Pageant To Go Smoke-Free
By Michele Munz
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
06/15/2010

The era when sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll went hand in hand are long gone. Not even cigarettes are allowed these days.

The Pageant announced Monday that it will be smoke-free as of July 1. The venue in the Delmar Loop is consistently ranked as one of the top concert clubs nationally and holds up to 2,300 people.

Joe Edwards, owner of the Pageant, said musicians, patrons and employees were demanding the change. About 80 percent of the bands he books request smoke-free shows, he said, "and that's a far cry from a decade ago. It shows how much the country's attitudes about smoking are changing."

With public smoking banned in 31 states, most rock bands request smoke-free shows when they arrive in states like Missouri with no such law, local venue owners said. In fact, St. Louis area concert venues have been quietly enacting their own smoking bans over the last few years.

Off Broadway in south St. Louis has been smoke-free for nearly three years, and Fubar in midtown St. Louis went smoke-free nearly two years ago. Smoking is permitted in designated outside areas at Verizon Wireless Amphitheater. At Scottrade Center, smoking is allowed in its bar and outside two of the entrances.

"Most bands on tour come from cities where smoking has already been banned in bars," said Fubar owner Robert Fancher. "When they come here, even being smokers, most are glad that we don't allow it in the venue."

A smoking ban in public places in St. Louis and St. Louis County takes effect Jan. 2. Casino floors, some hotel rooms, private clubs (mainly veterans and fraternal organizations) and tobacco stores are exempt. In the city, small bars -- less than 2,000 square feet where food sales are "incidental" to alcohol consumption -- have five years to comply with the ban; they are exempted in the county.

Edwards said with new stage curtains and sound equipment ready to install, he didn't want to wait for the city ban.

The Pageant had nearly 300 responses to its announcement on Facebook. While most praised the decision, many were not happy.

One commenter wrote: "What happened to the good old days when you could catch a live show in a smoky bar. ... Next thing you know the drink special will be a fruit smoothie."

Matthew Grueninger, 25, of Waterloo, wrote, "With this step forward I, for one, will certainly be attending more concerts and shows." He's looking forward to the Pink Floyd tribute show in December, he said.

Sunyatta Marshall, the lead singer of the recently disbanded local rock band Helium Tapes, said bands want smoke-free concerts for the same reasons as patrons and employees. They don't want to leave with stinky clothes, a burning throat and itchy eyes.

The venues that have gone smoke-free have a side bar, courtyard or lounge for their smoking patrons to light up. Owners of the Old Rock House and Firebird in St. Louis said they would go smoke-free, too, if they had similar areas for smokers to go.

At Firebird, 95 percent of the bands already request smoke-free shows, said co-owner Mike Cracchiolo. "Even in this scene, even in this culture, fewer people smoke."

As the Ladue News article below indicates, some establishments are choosing to go smoke-free (some even outside) BEFORE the Clayton law and St. Louis County law goes into effect. 

Ladue News:  Smoking Laws Clear the Air
Thursday, April 8, 2010
 
The days of making eye contact with an attractive stranger across a smoke-filled room are coming to an end, at least at local restaurants. By January 2011, the city of St. Louis and St. Louis County will begin enforcing smoke-free ordinances in most restaurants and bars. Some areas, including Clayton and Kirkwood, have already imposed bans or will start this year.

"Clayton's amended ordinance goes into effect July 1," says Judy Kekich, communications coordinator for the city. "Restaurants and bars will be smoke-free, except for designated outdoor dining areas." At first, some bar and restaurant owners were against an extended ban, worried that it would hurt business in a fragile economy. "But they've come around since the economy has shown signs of recovery," she says. "Our residents are overwhelmingly for it. In fact, 77 percent of responders in a resident survey want the ban."

Some owners decided not to wait for the ban to go into effect. "We've never allowed smoking in our dining room, and we finally banned it from the bar area in January," says Carmelo Gabriele, who co-owns Il Bel Lago in Creve Coeur with his brother, Frank. "Diners had complained about their experience being spoiled when they exited the restaurant through the smoky bar, and an increasing number of bar customers were saying it was too bad they couldn't enjoy a cocktail or listen to music in a smoke-free environment."

But a major reason for the decision was that he, his brother and their staff were tired of the smell. "We'd come in at 8:30 a.m., and the entire place would reek of it, even though we confined smoking to the bar," Gabriele recalls. "It was so bad, we'd sauté garlic in the middle of the dining room to get rid of the smell! So Frank and I started contemplating how much business we stood to lose by outlawing smoking."

Their calculated risk has paid off. "Believe it or not, our bar business is up 35 percent since we banned smoking," Gabriele says. "The word's getting out, and we're actually attracting new customers who want a smoke-free environment."

Another restaurant that has banned smoking before the law goes into effect is Paul Mineo's Trattoria at Westport Plaza, opened in 2007 by husband-and-wife team Paul and Brigitte Mineo. Brigitte Mineo has a personal reason for imposing the ban: "My husband, Paul, died last July after a brave battle with cancer," she explains. "We honestly thought he would live through it, so I wanted to create a healthy environment for him in the restaurant. When he didn't make it, I decided to ban smoking anyway, because it's the right thing to do for our employees and patrons."

So far, Mineo hasn't received a single complaint, even though she has extended the ban to the restaurant's outdoor patio area, even though it is not prohibited there by ordinance. "Customers thank me constantly--no one wants to spend money on a beautiful meal only to have it ruined by cigarette smoke. If anyone on the patio asks their server for an ashtray, I'll personally go to their table and explain why we've banned cigarettes. I don't think I'll get any arguments."

Robert Trevino, owner of Amigo's Cantina in Kirkwood, also has outlawed smoking both indoors and out. "Kirkwood's smoking ban went into effect Jan. 2, but Amigo's has been smoke-free from day one," he says. "It's a choice based on personal preference: As a customer, I always hated having lunch on a patio on a beautiful day and having somebody spoil it by blowing smoke in my face."

Amigo's has a more casual ambience than either Il Bel Lago and Paul Mineo's Trattoria and does a brisk bar business. And even though smoking and drinking often go hand in hand, Trevino says he hasn't had to deal with disgruntled patrons. "Are you kidding? They thank me! It's actually increased my business. People appreciate the chance to enjoy great food and fellowship in a healthy atmosphere."

History Repeating Itself
In 1978, the Tobacco Institute, a trade organization of cigarette manufacturers, commissioned a study of public opinions about smoking.  Excerpts from the study are below.  The most intriguing are the strategies the study recommends the tobacco industry use to combat the trend of "no smoking" laws.  Sadly, the proposed tactics in 1978 are those being used today by opponents in city council meetings,state legislative hearings and online postings over 30 years later. 

A Study of Public Attitudes Toward Cigarette Smoking, prepared for the Tobacco Institute (1978)

"Nearly six out of ten believe that smoking is hazardous to the non-smoker's health, up sharply over the last four years. More than two-thirds of non-smokers believe it, nearly half of all smokers believe it.  This we see as the most dangerous development to the viability of the tobacco industry that has yet occurred."

"But if the anti-smoking forces are successful in convincing non-smokers that their health is in danger, it's at least as likely that the sentiment for segregated facilities will be strengthened . And if segregated facilities do not accomplish the anti-smoking forces' desire of making segregated smoking so untenable that smokers will give it up, the next step could be an outright ban.  If nonsmokers are by then convinced that it's their health that is at stake, the present sentiment for separate facilities could become support for a total ban."

"The strategic and long run antidote to the passive smoking issue is, as we see it, developing and widely publicizing clear-cut, credible, medical evidence that passive smoking is not harmful to the non-smoker's health."

"While that should be the fundamental objective of the tobacco industry in our opinion, this study suggests that there are some short term tactical approaches that may slow the efforts of the anti-smoking forces and buy the industry the necessary time to develop what we see as the fundamental evidence needed to reverse the trend. But they are tactical and short term in character . Among these short range tactics are the following:

-Where outright bans on smokinq are proposed and appear likely of passage, the industry could propose separate facilities (as the lesser of two evils).

-Where New Jersey-type legislation appears to be a real possibility, the industry might propose that operators of restaurants, cabs and other public "institutions" be permitted to establish whatever smoking policy they desire--"Smoking permitted anywhere," "NO smoking permitted," "Separate facilities for smokers," or "Separate facilities for non-smokers"--but with the requirement that the smoking conditions that apply be posted outside the premises for the convenience and protection of smokers and non-smokers alike.

-Several questions in this study suggest that where there is substantial support for government action against cigarette smoking, there is a discernible decline of such support when people are made aware of the other government intrusions that might follow. "Where will it all end?" might be effective in blunting anti-smoking regulation.

-Another short range tactic is suggested by the question concerning "fumaphobes." The findings suggest that there is the possibility of dividing those who are relatively unexcited about the passive smoking issue from the anti-smoking zealots, by portraying these zealots as people with an unreasonable fear of cigarette smoking."

"The issue, as we see it, is no longer what the smoker does to himself, but what he does to others."