More and more places around the world are following the US lead and banning smoking in public places. When they are proposed, we usually hear about all sorts of dire consequences on business from these bans, In the US this hasn't happened to any significant extent and many businesses are reporting increased patronage now that the annoyance of second hand smoke has been eliminated. So whenever I hear news reports that some industry or other has just taken a big hit from a smoking ban I look at it closely. Spin is part of the game in the political battle. The latest example comes from Australia, where a smoking ban in New South Wales (NSW) went into effect in July. I don't have the data to know whether what is being reported by the Sunday Telegraph there is true or not (just sayin' . . . ), but there is another interesting part to the story. First the background:.
A severe drop in poker machine revenue blamed on new anti-smoking laws has forced clubs across NSW to slash grants to community groups.The Sunday Telegraph newspaper says club grants are likely to be cut by hundreds of thousands of dollars in some cases, causing hardship for small sports teams and community organisations.
Figures obtained by the paper reveal that NSW clubs have suffered a fall in gaming revenue of about 8.2 per cent since the indoor smoking ban began on July 2.
The figures, based on a Clubs NSW survey in August of 732 venues across the state, reveal that this has contributed to an overall downturn in revenue of about 7.7 per cent. (Australian Associated Press)
If true, this is a negative effect of the smoking ban (although there is also a positive effect in less cigarettes smoked and less money lost to poker). The paper reports seven of the clubs relying on poker machine revenues have closed (it's not clear if the smoking ban is the reason in all cases, although this is implied) and more are in trouble. The unintended consequence is that some of the revenues that went to "the community" are being curtailed.
But the poker machine venues are adjusting, and that's the interesting part of the story:
"In an effort to survive the significant financial hit, many clubs have invested in facilities such as fitness centres, fine dining type restaurants, conference centres and aged care," he said.
"The challenge for clubs is surviving long enough for these new developments to generate revenues (that will) cover the shrinking gaming revenue."
So it's a trade-off, like many things. The new ventures -- fitness clubs, food service and aged care -- are more than arguably better than poker machines, whose rate of profit is so high because the odds are so stacked against the customer (often a person least able to afford it). But it's not all good. Some revenues and jobs will be lost, just as some will be gained. Things change in this world in response to changes in society, and this is one of the changes that is a net plus for the health of the community. Sometimes it goes the other way.
Meanwhile I'll wait for more time to pass before agreeing that even the poker machine venues are worse off from a smoking ban. In most places initial fall offs are followed by a recovery as people get used to the new rules. If that happens -- and for poker machines I'm not sure I think it would be good -- at least people won't be going broke and killing themselves simultaneously
- Log in to post comments
Thanks for the piece on the effect of the smoking ban on RSL's (Return Servicemen's League) clubs. We were discussing this amongst some friends on the weekend. There were two basic opinions those being (A) the RSL's can do no wrong and are such a net benefit to the community that anything goes, and (B) the RSL's gain huge profits from the "pokies" and give back very little to the community, while driving pensioners to poverty by exploiting the gambling addiction.
Basically then the question is does the end justify the means?(proposition A ) and therefore allow the RSL's to get a free pass on the public health initiative of eliminating smoking, or do you address the core health issue and let the chips fall where they may?
Personally, I vote for the latter. The hotels and clubs lobby in Australia is strong and has resisted reform for many years for reasons of naked self interest.
And besides, the ends don't justify the means in anything I can think of. The ends and the means are always inextricably bound together in some weird universal law of karma or something. Just look at Iraq. Such noble intentions, such a corrupted outcome.
Revere:
What RobT has not made clear is the extent of the poker machine problem in NSW. Recent media claims are that NSW has one of the greatest concentrations of poker machines per capita in the world. With mind boggling regularity we hear of people going to jail for stealing $millions from their employer and "putting it through the pokies". Just last week a husband suicided because he could not live without his wife of thirty something years because she was incarcerated.
The problem seems to be that the manufacturers are hiring some of the smartest psychologists around, and those guys have developed some of the best instrumental conditioning devices you would ever want to see.
I am libertarian about most things, believing that the state should not interfere with individual freedom. Here I think is an exception.
Tie that in with the allegations that Clubs & Pubs (in addition to liquor and pokie taxes) contribute a lot of cash to NSW state government political parties (legally, of course) to (I presume) keep the Liquor & Pokie licenses nice and exclusive, and you can see why there is not much incentive to reform.
bar,
Quite right! You have highlighted the negative social impact of gambling, and referred to the relationship between (generous) political party donations as a factor in the lack of political will to address the issue of excessive gambling.
I admit I am relatively ignorant of the details, but I would be interested in the results of any audits that show the disburseement of revenues achieved by the clubs. I wonder where all that money goes? It surely all doesn't go into subsidising meals in the RSL's, I'll bet.
would it hurt people too much to consider a system in which the profits of industry waned in comparison to the health of a community?
i find it ridiculous that public health officials often engage in cost-benefit analyses and discussions about the loss of profit for certain "interests" and compare that to, for example, lung cancer, brain cancer, liver cancer, or reproductive destruction. how much cancer will you accept, community? i know, i know. but, they bring money into the community. for whom? when they kill off the community, who is left with the money?
imagining a world sem dinheiro