Smoking Bans Do Not Cause Job Losses In Bars Aand Restraunt
Posted on: Monday, 18 May 2009, 10:41 CDT
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.
-------
On The Net:
OSU
Related Articles
- CO2 Detector Warns You When Indoor Air Is Hazardous to Your Health
- Honeywell Home Comfort Products' Second Annual 'National Care About Your Indoor Air' Month
- Indoor Air Pollution Widespread in Asia
- Pennsylvanian Hospitality Industry Has Indoor Air Surveyed - Pre and Post Smoking Ban
- Mankato's Smoke-Free Ordinance Significantly Improves Indoor Air Quality
- Ozone in Indoor Air Cleaners: Ensuring Safe Products
- Symposium Speaker: Indoor-Air Quality Often Ignored
- American Lung Association Brings Better Indoor Air Quality to Dallas and North Texas
- American Lung Association Brings Better Indoor Air Quality to Houston
- A Longitudinal Assessment of the Impact of Smoke-Free Worksite Policies on Tobacco Use
Rating: 3.8 / 5 (12 votes)
 |
 |
Rate this article:
User Comments (6)
| 6. |
Posted by Michael J. McFadden on 05/29/2009, 22:23 Sorry about seeming to "hog" this thread but no one else has responded in the past week... LOL! One more quick followup... because the sins of the antismoking lobbyists and their buddies just keep getting worse the more closely you look at them. See the press release from the bar owners suffering in Ohio and read the commentary on the total lack of responsibility shown by the researchers in revealing their competing interests as authors! Visit http://www.JacobGrier.com and read his columns of May 27th AND May 29th and the comments after each. You will be amazed at the full story! It reads more like a tale of something you'd find in the National Enquirer than in a medical research journal! Michael J. McFadden, Author of "Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains" |
| 5. |
Posted by MIchael J. McFadden on 05/27/2009, 23:58 Sorry... that should have read "Jacob Grier's May 27th column" - MJM |
| 4. |
Posted by Michael J. McFadden on 05/27/2009, 23:26 To reallly see this study ripped apart in depth, read Jacob Grier's May 17th column and the comments below it at: http://www.jacobgrier.com |
| 3. |
Posted by Michael J. McFadden on 05/26/2009, 16:04 So Petes playing the anyone who disagrees with us is from Big Tobacco card again eh? Sorry Pete, that boat dont float no more: ya need a new propaganda trick. For those interested in the full story behind this study visit: http://www.freedom2choose.info/news_viewer.php?id=1020 Heres the intro: As always with antismoking research, there was a trick involved in this study. The researchers had data sets for both bars and restaurants, but deliberately combined them rather than examine them separately. With restaurant employment usually coming in at being about ten times as large as bar employment any losses to the bars of course completely disappeared from the final results. I had several emails with Ms. Klein and have now written a piece on this that folks should feel free to share around, in whole or in part, in any discussions of this New Research. This is important because this research is being used (and may have already been quietly used in NC, WI, and NV!) to influence legislators on smoking ban votes by giving them the false impression that bars will not be hurt by bans. Michael J. McFadden, Author of Dissecting Antismokers Brains |
| 2. |
Posted by Robert on 05/19/2009, 11:59 Addiction to cigarettes is the toughest to quit! i wish everyone luck who is trying to quit. there is a new alternative to smoking and they are called electronic cigarettes. They claim to be better than inhaling smoke. For more info about electronic cigarettes you can go here and click "More Information About Electronic Cigarettes" www.invisismoke.com cheers |
| 1. |
Posted by Pete on 05/18/2009, 15:19 No kidding. The old loss of business reason was never anything but a tobacco company story that nobody believes anymore. |
RSS Feeds