|
|
|
|
Smoking ban
|
| |
|
| |
Smoking bans are public policies, including criminal laws and occupational safety and health regulations, which prohibit tobacco smoking in workplaces and/or other public spaces. Legislation may also define smoking as more generally being the carrying or possessing of any lit tobacco product.
rationale for smoke-free laws is to protect people from the effects of second-hand smoke, which include an increased risk of heart disease, cancer, emphysema, and other diseases. Laws implementing bans on indoor smoking have been introduced by many countries in various forms over the years, with some legislators citing scientific evidence that shows tobacco smoking is harmful to the smokers themselves and to those inhaling second-hand smoke.
In addition, such laws may lower health care costs, improve work productivity, and lower the overall cost of labor in a community, thus making a community more attractive for employers.
Discussion
Ask a question about 'Smoking ban' Start a new discussion about 'Smoking ban' Answer questions from other users |
Encyclopedia
Smoking bans are public policies, including criminal laws and occupational safety and health regulations, which prohibit tobacco smoking in workplaces and/or other public spaces. Legislation may also define smoking as more generally being the carrying or possessing of any lit tobacco product.
Rationale
The rationale for smoke-free laws is to protect people from the effects of second-hand smoke, which include an increased risk of heart disease, cancer, emphysema, and other diseases. Laws implementing bans on indoor smoking have been introduced by many countries in various forms over the years, with some legislators citing scientific evidence that shows tobacco smoking is harmful to the smokers themselves and to those inhaling second-hand smoke.
In addition, such laws may lower health care costs, improve work productivity, and lower the overall cost of labor in a community, thus making a community more attractive for employers. In Indiana, the state's economic development agency wrote into its 2006 plan for acceleration of economic growth an encouragement to cities and towns to adopt local smoke-free workplace laws as a means of promoting job growth in communities.
Additional rationales for smoking restrictions include reduced risk of fire in areas with explosive hazards; cleanliness in places where food, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, or precision instruments and machinery are produced; decreased legal liability; potentially reduced energy use via decreased ventilation needs; reduced quantities of litter; healthier environments; and giving smokers incentive to quit.
The World Health Organization considers smoke-free laws to have an influence to reduce demand for tobacco by creating an environment where smoking becomes increasingly more difficult and to help shift social norms away from the acceptance of smoking in everyday life. Along with tax measures, cessation measures, and education, smoking ban policy is currently viewed as an important element in lowering smoking rates and promoting public health. When correctly and strictly implemented it is seen as one important policy agenda goal to change human behavior away from unhealthy behavior and towards a healthy lifestyle.
Medical and scientific basis for bans
Research has generated evidence that secondhand smoke causes the same problems as direct smoking, including lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, and lung ailments such as emphysema, bronchitis, and asthma. Specifically, meta-analyses show that lifelong non-smokers with partners who smoke in the home have a 20–30% greater risk of lung cancer than non-smokers who live with non-smokers. Non-smokers exposed to cigarette smoke in the workplace have an increased lung cancer risk of 16–19%.
A study issued in 2002 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization concluded that non-smokers are exposed to the same carcinogens as active smokers. Sidestream smoke contains 69 known carcinogens, particularly benzopyrene and other polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and radioactive decay products, such as polonium 210. Several well-established carcinogens have been shown by the tobacco companies' own research to be present at higher concentrations in secondhand smoke than in mainstream smoke.
Scientific organizations confirming the harmful effects of secondhand smoke include the U.S. National Cancer Institute, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the Surgeon General of the United States, and the World Health Organization.
Air quality
Bans on smoking in bars and restaurants can substantially improve the air quality in such establishments. For example, one study listed on the website of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that New York's statewide law to eliminate smoking in enclosed workplaces and public places substantially reduced RSP (respirable suspended particles) levels in western New York hospitality venues. RSP levels were reduced in every venue that permitted smoking before the law was implemented, including venues in which only second-hand smoke from an adjacent room was observed at baseline. The CDC concluded that their results were similar to other studies which also showed substantially improved indoor air quality after smoking bans.
A 2004 study showed New Jersey bars and restaurants had more than nine times the levels of indoor air pollution of neighboring New York City, which had enacted its ban.
Research has also shown that improved air quality translates to decreased toxin exposure among employees. For example, among employees of the Norwegian establishments that enacted smoking bans, tests showed improved (decreased) levels of nicotine in the urine of both smoking and non-smoking workers (as compared with measurements prior to the ban).
History
Pope Urban VII's 13-day papal reign included the world's first known public smoking ban (1590), as he threatened to excommunicate anyone who "took tobacco in the porchway of or inside a church, whether it be by chewing it, smoking it with a pipe or sniffing it in powdered form through the nose". The earliest citywide European smoking bans were enacted shortly thereafter. Such bans were enacted in Bavaria, Kursachsen, and certain parts of Austria in the late 1600s. Smoking was banned in Berlin in 1723, in Königsberg in 1742, and in Stettin in 1744. These bans were repealed in the revolutions of 1848. The first building in the world to have a smoke-free policy was the Old Government Building in Wellington, New Zealand in 1876. This was over concerns about the threat of fire, as it is the second largest wooden building in the world. The first modern, nationwide tobacco ban was imposed by the Nazi Party in every German university, post office, military hospital, and Nazi Party office, under the auspices of Karl Astel's Institute for Tobacco Hazards Research, created in 1941 under orders from Adolf Hitler. Major anti-tobacco campaigns were widely broadcast by the Nazis until the demise of the regime in 1945.
In the latter part of the 20th century, as research on the risks of secondhand tobacco smoke were made public, the tobacco industry launched "courtesy awareness" campaigns. Fearing reduced sales, the industry created a media and legislative program that focused on "accommodation". Tolerance and courtesy were encouraged as a way to ease heightened tensions between smokers and those around them, while avoiding smoking bans. In the USA, states were encouraged to pass laws providing separate smoking sections.
In 1975, the US state of Minnesota enacted the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act, making it the first state to ban smoking in most public spaces. At first, restaurants were required to have No Smoking sections, and bars were exempt from the Act. As of October 1, 2007, Minnesota enacted a ban on smoking in all restaurants and bars statewide, called the Freedom to Breathe Act of 2007.
In 1990, the city of San Luis Obispo, California, became the first city in the world to ban indoor smoking at all public places, including bars and restaurants.
In America, the success of the ban enacted by the state of California in 1998 encouraged other states such as New York to implement bans. California's smoking ban included a controversial ban of smoking in bars, extending the statewide workplace smoking ban enacted in 1994. There are now 35 states with some form of smoking ban. Some areas in California have begun making entire cities smoke-free, which would include every place except residential homes. More than 20 cities in California have enacted park and beach smoking bans.
On March 29, 2004, the Irish Government implemented a ban on smoking in the workplace, the first country to do so. In Norway similar legislation was put into force on July 1 the same year. The whole of the United Kingdom became subject to a ban on smoking in enclosed public places in 2007, when England became the final region to have the legislation come into effect. The age limit for buying tobacco was also raised from 16 to 18 on October 1, 2007. In 2007, Chandigarh became the first city in India to become 'smoke-free'. Smoking was banned in public indoor venues in Victoria, Australia on July 1, 2007.
Smoking bans by country
The only country to have banned the sale and smoking of tobacco in public is Bhutan, in early 2004.
In 1973, Florida became the first state in the United States to pass a comprehensive law restricting smoking in public places. California enacted a workplace smoking ban in 1994, and a complete smoking ban in enclosed spaces in 1998. Florida made a workplace smoking ban part of its state constitution in 2002. Washington state passed initiative 901 by referendum in 2005, banning smoking within 25 feet of public buildings or places of employment. In 2003, the state of New York banned smoking in most public places, excluding cigar bars, members-only social clubs, and Native American gambling parlors.
In March 2004, Ireland established a nationwide smoking ban in all enclosed workplaces. The ban now extends, voluntarily, outside of buildings. For example, smoking is not allowed at the entrances to buildings at Dublin Airport, but only in areas where signs indicate that smoking is permitted. In 2008, Ireland will ban advertising in shops (advertising is already banned in print and on radio, television, and billboards) and ensure that cigarettes are not visible in stores. However since the smoking ban was introduced the percentage of people who smoke in Ireland has increased from 27% to 29%.
Norway banned smoking after Ireland, followed shortly by New Zealand on December 10, 2004.
Italy introduced a full ban on January 10, 2005. Estonia had smoking banned on June 5, 2007 in all facilities that serve food, including bars and nightclubs. Bar owners were allowed to provide special rooms for smoking without food or beverage service, but few did.
Each nation of the United Kingdom implemented a similar ban: Scotland on 26 March 2006; Wales on 02 April 2007; Northern Ireland on 30 April 2007; and England on 1 July 2007. Hong Kong, which was a colony of UK, also banned smoking in 1 July 2007 in public places (some adult-only venues can extend to 30 June 2009).
France established a ban in January 2008 when the existing ban was extended to cover bars and cafés.
Denmark banned smoking in clubs and restaurants on 15 August 2007, although the legislation made exemptions for small bars and restaurants with separate smoking rooms. The Freetown Christiania area of the city is exempt from the ban.
Sweden established a similar ban on July 1, 2005.
The Netherlands and Romania banned smoking in bars and clubs on 1 July 2008.
Hungary is set to implement a blanket ban in 2009. Currently the ban is partial.
Spain has a law, introduced by the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party, which came into force at the start of 2006 and bans smoking in workplaces. It has some restrictions for public spaces, such as airports and train stations, but pubs, restaurants, and other public places smaller than 100 m˛ are exempted.
South Africa introduced the Tobacco Products Control Act in 1993. The act was amended several times and currently smoking is restricted in all public areas, such as the workplace, restaurants and bars, shopping malls, sports venues, and airports. The act also bans the advertising of any tobacco product.
Switzerland introduced the smoking ban in public buildings, bars, and restaurants in the canton of Geneva on 1 July 2008 but due to a bureaucratic formality the decision was nullified by the country's supreme court on 29 September 2008. The Federal Court annulled the ruling by the Geneva cantonal government on the grounds that the legal basis for the ban was faulty. The law should first have been adopted by the cantonal parliament before the government exercised its veto.
In 2008, the island nation of Niue began considering banning smoking and the sale of tobacco in public areas and private homes.
India introduced a public smoking ban on 2 October 2008 which is also Gandhi Jayanthi day (the day M. K. Gandhi was born). The ban is a ban on smoking in public places, including restaurants, bars, and all enclosed public spaces.
In November 2008 the Bulgarian government decided to introduce a ban on smoking in all enclosed public places including offices, bars, restaurants, and clubs. The ban is due to come into effect on 1 June 2010.
In December 9, 2008 the Greek government ratified legislation on a nationwide ban on smoking in enclosed working and public places, which will come into effect on 1 July 2009.
On September 11, 2008, Pennsylvania banned smoking in public areas, such as casinos, restaurants, stores, miscellaneous buildings, and parks.
Outdoor smoking bans
Smoking has been banned on the streets of Tokyo's Chiyoda Ward since October 2002. Ward employees patrol the streets and fine violators Ą2000. According to the cigarette company Japan Tobacco, Inc., 60 municipalities, whose residents comprise 10% of Japan's population, have regulations to ban or discourage smoking on the street. Only three municipalities assess fines for violations.
In April 2007 the City of Burbank, California joined Calabasas and Santa Monica in restricting smoking in public places . The Secondhand Smoke Control Ordinance was supported by Mayor Todd Campbell, Jef Vander Borght, and Marsha Ramos following independent requests by 2 Burbank residents, Eric Michael Cap & Robert Phipps Esq. In May, 2007 the City of Beverly Hills voted to ban smoking in all outdoor dining areas, effective October 1, 2007 . Numerous other cities have since initiated their own public smoking restrictions, including Baldwin Park, Belmont, and South Pasadena. The City of Los Angeles has banned smoking in its Parks following the 2007 Griffith Park fire, started by a smoker.
In February 2008, the Hawaii County Council voted to ban smoking at county recreation facilities on the island of Hawaii. Mayor Harry Kim expressed concerns over the bill's failure to allow designated smoking areas, and ultimately vetoed the bill. On April 22, 2008, the Council overrode his veto by a 7-2 vote, and smoking was banned in all county recreation facilities, including beach parks, rodeo arenas, and the Hilo drag strip.
On October 7, 2008, the Glendale, California City Council voted (5-0) to ban smoking in many outdoor areas of the city. The ordinance bans smoking in most public places and in common areas of multi-unit rental housing. The ordinance aims to reduce human exposure to unwanted second-hand smoke.
The ban in Glendale prohibits smoking in/on and within 20 feet from all city property (except streets and sidewalks); city vehicles and public transportation vehicles; city public transit stations; places of employment; enclosed public places; non-enclosed public places; and common areas of multi-unit rental housing.
Some of the areas where smoking is prohibited are authorized to have smoking-permitted areas, subject to regulations.
Also, landlords in Glendale are required to provide disclosure to a prospective renter, prior to signing a lease, as to the location of possible sources of second-hand smoke, relative to the unit being rented.
On January 7, 2008 in Evergreen Park, Illinois an ordinance became effective that prohibited smoking outdoors anywhere within the village except single family residential property with permission of the owner or occupant, and within areas on all other property designated by the owner as a smoking area as long as the designated area is at least 15 feet away from any entrance to a building on the property and 15 feet away from any public sidewalk, parkway, street, alley, or parking lot.
Cigarette advertising
In many parts of the world tobacco advertising and sponsorship of sporting events is prohibited. The ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship in the European Union in 2005 has prompted Formula One Management to look for venues that permit display of the livery of tobacco sponsors, and has led to some of the races on the calendar being canceled in favor of tobacco-friendly markets. As of 2008, only one Formula One team, Scuderia Ferrari, receives sponsorship from a tobacco company. Marlboro branding appears on its cars in two races; Monaco and China, as neither bans tobacco advertising.
MotoGP team Ducati Marlboro receives sponsorship from a Marlboro branding which appears at races in Qatar and China.
Support levels for smoking bans
A 2007 Gallup poll found that 54% of Americans favored a complete ban inside of restaurants, 34%
favored a ban in all hotel rooms, and 29% favored a ban inside of bars.
Effects of bans
Effects on health
Several studies have documented health and economic benefits related to smoking bans. In the first 18 months after Pueblo, Colorado enacted a 2003 smoking ban, hospital admissions for heart attacks dropped by 27% while admissions in neighboring towns without smoking bans showed no change. The decline in heart attacks was attributed to the smoking ban, which reduced exposure to secondhand smoke. A similar study in Helena, Montana found a 40% reduction in heart attacks following the imposition of a smoking ban.
Researchers at the University of Dundee found significant improvements in bar workers' lung function and inflammatory markers attributed to a smoking ban; the benefits were particularly pronounced for bar workers with asthma. The Bar Workers' Health and Environment Tobacco Smoke Exposure (BHETSE) study found the percentage of all workers reporting respiratory symptoms, such as wheezing, shortness of breath, cough and phlegm production, fell from 69% to 57%. A group of researchers from Turin, Italy found that a smoking ban had significantly reduced heart attacks in the city, and attributed most of the reduction to decreased secondhand-smoke exposure. A comprehensive smoking ban in New York was found to have prevented 3,813 hospital admissions for heart attacks in 2004, and to have saved $56 million in health-care costs for the year.
Effects on tobacco use
One report stated that cigarette sales in Ireland and Scotland increased after a smoking ban. In contrast, another report states that in Ireland, cigarette sales fell by 16% in the six months after the ban's introduction.In the UK, cigarette sales fell by 11% during July 2007, the first month of the smoking ban in England, compared with July 2006.
A 1992 document from Phillip Morris summarized the tobacco industry's concern about the effects of a ban: "Total prohibition of smoking in the workplace strongly effects tobacco industry volume. Smokers facing these restrictions consume 11%–15% less than average and quit at a rate that is 84% higher than average."
In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported a leveling off of smoking rates in recent years despite a large number of ever more severe smoking bans and large tax increases. It has also been suggested that a "backstop" of hardcore smokers has been reached: those unmotivated and increasingly defiant in the face of further legislation.
In Sweden, use of snus, as an alternative to smoking, has risen steadily since the smoking ban.
Smoking bans may make it easier for smokers to quit. A survey suggests 22% of UK smokers may quit in response to a smoking ban in enclosed public places.
Restaurant smoking bans may help stop young people from becoming habitual smokers. A study of Massachusetts youths, found that those in towns with bans were 35 percent less likely to be habitual smokers.
Effects on businesses
Many studies have been published in the health industry literature on the economic effect of smoke-free policies. The majority have found that there is no negative economic impact associated with bans and many findings that there may be a positive effect on local businesses. A 2003 review of 97 such studies of the economic effects of a smoking ban on the hospitality industry found that the "best-designed" studies concluded that smoking bans did not harm businesses.
The converse argument is that a ban on smoking prevents businesses from meeting the values of their customers; and thereby has negative effects. In the absence of smoking bans, businesses can, and many do, implement a smoke-free environment. Customers will factor in the negative or positive effects of the particular environment. Accordingly, businesses benefit most when they have the freedom to provide what their customers value most. Laws that ban smoking restrict the freedom of businesses to do so. Economists like David R. Henderson, dispute the notion that smoke in a restaurant is an externality. The customer chooses the restaurant, and the smokiness is no more external to his decision than the restaurant’s décor or music volumes. A restaurant is an enclosed private place that people easily and freely choose to visit or not. The restaurant’s air quality is just another dimension of the service, like heating or tidiness. The point would go for the decision of workers, as well. The restaurant’s air quality is just another aspect of the job, and if workers don’t like smoke, the employer will generally have to pay them more, a standard wage differential.
Studies conducted by the affected businesses themselves such as bar and restaurant associations often find a negative effect. Criticisms of the studies finding no impact include lumping in fast food and other unaffected businesses in the numbers, excluding businesses that closed during the study time frame, pointing to marginal growth while other businesses fair far better in surrounding communities, cherry picking data that supports their assertions, withholding negative data, and replacing negative data with opinion polls.
The following are some examples:
the Dallas Restaurant Association funded a study that showed a $11.8 million decline in alcohol sales ranging from 9 to 50% in Denton, Texas.
A 2004 study by Ridgewood Economic Associates LTD funded by the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association found a loss of 2000 jobs, $28.5 million dollar loss in wages, and a loss of $37 million in New York State product.
A 2004 study for the National Restaurant Association of the United States conducted by Deloitte and Touche found a significant negative impact.
The restaurant Association of Maryland found sales tax receipts for establishments falling 11% in their study.
Carroll and Associates found bars sales decreased from 18.7 to 24.3% in the Ottawa, Canada area following a bar smoking ban.
The Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association reported that liquor sales were down over $67 million dollars while sales for home consumption increased and asked for the bar smoking ban to be amended in Ohio.
Australia
A government survey in Sydney found that the proportion of the population attending pubs and clubs rose after the introduction of a ban on smoking in enclosed places. However, a ClubsNSW report in August 2008 blamed the smoking ban for New South Wales clubs suffering their worst fall in income ever, amounting to a decline of $385 million. Income for clubs was down 11% in New South Wales. Sydney CBD club income fell 21.7% and western Sydney clubs lost 15.5%.
France
The smoking ban could be a factor of the increase of bar bankruptcies in the first half of 2008.
Germany
Smoking bans were introduced in German hotels, restaurants, and bars in 2007 and early 2008. The restaurant industry has claimed that many businesses in the states which introduced a smoking ban in late 2007 (Lower Saxony, Baden-Württemberg, and Hessen) witnessed lowered profits. The German Hotel and Restaurant Association (DEHOGA) claimed that the ban deterred people from going out for a drink or meal, stating that 15% of establishments that adopted a smoking ban in 2007 saw turnover fall by around 50%.
Ireland
In the Republic of Ireland, the main opposition was from publicans. The Irish workplace ban was introduced with the intention of protecting workers from passive smoking ("second-hand smoke") and to discourage smoking in a nation with a high percentage of smokers. Many pubs introduced "outdoor" arrangements (generally heated areas with shelters) though many customers now choose to drink at home or at parties, which has had the effect of aiding the off licence trade.
Ireland's Office of Tobacco Control website indicates that "an evaluation of the official hospitality sector data shows there has been no adverse economic effect from the introduction of this measure (the March 2004 national ban on smoking in bars, restaurants, etc). It has been claimed that the ban was a significant contributing factor to the closure of hundreds of small rural pubs, with almost 440 fewer licenses renewed in 2006 than in 2005.
United Kingdom
The ban came into force in Wales on 2 April 2007. Six months after the ban's implementation in Wales, the Licensed Victuallers Association (LVA), which represents pub operators across Wales, claimed pubs had lost up to 20% of their trade. The LVA says some businesses were on the brink of closure, others had already closed down, and there was little optimism trade would eventually return to pre-ban levels.
In September 2007, Japan Tobacco announced it would be closing its cigar factory in Cardiff, Wales, resulting in the loss of 184 jobs. It would move its operations to Northern Ireland with the creation of 95 jobs. The company indicated that a 50% fall in tobacco sales since 1999 had led to the decision to close the factory, and that this fall had been accelerated by the smoking ban.
Three months after the ban in England came into force, The Rank Group, owners of Mecca Bingo Halls and Grosvenor Casinos, claimed that coupled with the Gambling Act 2005 which imposed restrictions on the number of Ł500 jackpot fruit machines, the smoking ban had had a detrimental impact upon its profits.
Bingo hall customers have declined by 600,000 since the ban's introduction. Combined with the negative impact on revenue of the smoking ban, and government tax rules, one third of bingo halls are facing closure.
The British Beer and Pub Association (BBPA), an organisation representing breweries across the United Kingdom has claimed beer sales are at their lowest level since the 1930s. The BBPA attributed a fall in sales of 7% during 2007 to the smoking ban.
According to a survey conducted by pub and bar trade magazine The Publican, the anticipated increase in sales of food following the smoking ban has not occurred. The trade magazine's survey of 303 pubs in the United Kingdom found the average customer spent Ł14.86 on food and drink at dinner in 2007, virtually identical to 2006.
A survey conducted by BII (formerly British Institute of Innkeeping) and the Federation of Licensed Victuallers' Associations (FLVA) concluded that sales had decreased by 7.3% in the 5 months since the smoking ban's introduction on 1 July 2007. Of the 2,708 responses to the survey, 58% of licensees said they had seen smokers visiting less regularly, while 73% had seen their smoking customers spending less time at the pub.
The smoking ban has been partly blamed for Sports Cafe bars group going into administration.
Britain's largest pub operator, Punch Taverns, have reported an estimated 5% decline in trading throughout the traditionally busy Christmas period, which the company attributes to diminishing consumer confidence and the effects of the smoking ban.
In June 2008, a spokeswoman for Punch Taverns said the change had given the industry the opportunity to attract new customers and concentrate on growth areas such as food - which is more profitable than drink sales. Gerard Tempest, marketing director for Whitbread Hotels and Restaurants, said: "The ban has had no real negative effect. Our staff are happier and we are seeing many more families." Rupert Clevely of Geronimo Inns said drink sales had risen by more than 5%, with a double-digit rise in food sales.
United States
In the USA, smokers and hospitality businesses initially argued that businesses would suffer from smoking bans. However, a 2006 review by the U.S. Surgeon General found that smoking bans were unlikely to harm businesses in practice, and that many restaurants and bars might see increased business.
In 2003 New York City amended its anti-smoking law to include all restaurants and bars, including those in private clubs, making it one of the toughest in the United States. The city's Department of Health found in a 2004 study that air pollution levels had decreased sixfold in bars and restaurants after the ban went into effect, and that New Yorkers had reported less second-hand smoke in the workplace. The study also found the city's restaurants and bars prospered despite the smoking ban, with increases in jobs, liquor licenses, and business tax payments. The President of the New York nightlife association stated that business had been harmed and that the Department of Health had included all restaurants in the figures, including "Starbucks and McDonald's". A 2006 study by the state of New York found similar results; business had improved despite the smoking ban. According to the 2004 Zagat Survey, which polled nearly 30,000 New York City restaurant patrons, respondents said by a margin of almost 6 to 1 that they eat out more often now because of the city's smoke-free policy. Similar smoking bans modeled after NYC's were soon implemented in neighboring states and further beyond; New York State in July 2003, Connecticut in January 2004, New Jersey in April 2006, Ohio in Fall 2007. On July 1, 2008, Iowa also passed smoking ban legislation, which took a step further and banned smoking from state properties, including public colleges such as the University of Iowa.
Some individuals have reported far different results. Michael Pakko of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis has posted several analyses of the negative economic impact of smoking bans on restaurants and bars, including generally, in Columbia, Missouri, and at Delaware gambling facilities.
The Colorado state government is considering relaxing the state smoking ban in response to massive losses of bar and casino business since their ban was introduced.
Effects on musical instruments
Bellows-driven instruments – such as the accordion, concertina, melodeon and Uilleann (or Irish) bagpipes – reportedly need less frequent cleaning and maintenance as a result of the Irish smoking ban.
Effects on tourism
Some areas with a large tourism trade are concerned about the impact of a smoking ban on their tourism market. In Hawaii, for example several tourism monitoring agencies reported that the ban may have had a significant negative impact on tourism, based on government numbers and industry feedback. Overall tourism was down 6% and the key Japanese market was down 12% in Hawaii.
Effects on law enforcement
Another effect of smoking bans has been the smokeasy. As the speakeasy was to alcohol prohibition in the early 20th century, so is the smokeasy to smoking bans: it is a business, especially a bar, which allows smoking despite a legal prohibition. Numerous clandestine smokeasies exist in most jurisdictions with smoking bans in bars and restaurants, and have been noted widely, including in New York City, Hawaii, Alberta, Arizona, Boston, California, Colorado, Columbia, Missouri, Delaware, Dublin, Germany, Illinois, Manitoba, Minnesota, Ohio, the Netherlands, Philadelphia, Qatar, Scotland, Seattle, Toronto, the United Kingdom, Utah, and Washington, D.C..
As a result, jurisdictions which have passed smoking ban often unexpectedly find themselves having to use law enforcement to enforce their smoking bans.
According to the Roofie Foundation, a charity said to be the only agency in the United Kingdom addressing the issues surrounding sex abuse through drink spiking, the number of cases of drink spiking reported to it has risen markedly since the introduction of the smoking ban in England as a result of smokers leaving their drink unattended while going off for a smoke.
Effects of prison smoking bans
Prison officials and guards are often concerned based on previous events in other prisons concerning riots, fostering a cigarette black market within the prison, and other problems resulting from a total prison smoking ban. Prisons have experienced riots when placing smoking bans into effect resulting in prisoners setting fires, destroying prison property, persons being assaulted, injured, and stabbed. One prison in Canada had some guards reporting breathing difficulties from the fumes of prisoners smoking artificial cigarettes made from nicotine patches lit by creating sparks from inserting metal objects into electrical outlets. , . For example in 2008, the Orsainville Detention Centre near Quebec City, withdrew its smoking ban following a riot.
Response of businesses following a smoking ban
Actions by hospitality businsses against smoking bans have included protests, pickets at State capitals or other bodies of lawmakers, bills to repeal the ban, open defience, and lawsuits. In November 2008 between 1500 to 5000 cafe owners took to the streets in the Hague to protest the July 2008 Dutch smoking ban which owners claim has cost them 1/3 of their business. Also many Dutch cafes have given up on enforcing the ban and chosen to bring their smoking customers back by becoming a smokeasy, in spite of the risk of fines being levied up to €18,500.
However there are cases when some businesses that find themselves content with the ban. These tend to be more upscale restaurants and bars, such as fine dining establishments and wine bars. .
Criticism of bans
Smoking bans have been criticised on a number of grounds:
Government interference with personal lifestyle or property rights
Critics of smoking bans, including artist Joe Jackson and essayist and political critic Christopher Hitchens, claim that bans are misguided efforts of retrograde Puritans. Typically, this argument is based on John Stuart Mill's harm principle, arguing that the damage to public health through passive smoking is insufficient to warrant government intervention.
Other critics emphasize the property rights of business owners, drawing a distinction between public places (such as government buildings) and privately-owned establishments (such as bars and restaurants). Citing economic efficiency, some economists suggest that the basic institutions of private property rights and contractual freedom are capable of resolving conflicts between the preferences of smokers and those who seek a smoke-free environment - without government intrusion.
Lawsuits
Businesses affected by smoking bans have filed lawsuits claiming that bans are unconstitutional or otherwise illegal. In the United States, some cite unequal protection under the law while others cite loss of business without compensation, as well as other types of challenges. Some localities where hospitality businesses filed lawsuits against the State or local government include, Nevada, Montana, Ames, Iowa, Colorado, Kentucky, New York, South Carolina, and Hawaii . Such lawsuits have generally been unsuccessful.
Bans may move smoking elsewhere
Bans on smoking in offices and other enclosed public places often result in smokers going outside to smoke, frequently congregating outside doorways. Many jurisdictions that have banned smoking in enclosed public places have extended the ban to cover areas within a fixed distance of entrances to buildings.
The former British Cabinet Member John Reid claimed that bans on smoking in public places may lead to more smoking at home. However, both the House of Commons Health committee and the Royal College of Physicians disagreed, with the former finding no evidence to support Reid's claim after studying Ireland, and the latter finding that smoke-free households increased from 22% to 37% between 1996 and 2003.
Local bans lead to increase in DUI fatalities
In May 2008, research released by Adams and Cotti through the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM) examined statistics of drunken-driving fatalities and accidents in areas where smoking bans in bars have been implemented and found that fatal drunken-driving accidents increased by about 13 percent, or about 2.5 such accidents per year for a typical county.
Alternatives to bans
Incentives for voluntarily smoke-free establishments
Some smoking ban opponents concede that in many localities, the number of smoke-free bars and restaurants is insufficient to meet the needs and wants of residents who prefer a smoke-free environment. In order to encourage the creation of more smoke-free businesses, some experts and politicians support tax credits and other financial incentives for businesses that enact non-smoking policies. During the debates over the Washington, DC smoking ban, city council member Carol Schwartz proposed legislation that would have enacted either a substantial tax credit for businesses that chose to ban smoking or a significant additional licensing fee for bars and restaurants that wished to allow smoking. Proponents of such policies claim that they would help to increase the options for customers and employees who prefer a smoke-free bar or restaurant without infringing on the rights of business owners. Opponents of such tax measures counter that only a complete ban can fully protect patrons and employees.
Tradable smoking pollution permits
One solution to the problem of smoking externalities favoured by some economists is a system of tradable smoking pollution permits, similar to other emissions trading (cap-and-trade) pollution permits systems used by the Environmental Protection Agency in recent decades to curb other types of pollution. The proposal has been suggested by Profs. Robert Haveman and John Mullahy of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Emissions trading systems are generally favored by economists as a market-based alternative to direct regulation, because they yield a given reduction in pollution at lower cost, and may permit a reduction in administrative costs.
Tradable pollution permits as a market-based alternative to smoking bans can be applied as follows: Lawmakers decide the optimal level of smoking establishments for an area. Permits are then auctioned off or otherwise allocated. Nonsmoking establishments with unused permits can sell them on the open market to smoking establishments. In essence, businesses are required to purchase the property rights over the clean air space of their business before their customers can smoke.
Ventilation
Critics of bans suggest ventilation is a means of reducing the harmful effects of passive smoking. A study conducted by the School of Technology of the University of Glamorgan in Wales, United Kingdom, published in the Building Services Journal stated that ventilation systems can dramatically improve indoor air quality.
A study by Repace titled "Can Displacement Ventilation control SecondHand ETS?". The conclusion is a no, ventilation is no substitute for a smoking ban.
A published 2008 hospitality air quality study conducted by the Hawaii Department of Health found the the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 24 hour permissible exposure limits for respirable suspended particles known as PM-2.5 were only exceeded in bars and restaurants that were totally enclosed and had no ventilation. The study states that PM-2.5 is a "useful maker for the 4000 compounds" in environmental tobacco smoke . In addition these results showed that even the highest concentrations found in unventilated bars which in some cases significantly exceeding the EPA standards of 0.065 milligrams per cubic meter, were no greater than 1/5th of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration permissible standards of five milligrams per cubic meter of air. .
The tobacco industry has focused on proposing ventilation as an alternative to smoking bans, though this approach has not been widely adopted in the U.S. due to the cost and complexity of widespread implementation of ventilation devices. The Italian smoking ban permits dedicated smoking rooms with automatic doors and smoke extractors. Nevertheless, few Italian establishments are creating smoking rooms due to the additional cost.
Preemption
A number of States in the United States have "preemption clauses" within State law which block local communities from passing smoking ban ordinances more strict than the State laws on the books. The rationale is to prevent local communities from passing smoking bans that are viewed as excessive by that State's legislature. Other States have "anti-preemption clauses" that allow local communities to pass smoking ban ordinances that their legislature found unacceptable.
Hardship exemptions
In some communities, establishments were able to prove that they did in fact suffer substantial financial loss as a direct result of a smoking ban and received hardship waivers from the governing entity which passed the ban.
See also
Organizations:
External links
|
| |
|
|
