On 5/12/04 2:22 PM, "Aaron Klemz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1) Economic impact is not uniform - Some businesses > will benefit, some will lose customers. Almost every > study picks a broad category that is thought to > represent a broad measure of the health of the > hospitality industry such as: liquor licenses, net > revenue, etc. What this obscures is the unevenness of > the impact. Even if the net result is a gain, the > individual losses could still be important elements of > any decision made. When advocates of a smoking ban > argue that the evidence to the contrary is > "anecdotal," what they are really saying is that there > will be winners and losers, and the losers should stop > whining. This is eerily reminiscent of our current > discourse on outstourcing.
Personally, I won't shed many tears over any bars that close due to a loss of business from smoking customers. Just like I don't really shed tears over the idea of cigarette manufacturers possibly losing income as more people quit smoking. I have little sympathy for those who seek to profit from poisoning people. But that's just me. > 2) Many of the studies that are the most positive > often are relatively isolated jurisdictions with > limited potential for "jurisdiction swapping" (such as > El Paso or Anchorage). In other words, there is little > research that on point answers the question of whether > there is business flight within metropolitan area. > This jurisdiction swapping is lessened with St. Paul > and Minneapolis acting nearly in concert, but doesn't > address the question of suburbs. I would bet that the > businesses most affected by smoking bans would be > located near a border with a non-ban suburb. Maybe so, but I wouldn't be surprised if any flight to suburban bars or restaurants is mitigated by the financial (and psychological) impact of gas prices continuing to hover at $2 a gallon. Hopefully that will continue long enough that smokers will have sufficient time to adjust to this novel concept of eating and drinking in clean surroundings. > 3) The "total receipts" measurements are distorted by > trends unrelated to smoking. As far as I could tell, > no study does a particularly good job of trying to > disaggregate the impact of smoking bans from other > economic trends. For example, the NYC study needs to > be examined in the context of a general recovery in > the tourism and hospitality industries post 9/11. The > NYC study points to a 9 percent increase in tax > reciepts, but there's no attempt to control for other > variables. I think this is a good point, but I also have to wonder if it's also a bit overly demanding. Just how would a researcher attempt to disaggregate such trends? I'm pretty sure it's unlikely there's a stack of little comment cards that asked "Why did you visit our establishment tonight?" and let people choose between "I enjoy the smoke-free environment", "I have a job again so I can afford to go out for a beer" or "I'm no longer afraid that the terrorists are going to strike at the neighborhood bar." > These points don't discount the sheer number of > studies that purport to prove that the business impact > of a smoking ban would be mimimal. However, I'm > suspicious of the "science" on both sides. These > studies frequently have poor methodologies, attempt to > measure the impact of a ban in a limited amount of > time (the CDC El Paso study measured the impacts of > one year of reciepts, the NYC "study" looked at 9 > months of results, and/or are funded by ideological > organizations. OK, but I think it's also worth recalling that these bans are still fairly recent. It's kind of hard to look at a five-year trend if a ban hasn't been in place that long. I don't want anyone to think I am singling out Aaron with this next comment but I've noticed that many of the complaints about these studies showing positive economic impacts seem to be using the same kinds of arguments (the study was flawed!, etc.) that has been used by numerous manufacturers to protect their status quo. For decades, cigarette manufacturers buried their own test results showing the negative health impacts of using their product (as directed, mind you) while publicly questioning independent studies and even running smear campaigns on researchers that showed the same results as what those manufacturers already knew. Same with a host of others, from paint manufacturers who wanted to keep using lead in their pigments to auto manufacturers who didn't want to be forced to install seat belts or any number of other safety features we now take for granted. Personally, I have far less reason to question the motivation of anti-smoking advocates than those who profit from such a vile habit. Mark Snyder Windom Park REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
