City of Ballwin’s Sales Tax Receipts in Decline Prior to Smoke-Free Law
We’ve all heard it before. St. Louis suburb, the City of Ballwin, passes a smoking ban and restaurant sales decline after the effective date. You know what? It is true. Sales & tax receipts have declined since the law took effect on January 2, 2006. There, I said it. That is the part, and the only part, the pro-smokers what you to know. They use this to scare other cities into believing that they too will have a reversal of fortunes if they pass a smoke-free law. What politician will vote for something they’ve been told will reduce their city’s budget?
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.“
Numbers can be manipulated to show just about anything. So when someone says that sales declined after a certain point you have to ask what were they doing prior to that point? Were they ascending prior to that point? Are their other factors responsible for a decline?
The fact is the City of Ballwin’s receipts had been in decline for several years prior to their smoke-free law. A friend of mine, a graduate of Saint Louis University’s Masters in Urban Planning & Real Estate Development program working in real estate and economic development consulting, pulled sales tax data from the Missouri Department of Revenue (source) and created the following charts for me to use:
In reading the above note the blue line represents all sales in Ballwin measured based on the values on the left side. The red line represents restaurant sales as measured by the values on the right hand side. The are plotted together to see how they fall relative to each other. The vertical line shows the point when the smoke-free law took effect. As you can see all sales and restaurant sales had been in decline for years before the smoking ban.
The above shows restaurant sales as a percentage of all sales.
Sales per establishment appear relatively unchanged. Of course some may have seen a big decrease while others saw a big increase. But the sky over the City of Ballwin did not fall as is claimed by many.
The number of establishments has varied before and after the law took effect. Do we see a trend of lots of business closures? No.
All four charts can be viewed in greater detail here.
A month ago, comments on Clayton’s discussion of going smoke-free on STLToday.com the City of Ballwin was used as an example of why the smoke-free laws should not be enacted — the sky will fall.
Bill Hannegan  May 5, 2009 2:04AM CST
Harry Belli, owner of Harry’s West in Ballwin, recently wrote to Mayor Goldstein and the Clayton Board of Aldermen detailing the economic hardship the Ballwin smoking ban caused his business:Dear Mayor Goldstein, I am writing you on behalf of Bill Hannegan with Keep St. Louis Free. He asked me to give you my opinion on the discussions regarding the smoking ban. A little history about myself. My name is Harry J. Belli. I presently own Harry’s Restaurant and Bar in downtown St. Louis. I also own the Sidebar on Washington Avenue and owned Maggie O’Briens Pub for 30 yrs. I owned and operated Harry’s West in Ballwin on Kehrsmill and Clayton Roads. We were open at the Ballwin location for 10 years. The Ballwin location had always had the policy of no smoking in the dining area, but allowed smoking in the bar/lounge and patio areas. Our customers were always given the option of separate smoking and non-smoking areas. The alderman in the City of Ballwin approached us about the smoking ban and we told them of our concerns. I can tell you, I believe we were right. The original plan was no smoking inside and within 25 feet of our building. This plan included no smoking in the patio area. We did get them to change that part of the plan and at least allow smoking in the patio area. The aldermen said that by banning smoking we would get the non-smokers to come in. Unfortunately, this was not the case. We saw no increase of either diners nor bar patrons seeking out a non-smoking environment. Subsequent to the smoking ban, Harry’s West lost between 10% and 15% of our revenue within the first 30 days. That was $2000-$2500 per week or approximately $130,000 per year. What kind of financial slope would the City of Clayton be in if it were to lose 10% to 15% of it’s tax base? I can assure you that it is not a good position to be placed in. We could not overcome that loss and eventually closed the Restaurant. We employed 40 people that lost their jobs and the City of Ballwin lost tax revenues. However, I am sure that the surrounding municipalities enjoyed their windfall. We were definitely not the only dining establishment to close their doors and to my knowledge, no restaurants and bars are eager to open in Ballwin. The problem with banning smoking by municipality is that the establishments are anywhere from a couple of miles or sometimes yards away from establishments that allow smoking, giving the non-smoking establishments an unfair disadvantage. It just makes no sense, unless the ban is imposed state-wide. I believe that if the restaurants and bars give their customers the option to dine in a smoke-free environment and their smoking customers the option to eat and drink in the bar/lounge/patio areas, that you accomplish the best for both and don’t lose your hard earned dollars, not to mention jobs and tax revenue for the City. I also believe that a municipality ban will discourage new businesses from wanting to open up shop in an area that will put them at a distinct disadvantage….. Sincerely, Harry J. Belli
A response was enlightening:
Enlighten Me  May 5, 2009 10:03AM CST
Mr. Hannegan -With all due respect to business owners and Harry Belli, Mr. Belli does not know what’s happened in Ballwin after their Clean Air Ordinance went into full effect on January 2, 2006. Your constant repeat of Belli’s letter to Clayton is getting old…real old. Here are the real facts:As quoted in a St. Louis Post-Dispatch Suburban Journal news article on June 28, 2007, “Tom Aiken (Ballwin’s City Planner) said life after the ban has remained status quo. After reviewing business license fees, which are based on gross receipts, two years prior to and one year following the ban, there was no dramatic difference in any business’ numbers, Aiken said. Aiken said that while some residents attributed the closing of several businesses to the ban, those restaurants’ sales histories showed a decline in business several years prior to the legislation. He said restaurant sales throughout the city had both decreased and increased with the ban, but the difference in percentage points was so little that it was impossible to conclude whether either was a result of the no-smoking ordinance”. Staff has recently reviewed numbers to date and this trend…or lack thereof…continues. Harry’s West lost significant lunch crowd when Citicorp moved to Wentzville and dinner crowd when Chesterfield Valley exploded with development of retail and restaurants. Let’s continue.French Quarter Bar: When Ballwin was considering their ordinance, the owner of the bar said he would be shut down by it in three months. Today, three years later, it is still a thriving business with live music offered often. Ashley Daniels, general manager of the French Quarter Bar and Grill in Ballwin, said her business is booming. We are absolutely more successful now than we were before the smoking ban,” Daniels said.More: Red Lobster, Lone Star and O’Charleys – These chain restaurants have relocated to Chesterfield Valley and operate there as a 100% smoke free restaurant voluntarily. There has been much discussion by the cities located in the Manchester Road corridor of the negative effect the booming Chesterfield Valley development is having on all retail and restaurants. Harry Belli has stated on several occasions that the Chesterfield Valley was negatively impacting Harry’s West. Chili’s, Krieger’s Pub and All Stars: Often cited as establishments that closed because of Ballwin’s law but Chili’s was located in Manchester, Krieger’s in Ellisville and All Stars in Chesterfield. The Ballwin postal area extends from Des Peres on the east to Wildwood on the west…far beyond Ballwin’s city limits. When one uses “Ballwin” as a location, it doesn’t necessarily mean within the city limits.Existing, New and Expanding Business in Ballwin – Mi Lupita, a Mexican restaurant in Ballwin, saw a 10% increase in sales after the ordinance went into effect said the restaurant’s assistant manager Raul Haro. They increased their space as well. Sky Music Lounge, a live music bar in Ballwin located in the Barn at Lucerne opened post-ordinance and last friday expanded by adding a sports bar. The owner embraced the idea of smoke-free air and patrons come from all over to hear live music in a smoke-free atmosphere. Harry’s West was located at the same intersection. Charlotte’s Rib and Fortel’s were smoke free before the CAO and remain at the same intersection today. Lone Wolf Coffee Company just opened in Ballwin in late 2008 also near the Barn at Lucerne. Senor Pique, a Mexican restaurant that began in Manchester, has recently moved to Ballwin in the vacated O’Charley’s space. Manchester does not have a smoke-free ordinance. The restaurant is very busy and will be so tonight for Cinco de Mayo. Candicci’s just received the green light (April ’09) to operate in Ballwin. Applebee’s has retained their Ballwin location but closed its restaurants in Wildwood and Chesterfield.Finally, Ballwin’s CAO has been in full effect for over three years and their police have written NO ordinance violations. This is the REAL story about Ballwin. It’s a shame that opponents to Clean Air can’t see through the smoke.
The above commenter knows that other factors, such as competiton from Chesterfield and Citicorp’s move, has impacted Ballwin’s businesses. Taken together with real sales data from the Missouri Dept of Revenue (above) shows that the City Ballwin may be a good case study afterall. If your receipts are declining they will likely continue to decline regardless of a smoke-free law. Just wanted to clear the air.
Wow, the PD needs to hire you, or at least let them buy some of your posts for their paper.
Good work.
Speaking as someone who grew up out that way and then returned for a couple of years between 2006-2008; the largest factor in Ballwin’s sales tax decline is the suburban, outdated nature of the Manchester corridor. Driving the stretch of Manchester is an absolute nightmare and has been for decades. When the lesser evil of Chesterfield Valley opened, people flocked there to get away from the vehicular suicide that is Manchester.
Studies have shown that 46% of statistics are made up on the spot…
It is necessary to compare how surrounding communities fared during the same timeframe in order to make an educated conclusion on this matter. If, for example, Ballwin sales continued on the previously noted decline after the smoking ban, but nearby areas such as Manchester and Chesterfield saw increases in patronage, then one could presume some loss of business to Ballwin as a direct correlation to the ban. If, however, those surrounding areas maintained a constant revenue flow or saw a similar downturn in their sales, the theory that the smoking ban is not harmful would indeed be substantiated.
Ninja,
You can always look for other data to correlate but this is a fair dataset to use when examining the direct effects of the smoking ban since it directly relates to the effected area. There are always other contributing causes (new major developments, weather, road closures, etc) which could effect the data but there is no reason in my opinion to look outside of this dataset since there was no inflection point corresponding to the smoking ban. If we look at national numbers, there was a major reduction in personal discretionary spending in the last year or so which doesn’t even appear to be reflected in the charts I see since they show no sign of a trend change with the economy either. It appears that Ballwin is on a steady decline as Realist states.
I must say that I expected to see a decline due to the ban but I am pleasantly surprised. Perhaps the anti-smoking ban parties have been successful in even conditioning me to credit their arguments more than they deserve.
No doubt that with any economic study you have to take in many variables. In looking at these numbers a couple of things stand out. First – right after the ban goes into effect – there is a small surge in restaurants. Right after that it drops off. Goes from 33 to 25 and stays around that 25 number. Yes you can look at similar drops in the past, but that doesn’t mean the ban didn’t cause those restaurants to go out of business. Of course half of those restaurants are fast food. I worked out there for years and that was never a problem to find.
The chart that gives average per restaurant is useless – Of course businesses that didn’t fail picked up the slack from the ones that did.
The overall sales tax decline is problematic. This is where a real bonifide economist comes into play. They can with some certainly conclude were they would have been without a ban.
An good example is Columbia – According to the Fed – they dropped around 5% in the first year total receipts. Last year the city issued a statement that sales had increased 5% the second year of the ban. Antis jumped all over this as proof that smoking bans increased business. Anybody with a little math knowledge would know that on a percentage basis – that are still below pre-ban levels (100X.95 = 95 and 95X1.05=99.75) Consider that it is two years later and factor in inflation, they still down from were they should be.
St Louis City will get hit harder, much harder. We have a 30% smoking rate and that will kill bars and to a lesser extent restaurants. Will they exist after a ban, yes but there will be less of them.
In any event – just let the free market take care of it. If people want to smoke, let them go to smoking allowed venues. If you don’t like smoke – just go to smoke-free venues. I’m not sure what is so hard about that.
Truthfully though – there are few places that you can go to and be bothered by smoke. Keep it in the bar – a good filtration system and most people (you can’t make everybody happy) will be fine.
So Harry Belli and Elsa Barth either didn’t know their own businesses or they have been lying.
According to a recent Suburban Journal article, the French Quarter took a big hit from the smoking ban:
“When the Ballwin Clean Air Act snuffed out smoking in most public places, it meant the end of business as usual at the French Quarter Bar and Grill.
But it didn’t mean the end of business.
French Quarter took a hit when the smoking ban took effect for bars and restaurants Jan. 1, 2006, said Brian Armstrong, a co-owner of the business at 14766 Manchester Road. At one point, it was so dead at the French Quarter that the owners would park in front of the bar to make it look busy.
“We had no customers, but it caught on after awhile,” Armstrong said. “We remodeled. We redecorated. We developed a new crowd.”
If proponents of local, regional and statewide smoking legislation have their way, more businesses might have to reinvent themselves. ”
http://suburbanjournals.stltoday.com/articles/2009/02/15/west/news/0211wcj-smoke0.txt
Please be honest about what you plan to put businesses through.
Just about to be published research by Federal Reserve economists will blame the Illinois smoking ban for a drastic reduction in casino revenues across the state. I am sure these economists will predict the same for St. Louis casinos under a ban.
University of Wisconsin economist Dr. Chad Cotti predicts that Alderman Krewson’s smoking ban will cut St. Louis City bar employment 19.7 percent. His credentials to make such a statement are pretty solid.
http://www.business.uwosh.edu/other/facultystaff/faculty/cotti.php
I have been reading this site for a long time and never felt the need to post a comment, but after reading dozens of these irritating anti-smoking articles I had to say something.
First of all, people should be allowed make decisions for themselves. I live in Ballwin and a large percentage of the restaurants didn’t allow smoking even before the ban, so it was not as if non-smokers didn’t have any options. Why should the few restaurants that allowed smoking have to change to accommodate the majority’s personal preference. It would be like banning the Pontiac Aztek from the road just because most people think it is ugly.
But I don’t think that a logical argument has a place in this thread. The anti-smoking posts on this site are really just paternalistic propaganda. You want people to change their habits and you rehash the same arguments week after week in an effort to make your opinion enforced by law. I enjoy hearing your opinions but hearing the exact same opinion over and over again is an insult to your readers intellegence.
I love this site and I will continue reading it but please stop with these articles. We all know your opinion, just let us make our own.
[slp — Thank you for reading and sharing your thoughts. As long as people advocate a community’s public health policy be determined based on individual business owners I will continue. ]
Steve – do you own a bar or restaurant? Are you employed in a bar or restaurant? Will your livelihood be affected if a ban is put in place?
To Ninjas point above about neighboring cities…
I ran the same numbers for Manchester. A very good comparison because it is right next to Ballwin and would stand to benefit directly from Ballwin’s lost business due to the smoking ban. It also has similar retail sales to Ballwin but about 60% of Ballwin’s restaurant revenue. In both cases the main retail and restaurant businesses are located along Manchester and neither has seen major new commercial development (Manchester’s new shopping center opened very late in 2008 and would not show up in the data).
In Ballwin the annual decline in restaurant sales from 1999 through 2005 (last year without the smoking ban) was 4.6%. During that same period the decline in Manchester was 0.4%, almost no change.
In Ballwin the annual decline in restaurant sales from 2005 through 2008 (so, the last year without the smoking ban through the three years with the ban) was 4.8%. Almost no change from the previous seven years. Well positioned to take advantage of this dramatic decline in restaurant sales, Manchester saw its restaurant receipts DROP by 8.0%, compared to steady restaurant sales from 1999 until Ballwin implemented its smoking ban.
Tony noted above that the number of dining and drinking establishments did drop noticeably after the smoking ban. Looking at the four year period prior to the ban (2002 through 2005) Ballwin saw an average annual increase in establishments of 2.5%. In the period after the smoking ban (2005 through 2008) Ballwin saw an annual decline of 5.1%. Looks like the smoking ban killed the positive momentum of the previous four years. But what happened in Manchester?
In Manchester in the four year period prior to the Ballwin smoking ban there was an annual increase in establishments of 6.6%. In the period after the ban the number of restaurant establishments DROPPED by 5.6% annually.
The point is that there are so many factors at play (both macro and micro) that it is virtually impossible to tie relatively tiny changes in sales and numbers of businesses to the smoking ban. If you want to look at simple correlations than you can clearly conclude that “Yes” the Ballwin smoking ban did have a dramatic negative impact… on neighboring Manchester.
Mr. Hannegan, you place a lot of weight on Dr. Cotti’s research. I presume you will place equal weight on the study by Ohio State University’s professor Elizabeth Klein. This study examined employment trends over three years in eight Minnesota cities with different type of clean indoor air policies and two cities with no laws restricting smoking, and found no significant effect by type of clean indoor air policy.
Thanks, Steve, for addressing this important issue, despite getting the odd brickbat in response.
I respect the right of Messrs. Hannegan and Palazzolo to voice their opposition to smoke-free air laws but I don’t agree with them, and their arguments would make no sense if applied to any other major public health threat, such as swine flu.
We put public health and welfare before profit in just about every other case, but not when it comes to secondhand smoke.
The opposition was originally generated by the tobacco industry to protect its profits, but it seems that now it has morphed into opposition from genuine (as opposed to the original fake) smokers’ rights groups who buy into the industry arguments. In addition, the industry has its faithful acolytes, like the Missouri Restaurant Association, sometimes bought by the industry, at other times led by smokers who are sympathetic, and sometimes both.
Both the public and policy makers should be guided by the U.S. Surgeon General, whose job is protecting the health of ALL Americans. Every workplace should be safe from the hazard of secondhand smoke. What makes it so amazing is that unlike so many other health hazards secondhand smoke can be dealt with so easily: simply by enacting smoke-free air laws requiring the removal of ashtrays and “No Smoking” signage. It’s not expensive or difficult, as has been demonstrated time and time again.
Ballwin is a good local example of a comprehensive law. The city where I live, Ferguson, is an example of a poor ordinance: only City Hall is required to be smoke-free, although that’s a relief for the employees who work there or when I have to visit the Public Works office or attend a council meeting.
As I wrote in an OpEd published June 2 in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (http://tinyurl.com/r3oteb) and reproduced on my blog (http://tinyurl.com/phcfof), it’s been 23 years since the first U.S. Surgeon General’s report on secondhand smoke which concluded that exposure to SHS caused lung cancer in healthy nonsmokers. And as I concluded in my OpEd: “What are we waiting for?!”
As explained by Surgeon General Dr. Richard Carmona to the question of what is the most pressing issue the country faces he replied “Obesity. It is the terror within and the magnitude of the dilemma will dwarf 9/11 or any other terrorist event you can point out”. http://www.killeratlarge.com/med_trailer.mov
– –
Centering arguments about health on one subject (smoking) misses the bigger point. Our health depends on creating sustainable and healthy lifestyles. The pollution from trucks and our auto dependence is killing us much more than second-hand cigarette smoke. According to a study from the USC School of Medicine, children who lived within 500 meters of a freeway, or approximately a third of a mile, since age 10 had substantial deficits in lung function by the age of 18 years, compared to children living at least 1500 meters, or approximately one mile, away. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/61700.php
– –
The leaders of the StL region and the state of MO has made auto-centric to an extreme. Particularly destructive are the policies of MoDOT and the EWGC.
For full disclosure, it should be noted that Dr. Cotti is not “a University of Wisconsin economist.” He’s a University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh economist. It’s kinda sorta like saying that Troy Slaten played basketball at the University of Missouri.
There is a difference between Klein and Cotti’s research. First – its an economic study and Klein is not an economist. Second – the headline on the paper is that it is a study of Bars. The actual study lumps together restaurant and bars. First – bars are far more effected than restaurants. It has to do with alcohol service. The bigger percentage of alcohol the more they are hurt. A family restaurant that serves food only probably won’t be affected. Fast food restaurants are not affected and they already ban smoking. Restaurants that serve food and alcohol are affected more and bars are hit the hardest. There are far more restaurant workers than bar workers. Her study lumps them all together which diminishes the effect on bars. The study was also paid for by Clearway Minnesota, a anti-tobacco group. I wouldn’t expect anyone here to take seriously a study done by Big Tobacco – why would you take seriously a study done by a group with a clear agenda.
Cotti is not paid by anyone other than the University. His only agenda is to study the effects of bans and report the truth.
Another point that is not taken into account by either is hours worked. If revenue is off, one way a restaurant or bar deals with it to cut hours. The employees may not be unemployed but work less hours.
Steve – I have a question. The “Restaurant” sales tax numbers are for all restaurants, including fast food? It’s unfortunate we can’t see the numbers for just sit down restaurants and bars. I’m assuming the Dept of Revenue divides the sales tax revenue by type of business, retail, auto, restaurant, etc. Is that a correct assumption? I don’t know too many fast food joints that weren’t smoke free already except for Steak ‘N Shake. After Ballwin’s CAO, I understand Steak ‘N Shake regionally decided to go smoke free.
The comment by Realist that Manchester Road is outdated is spot on. That’s why the five west county cities in the corridor – Manchester, Winchester, Ballwin, Ellisville and Wildwood are working together on a joint project called “The Great Streets Initiative” through East-West Gateway. The project’s goal is to make Manchester a more walkable, pedestrian-friendly, inviting “destination” rather than just a road to move cars. MoDOT and the businesses along Manchester are participating, too. Only Ballwin has a Clean Air Ordinance – are the four other cities hurting because of BALLWIN’S CAO? I think not.
While I can see value to both sides of this argument, I am continually baffled by the extentions in logic taken by some of the anti-regulation proponents. Generally they agree smoking is unhealthy, but somehow believe banning smoking in bars and restaurants will lead to all kinds of other bans in the name of good health. Therefore, rather than judging each issue on its own merits, they can’t support anything because it might have some domino effect. But fortunately that has already happened and we now have many sane and responsible regulations in place that protect us from many diseases and safety hazards. Yes, sometimes these regulations, like food workers and health professionals needing to wear rubber gloves, are costly and inconvenient, but they save lives, and by some illogical extension, they have not led to everyone having to wear rubber suits. For every stupid reguation, there are thousands that protect our safety and welfare. Smoking bans in bars and restaurants is good policy that will not result in the collapse of businesses, communities or society.
No the world will not end and I for one don’t buy the slippery slope arguments. But that being said it still doesn’t banning smoking right. There are many things in life that aren’t healthy for us – some far more than smoking and light years ahead of SHS. Individuals have a right to live their lives as they see fit as long as it doesn’t hurt others. In order for it to even remotely hurt others – they have to make a choice to enter a smoking allowed establishment.
I’d like to respond to a couple of points made by Mr. Tony Palazzolo. You questioned the study by Dr. Elizabeth Klein, writing:
“The study was also paid for by Clearway Minnesota, a anti-tobacco group. I wouldn’t expect anyone here to take seriously a study done by Big Tobacco – why would you take seriously a study done by a group with a clear agenda.”
I don’t know anything about this group but here’s what I do know. The tobacco industry for decades funded studies and then either insisted on manipulating the results or outright suppressed them if they were unfavorable. This is well-documented in several books I have, some of it based on leaked secret documents. I’ve never heard of any studies by groups promoting smoke-free air being deliberately biased but I obviously cannot vouch for every such study published. My understanding is that good research is on the side of groups like ours which support smoke-free air: there’s no need to fudge the results.
Speaking for myself and as a scientist, whenever Missouri GASP does a study, or funds an independent study as has become the norm recently, I am concerned that it be done to the most rigorous standards possible. I’m simply not interested in fudging the results to suit a particular agenda: that is not good science. Obviously, at the start of a study we hope it will be helpful to promoting our goals, but we don’t know that for sure until we obtain the results. We are underwriting a study on casino revenues in MO, IA and IL at present and are still awaiting the results. We hope it will shed light on the impact of smoke-free air laws on this issue. Again, we hope it will be helpful but it hasn’t been completed yet and it’s a complex issue.
I also have to take issue with you on your concluding remark in a later reply:
“In order for it [SHS] to even remotely hurt others – they have to make a choice to enter a smoking allowed establishment.”
Not true if they’re an employee. And it’s not good enough to say they can find employment elsewhere. Every employee deserves the right to work in a safe environment and one polluted by SHS doesn’t meet that criterion. To say it’s a “choice” is to buy into tobacco industry propaganda. RJReynolds had a publication called “Choice” which it used to attack smoke-free air efforts. You are in fact denying choice when you allow smoke pollution. No one is denied access to a private business open to the public if it is smoke-free: not you nor me. But that is not true when smoking takes place. The most extreme example is asthmatics who are smoke-sensitive, but others who are adversely affected are essentially also being denied access. Why should we ignore this recognized health threat when it’s so easy to address?
Finally, I’d like to address what I see as red herrings by “john.” On 05 Jun 2009 at 12:33 pm he wrote:
“As explained by Surgeon General Dr. Richard Carmona to the question of what is the most pressing issue the country faces he replied “Obesity. It is the terror within and the magnitude of the dilemma will dwarf 9/11 or any other terrorist event you can point outâ€. http://www.killeratlarge.com/med_trailer.mov
– –
Centering arguments about health on one subject (smoking) misses the bigger point. Our health depends on creating sustainable and healthy lifestyles. The pollution from trucks and our auto dependence is killing us much more than second-hand cigarette smoke.”
The trailer referenced by “john” included a CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] estimate of 112,000 deaths per year due to obesity in 2006. I believe that estimate has been revised downward, but there’s no disputing that obesity and lack of exercise in the U.S. is an important health issue. Air pollution from trucks is a problem but nowhere near as significant.
In order of priority, the leading causes of avoidable death in the U.S. currently are:
#1: Active smoking: 440,000
#2: Alcohol-related deaths: 110,000 (approx.)
#3: Secondhand smoke: lowest recent estimate: 38,000 [ref. National Cancer Institute at http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/tip-sheet-secondhand-smoke%5D
Obesity has apparently been relegated to #7 on the list, according to revised numbers from the CDC, released in April 2005: 25,814 deaths a year. I cannot vouch for this. I personally believe that obesity coupled with lack of exercise is an important risk factor in the U.S.
It’s important to get the numbers reasonably correct when discussing this issue, otherwise it’s just hand waving and doesn’t lead to good policy or useful conclusions.
Martin Pion, President, Missouri GASP http://mogasp.wordpress.com/
Anybody else getting tired of hearing or reading the same basic arguments over and over again? Smokers believe what they want to believe, that is the nature of addiction. It’s incredible that we’ve put up with smoking in public places as long as we have. Bowing to the demands of the minority percentage of the population addicted to nicotine makes no sense whatsoever but you’ll never convince the addicted of that because by the very nature of their addiction they have to rationalize what they do, they simply can’t do otherwise. To them it’s all about their selfish convenience to pursue what is, in effect, a potentially life-threatening addiction that most of them won’t regret until such time they are diagnosed with such smoking-related diseases such as Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, emphysema or lung cancer. So, to argue with them while they’re still caught up in their addiction is really just, silly. Let’s get on with it and hope that those who smoke begin to understand there are better things to do with their money and their health, that sticking around longer for their grandchildren is what they really need to be thinking about and working towards.
Red herring Martin, oh please quite driving by looking in your rearview mirror. The comparison posited: “The pollution from trucks and our auto dependence is killing us much more than second-hand cigarette smoke.” The comments by Dr. Carmona are his own.
– –
According to the CDC, in 2000, poor diet including obesity and physical inactivity caused 400,000 U.S. deaths versus only approximately 38,000 from second hand smoke. It’s important to get the numbers reasonably correct when discussing this issue otherwise we will get stuck with more of the same from MoDOT and EWGC.
John -The problem with your focus on Obesity in comparison to Second Hand Smoke is comparing apples to oranges. While Obesity is certainly a health problem, it only affects the person that is obese. Second Hand Smoke doesn’t stay with the smoker, it affects those around him/her, impacting their health too.
Martin
I’m surprised that you don’t know of Clearway Minnesota. What you didn’t respond to was my comments on the problems with the study. In any case, she was paid by an anti-tobacco group and she herself is not an economist. The study should be questioned even more so since a nearly identical study was performed by an economist (Cotti) and it did seperate bars from restaurants.
Since you are looking at a doing a study on Casinos – Micheal Pakko with whom you have met just published a Federal Reserve study along with another economist.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/wp/2009/2009-027.pdf
As to the choice issue – whether or not Big Tobacco made the argument – it is still a valid argument. Employees and patrons have a choice were to work and were to play. The job skills required to work in the hospiltality industry are interchangible. For the most part, if one has the skills to work at restaurant “A” – then he can work at restaurant “B” as well. Waiting tables, busboy and cook are not unique jobs. In fact, if a waiter happens to be a smoker – there are parts of the metro area that they would have a much more difficult time finding employment in a smoking allowed establishment.
PS – Martin – just wanted to let you know I’m still working on the DVD. Time constraints have made it difficult to put the 40 or so hours it takes to complete the project. When it’s done, I’ll get you a few copies.
Very nicely articulated & logically explained. Provides valuable insights
taxconsultantsonline.com