map

		The Information you need!
		Search Archive:
	Login \| Contact Us \| Site Map \| Archives \| Photos \| Alerts Tuesday, February 09, 2010

Print this story | Email this story |

Comment (118 comment(s)) |

Rate |

Text Size

Smoke-free laws save lives, money

Advertisement

By Stan Cowan Jefferson City

Published: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 5:31 AM CDT

Dear Editor:

“Smoking bans save more than half a million lives each year in the U.S. alone. The savings, as measured in human lives, is undeniable.”

With these words, the Institute of Medicine, released a report Oct. 15 that found communities adopting ordinances for smoke-free workplaces and public places experienced significant declines in hospitalizations for heart attacks.

In just the previous month, two other studies concluded a 17 percent reduction in hospital admissions for heart attacks in the first year where community smoke-free ordinances were in effect.

What could this mean for Jefferson City?

Jefferson City sees an average of 70 hospitalizations for heart attacks each year. According to the studies, we could conservatively see 12 fewer attacks if the city had an ordinance for smoke-free public places and workplaces. This would also save the community more than $175,000 in hospitalizations, of which more than 60 percent is borne by the taxpayers through Medicare and other government programs.

And this is just in the first year. The research indicates the benefits of declining rates of heart attacks increases over time with an average 36 percent reduction after three years of a smoke-free ordinance in effect.

Many people don’t know they have heart disease until they experience the most common first symptom, a heart attack. About half of first-time heart attacks are fatal.

A dollar amount on the value of a life should not be considered as a negotiable factor to be outweighed by a perceived (and unsubstantiated) potential loss of profit to a business owner.

With a majority of the country’s population living in areas with laws for smoke-free public places, isn’t it time for Jefferson City to join the trend for a healthier community?

For more information and to sign up in support of clean air, contact Cole County Partners for Clean Air at www.smokefreeJC.com or 353-1623.


Scams spreading like virus		Response on zero tolerance

Article Rating

Advertisement

Before commenting read the News Tribune Forum's policies and procedures.
Thanks.

limerick54 wrote on Nov 12, 2009 11:02 AM:

" Travelin Rose: I did not attack YOU, I merely pointed out how ridiculous your comment was. I didn't say you were dumb for saying it and I understood your point. I just think the comparision was foolish. This isn't 3rd grade, be a grown up. "

bluenurse wrote on Nov 11, 2009 7:26 PM:

" Per reports, business in the St. Louis casinos picked up significantly when Illinois went smoke free; also when loss limits were removed - evidently Illinois still had that. So THIS is probably the big reason why the St. Louis County casinos will be exempt when the smoking ban takes effect.

The way I understand it, if this goes to the voters in St. Charles Co. it will be next year. How much do you all want to bet their casino will be exempt also? "

bluenurse wrote on Nov 11, 2009 7:23 PM:

" Some new information I just found out:

1. St. Charles county is looking at a smoking ban now that St. Louis Co. will be smoke free as of 1/2/11. One or two elected officials are trying to see if such a law could go anywhere.

2. Also I read in the SLPD this week that the casinos in metro east went smoke free whenever Ill. went smoke free (not sure when). Consequently, the casino boats in Alton & E. St. Louis lost business to the point of having to lay workers off. (cont) "

misshoneybee wrote on Nov 11, 2009 5:32 PM:

" I don't know if this is of any interest to anyone, but both my parents practically chained smoked throughout my childhood, along with SEVERAL aunts, uncles etc. and I was around these people nearly everyday, with the exception of my going to school. I was around second hand smoke for over 18+ years and I have NEVER had any health problems. I'm pushing 40 and I'm very healthy. "

Travelin_Rose wrote on Nov 11, 2009 4:46 PM:

" Limerick....my comment about taking away your Diet Coke may be next after a smoking ban was simply a warning that once government starts telling you what you can and can't do, eat, drink, etc they won't stop. I understand you may breathe in some second hand smoke but we also may find years from now that something you do will be taken away and cost taxpayers lots of tax dollars to fix. That's all I was saying. There was no need to attack me. Leave the smokers alone. It's not against the law. "

boscoe wrote on Nov 10, 2009 4:31 PM:

" Smokers, Don't Worry. Even if Jefferson City passes a non-smoking law for restaurants, the city won't enforce it anyway. Look at the food sanitation laws: The city doesn't enforce any of that either. If they did, the restaurants would be required to keep cold food cold (<40 degrees) and hot food hot (>140 degrees). How many buffets in this town actually keep food warmer than lukewarm? Ever get a hot steaming bowl of soup around here? Usually it is lukewarm. "

limerick54 wrote on Nov 10, 2009 2:40 PM:

" gofish: No, if it were communisim I would state that the workers should control the means of production etc etc. . Taxing something that kills the user AND those around the user isn't communisim, it's just good sense. "

gofish wrote on Nov 10, 2009 12:40 PM:

" limerick54 "The best thing would be make them illegal. . or lets just tax them out of reach for anyone. 50 bucks a pack! I'd vote for that! "

So you're in favor of communism? Been to Tiananmen Square lately? "

limerick54 wrote on Nov 9, 2009 11:50 PM:

" Horseglue: The USA is not a democracy, it is a representative republic. The representatives are to do what is best for the people as a whole. However, they also do whatever they are paid the most to do, hence, cigarettes are legal. The best thing would be make them illegal. . or lets just tax them out of reach for anyone. 50 bucks a pack! I'd vote for that! "

limerick54 wrote on Nov 9, 2009 11:48 PM:

" Travelin Rose: Diet Coke doesn't cause non-drinkers cancer, now does it? Your argument is specious. But thanks for trying. If the military members want to kill themselves with smoking, that's fine by me. . just don't do it in my potential airspace. "

limerick54 wrote on Nov 9, 2009 5:28 PM:

" Byron: Yes, our country is based on LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS.

The first one is LIFE, please don't attempt to murder me by breathing your smoke at me or, for that matter, forcing me to breathe the smoke of your burning garbage. You still have the LIBERTY to smoke, just not when or where it could deprive me of my LIFE. Or put me in the hospital, depriving me of my LIBERTY and PURSUIT of HAPPINESS. Maybe you're happy with lung cancer and burning garbage, but normal people aren't. "

Travelin_Rose wrote on Nov 9, 2009 12:13 PM:

" A smoking ban in Jefferson City will assure that every military convention moves to a different more "smoke friendly" city. This has nothing to do with being healthy, it has everything to do with the government taking away our freedom. Yes, freedom to smoke. If you aren't a smoker, the government may just take away your Diet Coke someday or whatever you like. I'm not a smoker. I'm a person that believes in freedom and that includes smoking. "

misshoneybee wrote on Nov 6, 2009 12:24 PM:

" plpofjc--not every restaurant has a smoking section but you can best believe every pool has a peeing section--LOL. "

plpofjc wrote on Nov 6, 2009 11:14 AM:

" Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a pool. "

Byron W. wrote on Nov 5, 2009 6:27 PM:

" Mac1974 wrote "Now spelchek.... that information combined with my apparent lack of paranoia when it comes to the U.S. Gov't led me to support my gov't when they said:

We are your gov't and we understand it is in our best interest to protect you; therefore, we will implement bans on smoking wherever and whenever we can."

That is a very dangerous and certainly unAmerican point of view. "

Byron W. wrote on Nov 5, 2009 6:25 PM:

" Mac1974 responded to "at what point in your life did you decide you knew what was best for us?" with "I didn't decide. All medical experts agreed that tobacco smoke was dangerous."

Big whoopedeedo. We have no surrendered our freedom to medical experts or anyone else. "

sandhouse wrote on Nov 5, 2009 4:17 PM:

" "I can hardly stand going into Madison's anymore..."

No kidding. The ventilation in that place is non-existent.
It's foul in there. "

Horseglue4u wrote on Nov 5, 2009 8:23 AM:

" I guess letting the people vote on this issue, like healthcare and other stuff, is out of the question...heck, we might accidentlly form a democracy !!! "

Mac1974 wrote on Nov 5, 2009 6:38 AM:

" spelchek asked, " Mac1974 (or any liberal democrat for that matter), at what point in your life did you decide you knew what was best for us?"

I didn't decide. All medical experts agreed that tobacco smoke was dangerous.

Now spelchek.... that information combined with my apparent lack of paranoia when it comes to the U.S. Gov't led me to support my gov't when they said:

We are your gov't and we understand it is in our best interest to protect you; therefore, we will implement bans on smoking wherever and whenever we can. "

bluenurse wrote on Nov 5, 2009 12:08 AM:

" to gamble & the STL lawmakers were not interested in losing that revenue. Then, the chances of St. Charles Co. going smoke-free (unless under a statewide ban) would be next to impossible because they would not want to give up the added revenue from gamblers.

The other thing is, St. Louis City residents didn't even get to vote on this. A group of city aldermen decided that if the county ban passed, it would be enforced in the city too. St. Louis City & St. Louis County are considered separate entities - I'm not sure how that works but it's been that way a l o n g time. "

bluenurse wrote on Nov 5, 2009 12:04 AM:

" Kari, I think you are absolutely right & I would be more in favor of a statewide ban. That would level the playing field. The hospital I work at also doesn't allow you to smoke in your own car if you're on hospital property. Do people do it anyway? I'm quite certain there are isolated cases, esp on the night shift.

Tobacco shops I can see being exempt. Allowing a certain no. of hotel rooms being exempt, I can also see. But exempting the casinos, in my opinion, was total political jockeying & thats one big reason I was against the St. Louis Co. ban. Gamblers would have gone to St Charles Co. (cont) "

Kari wrote on Nov 4, 2009 11:44 PM:

" Again.......a statewide smoking ban is in your future so get used to it. I live in Arizona and have heard all these comments before. We have a statewide ban with only 3 exceptions. Your own home, retail tobacco shops (which are on the way out), and the Native American Reservations (they are Sovereign Nations) . No other places permit smoking. No designated areas. In the hospital paking lot or garage you cannot even smoke in you own car. No bars, no restaurants or their patios. I believe about 20 states now have similiar statewide laws. Get over it. You are wasting your time and energy. Why do smokers fight for the right to harm others, anyway? "

bluenurse wrote on Nov 4, 2009 11:41 PM:

" spelchek: It's not a partisan issue.

I am a liberal dem & I voted against the ban. Do I know the risks of smoking? Absolutely.
Do I like to go into a smoky environment? Not at all. Do I think the govt. has a right to dictate who can patronize a person's business? No, other than what falls under existing laws; e.g. no serving alcohol to a person under 21 - that's a state law.

I also voted against this because the casino exemption, IMO, was bogus.

So, not all of us libs are in favor of govt. imposition/control. "

spelchek wrote on Nov 4, 2009 9:29 PM:

" "did you know" (Not even spelchek could catch that!!!) "

spelchek wrote on Nov 4, 2009 9:20 PM:

" Mac1974 (or any liberal democrat for that matter), at what point in your life did you decide you knew what was best for us? I have to drive through the MO Blvd / 179 intersection everyday. In my mind that is a health concern seeing how so many people run red lights in that intersection. I guess I should sign away my health care seeing how I know the risk of going through that intersection everyday. I'm just asking for it. Thanks for the advice, but only libs could concoct such rubbish when it comes to their twisted views of "rights". I guess I have the "right" to drive fearless of being broadsided by an inattentive driver? "

bluenurse wrote on Nov 4, 2009 8:12 PM:

" I read this doesn't take effect until 2011 - not sure.

Lot of backlash here today. Some argue that with hybrid vehicles getting more common, will gasoline powered cars be next because car emissions contain carcinogens as well.

Turnout was actually pretty low - I guess the people who didn't care either way didn't vote. "

@da'lake wrote on Nov 4, 2009 12:32 PM:

" I'm sure they will because there is no industrial or automotive pollution in St. Louis. The govt. is only interested in protecting you from the ills of OTHERS...as long as it doesn't cut into their proceeds. "

bck wrote on Nov 4, 2009 11:38 AM:

" Hopefully the people in St. Louis county and city can breathe a bit easier soon. "

Byron W. wrote on Nov 4, 2009 10:43 AM:

" limerick54 wrote "Smoking should ONLY be allowed in the individuals home."

How American of you. Do you have any grasp how thei country came about in the first place? "

ts20 wrote on Nov 4, 2009 7:18 AM:

" does the clean air act say anything about ...the stuff that you breath in a bueaty shop ???......lots of harmful chemicals ........if it eats up galivanzed vents what do you think it does to your lungs ??--its the liberal left ........you think ?????????????????? "

bluenurse wrote on Nov 3, 2009 11:41 PM:

" Final tally - all precincts in:

YES: 65.34

NO: 34.66 "

bluenurse wrote on Nov 3, 2009 10:50 PM:

" Regarding St. Louis County smoking ban:

65.24% voted yes

34.76% voted no

1 precinct still out as of 10:45, but looks to me like it definitely passed. "

willsmom wrote on Nov 3, 2009 9:48 PM:

" well for some reason the editor disliked part or all of my post from earlier. Oh well I guess. Anyone else feel like we are going to a socialist society or feel like we are loosing all of our rights or freedoms? I agree there are pro's and con's. Con's-in this economy if any business owner wants to ban smoking, then they are willing to lose business (esp bars). Columia has lost several of their mom and pop restaurants because of this. I have said this time and time again.....WAKE UP JEFF CITY!!! We should be focusing on getting new businesses into our city instead of things like this! "

average_joe wrote on Nov 3, 2009 8:58 PM:

" I don't like the idea of medicare or government programs paying for anybody's health care costs. Smoking related or not.If you can't afford health care then you don't get it......

I also don't feel that a private business should be "forced" to allow smoking in their establishments ~ HENCE, they shouldn't be forced to not allow smoking in their establishments. It's their business, NOT the communities business. They are there to generate a profit and on the side give money to the community through tax revenues, not the other way around. "

MoBlogger wrote on Nov 3, 2009 6:12 PM:

" @waitingontheend wrote on Nov 3, 2009 9:26 AM:
" MOblog - they should ban smoking, if you are mooching off the gov't to give you affordable housing and then going out and buying $5 pack of cigs then you should be kicked out. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now you are getting into the controversial concept of actually controlling each and every person's individual freedoms.

I do believe though that it would be a great move by H.U.D. to mandate that all of their Public Housing Complexes go Smoke Free.

Not everybody who is on SSI/SSD or any kind of Government Assistance is a mooch as some want all of this nation to think. "

roseybud wrote on Nov 3, 2009 5:59 PM:

" What a load of PC balogna. Scare tactics, false data references, and people not minding their own business. Move to Columbia Stan, we prefer freedom in Jefferson City. "

limerick54 wrote on Nov 3, 2009 3:25 PM:

" No one should EVER have to breathe the smoke of another ANYWHERE. Smoking should ONLY be allowed in the individuals home. Everywhere else, BAN IT! Ban it INSIDE buildings, ban it OUTDOORS in public. Nothing is more nauseating that walking in the "fresh" air and walking by somewhere a nasty, rude, gross, jerkish smoker is puffing away. If they want to die early, let them. . but don't force me to have to as well. Don't like it? Quit smoking, it's a disgusting habit that costs EVERYONE money. "

@da'lake wrote on Nov 3, 2009 9:51 AM:

" You ain't going to Soggy Bottoms for the next year or so. Apparently the city council wants to protect you from 2nd hand smoke and private sex parties! LOL!! "

waitingontheend wrote on Nov 3, 2009 9:26 AM:

" MOblog - they should ban smoking, if you are mooching off the gov't to give you affordable housing and then going out and buying $5 pack of cigs then you should be kicked out. "

Toots wrote on Nov 3, 2009 9:10 AM:

" My dollars go to Columbia or to the non-smoking establishments in Jeff City like Paddy Malone's or Soggy Bottoms or other bars/restaurants which have gone non-smoking. I hear that the new Ecco will also be non-smoking and I hope this is true. Madison's -- I won't sit near the smoking section either - that gets pretty nasty, as does Ruby Tuesday's bar. Come on JC businesses - join the no-smoking cause. "

bluenurse wrote on Nov 2, 2009 6:19 PM:

" Banning tobacco altogether may sound like a good plan. Believe me, it'll never happen.
Tobacco lobby is just too powerful.

St. Louis Countians go to the polls tomorrow on the smoking ban. I got three different robocalls today, 1 for & 2 against. I'll leave it up to the posters here to interpret that.

To be continued . . . "

bluenurse wrote on Nov 2, 2009 6:15 PM:

" ...we should all be defending a person's right to engage in a legal activity..."

That's a principle this country was built on; doesn't matter what your partisan affiliation is.
People have died defending a person's right to engage in a legal activity. "

Byron W. wrote on Nov 2, 2009 6:13 PM:

" bck responded to ""Sounds a little selfish to me." with "So be it. I can hardly stand going into Madison's anymore and if they try to sit me in the back area by the bar when I ask for non-smoking, I just leave."

Try Paddy Malone's. The owner banned smoking indoors. "

MoBlogger wrote on Nov 2, 2009 4:58 PM:

" H.U.D. is pushing all of their Public Housing Development high rises to go Smoke Free in the future to cut down on the costs of repairs and reconditioning due to the amount of damage smokers leave by smoking in a enclosed apartment. Also HUD hopes that this will help Senior Citizens with a healthier life style over time.

http://www.aahsa.org/article.aspx?id=9860 "

bck wrote on Nov 2, 2009 2:40 PM:

" "Sounds a little selfish to me."

So be it. I can hardly stand going into Madison's anymore and if they try to sit me in the back area by the bar when I ask for non-smoking, I just leave. It's worth the extra gas money and higher taxes it go to Columbia and eat somewhere where I don't even have to worry about it. I can choose a place based on whatever food I want, not on whether they actually have a nice non-smoking section. "

@da'lake wrote on Nov 2, 2009 2:20 PM:

" I call bullCRUD on your #4 co. Since you want to quote that most smoke free laws
are sponsored by Republicans......where is your proof? Republicans are pro business and for less intrusive govt....that does NOT describe govt. requiring PRIVATE business to become smoke free.

We restrict the right to refuse service. The owner of any establishment can ask you to leave their premises at any time, for no specific reason. If you fail to leave, you can be charged with trespassing. That certainly doesn't spell "public" to me. "

@da'lake wrote on Nov 2, 2009 2:18 PM:

" Ooops...should have been "bullcrud".... "

@da'lake wrote on Nov 2, 2009 2:16 PM:

" Editor - I'm a little confused. Why is it that "BS" is outlawed on here but I can say "bullcrude" even though both terms mean the exact same thing and allegedly go around the word filter? "

@da'lake wrote on Nov 2, 2009 12:53 PM:

" Mac1974 wrote on Nov 2, 2009 12:45 PM:
" @da'lake said, "However, as long as it is legal, we should ALL be defending a person's right to engage in a legal activity, regardless of how nasty or disgusting."

lol.... did you just turn into a supporter of abortion, lake? lmao "

But at least Mac acknowledges that abortion is a nasty, disgusting activity. How you all ever wrap your head around accepting it is okay to kill an unborn child is beyond me. It speaks volumes about your morals....or lack thereof. "

@da'lake wrote on Nov 2, 2009 12:51 PM:

" ooops, that should have been "cool" not cook..... LOL! "

@da'lake wrote on Nov 2, 2009 12:49 PM:

" Mac - According to the liberals, it's cook to kill unborn babies.

Nobody has a right to smoke....nobody has a right to eat supper at Applebee's or wherever. The private business owner.....the one that is investing in the business....should have the right to decide how that business is to be operated. If they want to allow smoking and you don't want to breathe it, you have the "right' to go somewhere else or fix supper at home. "

Mac1974 wrote on Nov 2, 2009 12:45 PM:

" @da'lake said, "However, as long as it is legal, we should ALL be defending a person's right to engage in a legal activity, regardless of how nasty or disgusting."

lol.... did you just turn into a supporter of abortion, lake? lmao "

waitingontheend wrote on Nov 2, 2009 12:27 PM:

" but at least then I know not to go there. I should have the right to spray lysol in areas that are smokey to protect myself from the uncaring. "

waitingontheend wrote on Nov 2, 2009 12:25 PM:

" When your right interferes with another person's right then there has to be some control. I went to the Mall and right by the smoking sign is some mall workers smoking right under the sign. If their rights are not giving me cancer and stinking up my hair and clothes then go for it but if you have no respect for the signs posted then that is when you get laws written. It is all about showing a little respect. With that said if a bus owner wants smoking then they should be able to comply to the cancer stick people "

@da'lake wrote on Nov 2, 2009 12:01 PM:

" Mac1974 wrote
"People who've stopped smoking, or who've never smoked RARELY TO NEVER defend the nasty, disgusting habit. Why would they???????"

I don't smoke, never have and believe it is a nasty disgusting habit. However, as long as it is legal, we should ALL be defending a person's right to engage in a legal activity, regardless of how nasty or disgusting. Beyond that, I am defending the PRIVATE BUSINESS OWNER'S rigth to run THEIR business as THEY choose. "

Byron W. wrote on Nov 2, 2009 11:48 AM:

" In the liberal world one does not have the right to smoke but does have the right to butcher an unborn child. WARPED!!!!! "

Byron W. wrote on Nov 2, 2009 11:43 AM:

" bck wrote "It's so nice to go to Columbia and get a bite to eat and a drink and not have to worry about the horrible stench of cigarrette smoke wherever I choose to go."

Sounds a little selfish to me. "

Byron W. wrote on Nov 2, 2009 11:42 AM:

" With a majority of the countrys population living in areas with laws for smoke-free public places, isnt it time for Jefferson City to join the trend for a healthier community?

NO! "

@da'lake wrote on Nov 2, 2009 10:38 AM:

" While that may be the generally accepted definition NOW, it is just one more example of the govt. and law sticking it's nose into some place it has no business being. Seems odd that you want to consider Wal-mart a public place, but the police refuse to go to the parking lot for an accident on "private" property. So which is it....public or private? "

@da'lake wrote on Nov 2, 2009 10:28 AM:

" Benjamin Franklin is quoted as saying "Those that give up liberty for security will have, nor deserve, either. "

@da'lake wrote on Nov 2, 2009 10:26 AM:

" Even more argument for complete illegalization of tobacco.....so why hasn't it been done? It's a health hazard, we pay out over 1/2 of what we take in for taxes, so why not make it completely illegal?

I have so many arguments because I'm sick of an overbearing, tyrannical govt. that wants to stick its collective nose into things that are NONE of its business. If the govt. wants to run a restaurant, then do it. If you want to run a restaurant and make it smoke free, then do it. Until then, BUTT OUT of someone else's PRIVATE business. If you don't like that they allow smoking, then DON'T GO. It's not a difficult concept. "

@da'lake wrote on Nov 2, 2009 10:23 AM:

" Does the DOR information specifically break down sales tax data between strictly restaurants, the typical bar & grill and the mostly bar category? Trying to use data that combines all business into a catch-all category of "restaurant/bars" does not really seem objective to me. Oversimplification of so-called "objective" information can disort it.

There were 4 or 5 profitable businesses that went out of business in the first year of the smokling ban. The owners cite closure due to lack of profits after enactment of the smoking ban. If all "restaurants/bars" were doing so well, then what could have specifically affected these businesses? Oh yeah, the smoking ban. "

co wrote on Nov 2, 2009 10:22 AM:

" 2) Personal responsibility - Most smokers are considerate and don't want to harm others. But, some smokers either don't care or are not aware that their smoke does cause harm to others. If all smokers practiced personal responsibility, there would be no need for smokefree ordinances.
James Madison is quoted as saying, "If all men were angels there would be no need for government."
3) Public places - any facility that is open to public entry is a public place, regardless of ownership. This is not an opinion, this is a fact of law.
4) Liberal - don't be so quick to label someone. Most of the smokefree laws have been sponsored by Republicans, not Democrats. "

bck wrote on Nov 2, 2009 10:21 AM:

" It's so nice to go to Columbia and get a bite to eat and a drink and not have to worry about the horrible stench of cigarrette smoke wherever I choose to go. "

co wrote on Nov 2, 2009 10:17 AM:

" da'lake - you have so many different arguments, but I will try to respond.
1) Taxes - The government is not dependent on cigarette taxes. These taxes account for less than 1/10th of 1% of state revenue. They bring in about $100 million per year, yet the state is paying about $534 million through Medicaid and other gov't health programs to treat tobacco-related illnesses. In other words, for every dollar the state receives in cigarette taxes, it is spending $5.34. Not a great return.
(continued) "

co wrote on Nov 2, 2009 10:09 AM:

" hmarie775 - The author was an officer of the St Louis Libertarian Party and was requested by the Boone County Libertarian Party. He has written a number of other non-peer-reviewed papers purportedly finding that smokefree laws harm businesses. This author has a history of having a conclusion and then working the formulas to support his conclusion. Again, the Dept of Revenue taxable sales figures show otherwise.
When you look at economic reports; ask three questions - 1) Did it use objective data?[Pakko used a mix of objective and subjective]; 2) Was it published in a peer-reviewed journal? [Pakko was not]; and 3) Was it funded by a source clearly independent of the tobacco industry?
Studies satisfying these criteria show no economic harm. "

hmarie775 wrote on Nov 2, 2009 9:34 AM:

" co - this documented study begs to differ with your analysis: In January 2007, an ordinance took effect in Columbia, Missouri, banning smoking in all bars, restaurants, and workplaces. This paper analyzes data for sales tax collections at eating and drinking establishments from January 2001 through December 2007, including the first twelve months of the smoking ban. The analysis accounts for trends, seasonality, general business conditions, and weather. The findings suggest that the smoking ban has been associated with statistically significant losses in sales tax revenues at Columbia's bars and restaurants, with an average decline of approximately 3 to 4 percent. Businesses that serve only food show no statistically significant effects of the smoking ban. http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/red/2008/01/Pakko.pdf "

@da'lake wrote on Nov 2, 2009 9:24 AM:

" co - Again, arguing apples and oranges. You like to take someone's point and twist it to suit your argument. Just because the bars overall did good does NOT mean the smoking ban did not have a detrimental effect on some. There are 4 or 5 bars tha went out of business after the smoking ban. They can show their decline in sales after the smoking ban. These were thriving businesses prior to the smoking ban. In fact, your point about other businesses doing so well actually help prove the owners' point that it was the smoking ban that caused their demise. "

co wrote on Nov 2, 2009 9:14 AM:

" hmarie775 - Examination of taxable sales data from the MO Dept of Revenue shows otherwise. There are more restaurant and bars in Columbia after their ordinance than any time before their ordinance. Sales are up.
In looking at how the slumping economy affected local business types, The Columbia Daily Tribune ran a story last March comparing sales taxes paid in Nov 2007 to that in Nov 2008 for 8 types of businesses. There was an overall decline of 3.2% with the greatest decline reported for the construction/home improvement category at -23.6%. Only two industries saw an increase: utilities at +9.1% and restaurants/bars at +5.8%.
Columbia's restaurant and bars did quite well in spite of a slumping economy. "

@da'lake wrote on Nov 2, 2009 9:01 AM:

" One other thing....restaurants are NOT public places, they are private business. First you want to tell the business owner how to run their business. Next you'll be demanding a portion of their profits too! "

@da'lake wrote on Nov 2, 2009 8:58 AM:

" You can only be sujected to 2nd hand smoke if YOU GO WHERE THERE IS SMOKE. Don't go to a mud run then complain that your truck gets dirty. You are typical of the liberal ilk in this country that wants to tell everyone else what to do rather than exercising a little personal responsibility and being responsible for your actions. You are NOT entitled to walk into any business you want, period. We reserve the right to refuse service........get over it. "

@da'lake wrote on Nov 2, 2009 8:56 AM:

" co - You are mixing apples and oranges. The business OWNER is not smoking....this is smoke from one customer to another. There is a huge difference between ensuring a business owner obeys health regulations in the food they SERVE and the govt. telling him what type of atmosphere to run.

Look co, it is really very simple. If you don't like that an owner allows smoking, then DON'T GO. You do NOT have a RIGHT to go into whatever business you like and tell them how to run THEIR business, period. If you can't see that, then there truly is no help for you. "

@da'lake wrote on Nov 2, 2009 8:54 AM:

" Nobody is disagreeing that smoking is a vile, unhealthy...even downright deadly habit. If it is so dangerous to EVERYONE, including non-smokers that the govt. thinks it constitutes telling private business how to operate their businesses, then maybe it should be outlawed altogether. Oh wait, the govt. doesn't want to give up their taxes from sales of tobacco. Well, how perectly hypocritical of them. It's dangerous so you can't smoke around other people, but it's not dangerous enough for us to give up our tax proceeds from it. Typical govt. BS. "

co wrote on Nov 2, 2009 8:53 AM:

" da'lake - what is quite simple is the following:
Secondhand smoke is a cause for heart and lung disease [US Surgeon General]
Ordinances for smokefree workplaces and public places significantly reduce rates for hospital admissions for heart attacks [Institute of Medicine]
So - you advocate leaving it to the business owner to decide if the rate of heart attacks in the community should stay the same or be reduced???
This is about HEALTH.
If this should be decided by the business owner, the he should also be free to decide if fire exits should be padlocked, if employees should wash hands after using the toilet and before handling food, etc. etc. After all, no one should tell him how to run his business, right? "

hmarie775 wrote on Nov 2, 2009 8:49 AM:

" An economic study was done to measure the tax impact of the Columbia smoking ban...Recent data from the city of Columbia show a
distinct decline in sales tax receipts at bars and
restaurants. After rising at an average rate of
6.8 percent from 2002 through 2006, tax revenue
declined at an annual rate of 1.3 percent over the
first seven months of 2007. (See graph.) Although
the data are still preliminary, initial analysis suggests
a 5 percent decline in overall sales revenue at Columbia
dining establishments since the implementation
of the smoking ban. "

hmarie775 wrote on Nov 2, 2009 8:49 AM:

" Several bars went out of business when Columbia enacted their smoking ban... Columbia Billiards, Rack 'n' Roll closed news quotes "The owners, Phil & Maggie Spudich claim their business is down 40% since the smoking ban went into effect." Another news quote "The Bull Pen Cafe will close its doors after 57 years in business. Lou's Palace will close its doors after more than 20 years in business. Both claim that loss of business from the smoking ban was the cause." "

misshoneybee wrote on Nov 2, 2009 8:48 AM:

" You GO, Lake! You GO, Boy! "

@da'lake wrote on Nov 2, 2009 8:27 AM:

" comorn - You do not have a "right' to visit Applebee's, Chili's or whatever. The BUSINESS OWNER should decide how their business is ran and you can decide whether or not to visit. If you want to have a smoke free establishment, then invest YOUR money and have open one. It's quite simple. "

bluenurse wrote on Nov 2, 2009 3:48 AM:

" Hospital I work at is smoke-free, too, so employees just go out to the sidewalk to smoke, as do patients. I;ve been told one of the local news broadcasts actually showed pix of how many employees were out on the sidewalk at one time. Goes to prove smokers are going to find a way to smoke no matter what.

Again, I am all for smoke-free places; my objection to the issues in STL are to some of the wording. And, don't exempt the casinos just because the county would lose the tax revenue. "

comorn wrote on Nov 2, 2009 2:50 AM:

" Hmarie775 says: If a bar allows smoking and you don't want to breathe it don't go there! I'm all for smoke free family establishments such as restaurants. A "smoking ban" within limits, but let the smokers and drinkers have their bars at least! "

What about those of us that want to visit such establishements that dont want to breath in the smoke? I enjoy going to the bar for a night out with friends especially if they have a live band but I dont enjoy all of the smoke you have to wade through. "

comorn wrote on Nov 2, 2009 2:50 AM:

" A persons right ends when it begins to infringe on someone elses. I hate going to restaurants or bars that allow smoking because not only does it affect my health, I leave there smelling like an ashtray.People that choose to smoke can step outside to a designated area to have a cigarette or wait until they are inside their vehicle, home, etc. "

comorn wrote on Nov 2, 2009 2:49 AM:

" Ive heard many arguments on this topic. I am not a smoker and I do support banning smoking in all public places. Columbia has already done this and I prefer to go to places there instead of Jefferson City for that reason. Many people say that they have a right to smoke and by banning smoking it is taking away their right. Everyone has rights and everyone has a right to make the choice to smoke or not. I have a right to be smoke free and a right to not be subjected to second-hand smoke. Those that choose to smoke should not be able to infringe on my right to be smoke free just because they want to smoke in a public place. "

Kari wrote on Nov 2, 2009 1:32 AM:

" OK, everyone, get used to the idea of a non-smoking state because it is coming your way..I live in Arizona and we are smoke free state wide. It is a health issue that isn't going away. Second hand smoke kills. In fact, that is what killed Dana Reeve, a non-smoker who sang in smoke filled caberets. It's a no brainer really. No one has a right to harm another. I am an RN and work in a 700 bed hospital. There is no smoking ANYWHERE in the hospital. You cannot even smoke in your own car in the parking lot or garage. It is for eveyone's health. Resistance is futile. "

onceajay wrote on Nov 1, 2009 9:45 PM:

" I love the idea of a smoking ban. I patronize restaurants which are smoke free or that have a separate room, with a barrier that can be closed, for smokers. Until there is a ban in public places, people will still have to walk by smokers on streets and at building entrances. I wonder how many dollars go to Columbia because it's mostly smoke free. "

co wrote on Nov 1, 2009 9:06 PM:

" Sorry, a type. The last sentence of my last post should read.
"Thus I heartily agree with your suggestion to have laws for things that keep you from harming our community " "

bluenurse wrote on Nov 1, 2009 7:52 PM:

" If this thing passes in my municipality, if you run a business out of your home, it will be considered no-smoking. Sorry, but I think that is going too far.

My position is still, if you allow this to happen, then what is next?

No, I'm not a smoker. Yes, I do realize the health risks involved with secondhand smoke.

I just don't think a municipallity or county should be able to tell you you can't do something that is not illegal in your own house. "

co wrote on Nov 1, 2009 7:01 PM:

" thnkr - No, I'm not suggesting you can stand on the street and smell a cigarette being smoked inside a building. My point about the hog farm going in next door was that a property owner does not have unfettered freedom to do with it as he will. Certainly lots of things are dangerous or bad for our health ... but, the risks are relative. The Surgeon General has determined secondhand smoke to be a cause for heart disease, and the Institute of Medicine found that rates for heart attacks go down when smokefree ordinances are in place - This is fact. Thus I heartily agree with your suggestion to have laws for things that keep you from making our community "

traceyt wrote on Nov 1, 2009 3:17 PM:

" I agree with Hasher. I have never smoked. I was exposed to second hand smoke for the first 18 years and that convinced me. I would go to bars more often if they were smoke free, but rarely go now. I think it would be great if we had more smoke free establishments, but I think it should be the proprietor's decision rather than mandated by the government. We aren't talking about a 'public' venue like a library, and this doesn't have anything to do with inconsiderate behavior like blowing smoke in the path of others that walk by. I guess Mac thinks we are both liars, but sometimes it's easier to deny the facts than face them. "

thnkr wrote on Oct 30, 2009 6:37 PM:

" Co
a hog farm can affect those that aren't on it. Are you suggesting that you can stand on the street and smell a cigarette being smoked inside a building? Honestly lots of things are dangerous or bad for our health, but we have the choice to engage in them anyway. We've listed several on this forum. I suggest you keep laws for things that keep me from making you unsafe, everything else you leave to the free market (and Mac's ability to decide that he and his family won't patronize a place that still allows smoking). And Mac, I don't think anyone ever really knows what you're talking about... you gave me new rope and I ate my eraser?........ "

hasher28 wrote on Oct 30, 2009 5:54 PM:

" Don't smoke, never have. I believe that every business owner should be making the decision about wether or not their busineess will be smioke-free or not. I personally do not go to businesses that allow smoking or that have smokers near the entrance. My choice. "

bluenurse wrote on Oct 30, 2009 5:53 PM:

" Mac: Take it easy! Chill! My comment about me being a BH Lib was made tongue in cheek because we libs are always accused of being in favor of government imposition.

I agree with everything you are saying.

My only issue with smoking bans is, if you have the ban, then every public place is included.
NO EXCEPTIONS due to tax benefits, etc. "

Mac1974 wrote on Oct 30, 2009 5:04 PM:

" bluenurse said, "One thing for certain, this BH Lib is voting a big fat NO on both these issues."

It has ZERO, NOTHING, NADA to do with your political party affiliation. Liberals, republicans, libertarians..... there's smokers among all of them! Those who defend cigarette smoking ARE SMOKERS!!!! People who've stopped smoking, or who've never smoked RARELY TO NEVER defend the nasty, disgusting habit. Why would they???????

Those who say, 'I don't smoke, but I think they should have the right to" are liars! They can lie because this message board is anonymous. "

Mac1974 wrote on Oct 30, 2009 5:00 PM:

" It's 2009 and we KNOW what cigarettes do to those who smoke them and those who are subjected (usually children) to the smoke. It's simple.... if you smoke cigarettes right now, you are an ignoramus and you most certainly ARE violating someone else's right to breath clean air from time to time. You cannot tell me (cigarette smokers) that you never find yourself in front an entryway blowing smoke in the path of another. And as long as there's a possiblity of that happening, you should have your ability to smoke cigarettes taken away from you! Period!

Stop defending this for christ's sake! Some of you have children! How are you going to rationalize this argument with them? "

bluenurse wrote on Oct 30, 2009 4:54 PM:

" I've been called a bleeding heart liberal more than once, & I'm okay with that. One thing for certain, this BH Lib is voting a big fat NO on both these issues. Some of my lib friends are pretty upset with me right now, but so be it. I think these laws would go too far. I think a person has a right to run their restaurant or bar the way they want, with no interference from the govt. When people have gotten in my face, I've asked then why doesn't somebody open a smokefree bar, which would probably be bursting at the seams with patrons who don't go to smoking bars - never got an answer. "

bluenurse wrote on Oct 30, 2009 4:51 PM:

" BTW, they tried to push this through a couple years ago & it failed miserably. The language in that one was even worse, forbidding smoking within a certain perimeter of businesses & even outlawing barbecuing in certain situations. This one has better language, but it still goes too far. If this passes & the county ban doesn't, lots of small businesses will be affected.

As a nurse, I know smoking is bad & I hate smoke,, but I just don't go to places where I have to breathe smoke. They don't get my money, so too bad for them. "

bluenurse wrote on Oct 30, 2009 4:49 PM:

" The local no-smoking law goes even further. It reads that homes are exempt from the smoking ban UNLESS there is a child-care operation in that home; seems like there are other stipulation, but I can't remember.

Okay, everybody knows smoking is bad, & I think we can assume if somebody is taking care of children, they shouldn't be smoking in front of the children. If a family member in that home smokes & goes outside, not around children, then whose business is that? HTH would you ever enforce this? To me, that is going too far. "

bluenurse wrote on Oct 30, 2009 4:45 PM:

" Okay, I'm probably going to get jumped on, but here goes.

I go to the poll Tuesday for two smoking issues. One is a county-wide ban of smoking, the other is a ban of smoking in the municipality where I live.

The county ban has several exemptions. The main one is, the casinos in St. Louis County will be exempt from the no-smoking ban.

That , to me, is bullsugar. The reason for that is, if smoking was banned there, all the smoking casino goers would only go a few miles out to St. Charles casino, where they can smoke all they want. And, STL Co. doesn't want to lose that revenue.(cont) "

misshoneybee wrote on Oct 30, 2009 4:41 PM:

" Whle you're at it, limerick, lump those snuff chewers on the leap...they're pretty stinky, too! "

limerick54 wrote on Oct 30, 2009 2:02 PM:

" No smoking anywhere in public ever. Even outside. I don't want to breathe the nasty stench as I walk by. And shower while your'e at it, you smell!! "

@da'lake wrote on Oct 30, 2009 1:48 PM:

" Mac1974 wrote on Oct 27, 2009 8:50 PM:
" I would agree with you on one condition, hmarie. If you do use tobacco (I'm not insinuating you do) you sign a legal document that promises you will pay out-of-pocket cash for any medical procedure you ever have done for any medical issue that can be attributed to tobacco use."

Complete and absolute lunacy!! Will YOU sign a statement agreeing to pay for your medical needs because you eat french fries, drink alcohol, don't exercise regularly, etc.???? Your concept is beyond absurd. "

@da'lake wrote on Oct 30, 2009 1:46 PM:

" thinkr - While I like your comments....I disagree with you because there is very little freedom of choice in this country anymore. Sadly, that concept has been ruined because everywhere you go, there is someone who claims they are "harmed" or their "rights" are violated by something. Like they have a "right" to go to any restaurant, smoke free or otherwise.

The concept of "rights" in this country has become so warped and twisted that most people don't even know what the definition of a "right" is. "

@da'lake wrote on Oct 30, 2009 1:44 PM:

" Interesting observation mac. So how is it that you defend abortion. What about the BABY'S RIGHTS?? Wouldn't the mother's right to her body end at the point she begins to harm an unborn baby? LOL...I love y'all's twisted theories.

NOBODY has a RIGHT to smoke......NOBODY has a RIGHT to go to Applebee's or wherever. However, a private property owner should have the right to decide how THEIR business....they one they invested their time and money in.....is ran. If you do not like it that they allow smoking, you certainly have a right to go elsewhere. I'm sick of people and govt. trying to tell private businesses how to operate. "

hmarie775 wrote on Oct 30, 2009 1:13 PM:

" It's not like people are going into your homes and forcing you to breathe secondhand smoke. If an establishment chooses to allow smoking, that's their right. If you don't want to breathe it then don't go there, or don't work there. Simple. "

misshoneybee wrote on Oct 30, 2009 1:06 PM:

" What's the matter, online editor? You don't like grits, either? "

Mac1974 wrote on Oct 29, 2009 11:10 PM:

" co said, "Rights stop where another person's well-being begins."

Bingo! This is exactly why government-enforced rules are necessary.

Oh, and thnkr? The force is necessary. We gave you a brand new rope and you turned around and ate the erasers off your pencils. It's time to let a bonafide doctor decide whether or not tobacco is bad for you..... not thnkr. You abused it and now it's being taken away from you. This is called consequences. "

Bucky wrote on Oct 29, 2009 4:21 PM:

" I'm with thnkr. Let's outlaw alchohol and fast food. (I do like the sausage egg mcmuffin's, but I could live without them if I had to). Right there, we could save enough money to pay for the health care initiative. Way to get on board, thnkr! "

jleroy1949 wrote on Oct 29, 2009 10:41 AM:

" to co:
I was not aware that the original 17% estimate you cited was, itself, a conservative estimate. Knowing what I now know changes everything - I have no problem with your estimate. "

co wrote on Oct 29, 2009 10:26 AM:

" Actually, government already tellis you (within limits) what you can and cannot do with your property. This is a delicate balance between the public good and individual rights.
Can your neighbor start a hog farm next to you? Why not? It's his property and he should do as he pleases, right? In this case, zoning controls the type of development allowed on a property.
Property rights are not absolute for public accommodations; hence, we have building codes, fire codes, food-handling codes, etc. Or do you think the property owner should decide whether fire exits should be padlocked?
Rights stop where another person's well-being begins. The Surgeon General concluded that secondhand smoke causes heart disease and cancer in nonsmokers "

co wrote on Oct 29, 2009 10:10 AM:

" To jleroy 1949 - You are quite astute and I appreciate your observation.
The estimate is still conservative, but obviously not when you divide 12 by 70 which yields slightly more than 17%. But rather, the recent studies citing the reduction in hospitalizations for heart attacks have stated that the 17% reduction itself is a conservative estimate.
These studies were independent of each other and were published within a month of each other. These studies were from University of Kansas - Kansas City (KU School of Medicine - Dept of Internal Medicine, Dept of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Dept of Biostatistics); University of California - San Francisco [School of Pharmacy, Dept of Medicine - Cardiology, Cardiovascular Research Institute); and Institute of Medicine. "

misshoneybee wrote on Oct 29, 2009 9:23 AM:

" If I were a business owner and owned my business property (land) outright, Jefferson City wouldn't tell me who I could or couldn't have in my establishment. That's like telling someone that they can't smoke in their own house. Sometimes the city needs to mind it's (their) own business. "

thnkr wrote on Oct 28, 2009 6:08 PM:

" I love it!! Mac's never met a regulation he didn't like, except for those on abortions of course. Mac, I have to ask, why would I sign your agreement? I already pay a significantly higher premium for my health insurance because I'm a smoker. I also have almost no chance of getting a lung transplant if I've been a smoker. So, maybe I'm confused. What's the point? Trust me Mac, health insurance companies have thought this through. Have you? Unless you're suggesting I pay more for premiums AND pay out of pocket.
Yet, again another elitist liberal who's deemd you too stupid to think and act for yourself, so he'll do it for you. By force if necessary. God bless the USSA. "

hmarie775 wrote on Oct 28, 2009 1:42 PM:

" LOL Mac, only if we can do the same for those that are overweight but still eat a high calorie diet, those that choose not to wear seatbelts, those that drink or abuse alcohol, those that abuse presciption drugs, those that ride motocycles without helmets, those that have high blood pressure but eat salt, those that eat too much sugar and end up with diabetes....see the problem here? People make choices, and yes bad choices cost society money in the form of increased health care costs, but short of restricting our lives to the point of total forbiddance of choice and freedom to live our lives the way we choose. "

jleroy1949 wrote on Oct 28, 2009 8:07 AM:

" Stan,

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just making a critique.

You are wrong when you say, "we could conservatively see 12 fewer attacks". 12 is roughly 17.1% of 70. The studies showed a 17% reduction - an estimate of a 17% reduction is not a conservative estimate.

A true conservative estimate would be an estimate of a reduction below 17%, not right at 17%. For example, an estimate of 10 (14% reduction) would be a conservative estimate. "

Mac1974 wrote on Oct 27, 2009 8:50 PM:

" I would agree with you on one condition, hmarie. If you do use tobacco (I'm not insinuating you do) you sign a legal document that promises you will pay out-of-pocket cash for any medical procedure you ever have done for any medical issue that can be attributed to tobacco use.

and...

that you will agree to never qualify for any organ transplant whatsoever.

If you're down with that, I say go for it, and enjoy your freedom to use tobacco. "

hmarie775 wrote on Oct 27, 2009 8:44 PM:

" I don't need the government to save me from myself. The same people that are wanting the government to stay out of health care and other things seem to be the same people who are "for" these bans on smokers. I love how they pick and choose when they want government interference and when they don't. Must be nice up their on their moral high horses! "

hmarie775 wrote on Oct 27, 2009 8:42 PM:

" I totally agree with thinkr's comments. This is supposed to be a free country, and that includes the freedom to allow smokers in your establishment or not. It should be a business owners choice as it is THEIR business. Government needs to step back and stop trying to legislate health 'for our own good'. Yes, we all know smoking is bad. Yes we all are aware of the costs and dangers, but it's a CHOICE. If a bar allows smoking and you don't want to breathe it don't go there! I'm all for smoke free family establishments such as restaurants. A "smoking ban" within limits, but let the smokers and drinkers have their bars at least! "

Mac1974 wrote on Oct 27, 2009 3:24 PM:

" Great op-ed, Stan. You're absolutely right on! "

thnkr wrote on Oct 27, 2009 12:56 PM:

" There is still such a thing as freedom of choice. The freedom to have a smoking establishment and the freedom to go there and smoke there, or not. Why don't we engage in studies on liver failure due to alcohol consumption? Or deaths from DUI's? The fact is, we could outlaw alcohol and see a tremendous decrease in traffic fatalities and hospitalizations. Let's then move on to places like McDonalds. Why don't we start closing them down or refusing to allow new franchises to be established. Imagine the health benefits from that!!
Any other choices and freedoms you think we should live without Stan? "

To add your comments you must be registered and logged in

*Member ID:
*Password:

Do not use usernames or passwords from your financial accounts!

Note: Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required!

*Create a Member ID:
*Choose a password:
*Re-enter password:
*E-mail Address:
*Year of Birth:
	(children under 13 cannot register)
*First Name:
*Last Name:
Company:
*Home Phone:
Business Phone:
*Address:
*City:
*State:
*Zip Code:

Return to: Opinion « | Home « | Top of Page ^

Sports Poll

Online Poll

Related Stories

Top Commented Stories (more)

Local Headlines

OUR OPINION: Where do you stand on open enrollment?

OUR OPINION: Officials face balancing act on sidewalks

Scams spreading like virus

Smoke-free laws save lives, money

Response on zero tolerance

Interim panel hears comments on open enrollment

Jefferson City, Blair Oaks take home well-deserved state softball trophies

OUR OPINION: Volunteers in search endure trying task

OUR OPINION: Schools take initiatives to solve problems

LOCAL PERSPECTIVE: Honesty - a plus for character

ANALYSIS: Courting doctors in special interest war

Available Feeds
RSS	Political News
RSS	Press Releases
RSS	Local News
RSS	State News
RSS	Business
RSS	Sports
RSS	Entertainment
About RSS Feeds

Or follow us here-

Find out about our RSS feeds and what they are.

Copyright © 2010. All rights reserved.
Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited.