Should College Station Bars Quit Smoking?

The College Station City Council is considering adopting amendments to the current ordinance that would increase regulations on smoking in restaurants and bars. The proposed amendment to the current ordinance would ban smoking in restaurants and bars and created a no smoking zone within a twenty foot radius of all public places, with the exception of bar which would ban smoking within a ten foot radius. There will be a public hearing at the next College Station City Council meeting during the January 22nd meeting.

In the state of Texas 59% of all municipalities have some type of smoking ordinance that affects restaurants; only 19% of municipalities in Texas place restaurants under completely smoke free ordinances. However, bars in restaurants fall under some type of smoking ordinance in only 30% of municipalities. In Texas 77% of all municipalities do have a smoking ordinance that affect bars; there are only 23 out of 259 municipalities in Texas that have ordinances requiring bars to be completely smoke free.

There is nationwide public support for smoking bans; a Gallup poll in 2005 showed that 54% favored smoking bans in restaurants and has steadily grown since the first poll in 1987 that showed only 17% of those polled support a smoking ban in restaurants. When asked about smoking in bars 40% of respondents supported separate smoking areas, 29% supported a total ban, and 28% supported no restrictions. In an unscientific internet poll on KBTX.com 62% of the 1,542 respondents supported “harsher smoking regulations.”

During the December 15th public meeting several residents and business owners commented on the issues; seven people spoke in favor of the ban and ten people spoke out against the ban. Managers and employees of the Dixie Chicken, Mad Hatters, Corner Bar, and The Tap all spoke out against the ban, and many of them suggested that a smoking ban would hurt the bars economically however there were also suggestions of a compromise.

There have been some studies that have examined the economic impact of smoking bans. A study by Scott Adams, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and Chad D. Cotti, University of South Carolina, examined the economic impact of smoking bans.

Using nationwide county-level data, these two studies examine the changes in employment at bars and restaurants after communities adopt smoking bans. Neither
study finds significant employment changes at restaurants, on average, but both find statistically significant employment declines at bars, with loss estimates ranging from 4 percent to 16 percent.

However, the same study may suggest that because of College Station’s climate that bars in the city may be less affected than others in the study.

Climate also affected restaurant employment. Restaurants in warm climates fared better than those in cooler climates. The authors suggest that the reason for this might be that restaurants in warmer climates can more easily provide outdoor seating where smoking is not prohibited.

Another study by Michael R. Pakko, On the Economic Analysis of Smoking Bans, provides conclusive evidence that smoking bans may not have the economic impact when looking at broad based community studies and specific case studies.

The consensus of the literature on the economic effects of existing smoking regulations is that no statistically significant impact on overall business in a community can be ascertained. Some communities appear to experience a decline in sales or employment at restaurants and bars, while others appear to experience an increase, at least over time. Some studies find no evidence of consumer-flight to other locations, while others show some effect on bordering communities. However, the statistical significance of these findings is often weak or lacking.

This study finds that many of these studies are conducted with limited data, short sample periods, scare detailed local data, limited degrees of freedom, and omitted-variable bias. Also, consumer theory suggests that when an option is denied to the consumer similar products and services are usually substituted. If there is a disruption in the availability or price of a product it can temporarily skew the data as expenditures are relocated, and those over time leaving the overall consumer spending unchanged.

Although some will argue otherwise, this is not an issue of civil liberties; this is an issue of public health. The amendment to the ordinance that would ban smoking in public restaurants and bars does not infringe on someone’s right to smoke in the same way that not allowing someone to protest in the middle of University Drive does not infringe on someone’s First Amendment rights. There are already regulations in place to protect the public’s health in restaurants and bars, public health codes prevent unsanitary conditions and protect the public; this regulation will extend the protection of the public health to include protection from second hand smoke.