Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012:9:E106.
doi: 10.5888/pcd9.110277. Epub 2012 May 31.

Economic effect of smoke-free ordinances on 11 Missouri cities

Affiliations

Economic effect of smoke-free ordinances on 11 Missouri cities

Noaman Kayani et al. Prev Chronic Dis. 2012.

Erratum in

  • Prev Chronic Dis. 2012;9. doi: 10.5888/pcd9.110277e

Abstract

Introduction: The harmful effects of secondhand smoke are convincing more and more communities across the United States and the world to prohibit smoking in public places, especially in eating and drinking establishments. A 1993 Missouri state law allows smoking in designated areas in indoor public places such as restaurants and bars. Consequently, some Missouri communities have adopted local ordinances that prohibit smoking in all indoor workplaces, including restaurants and bars. We used an objective measure of economic activity, the taxable sales revenues of eating and drinking establishments, to empirically examine the economic effect of smoke-free ordinances.

Methods: We studied the economic effect of smoke-free ordinances in 11 Missouri cities using multivariate log-linear regression models with log-transformed taxable sales revenues of eating and drinking establishments as the dependent variable and the smoke-free ordinance as the independent variable, while controlling for seasonality, economic condition and unemployment. We used data from 20 quarters before the smoke-free ordinances and at least 10 quarters after the smoke-free ordinances for all cities. The null hypothesis of no effect of smoke-free ordinance on taxable sales of the eating and drinking establishments was tested.

Results: Eight of the 11 cities had increased taxable sales for eating and drinking establishments postordinance. The remaining 3 experienced no change.

Conclusion: The findings of our study are consistent with findings from most published economic studies that a smoke-free ordinance does not harm a local economy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Smoking-attributable mortality, years of potential life lost, and productivity losses: United States, 2002-2004. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2008;57(45):1226-8. - PubMed
    1. Behan D, Eriksen M, Lin Y. Economic effects of environmental tobacco smoke. Schaumburg (IL): Society of Actuaries; 2005. Accessed August 13, 2010. http://www.soa.org/files/pdf/ETSReportFinalDraft(Final%203).pdf.
    1. The state of smoke-free New York City: a one-year review. New York (NY): New York City Department of Finance, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York City Department of Small Business Services, New York City Economic Development Corporation; 2004. http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/smoke/sfaa-2004report.pdf. Accessed August 13, 2010.
    1. Biener L, Garrett C, Skeer M, Siegel M, Connelly G. The effects on smokers of Boston's smoke-free bar ordinance: a longitudinal analysis of changes in compliance, patronage, policy support, and smoking at home. J Public Health Manag Pract 2007;13(6):630-6. - PubMed
    1. Klein EG, Forster J, Erickson D, Lytle L, Schillo B. Economic effects of clean indoor air policies on bar and restaurant employment in Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota. J Public Health Manag Pract 2010;16(4):285-93. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances