Ban Damage: MO State Damage

Missouri State Update

New St. Louis AQ study published by Washington University proves once again shs is not a workplace health hazard
September 10, 2010
The test results prove secondhand smoke levels in St. Louis MO. establishments tested are 110 to 877 times SAFER than OSHA workplace air quality requirements.
(See test result document at bottom of page)
Airborne nicotine levels ranged from 0.015 to 25.14 ug/m3. The median (interquartile range) airborne nicotine levels in venues that allowed smoking was 2.83 μg/m3 (0.57-4.56 μg/m3)
The information that interests us are the AQ test results of airborne nicotine in the smoking venues 0.57 to 4.56 (micrograms) ug/m3
Why do experts measure the trace chemical nicotine in secondhand smoke?
Nicotine is the only unique or “trace” chemical in secondhand smoke. If you measured for formaldehyde, the carpet and other interior sources of formaldehyde would corrupt the test result, formaldehyde is formed naturally in our atmosphere due to photochemical oxidation. Benzene is given off from burning foods in the kitchen or diesel exhaust outdoors so again a false reading would be obtained. Therefore, nicotine is the ideal chemical to measure to determine secondhand smoke concentrations in the air. And then our comparison to OSHA guidelines is the logical manner in which to determine if secondhand smoke levels pose a health hazard, as you can see, according to OSHA, the authority on workplace safety, they do not. If you wanted you could measure every airborne chemical in secondhand smoke and then compare them to OSHA guidelines for each specific chemical, the results would be the same, if not more dramatic.
The OSHA permissible exposure limit for nicotine is 0.5 (milligrams) mg/m3 or 500 (micrograms) ug/m3, (full OSHA table can be found here) so now let’s do the math:
500 (OSHA safe level) divided by 0.57 = shs levels are 877.19 times SAFER than OHSA permissible exposure limits
500 (OSHA safe level) divided by median 2.83 = shs levels are 176.68 times SAFER than OHSA permissible exposure limits
500 (OSHA safe level) divided by 4.56 = shs levels are 109.65 times SAFER than OHSA permissible exposure limits
None of the secondhand smoke air quality readings represent a workplace health hazard as you can see above.
And the test results by Washington U are very similar to all the AQ testing conducted globally in recent years.

Thank you Washington University for proving our point once again…..secondhand smoke is not a workplace health hazard, and doesn’t require government legislation. Especially in light of the fact that smoking bans eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs:

Final note, the paper’s first sentence claims “there is no known safe level of secondhand smoke exposure”, obviously that is a false statement as we’ve just demonstrated above.

IPCPR Says ‘Show Me’ Missourians Won’t be Pressured into Smoking Bans
St. Louis, Missouri February 12, 2009 – The ‘Show-Me’ state is showing it won’t be pressured by anti-smoking activists into legislating unnecessary smoking bans, according to the International Premium Cigar and Pipe Retailers Association.
While some city, county and state legislators may be revisiting the possibility of new smoking bans in Missouri, smokers and non-smokers alike have been voicing their opposition to forced smoking bans, especially in places where children are not allowed or adults have an option to go elsewhere.
“The marketplace is deciding what businesses should allow smoking or not, and that’s the way it should be. Government shouldn’t be taking away the rights of business owners to run their enterprises as the market dictates, not big government” said Chris McCalla, legislative director of the IPCPR.
McCalla cited a 2007 survey by the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services that showed only 13 percent of the state’s adults avoided restaurants where smoking is allowed.
“That means there are plenty of restaurants that already have declared themselves smoke-free, so there’s no need to take away the rights of other business owners by forcing them to ban smoking on their premises,” he said.
When anti-tobacco activists make overstated claims regarding the health aspects of incidental secondhand smoke, McCalla points to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration as well as the Surgeon General.
“OSHA – our federal government’s watchdog agency over the health and safety of workers – puts the alleged health aspects of incidental secondhand smoke into perspective when it sets safe limits well outside of the range one would find in a typical bar or restaurant, for example” McCalla said. “And the Surgeon General’s report says more than 100 times that evidence of the health aspects of incidental secondhand smoke is ‘inconclusive.’”
McCalla cited the Federal Reserve Bank and the Bureau of Labor Statistics regarding the proven negative effects on businesses from legislated smoking bans.
“The Fed has found that, based on impartial data generated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, significant employment declines result from forced smoking bans, especially in bars and restaurants,” he said.
McCalla explained his groups’ interest in issues dealing with legislated smoking bans.
“The IPCPR is a group of some 2,000 retailers, manufacturers and distributors of premium cigars, pipes and related items. Most of them are mom-and-pop operators – small business owners whose neighborhood businesses serve their respective communities.?? They have every right to sell their legal products and to allow their customers to enjoy those products on premise and off,” McCalla said.
Tony Tortorici

Casino revenue up 12 percent in May, thanks to extra weekend?
Local casino revenue spiked in May, according to figures out this week from Missouri and Illinois gambling regulators.
Gamblers at St. Louis-area casinos spent $93.8 million for the month, nearly 12 percent more than the same period last year, a figure likely boosted by the fact that this May had five weekends.
The growth was driven by two casinos: Lumi?re Place, the new facility in downtown St. Louis, was not yet open last May but this May had $15.3 million in business, its best month yet. And Ameristar Casino in St. Charles, the region’s biggest, saw revenue jump nearly 8 percent to $27.3 million.
Every other casino lost money from the same period last year, continuing a trend that has held steady since Lumi?re opened in December and the Illinois smoking ban took effect in January.

Clearing the Haze? New Evidence on the Economic Impact of Smoking Bans
By Michael R. Pakko
When making decisions about adopting smoke-free laws, advocates often give policymakers a Pollyannaish outlook in which communities can achieve public health benefits with no economic consequences. In particular, the lack of statistically significant economic effects is interpreted as indicating an absence of economic costs. Recent economic research indicates that this is a far too simplistic view of the issue.
A previous article in The Regional Economist (“ Peering Through the Haze,” July 2005) described some early evidence on the economic impact of smoke-free laws and suggested that the findings were far from conclusive. 1
As more communities have adopted smoke-free laws and more data have been gathered, economists have discovered new, significant findings. As an earlier article suggested, economic costs often focus on specific business categories?those that smokers tend to frequent.
Gambling and Smoking
Several papers have examined the cost of smoke-free laws on the gambling business, using data from slot machine revenue at Delaware racetracks (“racinos”). 2 Recent economic research finds conclusive evidence of revenue declines at the racinos after the Delaware Clean Indoor Air Law took effect in December 2002.
In my recent research on the topic, I find statistically significant losses at all three Delaware racinos?ranging from 8.9 percent to 17.8 percent. 3 Overall, the statewide revenue decline was 14.9 percent. Using slightly different methods that estimate demand for casino gambling, economists Richard Thalheimer and Mukhtar Ali estimate the total revenue loss at 15.9 percent.
These revenue estimates may significantly understate profit losses. For example, the racino that suffered the smallest loss in revenues?Dover Downs?also was the only one with a luxury hotel on site. Dover Downs management responded to initial revenue losses by offering more discounts on hotel rooms. 4 Efforts to prop up revenue may have been partly successful, but at a cost to the bottom line.
Evidence on the effect of smoking bans on gaming revenue shows that when analysis can be narrowly focused on data from specific businesses, statistically significant findings emerge. Another approach is to use very large data sets. As smoking bans have spread across the country, the variety and timing of adopting smoke-free laws have generated data that can help identify effects.
Bar and Restaurant Employment
Two papers, one by Ryan Phelps and the other by Scott Adams and Chad Cotti, have used data available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to examine the employment effects of smoking bans. Using nationwide county-level data, these two studies examine the changes in employment at bars and restaurants after communities adopt smoking bans. Neither study finds significant employment changes at restaurants, on average, but both find statistically significant employment declines at bars, with loss estimates ranging from 4 percent to 16 percent.
Adams and Cotti also examine some additional factors. For communities in states with a higher ratio of smokers to nonsmokers than the national average, employment losses at bars were significantly larger, and the employment changes at restaurants went from a small positive effect to a small negative effect (in neither case, statistically significant). Climate also affected restaurant employment. 5 Restaurants in warm climates fared better than those in cooler climates. The authors suggest that the reason for this might be that restaurants in warmer climates can more easily provide outdoor seating where smoking is not prohibited. (See also the sidebar on Columbia, Mo.) Restaurants that suffered the dual curse of being in regions with colder climates and a high prevalence of smokers suffered statistically significant employment losses, on average.
California Dreamin’
Another recent economic study examines taxable sales receipts of bars and restaurants in California, the home of the smoke-free movement. Because California communities passed some of the nation’s first smoke-free laws, much of the early evidence on the subject was based on these data on California taxable sales receipts; as time has passed, those data have accumulated. The experience of California also provides a case in which a statewide smoking ban was superimposed on a patchwork of local smoke-free laws, providing useful variation in the coverage and jurisdiction of smoking bans that can be exploited in empirical analysis.
Economists Robert Fleck and Andrew Hanssen analyzed quarterly restaurant sales data for 267 California cities over 25 years. They find that the measured impact of smoking bans differs between local bans and the statewide ban. In what the authors call their “na?ve” specification that treats all smoke-free laws the same, they find a statistically significant 4 percent decline in revenues associated with smoking bans.
When they estimate the effects of the statewide ban and local bans independently, they find that the measured decline in restaurant sales is attributable to the statewide ban on cities without local bans. The measured effect of the statewide ban is nearly 4 percent, and it is statistically significant. The independent effect of local smoking ordinances is estimated to be very small and is not significant. These findings are consistent with the interpretation that locally originated smoking bans have little effect, but smoking bans that are imposed on a community by a higher jurisdiction can have a detrimental economic impact.
Fleck and Hanssen go on to uncover an important specification problem: They find that cities that adopted smoke-free laws were systematically different from those that did not. The authors find that sales growth tends to be a predictor of smoking bans, rather than the other way around. This “reverse causality” calls into question many earlier findings, and it poses problems for using data from California in drawing inferences about the economic impact of smoking bans elsewhere.
The Role of Economic Research
Economic effects of smoke-free laws may be difficult to identify and interpret, but analysis suggests that at least some businesses do suffer costs. When they consider passing smoking bans, policymakers should study evidence both from public health professionals and from economists.
District Focus: Smoking Ban Singes Columbia, Mo.
Since January 2007, all bars and restaurants in Columbia, Mo., have been required to be smoke-free. Only some sections of outdoor patios are exempt from the requirement.
Some local businesses have continued to oppose the Columbia Clean Air Ordinance, circulating petitions to repeal the law by ballot initiative. According to local press reports, owners of at least four establishments have cited the smoking ban as a factor in their decision to close their doors in 2007.
Recent data from the city of Columbia show a distinct decline in sales tax receipts at bars and restaurants. After rising at an average rate of 6.8 percent from 2002 through 2006, tax revenue declined at an annual rate of 1.3 percent over the first seven months of 2007. (See graph.) Although the data are still preliminary, initial analysis suggests a 5 percent decline in overall sales revenue at Columbia dining establishments since the implementation of the smoking ban. This estimate takes into account past trends, seasonal fluctuations in the data and an overall slowdown in sales tax revenue in Columbia. 6
One interesting feature of the Columbia story is the response of restaurant owners to the patio exemption. According to an article in the Columbia Missourian, owners of at least two bars are building or planning outdoor patio expansions. One owner was quoted as saying, “You have to have a patio to survive.” 7 The expenses associated with these renovations may help buffer the sales revenue of these establishments, but they also represent profit losses that are above and beyond the measured sales declines.
Columbia, Mo., Dining Tax Revenue
Michael R. Pakko is an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. To see more of Pakko’s work, go to
This article is based on a presentation at the Sixth Annual ERIE Conference on Local Government and Economics, Erie Pa., Aug.14, 2007.
1.?Scollo et al. (2003) provide a review of previous literature, much of which has been published in medical and public health journals.
2.?Previous studies of the Delaware racino case study have been published?and disputed?in the public health journal Tobacco Control.
3.?See Pakko (forthcoming).
4.?See Dover Downs (2004).
5.?Bar employment was not significantly affected by climate differences.
6.?See Pakko (2007).
7.?See Solberg (2007).
Adams, Scott; and Cotti, Chad D. “The Effect of Smoking Bans on Bars and Restaurants: An Analysis of Changes in Employment.” The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy: Vol. 7, Issue 1, Contributions, Article 12. See
See Dover Downs Gaming and Entertainment Inc. Annual Report for the Fiscal Year ended Dec. 31, 2003 (2004).
Fleck, Robert K.; and Hanssen, F. Andrew. “Why Understanding Smoking Bans is Important for Estimating Their Effects: California’s Restaurant Smoking Bans and Restaurant Sales.” Economic Inquiry (forthcoming).
Pakko, Michael R. “The Economics of Smoking Bans: Peering Through The Haze.” The Regional Economist, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, July 2005, pp. 12-13.
Pakko, Michael. R. “No Smoking at the Slot Machines: The Effect of Smoke-Free Laws on Gaming Revenues.” Applied Economics (forthcoming).
Pakko, Michael R. “The Economic Impact of a Smoking Ban in Columbia, Missouri: A Preliminary Analysis of Sales Tax Data.” CRE8 Occasional Report, Dec. 11, 2007. See
Phelps, Ryan. “The Economic Impact of 100% Smoking Bans.” Kentucky Annual Economic Report 2006, Center for Business and Economic Research, Gatton College of Business and Economics, University of Kentucky, 2006, pp. 31-34.
Thalheimer, Richard; and Ali, Mukhtar M. “The Demand for Casino Gaming with Special Reference to a Smoking Ban.” Economic Inquiry (forthcoming).
Scollo, M.; Lal, A.; Hyland, A.; and Glantz, S. “Review of the Quality of Studies on the Economic Effects of Smoke-free Policies on the Hospitality Industry.” Tobacco Control, 2003, Vol. 12, pp. 13-20.
Solberg, Christy. “Effects of Smoking Ban Still Debated.” Columbia Missourian, Sept. 27, 2007. See .
At 10:55 AM 4/10/2008, wrote:

My page is designed to serve as a resource of economic studies and media reports which prove bans hurt business. To my knowledge, is the best collection in the world for studies (including the one I did with Mike Mcfadden) to prove the economic impact is real. On my main page i also critiqued the Maryville MO study which claimed bans do not harm business and accumulated some data showing the Pueblo CO ban hurt business.?

For an analysis of the purported health benefit a Columbia Missouri smoking ban would have on the health of hospitality workers, please visit which reports each 1% drop in income is associated with 21 more premature deaths per 100,000 persons in the USA each year. An estimated 5% drop in real buying dollars in Columbia, MO post-ban for example, would cause 5 x 21 = 105 more deaths per 100,000 bar and restaurant employees in those Columbia establishments serving liquor each year.? For a comparison, the antismoking establishment claims secondhand smoke causes 53,000 premature deaths each year in the USA among 200 million adults. This works out to 26 deaths per 100,000 persons each year. If all this is true, then the Columbia ban causes 4 times more premature deaths each year among hospitality workers, than the secondhand smoke was claimed to be causing pre-ban .

Smoking bans have negative impact on bottom line
Adam Allington, KWMU
ST. LOUIS, MO (2008-01-24) An economist with the Federal Reserve Bank in St. Louis says that the economic impact of smoking bans may be more significant than previously thought.
Illinois implemented statewide ban in bars, restaurants and public buildings starting this month. St. Louis County rejected a county-wide ban in 2006.
Michael Pakko published an article on the subject in the quarterly economic journal, “Regional Economist”.
In his research Pakko found that statewide bans like the one recently passed in Illinois, and city bans like the one in Columbia, Missouri, are both likely to decrease revenue.
“Bars are by far more affected than restaurants and the effect on restaurants depend on a number of factors including climate and whether there is a high prevalence of smokers in the community to begin with.”
According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Pakko says bars typically see losses ranging from four to sixteen percent of revenue.
His article referenced data from Columbia , Missouri , which passed a smoking ban in January of last year.
“In trying to identify the effect of the smoking ban, I’ve found that there has been about a five-percent decline in sales tax revenues in Columbia over the first seven months of the year, which is tantamount to looking at total revenues.”
Pakko notes that casinos are another case where smoking bans have a negative impact on revenue, particularly when a neighboring state does not have a ban on smoking.

Mo. Study: Smoking Ban Hurts Business
By JIM SALTER Associated Press Writer
January 23, 2008
ST. LOUIS — Familiar faces are missing at Betty Hamilton’s bar in Columbia.
The Tiger Club clientele is largely blue-collar workers middle-aged and older. Until January 2007, many of them smoked. But in the year since the mid-Missouri town banned smoking in most public places, business has decreased nearly one-third, Hamilton said Wednesday.
That’s no surprise to economist Michael R. Pakko of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, whose recent study showed that while towns like Columbia may see health benefits from smoking bans, the economic impact can be detrimental.
“All too often policy makers are given this package of smoking bans are good for health and there is no impact on business,” Pakko said in a telephone interview. “Certainly it’s not going to cause a town to go into the tank, but it will have a negative impact on some businesses.”
Pakko’s report appears in the January issue of The Regional Economist, a periodical of the St. Louis Fed.
The smoking bans are hardest on bars, Pakko said. He cited two studies showing both job losses and lost revenue due to the bans.
Bars and restaurants in states like Missouri with a high percentage of smokers are hit harder by smoking bans. Their employment losses tend to be significantly larger, Pakko said.
Climate is also a factor, according to his study _ establishments in warm-weather communities with smoking bans fared better than those in colder climates, probably because outdoor seating for smokers is a more viable option in warmer climates.
Pakko looked specifically at Columbia, where the city council banned smoking in most public areas effective Jan. 9, 2007. He examined sales tax data for the first seven months after the ban and estimated that sales declined 5 percent at bars and restaurants.
Pakko said his study took into account factors such as seasonal fluctuations, an overall downturn in retail sales and an unusually harsh winter.
Mayor Darwin Hindman characterized the ban as a big success. He blamed the failure of some establishments _ more than a dozen bars and restaurants have closed in the past year _ on a recent glut of new restaurants.
“When you have a change, whether it be a market change or regulatory change, some people adjust better than others,” Hindman said.
The council’s 4-3 vote in favor of the ban came after a committee of health experts suggested it.
“I’m firmly convinced in my own mind that there is an extreme health issue related to second-hand smoke,” Hindman said. “I believe the benefits are enormous and the restaurants are going to do fine in Columbia.”
Hamilton said her bar will survive, but business isn’t what it used to be.
“I haven’t seen some of my regulars in forever,” Hamilton, 47, said. “They go out to bars in the county, where they can smoke.”

Can it be true? Where there’s smoke, there’s economic fire


Apparently, there is money in vice after all.

From St. Louis County to Kansas City to Illinois, government entities considering a smoking ban are told that such a move won’t hurt the local economy.

They’re presented with studies that failed to find a negative effect from smoking bans, including some that suggest a slight positive effect. The latter seem to assume that more nonsmokers will patronize bars, restaurants and casinos, making up for any business those establishments lose from smokers.

Funny thing, but I haven’t seen any ads from Illinois casinos boasting about their newly clean indoor air.

In fact, Illinois casino owners are downright glum about the statewide smoking ban that took effect Jan. 1. And an emerging body of economic research suggests that they’re right to be worried.

Michael Pakko, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, has studied Delaware’s racetrack casinos, which were forced to go smoke-free in 2002. He finds that banning cigarettes caused revenue to fall by 14.9 percent. Another Delaware study, by two other economists, found a drop of 15.9 percent in revenue.

Pakko also has studied Columbia, Mo., which banned smoking in bars and restaurants a year ago. Through the first seven months of 2007, his preliminary analysis shows a 5 percent decline in sales at the affected businesses. His figures are corrected for seasonal fluctuations and other factors.

Why the disconnect between the pre-smoking-ban debate and the post-smoking-ban reality? “I think public officials have been led to believe that the economic aspects are not worthy of consideration,” Pakko said. “Policymakers are always looking for a free lunch, no matter how often economists tell them that it doesn’t exist.”

Pakko is a smoker, but he acknowledges that a smoking ban brings public-health benefits. Bar or casino employees and nonsmoking customers aren’t exposed involuntarily to secondhand smoke, and they’re healthier for it. It’s legitimate, Pakko says, for a city or state to decide that those benefits outweigh the economic costs of a smoking ban.

What legislators shouldn’t do, he argues, is ignore the costs.

Tom Swoik, executive director of the Illinois Casino Association, said he expects his members to lose as much as 20 percent of their revenue because of the smoking ban.

Given the Delaware studies, that may not be far off the mark. The Illinois gambling halls along the Mississippi have to compete with smoker-friendly casinos in Missouri and Iowa, and Swoik said some of his members estimate that more than half of their patrons are smokers.

The casinos are hoping that, armed with a couple of months of dismal revenue figures, they can convince the Legislature to exempt them from the ban. After all, what’s good for the gambling halls is good for the public purse. A 20 percent drop in casino revenue would cost Illinois $144 million a year in taxes, Swoik said.

But the politics gets messy when one group uses its clout to seek an exemption. In Kansas City, a citizens’ group wants to ban smoking in all bars, restaurants and casinos, but the city council has endorsed a ban that would apply only to restaurants. Voters may get a chance to choose in April.

It seems unfair, though, to differentiate between a bar that serves a little food and a restaurant that also offers drinks. It would be even more unfair to have one set of rules for the big casinos and a different set for the small business owners who run most of Illinois’ bars and restaurants.

The Research of David W. Kuneman. Proof that bans damage the economy.
The Research of David Kuneman

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.