Tobacco Scam: Smokefree Restaurants: Fake Economics - Cooking the Books

Lexington, Kentucky

How a capitol of tobacco went smokefree

On July 1, 2003, Lexington, Kentucky, enacted a smokefree law that covers most indoor places open to the general public, including restaurants, bars, and taverns.

"Opponents said it would never happen in Kentucky," said Lexington mayor Teresa Ann Isaac.

Kentucky is a tobacco-producing state. It also the nation's highest smoking rates — and lung cancer rates. And Lexington is in the heart of the state's tobacco belt.

The opposition — at first — included Lexington's food and beverage association, the tobacco and alcohol industry, and tobacco farmers. "Those for and against the clean indoor air ordinance sat at the same table to discuss the issue, review the scientific data, and share ideas and concerns," Isaac reported to the President's Cancer Panel in October, 2006.

Keys to Lexington's success

First, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that among the police powers of local government, promoting and safeguarding the public health ranks at the top. They ruled that Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government could enact an ordinance protecting the public from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke.

Second, advocates, including local officials, emphasized that this was a public health issue, not an issue of "smokers' rights" or business autonomy. "Once government officials carefully reviewed the scientific data, there was no question in anyone's mind that secondhand smoke adversely affects the health of those who are subjected to it, especially employees who work in smoke-filled environments," the mayor says.

Third, the public policy process insisted on involving and engaging the general public, the healthcare sector, and the food and beverage industry at every step. The tobacco industry supported the opposition, but kept the food and beverage association and local business in front. Advocates consistently made the point that non-smokers, the majority of the population, would be the source of valued "new" customers.

Implementation and enforcement

The measure, having cleared the courts, was accompanied by a "planned, deliberate approach to implementation" led by Lexington's health department.

"Our transition to being a smoke-free community was helped by the fact that we made sure businesses affected by the ordinance, especially bars and restaurants, were given plenty of time and information," says Mayor Isaac.

The Lexington-Fayette County Health department prepared a Business Implementation Kit, including a brochure to be shared among employees; a quick reference sheet covering the smokefree measures' provisions; and guidelines on removing all ashtrays and putting up signage. An FAQ document further explained the law's details.

While Lexington's measure is designed to be primarily self-enforcing and complaint-driven, the health department hired a few additional citation officers during the first year. "We have had excellent compliance, with about 97 percent of all businesses adhering to the law," reports the Mayor.

Resistance mainly came from a few bars and strip clubs, and from bingo halls that argued they were private organizations and exempt. Fines on smokers and businesses are $100 for a first offense; $250 for a second offense; and $500 for each subsequent offense. Businesses can also be cited for failing to post "no smoking" signage visibly.

As has happened in other cities that have gone smokefree, support for the measure grew even stronger after people felt the difference. A University of Kentucky poll found support expanded from 57 percent, when the law took effect in April 2004, to 64 percent by the end of that year.

Economic, health, and environmental impacts

Some business owners, mainly of bars and strip clubs, warned loudly that the smokefree measure would cost them business. However, a University of Kentucky study showed an average increase of 400 restaurant employees per month (3 percent of total restaurant employment) after the law took effect. Bar employment remained stable, and Lexington saw no change in business openings or closings.

Lexington's economic results were very similar to New York City's. In New York, employment in bars and restaurants increased and stabilized because employees who are not smokers stayed on the job longer in an industry that generally sees a transient workforce. Business tax receipts in restaurants and bars increased 8.7 percent. There was also an increase in the number of liquor licenses.

Similarly, a recent study of the El Paso, Texas, smokefree ordinance, the strongest in that state, found no changes in restaurant or bar revenues based on a comparison of sales tax and mixed-beverage tax data over the twelve years before and one year after the smokefree measure was in effect.

In Lexington, "you could see a positive change immediately after the measure went into force," Mayor Isaac reports. More families with children began to eat out. The elderly and citizens who had pre-existing heart and respiratory problems and other chronic health conditions are now able to go out and eat in a public place. Those who once did not go out to have a drink because of the secondhand smoke, now frequent bars and taverns. Many bars, taverns and restaurants have expanded their establishments by adding outdoor patios to accommodate smokers.

"There is every indication that people don't go out to smoke," says Mayor Isaac. "People go out to eat, drink, and socialize whether they smoke or not. Citizens from surrounding areas are eager to travel to Lexington where then can enjoy an establishment that is smoke-free."

Health impacts have also been documented. Another University of Kentucky study found that Lexington's restaurant and bar workers reported immediate health benefits from the smokefree measure. In just three months, hair nicotine levels among hospitality workers dropped 56 percent. These workers were also less likely to report respiratory symptoms. Interestingly, the bar workers had the most to gain from the law — their nicotine concentrations dropped more than restaurant workers' did, although their rates of smoking were the same.

A third University of Kentucky study confirmed that the clean indoor air measure did, in fact, clean up the air. Pollution in hospitality venues fell by 91 percent after the measure took effect.

Our smokefree future: the view from Lexington

"Local control is important for clean indoor air because it allows for meaningful debate and public education on the issue, as well as more effective enforcement," concludes Mayor Isaac. "

"As we saw in Lexington, a powerful change process unfolds as a community debates the issue of secondhand smoke. Compliance rates tend to be very high for local clean air ordinances, because local residents are exposed to the issue over time and typically have a higher understanding of the need for a smoke-free law at the local level.

"We're proud that Lexington led the way for other Kentucky communities and was a model for other communities in the Southern region by enacting a 100 percent clean indoor air ordinance. Clean air ordinances go a long way to promote healthy lifestyles and improve the quality of life for all."

Note: Material in this article was adapted from a presentation by Lexington Mayor Isaac to the President's Cancer Panel in October, 2006. Unless otherwise ascribed, views and opinions expressed are those of TobaccoScam.