11
SEP

Group Says Colorado Smoking Ban Having Negative Economic Consequences

Share this article: Share this article del.icio.us Share this article digg Share this article google Share this article netscape Share this article reddit Share this article myweb Share this article fark Share this article furl
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.

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).

However, the ban has had an abundance of critics both professional and public. Many bar and tavern owners, and even some restaurateurs, have been saying that their business has suffered because their patrons who are smokers feel their civil rights have been violated and they will just go home and enjoy not only their smoking, but also their imbibing and eating there, too.

Smokers have consistently said that they can understand a high-end restaurant choosing to ban smoking on its premises, but that it's traditional for smoking to take place in places like taverns and that it should be the non-smokers, not themselves, who should have to make the choice to take their business elsewhere if they don't like a smoky room.

OSHA has stated that it's highly unusual for tobacco smoke constituents to exceed its Permissible Exposure Limits (PEL) in the normal work environment, even in places such as taverns.

"OSHA regulations provide a safe harbor for business owners because compliance with OSHA Permissible Exposure Limits (PEL) protects them from unwarranted regulatory intrusion. Are Colorado bar and tavern small business owners deprived of equal protection of law through substitution of a special-interest smoking ban agenda for established federally regulatory policy?" asks CER consultant Norman E. Kjono.

Sep 11, 2007 8:01 am   Email to a Friend

Comments

Alecia on Dec 09, 2007 7:06 pm

I think that the smoking ban is a wonderful, great thing, that will help society alot. It's effects, in my eyes, are very good. The air quality in bars, work places etc. is so much better than it used to be. You don't have to agree with me. But I am a non-smoker, so I like the smoking ban.

Bobby L. Johnson on Oct 04, 2007 12:53 am

I agree completely. I am a Billiard Room owner in Richmond, Kentucky. The local Board of Health enacted a smoking ban approximately 3 months ago. I asked the Board for an exemption based on the absolute certainty of destroying my business. I was told that the financial impact studies show there is no harm to business. The only study I have read completely was done in connection with the University of Kentucky, in Lexington, Kentucky. This study did not include the most vulnerable businesses and explained away the negative numbers of the businesses they did include as seasonal variations and/or economic trends. Obviously, there was no detailed description of these variations/trends.

Write a comment

* = required field

:

:

:


9 + 1 =