SMOKING BANS DON'T CHOKE OFF ECONOMIES
Illinois will lose as much as $60 million a year in cigarette tax
revenue after an expected statewide smoking ban goes into effect
in January. Metro East casinos could see a 20 percent drop in
business. And while there's no way to measure the aggravation of
nicotine-deprived bar customers, it will certainly be
considerable.
That said, most indications from the experience of other
cigarette-banning states is that the economic sky won't fall in
Illinois once the air clears. . . .
Generally, there is little statistical evidence that smoking
bans cause any immediate change in the economy, according to a
Post-Dispatch review of data. "No statistically significant
changes in restaurant and bar revenues occurred after the
smoking ban took effect," concluded one typical study in 2002 by
the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, regarding a smoking ban in
El Paso, Texas. "These findings are consistent with those from
studies of smoking bans in other U.S. cities."
But opponents say that doesn't take into account the potential
long-range issues such as the slowing of economic growth. One
smoking-rights study claims that "smoker unfriendly" states like
California and New York saw as much as 25 percent less revenue
growth in their service industries during the 1990s as did
"smoker friendly" states.
. . .
Hannegan has since led opposition to several Missouri smoking
bans, alleging that medical data on the dangers of secondhand
smoke have been "knowingly exaggerated'' by health advocates,
and making a philosophical case for the right of adults to
decide for themselves whether to patronize smoky bars and
casinos.
Hannegan, like others on both sides of the smoking-ban debate,
cites an array of economic and medical studies supporting his
position, and slams opposing studies.
