Does the Type of CIA Policy Significantly Affect Bar and Restaurant Employment in Minnesota Cities?
Clean indoor air (CIA) policies that include free-standing bars and restaurants have been adopted by communities to protect employees in all workplaces from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, most notably employees working in restaurants and free-standing bars. However, due to the perception of negative economic effects on alcohol-licensed hospitality businesses, partial CIA policies (those that provide an exemption for free-standing bars) have been proposed as a means to reduce the risk of economic effects of comprehensive CIA policies applied to all worksites. Bar and restaurant employment per capita were used to determine if partial CIA policies produced differential economic effects compared to comprehensive CIA policies. Ten cities in the state of Minnesota were studied from 2003–2006. Economic data were drawn from monthly employment in bars and restaurants, and a pooled time-series was completed to evaluate three types of local CIA policies: Comprehensive, partial, or none beyond the state law. Communities with a comprehensive CIA policy had a decrease of 9 employees per 10,000 residents compared with communities with partial CIA policies (p = 0.10). Communities with any type of CIA policy (partial or comprehensive) had an increase of 3 employees per 10,000 residents compared to communities without any CIA policies (p = 0.36). There were no significant differential economic effects by CIA policy type in Minnesota cities. These findings support the adoption of comprehensive CIA policies to provide all employees protection from environmental tobacco smoke exposure.
KeywordsTobacco Policy Clean indoor air Time-series Economics
- American’s for Nonsmokers’ Rights. (2006). Economic impact of smokefree ordinances: Overview. Berkeley, CA: ANR.Google Scholar
- American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation. (2007). How many smokefree laws? Retrieved December 2007, from http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/mediaordlist.pdf
- American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation. (2009). Local 100% smokefree laws in all workplaces, restaurants, and bars: Effective by year. Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
- Box, G., & Jenkins, G. M. (1976). Time series analysis: Forecasting and control, revised edition. Oakland, CA: Holden-Day.Google Scholar
- Bureau of Labor and Statistics. (2007). Productivity and costs by industry: Wholesale trade, retail trade, and food services and drinking places, 2006. from http://www.bls.gov/lpc/
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2004). Impact of a smoking ban on restaurant and bar revenues—El Paso, Texas, 2002. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly, 53, 150–152.Google Scholar
- Heironimus, J. (1992). Workplace restrictions. Retrieved Bates No: 2023914279. April 16.Google Scholar
- Hennepin County Office of Budget and Finance. (2005). Economic impact of the Hennepin County smoking ordinance. Minneapolis, MN: Hennepin County Board of Commissioners.Google Scholar
- Hyland, A., Cummings, K. M., & Wilson, M. P. (1999). Compliance with the New York City Smoke-Free Air Act. Journal of Public Health Management Practice, 5, 43–52.Google Scholar
- Kuneman, D., & McFadden, M. J. (2006). Economic losses due to smoking bans in California and other states. Retrieved November 21, 2006.Google Scholar
- SAS Institute Inc (2001). PROC MIXED (Version 9.1.3). Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc.Google Scholar
- Sayrs, L. (1989). Pooled time series analysis (Vol. 70). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Siegel, M. (1992). Economic impact of 100% smoke-free restaurant ordinances. In Smoking and restaurants: A guide for policy makers. Berkeley, CA: UC Berkley/UCSF Preventative Medicine Residency Program, American Heart Association, California Affiliate, Alameda County Health Care Services Agency, Tobacco Control Program.Google Scholar
- Skeer, M., Land, M. L., Cheng, D. M., & Siegel, M. B. (2004). Smoking in Boston bars before and after a 100% smoke-free regulation: An assessment of early compliance. Journal of Public Health Management Practice, 10, 501–507.Google Scholar
- U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Summary File 1: http://www.census.gov.
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2006). The health consequences of involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke: A report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coordinating Center for Health Promotion, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health.Google Scholar
- Williams, B. (2005a). Hennepin County poised to alter smoking ban. Minnesota Public Radio. July 27.Google Scholar
- Williams, B. (2005b). How many jobs lost due to smoking ban? Minnesota Public Radio.Google Scholar