The Economic Effects of Smoking Bans
Studies on the Economic Effects of Bans
Anti-smoker activists claim smoking bans are good for business. They claim their studies prove it. This page examines how they concoct their numbers. We won't be dissecting any one study, instead we'll give you the tools to pick apart any study funded by anti-smokers.
Fact: All Bans are Not Created Equal.
Nannies often point to California's ban to "prove" bans are good for business. According to state tax revenues, California's hospitably industry experienced a 5% increase in revenue the year after the ban was passed. Nannies ignore the fact the ban was imposed at the peak of the most successful economic period in our country's history, when most other states were reporting 10-15% increases in the same venues.
California's ban was quite different from most recently passed restrictions. The CA ban exempted owner-operated bars. (Some places made all their employees part owners to take advantage of this exemption. Some small taverns fired all their employees so they could qualify for the exemption) But the biggest difference between CA and other places where bans have killed business is the climate. The near perpetual summer of CA, combined with few restrictions on outdoor smoking, made it fairly easy for most taverns to provide an outdoor smoking area. In contrast, NY state winters feature subzero wind-chills, and the NY law limits outdoor smoking to 25% of outdoor seating. It even makes it illegal to provide any kind of awning, umbrella, or cover for smokers. (How mean-spirited is that?)
In areas where the bans are not strictly enforced, compliance with the law may be as low as 50%. Obviously, establishments that are not complying are not suffering because of the ban. They may even increase their business, as smokers will patronize their business instead of places that enforce the ban. The issue of compliance is ignored in these studies.
Fact: Bans affect some business much more than
Anti-smoker activists claim smoking bans are good for business. They claim their studies prove it. This page examines how they concoct their numbers. We won't be dissecting any one study, instead we'll give you the tools to pick apart any study funded by anti-smokers.
Fact: All Bans are Not Created Equal.
Nannies often point to California's ban to "prove" bans are good for business. According to state tax revenues, California's hospitably industry experienced a 5% increase in revenue the year after the ban was passed. Nannies ignore the fact the ban was imposed at the peak of the most successful economic period in our country's history, when most other states were reporting 10-15% increases in the same venues.
California's ban was quite different from most recently passed restrictions. The CA ban exempted owner-operated bars. (Some places made all their employees part owners to take advantage of this exemption. Some small taverns fired all their employees so they could qualify for the exemption) But the biggest difference between CA and other places where bans have killed business is the climate. The near perpetual summer of CA, combined with few restrictions on outdoor smoking, made it fairly easy for most taverns to provide an outdoor smoking area. In contrast, NY state winters feature subzero wind-chills, and the NY law limits outdoor smoking to 25% of outdoor seating. It even makes it illegal to provide any kind of awning, umbrella, or cover for smokers. (How mean-spirited is that?)
In areas where the bans are not strictly enforced, compliance with the law may be as low as 50%. Obviously, establishments that are not complying are not suffering because of the ban. They may even increase their business, as smokers will patronize their business instead of places that enforce the ban. The issue of compliance is ignored in these studies.
Fact: Bans affect some business much more than