Banning smoking in all of the United States is a measure that has been discussed for some time. As the number of people using tobacco increases, states that prohibit smoking tobacco in enclosed public places and private environments are contributing relatively more to the total burden of second-hand smoke (SHS). This study calculated the annual economic costs to society that could be avoided by banning smoking throughout the U. S.
Efforts to ban smoking across the U. have been made in order to protect health and generate substantial cost savings for society. Exposure to SHS caused by burning tobacco products causes illness and premature death among non-smokers.
As the number of people using tobacco increases, states that prohibit smoking tobacco in enclosed public places and private environments are contributing relatively more to the total burden of SHS.
This may be particularly true for residents of multi-unit housing, where SHS can infiltrate smoke-free housing units from smoking units and shared areas.In addition to health care costs related to SHS, smoking in multi-unit homes can result in excessive spending due to property renovation and fires attributable to smoking. The estimated annual cost savings associated with smoking bans in the U. subsidized housing, by type of cost, are substantial. Concerns have been raised that anti-smoking policies in subsidized housing may exacerbate socioeconomic disparities by negatively affecting low-income people and displacing residents who refuse to comply with them.
However, these policies prohibit the act of smoking, not the occupancy of units by people who smoke. In addition, research suggests that these policies do not lead to an increase in voluntary tenant turnover in subsidized housing and may, in fact, help motivate smoking cessation and reduce cigarette smoking. Residents who quit smoking in response to smoke-free policies would likely experience better health and save costs by reducing the use of health services and the purchase of tobacco, the latter of which may represent a substantial portion of the income of low-income smokers. These benefits can be maximized if the implementation of the policy is accompanied by the provision of evidence-based quitting resources to residents of subsidized housing. The Surgeon General has concluded that adopting smoke-free labor policies is a wise business decision.
The results of all credible peer-reviewed studies show that anti-smoking policies and regulations do not have a negative impact on company revenues. Establishing smoke-free workplaces is the easiest and most cost-effective way to improve the health of workers and businesses, as well as reduce absenteeism and loss of productivity. We also examined the association of a state law on smoke-free restaurants and bars on employment in North Carolina. Smoke-free air laws in restaurants and bars protect customers and workers from unintentional exposure to second-hand smoke, but owners often express concern that such laws will harm their businesses. The regression coefficient for this variable represents the change in sales per capita after the application of the anti-smoking law. This study calculated the annual economic costs to society that could be avoided by banning smoking throughout the U.
S. During the study period, only North Carolina had a state law that prohibited smoking in restaurants or bars. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first study to assess the costs that could be avoided if smoking were banned in U. However, the consistency of results across all states reinforces the conclusion that anti-smoking laws have not had an adverse economic impact on employment and sales in restaurants and bars. The main objective of this study was to estimate the association between local smoke-free air laws and economic outcomes in restaurants and bars in 8 states without state smoke-free air laws to obtain information about the potential economic impact of a statewide smoke-free air law in those states.
The results suggest that anti-smoking laws had no adverse economic impact on restaurants or bars in any of those states; they provided a small economic benefit in one state. In conclusion, this study found that implementing smoke-free laws does not have an adverse economic impact on restaurants or bars; rather, it provides a small economic benefit for society as a whole. By implementing a smoke-free law in Ellisville Mississippi, businesses can benefit from improved health outcomes among their employees as well as reduced costs associated with property renovation and fires attributable to smoking.
