The Economic Impact of Clean Indoor Air Laws

Institute of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, USA.
CA A Cancer Journal for Clinicians (Impact Factor: 162.5). 11/2007; 57(6):367-78. DOI: 10.3322/CA.57.6.367
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Clean indoor air laws are easily implemented, are well accepted by the public, reduce nonsmoker exposure to secondhand smoke, and contribute to a reduction in overall cigarette consumption. There are currently thousands of clean indoor air laws throughout the Unites States, and the majority of Americans live in areas where smoking is completely prohibited in workplaces, restaurants, or bars. The vast majority of scientific evidence indicates that there is no negative economic impact of clean indoor air policies, with many studies finding that there may be some positive effects on local businesses. This is despite the fact that tobacco industry-sponsored research has attempted to create fears to the contrary. Further progress in the diffusion of clean indoor air laws will depend on the continued documentation of the economic impact of clean indoor air laws, particularly within the hospitality industry. This article reviews the spread of clean indoor air laws, the effect on public health, and the scientific evidence of the economic impact of implementation of clean indoor air laws.

Download full-text


Available from: Michael P. Eriksen, Jun 19, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to investigate the preferences of elected city officials regarding the need for a statewide clean indoor air law and to analyze the content of local smoking ordinances. A survey of elected officials in 57 larger Kansas cities obtained information on the perceived need for statewide legislation, venues to be covered, and motivating factors. Clean indoor air ordinances from all Kansas cities were analyzed by venue. The survey response rate was 190 out of 377 (50.4%) for elected officials. Over 70% of the respondents favored or strongly favored greater restrictions on indoor smoking. Sixty percent favored statewide legislation. Among these, over 80% favored restrictions in health care facilities, theaters, indoor sports arenas (including bowling alleys), restaurants, shopping malls, lobbies, enclosed spaces in outdoor arenas, and hotel/motel rooms. Officials who had never smoked favored a more restrictive approach. Employee and public health concerns were cited as influential by 76%-79% of respondents. Thirty-eight ordinances, covering over half of the state's population, were examined. They varied considerably in their exemptions. Official's attitudes toward smoking regulations were associated with their smoking status. The examination of existing ordinances revealed a piecemeal approach to smoking regulations.
    Nicotine & Tobacco Research 08/2010; 12(8):828-33. DOI:10.1093/ntr/ntq089 · 2.81 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: "The United Kingdom has recently enacted smoking bans in public places such as restaurants and pubs. Public health advocates argue that bans are necessary because non-smokers need protection from second-hand smoke. Advocates also claim that bans do not exert harm on owners because of a vast empirical literature showing that restaurants and bars in the United States never suffer harm following bans. This paper examines whether these claims are true by developing a model within the Coasian framework whereby owners of businesses have incentives to deal with smoking disputes between smokers and non-smokers. Our model demonstrates that it is incorrect to argue that smoking bans are necessary because the private market has no method of attempting to solve smoking problems. It also predicts that bans exert different effects on different businesses: some will be unaffected while others will experience losses or gains. Our literature review reveals that predictions of differential effects are consistent with the empirical evidence." Copyright (c) 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation (c) Institute of Economic Affairs 2008.
    Economic Affairs 02/2008; 28(4):57-61. DOI:10.1111/j.1468-0270.2008.00867.x
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many public-health researchers are quick to raise charges of bias to explain away the few studies that reach politically incorrect conclusions. Claims of bias are often thrown at researchers who are funded by the industries targeted for aggressive intervention. This paper discusses whether it makes sense that bias is a relevant issue only when researchers have connections to private industry or find fault with government intervention. I focus on the issue of whether smoking bans harm any restaurant or bar owners. This area of research has experienced a large number of claims of bias and deception, leveled against research that does not enthusiastically support expanded intervention. This paper diagnoses the groupthink and deep biases of the structures and cultures within which pro-ban research comes into being. It also shows how intimidation is used to silence dissent and enforce taboos. It shows why it is important that we address the question: Who else would fund research that might come to politically incorrect conclusions on such issues?
    Econ journal watch 01/2008; 5(2):240-268. · 1.08 Impact Factor