This article is about public interest and public choice of smoking especially in restaurants. It evaluate the causes and impact that the ban of smoking in Virginia restaurant which has recently been given an expanded definition will have and its economic importance. Some of the direct impact are the health implications and the social cost aggregates. Whereas the effect on revenue and taxes has not been very serious, there is clear evidence that restaurants that have banned smoking have more customers visiting as a public choice and public interest. (Commonwealth of Virginia, 2008, Online)Public interest and Public Choice explanation – rationale of choiceEarlier this month the governor of Virginia proposed a ban on public smoking in restaurants.
In Virginia, restaurant cover dining and alcohol place as well. This concern was seconded by the local mayor , general assembly members and the public health team. They all stress the fact that this style of smoking affect secondary smoker unwillingly. (Commonwealth of Virginia, 2008, Online)Social Preferences and CostsThe governor was concerned about the secondhand smoke that was affecting the other restaurant customers and attendants. With adequate scientific evidence, the social preference would be to reduce these effects and ailment that are associated with smoking.
Annually, it cost billions of dollars to treat the public who are under the effect of secondary and primary smoking. This impact is on the restaurant employees as well as visiting customers. (Commonwealth of Virginia, 2008, Online)The local health statistics claimed that more than 1,700 people loose their life annually due to the smoke. This is from primary and secondary ailments related to smoking. The public that prefer no smoking policy have been advocating for restaurants ban since this also affects the kids. This group is called The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids and they aver that funds in excess of $ 124.
9 million is used on the complications that arise from secondary smoke. (Commonwealth of Virginia, 2008, Online)During the proposal of this legislation, the definition of restaurant was expanded to cover all public and private eating places as well as residential clubs, as long as food is sold and prepared from that point. This move would be a public good as in other states the definition of restaurant limited. The public would prefer this definition to be upheld to protect their health from the effect of the secondary smoke. They would not like the smoking to be an opportunity cost for their good health. Smoking also reduces the Quality of Life (QOL)of the primary and secondary smokers.
Therefore this wider definition was welcome for the short and long run. (Commonwealth of Virginia, 2008, Online)The employees in restaurants have smoke associated risk that are up to 5 times more than their working counterparts in offices and at home. This predisposes them to about 50% chance of death by lung cancer even if this is from second hand effects. This latest ban was a follow up of a previous one in public places to guarantee employee better health with less risks. In the memo banning smoking in public working place and institutions, the governor made reference of exceptional cases that would be guided by appropriate rules. (Commonwealth of Virginia, 2008, Online)On of the approaches of calculating the economic impact is by comparison of the sales tax revenues over a long period of time.
This can be done for period before a ban and after a ban of smoking. Most of the past studies showed that the smoke free bans detrimental effect on businesses. The revenues continued to rise in aggregate. Further studies on the taxable revenue had a 95% conclusion that show no effect on the taxes. (Second Hand Smoke, 1999, p. 15).
Glantz (1999), found out that ban of smoke in restaurant had little of positive impact on the tourism revenues. This study also found out that some bars increased revenue which implies that more customers who were against restaurant smoking were willing to go to public spots as such. (Glantz 2000). It has also been established that restaurant are healthy following ban of smoking in such locations.For the public good and knowledge, there are various risk that employees will be exposed to whether at home or at work place.
Public are 1.3 time are risk at home compare to 1.9 time when exposed to secondhand smoke at work place. However the combined exposure gives that 2.56 times risk.
(Pitsavos et al, 2002, 220-225).Other studies show that employees who work for 8 hours where it is permitted ave equal risk with the smoke themselves. This study also dwelt on passive smoking and its economic importance on coronary heart disease and associated strokes. All the risk rates increase just as those who actively smoke.
(Whincup et al. 2004).Most studies have concluded that smoking is directly associated with major heart risks. Therefore eliminating it would be a wise thing to do.
This is the question that economist should be asking. Therefore as a public choice, should be guided by the past studies which suggest that there should be care about the exposure to secondhand smoke. This crusade can be led by the clinicians to advice those already affected and those who are yet to know their status to discriminate against choice of enclosed or indoor smoking areas. (Second Hand Smoke, 1999, p. 48.
)Rent seeking involved in the issuesWhen the governor passed the ban of smoking in public place including state vehicles, he made reference of insurance that employees can seek when they are affected. This would come as an employee benefit. Therefore the insurance would be priced in relation to the smoker and non smoker just like is commonly done in life policies. (Second Hand Smoke ,1999, p. 42-44)There are those who oppose smoke free laws like the one in Virginia.
They elaborate that such ban would have economic consequences that are yet to be worked out. Others claim that since most smokers are adults, they are in a position of making choices. The third group of opponents of the ban aver that the smoke products is legal, therefore banning the actual smoking is hypocritical. Still the rest would hold that a ban on smoking is an infringement of their personal rights.
The see no legal ground bans. (Second Hand Smoke, 1999, p. 48.)
