Posts
For those interested in doing some more reading on the economic impacts of smokefree laws, try these links and read for yourself. The evidence shows, and it continues to grow as more places go smokefree, that smokefree laws have either an overall neutral or positive economic effect.
And by the way, that conclusion does not take into account the savings in health costs associated with treating heart disease and cancers caused by secondhand smoke.
I note that while some of the links are to web sites of Smokefree advocates, a careful reading shows that the conclusions are based on reports done by public agencies and universities and are often peer-reviewed studies.
Economic Impact of Smokefree Ordinances: An Overview
http://no-smoke.org/document.php?id=219
Economic Impact of Smokefree Laws: Case Studies
http://no-smoke.org/document.php?id=210
Here is a report on the economic and health effects of the Madison ordinance. Be aware that this report was prepared by Tobacco Free Dane County Coalition. The report shows that the number of combination beer and liquor licenses in Madison actually increased in the first year after the ordinance went into effect (from 333 to 347).
One Year Later: Status Report on Madison's Comprehensive Smoke-free Air Ordinance (2006)
On the other hand
Here is a summary of several reports funded by the tobacco industry (apparently the only reports that support the tobacco industry's desired conclusions). The methodological flaw in these studies is the reliance on subjective evaluations and anecdotal evidence.
Economic Impact Studies Circulated by the Tobacco Industry
http://no-smoke.org/document.php?id=208
All this being said and read, the beneficial public health consequences of smokefree laws is first and foremost, front and center. These health benefits are large and overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. The evidence also shows that we can have those improved health outcomes without wreaking economic harm.
Sunday, March 02, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What's the politics of attacking the alders who offered the resolution?
ReplyDeleteThose alders who had time to meet with tavern interests but did not have time to prepare for the agenda item?
I hope the alders will at least try to 'appear' to listen to the public.
Public Health and Private profit is a legitimate issue; lets argue it...maybe a referendum would respect the public interest.
C'mon Doug, you can do better than post links to no-smoke.org. with a link like that, you might as well be posting a contrarian link to philipmorris.com or something...
ReplyDeleteA couple of things:
1) Many of the studies done are in warmer climates (CA), or specifically in the warmer months (http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/news/20060320SmokingRevenue.asp just looked at April-Sept for 3 years, neglecting the impact during the colder winter months). This is important b/c in the warmer months (or warmer climates), people are fine with stepping outside for a smoke, or sitting in ourdoor cafes. When it's a high of -2deg, people are not going to be as inclined to head outside every 1/2 hour for a cigarette.
2) NY did experience a dramatic negative impact when it instituted a smoking ban: http://heartland.temp.siteexecutive.com/pdf/19885.pdf I was living in NY at the time, and it was generally reported that there was a definitive fall-off in business
3) Even a pro-ban piece in the NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/06/nyregion/06xsmoke.html?pagewanted=print&position= had an interesting quote at the bottom: "Public acceptance of the ban has "come around a little bit," Mr. Mulvey said. Business was off 25 percent right after the ban took effect, he said, but now that decline has stabilized at about 5 percent."
I don't smoke, and I relish the idea of going to a smoke-free bar to enjoy a couple of beers. I'd just like a real, thought-provoking debate on the issue, and not an argument with links to smokefreekids.org and smokersclub.com .