Final Thoughts...

My main objective of this blog was to help inform readers about the effects that smoking bans have had on the financial health as well as the physical health of cities and states that have enacted smoking bans.

Smoke-Free Ohio, the group responsible for Issue 5, made available to people a study of the financial effects of businesses that have instilled 100% smoke free environments. I think this document could prove to be helpful and thus enable people to make more informed opinions on where they stand with the statewide smoking ban.

I have found through my researching that for every study or article stating that there isn't any financial losses as a direct result of the smoking ban, you'll find another one that contradicts it and says that there is indeed a financial cost.

One thing that remains to be undisputed is that smoke free environments help to harbor a healthier general public. In the 3 cases I looked at every one stated that there was a reduction in the amount of heart attacks. And these decreases weren't minuscule, they were around 40% which is pretty significant.

So in the end it looks like the whole controversy over the smoking ban is a game of trade-offs. Which would you rather sacrifice, the health of Ohio residents or the profits for bars and restaurants? The choice is yours Ohio to be satisfied with the ban or continue to fight it.




**Photo Credit: This photo was taken by me and I used Adobe Photoshop for the special effect**

The Main Event: Ohio

Many of you are asking questions about what is going on in Ohio. I've been searching on-line for the answers for you, and thus far have had no luck as far as the statewide ban that went into effect in December. However, I can discuss the effects of certain bans that have been in effect in cities located in Ohio.

Bowling Green in Wood County enacted a smoking ban in 2002. Like most of the cities I have discussed Wood County saw a 45% drop in the rate of heart attacks in the months following the smoking ban enacted as shown in this article by the Toledo Blade.This article also talks about the economic impact of the smoking ban, however it discusses a conflicted findings. While the study showed that there was no significant impact on the financial health of restaurants and bars, owners said they noticed a drop in business.

In all smoking bans I have discussed thus far, the rate of heart attacks of has decreased in areas where bans have been put into effect, but will the same be true for the entire state of Ohio? After talking with my mother and the nurses she works with at the office of Alexander F. Zolli MD, a vascular and thoracic surgeon, the answer seems to be yes. "While it is too early to see the effect the smoking ban has on our current patients with heart disease, we are noticing more and more patients are asking about ways to quit smoking, for example about nicotine gum or nicotine patchets," explained Diane Shimo. "Because of the smoking ban our patients are wanting to quit and we believe that this should help to reduce their risk of heart attack and reduce the occurence of them overall."

An especially interesting story I found about Ohio smoking bans was one that I read in an article from Columbus Business First. In it they discuss how restaurants and bars in cities that already had smoking bans were actually pushing for the statewide smoking ban. The business did so because they thought that it would level the playing field. With that statewide ban they wouldn't lose business to other counties or cities because they allowed smoking. All I have heard about is how business owners were against it, but it makes sense that some were pushing for it. What do you guys think?


**Photo Credit: This photo was taken by me on Court St.**

The trade-offs of smoking bans in New York

The state of New York banned smoking in all workplaces (including company cars), restaurants, bars, bowling alleys and pool halls in July 2003 as part of its Clean Indoor Air Act. This legislation was enacted following the smoking ban New York City put into effect in March of the same year. The ban in New York City banned smoking in all restaurants, food-service establishments and bars. The ban in New York City was proposed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg called for the legislation in large part to protect workers from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke some experience while on the job. But years after the smoking ban has been in enacted many wonder if the economic costs outweigh the benefits in health for the population.

An economic study prepared by Ridgewood Economic Associates, Ltd., in May 2004 shows that in the year following the enforcement of New York's smoking ban, bars had significant financial losses in direct relation with the fact that patrons were no longer permitted to smoke in their establishments. An article by Scotsman.com shows that the argument that while bars may lose smoking patrons they will gain even more non-smoking patrons because of the smoke-free atmosphere is not happening.

While some New York bars and restaurants have experienced economic losses because of the smoking ban, do those losses outweigh the health benefits the population of New York is experiencing because of the smoking ban? In a research study done for the New York Health Department researchers found that hospitality workers reported less symptoms related to encountering SHS (second hand smoke). In addition they noticed that the level of saliva cotinine levels also decreased in correlation with the decreased exposure to SHS.

In the year following the implementation many business owners worried about their loss of revenue, it appears now that despite studies done in 2004,current trends for 2006 and 2007 show an increase in tourism and business. In a recent article by John Hopkins School of Public Health it discusses that restaurant receipts are up 8% from pre-ban records and NYC is doing more hiring. So in the end it all comes down the question is what seems to be short-term loss in revenue for businesses affected by the smoking ban worth it for long-term health benefits for the public?


**Photo Credit: This photo was taken by me in Times Square this summer while on vacation.

No smoking in "Marlboro Country"

I don't necessarily want to cover what is already happening in Athens, Ohio due to the smoking ban and step on the feet of another person in my class who is doing a blog on Issue 5, however I will share a bit of information that I found interesting with you.

Helena, Montana which is the capital city of Montana and home to 25,780 people according to the 2000 U.S. census, or a little over 65,000 including surrounding areas, enacted a smoking ban in June 2002 that prohibited smoking in all public areas. The ban was later revoked in December 2002 after being overturned on Constitutional grounds. Part of the irony of the smoking ban in this city is that it and other areas in Montana have been used as the backdrop for many Malboro ads.

The ban was only in effect for six months but had an amazing impact on the health of the individuals who live there. Within the six months of the smoking ban the number of people who suffered from heart attacks reduced by 60% according to an artcile posted on WebMD. While researchers do admit that the findings could be just by chance another article attributes that after the ban was lifted in December the amount of heart attacks rose to the same number as before the smoking ban was inacted.

The negative economic effects I could find information on were those by the area gambling facilities. The article states that there was a dramatic decrease in revenue following the smoking ban.

The ban was lifted in December 2002 because of constitutionality grounds due to the fact that those who violated the ordinance did not receive a trial by jury.

I found this dramatic decrease in the amount of heart attacks in such a short period of time fascinating. While it isn't necessarily information about Athens, I think Helena is a smaller town like Athens which may give you some insight to the impact a smoking ban can have on towns fo our size.

Ohio Smoking Ban: Will it "snuff" out businesses?

On November 7, 2006 58% of Ohio voters approved Issue 5 (Smoke Free Ohio), which banned smoking in all bars, restaurants, workplaces and enclosed public spaces. The smoking ban in Ohio went into effect a month later on December 7, 2006, and has been endured criticism and controversy ever since.

The biggest voices heard on this issue in Ohio are business owners who are afraid of the possibility of lost revenue from smokers who choose not to be patrons at their establishment because of the ban. Others argue that people losing their right to smoke in these places is an infringement on their personal rights, and that we are essentially giving the government more power over us.

Smoking bans in states is not a new thing there are many states with smoking legislation. The graph below displays the types of laws that certain states have in effect in the U.S. In addition, to state smoking bans many cities also have smoking bans, while I haven’t listed them, Wikipedia has a list as well as an explanation of the laws.

The ban on smoking is not just occurring in the United States, many countries such as Italy and Scotland have also banned smoking in certain places. The Global Smoke Free Partnership is trying to further this international trend.

The purpose of this blog is not to argue for or against Issue 5 but rather use information about the effects smoking bans have had on states with similar legislation to Ohio and try to make inferences about the impact the ban will have on Ohio. I plan to create a profile of the states with smoking bans, give the ramifications and explore the economic impact and effects on the health of its population after the smoking ban is in place. With this blog I hope to provide my readers with enough information so that they may predict what future effects Issue 5 will have on Ohio.

**Photo Credit: The graph above was made by me using Photoshop.**