Smoking Ban: St. Louis County Council Considers Fewer Exemptions, Stricter Policy

Categories: News, Smoking Bans

O'Mara's proposal contains some new language -- but the most notable change is the removal of these three exemptions, which are written this way in the current policy:

-Cigar bars, provided such entity is in operation on or before the effective date of this chapter and provided that smoke does not infiltrate into areas where smoking is otherwise prohibited;

-Casino gaming areas;

-Drinking establishments which are in operation on or before the effective date of this chapter; provided, however, that no smoke infiltrates into areas where smoking is otherwise prohibited, and further provided that each such drinking establishment has posted in a place visible to the public from its exterior a certificate of exemption issued by the Department of Revenue pursuant to Section 605.076;

Other exemptions that remain under this bill, which was introduced last week, include private residences, private clubs, rehabilitative facilities, permanently designated smoking rooms, retail establishments in which food is not prepared on the premises and where more than sixty percent of the volume of trade or businesses carried on is the sale of tobacco and tobacco-related products, and more.

Bill Hannegan photo.jpeg
Photo by Jennifer Silverberg
Bill Hannegan

Hannegan, who has been outspoken about smoking bans for years, says that this is the time to go back to the drawing board and create fair policies that businesses support.

"I've been doing this for eight years," he says. "A lot of people wouldn't believe this is still an issue."

Continue for a full draft of the bill and Hannegan's letter.

Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help

Here's the instruction book, complete with a link to a pre-written model "smoking ban for dummies" on page eight.

Marie DeFer
Marie DeFer

No way, ban smoking indoors! Smoking smells awful, aggravates non smokers with asthma, and causes cancer. Why are non smokers' access to clean air second to smokers' when smokers can step outside to smoke and not subjet non smokers to gross smoke?


You people are nuts!

Wise up and quit smoking.


I am not a smoker and don't care to be in the presence of people that do but these nationwide smoking bans have always felt draconian to me.  They change the meaning and definitions of words and demonize a portion of the population for doing something unhealthy while failing to acknowledge legitimate choice and free will on how and where adults spend their time.  If I dislike secondhand smoke and don't want my children to be near it I can always go to another establishment that bans smoking and there are plenty.  Why in the hell should any government be allowed to make a law prohibiting the ability of smokers to meet freely in an establishment allowing it while ensuring that other adults and children understand as much?  There are too few people in this country left who remember prohibition and the falacy of popular enforcement of someone else's good judgement.  Proof positive that people don't change and history repeats itself.



This is really simple. The pharma who sells the patches and gums, know they don't work. So to get them used by the public and to get them onto Medicaid payout, the pharma invented the myth of second hand smoke. Then the pharma got their "philanthropic arm", to do the lobbying for laws to demonize and ostracize smokers. The pharma then sends the campaign money into local, state, and federal level candidates.

On the federal level, the pharma, and their "arm" got the CDC to say that the patches and gums are wonderful. Interesting that a Board member of the pharma is on the Board of the CDC Foundation also.

Anyway, this is how and why smoking bans are being pushed. These paid "non profit" lobbyists do not give a damn whether businesses close or people are put out of their jobs. They are paid to lie about business losses and that's what they do. They mix restaurant numbers with bar numbers. Bars are much smaller. WHen a bar closes there may only be one full time employee, while the rest are part time. So this is how they fudge those numbers.


How many nannies does it take to force a smoking ban down the throat of a community? Not many when they seem to own the media and the politicians! Why wouldn't the press be willing to present the truth about the pro smoking ban movement? Why won't elected officials actually read the "studies", which, by the way, do NOT show a link between second hand smoke and any disease? Has the pharma advertsising money become more important than the truth? Have campaign donations blinded elected officials?


Very well done!  Always good for people to see original documentation.  I was reminded of something interesting as I looked through the ban bill though.  Take a look at this:

Employee: "any person who performs services for an employer, with or without compensation" 

Try Googling that quoted material and you'll find that the definition of the basic word "Employee" has been rewritten all across the country SPECIFICALLY in order to target smokers and ONLY smokers.  Sound a bit too Orwellian to be true?  OK, try Googling that definition again in quotes, but then follow it with a space and 


That will let you see how often that definition has ever been used elsewhere.  That's just one of the propaganda tricks used by Antismokers in this game: there are many others.  To see some good examples, read my "Lies Behind The Smoking Bans" at

If there's anything in there that you find questionable, anything that you have specific, substantive questions or criticisms of, please share them here: I promise I won't mind, and I'll try to stop back to respond.  I think a discussion of those lies would help greatly in giving the Councillors more and better information for their decision.

Michael J. McFadden,

Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"


Hope they do too, but it isn't for the law to decide.

Now Trending

St. Louis Concert Tickets

From the Vault