February 6 - Anti-smoking bills pass in
 Senate, move on to House

February 4 - Mississippi Fat People won't be served at restaurants.

We have been saying all along that smoking was just the first of a long list that government health nannies want to control.  The war on fat has begun. In Mississippi House Bill 282 has been introduced  "AN ACT TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS FROM SERVING FOOD TO ANY PERSON WHO IS OBESE, BASED ON CRITERIA PRESCRIBED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH; TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT TO PREPARE WRITTEN MATERIALS THAT DESCRIBE AND EXPLAIN THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS OBESE AND TO PROVIDE THOSE MATERIALS TO THE FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS; TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT TO MONITOR THE FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES."

February 4 - Slow Start Creates Big Challenges For Va. Legislature

RICHMOND -- Virginia lawmakers, stymied by a gloomy financial outlook and partisan bickering, have not resolved many of the year's most contentious issues as the legislative session approaches its midpoint.

The Senate and House of Delegates moved quickly to repeal the unpopular bad-driver fees. But they have not voted on many controversial bills, such as a proposed smoking ban, measures to curb illegal immigration and Gov. Timothy M. Kaine's effort to expand pre-kindergarten education.

"I think next week is going to be arduous," Senate Minority Leader Thomas K. Norment Jr. (R-James City) said last week. "Tensions are going to erupt a little bit on some legislation that's been percolating towards the halfway point."

The session has lacked an overarching issue compared with last year, when lawmakers passed the state's first transportation plan in a generation and promised to pump over $1 billion a year into roads, bridges and mass transit.

In part, the difference is because the state faces a shortfall that could reach $1 billion in the coming two-year budget cycle. The money crunch virtually eliminates the possibility of new programs and ensures that most of the second half of the session will be dominated by wrangling over the state spending plan.

Also, Democrats are in the majority in the Senate for the first time in a decade and have been slow to settle into their new position, Norment said. Some committee chairmen have struggled to churn out polished bills, he said, and very little has managed to reach the Senate floor for a full vote.

But lawmakers from both sides say an increased partisan atmosphere, partly inflamed by an increase in the number of Democrats in the General Assembly, has contributed.

"There has been an extraordinary amount of time playing politics," said House Minority Leader Ward L. Armstrong (D-Henry). "The political charades have taken time. There is a great philosophical divide."

After the quick action on the abusive-driver fees, legislators are divided on whether to fill the $65 million gap in transportation funding left by the repeal of the fees. Many Democrats favor instituting a gas tax, but Republicans in the House of Delegates have said they will reject any tax increase.

Several bills meant to curb illegal immigration have passed the House, including one tentatively passed Friday that would ban illegal immigrants from attending any state public college or university.

Democratic leaders have said they will block that bill and what they consider to be other harsh bills aimed at illegal immigrants. Already, the Democrat-controlled Senate has killed a number of bills that would allow employers to fire workers if they speak a language other than English at work and that would limit illegal immigrants' access to public colleges.

The only immigration-related bills advanced by a Senate committee "don't do anything, which is why they got out," said Senate Majority Leader Richard L. Saslaw (D-Fairfax).

"The rest of them were bills looking for a problem," Saslaw said. "It was stuff [the Republicans] wanted to put in their campaign literature."

On Thursday, Democrats and a handful of Republicans in a Senate committee endorsed legislation that would ban smoking in virtually all public buildings, but Republicans in the House have said such a far-reaching measure will never reach the governor's desk.

Efforts to reform the payday loan industry, where borrowers take out cash advances against their paychecks, are stalled after the governor's office failed to mediate a compromise earlier in the session. A House committee is expected to hear the first proposal this week. Even if a bill is passed in the House, the issue faces a tough road in the Senate.

One bright spot has been the overhaul of the state's mental health system. It was prompted by last year's shootings at Virginia Tech, in which a student killed 32 students and teachers and then himself.

Democrats and Republicans, along with Kaine (D), have worked together to tighten restrictions on gun ownership by the mentally ill and increase the chances that an unstable person will receive help.

"The piece of my legislative proposal that is doing the best right now and that I am confident that will do as good as the revenues allow is . . . mental health," Kaine said.

One of Kaine's legislative priorities -- expanding pre-kindergarten to an additional 7,000 at-risk children -- has not gone before legislators, but Republicans have said there is no money for it.

House Majority Leader H. Morgan Griffith (R-Salem) said people should judge the House not just by what bills have passed but also by what bills have been killed. Rejected measures include bills that would have required all gun sellers to conduct background checks on buyers at gun shows, allowed government workers to form unions and undermined the abolition of parole.

"It's not always the passage of bills that is important,'" he said. "We killed a lot of bad bills."

February 1 - Smoking Ban takes hold in Maryland.

By Super Bowl Sunday, Rome Zaffaroni plans to install a big-screen television in the lounge in the back room at his cigar shop in Annapolis. But beyond the draw of the game, he's expecting droves of patrons because of Maryland's new statewide smoking ban.

As of today, because of an exemption for tobacco shops, the Annapolis Cigar Co. is one of the relatively few establishments where smoking is permitted. Patrons must pay a $10 cover -- or a $120 annual club membership fee -- and bring their own beer or booze, because Zaffaroni doesn't have a liquor license.

"I'm probably getting a lot of business for this, just because this is the only place around here you can smoke," he said. "But that money is not worth getting the civil liberties of business owners and smokers trampled."

Cigar shops and other stores where tobacco sales make up more than 75 percent of revenue are exempt from the ban, which took effect at midnight. Smoking is outlawed in nearly all other public places, including bars, restaurants, taxicabs, bowling alleys and private clubs, including American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars halls.

Restaurants and bars that can show that the ban is hurting their business can apply for three-year hardship waivers through local health departments.

The ban has been lauded by health advocates as an important protection against the dangers of secondhand smoke, but Zaffaroni views it as an attack on the rights of business owners and smokers. He has been encouraging his customers to ignore no-smoking signs, annoy nonsmoking "goody two-shoes" or throw tobacco into the harbor, in a modern-day Boston Tea Party.

"Do what your fathers and grandfathers would have done: break the law," Zaffaroni told two customers Wednesday night. "Show some disobedience."

Although he says interest in his club is growing, the bearded former history teacher has found few smokers willing to answer his call to revolution.

Opposition to the ban has come mostly from bar owners worried about losing revenue and people who would rather not step outside to smoke. Bars across the state hosted themed parties last night, handing out free cigarettes or ceremoniously destroying ashtrays.

"Even the people that smoke aren't that upset," said James Wanko, 27, who was smoking with friends at the Acme Bar and Grill in downtown Annapolis on Wednesday night. "It's just going to happen."

Megan Meneely, an Acme regular, said that although the ban will be a hassle, it could help her quit smoking for a second time.

"The temptation is when I have a cocktail in my hand," said Meneely, 33. "I smoke all day long, but a package of cigarettes doesn't last me as long in a bar."

Five Maryland counties, including Montgomery, Prince George's and Charles, already had some form of a smoking ban. The District enacted a ban in January 2007, and several area hospitals declared themselves smoke-free late last year.

Montgomery, which enacted its smoking ban in 2003, has seen restaurant sales tax receipts increase 23 percent since then, said Phil Andrews (D-Gaithersburg-Rockville), the County Council's vice president, who sponsored the measure.

"We heard that Silver Spring would become a ghost town because of the smoking ban, but the industry is thriving," he said. "The experience here should be reassuring to the state. And our experience is mirrored by experiences elsewhere -- California, New York."

Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) is pushing for a ban but is facing opposition from the state's powerful tobacco lobby. Virginia law restricts local governments from enacting certain regulations, such as smoking bans, without approval from the General Assembly. Although no jurisdiction has enacted a smoking ban, Alexandria officials have employed land-use regulations to force restaurants to go smoke-free.

Other restaurants in the region have opted to go smoke-free without a ban. The Sly Fox in Annapolis did so in April and saw business pick up, said its owner, Chris Fox. Employees quickly felt healthier and were glad to not smell like smoke after working in the basement-level tavern, Fox said.

"We've just had it with working in smoky bars," he said. "Bar owners have a fear of the unknown. . . . If this ban ends up killing the restaurant industry, then I would be all for going in and changing it. But we would still keep it at our bar."

It is always the tobacco companies that are lobbying, they never mention the pharmaceuticals and insurance companies who are lobbying for a smoking ban.  Biased media is not exactly news on this topic but one in a while it would be nice that they get it right.

January 29 - From the Federal Reserve bank in St. Louis. Clearing the Haze?  New Evidence on the Economic Impact of smoking bans.

By Michael R. Pakko

When making decisions about adopting smoke-free laws, advocates often give policymakers a Pollyannaish outlook in which communities can achieve public health benefits with no economic consequences. In particular, the lack of statistically significant economic effects is interpreted as indicating an absence of economic costs. Recent economic research indicates that this is a far too simplistic view of the issue.

A previous article in The Regional Economist (“Peering Through the Haze,” July 2005) described some early evidence on the economic impact of smoke-free laws and suggested that the findings were far from conclusive.1

As more communities have adopted smoke-free laws and more data have been gathered, economists have discovered new, significant findings. As an earlier article suggested, economic costs often focus on specific business categories—those that smokers tend to frequent.

Gambling and Smoking

Several papers have examined the cost of smoke-free laws on the gambling business, using data from slot machine revenue at Delaware racetracks (“racinos”).2 Recent economic research finds conclusive evidence of revenue declines at the racinos after the Delaware Clean Indoor Air Law took effect in December 2002.

In my recent research on the topic, I find statistically significant losses at all three Delaware racinos—ranging from 8.9 percent to 17.8 percent.3 Overall, the statewide revenue decline was 14.9 percent. Using slightly different methods that estimate demand for casino gambling, economists Richard Thalheimer and Mukhtar Ali estimate the total revenue loss at 15.9 percent.

These revenue estimates may significantly understate profit losses. For example, the racino that suffered the smallest loss in revenues—Dover Downs—also was the only one with a luxury hotel on site. Dover Downs management responded to initial revenue losses by offering more discounts on hotel rooms.4 Efforts to prop up revenue may have been partly successful, but at a cost to the bottom line.

Evidence on the effect of smoking bans on gaming revenue shows that when analysis can be narrowly focused on data from specific businesses, statistically significant findings emerge. Another approach is to use very large data sets. As smoking bans have spread across the country, the variety and timing of adopting smoke-free laws have generated data that can help identify effects.

Bar and Restaurant Employment

Two papers, one by Ryan Phelps and the other by Scott Adams and Chad Cotti, have used data available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to examine the employment effects 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.

Adams and Cotti also examine some additional factors. For communities in states with a higher ratio of smokers to nonsmokers than the national average, employment losses at bars were significantly larger, and the employment changes at restaurants went from a small positive effect to a small negative effect (in neither case, statistically significant). Climate also affected restaurant employment.5 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. (See also the sidebar on Columbia, Mo.) Restaurants that suffered the dual curse of being in regions with colder climates and a high prevalence of smokers suffered statistically significant employment losses, on average.

California Dreamin’

Another recent economic study examines taxable sales receipts of bars and restaurants in California, the home of the smoke-free movement. Because California communities passed some of the nation’s first smoke-free laws, much of the early evidence on the subject was based on these data on California taxable sales receipts; as time has passed, those data have accumulated. The experience of California also provides a case in which a statewide smoking ban was superimposed on a patchwork of local smoke-free laws, providing useful variation in the coverage and jurisdiction of smoking bans that can be exploited in empirical analysis.

Economists Robert Fleck and Andrew Hanssen analyzed quarterly restaurant sales data for 267 California cities over 25 years. They find that the measured impact of smoking bans differs between local bans and the statewide ban. In what the authors call their “naïve” specification that treats all smoke-free laws the same, they find a statistically significant 4 percent decline in revenues associated with smoking bans.

When they estimate the effects of the statewide ban and local bans independently, they find that the measured decline in restaurant sales is attributable to the statewide ban on cities without local bans. The measured effect of the statewide ban is nearly 4 percent, and it is statistically significant. The independent effect of local smoking ordinances is estimated to be very small and is not significant. These findings are consistent with the interpretation that locally originated smoking bans have little effect, but smoking bans that are imposed on a community by a higher jurisdiction can have a detrimental economic impact.

Fleck and Hanssen go on to uncover an important specification problem: They find that cities that adopted smoke-free laws were systematically different from those that did not. The authors find that sales growth tends to be a predictor of smoking bans, rather than the other way around. This “reverse causality” calls into question many earlier findings, and it poses problems for using data from California in drawing inferences about the economic impact of smoking bans elsewhere.

The Role of Economic Research

Economic effects of smoke-free laws may be difficult to identify and interpret, but analysis suggests that at least some businesses do suffer costs. When they consider passing smoking bans, policymakers should study evidence both from public health professionals and from economists.

Sidebar

District Focus: Smoking Ban Singes Columbia, Mo.

Since January 2007, all bars and restaurants in Columbia, Mo., have been required to be smoke-free. Only some sections of outdoor patios are exempt from the requirement.

Some local businesses have continued to oppose the Columbia Clean Air Ordinance, circulating petitions to repeal the law by ballot initiative. According to local press reports, owners of at least four establishments have cited the smoking ban as a factor in their decision to close their doors in 2007.

Recent data from the city of Columbia show a distinct decline in sales tax receipts at bars and restaurants. After rising at an average rate of 6.8 percent from 2002 through 2006, tax revenue declined at an annual rate of 1.3 percent over the first seven months of 2007. (See graph.) Although the data are still preliminary, initial analysis suggests a 5 percent decline in overall sales revenue at Columbia dining establishments since the implementation of the smoking ban. This estimate takes into account past trends, seasonal fluctuations in the data and an overall slowdown in sales tax revenue in Columbia.6

One interesting feature of the Columbia story is the response of restaurant owners to the patio exemption. According to an article in the Columbia Missourian, owners of at least two bars are building or planning outdoor patio expansions. One owner was quoted as saying, “You have to have a patio to survive.”7 The expenses associated with these renovations may help buffer the sales revenue of these establishments, but they also represent profit losses that are above and beyond the measured sales declines.

Columbia, Mo., Dining Tax Revenue

YEAR-OVER-YEAR GROWTH

Michael R. Pakko is an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. To see more of Pakko’s work, go to http://research.stlouisfed.org/econ/pakko/index.html.

This article is based on a presentation at the Sixth Annual ERIE Conference on Local Government and Economics, Erie Pa., Aug.14, 2007.

Endnotes

1. Scollo et al. (2003) provide a review of previous literature, much of which has been published in medical and public health journals.
2. Previous studies of the Delaware racino case study have been published—and disputed—in the public health journal Tobacco Control.
3. See Pakko (forthcoming).
4. See Dover Downs (2004).
5. Bar employment was not significantly affected by climate differences.
6. See Pakko (2007).
7. See Solberg (2007).

references

Adams, Scott; and Cotti, Chad D. “The Effect of Smoking Bans on Bars and Restaurants: An Analysis of Changes in Employment.” The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy: Vol. 7, Issue 1, Contributions, Article 12. See www.bepress.com/bejeap/vol7/iss1/art12.

See Dover Downs Gaming and Entertainment Inc. Annual Report for the Fiscal Year ended Dec. 31, 2003 (2004).

Fleck, Robert K.; and Hanssen, F. Andrew. “Why Understanding Smoking Bans is Important for Estimating Their Effects: California’s Restaurant Smoking Bans and Restaurant Sales.” Economic Inquiry (forthcoming).

Pakko, Michael R. “The Economics of Smoking Bans: Peering Through The Haze.” The Regional Economist, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, July 2005, pp. 12-13.

Pakko, Michael. R. “No Smoking at the Slot Machines: The Effect of Smoke-Free Laws on Gaming Revenues.” Applied Economics (forthcoming).

Pakko, Michael R. “The Economic Impact of a Smoking Ban in Columbia, Missouri: A Preliminary Analysis of Sales Tax Data.” CRE8 Occasional Report, Dec. 11, 2007. See http://research.stlouisfed.org/regecon/op/CRE8OP-2007-002.pdf.

Phelps, Ryan. “The Economic Impact of 100% Smoking Bans.” Kentucky Annual Economic Report 2006, Center for Business and Economic Research, Gatton College of Business and Economics, University of Kentucky, 2006, pp. 31-34.

Thalheimer, Richard; and Ali, Mukhtar M. “The Demand for Casino Gaming with Special Reference to a Smoking Ban.” Economic Inquiry (forthcoming).

Scollo, M.; Lal, A.; Hyland, A.; and Glantz, S. “Review of the Quality of Studies on the Economic Effects of Smoke-free Policies on the Hospitality Industry.” Tobacco Control, 2003, Vol. 12, pp. 13-20.

Solberg, Christy. “Effects of Smoking Ban Still Debated.” Columbia Missourian, Sept. 27, 2007. See www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2007/09/27/efcts-smoking-ban-still-debated/.

January 21 - Customers desert smoke-free restaurant.

Beijing's first smoke-free restaurant chain faces going out of business after its customers deserted it in droves after the ban was enforced, state media reported on Friday.

The Chinese are the world's most enthusiastic smokers, with a growing market of more than 350 million, making it a magnet for cigarette companies and a focus of international health concerns.

The occupancy rate at Meizhou Dongpo, a chain serving the spicy fare of southwest Sichuan province, had dropped to "about 80 percent of that enjoyed by other restaurants across the street" after it banned smoking in October, the China Daily quoted its manager as saying.

"We figure that if we're going to die, at least we're going to die honorably," the paper quoted Guo Xiaodong, deputy director of the restaurant chain, as saying.

Meizhou Dongpo had trained its waitresses how to discourage people from lighting up, but met resistance from customers who would lock staff out of private dining rooms to sneak a quick puff, Guo said.

"It just illustrates how much resistance there is to kicking the habit among Chinese smokers," the paper quoted Zhang Xuemei, a Beijing reporter who lobbied the restaurant to ban smoking, as saying.

Beijing, set to mark the 200-day countdown to the Olympics on Monday, has yet to issue clear rules on smoking bans, despite Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao promising a "smoke-free Olympics."

Along with spitting, and not queuing, Olympic organizers fear Chinese people's tendency to smoke anywhere at any time could taint the country's image in foreign eyes.

China banned smoking in taxis in October and launched a drive to ban smoking in hospitals, schools, and government offices last year.

But resistance to the campaign has been fierce.

Beijing authorities had written to 30,000 restaurants asking them to put smoking bans in place, but not a single one had taken up the suggestion, the paper said.

January 21- German boss fires staff for not smoking!

Wed Jan 9, 11:47 AM ET

 The owner of a small German computer company has fired three non-smoking workers because they were threatening to disturb the peace after they requested a smoke-free environment.

The manager of the 10-person IT company in Buesum, named Thomas J., told the Hamburger Morgenpost newspaper he had fired the trio because their non-smoking was causing disruptions.

Germany introduced non-smoking rules in pubs and restaurants on January 1, but Germans working in small offices are still allowed to smoke.

"I can't be bothered with trouble-makers," Thomas was quoted saying. "We're on the phone all the time and it's just easier to work while smoking. Everyone picks on smokers these days. It's time for revenge. I'm only going to hire smokers from now on."

(Reporting by Sarah Roberts; editing by Giles Elgood)

January 19K -  We may have forgotten civil disobedience but the German's and French haven't. What has happened to us?

SPIEGEL ONLINE - January 17, 2008, 05:31 PM
ONE LAST PUFF

Subverting the Smoking Ban in Germany

Germany may now have smoking bans in 11 of its 16 states, but that isn't keeping smokers from enjoying their habit. As well as straight civil disobedience, many bars and restaurants have come up with novel ways around the prohibition.

JANUARY 12 - Lawmakers Evaluate Hawaii Smoke Ban

Associated Press

By MARK NIESSE

HONOLULU -

Bar owners said Hawaii's smoking ban has hurt their business, while health experts argued that it hasn't appeared to have damaged the tourism or hospitality industries as a whole in testimony before state lawmakers Wednesday.

Lawmakers listened to all sides for three hours in an informational hearing meant to help them evaluate how Hawaii's smoking law has affected the economy. They will draw on that testimony as they decide whether to modify the law that bans smoking in public places, including open malls, popular outdoor dining areas, bars and offices.

Bar owner Sam Kekaula said he lost about half of his business after the no-smoking law took effect in November 2006, which added up to a $65,000 loss in the following year.

"We all know smoking is bad for us, but that's our choice," said Kekaula, who runs Sam's Hideaway in Kailua-Kona. "I don't feel that it's right for other people to tell me how to run my business."

Though health experts argued the smoking ban has had a positive effect overall, neither side was able to provide evidence directly tying the smoking ban to statewide economic trends.

"No negative economic impact has resulted because of the passage of this law," said Chiyome Fukino, state Health Department director. "The great majority of businesses do not have a problem with this."

"Prelaw trends appear to have continued unchanged in the early months after the law," said Dr. Andrew Hyland of the Roswell Park Cancer Institute, who is studying its effects for the Health Department. "Even if sales are down, it could be attributed to other factors."

Twelve Oahu bars closed and six opened in the 2007 fiscal year, said Bill Comerford of the Hawaii Bar Owners Association.

Only about one in five Hawaii residents smoke, but two-thirds of bar customers are smokers, he said.

"You fail to take into account smokers,