Smoking ban's pros outweigh cons of lost business
Thursday, January 3, 2008 8:10 AM PST
Printable version
E-mail this articleProponents of the 2005 citizens' initiative to ban indoor smoking in the state predicted that the restriction would have little, if any impact, on the small businesses in the hospitality and gambling industries that were opposing it. A state report released in November -- on the two-year anniversary of the measure's approval -- appears to bear that prediction out. It found that the smoking ban's impact has been "negligible."
Yet, in a Tuesday article by Daily News reporter Barbara LaBoe on the ban's impact locally, several area bar and tavern owners insist that the law's effect on their businesses has been anything but negligible. Bruce Birchfield, owner of Kelso's Maltese Bar and Grill said he's experienced an 18- to 20-percent drop in his business. The owner of Longview's Broadway Tavern, Russ Kallich, estimated that he's lost 15 to 20 percent of his business because of the indoor smoking ban.
How do we square these reported losses at local businesses with the state Department of Revenue's November report? It found that, from second quarter 2006 to 2007, restaurant and bar sales statewide increased 8.2 percent compared to 7.9 percent growth in total taxable retail sales? Jim Springer, owner of the Scottie Lounge at Hilander Bowl, told LaBoe that the state figures don't tell the whole story. "The revenue might be up," he said, "but not to the growth rate it should be. To stay even with price increases and inflation and the costs of fuel and the general cost of doing business, people have had to raise their prices." Also, Springer added, some businesses have cut back on their hours of operation.
The suggestion that the Department of Revenue figures tend to mask the real impact of the smoking ban on many small bars and taverns may be accurate. Certainly, no one can dispute the declining profits these local businessmen report. Still, there is too much to recommend this indoor smoking ban to entertain any thought of repealing or modifying it.
Years ago, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency declared secondhand smoke a class A carcinogen -- the highest cancer risk category. Exposure to it increases the risk of heart disease, stroke and lung cancer. The link between secondhand smoke and heart attacks is especially concerning. The American Heart Association has estimated that 35,000 nonsmokers die each year from the effects of secondhand smoke on the heart.
Sixty-three percent of Washington voters decided two years ago that nonsmokers shouldn't be subjected to the health risks associated with secondhand smoke. It was the right decision, in our view, and should stand.
Past Month's Most Commented Stories