etc), despite claims that the smoke-free law was a significant contributing factor to the closure of hundreds of small rural pubs, with almost 440 fewer licences renewed in 2006 than in 2005." united kingdom smoking bans were enacted in scotland on 26 march 2006, in wales on 2 april 2007, in northern ireland on 30 april 2007, and in england on 1 july 2007. the legislation was cited as an example of good regulation which has had a favourable impact on the uk economy by the department for business, innovation and skills, and a review of the impact of smoke-free legislation carried out for the department of health concluded that there was no clear adverse impact on the hospitality industry despite initial criticism from some voices within the pub trade. six months after implementation in wales, the licensed victuallers association (lva), which represents pub operators across wales, claimed that pubs had lost up to 20% of their trade. the lva said some businesses were on the brink of closure, others had already closed down, and there was little optimism trade would eventually return to previous levels. the british beer and pub association (bbpa), which represents some pubs and breweries across the uk claimed that beer sales were at their lowest level since the 1930s, ascribing a fall in sales of 7% during 2007 to the smoke-free regulations. according to a survey conducted by pub and bar trade magazine the publican, the anticipated increase in sales of food following introduction of smoke-free workplaces did not immediately occur. the trade magazine's survey of 303 pubs in the united kingdom found the average customer spent £14.86 on food and drink at dinner in 2007, virtually identical to 2006. a survey conducted by bii (formerly british institute of innkeeping) and the federation of licensed victuallers' associations (flva) concluded that sales had decreased by 7.3% in the 5 months since the introduction of smoke-free workplaces on 1 july 2007. of the 2,708 responses to the survey, 58% of licensees said they had seen smokers visiting less regularly, while 73% had seen their smoking customers spending less time at the pub. united states in the us, smokers and hospitality businesses initially argued that businesses would suffer from no-smoking laws. however, a 2006 review by the u.s. surgeon general found that smoking restrictions were unlikely to harm businesses in practice, and that many restaurants and bars might see increased business. in 2003, new york city amended its smoke-free law to include virtually all restaurants and bars, including those in private clubs, making it, along with the california smoke-free law, one of the toughest in the united states. the city's department of health found in a 2004 study that air pollution levels had decreased sixfold in bars and restaurants after the restrictions went into effect, and that new yorkers had reported less secondhand smoke in the workplace. the study also found the city's restaurants and bars prospered despite the smoke-free law, with increases in jobs, liquor licenses, and business tax payments. the president of the new york nightlife association remarked that the study was not wholly representative, as by not differentiating between restaurants and nightclubs, the reform may have caused businesses like nightclubs and bars to suffer instead. a 2006 study by the new york state department of health found that "the ciaa has not had any significant negative financial effect on restaurants and bars in either the short or the long term". in wauwatosa, wisconsin, three restaurants received short-term exemptions from a local smoke-free ordinance in restaurants when they managed to demonstrate financial suffering because of it. effects upon musical instruments bellows-driven instruments – such as the accordion, concertina, melodeon and (irish) uilleann bagpipes – reportedly need less frequent cleaning and maintenance as a result of the irish smoke-free law. "third-hand smoke", solid particulates from secondhand smoke that are adsorbed onto surfaces and later re-emitted as gases or transferred through touch, are a particular problem for musicians. after playing in smoky bars, instruments can emit nicotine, 3-ethenylpyridine (3-ep), phenol, cresols, naphthalene, formaldehyde, and tobacco-specific nitrosamines (including some not found in freshly-emitted tobacco smoke), which can enter musicians' bodies through the skin, or be re-emitted as gases after they have left the smoky environment. concern about third-hand smoke on instruments is one of the reasons many musicians, represented by the new orleans musicians' clinic, supported the smoking ban there. effects of prison smoking restrictions prisons are increasingly restricting tobacco smoking. in the united states, 24 states prohibit indoor smoking whereas california, nebraska, arkansas, and kentucky prohibit smoking on the entire prison grounds. in july 2004 the federal bureau of prisons adopted a smoke-free policy for its facilities. a 1993 u.s. supreme court ruling acknowledged that a prisoner's exposure to secondhand smoke could be regarded as cruel and unusual punishment (which would be in violation of the eighth amendment). a 1997 ruling in massachusetts established that prison smoking bans do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. many officials view prison smoking bans as a means of reducing health-care costs. with the exception of quebec, all canadian provinces have banned smoking indoors and outdoors in all their prison facilities. prison officials and guards are sometimes worried due to previous events in other prisons concerning riots, fostering a cigarette black market within the prison, and other problems resulting from total prison smoking restrictions. prisons have experienced riots when placing smoking restrictions into effect resulting in prisoners setting fires and destroying prison property, and persons being assaulted, injured, and stabbed. one prison in canada had some guards reporting breathing difficulties from the fumes of prisoners smoking artificial cigarettes made from nicotine patches lit by creating sparks from inserting metal objects into electrical outlets. for example in 2008, the orsainville detention centre near quebec city, withdrew its smoke-free provision following a riot. but the feared increase in tension and violence expected in association with smoking restrictions has generally not been experienced in practice. prison smoking bans are also in force in new zealand, the isle of man and the australian states of victoria, queensland, tasmania, northern territory and new south wales. the new zealand ban was subsequently successfully challenged in court on two occasions, resulting in a law change to maintain it. some prisoners are getting around the prison smoking bans by producing and smoking "teabacco", which is nicotine patches or lozenges mixed with tea leaves, and rolled up in bible paper. a forensic analysis of teabacco made from nicotine lozenges identified some potentially-toxic compounds, but concluded that teabacco made from nicotine lozenges may be less harmful than traditional tobacco cigarettes. compliance the introduction of smoking restrictions occasionally generates protests and predictions of widespread non-compliance, along with the rise of smokeasies, including in new york city, germany, illinois, the united kingdom, utah, and washington, d.c. high levels of compliance with smoke-free laws have been reported in most jurisdictions including new york, ireland, italy and scotland. poor compliance was reported in calcutta. criticism smoke-free regulations and ordinances have been criticised on a number of grounds. government interference with personal lifestyle critics of smoke-free provisions, including musician joe jackson, and political essayist christopher hitchens, have claimed that regulation efforts are misguided. typically, such arguments are based upon an interpretation of john stuart mill's harm principle which perceives smoke-free laws as an obstacle to tobacco consumption per se, rather than a bar upon harming other people. such arguments, which usually refer to the notion of personal liberty, have themselves been criticised by nobel prize-winning economist amartya sen who defended smoke-free regulations on several grounds. among other things, sen argued that while a person may be free to acquire the habit of smoking, they thereby restrict their own freedom in the future given that the habit of smoking is hard to break. sen also pointed out the heavy costs that smoking inevitably imposes on every society which grants smokers unrestricted access to public services (which, sen noted, every society that is not "monstrously unforgiving" would do). arguments which invoke the notion of personal liberty against smoke-free laws are thus incomplete and inadequate, according to sen. in new zealand, two psychiatrist patients and a nurse took their local district health board to court, arguing a smoking ban at intensive care units violated "human dignity" as they were there for mental health reasons, not smoking-related illness. they argued it was "cruel" to deny patients cigarettes. property rights some critics of smoke-free laws emphasise the property rights of business owners, drawing a distinction between nominally public places (such as government buildings) and privately owned establishments (such as bars and restaurants). citing economic efficiency, some economists suggest that the basic institutions of private property rights and contractual freedom are capable of resolving conflicts between the preferences of smokers and those who seek a smoke-free environment, without government intrusion. legality of smoke-free regulations businesses affected by smoke-free regulations have filed lawsuits claiming that these are unconstitutional or otherwise illegal. in the united states, some cite unequal protection under the law while others cite loss of business without compensation, as well as other types of challenges. some localities where hospitality businesses filed lawsuits against the state or local government include nevada, montana, iowa, colorado, kentucky, new york, south carolina, and hawaii, though none have succeeded. smoke-free laws may move smoking elsewhere restrictions upon smoking in offices and other enclosed public places often result in smokers going outside to smoke, frequently congregating outside doorways. this can result in non-smokers passing through these doorways getting exposed to more secondhand smoke rather than less. many jurisdictions that have restricted smoking in enclosed public places have extended provisions to cover areas within a fixed distance of entrances to buildings. the former uk secretary of state for health john reid claimed that restrictions upon smoking in public places may lead to more people smoking at home. however, both the house of commons health committee and the royal college of physicians disagreed, with the former finding no evidence to support reid's claim after studying ireland, and the latter finding that smoke-free households increased from 22% to 37% between 1996 and 2003. connection to dui fatalities in may 2008, research published by adams and cotti in the journal of public economics examined statistics of drunken-driving fatalities and accidents in areas where smoke-free laws have been implemented in bars and found that fatal drunken-driving accidents increased by about 13%, or about 2.5 such accidents per year for a typical county of 680,000. they speculate this could be caused by smokers driving farther away to jurisdictions without smoke-free laws or where enforcement is lax. effects of funding on research literature as in other areas of research, the effect of funding on research literature has been discussed with respect to smoke-free laws. most commonly, studies which found few or no positive and/or negative effects of smoke-free laws and which were funded by tobacco companies have been delegitimised because of the obvious conflict of interest. professor of economics at the california state polytechnic university-san luis obispo, michael l. marlow, defended "tobacco-sponsored" studies arguing that all studies merited "scrutiny and a degree of skepticism", irrespective of their funding. he wished for the basic assumption that every author were "fair minded and trustworthy, and deserves being heard out" and for less attention to research funding when evaluating the results of a study. marlow suggests that studies funded by tobacco companies are viewed and dismissed as "deceitful", i.e. as being driven by (conscious) bad intention. alternatives incentives for voluntarily smoke-free establishments during the debates over the washington, dc, smoke-free law, city council member carol schwartz proposed legislation that would have enacted either a substantial tax credit for businesses that chose to voluntarily restrict smoking or a quadrupling of the annual business license fee for bars, restaurants and clubs that wished to allow smoking. additionally, locations allowing smoking would have been required to install specified high-performance ventilation systems. ventilation critics of smoke-free laws have suggested that ventilation is a means of reducing the harmful effects of secondhand smoke. a tobacco industry-funded study conducted by the school of technology of the university of glamorgan in wales, published in the building services journal suggested that "ventilation is effective in controlling the level of contamination", although "ventilation can only dilute or partially displace contaminants and occupational exposure limits are