Group Says Colorado Smoking Ban Having Negative Economic Consequences

The Colorado Coalition for Equal Rights on Monday denounced the state's ban on smoking in public places, saying that data from the state's hurting tavern and bar industry gives the lie to the efficacy of the measure.

Colorado became the 13th state in the U.S. to ban smoking in public buildings in the spring of 2006.
Group Says Colorado Smoking Ban Having Negative Economic Consequences
Date: September 10, 2007
Colorado Springs, CO
United States of America
 

According to the non-profit Coalition, OSHA (the federal occupational safety and health administration) typically considers a regulatory action to be economically unfeasible if said action would cause a decrease in related industry or sector revenue of at least one percent or cause a decline in profits in excess of ten percent. Furthermore, says the Coalition, OSHA typically considers a regulatory action economically unfeasible if the action would cause a change in the competitive structure of an industry.

"The Colorado smoking ban violates all three OSHA economic feasibility criteria. As of the first quarter 2007 the Colorado smoking ban has imposed at least $16.8 million in economic damages on bars and taverns in the state, 6.4 percent of previous revenues, and many of our members are experiencing profit declines in the range of fifteen to forty percent," said Allen Campbell, Senior Vice President of the Coalition.

The Colorado law met with very mixed reviews, including a lot of hostile ones, when it was first enacted, especially in light of the fact that if you work from home, your home office is considered a "public building" and if you're a smoker you are thus restricted in what you can do in a certain part of your own home.

Many non-smokers who enjoy going out to restaurants unsurprisingly praised the measure, saying the ban made their outings more enjoyable. Here and there, one could even find a bartender who would praise the measure as well, citing that they didn't have to go home every night after work smelling like smoke (needless to say, these bartenders were all non-smokers).

Related information
 
Comments 1 - 10 of 12 Next >>
Comments
Type in Your Comments Below

-"cancerous" spread of government power. - that is precisely where I come from. My political leanings are very libertarian so I do believe in letting the market or the owner of such establishments make the decisions. CO made it out to be "concern for the health of employees" which is bogus. When you apply for a job, such as a tavern, smoke was a part of the deal. One would have to living on the moon to think differently and people aren't forced to work in such places...

Posted on 09/11/2007 at 2:09:00 PM

Clinton, that's very Leftist and Socialist of you (whether you're actually either one of those things I don't have enough information to know), but it's totally wrong. The point is that non-smokers don't have to go to the places that smokers go to, and private business owners are the ones who should make the decision whether or not to allow smoking.And the "breathing in carcinogens" argument is equally fraudulent--you aren't going to get cancer from second hand smoke if you are a healthy adult, period. That notion is anti-smoking propaganda (fyi, I am a non-smoker). If you don't like the heat, then just get out of the kitchen--don't ban cooking.

Posted on 09/11/2007 at 10:09:00 AM

What about one's right to be in a public place and not have to breathe in other's carcinogens? This idea that smoker's rights are being violated is weak.

Posted on 09/11/2007 at 10:09:00 AM

The anti-smokers claim that the vast majority want and demand that all hospitality venues be anti-smoking, which comon sense logic would suggest that if 20 % of all hospitality venues accommodated tobacco smokers, the other 80 % would get 80 % of the business and patrons, while the smoking venues would get their 20 % of patrons who choose to go their places. Both sides would be getting 100 % of the available patrons each caters to, patrons who choose where they want to spend their money. Both sides will get their share of revenues sufficient to stay in business. I ask, what's wrong with that ? Let people go where they want to go. That's Freedom of Choice in Democracies. Steve Hartwell http://www.reducedriskcigarettes.ca

Posted on 09/11/2007 at 10:09:00 AM

Great commentaries from everyone! It looks like the general consensus is that the real threat to our "health" here is the "cancerous" spread of government power. I for one have to sympathize with that view, on a wide range of issues.

Posted on 09/11/2007 at 9:09:00 AM

The bootlegging also costs the government more money in enforcement. They have to send undercover agents into the types of stores where they are sold and issue fines. The courts in LA county are so backed up, criminals often get credit for "time served" without spending a day in jail, just to move the cases through the system faster. Sometimes serious offenders get off, because their court date was not set in the specified time frame. Adding to that with the war on tobacco actually costs taxpayers more money. The numbers of people quitting smoking has increased which means layoffs in industries related to the cigarettes. Nice non-biased reporting.

Posted on 09/10/2007 at 10:09:00 PM

At the same time new laws are being created attempting to turn cigarettes into an illegal drug, taxes are being increased and people are working to legalize marijuanna. Due to rising taxes many people are buying online from other countries which is costing more in government paper work trying to impose taxes on that. In addition bootleging has increased. Border security is stricter now, but someone in San Diego can easily go into Mexico to buy a cheaper carton. The bootleggers of course have underground tunnels and other ways to sneak the product into the USA.

Posted on 09/10/2007 at 10:09:00 PM

Banning smoking in bars has not hurt the tavern or restaurant industry in California. I think cigarette machines were also banned due to underage people being able to access them. This would decrease revenue in bars. Now that they have been enacting laws that bans smoking outdoors it becomes a problem. Many drinkers enjoy cigarettes or cigars and if they can not go outdoors to smoke but can not stay inside it does create a problem.

Posted on 09/10/2007 at 10:09:00 PM

The reason for smoking bans is not about health and it never was about health. It is all about denormalizing smoking. Passing no-smoking legislation is a big step in that direction. Unfortunaltely the hospitality industry is caught in the cross-fire. http://smokersclubinc.com

Posted on 09/10/2007 at 10:09:00 PM

The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation from sea to sea has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed threat of second-hand smoke. The bans are symptoms of a far more grievous threat; a cancer that has been spreading for decades. This cancer is the only real hazard involved -- the cancer of unlimited government power. The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom menace. The issue is: if it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction? Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating people about the potential danger and allowing them to make their own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and force people to make the "right" decision? Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than attempting to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health, the tobacco bans are the unwanted intrusion. Loudly billed as measures that only affect "pub

Posted on 09/10/2007 at 10:09:00 PM

Comments 1 - 10 of 12 Next >>