SMOKING BANS

Smoking Bans:
Effective policy or unneeded regulation
Recently the Indiana legislature passed a wide-ranging smoking ban that Governor Mitch
Daniels is expected to sign. This ban would ban smoking in all public places including
workplaces and restaurants but would exclude certain establishments such as bars, casinos, and
private clubs such as the Elks or VFW. Several towns in Indiana already have such bans in place
including Columbus, Seymour, and Bloomington. Bloomington goes even further in that it bans
smoking even inside bars. These bans raise many questions such as to the results of such bans
and whether or not the benefits outweigh the cost of such bans either economically or in the loss
of freedom of establishments to decide if they wish to allow smoking and of smokers to smoke.
Smoking bans do have many economic and health benefits and should be enacted across the state
of Indiana and the rest of the country.
One of the primary health benefits of a broad smoking ban is to improve the air quality in
public places such as workplaces and restaurants. According to Repace, Hyde, and Brugge
(2006):
Second Hand Smoke (SHS) contains about 4000 chemical compounds, including known
carcinogens such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), aromatic amines, volatileand tobacco-specific nitrosamines, as well as a variety of other toxic or irritating
compounds, including carbon monoxide, benzene, formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide,
ammonia, formic acid, nicotine, nitrogen oxides, acrolein, and respirable particulate
matter. SHS contains 5 regulated hazardous air pollutants, 47 hazardous wastes, and at
least 172 chemical toxins.

SMOKING BANS

While there are other possible contributable indoor air pollutants, second hand smoke is one the
largest and most preventable sources. This is especially true in the hospitality industry in such
places as bars and restaurants. A smoking ban that restricts smoking to only outdoor areas
greatly improves the air quality inside and outside of restaurants. A smoking ban in the city of
Boston reduced the level of respirable particles by 96% and the level of particle-bound
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by 90% in a study of seven local pubs (Repace et al., 2006).
Brennan et al. (2010) reported results of a study that indicated that the concentration of
particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns dropped 65.5% indoors and 38.8% outdoors at pubs
in Australia following a ban (p. 273). There are repeated studies that have shown similar results
in air quality improvement following bans.
The second health benefit is that a reduction in second hand smoke and improvement of
air quality results in a reduction in second hand smoke related illnesses. Sometimes critics of
smoking bans will dismiss such improvements as having no impact on the health of the
employees or patrons of such establishments. However, the health implications are very real
from second hand smoke and go far beyond just being a nuisance for the amount of time an
individual is exposed. According to Naiman, Glazier, and Moineddin (2011), In the United
States, SHS causes over 46,000 deaths due to heart disease and 200,000 episodes of childhood
asthma per year. According to Dove et al. (2010), the analyses of several studies of smoking
bans in the U.S. and Europe have found that comprehensive smoking bans were associated with
a 17% to 19% lower AMI hospital admission rate (p. 2206). Dove et al. (2010) found in their
study of a statewide smoking ban in Massachusetts, In cities and towns that had no prior local
ban, there was a 9.2% (P<.001) decrease in AMI mortality rates after implementation of the state
ban (p. 2208).

SMOKING BANS

The third health benefit created by comprehensive smoking bans is a possible decrease in
the number of smokers and the amount of cigarettes smoked. Dove et al. (2010) states,
Comprehensive smoking bans have been shown to reduce smoking prevalence by 3.8% (95%
confidence interval [CI] = 2.8%, 4.7%) and to reduce the number of cigarettes smoked per
smoker per day by 3.1 (95% CI=2.4, 3.8) (p. 2206). While this is not a primary intention of a
smoking ban the evidence suggests that there are some smokers who may be able to quit if not
exposed to second hand smoke in public places and others who would smoke less during the
course of the day if it were not as convenient to smoke.
Besides health benefits there are also economic benefits to smoking bans and one such
benefit is an increase in sales revenue to restaurants. Many smokers profess that they will not
frequent establishments if they lose their right to smoke and that the business will suffer from a
decrease in sales. However, the statistical evidence shows that restaurants usually see an increase
in sales and in the worst case scenario sales remain unchanged. According to Fleck and Hanssen
(2008):
While the evidence is somewhat mixed the majority of studies find bans to have either
no effect or a positive effect on restaurant performance. Certainly, some notable studies
fin that smoking bans improve restaurant performance measures substantially (p. 62).
Fleck and Hanssen focused their research on the smoking ban in California both the statewide
ban and previously enacted city bans. Fleck and Hanssen (2008) found, Municipal bans appear
to be associated with between 4 and 5% higher restaurant revenues (relative to restaurants in
non-ban cities) (p. 66). This would not be a surprising result given that non-smokers outnumber

SMOKING BANS

smokers by more than 3 to 1. There are likely non-smokers who are going to the restaurants after
the smoking ban that did not before.
Another economic benefit that would result from a smoking ban is a reduction in the
healthcare cost on both employees and employers. The improvement in air quality and
subsequent decrease in second hand smoke illnesses discussed previously would logically lead to
a lowering of healthcare cost. If the workforce of a business had the same non-smoker to smoker
ratio as the national average, then if an employer restricted smoking to outdoor designated areas
it would prevent roughly 75% of the workforce from being exposed at work to second hand
smoke they otherwise wouldnt have. The cost savings that could be achieved is also evident in
many employers efforts to promote smoking cessation programs and discounts that insurers
provide to employers who offer such programs.
While there are many benefits to smoking bans there are also costs that are associated
with them. One cost is the enforcement of a smoking ban on businesses. This cost would be
fairly low though as most businesses would comply given the economic benefits they could
achieve and possible fines for not enforcing it. Most businesses are already regulated anyways
and those regulator bodies could serve as the watch dog for violations. Excise police and health
inspectors already inspect restaurants for compliance with food and alcohol regulations and
could easily inspect for smoking compliance. Businesses would also potentially have costs in
building outside smoking facilities for employees for during cold or rainy weather. These costs
however would be small in comparison to the health cost savings they would achieve.
The main cost of a smoking ban however is the loss of the right for the smoker to smoke
anywhere that he or she so chooses to. This right however comes at the cost economically to the

SMOKING BANS

business and public places in which they smoke and at the health of all of the non-smokers that
they expose to their second hand smoke. The benefits clearly outweigh the cost in favor of
smoking bans and such bans should be implemented across the state of Indiana and the rest of
the country.