From the St. Louis Beacon
...Voters in one of the county's largest communities, Kirkwood, also strongly backed a smoking ban, which go into effect next summer. Debra Hacke Cotten, a spokeswoman for the group Healthy Air for Kirkwood, said, "We are very excited. It was a very decisive victory. Obviously it was what the people of Kirkwood wanted."
From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch
...Voters in St. Louis County have overwhelmingly approved a ban on smoking in restaurants and most other indoor businesses. The vote means that smoke-free legislation approved by St. Louis aldermen -- which was contingent on a similar proposal passing in the county -- will also become law.
Both the county and city prohibitions will not go into effect until January 2011. And both measures contain plenty of exceptions.
In the county, "drinking establishments," defined as bars who make a quarter or less of their sales from food, can still allow smoking. In the city, "small bars," those with no more than 2,000 square feet of service space, will have five extra years to comply.
Casinos floors in St. Louis city and county will also be exempt.
The margin of victory leaves little room for interpretation. Though turnout was relatively light- about 20 percent -- the smoking ban won with 65 percent of the vote.
]]>UPDATE: BB CS AA 46 (aka the smoke-free bill) passed the City Board of Aldermen today by a vote of 20-7. The bill won't go into effect until the County passes a smoke-free measure and bars under 2000 sq ft are exempted for 5 years after enactment. Other exemptions include: casinos, tobacco retail shops, private clubs, 20% of hotel rooms.
It's tremendous progress that so many leaders now recognize the serious health impact caused by secondhand smoke. However, it is unfortunate we are failing to protect or delaying protection to the most exposed group of workers. All workers deserve protection - EVEN those in bars and casinos. While we are grateful to those leaders who have supported smoke-free air, the passage of this measure clearly shows there is more work left to do to protect all workers and patrons in St. Louis City from secondhand smoke.
We look forward to continuing the positive change we've begun and hope you will join us in the work that remains to make all St. Louis City workplaces 100% smoke-free.
]]>Smoking Bans Reduce Heart Attacks and Disease
New York Times, October 16, 2009 By Pam Belluck
Bans on smoking in places like restaurants, offices and public buildings reduce cases of heart attacks and heart disease, according to a report released Thursday by a federally commissioned panel of scientists.
The report, issued by the Institute of Medicine, concluded that exposure to secondhand smoke significantly increased the risk of a heart attack among both smokers and nonsmokers. The panel also said it found that a reduction in heart problems began fairly quickly after a smoking ban was instituted and that exposure to low or fleeting levels of secondhand smoke could cause cardiovascular problems.
"Even a small amount of exposure to secondhand smoke can increase blood clotting, constrict blood vessels and can cause a heart attack," said Dr. Neal L. Benowitz, a professor of medicine, psychiatry and biopharmaceutical sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, and a member of the panel.
"Smoking bans need to be put in place as quickly as possible," Dr. Benowitz added. "The longer we wait, the more disease we are accepting."
The report, commissioned by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, examined data from 11 studies from communities in Canada, Italy, Scotland and the United States.
The degree of heart attack reduction in those communities varied widely, from 6 percent to 47 percent, but every study showed a decline.
"The evidence is now overwhelming," said Dr. Richard D. Hurt, director of the nicotine dependence center at the Mayo Clinic, who was not involved in the report.
"Secondhand smoke kills a lot of people," Dr. Hurt said, "and one of the mechanisms by which it does is through exposure and the effect on the cardiovascular system."
The committee said that none of the 11 studies were optimal in method or in data collection, making some significant questions unanswerable. Some studies were small, some were conducted over a short time, and only two, in Scotland and in Monroe County, Ind., noted whether heart attack victims were smokers or nonsmokers.
These limitations left the committee unable to determine why reduction rates varied so much. But some members speculated that places like New York State, which had some smoking restrictions in place before instituting more comprehensive bans, would already have been showing improvement, so reductions from bans would be smaller.
"Evidence was not strong enough to say the degree" to which smoking bans reduce risk or the degree to which "individual lifestyle, community and societal factors can also influence the magnitude" of heart disease reduction, said Dr. Lynn R. Goldman, the panel's chairwoman, a professor of environmental health sciences at Johns Hopkins University.
Dr. Michael Siegel, professor of community health sciences at Boston University, said that such limitations were significant flaws and that the panel was being "sensationalistic" about the impact of smoking bans.
"Anybody could have told you without any kind of review that smoking bans don't raise heart attacks," Dr. Siegel said, but "it could be that they have an exceedingly small effect" and that reductions were "just occurring anyway" because of improvements in treatment of heart disease.
A panel member, Dr. Eric D. Peterson, a cardiologist at Duke, said that even if reduction rates were small, the studies supported bans.
Dr. Goldman said the committee found that "a cause-and-effect relationship exists between heart disease generally and secondhand smoke exposure."
"It increased the risk of coronary heart disease by about 25 to 30 percent," she added.
Dr. Siegel said that connection was "unequivocal," but that a significant risk applied only in people who have severe heart disease. "An otherwise healthy person is not going to walk into a bar for 20 minutes and have a heart attack," he said.
Seventeen states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia ban smoking in bars, restaurants and workplaces, while 14 other states ban smoking in one or two of those types of establishments, according to Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, an advocacy group. More than 350 cities and towns have similar bans.
The panel's report echoes two recent studies which found that one year after smoking bans were put in place, the average rate of heart attacks had dropped by 17 percent, and continued to drop more over time.
David Sutton, a spokesman for Philip Morris U.S.A., said that he could not comment on the institute report until the company had had a chance to review it, but that the company supported smoking bans in public areas.
"Private business owners should have the flexibility" to "cater to smokers and nonsmokers alike," Mr. Sutton said, but "there are sufficient reasons to warrant measures that regulate smoking in public places, places where people must go."
]]>By Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist
Kansas City took about four years to finally pass a strong, effective smoke-free law. But St. Louis County -- the biggest in Missouri with 1 million people -- is still far, far behind us.
On Nov. 3, voters in the county will go to the polls to decide the fate of a proposed smoking ban. But it's an absurdly weak one, because it would allow smoking in many bars plus parts of the airport.
In fact, groups that usually support smoke-free laws, such as the American Cancer Society, have said they oppose the county's plan. The groups figure that passing a sham of a law would make it tougher to approve a stronger one in the future.
But County Executive Charlie Dooley refused requests to veto the proposed ordinance. Dooley, who said he supports a statewide ban, said he wanted to give voters a chance to back a law that would be better than the status quo.
The machinations in St. Louis County show -- once again -- how foolish it is to have cities pass piecemeal attempts to protect the health of millions of Missouri residents.
A statewide, wholesale smoke-free law that would prohibit smoking in all public places is needed.
The General Assembly should approve that kind of law in 2010, and end the time-consuming waste of energy on passing patchwork laws throughout the state.
]]>St. Louis' Secondhand Smoke Problem
Study reveals unsafe air in bars that allow smoking, proves need for smoke-free policy
A 2008 study by the Roswell Park Cancer Institute, "St. Louis City Bars Air Monitoring Study", found unhealthy air quality in bars that allow smoking in St. Louis City. According to the study, bars in the City that allow smoking had indoor air pollution levels 6 times higher than smoke-free bars.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Air Quality Index are standards in place to protect public health
Workers in St. Louis City bars that allow smoking are exposed to levels of air pollution in excess of EPA standards in place to protect public health. A comprehensive smoke-free air policy that prohibits smoking in all indoor places is the only proven means to eliminate exposure to toxic tobacco smoke pollution. This reduction in exposure to toxic tobacco smoke will result in improved quality of life and health outcomes for St. Louis City workers and residents.
The study was conducted to assess indoor air quality in 8 randomly selected St. Louis City, MO bars where indoor smoking is permitted in July 2008. Two similar establishments were also randomly selected and sampled in St. Louis City where indoor smoking is prohibited. The concentration of fine particle air pollution, PM2.5, was measured with a TSI SidePak AM510 Personal Aerosol Monitor. PM2.5 is particulate matter in the air smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter. The average particle size of tobacco smoke is 0.2 microns. Particles of this size are released in significant amounts from burning cigarettes, are easily inhaled deep into the lungs, and cause a variety of adverse health effects including cardiovascular and respiratory disease and death.
While this study did not specifically evaluate any ventilation or filtration systems in the sampled venues, two of the locations sampled had filtration systems installed according to a local filtration company website. Marketing materials for the installed filtration devices claim they will clean the air of tobacco smoke. The two venues in question, numbers 5 and 6 in this report, had fine particle concentrations over 10 times higher than outdoor air and the air was "unhealthy" according to EPA standards. This confirms what the U.S. Surgeon General has stated, "cleaning the air and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke."
Key findings of the study include:
--The average level of fine particle indoor air pollution was 6 times higher in places in St. Louis City that allow smoking compared to the smoke-free places. (Mean PM2.5 concentration in St. Louis City smoking venues 137 µg/m3 versus 22 µg/m3 in smoke-free venues)
--Employees working full-time in the establishments sampled in St. Louis City are exposed annually to fine particle air pollution levels 2.7 times higher than the safe annual limit established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
--Indoor particle pollution levels in smoke-free St. Louis City bars are low and virtually the same as outdoor air.
In 2006, the U.S. Surgeon General released a landmark report on secondhand smoke. The report confirmed that exposure to secondhand smoke causes cancer, heart disease and serious lung ailments. Secondhand smoke contains dozens of carcinogens and more than 4,000 chemicals, including formaldehyde, cyanide, carbon monoxide and arsenic. As the Surgeon General put it, "The debate is over. The science is clear. Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance but a serious health hazard."
Consistent with the findings of the U.S. Surgeon General and the American Society for Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, this study provides further evidence that indoor smoking causes exposure to harmful levels of indoor air pollution. Comprehensive smoke-free air policies prohibiting indoor smoking are the only effective means to eliminate the health risks from secondhand smoke exposure.
The study was authored by Mark Travers, a Research Scientist in the Department of Health Behavior at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, New York. He has conducted numerous studies on indoor air pollution in the United States and over 40 other countries. Roswell Park Cancer Institute is the nation's first cancer research, treatment and education center and is a member of the prestigious National Comprehensive Cancer Network, an alliance of the nation's leading cancer centers.
Support for this study was provided by Missouri Foundation for Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
Read the Post-Dispatch's story about the committee meeting today.
Today, the Health Committee (made up of Ald. Greg Carter, Ald. Charles Quincy Troupe, Ald. Terry Kennedy, Ald. Steven Conway, Ald. Jeffery Boyd, Ald. Craig Schmid, Ald. Joe Vollmer, Ald. Kacie Starr Triplett, and Ald. Donna Baringer) was supposed to vote on the smoke-free initiative. In a surprise move by Ald. Troupe, the meeting was unceremoniously adjourned until next week, when the Health Committee gets financial statements from the Ways and Means Committee. Committee Chair Ald. Carter also said part of the reason for the meeting ending early was to give north side aldermen a chance to talk to their constituent bar owners. Apparently, they haven't had time to get around to it at any point in the last five months.
Over the summer, the Health Committee listened to more than nine hours of testimony, and we have it on good authority that their inboxes have been swamped with emails for or against the smoke-free measure introduced by Ald. Lyda Krewson. This bill was introduced in May. It's now, for all intents and purposes, October. And in a few short weeks, it will be November. The County vote is on November 3rd. We wouldn't be surprised if they keep stalling until they know how the County votes are tallied.
Whatever happened to doing the right thing, taking up the mantle, going out on a limb, getting your hands dirty, etc., etc.? There are so many applicable clichés here!
So here we are again. The time has come, the Walrus said! We're asking again that you contact the Health Committee. It's time for action. E-mail the Health Committee and tell them you won't wait any longer. They're seeking out bar owners to ask their opinion, but are they seeking out your opinion? We all pay taxes, so what's with the preferential treatment? C'mon folks. Please take a few minutes to do your civic duty, just copy and paste the email addresses below:
carterg@stlouiscity.com, troupec@stlouiscity.com, triplettk@stlouiscity.com, boydj@stlouiscity.com, baringerd@stlouiscity.com, conways@stlouiscity.com, vollmerj@stlouiscity.com, schmidc@stlouiscity.com, kennedyt@stlouiscity.com
]]>By Steve Patterson UrbanReviewSTL
"Smokers are noisy & trashy. So says smoking advocate Bill Hannegan in emails arguing against smoke-free public spaces. Smokers are so bad we are best advised to keep them indoors rather than unleashing, he suggests.
Recent communication to Gary Weigert, President of the St. Louis Police Officers' Association:
I am writing to warn you about the smoking ban proposed by Alderman Lyda Krewson and currently being considered by the St. Louis Board of Aldermen's Health and Human Services Committee. Unlike the smoking ban proposed in St. Louis County, the St. Louis City Smoke Free Air Act of 2009 would ban smoking in all work vehicles. This ordinance would require St. Louis City police officers to park and exit their patrol cars in order to smoke. Given the dangers police officers are subject to when patrolling the streets of St. Louis City, this seems like an unreasonable and special restriction the St. Louis Police Officers Association should protest. Again, the proposed St. Louis County smoking ban contains no such restriction.
I'd say a non-smoking employee should not be forced to endure the smoke of a co-worker. Citizens who sit in a police car while filing a complaint should also not be subjected to the smoke of an officer. Our city vehicles should not be damaged by the smoking habit of employees..."READ THE FULL STORY HERE.
]]>In November voters in St. Louis County have a smoke-free ballot item. My thoughts are:
Join us on September 12 in Lafayette Square for the third annual Urban Health Fair and Market! We'll be there from 11am to 5pm. Visit our table for more information about the smoke-free movement in St. Louis, and learn more about preventative health care, holistic healing, and living healthy in St. Louis City! "At the Amsterdam Tavern, the English Premier League beats the National League every time. That may seem like sacrilege in this baseball-crazy town, but Amsterdam Tavern is all about soccer, the No. 1 sport everywhere but here.
What's more, it bans smoking. You'd think the Amsterdam is one Cubs poster away from totally alienating the locals, but business is booming."
Read the full story here.
Please dress in blue and join us at the Council meeting, scheduled for 6 p.m., August 4th at the Lawrence K. Roos County Administration Building, 41 South Central Avenue, in Clayton. Parking is across the street.
If possible, please also join at 4:30 outside for a press conference and rally.
]]>