Group Says Colorado Smoking Ban Having Negative Economic Consequences
Colorado became the 13th state in the U.S. to ban smoking in public buildings in the spring of 2006.
According to the non-profit Coalition, OSHA (the federal occupational safety and health administration) typically considers a regulatory action to be economically unfeasible if said action would cause a decrease in related industry or sector revenue of at least one percent or cause a decline in profits in excess of ten percent. Furthermore, says the Coalition, OSHA typically considers a regulatory action economically unfeasible if the action would cause a change in the competitive structure of an industry.
"The Colorado smoking ban violates all three OSHA economic feasibility criteria. As of the first quarter 2007 the Colorado smoking ban has imposed at least $16.8 million in economic damages on bars and taverns in the state, 6.4 percent of previous revenues, and many of our members are experiencing profit declines in the range of fifteen to forty percent," said Allen Campbell, Senior Vice President of the Coalition.
The Colorado law met with very mixed reviews, including a lot of hostile ones, when it was first enacted, especially in light of the fact that if you work from home, your home office is considered a "public building" and if you're a smoker you are thus restricted in what you can do in a certain part of your own home.
Many non-smokers who enjoy going out to restaurants unsurprisingly praised the measure, saying the ban made their outings more enjoyable. Here and there, one could even find a bartender who would praise the measure as well, citing that they didn't have to go home every night after work smelling like smoke (needless to say, these bartenders were all non-smokers).
However, the ban has had an abundance of critics both professional and public. Many bar and tavern owners, and even some restaurateurs, have been saying that their business has suffered because their patrons who are smokers feel their civil rights have been violated and they will just go home and enjoy not only their smoking, but also their imbibing and eating there, too.
Smokers have consistently said that they can understand a high-end restaurant choosing to ban smoking on its premises, but that it's traditional for smoking to take place in places like taverns and that it should be the non-smokers, not themselves, who should have to make the choice to take their business elsewhere if they don't like a smoky room.
OSHA has stated that it's highly unusual for tobacco smoke constituents to exceed its Permissible Exposure Limits (PEL) in the normal work environment, even in places such as taverns.
"OSHA regulations provide a safe harbor for business owners because compliance with OSHA Permissible Exposure Limits (PEL) protects them from unwarranted regulatory intrusion. Are Colorado bar and tavern small business owners deprived of equal protection of law through substitution of a special-interest smoking ban agenda for established federally regulatory policy?" asks CER consultant Norman E. Kjono.
Published by Brant McLaughlin
I am a Writer driven by endless curiosity and a deep desire to waste time creatively. View profile
- A Research Paper on the 2007 Tennessee Smoking BanAn objective research paper on the 2007 Tennessee Smoking Ban listing the pros, cons, and the opinions of some students at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville.
- Smoking Ban Across the StatesMy town has just enforced the smoking ban. This ordinance is spreading faster than cancer itself.
Public Smoking Ban Claims Another State: ArizonaIn November the voters voted and as of today, May 1st, Arizona joins a growing legion of states to ban smoking in enclosed public areas. - Study Finds Non-Smokers Benefit when Smoking Bans Are EnactedA new study by Indiana University researchers shows that hospital admissions for heart attacks dropped by 59 percent for non smokers after a countywide smoking ban was implemented.
- Oklahoma's Smoking in Public PlacesThe Oklahoma Legislature stated that "the possession of lighted tobacco in any form is a public nuisance and dangerous to the public health" and is the basis for the Oklahoma Smoking in Public Places and Indoor Work...
- Why Ban Smoking in Public Places?: Arguments in Favor
- Smoking Ban Reduces Heart Attacks in Non Smokers, New Study Confirms
- Bars and Restaurants Adjusting to Smoking Ban in Lexington, Kentucky
- Banning Smoking in Public Places
- Is Colorado's Smoking Ban Unconstitutional? Judge Says Yes.
- Why the United States Needs to Ban Smoking in All Public Places
- Ban Smoking on New York City Streets
11 Comments
Post a Comment-"cancerous" spread of government power. - that is precisely where I come from. My political leanings are very libertarian so I do believe in letting the market or the owner of such establishments make the decisions. CO made it out to be "concern for the health of employees" which is bogus. When you apply for a job, such as a tavern, smoke was a part of the deal. One would have to living on the moon to think differently and people aren't forced to work in such places...
What about one's right to be in a public place and not have to breathe in other's carcinogens? This idea that smoker's rights are being violated is weak.
The anti-smokers claim that the vast majority want and demand that all hospitality venues be anti-smoking,
which comon sense logic would suggest that if 20 % of all hospitality venues accommodated tobacco smokers, the other 80 % would get 80 % of the business and patrons, while the smoking venues would get their 20 % of patrons who choose to go their places.
Both sides would be getting 100 % of the available patrons each caters to, patrons who choose where they want to spend their money.
Both sides will get their share of revenues sufficient to stay in business.
I ask, what's wrong with that ?
Let people go where they want to go.
That's Freedom of Choice in Democracies.
Steve Hartwell
http://www.reducedriskcigarettes.ca
Great commentaries from everyone! It looks like the general consensus is that the real threat to our "health" here is the "cancerous" spread of government power. I for one have to sympathize with that view, on a wide range of issues.
The bootlegging also costs the government more money in enforcement. They have to send undercover agents into the types of stores where they are sold and issue fines. The courts in LA county are so backed up, criminals often get credit for "time served" without spending a day in jail, just to move the cases through the system faster. Sometimes serious offenders get off, because their court date was not set in the specified time frame. Adding to that with the war on tobacco actually costs taxpayers more money. The numbers of people quitting smoking has increased which means layoffs in industries related to the cigarettes. Nice non-biased reporting.
At the same time new laws are being created attempting to turn cigarettes into an illegal drug, taxes are being increased and people are working to legalize marijuanna. Due to rising taxes many people are buying online from other countries which is costing more in government paper work trying to impose taxes on that. In addition bootleging has increased. Border security is stricter now, but someone in San Diego can easily go into Mexico to buy a cheaper carton. The bootleggers of course have underground tunnels and other ways to sneak the product into the USA.
Banning smoking in bars has not hurt the tavern or restaurant industry in California. I think cigarette machines were also banned due to underage people being able to access them. This would decrease revenue in bars. Now that they have been enacting laws that bans smoking outdoors it becomes a problem. Many drinkers enjoy cigarettes or cigars and if they can not go outdoors to smoke but can not stay inside it does create a problem.
The reason for smoking bans is not about health and it never was about health. It is all about denormalizing smoking.
Passing no-smoking legislation is a big step in that direction.
Unfortunaltely the hospitality industry is caught in the cross-fire.
http://smokersclubinc.com
The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation from
sea to sea has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed threat
of second-hand smoke.
The bans are symptoms of a far more grievous threat; a cancer that has been
spreading for decades. This cancer is the only real hazard involved -- the
cancer of unlimited government power.
The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom
menace. The issue is: if it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction?
Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating people about
the potential danger and allowing them to make their own decisions, or
should they seize the power of government and force people to make the
"right" decision?
Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than
attempting to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health, the
tobacco bans are the unwanted intrusion.
Loudly billed as measures that only affect "pub
Whoops, too much:
Power talks with money and walking away with your money is better than getting governments involved. In addition, enforcement of this particular law (which was recently expanded to casinos and all other exempt places except for the smoking lounge at Denver International Airport and those who make a serious chunk of sales from the sale of tobacco) is imposing on local law enforcement by being the smoke-police rather than spending time and money on crimes that truly affect the rights - like assault and robbery - of ordinary citizens. Suffice it to say, I am not impressed that my state decided to put their noses in private enterprise.