Mayor Slay believes the airport should be smoke-free.  So do we. 

A bit of a media frenzy has ensued the last few days over the possibility of a smoke-free Lambert.  The airport’s current director, who’s leaving at the end of this year, claims removing the smoking lounges inside the airport will result in a security issue and leave many smokers outside the doors of the airport.  This line of reasoning is sort of silly when you consider the airports that are already 100% smoke-free across the country, especially those that are MUCH more busy than Lambert. 

There are now at least 150 smoke-free airports in the U.S.  Including Chicago O’Hare, JFK, La Guardia, Phoenix, LAX, Orlando, Las Vegas, Houston, Nashville, Seattle, Philadelphia, Kansas City, BWI, etc…  In fact, 21 of the nation’s 30 busiest airports are 100% smoke-free indoors.

When visitors to our fair city step into our airport, indoor smoking shouldn’t be what greets them.

Background on Smoking & Airports:  An interesting bit of history on smoking and airports – an internal tobacco industry document from the Tobacco Institute in 1991 details the industry’s “Airport Strategy Plan”. As part of this plan, the tobacco industry met with staff from the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) and helped the Association draft “An Airport Executive’s Guide to Smoking Policies in Public Airports”. The industry also targeted 43 airports (Lambert is one of them) for the provision of ventilation experts to convince the airports’ executives that proper ventilation is better than smoking restrictions or bans.  

 Full 6 Page Document here:  http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zgb62f00/pdf;jsessionid=6689073F33BF73705A03F37D59171F42

From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch
…Voters in St. Louis County have overwhelmingly approved a ban on smoking in restaurants and most other indoor businesses. The vote means that smoke-free legislation approved by St. Louis aldermen — which was contingent on a similar proposal passing in the county — will also become law.

Both the county and city prohibitions will not go into effect until January 2011.  And both measures contain plenty of exceptions.

In the county,  “drinking establishments,” defined as bars who make a quarter or less of their sales from food, can still allow smoking. In the city, “small bars,” those with no more than 2,000 square feet of service space, will have five extra years to comply.

Casinos floors in St. Louis city and county will also be exempt.

The margin of victory leaves little room for interpretation. Though turnout was relatively light- about 20 percent — the smoking ban won with 65 percent of the vote.

A study released yesterday revealed that the economic impact of secondhand smoke costs Marion County $47.5 million annually, according to a new economic impact study by IU’s Bowen Research Center, and this staggering total inhibits economic growth in Indiana.

“Secondhand smoke results in excess medical costs of $54 per capita for Marion County residents,” said Dr. Terrell Zollinger, Dr.PH, Bowen Research Center, IU School of Medicine. “The burden of these expenses is assumed by businesses, government, and individual citizens.”

The study included estimated costs related to ambulatory care, hospital inpatient stays, and loss of life based on hospital discharge data, vital statistics and census data.

According to Zollinger, the estimated health care costs for 2008 was over $18 million for hospitalization and health care of patients with diseases attributed to secondhand smoke exposure.  Additionally, another $29 million was lost due to premature death that can be attributed to secondhand smoke exposure.  These costs do not include the health care and loss of life costs of Marion County residents who are smokers.

The Bowen report further concluded that consumers and society carry a portion of the economic burden of secondhand smoke as well.  Consumers assume additional costs with their portion of insurance premiums and any additional coinsurance and/or co-payments associated with the hospitalization, physician and pharmaceutical costs resulting from exposure to secondhand smoke. In addition, businesses pass on their increased costs of health care in higher costs for goods and services to consumers.

Society assumes the cost burden for the uninsured population through the large amount of uncollected hospital revenues. Taxpayers bear the cost of Medicaid benefits for the indigent population and for Medicare clients requiring treatments for secondhand smoke-related diseases.

The report was prepared by the Bowen Research Center, Department of Family Medicine in the IU School of Medicine. The data was compiled using the number of Marion County deaths in 2007 and hospital discharges from 2005 to estimate the number of individuals affected by secondhand smoke. All cost estimates were adjusted to 2008 dollar values.

Story in Indy Star:  http://www.indystar.com/article/20091022/LOCAL/910220405/Secondhand+smoke+s+cost+adds+up+for+county

In our region, we’ve seen our elected leaders drag their feet and wring their hands at the task of passing a comprehensive law that protects those who need it most.  Politics, not public health, has been the guiding light in St. Louis.  Statements such as “it’s what we can get passed” or “it’s better than nothing” have been used to describe recent activity.  Examples from around the country have shown it’s very difficult to ‘go back and fix’ a watered down ordinance once it has been passed.  Partial measures work for politicians but not for health, communities or businesses.  It makes no sense to recognize the serious health impact caused by secondhand smoke but then fail to protect or delay protecting the most exposed group of workers.  In essence, we’re telling some workers they warrant legislative protection while telling others they’re not worth it.

Increasingly, the public’s expectations are for 100% smoke-free public places.  In fact, a 2008 poll showed 61% of St. Louisans wanted a smoke-free law that included bars, restaurants and casinos.  And as we’ve heard in recent months, people have been asking for a comprehensive law via testimonies, letters, emails and phone calls to our elected leaders. Instead constituents’ requests have been met with half measures filled with delays and exemptions. 

This Friday, the St. Louis City Board of Aldermen will once again debate the issue.  Now is the time for action.  Please continue to make your voice heard for a comprehensive measure.  Speak up for those who can’t.  Fight for smoke-free air.  Exercise your democratic right to make your leaders represent YOU.  After all the motto of Missouri is, “the will of the people shall reign supreme.”  

While there is much work to do, we continue to look forward to the day when our entire region is smoke-free. Now is the time to start making positive changes in our communities. As the IOM report confirms, eliminating smoking indoors is an effective, cost-free way to improve our community’s health in a tangible and measurable way.  There are no excuses.

Today, the Health Committee (made up of Ald. Greg Carter, Ald. Charles Quincy Troupe, Ald. Terry Kennedy, Ald. Steven Conway, Ald. Jeffery Boyd, Ald. Craig Schmid, Ald. Joe Vollmer, Ald. Kacie Starr Triplett, and Ald. Donna Baringer) was supposed to vote on the smoke-free initiative. In a surprise move by Ald. Troupe, the meeting was unceremoniously adjourned until next week, when the Health Committee gets financial statements from the Ways and Means Committee. Committee Chair Ald. Carter also said part of the reason for the meeting ending early was to give north side aldermen a chance to talk to their constituent bar owners. Apparently, they haven’t had time to get around to it at any point in the last five months.

Over the summer, the Health Committee listened to more than nine hours of testimony, and we have it on good authority that their inboxes have been swamped with emails for or against the smoke-free measure introduced by Ald. Lyda Krewson. This bill was introduced in May. It’s now, for all intents and purposes, October. And in a few short weeks, it will be November. The County vote is on November 3rd. We wouldn’t be surprised if they keep stalling until they know how the County votes are tallied.

Whatever happened to doing the right thing, taking up the mantle, going out on a limb, getting your hands dirty, etc., etc.? There are so many applicable clichés here!

So here we are again. The time has come, the Walrus said! We’re asking again that you contact the Health Committee. It’s time for action. E-mail the Health Committee and tell them you won’t wait any longer. They’re seeking out bar owners to ask their opinion, but are they seeking out your opinion? We all pay taxes, so what’s with the preferential treatment? C’mon folks. Please take a few minutes to do your civic duty, just copy and paste the email addresses below:

carterg@stlouiscity.com, troupec@stlouiscity.com, triplettk@stlouiscity.com, boydj@stlouiscity.com, baringerd@stlouiscity.com, conways@stlouiscity.com, vollmerj@stlouiscity.com, schmidc@stlouiscity.com, kennedyt@stlouiscity.com

The Case for Bans on Smoking, WSJ.com

The growing numbers of bans on smoking in restaurants, bars and workplaces, intended to protect nonsmokers against second-hand-tobacco smoke, are turning into potent weapons in the battle to prevent heart attacks.

In one of the largest analyses to date of the dangers of passive smoking, researchers found that smoke-free laws reduced the rate of heart attacks by an average of 17% after one year in communities where the bans had been adopted. The benefit increased with time: After three years, the rate had dropped about 26%. The biggest declines in heart attacks were seen among non-smokers and people between the ages of 40 and 60 years.

A 17% to 26% reduction of risk “is a big deal,” says Steven Schroeder, a physician at University of California, San Francisco, and a proponent of smoking bans who wasn’t involved in the studies. “We can make immediate public-health progress if we cut exposure to second-hand smoke,” he says.

The findings were detailed in two reports, both of which were based on pooled analyses of separate studies from the U.S., Canada and Europe. The studies, conducted since 2004, involved a combined total of roughly 24 million people. David Meyers, a preventive cardiologist at the University of Kansas School of Medicine, and lead author of one of the reports, said that on a national basis, a 17% decline would amount to avoiding more than 150,000 heart attacks annually. Estimates published by University of San Francisco researchers in January put the annual cost of treating illnesses related to second-hand smoke in the U.S. at as much as $6 billion. Dr. Meyers’s report is scheduled to be published Sept. 29 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology,

Researchers involved in the reports cautioned that pooled analyses have statistical flaws of their own that result in part from combining data from studies with different designs and goals. In general, researchers advise caution in using pooled analyses for hard conclusions.

There aren’t any initiatives in Washington aimed at adopting a national smoke-free law. But efforts continue in local communities to implement or broaden smoking bans. Kansas Gov. Mark Parkinson recently vowed to fight for an effective public-smoking ban next year after legislators had failed to approve such a law. Other areas that already have bans on smoking in enclosed public places are trying to expand these. New York City, which prohibits smokers from lighting up in offices, restaurants and bars, announced this month that it hopes also to stop smoking in municipal parks. And Richmond, Calif., which in May banned smoking in parks and at public events, more recently expanded the prohibition to include apartment buildings and condominiums to prevent second-hand smoke from drifting into units of non-smokers.

Laws against smoking in public places remain controversial. Restaurant, bar and casino owners worry that such bans could put them out of business by driving customers to nearby cities or states that lack such policies. The tobacco industry, which for years had disparaged as “junk science” evidence that second-hand smoke was harmful, is now taking a different approach.

“Our current position is to let the market take care of the issue,” says John Singleton, a spokesman for Reynolds American, the parent of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco. In venues such as bars, taverns and casinos that serve only adult customers, he says, “it should be up to the owners and operators to determine whether they should be able to accommodate smokers without the government coming in and imposing a one-size-fits-all kind of law.” And patrons of such establishments should be able to decide for themselves whether they want to risk exposure to second-hand smoke, he adds.

Currently, 17 states, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and more than 350 cities and towns in the U.S. have regulations banning smoking in workplaces, bars and restaurants, according to advocacy group Americans for Non-smokers Rights. The bans cover about 40% of the U.S. population, says Cynthia Hallett, the group’s executive director. An additional 14 states prohibit smoking in one or two of those public locations. And 19 states—mostly in the South and the Midwest—don’t completely outlaw smoking in any public area, the group says.

The new scientific reports analyze studies from nearly a dozen locales—ranging from Helena, Mont., and New York State to Scotland, which banned smoking in all public places in 2006. Results from different locations varied: In Rome, for instance, there was essentially no impact on heart-attack rates one year after a ban took effect. Researchers suggested this might be due to the short time frame of the study.

By comparison, Pueblo, Colo., had a net 36% reduction in heart attacks three years after smoking was prohibited in bars, restaurants, bowling alleys and other establishments.

Generally, the studies compared the rates of hospital admissions for heart attack or unstable chest pain before and after a ban was implemented, and compared these against such rates in nearby communities where such a law wasn’t in place. In some cases, patients were asked whether they smoked or not, and non-smokers’ exposure to second-hand smoke was confirmed with blood tests.

James Lightwood and Stanton Glantz, tobacco researchers at University of California, San Francisco, conducted a separate analysis using most of the same pooled data, but with some differences in methodology. These researchers found the same 17% average reduction in the rate of heart attacks one year after smoking bans went into effect. But after three years, this analysis found an average reduction of 36%. The team’s findings are published in the Oct. 6 issue of Circulation, a journal of the American Heart Association.

While smoking tobacco is known to heighten risk of heart attacks over a lifetime, there is some evidence that even short exposure to second-hand smoke can raise the risk of heart attacks. It can increase blood pressure, cause blood platelets to become sticky and injure cells that line the interior walls of blood vessels—all factors that can promote heart attacks.

One physician who has seen first-hand the effects of second-hand smoke on heart attack rates is Richard P. Sargent, a family doctor in Helena. He and some colleagues noticed a sharp drop in heart-attack admissions at the city’s main hospital about three months after a ban against smoking in bars, restaurants and casinos went into effect in June 2002. Then in December of that year, opponents succeeded in getting the ban revoked.

“We performed an ideal experiment,” Dr. Sargent recalls. “We turned [the ban] on, and we watched the heart-attack rate go down. We turned it off and watched it go back up.” The reduction was 40% in absolute terms—102 heart attacks per 100,000 person years after the ban, compared to 170 before the ban. Heart-attack rates rose sharply again after the ban was revoked, he says.

Dr. Sargent published the results in 2004, and this helped convince other communities to impose smoking bans and inspired further research into their effects in the U.S. and Europe. But opposition delayed a reinstatement of the ban in Helena. In 2005, a state law went into effect leading to prohibition of smoking in restaurants. And next month smoking will once again be forbidden in Helena’s bars under a Montana law that will affect such establishments across the state.

In my opinion, the increasing number of smoke-free air laws just makes our current policy efforts look laughable. New York City restaurants have been smoke-free since 1995, and we can hardly get enough support from our lawmakers to do that much 14 years later. Places like Chicago and LA got rid of smoking in beaches and playgrounds in 2007 and we still allow smoking in bars and restaurants! To people outside of our city, we might as well still be smoking in the Galleria, that’s how backwards we look to outsiders. How can we expect to compete on a national level if we refuse to get on the same level as everyone else.

This is just such a no-brainer. It bears repeating: North Carolina passed a smoke-free air law this year. It doesn’t exempt bars. How can we honestly still think that exempting bars with 75% alcohol revenue is a good idea? Not “we” per se, but how can our elected officials not see the forest for the trees?

Someone commented on our Facebook page today, saying that one should go to Fair St. Louis and look at all the hoosiers. But I don’t buy that. Coming from Illinois, I can guarantee you that at the Illinois State Fair, the hoosiers come out of the woodwork, and their whole state is smoke-free. Of course, we shouldn’t judge or stereotype people, but the only way we’re going to break this “Missouri=hoosier” stereotype is if we change our thinking, and listen to those that have come before us. Every single economic impact study done in a smoke-free community has found a neutral impact on business. So why do our lawmakers think St. Louis will be any different?

“Illinois Licensed Beverage Association Executive Director Dan Clausner, whose group represents several hundred restaurant and bar owners, said any restriction on smoking in nearby St. Louis County could help businesses in Madison, Monroe and St. Clair counties. Still, his group strongly opposes any ban.

It “may benefit some members, but we still feel that the principal of mandatory smoking bans is wrong,” Clausner said.”

Interesting, that.

What’s also interesting is the fact that in the same article, Illinois residents are quoted as saying that going smoke-free was an adjustment, but that they quickly adapted to the new law.

The effects of the Illinois smoking ban are debatable, however. Some local bars report no lasting impact, while others have closed. It’s also impossible to know how many have fled the area for smoker-friendly Missouri.

“It didn’t really affect us that much. I didn’t see a huge decline, because we do have an outdoor patio that people can use,” said Seanin Heinen, a manager at Tiny’s, a bar on North Main Street in Columbia.

“At first it was a little tough,” she added. “People weren’t coming out, then people got cabin fever and then everybody started coming back out. People need to be social. Maybe they can’t smoke inside, but they can go outside.”

Fairview Heights Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Scott Leas said the Illinois ban initially hurt because it was a “shock” to patrons. But they have since come back, Leas said.

He also said Fairview Heights restaurants and bars didn’t lose large numbers to Missouri, and would probably not benefit greatly from a ban there.

“It’s been a cultural change, but people have adjusted,” he said.

As for how patrons feel about the Illinois law:

Sitting at the bar can mean a lot of things, but for the past 20 months in Illinois, it’s meant that people didn’t have to change their clothes in the garage any more.

One of the results of the smoking ban is that clothes don’t “reek” after a night out, many bar regulars said.

Sitting at the bar at Tiny’s, a neighborhood bar and restaurant in Columbia, patrons Doug Gool, Robert Valenzuela, Gary May, and his wife, Tammy Prater-May, talked about the effects of the ban one afternoon last week.

“Reek” was the most common word they used to describe the combination of bars and cigarettes.

May, who also tends bar at nearby Turner Hall, a private facility, said he likes the ban..

“When they had smoking, I’d go home, take my shirt and pants off, and throw them outside because they stunk so bad,” he said.

Prater-May added that they have avoided some Missouri businesses because of the smoke.

“I’ve been in other places in South County or St. Louis where we walked in and just came out reeking of smoke. It’s nice to go into places and not smell like that when you leave,” she said.

Patron Robert Valenzuela said there were “pros and cons.”

“We do have a lot of friends who come here who smoke,” he said. “They do appreciate the fact to that even though they are smokers, they don’t have to wash their clothes every night, or take them off in the ground.”

He also said it has been a money-saver.

“I do a lot of dry cleaning,” Valenzuela said, “so my expenses have been cut back a lot.”

See the full story.