15thWardSTL.org
Site Navigation:
Please Log in or Register
Request New Password
Search the Site:
AdvancedThank You for Not Smoking
St. Louis needs to ban smoking in indoor public places. All of them.
This is one that I’m not going to equivocate on. A poll on Francis Slay’s blog last week put the question out there, and it’s since gotten a little chatter in the neighborhood.
A lot of the chatter in this debate swirls around the alleged individual “right” of smokers to choose to smoke. There is a strong point here. In the privacy of one’s home, I agree that people should have the right to smoke cigarettes. In fact, I’ll go most of the smoker’s rights “libertarians” one better- I would support legalization of all drugs.
The “smokers rights” crowd runs into a real problem though. The notion of individual rights in the context of civil society has always been governed by the principle that “your rights end where my nose begins”. Smokers have a right to smoke. They don’t have a right to pollute the air of others.
Second hand smoke is bad for you. Very bad. For those who work for hours each day in establishments that are filled with smoke, the negative health consequences are severe. Second-hand smoke has actually been shown to be more dangerous than the smoke that the smoker is inhaling. An individual’s right to smoke in public is trumped by another individual’s right to clean air while in a public place. It’s really that simple.
“What about the market? Why can’t we just let the market decide?” ask the pro-smoking contingent. Because it makes no sense to allow the profit motive to make major decisions in public-health policy. And that’s what the smoking-in-public debate is really about; public health policy.
Moreover, businesses have little incentive to try something new, not to mention drastic, if there isn’t a financial problem with the old policy. Most businesses still believe that revenues will plummet if smokers are forced outside. Slowly this is changing, as smoking bans take effect in city and states across the country. In most instances, these same businesses see a marked increase in revenues, usually in the 10-15% neighborhood. These lessons are sinking in slowly, and it may well be that over time the market may move more and more individual businesses to a smoke free choice.
But it’s the principle that’s the problem. In asserting their rights to operate their businesses as they see fit, business owners make the same error that individual smokers-rights folks make. They mistakenly believe that their right to run an establishment open to the general public trumps the right of that same general public to not be knowingly exposed to dangerous, irritating chemicals. We require businesses to meet minimum safety requirements in the handling and preparation of food, the number of restrooms available to patrons, the size, shape, color, and height of signs advertising the business, etc. etc. etc. The same principle is at work in banning smoking in these establishments.
But drug addiction is a powerful thing, and so the “smokers-rights” crowd (almost all of them nicotine addicts) clings to weak logic and transparent rationalizations in order to secure anytime, anywhere access to their fix. Really, if you can’t go a few hours each day without a smoke, get help.
There’s another reason why St. Louis should do this. St. Louis needs to start finding itself on the right side of history, if it ever wants to find its way out of the funk it has been in for so long. Smoking bans are, for the moment and the foreseeable future, on the right side of history. So are gay marriage (banned in Missouri), community control of police (currently impossible in St. Louis), street musicians (banned in St. Louis), and good public schools (pfffft).
I hear so frequently of the deeply hoped-for renaissance that will take place in this city. I share these hopes, believe me. I’ve lived in many areas of this country, and traveled it pretty extensively. This wide exposure has really helped me appreciate so many of the great things this city has going for it. The architecture is stunning, the housing stock of very high quality, the parks are gorgeous, the number of cheap and free family-oriented activities in the area is tough to beat anywhere, the people are sincerely friendly, and the list goes on. And on. And yet the malaise persists.
If we are going to attract the hip, well-educated labor pool that we will need to transform the local economy, we need to get with the program. Until St. Louis shows the country that it is willing to take risks, evolve, and defy the rust-belt stereotypes, it will struggle to fully realize its potential.
Noticed the posting and wanted to let the readers know there is a smoke-free group they can get involved with. Check out www.smokefreestl.org to learn more.
Thanks!
While I agree that smoking must be banned in all businesses and other places where herds congregate indoors, I disagree with you (Adam W) \\\'that there are not enough smokers registered to vote to kill such a proposal when it is put to the electorate.\\\'
Remember Amendment 3?
It was on the ballot in 11/06. Amendment 3 was to increase Missouri\\\'s tobacco tax by 80 cents per package of cigarettes, and increase the tax on other tobacco products by 20 percent.
It didn\\\'t pass.
You mention that \\\"in asserting their rights to operate their businesses as they see fit, business owners make the same error that individual smokers-rights folks make. They mistakenly believe that their right to run an establishment open to the general public trumps the right of that same general public to not be knowingly exposed to dangerous, irritating chemicals.\\\"
This is a bunch of nonsense, the non-smokers are not sheep. I have never been to an establishment and not been able to tell that smoking was allowed. The owners and operators of establishments that allow smoking are not in on some big conspiracy. It is the quiet acquiescence of us non-smokers that continue to patronize establishments that we know are dangerous to our health. I see this as akin to ordering a rare steak, it is not recommended and it says on the menu \\\"raw and undercooked meats are dangerous\\\" so if you were really worried about it you wouldn\\\'t have it cooked that way. Everyone knows that smoking and secondhand smoke are bad, but we continue to go to places that are bad for us.
A smoking ban in restaurants is not a public health policy, a complete ban on smoking is a public health policy. Again, I must make the argument that if you chose to endanger you health by going to or working in a smoky bar or restaurant, full well knowing that it can harm you, you really can\\\'t complain that it\\\'s happening. Unlike New York and Illinois, Missouri is one of the smokiest states in the union, and like you said smokers are addicts and will come out in droves to protect their ability to get their fix if something is put to ballot.
We non-smokers have no one to blame but ourselves for the lack of smoke free establishments. If these places saw sixty percent of their customer base dry up they might get on the bandwagon.
Adam says: Saying “This is a bunch of nonsense, the non-smokers are not sheep” seems to directly contradict “It is the quiet acquiescence of us non-smokers that continue to patronize establishments that we know are dangerous to our health.”
Which is it? The nonsmokers are guilty of “quiet acquiescence” or they “are not sheep”? It can’t be both. Talk about nonsense.
Advocating for a ban on smoking in public places is not “quiet acquiescence”, it’s activism. Your argument is brimming with the logic that market “solutions” are the only valid solutions. It also presupposes a “choice” that doesn’t exist. Where are the good smoke free restaurants in St. Louis that I can “choose” to patronize? There are probably a couple, but it’s a short list. Your argument depends on a premise (that of choice) that does not exist.
Are you going to ban fast food? That\\\'s a public health concern as well. Sure, me eating McDonald\\\'s doesn\\\'t affect anyone else directly as smoking does, but the social cost is imposed as my health problems down the road cost money. The same with smoking. So if you are going to ban cigarettes in public places, would you take similar action against fast food?
What about Chop Suey? It\\\'s full of trans fats and other things, while these establishments are disporporationally found in poorer areas. What is your solution for that? Would you ban those as well?
Adam says: Before banning fast food, I would probably consider banning completely bogus analogies. :)
I understand that you are opposed to smoking bans Doug, but you’ve completely missed the point.
Everyone makes crappy health choices that indirectly affect everyone’s insurance premiums. Some worse than others, but efforts to track this down are not only futile, they are fairly antisocial. (More importantly, assuming that there is a cause/effect relationship between the cost of health care and the price we pay for it is a sucker’s ruse, but that’s another post).
Smoking, as opposed to eating garbage, directly impacts the health, not to mention the comfort, of other people around you.
Smoking: direct negative effect on health of others
Big Macs: indirect negative effect on wallet of others
Game Over.
Play Again?
You can be guilty of quiet acquiescence and not be a sheep. The implication of patrons being sheep is that they don\'t know any better and are herded into these establishments. I challenge you to find anyone that doesn\\\'t know that smoking is bad for your health. Patrons know smoking is bad and still chose to be herded into smoke filled bars and restaurants (this is the part where the quiet acquiescence comes into play). People are not unaware of the danger and put into the situation; people are fully aware and make a decision to go to these places. So before you summarily dismiss an argument at least try to understand it.
Also, how do you come to the conclusion that there is not a choice in the market? Locally how about Pho Grand, Erato, MokaBees and SekiSui, among others, all of which are smoke free. Don\'t be daft, the city had many places in almost every neighborhood that are smoke free, you are just choosing to ignore them to make your argument.
Adam sez: MoKaBees is smoke-free?!?! And I\'m the \"daft\" one? pfffft.
Sorry, my mistake, replace MoKaBees with the Gelato cafe on Grand Ave. The Royale is now smoke free in addition to the other places mentioned. There are options and more are appearing all the time so I would have to agree with my previous assessment and say your argument falls apart when you presume there are no smoke free options in the market. How\\\'s that for daft?
In your response earlier you wrote that you were looking for \"good\" restaurants in St. Louis that were smoke free. I don\'t know what you classify as good but most of the nicer \"good\" restaurants that I have been to in the past year are already smoke free. I was listing local smoke free restaurants but if you want a more expansive list go to http://www.breatheeasymo.org/ and find a place you would like to go.
Submitted by: high5apparatus
I lived in Denver when they and the city of Boulder went through this whole exercise. There will be much debate on all sides of the issue and the business owners will cry the sky is falling, but in the end, there are not enough smokers registered to vote to kill such a proposal when it is put to the electorate.
The ban didn\\\'t kill Boulder, Denver, or even NYC. It can and should happen here as well.