The Effects of Public Smoking Bans: Workplace, Restaurants/Bars, and International Tourism
By: Paul Michael-Jeffry Kanaan
Central Michigan University
Ms. Jennifer Anderson
October 9, 2010
Through time many countries, cities and states have began to enforce Public Safety Bans. The bans deny the right to smoke in the workplace, restaurants or bars. Although is it a battle fought with moral judgments, I would like to inform you on the effects of the smoking bans in the workplace, restaurants/bars, and international tourism.
Each day, employees all over the world take their smoking addiction into the workplace. In doing so, many studies have been done trying to catch the effects before and after the Public Smoking Ban. In particular, the scholarly article “Effects Workplace Smoking Bans on Cigarette Consumption”; from Borland et al. (1990) gives statistics from an Australian Public Service who has been tested four weeks before and after the ban. The test gives the actual number of cigarettes smoked per day before and after the smoking ban. Employees are split into three groups, Light, Moderate, and Heavy. (1990, p. 179)
Also, Borland et al. (1990, p. 179) show the before the ban. Moderate smokers reach 15-24 cigarettes per day and Heavy smokers totaled at 25 or more cigarettes per day before the ban. Once the ban had been instilled Borland et al. (1990) states,
“ While light smokers did not change consumption, moderate smokers reduced by an average of 5.8 cigarettes per day (29.1 percent) and heavy smokers reduced by 7.9 cigarettes (26.6 percent)”. (p. 179)
Through the research, scientist found that the actual percentage of smoking went down within the people who smoke during hours of work. Many smokers that consumed during work hours would either, not smoke until late hours at home or miss many small periods of work because of the enjoyment of a smoke break is done twice as much since the ban had been enforced. Heavy smokers percentage also reduced drastically due to the psychological aspect of know one smoking with them. In doing so, heavy smokers felt that smoking was not as enjoyable because the habit was not enjoyed with others. The moderate smoker’s percentage also reduced, but some moderate smokers got through the day with their smoke breaks during work hours. Light smokers soon felt they were only smoking as a social event, causing some smokers to fully give up the habit entirely. Altogether, all of the groups reduced cigarette consumption after the smoking ban was active. (Borland et al. 1990, p. 180)
While the public smoking bans have shown a reduction towards cigarette consumption in the workplace, a positive result can also be said for restaurants and bars. Through Robert Fleck and Andrew Hanssens(2008) article “Why Understanding Smoking Bans is Important For Estimating Their Effects: California’s Restaurant Smoking Bans and Restaurant Sales”, it was determined through research in California that most restaurants had high revenues caused from the majority of the state’s public smoking bans (Fleck & Henssen, 2008, p.71 pp.72). While this may be a special case because California was and continues to be a pioneer in the realm of secondhand smoke protection, According to (Alamar & Glantz, 2004, p. 71),“ Restaurant smoking bans are positively associated with the market value of restaurants and controlling revenue, therefore the smoking bans make restaurants more valuable”.
Focusing on the demo graphical connection, many begin following the smoking ban as a trend. In which, it seems natural to not be allowed to smoke in restaurants because know one else is allowed, and then one knows they ought not to do so. In doing so, the restaurants property value can go up because it is in an area where the smoking ban has been instilled. Customers begin to want to go where there is no smoking because that is the trend, resulting in an increase in revenue for the restaurant owners in an enforced public smoking ban area (Fleck & Hessen, 2008 p. 71).
Although restaurants seem to be a major topic people think would be affected by the public smoking bans, international tourism is the biggest business in the world today, which could be affects in many ways by the smoking ban. It is commonly thought that Europeans would be against the smoking bans (Charlesworth & Glantz, 1990, p. 1916). Through the research done by the Philip Morris Corporation, we are told the belief is incorrect. As shown in figure 2, Morris (1990, p. 1916) collected 1000 people in each of the 10 European countries and found that Europeans were more accepting to the public smoking bans, while the Americans were less accepting.
Morris, P. (1999,April 15). Tobacco issues 1989: how today’s smokers and non-smokers in Europe feel about smoking issues. Web. p. 1916. http://www.pmdocs.com
The smoking bans did not have an impact on international tourism like many thought. Research shows that it might have even helped tourism. Some establishments began to have smoking rooms installed to their facility, but only if passed by the government. It is very rare to be granted the privilege of having designated smoke rooms (p. 1917). According to Charlesworth & Glantz (1990), the patrons and employees in tourist attraction areas show enjoyment in a means of protection from the second hand tobacco toxins with thoughts that it might have an adverse effect on tourism (p. 1916). Employees also find that it is more comfortable to work in a non-smoking environment, creating a more positive atmosphere during the work hours. The ban had a different affect within countries and large states. Joossens (2006) states, “places that have a high drinking population making the revenue decrease because many go home to drink and smoke. Employment begins to increase in restaurants due to more people applying because there is no smoke in the environment. (p. 73)
Although smoking is a personal preference, following the law is not. The public smoking bans have shown to not only reduce the smoking habits in the workplace, but has also helped increase business for restaurants. While many thought international tourism would have been affected by the new smoking ban, studies show that the ban didn’t have much of an effect. The ban may have even pushed tourism towards an increase. Through much research, the public smoking ban ended up having a positive effect in the workplace, restaurants, and international tourism
Works Cited
Borland, R., Chapman, S., Hill, D., Neville, O., (1990), Effects of workplace Smoking Bans on Cigarette Consumption, American Journal of Public Health, 178-180.
Fleck, R., Hanssen, A., (2008) Why Understand Smoking Bans is Important for Establishing the Effects: California restaurants smoking bans and restaurant sales, Western Economic Association International, 60-76.
Alamar, B., Glantz, A., (2004), Smoke-Free Ordinances Increase Restaurant Profit and Value, Contemporary Economic Policy, 520-25.
Charlesworth, A., Glantz, S., (1990), Tourism and Hotel Revenues Before and After Passage of Smoke-Free Restaurant Ordinances, The Journal of the American Medical Association, 1911-1918.
Joossens, L., (2004), Economic Impact on Smoking Ban in Bars and Restaurants, Lifting the Smokescreen, 63-82.
