CoPIRG Standing Up To Powerful Interests

Health Care & Prescription Drugs News

SearchRSS Feed

For Immediate Release:
2/27/2006
For More Information:
Kirpal Singh
(303) 573-7474 ext. 302

The Economics of a Smoke-Free Colorado

After years of debate and delay, the Colorado State Senate had the opportunity to vote February 27th on a comprehensive smoke-free bill. Just as regulations have been established to set health and safety standards in workplaces, a statewide smoke-free law is critical to protect the health of patrons and employees of restaurants and bars.

Secondhand smoke contains over 60 different kinds of chemicals which cause cancer. According to the Centers for Disease Control, secondhand smoke kills at least 53,000 nonsmokers a year, including 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 35,000 coronary heart disease deaths.

Rather than a debate focused on the clear public health benefits to all Coloradans, the proposed Clean Indoor Air Act has been slowed by claims that there could be an adverse economic impact to Colorado’s hospitality industry.

Fortunately there is no need to speculate or rely on anecdotes. Across the country, state and local governments, big and small, have passed health-based initiatives similar to the one now being considered by the Colorado legislature. Over the last decade there has been a wave of clean indoor air regulations passed in many states and hundreds of communities across the country. Today more than a third of the nation’s population lives in a community that has comprehensive smoke-free worksite regulations.

The scientific studies and empirical, independent data collected from these communities have found no adverse economic harm to their hospitality industries. As the number of people who live in smoke-free communities continues to grow, Colorado only falls further behind the rest of the nation in having adequate public health protections from the dangers of cigarette smoke.

Consider a study conducted in 2003 and published in the international scientific journal Tobacco Control. The study involved a comprehensive review of 97 economic studies done over the years addressing the impact of smoke-free laws on the hospitality industry. Twenty-one of these studies met the most rigorous scientific criteria for evaluation and not a single one of these studies concluded that smoke-free regulations were bad for the hospitality economy. The report concluded, “Policymakers can act to protect workers and patrons from the toxins in secondhand smoke confident in rejecting industry claims that there will be an adverse economic impact”.

In the same study, it was found that every single study claiming a negative impact was supported by the tobacco industry or an agency with ties to the tobacco industry. No industry-supported study met the most rigorous scientific evaluation criteria and is rarely published in the scientific literature. In other words, the studies that report adverse economic consequences from smoke-free regulations in hospitality economies are poorly designed scientific studies.

After California passed a comprehensive smoke-free ordinance, an industry opposed to smoke-free policies released a survey of selected bars in California that claimed a decline in business of 59 percent. Rather than rely on an industry funded, unscientific survey, California’s sales tax agency conducted an analysis of actual taxable sales. The agency found, contrary to industry claims, an increase in revenues.

Many cities are finding a positive economic impact as well. The city of New York’s Department of Finance found restaurants and bars added 10,600 jobs while sales tax receipts increased by 8.7 percent after going smoke free. Not surprisingly, Michael O’Neal, the president of the New York City Restaurant Association has since stated, “Smoke-free workplace legislation does not hurt business.”

Despite these facts and clear public health benefits of a comprehensive smoke-free law, the tavern lobbyists have proposed a ban on smoking in only restaurants. Also, the exemptions to the bill now include; casinos, taverns, race tracks and VFW’s. This proposal is opposed by the health community (CoPIRG, Colorado Public Health Association, Colorado American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, GASP, BREATH and CTEPA), a growing number of restaurant and bar owners, the Colorado Restaurant Association and community groups concerned about the health of all workers. Only a 100 percent smoke free law will protect all workers.

In contrast to claims of lost business and scare tactics by the tobacco industry, passage of the Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act will mean cleaner air and better public health.

SEARCH THIS SITE