Missouri State Rep. Rory Ellinger dies

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 late Rep. Rory Ellinger

The late Rep. Rory Ellinger

The recent death of Rep. Rory Ellinger on April 9, 2014, at age 72, came as a surprise and disappointment. The cause of death was an aggressive liver cancer. Rep. Ellinger was a Democrat representing University City.

I lost touch with him since working with him and others during the 2010-2011 Missouri legislative session. That year there was a renewed effort to make the State Capitol in Jefferson City more smoke-free. Even though all other state office buildings are required to be smoke-free, smoking legislators, especially senators, consider themselves above such restrictions.

In a conversation I had with Rep. Ellinger on December 23, 2010, he suggested getting together a petition signed by legislators, and remarked:

“Members of the public and children shouldn’t be subjected to secondhand smoke in the State Capitol.”

After some intensive activity by a number of legislators, including Rep. Ellinger, a House Rules change was approved making a member’s only lounge directly off the House chamber smoke-free. That was considered a small but important victory, since before there had been frequent complaints from smoke-sensitive House members about secondhand smoke migrating from the lounge to the House chamber whenever the door to the lounge was opened.

In doing a search of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch I found numerous recent articles featuring Rep. Ellinger, including this last one dated April 10, 2014, by Michael D. Sorkin, e-mail msorkin@post-dispatch.com:

Rory Ellinger dies, a legislator who lived to see his last bill become law

There was also an obituary, reproduced in full below, containing the following entertaining description:

He loved being a father to Maggie and Martin, coaching their soccer teams (a game he had never played), tutoring the violin (an instrument he never learned), and teaching them to drive (a skill he never fully mastered).

Rory Ellinger – Obituary

The Honorable Rory Ellinger passed away on Wednesday, April 9, 2014 at the age of 72. Beloved husband for 33 years of Linda Locke; dearest father of Maggie Ellinger-Locke (Eirik Cheverud) and Martin Ellinger (Erin); dear brother of Kathleen and Jim Ellinger. He is also survived by numerous nieces and nephews.
         Mr. Ellinger was a graduate of the University of Missouri-KC School of Law and the University of Missouri-Columbia Graduate School.
         He was a practicing attorney in St. Louis, and since 2010 has served as State Representative in the Missouri House of Representatives for University City, Pagedale and Wellston.
         Ellinger was well-known in Missouri for his commitment to social justice and advocacy on behalf of those without power, including spending years in the civil rights and anti-war movements, founding Legal Services of Northeast Missouri, serving 12 years on the University City School Board, and serving on the founding board of the Missouri Foundation for Health.
         As a young man he briefly served as a bodyguard for Martin Luther King and was jailed in Selma along with King and many other activists.
         He also served as president of the Students for a Democratic Society at the University of Missouri-Columbia.
         He served as Assistant General Counsel of the Missouri Public Service Commission, as press secretary for Lt. Governor Tom Eagleton, and worked for the Missouri Association for Social Welfare on jail reform.
         He was appointed to state leadership roles by three governors: Jay Nixon, Bob Holden and Mel Carnahan.
         He received the 2012 Melton Lewis Equal Justice Award from Legal Services of Eastern Missouri and the Legal Distinction Award from the ACLU of Eastern Missouri.
         He was as dedicated to activism as he was to his family.
         He loved being a father to Maggie and Martin, coaching their soccer teams (a game he had never played), tutoring the violin (an instrument he never learned), and teaching them to drive (a skill he never fully mastered).
         He surprised his wife by turning out to be a great traveling partner, camping out in the Sahara, climbing the first ten feet of Mt. Kilimanjaro, and visiting Vietnam, Ukraine and Moldova with close friends.
         His four major food groups included Hershey bars, fried chicken from dive restaurants, chocolate malts and French toast.
         He often visited Shannon County, Missouri with a one-man campaign to turn it blue.
         Ellinger died at home in University City, surrounded by his family.
         Services: A Service to celebrate his life will be held at the Ethical Society of St. Louis, 9001 Clayton Rd., Richmond Heights, on Saturday, April 12 at 2:00 p.m.
         In lieu of flowers, memorials appreciated to the Rory Ellinger Scholarship Fund. Please make checks payable to: University City School District, Attention: KatyJane Johnson, 7401 Balson Ave., St. Louis 63130.

2014-04-07 P-D: “St. Louis County Councilwoman Burkett dies”

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.

County Councilwoman Kathleen Kelly Burkett

County Councilwoman Kathleen Kelly Burkett

St. Louis County Councilwoman Kathy Burkett and I butted heads on the smoking issue, on which she was a determined opponent when it came to any smoke-free air legislation. However, we had an amicable relationship otherwise, and I was sorry to discover that she was battling cancer when I began testifying before St. Louis County Council late last year against a transportation proposal. At the time she was still council chairman and refused to cover her shaven head while presiding.

On-line, Steve Giegerich has posted about her here:
Kathleen Burkett battled cancer and occasionally colleagues right to the end

Today’s printed St. Louis Post-Dispatch has an obituary on page A11, written by reporters Paul Hampel and Steve Giegerich. I’ve reproduced below an excerpt relating to the secondhand smoke issue.

Undoubtedly, she will be missed.

St. Louis County Councilwoman Burkett dies

Councilwoman Kathy Burkett, Feb. 2014

Councilwoman Kathy Burkett, Feb. 2014

Ms. Burkett did not back down from an argument.

At council meetings, she clashed with people who spoke during the public comments segment in favor of a countywide smoking ban, which she strongly opposed.

2014-03-27 P-D Editorial: “Snuff cheap smokes”

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 was really comprehensive in addressing the smoking issue in Missouri. However, as I’ve remarked before, given that this is the “Smoke-Me State,” I won’t hold my breath that anything useful will happen at the state level. Possibly quite the contrary.

Incidentally, I’m surprised at the editorial’s claim that Missouri ranks as the WORST in the country for workplace exposure to SHS, as noted in the graphic below.

Editorial: The public’s health demands a fix for Missouri tobacco loophole
• By the Editorial Board

Snuff cheap smokes 53341cdbc3e9e.preview-620 Cigarettes increasingly are a habit for the poor and working poor in rural and blue-collar urban areas. The smoking rate is declining fastest in affluent counties across the country.
         Those are some conclusions in an analysis released Monday by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. The group studied federal survey data on smoking from 1996 to 2012.
         The conclusions come as no surprise. But the study offers some county-by-county data that might provide a way to help more people quit. Anti-smoking and cessation campaigns should be targeted to areas where they can be most effective.
         Smoking rates have long been persistently high among poorer and less-educated populations. In Missouri, the trend is encouraged by legislators’ resistance to raising cigarette taxes. In fact, cheap cigarettes are about the only thing the Legislature has given the poor and working poor in recent years.
         Missouri voters have failed to support measures to raise the state’s tobacco tax — at 17 cents a pack the lowest in the nation — and repeated attempts to raise it legislatively have failed, and failed miserably.
         One of the best ways to reduce smoking is to raise the price of cigarettes. The fact that smokes are cheap in the Show-Me State has resulted in Missouri having the fifth-highest smoking rate in the nation. Roughly one in four Missourians over age 18 smokes tobacco.
         The state ranks 50th — worst in the country — for workplace exposure to secondhand smoke. The state’s lack of comprehensive smoke-free laws is responsible, according to a study by the National Institutes for Health. Their study shows that 12 percent of indoor employees in Missouri are exposed to secondhand smoke, compared to 7.3 percent across the country.
         Missouri lawmakers also fail the people who live in the state by not spending much money on tobacco prevention and smoking cessation programs. Federal programs to help low-income people fight the nicotine habit are too spotty to be of much help.
         Tobacco companies, on the other hand, know just how to reach poor and working-class people with targeted advertising campaigns and cheap cigarettes.
         They don’t even have to work very hard in Missouri, where a loophole in state law has created a dumping ground for cheap cigarettes manufactured by small tobacco companies.
         The loophole was created in 1998 when most states entered into an agreement with the major tobacco companies to settle lawsuits over misleading marketing. Missouri is the only state that is party to the settlement that has not closed the loophole. Now an arbitration panel has ruled that unless the loophole is closed, Missouri will have to forfeit about $1 billion in tobacco-settlement funds in the next 10 years. This year’s hit alone could be $69 million.
         That’s a lot of money to lose from a budget that is already thin. But keeping the loophole open carries other costs. The public health expense will be greater, especially since Missouri legislators also refuse to expand Medicaid. When longtime smokers get the diseases associated with smoking, the medical expenses will be borne by private insurance companies, who can be expected to pass them on to company insurance plans. Ultimately, those who have health insurance from their employers will pay more.
         It’s time for state lawmakers to help Missouri smokers kick the habit. Close the loophole. Put another tobacco tax increase on the ballot and explain to voters how much other people’s smoking habits are costing them. Pass statewide indoor clean air laws. Put more money into anti-smoking campaigns targeted in areas where smoking rates are highest. Public health concerns should trump the tobacco and tobacco-pushers lobbies once and for all.

Tobacco Smoking

2014-02-16 P-D: “Missouri Legislature favors Little Tobacco in cigarette wars”

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’s odd to see Big Tobacco versus so-called “Little Tobacco” and it’s the latter that’s winning. I notice that some of the usual suspects, such as the influential Ron Leone, executive director of the Missouri Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Store Association, are involved but this time siding with Little Tobacco and that must help. In the past Leone has worked very effectively to defeat statewide ballot initiatives for a cigarette tax increase, most recently in November 2012.

See 2012-11-07 P-D: “Missouri keeps tobacco tax as the lowest in the nation”

Incidentally, the headline in the printed version of this story was “Missouri lawmakers are outsmarted by Little Tobacco”. That seems apt.

Missouri Legislature favors Little Tobacco in cigarette wars
February 15, 2014 7:00 am • By Virginia Young vyoung@post-dispatch.com 573-556-61816

Baby Herman from Who Killed Roger Rabbit 150 112 (M300 225)

Baby Herman, from Who Framed Roger Rabbit, could be a stand-in for “Little Tobacco”

JEFFERSON CITY • In Missouri, Little Tobacco is king.

Smokers can buy a pack of “value brand” cigarettes like Edgefield or Decade for $2.50. A pack of Pall Malls, the low-price brand made by industry giant R.J. Reynolds, generally will cost at least 60 cents more.
         You can thank the Missouri Legislature for the cheaper options.
         For the last 12 years, legislators have refused the state attorney general’s request to pass a law to neutralize a pricing advantage that small tobacco manufacturers enjoy. Missouri is the only state that has not passed such a law.
         The issue is drawing heightened attention this year because of an arbitration panel’s decision. Under that decision, Missouri will forfeit $69 million of the roughly $130 million that the state had expected to receive this year from the national tobacco settlement.
         In fact, the state could lose tens of millions in tobacco money each year for at least seven years. Given that financial wallop, Attorney General Chris Koster is once again urging that the pricing advantage be addressed.
         Lobbyists for small tobacco manufacturers are working the Capitol’s hallways to fend off the proposal. They say they’re not to blame for the arbitration award and it would be unfair to make them shoulder the large cigarette makers’ liabilities.
         Legislators involved in the fight say they doubt they can overcome the political muscle of Little Tobacco.
         “The small-tobacco people keep telling folks that this is a tax increase, and that it’s big business picking on small business, none of which is true,” said Rep. Chris Kelly, D-Columbia. “What is factually accurate is, we will lose at least $70 million a year until we fix it.”


The debate has been raging for more than 15 years.
In 1998, Missouri was among 46 states that settled a case with major cigarette makers, including the parent companies of R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris.
         To cover the damage their products caused to smokers’ health, the companies agreed to make payments to the states based on their annual nationwide cigarette sales. They also agreed to quit targeting young people with cigarette advertising.
         Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon, who was then the state’s attorney general, signed off on the deal. As part of the settlement, the Legislature passed what was called a “model statute.” It required smaller tobacco companies that were not bound by the settlement to pay into an escrow fund.
         One goal was to cover any future damage claims. Another was to keep the companies that were not participating in the settlement from selling highly discounted cigarettes and thus, gaining market share.
         The money was supposed to stay in the escrow fund for 25 years unless needed to pay a judgment. If a state failed to require the payments from the “nonparticipating companies” and Big Tobacco lost a set amount of its market share, a state would forfeit part of its tobacco settlement money.
         Sure enough, the large companies suffered a loss in market share — an auditor put the loss nationwide at 8 percent from 1997 to 2003.
         Three former federal judges, acting as an arbitration panel, decided last fall that Missouri had not “diligently enforced” the law requiring escrow payments to be made by the smaller companies.
         Of the 432 million off-brand or nonparticipating manufacturer cigarettes sold in Missouri in 2002, companies made the escrow payment on only 102 million in 2003, the arbitrators said.
         Missouri’s 24 percent collection rate was the lowest among the 15 states in the arbitration case.
         The arbitrators said that then-Attorney General Nixon had neglected to file lawsuits against the smaller tobacco companies to force them to pay into the escrow fund and the state Department of Revenue had failed to audit them to see if their sales were underreported.
         Bottom line: Missouri will lose $69.2 million that had already been budgeted to help pay for Medicaid, early childhood education and other services. Nixon has asked legislators to plug the budget hole with state general revenue.


So what does Koster want legislators to do to stop the bleeding? Here’s where it gets really complicated.
When the escrow fund was set up, drafters assumed the small cigarette makers would sell their products nationally. But small companies discovered that, under the formula, if they concentrated their sales in a few states, they could get nearly all their escrow money back.
         Nearly 25 percent of the cigarette sales in Missouri are made by the smaller companies that are not bound by the tobacco settlement, according to tax data in a recent fiscal note prepared by state Auditor Tom Schweich. That compares to 6 to 8 percent of sales nationally.
         In a 2012 letter to legislators, Koster said the law allowed the small tobacco companies to “game the system.” Missouri returns about $80 million in escrow payments each year “and stands alone in its coddling” of the small producers, he wrote.
         Like Nixon before him, Koster asked legislators to close that loophole by repealing a section of law that allows the escrow returns. All states except Missouri have done so.
         Small cigarette manufacturers and retailers have fought that move vigorously, and each year they win.
         They say they weren’t in existence when the master settlement was signed, and thus bear none of the blame for marketing cigarettes to children. They also say they get no benefit from the settlement, such as immunity from lawsuits.
         “It’s shifting the market from the small guys to the big guys,” said Andy Arnold, who has lobbied against the change on behalf of Fenton-based tobacco distributors Hub Inc. and LPC Inc., and U-Gas Inc., a tobacco retailer.
         “Our big issue is, why should we be penalized for Philip Morris’ and R.J. Reynolds’ lies in the past? That’s kind of the kicker for us. It’s a fairness issue.”
         Changing the escrow fund “is not some sort of silver bullet,” added Ron Leone, executive director of the Missouri Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Store Association. The other five states that lost the arbitration case have closed the so-called escrow fund loophole. But they still lost.


In addition to Arnold and Leone, the Little Tobacco lobbying and legal team includes Chuck Hatfield, an attorney who used to work for Nixon in the attorney general’s office.
Hatfield, who represents Cheyenne International LLC of Grover, N.C., said Missouri doesn’t need to pass the bill that Koster suggests. The state already passed everything that is needed under the settlement, he said.
         “The statute that Missouri passed is exactly the statute that Big Tobacco told them to pass. That was the deal. What this is, at the end of the day, is, it’s Big Tobacco trying to gain market share. Cheyenne doesn’t think they should have to pay to settle a lawsuit that they weren’t a part of,” Hatfield said.
         Missouri did pass a partial fix to the enforcement problems, in 2010. Before then, the state had to chase manufacturers down and try to serve legal papers in places such as Nepal, Brazil and the Philippines. Now, the firms are required to have registered agents in Missouri, which makes it easier to enforce collection efforts.
It took eight years for Missouri to adopt that change. Missouri was the last state to pass it.
         In another sign of the potency of the tobacco lobby, Missouri’s 17-cents-per-pack tax is the lowest cigarette tax in the nation.
         Three times since 2002 Missouri voters have defeated increases. Leone has headed the opponents’ campaigns.
         “All tobacco bills boil down to market share and money, and either using the Legislature or the vote of the people to pick winners and losers in the free market,” Leone said.
         If Missouri’s escrow fund provisions are changed as they have been in other states, the price of the smaller companies’ cigarettes would go up at least $6.04 per carton at the manufacturer’s level, he said. That would be passed on to consumers, eliminating the pricing advantage the off-brands now enjoy.
         Few legislators are familiar with the tobacco settlement’s intricacies.
         At a recent House Budget Committee hearing on the need to replace $69 million in lost tobacco settlement funds, no member asked a single question.
         Given the complexity of the issue, committee Chairman Rick Stream, R-Kirkwood, plans a work session on it.
         “Frankly, I don’t believe many of them even know what this is about,” Stream said. “It’s going to cost us money for the next eight to 15 years. It’s one of those difficult issues. I’m not sure we’ll get it resolved.”
         He is sponsoring a bill that would make the smaller manufacturers pay as much per cigarette as the large companies do.
         “There apparently isn’t any middle ground,” Stream said. “Either you do it or you don’t.”
         Lobbyist Harry Gallagher, who represents R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.’s parent company, Reynolds American Inc., didn’t sound optimistic that this would be the year that the proposal would pass.
         The smaller companies are “supposed to pay into an escrow account, which they do but then they get it right back,” he said. “It’s a loophole, and we’ve been unable to do anything about it.”

Stream’s bill is HB1242.

2014-02-06 P-D: “CVS makes waves with decision to stop selling tobacco”

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.

Doubtless this is primarily a business decision, with a view to the long term, but it’s a welcome one nonetheless, and I would hope other drugstores would follow suit. My wife and/or I visit the local Ferguson Walgreens typically once a week while doing the weekly shopping and it’s always bugged me to see the wall of tobacco products, albeit now moved behind the checkout counter. I view it as ethically wrong for a pharmacy to sell any nicotine-related item other than for smoking-cessation, even if it’s a “legal product,” as smokers and other smoking advocates are quick to remind us.

I recall not so many years ago when there was still smoking permitted in hospitals, even on the cancer floor, and they sold tobacco products in their gift shop as well. They argued it was both a service to patients and a way for volunteers to raise money. (I’m thinking particularly of Barnes-Jewish Hospital, where I once went to protest the practice to the head of PR, to no avail.)

This move by CVS may be a further sign of the times, albeit slow progress on what remains our number one health issue.

CVS makes waves with decision to stop selling tobacco

By Kavita Kumar kkumar@post-dispatch.com 314-340-801741

Typical Walgreens checkout counter tobacco display. Note the fire extinguisher sign on the far left, and the blu electronic cigarette display far right. Photo: Martin Pion

Typical Walgreens checkout counter tobacco display. Note the fire extinguisher sign far left, and the “blu” electronic cigarette display far right.      Photo: Martin Pion

Public health advocates applauded CVS Caremark’s landmark announcement on Wednesday that it would end the sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products at its 7,600 drugstores nationwide by Oct. 1.
         The drugstore chain said it was taking the step to better align its business with its focus on health and wellness.
         Like other major drugstore chains, CVS has been moving away from being just a retail store and pharmacy in recent years to offering more health care services, including in-store clinics.
         Analysts said Wednesday that although the announcement created a lot of buzz, including praise from President Barack Obama, it probably wouldn’t influence consumers to rush to transfer their prescriptions to, or from, CVS.
         But it could help bolster the nation’s second-largest drugstore’s brand image in markets where it’s expanding, such as St. Louis, noted Judson Clark, a health care analyst with brokerage Edward Jones in Des Peres.
         “In a place like St. Louis where people are perhaps less familiar with CVS, this is going to be a positive” for the company, he said.
         CVS, which has had a local presence in the Metro East for years, has been steadily expanding on the Missouri side of the St. Louis region, opening at least 15 stores since 2009. More area stores are still in the works, including one at the site of long-vacant Linens ’N Things near the St. Louis Galleria.


One motivating factor for the company’s announcement has been its anticipation for an uptick in health care demand. That’s in part because of an aging U.S. population that will need more care in future years. It’s also the result of the millions of people who are expected to gain health insurance under the Affordable Care Act.
         As CVS has been working to team up with hospital groups and doctor practices to help deliver and monitor patient care, Dr. Troyen A. Brennan, the chain’s chief medical officer, said the presence of tobacco in its stores had made for some awkward conversations.
         “One of the first questions they ask us is, ‘Well, if you’re going to be part of the health care system, how can you continue to sell tobacco products?’ ” he said. “There’s really no good answer to that at all.”
         CVS stores do not sell electronic cigarettes. The company is also expanding its smoking cessation efforts, including training its pharmacists to counsel people on how to quit.
         “We’ve come to the conclusion that cigarettes have no place in a setting where health care is being delivered,” said CVS CEO Larry Merlo, who noted that many of the chronic conditions their clinics treat are made worse by smoking.
         Tobacco is responsible for about 480,000 deaths a year in the U.S., according to the Food and Drug Administration, which gained the authority to regulate tobacco products in 2009.
         CVS’ decision, of course, is likely to put pressure on rivals, including slightly larger Walgreen Co., to follow suit.
         “If you’re Walgreens or Rite-Aid, you’ve got to think about it,” said Jason Long, a St. Louis area retail consultant. “This shines a light to say, ‘OK guys, really you think you should sell tobacco and liquor?’ ”
         In a statement, Walgreens said it would “continue to evaluate” the tobacco product category.
         But Long didn’t necessarily foresee a ripple effect on other retailers such as groceries with in-store pharmacies, because the latter make up a relatively smaller part of their overall business.
         Representatives from Schnuck Markets, Dierbergs Markets and Shop ’n Save did not respond to requests for comment.
         As for those who still want to buy tobacco, Long noted that CVS’ move won’t mean a shortage of places to buy it, with some dollar store chains recently adding cigarettes to their store offerings.
         So while smokers may have to get their fix elsewhere, he didn’t see CVS’ decision making a big difference in customers’ decisions as to where to pick up their health and beauty items.
         “At the end of the day, drugstores are a lot like grocery stores — you go to the closest one,” he said.
         But investors were a bit circumspect. CVS stock dropped about 1 percent to $65.44 in heavy volume by the end of trading on Wednesday. That was probably due in part to the company’s statement that the cessation of selling tobacco products will result in a loss of $2 billion in annual revenue. Walgreen, by contrast, topped the S&P 500’s gainers, rising $1.90, or 3.4 percent, to $57.85.
         Clark, of Edward Jones, thought the CVS dip was a bit of an overreaction by investors. He noted that $2 billion was just a small part of the company’s $123 billion in overall revenue. And he added that tobacco had a lower profit margin than other items in drugstores such as cosmetics.
         “I think it’s always refreshing when you see a company that is willing to sacrifice short-term profits for a long-term vision,” he added.
         On its own, CVS’ move won’t hurt cigarette companies much. Drugstores overall account for only 4 percent of cigarettes sold. That pales compared with gas stations, which generate nearly half of those sales. But it’s another in a long line of changes that have led cigarette sales to fall because of health concerns, higher prices and taxes, and social stigma.
         Several cities, including San Francisco, Boston and many smaller Massachusetts towns, have considered or passed bans on tobacco sales in stores with pharmacies. Other places such as New York City have sought to curb retail displays and promotions and raise the legal age at which someone can buy tobacco products.
         The share of Americans who smoke has fallen dramatically since 1970, to about 18 percent from nearly 40 percent. But the rate has stalled since about 2004, with about 44 million adults in the U.S. smoking cigarettes.
         Kevin Frazier has been frequenting the CVS on Lindell Boulevard in St. Louis to buy his cigarettes since it opened. He said the price of a pack of Mavericks was cheaper there than at some other outlets.
         But he wasn’t worried about the upcoming change. Frazier figured he would go to tobacco stores to get his cigarettes once the change went into effect. He added that the drugstore’s decision didn’t surprise him, with more and more places being smoke-free these days.
         “I should probably stop doing it myself,” he added.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

Smoking hot cartoons to kick off 2014!

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.

This blog is the exclamation point edition which uses up most of them for the remainder of the year! Note: This pales in comparison to the Mark Trail strip by Jack Elrod, where every sentence ends thus “!” if it’s not a question mark. Mr. Elrod needs to go into strip exclamation point addiction rehab. (Note that I exercised more restraint than Mr. Elrod and didn’t add a “!” after rehab.)

Back in October, 2013, I saw no less than three smoking-related cartoons in the St.Louis Post-Dispatch comics page on two consecutive days and planned to post them all on this blog for a laugh. This one, by cartoonist Wiley Miller, was one of them:

Note: Click any image to enlarge. Use back arrow top left to return to this page.

2013-10-13 Wiley Miller "Non Sequitur" cartoon

2013-10-13 Wiley Miller “Non Sequitur” cartoon

But then I got distracted – a favorite pastime of mine! – and ended up losing the links to two of them.

SIDE DISTRACTION: It’s worth recalling that, despite significant gains in the past several years, those employed in casinos and some bars in metro St. Louis still have to endure secondhand smoke as part of the job description. And St. Charles City and County remain firmly part of the “Smoke-Me State!”

Well, patience (or procrastination) is a virtue because just yesterday I came across a strip and cartoon that are blog-worthy. So here they are, to start off another New Year.

The first appeared in yesterday’s For Better or For Worse by Lynn Johnston:

For Better or For Worse fb140103

This took me back roughly 30 years. I was working at McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Co., now part of Boeing, and had gone into the very large cafeteria on the mezzanine floor of Building 101 where I had my lab. As soon as I entered I could smell noxious cigar smoke. This was mid-afternoon and the cafeteria was empty save for one individual in the designated smoking section located at the far end. I just turned around and left. Cigars are the worst!!!

Then in this just-received issue (Jan. 6, 2014) of The New Yorker magazine is this highly optimistic gem by cartoonist Farley Katz:

New Yorker 140106_cartoon_042_a17953_p465

Bingo! I just remembered that one of the two lost cartoons was from the same St. Louis Post-Dispatch issue as the Non Sequitur cartoon above and I believe it was also For Better or For Worse. So I went back and …. well, I was wrong! But it prompted me to search for smoking Phil, who’s the brother of Ellen, the main female character. It turns out that Phil is modeled after cartoonist Lynn Johnston’s real-life brother, Alan. Thus does art mimic life. Here’s the first strip in a hilarious series featuring Phil breaking some news about his smoking:

Phil breaking bad news to his sister Ellen on August 26, 2013

Phil breaking bad news to his sister Ellen on August 26, 2013

Michael McFadden’s questions re. Dr. Loomis’ study: “Smoking ban would not hurt state’s bars and restaurants”

Reminder: For a comment to be considered it must be accompanied by your full name: a 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 article by reporter Blythe Bernhard, “Smoking ban would not hurt state’s bars and restaurants,” appeared in the August 8th, 2013, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the study making something of an impression. It was also reproduced on this blog.

One pro-smoking critic of the study was Michael McFadden, who wrote to the study’s primary author, Dr. Brett Loomis, with a list of questions. He followed up with reminders but never received a reply.

Although I don’t necessarily agree with Michael McFadden, or have reason to doubt the validity of Dr. Loomis’s study, I offered to post Michael’s abbreviated list of questions on this blog to give them a public airing, as below:

Michael McFadden caption

Michael McFadden

MoGASP has allowed me to respond to the August blog entry on the CDC study by sharing a condensation of the email I sent, and re-sent, to Dr. Loomis, the study author. Although my questions about his work were simple, straightforward, and clearly deserving of a response, none was made. I feel that such non-response is both poor form and also speaks to the overall judgment of the validity of the original research.
         I thank MoGASP for helping to “balance the books” on the blog that he presented in good faith on the basis of the initial press release and publicity, although it’s unlikely this “balance” will achieve anywhere near the amount of internet and media coverage of the original.

Dear Dr. Loomis,

Can you help me with some specific quick questions to help me understand your CDC study better so I can represent it fairly? Thank you!

Mike McFadden

(1) Your WVA analysis showing restaurant improvement used NAICS coding separating bars and restaurants but the separation was unclear in the other seven states:
         “We found no significant association between smoke-free laws and economic outcomes in restaurants and bars in 7 of the 8 states.”
         Clearly you are saying that neither restaurants nor bars were hurt, but the word “and” rather than “or” opens the possibility you were speaking only overall.
         Did you actually find no significant losses in restaurants OR bars anywhere?

(2) If there were no significant changes in any state’s bar OR restaurant revenue other than WVA, it is informative but what about non-significant changes? If 12 of the remaining 13 sectors all had non-significant gains or all had non-significant losses, that result would carry some meaning.
         What was the actual breakdown?

(3) Since bar losses would ordinarily be expected, did you test for significance with a one-tailed 90% test?
         If not, why not?

(4) You say, “we combined data from all counties for which data were available, whether smoke-free or not, and compared the average effect of smoke-free laws in counties that contain smoke-free communities with counties that have no smoke-free communities.”
         Am I correct in understanding you compared changes in bar employment between 2000-2010 in counties that banned smoking as compared to bar employment in that period for the ten counties that continued to permit smoking?
         Is that what you compared and found no differences?

And, related to that:

(5) Did you examine changes in bar employment in counties where smoking had become banned only in restaurants?
         If so, did you run separate analyses then for (A) no ban counties, (B) partial ban counties, and (C) full ban counties?

(6) Is the grant proposal for this research publicly available?