Smoking ban

No Smoking sign.

Smoking bans are public policies, including criminal laws and occupational safety and health regulations, which restrict tobacco smoking in workplaces and public spaces.

Rationale

The rationale cited for smoking bans is the protection of workers, in particular, from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke, which include an increased risk of heart disease, cancer, emphysema and other chronic and acute diseases. Laws implementing bans on indoor smoking have been introduced by many countries in various forms over the years, with legislators citing scientific evidence that shows tobacco smoking is often harmful to the smokers themselves and to those inhaling second-hand smoke.

In addition, such laws may reduce health care costs in the short term but do not calculate for the increased health care cost of an ever aging population, improve work productivity and lower the overall cost of labor in a community, thus making a community more attractive for bringing new jobs into the area and keeping current jobs and employers in an area. In Indiana for example, the state's economic development agency wrote into its 2006 plan for acceleration of economic growth that it encourages cities and towns to adopt local smoke-free workplace laws as a means of promoting job growth in communities.It is bitchy to the environment

Additional rationales for smoking restrictions include reduced risk of fire in areas with explosive hazards or where flammable materials are handled, cleanliness in places where food or pharmaceuticals, semiconductors or precision instruments and machinery are produced, decreased legal liability, potentially reduced energy use via decreased ventilation needs, reduced quantities of litter, and to encourage current smokers to quit.

Medical and scientific basis for bans

Main article: Passive smoking

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. 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%.

A study issued in 2002 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization concluded that non-smokers are exposed to the same carcinogens as active smokers. Sidestream smoke contains 69 known carcinogens, particularly benzopyrene and other polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and radioactive decay products, such as polonium 210. 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.

Scientific organizations confirming the harmful effects of secondhand smoke include the U.S. National Cancer Institute, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the United States Surgeon General, and the World Health Organization.

Air quality

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. 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 that in 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.

Research has also shown that improved air quality translates to decreased toxin exposure among employees. 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).

History

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". 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. 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 direct orders from Adolf Hitler himself. Major anti-tobacco campaigns were widely broadcast by the Nazis until the demise of the regime in 1945.

In the latter part of the 20th century, as research on the health risks of secondhand tobacco smoke were made public, the tobacco industry launched "courtesy awareness" campaigns. Fearful of revenue losses, 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.

In 1975, the U.S. state of Minnesota enacted the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act, making it the first state to ban smoking in most public spaces. To begin with, restaurants were required to have No Smoking sections, and bars were exempt from the Act. As of 1 October 2007, Minnesota signed into law a ban on smoking completely from all restaurants and bars throughout the state. This is the Freedom to Breathe Act of 2007.

In 1990, the city of San Luis Obispo, California, U.S.A. became the first city in the world to ban indoor smoking at all public places, including bars and restaurants.

In America, the success and subsequent popularity of the ban enacted by the state of California in 1998 encouraged other states such as New York to implement bans of their own. California's smoking ban included an initially 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 on the books.. In addition, some areas in California have recently begun making whole cities smoke-free, which would include every place except residential homes. More than 20 cities in California have passed park and beach smoking bans.

On March 29 2004, the Irish Government implemented a ban on smoking in public places. 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 nation to have the legislation come into effect. The age limit for buying tobacco was also raised from 16 to 18 on October 1 2007. Smoking was also banned in public indoor venues in Victoria, Australia on July 1 2007.

Criticism of bans

Smoking bans have been criticised on a number of grounds.

Government interference with personal lifestyle or property rights

Critics of smoking bans, including artist Joe Jackson 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 secondhand smoke 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.

Economic loss

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. Other studies have found no such loss, or even that restaurants' revenue increased after the smoking ban. The most commonly used studies for economic damage concerning bars come from California and New York City where the smoking ban in the first year was not enforced and noncompliance was rampant. (seesmokeasy).

Disputes over scientific basis for bans

One category of arguments against bans dispute the scientific basis for bans on smoking (see passive smoking).

Questions over health costs of smoking

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, certain studies suggest that complete smoking cessation might actually result in an increase in total health care costs in the long run. This possibility stems from the fact that non-smokers live longer on average and can thus incur higher total lifetime health care costs. The argument rationalized that if non-smokers live longer, they also pay during their lifetime more taxes than smokers that statistically become ill and die earlier.

Because smoking related deaths often occur around retirement age for many people, and thus around the time when a person begins to pay much lower income taxes, the premature death of a smoker probably presents a net gain for the government in health care costs. It can also be noted that in many countries (especially in the US and Europe) the tax on smoking raises revenues that significantly outweigh the costs of smoking to healthcare as a source of net income to the Government. For example, in the UK, the estimated cost of smoking to the NHS is £7 ($14) billion per year, however the estimated amount raised through taxes is around £16 ($32) billion per year.

Bans may move smoking elsewhere

Bans on smoking in offices and other enclosed public places often result in smokers going outside to smoke, frequently congregating outside doorways and therefore shifting the problem elsewhere. 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.

A more serious concern is that bans on smoking in public places may lead to more smoking at home, as claimed by former British Cabinet Member John Reid. 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, and the latter finding that smoke-free households increased from 22% to 37% between 1996 and 2003.

Smoking bans by country

Main article: Smoking bans by country

Arizona became the first US state to pass a comprehensive law restricting smoking in public places in 1973. California enacted a workplace smoking ban in 1994, and a complete smoking ban in enclosed spaces in 1998. Washington state passed initiative 901 in 2005, banning smoking within 25 feet of public buildings or places of employment.

Ireland was the first country in the world to ban smoking in all enclosed workplaces in March 2004. This ban is now extending to outside buildings on a voluntary basis. For instance, smoking is not allowed at the entrances to buildings at Dublin Airport. It is only allowed in areas where signs indicate that smoking is permitted. In 2008, the country will ban advertising in shops (advertising is already banned in print, on radio and television and on billboards) and ensure that cigarettes remain out of sight when stored behind counters.

Italy followed Ireland, introducing 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 left the choice to put up special rooms for smoking where people are not permitted to be served food or drinks, most owners opted not to. Each nation of the United Kingdom implemented a similar ban: Scotland on 26 March 2006; Wales on 02 April 2007  ; Northern Ireland on 30 April 2007; England on 1 July 2007. France brings in a ban in 2008 when the existing ban will be extended to cover bars and cafés. Denmark started a smoking ban clubs and restaurants on 15 August 2007, although the legislation carved out exemptions for small bars and restaurants with separate smoking rooms. Sweden enforced a similar ban on July 1, 2005. The Netherlands and Romania will start a smoking ban in bars and clubs on 1 July 2008.

Spain has the Ley española 28/2005, de 26 de diciembre, introduced by the Spanish Socialist Party, which bans smoking in workplaces, and has some restrictions for public places, such as airports and train stations. Pubs, restaurants and other public places smaller than 100 sq.m. are exempted.

The only country in the world to have banned the sale and smoking of tobacco is Bhutan since early 2005.

Cigarette advertising

See also: Tobacco bowdlerization

In many parts of the world tobacco advertising and even sponsorship of sporting events is not allowed. The ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship in the EU in 2005 has prompted the Formula One Management to look for venues that allow teams to display the livery of tobacco sponsors, and has also led to some of the more popular races on the calendar being cancelled in favour of more tobacco-friendly markets. However, pressure from fans has seen these decisions reversed, and Grands Prix such as the Belgian Grand Prix have re-appeared on the calendar. As of 2007, only one Formula One team now receives sponsorship from a tobacco company.

Alternatives to bans

Incentives for voluntarily smoke-free establishments

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 legislation[6] 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.

Tradable smoking pollution permits

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.[7]

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.

Ventilation

Critics of bans point to ventilation as an effective 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. The tobacco industry has focused on 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. 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.

Hardship Exemptions

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.

The effects of bans

Effects on health

In the first 18 months after the town of 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."

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%.

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. However, another source suggests heart attack admissions declined by 14% in the three months prior to the Scottish smoking ban. Furthermore, the study has not yet been published, nor has the data on which it was based. 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.

File:No smoking in Festival walk.jpg

No smoking sign in Festival Walk, Hong Kong. Since 2007, all major indoor places in Hong Kong are included in the list of smoke-free places

Effects on tobacco use

One report stated that cigarette sales in Ireland and Scotland increased after a smoking ban. In contrast, another report states that in Ireland, cigarette sales fell by 16% in the six months after the ban's introduction.In the UK as a whole, cigarette sales fell by 11% during July 2007, the first month of the smoking ban in England, compared with July 2006.

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."

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 being passed by anti-smoking groups. Anti-smoking groups claim this is due to funding reasons. It has also been suggested that a "backstop" of hardcore smokers has been reached who are unmotivated and increasingly defiant in the face of further legislation.,

Effects on businesses

Smoking is prohibited on streets in some areas of Tokyo; hence smokers retreat into smoking lounges.

Many studies using objective measures of economic activity, such as sales taxes, have been done by Smoke Free Groups on the effect of smoke-free policies. The vast majority have found that there is no negative economic impact, with many finding that there may be some positive effects on local businesses. A 2003 review of 97 studies of the economic effects of a smoking ban on the hospitality industry found that the best-designed studies by anti-smoking groups and their contractors reported no impact or a positive impact of smoke-free restaurant and bars laws on sales or employment.

Australia

A government study in Sydney found that the proportion of the population attending pubs and clubs rose after the imposition of a ban on smoking in enclosed places.

Ireland

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.

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.

United Kingdom

The ban came into force in Wales on 2 April, 2007. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The smoking ban has been partly blamed for Sports Cafe bars group going into administration.

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.

United States

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. 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. 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. A 2006 U.S. Surgeon General review of studies suggests that business may actually improve. 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. A 2006 study by the state of New York found similar results. 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.

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, in Columbia, Missouri, and at Delaware gambling facilities.

Germany

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-Württemburg and Hessen) witnessed lowers 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 percent of establishments that adopted a smoking ban in 2007 saw turnover fall by around 50 percent.

Effects on Tourism

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 has had a significant negative impact on tourism, based on government numbers and industry feedback.

Effects on law enforcement

Main article: Smokeasy

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, Hawaii, California, Colorado, Arizona, Boston, Philadelphia, Delaware, Dublin, Utah, Seattle, Scotland, Toronto, Ohio, Columbia, Missouri, and Washington, D.C..

As a result, jurisdictions which have passed smoking ban often unexpectedly find themselves having to use law enforcement to enforce their smoking bans.

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.

Effects on musical instruments

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.

Outdoor smoking bans

In some places with long-established strict indoor smoking bans, experiments with outdoor bans in specific contexts, especially in public or government-owned spaces, have begun. The state of California has also enacted certain outdoor smoking bans.

Smoking has been banned on the streets of Tokyo's Chiyoda Ward since October 2002. Ward employees patrol the streets and hand out ¥2000 fines to violators. According to the cigarette company Japan Tobacco, Inc., 60 municipalities, whose residents make up 10% of Japan's population, have regulations to ban or discourage people smoking on the street. However, only three municipalities assess fines for violations.

See also

• Coronary heart disease
• Indoor air quality
• List of smoking bans in the United States
• List of smoking bans worldwide
• Smoke-free restaurant
• World No Tobacco Day
• Tobacco fatwa
• Harm principle
• Prohibition
• Smokeasy

Organizations:

• Action on Smoking and Health (A UK antismoking and non-smokers' rights organization)
• Airspace Action on Smoking and Health
• FOREST (A UK pro-tobacco group)

External links

• Canadian Council for Tobacco Control
• Clearing the Air Scotland Scottish Executive site established to provide information on Scotland's smoke-free legislation
• Hong Kong Tobacco Control Office
• Irish Government's Office of Tobacco Control
• State Tobacco Laws from the American Cancer Society
• Legacy Tobacco Documents Library from the University of California, San Francisco
• Philip Morris USA Document Archive