The anti-smoking ninnies will not rest until they control every aspect of your life. If you don't like being around smoke, don't go in an establishment that allows smoking. There are plenty of non-smoking establishments around, what posesses you to want to go where you're not welcome? It should be up to the business owner to decide if he wants to allow a legal activity on his premises, not the spoiled brat anti-smokers.

The anti-smokers have become so transparent in their lies it is really incredible how some people still can't see it.

On the one hand they spread around concocted figures such as ''A July 2011 study by The Mellman Group which shows that 72 percent of voters favor all indoor establishments being smoke-free.''

And on the other hand they're saying that the exemptions are creating an unlevel playing field. If the majority of people want smoke-free establishments, why are the minority of exempted venues taking away the business from the smoke-free venues? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Didn't the tobacco-nazis say, when they got the ban they were after, that that was sufficient? I find it rather hypocritical they now want more. I'm not surprised; after all it's about inflicting their views upon my life, not about "health" or "safety". This type of personality would ask for a ban on water if it served their egos. Do me a favor: if you're this eager to control others, move to my home state, CA. They just LOVE to control other's lives. You'd be very happy there. Until they regulate something that affects you, personally.

As we travel the rest of the country, it's great to know that every place in so many states are smoke free. I lost my sister to lung cancer and I've got asthma that's triggered by tobacco smoke. One smoker can pollute the air with 500 feet of them. It's a real shame Missouri is so backward when it comes to smoking. It's time to raise the tax on tobacco - Missouri has the lowest tobacco tax in the nation and that's a shame. I doubt if we'll see any change in these policies as long as backward politicians under corporate control rule our state.

Don, perhaps we should raise the tax on asthmatics? Your disease causes you to use more medical resources than a healthy person, right? If you don't want to be around smoke, don't go in a place where the business owner has chosen to allow smoking. It's not rocket science, they have big red "S" stickers by the door.

You know there is so many people in this world that want to dictate what others can and can not do. Every smoker is suppose to have their rights to freedom also but lets face it non smokers now and always has wanted to dictate what we can do. If you non smokers don't want to be bothered by our smoking go some where else we have rights too. We pay dearly for our cigarettes and that is our choice so but out and move where you can be free of our smoke or don't come around it.

If this is truly about safety for all patrons should we ban pet owners covered in pet hair from entering an establishment to lesson the risk of allergic reactions? Should we ban patrons wearing perfume or cologne so they don't cause a patron respiratory distress? Should we ban people who have peanut residue on themselves so they don't risk sending a patron into anaphylactic shock? Should we all be stopped at the restaurant/bar door to prove we don't own pets, smelt for odors, and scanned for residue so we don't harm anyone? Where do you draw the line? Smoking is legal and should be up to each individual business owner whether or not it's permitted. If you like smoke go on in, if you don't walk away.

I smoke, and I vote. In fact, I voted in favor of the ban. It really doesn't bother me to spend an hour in a restaurant without smoking....I haven't been able to smoke in the workplace for decades now, so this didn't really bother me too much.
That being said, I think it is ludicrous to raise the tobacco tax AGAIN. What real good would that do? People will continue to smoke, and the anti-smokers will still complain. If everyone DID quit smoking, then what? Suddenly all that tax money would disappear...who/what would they go after next?
If they really want to improve the health and safety of people, as they claim, perhaps they should channel their efforts into something that will make a real difference. Raise taxes on soda and candy, so kids won't be able to buy so much of it....you'll reduce childhood obesity and improve dental health at the same time.
How about a "fast food" tax? Make it less convenient for people to just run to the nearest burger joint instead of cooking a decent meal for their families. Again you fight obesity, plus you will help lower everyone's cholesterol.
Better yet, impose an enormous tax increase on alcohol and find better ways to enforce age and DUI laws. Last time I checked, a lot more people were injured and/or killed by drunk drivers than by smoking drivers.

Leave the ban as it is. Allow smokers the last few havens we have. St. Louis County is a large place, and there are only 145 exemptions to the ban. That's not really very many.

There is no SAFE Level of Secondhand smoke. Breathing is NOT a choice, but smoking is. So, non-smokers don't have the same rights NOT to breathe in toxic smoking as smokers?? Give me a break! Ban smoking 100% and remove any exemptions. Thousands die every year from this chosen habit of nicotine. If you want to smoke, that's your choice, but when it affects MY health, it is not your right to make me sick. Which mostly it will do, make me and you sick.

It takes 20 years (if ever) for a HEAVY smoker to contract any disease suspected to have been caused by smoking and let's not forget that the smoker also breathes in his second hand smoke and everyone else's since he doesn't find it necessary to avoid places where people smoke. How long does Eric intend to live to be worried about hundreds of times diluted smoke that he chooses to breathe when he willingly enters a venue that allows smoking? He's right though, there is indeed no KNOWN safe level of second hand smoke because no one has lived long enough to die from it for scientists to tell for sure whether it takes 466, 500, 1002 or 2010 years before the infenitissimal amounts of some harmful chemicals in SHS kill us ;-)

I'm a non-smoking mother of five young children who voted against the smoking ban. I detest smoking, but I voted against the ban because to me it is an issue of freedom. A business should have the right to decide if they will be a smoking or non-smoking establishment. As consumers we have the right to decide where we will frequent our business, so since my family prefers smoke free restaurants, that is where we go when we go out to eat. If you don't like smoke, don't work or eat at a smoking establishment.

I wonder who between Eric and myself is living on another planet. It took one quick Google search to find one of many sources that spell out that lung cancer takes at least 20 years to develop. ''Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer related death in the western world. It takes about 20 years to develop and cigarette smoking is a known cause. '' http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD001991/not-enough-evidence-to-support-regular-screening-for-lung-cancer

As a matter of fact it takes an average of 280,000 cigarettes for cancer to develop! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15207443 Care to do the math for SHS?

The CDC does not do estimates for ''smoking related'' deaths for anyone under 35 for the very same reason : ''The smoking-attributable fractions (SAFs) of deaths for 19 diseases where cigarette smoking is a cause are calculated using sex-specific smoking prevalence and relative risk (RR) of death data for current and former smokers aged 35 and older.'' http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/sammec/methodology.asp

If Eric knows of non-smokers whose doctor has unequivocally diagnosed and is willing to testify in a court of law that they got lung cancer from working at the casino, I strongly suggest he hands their names to Tobacco-Control. They have been waiting forever for their very own poster child and so have been the hearst chasers.

Do you also stay away from places that play loud music but because you don't like it you lobby government to make them illegal?

It's hilarious how angry you smokers get about this. Smoking is disgusting, so you can do it in your own home.Did I mention that you stink?? Soon all places will be smome free and you can have your panic attacks after 5 minutes with no smoke.Get some self control of your life and look at this as a good thing.

Elizabeth is exactly right.

We are surrendering our rights as Americans one at a time. Soon this country will be completely reversed in its values from 75 years ago. Those who vote to ban smoking are playing into the hands of tyrannical politicians who want to run your life and make all your decisions for you.

This is proceeding rapidly in Washington DC right now. Unless Americans begin to insist on their heritage we will all have plenty of opportunity to rue this silly prohibition when our freedoms are gone.

Incidentally, I don't smoke and never have.

St. Louis Cigars, 13347 Olive Blvd are now selling Smox electronic cigarettes. They produce great vapor! Smoke anywhere, no smell, no ash, no harmful chemicals. Plus it will save you money over tobacco products.

I am a non-smoker. I have never touched a cigarette and never plan on doing so. I do understand what Elizabeth and Bill are saying, but....of course, there is always a but! I have an alergy to cigarette smoke and I had to quit working in bars due to cig smoke/alergy. I enjoy going and listening to certain bands and unfortunately they end up playing in smoky bars. How fair is to me that I have to put up with the smoke? Can the smokers not go outside? Not right outside the front door either! Then everyone can enjoy themselves. I love going out now to the smokefree bars. I come home now and love not stinking like a smelly old ashtray! Honestly smokers do stink! It is a very very nasty dirty habit. My sister and her husband smoke and their kids stink so bad. It is a real shame! I really do hope it goes state wide.