The latest survey by the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services found that only 30 percent of St. Charles County residents favor a total ban on smoking in bars.

It must be lonely for people like Reliford, who think they should control what other people decide to do. If you don't want to be around smoke, then don't. It really is THAT simple, people. Don't take a job where there is smoking. Don't eat at restaurants where there is smoking and don't go to bars where there is smoking. If you would follow those simple guidelines, guess what! You wouldn't be exposed to second hand smoke. It's not rocket science!

It's a public health issue which has become deliberately confused by arguments having nothing to do with public health.
We can thank Big Tobacco and its present-day surrogates for that.
As for this being a statewide issue, there has always been far too much opposition fro entrenched tobacco interests to get more than a token statewide law, which is what we have now. That law doesn't require a single place in the state to be smoke-free.
I know because initially Missouri GASP, of which I'm president, worked hard for many years at the state level and finally gave up and instead concentrated on local ordinances, which has proved to be far more successful.
(For more information please see MoGASP's blog at mogasp.wordpress.com)
Martin Pion

The above comment by Elizabeth, disputing that local government can legislate on smoking on private property, repeats a deliberate lie. If it were true then no safety and health laws, such as those relating to building codes or food handling, would exist. Once an entity engages in commerce, and either invites the public in or has employees, it is subject to all sorts of laws and regulations designed to promote the public good and protect public health and welfare. Some of those laws have met resistance, such as those relating to secondhand smoke, to which the tobacco industry objected for decades because of their feared impact on smoking profits. Now it's people like Elizabeth who continue this charade.

The above reply by Mr. Pion repeats a deliberate lie that it is the government's responsibility to tell you how to live your life. The flaw in his argument that smoking bans are akin to building codes or health codes is that in either of those cases, the patrons are not privy to the information to make an informed choice. For example, food handling. When you enter a restaurant, you have no idea what established rules the owners have for their business or employees, you can't see into the kitchen, you can't make an informed choice on whether or not the business is being run to your standards, therefore the government stepped in and established guidelines. Smoking is not tantamount to food handling. When you open the door (or in some cases, printed clearly on the door) you can tell immediately whether or not smoking takes place on the property. Instantly, you have the option, CHOICE, to turn around and find an establishment that shares your choice. The same with building codes. The government regulates standards that can't be made clearly obvious to potential patrons. Smoking, is BLATANTLY obvious and patrons have the option to CHOOSE whether or not to enter.

Elizabeth, It would be nice if you wouldn't hide behind anonymity but regardless, your arguments are ones I've seen repeated over and over by smoke-free air opponents. They have no basis in logic. And this whole conspiracy theory about Big Pharma is just that: a ploy to divert attention from the issue.
As to suggesting that with smoking you have a choice that doesn't apply to other issues of public safety, that is hollow. Patrons are not necessarily greeted by someone smoking immediately they enter an establishment, or other circumstances may apply, such as having a separate room where smoking is allowed.
The facts about SHS are well established, both as regards the sickness and death it causes, as well as its impact on those who are smoke-sensitive and have respiratory disabilities, such as asthmatics.
The US Surgeon General stated as long ago as 1986, when the first USSG's Report on SHS was released, that "To fail to act now on the evidence we currently have would be to fail in our responsibility to protect the public health."
Public health is what this is about, but you try at every turn to obscure that fact.

Mr. Pion, you can try to impugn me all you want, but as long as anti-smoking groups and the like continue to accept donations from RJW (Johnson & Johnson's) then it is NOT a conspiracy theory it is a fact. And until they cease to accept those funds it is a blatant conflict of interest that is no different than RJ Reynolds donating to pro-smoking groups. You can't argue that they are different just because you throw around the word "health". No one is arguing that smoking can be bad for your health or that breathing second hand smoke may be bad for you. I'm simply stating the fact that patrons can choose not to be around smoke. If that is your argument against choice then the fix is easy. Require businesses to post signage on all door as to the smoking status of their property. Problem solved. Its great that you site the Surgeon General's report, but I can just as easily site an OSHA report that disagrees with risk levels. So while we are, and will continue to be, at an impasse on stats and the like, I like to err on the side of liberty. I don't smoke, I don't like to be around it, so I don't go to businesses that allow smoking. I don't expect someone who owns a businesses to change for me. I'm not that self-absorbed or self-righteous. Smoking is a legal activity and until it is not, I will NEVER vote to take away someone else's right to do it or allows others to do it on their property. Period.

I do recognize that the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation gives grants to fund tobacco control efforts, although Missouri GASP, of which I'm president, has never received any such funding. However, I see nothing conspiratorial about that. Certainly, their efforts to improve public health are to be applauded, unlike the behavior of the tobacco industry, which for decades hid the truth about the sickness and death caused first by active smoking and then by SHS exposure. And still works today to defend itself aggressively from any lawsuits from those it has injured.
Trying to equate "Big Pharma" to Big Tobacco" on this issue is a total red herring.

Both industries stand to gain financially so no matter how you spin it, it is the same scenario, different players. There are many studies that "prove" smoking or SHS and even 3rd hand smoke is dangerous. There are just as many studies that "prove" those studies to be flawed, inaccurate and in some instances completely biased. But that is not what we're trying to debate here, or at least that's not what I'M trying to debate. Try for a second, to separate yourself from the "health" stats and realize the point I'm trying to make. I have enough reasonable suspicion that smoking is bad for me that I don't smoke as I'm sure you don't either, nor will I let myself be around SHS. Not the point. The point is that I don't have the right to tell other people what to do on THEIR property even if I think it is bad for them, because they have the right to decide for themselves whether or not they choose to believe one side or the other. The choice to smoke or be around it is not equivalent to hand-washing because a patron can determine before entering a business whether or not smoking is present whereas they can't control whether or not the cook is washing his hands or keeping the meat at the right temperature.

One last comment:

http://mogasp.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/20110208-is-research-done-by-tobacco-control-now-more-biased-less-reliable-than-big-tobaccos/

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/

Some thought-provoking blogs on conflict of interest when pharmaceutical companies fund research that results in increased demand for their products.

How many times must Mr. Pion tell us that he is President of GASP? Self importance? Building codes and health regulations are just that, regulations. NOT Bans. I can build a frame house with wood or a steel frame house, whic is safer. building codes state the minimum standards necessary. Health regs state minimum standards of cleanliness and food prep not banning certain foods. When will these people get off their high horse and quit trying to dictate my life or life style or business operation? WHEN?

There is such bitter animosity on this thread and in any public or private discussion on the banning of smoking issue. No one is going to change their mind based on what is said here because the same thing is said over and over by both opposing sides. I have decided to never read any of these arguments anymore or enter into any discussions concerning smoking again because the repetition is very frustrating.....and fruitless.

Please view the various US Surgeon General's reports on secondhand smoke for objective information on the health effects, starting with the very first one, published in late 1986. You can find a description and link here: http://mogasp.wordpress.com/u-s-surgeon-general-reports-etc/ussg-1986-report-the-health-consequences-of-involuntary-smoking/

Mr. Pion, some experts feel that these reports have overstated both the certainty and extent of the secondhand smoke health risk. We really don't know if any patron or employee has ever died to due secondhand smoke exposure in a St. Charles County bar or restaurant.

http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.800/news_detail.asp
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.215/news_detail.asp

Mr. Hannegan,
Equally true: We don't know if any smoker has ever died of smoking with absolute certainty. And you won't find smoking as the cause of death on any death certificate. Nonetheless, it's estimated that one in two smokers will die prematurely due directly to their smoking.

Mr. Hannegan,
You also reference Dr. Elizabeth Whelan's postings on her ACSH website. I find she consistently underestimates the health risk from secondhand smoke and I don't consider her as trustworthy a source as Dr. Michael Siegel ("The rest of the story" blog at http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/). I agree with Dr. Whelan in the first post you referenced only as regards the following criticism of the USSG, who reportedly made this statement: "the scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke."
That is a meaningless statement, in my view.
I invited Dr. Siegel to comment on these issues and published his reply on my blog at http://mogasp.wordpress.com/2010/12/18/is-u-s-surgeon-general-benjamin-exaggerating-1-cigarette-exposure-risk/

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/topics/obesity/calltoaction/fact_consequences.htm

Obesity causes an estimated 300,000 deaths per year. Let's ban all foods that make people fat.

Elizabeth, You start by writing "Can we get past the competing data ..." but write yourself that "Obesity causes an estimated 300,000 deaths per year. Let's ban all foods that make people fat."
That number has since been revised downwards to less than 100,000 I believe, but in any case, this is a digression.
Smokers don't just put themselves at serious risk - at the very least, they create a nuisance for everyone else exposed to the air they pollute.
In contrast, a person who's obese and doesn't exercise is primarily putting him or herself at risk of premature sickness and death. There's absolutely no comparison.

Consider this scenario. Let's pretend I'm a registered voter in Chesterfield. I decide that I don't like to be exposed to exhaust from cars that are older than say, 2005. I read somewhere that the likely pathogens in car exhaust are: Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen dioxide, Sulphur dioxide, Suspended particles, Benzene, Formaldehyde and Polycyclic hydrocarbons. That's some nasty stuff! So I gather the needed signatures & petition to have it put to a vote that no cars older than 2005 are allowed to be driven within city limits. Let's also pretend that 51% of voters agree with me. We have now, legally and effectively banned older model cars in our city because of the health "risk" associated with second hand exposure to car exhaust. I guess all of those employees and business owners that aren't Chesterfield residents and can't vote are just out of luck if their car is older than 2005. They'll have to pray that they can find income in another municipality to make up for what they have lost in Chesterfied. Granted there is no apples to apples comparison on smoking, but the "majority rules" issue is identical. The "health reason" ban is identical. Here's the main difference....The people who want to avoid exhaust can't control who drives past them on the street, but non-smokers can, of their own free will, leave the place where smokers are gathered. They have a choice! They just want to force everyone else to do what they want so that they don't HAVE to make a choice!

Elizabeth makes some very well written and sound points here, however I feel I actually have to step in a little bit to defend Martin Pion. Martin is one of the few Antismokers (he hates that term but I still feel it's accurate) out there who believes strongly enough in his position that he allows open debate on his MoGasp blog. He also has been willing to examine at least a few of the more extremist (extremist is a mild word) antismoking claims such as the SG's "no safe level" claim. And Martin's identifying himself as president of GASP is quite proper: if he didn't do that at least once while posting to a thread we could rightly poke at him for "hiding" his special or conflicting interest (although Gene Borio might accuse him of "shameless self-promotion" when he DOES mention it! LOL!)

Now... after saying all that... make no mistake about it: I strongly disagree with Mr. Pion on about 99% of our views relating to smoking, smoking bans, etc. But I feel he is more of a "misguided idealist" rather than a "greedy liar" (a category I place a lot of the Antis in.)

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Elizabeth, your point about referenda and cars is quite true. If Chesterfield wanted to get rid of some of its less fortunate residents, the middle/upper class (who tend to be more active at the voting booth and better organized through poltiical and club organizations) could pass a law prohibiting unsafe non-4-wheel-drive vehicles on their streets. Those who couldn't afford 4 wheel drive cars would get tired of walking 10 - 20 blocks from where they were able to park outside the city limits and would move!

Or they could try to get a majority vote outlawing Chinese restaurants on the basis of "the fumes and smells" if they wanted to move asians out of their town (They could even cite the comparatively strong lung cancer studies examining cooking fume exposures in China etc ... although that would be a bit bogus for other reasons.)

Or they could vote against cats, citing second-hand cat allergy deaths from asthmatic attacks (at least as real, & probably far MORE real than those for secondhand smoke) or innocent children getting cat scratch fever from neighbor's escaped or outdoor kitties. This is a good way to eliminate those annoying little old ladies and their cats and upscale the town into yuppieville.

The Antismokers are opening a wonderful Pandora's box full of opportunities to get around anti-discrimination laws with their games.

And someday they'll come knocking for you, my friend.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

First, I don't think I need it, but nonetheless I appreciate Michael McFadden's coming to my defense!
Having said that, let me respond as succinctly as possible to some arguments you and Elizabeth raise.
Given this is a democracy, the potential scenarios you describe as regards legislation are certainly possible but are they likely? Hardly, whereas the public in this part of the US is at last waking up to the issue of secondhand smoke and actively working to rid it from their lives. I don't see that as a bad thing, and I don't see smokers as an oppressed minority either.
Smoking a cigarette is a behavior and society often legislates behaviors it considers against the public interest. It has nothing to do with the smoker, per se. If a smoker avoids exposing others there's no problem.
It's no different in principle from drinking and driving laws, or restriction on outdoor burning of yard waste, or a host of other laws designed to protect the public and curtail anti-social behaviors or those affecting the environment.
Is society perfect? No, but that's not a reason for inaction.

Your analogy of smoking bans to drinking & driving laws doesn't really work considering the fact that drinkers can congregate publicly on private property. Smoking bans prohibit smokers from assembly on public & privately owned property where the public is invited. Not the same situation. Drinking & driving laws allow drinkers to partake as long as they remain under a specific limit. Not true with smoking. Please explain why your group will not compromise and allow private owners to choose, say with an 18 & over regulation and clearly marked signage? There certainly was a compromise where drinking is concerned - hence the "legal limit". Do you honestly believe that non smokers are incapable of saying "well there is smoking here I better go some where else"?? Each comparison you have made to smoking bans includes compromise or a "legal limit" component. Not so with the smoking bans....it is a "zero tolerance" approach which is hardly "democratic" and certainly not in alignment with our Constitution or the purpose of establishing our country as a Republic. As for your argument that my scenario is "not likely" you are surprisingly naive. Look at all the impossible to believe laws already on the books. Right now, 4 women can't rent a house together in University City.

BTW - How is smoking an "anti-social behavior"?

Elizabeth, You should take up Jim Pepper's offer of joining his re-election campaign but make sure you stand firm for a good remuneration.
As to my examples which you've dismissed, once more I don't find your arguments convincing.
You ignored the one I gave ordinances forbidding outdoor burning of yard waste and just responded to the one regarding drinking and driving. You pointed out there wasn't a zero tolerance limit there. And why is that?
Because, as with Big Tobacco, you have Big Alcohol. In Missouri, that has been Anheuser Busch, which has successfully opposed open container laws and laws on drinking and driving.

Elizabeth, You state that "In most cases waste burning is regulated more based on fire hazard than health hazard."

This is an ill-informed opinion, as illustrated by the following section taken directly from the City of St. Louis's Revised Code Chapter 11:34: AIR POLLUTION, reproduced below
(and on-line at http://www.slpl.lib.mo.us/cco/code/data/t1134.htm):

"11.34.140 Air pollution nuisance prohibited.

The emission or escape into the ambient (outside) air within the City from any source or sources whatsoever of smoke, ashes, dust, soot, cinders, dirt, grime, acids, fumes, gases, vapors, odors, or any other substances or elements in such amounts as are detrimental to, or endanger the health, comfort, safely, welfare, property, or the normal conduct of business, or cause severe annoyance or discomfort to, or is offensive and objectionable to a significant number of citizens as determined by the Commissioner, shall constitute a public nuisance, and it is considered unlawful for any person to cause, permit, or maintain any such public nuisance. (Ord. 65645 § 13, 2002: prior: Ord. 64749 § 15, 1999.)"

You also wrote:

"If I am a smoker and I open a bar and all my employees are smokers, and I put a HUGE sign on the front door that says "Smoking on Premises" and then I let the public to choose whether or not to enter, why does that become a problem for you?"

This idea to simply rely on signage to indicate that premises allow smoking (or not) was originally being promoted by Big Tobacco with the express purpose of sidetracking meaningful regulation of secondhand smoke to head off legislation making venues and workplaces smoke-free. It was tried unsuccessfully in the past on several occasions in the City of St. Louis, and this isn't the first time I've pointed out the absurdity of such legislation.

Please...Please...Please.....End this O'Fallon Patch Smoking Debate takeover by Martin and Elizabeth by both of you meeting coffee somewhere so that you can debate for days if you wish. This debate is worse than fingernails on a black board because it never stops. Thanks...happy debating wherever you go.

Mr. Pion, you dismiss my emissions scenario on the grounds that is isn’t likely & then you want to point to the Air Pollution Nuisance code, which is precisely the precedent that makes clearly possible. Thank you for strengthening my point for me. Please explain: "it was tried unsuccessfully in the past on several occasions in the City of St. Louis.” Do you mean that people ignored the signage & exposed themselves to shs? That is a personal choice. Once again, you are not interested in freedom to choose. What you are lobbying for is the dictating of lifestyle. As far as my suggestion that a smoker, hire other smokers & advertise his property as smoking you made this statement: "that was originally being promoted by Big Tobacco with the express purpose of sidetracking meaningful regulation of secondhand smoke to head off legislation making venues and workplaces smoke-free.” I’d like to point out how you have, yet again, avoided answering the question. I want to know…how you would be affected by SHS if the ordinance was written so that my example was real? You can’t answer that because it renders all of your statistics unnecessary and you have to admit that in order to be exposed to shs, one must choose to do so.

In the interest of respecting Mr. Frain’s request, I’ll simply conclude as best as I can in limited time & space. Here’s what I think. You believe whole-heartedly that smoking should be illegal & no one should smoke. The problem is that there isn’t enough hard, irrefutable proof to make an iron-clad case. Plus, that pesky personal choice issue keeps getting in the way. You want smoking outlawed so badly that you’ve aligned yourself publicly (if not financially) with groups who have engaged in questionable practices to inundate us with half-truths, tainted studies, and blatant conflicts of interest. By doing so, you’ve weakened your case not supported it. I think it’s admirable that you want to protect our society from something you feel is bad for them. I am a big proponent of education against smoking and hope that you are successful in that endeavor. However, I am equally passionate about freedom & all that goes along with it, (even when it is not a choice I would make for myself). I believe this issue is about freedom because at the very root is the matter of choice. I recognize that I can easily avoid smokers simply by making the choices I need to make for myself & family. It is not up to me to make choices for others. You want to pretend there is no choice, because it doesn’t fit neatly into your box.

Mr. Frain, I assume you are acting as a representative of Patch.com when you make this request. Your relationship with the website is not very clear. If so, I respect your request to make no further posts on this thread after this one. However, if the Patch doesn’t want readers to comment on contentious issues, why post the article & allow comments? Mr. Pion & I participated in an honest debate about an issue that affects our community. We were respectful to each other & other posters as well. If Patch feels there is “negative” content in our posts, then perhaps you should consider monitoring the comments below the article on the drug-addicted purse snatcher, where the subject’s family very publicly aired their dirty laundry. But I digress.

Hi Elizabeth...My relationship with the Patch is just one of a reader and a "some-time" blogger. I certainly didn't mean to speak for the Patch....I appreciate and understand the professional level of your debate. As a reader I just felt that the points you both were making had been well stated several times and since the debate had come down to two people that it might be nice for you to continue it over a cup of coffee. Have a great afternoon.

Hi all,
We appreciate every person who supports the site and encourage civilized comments, debates and expression of thoughts and opinions on articles. We want Patch to be a place where you can state your opinion and discuss issues with your neighbors. We do our best to monitor comments and encourage readers to contact us if they feel a comment is inappropriate or violates our terms of use. Please feel free to email me anytime at jordan.lanham@patch.com.

It’s clear that there will be no closure on the issue of SHS, certainly not in this forum. I can tell you that personally SHS has had a very significant negative impact on both my work life and private life, and I am by no means as smoke-sensitive as some others I know.

At work, during the period smoking was still allowed, I avoided going to meetings whenever possible, which meant I wasn’t able to participate fully in collaborating with my colleagues. That led to one of the people reporting to me eventually heading up the establishment of a new lab. instead of me. It also led to tension dealing with other colleagues who smoked, to the point that the matter went to the company ombudsman to try (unsuccessfully) to resolve.

Because my wife is nowhere near as smoke-sensitive as me it has resulted in her going on vacations on her own, or out to social events without me. This detracts from my marriage and negatively impacts my social life.

Smoking, when it affects others, is comparable to drinking and driving. Both don’t simply put the smoker (or driver) at risk: they can directly and very adversely affect other totally innocent individuals.

In a civilized society these issues are addressed rationally. SHS has not been so addressed because of the influence of Big Tobacco and its allies, which have worked hard to prevent appropriate laws being implemented, aided by nicotine addicted smokers who have been persuaded their rights are being trampled.

I believe that eventually smoke-free air will be the norm, and those who continue to smoke (because smoking will not be banned, nor should it be) will accept it as being the norm as well.

Mr. Pion, it is unfortunate that you had some of those experiences, however, that is not the current situation or the standard. Most places that are "office" type settings do not allow smoking. Those that still do are more sensitive to the issue, and created designated areas so that non-smokers could easily avoid the smokers. As far as "tension with smokers", that is not a health issue, that sounds more like a social issue. You were/are offended by those who smoked. This created an animosity between you. Again, it is an unfortunate situation, but you said it yourself that this is in the past, not the present. Your charge that other people having the right to smoke on their property (or allow others to) detracts from your marriage and negatively impacts your social life is obnoxious and you can't be serious. That is tantamount to a peanut allergy sufferer blaming their marital troubles on DQ for having a peanut desert on the menu. Considering all of the non-smoking venues in the county, I find it hard to swallow that your social life is suffering as a result of freedom of choice for the rest of the places. Lastly, it is painfully obvious that you never intend to answer my question about a smoker, hiring smokers, and properly displaying a smoking warning. Fine, I'll answer for you....it wouldn't affect you, because you wouldn't enter. Freedom for all Mr. Pion, not just those who agree with you. That is what our country is founded on.

The reason that tobacco-polluted indoor environments are no longer the norm is the progress made in adopting smoke-free air laws. And there is absolutely no rationale for exempting one privately-owned business from such health rules.
You are trotting out arguments which are totally flawed and using terms favored by the tobacco industry which are inapplicable, such as "freedom of choice."
Your signage proposal is just a cloak for maintaining the status quo and blocking meaningful health regulations.
I would hope that our country is founded on more than the hollow arguments you use.