The verdict is in: Smoking bans hurt the hospitality business.

The Smoker's Club, Inc. ^ | 111 June 2007 | Dave Kuneman.

[SheLion]

David W. Kuneman, Director of Research of the Smoker's Club, Inc. originally became interested in the economic effects of smoking bans 4 years ago while reading an review article titled Review of the quality of studies on the economic effects of smoke-free policies on the hospitality industry. (1) That review article claimed that the "better quality" studies of post-smoking-ban effects always found no loss in the hospitality sector, and also claimed that of the studies finding any losses, "none were funded by a source clearly independent of the tobacco industry."

"Yet, when bans pass, we always hear complaints from the hospitality sector," remarked Kuneman.

In 2004 Kuneman began researching actual government data from the US Department of Commerce and found that bar and restaurant sales almost always suffered losses in states with statewide bans or even a wide proliferation of local bans. (2) "This led me to strongly question the reliability of the antismoking groups studies" he said.

The "review..." article had claimed that all 21 "truly independent" studies (actually all studies funded or supported to one degree or another by antismoking lobby groups) found no negative impact on revenue. The unanimity of that claim raised Kuneman's suspicions: "Considering that natural variability would predict at least some of these studies would report downturns in business for any number of reasons, it is very likely they were cherry-picking data and only publishing what they wanted lawmakers to hear."

On the other hand the studies referenced in the review article which were supported by the tobacco industry or "related" groups (basically any group with ties to the bar/restaurant industry was considered by the review article to be "tobacco industry related" ) usually showed economic loss from bans, but at least some of those studies reported that sometimes bans had no detrimental effect in certain segments of the hospitality industry.

Overall, Kuneman found that the likelihood of economic loss is lower when the establishment is solely for the purpose of eating and higher if the establishment is for socializing. Low, if the establishment does not serve alcohol, and high if most sales are alcoholic beverages ... such as the case for bars and nightclubs. Low, if the jurisdiction had a low smoking rate, and high if it had a high smoking rate. And finally, low if the jurisdiction is located in a mild weather climate, and patio drinking, dining and smoking are allowed, and high in jurisdictions with cold winters or no patio smoking allowed. Employment loss followed these same patterns.

To date, all studies of betting establishments have reported losses when bans take effect.

Kuneman also noticed that many of the studies which claimed no loss, were actually done in jurisdictions where bans were either not enforced or had many exemptions covering such things as limited or no food service, over-21 or after-9-o'clock provisions, or "hardship" waivers. According to Kuneman, "It's important for lawmakers to know that many of these so-called bans were so mild that any reasonable person would not expect much economic loss to be reported. It's not surprising that groups sympathetic to bans selected the jurisdictions they did."

Finally, Kuneman did his own, slightly different "review" of all the economic loss studies available. He compared economic studies conducted by professional economists to economic studies conducted by medical researchers or antismoking lobby groups. He found that most of the economists' studies, including several published in peer-reviewed economics journals (3), found economic loss, which was sometimes quite severe. He also examined the subset of studies funded by the one group with no axe at all to grind except concern for the real economic profits and losses stemming from bans: the hospitality organizations and owners of businesses themselves. Those studies also were nearly unanimous in finding extensive economic impact and loss due to smoking bans.

"The cat's out of the bag." according to Kuneman. "Let's face it and be honest about it. There have been way too many jurisdictions which have enacted bans now for their ill-effects to be ignored. These owners are talking among themselves, and communicating with owners yet to be subject to bans. Everyone now knows bans hurt business and despite what pro-ban lobbyists claim, there are now solid and independent economic studies to back up that conclusion."

[SheLion]

ECONOMIC LOSSES DUE TO SMOKING BANS IN CALIFORNIA AND OTHER STATES
By David W. Kuneman and Michael J. McFadden

'Where are my nonsmokers that the city promised me?'
July 20, 2005

1-19-04 -  Maine Smoking Ban Drives Smokers Over Border

Maine: Smoking ban suffocates profits at area bars ~ and so it starts....

SMOKING BAN ACCOMPLISHES LITTLE, OTHER THAN BURDENING BUSINESSES
9-30-03 The non-smokers who were supposedly going to flood restaurants and bars once they weren't exposed to the horrors of second-hand smoke aren't going to such establishments any more than they did before July 24, when the nation's strictest indoor smoking ban took effect.

article here

[SheLion]

Private businesses are hurting! The smoking ban is killing their business!

Smoking bans are choking the economy!

[HiTech RedNeck]

Allow bars to bring back full-smoking facilities if they will give out free cigarettes at the door.

[Budge]

That review article claimed that the "better quality" studies of post-smoking-ban effects always found no loss in the hospitality sector, and also claimed that of the studies finding any losses, "none were funded by a source clearly independent of the tobacco industry."Tell that to the five, count 'em, FIVE restaurants that closed in one town shortly after the Huck banned smoking.

That isn't the official reason the places closed, but I've spoken to several owners of the closed cafes, and they say the smoking ban did destroy their business.

Who you gonna believe, the smoking nazis, or the owners?

[SheLion]

Allow bars to bring back full-smoking facilities if they will give out free cigarettes at the door.

It should be left to the business owner to allow smoking or not.  AND to hand out free cigarettes at the door.  It's his business, after all.

The decision should be left up to the private business owner and NOT the nanny government!!!

[SheLion]

From your very own home page:

"Gay" rights: There should be no governmental or legal provision for special rights, same-sex partner benefits, etc. Private enterprises should have full freedom to choose their policies in this matter (to enprivilege or to shun).

So WHY shouldn't this be the same for smoking???!!!

[HEY4QDEMS]

Allow bars to bring back full-smoking facilities if they will give out free cigarettes at the door.

I guess whatever your smoking, it sure as hell ain't cigarettes.

What an absurd statement.

[SheLion]

Who you gonna believe, the smoking nazis, or the owners?

THE OWNERS!!!

And there is the trickle down effect:

When a business closes or cuts back, they do not need the supplies that the vendors have delivered in the past.  So, the vendors suffer as well.

[Quiller]

Absolutely on target. Private property rights should trump nanny-state "good for you" legislation. The restaurant or bar owner should have the right to structure the business to attract patrons. If non-smoking was such a winner, there would have been non-smoking bars and restaurants in existence before the anti-smoking nannies stepped in, because that's what the customer wanted. The general absence of any such establishments (yes, Margaret, there were a FEW non-smoking hospitality establishments which catered to a niche clientele) indicates the lack of economic opportunity with that business model.

Oh, and the government went with FALSIFIED or POORLY CONDUCTED studies? Well, where is my amazement to end?< /sarc>

If you want more examples of how liberals buy into BS "studies" that use cherry-picked data, misinterpretations, or out-right LIES, just read into the anti-gun hyperbole.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

Us smokers have been taking it in the shorts in the tax department for too long but now the antis will have to kick in to cover the tax shortfalls caused by the bans. We thought they were whining before but we haven’t heard anything yet when the gubmint tells them they have to pay because people don’t smoke.

[Thrownatbirth]

I’ve been smoking in Marriott rooms since their $250 fine went into effect. Unless they ban bathroom ceiling fans, I’m good to go.

[rockabyebaby]

Allow bars to bring back full-smoking facilities if they will give out free cigarettes at the door.

If I own the business, I should be able to do what I want.

[SheLion]

If you want more examples of how liberals buy into BS "studies" that use cherry-picked data, misinterpretations, or out-right LIES, just read into the anti-gun hyperbole.

Oh Quiller...........it's not just the libs that are doing this. It's our so-called Conservative lawmakers as well.

It's horrifying what our own kind is doing to us just because we smoke a legal product!

[SheLion]

Us smokers have been taking it in the shorts in the tax department for too long but now the antis will have to kick in to cover the tax shortfalls caused by the bans. We thought they were whining before but we haven’t heard anything yet when the gubmint tells them they have to pay because people don’t smoke.

Well, taxes aside, the smoking bans are killing our hospitality industry!  Do the anti's care? HELL no!  As long as they get their own way, the happier they are. It's not about smoking anymore........

[SheLion]

I’ve been smoking in Marriott rooms since their $250 fine went into effect. Unless they ban bathroom ceiling fans, I’m good to go.

I’ve been smoking in Marriott rooms since their $250 fine went into effect. Unless they ban bathroom ceiling fans, I’m good to go.

[Malacoda]

Just wait....Congress will be up in arms and foaming at the (collective) mouth when the smoking nazis decide to move on to alcohol and red meat.

Imagine Fat Teddy the Swimmer's reaction to someone banning his six-double Chivas Regal lunch!

[SheLion]

If I own the business, I should be able to do what I want.

Correct! 

[CSM]

“Allow bars to bring back full-smoking facilities if they will give out free cigarettes at the door.”

How very gracious of you to “allow” private property owners to cater to folks they desire to attract to their business.

Your post is either missing the sarc tag or you have provided a wonderful example of how socialist policies lead directly to fascism.

[383rr]

These smoking bans are nothing more than a marxist tool used to blur, then destroy the idea of private property, IMO.

And just look at all the busy-body fool sheeple raving about how “great” they are.

Idiots. Smoking bans DO destroy private property rights.

No anti has been able to prove, without a doubt, that they do not. I am soooo sick of these whiners.

[383rr]

Good post, and you’re damn right.