WAS BLOOMBERG RIGHT TO BAN SMOKING IN BARS?
---Warren D Smith Feb 2003-----------------

In 2002, NY city mayor Bloomberg banned smoking in bars in NY.
His claim was this would save lives, perhaps of the smokers, and/or
perhaps of inhalers of "secondary smoke" (such as workers in the bars).

But bar-owners were not so happy. They claimed Bloomberg obviously did not
understand the big financial impact (in term of lost customers) this
would cause to the bar business.

I claim we can examine this with numbers and math.
Let's examine it on a nationwuide, rather than NY-city-wide basis.

DATA (OR AT LEAST, ESTIMATES) ABOUT DEATHS
------------------------------------------

The number of deaths caused by smoking each year (during the years
1995-1999) in the US was (AMA estimates)

264087 deaths among men
178311 deaths among women
(breakdown: lung cancer: 124,813; 
ischemic heart disease: 81,976;
chronic airways obstruction: 64,735,
other causes for the rest.)
Also smoking during pregnancy
resulted in the death of 599 male and
408 female infants annually.

Also, smoking caused fires estimated to cause
the deaths of 118 males and 75 females
per year.

Finally, due to "secondhand smoke"
3103 males and 4507 females died per year (estim.).

---------------------------------

If there is 1 bar per 5000 people in the USA, that is
50000 bars in the USA.  
(There are 11800 liquor licenses in Pennsylvania for 11.8 million
people, i.e. 1 per 1000 people, but this includes both bars and
restaurants, and the latter would seem a lot more common since you
have to eat but don't have to drink...)
If each has business cut by 30%
due to a smoking ban, and that business is $1 million per year per
bar, that is 15 billion dollars in lost business.  

On the other hand, if Bloomberg's no-smoking law reduces deaths from 
secondhand smoke by 50% that is 3805 lives saved per year, which
is (at $1 million per life) 3.8 billion dollars saved.
OK: so far, Bloomberg is unjustified...

But if we also assume this will reduce deaths from (first-hand!) smoking
by 5% (since smokers will smoke a little less often...)
that is over 21000 more lives saved, for $21 billion additional
savings per year. Furthermore,  the setback to bar business may
only be temporary (as seems to have been the experience of Los Angeles
- eventually people come back to bars, or nonsmokers now go there who
did not before) and also bar owners and workers are free to move into
other occupations, so they really should only be counted as losing 
business for, say 1 or 2 years before they've adjusted.

All this put together means: 
YES, banning smoking in bars was easily the right decision
both in money and in lives.

----------------------------------