|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Smoking ban |
Smoking bans are public policies, including criminal laws and occupational safety and health regulations, which prohibit tobacco smoking in workplaces and/or other public spaces. Legislation may also define smoking as more generally being the carrying or possessing any lit tobacco product 1.
Contents |
The rationale for smoke-free laws is to protect people from the effects of second-hand smoke, which include an increased risk of heart disease, cancer, emphysema and other diseases.2 Laws implementing bans on indoor smoking have been introduced by many countries in various forms over the years, with some legislators citing scientific evidence that shows tobacco smoking is harmful to the smokers themselves and to those inhaling second-hand smoke.
In addition, such laws may lower health care costs,3 improve work productivity and lower the overall cost of labor in a community, thus making a community more attractive for employers. In Indiana, the state's economic development agency wrote into its 2006 plan for acceleration of economic growth an encouragement to cities and towns to adopt local smoke-free workplace laws as a means of promoting job growth in communities.
Additional rationales for smoking restrictions include reduced risk of fire in areas with explosive hazards, cleanliness in places where food, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors or precision instruments and machinery are produced, decreased legal liability, potentially reduced energy use via decreased ventilation needs, reduced quantities of litter, healthier environments, and incentivizing smokers to quit.4
The World Health Organization considers smoke-free laws to have an influence to reduce demand for tobacco by creating an environment where smoking becomes increasing more difficult and to help shift social norms away from the acceptance of smoking in everyday life. Along with tax measures, cessation measures, and education, smoking ban policy is currectly viewed as an important element in lowering smoking rates and promoting public health. When correctly and strictly implemented it is seen as one important policy agenda goal to change human behavior away from unhealthy behavior and towards a healthy lifestyle. 5
Research has generated evidence that secondhand smoke causes the same problems as direct smoking, including lung cancer, cardiovascular disease and lung ailments such as emphysema, bronchitis and asthma.6 Specifically, meta-analyses show that lifelong non-smokers with partners who smoke in the home have a 20–30% greater risk of lung cancer than non-smokers who live with non-smokers. Non-smokers exposed to cigarette smoke in the workplace have an increased lung cancer risk of 16–19%.7
A study issued in 2002 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization concluded that nonsmokers are exposed to the same carcinogens as active smokers.8 Sidestream smoke contains 69 known carcinogens, particularly benzopyrene and other polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and radioactive decay products, such as polonium 210.9 Several well-established carcinogens have been shown by the tobacco companies' own research to be present at higher concentrations in secondhand smoke than in mainstream smoke.10
Scientific organizations confirming the harmful effects of secondhand smoke include the U.S. National Cancer Institute,11 the U.S. Centers for Disease Control,12 the U.S. National Institutes of Health,13 the United States Surgeon General,14 and the World Health Organization.15
Bans on smoking in bars and restaurants can substantially improve the air quality in such establishments. For example, one study listed on the website of the CDC (Center for Disease Control) states that New York's statewide law to eliminate smoking in enclosed workplaces and public places substantially reduced RSP (respirable suspended particles) levels in western New York hospitality venues. RSP levels were reduced in every venue that permitted smoking before the law was implemented, including venues in which only second-hand smoke from an adjacent room was observed at baseline.16 The CDC concluded that their results were similar to other studies which also showed substantially improved indoor air quality after smoking bans.
A 2004 study showed New Jersey, bars and restaurants had more than nine times the levels of indoor air pollution of neighboring New York City, which had enacted its ban.17
Research has also shown that improved air quality translates to decreased toxin exposure among employees.18 For example, among employees of the Norwegian establishments that enacted smoking bans, tests showed improved (decreased) levels of nicotine in the urine of both smoking and non-smoking workers (as compared with measurements prior to the ban).19
Pope Urban VII's 13-day papal reign included the world's first known public smoking ban (1590), as he threatened to excommunicate anyone who "took tobacco in the porchway of or inside a church, whether it be by chewing it, smoking it with a pipe or sniffing it in powdered form through the nose".20 The earliest citywide European smoking bans were enacted shortly thereafter. Such bans were enacted in Bavaria, Kursachsen, and certain parts of Austria in the late 1600s. Smoking was banned in Berlin in 1723, in Königsberg in 1742, and in Stettin in 1744. These bans were repealed in the revolutions of 1848.21 The first building in the world to have a smoke-free policy was the Old Government Building in Wellington, New Zealand in 1876. This was over concerns about the threat of fire, as it is the second largest wooden building in the world 22. The first modern, nationwide tobacco ban was imposed by the Nazi Party in every German university, post office, military hospital and Nazi Party office, under the auspices of Karl Astel's Institute for Tobacco Hazards Research, created in 1941 under orders from Adolf Hitler.23 Major anti-tobacco campaigns were widely broadcast by the Nazis until the demise of the regime in 1945.24
In the latter part of the 20th century, as research on the risks of secondhand tobacco smoke were made public, the tobacco industry launched "courtesy awareness" campaigns. Fearing reduced sales, the industry created a media and legislative program that focused on "accommodation". Tolerance and courtesy were encouraged as a way to ease heightened tensions between smokers and those around them, while avoiding smoking bans. In the USA, states were encouraged to pass laws providing separate smoking sections.25
In 1975, the US state of Minnesota enacted the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act, making it the first state to ban smoking in most public spaces. At first, restaurants were required to have No Smoking sections, and bars were exempt from the Act.26 As of 1 October 2007, Minnesota enacted a ban on smoking in all restaurants and bars statewide, called the Freedom to Breathe Act of 2007.27
In 1990, the city of San Luis Obispo, California, became the first city in the world to ban indoor smoking at all public places, including bars and restaurants.28
In America, the success of the ban enacted by the state of California in 1998 encouraged other states such as New York to implement bans. California's smoking ban included a controversial ban of smoking in bars, extending the statewide workplace smoking ban enacted in 1994. There are now 35 states with some form of smoking ban.29 Some areas in California have begun making entire cities smoke-free, which would include every place except residential homes. More than 20 cities in California have enacted park and beach smoking bans.
On March 29, 2004, the Irish Government implemented a ban on smoking in the workplace, the first country to do so. In Norway similar legislation was put into force on July 1 the same year. The whole of the United Kingdom became subject to a ban on smoking in enclosed public places in 2007, when England became the final region to have the legislation come into effect. The age limit for buying tobacco was also raised from 16 to 18 on October 1, 2007. In 2007, Chandigarh became the first city in India to become 'smoke-free'. Smoking was banned in public indoor venues in Victoria, Australia on July 1, 2007.
The only country to have banned the sale and smoking of tobacco in public is Bhutan, in early 2004.
In 1973, Arizona became the first state in the United States to pass a comprehensive law restricting smoking in public places. California enacted a workplace smoking ban in 1994, and a complete smoking ban in enclosed spaces in 1998. Florida made a workplace smoking ban part of its state constitution in 2002.30 Washington state passed initiative 901 by referendum in 2005, banning smoking within 25 feet of public buildings or places of employment.31 In 2003, the state of New York banned smoking in most public places, excluding cigar bars, members-only social clubs and Native American gambling parlors.
In March 2004, Ireland established a nationwide smoking ban in all enclosed workplaces. The ban now extends, voluntarily, outside of buildings. For example, smoking is not allowed at the entrances to buildings at Dublin Airport, but only in areas where signs indicate that smoking is permitted. In 2008, Ireland will ban advertising in shops (advertising is already banned in print and on radio, television, and billboards) and ensure that cigarettes are not visible in stores.
Following Ireland Norway banned smoking, followed shortly by New Zealand on December 10 2004.32
Italy introduced a full ban on 10 January 2005. Estonia had smoking banned on 5 June 2007 in all facilities that serve food, including bars and nightclubs. Bar owners were allowed to provide special rooms for smoking without food or beverage service, but few did.
Each nation of the United Kingdom implemented a similar ban: Scotland on 26 March 2006;33 Wales on 02 April 2007;34 Northern Ireland on 30 April 2007;35 England on 1 July 2007.
France established a ban in January 2008 when the existing ban was extended to cover bars and cafés.
Denmark banned smoking in clubs and restaurants on 15 August 2007, although the legislation made exemptions for small bars and restaurants with separate smoking rooms.
Sweden established a similar ban on July 1, 2005.
The Netherlands and Romania banned smoking in bars and clubs on 1 July 2008.36
Spain has a law, introduced by the Spanish Socialist Party, which came into force at the start of 2006 and bans smoking in workplaces. It has some restrictions for public places, such as airports and train stations, but Pubs, restaurants and other public places smaller than 100 m² are exempted.
South Africa introduced the Tobacco Products Control Act in 1993. The act was amended several times and currently smoking is restricted in all public areas, such as the workplace, restaurants and bars, shopping malls, sports venues and airports. The act also bans the advertising of any tobacco product. "37
Switzerland introduced the smoking ban in public buildings, bars and restaurants in the canton of Geneva on 1 July 2008 but due to a bureaucratic formality the decision was nullified by the country's supreme court on 29 September 2008. The Federal Court annulled the ruling by the Geneva cantonal government on the grounds that the legal basis for the ban was faulty. The law should first have been adopted by the cantonal parliament before the government exercised its veto.38
In 2008, the island nation of Niue began considering banning smoking and the sale of tobacco in public areas and private homes.39
In November 2008 the Bulgarian government decided to introduce a ban on smoking in all indoor public places including offices, bars, restaurants and clubs . The ban is due to come into effect on 1 June 2010.40
In November 2008 the Greek government also introduced legislation on a nation-wide ban on smoking in public places, which is due to come into effect on 1 January 2010.
Smoking has been banned on the streets of Tokyo's Chiyoda Ward since October 2002. Ward employees patrol the streets and fine violators ¥2000. According to the cigarette company Japan Tobacco, Inc., 60 municipalities, whose residents comprise 10% of Japan's population, have regulations to ban or discourage smoking on the street. Only three municipalities assess fines for violations.
In April 2007 the City of Burbank, California joined Calabasas and Santa Monica in restricting smoking in public places [5]. The Secondhand Smoke Control Ordinance was supported by Mayor Todd Campbell, Jef Vander Borght and Marsha Ramos following independent requests by 2 Burbank residents, Eric Michael Cap & Robert Phipps Esq.[6] In May, 2007 the City of Beverly Hills voted to ban smoking in all outdoor dining areas, effective October 1, 2007 [7]. Numerous other cities have since initiated their own public smoking restrictions, including Baldwin Park, Belmont and South Pasadena. The City of Los Angeles has banned smoking in its Parks following the 2007 Griffith Park fire, started by a smoker.
In February 2008, the Hawaii County Council voted to ban smoking at county recreation facilities on the island of Hawaii.41 Mayor Harry Kim expressed concerns over the bill's failure to allow designated smoking areas,42 and ultimately vetoed the bill. On April 22, 2008, the Council overrode his veto by a 7-2 vote, and smoking was banned in all county recreation facilities, including beach parks, rodeo arenas and the Hilo drag strip.
On October 7, 2008, the Glendale, CA City Council voted (5-0)[8] to ban smoking in many outdoor areas of the city. The ordinance bans smoking in most public places and in common areas of multi-unit rental housing.[9] The ordinance aims to reduce human exposure to unwanted second-hand smoke.
The ban in Glendale prohibits smoking in/on and within 20 feet from: all city property (except streets and sidewalks); city vehicles and public transportation vehicles; city public transit stations; places of employment; enclosed public places; non-enclosed public places; and common areas of multi-unit rental housing.
Some of the areas where smoking is prohibited are authorized to have smoking-permitted areas, subject to regulations.
Also, landlords in Glendale are required to provide disclosure to a prospective renter, prior to signing a lease, as to the location of possible sources of second-hand smoke, relative to the unit that they are renting.
In many parts of the world tobacco advertising and sponsorship of sporting events is prohibited. The ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship in the EU in 2005 has prompted Formula One Management to look for venues that permit display of the livery of tobacco sponsors, and has led to some of the races on the calendar being cancelled in favour of tobacco-friendly markets. As of 2008, only one Formula One team, Scuderia Ferrari, receives sponsorship from a tobacco company. Marlboro branding appears on its cars in two races; Monaco and China, as neither bans tobacco advertising.
MotoGP team Ducati Marlboro receives sponsorship from a Marlboro, branding from which appears at races in Qatar and China.
Typical proponents of Smoking Bans often include health organizations such as cancer or lung associations, health departments, and pharmaceutical corporations. In addition local or national political action committees often lobby for smoke free legislation.4344
Typical opponents often include restaurant and bar associations, casinos, civil liberties groups, tobacco producers, some political think tanks, and smokers rights groups.45464748
In the United States a 2007 Gallop poll found that 54% of Americans favor a complete ban on smoking in restuarants, 44% supported a non-hospitality workplace ban, and 29% favored a complete ban inside of bars.49
In the first 18 months after Pueblo, Colorado enacted a smoking ban in 2003, hospital admissions for heart attacks dropped 27%. Admissions in neighboring towns without smoking bans showed no change. The American Heart Association said, "The decline in the number of heart attack hospitalizations within the first year and a half after the non-smoking ban that was observed in this study is most likely due to a decrease in the effect of second hand smoke as a triggering factor for heart attacks."50 A similar study used by the American Heart Association was done in Helena,Montana 51, claiming a 40% reduction in heart attacks. The Helena study is also a selected component of the 2006 Surgeon Generals report on second hand smoke 52. The study has drawn considerible criticism from persons, universities, and health departments officials. 53, 54.
Similar findings are beginning to emerge from other areas which have enacted bans. Researchers at the University of Dundee found significant improvements in the health of bar staff in the two months following the ban. They tested bar workers' lung function and inflammatory markers a month before the ban came in, and again two months after it had been introduced. The number showing symptoms related to passive smoking fell from more than 80% to less than half, with reduced levels of nicotine in the blood and improvements in lung function of as much as 10%.55
A 2007 study of the effect of the ban in Scotland showed that there was 17% year-on-year drop in heart attack admissions since the ban was introduced in March 2006.56 However, another source suggests heart attack admissions declined by 14% in the three months prior to the Scottish smoking ban.57 Furthermore, the study has not yet been published, nor has the data on which it was based.58 An analysis of the saliva of 39 non-smoking workers before and after the Scottish smoking ban came into force found a 75% fall in cotinine, which is a by-product of nicotine. The level of cotinine is a good indicator of how much cigarette smoke has entered the body.59
One report stated that cigarette sales in Ireland and Scotland increased after a smoking ban.60 In contrast, another report states that in Ireland, cigarette sales fell by 16% in the six months after the ban's introduction.61In the UK, cigarette sales fell by 11% during July 2007, the first month of the smoking ban in England, compared with July 2006.62
A 1992 document from Phillip Morris Impact of Workplace Restrictions on Consumption and Incidence, summarized the results of its long-running research into the effects of a ban: "Total prohibition of smoking in the workplace strongly effects [sic] tobacco industry volume. Smokers facing these restrictions consume 11%-15% less than average and quit at a rate that is 84% higher than average."63
In the United States, the Center for Disease Control has reported a leveling off of smoking rates in recent years despite a large number of ever more severe smoking bans and large tax increases. Anti-smoking groups claim this is due to funding reasons. It has also been suggested that a "backstop" of hardcore smokers has been reached: those unmotivated and increasingly defiant in the face of further legislation,64
In Sweden, use of snus, as an alternative to smoking, has risen steadily since the smoking ban.65
Smoking bans may make it easier for smokers to quit. A survey suggests 22% of UK smokers may quit in response to a smoking ban in enclosed public places.66
Restaurant smoking bans may help stop young people from becoming habitual smokers. A study of Massachusetts youths, found that those in towns with bans were 35 per cent less likely to be habitual smokers.6768
Many studies using objective measures of economic activity, such as sales taxes, have been done by groups on the effect of smoke-free policies. The majority done by proponents of smoking bans have found that there is no negative economic impact, with many finding that there may be some positive effects on local businesses.69 A 2003 review of 97 such studies of the economic effects of a smoking ban on the hospitality industry found that the "best-designed" studies reported no impact or a positive impact of smoke-free restaurant and bars laws on sales or employment.70
Studies not conducted by proponents of smoke free laws often show a negative economic impact.71. These studies often come from the associations of affected businesses themselves such as tavern and bar associations. The Tavern League of Wisconsin for example accuses most surveys done by ban proponents of lumping in unaffected businesses such as fast food chains, excluding establishments that went out of business after a ban, withholding negative data, claiming that business owners are mistaken when asserting that they have lost business, pointing to marginal growth while surrounded communities do far better, cherry picking data, and/or replacing economic data with opinion polls 72. Other examples which echo these findings include the Illinois Licensed Beverage Association, the Tavern League of Minnesota,the British Beer and Pub association, the Hawaii Bar Owners Association, the New York Nightlife Association, and the Pennsylvania Tavern Association 73,74,75,76.
A government survey in Sydney found that the proportion of the population attending pubs and clubs rose after the introduction of a ban on smoking in enclosed places.77 However, a ClubsNSW report in August 2008 blamed the smoking ban for New South Wales clubs suffering their worst fall in income ever, amounting to a decline of $385 million. Income for clubs was down 11% in New South Wales. Sydney CBD club income fell 21.7% and western Sydney clubs lost 15.5% 78
Smoking bans were introduced in German hotels, restaurants and bars in 2007 and early 2008. The restaurant industry has claimed that many businesses in the states which introduced a smoking ban in late 2007 (Lower Saxony, Baden-Württemberg and Hessen) witnessed lowered profits. The German Hotel and Restaurant Association (DEHOGA) claimed that the ban deterred people from going out for a drink or meal, stating that 15% of establishments that adopted a smoking ban in 2007 saw turnover fall by around 50%.79
In the Republic of Ireland, the main opposition was from publicans. The Irish workplace ban was introduced with the intention of protecting workers from passive smoking ("second-hand smoke") and to discourage smoking in a nation with a high percentage of smokers. Many pubs introduced "outdoor" arrangements (generally heated areas with shelters) though many customers now choose to drink at home or at parties, which has had the effect of aiding the off licence trade.citation needed
Ireland's Office of Tobacco Control website indicates that "an evaluation of the official hospitality sector data shows there has been no adverse economic effect from the introduction of this measure (the March 2004 national ban on smoking in bars, restaurants, etc). It has been claimed that the ban was a significant contributing factor to the closure of hundreds of small rural pubs, with almost 440 fewer licenses renewed in 2006 than in 2005.80
The ban came into force in Wales on 2 April 2007.81 Six months after the ban's implementation in Wales, the Licensed Victuallers Association (LVA), which represents pub operators across Wales, claimed pubs had lost up to 20% of their trade. The LVA says some businesses were on the brink of closure, others had already closed down, and there was little optimism trade would eventually return to pre-ban levels.82
In September 2007, Japan Tobacco announced it would be closing its cigar factory in Cardiff, Wales, resulting in the loss of 184 jobs. It would move its operations to Northern Ireland with the creation of 95 jobs. The company indicated that a 50% fall in tobacco sales since 1999 had led to the decision to close the factory, and that this fall had been accelerated by the smoking ban.83
Three months after the ban in England came into force, The Rank Group, owners of Mecca Bingo Halls and Grosvenor Casinos, claimed that coupled with the Gambling Act 2005 which imposed restrictions on the number of £500 jackpot fruit machines, the smoking ban had had a detrimental impact upon its profits.84
Bingo hall customers have declined by 600,000 since the ban's introduction. Combined with the negative impact on revenue of the smoking ban, and government tax rules, one third of bingo halls are facing closure.85
The British Beer and Pub Association (BBPA), an organisation representing breweries across United Kingdom has claimed beer sales are at their lowest level since the 1930s. The BBPA attributed a fall in sales of 7% during 2007 to the smoking ban.86
According to a survey conducted by pub and bar trade magazine The Publican, the anticipated increase in sales of food following the smoking ban has not occurred. The trade magazine's survey of 303 pubs in the United Kingdom found the average customer spent £14.86 on food and drink at dinner in 2007, virtually identical to 2006.87
A survey conducted by BII (formerly British Institute of Innkeeping) and the Federation of Licensed Victuallers' Associations (FLVA) concluded that sales had decreased by 7.3% in the 5 months since the smoking ban's introduction on 1 July 2007. Of the 2,708 responses to the survey, 58% of licensees said they had seen smokers visiting less regularly, while 73% had seen their smoking customers spending less time at the pub.88
The smoking ban has been partly blamed for Sports Cafe bars group going into administration.89
Britain's largest pub operator, Punch Taverns, have reported an estimated 5% decline in trading throughout the traditionally busy Christmas period, which the company attributes to diminishing consumer confidence and the effects of the smoking ban.90
In June 2008, a spokeswoman for Punch Taverns said the change had given the industry the opportunity to attract new customers and concentrate on growth areas such as food - which is more profitable than drink sales. Gerard Tempest, marketing director for Whitbread Hotels and Restaurants, said: "The ban has had no real negative effect. Our staff are happier and we are seeing many more families." Rupert Clevely of Geronimo Inns said drink sales had risen by more than 5%, with a double-digit rise in food sales.91
In the USA, smokers and hospitality businesses initially argued that businesses would suffer from smoking bans. Some restaurateurs argued that smoking bans would increase the rate of dine and dashes where patrons declare they are stepping outside to smoke, while their intent is to leave.citation needed Others have countered that even if this occurred it could decrease the leisure (non-eating) time spent in the restaurants, resulting in increased turn-over of tables, which could actually benefit total sales.citation needed The experiences of Delaware, New York, California, and Florida have shown that businesses are generally not hurt, and that many hospitality businesses actually show increased revenues.citation needed A 2006 U.S. Surgeon General review92 of studies suggests that business may actually improve.93 Thus, research generally indicates that business incomes are stable (or even improved) after smoking bans are enacted, and many customers appreciate the improved air quality.
In 2003 New York City amended its anti-smoking law to include all restaurants and bars, including those in private clubs, making it one of the toughest in the United States. The city's Department of Health found in a 2004 study that air pollution levels had decreased sixfold in bars and restaurants after the ban went into effect, and that New Yorkers had reported less second-hand smoke in the workplace. The study also found the city's restaurants and bars prospered despite the smoking ban, with increases in jobs, liquor licenses and business tax payments. The President of the New York nightlife association stated that business had been harmed and that the Department of Health had included all restaurants in the figures, including "Starbucks and McDonald's".94 A 2006 study by the state of New York found similar results.95 According to the 2004 Zagat Survey, which polled nearly 30,000 New York City restaurant patrons, respondents said by a margin of almost 6 to 1 that they eat out more often now because of the city's smoke-free policy.96 Similar smoking bans modeled after NYC's were soon implemented in neighboring states; New York State in July 2003, Connecticut in January 2004, and New Jersey in April 2006.
Other studies, however, have found far different results. Michael Pakko of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis has released several studies of the negative economic impact of smoking bans on restaurants and bars, including generally,97 in Columbia, Missouri,98 and at Delaware gambling facilities.99 A June 2008 study published in the Hawaii Medical Journal by the Hawaii Department of Health showed the number of patrons in bars had decreased 34% following a bar smoking ban. 100 An Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association study found that when restaurants where smoking was already banned were excluded, bars had seen a loss of 2000 jobs ( 10.7 % actual employment ), a loss of $28,5 million in wages and salaries, and a decrease of $37 million in State product. This was in spite a recovering economy in New York following the 9/11 attacks. 101
Some areas with a large tourism trade are concerned about the impact of a smoking ban on their tourism market. In Hawaii, for example several tourism monitoring agencies reported that the ban may have had a significant negative impact on tourism, based on government numbers and industry feedback.102 Overall tourism was down 6% and the key Japanese market was down 12% in Hawaii. 103
Another effect of smoking bans has been the smokeasy. As the speakeasy was to alcohol prohibition in the early 20th century, so is the smokeasy to smoking bans: it is a business, especially a bar, which allows smoking despite a legal prohibition. Numerous clandestine smokeasies exist in most jurisdictions with smoking bans in bars and restaurants, and have been noted widely, including in New York City,104 Hawaii,105 Alberta,106 Arizona,107 Boston,108 California,109 Colorado,110 Columbia, Missouri,111 Delaware,112 Dublin,113114 Germany,115 Illinois,116 Manitoba,117 Minnesota,118 Ohio,119 Philadelphia,120121 Qatar,122 Scotland,114 Seattle,123124 Toronto,125 the United Kingdom,126 Utah,127 and Washington, D.C..128
As a result, jurisdictions which have passed smoking ban often unexpectedly find themselves having to use law enforcement to enforce their smoking bans.129120114123
According to the Roofie Foundation, a charity said to be the only agency in the United Kingdom addressing the issues surrounding sex abuse through drink spiking, the number of cases of drink spiking reported to it has risen markedly since the introduction of the smoking ban in England as a result of smokers leaving their drink unattended while going off for a smoke.130
Bellows-driven instruments – such as the accordion, concertina, melodeon and Uilleann (or Irish) bagpipes – reportedly need less frequent cleaning and maintenance as a result of the Irish smoking ban.131
Prison officals and guards are often concerned based on previous events in other prisons concerning riots, fostering a cigarette black market within the prison, and other problems resulting from a total prison smoking ban. Prisons have experienced riots when placing smoking bans into effect resulting in prisoners setting fires, destroying prison property, persons being assaulted, injured, and stabbed. One prison in Canada had some guards reporting breathing difficulties from the fumes of prisoners smoking artifical cigarettes made from nicotine patches lit by creating sparks from inserting metal objects into electrical outlets. 132, 133. For example in 2008, the Orsainville Detention Centre near Quebec City, withdraw its smoking ban following a riot.
Smoking bans have been criticised on a number of grounds:
Critics of smoking bans, including artist Joe Jackson134 and essayist and political critic Christopher Hitchens, claim that bans are misguided efforts of retrograde Puritans. Typically, this argument is based on John Stuart Mill's harm principle, arguing that the damage to public health through passive smoking is insufficient to warrant government intervention; however, in On Liberty, Mill himself wrote "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant."
Other critics emphasize the property rights of business owners, drawing a distinction between public places (such as government buildings) and privately-owned establishments (such as bars and restaurants). Citing economic efficiency, some economists suggest that the basic institutions of private property rights and contractual freedom are capable of resolving conflicts between the preferences of smokers and those who seek a smoke-free environment - without government intrusion.135
Another claim is that smoking bans hurt the business in the hospitality sector (bars, restaurants, hotels, casinos, etc.), especially those near a border with a jurisdiction that does allow smoking. There are media reports of individual establishments which have suffered reduced revenue since the ban came into effect.136 A 2004 study conducted by Deloitte and Touche LLP for the National Restaurant Association in the United States found that 100% restaurant smoking bans have led to double digit sales losses. A study by the Restaurant association of Maryland also found a negative economic impact. Caroll and Associates of Ontario,Canada found bar sales declining from 18.7% to 24.3% in the Ottawa area. 137
Conversely the Smoke Free Environments Law Project funded by the Michigan Department of Community Health, claims that other studies including ones done by anti-smoking researcher Stanton Glantz have found no loss, or even that restaurants' revenue increased after the smoking ban.138, 139.
It is not uncommon for businesses affected by smoking bans to file lawsuits against the entity that passed the ban. Constitutional issues are cited and the normal motivation is loss of revenue after the passage of a smoking ban. In the United States, some cite unequal protection under the law while others cite loss of business without compensation, as well as other types of challenges. These types of lawsuits are usually not successful. It is the gray area of the law. Some localities where hospitality businesses filing lawsuits against the State or local government include, Nevada, Montana, Ames, Iowa, Colorado,and Hawaii 140,141,142,143, 144 .
The main arguments against smoking being a "victimless crime" are the health risks of passive smoking and increased health costs borne by society. On the latter point, a study suggests that, although health care costs for smokers at a given age are as much as 40 percent higher than those for non-smokers, complete smoking cessation might actually result in an increase in total health care costs after 15 years because people would live longer.145
Bans on smoking in offices and other enclosed public places often result in smokers going outside to smoke, frequently congregating outside doorways. Many jurisdictions that have banned smoking in enclosed public places have extended the ban to cover areas within a fixed distance of entrances to buildings.146
The former British Cabinet Member John Reid claimed that bans on smoking in public places may lead to more smoking at home.147 However, both the House of Commons Health committee and the Royal College of Physicians disagreed, with the former finding no evidence to support Reid's claim after studying Ireland,147 and the latter finding that smoke-free households increased from 22% to 37% between 1996 and 2003.148
In Bavaria, a complete ban on smoking in pubs led to people smoking and drinking outside and to massive noise at night that is annoying for residents.149
In May 2008, research released by Adams and Cotti through the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM) examined statistics of drunken-driving fatalities and accidents in areas where smoking bans in bars have been implemented and found that fatal drunken-driving accidents increased by about 13 percent, or about 2.5 such accidents per year for a typical county.150
Some smoking ban opponents nonetheless concede that in many localities, the number of smoke-free bars and restaurants is insufficient to meet the needs and wants of residents who prefer a smoke-free environment. In order to encourage the creation of more smoke-free businesses, some experts and politicians support tax credits and other financial incentives for businesses that enact non-smoking policies. During the debates over the Washington, DC smoking ban, city council member Carol Schwartz proposed legislation151 that would have enacted either a substantial tax credit for businesses that chose to ban smoking or a significant additional licensing fee for bars and restaurants that wished to allow smoking. Proponents of such policies claim that they would help to increase the options for customers and employees who prefer a smoke-free bar or restaurant without infringing on the rights of business owners. Opponents of such tax measures counter that only a complete ban can fully protect patrons and employees.
One solution to the problem of smoking externalities favoured by some economists is a system of tradable smoking pollution permits, similar to other emissions trading (cap-and-trade) pollution permits systems used by the Environmental Protection Agency in recent decades to curb other types of pollution. The proposal has been suggested by Profs. Robert Haveman and John Mullahy of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.[10]
Emissions trading systems are generally favored by economists as a market-based alternative to direct regulation, because they yield a given reduction in pollution at lower cost, and may permit a reduction in administrative costs.
Tradable pollution permits as a market-based alternative to smoking bans can be applied as follows: Lawmakers decide the optimal level of smoking establishments for an area. Permits are then auctioned off or otherwise allocated. Nonsmoking establishments with unused permits can sell them on the open market to smoking establishments. In essence, businesses are required to purchase the property rights over the clean air space of their business before their customers can smoke.
Critics of bans suggest ventilation is a means of reducing the harmful effects of passive smoking. A study conducted by the School of Technology of the University of Glamorgan in Wales, United Kingdom, published in the Building Services Journal stated that ventilation systems can dramatically improve indoor air quality.152
A study by Repace titled "Can Displacement Ventilation control SecondHand ETS?". The conclusion is a resounding no, ventilation is no subsitute for a smoking ban.153
The tobacco industry has focused on proposing ventilation as an alternative to smoking bans, though this approach has not been widely adopted in the U.S. due to the cost and complexity of widespread implementation of ventilation devices.154 The Italian smoking ban permits dedicated smoking rooms with automatic doors and smoke extractors. Nevertheless, few Italian establishments are creating smoking rooms due to the additional cost.155
A number of States in the United States have "preemption clauses" within State law which block local communities from passing smoking ban ordinances more strict than the State laws on the books. The rationale is to prevent local communities from passing smoking bans that are viewed as excessive by that State's legislature. Other States have "anti-preemption clauses" that allow local communities to pass smoking ban ordinances that their legislature found unacceptable. 156
In some communities, establishments were able to prove that they did in fact suffer substantial financial loss as a direct result of a smoking ban and received hardship waivers from the governing entity which passed the ban.157
Organizations:
