Skip to comments.The verdict is in: Smoking bans hurt the hospitality business.
Posted on 06/15/2007 3:06:29 AM PDT by 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."
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
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.
Smoking bans are choking the economy!
Allow bars to bring back full-smoking facilities if they will give out free cigarettes at the door.
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?
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!!!
"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???!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
If I own the business, I should be able to do what I want.
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!
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........
Ive been smoking in Marriott rooms since their $250 fine went into effect. Unless they ban bathroom ceiling fans, Im good to go.
Imagine Fat Teddy the Swimmer's reaction to someone banning his six-double Chivas Regal lunch!
“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.
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.
Good post, and you’re damn right.
The war against smoking has been successful. Far fewer people smoke now than ever before. Smoking is not only socially unacceptable, it is expensive, inconvenient and frowned on.
Why then has the incidences of heart disease, lung cancer and other supposed smoking-related diseases increased even though the level of smoking is reduced?
How goes things so far in Mi?
I haven’t heard anymore about the ban that kommissar granholm like to see implemented.
One reason is that this has never been about “health”.
It’s been about revenue and control.
Plus, they’ll need to keep those scary death specters running around, because the attack on “BIG FOOD” is just beginning.
Another tofu bar, comrade?
Second hand smoke is a lie.Either you have the cancer gene or you don’t.
I ate in a lil ole southern restaurant the other day and they had a smoking section that’s smoke surely went to the NON smoking section.Ridiculous!
I’m a pipe smoker (and the occasional cigar) and collector. I belong to a pipe club that meets in the Baltimore area once a month in a restaurant that lets us use its banquet hall. We show off our collections, we smoke, we eat, and we have fun, disturbing nobody. Starting next February, we will have to meet in private homes, because of a no-exception smoking ban in Maryland.
People should mind their own business.
Smoking bans are a direct interference by the government in an owner’s property rights.
If I owned a bar or restuarant subject to a such a ban, I would calculate losses directly attributable to the ban and then sue the government for inverse condemnation.
Good luck with getting this into the msm.
In response to the big tax increase, we are going to go to Alabama or Georgia to buy our smokes. Tennessee borders several states and it would be just a nice drive to go out of state to do our major shopping. I wrote to our representives and told them if they passed this unfair tax, that is exactly what we would do and now we are going to do it. I urge all Tenneseans to go out of state to buy cigarettes and do your major shopping while you are at it. I told our reps that they would not only lose the taxes we were paying for cigarettes, they would lose the tax money for major purchases like furniture and anything nonperishable. Besides while we are there we will shop and eat in their resturants, etc. My sister lives in MN and they go to ND to shop and buy cigarettes.
Good for you, SheLion!! I love your spirit and fiestiness!
You just asked the million dollar question and you will hear crickets chirping from all the antismoking nazis. I have asked this question countless times and have yet to get an answer.
It is yet to be proved that tobacco is the cause of so-called smoking-related diseases. Smoking cigarettes is down but lung disease is up. There are just as many studies showing that smoking is harmless as there are those showing they are harmful.
No doubt smoke annoys some people. But people who find the delightful aroma of a pipe or a good cigar distasteful have something wrong with their smeller.
The anti-smoking zealots needed a cause. Now they are shifting to global warming.
"The role of government is not to create wealth.
The role of government is to create an environment
in which the entrepreneur or small business or
dreamer can flourish. And that starts with rule of law,
respect of private property, less regulatory burdens on the
entrepreneur, open banking laws so that all people
have access to capital, and good tax policy."
President George W. Bush
St. Petersburg University,
St. Petersburg, Russia
May 25, 2002
ABSOLUTELY! It's the nose of the camel coming into the tent. Precedent trumps reason way too often.
Once the idea is set that the government can dictate what private property owners can do in a legal business, with a legal product, "for the good of the people" (who, by the way, have a CHOICE as to whether they patronize the business or not), then the next thing you know, the government will be taking property away from private citizens, "for the good of the people" -- even if that "good" is only for the government to make more tax revenue.
Oh, wait . . .
Won’t these smoking bans also hurt the elderly? People who’ve grown up smoking, smoked while at war (fighting for freedom, ironically)...suddenly they’re cut off?
“President Bush”...”rule of law”...HAH!
You are absolutely right . . . I'm so tired of RINOs I could gag.
If only a few could show up with the brass to actually be conservative, instead of just knowing how to play the tune, but being afraid to stand solid.
You might find this thread interesting. Needless to say, I haven’t heard back from my Rep.....
You’re very welcome! I wish everyone was more willing to be a little more bold.
Without a doubt. My hubby was a combat Viet Nam Vet. When Maine went smoke free in January of 2004 that included all the Vet clubs as well.
I have no idea why any smoker would want to come to Maine for a vacation. They can't smoke ANYwhere! And if they have kids, they can't even smoke in their own vehicle in Bangor if the kid is in the car.
What a crock! Maine is one of the worst states for smoking bans. Oh! But get this: Maine has two meth clinics for the crack people! Do they pay? Hell no...................we the taxpayers pay for their addiction.
And oh yes.........all the hospitals are smoke free. So the poor elderly who smoke are in one kind of hell!
I'm not bold...............I am just pissed!
No many, but a "few."
If you don't post, then I feel that you are not interested.
Sorry about this.
And if anyone would like to be on my ping list, please FReep mail me!
Hey SheLion ;) I read each and every thread and post. Sometimes I don’t post, but rest assured I do read. And I am behind you 100%. I sometimes decline to get into useless arguments with idiots and Anti Americans so I bite my tougue and ignore their tantrums.
Not casting pearls among the swine, so to speak LOL You do a great job of exposing the hypocrisy!!
Good for you becky!! We do the same. We no longer buy cigarettes, but still go for all purchases whenever possible. It’s still the principle of the thing!
The problem is the owners can't do this because they don't have the money to fight in court because the bans have hurt their business........
It's a vicious cycle.
Adapt or die.
Walk into a night club, restraunt or bar in Cali or NYC, and tell me how they are want for business... please. I’ve never been in one that wasn’t crowded when I’ve bene in town.
These sort of things amuse me. Smoking bans get passed, some businesses adapt, others decide they want to keep going they way they were and die. That’s how it is in the marketplace, adapt or die.
Writing is on the wall for smoken ban in PA, smarter busineses are ahead of the curve and banning smoking now before the law and adapting their business models. Others will keep on doing the same as always, when when they go out of business will scream bloody murder, even though the writings been on the wall for years and they have done nothing.
Not to mention the runaway rates of asthma, Alzheimers and autism.
I truly wish Pres. Bush stilled believed in what he said in St. Petersburg, Russia back in 2002. However it is becoming more obvious by the day that he no longer believes that, or he wouldn’t be pushing the amnesty travesty.