Wisconsin bars and restaurants are reaping more than health benefits from the statewide workplace smoking ban that went into effect three years ago Friday.

According to the Wisconsin Restaurant Association and state tax data, bars and restaurants showed a 4 percent increase in revenue from the 2011 to 2012 calendar year.

Dona Winisky, director of public policy and communication for the American Lung Association in Wisconsin, said the increase in revenue is not a surprise.

“We always had evidence from other states that when you enact a smoke-free air law revenues would at least be the same or go up,” Winisky said. “Wisconsin is very consistent with other states on that front.”

Maureen Busalacchi, executive director of Health First Wisconsin warns it is not true for all businesses.

“I’m sure it’s not universal in the hospitality industry,” Busalacchi said. “Every business reacts differently to change.”

Wisconsin Act 12, commonly referred to as a workplace smoking ban, was signed by Gov. Jim Doyle on May 19, 2009, and went into effect July 5, 2010. It prohibits smoking in bars, private clubs, restaurants and other venues.

Jon Walters, kitchen manager of Wildcat Lanes in Verona, said business has remained steady, but said he has patrons who still wish they could have a cigarette with their drink every now and then.

“People said they would stop coming in but that didn’t happen,” Walters said. “Business remains steady.”

A study by UW-Milwaukee in 2011 followed 531 Wisconsin bartenders and showed as much as a 36 percent decrease in secondhand smoke and respiratory symptoms after the smoking ban.

“The study showed marked improvements in terms of symptoms such as coughing and wheezing,” Winisky said.

Walters, a smoker himself, said he hasn’t noticed a difference in his health but notices “the environment is nicer and healthier.”

In 2011, a study conducted by advocacy group SmokeFree Wisconsin showed 90 percent of Wisconsin residents surveyed go out to eat and drink the same or more often now that the state is smoke-free.

While Walters said he enjoys having a cigarette with a cocktail every once in a while, being able to go out and not have smoke around him is a nice change.

“It’s nice when you go out, especially to some of those danker places where everyone was chain smoking,” he said.

You might also like

(41) comments

smartin
smartin

Funny how pro ban groups NEVER hire independent economists to do their "economic reports". isn't it? Funny how they never include tax hikes, beer and liquor price increases, food price increases to restaurants, which result in higher taxes, or other factors that any run of the mill economist would take into account.

Why do people who get grant funds to promote smoking bans promote smoking bans and the lies that attempt to justify smoking bans?

Asked and Answered. It's the money, honey. And the patch and gum promoters are not only using pharma money, they are using CDC federal money too! It's all illegal, but who cares? The media? Nope. They are getting their share too! Matching grants!!!! Look it up.

Miramar
Miramar

Here’s an excerpt from an antismoking “advocacy toolkit” (from a Canadian toolkit, but will be the same around the world, and relevant to bans of any sort, indoor and out). It highlights the tricks/tactics used to contrive appearances – from flooding comments boards with inflammatory rhetoric, to conducting their own “polls”, to giving the appearance of wholesale public support for smoking bans – to manipulate the public and politicians/law-makers:

“For the next few months, strive to ensure there are positive media stories, letters to the editor, etc., that tout how well the bylaw changes are working. There will no doubt be a backlash from smokers in the beginning until they get used to the changes.In the meantime, you have to counter their negative comments in the media, in comment sections of online news pieces and blogs, on radio call-in shows, etc.Your job is to make politicians continue to believe that they did the right thing.”It is not unheard of for councillors to backtrack on their decision and water down legislation.” (p.48)
SMOKEFREE OUTDOOR PUBLIC SPACES: A COMMUNITY ADVOCACY TOOLKIT.
http://www.smoke-free.ca/pdf_1/Smoke-free%20outdoor%20spaces%20advocacy%20-sept2010.pdf

Miramar
Miramar

Here’s a good recent example of how the unquestioned propaganda works following an indoor smoking ban in the Ukraine.
http://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/op-ed/ukraines-smoke-free-law-is-working-318148.html
The bulk of the article is standard antismoking propaganda. There’s the requisite anecdote (most probably a lie) concerning a smoker friend who thinks the ban is just wonderful. There is nothing in the article, i.e., facts, that actually addresses the circumstance post-ban. Yet the title of the article is “Ukraine’s smoke-free law is working!”

Other examples of the propaganda tactic:
http://www.pantagraph.com/news/opinion/mailbag/smoking-ban-protects-people-s-lives-health/article_45ba72da-56dc-11e2-8617-0019bb2963f4.html%3Fcomment_form=true
http://robesonian.com/bookmark/21315966-Three-years-after-the-smoke-cleared
http://www.bordermail.com.au/story/1221998/nsw-smoking-ban-smokers-like-it/?cs=55

Miramar
Miramar

It doesn’t matter if, after a ban, business is deteriorating, smokers feel more ostracized, and nonsmokers become more neurotic and bigoted. It wouldn’t matter if the whole place is crashing down. The role of the antismoking activist is to try to convince particularly law-makers that everyone just loves the ban; that even smokers are ecstatic about being shoved out of their usual socializing and having further [baseless] restrictions placed on them. This concerns an indoor ban, but it won’t stop there. While they now say that they are only after indoor bans, they’re already working on the brainwashing required to push for outdoor bans.

Beware of antismoking activists. They live in a deranged fantasy world. They are pathological liars, amongst other dysfunction. They’ll say and do anything to get bans passed and maintained.

Miramar
Miramar

The current antismoking crusade, very much in the eugenics tradition, is much like previous crusades. It is a moralizing, social-engineering, eradication/prohibition crusade decided upon in the 1970s by a small, self-installed clique of [medically-oriented] fanatics operating under the auspices of the World Health Organization (see the Godber Blueprint http://www.rampant-antismoking.com ). This little, unelected group decided for everyone that tobacco-use should be eradicated from the world. These fanatics were speaking of secondhand smoke “danger” years before the first study on SHS, together with advocating indoor and OUTDOOR smoking bans: Secondhand smoke “danger” is a concoction to advance the social-engineering agenda, i.e., inflammatory propaganda. The zealots’ goal this time is not to ban the sale of tobacco but to ban smoking in essentially all the places that people smoke. Up until recently the social-engineering intent has been masqueraded as protecting nonsmokers from secondhand smoke “danger”. But even this fraud is no longer viable in that bans are now being instituted for large outdoor areas such as parks, beaches, campuses where there is no demonstrable “health” issue for nonsmokers. This dangerous mix of the medically-aligned attempting social engineering is a throwback to a century ago. We seem to have learned nothing of value from very painful lessons of only the recent past.

Miramar
Miramar

America has been a “leader” in this antismoking insanity which other countries are following suit. The problem with Americans is that they are clueless to even their own recent history. They have a terrible history with this sort of “health” fanaticism/zealotry/extremism.

Antismoking is not new. It has a long, sordid, 400+ year history, much of it predating even the semblance of a scientific basis or the more recent concoction of secondhand smoke “danger”. Antismoking crusades typically run on inflammatory propaganda, i.e., lies, in order to get law-makers to institute bans. Statistics and causal attribution galore are conjured. The current antismoking rhetoric has all been heard before. All it produces is irrational fear and hatred, discord, enmity, animosity, social division, and bigotry. It’s unfortunate that Americans are clueless as to even their recent history. One of the two major antismoking (and anti-alcohol, dietary prescriptions/proscriptions, physical exercise) crusades early last century was in America. [The other crusade was in Nazi Germany and the two crusades were intimately connected by physician-led eugenics]. The USA has been down this twisted, divisive path before. Consider the following. The bulk of claims made about smoking/tobacco were erroneous, baseless, but highly inflammatory. Unfortunately, the propaganda did its destructive job in the short term, producing mass hysteria or a bigotry bandwagon. When supported by the State, zealots seriously mess with people’s minds on a mass scale.
http://www.americanheritage.com/content/thank-you-not-smoking
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19981129&slug=2786034

Miramar
Miramar

America has been a “leader” in this antismoking insanity which other countries are following suit. The problem with Americans is that they are clueless to even their own recent history. They have a terrible history with this sort of “health” fanaticism/zealotry/extremism.

Antismoking is not new. It has a long, sordid, 400+ year history, much of it predating even the semblance of a scientific basis or the more recent concoction of secondhand smoke “danger”. Antismoking crusades typically run on inflammatory propaganda, i.e., lies, in order to get law-makers to institute bans. Statistics and causal attribution galore are conjured. The current antismoking rhetoric has all been heard before. All it produces is irrational fear and hatred, discord, enmity, animosity, social division, and bigotry. It’s unfortunate that Americans are clueless as to even their recent history. One of the two major antismoking (and anti-alcohol, dietary prescriptions/proscriptions, physical exercise) crusades early last century was in America. [The other crusade was in Nazi Germany and the two crusades were intimately connected by physician-led eugenics]. The USA has been down this twisted, divisive path before. Consider the following. The bulk of claims made about smoking/tobacco were erroneous, baseless, but highly inflammatory. Unfortunately, the propaganda did its destructive job in the short term, producing mass hysteria or a bigotry bandwagon. When supported by the State, zealots seriously mess with people’s minds on a mass scale.
http://www.americanheritage.com/content/thank-you-not-smoking
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19981129&slug=2786034
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2352989/pdf/bmj00571-0040.pdf

GaryRobbins
GaryRobbins

An article in a LaCrosse paper says the smoking ban has, in fact, had a bad economic impact on the bars and taverns there.
Does this Madison.com article take into account that people have more discretionary spending money now than when the economy was worse 3 years ago? Maybe numbers aren't much worse now, because the bad economy 3 years ago already depressed spending figures in bars and restaurants. They couldn't go much lower and still be in business. Maybe the smoking ban has prevented a better bounceback increase in profits for these places since the economy got better. Or, maybe not, but the economic conditions overall should've been taken into account before writing this story and coming to any conclusions. It would've been a more responsible thing to do.
Oh, and Cynic, revenues can indeed increase w/out increasing profit. If expenses increase, causing a raise in prices, causing a small decrease in customers, then you can have an increase in revenues but still have a decrease in profit. This happens from time to time for some unfortunate sectors/businesses.

nufsenuf
nufsenuf

I'm enjoying the ban for two reasons, when I travel I can get a good nights sleep in a smoke free room and as I said in my first post, we are able to try new places for dining now. The simple fact is I (like some others) am allergic to smoke and can't catch a breath when it is in the air. I am not 'anti-smoking per se, I guess it would be better to say I am 'pro-breathing. I think there are many of us who really must avoid it. I will not campaign against and will not complain when given a chance to avoid. However, I will do whatever it takes to breathe and ask that smokers do what they can.

Please when smoking near an entrance consider the wind direction and stand so that it blows away from the door. Please refrain from lighting up before clearing the vestibule and likewise please exhale your last puff BEFORE entering the vestibule. Little considerations like that will save me struggling for breath for five minutes. For some of us, this is serious and we have to have somewhere to go, it doesn't have to be every place, but only smoke free will see our money. Thank you.

J T Hawke
J T Hawke

I bet no one took to into consideration how many restaurants have shut their doors.

Of course the other ones are more profitable.

NotACynic
NotACynic

So how many? Oh, you either ...

justinf
justinf

How can you write an article about the fiscal results of the smoking ban by comparing data from two years after the smoking ban?

That's like saying that the Holocaust caused an increase in the world-wide Jewish population because it grew from 1946-1947.

EMMO46
EMMO46

Justinf - it's just another example of many years of misinformation, twisted statistics, and outright lies that the anti-smoking Nazis have pushed. It's their version of "Reefer Madness".
Anything to support their misguided efforts to protect you from yourself is OK with them...and they won this round.
Cheaters often do win, but those who pay attention, really know the truth. And karma eventually gets even.

NotACynic
NotACynic

No one is trying to protect him from himself. They're trying to protect the rest of US from his bad habit. Duh ...

johnnybragatti
johnnybragatti

Smoking is a bad habit

CarolASThompson
CarolASThompson

Anti-smoking is a crime.

NotACynic
NotACynic

So call the police ...

CarolASThompson
CarolASThompson

This is a job for the U.S. Department of Justice, which is in the pockets of the criminals. That federal lawsuit accusing the tobacco companies of supposedly deceiving the public, when the anti-smokers are committing wholesale scientific fraud, proves it.

http://www.smokershistory.com/SGlies.html
http://www.smokershistory.com/SGHDlies.html

Comment deleted.
NotACynic
NotACynic

Lying spammer ...

Sallymander
Sallymander

This article was not written very well. Revenue and profit are two different things. A business can increase revenue by increasing its prices but that does not translate to more customers or more profit. What the article does not investigate is A.) Whether there was more profit (the important number) after the ban, B.) Whether there were more customers after the ban, or C.) Did prices go up to cause the increase in revenue?

I don't know the answers to these questions but they would be much more enlightening than straight revenue figures (which are pretty much meaningless in business).

NotACynic
NotACynic

If a revenue increase results from a price increase, how could that NOT be a profit increase? Whether the quantity of customers went down or stayed the same is irrelevant.

Galileo
Galileo

Best.Law.Ever.

And I'm happy the Republicans haven't killed it since they got in charge.

EMMO46
EMMO46

Why is it that the Hotel Industry is never mentioned in these "blue sky" articles?
They laid down and accepted the Jim Doyle crowd's "I don't smoke so nobody else should be allowed to either" law just like the Restaurant Industry did.
Boy, are they crying now...they figured out that if you exclude 18% of your customers, your income is reduced by that much. I last checked out of a Wisconsin hotel on the morning of July 5, 2010, the day the new law went into effect. Me, and lots of other folks now spend our vacations and weekend trips in Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa, and the rest of the 47 states where Hotel operators still welcome smokers.

NotACynic
NotACynic

And we miss you terribly. Not. Hotels hated smokers. If you're willing to stay out of Wisconsin, fine. As to 'lots of other folks,' I think you better recount.

pikerover
pikerover

I looked but could not find (It was most likely taken down) a long term study by the WHO.
But I did find this by the Kato Institute. You may know them as a far right wing, Koch Brothers ''toy''. I ain't saying I'm just saying.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/secondhand-smoke-charade

CarolASThompson
CarolASThompson

That's anti-smoker-approved fake opposition. Nowhere does he mention that the so-called EPA report wasn't even written by real EPA scientists, who were against calling secondhand smoke a human carcinogen. It was written by the most militant anti-smokers, using illegal pass-through contracts to conceal their role. Anti-smoker Sen. Frank Lautenberg was one of those who commissioned the report, and his business crony, Fred Malek (who was a director of Lautenberg's company, ADT) was also a director of the crooked contracting firm. and besides that, Malek was also the campaign manager of the sitting President, George H.W. Bush, at the end of whose term the report was released. So that Cato crap is really nothing but a coverup!

CarolASThompson
CarolASThompson

The lying scum of the American Lung Association are just as corrupt in their pseudo-science as in their economics. The lab of their own funded lackey blames cigarette smoke for "repetitive, chronic antigen exposure induces loss of CD28 expression with aging and that CD4+ CD28null and CD8+ CD28null cells of the adaptive immune system may contribute to COPD pathogenesis." But it so happens that those CD4+ CD28null T cells are absolutely specific for cytomegalovirus infection! They have been observed to arise during primary CMV infection, and they are found only among people who have been infected by CMV. But the ALA cynically exploits the circumstance that poorer people are more likely to be infected by CMV, and smokers are more likely to be poorer people, to falsely blame smoking. And they ignore the role of CMV in order to persecute tobacco..

http://www.atsjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1513/pats.200904-022RM

S54k
S54k

I don't understand. Put down what you are smoking and talk English. I really hope you're trying to be sarcastic.

NotACynic
NotACynic

Don't even try, with that one ...

CarolASThompson
CarolASThompson

They know you're so "special" you don't understand how they're lying to you.

NotACynic
NotACynic

'They' are more credible than you are. Sorry.

CarolASThompson
CarolASThompson

Doctors who ignore an infection, which results in harm to the patient, are supposed to be sued for malpractice. But not if they're anti-smokers! Then they can get away with anything!

CarolASThompson
CarolASThompson

And here's the study they're talking about, where they pretend that "Our finding of increased CD4(+)CD28(null) T cells in COPD indicates that chronic antigen exposure, e.g. through contents of smoke, leads to loss of CD28 and up-regulation of NK cell receptors expression on T cells in susceptible patients."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2669523/

In fact, those kind of cells are caused by cytomegalovirus and only by cytomegalovirus. This has been known since at least 2004. So those quacks have been blaming smoking instead of treating the cytomegalovirus, while patients suffer. It proves that the American Lung Association only cares about persecuting smokers, not curing lung disease.

http://www.jimmunol.org/cgi/content/full/173/3/1834

CarolASThompson
CarolASThompson

And look at the economic gibberish those over-privileged sociopaths spout. Anyone with half an ounce of brains knows that you don't increase revenues by limiting consumer choices. You maximize revenue by maximizing choices. The driveling pinheads think all they have do is claim that revenue is higher than last year, as if population and prices didn't also go up during the year. The only meaningful comparison is with what revenue would have been if a major sector of the market wasn't being excluded.

CarolASThompson
CarolASThompson

Tolerance and diversity are only for darlings of the oligarchy in anti-smoker land. And they got their way by spreading lies, committing scientific fraud, and ruthlessly suppressing informed dissent. Finally they buried the statewide ban in the budget, and provided less than 24 hours notice of the hearing on it. They did every dirty, rotten, scummy thing in the book, while their media sycophants pretend that they're paragons of civic virtue.

Meanwhile the duplicitous phonies in the bar and restaurant association never did a damn thing to fight them. They just flopped on their bellies and surrendered unconditionally. I'm so disgusted by how they sold us out that I haven't set foot in any of their establishments ever since, and I never will.

barefoot
barefoot

So you're saying the ban not only got rid of smoking, but it also reduced the number of surly, aggressive loud-mouths in public? What a bonus!

CarolASThompson
CarolASThompson

The anti-smokers at smoking ban hearings are the surly, aggressive loud mouths. With the backing of the ACS, ALA, AHA et al. and their politician tools, they deliberately intimidated smokers. The atmosphere was always like a lynch mob.

deernut00
deernut00

The no-smoke environment is fantastic compared to the times going to a bar meant smelly clothes followed you home. Now, a night out is pleasant and one of the few things Doyle did for the State of Wisconsin. Thank him for that and go have a drink.

CarolASThompson
CarolASThompson

Your enjoyment through the statewide smoking ban requires depriving other people of theirs, which they have just as much right to as you.

nufsenuf
nufsenuf

It has cost me money. We spend more eating out now that we are able to go to more establishments.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. Exchange ideas and opinions on posted articles. Don't promote products or services, impersonate other site users, register multiple accounts, threaten or harass others, post vulgar, abusive, obscene or sexually oriented language. Don't post content that defames or degrades anyone. Don't repost copyrighted material; link to it. In other words, stick to the topic and play nice. Report abuses by clicking the button. Users who break the rules will be banned from commenting. We no longer issue warnings. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.