Voluntary Smoke-Free Measures Among Oklahoma Nightlife Owners: Barriers and Facilitators

Abstract

Smoke-free policies prevent exposure to secondhand smoke and encourage tobacco cessation. Local smoke-free policies that are more comprehensive than statewide policies are not allowed in states with preemption, including Oklahoma, which has the sixth highest smoking prevalence in the United States. In states with preemption, voluntary smoke-free measures are encouraged, but little research exists on venue owners' and managers' views of such measures, particularly in nightlife businesses such as bars and nightclubs. This article draws from semistructured interviews with 23 Oklahoma bar owners and managers, examining perceived risks and benefits of adopting voluntary smoke-free measures in their venues. No respondents expressed awareness of preemption. Many reported that smoke-free bars and nightclubs were an inevitable societal trend, particularly as younger customers increasingly expected smoke-free venues. Business benefits such as decreased operating and cleaning costs, improved atmosphere, and employee efficiency were more convincing than improved employee health. Concerns that voluntary measures created an uneven playing field among venues competing for customers formed a substantial barrier to voluntary measures. Other barriers included concerns about lost revenue and fear of disloyalty to customers, particularly older smokers. Addressing business benefits and a level playing field may increase support for voluntary smoke-free nightlife measures.

Understanding the dynamics of compliance to smoke-free policy regulations: Exploring the perspectives of venue owners and staff in Türkiye

“…Customers appeared to play a vital role in the fear of revenue loss in our study by preferring venues where they could smoke or leaving the venue when asked not to smoke in restricted areas. Financial concerns of venue owners have also been found to be a barrier in previous studies in Türkiye 19 , the United States 22 , China 23 , and Uganda 24 . However, a meta-analysis 25 shows no economic impact in the long-term on employment or sales associated with smoking bans.…”

Measuring public opinion and acceptability of prevention policies: an integrative review and narrative synthesis of methods

“…Four studies were identified that specifically focused on understanding the opinions and attitudes of retailers and industry. Three of these studies were about tobacco control interventions, such as smoke-free pubs and bars [ 137 ] and tobacco “endgame” strategies in New Zealand [ 138 , 139 ]. The remaining study included interviews with recreation centre managers regarding pricing interventions to promote healthier food choices [ 140 ].…”