Letter to the Editor: Proposed 'Smoking Ban' Doesn't Protect Non-Smokers

Editor's Note: Letters to the Editor are welcomed by Patch. The opinions expressed in letters are only that of the letter writer and do not represent Patch. The letters solely represent the views of the author and have not been edited other than to check for spelling error.  If you would like to submit a letter to the editor, please review our .

Letter to the Editor of O'Fallon Patch,

Recently, in the March 20th edition of the St. Louis Post Dispatch, an article entitled, “Smoking bans may be at odds” which stated that an initiative petition drive is being planned by bar and restaurant owners that would allow people to light up in businesses barring anyone under age 21 along with another exemption limiting smoking to a ventilated enclosed area. This initiative, supported by United for Missouri, is far from protecting the non-smoker. It seems the coalition representing this new petition is only concerned about one thing—their own self-interests. It is not a question about the health and well-being of people who are required to work in businesses that allow smoking.  

The ventilation system has been a topic of conversation since the beginning of the St. Louis County smoke-free campaign.  In the September 9, 2010 edition of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, it stated that a study was done by Washington University’s Center for Tobacco Policy Research in which they placed monitors in ten bars and ten restaurants in St. Louis city and county for seven days to measure the nicotine levels in the air.  Venues that allow smoking had 31 times the amount of nicotine in the air compared to a smoke-free establishment.  A report from the U.S. Office of the Surgeon General said indoor smoking bans are the only effective way to eliminate exposure to secondhand smoke, and that “separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke.”  

Why would businesses want to spend money on ventilation systems when all that was asked on the original ordinance that ? When Mr. Cronin’s ordinance, supported by Smoke-Free St. Charles County, was being discussed with County Council, many Doctors and nurses speaking out about the number of patients they see each and every day whose health has been put in jeopardy because of secondhand smoke.  

The so-called “smoking ban” is far from protecting the non-smoker. It is all about the self-interests of the bars and casino with little protection for workers and patrons from secondhand smoke. O’Fallon’s smoke-free ordinance has been successful with no citations since its inception in June of 2011. There are very few exemptions to the ordinance and employees and families are working and dining in the “O” in a healthy, smoke-free environment.  


Wendy Prakop
Smoke Free St. Charles County