Smoking ban

Smoking bans are public policies, including occupational safety and health regulations, that restrict tobacco smoking in workplaces and public spaces.

Rationale
The major rationale cited for smoking bans is the protection of workers, in particular, from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke, which include an increased risk of heart disease, cancer, emphysema and other chronic and acute diseases. Laws implementing bans on indoor smoking have been introduced by many countries in various forms over the years, with legislators citing scientific evidence that shows tobacco smoking is often harmful to the smokers themselves and to those inhaling second-hand smoke.

In addition, such laws may reduce health care costs in the short term but do not calculate for the increased health care cost of an ever ageing population, improve work productivity and lower the overall cost of labor in a community, thus making a community more attractive for bringing new jobs into the area and keeping current jobs and employers in an area. In Indiana for example, the state's economic development agency wrote into its 2006 plan for acceleration of economic growth that it encourages cities and towns to adopt local smoke-free workplace laws as a means of promoting job growth in communities.

Additional rationales for smoking restrictions include reduced risk of fire in areas with explosive hazards or where flammable materials are handled, cleanliness in places where food or pharmaceuticals, semiconductors or precision instruments and machinery are produced, decreased legal liability, potentially reduced energy use via decreased ventilation needs, reduced quantities of litter, and to encourage current smokers to quit.

Medical and scientific basis for bans
Research has generated evidence that secondhand smoke causes the same problems as direct smoking, including lung cancer, cardiovascular disease and lung ailments such as emphysema, bronchitis and asthma. Specifically, meta-analyses show that lifelong non-smokers with partners who smoke in the home have a 20-30% greater risk of lung cancer than non-smokers who live with non-smokers. Non-smokers exposed to cigarette smoke in the workplace have an increased lung cancer risk of 16-19%.

A study issued in 2002 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization concluded that non-smokers are exposed to the same carcinogens as active smokers. Sidestream smoke contains 69 known carcinogens, particularly benzopyrene and other polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and radioactive decay products, such as polonium 210. Several well-established carcinogens have been shown by the tobacco companies' own research to be present at higher concentrations in secondhand smoke than in mainstream smoke.

Scientific organizations confirming the harmful effects of secondhand smoke include the U.S. National Cancer Institute, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the United States Surgeon General, and the World Health Organization.

Air quality
Bans on smoking in bars and restaurants can substantially improve the air quality in such establishments. For example, one study listed on the website of the CDC (Center for Disease Control) states that New York's statewide law to eliminate smoking in enclosed workplaces and public places substantially reduced RSP (respirable suspended particles) levels in western New York hospitality venues. RSP levels were reduced in every venue that permitted smoking before the law was implemented, including venues in which only second-hand smoke from an adjacent room was observed at baseline. The CDC concluded that their results were similar to other studies which also showed substantially improved indoor air quality after smoking bans.

A 2004 study showed that in New Jersey, bars and restaurants had more than nine times the levels of indoor air pollution of neighboring New York City, which had enacted its ban.

Research has also shown that improved air quality translates to decreased toxin exposure among employees. For example, among employees of the Norwegian establishments that enacted smoking bans, tests showed improved (decreased) levels of nicotine in the urine of both smoking and non-smoking workers (as compared with measurements prior to the ban).

History
Pope Urban VII's 13-day papal reign included the world's first known public smoking ban (1590), as he threatened to excommunicate anyone who "took tobacco in the porchway of or inside a church, whether it be by chewing it, smoking it with a pipe or sniffing it in powdered form through the nose." The earliest citywide European smoking bans were enacted shortly thereafter. Such bans were enacted in Bavaria, Kursachsen, and certain parts of Austria in the late 1600s. Smoking was banned in Berlin in 1723, in Königsberg in 1742, and in Stettin in 1744. These bans were repealed in the revolutions of 1848. The first modern, nationwide tobacco ban was imposed by the Nazi Party in every German university, post office, military hospital and Nazi Party office, under the auspices of Karl Astel's Institute for Tobacco Hazards Research, created in 1941 under direct orders from Adolf Hitler himself. Major anti-tobacco campaigns were widely broadcast by the Nazis until the demise of the regime in 1945.

In the latter part of the 20th century, as research on the health risks of secondhand tobacco smoke were made public, the tobacco industry launched "courtesy awareness" campaigns. Fearful of revenue losses, the industry created a media and legislative program that focused on "accommodation". Tolerance and courtesy were encouraged as a way to ease heightened tensions between smokers and those around them while avoiding smoking bans. In the USA, states were encouraged to pass laws providing separate smoking sections.

Up to this point, bans were limited to individual cities and counties. In 1975, Minnesota enacted the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act, making it the first state to ban smoking in most public spaces. To begin with, restaurants were required to have No Smoking sections, and bars were exempt from the Act. As of October 1st 2007, Minnesota signed into law a ban on smoking completely from all restaurants and bars throughout the state. This is the Freedom to Breathe Act of 2007.

In 1990, the city of San Luis Obispo, California became the first city in the world to ban indoor smoking at all public places, including bars and restaurants.

In 1998, California enacted a complete smoking ban that included an initially controversial ban of smoking in bars, extending the statewide workplace smoking ban enacted in 1994. The success and subsequent popularity of the California ban encouraged other states such as New York to implement bans of their own. There is an increasing trend for entire states or countries to pass laws banning smoking in various indoor public sites and workplaces, including bars, restaurants, and social clubs. There are now 35 states with some form of smoking ban on the books.

Again in the forefront, some areas in California have recently begun making whole cities smoke-free, which would include every place except residential homes. More than 20 cities in California have passed park and beach smoking bans.

On March 29 2004 the Irish Government implemented a ban on smoking in public places. In Norway similar legislation was put into force on July 1 the same year. In 2007, with legislation affecting England coming into force, smoking in all enclosed public places was made illegal and banned in the entire United Kingdom. The age limit for buying tobacco was also raised from 16 to 18 on October 1 2007. Smoking was also banned in public indoor venues in Victoria, Australia on July 1 2007.

1575 MexicoThe first recorded legislation prohibiting the use of Tobacco occurs when the Roman Catholic Church passes a law which prohibits smoking in any place of worship throughout the Spanish Colonies 1600s World-wide - Popes ban smoking in holy places and all places of worship. Pope Urban VIII (1623-44) threatens excommunication for those who smoke or take snuff in holy places. 1612 China Royal decree forbids the use and cultivation of tobacco 1617 Mongolia Mongolian Emperor prohibits the use of tobacco. People breaking the law face the death penalty. 1620 Japan bans the use of tobacco 1632 America The first recorded smoking ban in America occurs when Massachusetts introduces a ban on smoking in public places 1633Turkey Sultan Murad IV bans smoking and as many as 18 people a day are executed for breaking his law. 1634 Russia Czar Alexis bans smoking. Those found guilty of a first offence risk whipping, a slit nose, and exile to Siberia. Those found guilty of a second offence face execution. 1634 Greece The Greek Church bans the use of tobacco claiming tobacco smoke was responsible for intoxicating Noah. 1638 China The use and supply of tobacco is made a crime punishable by decapitation for those convicted 1639 America Governor Kieft of New Amsterdam beats Bloomberg by hundreds of years and bans smoking in New Amsterdam later to become New York. 1640 Bhutan The founder of modern Bhutan, Shabdrung Ngawang Namgyal introduces that countries first smoking ban outlawing the use of tobacco in government buildings. 1647 America People are only allowed to smoke once a day and public smoking is prohibited in Connecticut 1650 ItalyPope Innocent X's issues a decree against smoking in St Peter's, Rome 1657 Switzerland Smoking prohibition introduced throughout Switzerland 1674 Russia Death penalty introduced for the crime of smoking. 1683 First laws in America passed prohibiting smoking outdoors in Massachusetts. Philadelphia follows suit introducing fines for offenders. 1693 England First recorded ban in England introduced prohibiting smoking in certain areas of the chambers of parliament 1719 France Smoking is banned with the exception of a number of provinces. 1818 USA Smoking is banned on the streets of Lancaster, Pennsylvania. The mayor is fined when he becomes the first man to break the law. 1840 USA Smoking is banned in Boston 1893 USA Washington State introduces legislation banning the sale and consumption of cigarettes 1898 USA Total ban on cigarettes in the state of Tennessee 1900 USA The sale of cigarettes is now outlawed in the states of Washington, Iowa, Tennessee and North Dakota 1904 USA A women is sent to jail for 30 days by a New York judge for smoking in front of her children. 1905 USA Indiana introduces a total cigarette ban [[1907 USA Washington passes legislation banning the manufacture, sale, exchange or giving away cigarettes, cigarette paper or wrappers 1914 USA Smoking banned in the US Senate 1922 USA 15 States now have laws banning the sale, manufacture, possession and use of cigarettes 1938 Germany Smoking was barred in many workplaces, government offices, hospitals,and rest homes. 1939-1944: Germany Blanket smoking bans were introduced in many cafes, bars and restaurants. Women below the age of 25 and boys under the age of 18 were banned from smoking.  Restaurants and cafes were barred from selling cigarettes to all female customers.  Smoking was banned on all German city trains and buses in 1944.

Critique of bans
Smoking bans have been criticised on a number of grounds.

Government interference with personal lifestyle or property rights
Critics of smoking bans, including artist Joe Jackson and essayist and political critic Christopher Hitchens, claim that bans are misguided efforts of retrograde Puritans. Typically, this argument is based on John Stuart Mill's harm principle, arguing that the damage to public health through secondhand smoke is insufficient to warrant government intervention.

Economic loss
Another claim is that smoking bans hurt the business of those hospitality businesses, especially those near a border with a place that does allow smoking, such as another state or an Indian reservation, and there are media reports of individual establishments which have suffered reduced revenue since the ban came into effect. The recent ban introduced into Ireland suggested this when the number of fixed licenses required by the publican trade dropped by 440

Disputes over scientific basis for bans
One category of arguments against bans dispute the scientific basis for bans on smoking (see passive smoking).

Perceived hypocrisy
Some countries hardly enforce their smoking bans, and continue to profit from tax on tobacco products. This was suggested as a reason for the UK not having a smoking ban in place. However, a smoking ban is now in place in throughout entire country as of July 1 2007 (See Smoking bans by country.)

Questions over health costs of smoking
The main arguments against smoking being a "victimless crime" are the health risks of passive smoking and increased health costs borne by society. On the latter point, certain studies suggest that complete smoking cessation might actually result in an increase in total health care costs in the long run. This possibility stems from the fact that non-smokers live longer on average and can thus incur higher total lifetime health care costs. The argument rationalized that if non-smokers live longer, they also pay during their lifetime more taxes than smokers that statistically become ill and die earlier.

Because smoking related deaths often occur around retirement age for many people, and thus around the time when a person begins to pay much lower income taxes, the premature death of a smoker probably presents a net gain for the government in health care costs. It can also be noted that in many countries (especially in the US and Europe) the tax on smoking raises revenues that significantly outweigh the costs of smoking to healthcare as a source of net income to the Government. For example, in the UK, the estimated cost of smoking to the NHS is £7 ($14) billion per year, however the estimated amount raised through taxes is around £16 ($32) billion per year.

Bans may move smoking elsewhere
Bans on smoking in offices and other enclosed public places often result in smokers going outside to smoke, frequently congregating outside doorways and therefore shifting the problem elsewhere. Many jurisdictions that have banned smoking in enclosed public places have extended the ban to cover areas within a fixed distance of entrances to buildings.

A more serious concern is that bans on smoking in public places may lead to more smoking at home, as claimed by former British Cabinet Member John Reid. However, both the House of Commons Health committee and the Royal College of Physicians disagreed, with the former finding no evidence to support Reid's claim after studying Ireland, and the latter finding that smoke-free households increased from 22% to 37% between 1996 and 2003.

Smoking bans by country
Arizona becomes the first state in the USA to pass a comprehensive law restricting smoking in public places in 1973. California enacted a workplace smoking ban in 1994, and a complete smoking ban in enclosed spaces in 1998.

Ireland was the first country in the world to ban smoking in all enclosed workplaces, over 3 years ago, back in March 2004. This ban is now extending to outside buildings on a voluntary basis. E.g. Smoking is not allowed at the entrances to buildings in Dublin airport. It is only allowed in areas where signs indicate that smoking is permitted. In 2008, the country will ban advertising in shops and ensure that cigarettes remain out of sight when stored behind counters.

The United Kingdom followed Ireland, introducing a full ban on the 1 July 2007. France brings in a ban in 2008 when the existing ban will be extended to cover bars and cafés. Denmark started a smoking ban in bars, clubs and restaurants on 15 August 2007. The Netherlands and Romania will start a smoking ban in bars and clubs on 1 July 2008.

The only country in the world to have banned the sale and smoking of tobacco is Bhutan since early 2005.

Cigarette advertising
In many parts of the world tobacco advertising and even sponsorship of sporting events is not allowed. The ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship in the EU in 2005 has prompted the Formula One Management to look for venues that allow teams to display the livery of tobacco sponsors, and has also led to some of the more popular races on the calendar being cancelled in favour of more tobacco-friendly markets. However, pressure from fans has seen these decisions reversed, and Grands Prix such as the Belgian Grand Prix have re-appeared on the calendar. As of 2007, only one Formula One team now receives sponsorship from a tobacco company.

Incentives for voluntarily smoke-free establishments
Some smoking ban opponents nonetheless concede that in many localities, the number of smoke-free bars and restaurants is insufficient to meet the needs and wants of residents who prefer a smoke-free environment. In order to encourage the creation of more smoke-free businesses, some experts and politicians support tax credits and other financial incentives for businesses that enact non-smoking policies. During the debates over the Washington, DC smoking ban, city Councilmember Carol Schwartz proposed legislation that would have enacted either a substantial tax credit for businesses that chose to ban smoking or a significant additional licensing fee for bars and restaurants that wished to allow smoking. Proponents of such policies claim that they would help to increase the options for customers and employees who prefer a smoke-free bar or restaurant without infringing on the rights of business owners. Opponents of such tax measures counter that only a complete ban can fully protect patrons and employees.

Tradable smoking pollution permits
One solution to the problem of smoking externalities favoured by some economists is a system of tradable smoking pollution permits, similar to other emissions trading (cap-and-trade) pollution permits systems used by the Environmental Protection Agency in recent decades to curb other types of pollution. The proposal has been suggested by Profs. Robert Haveman and John Mullahy of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Emissions trading systems are generally favored by economists as a market-based alternative to direct regulation, because they yield a given reduction in pollution at lower cost, and may permit a reduction in administrative costs. However, the idea is not applicable in all contexts, and there has been little analysis of the costs and benefits in relation to smoking.

Tradable pollution permits as a market-based alternative to smoking bans can be applied as follows: Lawmakers decide the optimal level of smoking establishments for an area. The total fire occupancies of those establishments is totaled up, and one smoking pollution permit is issued for each fire occupancy. Permits are then auctioned off, and establishments are required to hold permits equal to their fire occupancy if they wish to allow smoking -- in essence, they are required to own the property rights over the clean air space of every occupant before any can smoke. Establishments with unused permits can sell them on the open market to smoking establishments.

Ventilation
Critics of bans point to ventilation as an effective means of reducing the harmful effects of passive smoking. A study conducted by the School of Technology of the University of Glamorgan in Wales, United Kingdom, published in the Building Services Journal stated that ventilation systems can dramatically improve indoor air quality. The tobacco industry has focused on ventilation as an alternative to smoking bans, though this approach has not been widely adopted in the U.S. due to the cost and complexity of widespread implementation of ventilation devices. The Italian smoking ban permits dedicated smoking rooms with automatic doors and smoke extractors. Nevertheless, few Italian establishments are creating smoking rooms due to the additional cost.

Effects on health
In the first 18 months after the town of Pueblo, Colorado enacted a smoking ban in 2003, hospital admissions for heart attacks dropped 27%. Admissions in neighboring towns without smoking bans showed no change. The American Heart Association said, "The decline in the number of heart attack hospitalizations within the first year and a half after the non-smoking ban that was observed in this study is most likely due to a decrease in the effect of second hand smoke as a triggering factor for heart attacks."

Similar findings are beginning to emerge from other areas which have enacted bans. Researchers at the University of Dundee found significant improvements in the health of bar staff in the two months following the ban. They tested bar workers' lung function and inflammatory markers a month before the ban came in, and again two months after it had been introduced. The number showing symptoms related to passive smoking fell from more than 80% to less than half, with reduced levels of nicotine in the blood and improvements in lung function of as much as 10%.

A 2007 study of the effect of the ban in Scotland showed that there was 17% year-on-year drop in heart attack admissions since the ban was introduced in March 2006. An analysis of the saliva of 39 non-smoking workers before and after the Scottish smoking ban came into force found a 75% fall in cotinine, which is a by-product of nicotine. The level of cotinine is a good indicator of how much cigarette smoke has entered the body.

Effects on tobacco use
One report stated that cigarette sales in Ireland and Scotland increased after a smoking ban. In contrast, another report states that in Ireland, cigarette sales fell by 16 per cent in the six months after the ban's introduction. In the UK as a whole, cigarette sales fell by 11% during July 2007, the first month of the smoking ban in England, compared with July 2006.

A 1992 document from Phillip Morris Impact of Workplace Restrictions on Consumption and Incidence, summarized the results of its long-running research into the effects of a ban. "Total prohibition of smoking in the workplace strongly effects [sic] [tobacco] industry volume. Smokers facing these restrictions consume 11%-15% less than average and quit at a rate that is 84% higher than average."

Effects on businesses
Although one of the most common sources of resistance to bans comes from businesses concerned that they will suffer financial losses due to lost customers, research seems to offer them some reassurances. A review published in 2003 of 97 studies on the economic effects of smoking bans on the hospitality industry shows that all the best designed studies report no impact or a positive impact of smoke-free restaurant and bars laws on sales or employment. A study in Sydney found that the proportion of the population attending pubs and clubs rose after the imposition of a ban on smoking in enclosed places. In the Republic of Ireland, the main opposition was from publicans. The Irish workplace ban was introduced with the intent of protecting others, particularly workers, from passive smoking ("second-hand smoke") and as a measure to discourage smoking in a nation with a high percentage of smokers. By and large, since the ban's introduction it has become accepted because penalties for violations are harsh, "outdoor" arrangements at many pubs (involving heated areas with shelters) were created in pubs that could afford them, and habits changed where many now choose to drink at home or at parties, which has had the effect of aiding the off licence trade.
 * Australia
 * Ireland

Ireland's Office of Tobacco Control website indicates that "An evaluation of the official hospitality sector data shows there has been no adverse economic effect from the introduction of this measure (the March 2004 national ban on smoking in bars, restaurants, etc). It has been claimed that the ban was a significant contributing factor to the closure of hundreds of small rural pubs, with almost 440 fewer licenses renewed in 2006 than in 2005. In September 2007, Japan Tobacco announced that it would be closing its cigar factory in Cardiff, Wales, resulting in the loss of 184 jobs. It would move its operations to Northern Ireland with the creation of 95 jobs. The company blamed a 50% fall in tobacco sales since 1999 for the factory's closure, which it said had been accelerated by the smoking ban. The ban came into force in Wales on 2 April, 2007.
 * United Kingdom

Six months after the ban's implementation in Wales, the Licensed Victuallers Association (LVA), which represents pub operators across Wales, claims that pubs have lost up to 20% of their trade. The LVA says some businesses are on the brink of closure, others have already closed down, and there is little optimism that trade will eventually return to pre-ban levels.

Three months after the ban in England came into force, The Rank Group, owners of Mecca Bingo Halls and Grosvenor Casinos, claimed that coupled with the Gambling Act 2005 which imposed restrictions on the number of £500 jackpot fruit machines, the smoking ban has had a detrimental impact upon its profits.

Bingo hall customers have declined by 600,000 since the ban's introduction. It has been reported that combined with the negative impact on revenue of the smoking ban, and government tax rules, one third of bingo halls are facing closure. In the USA, smokers and hospitality businesses initially argued that businesses would suffer from smoking bans. Some restaurateurs argued that smoking bans would increase the rate of dine and dashes where patrons declare they are stepping outside to smoke, while their intent is to leave. Others have countered that even if this occurred it could decrease the leisure (non-eating) time spent in the restaurants, resulting in increased turn-over of tables, which could actually benefit total sales. The experiences of Delaware, New York, California, and Florida have shown that businesses are generally not hurt, and that many hospitality businesses actually show increased revenues. According to the 2004 Zagat Survey, which polled nearly 30,000 New York City restaurant patrons, respondents said by a margin of almost 6 to 1 that they eat out more often now because of the city's smoke-free policy. A 2006 U.S. Surgeon General review of studies suggests that business may actually improve. Thus, research generally indicates that business incomes are stable (or even improved) after smoking bans are enacted, and many customers appreciate the improved air quality.
 * United States

In 2003 New York City amended its anti-smoking law to include all restaurants and bars, including those in private clubs, making it one of the toughest in the United States. The city's Department of Health found in a 2004 study that air pollution levels had decreased sixfold in bars and restaurants after the ban went into effect, and that New Yorkers had reported less second-hand smoke in the workplace. The study also found the city's restaurants and bars prospered despite the smoking ban, with increases in jobs, liquor licenses and business tax payments. A 2006 study by the state of New York found similar results.

Effects on law enforcement

 * Main article: Smokeasy

Another effect of smoking bans has been the smokeasy. As the speakeasy was to alcohol prohibition in the early 20th century, so is the smokeasy to smoking bans: it is a business, especially a bar, which allows smoking despite a legal prohibition. Numerous clandestine smokeasies exist in most jurisdictions with smoking bans in bars and restaurants, and have been noted widely, including in New York City       , Hawaii , California   , Colorado , Arizona , Boston , Philadelphia , Delaware , Dublin  , Utah , Seattle  , Scotland , Toronto , Ohio, Columbia, Missouri , and Washington, D.C..

As a result, jurisdictions which have passed smoking ban often unexpectedly find themselves having to use law enforcement to enforce their smoking bans.

Effects on musical instruments
Bellows-driven instruments – such as the accordion, concertina, melodeon and Uilleann (or Irish) bagpipes – reportedly need less frequent cleaning and maintenance as a result of the Irish smoking ban.

Outdoor smoking bans
In some places with long-established strict indoor smoking bans, experiments with outdoor bans in specific contexts, especially in public or government-owned spaces, have begun. The state of California has also enacted certain outdoor smoking bans.

Smoking has been banned on the streets of Tokyo's Chiyoda Ward since October 2002. Ward employees patrol the streets and hand out ¥2000 fines to violators. According to the cigarette company Japan Tobacco, Inc., 60 municipalities, whose residents make up 10% of Japan's population, have regulations to ban or discourage people smoking on the street. However, only three municipalities assess fines for violations.