Smoke-free air laws: Good or bad for bars & restaurants?

Yvonne Angieri’s OpEd, “A smoking ban would be detrimental to workers,” which appeared opposite mine in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on June 2, elicited some on-line comments from pro-smoking supporters. Bill Hannegan was among them, posting this:

“Yesterday Dr. Chad Cotti, a University of Wisconsin economist who specializes in assessing the impact of smoking bans, reviewed the St. Louis City situation with respect to a smoking ban. Dr. Cotti estimates that the St. Louis City Smoke Free Air Act of 2009 would cut St. Louis City bar employment 19.7 percent. Dr. Cotti said such a huge job loss means places will be closing, not just cutting back. I have sent his estimate to the Health and Human Services Committee. Mayor Slay’s plan to exempt the casinos will only make the situation worse for St. Louis bars, taverns and clubs. Here is a link to the 2007 research upon which Dr. Cotti bases his estimate.

I cannot vouch for Dr. Cotti’s credentials or the veracity of the study referenced above, “The Effect of Smoking Bans on Bars and Restaurants: An Analysis of Changes in Employment,” published February 8, 2007, in The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy.

However, my understanding is that the majority of studies on secondhand smoke (SHS) laws show they have little, if any, effect on either restaurant or bar business overall. To verify this belief I conducted a quick Google search and immediately found the following study which supports this thesis. Evidently the Health and Human Services Committee needs to hear from MOGASP and not just Bill Hannegan, who also continues to ignore the costs associated with secondhand smoke exposure in the workplace.

Please read the following study when you get time.

Smoking bans do not cause job losses in bars and restaurants

Published: Monday, May 18, 2009 – 10:36 in Mathematics & Economics

“New research suggests that exempting bars from community smoking bans makes no economic difference in terms of preserving bar employment, and that even the most comprehensive clean indoor air policies do not lead to a reduction in hospitality jobs. Researchers hope the findings, based on a study in Minnesota, will factor into future debates within municipalities and states considering the economic and health issues surrounding smoking-ban proposals.
The study examined employment trends over three years in eight Minnesota cities with different types of clean indoor air policies and two cities with no laws restricting smoking. Of the policies examined, some were comprehensive bans prohibiting smoking in all workplaces, while others banned smoking in most public places and businesses, but exempted bars.
Though economic effects of smoking bans have been studied in many individual communities, this is the first analysis to compare the economic effects of different levels of clean indoor air policies in multiple cities.
“In the end we can say there isn’t a significant economic effect by type of clean indoor air policy, which should give us more support for maintaining the most beneficial public health policies,” said Elizabeth Klein, assistant professor of health behavior and health promotion at Ohio State University and lead author of the study. “The public health benefit clearly comes from a comprehensive policy where all employees are protected from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.”
According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, exposure to secondhand smoke increases nonsmokers’ risks of developing lung cancer, heart disease, respiratory conditions and other diseases.
North Carolina and Wisconsin legislatures passed smoking ban bills last week. As of April 20, 2009, 15 states plus Puerto Rico had comprehensive laws in effect prohibiting smoking in all workplaces, restaurants and bars, according to the American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation. Three additional states had passed similar laws, or recently added smoke-free bars to their laws, that are not yet in effect. Hundreds of municipalities also have enacted smoking bans of varying levels.
The research is published in the June issue of the journal Prevention Science.
Klein and colleagues used state-mandated reporting data to track monthly employment in full-service restaurants and bars between January 2003 and September 2006 in 10 communities. The locales were not identified, but ranged in population size from about 20,000 to 380,000 residents.
The researchers used job data from the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development. Using industry codes established by the North American Industry Classification System, the researchers selected jobs coded for full-service restaurants and free-standing bars to include in the study. Limited-service restaurants were not included because of the low likelihood that they would be licensed for alcohol sales, Klein said.
“We wanted to look at businesses most likely to be affected by this type of policy based on the smoking and drinking correlation that has been established in previous studies,” Klein said. “Opponents to clean indoor air policies tend to say that having a partial policy, with bars exempted, will be less painful economically for the community. They say people who work in these businesses that are dependent on alcohol sales would experience a catastrophic effect.”
In the study, the researchers calculated the bar and restaurant employment on a per capita basis to allow for the different sizes of the communities examined and the varying number of relevant businesses in each community. For each month, they combined the total number of restaurant and bar employees in each city and divided that number by the community population size based on the 2000 U.S. Census.
Over the 45-month period studied, there was relatively little change in employment levels in bars and restaurants among the communities examined. None of the changes met statistical standards required to determine that the differences – increases or decreases – were significant. The estimated changes also cut both ways in any economic argument about the effects of smoking restrictions.
For example, communities with comprehensive clean indoor air policies had nearly nine fewer employees per 10,000 community members compared to communities with partial smoking bans that exempted bars. On the other hand, communities with any type of clean indoor air policy, partial or comprehensive, had an increase of three employees per 10,000 compared to cities with no tobacco restrictions on the books.
Seasonal trends in employment were related to the effects of severe winter weather in Minnesota, especially in larger cities, and the marked loss of jobs in one community was traced to a closure of three businesses that were failing because of their location, Klein noted.
“We certainly did not detect anything close to the dramatic claims that opponents make based on the concerns that they have for bars,” Klein said. “We were not studying individual businesses. We’re studying the effect of a policy implemented at a community level.”
Klein noted that the study did not use revenue data, another strong economic indicator, because statewide reports of revenues in Minnesota were not readily available. And she said employment trends in the hospitality industry closely match revenues because hospitality businesses operate in a volatile market.
The findings are an important part of the continuing debate over clean indoor air policies, Klein said, because “once a clean indoor air policy is on the docket and discussion begins, oftentimes the conversation quickly turns to economics.”
She also said she doesn’t expect opposition to smoking bans to disappear.
“There is strong evidence that a comprehensive policy provides the greatest protection for all employees, and now it appears that bars do not need to be exempted from clean indoor air policies to protect against severe economic effects.”

Source: Ohio State University

5 responses to “Smoke-free air laws: Good or bad for bars & restaurants?

  1. Mr. Pion, I admire your constant willingness to print both sides of the argument. And I do also admire your many years of hard work on this issue.

  2. Why do they put BARS, a place where ADULT freinds meet for extended periods of time, and RESTAURANTS, where families go to eat, then leave? Here in Chicago, where real crime is an issue, the only businesses that need to ignore the ban to keep their customers are the bars. Restaurants pretty much comply as soon as they open their doors in the morning.

    • Both bars and restaurants are workplaces. No matter where you work why should anyone have to endure secondhand smoke in order to earn a living? I hated having to do so for years until finally my company went smoke-free. But protecting public health is supposed to be the government’s job: why didn’t it act years ago when it first had the evidence? Answer: the power of Big Tobacco and weak-willed (and sometimes bought) legislators.

  3. Who would have first thought that Europe can deal with smoking bans? They are fine – people accepted that they can not smoke inside a bar or restaurant.
    I think it is just fine to go outside to smoke and to take a break. I enjoy meeting new people that way.
    And now a new solution is emerging: electronic cigarettes.
    I found this quick introduction to e-cigs:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s