A new study predicts that a St. Charles smoking ban would cause a 13 percent increase in St. Charles drunk driving fatalities. People who never set foot in bars will be put at new and deadly risk. That seems unacceptable.

http://www.econ.iastate.edu/calendar/papers/CottiPaperDrunkDriving.pdf

let capitalism decide, will say Joe’s smoking bar do poorly, and sam non smoking makes millions

Let the free market decide…… What about people that do not smoke? Where are our rights not to breath in this horrible crap. Smoking is disgusting, not to mention a danger to your health.

I hate to tell people that they shouldn’t do something, even if it may be slowly killing them. But, it sure is great to come home after an evening out and not smell like an ashtray!

Federal Reserve economist Dr. Michael Pakko recently found that the smoking ban in Columbia, Missouri caused the Columbia bar business to
shrink 11 percent. Columbia restaurants that serve alcohol lost 6.5
percent of their business and the overall Columbia restaurant trade shrank
3.5 percent due to the ban. St. Charles bars and restaurants could expect the same dismal results.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/econ/pakko/mpbans.html

There is a very important point missed by most of the posts here. This ban is recommended by the commission on HEALTH ISSUES. This is an important public health issue that really has nothing to do with free-markets or business revenue. This needs to be done for one simple reason: the people of St. Charles & all those who visit will be healthier for it. The economic studies by Dr. Pakko (while irrelevant with regards to health effects), need to be taken with a HUGE grain of salt. He is a notable Libertarian activist, and these “studies” are not official documents of the Fed. They are poorly designed and poorly written. Here is a little information about this man:

http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/pakko.pdf

mombo, a public health measure that will not reduce the overall exposure of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke, will increase the overall exposure of small children to secondhand smoke, and will increase by 13 percent the number of drunk driving fatalities, is not a smart way to make St. Charles healtier.

And you are wrong about Michael Pakko. He is a professional economist who has been a big help correcting the mistakes of public health experts such as Stanton Glantz who have tried to study the economic effects of smoking ban. According to this Columbia Tribune article, Michael Pakko enjoys the full support and admiration of his boss at the Federal Reserve:

“Howard Wall, director of regional economics for the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, said economic analysis provides an objective view of a controversial topic. Wall said proper examination of the data would lead to similar findings whether conducted by him, a nonsmoker who supports smoking bans, or Pakko, a smoker opposed to them.

‘Mike’s big contribution to this is to do it well,’ Wall said. ‘If I was doing the empirical work, I hope it would come out the exact same way his did.’

http://www.columbiatribune.com/2008/Mar/20080329News002.asp

Anyone who believes there are good reasons for government mandated smoking bans or who believes they won’t hurt business should read the “Generic Stiletto” at

http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4472

Smoking bans are based on lies. The Stiletto examines some of those lies in a clear and simple format. Feel free to download and print out the .pdf version and give copies to your local bar, restaurant, and club owners so that they’ll join the fight before it’s too late.

Supporters of free choice may not have the money for fancy TV ads, full time professional lobbyists, and multi-million dollar strategy conferences… but we DO have the truth on our side, and we do have dedicated and intelligent people who are angry about how our freedoms are being abused.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
Mid-Atlantic Regional Director of the SmokersClub.com, Citizens Freedom Alliance

it’s not just Pacco, every study published in a peer reviewed ECONOMICS journal has found bans hurt business…or employment. The Nevada Dept of Labor reported unemployment claims jumped up 58% following their restaruant ban. The IL gambing commission says gambling is down 17% in IL, the MO gaming commission says our gambling is up 4%.

So, when workers lose jobs and health insurance, (The Alton Belle has already laid off 70 workers) that is a bigger risk that the antsmoking groups say the smoke is. There are clear relatioships between imcome level and life expectancy up to incomes of $80,000 a year.

But the national leadership fo the antismokign groups do not tell the local meembers about many studies which find bans hurt business, so those local activists think all are supported by tobacco companies. This is simply not true visit http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/economic.html. Arnold changed their ban to a wall-off ordinance because their ban hurt business so badly.

Now it turns out every study which claims bans do not hurt business was funded by an antismoking group. So..who’s cheating here….

This is typical of the proban lobby - attack the credibility of anyone who produces results that do not support their position.

All of this stems from The American Cancer Society. The ACS is a front company for the Pharmacuetical Industry and mainly Johnson and Johnson. They push bans because it pushes sales of nicotine replacement products. They do no medical research and less than ten cents on the dollar goes to help cancer victims. Even then, they give rides to and from treatment and thats about it. Out of the largest 100 charities, they rated #93 on spending on their mission.

Is this an health issue - I think not. The three largest studies to date have shown no correlation. These studies were independent of the pharmacuetical and tobacco industry. You may not like smoke, but it won’t hurt you. Want proof - then why are the baby boomers living longer than any generation before them. More than half of them smoked and those that didn’t would have been in the presence of second hand smoke at home, work and play.

Does it effect economics - I can’t see how it doesn’t. I’ve never met one person that wouldn’t go out because they hated smoke that much. They may avoid certain establishments, but they still go out. On the other hand, if you can’t smoke in public, smokers will still go out, but not as much and not as long. I’ve also read the economic studies that claim that it doesn’t. In every case, there were serious issues that they hid.

Twin Cites study - they left out the winter months when a ban would have really affected numbers.

New York City Ban - they used 2001 numbers and of course the city went into a stand still after 9/11. Easy to make 2002 look better than 2001 after such a tragic event.

In other studies - they only used food sales and kicked out beverage sales.

They haven’t been truthful on the economic side.

Is the market working - absolutely, but I would guess it hasn’t been fully realized yet. Everyday there are more bars and restaurants that are smoke free. The restaurants that have gone smoke free have done well. Others will follow giving more choices to those that desire that enviroment. Right now, everybody has a choice whether your a smoker or not.