Cigar Weekly

A group called Smoke-Free St. Louis City released results Aug. 19 that show the majority of registered voters they polled favor prohibiting smoking in workplaces, bars and restaurants.

In releasing the results, the group cited a 2006 U.S. Surgeon General report on second-hand smoke in which the surgeon general said, "The debate is over. The science is clear. Second-hand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard."

The debate is not over. At least not for a group of St. Louis residents who oppose a governmental ban on smoking in bars and restaurants.

Bill Hannegan of the Skinker-DeBaliviere neighborhood is part of a group called Keep St. Louis Free. The group opposes smoking bans in the St. Louis area.

While many opponents to such bans cite the economic impact they believe the bans have on businesses, Hannegan said they also dispute the surgeon general's report.

"The gist of what the surgeon general said - the most controversial part of the report - is that there's no safe level of exposure," he said. "Air filtration can bring it down, but no system is perfect. Smoky bars should clean up their air, but does that have to be perfect for government to tolerate it?"

Hannegan said the group is willing to compromise. It put forward a proposal to exempt bars and restaurants that meet a certain standard of air filtration.

"We think air filtration can reduce it to a point that government can leave businesses alone," he said.

Dr. Jerome Cohen, a cardiologist at St. Louis University Hospital and a member of the Smoke-Free group, said segregating smokers, using air filtration or ventilating an area does not do enough to eliminate exposure. He cited the surgeon general's report.

"The only way to eliminate it is to eliminate indoor smoking," Cohen said.

Hannegan also points to workplace requirements set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which did not ban smoking. OSHA found the levels of chemicals emitted into the air from smoking in most workplaces does not exceed what it terms permissible exposure limits. Hannegan argues the smoke-free effort is meant not only to reduce second-hand smoke, but also to persecute smokers and reduce their numbers.

Hannegan, who only smokes when he drinks, said a prohibition of smoking also would limit his patronage of bars and restaurants.

"I have no interest in stepping out to smoke," he said. "I enjoy it with beer. It heightens socializing. If I can't smoke at my corner bar, I just stay home."

Another opponent of any legislation to ban smoking in bars, Tony Palazzolo, who lives on The Hill, said he smokes cigars when he's out with friends. He usually can be found smoking a cigar at The Hill Cigar Co., 5360 Southwest Ave., where a roomful of like-minded smokers gather to socialize. They worry the cigar store might also be included in any such ban.
CW Member Tonycsmoke

"I want the ability to go out and enjoy a scotch and a cigar at a place that allows me to do it," Palazzolo said.

There is one place in the city that Palazzolo finds too smoky, but he said he made the choice not to go there. He said everyone has that choice.

Members of Smoke-Free St. Louis City argue that employees of bars, restaurants and casinos should have the right to work in a smoke-free workplace.

One member of the group, Jennifer Byers, said she used to work as a dealer at a casino. She smoked for 12 years before stopping. She then quit the casino job.

"I thought to myself, I didn't quit smoking just so I could die of second-hand smoke," she said. "People shouldn't have to choose between their health and a paycheck."

David W. Kuneman of Rock Hill serves as director of research for the Citizens Freedom Alliance, a national group that opposes smoking bans and the use of eminent domain. The former pharmaceutical chemist for Monsanto and Mallinckrodt Veterinary said many claims made against exposure to second-hand smoke don't come true when tested.

"We're just not seeing the health benefits anti-smoking groups claim we should get when bans are passed," Kuneman said.

Among the information Kuneman cites are a report issued in 1995 by the Congressional Research Service and a report prepared in 2004 by the National Restaurant Association. The restaurant association report focuses on economic impact, claiming that "emotional elements of the smoking issue," including illness and personal tragedy, are perceived to have a negative impact on public health and prove difficult to counter.

The Smoke-Free St. Louis City poll does not seek to inform people about risks of second-hand smoke, but instead gauge how they feel about the issue, said Mary Homan, a member of the Smoke-Free coalition. The poll found that 61 percent of those surveyed in the city favored creation of an ordinance to prohibit smoking in public places, while 36 percent opposed such an ordinance.

However, Kuneman said the impact on businesses cannot be ignored. He cited the restaurant association, which claims most restaurants operate on a 5 percent profit margin, while smoking bans could reduce profits by 20 percent. He said the businesses should decide whether to go smoke-free.

"The workers and the owners are the only ones that have to be in there," he said. "When it is getting very clear that smoking bans do hurt business, they should decide whether they want to lose the income or not and still be exposed to the smoke."

Palazzolo worries that some of the restaurants on The Hill might close if they are ever mandated to prohibit smoking.

If bar owners can take measures and are willing to take measures to cut down on smoke, they should be able to, Hannegan said.

"I don't think public health standards should be set by popular vote," he said.

You can contact Shawn Clubb at sclubb@yourjournal.com.