Smoke-free legislation and charitable gaming in Kentucky
- 1School of Business and Economics, College of Charleston, 5 Liberty Street, Suite 400, Charleston, South Carolina, USA
- 2University of Kentucky, College of Nursing and College of Public Health, Lexington, Kentucky, USA
- Dr Mark K Pyles, School of Business and Economics, College of Charleston, 5 Liberty Street, Suite 400, Charleston, SC 29401, USA;
- Received 3 September 2008
- Accepted 29 October 2008
- Published Online First 6 November 2008
Objective: To determine the effect of municipal smoke-free laws in Kentucky on gross and/or net revenues from charitable gaming activities. Between January 2000 and June 2007, 13 Kentucky communities implemented smoke-free legislation; only three specifically exempted charitable gaming facilities and compliance in several communities was not consistent. Kentucky is a tobacco-growing state that has the highest smoking rate in the United States.
Design: A fixed-effects time series design to estimate the impact of municipal smoke-free laws on charitable gaming.
Setting: 13 Kentucky counties that implemented smoke-free laws during the study period of January 2000 through June 2007.
Subjects: All charitable gaming facilities in 13 counties in which a smoke-free ordinance was enacted during the study period.
Main outcome measures: Gross and net revenues from charitable gaming activities in each county for each quarter of the study period, obtained from the Kentucky Department of Charitable Gaming.
Results: When controlling for economic variables, county-specific effects and time trends using a robust statistical framework, there was no significant relation between smoke-free laws and charitable gaming revenues. Municipal smoke-free legislation had no effect on charitable gaming revenues.
Conclusions: No significant harm to charitable gaming revenues was associated with the smoke-free legislation during the 7.5-year study period, despite the fact that Kentucky is a tobacco-producing state with higher-than-average smoking rates.
Competing interests: None.
↵i In unreported results, we excluded these counties from the sample in our analyses. The results were unchanged from those reported. In addition, one of the sample counties experienced a legal challenge claiming bingo as a private organisation and was exempt under the law. Thus, in alternative analyses, we also code this county as bingo exempt. The results were unchanged from those reported and not reported here.
↵ii We also examined an alternative model replacing the LnLaborFce with the natural logarithm of each county’s population. The results were unchanged.
↵iii The only exception is LnIncome, which is only reported annually by county.