Hennipen County Smoking Ban

Smoking Ban

Over the last several years, the dangers of second hand smoke has become increasingly publicized directly leading to public smoking bans all across the United States. In 2004, Hennepin County officials decided to issue a smoking ban in all bar and restaurant establishments through Hennepin County ("Hennepin"). The effects this smoking ban has had on the bars and restaurants are substantial. Clearly, the environment inside bars and restaurants is much healthier, but almost all businesses affected by the ban have seen financial changes; as a result, some bar owners sought out changes to the law. The effects of the smoking ban have left a remarkable impression on bar and restaurants throughout Hennepin County.

The smoking ban was aimed at one effect: cleaner and healthier air in all bars and restaurants. In this regard, the smoking ban has been successful as the cleaner air has been very well documented through three different studies. First, the Minnesota Partnerships for Action Against Tobacco (MPAAT) took a study of air samples from 25 bars and restaurants both before and after the smoking ban was put in effect. The study showed air pollutants were 99% less present after the smoking ban was put in effect; what's more, most of these pollutants are known to be cancer-causing agents (Vomhof). Another study conducted in Ramsey County, where only a partial ban is in effect, also helped to further prove the effectiveness of Hennepin's total ban. Air pollutants have only been cut down 30%, and remained three times higher than the levels recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency (Vomof). This study helped prove two things: first, that it is indisputable that the smoking ban was solely responsible for the cleaner air, and second, that a partial ban is insufficient; only a complete ban could lower the levels of pollutants to a safe amount (Vomhof). The third study, by the Environmental Health Department, actually proved that secondhand smoke concentrations were 152 times less present than the Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards. This confirms that the Hennepin County smoking ban has not only accomplished its original goal, but actually exceeded it ("Clearing"). Clearly, three different studies confirm that the one effect intended by the smoking ban, cleaner air in all bars and restaurants, has been achieved.

However, one effect Hennepin County officials failed to avoid were the changes in businesses as a result of the ban; these are evident through the reports of revenue loss in some businesses, the increased closings of bars and restaurants, and the growth of the restaurants directly outside of the ban. The Minnesota Licensed Beverage Committee (MLBC) questioned fourteen establishments in Hennepin County about changes in revenue both before and after the ban. In one year, sales dropped nearly $200,000 between the establishments (Williams, "Economic). The owners of these establishments believe that there is a direct correlation between the ban and the sales loss as they all had experienced growth for several years preceding the ban (Williams, "Economic). On top of the revenue loss, the smoking ban has led to a substantial increase in the amount of bar and restaurant closures in 2005. In the first 17 months after the ban, a total of 83 restaurants were closed ("Clearing"). Compare this to the 15 that closed all of 2004 before the ban was in effect. An increase of 67 closures in a little over a year had bar and restaurant managers terrified for their establishments, and completely blaming the ban ("Clearing"). The final effect the smoking ban has had on the business standpoint of bars and restaurants, is the substantial growth of the restaurants directly outside Hennepin County. Since the ban is only in effect in Hennepin County, smokers will gladly drive to the bars and restaurants just beyond the boundaries (Williams, "Economics"). In fact, the report from the MLBC showed the establishments in "Anoka County, just north of Hennepin County, have enjoyed substantial growth" since the smoking ban (Williams, "Economics"). The success of the bars and restaurants just outside of the county boundaries, and the decline