The Effects of Smoking Bans on the Hospitality Industry - Research Paper Example

The Effects of Smoking Bans on the Hospitality Industry Introduction The political will to enact more stringent and rigorous restrictions on the public consumption of tobacco products has been greatly strengthened in recent years, partly due to greater popular pressure and pressure from health organisations. The increasing body of data on the lethal dangers of so-called ‘second-hand smoke’ has augmented this movement. Smoking has come to be regarded not only as a personal choice and right, and a danger just to the smoker, but a health threat to all those around. As Radke and Schunkert state, smoking is now almost universally recognised as ‘the single most important and avoidable cause of mortality and morbidity in developed countries’ (2385). In many countries, there have been protracted debates over whether or not restrictions are needed, and, if so, what form these should take. As might be expected, health authorities have long supported measures such as public smoking bans, while the tobacco industry has devoted some of its considerable funds to opposing measures such as bans. To oppose the smoking ban in California, for example, tobacco companies hired the world’s largest Public Relations company – Burson Marstellar (Kiser and Boschert 86). In many cases, the tobacco industry had been able to convince most of those who rely on the hospitality sector for their livelihood that a smoking ban would be a devastating outcome. It is widely believed that some tobacco corporations have attempted to deliberately misinform the public in their campaigns opposing smoking bans, and have commissioned poorly-designed studies, intended to play down the harmful effects of tobacco smoke. Public pressure has been crucial in bringing about smoking bans in many areas. It has become clear that in many countries, the majority of people support such measures. In the United Kingdom, for example, the London Health Commission ran a consultation branded the “Big Smoking Debate”. 30,000 people were surveyed, and, strikingly, 76% of them favoured legislation to make public places entirely smoke-free (Mckee et al. 325). Current Measures Smoking bans are not a new notion, although the contemporary motivations for their introduction may be different from historical motives, and such restrictions have certainly gained more impetus in recent years. In 1590, Pope Urban VII decreed the first recorded public smoking ban. He threatened with excommunication any individual 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’ (Radke and Schunkert 2385). In recent years, South Africa became the first country to introduce a nation-wide prohibition of smoking in a wide variety of public areas. This ban came into force in October 2000. The federal government of the United States has not enacted any legislation restricting or prohibiting the consumption of tobacco products in enclosed public places. While some 26 States have now introduced bans on smoking in all public places, the precise terms of such legislation differs. Some bans contain notable exemptions, which include cigar bars, private members’ clubs, casinos, and small workplaces. The latter is usually defined as a business with either five workers or fewer, or on more than one or two workers. In 11 States, there has not yet been any such legislation. Fig. 1. Smoking Bans in the United States States in red have enacted legislation prohibiting smoking in public spaces. Available from: [Accessed July 28 1010]. California was the first US State to ban smoking in enclosed public spaces, which included bars, restaurants, bingo halls and casinos across the State. This legislation came into force at the beginning of January 1998. California had already passed various restrictions on the sale and consumption of tobacco products. From 1988, Proposition 99 increased the tax levied on a packet of cigarettes by 25 cents, and the additional revenue raised from this was redirected to controlling the distribution and use of tobacco products, and educational programs about the dangers of smoking. Californian legislation on this issue was tightened up further in 1994, with the passage of Assembly Bill 13, authored by Tony Friedman, which placed a ban on smoking in workplaces, with restaurants included in this category. The law stated that ‘no employer shall knowingly or intentionally permit, and no person shall engage in the smoking of tobacco products in an enclosed space at a place of employment’ (Kiser and Boschert 83). The law also required ‘No Smoking’ signs to be clearly displayed at all entrances to such spaces. In California, in order to support the introduction of a ban, BREATH: the California Smoke-Free Bar Program was established in 1997, using funds from the State administration. Its objectives were making the transition for hospitality business owners as easy as possible, mustering public support for such measures, and countering the arguments of the tobacco industry. In order to help hospitality sector businesses with the transition, BREATH sought to inform some 32,000 businesses by means of mailings, and booths at trade fairs, as well as prominent advertisements in the trade journals. They also hosted meetings where the concerns of businessmen could be addressed. BREATH also publicised the results of surveys of public opinion and analyses of economic data taken from those countries where smoking bans had already been implemented, in order to counter the information and anxieties being propagated by the tobacco lobby. Examples of such figures include that 82% of Californians were non-smokers; 90% of bars were attached to restaurants; and 85% of Californians responded that they would either not change their habits, or were more likely to go to bars which were free of tobacco smoke (Kiser and Boschert 84). In Europe, the first ban to be introduced was in the Republic of Ireland, followed by Norway. In the latter, the emphasis was on protecting the health of workers in the hospitality sector, and these bans are considered to have been highly successful, as detailed below. In Italy, as an example, a ban on smoking in enclosed public places came into force on January 10, 2005. It is generally held that public support for this measure was quite high before it came into force, and thereafter only increased. According to Gorini et al., surveys ‘report that the ban is generally respected’ (1620). Economic Impact As Hirasuna acknowledges in his report for the Minnesota House of Representatives, ‘some previous studies may be biased because the research was sponsored by tobacco interests’ (3). Indeed, Mckee et al. referred to the notion that a smoking ban would result in reduced takings in bars and restaurants, and lead to decreased employment and taxation revenues, as the tobacco industry’s ‘most powerful argument’ (325). However, Hirasuna goes on to conclude that almost all well-designed studies ‘reported, on average, no net loss and sometimes net increases in bar and restaurant sales after smoking bans went into effect’ (4). The figures from New York certainly support this. In the nine months following the introduction of the smoking ban in New York, sales tax receipts on food and drink were up by a remarkable 12%, and employment in the hospitality sector underwent a corresponding augmentation (Mckee et al 325). In California, likewise, Kiser and Boschert were able to report that the ‘economic impact has been positive – not negative’, despite the ‘alarmist tobacco industry predictions of doom’ (86). Similar findings have been reported worldwide. With regard to Italy, for example, although thorough studies of the economic impact are scarce, Gorini et al. reported that in a survey of owners of businesses in the hospitality sector, only 12% recorded a significant loss, while a majority – some 55% - reported either no loss or a small increase in profits (1621). Adda et al. undertook a similar study to explore the short-term economic effects of the Scottish smoking ban, by comparing the sales of public houses, and the number of customers using them, before and after the introduction of the ban. The Scottish smoking ban was introduced in March 2006. In contrast to the results collected from similar surveys in other countries, Adda et al. reported a significant decrease in sales (10%) and an even greater decrease in customers (14%). They therefore conclude that ‘the Scottish smoking ban had a negative economic impact on the public houses’ (149). Nevertheless, they concede that ‘alternative consumption patterns may emerge’ (149) as seems to have happened in most places where smoking bans have been implemented. Furthermore, this study of Scotland took account only of the short-term results, and it is likely that once conditions had settled, public houses experienced a revival of business. Hirasuna points out that some studies on the economic effects of smoking bans in the United States have had deficiencies – some have used data from sales tax receipts, ‘which is often underreported’, while data gathered through surveys ‘can be unrepresentative of the community’ (4). Additionally, it is possible that other economic factors, quite independent of a smoking ban, could significantly affect the results of such studies. Examples of such factors might include the growth or decline of the population in an area, or the general economic climate of the region. There were some deficiencies in reports on smoking bans elsewhere in the world. While the Italian Federation of Hospitality reported that the ban had led to a significant decline in profits for casinos and bingo halls, they failed to provide any precise figures to support this claim (Gorini et al. 1621). The figures mostly support the idea that after the introduction of a smoking ban, businesses in the hospitality sector are able to attract new customers, while some existing consumers might choose to spend more time in these venues and thus spend more money. These customers may be people who had previously been put off frequenting such establishments by the prevalence of cigarette smoke and its accompanying health dangers. As Hirasuna concludes, ‘if there is any conclusion to draw...it is that most studies find that smoking bans leave restaurant, bar, or gaming revenue unaffected’ but ‘as in most things in real life, there are no sure bets’ (5). Effects on Smoking Habits It is also worth considering the effects of smoking bans on the health of workers in the hospitality sector, given that many of the bans currently in place were introduced with the avowed purpose of protecting their health, and the effects of bans on smoking prevalence generally. Overall, as might have been predicted, the bans seem to have led to a decline in smoking prevalence generally, and a decline in smoking prevalence among hospitality employees. These laws, in the view of Radke and Schunkert, ‘do not only regulate smokers, but also – as a result – decrease active smoking’ (2385). Mckee et al. concur that ‘bans, together with increased taxation, are the most effective ways of reducing smoking overall’ (325). Adda et al. also agree that ‘the public health gains of such measures are likely to be sizeable’ (149). In Italy, after the introduction of a nation-wide ban on smoking in enclosed public places, in January 2005, the consumption of tobacco products experienced a significant decline. If one compares the total sales of cigarettes in Italy in 2004 and 2005, as do Gorini et al., they were down by 6.1% in the latter year - from 98.8 to 92.8 million kilograms. While these total sales increased again, although only by a minimal 1.1%, from 2005 to 2006 (for which the spread of covered, outdoor smoking areas was held responsible), the overall trend in smoking prevalence showed a clear decline (of 7.3%) from 2004 to 2006 (1620). The same pattern was noted in Norway, in a study of smoking habits among hospitality sector workers. In Norway, the smoking ban came into force in June 2004, and Braverman et al. surveyed workers in bars and restaurants immediately before its introduction, and then at intervals of 4 and 11 months afterwards. A decline in smoking prevalence was noted among these workers over the course of the study – up to 4 months, there was 6.2% decline in smoking prevalence when at work, and a 3.6% decline in smoking prevalence in the workers’ lives generally (Braverman et al. 5). Overall, they found ‘increases in the number of quit attempts, frequency of successful smoking cessation, and reductions in overall cigarette consumption’ (6). It is interesting that in this case, the levels of smoking when at work declined at a far faster rate than smoking in life generally. With workplaces in the hospitality sector smoke-free, workers would have found far less opportunity to smoke during the day. In these circumstances, as Braveman et al. note, ‘the perceived benefits of quitting can become more salient’; given that many of those in the food service industry are quite young, and a greater proportion of them smoke than in other industries, their quitting ‘may have significant benefits far into the future’ (6). Conclusions It is likely that further such bans will be introduced in various American States and in countries worldwide in years to come, given the political momentum that the pro-smoking ban movement has gained, and the apparent success of those bans which have already been introduced. It has become increasingly clear that, contrary to the propaganda of the tobacco industry, smoking bans are not a catastrophic development for the economic health of the hospitality sector. Indeed, they are quite possibly as good for the health of business as for the health of employees and customers. As Mckee et al. put it, the ‘health and economic evidence is clear and there is widespread public support for action’ (326). Works Cited Adda, J., Berlinski, S. & Machin, S. “Short-run economic effects of the Scottish smoking ban”. International Journal of Epidemiology 36 (2007): 149-154. Print. Braverman, M. T., Aaroe, L. E. & Hetland, J. “Changes in smoking among restaurant and bar employees following Norway’s comprehensive smoking ban”. Health Promotion International 23.1 (2007): 5-15. Print. Gorini, G., Chellini, E. & Galeone, D. “What happened in Italy? A brief summary of studies conducted in Italy to evaluate the impact of the smoking ban”. Annals of Oncology 18 (2007): 1620-1622. Print. Hirasuna, D. “Review of Economic Studies on Smoking Bans in Bars and Restaurants”. Information Brief, Minnesota House of Representatives. March 2006. Print. Kiser, D. & Boschert, T. “Eliminating Smoking in Bars, Restaurants, and Gaming Clubs in California: BREATH, the California Smoke-Free Bar Program”. Journal of Public Health Policy 22.1 (2001): 81-87. Print. Mckee, M., Hogan, H. & Gilmore, A. “Why we need to ban smoking in public places now”. Journal of Public Health 26.4 (2004): 325-326. Print. Radke, P. & Schunkert, H., “Public smoking ban: Europe on the move”. European Heart Journal 27 (2006): 2385-2386. Print. Read More