ECONOMIC LOSSES DUE TO SMOKING BANS IN CALIFORNA AND OTHER STATES

United Pro Choice ^ | 3-6-05 | David W. Kuneman and Michael J. McFadden

[SheLion]

Many studies have been published purporting to prove smoking bans in bars and restaurants are either good or neutral  for business, and conflicting studies have also been published purporting to prove bans are bad for business. Scollo, Lal, Hyland and Glantz recently summarized many of these studies, concluding those which find no economic impact are published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature and funded by “objective” antitobacco interests, while those that do find bans hurt business are funded almost universally by Big Tobacco or its allies. Tobacco Control, 2003;12:13-20. However, the objectivity of those who publish studies finding smoking bans don’t hurt business is also questioned because they are funded by groups with clear and open objectives of promoting smoking bans.

One common problem with many studies of smoking bans is that the time-span studied before and after a ban goes into effect is too small to accurately measure the ultimate impact of such bans. For example, long before state bans go into effect, many local governments have passed bans that affect business, and long before local governments pass bans many restaurants voluntarily ban smoking. For example, we obtained a copy of California Smoke-Free Cities  Bulletin , October, 1993 which was developed with the support of the California Department of Health Services.  The “Fact Sheet” summarizes that by the publication date, 8,668,235 Californians, or 27% of the population lived in an area whose local government had a 100% ban on smoking in restaurants.  Further, 62 cities and nine counties had ordinances requiring 100% smoke-free restaurants, and 295 cities had ordinances restricting smoking.  In addition, many more restaurants had voluntarily banned smoking in areas not covered by an ordinance.  Long before the state restaurant smoking ban took effect, in 1995, many Californians did not have the option of dining in a smoking environment.  Therefore, in this example, we would expect total California bar and restaurant revenue to decline years before the state ban took effect, and studies which typically only measured data collected one year before that state ban would not have measured the entire economic impact of the loss of smoking accommodations in California’s restaurants.

After a ban goes into effect, some establishments violate bans, others find ways to skirt bans, and some establishments are granted exemptions. Sometimes, bans are not immediately enforced by public officials. Some establishments raise prices to offset lost business which can temporarily mask the revenue effects of bans, and some smokers continue to patronize affected establishments until they adopt other socializing habits that don’t involve patronizing the affected establishments. For these reasons, measurements of the economic impact of smoking bans must also consider that some smoking accommodations can remain available after smoking bans take effect, and data must be collected longer than the one year after a ban takes effect in order to accurately measure the effect of a ban.

We further question why studies on both sides of the issue most often utilize data related to sales tax revenues collected from bars and restaurants, or employment data of those workers who work in bars and restaurants.  We agree such data would be useful if the studies were exploring the relationship between smoking bans and tax revenues collected by various taxing authorities, or if they were exploring the relationship between smoking bans and employment in bars and restaurants. Very few studies actually utilize data of gross sales received by bars and restaurants in business before and after bans take place, which would , naturally, be of most concern to those who own bars and restaurants.

One recent claim even capitalized on the 9-11 disaster in New York City  to “prove”  bans don’t hurt business. It claimed the city’s March 2003 ban was good for business because the city’s “bars and restaurants paid the city 12% more tax revenues in the first six months after the smoke-free law took effect than during the same period in 2002.”  Flyer: SMOKE-FREE LAWS DO NOT HARM BUSINESS AT RESTAURANTS AND BARS , Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids  1400 I St. Suite 1200, Washington DC. The same period they refer to in 2002 was from March 2002 to September 2002, when many Wall Street businesses were operating in New Jersey due to the disruptive clean-up of the World Trade center site, and tourists were avoiding NYC, many fearing another possible attack.  Mayor Guiliani appeared on television and asked nonessential personnel to avoid the area. Estimates were publicized in the media that the  9-11 disaster cost NYC in excess of $50 billion in business, in late 2001 and 2002; much, certainly was lost by bar and restaurant businesses situated near the attack site. In 2003, Wall Street businesses, residents, and tourists returned to NYC and comparing 2002 to 2003, ban or no ban, cannot be valid without controlling for the effects of the attack.

Those who conduct these studies should rely on long term total bar and restaurant revenue data because they are a direct measurement of how much money was spent by customers in bars and restaurants, and such data are readily available from the U.S. Dept of Commerce.   Comparing these revenues to total retail trade data controls for the spending power of the public, as evidenced by the data from the other retail sectors. For example, if a recession occurs at the same time as a ban takes effect, a researcher can adjust retail bar and restaurant revenue data for the effects of the recession using total retail sales numbers.  During the period from 1990 to 1998, The U.S. Dept. of Commerce published such data through the Census Bureau’s annual periodical Statistical Abstracts of the United States.  These editions are available in the reference sections of better libraries, because these references are considered to contain the best data available. These data we will utilize are also available on the web, at www.census.gov. During this period, the Dept. of Commerce reported data using the Standard Industrial Classification code to define bars and restaurants. After 1998, the Dept of Commerce adopted the North American Industry Classification System and cautions comparisons with the SIC system may not be valid. This is why we limit our analysis to the period 1990 to 1998.

States’ Bar and Restaurant Revenue Losses With Smoking Bans

In 2000, the Connecticut Office of Legislative Research published a report classifying states as either smoker-friendly or smoker-unfriendly in terms of bar and restaurant smoking restrictions.  A state was classified as smoker-unfriendly if bans had been imposed at the state level or if many local governments had severely restricted or eliminated smoking in bars and restaurants, even if the state had not.  www.cga.ct.gov/2000/rpt/olr/htm/2000-r-0890.htm  

These states are tabulated below, along with the United States, overall, as reported by the U.S. Dept of Commerce. All data are in billions of dollars and not inflation adjusted. The 1987 data are also included to demonstrate growth was occurring in all these states prior to 1990, before smoking bans were common. After 1990, local smoking bans began to take effect in California, and smoking restrictions began to take effect in the other states, so this is the period we have chosen for study.   

Table I

 

	Bar&Rest retail1987	Bar&Rest retail1990	Bar&Rest retail1998	%growth 1990-98	Total Retail 1990	Total Retail 1998	%growth1990-98
CA	20.7	26.3	28.0	6.5	225	291	29
NY	10.8	13.1	13.8	5.3	124	148	19
MA	4.8	6.1	5.9	-3.3	50.7	62.6	23
VT	0.37	0.46	0.44	-4.3	4.5	6.0	33
UT**	0.78	0.94	2.1	123	10.6	19.3	82
USA	153	182	260	43	1807	2695	49
*USA-	116	135	210	56	1392	2168	56

 

*USA- is the USA data minus the data from CA, NY,MA,VT, and UT; or the total of the 45 smoker friendly states and D.C.  

**Utah had a 14% smoking rate in 1998, so the presence of a ban there would not affect business as much as states with higher smoking rates, which typically range from 22% to 29%.   

The USA experienced bar and restaurant revenue growth of 19% between 1987 and 1990 and USA- experienced growth of 16% in the same period indicating the not-yet smoker-unfriendly states  contributed the extra +3% difference.  Taken as combined data, bar and restaurant revenue growth in California, New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Utah exceeded the national trend.  

The USA experienced bar and restaurant revenue growth of 43% between 1990 and 1998 and USA- experienced growth of 56% in the same period indicating the now smoker unfriendly states contributed the loss of  -13% difference. Taken as combined data, bar and restaurant revenue growth in California, New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Utah lagged the national trend from 1990 to 1998.   

Except for Utah, all the smoker unfriendly states’ bar and restaurant  revenue growth was substantially lower than total revenue growth.  Since Utah had a 14% smoking rate in 1998, demand for smoking accommodations was too weak for a ban to have much of an effect. Utah also hosted the 2002 Winter Olympics, and by 1996, the economic impact of the preparations was already contributing to the local economy, and the workers would have dined out frequently since they were temporary residents.  (www.olympic.utah.gov) In the other smoker unfriendly states, bar and restaurant revenue growth under-performed total revenue growth on average about 25%, which is close to the average adult smoking rate of 21.7%  in these states in 1998.  

We examined the complete U.S. Dept of Commerce data set referenced in the “background” section of this article and confirmed most of the individual states not considered smoker-unfriendly by the Connecticut research report fit the pattern of business growth similar to the USA- from 1990 to 1998.  

If California’s bar and restaurant retail growth had kept up with the smoker-friendly states ( USA-) between 1990 and 1998, California’s bar and restaurant revenue would have grown from $26.3 billion in 1990 to $41 billion in 1998. (26.3 X 1.56) This is a bar and restaurant revenue loss of $15 billion for 1998 alone.  However, this trend had been going on for eight years, and interpolating  a linear trend on the data, we find total revenue loss for the eight-year period is $60 billion dollars. (1/2 the base X the height)   

Bar and Restaurant Revenue Growth in Smoker-friendly States  

The U.S. Center for Disease Control publishes MMWR, a weekly update of health-related reports throughout the United States.  In the June 25, 1999, edition, they published a report summarizing smoke-free indoor air laws, and as of December 31,1998, 46 states and the District of Columbia restricted smoking to some extent, but Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina had no restrictions on smoking in any category including bars and restaurants.  www.cdc.gov/tobacco/research_data/legal_policy/ss4803.pdf  ; starts on page 24  

In the same manner above, utilizing the same data resources, we have tabulated the most smoker-friendly states:   all data in billions of dollars.  

 

Table II

 

	Bar&Rest retail 1990	Bar&Rest retail 1998	% growth	Total Retail 1990	Total Retail 1998	% growth
AL	2.2	3.3	50	26.4	39.9	51
KY	2.2	3.5	59	23.9	36.8	54
MS	1.1	1.6	45	13.8	20.8	51
NC	4.5	8.0	78	45.7	81.1	77
Ave			58			58
USA	182	260	43	1807	2695	49
USA-	135	210	56	1392	2168	56
USA--	172	244	42	1697	2516	48%

 

USA- is USA minus the smoker-unfriendly states from Table I, for comparison.

USA-- is USA minus the smoker-friendly states.  

The most smoker-friendly states’ average growth in bar and restaurant revenues matched their average total retail revenue growth of 58%.  The USA-, which do not contain data from the smoker-unfriendly states from Table I, also matched their bar and restaurant revenue growth with their total retail growth of 56%.   However, USA, and USA-- in Table II under-perform the smoker-friendly states because they contain the data from the smoker-unfriendly states. Thus far, the only states whose bar and restaurant revenue did not grow as fast as their total retail revenue are the states which were smoker-unfriendly ( except Utah), or total USA data  and USA-- which are terms which both included the smoker-unfriendly states. Most importantly, if claims were true that smoking bans are good for bar and restaurant business, then the lack of smoking bans should be bad for those businesses. However, we have found the lack of any smoking restriction or ban law does not adversely influence bar and restaurant revenue growth when compared to the states with reasonable smoking restrictions.   

Considering the smoker-friendly states’ bar and restaurant revenue growth data, we conclude that nonsmokers do not patronize bars and restaurants less often when state or local governments don’t severely restrict or ban smoking.  More than 70% of adults in these smoker friendly states do not smoke, but seem as willing as nonsmokers in states with moderate smoking restrictions to patronize bars and restaurants. The four most smoker-friendly states do not prohibit any individual bar or restaurant from banning smoking, if it is what the owner determines is best for business.  It is obvious our free-market economic system, without any smoking laws at all, and leaving the smoking policy decisions in control of the owner, works to satisfy all customers.  

Bar and Restaurant Revenue Growth in the Border States  

California is bordered by Arizona, Oregon and Nevada. All U.S. Dept. of Commerce data are in billions of dollars.

 

Table III

 

	Bar and Rest retail 1990	All retail except Bar&Res, 1990	Bar and Rest retail1998	B&R % growth	All Retail except Bar&Res, 1998	% growth
CA	26.3	198.7	28.0	6.5	262.9	32.3
AZ	2.6	23.5	6.1	135	42.9	82.6
OR	2.4	20	3.1	29.2	34.6	73.0
NV	1.0	8.6	2.7	170	19.2	123

 

 

Smoker-friendly Arizona’s bar and restaurant revenue growth exceeded its other retail growth by a margin of 135 : 83, Oregon’s lagged 29 : 73, and Nevada’s exceeded by 170 : 123.  Averaging these margins, the combined three states’ bar and restaurant revenue growth exceeded all other retail by a margin of 111 : 93.  California’s other retail grew 32.3% from 1990 to 1998, and based on the smoker-friendly border states’ average margin, California’s bar and restaurant revenue growth should have been (111 divided by 93 times 32.3  =) 38.6%  Since the actual growth was 6.5%, we attribute the difference of 32.1% to local and state smoking bans.  

If California’s bar and restaurant margin-adjusted revenue growth had kept pace with its border states, its bar and restaurant revenue for 1998 would have been $36.5 billion, or $8.5 billion more than it actually took in. Over the time span of 1990 to 1998, California lost $34 billion based on (1/2 base X the height) calculations. This disagrees with our earlier estimate of $60 billion because these calculations take into account a slightly weaker overall economy in California than its border states.  While directly comparable government tabulated figures do not exist for the years of 1999 to 2004, it would not be unreasonable to assume that these trends have continued and that California’s smoking ban has cost the state’s economy on the order of  $75 to $100 billion since 1990.  

However, this calculation may underestimate California’s bar and restaurant losses because they are calculated by comparing to California’s all retail except bar and restaurant growth which also would have been higher without smoking bans. This would happen if California’s  bar and restaurant employees and owners also lost wage growth corresponding to the 25.8% difference between all retail except bar and restaurant revenue growth and bar and restaurant revenue growth. Therefore, those owners and employees would be 25.8 % less able to contribute to all retail except bar and restaurant revenue growth than they otherwise would have been, and may have adversely affected total retail growth in addition to the $8.5 billion loss in 1998 directly attributable to the ban. In summary, California’s smoking ban probably contributed to its overall economic problems since the late 1990s beyond the direct impact of the contribution of lower bar and restaurant total revenues.  

One should note earlier we found California and other smoker unfriendly states lagged the national trend of bar and restaurant revenue growth between 1990 and 1998.  As the combined data from Arizona, Oregon and Nevada clearly show, the aggregate of these other western states did not lag the national trend. Most of California’s population lives too far from the borders for California smokers to commute easily for the purposes of patronizing smoker-friendly establishments in those states.  Therefore we do not believe these states benefited from California’s smoking ban. Lastly, the combination of lack of opportunity for California smokers to commute and the finding of California’s under- performance in bar and restaurant revenue growth prove that when a “level playing field” environment is imposed, all bars and restaurants still lose business even in a state as large as California.   It is not possible to “trap” smokers in a ban environment and expect them to patronize establishments subject to bans as much as they did before the bans were imposed. The “playing field” of a large scale smoking ban may be level but it is far more of a level basin than a level plateau.  

Conclusions:

 Total bar and restaurant revenue growth in California and other smoker-unfriendly states did not keep pace with those states’ other retail businesses or our nation’s overall bar and restaurant retail growth 80% of the time.  The overall order of magnitude of the bar and restaurant retail growth losses in all smoker unfriendly states, except Utah, was about 25%.  

Bar and restaurant revenue growth in states with no smoking restrictions did as well as states with reasonable smoking restrictions.  Claims the public demands smoking restrictions or eliminations, if true, would have caused states with no restrictions to lose bar and restaurant revenue growth relative to other retail revenue growth.    

There were no regional business conditions that could have explained the bar and restaurant revenue losses California experienced from 1990 to 1998. Although California’s border states had overall retail revenue growth in excess of California’s even after adjusting for the overall retail growth data, California’s bar and restaurant businesses still lost growth than cannot be explained without considering the smoking bans.  

Claims studies can only find smoking bans are bad for business when funded by Big Tobacco or its affiliates, or use anecdotal data are not true. We have shown smoking bans hurt bar and restaurant businesses 80% of the time using data from the U.S. Dept of Commerce. Further, most studies which find bans don’t hurt business are at odds with our conclusions because they use tax revenue and employment data to determine ban effects; and fail to measure for a sufficient length of time before bans take effect and a sufficient length of time after bans take effect.   

DISCLOSURES:  

The authors, used their own time and funds to research and prepare this article. Neither has any competing financial interest in this research or the outcome of this research.  

Dave Kuneman, who smokes, worked for 6 years in the 1980s as a research chemist for Seven-Up and still draws a small pension from that work.   At the time of his employment Seven-Up was owned by Philip Morris.  His current work and concern in this area has no connection to that employment.  

Michael J. McFadden does not have any financial connections or obligations to Big Tobacco, Big Hospitality, Big Pharma, or other major players in this fight.  He is a smoker, a member of several Free-Choice groups, and the author of  Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains  and Stopping A Smoking Ban.

March 2005

© Copyright 2005 The Smoker's Club, Inc. Please repost with link back to this original article.

 

 

[Garnet Dawn]

My hero! I'm still using a quote from him for the opening statement on my blog! Maybe a little crude, but he says it all:

Denis Leary: "Smoking takes 10 years off your life. Well, it's the 10 worst years, isn't it, folks? It's the ones at the end! It's the wheelchair-kidney-dialysis-f*cking years. You can have those years! We don't want 'em, all right!? And with that in mind, light up, everyone, and have a good day."

_________________________________________

As Dennis Leary said long ago, "People, who cares, those are the DIAPER YEARS!" I agree with Dennis. I LOVE Dennis! I can't wait for Rescue Me to start again. He is my kind of guy. LOL! I'm going to save his picture to my files!

[Just another Joe]

Why is it that you cannot seem to understand that when a "private" property owner puts that property into service as a "public" business, he or she no longer retains all of the rights previously enjoyed when it was not a "public" business?

Why is it that you can't understand that unless there is a pressing need due to a health hazard, or they are constitutionally required, the govt should not regulate ANYTHING.

Why is it that you cannot seem to understand that the RIGHTS of the property owner outweigh the likes, or dislikes, of the general populace.
The tyranny of the majority should not prevail over the RIGHTS of the minority.

[Lucky Dog]

Do you have the same objections to taxes on beer, wine, liquor, perfume, etc.? If not, then it seems a bit hypocritical to merely object to those on tobacco products. If you do not object to those taxes on other nonessential products, then why are you only carping about those on tobacco?

Sorry, but your "beautiful reply" did not even come close to addressing my question "perfectly." It was not even in the same ball park. The point was about the hypocrisy of of complaining about tobacco taxes and ignoring similar taxes on other completely non-essential products that are also heavily taxed.

You seem to have forgotten that tobacco usage is the issue being discussed.

No, I haven't forgotten in the slightest. The original whine in this post was about all of the business restaurant and bar owners had supposedly lost due to the failure of smokers to patronize their businesses after smoking bans were effected by law.

A number of "posters" have tried to make the point that, in their opinion, the business owners should have the right to continue to have smoking sections if they so desired as a "property right." Of course, such a position ignores that anytime a property owner turns his or her property into a business open to the public, he or she willingly surrenders such a right among many others.

From this departure point the discussion has wandered to taxes on tobacco, to health detriments resulting from smoking and second-hand smoke, supported, or not, by various studies, etc.

In a nutshell, the upshot of this thread appears to be that a great many smokers seem to feel that regardless of any objection by anyone else (on any grounds) or any law to the contrary, they should have the "right" to inflict their "smoke" on anyone, anytime, any place they choose. Whether this position is disguised as a position on "property rights," "taxation," or any of the other issues brought up here, it boils down to the same point.

The real issue is a "balance" of "rights." The rights of non-smokers to be free of the byproducts of smokers in public businesses and other public places versus the "right" light whenever and where ever a smoker feels the need. The law is, currently, clearly on the side of the non-smoker.

[Lucky Dog]

The tyranny of the majority should not prevail over the RIGHTS of the minority.

Agreed. However, neither should the voluntary, nonessential desires of a minority be classed as a "right" to inflict an undesired and potentially harmful substance on the majority. The majority has RIGHTS, too.

[A CA Guy]

Insanity, I live in California and there are more new businesses opening up than you can shake a stick at.

Some older venues are having trouble because of the change in life styles of the people.

As an example, Sizzlers are suffering, Carl's Juniors are installing dish TV to get sports to compete with the sports bars that are now the main successful places to own.

Anything not new isn't frequented these days often in California.

There are no economic losses, hotels are charging their highest rates and getting it.
Restaurants are mostly full.
Recreation is up.
Despite high gas prices, there are lots of cars with people merchandising inside from shop to shop.

You need a laugh track for this article.

[Garnet Dawn]

You are confusing our society's moral laws with legal products. Alcohol is not prohibited in restaurants and bars. Drunkenness in public is prohibited because the offender has impaired capabilities and judgment. Tobacco is a legal product and has existed for many years without being legislated. Smoking does not impair the user's behavior. If you choose to make the activity of smoking morally unacceptable, that is your problem.

Stop comparing apples to oranges!

Patrons have the choice to select restaurants that do not serve alcoholic beverages. Patrons also have the choice to choose establishments that welcome or do not welcome children. (Poorly behaved children in a restaurant are far more obnoxious to many patrons than smoking could ever be.) They should also have the choice between smoking and non-smoking establishments.

Owners of restaurants and bars should also continue to have the choice of catering to the clientele of their choice.

Has it ever occurred to you that smokers don't like having you around either?

______________________________________________________

Let's take these examples and see by comparison what points are similar to smoking bans in restaurants. First, pornography is legal in most places for adults to purchase. However, there are legal restrictions on where and how it can be displayed by the business owner selling it. (A "legal substance," or item, if you will, that is restricted by law) Second, prostitution is legal in Nevada (not so in most other places in the US). However, even in Nevada, it is legally restricted by more than just "health" regulations. (Another "legal substance," activity, if you will, restricted as to where and how it can be consumed) Thirdly, public drunkenness is prohibited nearly every where in this country. However, "private" drunkenness is perfectly legal. Additionally, nearly all states have a prohibition against having an open container of alcohol in a moving motor vehicle. (Another "legal substance," if you will, restricted as to where it can be consumed) Fourthly, gambling is legal in some states in certain locations but not others. (Another "legal substance," activity, if you will, restricted as to where it can be consumed) In short, there are all kinds of restrictions on property owners that operate "public business" and "legal substances" or "activities" as to where and how they may occur. There is no legal reason for tobacco to be any different.

[Just another Joe]

The majority has RIGHTS, too.

There is no 'right' to not be inconvenienced.

One more time, the preponderance of scientific studies support the fact that there is no harm done, on an otherwise healthy person, by ETS.
This means that it is only an inconvenience to you.

[Just A Nobody]

"My main concern is too much government intervention. Government is just digging into our lives more every day. You would think they had much bigger things to worry about."

I agree totally!

Rather than go back and post to another I will post to you.

1. Have you read "For Your Own Good" by Jacob Sullum?
The anti-smoking crusade and the tyranny of public
health. It actually goes back centuries. The best part are the arguments against smoking. Almost verbatim, minus the "junk science" stats.

2. Is that a Congresscritter that is doing most of the arguments? There are so many references to "elected representative" and lobbying of legislatures, I was thinking maybe...

Also, I am looking to move. I thought N.C. but after your post, I'm not so sure. Would VA be better, IYO?

[Garnet Dawn]

The original article was based on fact, and well researched statistics. Had it been another bogus health study, using taxpayer dollars to create fictional anti-smoking statistics with predetermined results, you would be convinced. This debate is getting tiresome.

You refuse to respect the perspective of the smoker, therefore, smokers will continue to disrespect yours. We don't even want to be around non-smokers. If you don't like a place where people smoke....pick up your lazy feet and leave. Today, there are many more non-smoking areas than smoking ones.

You are not the one being backed into a corner by narrow minded, for-your-own good, power-greedy people. Take a look at the sky where you live, and what you breath every day, during the next smog alert.

If you didn't like the report...create one that rebuts it.

One day, something you enjoy will be banned. I hope you will remember your attitude toward smokers....not addicts....smokers, who enjoy a simple pleasure that is not fattening, immoral or illegal!

Of course, the special interest groups would never allow it, but I have a solution. If the govenment would keep it's ugly nose out of life-style choices, every restaurant could be turned into a private club, with a membership fee of, say, $1. Everyone could choose the kind of envirioment they preferred and no one would have to be burdened by the effort to co-exist with people they do not choose to be around.

______________________________
Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.com
Illinois Smokers Group - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/illinoissmokers/
mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice! _____________________________________________

"You seem to have forgotten that tobacco usage is the issue being discussed."

No, I haven't forgotten in the slightest. The original whine in this post was about all of the business restaurant and bar owners had supposedly lost due to the failure of smokers to patronize their businesses after smoking bans were effected by law.

A number of "posters" have tried to make the point that, in their opinion, the business owners should have the right to continue to have smoking sections if they so desired as a "property right." Of course, such a position ignores that anytime a property owner turns his or her property into a business open to the public, he or she willingly surrenders such a right among many others.

From this departure point the discussion has wandered to taxes on tobacco, to health detriments resulting from smoking and second-hand smoke, supported, or not, by various studies, etc.

In a nutshell, the upshot of this thread appears to be that a great many smokers seem to feel that regardless of any objection by anyone else (on any grounds) or any law to the contrary, they should have the "right" to inflict their "smoke" on anyone, anytime, any place they choose. Whether this position is disguised as a position on "property rights," "taxation," or any of the other issues brought up here, it boils down to the same point.

The real issue is a "balance" of "rights." The rights of non-smokers to be free of the byproducts of smokers in public businesses and other public places versus the "right" light whenever and where ever a smoker feels the need. The law is, currently, clearly on the side of the non-smoker.

[TAdams8591]

This is truly excellent work. Thank you for the ping. I only had time to skim over it quickly but will be back to read it more thoroughly.

[djreece]

You are severely mistaken that smoke eaters are so effective that nonsmokers can't tell when people are smoking in a restaurant. I can't believe you seriously believe that.

Frankly, I think smokers brought the draconian regulations on themselves through decades of assuming they had the "right" to pollute the air in workplaces, lunchrooms and restaurants. I do not necessarily agree with as far as the laws have gone, but in California the laws were passed through the initiative process--a vote of the people. A lot of nonsmokers were simply fed up with rude smokers who presumed to pollute the air anywhere they went.

In answer to your question, yes, I actively avoid casinos on the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe or in Las Vegas for precisely the reason that I enjoy the freedom of being able to breathe clean, smoke-free air.

[SheLion]

You are severely mistaken that smoke eaters are so effective that nonsmokers can't tell when people are smoking in a restaurant. I can't believe you seriously believe that.

Are you calling me a liar?  Before Maine was forced to go smoke free, my favorite Tavern down town has 4 big smoke eaters on the ceilings.  The smell of STALE beer and smoke was greatly reduced.  I use air purifiers in my own home, they are that good.

Frankly, I think smokers brought the draconian regulations on themselves through decades of assuming they had the "right" to pollute the air in workplaces, lunchrooms and restaurants. I do not necessarily agree with as far as the laws have gone, but in California the laws were passed through the initiative process--a vote of the people. A lot of nonsmokers were simply fed up with rude smokers who presumed to pollute the air anywhere they went.

And I am sick and tired of RUDE people such as yourself that thinks the world should rotate on their ass.

In answer to your question, yes, I actively avoid casinos on the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe or in Las Vegas for precisely the reason that I enjoy the freedom of being able to breathe clean, smoke-free air.

Well.... bully for you!

[SheLion]

Also, I am looking to move. I thought N.C. but after your post, I'm not so sure. Would VA be better, IYO?

Gabz recently moved to VA. They are quit happy there so far.

You might want to FReep mail her and get more information. I know that VA is a gorgeous state.

[SheLion]

You need a laugh track for this article.

So you travel up and down the state on a routine basis to find this out?  And you are calling Dave Hitt and the two guys that did all the studies and research on this paper liars?

I don't know about you people that call yourselves Conservatives.  As long as Freedom continues to ring for you, you are a happy camper and to hell with the rest of us.

Thanks a lot.  It's a wonder our party survives with the likes of you.

So you can spew what you want, but I don't see YOUR opinion voiced in a link anywhere.  It's easy to say the words.  Much harder to prove what you say.  You must think all of the following are liars!

California Smokers Use Prohibition Tactics to Get Around Ban

While cops try to sniff out the worst offenders, in many cases they're butting up against organized opposition. Bartender phone trees warn each other of impending busts, powerful fans blow away tell-tale scents of "smokin' in the boys room" and tin cans double as ashtrays in case of an unexpected visit by police.

click here

SMOKING BAN IMPACT ON CALIFORNIA RESTAURANTS

That is the real impact of the smoking ban. So if you hear of anyone saying that the smoking ban in restaurants and bars does not hurt anybody, you can quote my figures, which are based on the official reports issued by the State Board of Equalization here in California.
Otto J. Mueksch
President, Californians For Smokers Rights 

Lots of Room At The Inn

San Francisco Examiner, April 19, 2001

* A hotel-industry study released this week shows that San Francisco's
hotel-occupancy rates have shrunk to 1994 levels. City hotels are
operating at 74% capacity. Rooms priced at more than $160 are about
69% full. While those numbers aren't disastrous, they are a far cry
from the stuffed hostelries we've been used to the last few years.

CALIFORNIA: 5-year-old ban in bars leaves owners, customers fuming

5 January 2003

"I think if the government helps me one more time I'll be out of business," Newlove said as most of his customers nodded in agreement.

article here

[SheLion]

This is truly excellent work. Thank you for the ping. I only had time to skim over it quickly but will be back to read it more thoroughly.

Thank you so much.  And your respect is beautiful!  I truly appreciate FReepers like you! :)

[Lucky Dog]

You are confusing our society's moral laws with legal products.

No, I was not. In each exemplary, comparative case that I cited, I pointed out that the case in point was legal in some jurisdictions but still legally regulated as to where and how it (the product or activity) was consumed or used. Alcohol is a legal product in many, but not all jurisdictions. Prostitution is a legal activity in some jurisdictions which does not impair the "user's" behavior. The same is true of pornography. Your judgment of the "morality" of these examples has nothing to do with the exemplary nature of their regulation which I was citing for comparison with tobacco usage.

My citation was manifestly not a comparison of "apples and oranges." Rather, it was a comparison of behaviors that are all regulated by law as to the place and time in which the behavior may be indulged.

Patrons have the choice to select restaurants that do not serve alcoholic beverages.

You are correct, but your analogy fails. Contrastingly in your example, unlike smoke, patrons are not forced to "indulge in" the behavior of alcohol consumption merely by frequenting that establishment. Patrons who do indulge and "over-imbibe" to the detriment of those around them are asked to leave. The same is not true of smokers.

Patrons also have the choice to choose establishments that welcome or do not welcome children. (Poorly behaved children in a restaurant are far more obnoxious to many patrons than smoking could ever be.)

You may be correct. However, there are no health studies (disputed, or otherwise) that support any conclusion, whatsoever, that "second-hand" exposure to obnoxious children is hazardous to anyone's health.

They should also have the choice between smoking and non-smoking establishments.

They do, "public" businesses or "private" clubs/homes.

Owners of restaurants and bars should also continue to have the choice of catering to the clientele of their choice.

Do not "owners of restaurants and bars" ("public" businesses, of course) currently "cater" to just one one type of sports fan, music type lover, etc.? In deed, they do. However, in none of the cases do these owners have the right to expose their clientele the results of behavior by other clientele that is prohibited by law.

Has it ever occurred to you that smokers don't like having you around either?

As long as I am only indulging in legal and nominally polite behavior, I do not care. Similarly, I do not care if smokers are around under the same circumstances.

[Lucky Dog]

There is no 'right' to not be inconvenienced.

Similarly, there is no right to smoke anywhere and any time one chooses.

...This means that it is only an inconvenience to you.

In like manner, restricting where and when you may smoke is only an inconvenience to you. It seems to be a clash of "inconveniences," does it not?

Such "clashes" are usually resolved through the legal system, either legislatively or judicially. In this case, they have been. The fact that the resolution is not to your liking does not make the settlement any less Constitutional or "freedom reducing" than any other, similar resolution in a different area.

[Just another Joe]

The fact that the resolution is not to your liking does not make the settlement any less Constitutional or "freedom reducing" than any other, similar resolution in a different area.

You refuse to understand.
It is not about my, or your, likes or dislikes.
If a business owner wants to make his business nonsmoking, as you say you have done, I have no problem with that.
Where I have a problem is when government steps in, lacking scientific proof of a health hazard, without an amendment to, at least, the state constitution, to FORCE a business owner to be a completely smoke free environment.
The government has NO business, lacking scientific proof of a health hazard, enforcing ANY type of ban.

Have you ever seen a disclaimer on a restaurant menu saying that undercooked eggs can be a health hazard? Yet they will still serve them any way you want them up to, and including, raw.
Should the government step in and ban the serving olf undercooked eggs? It's a verifiable, scientifically proven, health hazard.

I do not, as you seem to pontificate, want to smoke my cigarette, cigar, or pipe anywhere, anytime, any way I wish.

Until such a time as the preponderance of evidence pointe to a health hazard from ETS, I want the decision of smoking or smoke free to be left to the business owner.

It's the way it SHOULD be and the way it WOULD be if government didn't overstep it's bounds.
That simple.

[Lucky Dog]

The original article was based on fact, and well researched statistics.

Does this statement, even if true, somehow change the point of the article? (The original whine in this post was about all of the business restaurant and bar owners had supposedly lost due to the failure of smokers to patronize their businesses after smoking bans were effected by law. )

This debate is getting tiresome.

Does this statement mean you are withdrawing from the debate?

...Everyone could choose the kind of environment they preferred and no one would have to be burdened by the effort to co-exist with people they do not choose to be around.

That option exists today. The fact that restaurant owners choose to keep their businesses open to the public rather than turning them into private clubs means that they are subject to restrictions such as smoking bans. It remains a matter of their choice.

[Lucky Dog]

You refuse to understand... The government has NO business, lacking scientific proof of a health hazard, enforcing ANY type of ban.

On the contrary, I understand perfectly. I just happen to disagree.

As I have observed with several examples, the government has enforced bans or restrictions in a number of cases without "scientific proof." Your only counter has been that tobacco is a "legal substance." Well, so is pornography. Nonetheless, this legal "substance" has a great many restrictions on it for business owners. I see no difference in principle between the two situations.

It's the way it SHOULD be and the way it WOULD be if government didn't overstep it's bounds. That simple.

The key difference seems to be where you (and your fellow smokers) think the "BOUNDS" of government should be versus where the majority of the population thinks they should be. Given that none of your objections have involved any of the individual guarantees in the Bill or Rights, it would appear that your position is only an opinion versus the opinion of many more of your fellow citizens. In a democratic republic such as ours, you remain entitled to hold your opinion but not demand that others adhere to it. In contrast, the rule of law as enacted by the representatives of the people at variance with your opinion rightly requires you to adhere to its position, diagree or not.