last week, is pretty short and simple in its current draft form. It says:
If any political subdivision prohibits the use of tobacco in a private business…all tax revenue generated by the business through property taxes and county sales taxes shall be remitted to the local school district in lieu of the political subdivision.
In other words, if signed into law, it means local municipalities and counties would lose tax revenue if they successfully passed smoking bans.
The bill has nothing to do with her opinion on smoking, she says.
“I just want to be absolutely clear,” she tells us, “I disagree with smoking. I think smoking is a bad thing to do. I’m not promoting tobacco.”
What she is promoting is the rights of private businesses to allow this kind of activity on their premises if they choose, she says.
Since it got attention last week, opponents — including cities interested in smoking bans and anti-smoking advocacy groups — have argued that it’s a misguided attempt to punish cities working to improve public health.
Redirecting that tax revenue, critics say, would hurt municipal services and thus negatively impact all residents of a city with a ban.
Conway says that she has been working on a revision of the draft that would specify that this would only apply to “entertainment” businesses that specifically want to allow smoking and are hurt by a ban. That category, she says, would include casinos, restaurants, bowling alleys and more.
Conway argues that ordinances that give exemptions to certain kinds of businesses are not fair.
“I just want to try and make it more of a level playing field,” she says.
Simply put, government shouldn’t get in the way, Conway argues.
Responses have been pretty evenly split between support and opposition, she says. “I’ve heard from a lot of nonsmokers…that say it should be the business owners’ right.”
Others concerned with the ill health impacts of smoking, however, aren’t pleased, she says.
It’s unclear if the proposal will get far in this final stretch of the legislative session. But if it doesn’t advance, she may try again.
“I’m not sure I’m finished if it doesn’t go forward this year,” she says.
Here’s the latest available draft. (Original bill was shown)

Mo. lawmaker wants to penalize cities that ban smoking
Bill bans cities, counties from using tax money from affected businesses
KMBC – Kansas City MO April 21, 2013

http://www.kmbc.com/news/kansas-city/Mo-lawmaker-wants-to-penalize-cities-that-ban-smoking/-/11664182/19835906/-/lc6cupz/-/index.html

KOAM – Joplin MO
April 21, 2012
http://www.koamtv.com/story/22035193/missouri-lawmaker-seeks-penalty-for-smoking-bans

KY3 – Springfield MO
April 21, 2013
http://www.ky3.com/news/ky3-missouri-lawmaker-seeks-penalty-for-smoking-bans-20130421,0,3338866.story?track=rss

KMBC – Kansas City MO
April 21, 2013
http://www.kmbz.com/pages/16103948.php?contentType=4&contentId=12847312

KTTS – Springfield MO
April 21, 2013
http://www.ktts.com/news/204003421.html

KRCG – Jefferson City MO
April 21, 2013

WGEM – Quincy IL
April 21, 2013
http://www.wgem.com/story/22035193/missouri-lawmaker-seeks-penalty-for-smoking-bans

KTLO – Mountain Home AR
April 21, 2013
http://ktlo.com/wire/newsmon/03235_Missouri_lawmakerr_seeks_penalty_for_smoking_bans_054339.php

KSPR – Springfield MO
April 22, 2013
http://www.kspr.com/news/links/sns-ap-mo–right-now-20130421,0,6728293.story
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. —The growing number of Missouri communities banning smoking in public places could face stiff financial penalties under a proposal from a state lawmaker.
The measure sponsored by Republican Rep. Kathie Conway of St. Charles County would require cities and counties to turn over to local school districts the property and sales tax revenue they get from businesses affected by tobacco restrictions.

Conway told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that she is seeking to protect the rights of the owners of bars, restaurants and other businesses to decide for themselves whether to allow smoking.

The bill introduced April 2 is opposed by the Missouri Municipal League and anti-smoking groups. Stan Cowan of Tobacco-Free Missouri says the bill seeks to intimidate cities and counties considering smoke-free ordinances.


Missouri lawmaker seeks penalty for smoking bans
Columbia Missourian
April 21, 2013
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/a/161127/missouri-lawmaker-seeks-penalty-for-smoking-bans/

Southeast Missourian – Cape Girardeau MO
April 21, 2013
http://www.semissourian.com/story/1961759.html

San Francisco Chronicle
Sunday, April 21, 2013
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Missouri-lawmaker-seeks-penalty-for-smoking-bans-4451441.php#ixzz2R9ucmPZm

The Republic
April 21, 2013
Columbus IN
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/3fccac4441004cb0ad6d57c01c4b6e33/MO–Tobacco-Bans-Law

New England Cable News
April 21, 2013
Newton MA
http://www.necn.com/04/21/13/Missouri-lawmaker-seeks-penalty-for-smok/landing_nation.html?&apID=3fccac4441004cb0ad6d57c01c4b6e33

BND – O’Fallon IL
April 21, 2013
http://www.bnd.com/2013/04/21/2586556/missouri-lawmaker-seeks-penalty.html

2013-04-21 P-D: “Smoking-ban cities would face tax penalty under House bill”

Reminder: For a comment to be considered it must be accompanied by your full name: first name only or a pseudonym is not normally accepted. Please limit your comment to 1,000 characters (including spaces), and also avoid epithets and personal attacks.

The sponsor of this bill may not acknowledge it but she is essentially acting as a surrogate for the tobacco lobby. If enacted, this bill would set the cause of public health back decades, and put the gains painstakingly achieved around the state over several decades back to square one.

I cannot think of more disastrous legislation, apart from the effort by Tobacco Institute lobbyist, John Britton, in 1987 who colluded with the voluntary health agencies, American Cancer, Heart and Lung, and Susan Sherman, lobbyist for the State Department of Health, in attempting to pass a very weak statewide Clean Indoor Air Act superseding all stronger longer ordinances by the inclusion of a preemption clause.

This time it may be the casino industry which is behind this effort and who seem to have supplanted the tobacco industry when it comes to opposing smoke-free air ordinances. Their goal is to maintain smoking in their gaming areas based on an unfounded fear of losing revenue from smoking clients.

The story below by St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter, Mark Schlinkmann, quotes Stan Cowan, who gave the following testimony opposing the bill on Tuesday, April 18, before the Local Government Committee, which was considering this legislation sponsored by Rep. Kathie Conway, R-St. Charles County:

Stan Cowan

Testimony on HB 1021
Stanley R. Cowan, R.S.

Having dedicated 38 years to protecting and improving public health, I’ve had experience in efforts to reduce preventable diseases and premature deaths. These included investigating food, water and vector-borne disease outbreaks; assuring food service operators and food manufacturers provide wholesome, unadulterated and sanitary food products; implementing standards for safe private drinking water supplies and proper onsite sewage systems; and investigation of possible cancer clusters in communities among other activities.
         By far, the leading cause of preventable diseases and premature deaths in Missouri is tobacco use and exposure to tobacco smoke. It is responsible for an estimated 10,000 deaths in Missouri every year – 27 deaths every day.
HB 1021 is against public health and should be turned away for several reasons:
• Intrusive into local control
- Local government knows better than state government how to apportion local tax revenues. This bill would remove local governmental control over apportionment of local property and sales taxes that fund road and bridge maintenance, libraries, fire districts, ambulance districts and other public services.

- There is no precedent for a state law to direct how local government shall apportion their local tax revenues based on whether a non-relevant local ordinance is or will be in effect.

         There is no logical rationale for forcing local governments to redirect local property and county sales tax revenues to school districts solely based on the existence of a local ordinance for smokefree workplaces and public places in the community.

• May not be constitutional
         When a city council or voters enact a smokefree ordinance, this bill would require county, not city, sales taxes to be directed toward school districts. It is likely without precedent that an action by a city would mandate a budgetary consequence not to the city government, but to the county government.

         This could be a violation of the Hancock Amendment when the state, by mandating that local property tax and county sales tax revenues be redirected, would be creating possible underfunding of non-school district budget items without providing replacement funding.

• Smokefree ordinances are beneficial
         Numerous scientific studies have shown reduced hospitalization rates for heart attacks, stroke, asthma, emphysema, bronchitis, and pneumonia after communities have implemented smokefree ordinances.1,2,3
         Besides saving human suffering, the reductions of hospitalizations are also a savings in preventable health care costs to families, to health insurers, and importantly, to taxpayers. Studies show an average 17% reduction of heart attack hospitalizations within the first year a smokefree policy is implemented.4 Over 2/3rds of these hospitalizations are paid by Medicaid, Medicare and other governmental programs. A state smokefree law could save taxpayers over $116 million.5 And this isn’t even considering the additional savings from preventable hospitalizations from stroke, asthma and other conditions.
         A study comparing Massachusetts communities found youth were 40% less likely to become regular smokers in communities with ordinances for smokefree restaurants.6
         The overwhelming preponderance of studies published in peer-reviewed journals that use objective data, and are not funded by tobacco companies found smokefree ordinances did not cause economic harm to hospitality businesses.7

• Ethically wrong
         When secondhand smoke is known as a cause for lung and heart diseases, and when smokefree policies have been shown to improve public health, reduce hospitalization rates and save health care costs, there is no justification to promote legislation that seeks to discourage or penalize communities for adopting smokefree policies for the good of their community.

References:
1 “Reduced Hospitalizations for Acute Myocardial Infarction After Implementation of a Smoke-Free Ordinance – City of Pueblo, Colorado, 2002-2006” Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 57/No.51&52, January 2, 2009. 2 Trachsel, Lukas D., et.al., “Reduced incidence of acute myocardial infarction in the first year of implementation of a public smoking ban in Graubünden, Switzerland”, Swiss Medical News, January 7, 2010 3 Herman, Patricia, ND, PhD and Walsh, Michele, PhD, “Hospital Admissions for Acute Myocardial Infarction, Angina, Stroke, and Asthma After Implementation of Arizona’s Comprehensive Statewide Smoking Ban” American Journal of Public Health, published online ahead of print May 13, 2010 as 10.2105/AJPH.2009.1795724 Lightwood, James, PhD, et.al., “Declines in Acute Myocardial Infarction After Smoke-Free Laws and Individual Risk Attributable to Secondhand Smoke”, Circulation, October 6, 2009; 120:1373-13795 Missouri Department of Health & Senior Services, Missouri Information for Community Assessment, http://www.dhss.mo.gov/data/mica accessed March 7, 2011.6 Siegel, Michael, M.D., Ph.D., “Local Restaurant Smoking Regulations and the Adolescent Smoking Initiation Process” Arch Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine 2008:162(5); 477-4837 Scollo, M., et.al., “Review of the quality of studies on the economic effects of smoke-free policies on the hospitality industry” Tobacco Control 2003;12:13-20

Below is the article by St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter, Mark Schlinkmann, published on page B1:

Smoking-ban cities would face tax penalty under House bill
By Mark Schlinkmann mschlinkmann@post-dispatch.com 636-255-7233

ST. CHARLES COUNTY • Cities and counties with local smoking bans would face stiff financial penalties under a Missouri House bill submitted recently by a group of St. Charles County lawmakers.
         The measure would require cities or counties to turn over to local school districts the property and sales tax revenue they get from businesses affected by tobacco restrictions.

Rep. Kathie Conway, R-St. Charles County

         The bill’s main sponsor — Rep. Kathie Conway, R-St. Charles County — said she’s trying to protect the rights of owners of bars, restaurants and other businesses to decide for themselves whether to allow smoking.
         “If these municipalities and counties are going to hurt the income of small businesses, maybe their bottom line should be affected as well,” Conway said.
         Moreover, Conway said, the public schools could use the extra money.

Richard Sheets, from Missouri Municipal League web page

         The bill, which was introduced April 2 and given a House committee hearing Thursday, is opposed by the Missouri Municipal League and anti-smoking groups. With only a month left in this year’s legislative session, the bill’s chances of passage aren’t great.
         Richard Sheets, the league’s deputy director, said the measure would punish all residents of a city or county by denying them tax revenue for municipal services.
         Sheets said he believes it was filed mainly to send a message to officials in St. Charles County as they consider local smoking bans.
         Sheets also objected to the state imposing its will on the smoking issue.
         “This is a local issue that should be vetted through the local process of elected representatives,” Sheets said.

Stan Cowan

Stan Cowan, a board member with Tobacco-Free Missouri, said the bill “is essentially trying to intimidate city and county governments to slow down or not pass smoke-free ordinances.”
         Cowan also questioned whether the bill would violate the state Constitution by transferring some local tax revenue from its intended purpose.
         Although the bill would apply statewide, St. Charles County lawmakers have provided most of its initial support.
         Seven other GOP House members from St. Charles County signed on as co-sponsors with Conway. The only co-sponsor from another area is Rep. Penny Hubbard, D-St. Louis.
         Conway put the bill’s chances at “50-50 at best” but said she’ll try again next year if she fails this time around.
         “It’s not just to start the conversation but to make some of the communities aware of my concern for the businesses,” she said.
         Another sponsor, Rep. Doug Funderburk, R-St. Peters, said the bill is “only fair” because government smoking bans are “dictating to private entities.”
         The St. Charles County Council last year voted to put on the November ballot a two-question countywide smoking ban package, but that was blocked by the county elections director and a circuit judge. The package’s sponsor wants to try again next year.
         Meanwhile, the St. Charles City Council recently decided to hold hearings next month on a city smoking ban that likely would exempt the Ameristar Casino.
         O’Fallon and Lake Saint Louis are the only cities in the county that now have smoking bans.
         Bans also are in effect in St. Louis and across St. Louis County. Pam Walker, St. Louis’ acting health director, said it’s unjust for the Legislature “to come in after the fact to impose a financial cost on what is clearly a local decision.”
         Conway said before the House committee takes up her bill for a vote, she plans to reword it so it affects tax revenue only from bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, casinos and other entertainment-related businesses covered by smoking bans.
         She said she doesn’t intend for it to cover tax revenue of large companies whose workplaces might be subject to local-government smoking bans.

mogasp update 2013-04-22 @ 6:57 pm: I invited Rep. Kathie Conway to reply to my introductory comments, which she was good enough to do. I reproduce her response in full below and am happy to withdraw any suggestion that her introduction of this bill was motivated by casino money:

Rep. Kathie Conway, R-St. Charles County

I appreciate the consideration. Be assured that there is no “big” tobacco or casino money behind my bill. I do not appreciate that insinuation. I and I alone conceived the bill.
Additionally, this is a property rights bill and has nothing to do with encouraging smoking. In fact, I could not agree with you more about the hazards of tobacco consumption and I stated that publicly in the committee meeting. But I don’t feel government should penalize businesses, some of which were in business long before these types of laws were passed. Should there not be consequences to their actions as well?
The bill has been re-worked. When, and if, it is adopted by the committee, it will be posted on the House website at http://www.mo.house.gov.
If you feel you owe me an apology, that’s fine. I try not to be offended by people on the other side of an argument, but again, I don’t like the insinuation that I’m being bought or paid for by special interests.
Respectfully,
Representative Kathie Conway

2013-03-10 P-D: “Exempting casino a key goal as St. Charles council weighs smoking ban”

Reminder: For a comment to be considered it must be accompanied by your full name: first name only or a pseudonym is not normally accepted. Please limit your comment to 1,000 characters (including spaces), and also avoid epithets and personal attacks.

The ordinance being considered by St. Charles city council is motivated not from a desire to protect public health and welfare or exposed employees from secondhand smoke, but by a fear over profits if the Ameristar Casino were to go smoke-free. That, plus an obsession with private property rights when it comes to this major public health issue, is a consistent theme when it comes to many legislators in St. Charles County.

The fact that the available evidence shows that making the casino smoke-free would likely not affect profits is also consistently ignored.

If voters were ever given the chance the vote on whether to make places like the casino and restaurants smoke-free they would likely favor the idea, but legislators and the Ameristar Casino fear such democratic suggestions.

Don Young

This was a hot topic towards the latter part of last year when Missouri GASP was providing legal and financial help for Don Young in a lawsuit to put the issue on the ballot. The following article featured that effort:

Anti-smoking activist sues to put smoking ban back on St. Charles Co. ballot

Below is reporter Mark Schlinkmann’s recent St. Louis Post-Dispatch article:

Exempting casino a key goal as St. Charles council weighs smoking ban
April 10, 2013 5:00 pm • By Mark Schlinkmann mschlinkmann@post-dispatch.com 636-255-7233

ST. CHARLES • The City Council may impose a smoking ban by the end of the year, but it probably wouldn’t apply to the Ameristar Casino’s gambling floor.

Council members have decided to hold public hearings next month before acting.
         The council also will consider other exemptions, such as for bars, veterans halls and bowling alleys. But no decision has been made on any.
         Shielding the casino from a smoking ban is a goal of Mayor Sally Faith. Ameristar, which channels millions of dollars in tax revenue each year to the city, fears losing business to other area casinos where smoking is allowed.
         “We need the revenue, we need to keep the city services for the people,” said Faith, who initiated the council discussion.
         Passage could blunt efforts at the St. Charles County Council to impose a countywide smoking prohibition that might include Ameristar.
         Faith said that if the City Council approved a smoking ordinance, it could be in effect by January. She wants to follow up with a citywide public vote in 2015 on adding similar provisions to the city charter. That would give residents time to decide how the ban was working, she said.
         The County Council voted last year to put before voters a two-proposition countywide package, but it was blocked by an election official and a judge.
         Voters would have been asked whether to ban smoking in workplaces and enclosed public places with no exceptions. A second ballot question was on exempting places restricting customers and employees to people 21 and older, covering the casino and bars.
         The sponsor, County Councilman Joe Cronin of St. Paul, wants to try again next year but hasn’t decided what to include.
         City Councilman Dave Beckering said the city should pass its own measure even though he opposed smoking bans as restricting business owners.
         “I would prefer to do nothing, but given the situation with the county, I think we’re better off if we do something first,” he said.
         Beckering said small bar owners should be treated the same as the casino.
         “Someone has to help protect the rights of business owners,” he said.
         Beckering said he favored all exemptions on a laundry list of possibilities submitted by Faith. One would allow smoking at restaurants with enclosed separately ventilated areas.
         Most other council members at a meeting this week didn’t specify exemptions they favored but agreed there should be some.
         Council President Laurie Feldman said she didn’t like to legislate people’s choices, “but I will not have someone else, i.e. the county, telling us how we’re supposed to do something.”
         However, she acknowledged that a city ban with exemptions wouldn’t preclude the county from imposing a stronger law countywide.
         Details on hearings have yet to be announced. Feldman wants a chart displayed showing casino tax data and “how much their (residents’) taxes are going to go up if we don’t have that revenue.”
         Meanwhile, a St. Louis County Council member has yet to decide how to proceed with his bill repealing a smoking ban exemption for the Hollywood Casino across the Missouri River from Ameristar.
         Statewide smoking ban bills are stalled in the Legislature. So is a measure to ban tougher local smoking restrictions for casinos than what their competitors face.

2013-02-13 P-D: “State bill would protect smoking at Lemay and Maryland Heights casinos”

Reminder: For a comment to be considered it must be accompanied by your full name: first name only or a pseudonym is not normally accepted. Please limit your comment to 1,000 characters (including spaces), and also avoid epithets and personal attacks.

It would be nice if state Representatives were informed by other than casino interests when charging off with legislation to protect casinos from phantom concerns about loss of revenue should they go smoke-free.

This was addressed in a peer-reviewed study of which I was fortunate be last coauthor of six, published in the peer-reviewed international journal, Tobacco Control, on June 14, 2011, titled:

“Exempting casinos from the Smoke-free Illinois Act will not bring patrons back: they never left“

The primary author was Dr. Jenine K. Harris at the George Warren School of Social Work, Washington University, St. Louis.

I posted a blog with a long introduction about it, after sending it to David Nicklaus at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, who featured it in an article he wrote, published on June 28, 2011:

“Smoking ban didn’t hurt Illinois casinos, study says.“

Rep. Bill Otto, D-St. Charles, the sponsor of this ill-conceived bill, is quoted below as saying:

“These counties will fall one at a time,” Otto said. “It will really be detrimental to whichever casino goes nonsmoking first. This will just kill them.”

The full story appears below, and is depressing in terms of the comments of other area legislators, and their apparent lack of knowledge on the subject.

State bill would protect smoking at Lemay and Maryland Heights casinos
9 hours ago • By Mark Schlinkmann mschlinkmann@post-dispatch.com 636-255-723318

An effort is under way in the Missouri Legislature to keep local governments from imposing tougher smoking restrictions for casinos than what their competitors face.
The bill would prohibit local smoking bans at casinos if smoking is still allowed at a competing casino within 75 miles. It is sponsored by Rep. Bill Otto, D-St. Charles, whose district includes the Hollywood and Ameristar casinos.
         The measure would bar the St. Louis County Council from ending the exemptions from the county’s smoking ban for Hollywood in Maryland Heights and River City Casino in Lemay. The council has been considering in recent weeks removing those and most other exemptions.
         Hollywood, formerly known as Harrah’s, is just across the Missouri River from Ameristar in St. Charles, where there is no smoking ban.
         The state proposal also would prevent St. Charles County from enacting a smoking ban for Ameristar unless one was already in place at Hollywood and other St. Louis-area casinos.
         Otto says he wants to keep one area casino from gaining a temporary advantage over another.
         Eventually, he said, he expects that all local communities in the St. Louis area will enact bans on smoking in casinos, bars and other public places with few exemptions, although he opposes such restrictions on businesses.
         “These counties will fall one at a time,” Otto said. “It will really be detrimental to whichever casino goes nonsmoking first. This will just kill them.”
         Otto said his bill would allow cities or a county “to do whatever they want fully understanding they won’t affect the casinos immediately.”
         Lobbyists for Ameristar and Penn National Gaming, which owns Hollywood, said they supported Otto’s measure but did not ask him to sponsor it. Otto has not received any campaign contributions from casinos or their executives, according to the most recent reports.
         “It places us all on a level playing field,” said Troy Stremming, an Ameristar executive.
         Pat Lindsey, executive director of the Tobacco-Free St. Louis Coalition, opposes the bill and other so-called “trigger” measures tying action on smoking in one jurisdiction to that in another.
         “It just kind of holds everything back,” she said. “We just need to get rid of the smoke.”
         Also opposed is Misty Snodgrass, who lobbies for the Cancer Action Network, an affiliate of the American Cancer Society.
         “Local communities should be able to pass whatever strong ordinance they want to pass,” she said.
         St. Louis County Councilman Mike O’Mara, who is sponsoring the pending proposal to eliminate most exemptions to the county smoking ban, said he needed to review Otto’s bill before taking a position on it.
         “If it’s a fairness bill to keep everyone on the same page, I could live with that,” said O’Mara, D-Florissant.
         At the St. Charles County Council, the main advocate of unsuccessful smoking ban legislation last year — Councilman Joe Cronin, R-St. Paul — said he didn’t object to Otto’s goal. However, he said the mileage radius should be reduced, perhaps to 25 miles.
         St. Charles County has no countywide ban, but its council has considered several versions in recent years and is likely to do so again.
         Cronin noted that at one point, he sponsored a smoking ban bill with an exemption for Ameristar that would expire when other casinos on the Missouri side of the metro area went smoke-free.
         A statewide smoking ban in Illinois already covers Metro East casinos.
         Cronin also has fought with Ameristar over another version.
         That proposal would have let voters decide separately on a smoking ban and exempting places where all customers and workers are over 21, such as casinos and bars.
         The council voted last year to put that on the November ballot, but the county elections director removed it because of technical errors.
         Cronin said he planned to try again at the next countywide election but was still working on details of the legislation. The earliest it would likely be on the ballot is August 2014.
         Meanwhile, two other area lawmakers — Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal, D-University City, and Rep. Jill Schupp, D-Creve Coeur — recently filed bills seeking a statewide smoking ban. Similar measures have gone nowhere in past sessions.
         Otto’s state bill also would affect the Lumière Place casino in St. Louis. Officials with Pinnacle Entertainment, which owns both the Lumière and River City facilities and has announced plans to buy Ameristar, could not be reached for comment.
         The state proposal also would apply to competing casinos in the Kansas City area.
         Lumière’s exemption from St. Louis’ smoking ban already is tied by law to its competitors. The city’s smoking ordinance says the Lumière exemption would be phased out once smoking bans are imposed on casinos in St. Louis and St. Charles counties.
         Otto, as a freshman Democrat in the heavily Republican House, typically would have an uphill climb getting a bill passed in his first year in Jefferson City.
         To build support, he’s lined up as co-sponsors House members from several other districts around the state that also have casinos. In all, he has 11 co-sponsors, seven Republicans and four Democrats.
         Stremming, the Ameristar lobbyist, said, “I’m hopeful a good idea like this can get some momentum.”

2013-02-12 P-D OpEd: “Time to go smoke-free everywhere in Missouri’s Capitol”

I’ve had the pleasure of collaborating with Stan Cowan on numerous occasions over the years, including an indoor air quality test of St. Louis bars and restaurants in 2010 in collaboration with the Center for Tobacco Policy Research. I’m delighted to see his OpEd published in today’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

It focuses on one of MoGASP’s primary campaigns in the past: seeking a totally smoke-free Missouri State Capitol. Despite efforts spanning many years, that goal has proved elusive as some of those responsible have essentially thumbed their noses at federal law and the Americans with Disabilities Act, with which they are not in compliance by continuing to allow smoking, even if nominally confined to private offices.

Only by keeping the pressure on will the People’s House finally come into conformance with every other state office building, which is already smoke-free.

Stan Cowan

Time to go smoke-free everywhere in Missouri’s Capitol
Responsible choice * Majority caucus should pick a policy that protects people from harm.

While employees and visitors in other governmental buildings are afforded a workplace free from secondhand smoke toxins, the same is not true for our state capitol building.
         The Missouri House of Representatives rejected an amendment for all areas of the House to be smokefree and instead opted for each party’s caucus to determine office smoking policies for their members. The Minority Caucus adopted a smokefree policy; now it’s time for the Majority Caucus to act responsibly.
         Recently the Majority Caucus announced they are considering a policy to let lawmakers continue smoking in their offices while encouraging them to be “conscientious” and “respectful.” They suggested posting signs on doors; smokers providing equipment to mitigate smoke leaving their offices; smoking only between 6 p.m. and midnight; and leaving a window open.
         It seems a small, but influential number of representatives that insist upon smoking in their offices is preventing adoption of a smokefree policy, the only way that is truly “conscientious” and “respectful” of fellow legislators, staff and visitors.
         Flaws in the caucus’ suggestions defy the laws of physics.

         - A sign posted on a door does not keep smoke from infiltrating into neighboring offices or from entering the ventilation system to be distributed elsewhere in the building.
- Using equipment to “mitigate smoke emanting from their offices” is not a viable solution. The American Society for Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers concluded no air cleaning or filtration systems can be relied upon to adequately remove the toxins of secondhand smoke from the air. They stated the best solution is to not allow smoking in indoor environments.
- Smoking only between 6 p.m. and midnight still means the non-smokers in the building during those hours will continue to be exposed to this known cause for respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.
- Leaving a window open, especially during cold weather, is wasteful of expensive energy and simply callous stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

         If legislators that smoke truly want to be conscientious and respectful, they will support a smokefree office policy and stop posing a threat to the health of others. There are a number of smokeless options available that can satisfy their nicotine cravings during the times they’re indoors. Better yet, quitting tobacco would be conscientious and respectful to their own health.
The Majority Caucus has an opportunity to do what is right and be praised for it. Also important, they will show the busloads of school children that visit the Capitol each year they are good role models by no longer permitting smoking in the Capitol, the people’s building.
         Polite and courteous encouragement may be sent to your state representative and to Rep. John Diehl, chair of the Majority Caucus, at John.Diehl@house.missouri.gov

Stan Cowan has dedicated over 35 years toward protecting and advancing pubic health in Missouri. He was active in the citizens coalition that led to a voter-approved ordinance for smoke-free workplaces in Jefferson City.

2013-02-07 P-D: “Bar owners weigh in on move to eliminate smoking ban exemptions in St. Louis County”

It’s interesting how opponents of smoke-free air, which is first and foremost about health and wellness, always manage to cloud the issue by injecting totally irrelevant arguments. Why bring in “economics,” unless it would be very expensive to enforce and the law would be ineffective?

Smoke-free air laws are typically among the most self-enforcing of laws due to the large number of nonsmokers in the population now: roughly 80% of adults don’t smoke in Missouri.

If you’re going to talk about freedom, fairness and personal responsibility, as this article does, that’s fine.

* It should be freedom from smoke pollution.

*Fairness, so that anyone, smoker and nonsmoker, can work in or enter the premises without having to breathe smoke-polluted air.

*And personal responsibility: smokers can refrain from smoking while in a smoke-free environment, or find an alternative for satisfying their nicotine craving. It’s the norm in so many places now: this is NOT rocket science!

It’s disappointing to hear Councilman O’Mara being swayed by stories from bar owners claiming to predict their future peril if they go smoke-free. No one’s health and welfare should be put at risk by such arguments.

Bar owners weigh in on move to eliminate smoking ban exemptions in St. Louis County
By Paul Hampel phampel@post-dispatch.com 314-727-623426

CLAYTON • Bar owners talked about freedom, fairness and personal responsibility as they spoke out Wednesday about a proposal before the St. Louis County Council to eliminate almost all exemptions to the countywide smoking ban.
         Most who spoke hold such exemptions; a few others do not.
         Both sides argued that the matter boiled down to economics.
         “If you remove the exemptions, you’re going to put people out of business,” said Jim Schmitt, who owns Schmitt’s Bar & Grill in Overland.
         Tim Tucker, whose Locker Room bar in Florissant does not have an exemption, said, “Exemptions have hurt my business. It’s not fair that one bar can do something that my bar cannot.”
         The owners attended the meeting at the invitation of County Councilman Mike O’Mara, D-Florissant, who introduced a bill last month to remove the exemptions. Establishments are eligible for exemptions if food sales total less than 25 percent of the annual total sales of food and beverage. The ordinance also exempted gambling floors at casinos.
         After the meeting, O’Mara said that some owners had made an impression on him.
         “I am concerned for these little bar owners. I wonder if there isn’t an option for them (to keep exemptions) based on square footage, no food (served) or if they only let in people over 21.”
         O’Mara said he wanted to create a level playing field for all business owners.
         Exemptions are currently held by 135 establishments and the county’s two gambling venues, River City Casino and Hollywood Casino St. Louis.
         In its current form, the bill leaves in place exemptions for private residences; private clubs; performers on stage in theatrical productions; nursing homes and similar institutions; retail tobacco businesses; and permanently designated smoking rooms in hotels.
         Some owners agreed with the idea of a level playing field — though perhaps not in the way O’Mara intended it.
         “Remove the ban completely for all drinking establishments,” Carol Fallert, owner of the Brew House in Maryland Heights, suggested to O’Mara.
         Derek Deaver, who owns Deaver’s Restaurant in Florissant and Three Kings Public House in the Delmar Loop, advised, “Either allow smoking everywhere or nowhere.”
         Craig Robinson, vice president of finance at Hollywood Casino (formerly Harrah’s) in Maryland Heights, asserted that eliminating exemptions would hurt the bottom line by encouraging smokers to leave the casino floor to puff outside or to take their business elsewhere.
         “Ameristar is less than a mile away as the crow flies,” Robinson said, referring to the nearby casino in St. Charles where smoking is allowed.
         Robinson said O’Mara’s plan would cut his casino’s revenue by 20 percent. In turn, he said, that would lead to tax revenue cuts of $9.7 million to the Pattonville School District and $3.2 million to the city of Maryland Heights.
         However, Don Hart, who owns Maryland Yards bar in Maryland Heights, asked that O’Mara not give special treatment to the casinos.
         “If you’re going to take (exemptions) away from the 135 bars, take it away from the boats,” Hart said.
         O’Mara said he would hold additional hearings for the general public before moving forward with the bill.

2013-02-05 P-D Letters: ‘Over 21′ exemption would reverse progress on smoke-free workplaces

Smoke-free air opponent, Bill Hannegan, whose blog KEEP ST. LOUIS FREE extols indoor air pollution if it’s from tobacco smoke, has been fighting a losing battle for years. His current untenable position is promoting an “Over 21″ exemption so that he can smoke in his favorite bars. His recent letter to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reprinted below, urges St. Louis County Council to support his argument and relax restrictions at a time when they’re considering tightening them.

My letter in response is fortuitously published in today’s newspaper, just in time for a Perfection vote this evening on a smoke-free air bill sponsored by County Councilman Mike O’Mara. Mr. O’Mara has gone on record as saying he wants to remove existing unfair exemptions, such as smoking in small bars and the gaming area of casinos so I hope that’s what this bill does.

Both letters are reproduced below, starting with Mr. Hannegan’s:

Mr. Bill Hannegan being interviewed outside St. Louis County Council chamber in July 2009

County Council should consider ‘over 21’ rule on smoking ban
Published January 31, 2013

St. Louis County Councilman Mike O’Mara has announced that the current exemption system in the St. Louis County smoking ban is hurting some establishments that serve too much food and too little alcohol to qualify for an exemption. O’Mara wants to redo the smoking ban to make it more fair to all establishments and less economically harmful.
         I would like to point out that establishments currently exempted from the St. Louis County smoking ban can, and do, allow minors to enter their smoking areas. The County Council could both tighten the current ban, and make it more fair, by substituting an “over 21″ rule for the current food vs. alcohol sales exemption criterion. The rule would be simple: When an establishment allows smoking, it must exclude minors. Minors thus would no longer be exposed to smoking in St. Louis County establishments. Nor would a special exemption for bars and casinos any longer be needed. The playing field would then be level. Every establishment of every type would have a choice: Allow smoking or allow minors. Pick one. What could be more simple, commonsensical and fair?
         Bar owners have consistently told the council that an “over 21″ rule would be a more reasonable exemption criterion than the food percentage requirement and that such a rule would be far less harmful to county businesses. O’Mara and the rest of the council could largely resolve the smoking ban issue in St. Louis County if they finally heed their advice.

Bill Hannegan  •  St. Louis

Martin Pion debating Bill Hannegan on Fox News
The Charles Jaco Report in October 2009

‘Over 21′ exemption would reverse progress on smoke-free workplaces
Published February 5, 2013

I’d like to respond to Bill Hannegan’s Jan. 31 letter urging an “over 21” exemption from smoke-free air laws for establishments serving alcohol. Mr. Hannegan has been pushing this proposal for years so that he can smoke in his favorite venues, but it’s totally illogical.
         When I first got a job transfer to the U.S. from Britain in 1977, I found myself cooped up in a windowless two-person office with a colleague and Ph.D. who smoked Camel cigarettes incessantly, the nearest thing to torture I’ve ever endured.
         When I got a job in St. Louis in 1980, the open office situation wasn’t much better. The norm was smoking allowed everywhere, except the computer room to protect the mainframe computers.
         It’s taken literally decades to finally achieve a situation where almost all workplaces in metro St. Louis are smoke-free. The most glaring exceptions are for standalone bars and casino gaming areas, which St. Louis County Councilman Mike O’Mara has indicated he wants to remove.
         If we accept Mr. Hannegan’s logic, then we should extend his exemption to every adult workplace. I trust we have more sense than to go back to the smoky Stone Ages.

Martin Pion  •  Ferguson