News

January 31, 2011

Embrace smoking ban as a change for the better

The News Tribune, http://epaper.wehco.com/daily/skins/JeffersonCity/

Change is the only constant.

That concept is as old as 500 B.C. and attributed to the Greek philosopher Heraclitus.

A change in Jefferson City effective today will be deemed significant by some residents and will pass unnoticed by others.

The change is implementation of a smoking ban approved by a majority of city voters in the November election.

The change will be most profound for bars and restaurants that have permitted patrons to smoke throughout or in designated areas of the establishment.

In arguments preceding the vote, some opponents contended a smoking ban would curtail customers, perhaps so severely the establishment would become unprofitable and close.

Proponents of the ban emphasized public health. In addition, they contended opponents’ predictions were exaggerated, based on the effect of similar bans in other cities.

Although the effect is impossible to forecast, it likely will be based on reactions to the change.

Change can generate a range of reactions, including: Efforts to repeal or augment the change; refusal to obey and suffering consequences; reluctantly accepting change while continuing to disagree; or embracing change and making the best of it.

The city’s November vote was another step in a continuing change toward a prevailing, non-smoking sentiment in society.

We urge opponents to embrace that sentiment and work to capitalize it.

In the larger scheme, we encourage smokers to view this change as an opportunity to reconsider a habit that requires them to pay to compromise their own health.

======

January 27, 2011

Jefferson City Smokefree Ordinance Effective Monday

Jefferson City, Missouri (January 27, 2011) -On January 31st, Jefferson City will join 30 other capitol cities across the country in having smokefree restaurants, bars, and other indoor workplaces. An overwhelming majority of Jefferson City voters that went to the polls last November approved the citizen-led initiative that protects workers, patrons, and visitors from the serious health harms of secondhand smoke exposure.

The U.S. Surgeon General issued a report in 2006 that found secondhand smoke to be a major risk factor for heart disease, lung cancer, stroke, emphysema, asthma and other diseases. Numerous studies have found significant and dramatic decreases in hospital admissions for cardiovascular conditions after comprehensive smokefree ordinances went into effect.

Nancy Mueller, Board Chair of Tobacco Free Missouri, sees this as part of a larger movement. “Jefferson City is the latest in a growing trend of Missouri communities going smokefree. People across the state, in cities big and small, are speaking out for their right to smokefree environments.” In recent months, comprehensive smokefree ordinances have been enacted in Fulton, Lake St. Louis, and several municipalities in the St. Louis area. Ballot issues for smokefree ordinances will be decided this April in Cape Girardeau, O’Fallon, Springfield, and Webb City.

The majority of other states have already implemented smokefree laws–including neighboring Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, and Nebraska. A bill to prohibit smoking in workplaces and public places statewide is expected to be introduced in the Missouri legislature this session.

Smokers interested in quitting can contact the Cole County Health Department at 573.636.2181, ext. 3124 or call 1-800-QUIT-NOW to reach the Missouri Tobacco Quitline.

=====

January 22, 2011

Restaurant air is far cleaner since Kansas imposed smoking ban, study says

[Excerpts from The Kansas City Star at http://www.kansascity.com/2011/01/21/2601590/restaurant-air-is-far-cleaner.html# ]

The air in Kansas bars and restaurants is now as fresh — well, as clean — as all outdoors, thanks to the state’s six-month-old indoor smoking ban.

And despite complaints from some bar owners, Kansas City’s indoor smoking ban, in effect since June 2008, has had little, if any, impact on the amount of business done by the city’s eating and drinking establishments.

These are the findings of two sets of studies released Friday by the Health Care Foundation of Greater Kansas City on how smoking laws are affecting health and the economy…

 “This is a public health policy that works. It cleans up the air,” said Mark Travers, a research scientist at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, N.Y. …

In the locations that allowed smoking before the ban, the collectors found air levels of fine particles — particles so small they can infiltrate the lungs — that average 25 times higher than what was found outdoors. The data collectors also visited establishments in Raytown and Blue Springs, where indoor smoking is still permitted, and found similar levels.

Such levels were so high they are considered hazardous by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

“You will virtually never see it that high outdoors in the U.S., unless you’re very close to a forest fire,” Travers said.

This second-hand smoke has been linked to heart attacks, cancer, asthma and premature births, he said.

“It’s certainly harmful to patrons, even with short-term exposure,” Travers said. “But the real focus ought to be on the employees. They shouldn’t be subjected to a health hazard just to keep a job.”

When the data collectors returned to the newly smoke-free bars and restaurants in Kansas, the smoke had cleared; particle levels had dropped overall by 94 percent and were similar to what was found outdoors.

“What we found in Kansas is very typical of what we find around the United States when there are smoking bans,” said Travers, who has done similar studies in more than 50 countries.

Restaurant and bar owners in Kansas City and elsewhere have long argued that indoor smoking bans hurt business, but most studies in other cities and states have failed to find that connection.

Until now, though, there has been no clear-cut evidence of the ban’s local impact…

=====

January 21, 2011

Smoking bans not affecting bar business, report says

[Excerpts from The Kansas City Star at http://www.kansascity.com/2011/01/21/2600894/smoking-bans-not-affecting-bar.html  and http://www.kansascity.com/2011/01/21/2601590/restaurant-air-is-far-cleaner.html# ]

Indoor smoking bans have had no measurable effect on the business of bars and restaurants in Kansas City, or in other Missouri or Kansas cities, an economist’s report released today says.

Restaurant and bar owners in Kansas City and elsewhere have long argued that indoor smoking bans can hurt business, but most studies in other cities have failed to find that connection. Until now, though, there has been no clear-cut evidence of the ban’s local impact.

In a study funded by the Health Care Foundation of Greater Kansas City, University of Illinois at Chicago economist John Tauras looked at tax revenues from bars and restaurants before and after Kansas City’s ordinance took effect in June 2008.

“There are no negative (economic) consequences on taxable sales in restaurants and bars in Kansas City, or in Kansas or Missouri,” Tauras said. “That’s very consistent with other research published throughout the U.S.”…

Louie Riederer, owner of the local Johnny’s Tavern chain, said he used to oppose smoking bans. But after he opened a tavern in Olathe just after that city’s ban took effect in 2006, he changed his mind.

“We were just unbelievably successful there. Even smokers said they enjoyed the smoke-free atmosphere,” Riederer said. “I think you need to change with the times, change with what is going on.”

But Bill Nigro of the Kansas City Business Rights Coalition said some bars are being hurt by the bans.

 “I hate smoking; smoking killed my father,” Nigro said. “But do we have to take people’s jobs away?”

Smoking bans force bar patrons to “go out in zero degrees and smoke like animals,” Nigro said. “Now we have all these drunk people outside unattended.”

[NOTE: The Kansas City Business Rights Coalition received $220,000 from ReynoldsAmerican to fight the smokefree ballot issue, including legal challenges to the Missouri Supreme Court.]

=====

January 19, 2011

Lawmakers burn public with exemption

[Editorial in entirety from Jefferson City  News Tribune at http://epaper.wehco.com/daily/skins/JeffersonCity/ ]

Smoking remains on the list of rules that apply to almost everyone except elected lawmakers.

Most private and public employees — including state workers — must walk outdoors during breaks to smoke. The smoke break may be accompanied by rain, sleet, snow, rain or whatever inclement element may be in play that day.

Employees in the Capitol may take advantage of an indoor, designated smoking area in the northeast portion of the basement garage.

Senators and representatives, however, need not leave the cozy confines of their offices, where they determine the smoking policy.

We find this arrangement inequitable.

Both the Senate and House, to their credit, prohibit smoking in their respective chambers and galleries.

House members recently voted to continue the exemption for their offices, a policy also shared by senators.

We encourage reconsideration of this policy.

 The public justifiably is resentful when lawmakers — whether local, state or federal — enact or exempt themselves from policies that apply to the general public.

Adding fuel to the rancor caused by this elitist attitude is that smoking has become a matter of public policy.

To advance public health, governments have adopted smoking regulations and prohibitions.

 In the interest of equity, lawmakers deserve to follow they same rules they promulgate.

We urge legislators to set an example. Eliminate smoking in the Capitol.

=====

January 14, 2011

Cape Girardeau voters to decide smoking ban April 5

[Excerpts from the Southeast Missourian at http://www.semissourian.com/story/1695324.html ]

Voters will have the final say about whether a controversial smoking ban is enacted in Cape Girardeau.

As expected, the Cape Girardeau City Council voted unanimously at a special meeting Friday evening to put the hotly contested issue before voters on April 5…

The council’s options, according to the charter’s rules on initiative petitions, were to adopt the smoking ban ordinance as written or to send it to voters…

=====

January 13, 2011

Jefferson City smokefree ordinance to take effect Jan. 31, 2011

Jefferson City, MO. — Jefferson City’s new ordinance for smokefree public places and workplaces will go into effect on January 31.  The voter-approved measure will prohibit smoking in indoor places, includding bars and restaurants.  Brochures explaning the ordinance and signs for windows or doors will be distributed to businessand public places in the nest few weeks.  “Other cities that implemented smokefree ordinances found compliance is usually good.” said City Administrator Steve Rasmussen.  “Once signs are put up, most people will follow the law.”  To provide a smoother transition, Rasmussen suggests that business owners remind customers and employees in advance of the smokefree ordinance taking effect that smoking will no longer be allowed indoors beginning on Jan. 31.  Then on or before Jan. 31, they simply post “no smoking” signs and remove ashtrays.  A copy of Jefferson City’s smokefree ordinance can be obtained at City Hall, 320 E.McCarty St., or by visiting the city’s website at www.jeffcitymo.org.

=====

January 13, 2011

Missouri Legislators Defend the Smoke-Filled Room

[Editorial in its entirity from St Louis Daily Magazine at  http://www.stlmag.com/Blogs/SLM-Daily/January-2011/Missouri-Legislators-Defend-the-Smoke-Filled-Room/ ]

The early days of a session of the Missouri legislature can generally be counted on to produce some pretty good chuckles, usually in the form of draconian bills or bizarre proclamations destined for “News of the Weird.”

In the spirit of the season, the House Rules Committee wasted little time generating this eye-roller: The inalienable right of state representatives to smoke in their State Capitol offices shall not be abridged.

Never mind that multiple legislators often share offices, that they receive a wide range of visitors at large, and that smoking is prohibited in all other state government buildings (and most other indoor workplaces in the free world). And there’s the peripheral issue of death (among the side effects of second-hand smoke) to consider. Unless, that is, you are on the House Rules Committee.

With an apparently straight face, St. Louis’ own Rep. John Diehl (R-Town and Country) says you just can’t “take away people’s individual prerogative to do something in the privacy of their own offices.”

Let your imaginations run wild, folks. This is a family website, so we won’t bother to speculate as to the visions conjured up of politicians (and their lobbyist friends) “doing something in the privacy of their own offices.” (Give them the benefit of the doubt: It’s probably nothing worse than smoking and making slimy backroom deal.) Look at the bright side: This is as close as the Missouri House gets to considering a human-rights issue.

But it’s not a laughing matter to State Rep. Jeanette Mott Oxford (D-St. Louis), who is a member of the endangered species dubbed the “Missouri Progressive” by archaeologists. Oxford suffers from severe asthma and says without exaggeration that smoking poses a “life-and-death” threat to her. Oxford, however, is neither an unborn child nor a person especially revered by the wing nuts overrunning her chamber, so it’s not clear that her plea for life will get much response when she tries to bring the matter to a full House vote.

Missouri politicians are, after all, head over heels in a love affair with Big Tobacco. The state can “proudly” claim it has the lowest tobacco taxes in the nation–less than one-eighth of the national average–presumably out of respect for the Missouri tobacco industry, which unfortunately cannot return the love because it essentially doesn’t exist.

Sure, the state is broke. But at least it’s the cheapest place to smoke in America.

The situation has only grown more ludicrous on a statewide basis since we addressed the subject in June 2009.

On the other hand, St. Louis County voters overwhelmingly approved a smoking ban since that story appeared and just this week, it was the subject of some apparent tinkering.  Also this week came word that more local educational institutions are addressing the smoking issue with a new mindset.

And even the House Rules committee took a radical step by banning smoking in a back chamber of the House, where only representatives are allowed to gather.

In a public “missive” as to how the wheels of progress roll, Rep. David Sater (R-Cassville ) certainly seemed to feel that the moral high ground had been discovered. “The House, in my opinion, was not setting a very good example by allowing smoking in a common area of the House,” he explained.

Right. But what about those public, taxpayer-funded offices where the public comes to visit while you do the public’s work?

Oh, right, that’s where the “privacy” thing happens. No need to set an example there.

Update, 1/13/11: This morning, after roughly an hour of debate, the House voted against Oxford’s “life-and-death” argument by a whopping 113-45 margin.
=====

January 13, 2011

Smoking still allowed in Missouri’s legislative offices

[Story in entirety from St Louis Post Dispatch at http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ee2fc060-3d58-5e13-9967-53ef611b7a42.html ]

UPDATE: At the request of Republican leaders, the full House today defeated an amendment to ban smoking in legislators’ offices. The vote was 113-45.

JEFFERSON CITY • Smoke-free is becoming the norm in workplaces across Missouri. But in state government, you can still light up in one office building: the Capitol.

The House and Senate allow smoking in representatives’ and senators’ office suites on all four floors of the Capitol, as well as in a members-only gallery at the rear of the third-floor House chamber.

Now, that policy is coming under attack from health-conscious legislators in both political parties. They say they’re standing up for children in tour groups and people with asthma and other respiratory problems who can’t breathe in smoky spaces.

“This is the only building owned by the state where you can smoke,” said freshman Rep. Rory Ellinger, D-University City. “You can’t even smoke in prison.”

Those pushing to bar smoking have wrung one concession from Republican House leaders, who agreed to ban it in the rear gallery, where legislators often grab meals between votes.

But the House Rules Committee has so far rejected pitches to go further. With the Legislature sometimes working 14-hour days, opponents of a smoking ban say it would impose a hardship on legislators and staffers who smoke.

“I don’t think there was a consensus … to take away people’s individual prerogative to do something in the privacy of their offices,” said the committee’s chairman, Rep. John Diehl, R-Town and Country.

Some Democrats will try to reverse that decision when the House debates the rules, possibly as early as today.

Across the Rotunda, the Senate has already banned smoking in its rear gallery, as well as common areas such as committee rooms, hallways, restrooms and elevators.

But senators, too, can smoke in their offices. No members have proposed to change that.

Areas of the Capitol controlled by the executive branch — parts of the first and second floors — do bar smoking.

The issue is coming up in the House, in part, because legislators in the minority party (Democrats) are crammed into small cubicles, which are double-decked on the Capitol’s high-ceilinged first floor.

With no seniority, Ellinger, for example, ended up in what’s known as the ‘smoking complex,” where at least two of the 10 legislators smoke. So do some staffers. The offices share a ventilation system.

“Someone can confine their smoking to their cubicle but the smoke goes everywhere,” said Rep. Jeanette Mott Oxford, D-St. Louis.

Smokers say the problem is overstated.

Rep. Tim Meadows, D-Imperial, said that when he smokes, he closes his office door, opens the window and turns on a fan.

“We blow it outside,” he said.

Meadows said he is trying to quit and hasn’t had a cigarette in eight days. But even if he quits for good, he supports letting lawmakers smoke in their offices.

“When we are here late at night, this is our home,” Meadows said. “As long as I’m blowing it out the window and it’s not bothering anybody, what difference does it make?”

Rep. David Sater, R-Cassville, who persuaded the House Republican Caucus to prohibit smoking in the rear gallery, said that with the House’s odd hours, a broader ban would impose “a hardship” on smokers.

Some remember when the problem was much worse.

As late as the 1990s, smoking was allowed throughout the Capitol, including in the ornate House and Senate chambers and in packed committee rooms.

“Fifteen years ago, the majority (of legislators) were smokers,” said Sen. Tim Green, D-Spanish Lake. “Today, the majority are nonsmokers.”

Also, growing concern about the danger of secondhand smoke has galvanized support for measures banning smoking in public places. Jefferson City voters passed such a measure in November, though it doesn’t govern goings-on in the Capitol.

But the culture is changing.

Back in 1995, the Senate made light of the issue, passing a “courtesy resolution” declaring the area surrounding longtime tobacco and beer lobbyist John Britton “an official Missouri State Senate designated smoking area.”

While the resolution had no force of law, Britton used to puff away in a third-floor hallway corner.

He’s more careful these days.

On Wednesday, Britton was spotted walking down the hall with an unlit cigarette in his hand, heading for a friendly Senate office.

“I just try to be discreet with my smoking,” he said.

=====

January 11, 2011

Council tables smoking, alcohol bans

Proposals will go before voters in April 5 election.

[Excerpts from Springfield News Leader at http://www.news-leader.com/article/20110111/NEWS01/101110356/Council-tables-smoking-alcohol-bans ]

It will be up to voters to decide whether to prohibit smoking in enclosed public places in Springfield, as well as whether some movie theaters will be barred from selling alcohol, members of the City Council decided Monday night.

In a move that was something less than a surprise, the council tabled ordinances calling for the smoking and alcohol bans.

That means both proposals that started as petition efforts will go on the April 5 city ballot.

On the smoking prohibition issue, that suits Clean Air Springfield just fine, organization representative Megan Creson said.

The council’s decision on the smoking issue is a victory for a public health effort and democracy, Clean Air Springfield representative Megan Creson said.

“We want the people to vote on this,” she said.

Clean Air Springfield has done no surveys yet on voter attitudes, but the group is confident voters will support prohibiting smoking in enclosed public places, she said…

 =====

December 29, 2010

NC Smoking Ban Reaches First Year

(excerpts from WGHP-TV of Greensboro – High Point – Winston-Salem NC at http://www.myfox8.com/news/wghp-story-smoking-ban-101229,0,6999621.story ) 

After a full year of North Carolina’s indoor smoking ban, many restaurants report business has remained mostly the same.
Air quality in North Carolina restaurants has improved 89 percent since smoking was banned, state department of public health officials said.
“It’s important because it’s creating a new environment and helping the air which is better for lungs, especially for children,” Destiny Sanders, with the TRU Tobacco Youth Advisory Council in Forsyth County, said.
Steven Hondos, owner of Jimmy the Greek’s restaurant on University Parkway, said his wait staff is healthier, his customers are happier, and business is just as good.
“There are fewer colds because of it, so that’s a good thing. I like the atmosphere a lot better. A lot of people like it better,” Hondos said.
“It seems like the food tastes better, you know,” Charlie Jenkins, customer of Jimmy the Greek’s, said.
More than 70 percent of people going to bars said the law made no difference to them, a state department of public health survey reported.
Despite things remaining normal at the restaurant, Hondos said he wouldn’t have banned smoking if the law hadn’t been enacted, mainly because of RJ Reynolds sitting across the street…

=====

December 23, 2010

Proposed smoking ban heading to ballot in O’Fallon

[Excerpts from St Louis Post Dispatch at http://www.stltoday.com/suburban-journals/stcharles/news/article_aca26737-3f20-5de5-9e72-a68f4046a9c6.html ]

The O’Fallon City Council elected not to take a public stand on a proposed smoking ban headed for the April 5 ballot.

The council heard comments from 21 people Wednesday night during a public hearing on the proposed ban, which would prohibit smoking in workplaces. Only two people spoke against the ban.

In November, a citizens coalition called Smoke-Free O’Fallon collected more than 1,900 signatures to place the ban on the April ballot. It is the first time O’Fallon residents have exercised the initiative petition power granted them in the city charter, adopted in 2009.

The St. Charles County Election Authority two weeks ago certified the petition. The City Council had 30 days to adopt the petitioners’ proposed ordinance as written. If the council did not adopt it, the ordinance would automatically appear on the April ballot…

One of the few people to speak against the ban was John Callahan, a member of the committee that drafted the city’s charter. Callahan said he did not smoke, except for a cigar on special occasions. But businesses should choose for themselves whether to allow smoking, and customers should choose whether to patronize those businesses, he said.

“It’s not just an issue of health or clean air,” Callahan said. “It’s limiting the individual citizen’s choice, and I don’t like that. Leave people alone to make up their own minds.”

Callahan refuted health statistics quoted by smoking ban supporters. He said smoking bans in St. Louis County had contributed to businesses closing.

Sharon Lee, manager of the Siteman Cancer Center in St. Peters, said 40 percent of all cancers are tobacco related. Lee said she works with patients who are dying from cancer caused by secondhand smoke exposure. Lee said it would be nice if the state or federal government enacted smoking restrictions. But since they were not going to do it, cities like O’Fallon should take the lead, she said.

O’Fallon resident Julia Luetkenhaus, an eighth-grade teacher in the Wentzville School District, said adults send children conflicting messages.

“We say it is wrong to smoke, but we still allow it in public places, and subject them to secondhand smoke,” Luetkenhaus said. “We tell them do as we say, not as we do. It is time to start to lead by example.”

=====

December 23, 2010

North Carolina: Smoking ban making headway

(excerptsfrom Richmond County Daily Journal at http://www.yourdailyjournal.com/view/full_story_home/10758192/article-Smoking-ban-making-headway?instance=homesecondary_news_left_column )

An air quality study by the N.C. Division of Public Health shows that air quality in restaurants and bars around the state has improved by 89 percent since the no smoking law went into effect Jan. 2.

“The law is protecting North Carolinians from the health hazards of secondhand smoke, and that will have a lasting impact on the health of our citizens,” said State Health Director Jeff Engel, M.D. “Secondhand smoke has been linked to heart disease, cancer, respiratory infections and asthma.”

Rex Hudson, owner of Hudson Brother’s Deli, said that, since the ban, families seem more apt to come into his establishment.

“Before, they would get take-out orders and now they can stay and have their meal,” he said.

The Surgeon General’s Report released earlier this month emphasizes the harmful effects of secondhand smoke, reporting that even short-term exposure to tobacco smoke can cause changes that can trigger a heart attack or stroke in someone with heart disease or asthma attacks in those with respiratory conditions.

Restaurant and bar workers report improved health since the law went into effect. Robert Nixon, owner of Jackalope Jacks in Charlotte, said his whole staff is healthier.

“They aren’t sick as much,” Nixon said. “And I know I feel better, because I don’t inhale smoke anymore.”

“I haven’t had as many colds or been as congested since the law went into place,” said Jackalope Jack’s bartender Ben Jackson…

“Compliance with the law has been excellent, with the vast majority of restaurants, bars and lodging facilities cooperating fully, thanks to the hard work of local health departments around the state,” Engel said. “The number of complaints we are receiving now about non-compliance is very small.”..

Paul M. Stone, president and CEO of the N.C. Restaurant and Lodging Association, said his membership is pleased with the new law.

“The consensus is that this ban has had an overall positive effect on restaurants and hotels in North Carolina,” Stone said. “It also has been very well received from the public.”

According to a UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health survey released this summer, 74 percent of N.C. registered voters support the law. In the same survey, 42 percent said they dine out more now that the smoke-free law went into effect, while only 8.3 percent say they dine out less often. Slightly less than 50 percent said it has made no difference in their behavior. Among bar patrons, 18.4 percent said they are now going out more, 70.7 percent said the law made no difference and 10.7 percent report going out less.

=====

December 16, 2010

Report finds dramatic changes in bars, restaurants after smoking ban

(excerpts from Wausau Daily Herald at http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/article/20101216/wdh0101/12160494/Smoking-ban-clearing-the-air )

Air quality in restaurants and taverns has improved 92 percent following this summer’s enactment of a statewide workplace smoking ban, according to a state report released this week.

The report’s results also show that dangerous small-particle levels thought to cause cancer declined to safe levels, giving supporters of the law new ammunition for arguing in favor of the law’s potential public health benefits.

“What that air quality study did was really support what we knew all along: That if we eliminated secondhand smoke from the environment, the air quality would go up,” said Dot Kalmon, coordinator for the Central Wisconsin Tobacco Free Coalition.

And for tavern owners — even those who weren’t entirely in favor of the ban — the improved air quality is noticeable.

Ryan Schultz, owner of The Polack Inn tavern in Wausau and a smoker himself who initially thought bars should be allowed to choose if they allowed smoking, said he has enjoyed coming to work in a building that no longer is saturated with smoke every day.

“There’s not nicotine on everything,” he said. “It’s different for sure.”

The report, published by the Wisconsin Department of Health Services and the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, measured air quality in more than 200 Wisconsin bars and restaurants both prior to and after the ban’s enactment.

Researchers concluded that 97 percent of the bars and restaurants now have “good” or “satisfactory” air, based on Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources standards. Prior to the ban, 87 percent of the tested establishments had “unhealthy” air, the report said.

“It’s absolutely cleaner and absolutely better,” said Mark Loppnow, owner of Loppnow’s Bar in Wausau, where smoking was permitted prior to the ban.

Loppnow said it’s too soon to tell, but he suspects the lack of cigarette smoke in the air will result in less maintenance and cleaning for his business, and will protect the 14 plasma TVs in the bar…

=====

December 14, 2010

Smoking bans may benefit kids with asthma

(excerpts from Reuters Health at NEW YORK at http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BD47Z20101214 )

Children with asthma who live in areas with “smoke-free” laws may suffer fewer bouts of coughing and wheezing as a result, a new study suggests.

The findings, reported in the journal Pediatrics, add to evidence that smoking bans in workplaces, restaurants and bars have produced health benefits. But until now, most research has focused on adults.

In the current study, researchers found that children and teenagers who lived in U.S. counties with smoke-free laws were no less likely to have asthma than kids in counties without such laws.

Kids with asthma were, however, less likely to report persistent problems with wheezing and nighttime coughing bouts when they lived in smoke-free counties…

Dr. Gregory Connolly, director of the Tobacco Control Research Program at the Harvard School of Public Health and one of the researchers on the study… said the findings back up a recent study showing that after Scotland banned smoking in workplaces and enclosed public spaces in 2006, children’s hospital admissions for asthma declined…

That study joined earlier ones suggesting health benefits in adults. A 2009 U.S. government study, for example, found that after the city of Pueblo, Colorado, banned smoking in workplaces and public places, heart attack hospitalizations dropped 41 percent in the 18 months after the law went into effect…

=====

December 13, 2010

Petitions seeking O’Fallon, Mo., smoking ban qualify for April ballot

(excerpts from St Louis Post Dispatch at http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/stcharles/article_2b4ae648-06eb-11e0-8b17-0017a4a78c22.html )

Smoking ban petitioners in O’Fallon got enough valid signatures to qualify their proposal for the April 5 election ballot, the St. Charles County Election Authority said Monday.

Rich Chrismer, the county’s elections director, said his office verified that the Smoke-Free O’Fallon organization got signatures of 1,082 registered voters in the city. That’s far more than the 791 needed.

Under the city charter, the City Council now has the option of allowing the public vote to go forward or to simply pass the petitioners’ proposal into law without an election.

The council has set a public hearing on the smoking ban proposal for 5:30 p.m. Dec. 22 in the council chamber at City Hall.

The O’Fallon proposal is similar to a law that went into effect Oct. 1 in Lake Saint Louis, a much smaller city that was the first in St. Charles County to adopt a comprehensive smoking ban.

The O’Fallon proposal would ban smoking in most enclosed public places, including all bars and restaurants…

=====

December 9, 2010

Surgeon General report: Tobacco smoke does immediate damage

(excerpts from CNN at http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/12/09/tobacco.risk/ )

Even occasional smoking or secondhand smoke causes immediate damage to one’s organs and poses risk of serious illness or death, the U.S. Surgeon General said in a new report released Thursday.

“There is no risk-free level of exposure to tobacco smoke,” it said.

The report, “How Tobacco Smoke Causes Disease: The Biology and Behavioral Basis for Smoking-Attributable Disease” is Regina Benjamin’s first as Surgeon General and describes tobacco smoke’s assault on the body.

“The chemicals in tobacco smoke reach your lungs quickly every time you inhale causing damage immediately,” Benjamin said in the report. “Inhaling even the smallest amount of tobacco smoke can also damage your DNA, which can lead to cancer.”

Tobacco smoke is made up of more than 7,000 chemicals. Hundreds are toxic, and at least 70 are carcinogens…

In fact, the report said even low levels of exposure, like occasional smoking; having just a few cigarettes a day and secondhand smoke are enough to increase the risk of a cardiovascular event…

Secondhand smoke affects adults and children differently. According to the report, children exposed can suffer middle ear infections, impaired lung function and are more susceptible to sudden infant death syndrome.

Adults are at risk for lung cancer, nasal irritation, heart disease and reproductive problems like low birth weight deliveries.

Dr. Tim McAfee, director of the Office on Smoking and Health, at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was one of 64 scientists who worked on the report. He said any exposure is harmful.

“Casual smokers think they are improving their health by cutting back but there is no safe level,” he said. “It affects people’s DNA immediately, and their heart and blood vessels literally seconds to minutes after being exposed.”

McAfee said secondhand smoke is no less dangerous than smoking.

“It inflames and irritates the lining of blood vessels, making the blood more prone to clotting and the combination of inflammation, irritation and increased clotting can literally cause a heart attack even from the kind of exposure from walking into a smoky bar,” he said…

=====

December 9, 2010

Airport, and region, going smoke-free at last

(excerpts from St Louis Post Dispatch editorial at http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/the-platform/article_fee3e7ac-03e9-11e0-9c9b-0017a4a78c22.html )

In a single stroke this week, Mayor Francis Slay undid the work of generations of tobacco industry lobbyists and executives. He announced that Lambert-St. Louis International Airport will go smoke-free.

Beginning on Jan. 2, five glass-enclosed smoking lounges at the airport, built in response to behind-the-scenes pressure from the tobacco industry, will be closed.

That same day, smoking no longer will be allowed in most public places in St. Louis and St. Louis County. The vast majority of citizens who do not smoke finally will gain the right to breathe clean indoor air.

Just by coincidence, Mr. Slay’s announcement came the same day U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Regina M. Benjamin released a new tobacco report, the 30th such surgeon general’s report since 1964.

“There is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke,” it reads in part. “Any exposure to tobacco smoke — even an occasional cigarette or exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke — is harmful.”

The report details the pathology of tobacco-related disease, noting that chemicals in tobacco smoke damage DNA and cause nearly one-third of all cancer deaths in this country…

Expect to hear howls of protest about the new clean indoor air rules from smokers and tobacco industry apologists. They’re operating from a playbook first crafted decades ago.

As far back as the early 1950s, the industry developed a public relations strategy to cast doubt on scientific research by creating “uncertainty” about the findings.

After state governments successfully sued big tobacco companies in 1998, thousands of industry documents subpoenaed as part of the suit were publicly released.

Among them is a 1992 memo entitled “Airport Strategy Plan” that spells out a national campaign to “encourage the accommodation of smokers.” Among the targets: Lambert-St. Louis International Airport, then a national hub for TWA.

The records show tobacco industry groups sent lobbyists to the St. Louis County Council in 1993 to weaken proposals that would have banned smoking in the airport. Lobbyists even “prepared some language” for a compromise measure, according to one memo.

Tobacco industry groups also unleashed supposedly independent “scientific experts” who extolled the virtues of ventilation systems to purge tobacco smoke from terminal lounges. That system eventually was adopted at the airport…

But Mr. Slay also told David Hunn of the Post-Dispatch that he’s concerned about the city’s reputation. “The image we want to project is a city that is progressive and health conscious,” he said.

More than three-quarters of the nation’s large hub airports no longer permit smoking inside terminal buildings. Early next month, Lambert-St. Louis will join them.

The vast majority of airline travelers who are nonsmokers will breathe easier because of it.

=====

December 1,  2010

New Research Provides Evidence That Freedom to Breathe Act Improves Health without Causing Economic Harm

 (excerpts from PR Newswire at http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-research-provides-evidence-that-freedom-to-breathe-act-improves-health-without-causing-economic-harm-111097859.html )

MINNEAPOLIS — New research released in the December 2010 supplement to the American Journal of Preventive Medicine (AJPM) concludes that Minnesota’s statewide smoke-free law has not adversely affected bar and restaurant employment. The research adds to the growing body of evidence on the Freedom to Breathe Act’s success and offers the first analysis of independent data from the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development.

Research conducted at the University of Minnesota found no statistically significant changes in bar and restaurant employment statewide or regionally after the smoke-free law was implemented. “These findings are significant because employment data is a key indicator of economic impact,” said David Willoughby, CEO of ClearWay Minnesota(SM). “We now know that the Freedom to Breathe Act significantly improved health without imposing an economic burden on the hospitality industry.”

A second study highlighted in AJPM found that air pollution from secondhand smoke particles in bars and restaurants decreased by more than 95 percent after implementation of the law. Conducted by the Center for Energy and Environment, these findings offer further proof that comprehensive smoke-free laws offer immediate protection to workers and customers from the dangerous particles found in secondhand smoke…  

The studies highlighted in the supplement add to the already significant research on the success of this landmark health policy. Past research has shown that hospitality workers are healthier thanks to the Freedom to Breathe Act. According to a 2008 study conducted by the University of Minnesota Cancer Center, Minnesota’s smoke-free law reduced exposure to cancer-causing carcinogens in nonsmoking hospitality workers by 85 percent. In addition, a one-year anniversary public opinion poll showed 77 percent of Minnesotans supported the statewide smoke-free law, of which 41 percent strongly supported the law.

=====

December 1, 2010

Cape Girardeau smoking ban could be on Cape Girardeau ballot

(excerpts from Southeast Missourian at http://www.semissourian.com/story/1684234.html  )

A group looking to place a citywide smoking ban on the April ballot in Cape Girardeau has cleared a significant hurdle, with city clerk Gayle Conrad confirming Tuesday the petition initiative has more than enough legitimate signatures to do so.

The Cape Girardeau County Clerk’s office verified 2,571 of the 2,678 signatures collected by Breathe Easy Cape Girardeau, which wants to ban smoking in all city bars, restaurants and other indoor public places. Conrad said 2,441 is the number of signatures required to put the issue on the ballot, which is about 10 percent of voters registered for the April election.

“The members of the coalition and our supporters are thrilled we got the number of people we needed,” said Jeremy Barnes, a professor of health promotion at Southeast Missouri State University and a member of the group. “We want to do more community education. But, ultimately, it’s the voters who have to decide.”

Now the Cape Girardeau City Council has 60 days to enact the ordinance exactly as proposed, which would also specifically ban smoking in casinos, bingo halls and private clubs. While some restaurant and bar owners said they were hoping the council could make exceptions before the vote, city attorney Eric Cunningham said the council’s hands are tied.

“The council can either adopt it without any change in substance within 60 days or otherwise it ends up being on the ballot,” Cunningham said. “The council can adopt one that’s different. But if they do that, the one that’s proposed would still go on the ballot.” … 

=====

November 26, 2010

Secondhand smoke kills 600,000 a year worldwide

(excerpts from USA TODAY at http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/health/medical/2010-11-26-smoke26_st_N.htm )

Secondhand smoke sickens millions and kills more than 600,000 people worldwide each year, including more than 165,000 children under 5, according to the first report to estimate the worldwide burden of disease and death from tobacco.

The World Health Organization’s report on 192 countries appeared in The Lancet on Thursday and found more than half of the deaths are from heart disease, followed by deaths from cancer, lung infections, asthma and other ailments…

“These (statistics) are sad data,” the American Cancer Society’s Tom Glynn says.

Tobacco kills a total of 5.7 million people worldwide each year, including 5.1 million people who die from their own smoking, the report says. Smoking is the world’s leading cause of preventable death, according to the WHO.

Growing concern about secondhand smoke has led more than 40 countries to enact some kind of smoking ban, although many of these laws are limited, according to Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights.

In the USA, 35 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Northern Mariana Islands have smoke-free laws, protecting 79% of the population.

According to the new report, children are particularly vulnerable. About 40% are exposed to secondhand smoke, along with one-third of adults. Kids exposed to secondhand smoke are at higher risk of a variety of illnesses, such as asthma, pneumonia, ear infections and sudden infant death syndrome.

Almost half of all deaths from secondhand smoke are in adult women, while 28% are in children.

“The combination of infectious diseases and tobacco seems to be a deadly combination for children,” the report says.

Because researchers used conservative estimates, the report may underestimate the number of secondhand smoke-related deaths, says Stanton Glantz, director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California-San Francisco.

Glynn says he does see “glimmers of hope” in the report. Smoking bans protect only 7% of the world’s population, suggesting lawmakers could save many lives by passing smoking bans, he says.

The bans can have dramatic benefits, the report says. Heart attack rates drop 10% to 20% in the first year after the bans are enacted.

Studies show smoke-free laws encourage smokers to quit and to make their homes smoke-free, Glynn says.

“There is virtually no parent who does not care deeply about protecting their children from harm,” he says. “They will do the right thing if made aware.”

=====

November 16, 2010

Hearing loss linked to passive smoking

Some people choose to smoke, while others have little say in the matter

(excerpts from BBC News at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11758345 )

People who are exposed to the second-hand smoke from others’ cigarettes are at increased risk of hearing loss, experts believe.

Doctors already know that people who smoke can damage their hearing.

The latest study in the journal Tobacco Control, involving more than 3,000 US adults, suggests the same is true of passive smoking.

Experts believe tobacco smoke may disrupt blood flow in the small vessels of the ear.

This could starve the organ of oxygen and lead to a build up of toxic waste, causing damage.

The harm is different to that caused by noise exposure or simple ageing…

To assess passive smoke exposure, the volunteers had their blood checked for a byproduct of nicotine, called cotinine, which is made when the body comes into contact with tobacco smoke.

This revealed that people exposed to second-hand smoke were far more likely to have poorer hearing than others, and to a degree where they might struggle to follow a conversation in the presence of background noise.

Passive smoking increased their risk of hearing loss across all sound frequencies by about a third.

Dr David Fabry, who led the research, said: “We really do not know exactly how much smoke you need to be exposed to in order to be at increased risk. But we do know that the threshold for damage is very low.

“Really, the safe level of exposure is no exposure.”

Dr Ralph Holme, head of biomedical research at the RNID (Royal National Institute for Deaf People), said: “We already knew from our own research that regular active smoking is a significant risk factor leading to hearing loss and this new study is important as it highlights the increased risks posed by passive smoking too…

“Before you next light up a cigarette, consider how it could impact not only on your own long-term hearing but your friends’ and relatives’ too.”

=====

November 8, 2010

Citywide Smoking Ban Contributes to Significant Decrease in Maternal Smoking, Pre-Term Births

(Excerpts from News Blaze of Folsom CA at http://newsblaze.com/story/2010110821450700001.wi/topstory.html )

New research released today takes a look at birth outcomes and maternal smoking, building urgency for more states and cities to join the nationwide smoke-free trend that has accelerated in recent years. According to the new data, strong smoke-free policies can improve fetal outcomes by significantly reducing the prevalence of maternal smoking.

The study … compared maternal smoking prevalence in one Colorado city where a smoking ban has already been implemented to that of a neighboring city where there is no ordinance.

Researchers from the University of Colorado School of Pharmacy collected data from mothers residing in Pueblo, Colo., before and after a citywide smoking ban took effect. Results show a 23 percent decrease in the odds of preterm births and a 37 percent decrease in the odds of maternal smoking in Pueblo following the ban. Birth outcomes in El Paso County, Colo., however, showed no such drop during the same time period. Findings in this first-ever study in United States reflect similar findings as national data from Dublin, Ireland.

The study suggests that smoking bans have a significant and immediate positive impact on the health of infants and mothers. Pre-term babies stand a greater likelihood of experiencing cardiovascular issues later in life.

“This research proves that smoking is an irrefutable risk factor for expectant mothers who are acutely more affected,” said Associate Professor Dr. Robert Page at the University of Coloardo, Schools of Pharmacy and Medicne, and lead researcher on the study, who presented the findings. “The good news is that implementing strong tobacco control policy can protect even the most vulnerable from the deadly consequences of smoking.”

=====

November 9, 2010

Creve Coeur gets stricter than county with smoking ban

( excerpts from St Louis Post Dispatch at http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_dde266b6-293f-5c47-a5c9-a2a9f025956f.html )

CREVE COEUR • The City Council voted 5-0 Monday to pass a stricter smoking ban than the St. Louis County one.

Both measures will take effect Jan. 2.

Creve Coeur’s ban goes beyond restaurants and includes all public places with employees, such as casinos, bars, assisted living facilities and private clubs, but only clubs that open after Jan. 2…

Kistner proposed the ordinance in an effort to close what she called loopholes in the countywide ordinance, which bans smoking in all restaurants that earn 25 percent or more of their gross sales from food but exempts bars that make more than 75 percent off sales of liquor.

“Exemptions, by nature, make laws like this unfair because they serve special interests,” Kistner said. “Every time you drop one in, you have someone else calling wanting one, too. The only way to protect all workers in all places is to have no exceptions.”…

Voters passed the countywide ban in November 2009 by a ratio of nearly 2-to-1.

More than half a dozen municipalities have passed smoking bans stricter than the county ordinance. They include Clayton, Kirkwood, Brentwood and Ballwin. St. Louis city has adopted the same smoking ban as St. Louis County.

Council member Robert Haddenhorst added that he hopes passing the ban will send Jefferson City a message that Missouri is ready for a statewide smoking ban.

=====

November 3, 2010

Smoking ban approved

(excerpts from Jefferson City News Tribune at http://epaper.wehco.com/daily/skins/JeffersonCity/ )

   When the dust settled after Tuesday night’s election, Jefferson City voters made it known that they want clearer air in their bars and restaurants by passing the city’s smoking ban with 58 percent of the vote.

   The ban, which will officially go into effect in February, passed by a 7,208-5,248 margin, according to complete, but unofficial, results.

   Felicia Poettgen, project coordinator for Smokefree Jefferson City, said the mood at the watch party at O’Donoghue’s Steaks & Seafood was one of excitement…

   Poettgen said she thought there was one aspect, in particular, that made the difference in passing the ordinance.

   ”I think the hard work of many volunteers pushed us over the top,” Poettgen said. “There were so many volunteers involved in this, people passing about this issue.

   ”I think it was just people talking to people and getting the word out.”

   From here, Poettgen said she and her colleagues will spend the 90 days before the ban goes into effect on Feb. 2, 2011, working with restaurants and bars that currently allow smoking to transition into compliance…

===== 

November 3, 2010

Fulton approves smoking ban

(excerpts from the Fulton Sun at http://www.fultonsun.com/news/2010/nov/02/fulton-approves-smoking-ban/ )

Patrons of Fulton businesses soon will be breathing smoke-free air after Fresh Air Fulton’s question to prohibit smoking in enclosed places of employment — including restaurants and bars — won a close race Tuesday with 53.85 percent of the vote.

“I knew it was going to be close, so I’m thrilled,” said Fresh Air Fulton organizer Linda Stevens, who also is the wellness program director at Westminster College. “We’ve been working so hard to make strides (toward a healthier community).

“I’m proud Fulton citizens have shown they are ready to change health in the city.”

The question of whether or not to ban indoor smoking in Fulton businesses has been a hot topic over the past year, and that conflict of interests was reflected in responses from voters exiting the polls Tuesday.

“I voted yes because I have allergies and it would be nice to go out and not stay up all night coughing,” said Josh Pierce.

“I’m a non-smoker and when I go to Columbia and there’s not smoking in the restaurants, I enjoy it,” agreed Carey Case.

Mark Burton also referenced the indoor smoking ban in Columbia, observing “it doesn’t make a difference in the financial situation over there and it shouldn’t make a difference here.”

Mike Diekamp said he voted yes for the ban because “I think it’s a good idea; I really do.”

“I don’t smoke, and I don’t want my kids around it if I don’t have to,” he said.

Jeff Mayne said he thinks it makes sense to ban smoking indoors.

Christy Slizewski agreed, noting “definitely second-hand smoke has very bad medical side effects.”

“It’s just a healthier environment,” she said…

According to Stevens, what is next is to continue promoting Fresh Air Fulton’s various smoking cessation programs.

“Our next step is funding resources for people that are ready to quite smoking,” she said. “We’re working on a cessation program with the county health department.

=====

October 25, 2010

Fred Parry and Simon Rose discuss the Jefferson City smoking ban

(may be accessed at KRCG website at http://www.connectmidmissouri.com/community/story.aspx?id=530988  video clip may be viewed here Fred-Simon SmokefreeJC 10-25-10.flv)

Fred Parry

On Nov. 2, Jefferson City voters will be asked to approve a city-wide smoking ban that will outlaw smoking in local restaurants, businesses and other public places.

Following the misguided lead of many cities across this country, including Columbia, proponents are attempting to ban a perfectly legal activity in private businesses.

You don’t have to be a Libertarian to be bothered by this less than subtle attempt to take away the civil liberties of business owners in Jefferson City.

I don’t particularly care to dine at restaurants where smoking is allowed, but I vehemently object to a government imposing their preferences over the law-abiding owners of private businesses.

I favor “Free Market Enterprise” without government intervention.

Why not just let non-smokers support the establishments that forbid smoking and let smokers support businesses that allow smoking?

Proponents of the smoking ban say they’re motivated by a desire to protect the employees of these establishments from harmful, second-hand smoke.

Once again, take the free market approach by letting employees truly concerned with second hand smoke make the decision on their own. This liberal, big-brother approach to protecting people from themselves is risky and meddlesome.

Lastly, the timing of this proposed ordinance could not be worse. Business is tough enough for our local restaurants and bars. Banning smoking could chase away the few customers that are still dining at local restaurants during these tough times.

Call it coincidence if you like, but it’s a fact that more than a dozen restaurants in Columbia closed their doors within months of the imposition of Columbia’s smoking ban. Can Jefferson City really afford to lose these businesses?

The smoking ban is the wrong idea at the wrong time. I hope Jefferson City voters will vote NO on November 2.

I’m Fred Parry and that’s what’s on my mind.

Simon Rose

All you have to do is look to the experience that the City of Columbia has had since banning smoking in restaurants and bars to realize this will be nothing but a good thing for Jefferson City.

You and I both opposed the original smoking ban in Columbia for the reasons you just stated. I now realize I was wrong, and I thought you had come to the same conclusion.

Huh, you must be considering a run as a tea party candidate or something I suppose!

Anyway, this is a public health matter. That is why government is involved, not just to protect patrons of all restaurants, bars and businesses but also to protect the workers in those establishments.

Trust me, if Jefferson City residents approve this ballot issue, they will soon come to relish walking into bars and restaurants and not having to deal with smoke.

I, like many Columbia residents, who may have initially opposed the ban have come to really appreciate what it has done for the city.

Also, we have not seen lots of establishments close in Columbia. The horror stories about hemorrhaging businesses has just not held true.

In fact more people are frequenting restaurants and bars because of the clean, smoke free air. All smokers have to do is step outside and most do so – complaint free.

The only businesses that might suffer Fred, are dry cleaners!

How nice it is to come home from a night out and not smell like a cigarette!

Give it a try Jefferson City, you won’t regret it!

I’m Simon Rose and that’s what’s on my mind.

=====

October 23, 2010

Smoking Ban: Seven Years Later, Dramatic Changes in Fairfield County Bars

After early resistance, smoke-free bars and restaurants are embraced by patrons and workers alike.

(excerpts from the Westport Patch – Westport CT at http://westport.patch.com/articles/smoking-ban-seven-years-later-dramatic-changes-in-fairfield-county-bars-5

… inside Gates Restaurant, a 30-year-old eatery with colorful decor and mouthwatering entrees, tables are packed with ladies who lunch and businessmen ordering salads and sandwiches, some enjoying mid-day beers at the bar.

The air is smoke-free, as it’s been in the seven years this month since the state’s smoking ban took effect in restaurants (bars and taverns followed in April 2004)…

As it turns out, a lot has changed since the law took effect seven years ago, restauranteurs in New Canaan and other Fairfield County towns tell Patch. For starters, the number of disgruntled patrons who puff has declined — a sharp contrast from when the law took hold, according to Gates co-owner Billy Auer.

“There were a lot of angry people who didn’t think it was fair to them and their rights,” he said…

… Fairfield County bar and restaurant owners said the law has had a mostly positive impact on their bottom lines, as both patrons and workers are happier not breathe in smoky air…

Auer, a former smoker who quit 15 years ago, said the ban on cigarette air has had immeasurable health benefits.

“I have asthma and I would wheeze more,” Auer said. “And now my breathing is considerably better. Not having to deal with ashtrays or the smell of smoke on everything was a pleasant change.”

Nicole Griffin, executive director for the Connecticut Restaurant Association in Hartford, told Patch the smoking ban was a big issue seven years ago. Today, bigger issues like the economy and sick pay for full-time employees have eclipsed it.

“The smoking ban is not an issue at all for restaurants,” said Griffin, whose organization has 600 members. “When it first passed, restauranteurs were really nervous that once the ban was put into effect people wouldn’t come out to eat and drink, and that’s not what happened. Seven years later, customers are really happy to go out to bars and to eat and drink and not be in an atmosphere of smoke.”

At Portofino Ristorante in Wilton, manager Stephanie Merrill echoed that sentiment.

“The workers find it better because we’re not walking in the smoke,” Merrill said of the 22-year-old establishment. “It was very smoky on the bar side.”…

“Originally some people were cranky about it but over the years it’s become accepted,” Merrill said. “When you’re sitting down and eating food, you don’t want to smell smoke while you’re eating.”…

“I agree with the ban,” said Bouissou. “Just because you smoke doesn’t mean people have to smell it.”

=====

October 13, 2010

Jefferson City Hotels Look At Possible Smoking Ban Effects

(excerpts from KOMU-TV at http://www.komu.com/KOMU/d7e2017e-80ce-18b5-00fa-0004d8d229cb/a89a2ae0-80ce-18b5-00a8-856c339e5e72.html )

With just three weeks until the November election, businesses in Jefferson City are looking at how the city’s proposed smoking ban ordinance would affect them if it passes. Some hotels and motels in the city may have to make changes if it passes.

The proposed ordinance states no more than 20 percent of the rooms can be smoking rooms. All smoking rooms must be on the same floor and smoke cannot escape to areas where the smoking is prohibited.

Denise Kinard from Truman Hotel and Conference Center said the ordinance will not likely affect the hotel if the ordinance does pass…

Kinard said. “More and more hotels are going non-smoking. More cities are going non-smoking so when they go to their national convention it’s hard enough for them to even get smoking guests rooms.”…

City councilwoman Carrie Carroll said passing a smoking ban would bring Jefferson City up to speed with other cities and guests may even expect hotels and motels to be smoke-free.

“They’re probably coming from communities where they are expecting to come to a smoke free community,” Carroll said. “That’s probably where they came from so, especially being a capitol city they may think we are more ahead.”

Carroll also said Jefferson City is one of seven state capitols in the country that has not passed a smoking ban yet.

“What’s really unique in our situation is this was brought forward by the people,” Carroll said. “So this was not something the council brought up. So now it’s going on the ballot for people to decide. On Nov. 2 when people make their choice on the ballot that will be a good signal for the business owners in town to see what the community truly wants.”

=====

October 13, 2010

Casino dealer’s suit over smoking dangers at Wynn moves forward

 (excerpts from Las Vegas Sun at http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/oct/13/second-hand-smoke-suit-moves-forward-after-judge-d/ )

A lawsuit claiming Wynn Las Vegas doesn’t do enough to protect employees from second-hand tobacco smoke has survived an early court test, with federal Judge Lloyd George in Las Vegas denying Wynn’s motion that the case be dismissed.

Attorneys for Kanie Kastroll filed suit in October 2009, seeking class-action status and charging that — unlike some competitors — Wynn Las Vegas and its parent Wynn Resorts Ltd. haven’t been proactive in dealing with smoke dangers…

The judge noted Wynn’s position that it “cannot be made liable [to its employees] for allowing its patrons to smoke freely in a place where the law specifically says that they can.”

“This position, however, ignores the potentially intricate interrelationship between this statute and common law duties,” George wrote in his ruling.

George noted that under controlling case law, in order to dismiss a complaint, “it must appear to a certainty that plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any set of facts that could be proved.”

Also, when considering a motion to dismiss, the court must accept the allegations of the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

“Construing the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, Wynn has failed to establish ‘to a certainty’ that Kastroll ‘would not be entitled to relief under any set of facts that could be proved,’” the judge wrote.

Kastroll’s attorney, Jay Edelson of the Chicago law firm Edelson McGuire LLC, said in a statement today on the ruling: “Worker safety is critical and well-recognized under the law. This is a tremendous decision for not only Wynn’s employees, but also for workers at other casinos who for years have been unreasonably subjected to secondhand smoke.”…

The Wynn attorneys also said in the filing:…

– “Wynn admits that its employees are instructed not to direct guests regarding their smoking or ashtrays or to fan their hands at a guest’s tobacco smoke. However, should a guest purposefully direct smoke toward a dealer, the dealer may communicate such action to a casino service team lead who is then authorized to ask the guest to redirect their smoke.”…

“Plaintiff’s proposed class is described as those employees ‘exposed to unsafe levels of second-hand smoke,’” the Wynn attorneys wrote in a February filing. “The question of whether Wynn’s employees have been, are, or will be exposed to unsafe levels of second-hand smoke is a legal determination that cannot be made without first determining an ultimate issue in this case (i.e., whether Wynn exposes its employees to levels of second-hand smoke which are unsafe).”

=====

October 7, 2010

Both sides stage rallies

Proposed smoking ban on Nov. 2 ballot

(excerpts from Jefferson City News Tribune at http://epaper.wehco.com/daily/skins/JeffersonCity/ )

Wednesday was a day of dueling events for the supporters and opponents of Jefferson City’s proposed smoking ban ordinance…

First off the mark for the day were the opponents, informally known as Citizens for Freedom and Personal Responsibility…

Heading the meeting was Jason Jordan, owner of Mortimer Kegley’s and designated spokesman for the group. He said the group is not an official organization, but rather a gathering of concerned residents bothered by what they see as the possibility of their rights being taken away.

“It should be the right of the business owner. As long as something is legal to do, we should be allowed to do it if our customers ask us to do it,” Jordan said. “That’s our big thing. It is not our customers asking us to go smoke-free. It’s people that don’t have anything to do with us to go smoke-free.”  [Editor's note - On the KWOS "Open Air" a few days earlier, Jordan stated he did have some customers ask him to consider going smokefree.]…

… Jenny Robben, co-owner of “The Mission,” … said her establishment does offer the option of smoke-free shows to the performers if they wish. One band recently took the offer because it had two pregnant members. [Editor's note - What if one of the waitresses became pregnant; would Robben go smokefree during the times that waitress was on duty?]…

Later in the evening, supporters of the ban, Smokefree Jefferson City, hosted an event with a large turnout… (with) information packets loaded with the medical facts they are using to buttress their argument…

During the rally, retired cardiologist Dr. Jack Sanders spoke on the dangers of secondhand smoke and what he felt was the need to pass the ban.

“I think people just have to realize that you have the right to make yourself sick, but you do not have the right to make other people sick,” Sanders said.

Poettgen said she understands the concerns of her counterparts about going out of business. However, she said the evidence she has seen does not support such concerns…

 “People don’t go to restaurants and bars to smoke. They go to have a drink, to have dinner with friends, to socialize. That isn’t the reason that they are going.”…

=====

October 1, 2010

Breast cancer linked to environmental smoke exposure among Mexican women

(excerpts from news release at http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-10/aafc-bcl092810.php )

MIAMI — Mexican women who do not smoke but are exposed to smoke are at three times higher risk for breast cancer than non-smoking women not exposed to passive smoking, according to findings presented at the Third AACR Conference on The Science of Cancer Health Disparities.

“Everyone should avoid secondhand smoke,” said Lizbeth López-Carrillo, Ph.D., professor of epidemiology, at the National Institute for Public Health, Mexico City, Mexico…”We have found that environmental exposure to tobacco increases a woman’s risk for breast cancer in the same way that active smoking does.”…

They examined 504 women with confirmed breast cancer and compared them with 504 healthy women of similar age. During direct interviews, the women were asked about their active and passive lifetime smoking exposure at the home and the workplace. Women with either active or passive tobacco exposure were compared to those women who had never smoked and had no passive smoking exposure.

Compared with women who had never smoked and had no passive smoking exposure, women with passive smoking exposure had a threefold higher risk for breast cancer. The link between passive smoking and breast cancer remained regardless of menopausal status…

“Active and passive smoke exposure is a modifiable risk factor for breast cancer,” López-Carrillo said. “Reducing not only active smoking, but also passive smoking, will prevent new breast cancer cases in this population.”

=====

September 28, 2010

Massachusetts Smoking Ban Saving Lives, Taxpayer Dollars

(excerpts from news release by ASH at http://www.prlog.org/10960385-mass-smoking-ban-saving-lives-taxpayer-dollars-notes-ash.html)

Massachusetts’ statewide smoking ban reduced heart attacks by over 7% a year, and saved millions of dollars, according to a study published in the American Journal of Public Health (http://ajph.aphypublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/AJPH) …

New studies from many countries which have instituted comprehensive smoking bans likewise show that they are slashing the number of heart attacks, the major cause of death and of unnecessary health care expense in the U.S. says Professor John Banzhaf of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)…

In a recent study, …a nationwide smoking ban in public places in Iceland resulted in a very significant 21% reduction in acute coronary syndrome among nonsmoking men in the five months after the ban was introduced.  A comprehensive smoking ban in England produced a 10% drop in heart attacks, and Scotland, which banned smoking a year earlier, had a 14% decline.  France saw 15% drop in heart attacks after a year of its ban, and Ireland and Italy each recorded an 11% drop…

=====

September 24, 2010

Smokefree law did not harm economy of Ohio counties bordering Kentucky

(summary based on abstract in Tobacco Control at http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2010/09/24/tc.2009.035493

Ohio implemented a statewide smokefree law in November, 2006.  This study examined economic activity in 6 Ohio counties bordering Kentucky, where smoking was still allowed in workplaces and public places.  The study also examined 6 Kentucky counties bordering Ohio.

Businesses examined included restaurants, bars, hotels and casinos.  Economic indicators included total number of employees, total wages paid and number of reported establishments in all hospitality and accommodation services, 6 years before Ohio’s law and 1 year after.

Results found no evidence Ohio’s smokefree law caused any increase in economic activity in Kentucky border counties. Ohio’s law generated a positive influence on wages and number of establishments in Ohio border counties.

This study found that smokefree laws are neutral with respect to the hospitality business across jurisdictions with and without laws.

=====

September 15, 2010

Smoking bans help curb kids’ severe asthma attacks

(excerpts from Buffalo News at http://www.buffalonews.com/wire-feeds/24-hour-national-news/article191349.ece )

New research shows that smoking bans spare many children with asthma from being hospitalized, a finding that suggests smoke-free laws have even greater health benefits than previously believed.

Other studies have charted the decline in adult heart attack rates after smoking bans were adopted. The new study, conducted in Scotland, looked at asthma-related hospitalizations of kids, which fell 13 percent a year after smoking was barred in 2006 from workplaces and public buildings, including bars and restaurants.

Before the ban, admissions had been rising 5 percent a year in Scotland, which has a notoriously poor health record among European countries.

Earlier U.S. studies, in Arizona and Kentucky, reached similar conclusions. But this was the largest study of its kind – and offered the strongest case that smoking bans can bring immediate health improvements for many people…

Cigarette smoke is a trigger for asthma attacks. So researchers reasoned that tracking severe cases was perhaps the best way to measure a smoking ban’s immediate effect on children…

“Acute asthma is the tip of the iceberg,” more easily tracked than less severe breathing problems, ear infections and other problems seen in children that have been linked to a caregiver’s smoking, said Terry Pechacek of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s office on smoking and health…

The ban largely targets places where adults work and socialize. But there seems to be a ripple effect: It made smoking less popular and led significant numbers of adult smokers to cut back or quit their habit at home, where the kids were, said Dr. Jill Pell, a study author.

“People are choosing to protect their kids even when they don’t have to,” said Pell, a University of Glasgow professor of public health.

That’s consistent with U.S. research, which has shown that smoking bans were followed by a decline in smoking at home, Pechacek said.

=====

September 15, 2010

Smoke-Free Law Associated With Higher-Than-Expected Taxable Retail Sales for Bars and Taverns in Washington State

(summarized from Prevention of Chronic Disease at http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2010/jul/09_0187.htm click here to see study Bar sales higher WA 7-10.pdf)

This study describes changes in sales revenue in bars and taverns in Washington since their statewide smokefree law went into effect in December 2005.

Analysis was made of taxable retail sales data for 24 quarters from 2002 through 2007, adjusted for inflation and controlled for seasonality and other economic factors.

No immediate change in bar revenues in the first quarter of 2006 (first quarter of the smokefree law), but taxable retail sales grew significantly through the fourth quarter of 2007. In the 2 years after the smokefree law was implemented, sales revenues were $105.5 million higher than expected for bars.

The higher-than-expected revenue from taxable sales in bars after the implementation of smokefree law provided extra funds to the state general fund. Potential increases in revenue in other jurisdictions that implement smokefree indoor air policies could provide funds to benefit residents of those jurisdictions.

The findings in this study suggest not only was bar revenue increased after a smokefree indoor air law was passed but also that those increases were large. Because most other studies of smokefree laws and the hospitality industry have reported no economic effect, these unexpected results may be attributed to strong popular support for clean indoor air in Washington. Voters overwhelmingly approved Initiative 901, one of the strongest smokefree laws in the nation, clearly indicating a strong preference for clean indoor air in all public places, including bars.

=====

September 14, 2010

Poll shows support for St. Charles County smoking ban

(excerpts from St. Louis Post-Dispatch at http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/stcharles/article_70b84856-c023-11df-864f-00127992bc8b.html )

More than two-thirds of St. Charles County voters support a smoking ban in indoor public places, according to a survey released Tuesday by the American Cancer Society.

The random telephone poll of 400 registered voters turned up 68 percent supporting the measure, 28 percent opposed and 4 percent undecided…

The survey was conducted July 20-22 by Fako and Associates of suburban Chicago. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.85 percentage points…

Most respondents – 71 percent – said they would patronize restaurants following enactment of a smoking ban about the same as they do now.

Twenty-two percent said they would eat out more often and 6 percent less often…

The county survey asked respondents if they supported or opposed an ordinance barring smoking “in all indoor public places, including workplaces, public buildings, bars, restaurants and casinos” in St. Charles County…

=====

September 12, 2010

Clearing up a secondhand smoke screen

[copied in entirety from St. Louis Post-Dispatch at http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/the-platform/article_d0f94602-bd2b-11df-a46f-00127992bc8b.html

NOTE:  Although he lives in St. Louis County, Bill Hannegan is prolific at writing letters-to-editor and posting comments at newspaper websites across the nation.  Expect to see him post comments at the News Tribune website as November 2 draws closer.]

As St. Louis voters prepared to cast their ballots on clean indoor-air laws last fall, opponents trotted out a familiar argument:

“Modern filtration systemshave all but eliminated the dangers of secondhand smoke,” wrote Bill Hannegan, who headed a group opposing the smoking bans, in a letter to the Post-Dispatch.

It’s a seemingly compelling argument with an interesting provenance.

Unfortunately, it turns out not be true.  Washington University researchers measured nicotine levels in 10 bars and 10 restaurants in St. Louis County. Their results were released last week: Places that allow smoking had 31 times more airborne nicotine than those that don’t.

Fully half of the establishments tested had ventilation systems. The ventilation systems didn’t help.

Bars and restaurants with ventilation systems actually recorded higher nicotine levels than restaurants and bars with no ventilation systems. Researchers suggested that may be because of the ventilation systems “recycling the air back into the same space.”

The American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers — the people who sell, design and install ventilation systems — wouldn’t be surprised at those results. The group issued a statement in 2005 saying that ventilation systems cannot protect against secondhand smoke.

A Tufts University study of restaurants and bars with state-of-the-art ventilation systems reached the same conclusion in 2006. That same year, U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona reported that filtration systems don’t work.

A 2008 study on nicotine levels in 10 St. Louis bars reported that indoor air pollution levels in bars that allow smoking were six times higher than in those that did not.

Notice a pattern here? Mr. Hannegan doesn’t. He told Post-Dispatch reporter Blythe Bernhard last week that he’s not willing to concede the point.

It turns out that the idea that ventilation is the solution to secondhand smoke came from the tobacco industry. We are shocked, shocked.

A 1998 strategy document prepared by the Tobacco Institute, an industry front group, laid out the rationale: “The argument of ‘freedom of choice’ with regard to workplace smoking is becoming increasingly difficult to sell. The concept of ‘indoor air quality’ (with an emphasis on science) has much more credibility and will draw a wider audience.”

That document is among thousands that became public after attorneys general from 48 states settled a lawsuit against the tobacco companies in 1998.

The Tobacco Institute’s report set out a strategy to “promote ventilation as the best solution to all indoor air-quality problems, including smoking.”

At about the same time, Philip Morris was launching its “ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) Strategy.”  It’s goal, according to another document marked confidential, was to use “clean-air technology as a means of promoting smoking tolerance.”

The document lays out plans for downplaying the risks of secondhand smoke, as well as a plan of attack on what the company calls “‘politicized’ science.”

It’s no surprise that 20 years later, addicts and apologists are using the same playbook in their rear-guard defense of smoking. The surprise is that anyone would pay attention to them.

After all, since those strategic smokescreens first were dreamed up 22 years ago, 9.5 million Americans have died from tobacco-related causes.

=====

September 8, 2010

Secondhand smoke: Ventilation systems are not the answer, says new study

(excerpts from  Washington University in St. Louis news release at http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/21102.aspx )  Report can be accessed here  WashU SHS study 9-8-10.pdf

In a scientific study of secondhand smoke exposure in St. Louis bars and restaurants, researchers at Washington University in St. Louis found that ventilation systems and “voluntary” smoke-free policies do not protect employees and customers from exposure to nicotine in the air.

Exposure to secondhand smoke is an established cause of cancer, heart disease and serious lung ailments, according to the U.S. surgeon general.

Researchers from the … Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine and School of Social Work analyzed nicotine levels in randomly selected bars and restaurants in the City of St. Louis and St. Louis County, and in hair samples from employees of the monitored venues.

Ten bars and 10 restaurants participated in the study. Sixteen of the venues allowed smoking indoors, and four were smoke-free. Seventy-eight employees at the bars and restaurants provided hair samples and answered survey questions…

Since airborne nicotine can only come from cigarette smoke, it is a reliable, scientifically accepted marker for assessing secondhand smoke exposure. While concentrations do not directly translate to health risk, a finding of nicotine indicates the presence of a carcinogenic and toxic mixture.

Although none of the restaurant or bar venues in the study were below level of detection, median airborne nicotine levels were 31 times higher in venues where smoking is allowed, compared with those that are voluntarily smoke-free. And, not surprisingly, as the percentage of smoking clients rose, so did the nicotine concentrations.

An interesting finding was that ventilation systems, a topic of debate in St. Louis, were not only ineffective, but restaurants and bars that had them actually had higher nicotine concentrations in the air than restaurants that didn’t have them, but where the number of patrons who smoked was similar.

This confirms the U.S. surgeon general’s statement that “cleaning the air and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke.”…

Study author Joaquin Barnoya, MD, research assistant professor in the Department of Surgery at Washington University School of Medicine, says that the cardiovascular system is very sensitive to even low doses of tobacco smoke.

“Some of the effects of secondhand smoke on the cardiovascular system in nonsmokers are comparable to the effects of active smoking,” Barnoya says. “These effects occur within a half hour of exposure.”

In response to a questionnaire given to employees as part of the study, 62 percent of respondents stated a preference for working in a smoke-free environment. More than half of non-smoking employees questioned said that all restaurants, bars and nightclubs should be smoke-free, with a third of smoking employees in agreement.

Of employee responders who smoke, more than half said that smoke-free legislation would help them quit, while 70 percent of former smokers said that smoke-free workplace legislation would help them remain nonsmokers…

=====

September 7, 2010

Webb City smoking ban heads to voters

(excerpts from news@joplinglobe.com Joplin Globe at http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/x797276092/Webb-City-smoking-ban-heads-to-voters )

After the City Council failed Tuesday to give preliminary approval to a citywide ban on smoking indoors in public places, Webb City voters will decide in April whether they want the city to implement the ban…

 “I have given this a lot of thought,” Biggs said, moments before casting his vote. “I can’t in good conscience make a decision that’s going to encourage smoking in life.”

The ordinance would prohibit smoking in places that are open to the public or serve as a place of work, including restaurants, bars, office buildings, city-owned buildings, indoor entertainment and recreation venues, health-care centers, and public transportation vehicles…

 “I think it’s our responsibility to look out for our citizens,” Darby said. “It comes down to a health issue. I don’t want people smoking next to me.”…

Joplin council members have scheduled a public hearing on the matter. The Carl Junction City Council has not publicly acted on the issue, though the Chamber of Commerce recently took an informal poll of residents on its Facebook page….

=====

September 7, 2010

Nonsmokers’ Exposure to Secondhand Smoke Declined Significantly over Last Decade

(Notes from CDC Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report which can be accessed here   CDC cotinine 9-7-10.pdf  )

Secondhand exposure to tobacco smoke causes heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmoking adults and sudden infant death syndrome, acute respiratory infections, middle ear disease, exacerbated asthma, respiratory symptoms, and decrease lung function in children.

Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey were analyzed for the proportion of nonsmokers with serum cotinine (the primary metabolite of nicotine).

Serum cotinine levels were detected in 88% of nonsmokers in 1988-1991; in 53% of nonsmokers in 1999-2000; and in 40% of nonsmokers in 2007-2008.  This significant decline is attributed to decrease smoking prevalence, changes in public attitudes regarding social acceptability of smoking near nonsmokers and children, and the increasing number of policies for smokefree workplaces and public places.

The CDC notes the only way to protect nonsmokers fully is to eliminate smoking in indoor spaces.  Additional information about secondhand smoke can be seen at CDC’s webpage here

http://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/TobaccoUse/SecondhandSmoke/index.html 

=====

Aug. 31, 2010, 9:06PM

Three years later, Houson’s smokefree ordinance is still working

(excerpts from Houston Chronicle http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/7180477.html)

Burning leaves outdoors is illegal in Houston. But until three years ago you could still burn leaves indoors — as long as they were wrapped in a little white piece of paper. That never made sense to me or the schoolchildren I spoke to.

Cigarettes are the most dangerous consumer product in the world…  Tobacco-smoke pollution from other people’s cigarettes and cigars causes around 50,000 deaths in the United States every year…

As cardiology researcher Dr. Stan Glantz puts it, “cigarettes are mini toxic waste dumps” producing at least 4,500 chemicals. About 80 of those chemicals cause cancer and others are just very toxic.

The effects of tobacco-smoke pollution can be divided into acute and chronic effects. Some of the worst effects are acute asthma attacks, especially in children, and abnormal platelet function in the coronary arteries that cause heart attacks. We now know that these acute effects occur with very short-term exposures to cigarette smoke.

The chronic effects are atherosclerotic changes of the coronary arteries leading to coronary artery disease and the carcinogens causing a variety of cancers. These cancers include the No. 1 cancer killer in men and women, lung cancer.

Smoke-free workplaces are purely a health issue. Just like asbestos in schools, lead in paint and gasoline, and salmonella in your food, it is an issue of the health of both patrons and workers. There is no right to smoke. Houstonians and Texans do have a right to breathe clean air, indoor and outdoor. Every worker has a right to be protected from toxic exposures at work, including tobacco smoke.

The most effective, and cheapest, public-health intervention Texas can implement is to make indoor air smoke-free. You not only remove the toxic effects on nonsmokers and increase the likelihood that smokers will quit smoking, but it also sends a strong message to children that smoking is not glamorous and is not a socially acceptable activity…

Three years ago on Sept. 1, 2007, Houston became a smoke-free city, joining many others around the state… The indoor air in workplaces throughout the city is cleaner and healthier for the citizens of Houston…

======

August 27, 2010

Fresh Air Fulton gets smoking ban on ballot

(excerpts from The Fulton Sun at http://www.fultonsun.com/articles/2010/08/27/news/200news01.txt)

“Shall the City of Fulton, Missouri, prohibit smoking in enclosed places of employment, including restaurants and bars for the purpose of promoting public health by decreasing citizen’s exposure to secondhand smoke and creating smoke-free environment for workers and citizens within the city limits?”

That is the question Fulton voters will answer Nov. 2 after Fresh Air Fulton succeeded in collecting the necessary number of signatures to have the issue put on the ballot…

Fresh Air Fulton spokesperson Amanda Stevens, a health educator with Counseling and Health Services at Westminster College, said allowing local residents the opportunity to vote on the question is the right thing to do.

“I think that Fulton citizens need to have the right to vote on this issue,” Stevens said. “If the city council is not willing to pursue the issue, the people have the right to.”…

“I’m just looking forward to having a healthier community,” Stevens said. “Our community is ranked pretty low on a lot of health issues. This would be the start of getting better.”

======

August 26, 2010

Secondhand Smoke Can Cause Lung Inflammation

(excerpts from Eureka Alertat http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-08/aps-ssm082610.php )

Secondhand smoke is associated with a number of diseases and conditions, including cancer, heart disease, and emphysema. It is an irritant to lung tissue and blood vessels, but the processes through which the body reacts to secondhand smoke comprise a mystery scientists are only beginning to unravel. Researchers at the University of Colorado-Denver are currently studying how secondhand smoke affects the lungs of rats, and so far it appears that second-hand smoke triggers a complex inflammatory response.

To determine how lung tissue may respond to secondhand smoke, rats were exposed a mixture of 89% sidestream smoke, which comes from the end of a lit cigarette and is exposed to the whole body, and 11% mainstream smoke, which is smoke directly inhaled by the rats.

This ratio was chosen because of its similarity to the human experience with second-hand smoke, said Dr. Kratzer. “This is much like what a human would be exposed to at a bar or casino.”

Other rats were assigned to the control group and were exposed only to regular room air.

Two months of exposure to secondhand smoke were enough to cause significant changes in the rats’ lung tissue, and the results were even more profound in rats exposed for four months. Researchers found:

-      Enlargement in the space in the lungs’ tiny sacs where oxygen-carbon dioxide exchange takes place during respiration. This suggests the structure had begun to break down, much as it does in early emphysema.

-      Increased numbers of white blood cells in the alveolar space, indicating the rats’ bodies had mounted an immune response.  What’s more, the white blood cells were distorted, as if they had engulfed particles, which might impair their function.

-      Increased levels of interleukin-18, which is produced by white blood cells in response to strong inflammatory reactions and tissue destruction.

Inhibited growth and proliferation of endothelial cells in the lung’s blood vessels, which can lead to chronic inflammation as seen in diseases like emphysema and chronic bronchitis.

======

August 24, 2010

Webb City Council to consider Smokefree Ordinance

( excerpts from Joplin Globe at http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/x2137445032/Webb-City-Council-to-consider-ban-on-smoking  and KSN-TV 16 at http://fourstateshomepage.com/search-fulltext?nxd_id=141725  )

The City Council for Webb City has joined the debate on whether to ban indoor smoking in public places. …the council voted 6-2 on Monday to allow a ban on smoking to be brought before the public as either an ordinance or through a public hearing.

“I know for a fact that lives will be saved if we put this smoke ban in operation,” said council member Don Darby.

The Bradburry Bishop Deli on Main Street banned smoking about four years ago.  Sheri Roosevelt is a manager and is glad they initiated the rule.  She’s a non-smoker and has been a waitress for 20 years.  She says secondhand smoke caused her to get asthma.

======

August 24, 2010

Bismarck City Commission OKs smoking ordinance

(Excerpts from the Bismarck Tribune at http://www.bismarcktribune.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_9c306998-afdc-11df-a794-001cc4c002e0.html

Lighting up in Bismarck bars becomes illegal Nov. 1.

City commissioners on Tuesday banned smoking in all pubs, smoke houses and truck stops with a 4-1 vote…

The medical community came out in full force in favor of the smoking ban as did several spokespeople of the Bismarck Tobacco Free Coalition.

Dr. Steven Hamar, a Mid Dakota Clinic physician and surgeon, said some 100 studies have been done about secondhand smoke. “They all show that secondhand smoke causes heart disease, lung cancer, other cancers, heart attacks and respiratory illnesses …pulmonary diseasesand asthma,” he said.

He quoted U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona’s findings from 2006 saying, “Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance anymore, but a serious health threat that causes premature death and diseases in children and non-smoking adults. … There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke.”…

Amy Heuer, president of the Bismarck chapter of the Tobacco Free Coalition, said the purpose of the new code is to protect all employees and all patrons of establishments. “It is a health issue,” she said. She said bar employees would not come forward in favor of the ban due to fear of reprisal…

 ”At the end of the day, it’s about health and safety,” Commissioner Parrell Grossman said.

Commissioner Josh Askvig agreed, saying the public has the right to be protected from known carcinogens.

“Everyone agrees on one thing — secondhand smoke is dangerous,” Commissioner Brenda Smith said. “I am not for government interference. I, too, am not happy we have to make this decision, but it comes down to we have to look at health and work safety.”…

NOTE:  Jefferson City is among only 7 state capitol cities that have yet to protect their citizens and visitors with an ordinance for smokefree public places.

=======

August 20, 2010

Cigarette smoke causes harmful changes in the lungs even at the lowest levels

First study to show alteration in the function of genes in the lungs resulting from secondhand and low-level smoking
( excerpts from Eureka Alert http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-08/nyph-csc081810.php)

… According to a new study published today in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, being exposed to even low-levels of cigarette smoke may put people at risk for future lung disease, such as lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Epidemiological studies have long shown that secondhand smoke is dangerous, but there have never been conclusive biological tests demonstrating what it does to the body at a gene function level, until now.

“Even at the lowest detectable levels of exposure, we found direct effects on the functioning of genes within the cells lining the airways,” says Dr. Ronald Crystal, senior author of the study and chief of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at New York – Presbyterian / Weill Cornell and chair of the department of genetic medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York City.

To make their findings, Dr. Crystal and his collaborators tested 121 people from three different categories: “nonsmokers,” “active smokers” and “low exposure smokers.” The researchers tested urine levels of nicotine and cotinine — markers of cigarette smoking within the body — to determine each participant’s category.

The research team then scanned each person’s entire genome to determine which genes were either activated or deactivated in cells lining the airways. They found that there was no level of nicotine or cotinine that did not also correlate with genetic abnormalities.

“This means that no level of smoking, or exposure to secondhand smoke, is safe,” says Dr. Crystal. He goes on to say that these genetic changes are like a “canary in a coal mine,” warning of potential life-threatening disease, “but the canary is chirping for low-level exposure patients, and screaming for active smokers.”

Dr. Crystal says that this is further evidence supporting the banning of smoking in public places, where non-smokers, and employees of businesses that allow smoking, are put at risk for future lung disease.

 ======

August 17, 2010

Brentwood passes smoking ban

(excerpts from St. Louis Post Dispatch at http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_c9f50f9d-44e0-5883-b4ba-fd0b83468df2.html

A tough ban that will snuff out smoking inside all bars and restaurants here won nearly unanimous approval from the Board of Aldermen on Monday night…

Supporters included local representatives of some of the nation’s largest health associations that have been involved in the front lines against secondhand smoke: the American Cancer Society, the March of Dimes, the American Lung Association and the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse.

Kathi Harness, director of government relations for the Lung Association here, called Brentwood’s ordinance “healthy progressive policy.”

“This is a public health issue,” Harness said. “And so far, 35 states and thousands of municipalities have promoted the public health of their citizens by enacting smoke-free laws.”

Before the vote, St. Louis County Councilwoman Barbara Fraser, who introduced and pushed St. Louis County’s indoor clean air act, encouraged the aldermen and mayor to pass the more restrictive smoke-free ordinance.

The countywide ban, which has more exemptions, will take effect Jan. 2, a day after Brentwood’s ban. A smoking ban similar to the county’s takes effect in St. Louis the same day. Bans are already in effect in Clayton, Kirkwood, Arnold and Ballwin and throughout the state of Illinois. A ban in Lake Saint Louis takes effect Oct. 1…

Fraser said the Brentwood ban would promote “a healthier environment for workers and customers” at bars and restaurants. “And that’s what it’s all about.”

Brentwood, like Clayton and Kirkwood, will ban smoking at all bars, restaurants, places of employment and public places, with exemptions for some hotel rooms and for private residences, private vehicles and tobacco shops. Patrons of bars and restaurants would be allowed to smoke outside and on patios…

=============

August 13, 2010

Maryville City Council Adopts New Smokefree Ordinance

The Maryville City Council adopted a stronger smokefree ordinance that protects employees and customers from secondhand smoke exposure in all indoor workplaces and public places, including restaurants, bars, bowling alleys and bingo halls.

“We appreciate the city council and mayor’s action to protect everyone from the serious health harms of secondhand smoke. No one should have to put their health at risk in order to earn a paycheck or enjoy a night out,” said Maryville resident and BreatheEasy Maryville Chair Teri Harr.

The U.S. Surgeon General issued a report in 2006 that found secondhand smoke to be a major risk for heart disease, lung cancer, stroke, emphysema, asthma and other diseases. Studies find that communities that enact smokefree ordinances in public places see significant and dramatic decreases in hospital admissions for cardiovascular conditions.

Maryville’s success builds upon the growing trend of smokefree communities in Missouri. The majority of other states have already implemented smokefree laws–including neighboring Iowa, Illinois, Kansas and Nebraska–but Missouri has yet to act. Bills introduced in the last legislative session were not reported out of committee.

=============

August 12, 2010

Study says “very unhealthy” air in some Joplin restaurants

(excerpts from The Fuse Joplin http://thefusejoplin.com/2010/08/12/study-says-very-unhealthy-air-in-some-joplin-restaurants/)

Local city councils received grave numbers, as a study conduced by the University of Missouri – Columbia in conjunction with MissourI Southern State University was made public today regarding the toxicity of air in Joplin restaurants.

The study listed  the air in many Joplin restaurants that allow smoking as “very unhealthy.”

The study focused on restaurants that allowed smoking, versus those that did not.  It named no names, as far as what restaurants were watched.

The results showed that in establishments that allowed smoking, the particulate matter in the air averaged at 182.3 micrograms per cubic meter. In smoke free establishments: 19.5 micrograms per cubic meter.

“It was found just over 6 percent of people in these public places were actually smoking at any given time,” said a statement by the advocacy group Smoke-Free Joplin. “Yet, these few active smokers significantly impacted air quality. An average of three cigarettes being smoked at any given time created a level of PM pollution to be considered ‘very unhealthy’ by the EPA.”

EPA standards are also set on the average a person can safely inhale each day. The report noted a full-time employee in one of these public places that allowed smoking would be exposed to 279 percent the EPA’s average annual daily limit for PM air pollution.

Smoke Free Joplin says, “The EPA has linked exposure to PM pollution to heart attacks. A growing number of studies have demonstrated significant declines in hospital admissions for heart attacks after communities have implemented smoke-free ordinances.”

And that’s where their group comes in to play.

The group says their mission is to reduce the impact of second hand smoke. “Whether it is through private buisness decision or through political action, we must call attention to the fact that many of us are exposed to, and are harmed by, secondhand smoke.”

Jeff Keener, MS, RRT, RPSGT, Director of Respiratory Services, Freeman Health System; and member of Smoke-Free Joplin, said in a statement, “We encourage our area city councils to consider policies for smoke-free workplaces and public places as a compelling, yet simple way to reduce heart attacks in our community.”

=====================

June 10, 2010

Smoking Cessation Counseling Available

The CDC reports that tobacco use is the single most preventable cause of death in the United States.  Each year in the United States, smoking and exposure to second hand smoke cause 1 in 5 deaths.  Among current U.S. adult smokers, 70% report they want to quit smoking and millions have attempted to quit smoking.

The Cole County Health Department will be offering smoking cessation counseling free to the public.  Free nicotine replacement patches will be provided by Missouri Foundation for Health, for those people that qualify.

Call the Cole County Health Department at 636-2181, EXT 3107 for more information.

=======

May 20, 2010

Hospital admissions found to decline since Arizona smokefree law

Arizona hospital admissions for stroke, asthma, heart attacks and angina fell more than 10 percent in the year after a statewide smokefree law took effect, a new study says.

University of Arizona psychology department researchers Patricia M. Herman and Michele E. Walsh analyzed admission data from Arizona’s 87 hospitals between January 2004 and May 2008 for Arizona residents only.

The new study shows evidence of a direct relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and asthma and cardiovascular disease.

Herman and Walsh found that in the 13 months after the law took effect in May 2007, admissions for asthma dropped by 22 percent; heart-attack admissions by 13 percent; admissions for unstable angina by 33 percent and admissions for acute stroke by 14 percent.

For strokes, angina and heart attack, the researchers used data from adult admissions only, but they included babies and children in their analysis of the asthma data, Herman said. The study looked at hospital admissions, not emergency room visits, she stressed.

The cost savings of those reduced hospital admissions was nearly $17 million, the researchers estimate.

“Within the context of the growing body of consistent evidence from studies in other states and regions, the results of this study support the case for substantial health benefits from Arizona’s comprehensive statewide smoking ban in areas with no previous bans,” the study says. “If one considers the fact that only about 40 percent of the U.S. population is presently covered by a comprehensive smoke-free law, and the need for effective and cost-saving options in health care, comprehensive smoking bans should be considered by any governmental agency, employer or other organization seeking to advocate or implement policies that improve health and reduce health-care costs.”

Herman said the Arizona study, which was funded by the Arizona Department of Health Services’ Bureau of Tobacco and Chronic Disease, had results similar to health studies conducted in other jurisdictions with smoking bans.

“There’s a lot of evidence out there,” said Herman, who is also a licensed naturopathic physician. “One of the things I found fascinating, that piqued my interest, was that I think people recognize the long-term effects of smoking, but not the short-term effects. The cardiovascular effects are profound.”