The economic impact of smoke-free laws on restaurants and bars in 9 States

Impact of US smoke-free air laws on restaurants and bars by employer size: a panel study

OBJECTIVES

Thirty states have smoke-free air laws that ban smoking in restaurants and bars, covering nearly two-thirds of the US population. It is well established that these laws generally have a null or positive economic impact on restaurants and bars. However, all establishments in a geographic area are usually treated as a homogeneous group without considering the potential for differential effects by establishment characteristics. This study uses variation in smoke-free air laws over time to estimate their impact on employment in restaurants and bars with a focus on potential differences by employer size (number of employees). A two-pronged approach with a national-level and state-level analysis is used to take advantage of more granular data availability for a single state (North Carolina).

DESIGN

Observational study using panel data.

SETTING

1) US, 2) North Carolina INTERVENTIONS: Smoke-free air laws.

OUTCOME MEASURES

State-level accommodation and food services employment for all 50 states and District of Columbia from 1990 through 2014 (Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages); county-level restaurant and bar employment in North Carolina from 2001 through 2014 (North Carolina Department of Commerce).

RESULTS

There is no evidence of a redistributive effect of smoke-free air laws on restaurant and bar employment by employer size.

CONCLUSION

The lack of a redistributive effect is an important finding for policy-makers considering implementation or expansion of a smoke-free air law to protect employees and patrons from the dangers of exposure to secondhand smoke.

How restaurant and bar owners view clean indoor air legislation five years after implementation in North Carolina, 2015

INTRODUCTION

Smoke-free policies are effective in eliminating health hazards that can lead to chronic diseases and premature death. How hospitality businesses experience clean indoor air policies may provide leverage in States that have not adopted such policies. This study assessed whether North Carolina restaurants and bars receive complaints and/or experience benefits five years after implementation of the State’s smoke-free law.

METHODS

A 2015 mail survey was used to assess problems, benefits, and voluntary policies (i.e., policies related to the use of electronic cigarettes indoors and outside smoke-free seating areas) among restaurant and bar owners/managers. The survey yielded 135 responses for a response rate of 20.3%.

RESULTS

The two most frequently selected benefits among respondents were customers breathing less tobacco smoke (65.2%) and fewer complaints about secondhand smoke (58.5%). The majority of restaurants (79.7%) and bars (71.4%) reported experiencing at least one benefit from the law. Restaurants were significantly more likely than bars to restrict the use of electronic cigarettes inside. No significant difference was found between restaurants and bars in smoke-free outdoor customer areas. Bars were more likely to report problems with the smoke-free law (e.g. lack of outdoor space for smoking, compliance issues).

CONCLUSIONS

This study reveals successes of North Carolina’s smoke-free law. The majority of respondents reported experiencing at least one benefit of the law and some reported that they had implemented additional voluntary policies. Learning more about how hospitality businesses experience smoke-free laws can help other states and communities deal with similar policy changes in the future.

Sociodemographic Differences Among U.S. Children and Adults Exposed to Secondhand Smoke at Home: National Health Interview Surveys 2000 and 2010

OBJECTIVE

We examined the levels and change in prevalence of self-reported secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure at home, and analyzed sociodemographic differences in exposure among children (aged 0-17 years) and nonsmoking adults (aged ≥18 years) in the United States in 2000 and 2010.

METHODS

We included 18,731 children and 44,049 adults from the 2000 and 2010 National Health Interview Survey Cancer Control Supplements. We used multivariate logistic regression to determine the factors associated with exposure.

RESULTS

The prevalence of self-reported SHS exposure declined from 2,627 of 10,636 (24.7%) to 663 of 8,095 (8.2%) for children and from 2,863 of 23,665 (12.1%) to 897 of 20,384 (4.4%) for adults from 2000 to 2010. SHS exposure declined for all population subgroups between the two years, but differences were found. Compared with 2000, children aged 12-17 years in 2010 were no longer more likely than children aged 0-5 years to be exposed to SHS. Non-Hispanic black children and adults were more likely than non-Hispanic white children and adults to be exposed to SHS in 2010. In 2010, no differences were found for children whose parents had a higher level of education, and no differences were observed for children or adults with high family income vs. other levels of family income. Children living in the Midwest and South had higher levels of SHS exposure than children in other regions in 2010.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-reported SHS exposure at home declined for all population subgroups from 2000 to 2010, but socioeconomic differences existed for some subgroups in both years. Current tobacco control policies need to be improved to reach all population subgroups so that SHS exposure can be further reduced, especially among vulnerable populations.

Reactions to smoke-free public policies and smoke-free home policies in the Republic of Georgia: results from a 2014 national survey

OBJECTIVES

We examined receptivity to public smoke-free policies and smoke-free home status among adults in the Republic of Georgia.

METHODS

In Spring 2014, we conducted a national household survey of 1163 adults.

RESULTS

Our sample was on average 42.4 years old, 51.1 % male, and 43.2 % urban. Current smoking prevalence was 54.2 % in men and 6.5 % in women. Notably, 42.2 % reported daily secondhand smoke exposure (SHSe). Past week SHSe was 29.9 % in indoor public places and 33.0 % in outdoor public places. The majority reported no opposition to public smoke-free policies. Correlates of greater receptivity to public policies included being older, female, and a nonsmoker. Past week SHSe in homes was 54.2 %; 38.8 % reported daily SHSe at home. Only 14.3 % reported complete smoke-free home policies; 39.0 % had partial policies. The only correlate of allowing smoking in the home was being a smoker. Among smokers, correlates of allowing smoking in the home were being male and lower confidence in quitting.

CONCLUSIONS

SHSe is prevalent in various settings in Georgia, requiring efforts to promote support for public smoke-free policies and implementation of personal policies.

Smoke-Free Public Policies and Voluntary Policies in Personal Settings in Tbilisi, Georgia: A Qualitative Study

Georgia has limited tobacco control policies, particularly in the area of smoke-free public policies, which may influence the adoption of smoke-free home rules. We qualitatively examined knowledge about and reactions to public and personal smoke-free policies among Tbilisi residents. In Spring 2014, we conducted six focus groups among 47 total participants—two among male smokers, one among male nonsmokers, two among female smokers, and one among female nonsmokers. Our sample was 48.9% male and 70.2% past 30-day smokers. Most believed that SHS was dangerous, with particular concern regarding the impact of SHS on children and pregnant women. Many had misconceptions about how to protect others from SHS and the effectiveness of some approaches. Many indicated that they had some type of home rules, but few reported a complete ban on smoking in the home. Even when some restrictions were in place, they rarely were effective or enforced. Common concerns about the partial smoke-free public policy in Georgia included its economic impact, perceived discrimination among smokers, and the policy being against the Georgian culture. These concerns were heightened when participants were asked about the possible implementation of a complete smoke-free policy. Educational programs are needed to promote smoke-free policies in Georgia.

Changes in Georgia restaurant and bar smoking policies from 2006 to 2012

Introduction

The purpose of this study is to examine the change in smoking policy status among Georgia restaurants and bars from 2006 to 2012 and to identify restaurant and bar characteristics that are associated with allowing smoking.

Methods

Data were obtained from similar cross-sectional indoor air surveys conducted in 2006 and 2012 in Georgia. Both surveys were designed to gather information about restaurant and bar smoking policies. Weighted χ² analyses were performed to identify changes in smoking policy status and other variables from 2006 to 2012. Weighted logistic regression analysis was used to test for significant associations between an establishment’s smoking policy and other characteristics.

Results

The percentage of restaurants and bars in Georgia that allowed smoking nearly doubled, from 9.1% in 2006 to 17.6% in 2012. The analyses also showed a significant increase in the percentage of establishments that allow smoking when minors are present. Having a liquor license was a significant predictor of allowing smoking.

Conclusion

The Smokefree Air Act was enacted in 2005 to protect the health and welfare of Georgia citizens, but study results suggest that policy makers should reevaluate the law and consider strengthening it to make restaurants and bars 100% smokefree without exemptions.