Monthly Archives: February 2011

2011/02/17 P-D: “Missouri lawmaker seeks prison smoking ban”

Reminder: A comment for consideration must be accompanied by your full name. First name only or a pseudonym is not normally accepted. Also, please limit your comment to 1,000 characters, which is twice that set by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Finally, avoid epithets and personal attacks.

The purpose of the legislators filing this bill is not to make it more bearable for those incarcerated: it’s to save money on healthcare costs. However, being imprisoned and subjected to secondhand smoke when you’re smoke-sensitive must make incarceration practically intolerable to bear.

                                             AN ACT

To amend chapter 191, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to use of tobacco products in state correctional facilities.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

         Section A. Chapter 191, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 191.774, to read as follows:
         191.774. No person shall smoke or otherwise use tobacco products in any area of a state correctional center or the grounds thereof. Any person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of an infraction.

Comment from MoGASP on St. Louis Post-Dispatch web site:

Martin Pion said on: February 18, 2011, 7:21 am
This measure deserves support, but not merely to save the state money on healthcare costs. Especially when incarcerated, you should not be forced to breathe other’s secondhand smoke (SHS).
Likewise, prison guards should not have to be exposed to SHS: it’s not part of the job description.
Martin Pion, President, Missouri GASP (Group Against Smoking Pollution) Inc. NFP 501(c)(3) since 1986.

Missouri lawmaker seeks prison smoking ban

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS | Posted: Thursday, February 17, 2011 7:03 am | Comments (60 at 11:38 pm on 2/18/11)

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. • Some Missouri lawmakers want to snuff out cigarettes at state prisons.
         Bills filed recently in both the Missouri House and Senate would prohibit smoking or the use of tobacco products anywhere on the grounds of state correctional facilities.

Sen. Jim Lembke (R - S. St. Louis County)

         One of the sponsors is Republican Sen. Jim Lembke of St. Louis, who serves on the Senate Appropriations Committee. He says the proposed tobacco ban is a financial issue.
         Lembke says the cost of medical care for prisoners has risen significantly. And he says two chief causes are cardiac problems and cancer, which are associated with tobacco use.
         According to the American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation, 13 states currently prohibit the use of all tobacco products both indoors and outdoors on the grounds of correctional facilities.
Tobacco bills are SB289 and HB445.

Sen. Jim Lembke represents District 01 in SW St. Louis County, primarily just south of St. Louis City.

Rep. Chris Molendorp (R)

Sponsor of HB445 is Rep. Chris Molendorp (R – District 123) in Cass County, south of Kansas City, Mo.

2011/02/17 P-D: “Ritz-Carlton pays fine, says it won’t violate Clayton smoking ban again”

It’s good to see the City of Clayton treat all violators of its comprehensive smoke-free air law equally, including the Ritz-Carlton Hotel and its high rolling cigar smokers. (Well, not quite that high! They don’t have to smoke out on a window ledge.)

Ritz-Carlton pays fine, says it won’t violate Clayton smoking ban again

BY MARGARET GILLERMAN • > 314-725-6758 | Posted: Thursday, February 17, 2011 12:05 am | Comments (12 at 12:28 am on 2011/2/17))

Related Stories
         Missouri lawmaker seeks prison smoking ban
         Brentwood smoking ban may force American Legion post to close
         County smoking ban proves a burden for nursing homes
         Workplaces turning to tobacco-free hiring

CLAYTON • The Ritz-Carlton St. Louis on Wednesday agreed to pay a fine of $300 and court costs of $26.50 for violating Clayton’s smoking ban by proceeding with the hotel’s annual Cigar Club ball.
         The Ritz also agreed to comply with the city’s ordinance in the future, said Clayton Police Chief Tom Byrne.
         That apparently means the end of the Cigar Club’s annual black-tie ball in the hotel’s ballroom.
         More than 300 people attended the ball on Jan. 22, and smoking was common. The hotel’s lawyers had interpreted a section of the Clayton ordinance — a clause allowing smoking in 20 percent of a hotel’s rooms — to cover the ballroom. (The Ritz does have an exemption for the Cigar Club lounge, but that was too small for the ball.)
         Clayton held that the ballroom was not exempt, and police ticketed Ritz general manager Patrick Franssen that night.
         Neither he nor anyone else in Ritz management could be reached for comment Wednesday.
         But the mood Wednesday afternoon in the Cigar Club lounge was decidedly pro-cigar.
         One customer, who asked not to be identified, lamented the loss of the ball.
         “It’s a very fun event and wonderful evening for members of a private club,” the man said. “As long as hotel guests don’t complain, I think the privacy of the club ought to be respected.” Smoking bans went into effect in both St. Louis and St. Louis County on Jan. 2. Clayton’s smoke-free ordinance went into effect on July 1.
         Mayor Linda Goldstein said last month after the incident that the Clayton Board of Aldermen would review and consider amending the smoking ban ordinance to clarify the wording. She said the management at the Ritz was “very apologetic.”
         The maximum penalties for violating Clayton’s ordinance are a $1,000 fine and 90 days in jail.

2011/2/15 KMOV TV: “Missouri lawmakers called ‘hypocritical’ for allowing smoking in House”

A Republican member of the House was left fumbling for words to defend smoking in House member’s offices when interviewed by reporter Maggie Crane in this recent KMOV News Channel 4 TV report.

Some good quotes by both asthmatic Rossie Judd and Rep. Jeanette Mott Oxford, also an asthmatic, have been bolded in the transcript below, which also includes screen shots.

Missouri lawmakers called ‘hypocritical’ for allowing smoking in House
Posted on February 15, 2011 at 9:24 PM
Updated Tuesday, Feb 15 at 10:36 PM

KMOV News Channel 4 – Anchor Larry Connners and co-anchor Vickie Newton in the studio:

KMOV anchors Vickie Newton & Larry Connors

Larry Connners: In other news tonight, one woman taking on Big Government, and losing. Missouri lawmakers are firing back at a Fenton woman who wants the Capitol to go smoke-free.

Vickie Newton: We first told you about her complaint, filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act, two weeks ago. Well tonight, News 4’s Maggie Crane went to the Capitol to find out why lawmakers refuse to budge.

Rossie Judd (being interviewed by reporter Maggie Crane in a parking lot):
Wherever I go it’s just the right to breathe. It’s just like somebody having the right to work.

Rossie Judd being interviewed by reporter Maggie Crane

Maggie Crane (off camera):          Wherever she goes, Rossie Judd carries an inhaler and says smoking allowed inside the state Capitol stops her from visiting because of chronic breathing problems.

Close-up of Rossie Judd's inhaler

         She filed a complaint hoping to ban smoking in the statehouse once and for all.
         But the House says there are plenty of nonsmoking areas, like hallways, rotundas, and meeting rooms.
         But not inside lawmakers’ offices, and the House refuses to change.
         Republican Rep. Darrell Pollack voted down the smoking ban. He doesn’t smoke, but says it’s a matter of personal choice.

Reporter Maggie Crane interviewing Rep. Darrell Pollack in his House office

Maggie Crane (interviewing Rep. Darrell Pollack in his Capitol office): “All Missouri state buildings are smoke-free. Why should the Capitol be different?

Rep. Darrell Pollack, chair of the Committee on Utilities, but not in the Republican leadership

Rep. Darrell Pollack: “Well, um, again, I think if you have individual offices they are, er, that Representative can be held accountable one way or the other. And I don’t have to tell him whether or not he can or cannot do in that office.”

Rossie Judd (being interviewed in parking lot): “They’re not private offices, they belong to the public. We put them in there; we pay them salaries.

Reporter Maggie Crane outside door leading from House chamber to private Member's Lounge

Maggie Crane: “For the first time in history Representatives voted as one — unanimously approving the House rules. With it came a change to not allow smoking in the House Lounge just behind the chamber. Still — not good enough for some.”

Rep. Jeanette Mott Oxford being interviewed in Capitol

Rep. Jeanette Mott-Oxford: “There aren’t Republican lungs and Democrat lungs. There are only human lungs, and all of us are in danger from second-hand smoke.

Maggie Crane (off-camera): St. Louis Democrat Jeanette Mott-Oxford says the air is shared, subjecting anyone in the Capitol to other lawmakers’ smoke.

Maggie Crane (interviewing Rep. Oxford in state Capitol): “Do you think this sends a message that lawmakers are above the law?

Rep. Oxford: “Unfortunately, I do. I think it’s hypocritical of us to, um, have rules for others that we don’t put ourselves under.”

Maggie Crane: “She hopes for change, but knows that, like any law, it won’t happen overnight. In Jefferson City, Maggie Crane, News 4.”

Following goes to KMOV Channel 4 web page with story:

Following goes directly to KMOV Channel 4 video report:

2011/2/15: Are St. Louis County businesses abiding by new smoke-free air law signage requirement?

While checking out Steve Patterson’s insightful St. Louis City blog, Urban Review STL, I came across this one he’d posted on January 5th, 2011:

Readers: Businesses Will Think They Are Grandfathered On New Smoke-Free Laws

In it Steve described going to a restaurant which lacked the required “No Smoking” symbol on the door which prompted him to run a reader’s poll on the subject, and follow up by surveying businesses on Washington Avenue for compliance. He found none displaying the requisite signage. That prompted me to do a quick spot check of a few businesses in downtown Ferguson on Florissant Rd. in North St. Louis County.

St. Louis County "No Smoking" sign with additional verbiage relating to ordinance added at bottom.

Just to recap, both St. Louis City’s and St. Louis County’s smoke-free air laws were approved after Proposition N received more than 65% of the vote on November 2, 2009, but didn’t take effect until January 2, 2010. It was said that the delay was to give bars time to seek and obtain an exemption.

All affected businesses are now expected to display either the internationally recognized “No Smoking” symbol or one like that approved by the St. Louis County Health Department, shown above.

I checked out two businesses in downtown Ferguson where I knew smoking had previously been allowed plus one that I knew to be smokefree. None complied with the law.

Cohen's Upholstery, 17 S. Florissant Rd. 63135
Photo: Jan. 5, 2011. Still no sign on Feb. 14.

The two businesses where smoking has been allowed in the past – Cohen’s Upholstery and Vincenzo’s Italian Ristorante – displayed no signage. The smoke-free restaurant had a small “No Smoking” sign on the inner door predating the ordinance but not one on the outer entry door as the ordinance requires.

It’s clearly more important for formerly smoking-permitted businesses to put up signage and remove ashtrays to comply with the law, since those with a history of being smoke-free aren’t going to deliberately flout the law.

Cohen’s Upholstery has a good reputation for its work. Unfortunately, both owners and employees smoke, and two pieces of furniture re-upholstered for me by Cohen’s smelled of tobacco smoke for months after taking them home.

Vincenzo's Italian Ristorante, 242 S. Florissant Rd. 63135.
Photo: Jan. 5, 2011. Still no sign Feb. 14.

I visited Vincenzo’s years ago to check it out when it first opened and discovered that as soon as you enter, there’s a bar on the right where smoking is allowed, just across the hall from the entrance to the restaurant.

It’s potentially a restaurant I’d like to patronize on occasions if it were smoke-free, so once I’m sure it is abiding by the new St. Louis County rules I hope to sample its cuisine.

The Thyme Table Cafe, 304 S. Florissant Rd. 63135

The Thyme Table Cafe offers reasonably priced and well-prepared midday meals with waitress service.

The Thyme Table inner door No Smoking sign

Owner Farzad Faramarzi, who regrettably passed away recently, also ran the Savoy Banquet Center nearby. He was an early booster of the City of Ferguson and his loss was mourned by many.

The Thyme Table started in a much smaller venue on Church Street about a mile further north. While in that location Mr. Faramarzi polled his patrons and found they overwhelmingly supported a smoke-free environment. That’s when his cafe went smoke-free, well before the smoke-free movement started to take hold in St. Louis.
On Thursday, January 27th, 2011, I was pleased to attend Ferguson City Council’s Annual Boards and Commissions Dinner as a member of the Traffic Commission, held at the Savoy. My concern with such events is always: will they be posted “No Smoking” on the entry door and will ashtrays be removed to alert attendees and ensure it’s a smoke-free event?

My experience is that without doing those two things, now required by law, smoking is likely to occur, especially in the bar area. I’ve even seen attendees pop outside to smoke while holding the emergency exit open with a foot, which results in secondhand smoke still migrating inside. With the signage on both the main entry door and the emergency exit and no ashtrays. no smoking occurred at this event.

Click either image below repeatedly to enlarge:

Close-up of No Smoking sign on Savoy main entry door

The Savoy Banquet & Entertainment Center, 119 S. Florissant Rd.

Immediately below is the link to St. Louis County’s Indoor Clean Air Code on the web and below that is reproduced the section listing both where smoking is now prohibited and where it is still allowed.

(Note: Not bolded in the original text but blue bolded here are the sections dealing with the removal of ashtrays and required “No Smoking” signage.)

605.040 Prohibition of smoking in enclosed places of employment and other public places. —
1. It shall be unlawful for any person within an enclosed place of employment to possess lighted or heated smoking materials in any form, including but not limited to the possession of lighted or heated cigarettes, cigars, pipes or other tobacco products.
2. It shall be unlawful for any person within an enclosed public place, or within any other places hereinafter specified, to possess lighted or heated smoking materials in any form, including but not limited to the possession of lighted or heated cigarettes, cigars, pipes or other tobacco products, including but not limited to the following places:
a. Elevators in public buildings;
b. Restrooms in public buildings;
c. Libraries, educational facilities, childcare and adult day care facilities, museums, auditoriums, aquariums and art galleries;
d. Any health care facility, health clinic or ambulatory care facilities, including, but not limited to: laboratories associated with the rendition of health care treatment, hospitals, nursing homes, doctors’ offices and dentists’ offices;
e. Any indoor place of entertainment or recreation, including, but not limited to gymnasiums, theaters, concert halls, bingo halls, arenas and swimming pools;
f. Service lines;
g. Facilities primarily used for exhibiting a motion picture, stage, drama, lecture, musical recital or other similar performance;
h. Shopping malls or retail establishments;
i. Indoor and outdoor sports arenas;
j. Restaurants, including lounge and bar areas, except outdoor dining areas;
k. Convention facilities;
l. All indoor public areas and waiting rooms of public transportation facilities, including, but not limited to bus and mass transportation facilities;
m. Any other area used by the public or serving as a place of work;
n. Every room, chamber, place of meeting or public assembly, including school buildings under the control of any board, council, commission, committee, including, but not limited to joint committees, or agencies of the County or any political subdivision of the state during such time as a public meeting is in progress, to the extent such place is subject to the jurisdiction of the County;
o. All enclosed areas owned by the County;
p. Rooms in which meetings or hearings open to the public are held, except where such rooms are in a private residence;
q. Sidewalks, driveways and other open areas within fifteen (15) feet of the entry to any building owned or occupied by any governmental entity, or within fifteen (15) feet of the entry to any building open to the public; provided, however, that this entryway prohibition shall not apply within outside dining areas where smoking is permitted or to entries that are located less than fifty (50) feet from another public entry.
3. It shall be unlawful to dispose of smoking waste, or to place or maintain a receptacle for smoking waste, in an area in which smoking is prohibited under this chapter.
(O. No. 24105, 8-25-09)

605.050 Responsibilities of proprietors, owners and managers. —
1. It shall be unlawful for any person having control of a place listed in this chapter knowingly to permit, cause, suffer or allow any person to violate the provisions of this chapter. It shall be an affirmative defense to an alleged violation of this subsection that the person having control of a place has asked that the lighted or heated cigarette, cigar, pipe or other tobacco product be extinguished and asked the person to leave the establishment if that person has failed or refused to extinguish the lighted or heated cigarette, cigar, pipe or other tobacco product.

2. A person having control of a place shall clearly and conspicuously post “No Smoking” signs or the international “No Smoking” symbol (consisting of a pictorial representation of a burning cigarette enclosed in a red circle with a red bar across it) near all entrances where smoking is prohibited pursuant to this chapter. Such signage shall consist of letters not less than one inch in height.
3. It shall be the responsibility of employers to provide smoke-free workplaces for all employees.
4. All employers shall supply a written copy of the smoking policy upon request to any existing or prospective employee.
(O. No. 24105, 8-25-09)

605.060 Exceptions.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter to the contrary, the following shall not be subject to the smoking restrictions of this chapter:

a. Private residences, not serving as enclosed places of employment or enclosed public places;
b. Private clubs;
c. Performers on stage in a theatrical production, where smoking is required as part of the production;
d. Private and semi-private rooms in nursing homes and long-term care facilities, the residents of which are all smokers and have all requested the management of the facility to be placed in a room where smoking is permitted;
e. Retail establishments in which food is not prepared on the premises and where more than 60% of the volume of trade or business carried on is the sale of tobacco and tobacco-related products;
f. Permanently designated smoking rooms, not to exceed twenty percent of the guest rooms;
g. Cigar bars, provided such entity is in operation on or before the effective date of this chapter and provided that smoke does not infiltrate into areas where smoking is otherwise prohibited;
h. Casino gaming areas;
i. Drinking establishments which are in operation on or before the effective date of this chapter; provided, however, that no smoke infiltrates into areas where smoking is otherwise prohibited, and further provided that each such drinking establishment has posted in a place visible to the public from its exterior a certificate of exemption issued by the Department of Revenue pursuant to Section 605.076;
j. Areas designated and posted as smoking areas by the Airport Authority of Lambert St. Louis International Airport pursuant to Section 721.045, Title VII SLCRO 1974 as amended.
(O. No. 24105, 8-25-09)

2011/02/11: Celebrating smoke-free air in formerly smokey O’Connell’s Pub, St. Louis City

Reminder: A comment for consideration must be accompanied by your full name. First names only and pseudonyms are not accepted. Similarly, please limit your comment to 1,000 characters, which is twice that set by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

County Citizens for Cleaner Air co-chairs, Jane Suozzi and Charles Gatton, at the kickoff meeting on Tuesday, September 29th, 2009.

On Tuesday, September 29th, 2009, a group of citizens came together to form County Citizens for Cleaner Air to support Proposition-N, the ballot initiative to approve St. Louis County’s smoke-free air ordinance. It kicked off a hectic few weeks before the successful vote on Tuesday, November 3rd which eventually ushered in smoke-free air in most public places and workplaces in St. Louis City and County on January 2, 2011.

That original meeting was reported in the mogasp blog Post-Dispatch 10/14/2009: “Push to derail smoking ban begins” which also described opposition efforts to defeat Proposition-N.

Some of the individuals involved in the successful grass-roots campaign finally got to savor that victory.

To mark the law going into effect in the City of St. Louis on January 2, 2011, several members of County Citizens for Cleaner Air (CCCAir) gathered on Friday night, February 11th, 2011, at O’Connell’s Pub, a popular watering hole on Shaw Ave. just off of Kingshighway.

It was chosen because it offered good pub grub with specialties such as a massive roast beef sandwich, which I sampled. Before the law took effect the pub required a gas mask to enter for anyone who was smoke-sensitive.

On Friday night at 6 pm it was already crowded with a line of patrons waiting to be seated in the dining area but not a whiff of tobacco smoke.

What a difference a law can make!

Members of the CCCAir party were already holding a spot at the front of the waiting line when I arrived at 6 pm but it was 7 pm before the group was seated, and 7:45 pm before food was served, so if you arrive with an appetite, as I did, be patient! But it’s worth the wait and the quantity is so generous you’ll have plenty of leftovers to take home with you.

Some members of the original CCCAir group, such as Dr. Stuart Slavin of St. Louis University School of Public Health, Jean Loemker who helped set up the first of several meetings, and Ernie Wolf, former owner of a smoke-free St. Louis business, didn’t make it, but go to Prop-N passes by large majority! Supporters buoyed by success to see some photos taken at Pi Pizzeria on Manchester Rd. near Kirkwood the night the Prop-N votes were tallied.

Charles Gatton, co-chair of Prop-N, his spouse, and Jane Suozzi, the other co-chair, waiting at the head of the line in O'Connell's Pub.

Leann Chilton, BJC Healthcare, dropped by and treated Charles Gatton & spouse, Jane Suozzi and others to a drink.

Pat Lindsey from St. Louis University, Executive Director of Tobacco Free St. Louis, and Jane Suozzi in conversation

Marc Hartstein, Hart Communications, in conversation with former County Councilwoman Barbara Fraser, whose bill led to the Prop-N vote. Marc provided invaluable analysis that helped focus limited resources prior to the vote.

Mrs. Gatton talking to Martha Bhattacharya, PhD, a postgraduate researcher at Washington University St. Louis, who was CCCAir Treasurer.

Marc Hartstein presenting framed memento of campaign to Martin Pion, president of MoGASP, which actively supported Prop-N.

2011/02/12 P-D: “Nursing homes find smoking ban a burden”

Please note: If you submit a comment for consideration please provide your full name. First names only and pseudonyms are not accepted. Similarly, please limit your comment to 1,000 characters, which is twice that set by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

The reaction of some nursing home operators to the new county and city smoke-free air laws creates a dilemma. An addicted smoker in a nursing home is likely to have a problem with being denied smoking privileges that formerly were taken for granted. At the same time, employees should not have to be exposed to secondhand smoke while on the job.

There’s also the issue of “Enabling behavior.” That’s the term used for someone who assists an alcoholic, for example, by denying that it’s a problem. The first priority from a health standpoint is instead to try and help that person to quit.

When it comes to smoking, though, enabling behavior seems to be the norm, at least in a nursing home! There’s something of a disconnect there, but clearly people are blind to it. It bears a striking similarity to what happened just last week when four Brentwood aldermen voted to allow smoking back in a VFW post.

And it wasn’t all THAT long ago that I recall smoking being allowed in hospitals, on the oncology floor with cancer patients no less. I visited Barnes Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, some years ago to speak to a person in public relations. I entered past a guard who was smoking, and waited in the visitor’s lobby where there was a smoking section.

The hospital gift shop also sold cigarettes and I asked about that too.

I was told it was unreasonable to expect patients (or their visitors) to smoke outside the hospital. And as for the gift shop, it was manned by volunteers raising money for the hospital and selling cigarettes was for the convenience of the patients.

Rather than set an example, ALL local hospitals – not just BJC – lagged behind in providing a smoke-free environment. Hospitals didn’t want to turn away their best customers: smokers suffering from smoking-induced illnesses. It all came down to money.

County smoking ban proves a burden for nursing homes

BY PAUL HAMPEL • > 314-727-6234 | Posted: Saturday, February 12, 2011 12:05 am | Comments (53 @ 2:42 pm 2/12/11)

CLAYTON • St. Louis County’s new smoking ban is proving to be a great inconvenience for nursing homes, operators say.
         The ban included an exemption that allows smoking in residents’ rooms if all occupants agree. But state law requires that all smoking be supervised in nursing homes.
         That was not a problem when smoking was permitted in common areas. But nursing home operators say they do not have enough personnel to supervise smoking in individual rooms.
         Last week, Cheryl Wilson, director of the Long Term Care Ombudsman Program in Brentwood, wrote to members of the County Council to ask them to revise the ordinance to allow smoking in designated areas of the facilities. The ombudsman program is federally funded and oversees long-term care facilities.
         “We’ve been getting calls from facilities asking ‘What do we do?'” Wilson said. “What this (ban) has done is effectively outlaw smoking in all nursing homes because it’s just impossible for them to supervise smoking in each and every room.”
         Wilson cited a state regulation that allows smoking “only in designated areas.”
         County Counselor Patricia Redington said the county’s ban, which took effect Jan. 2, is consistent with the state regulation, though she concedes that allowing smoking in individual rooms may prove inconvenient for nursing homes.
         “The ban was crafted to have very minimal exceptions and I suspect the County Council did not want smoking in lounges where workers might be exposed,” Redington said.
         A smoking ban that took effect in the city of St. Louis at the same time as the county’s prohibits smoking in all “private and semi-private rooms” of nursing homes and does not include an exemption for residents’ rooms.
         Wilson said that nursing home operators have told her that, by and large, they have been ignoring the law and allowing residents to continue smoking as they had before, though not in their rooms, as that is considered a fire hazard.
         “You can’t expect older people to go outside and smoke right after we’ve had an ice storm,” Wilson said. “One nursing home has a 100-year-old man who has been smoking since he was 10 years old. How can you tell him he can’t smoke anymore?”

County Council Chairman Steve Stenger, at swearing in ceremony, St. Louis County Government Center, January 1, 2011

         County Council Chairman Steve Stenger, D-Affton, said the smoking ban included an exemption to allow people to smoke inside their homes, and the council wanted nursing home residents to be included in that exemption.
         “Any time that you legislate for the public health, and particularly with a smoking ban, there are going to be ramifications,” Stenger said.
         He said the council is willing to meet with nursing home operators and residents.
         “We want to do anything we can for nursing homes to protect the rights of the residents and do that in the least-restrictive way possible,” Stenger said. “We’ll figure out something that is mutually agreeable.”

2011/02/10 P-D: “Missouri Athletic Club fined for smoking violation”

This is the first known example of a fine being imposed by the City of St. Louis on a scofflaw organization claiming to be exempt from the new smoke-free air law, which went into effect on January 2, 2011. A similar law became effective in St. Louis County on the same day.

Are there any other examples of violations?

Pat Lindsey, Executive Director of Tobacco-Free St. Louis, suggests there are in the article below. That would not be surprising, since no law exists which is 100% effective, but the city and county should do everything possible to ensure compliance.

Missouri Athletic Club fined for smoking violation

BY DAVID HUNN 314-436-2239 | Posted: Thursday, February 10, 2011 9:00 am | Comments (82 by 10:57 am on 2/10/11)

Missouri Athletic Club, St. Louis City

ST. LOUIS • One of the city’s most venerable private organizations, the Missouri Athletic Club, has refused to outlaw smoking in its downtown building and has been cited by the city — touching off a confrontation that, if escalated, could lead to the club’s closure.
         The city’s health department sent a notice of violation earlier this week and fined the club $100.
         If the Missouri Athletic Club continues to allow smoking, the health department can issue two more fines, of up to $700 total, by law. And if that doesn’t clear the air, the city could declare the MAC a public nuisance, which would give the health department the authority to shut it down.
         The violation is the first the city has sent to an establishment since a smoking ban took effect Jan. 2.
         “Nobody’s above the law,” Mayor Francis Slay said on Wednesday. “Hopefully, we can convince them we’re on the right side. If not, we’ll have to take it further. This is about public health.”
         MAC President Chris Lawhorn declined to discuss the issue.
         “Because we’re a private club, we are addressing matters internally,” he said. “And we intend to keep our matters private.”
         Health director Pam Walker said the club administration told one of her inspectors Friday that MAC attorneys believe the club is private and is therefore exempt from the ban. MAC rules, the inspector had been told, allow smoking in the lobby, inside the first floor’s Jack Buck Grille, and in a section of the employee lounge.
         The city disagrees.
         “The ordinance says private clubs who do not have employees are exempt,” Walker said. “Since they have employees, we do not feel we can exempt them.”
         The city’s smoking ban exempts establishments if they meet certain criteria. Bars, for instance, must not make more than 25 percent of their revenue from food sales. And private clubs can’t have employees.
         St. Louis County, which enacted a similar ban on Jan. 2, has not cited any establishments for violations, said county health director Dolores Gunn. She didn’t know of any businesses that have told the county they were going to continue allowing smoking, regardless of the law.
         In Clayton, which has its own ban, managers at the Ritz-Carlton were apologetic late last month after getting ticketed for hosting a cigar club party, according to city officials.
         Walker said no other business or group in the city has told her overtly that they weren’t going to follow the law.
         But others say it’s unclear if the MAC is the only establishment scoffing at the ban, pointing to accounts of bars and restaurants still freely allowing smoking.

Pat Lindsey, TFMo STL

         “I have a feeling things are running amok in the city,” said Pat Lindsey, executive director of Tobacco-Free St. Louis, which pushed for the ban.
         Walker, however, has said that city inspectors would get to each establishment in the city as they could.
         The MAC has been an exclusive athletic, dining and social club for more than 100 years. In January, health inspectors visited the club after receiving complaints about smoking.
         On Jan. 4, an MAC manager admitted to an inspector that the club was letting patrons smoke but claimed he couldn’t change the situation without a decision by the board. Walker gave the club a month to comply.
         On Jan. 19, inspector James Boswell contacted MAC general manager Larry Thompson again, according to the city violation notice sent to the club. Thompson said his attorneys told him the smoking ban “does not impact the MAC.”
         By late January, the MAC was still hosting cigar-puffing happy hours. One Friday night, at least a half-dozen men stood around the club’s first floor bar, tumblers in one hand, stogies in the other.

2011/02/08: Is research done by Tobacco Control now more biased & less reliable than Big Tobacco’s?

“Mogasp, it’s sad to say, but I think that actually today you may find MORE corruption of various kinds in research funded by Tobacco Control than that funded by Big Tobacco.”

The above is an excerpt from a pro-smoking advocate’s comment submitted in response to the mogasp blog 2011/01/30: “Marshall Keith’s argument that ADA doesn’t apply to private businesses and rebuttal from Billy Williams, GASP of TX

How many of you read it and dismissed it as having no merit?

I felt it worth pursuing and you may too when you read what follows, which is the comment in full and then an observation on it by Dr. Michael Siegel, Professor in the Department of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health. Dr. Siegel writes the insightful and popular blog The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary.

Michael McFadden, author of Dissecting Antismokers' Brains

Michael J. McFadden
Submitted on 2011/02/07 at 2:19 pm

Mogasp, it’s sad to say, but I think that actually today you may find MORE corruption of various kinds in research funded by Tobacco Control than that funded by Big Tobacco.
         Why do I say that? Two reasons:

1) Big Tobacco researchers know that their work is going to held under a microscope and sliced to ribbons for the slightest defect or hint of bias. Tobacco Control researchers are largely immune to that sort of scrutiny except by folks like me (and, lately, people like Siegel, Whelan, Sullum, Snowdon, FORCES, F2C et al)

2) Big Tobacco researchers have one main motivation: Money. They research for a living, they enjoy it, and PM/RJR pays them well for it. Tobacco Control researchers do it for both money AND for idealism. That idealism both blinds them to inadvertant bias AND pushes them toward actual fraud “for the greater good.” It also insulates their work from substantial criticism by the mainstream medical research community. I believe the combo of those two motivations produces more bad work from Tobacco Control than from Big Tobacco today.


Although Michael McFadden is a strong and unwavering pro-smoking advocate, he raises an interesting and troubling question: Is the Tobacco Control movement MORE corrupt than Big Tobacco because they are now more apt to distort findings of fact in studies and reports than the latter, on the grounds that the ends justify the means?

I found that hard to believe but at the same time I’ve noted that Dr. Siegel has been critical of the Tobacco Control community for just this reason, frequently holding their feet to the fire on his influential blog. Consequently, I asked him for a response to McFadden’s allegation and have pasted it below:

Dr. Michael Siegel, Boston University School of Medicine

From: Michael Siegel
Subject: RE: Tobacco control research now more biased/less reliable than Big Tobacco’s?
Date: February 7, 2011 4:27:25 PM CST

I wouldn’t say that there is MORE bias in tobacco-funded research than tobacco control research; however, I believe that in recent times, we are seeing what could be said to be an equal amount of bias in tobacco control research.
         The smoking ban – heart attack studies are perhaps the best example of this. I have documented many examples of this bias on my blog.
         I also would hesitate to use the word “corruption” for what tobacco control scientists are doing. It is bias, for sure – shoddy science, for sure. But I wouldn’t use the word corruption.
         In contrast, I would use the word corruption to describe much of what Big Tobacco has done with respect to bogus research.
         Nevertheless, Michael’s point is an important one and deserves attention from tobacco control researchers and groups. We need to become more rigorous in our science and avoid any possible comparisons with Big Tobacco research.

2011/02/07: Brentwood votes to retain strong smoke-free air ordinance

At a meeting of the Brentwood City Council in St. Louis County on Monday, February 7th, 2011, council members failed by one vote to weaken the present strong smoke-free air ordinance and exempt the local American Legion post. The vote was 4 supporting the amendment to 3 opposed but 5 votes – a majority of the 8 member council – was required.

Errata: This blog originally mistakenly noted it as the VFW post, instead of the American Legion Goff-Moll Post 101, 2721 Collier Ave, Brentwood, MO 63144 | 314-961-3263. The error has now been corrected.

American Legion Goff-Moll Post 101, Brentwood

Note: Mr. Chris Seemayer, City Clerk & Administrator, explained later that Brentwood, with a population of approximately 7,600, opted for status as a 4th class city. Ordinance procedure is governed by Chapter 79 of the Missouri State Statutes when it comes to voting on a bill, specifically 79.130

Two people spoke in favor of retaining the current ordinance and not approve any weakening amendments, one being Martin Pion, president of Missouri GASP (Group Against Smoking Pollution), who spoke first. A member of the local American Legion Goff-Moll Post 101 spoke in favor of the amendment and remarked that it was the government who had originally provided free cigarettes to servicemen.

Martin Pion testifying in favor of Brentwood's strong smoke-free air ordinance and not weakening it.
City Clerk/Administrator, Chris Seemayer, is at right in the background.

Pion pointed out that while the St. Louis City and County ordinances which had gone into effect on January 2, 2011, provided important protections for many individuals, they had been the result of significant compromise, due in particular to pressure from the casinos and local bars. Those exemptions created an unfair situation for workers, all of whom deserved smoke-free air.

The ordinance already enacted by the City of Brentwood removed most of those exemptions. Of the four it contained, private residences and 25% of hotel/motel guest rooms were similar to those in the latest model ordinance recommended by Americans for Nonsmokers Rights, dated April 2010. The only other two exemptions remaining were private vehicles and retail tobacco stores. Brentwood’s ordinance was also an important blueprint for other local municipalities to follow.

Note: These are the only exemptions allowed in ANR’s current model ordinance, which regularly gets reviewed and updated as more stringent ordinances nationwide become the norm:

A. Private residences, unless used as a childcare, adult day care, or health care facility, and except as provided in Section 1007.

B. Not more than ten percent (10%) of hotel and motel rooms rented to guests and designated as smoking rooms. All smoking rooms on the same floor must be contiguous and smoke from these rooms must not infiltrate into areas where smoking is prohibited under the provisions of this Article. The status of rooms as smoking or nonsmoking may not be changed, except to add additional nonsmoking rooms.

C. Outdoor areas of places of employment except those covered by the provisions of Section 1008.

Alderman Leahy proposing an amendment to exempt the local American Legion post

Alderman Andrew (“Andy”) Leahy, who sponsored the amendment to exempt the local American Legion post, said that during the time since the ordinance had gone into effect on January 1, 2011, attendance had dropped to one-third of normal. When members were asked their preference on the ordinance approximately 50 were in favor of requesting an exemption while only a few voted for smoke-free air. He stated that since cigarettes were a legal product it was inappropriate to impose restrictions on their use by members of the American Legion post. He added that members were also planning to apply for a liquor license.

After some debate on the measure, with at least one council member noting that several of her family members had died from cigarette-related diseases, the final vote tally was 4 in favor of the granting the American Legion post exemption to 3 opposed. It needed 5 votes, a majority of the council, to amend the existing ordinance.

The full text of the existing ordinance is pasted below with exemptions picked out in black:


Editor’s Note–Ordinance no. 4243 repealed article XII, “Offenses Involving Smoking” and set out new provisions herein. Former §§13-250–13-255 derived from ord. no. 3084 §2, 9-17-90 and ord. no. 3597 §1, 4-6-98.

*Cross references: Administration, Ch. 2; alcoholic beverages, Ch. 3; buildings and building regulations, Ch. 6; fire prevention and protection, Ch. 9; licenses, taxation and miscellaneous business regulations, Ch. 12.


Sec. 13-250. Purpose

The purposes of this Article are (1) to promote public health by creating environments which reduce citizens’ and workers’ exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke and (2) to create tobacco smoke free environments for citizens and workers through regulation in public places and the workplace.

(Ord. No. 4243 §§1–2, 8-16-10)

Sec. 13-251. Definitions.

(a) The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Article, shall be construed as defined in this Section:

Bar means an establishment that is devoted to the serving of alcoholic beverages for consumption by guests on the premises and in which the serving of food is only incidental to the consumption of those beverages, including, but not limited to, taverns, nightclubs, cocktail lounges and cabarets.

Code Enforcement Officer means the fire marshal or his or her designee.

Employee means any person who performs services for an employer, with or without compensation.

Employer means a person, partnership, association, corporation, trust, or other organized group of individuals, including the City or any agency thereof, which utilizes the services of one (1) or more employees.

Enclosed means a space bound on all sides by walls or windows continuous from the floor to the ceiling and enclosed by doors, including, but not limited to, lobbies, offices, rooms, all space therein screened by partitions, which do not extend to the ceiling or are not solid, “office landscaping” or similar structures, and hallways.

Place of employment means any enclosed area under the control of a public or private employer which employees normally frequent during the course of employment, including, but not limited to, work areas, employee lounges and restrooms, conference rooms and classrooms, employee cafeterias and hallways. A private residence is not a “place of employment” unless it is used as a childcare, adult daycare or health care facility.

Public place means any enclosed area to which the public is invited or in which the public is permitted, including, but not limited to, banks, educational facilities, health facilities, laundering facilities, public transportation facilities, reception areas, production and marketing establishments, retail service establishments, retail stores, theaters and waiting rooms.

Restaurant means an eating establishment, including, but not limited to, coffee shops, cafeterias, sandwich stands, and private and public school cafeterias, which gives or offers at no cost or for sale food to the public, guests, or employees, as well as kitchens and catering facilities in which food is prepared on the premises for serving elsewhere. The term “restaurant” shall include an attached bar.

Smoking means inhaling, exhaling, burning or carrying any lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe or other tobacco product.

(Ord. No. 4243 §§1–2, 8-16-10)

Sec. 13-252. Prohibition of smoking in all enclosed places of employment and all enclosed public places.

(a) Smoking shall be prohibited in all enclosed places of employment within the City of Brentwood.

(b) Smoking shall be prohibited in all enclosed public places within the City of Brentwood, including but not limited to the following enclosed places:

(1) Elevators;

(2) Restrooms;

(3) Libraries, educational facilities, child care and adult daycare facilities, museums, auditoriums, aquariums and art galleries;

(4) Any health care facility, health clinic or ambulatory care facilities, including but not limited to laboratories associated with the rendition of health care treatment, hospitals, nursing homes, doctors’ offices and dentists’ offices;

(5) Any place of entertainment or recreation, including but not limited to gymnasiums, theaters, concert halls, bingo halls, billiard halls, bowling alleys, arenas, health spas, swimming pools and roller and ice skating rinks;

(6) Any place used for exhibiting a motion picture, stage drama, lecture, musical recital, or other similar performance;

(7) Shopping malls;

(8) Bars;

(9) Restaurants;

(10) Convenience facilities;

(11) All public areas and waiting rooms of public transportation facilities, including but not limited to bus and train facilities;

(12) All facilities, buildings, and all vehicles owned, leased or operated by the City Brentwood; and

(13) Rooms in which meetings or hearings open to the public are held, except where such meetings or hearings are in a private residence.

(14) Any vehicle of public transportation, including, but not limited to, buses, limousines for hire and taxicabs.

(Ord. No. 4243 §§1–2, 8-16-10)

Sec. 13-253. Responsibilities of proprietors, owners and managers.

(a) A person who owns, manages, operates, or otherwise controls a place listed in Section 13-252 shall not knowingly permit, cause, suffer or allow any person to violate the provisions of this Article in such place. It shall be an affirmative defense to an alleged violation of this Article that a person who owns, manages, operates or otherwise controls a place listed in Section 13-252 has asked that the lighted cigarette, cigar, pipe or other tobacco product be extinguished or asked the person to leave the establishment if that person has failed or refused to extinguish the lighted cigarette, cigar, pipe or other tobacco products.

(b) A person who owns, manages, operates or otherwise controls a place listed in Section 13-252 shall clearly and conspicuously post “No Smoking” signs or the international “No Smoking” symbol (consisting of a pictorial representation of a burning cigarette enclosed in a red circle with a red bar across it) near all entrances where smoking is prohibited by this Article.

(Ord. No. 4243 §§1–2, 8-16-10)

Sec. 13-254. Where smoking is not regulated.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Article to the contrary, smoking shall be permitted in any and all places not specified in Section 13-252. In particular, but not by limitation, the following shall not be subject to this Article.

(a) Private residences, except when used as licensed child care facilities, adult daycare facilities, health care facilities or enclosed places of employment.

(b) Private vehicles.

(c) Twenty-five percent (25%) of hotel and motel rooms may be permanently designated as smoking rooms.

(d) Retail tobacco stores that derive more than eighty percent (80%) of their total gross revenue from the sale of loose tobacco, cigarettes, cigars, pipes or other tobacco-related products, and which are not merely a department or subsection of a larger commercial establishment.

(Ord. No. 4243 §§1–2, 8-16-10)

Sec. 13-255. Penalty for violation of this article.

(a) A person who smokes in an area where smoking is prohibited by this Article shall be guilty of an Article violation, punishable by a fine of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for the first violation and fifty dollars ($50.00) for each subsequent violation.

(b) A person who owns, manages, operates or otherwise controls a public place or place of employment and who fails to comply with this Article shall be guilty of an Article violation, punishable by:

(1) A fine of fifty dollars ($50.00) for the first violation;

(2) A fine of one hundred dollars ($100.00) for a second violation within a one (1) year period; and

(3) A fine of two hundred dollars ($200.00) for a third or subsequent violation within a one (1) year period.

(c) Each day on which a violation of this Article occurs shall be a separate and distinct violation.

(Ord. No. 4243 §§1–2, 8-16-10)

Sec. 13-256. Other applicable laws.

This Article shall not be interpreted or construed to permit smoking where it is otherwise restricted by other applicable laws.

(Ord. No. 4243 §§1–2, 8-16-10)

Sec. 13-257. Construction.

This Article shall be strictly construed in any interpretation of its meaning. The provisions of this Article are severable. If any provision or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.

(Ord. No. 4243 §§1–2, 8-16-10)

Sec. 13-258. Enforcement of article.

(a) The authority to administer the provisions of this Article is vested in the fire marshal.

(b) The Code Enforcement Officer may call upon the fire and police departments and other departments of the City to aid in the enforcement of the provisions of this Article.

(c) Notice of the provisions of this Article shall be given to all applicants for a business license in the City of Brentwood, Missouri.

(d) Any person who desires to register a complaint under this Article may initiate enforcement with the fire marshal.

(Ord. No. 4243 §§1–2, 8-16-10)

Sec. 13-259. Prohibition of smoking by fire marshal or ordinance.

Nothing in this Article shall be construed to limit the authority of the fire marshal to designate locations in which smoking may be prohibited nor to repeal any order by the fire marshal prohibiting smoking in any location, nor to repeal any ordinance prohibiting smoking in any location.

(Ord. No. 4243 §§1–2, 8-16-10)

Sec. 13-260. Effective Date

This Article shall become effective on January 1, 2011.

(Ord. No. 4243 §§1–2, 8-16-10)

Secs. 13-261–13-270. Reserved.

2011/02/04 Springfield News-Leader: “Complaint filed over smoking at Capitol”

The following story a couple of days ago in the Springfield News-Leader is keeping the spotlight on smoking in legislator’s offices in the State Capitol. It includes a useful quote in response to the ADA complaint from Adam Crumbliss, the chief clerk of the Missouri House:

“House staff will accommodate people with disabilities who provide accommodation information.”

Ms. Rossie Judd wouldn’t need to provide any kind of notice regarding her disability or have a problem accessing the State Capitol and legislator’s offices if it were totally smoke-free.

The Background in a sidebar to the story, appended below, alludes to MoGASP’s earlier prolonged effort to make the State Capitol smoke-free, which resulted in a Memorandum of Agreement with the House, Senate and Office of Administration, dated February 5, 1999 (reproduced below).

Photos of Rossie Judd and Billy Williams: Martin Pion, MoGASP.

Complaint filed over smoking at Capitol
Fenton resident contends that she is being denied access due to her health.
Feb. 4, 2011
By Meghann Mollerus
State Capitol Bureau
Springfield News Leader

Jefferson City — Legislators smoking in their state Capitol building offices has prompted a federal complaint under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
         Rossie Judd from Fenton filed the federal complaint after the House on Jan. 13 rejected a ban on smoking in private offices.

Ms. Rossie Judd at St. Louis County Health Dept., Clayton, July 2004

          Judd says due to her health, she is being denied access to the Capitol.
In a statement to Keith Sappington, the ADA coordinator for the House, Judd said she has been disabled under the Social Security Act because of her asthma and chronic bronchitis, and thus qualifies as a person with a disability under the ADA.
         “I allege that the House of Representatives’ smoking policy has a disparate impact on the breathing disabled,” Judd wrote in her complaint. “I allege that I am being denied meaningful access to the House of Representatives as a result of its policy that allows members to smoke in their offices.”

Mr. Billy Williams at Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute Awards Ceremony, Miami Beach, FL, May 2004

         Judd is working with Billy Williams and an anti-smoking advocacy organization called Gasp of Texas.
         Williams, located in the state of Texas, has helped Judd since she initially filed a smoking complaint against the Chrysler plant in Fenton in 2003, where she worked for eight years.
         Williams says federal law requires a prompt response by the government to a disabilities complaint.
         Williams said if he does not receive a response from Sappington by Tuesday about smoking in House offices, he will send the complaint to the U.S. Department of Justice.

Adam Crumbliss, Chief Clerk, Missouri House, 2011

         The chief clerk of the Missouri House, Adam Crumbliss, said Judd is not being denied access to the House. He says House staff will accommodate people with disabilities who provide accommodation information. According to Crumbliss, Judd did not provide details of her disability needs prior to filing the ADA complaint.

“Memorandum of Agreement” relating to smoking in the State Capitol mentioned in the background sidebar to the above story, appended below.

Memo of Agreement between MoGASP and the entities controlling the State Capitol, Feb. 5, 1999

Click the above image repeatedly to enlarge.


The proposed change in House rules to ban office smoking was sponsored by Rep. Jeanette Oxford, D-St. Louis. She said that if her amendment had passed, she hoped the House would advocate the same policy in the Senate. The House defeated Oxford’s amendment 113-45.
         Majority Leader Tim Jones, R-St. Louis County, said Republicans voted no on the amendment because there are already smoking rules in place, including a compromise passed on Jan. 13 to ban smoking in a private room behind the House chamber.
         Other rules about smoking have been in place since both the House and Senate enacted a Memorandum of Agreement in February 1999. It requires that all public areas will be smoke free, including hallways, the rotunda, meeting rooms, chambers, restrooms, the cafeteria and elevators.
         Additionally, it said all staff offices open to the public are designated as non-smoking.
         Areas of the Capitol under control of the executive branch are completely smoke-free, except for a designated smoking area in a far corner of the basement garage.