Archive for Thursday, September 14, 2006

Ban benefits

September 14, 2006

Advertisement

To the editor:

In a recent editorial, the Journal-World bemoaned the legal costs resulting from being a leader in the area's move toward smoke-free indoor air. To be "fair and balanced," as our Fox News friends would say, perhaps the benefits should be mentioned as well.

First, Lawrence has reinforced its reputation as the progressive leader for the area, not a bad thing in a state where evolution is still controversial.

Second, difficult to quantify, but supported by a consensus of scientific opinion, local lives will be saved by Lawrence's leadership. The benefit for those is priceless.

Finally, the city has benefited by increased patronage of our bars and restaurants, occasioned by a more pleasing environment. Sales tax receipts for the city as a whole went up 3.9 percent in the 12 months after the indoor smoking ban went into effect, whereas they went up 7.3 percent in the bar and restaurant sector. That represents a bonus of 3.4 percent attributable to the smoking ban, or an additional $3,737,998 in sales, an additional $197,584 in state sales taxes and an additional in city sales taxes for just the first year. Just that first year bonus should cover any legal fees.

Really, though, what is it worth to do the right thing? To quote a Kentucky Supreme Court decision upholding the Lexington indoor smoking ban: "Protection of the public health is uniformly recognized as a most important municipal function. It is not only a right but a manifest duty of a city."

Steve and Kathy Bruner,

Lawrence