-
Mike 02/19/2009 1:17:00 AM
Why should I have to go outside and smoke? If it is not such a big deal then you non-smokers can get off your butts and go outside for fresh air(if there is such a thing anymore). I'm not going to deny that smoking is harmful but if you've paid attention to the news for the last decade or so you would know that according to the "scientists" just about everything is bad for you and can give you cancer. As far as the economy goes I am only going to give my money to establishments where I can smoke, so bravo to those establishments that let people choose for themselves. And to all you non-smokers - "If you don't like to breath my second-hand smoke, then don't breath!"
-
Gary W. 02/13/2009 8:22:00 PM
I don't smoke but I am around people that do and I believe they have rights, too. I think its a nasty habit but I can handle little annoyances (I'm not a whiner). I am afraid of the slippery slope we head down after we outlaw things like this, then try to micro-manage peoples' lives in other ways such as New York does with trans-fat, or other places with salt or a sugar tax, etc. Where does it end?
The argument FOR enacting this law?
Only one: the possible health risk to the workers.
The arguments AGAINST this law?
1. The employees knew the work conditions when the applied for their jobs.
2. The health risks of second-hand smoke ARE over-stated and filtration DOES help.
3. IF IT IS TRUE THAT SO MANY PEOPLE ARE SUPPORTIVE OF A SMOKING BAN, BUSINESSES WOULD BAN SMOKING ON THEIR OWN. MANY HAVE, AND MORE WILL, AT A MARKET-DRIVEN PACE, UNTIL WE REACH A BALANCE OF SMOKING AND NON-SMOKING ESTABLISHMENTS. PATRONIZE THE EXISTING SMOKE-FREE ESTABLISHMENTS OR ENCOURAGE SPECIFIC ONES TO CHANGE, BUT DON'T THINK YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORCE ALL TO CHANGE. WE LIVE IN A REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC, AND THE BUSINESSES THAT WISH TO CONTINUE TO CATER TO SMOKERS ACTUALLY DO HAVE THAT RIGHT. 4. To force this on businesses now, during this recession, would be too much for many of them to bear, forcing layoffs or some to close altogether. (See Illinois results)
5. With reduced business earnings, tax revenue will be down. (See Illinois results)
When I go out, I sometimes have to put up with loud or bad music, loud or obnoxious people, nasty perfume and other things. Unless your plan is to ban all these other annoyances, toughen up and cut the smokers some slack.
-
Douglas Duckworth 02/12/2009 8:25:00 PM
"Non-smokers die every day" - Bill Hicks
-
Carol Thompson 02/04/2009 12:16:00 PM
The real issue isn't "freedom versus public health," it's ANTI-SMOKER SCIENTIFIC FRAUD. More than 50 studies show that human papillomaviruses cause over ten times more lung cancers than they pretend are caused by secondhand smoke. Passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to this virus, so the anti-smokers' studies, which are all based on nothing but lifestyle questionnaires, have been cynically DESIGNED to falsely blame passive smoking for all those extra lung cancers that are really caused by HPV.
http://www.smokershistory.com/hpvlungc.htm
The anti-smokers have committed the same type of fraud with every disease they blame on smoking and passive smoking, as well as ignoring other types of evidence that proves they are lying, such as the fact that the death rates from asthma have more than doubled since their movement began.
http://www.smokershistory.com/newviews.htm
And it's a lie that passive smoking causes heart disease. AMI deaths in Pueblo actually ROSE the year after the smoking ban.
http://www.smokershistory.com/etsheart.html
The government has no right to restrict peoples' liberty without a compelling justification. The anti-smokers have no such justification, so THEY COMMITTED SCIENTIFIC FRAUD TO DECEIVE THE PUBLIC.
-
Bill Hannegan 01/31/2009 9:33:00 AM
St. Louis is too smart to fall for the BS claims the American Cancer Society has used to scare the Illinois public and pressure Illinois politicians into imposing a smoking ban. The absurd ACS 16 Cigarette Claim, still up on the Smoke-Free Illinois website, won't work in St. Louis:
�One 8-hour shift in a smoky workplace is equivalent to smoking 16 cigarettes.�
http://www.smokefreeillinois.net/info.php
Smoke-Free St. Louis City put that claim up briefly on their website but took it right back down when challenged.
Besides, 75 percent of St. Louis does not favor banning smoking in bars.
-
G D 01/31/2009 5:03:00 AM
Sorry smokers, you do not have a "right" to smoke: it is a freedom you enjoy. When your freedom infringes on my "right" to not be harmed by your actions, it should be abridged.
The bars I go to in the Metro east are doing just fine. The smokers take it outside. People go to bars to drink and socialize. You can smoke your lungs out at home.
BTW smokers, if I am forced to breath your smoky air, how about I spit in your mouth for a while. No harm in that, eh?
http://www.macombjournal.com/archive/x512373317/Effects-of-smoking-ban
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=6587783
St Louis will soon be smoke-free...
-
AllanM 01/30/2009 12:06:00 PM
Michelle Hayden might want to do some closer research next time, when it comes to the subject of casinos. Illinois casino revenue has decreased MORE than 20 percent, since the Illinois smoking ban went into effect in January 2008. In addition, I'd love to see her preach how great smoking bans are to the 30 employees that a casino in Metropolis, IL was forced to lay off in early 2008, thanks to the statewide ban. Or even better, preach to the 300 workers that a Windsor, Ontario casino was forced to lay off, after a 2006 provincewide smoking ban took effect in Ontario. I won't even get into the fact that more than 100 businesses closed for good in the Twin Cities(MN) area, after local bans began taking effect in 2005.
Tony Palazzolo was absolutely right in his comment he mentioned about smoke-free businesses. You think if anti-smokers so much wanted an increase in smoke-free businesses, that a greater number would've patronized such smoke-free establishments, instead of only helping reinforcing the fear that a business going smoke-free on its own won't work. (and unlike where it has worked, such as The Royale) Or heck, that more people would've(but didn't) flock to businesses within both Ballwin and Arnold, after their bans took effect. The free market did a fine enough job of encouraging enough restaurants and bars throughout Illinois to go smoke-free, before the state ban unnecessarily took all free choice away on the smoking issue.
I hope anti-smoking groups throughout the world are happy about forcing so many private businesses in areas under bans to look the other way on the issue of smoking, just to keep their doors open. Finally, England is a prime example of what I mean about smoking bans, where its countrywide ban has only stemmed a vast increase in the decline of the pub culture that used to exist throughout that country.
-
Bill Hannegan 01/28/2009 12:01:00 PM
The story of a bar owner I met in Columbia pushes me to work even harder on this issue. He lost his house, his health insurance and finally his bar to the Columbia smoking ban.
http://www.columbiatribune.com/2007/Dec/20071229News003.asp
-
Smoker/Drinker/ 01/28/2009 4:51:00 AM
Ive seen this ban cause at least 4 bars in Alton go out of Business, so the Do gooding Non Smokers want us all to quit smoking and live Clean Christian lives, Well when my bar goes out of Business and it wont be long, Ill be looking to the Non Smokers to make my House payment and car payments.
My family has owned Bars in Alton for 55 years and now the playing field is not a fair one, weve been TOLD we cant decide who and were someone smokes, whats next, no folks with Gay tendencies, No Firefighters, No Politicians, Hell lets just say NO CUSTOMERS, Because the folks that have frequented our bar Smoke, and Drink, And Curse and tell Dirty Jokes....I guess Ill reopen as a church.
-
jaco 01/26/2009 12:24:00 AM
As far as all of these crusaders fighting for the right to keep smoking in restaurants and bars, time is what is not on their side. I remember one such crusader from the 80's, Morton Downey Jr. I remember hearing how he would never quit blah blah blah. Then do you all remember when he not only quit but switched sides in the battle? I think it between him getting a lung removed and him dying from cancer. So like I said, as time goes on we are going to have fewer and fewer of these so called crusaders.
-
Michelle Hayden 01/25/2009 8:52:00 AM
Mr. Hannegan might want to consider someone else's freedom besides his own. Do people that don't smoke not have the freedom to enjoy a beer without having to inhale toxins they don't want in their body or go home smelling like an ashtray for days? And, let's be real, for a nonsmoker, it is days before you don't smell stale smoke. (The last time I went to a bar, it was three days of multiple showers and hair washing before my hair didn't stink anymore.)
I, too, have the freedom to go to a bar and shouldn't be subjected to burning eyes, coughing smoke out the next morning, and, again, smelling like an ashtray for days. Do my children not have the freedom to enjoy a social outing that doesn't put their health at risk because of someone else's destructive choice? I know for some I am preaching to the choir. But, many of those people, some comments I've read, are very harsh towards smokers. I feel, that is unfair also. I, myself, was a smoker for many years and it was very very hard to quit. I've now been 100% smoke free for 7 years as of January 1st and I'm in the best health of my life. I also, in fact, lived in Maryland when they made all of the bars and restaurants smoke free around early 1995 and I heard all the same arguments I hear now. Bars did not go out of business. Restaurants did not go under. What did happen? Business IMPROVED. People, mostly families, started going out more because they could go out and enjoy themselves and not have to worry about their health or the health of their children.
I'm all about freedom. I have the freedom to live a healthy lifestyle. I don't go about imposing my healthy lifestyle on other people. I don't pull cigarettes out of people's mouths and stomp them out, so why should I have to breathe in someone's toxic smoke just because I'm close enough in proximity to them? In Great Britain, you can be denied health insurance coverage for even a simple out-patient procedure if you are a smoker. I guess a health insurance company figures they shouldn't have to risk the health of a smoker if the smoker doesn't care about their health. Granted, that is harsh, but their is some logic in that line of thought.
By the way, for all those people blaming the smoking ban in IL for the lost revenue in 2008 - try turning on the news or reading a newspaper sometime. I don't watch tv or read the newspaper everyday and I still know the Midwest has been in a recession for over a year. Of course, the staggering rise in unemployment and people not having money to pay their mortgage couldn't possibly have any effect on the casino bottom line. Why that's ridiculous! It MUST be that smoking ban! (Get real, people.)
-
CarolT 01/24/2009 3:44:00 AM
More than 50 studies show that human papillomaviruses cause over ten times more lung cancers than they pretend are caused by secondhand smoke. Passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to this virus, so the anti-smokers' studies, because they are all based on nothing but lifestyle questionnaires, have been cynically DESIGNED to falsely blame passive smoking for all those extra lung cancers that are really caused by HPV.
http://www.smokershistory.com/hpvlungc.htm
The anti-smokers have committed the same type of fraud with every disease they blame on smoking and passive smoking, as well as ignoring other types of evidence that proves they are lying, such as the fact that the death rates from asthma have more than doubled since their movement began.
http://www.smokershistory.com/newviews.htm
And it's a lie that passive smoking causes heart disease. AMI deaths in Pueblo actually ROSE the year after the smoking ban.
http://www.smokershistory.com/etsheart.html
-
Dan Fabulous 01/24/2009 2:05:00 AM
This fool's cause will surely be going down shortly. Ever been to LA? They are all non-smoking yet the bars are smart enough to offer an outdoor (heated and cooled) smoking areas. Instead of offering cohesive alternatives he has to take six months off as an activist to making me smell like hell after a drink? Idiot.
-
Phil 01/24/2009 1:30:00 AM
Bill is so right!!!!
We need our freedoms, to do whatever we want! Everyone, should be able to fire a shotgun off in a bar, play loud music on a boombox, hell, even slaughter livestock! Why not, it's about freedom man!
Visionaries like this should not be ignored. I mean what do these idiots know in California, where they banned smoking in restaurants and bars (oh yeah and a few other places: Illinois, New York, Seattle, France, Ireland, (continued ad infinitum........). These people are crazy. Health issues, ahh you have to die somehow, and we don't want to have any kinds of signs that St Louis is progressive. That might encourage businesses to come here and invest. More wacky liberals!
I say support Bill, and while you're at it, support the Flat Earth society and the buggy whip industry, I tell you they are going places!
-
Tom 01/23/2009 9:47:00 PM
SMOKING IS DISGUSTING... ask people who used to do it and quit. HOW HARD IS IT TO JUST GO OUTSIDE AND SMOKE??? YOU ARE MAKING my air disgusting...
This guy Bill is as ANNOYING... won't he just MOVE TO ANOTHER CITY.... you are the reason I still have to breath disgusting cancer air in st louis... PEOPLE FROM OTHER CITIES LOVE IT... WE ARE IN 2009... NOT 1960.
-
AudreySilk 01/23/2009 12:21:00 PM
It's quite unbelievable that the pro banners feel that their criticism of Bill Hannegan for his self-sacrifice has any honor to it. You deride him for being "obsessed" with an issue that is one of freedom to him and others? You ridicule him for using his own money for something he believes in and... for good measure... have the nerve to imply that his nanosecond of publicity isn't fair while whistling past the fact that Anti-Smoking has spent hundreds of millions of dollars for lobbying, publicity, and advertisements and usually have the ONLY, if not finaly, say in any media coverage? What a disgraceful defense from a disgraceful bunch.
Mr. Hannegan follows in the footsteps of people that made our country what it is. Anyone with an honest bone in their body will recognize who's who (which side plays which role) in the following historical account:
"Our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor." Our Founding Fathers paid the price for the United States of America.
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist
Copyright 2000 Boston Globe
On July 2, 1776, the Continental Congress voted 12-0 -- New York abstained -- in favor of Richard Henry Lee's resolution "that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States."
On July 4, the Declaration of Independence drafted by Thomas Jefferson -- heavily edited by Congress -- was adopted without dissent. On July 8, the Declaration was publicly proclaimed in Philadelphia. On July 15, Congress learned that the New York Legislature had decided to endorse the Declaration. On Aug. 2, a parchment copy was presented to the Congress for signature. Most of the 56 men who put their name to the document did so that day.
And then?
We tend to forget that to sign the Declaration of Independence was to commit an act of treason -- and the punishment for treason was death. To publicly accuse George III of "repeated injuries and usurpations," to announce that Americans were therefore "Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown," was a move fraught with danger -- so much so that the names of the signers were kept secret for six months
They were risking everything, and they knew it. That is the meaning of the Declaration's soaring last sentence:
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977047507
Audrey Silk
Founder, NYC Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment
Brooklyn, NY
And a proud colleague of Mr. Bill Hannegan
-
Bill Hannegan 01/23/2009 9:23:00 AM
Keep St. Louis Free fought the smoking ban in 2005 and 2006 by getting the best economic and medical studies to lawmakers, and by getting bar and restaurant people to contact lawmakers and then come to hearings. It was an awful lot of work, but that is what it takes to protect freedom and property rights across a whole city. And we'll do it again if we must.
But I hope that more and more St. Louis venues that allow smoking will soon follow the example of Herbie's Vintage 72 and clear their air with affordable technology. I think lawmakers and the public will see that a smoking ban like the one in Illinois is unnecessary in St. Louis.
-
Tony Palazzolo 01/22/2009 10:50:00 PM
Wow - looks like Smoke-Free St Louis come out in force on this one. You guys upset that antiban side actually recieved good press.
Question for people who don't like smoke - why would you go to a restaurant or bar that allows smoking? There are plenty of options. When you go to a bar or restaurant that allows smoking, then all you do is make owners believe that going smoke-free is a bad idea. You should support business that has made the choice to do it. Trust me, its a lot easier than complaining. Why should the world cater to just you?
-
Kathryn Kellison 01/22/2009 8:37:00 PM
As a lover of short-fiction, I found the article on Bill Hannegan's outrage at non-smoking bans to be very revealing. With short fiction, the last line of a story bears the weight of the whole piece. In this RFT piece, we hear about his enormous effort to "Keep St. Louis Free" of smoking bans. He has gone so far as to invest a substantial amount of money in his cause, even though he isn't an avid smoker. The last word is the "ballistic" Hannegan denying that he is, in fact, obsessive: "I've seen people get caught up in causes, and it can be a problem because it takes over your life."
I don't know what motivates the man to believe he has the right to fill the lungs of innocent people with carcinogens, but he is clearly right that intellect isn't involved.
-
ProfessorRichards 01/22/2009 7:58:00 AM
The alleged health problems from environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) have been greatly overexaggerated. OSHA, the federal agency that regulates workplace saftey, studied ETS for SEVEN years and determined that the chemicals in it do not rise to dangerous levels under normal conditions. Here is a link to those conclusions: http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24602
-
Stephanie 01/22/2009 7:28:00 AM
This article primarily focused on someone who ardently opposes smoking bans. I would love to see a follow up article with a primary focus on someone who is a proponent of smoking bans - perhaps a doctor/researcher who can provide medical statistics or a business owner whose business has thrived as a result of implementing a smoke-free environment.
-
Jim Blogg 01/22/2009 7:01:00 AM
I've known Bill Hannegan for a long time, but not until this day did I find out that he is descended from the man who kept Capone out of St. Louis. Great article about a great American who has been doing a knockout job of keeping the tyranny, insanity, hate, ignorance, and greed that comprises the anti-smoking movement out of St. Louis! An important job because those people are worse than Capone!
-
Jen 01/22/2009 3:44:00 AM
UNBELIEVABLE! THIS MAN IS SO INCREDIBLY IGNORANT TO THE HEALTH RISKS PROVEN TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH SMOKE INHALATION. WITH SO MUCH ACCESS TO INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET, NO EXCUSES ANYMORE FOR PEOPLE TO NOT KNOW THE SIMPLE FACTS OF WHAT SMOKING AND SECOND HAND SMOKE CAN DO TO YOUR BODY.
-
Benjamin 01/22/2009 3:07:00 AM
Aren't concealed weapons and smoking both threats to my health? How come one is banned and the other isn't? If Free St. Louis is all about freedoms, then why not champion for the right for concealed weapons? Don't I have the right to bear arms?
While I'm on the topic of rights, I have the right to free speech ... Obviously Free St. Louis is all out to promote freedoms at the expense of other people's livelihoods and health. With that being said, Mr. Hannegan, do you really care about the rights of other people to breathe clean air? Mr. Hannegan, do you enjoy exploiting the fact that some people suffer allergies, headaches, and asthma due to cigarette smoke? Individuals such as myself would love to go out and have a great time with friends at the bars, but not having to think twice that I could become sick overnight due to an allergy attack. I'm confused ... why do fire fighters go into burning buildings with a mask on? There must be an inherent reason.
How about some enlightenment:
http://www.no-smoke.org/getthefacts.php?id=13
http://www.no-smoke.org/getthefacts.php?id=19
http://www.no-smoke.org/getthefacts.php?id=25
Get involved:
http://smokefreestl.org/aboutus.html
-
Matawan 01/22/2009 2:48:00 AM
Sad to see the RFT giving this guy a soap box to stand on. Countless scientists, doctors and other medical professionals (a.k.a. experts) have devoted eons of time to researching and informing the public of the dangers associated with smoking, and yet some trust fund-suckling charlatan with an ax to grind offers up a few flimsy platitudes regurgitated from the pages of Cigar Aficionado and, voila, we have a news story.
If Hannegan is as "pro-freedom" as he claims to be, he surely won't mind if people start bringing their pets to bars and restaurants, and while they're at it ... why not uzis? Dog fights, uzis and smoking...if that isn't "pro-freedom" what is? Sounds like a fun night out ... in Baghdad.
Oh, and if Hannegan and Gregali actually cared about improving commerce in STL, they'd spend less time worrying about the non-existent threat of a smoking ban and more time trying to rid the city of its egregious earnings and business taxes that have been driving businesses and residents out for years. Instead, they ignore the elephant in the room and direct their focus to the flea that's biting the elephant.
-
Colleen 01/22/2009 1:48:00 AM
I hope everyone supports the $0.61 tax increase on cigarettes that is being reviewed in the Senate. It already passed the House. MO has one of the lowest taxes on cigs and one of the highest smoking rates. If you want to smoke, fine, but your right only goes so far - once it infringes on my right (like to breathe clean air) its not ok. And if you smoke, you should not be able to get government assistance to cover your health care costs to treat your tobacco related illnesses. My tax dollars shouldn't pay for your health care when you knowingly puffed on the cancer sticks.
-
Mike 01/22/2009 1:44:00 AM
I'm not anti-smoking, just anti-smoking in public places where I am subjected to the gases (that no filtration system can remove)and smoke from cigs. People's dry cleaning bills alone should be motivation enough not to smoke inside. It's not about freedom, it's about public health. Smokers don't go to restaurants because they want to smoke, they smoke there because they are allowed to; most are fine with stepping outside for a quick smoke. And new restaurants that feel they need to allow smoking aren't showing much confidence in their establishments, hear that Sasha's, Wedge, Herbie's 72, West End Grill, Fuman Chu, etc, etc. Restaurants would be able to seat many more if they freed up their smoking sections, thus increasing revenue, especially nowadays!
-
John 01/22/2009 12:24:00 AM
It's interesting that this guy has such distinguished ancestors yet he's a restoration painter with enough free time to advocate for smokers.
-
Tony Palazzolo 01/21/2009 10:45:00 PM
Interesting what Steve Smith says: No one has attacked or his business. All we have said is there is a market for smoking and non-smoking. I've always felt there is more room in the market for more non-smoking bars. As they taught us in business school - find a niche and fill it. But, that is exactly what it is - a niche, not the entire market. What we don't like is that he is trying to make all owners make the same decision that he has made. What stuns me the most is that if that happened, he would lose his niche.
-
Brian 01/21/2009 9:36:00 PM
"They hate people that say, 'If you don't like smoke, don't go to a bar.'"
Yeah, we hate that... because it's a bullsh*t argument. Why should non-smokers have their rights infringed upon. Yes, we want freedom too... Freedom from cancer-causing carcinogens and stinky clothes and hair. Is it so much to ask the smokers to take it outside? Do they really care so little for the health of their fellow human beings?
Mark my words, there WILL be an anti-smoking law in St. Louis and it will be sooner rather than later. Our city can't be this far behind the curve forever.
-
Carol R 01/21/2009 9:34:00 PM
ATTENTION, ALL SMOKERS! You have clout as well as the non-smokers and the complainers, almost every smoker over the age of 18 is eligible to VOTE. I urge you to get out, campaign against each and every legislator who is trying to take away your right to do a legal thing, be just as loud and determined as those who have let their voice be heard and let them know how strongly you feel about the issue. USE YOUR POWER AND VOTE THEM OUT!!!!!!!!!!
-
doug 01/21/2009 8:22:00 PM
Smokers arent going to go to bars in other counties....they will step outside of their regular bars in St. louis city or county....lets think about this realistically, if you want to smoke in your watering hole where a lot of food is not served then those types of bars should be able to permit smoking, but if something like 20% of revenue comes from food then it should be banned. I go to bars all the time, and hate the smell and taste of smoke, i just dont understand why it is so hard to go outside.
-
Sara 01/21/2009 8:04:00 PM
This article is pretty one-sided and in favor of smokers. There's no mention of the thousands of people who prefer to drink and hear music without the smoke and no mention of the employees who have to breathe it in all night. It's too bad the RFT covered one side of the debate.
-
Sara 01/21/2009 7:55:00 PM
This article is pretty one-sided and in favor of smokers. There's no mention of the thousands of people who prefer to drink and hear music without the smoke and no mention of the employees who have to breathe it in all night. It's too bad the RFT covered one side of the debate.