Missouri Group Against Smoking Pollution

2012-01-27 STL Beacon: “Areas with most smoking-related illness have most exemptions to smoking ban”

mogasp — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 02:30:02 +0000

My thanks to Pat Lindsey, director of Tobacco-Free St. Louis, for suggesting I take a closer look at this good article in the on-line Beacon describing yesterday’s press event at which Dr. Slavin was a key speaker.

Areas with most smoking-related illness have most exemptions to smoking ban
By Robert Joiner, Beacon health reporter
Posted 10:23 am Fri., 1.27.12

Many establishments that are exempted from St. Louis County’s public-smoking ban are in areas with the highest incidences of smoking-related illnesses, according to an analysis by Tobacco-Free St. Louis. It also argues that the exemptions could undo the health benefits of the Clean Air Act and that they are unfair to the majority of county establishments that have banned smoking.
According to an analysis by Tobacco-Free St. Louis, 56 of the exempted establishments are in north county. Another 41 are in south county, 29 are in west county and the remaining 20 are in the mid-county region, including the smoke-free communities of Clayton, Brentwood and Kirkwood.

Dr. Stuart Slavin shown on November 4th wearing a YES on Prop N lapel pin during a victory party the day after passage of Proposition N by a 2:1 margin. This ushered in sweeping smoke-free air laws on January 2, 2011, in both St. Louis City and County.
Photo: Martin Pion

Dr. Stuart Slavin, a member of Tobacco-Free St. Louis, stressed that the group isn’t arguing that illnesses related to smoking would vanish without the exemptions.
         ”But what’s striking to me is that if you look at illnesses that may be smoking related, whether it is heart attacks or hospitalization for chronic lung diseases, you will find significantly greater risks and rates in north county,” Slavin said.
         He also said that many residents of north county may lack adequate access to health care and “can least afford to suffer from these problems.”
         He added, “We aren’t saying this is the cause of health disparity. But it certainly is one that’s contributing, and it’s easy to fix. It simply requires an act of the County Council, and these exemptions would disappear.”
         No council members were available to comment on the analysis, which shows that the 56 exemptions are in districts represented by Democrats Hazel Erby of University City, Kathleen Kelly of Overland, and Council Chair Michael O’Mara of Florissant. Kelly and O’Mara have raised questions over the years about the ban.
         In any case, Slavin says ending the exemptions would level the playing field by “making all the casinos, bars and restaurants smoke-free so that everybody is playing by the same rules.”
         In addition, he says, the Clean Air Act would do much to protect residents in St. Louis and St. Louis County while the exemptions undermine the benefits.
         ”These exemptions allow people who work in these bars and casinos to continue to be exposed to what we know is a dangerous substance: second-hand smoke. We feel that that should not be allowed to continue,” Slavin says.
         Those who support a right to smoke continue to say that bans ignore individual freedom and should be modified to account for filtration and other systems they say can address health issues.

TO GET AN EXEMPTION
The “Indoor Clean Air Code” allows smoking in drinking establishments with a valid liquor license that have applied for and met the qualifications for exemption.

St. Louis County Ordinance 605.030 defines the term “Drinking Establishment” as follows:

Any business with a valid license issued by the St. Louis County Department of Revenue (pursuant to Chapter 801, Title VIII SLCRO 1974 as amended, “Alcoholic Beverages”) to sell intoxicating liquor by the drink or to sell beer and light wine by the drink whose on-site sales of food for consumption on the premises comprises no more than 25% of gross sales of food and both alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages on an annual basis.

–St. Louis County Department of Revenue

2012-01-26 P-D: “Group wants St. Louis County to end smoking ban exemptions”

mogasp — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:50:37 +0000

I didn’t spot this in yesterday’s print version of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch so I have to thank Mr. Bill Hannegan for alerting me to it! In his on-line comments following the story Mr. Hannegan posted this:

Bill Hannegan said on: January 26, 2012, 10:52 am

This is a last ditch effort on the part of Tobacco Free St. Louis. Their Obama Stimulus money runs out in March.
“The grant for the project runs out in March 2012.”

2012-01-23 P-D: “McClellan: Blowing some smoke in the Show-Me state”

mogasp — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 03:27:26 +0000

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 title to today’s Bill McClellan column filled me with a certain amount of trepidation, because McClellan has struck me as inclined to support smokers, hanging out with them in local watering holes, as well as having Libertarian leanings. I was thus pleasantly surprised to find myself agreeing with his humorous observations skewering those in the Missouri legislature who are consistently opposed to raising cigarette taxes. Proponents argue, with good reason, that raising cigarette taxes both deters or reduces smoking, especially among young people, while simultaneously raising revenue.

Those who argue that if you raise taxes on cigarettes then net income will remain the same are ignoring the fact that smoking is rather like gasoline: once you’re hooked because of nicotine addiction or using a car to get to work, it’s difficult to break the addiction. Demand remains pretty inelastic in the absence of a large increase in taxes.

Anyway, enjoy McClellan’s piece, which is a hoot. (And possibly check out some of the sour reader comments on-line by clicking on the “Comments” link below.) The only thing I would have changed is the title.

I would have chosen “Blowing smoke in the Smoke-Me state.”

McClellan: Blowing some smoke in the Show-Me state
Bill McClellan • bmcclellan@post-dispatch.com, 314-340-8143 | Posted: Monday, January 23, 2012 12:15 am | Comments (55 as of January 23, 2012, 8:32 pm)

Governor Jay Nixon during his annual State of the State address to a joint session of the Missouri legislature on January 17, 2012, in Jefferson City.
P-D photo by Emily Rasinski

Good morning, ladies and gentleman of the Missouri General Assembly. It is my pleasure — and an honor — to introduce Gov. Jay Nixon, who intends to give a second State of the State address. Last week’s address was for public consumption. This morning’s is the real deal. Please give a Show-Me welcome to Gov. Jeremiah “Jay” Nixon!
         (Muted applause. Sen. Jason Crowell makes flatulence sounds into his microphone.)
         ”Good morning. Or maybe it’s not so good. Let’s be honest. You can’t count on the weather in this state. This time of year, we might go through three seasons a day, and none of them are summer. Yet we’re supposed to compete with places that are warm and sunny all year?
         ”But that’s what we’re trying to do. Our economic development team is working with our marketing team to identify our strengths and build on them.
         ”Our number one strength? We have the lowest cigarette tax in the country!”
         (Wild applause. Sen. Crowell makes siren sounds into his microphone.)
         ”By the way, the smoking lamp is lit. Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em!”
         (More applause and siren sounds.)
         ”Our economic development team is working to identify companies with CEOs who smoke.          Once those companies are identified, we’ll be contacting the CEOs. We’ll point out that a heavy smoker can save hundreds of dollars a year in our state.
         ”Our marketing team is working with our friends in Washington …”
         (Boos, hisses and flatulence sounds.)
         ”No, no. Hear me out. Our marketing people are trying to get permission to place a Missouri logo next to the warning labels on packs of cigarettes. Right after ‘Smoking can cause lung cancer and emphysema,’ we’ll have our logo!”
         (Applause, siren sounds.)
         ”As part of that same campaign, we’re thinking of dropping the ‘Show Me’ slogan in favor of ‘Cheap Smokes.’ That has a ring, doesn’t it? ‘Missouri, the Cheap Smokes state.’ “
         (Applause, siren sounds.)
         ”Maybe we’ll make the Dirt Cheap Bird our state mascot. I’m sure some of the do-gooders will criticize me, but what part of ‘Cheap, Cheap, Fun, Fun’ don’t they get?”
         (Applause, siren sounds, some chanting, “Cheap, Cheap, Fun, Fun.”)
         ”Our tourism people will also be targeting smokers. We’ll soon unveil an entire campaign aimed at getting smokers to vacation in Missouri.
         ”In that same vein, we’re going to try to grow our state by getting smokers to move here. But we’ll be looking for a certain kind of smoker — a healthy smoker.
         ”That’s because we’re cutting Medicaid again!”
         (Wild applause, siren sounds.)
         ”I don’t know about you, but I’m sick of people expecting the taxpayers to provide their health insurance.”
         (Uneasy mumbling, half-hearted flatulence sounds.)
         ”Present company excluded, that is!”
(Wild applause, siren sounds.)
         ”Speaking of cuts, I’d like to talk about higher education. If you follow higher education in this state, you already know that Mizzou has joined the Southeastern Conference. We’re in the SEC!”
         (Deafening applause, siren sounds. As the applause finally dies down, a few legislators start singing “Dixie.”)
         ”I want to be perfectly clear about this. We face some financial challenges, but I have assured Coach Gary Pinkel that the football budget will not be cut. It will be raised! Significantly!”
         (Wild applause, siren sounds.)
[cut]

2012-01-02 Urban Review: “One Year Smoke-Free”

mogasp — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 03:38:16 +0000

I’ve known Steve Patterson, who lives in St. Louis City and writes a very active blog called Urban Review STL, for well over a decade. In October 1999, he took a League of American Bicyclists Road I on-road course I conducted as a League Cycling Instructor at Florissant Valley Community College in North County. It was held on the campus so that two college bike-mounted security guards could also attend.

Steve Patterson (in yellow jersey and helmet) during a break in a Road I course I conducted at Florissant Valley Community College in October 1999

Steve was a top student, scoring 98% on the Road Test. In St. Louis City, he actively used a bicycle to get around whenever possible as part of his business as a realtor. It was therefore a huge blow to him when he suffered a stroke in his apartment which left him paralyzed for several days. Since then, he’s been making a slow recovery and can now drive a car with modified controls, in conjunction with a wheelchair.

Throughout this period, except when totally incapacitated by his stroke, he has maintained a very active blog on the City of St. Louis and brings a laser focus to bear on issues that need attention. He is also a strong supporter of smoke-free air, which brings me to the reason for this mogasp blog.

On the one-year anniversary of the historic implementation of both St. Louis City and St. Louis County going largely smoke-free on January 2, 2011, Steve conducted an in-depth evaluation of just how well it had succeeded, visiting formerly smoking-permitted bars and restaurants. His report is well worth reading, as are the 74 comments it elicited, which demonstrates just how much interest Steve’s blog generates.

I’ve pasted the link to Steve’s blog below and would urge you to visit it.

One Year Smoke-Free

Milo's announcement that, despite being exempted from St. Louis's smoke-free air ordinance, it will go smoke-free on Feb. 7, 2011

2011-12-31 P-D: “John Britton, lobbyist’s lobbyist, is back to work again”

mogasp — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 02:34:09 +0000

"I have a genuine respect for people who work in public service. It's not an easy job to do," said lobbyist John Britton (right), who drops in Tuesday, Nov. 29, 2011, to visit state Rep. Chuck Gatschenberger to discuss an upcoming insurance bill. Photo by Laurie Skrivan

Lobbyist, 86, puts his thumbprint on laws
Long hours, personal relationships are calling cards for A-B’s longtime go-to guy.

The above was the below-the-fold headline in Sunday’s front page St. Louis Post-Dispatch newspaper. There followed a lengthy story on lobbyist John Britton, who has very effectively represented both tobacco and alcohol interests in the Missouri State Capitol for over 50 years, according to the article. “Britton is a recovering alcoholic (who) quit drinking in 1958,” but is still a chain smoker, having cut down to only three packs a day from five, according to Britton. (So maybe the smoking restrictions in many parts of the State Capitol have actually helped him!).

St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist, Bill McClellan, wrote an insightful piece about John Britton’s effectiveness in the State Capitol some years ago titled: “Where There’s Smoke, There’s Sr Lobbyist” which was featured in a mogasp blog Columnist Bill McClellan on tobacco lobbyist John Britton, aka “Mayor of Jefferson City”

Reporter Virginia Young’s article can be found on-line by clicking on the title below, following which are extensive excerpts from the article and also some of the on-line reader comments.

John Britton, lobbyist’s lobbyist, is back to work again

BY VIRGINIA YOUNG vyoung@post-dispatch.com > 573-635-6178 | Posted: Saturday, December 31, 2011 11:15 am | Comments (17 as of January 2, 2012, 6:10 pm)

John Britton says goodbye to legislative assistant
Cara Stauffer after visiting with state Rep.
Chuck Gatschenberger (left) at the Capitol on
Tuesday, Nov. 29, 2011, in Jefferson City.
Photo by Laurie Skrivan

JEFFERSON CITY • John Britton came to the Missouri Capitol to start a lobbying career more than a half-century ago. He has been walking the marble halls ever since, building a reputation as one of the most influential figures in Jefferson City.
         Just ask those who have tried for decades to raise beer taxes. Or those who want Missouri to join the 39 states that prohibit open containers of alcoholic beverages in cars. Or those who have fought for years for statewide restrictions on smoking in public places.
         All point to Britton, the chain-smoking lobbyist for Anheuser-Busch InBev, as the main reason for their defeats. In one such testament, Michael Boland, a volunteer lobbyist for nearly 20 years for Mothers Against Drunk Driving, was ready to rejoice when contacted for an interview about Britton. Boland hoped Britton was retiring “and we could finally get some legislation passed.”
         But Britton, 86, is not retiring.
         ….. During the legislative session that begins this week, he’ll be back in his usual spot on the Capitol’s third floor, buttonholing legislators who weren’t born when he began manipulating the gears of government.
         With his custom suits, an ever-present cigarette dangling from his mouth and the ability to supply a case of beer when a legislator asks, Britton fits the image of a glad-handing, well-heeled lobbyist.
         Not only has he long carried the banner for liquor and tobacco interests, he was also the force behind the 1991 law that led to legalized riverboat gambling.
         But beyond the caricature, Britton personifies the nuts and bolts of the influence business: He puts in marathon hours, cultivates personal relationships and knows his issues.
         His detractors say he is a leading example of the outsize influence lobbyists have. And, they contend, he has played a key role in squashing opportunities to improve public health and safety.
         Britton argues that he has defended individual liberties and tried to keep government from overreaching.
         “How an individual lives his life is up to that individual, as long as he’s within the boundaries of civilized conduct,” he said. “And there’s nothing sinister in somebody drinking or smoking or bouncing rubber balls against the courthouse walls.“

[mogasp comment: None of the above are sinister, so long as it doesn't put someone else's health and safety at risk. The line is crossed when you drink and drive, or subject others to your secondhand smoke.]

…. Britton is a recovering alcoholic. He quit drinking in 1958 and still goes to two Alcoholics Anonymous meetings a week.

         ….. He still lobbies for corporate heavyweights such as Enterprise Holdings Inc. and Express Scripts, as well as nonprofits such as the Missouri Historical Society and the St. Louis Zoo.
         His far-flung clients include the movie industry, public television stations, beer wholesalers, life insurance underwriters, electric cooperatives, title companies, and the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co.
         ”I don’t think they stick with him because of loyalty,” said lobbyist and former legislator Jewell Patek. “They stick with him because he gets results.”

…. He splits the workload with three associates, including longtime business partner Jennifer Durham. Usually operating behind the scenes, they seek sponsors and friendly committees for bills they support and line up opposition and killer amendments for bills they oppose.

…. He was so tight with the Senate’s leadership in 1995 that after smoking was banned in Capitol corridors, the Senate passed a resolution declaring whatever area Britton inhabited on that side of the building a smoking zone. Senators said it was meant as a joke.

[mogasp comment: This was former Sen. Danny Staples’ resolution, but to my knowledge it was serious, and not intended as a joke.]

…. These days, when he takes legislators out … (h)e likes to host a small band of freshman Democrats, such as Steve Webber of Columbia and Jacob Hummel of St. Louis, at a down-home restaurant in nearby Apache Flats. In addition to saving money, he avoids Jefferson City’s ban on restaurant smoking.

         Because of his lobbying reputation, Britton gets credit — or blame — for the Legislature’s perennial shelving of legislation to make public places in Missouri smoke-free.
         “He’s been the major reason” that legislators balk at the bills, said Martin Pion, whose group, Missouri GASP, has warned of the dangers of secondhand smoke.
Critics like Pion say Britton’s legacy is a state that has neglected public health. Take the failed 1997 push to increase taxes by about a penny for every 12 ounces of beer to fund prevention and treatment of alcohol abuse.
         ”A penny a drink was never going to affect the profits of Mr. Britton’s clients, but it would help to prevent drunk driving,” said Boland, the volunteer for MADD.
         Britton says he’s proud of keeping Missouri’s excise tax on beer the second-lowest in the nation, as well as abolishing the state’s blue laws and getting rid of the law making public intoxication a crime.

Below are many of the comments posted by readers following publication of the above article by reporter Virginia Young:

Marley said on: January 3, 2012, 3:36 pm
In the name of individual freedoms, Mr. Britton has certainly got his. He is a wealthy man at the expense of both the physical health of the citizens of Missouri and the financial health of the State itself. Missouri’s resources for substance abuse and addiction prevention and treatment have been greatly reduced by his efforts to keep increased excise fees on alcohol and tobacco off the table. He is only a hero of big business and greed, not at all of the people. Furthermore, our Missouri legislators should be ashamed of how they have bowed to the alcohol and tobacco industries. Britton has made fools of them, and he is laughing all the way to the bank.

SPSLE said on: January 2, 2012, 6:10 pm
Mr. Pion, and some of the ignorant, but pius commenters, you can blame John Britton for the failure to pass anti-smoking legislation if you want, but if you check the Missouri Ethics web site, you might discover that he has not represented any tobacco interest for ten years (Virginia, you might have wanted to note that, too). Maybe the problem is the proponents and their approach rather than the opponents.

[mogasp comment: I believe the above is correct, given that I wasn't contacted for this story, so I didn't comment on John Britton's present lobbying activities. But he has certainly been very effective in the past, and the tobacco lobby and its supporters are still a force to be reckoned with in Jefferson City.]

follow the money said on: January 2, 2012, 9:48 am
Who would have known that Missouri has its own Jack Abramoff & Grover Norquist & the most gutless state government that cannot stand up to this agent of corporate America.

Tony Palazzolo said on: January 2, 2012, 8:03 am
Martin Pion isn’t a paid lobbyist unlike a majority of the anti-tobacco crowd.

harleyrider1978 said on: January 2, 2012, 7:49 am
I have never ever run across anyone who closely resembles my own american ideals as that of Mr. Britton.
I must say we were born of the same mold…..I admire the man.

mntvernon said on: January 2, 2012, 2:57 am
CGatton said on: January 1, 2012, 9:11 pm
Anono2, you charge that Martin Pion is paid to lobby for bans. Your source, please? John Britton is clearly paid to lobby against them, claiming that personal freedom trumps damaging other people’s health. I’m sure you’ll claim that the lady in this article from Enid, Oklahoma is also paid to lobby for bans.
Gatton, the proof is right there on Pions website where he clearly states he operates under 501(c)(4) IRS protection and panhandles the public:
http://mogasp.wordpress.com/donate/
for cash via credit card! Prove us wrong, just have Mr. Pion publish MOGASPs IRS form 990 from the past ten years.
The OK woman’s misfortune illustrates how despised your ‘church lady’ types are as they troll the oncology clinics looking find fresh victims of your favorite bogeyman.
The sad fact is that you get peanuts spewing your pap while your morebirthdays handlers get richer:
http://www.charitywatch.org/articles/eyepoppingpay.html

[mogasp comment: mntvernon later retracted his incorrect statement about MoGASP's IRS status. We are, in fact, a 501(c)(3) and have been since our initial IRS approval in 1986. We've never had enough income to have to publish anything!]

Bill Hannegan said on: January 2, 2012, 2:35 am
anono2, I don’t think Martin Pion is paid to lobby for bans. Mr. Pion is a True Believer. Even if MOGASP has gotten Big Pharma grant money at some point ( and I doubt that he has), I am sure that his crusade for smoking bans overall has cost him far, far more than he has gained.

Bigdognaj said on: January 1, 2012, 11:10 pm
This guy needs to fade away for the greater good. This clown might be the single greatest reason Missouri remains in the dark ages. Smoke all you want outside away from me and my family. Die slowly from emphysema, cancer. Die quickly from not wearing a seat belt. Pick your personal freedom poison, hoosiers.

CGatton said on: January 1, 2012, 9:11 pm
Anono2, you charge that Martin Pion is paid to lobby for bans. Your source, please? John Britton is clearly paid to lobby against them, claiming that personal freedom trumps damaging other people’s health. I’m sure you’ll claim that the lady in this article from Enid, Oklahoma is also paid to lobby for bans: http://enidnews.com/localnews/x191085309/Despite-healthy-lifestyle-Elaine-Johns-began-experiencing-health-problems-due-to-second-hand-smoke-exposure

icantthinkofone said on: January 1, 2012, 8:34 pm
Why this is legal, and why this guy isn’t in jail, is beyond me. Yes, I know lobbyists are everywhere and it’s been around for decades but, why this is legal and why this guy isn’t in jail is beyond me.

[mogasp comment: I don't think that's the issue. Lobbyists are part of the political system. You and I can lobby for something in which we believe. Money is part of the problem, plus lobbyists working against the public interest.]

workingdude said on: December 31, 2011, 8:51 pm
violates personal freedom??? what about the folks who don’t smoke? bull. he is a prostitute. lobbyist or what-ever. he needs to be run out of every office he steps in. personal liberty? so you can do what-ever you want , when you want, and screw whoever you make mad. yeah, right. he nneds to go as does his ilk.

SPSLE said on: December 31, 2011, 6:14 pm
What Virginia omits in “ex-Army paratrooper” is the minor detail that he was with the 101st Airborne from the time they dropped behind enemy lines on D-Day through their encirclement as Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge. For those who blindly despise lobbyists as representing “special interests”, they will never be capable of understanding that Mr. Britton’s primary “client” is personal liberty.

[mogasp comment: I think you're letting the clouds of tobacco smoke obscure the truth. Mr. Britton does this lobbying because it's highly profitable, NOT for any patriotic reasons.]

anono2 said on: December 31, 2011, 5:13 pm
First, thank you for your service to our country, John!!!
It is refreshing to see a lobbyist calling himself a lobbyist, so unlike the people who say they are from the supposed “non profit charities” who are doing the VERY same thing but with a WHOLE LOT more money, and the newspaper treats them like saints. BALDERDASH! Missouri seems to be the LAST place we can refer to as the “home of the brave and the land of the free”! And that is thanks to people like John, and the Legislators, who know the difference between lies and the truth. Martin Pion is paid to lobby for bans and he has no interest in EVER going to the bars he is trying to shut down. But he IS pious, that Pion!

[mogasp reply: My effort to promote smoke-free air has nothing whatever to do with piety! It has everything to do with sensitivity to secondhand smoke to which many people, including myself, view simply as an air pollutant, a view supported by science.]

Bill Hannegan said on: December 31, 2011, 12:57 pm
The Missouri House recently voted down a statewide smoking ban 36-97. They did so because smoking bans violate personal freedom, the property rights of business owners and hurt business. It is convenient for Martin Pion to instead blame John Britton.
http://www.unitedformissouri.org/statewide/st-charles-county-council-vote

2011-12-29 STL Public Radio – “Tobacco expert: 2011 good year “overall” for non-smokers”

mogasp — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 02:09:53 +0000

Early today, KWMU Radio featured an interview with Sarah Shelton, a researcher with the Center for Tobacco Policy Research at Washington University in St. Louis. Ms. Shelton pronounced 2011 a good year “overall” for non-smokers, a statement with which I agree.

I learned of the interview after being copied by Bill Hannegan on his e-mail to the reporter, Julie Bierach. Mr. Hannegan took issue with researcher Sarah Shelton, arguing, for example, that the “new smoking ban in O’Fallon Missouri has already proven pretty catastrophic for O’Fallon small businesses.”

That view is to be expected, since the impact on business of smoke-free air laws has become the dominant theme of those attacking such laws, even though their aim is primarily to protect the public health and welfare, providing all employees with a healthier work environment, and removing unfair discrimination affecting those who are highly smoke-sensitive.

Below is the original article and following that Mr. Hannegan’s response, to which I’ve added some comments.

KWMU News Reporter
Julie Bierach

Tobacco expert: 2011 good year “overall” for non-smokers
By Julie Bierach
6:35AM Thu December 29, 2011

Sarah Shelton, a data analyst with the Center for Tobacco Policy Research at Washington University in St. Louis, says “overall” it’s been a good year for non-smokers in the St. Louis area. Smoking bans were implemented in several areas in St. Louis in 2011, including in the city and county. She spoke to St. Louis Public Radio’s Julie Bierach as part of our series “A Good Year” that, overall, it’s been a good year for non-smokers.

“The majority of non-smokers are protected. I think, in particular, people living in Brentwood and Creve Coeur, it’s been better for them. I think that we have some progress to make to make sure that next year is an even better year for all non-smokers in St. Louis.”

Here’s a summary of that conversation:

How important are smoking bans to safeguarding public health?

         Smoke-free laws really are essential to protecting the public’s health. Secondhand smoke exposure has been linked with cancer, heart disease, respiratory illnesses of all different kinds in non-smokers, and it’s considered the leading cause of indoor air pollution. Comprehensive smoke-free policies protect the public from all the toxins that are in secondhand smoke.
         One of the things in particular that is a good outcome of smoke-free policies is a reduction in heart attacks, which is important because heart attacks are the leading cause of death in the United States. According to an Institute for Medicine report, there is a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and increase risk of coronary heart disease among both men and women. That same report also concluded that there is a causal association between smoke-free laws and decreases in heart attacks in the communities where those laws are implemented.
         Smoke-free policies also encourage smokers to quit and also prevent kids from even starting.

How active has the Center for Tobacco Policy Research been in lobbying for these bans, encouraging municipalities to ban smoking in public places?

As a Center, our main purpose is to do research and evaluation around the topic. We don’t necessarily go out and advocate or lobby for a particular ordinance or particular laws that are up for adoption.

I imagine that as someone who analyzes the data and researches tobacco use you would say there is more to be done?

Absolutely. The laws that went into effect in January in the county and city are not comprehensive. They do exclude fair amounts of people from being protected from secondhand smoke, in particular, at casinos and bars. So there are people who visit casinos and bars, who work in casinos and bars for long hours, day after day, who are currently not protected by those policies. And there are a few municipalities within St. Louis County, in particular, that have gone above and beyond over the past year. Brentwood and Creve Coeur both passed strong, comprehensive policies that are stronger than the county ordinance.

Do you think that as the months go by and it becomes more evident how smoking bans impact businesses, do you think more municipalities and counties will take the initiative and not be so afraid to ban smoking?

Absolutely. Last year Clayton implemented a strong comprehensive smoke-free policy and they’ve been very vocal about how it has not impacted business. In fact, some business owners and community members believe that it has brought more business into their area. So, as we see more examples of where the sky does not fall, then I think people will be more and more likely to move forward with it.
Brentwood and Creve Coeur implementing these strong policies is in line with what’s happening throughout the rest of the state as well. In the past year, Jefferson City, O’Fallon, and Raleigh have all passed strong comprehensive smoke-free laws as well.

Below is Mr. Hannegan’s e-mail to KWMU reporter, Ms. Julie Bierach, on which he copied me:

Bill Hannegan

Dear Ms. Bierach,

         I read your interview with Sarah Shelton this morning.
http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/tobacco-expert-2011-good-year-overall-non-smokers
         I would like to point out that Ms. Shelton failed to mention that the new smoking ban in O’Fallon Missouri has already proven pretty catastrophic for O’Fallon small businesses.
http://www.stltoday.com/suburban-journals/stcharles/news/smoking-ban-chokes-o-fallon-bar-business/article_650ddbc6-a62a-5c8b-956d-7f79544c2d40.html
         This business loss in O’Fallon in part caused the St. Charles County Council to reject any smoking ban that does not exempt “over 21″ businesses. No doubt this O’Fallon business loss will also make any extension of the St. Louis County smoking ban less likely.
http://ofallon.patch.com/articles/top-5-decisions-that-impacted-st-charles-county-in-2011-a7ed6587
         Clayton’s smoking ban was put forward in the interview by Ms. Shelton as a financial success, yet Clayton restaurant revenues went flat after the imposition of the ban, despite the reopening of Highway 40.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/mailbag/letters-to-the-editor-november/article_be989581-0821-5822-8e3f-84640a1852e6.html

[mogasp comment: Clayton's smoke-free air ordinance took effect in mid-July 2009. Reviewing the actual tax data for 2009 thru 2011 gives a different picture from the one painted by Mr. Hannegan.
In fact, receipts went up every year for eating and drinking places for comparable 3-month periods, as illustrated below for July thru Sept, particularly this past year:

Clayton Eating & Drinking Taxable Sales ($) for comparable periods

Sales receipts for Easting & Drinking Establishments were up by a modest 1.5% for 2010 compared to 2009, but then jumped by 7.6% for 2011 when compared to 2009.
Note: I’m indebted to Mr. Stan Cowan for providing MO Dept of Revenue information for Clayton on which the above chart is based. ]

Ms. Shelton suggested that smoking bans cut heart attack rates in communities that impose them. But even St. Louis smoking ban activist Martin Pion has called this claim into question on his blog. Later research has shown that heart attack rates are as likely to rise as to fall immediately after the start of a smoking ban. Please find key studies concerning this issue attached.
http://mogasp.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/missouri-gasp-disseminates-results-of-tuscany-heart-attacksmoking-ban-study-wins-100-award-for-scientific-integrity/
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/12/new-study-of-national-heart-attack.html
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/08/new-study-finds-that-smoking-bans-have.html

[mogasp comment: Mr. Hannegan is doing some cherry picking here. He's correct that this influential Tuscany study found no immediate reduction in heart attacks during the first year after smoke-free air laws went into effect.
However, here's an important conclusion of the Tuscany authors which Mr. Hannegan has conveniently ignored:
"In particular, a decrease of cardiovascular events in the long run is expected, given the conclusive association with chronic SHS exposure." ]

Finally, the CDC sent over seven million dollars to St. Louis County in hopes of seeing public smoking restrictions greatly extended by the end of 2011. Ms. Shelton is correct that Brentwood and Creve Couer extended their bans to include bars and private clubs. But this amounted to only four establishments being added to the existing County ban. We were able to persuade Beth Kistner and the Creve Coeur City Council to exempt existing private clubs.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/woman-heading-anti-smoking-effort-finds-fault-with-county-council/article_769e9b78-6b72-544a-9422-c689fc69cd63.html
http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2011/03/county_smoking_ban_exemptions_st_louis.php

Sincerely,

Bill Hannegan

Home phone: 314.367.3779
Cell phone: 314.315.3779

CLAYTON taxes

A look back: The case that started Missouri GASP

mogasp — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 02:05:10 +0000

I was doing some infrequent vacuuming in my bedroom when I noticed a large piece of cardboard which had fallen behind my chest of drawers. On retrieving it I found pasted to it a roughly 13 inch square newspaper article (see below) dating back to the early days of Missouri GASP when it was still called St. Louis GASP. It also featured the battle fought by Paul Smith in his smoky workplace which had galvanized supporters and led to GASP’s formation.

The newspaper is brown from age but the article remains relevant, demonstrating what a long hard slog this has been to arrive where we are today, with most workplaces now totally smoke-free, except for holdouts like casinos and small bars. And there are still vocal opponents, except now the tobacco lobby is largely absent, replaced by deep pocket casino interests, or smokers and their supporters. They either stubbornly oppose smoke-free air protections, or they are fighting to undo those gains by arguing, for example, that in adult-only establishments the rules shouldn’t apply. (To be consistent, that logic would imply that smoking should be allowed in ANY adult-only workplace!)

My wife helped me transcribe the above article and I reproduce it below to give you a taste of what it was like in those early days.

GASP Wages Battle for Smokefree Work and Public Places
Press Journal Feb. 13, 1985, page 5
By Susan Kostal
Journal Staff Writer

         One member is a computer programmer with MasterCard who cringes when someone pulls out an object resembling a cigarette.
         Another is a retired woman who has twice battled cancer.
         A third is a TWA employee who is highly sensitive to cigarette smoke.
         All are members of St. Louis GASP – Group Against Smoking Pollution, an environmental political action group of 80 people who battle for their right to a smoke-free environment.
         The group sprang up a year ago in support of member Paul Smith’s suit against AT&T asking for a smoke-free working environment. (See related story.)
         GASP is a loosely connected with ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) and other GASPs around the country. Members include nonsmokers, ex-smokers, those highly allergic or sensitive to cigarette smoke and those simply interested in the issue.
         AND GASP members intend to make it an issue.

         Martin Pion, St. Louis GASP president, said studies show that not only is smoking dangerous to the health of the smoker, it also is dangerous to “passive smokers” subjected to “sidestream” rather than “mainstream” smoke.
         A recent study by the Environmental Protection Agency estimated that between 500 and 5,000 nonsmokers die each year of lung cancer caused by the pollutants from tobacco smoke from others.
         The EPA concluded “passive” tobacco smoke is the nation’s most dangerous carcinogen. In answer, the GASP philosophy statement says smoking should be “limited to consenting adults in private.”
         But members are not totally unsympathetic to smokers.
         “We realize we can’t ask everybody to go cold turkey,” Pion said.
         Instead, the group battles in the courts and through informal activism, such as boycotting restaurants that do not offer no-smoking sections, seeking smoke-free work environments and displaying anti-smoking buttons and posters.
         “Clean air is our right,” Pion said.

         ATTORNEY CLARK Cole, a member and consultant to the group, said “there is no constitutional right to smoke, therefore there are no laws against prohibiting it. Legislation is the best, almost the only way to go.”
         Member and free-lance writer Mary Jo Blackwood said 38 states have a non-smoking law on their books. Missouri had two laws relating to the sale of cigarettes to minors on the books until 1977.
         GASP has high hopes for the Missouri Clean Indoor Air Act, Pion said. The group also had discussed with City of St. Louis aldermen the possibility of a smoking ordinance.
         Their model is San Francisco’s anti-smoking law, instituted in March 1984. The law requires employers to write a smoking policy that allows a non-smoker to object to smoke in the workplace without fear of losing his or her job. If an acceptable solution cannot be found, smoking must be banned in the office or work area.
         While non-smokers are waiting for laws to more strictly regulate smokers, they can fight individual battles. Cole said blowing smoke in someone’s face has been termed battery, and if that person has the time and money he can take the offending smoker to court.
         MOST GASP members do not have that kind of money, Pion said. They prefer to work towards educating the public about the rights of non-smokers and introducing protective legislation at the state and local level. Most members feel a favorable decision in Smith’s suit would speed the legislative process.
         Until then, each will continue to fight for a smoke-free environment in their own way.
         The next meeting of GASP is at 7 pm, March 4, in the Hawthorn Room in the basement of Deaconess Hospital College of Nursing. For more information write GASP at PO Box 6086, SW Station, St. Louis, 63139.
———————————————————————————————————————————-

The Court Case That Started It All
By Susan Kostal
Journal Staff Writer

         Judge Alphonso Voorhees was besieged with briefs and deluged with depositions at the close of Paul E. Smith vs. AT&T in August, 1984, a case which will decide if an employee has the right to demand a smoke-free work place.
         Six months after the three-day trial, Smith said he doesn’t mind waiting for a decision. “Ten years ago, I would not have won this lawsuit. As time goes on, my case becomes stronger and stronger,” said the Chesterfield man, a former employee of AT&T, formerly Western Union. (This should read: Western Electric.)
         Judge Voorhees, of the St. Louis County Circuit Court, Division 13, is in the difficult position of deciphering a complicated case that began in the courts in 1980. The case will set precedent in Missouri law, whether Smith wins or loses, his lawyer says.
         AT&T DISAGREES that the case is sure to set Missouri precedent. “There is a range of decisions the judge might make. We do not know what the final determination will be,” said Jim Crackel, media spokesman for AT&T.
         “We don’t know what magnitude it will set. There have been several (similar) cases that have already come up and found in favor of both the plaintiff and the defendant.” Those cases have not had a great impact on company smoking policy, locally or nationally, Crackel said.
         Smith began with the company in 1950, when smoking was not permitted in the office. After a new ventilation system was installed, employees were allowed to smoke, he said.
         At the time of the suit, he was an engineering assistant with a handsome salary. However, he said the money was not compensation for the discomfort he experienced when exposed to cigarette smoke. He said he developed nausea, headaches, and chest pains. His blood pressure, now back to normal, was substantially higher, he said.

Paul Smith, a member of St. Louis Group Against Smoking Pollution, is waiting for a decision on his court case against AT&T. He has sued the company for a smoke-free environment. The case involves literally pounds of expert testimony
and lengthy depositions.

         EXTENSIVE clinical testing showed he had a high sensitivity to smoke and an immune system that was not regulating itself properly. His symptoms grew worse when he worked overtime, when the regular ventilation system was turned off, he said.
         Smith donned a respirator to screen smoke from the air he breathed. The sound level in his helmet was measured 70 decibels, he said, and did not help his situation.
         After a lengthy effort to persuade AT&T to establish a smoking policy, Smith filed suit against the company in 1980, seeking an injunction against smoking in the work place.
         AT&T did not turn a deaf ear to Smith’s complaints, said Bill Winzerling, spokesman for AT&T.
         “WE HAVE DONE a multitude of things to accommodate our employee, including negative and positive respirators, moving him away from individuals who smoke and offering him several other jobs and accommodations. We have sent him to other institutions for evaluations as well, at company expense.”

(mogasp note: In reality, Western Electric retaliated against Paul Smith, forcing him to wear this noisy cumbersome full-head respirator instead of providing him with a smoke-free working environment.)

The case was initially dismissed on the grounds that the issue was not in the jurisdiction of Missouri common law.

Morley Swingle, now Cape Girardeau Prosecuting Attorney

         Smith and Cape Girardeau lawyer Morley Swingle appealed the decision to the Missouri Appellate Court. The appeals court ruled unanimously in September 1982 that Smith had the right to sue, thereby establishing the common law right to a safe work environment, Smith said.
         AT&T contends Smith’s case is unique. Aside from Smith, the company has had few complaints concerning smoking in the workplace, said Winzerling.
         “THE MAJORITY of our employees are satisfied. We believe he is a unique situation, hypersensitive to smoke,” said Winzerling. “We have a strong case, and we will be upheld.”
         The case went to trial went to trial in August 1984. During the trial, Smith said he was called mentally ill, a hypochondriac and a crusader.
         “Every effort was made to discredit me,” said Smith. Several doctors for the plaintiff testified he was not neurotic, just determined, he said.
         In the meantime, his wife also filed suit against the company. She now works in a smoke-free environment at a savings and loan. There was a time, however, when Smith’s dispute with AT&T put a strain on his marriage, and his wife filed for divorce. The couple has since reconciled. Smith calls her “very supportive.”
         Smith’s case was widely publicized and very expensive. A political action group, St. Louis GASP (Group Against Smoking Pollution), formed to support him. Smith has “boxes of letters” from around the country encouraging him in his fight. He has received several donations as well.

         SMITH SAID he is not suing for punitive damages, but for a smoke-free work place. His physician recommended he go on sick leave, and when he had used all his sick days in April 1984, he was “forced into early retirement,” he said.
         He is now unemployed.
         Smith said he isn’t asking for a total ban on cigarette smoking at AT&T. “But they could set up smoking lounges on separate ventilation systems. I don’t think the whole workplace should be one.”
         Crackel said a total ban on smoking and the establishment of smoking lounges would be considerable expense to the company.
         But that is exactly what Smith has demanded. “The problems (between smokers and nonsmokers) are not always resolved through compromise and courtesy,” said Smith.

Protected: Cigar smoking Kinky Friedman for Governor of Texas!

mogasp — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 19:34:25 +0000

This post is password protected. You must visit the website and enter the password to continue reading.

2011-12-13 P-D: “Challenge to Clayton outdoor smoking ban rejected”

mogasp — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 17:58:02 +0000

I didn’t notice this article until going through the newspaper today before recycling it, but this is good news for the City of Clayton and it’s smoke-free air efforts, led by progressive Mayor Linda Goldstein.

Gallagher and his legal team puff tobacco smoke into Shaw Park for a reporter

The original lawsuit generated a lot of publicity when it was first filed by Clayton attorney Mr. Bevis Schock, who had sought a plaintiff.
He found a willing cigar smoker in Mr. Arthur Gallagher, who responded to an ad. Following is just one of the numerous stories posted on this blog featuring a clownish photo of the group deliberately violating the new law.
(See 2011/3/3 Mo Lawyers: “Clayton smoker lights up lawsuit against ban,” posted on March 9, 2011, accompanied by the photo at left.)

Early-bird Post-Dispatch reader Mr. Bill Hannegan kicked off the reader comments at 1:28 am on December 13, 2011 with this:

“How does Arthur Gallagher smoking a cigar on a Clayton park bench threaten public health? What rational basis does such a restriction have?”

Mr. Hannegan cannot see any problem with drifting cigar smoke in a public park. If Mr. Gallagher were to wear a fish bowl over his head while puffing on his cigar I’d agree.

The lawyer is reportedly planning to appeal. Since it’s his time and money, good luck with that.

Margaret Gillerman

Challenge to Clayton outdoor smoking ban rejected
BY Margaret Gillerman • mgillerman@post-dispatch.com > 314-725-6758 | Posted: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 12:05 am | Comments (24 as of December 15, 2011, 2:33 am)

CLAYTON • A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit against Clayton that sought to overturn the city’s ban on smoking on outdoor, city-owned property, including public parks.
         ”The city was confident that our ordinance was enacted properly and within the authority of municipal public health concerns,” said Mayor Linda Goldstein.
         Attorneys W. Bevis Schock and Hugh Eastwood filed the suit on behalf of resident Arthur Gallagher, who enjoyed smoking cigars in city parks. The suit claimed that the ordinance violated Gallagher’s constitutional rights. Among the arguments, the suit said that ‘smoking is a fundamental right” and asserted that smokers are persecuted and members of a legally protected class.
         Schock said Monday that his client would appeal.
         ”It really comes down to whether the federal courts are going to hold the line where there really isn’t any evidence of health benefits at all” for banning outdoor smoking, he said. “The question is whether they are going to let the members of the Board of Aldermen — who respond to fashion — infringe on our liberty.
         ”My client is eager to continue. He said, ‘Give it all you got.’”
         In his 15-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Charles Shaw dismissed the federal constitutional claims.
         ”The Court finds that liberty and justice would exist if smoking in the city’s public parks was sacrificed,” he wrote in the decision filed Friday. “The Court finds that no fundamental right is at stake.”
         Clayton banned smoking in most public buildings in July 2009, effective July 2010. At the urging of the parks commision and then-Alderman Alex Berger III, the city expanded the ban to include outdoor publicly owned spaces starting Jan. 1. The lawsuit was filed by Schock in March.
         The outdoor ordinance bars lighting up in parks, on playgrounds and all other city-owned or leased facilities. That includes city-owned parking garages and lots. The law allows smoking on sidewalks, streets and alleys. Penalties are up to a $1,000 fine and 90 days in jail.
         ”We thank the court for upholding the strong consensus among Clayton residents that smoking in public places is something they want in their history, not their future,” Goldstein said.

Michael J. McFadden suggests that some asthmatics’ symptoms may be “all in the head”

mogasp — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 17:28:51 +0000

A recent mogasp blog – 2011-11-28 Patch: “St. Charles County Council to Consider Smoking Ban Monday Night Smoke-free bills appear deadlocked at 3-3 ..” elicited a fair number of comments, leading eventually to a smoke-free air opponent, Michael McFadden, questioning whether complaints from smoke-sensitive asthmatics about SHS weren’t at least in part psycological, i.e. not really a medical problem at all.

In support of this contention Mr. McFadden provided references to a number of peer-reviewed papers published in the 1970s, as well as direct quotes.

It’s an interesting argument having some potential legitimacy. The question is, does it amount to enough of an argument to negate the efforts of asthmatics or others with medical conditions who claim that exposure to SHS is highly detrimental to their health, and can trigger an asthma attack, for example.

Following is Mr. McFadden’s argument. It will be interesting to see if others can provide scientific evidence to counter it.

Michael McFadden, author of Dissecting Antismokers' Brains

Michael J. McFadden
Submitted on 2011/12/15 at 1:55 am

Quoted elsewhere by “Walt”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2467244/?page=4

“Luparello et al(1968) measured changes in airway resistance directly by body plethysmography. They showed that asthmatic subjects reacted with increased airway resistance when given nebulized saline to inhale and told it was the allergen … associated with his attacks. 19 of 40 asthmatics showed a significant increase in airway resistance and 12 developed attacks of bronchial spasm which were reversed with an inhaled saline placebo. … In another study, isoprenaline and carbachol were each presented to 20 asthmatic subjects by inhalation. Each drug was presented twice under double-blind conditions. [First] the subject was told that it was a bronchodilator that would open his airways and make it easier to breathe and in the other, he was told it was a bronchoconstrictor. The suggestion produced significant changes in response to the drugs in the direction that had been suggested.”

This leads the author (Cohen) to opine about studies on the subject of conditioning that showed that hay fever sufferers who knew a particular flower caused attacks could get an attack by merely being shown a paper imitation of that flower. Citing Vaughn, 1939 and an 1886 (not a typo) study by MacKenzie.

Per “Anxiety Reduction in Asthma” Kinsman et al, Psychcosom Res, 1980

http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/reprint/42/4/397.pdf

Luparello’s findings were repeated by:

Spector et al “Response of asthmatics to methacholine and suggestion,” Am Rev Resp Dis, 113; 1976

Strupp et al, “Effects of suggestion on total respiratory resistance in mild asthmatics,” Psychosom Res, 18; 1974

Phillipp et al “Suggestion and relaxation in asthmatics,” Psychosom Res 16; 1972

(Above offered in support of my contention that the anxiety/stress/fear brought on by the antismoking movement may actually cause MORE attacks today than smoke.)

mogasp comment: Your thesis may or may not have validity. You are quoting research dating to the 1970s and I don’t know if those conclusions are still current.
The paper you reference in your initial comment actually opens with a quote from Moses Maimonides (1135-1204)! That could mean that little has changed in the understanding of this disease or that it is complex and our knowledge has improved. It may well be that in some cases psychological factors play a role, but I don’t view the evidence you present as a valid response to efforts to provide smoke-free air.
I know several very smoke-sensitive asthmatics and also a person who is a former smoker, now a laryngectomy survivor, and I don’t view any of them as having been influenced by “the antismoking movement.” On the contrary, they have become active in promoting smoke-free air as a result of the effect of SHS on their health and welfare.