Comments on: St. Louis Restaurants Go Smoke-Free

By: Jon L

Jon L — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:49:09 +0000

I have to agree with you on the second hand smoke issue…in restaurants…even as a smoker (soon to be EX-smoker) it’s thoroughly disgusting to smell smoke before, during or after a delicious meal.

Another PLUS for restaurant owners where the ban is passed is turnover… if it doesn’t affect their customer base, and a percentage of them are smokers, those people will want to be out of there soon after they eat so they can go light up. The restaurant will have tables free for the next patrons faster if people don’t loiter around and pollute the air.
It’s a win-win Karen… )

By: Karen Goodman

Karen Goodman — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:36:14 +0000

Stacy,

Thanks for providing some solid facts to the discussion. So many people just make assumptions that restaurants and bars would lose customers if a smoking ban was enacted in their city but not in nearby municipalities.

I think that the fact that Ballwin businesses did not see a decrease in gross receipts disproves that argument. Ballwin is surrounded by nearby municipalities with plenty of restaurants and bars where people can smoke. If they wanted to, they could easily drive 10 more minutes to get outside of Ballwin city limits. Sounds like that isn’t what has been happening.

By: Stacy

Stacy — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:48:44 +0000

The U.S. Surgeon General has stated, “the debate is over, the science is clear, there is no safe level of secondhand smoke.” Smoke-free laws aren’t against free choice but rather giving rights back to nonsmokers who have their right to breathe clean air taken from them. Smoke-free laws are simply asking smokers to step outside instead of harming those around them. In America, personal liberty has never been understood to allow one person’s behavior to damage or risk damage to another.

Regarding the “loss of business” argument:
Every independent economic impact study examining sales tax data has found no negative economic impact from secondhand smoke laws in communities across the country, and some have found an increase in business. The only studies showing economic losses have been conducted or paid for by the tobacco industry. Their studies are based on business owners’ perceptions rather than sales tax data. They typically emphasize anecdotal stories about how a restaurant or bar owner allegedly lost money after implementation of such a law. These anecdotal stories are neither supported by documented facts nor do they take other factors into consideration.

Ballwin, MO – enacted a 100% smoke-free policy on January 1, 2006.

Comparing 2006 sales tax data to the years 2004 and 2005 shows no significant change in restaurant related revenue as a whole. (City of Ballwin)

Tom Akin, economic development director in Ballwin, said life after the ban has remained status quo. After reviewing business license fees, which are based on gross receipts, two years prior to and one year following the ban, there was no dramatic difference in any business’s numbers. (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 6/28/07)