For this semester's Macroeconomics class, we have a "discussion board" assignment. We're to use the discussion (message) board on BlackBoard to participate in debates of various economic stripes. Of the twenty-three threads, seven were about high gas prices, and three caught my eye. One was on tuition prices, one on health care, and one on smoke-free dining.
This particular question read: "With the economy problems recently: gas prices rising, food prices bouncing up and down, people are trying everything they can to save a little money. This has been leading to people staying away from spending money by eating out in restaurants. So with the drop of customers as is...why have a lot of counties, and even whole states, made all restaurants non-smoking, leading to even fewer customers in some cases? "
I can't honestly say why I got so heated by the smoke-free debate, but something caught on and I immediately pulled up my trusty friend, Google, to start in on some research. What I found was astounding. Not only is second-hand smoke bad, it's really, really, really bad. Like, lions and tigers and bears bad. Like, the nightmare where the laws have changed and somehow W got into office for a third time bad. Like, hide your wives and children bad.
And somehow my wonderfully young classmates remain blissfully unaware of these facts, all because they don't see the harm in smoking indoors, and they don't want to be forced to go outside - what a freakin' nightmare!
I'm not going to re-post the three posts before mine, mostly because they're horrendous in every way possible and I don't want to look at them again. Suffice it to say that only one person had made a sort-of good argument, in that constant smoking breaks take away from productivity. What that had to do with the original question, I'm not sure. Every other post had something to do with personal preference and a complete disregard for public health.
Below is my answer to this particular debate. Please note when reading that this is an online discussion, not a paper (despite its length), and therefore go easy on me about proper citations and whatnot - all links are included in the bottom. Please comment if you have anything to say!
The original question asked why “a lot of counties, even whole states, made a lot of restaurants non-smoking, leading to even fewer customers in some cases?”
Well, the short answer is this: Smoking hurts people. Not only does it hurt the people who choose to light up their cigarettes, but it hurts the people around those people, and the children of those people, and the husbands, wives, friends, and lovers of those people. Everyone in this country is exposed to second-hand smoke. There is no “safe” level of exposure to second-hand smoke, and there is no existing ventilation system that can effectively “clean” second-hand smoke. It is completely unfair to force people to be around smoke if they don’t specifically choose to be. "The debate is over. The science is clear: Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard," said former U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona.
The effects of second-hand smoke have been heavily researched and are well-documented. According to Surgeon General Carmona, "The toxins from cigarette smoke go everywhere the blood flows.” Diseases caused by smoking can strike anywhere from the lungs and heart to the bladder, kidneys, pancreas, and stomach. Second-hand smoke is especially harmful to children under eight years old, and being trapped in a room (such as a restaurant) with second-hand smoke is far more harmful than passing a puff on a street corner. People in the restaurant industry care very much about bringing in customers, but in many cases, those people (owners, hosts, waiters, cooks, etc.) are at risk themselves for second-hand smoke exposure.
One of the arguments is that “smokers are people too.” I agree with this argument, and I do not vote to diminish the rights of any smokers – as long as they do not infringe on the rights of any non-smoker. This is because smoking hurts people. Say a person is in a restaurant that allows smoking. This person decides that they can’t sit through their 60- or 90-minute meal without a cigarette, so they light up. Immediately, the smoke from that cigarette filters through the smoking section, up to the ceiling, into the ventilation system, through the vents, and through the entire restaurant. Imagine every smoker in that section lighting up. On the other side of the restaurant is a girl who is asthmatic, or a couple with their two-year-old daughter, or a pregnant woman, or a college guy – should any of them have to suffer the proven, researched, documented effects of second-hand smoke just because someone else wants to sit there and smoke? Absolutely not. They are free to their right to a healthy public environment – more free than any smoker is to their right to smoke, for this simple fact: the non-smoker's right does not harm a single person, whereas the smoker’s does. If a smoker decides to take part in this particular “addiction of choice,” they can go ahead, and harm themselves. But they need to go outside so that they don’t harm others.
In reality, the question itself does not have a sound base. Besides the reasoning for the smoke-free argument, which began over a decade ago and therefore has little to do with the country's recent economy, it relies on the argument that restaurants are losing customers and losing revenue because of smoking bans. When smoking bans were first introduced, the laws had many critics. First and foremost of the critics were those in the tobacco industry, and I’m sure I don’t need to review their reasons for opposing a smoking ban. The restaurant industry also had concerns at the beginning, namely with the possibility of lost revenue.
There have been countless studies done of the effects of smoking bans – any elementary Google search with the keywords “smoking ban” or “smoke-free” would turn up the research. Everything has been covered: the health effects of second-hand smoke; the economic effect of sicknesses developed from second-hand smoke; the differences in revenue of the hospitality industry (including restaurants, bars, and hotels) both before and after smoking bans were enacted; the differences in revenue of alcoholic beverage tax both before and after smoking bans were enacted; the community response to smoking bans; the efficiency of various ventilation systems; and many, many other points. There have even been studies to determine the validity of other studies. All-told, this is what the research says:
- second-hand smoke is extremely harmful to everyone, and there is no “safe” level of exposure;
- most studies came to the same conclusion: that enacting smoking bans had no adverse economic effect on the hospitality industry; and
- the few studies that came to the conclusion that smoking bans did have an adverse economic effect on the hospitality industry were commissioned and funded by tobacco companies.
In my research on this topic, I came across information stating that NYC’s hospitality industry actually benefited from the bans, because tourism went up! A gentleman by the name of Michael O’Neal, who was president of the New York Restaurant Association and worked in the restaurant industry for 35 years, has said “I feel strongly that it is pro-business and pro-health to eliminate smoking in all workplaces, including restaurants. Smoke-free workplace legislation does not hurt business.” I lived in New York City for four years, and I never saw any adverse effect of smoking bans on the hospitality industry. Friends of mine would gladly step out of restaurants and bars, off to the sidewalk, to have their cigarettes. Other friends who worked in restaurants and bars mentioned that they benefited from the cleaner air they were breathing.
Smoking bans have been enacted in many counties and states – and they should continue to be enacted until the entire U.S. is clean – because of the simple fact that smoking hurts people. Every medical study done on the subject enforces that fact. According to the Medical College of Wisconsin, quoting the Surgeon General’s 2006 report on smoking and health, “The economic toll [of smoking] exceeds $157 billion each year in the United States - $75 billion in direct medical costs and $82 billion in lost productivity.”
It sure seems to me that the adverse economic effects of smoking far outweigh any perceived adverse economic effects of laws banning smoking in public places.
_________________________________________
For anyone who is interested in my sources, here are some links:
This collection of links, maintained by Michigan's Center for Social Gerontology, offers many U.S. issues, as well as an international look at the smoke-free debate. http://www.tcsg.org/sfelp/economic.htm
This study reviews many other studies done on smoking bans, their validity and results, and the overall findings. http://www.tobaccoscam.ucsf.edu/pdf/hyland.ppt
This Discovery Channel article features some interesting findings of second-hand smoke research, as backed up by a former U.S. Surgeon General. http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/06/28/secondhandsmoke_hea.html?category=health
Posts
