Indirect Benefits

Reduction in Cigarette Consumption and Smoking Rate

By-laws that restrict or prohibit worksite smoking reduce or eliminate the opportunities to smoke indoors. Smoking a cigarette at work becomes more difficult, and may involve donning winter clothing and using the elevator to get outside. In short, smoke-free by-laws can actually eliminate unconscious smoking behaviour and provide smokers with a sense of control over their consumption of cigarettes. Leaving the building for a smoke break becomes a conscious act. Once smokers have achieved the discipline required to smoke only at certain times, it can become physiologically easier to quit altogether.

Studies have shown that the benefits of implementing smoke-free by-laws extend beyond the protection of non-smokers from SHS. A recent systematic review[1] of 26 studies on the effects of smoke-free workplaces found that 100% smoke-free workplaces are associated with a 3.8% reduction in smoking prevalence, and 3.1 fewer cigarettes smoked per smoker. Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey (CTUMS) data from 2001[2] corresponds to this finding, indicating that as restrictions at work increase, daily consumption decreases. Where smoking at work is unrestricted, Canadians smoked 17.3 cigarettes per day. In 100% smoke-free workplaces, smoking at work dropped to 12.4 cigarettes per day. Importantly, this is independent of education level. A study of Ontario smoke-free by-laws[3] revealed that as in the United States, a moderate to strong smoke-free by-law can be associated with a low prevalence of smoking within that municipality.

Cessation

Many smokers would like to quit and have tried in the past and failed. During 2001, 42% of Canadian smokers aged 25 and older stopped smoking for 24 hours or more in the previous year in an attempt to quit, making on average 1.8 attempts.[4] A study from California[5] found that workplace smoking by-laws increased smoking cessation among employed smokers. In communities with comprehensive by-laws, approximately 26.4% of smokers quit smoking within 6 months of the study's survey. This number compares to 19.1% of smokers in communities with no smoke-free by-law. Thus, it appears that a non-smoking working environment actually serves as an enabler towards employees becoming smoke-free.

Prevention

Smoke-free workplaces, especially those that intersect with public spaces such as food courts in shopping malls, create a social milieu that discourages young people from starting to smoke. Smoke-free by-laws can accomplish health protection and health promotion at the same time. Workers' health is protected through the elimination of SHS exposure, and patrons such as young people are denied a place to hang out and smoke. Moreover, many smokers are motivated to quit as their opportunities for social smoking are reduced through by-laws.

Economic Benefits

In the first half of 2002, Canadian adult smokers were a minority, representing approximately 21% of the population.[6] Similar statistics exist for the United States. Evidence indicates that more non-smokers avoid going to bars and restaurants because of the smoke than there are smokers who frequent such establishments. A Massachusetts study[7] found that 880,000 Massachusetts non-smokers avoided going to bars because of the smoke, 80,000 more than the total number of smokers in the whole state. Accordingly, it stands to reason that a smoking ban would, on balance, be good for business. Other benefits of going smoke-free include reduced insurance costs to proprietors, reduced cleaning costs, less damage to furniture, carpets and equipment, and less risk of fire.

There are opponents to smoke-free by-laws who claim that bar and restaurant profits suffer as a result of going smoke-free. Lots of good peer-reviewed studies have been published that objectively examine pre- and post- by-law sales tax receipts and conclude no long-term economic hardship to bars and restaurants. For example, studies from such places as North Carolina, Massachusetts, Arizona and elsewhere conclude that going smoke-free had no negative effect on sales.[8,9,10,11]  In Ottawa, the chartered accounts firm KPMG was hired by the City to specifically determine the effect of its smoke-free by-laws on local bars and pubs. The ensuing report indicated little or no negative impact on the industry as a whole.[12]  In 2001, the Workers Compensation Board of British Columbia commissioned a study[13] to examine the economic impacts of its province-wide SHS regulations on hospitality businesses. The study was an econometric analysis based on changes in liquor purchases. The study concluded that there were statistically significant short-term impacts in many parts of BC, but that overall, no evidence of negative long-term impact was noted.

Smoking also has an economic impact on employers when it comes to lost productivity and absenteeism. A recent report published by Cancer Care Nova Scotia[14] indicates that unscheduled employee smoking breaks are costing the province an estimated $208 million a year in lost wages. In addition, a 1995 Conference Board of Canada report[15] indicates that per year, employees who smoke cost employers approximately $230 per in absenteeism, $2,175 in decreased productivity, $75 in increased insurance premiums, and $85 in maintaining a smoking area. Finally, the risk of WCB claims by employees and legal action being taken by non-smoking customers against restaurant and bar owners cannot be ignored. To read more economic studies, visit the following websites:

• Workers Compensation Board of Canada. The economic impacts of the proposed amendment to the ETS regulation. http://www.worksafebc.com/news/campaigns/ets/assets/pdf/ecoimpact.pdf
• Tobacco Control Journal. Review of the quality of studies on the economic effects of smoke-free policies on the hospitality industry. http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/1/13
• The Conference Board of Canada. The Economics of Smoke-free Restaurants. Executive Summary.  http://www.ocat.org/articles/body_a5b.html
• Physicians for a Smoke-free Canada (PSC). Economic Impact of Smoking Restrictions.  http://www.smoke-free.ca/Second-Hand-Smoke/health_insmoke.htm
• Action on Smoking and Health (ASH). Facts About Smoking Bans in Restaurants. http://www.ash.ca/pubs/index.htm (scroll down to the PDF document "Restaurant-ban").
• Tobacco Scam. Fake Economics: What Smoking Costs.  http://www.tobaccoscam.ucsf.edu/fake/fake_wsc.cfm
• Smoke Free Kings, Nova Scotia. Beyond the Smoke. A Background Paper on the Economic and Social Impact of Establishing a Smoke-free By-law.  http://www.heart-health.ns.ca/hpc/downloads/smokefree.pdf
• Ottawa Council on Smoking and Health (OCSH) http://www.smokefreeottawa.com/english/facts-e.htm (scroll down to Economic Impact).
• GPI Atlantic. The Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Workplaces: An Assessment for Newfoundland & Labrador. http://www.gpiatlantic.org

The By-law Process as a Public Education Tool

The experiences of community advocates and local non-governmental health organizations in municipalities across Canada have demonstrated that the process of fighting for a smoke-free by-law is a worthwhile undertaking. Becoming involved in local politics and the issues that surround lobbying for a by-law are inherently skill-building and empowering. This is because no two communities in Canada are the same, each demanding a unique approach to the by-law development process.