Stay Informed

Sign up for news & alerts

Already signed up?
Login here

take action
For every $1 states spend dollar sign on substance misuse and addiction, 94 cents go to shovel up the consequences instead of for treatment and prevention. TELL YOUR LEGISLATORS

What Can I Do?



Continuing Education
Free online courses for addiction counselors LEARN ONLINE

Get Help
Need alcohol or drug help for yourself or someone else? GET HELP

 

Some Lawmakers Say Recession Argues Against Smoking Bans
February 13, 2009

Share Share Email
Email
Print
Print
SubscribeSubscribe
News Summary

Some state lawmakers and alcohol industry members say that the poor economy argues against passing laws banning smoking in public spaces because such laws could hurt business, the Associated Press reported Feb. 4.

A planned smoking ban at casinos in Atlantic City, N.J., was temporarily shelved as gambling revenues in the city slid, and opponents of smoking bans in Wyoming, Colorado, Virginia, and elsewhere are touting their economic case against ending smoking in bars, restaurants, and other indoor places.

In Virginia and Wyoming, proposed ban legislation has exempted bars.

"This economy, it creates a little more sympathy for the business person," said Mike Moser, executive director of the Wyoming State Liquor Association. "So when we say this is going to put us out of business, believe me, they're listening."

Health advocates, however, argue that the bans help cut smoking and related illnesses, which helps the economy in the long run.

To date, 23 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have banned indoor smoking. Studies have not typically shown any significant economic impact on bars and restaurants where the bans have been implemented. "This whole economic argument is hogwash, scientifically, but that doesn't mean it's not politically useful," said Stanton Glantz, director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California at San Francisco.

"To say that people want to roll back smoking laws because of the economy, it's absurd," said Karen Blumenfeld, director of the New Jersey Group Against Smoking Pollution. "We might as well roll back health codes because the economy's bad. Or repeal child-labor laws to make factories more profitable. It makes no sense."

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

Posted by Michael J. McFadden on 17 Feb 09 11:27 AM EST
So Stanton Glantz says, "This whole economic argument is hogwash, scientifically," Really Stanton? Minnesota loses about 380 million dollars in casino taxes in the first year of their ban and Illinois loses 415 million dollars from their ban while non-banned states are doing just fine... And you call that "hogwash" ? That's 800 million dollars that ALL taxpayers are going to have to make up. Would you like to help pay for that out of the millions of dollars in grant money you get to promote smoking bans and "denormalizing" smokers? I doubt it. You'll laugh all the way to the bank while ordinary people have to pay for your "vision" of a smoke-free world. Anyone who believes the sort of stuff Stanton Glantz or the other Antismokers spout should read the "Stiletto" at: http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/257.html to see how the bans are promoted by lies. It's short, one-sided, but it's honest and accurate in what it says. If *anyone* has any questions or criticisms of it, please stop back here and share them: I don't run away from critics... I'll be back. Michael J. McFadden Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Posted by SStahl on 17 Feb 09 11:45 AM EST
"Health advocates, however, argue that the bans help cut smoking and related illnesses, which helps the economy in the long run. To date, 23 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have banned indoor smoking." These two sentences--one after the other--tell the story. If smoking bans were good for the economy, then those states wouldn't be in any economic crisis and wouldn't be reviewing the real economic damage. If studies "show" no economic harm and that deviates from what is happening in reality, then those studies and their authors need to be viewed with mo9re skepticism.

Posted by Bill Godshall on 17 Feb 09 11:55 AM EST
Dozens of studies have found that smokefree workplace laws HAVE NOT reduced business by restaurants and bars (according to tax returns submitted by restaurants and bars). But Michael McFadden (previous commenter) is a right-to-smoke activist who believes tobacco smoke pollution is harmless, that all scientific evidence finding health risks of tobacco smoke has been fabricated by a vast conspiracy of researchers, health organizations and government agencies, that innoncent people should be forced to breath tobacco smoke pollution at indoor workplaces and public places, and that those who support smokefree policies and laws do so because they hate smokers.

Posted by ichoosefreedom on 17 Feb 09 12:10 PM EST
And Bill? You're an anti who gets funding for being one so those who live in glass houses... According to a new study, Loneliness is Just as Bad for You as Smoking http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/health/tips_info/Experts-Loneliness-Just-as-Bad-for-You-as-Smoking.html Have any of you supposed "health" groups ever thought of the mental health harm your bans do to the people who now have no place to go? Look at the article JT published about the alarming rate of suicides in Illinois last year. Illinois' total smoking ban went into effect January 1, 2008. You've got all this funding money. Have the RWJF fund a study on the suicide rates in states with bans in bars and clubs. You think "in the long run" bans will be good for the economy. What are you doing to the health of people who are lonely because all their friends quit going out because they can't smoke. And they HAVE quit going out.

Posted by brogers on 17 Feb 09 01:40 PM EST
New evidence regarding the economic effects of smoking bans. Please view graph. http://stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2008/a/pages/smoking-ban.html

Posted by Michael J. McFadden on 17 Feb 09 02:19 PM EST
Wow! I "believe in a vast conspiracy" 'n I din' even KNOW it! GollyGeeWhillikers! = - = Actually, while there are some "elements" of "antismoking conspiracy" ($10,000,000 conferences gathering 5,000 people to plan & promote smoking bans MIGHT be seen as "conspiratorial") for the most part, as explained in Brains, Antismokers act from many motivational bases. = - = I also don't believe that ANY sort of smoke is "harmless" in sufficient concentrations, despite Bill's claim. However I DO believe that in normal modern smoking environments the concentrations and "harm" are at a level where rational informed people would indeed consider it harmless in any normal sense of the word. = - = I try very hard in these discussions to be responsible about responding to criticisms and answering questions. For an example of Bill's diligence it's best to refer readers to Dr. Siegel's site where questions from 2006 still remain unanswered: http://www.haloscan.com/comments/mbsiegel/1673790206359163053/#181030 = - = Public policy needs to be based on factual evidence that people will defend when challenged. = - = Michael J. McFadden, Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Posted by banthebans on 17 Feb 09 02:42 PM EST
Bill Godshall says, "Dozens of studies have found that smokefree workplace laws HAVE NOT reduced business by restaurants and bars (according to tax returns submitted by restaurants and bars)." He says that because he is the director SmokeFree PA. I suggest that rather than tax returns, one look instead at actual sales in bars that have been devastated by smoking bans in every single state where bans are in effect. Generally speaking, real life is way more reliable than a study conducted by politically motivated groups like Godshall's.

Posted by mark wernimont on 17 Feb 09 07:38 PM EST
Apparently if you dissent the "expert, consensus" opinion and your argument is damaging enough, your comments will be removed like mine were. I'll take that as a compliment. By the way, smoking bans were the catalyst that destroyed the world economy....and brought about our current conditions.

Posted by mark wernimont on 17 Feb 09 07:57 PM EST
Smoking bans increased unemployment at a time when our economy was booming......but eliminating one hundred thousand hospitality jobs.....eventually has a negative effect on other industries. IE 100,000 unemployed hospitality workers stopped buying houses, or worse had their homes foreclosed on, stopped buying cars, stopped buying computers, TVs etc., then the homebuilders, automakers, electronic manufacturers, realtors, etc. started losing their jobs because of the effect from those 100,000 unemployed bar and restaurant workers.......and the snowball races downhill. 3,382 UK pubs closed after their nationwide smoking ban 1,000 -2,000 US bars & restaurants closed after various local smoking bans were enacted Nearly 300 Mpls / St. Paul bars & restaurants closed after smoking bans were enacted

Posted by Pagen on 17 Feb 09 08:22 PM EST
All I have to say is, What studies? It's all a bunch of hogwash along with the hogwash that SHS kills.

Posted by Melissa on 17 Feb 09 10:44 PM EST
Mark, and what exactly was responsbile for all of the closings PRIOR to the smoking bans? Restaurants and pubs are famous for a failing business plan and a smoke free ordinance is a convenient scape goat for those who want to continue to serve their addiction. So the reduction in asthma ER admissions in Lexington Kentucky after smoke free ordinance went into place is also a figment of our imagination? By the way, if it's loneliness and isolation you are concerned about, ask every widow or widower of a lung cancer or heart attack victim how it feels to suffer the rest of their lives alone because their loved one chose to smoke. Lastly, smoking bans destroyed the economy? Let's do a little basic math: In KY: 350 million annually in state revenue for tobacco sales, 500 million medicaid dollars for heart disease therapy and 3.8 Billion / year from Medicare. Can you do the math?

Posted by ichoosefreedom on 17 Feb 09 10:48 PM EST
The word T-R-U-T-H is not allowed at Join Together. They remove your posts if you dare to speak it. The are the propaganda media of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation who sells the ONLY over-the-counter NRT products who also bought the smoking ban laws with $99 million in grants to the ACS/ALA/AHA. You can't stop TRUTH, JT, no matter how many posts you remove.

Posted by Citizen of a Ban Area on 18 Feb 09 01:09 AM EST
Gosh so many businesses closed right after the smoking ban went in, in my area. I watched the trickle down affect with horror. Then those people who had businesses began loosing their homes and home losses boomeranged. I know most people I know, even non-smokers haven’t gone out in this area since the no-smoke ban went in where I am. I keep running across various things in print and it seems some people found a way to make money from a personal dislike, ignoring choice and honesty. They appear to be the type of people that would sell their mom and not look back.

Posted by Anonymous on 18 Feb 09 07:36 AM EST
PAHLEASE, it's a burning weed. We don't owe anything to the Burley gods. Do you really ever sit back and listen to what it is you are all arguing for? You are arguing for early death, dying, chemo, radiation, poverty, chronic oxygen therapy, lack of education and brain mets. LISTEN TO COMMON SENSE. It's ADDICTION TALKING! Almost 100% of patients with their first angioplasty and bypass surgery before the age of 40 are smokers, the other very small number are obese. "I choose Freedom" obviously doesn't have a child with asthma or a husband with heart disease because those who do can't even finish a meal or buy gas without having to run from it. An exposure means a 6 hour stay in the ER for those children. Citizen of a ban area: We aren't the type who would sell our moms, we are the type who would never think it's OK to kill our moms or our children or our spouses with 2nd hand smoke, then proclaim that it's a myth.

Posted by Michael J. McFadden on 18 Feb 09 01:17 PM EST
I may be wrong in this, but I think IChooseFreedom may be mistaken about the post removals: something I've noticed here sometimes is that there's a glitch where posts will briefly be invisible just to reappear later. It's something I've seen on other boards as well. = - = - = I've actually been unexpectedly quite impressed that JT has allowed these discussions as much freedom as they have. I'm sure they must be having to deal with the screaming meemies out there who most certainly do NOT want contrary arguments and information sources displayed to an "impressionable public." = - = - = Choose, try reloading the page (maybe even from another browser if you have one available) and see if those posts reappear. I've seen no evidence of deliberate censorship here that I'm aware of but I could of course be wrong. = - = - = Michael J. McFadden, Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Posted by Michael J. McFadden on 18 Feb 09 01:22 PM EST
Melissa, if you want to "do the math" on smoking costs and taxes, I'd recommend you read, "Taxes, Costs, and the MSA" at http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com for full discussion of the issue. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, even ten years ago, when taxes were a fraction of what they are now, smokers were ALREADY subsidizing the health care costs of nonsmokers. = - = - = Michael J. McFadden, Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Posted by Eric Helmuth, Join Together on 18 Feb 09 02:31 PM EST
We did remove some comments in this thread. We never remove comments because of the point of view expressed (as long as it is expressed respectfully) but we reserve the right to delete comments that we deem to be abusive of the process. The comments are intended as a forum for a thoughtful exchange of ideas about a specific article, not a free-for-all. Word limits on comments are there for a reason, and readers who exceed them by serially posting extended rants or manifestos will raise a red flag with our reviewers. Commenters who in our judgment unduly monopolize the discussion or otherwise violate the letter or spirit of our posted guidelines run the risk of having some of their posts removed at our discretion.

Posted by Michael J. McFadden on 18 Feb 09 08:45 PM EST
Eric! Thank you for the attention and explanation. You're a lot more responsible than some of the other webmeisters I've seen out there! - MJM

Posted by mark wernimont on 18 Feb 09 09:32 PM EST
"..Mark, and what exactly was responsbile for all of the closings PRIOR to the smoking bans? Restaurants and pubs are famous for a failing business plan.." -Melissa Yes bars and restaurants closed prior to smoking bans. The year before smoking bans were enacted here in Minneapolis a total of 14 closed in 12 months. Now 300 Twin City area establishments have closed since the bans were enacted. Nearly 300 Mpls / St. Paul bars & restaurants closed after smoking bans were enacted

Posted by Michael J. McFadden on 18 Feb 09 09:36 PM EST
Melissa, regarding pub closures: in the UK pubs were closing at a rate of three per week before their smoking ban. The ban came in and the rate shot up to THIRTY SIX per week. That's over a thousand percent increase in pub closures. Michael J. McFadden Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Posted by George B. on 02 Mar 09 06:38 PM EST
I am a non-smoker have been all my life but have been around it all my life. As far as my Dr. says I am still in perfect health. I am also in the bar business, have been for over 30 yrs. I won't try to say that SHS does or does not affect people, I'm no expert.Like I said I have been in the bar business and have seen the effects of the smoking ban as far as it effecting economics in the bars, yes it has effected the bottom line. The main thing I'm trying to say it, "People have a choice in this country (at least they still do) to enter a rest. or bar that has smoking". If their not comfortable about going in then go somewhere else.

Posted by Griff on 12 Jun 09 09:26 PM EDT
I found an Electronic Cigarette that I can use in banned areas and I really like it. The reason is because when you exhale there is no smoke only Vapour and you can choose the level of nicotine you want. Today on CNN they did a piece on the Electronic Cigarette and said the same thing along with other positive points. If you want to check it out go to this link. myinlife.com/smokeelc

SUBMIT A COMMENT:

Note: Comments are now held for moderator approval. More info

Name:

Comment:
(limit 250
words)

Enter this word
(help):
Change

GUIDELINES: 
Please keep comments on-topic, courteous, clean, non-commercial, and within the word limit.
Read the complete guidelines