The URL can be used to link to this page

Hillcrest Services Tobacco Free Coalition• ~® crest©^ family services December 20, 2007 Dear Honorable Mayor Roy Buol and City Council Members: The Tobacco Free Coalition has a resolution we are asking the cities of Dubuque County to sign showing support for local control over tobacco-free environments. The coalition is a grantee of the Dubuque County Health Department, from the Iowa Department of Health-Division of Tobacco Use Prevention and Control Community Partnership. The resolution does not commit you to passing atobacco-free ordinance, but states that cities and counties should have the ability to do so to protect the health of their citizens. We would ask that the resolution be placed on the agenda for discussion at the January 7 meeting, that the city council vote to sign the resolution, and then give a copy to our coalition. We will collect the signed resolutions and present them to the legislature during the next session, starting in mid-January, to show that local elected officials support restoring local control over this issue. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 563-557-4444 Ext. 225 at work or 563-213-0380 at home. My email address is an~ie.brandel(c~hillcrest-fs.or~ I will be at the meeting to answer any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, r ~/ ~v r ~ iv cI~`-`~ ~, Angie Brandel Angie Brandel Anti-Tobacco Coordinator Hillcrest Family Services 220 West 7th Street Dubuque, IA 52001 563-557-4444 angie.brandel@hillcrest-fs.org Local Control Resolution WHEREAS, numerous studies have found that tobacco smoke is a major contributor to indoor air pollution, and that breathing secondhand smoke (also known as environmental tobacco smoke) is a cause of disease in healthy nonsmokers, including heart disease, stroke, respiratory disease, and lung cancer; and WHEREAS, secondhand smoke is a Class A carcinogen containing over 4,000 chemicals, 200 of which are known poisons and 50 of which are known to cause cancer; and WHEREAS, secondhand smoke kills 50,000 to 60,000 Americans every year from heart disease and lung cancer; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control has issued a warning that anyone at risk for heart disease should avoid entering smoke-filled environments; and WHEREAS, employees should not be forced to risk their health through exposure to dangerous and deadly toxins in their workplace; and WHEREAS, according to the U.S. Surgeon General, the only way to fully protect employees and the public from the hazards of secondhand smoke is to eliminate smoking by creating smoke-free environments; and WHEREAS, local and state governments throughout the country have successfully passed smoke-free air laws to protect people against the harmful effects of secondhand smoke; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of desires to protect the health, comfort and working environment of its residents and employees as they maybe affected by smoking in various public places in the City; and WHEREAS, the General Assembly of the State of Iowa has not provided cities the legal authority through legislation to pass local smoke-free policies, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Mayor and Council of the City of hereby request the Iowa General Assembly and the Governor of the State of Iowa pass legislation allowing local control of smoking in public places; and be it FINALLY RESOLVED, that this resolution and policy statement be included as an appendix to the City's Administrative Code. American Heart ~ Association®~ Learn and Li-~ea The Debate is Over... Background In June 2006 the Surgeon General issued the most comprehensive study to date of the health consequences of secondhand smoke, confirming once and for all that secondhand smoke causes disease and premature death in those who don't smoke. Fortunately this is not a problem without a solution. The health of Iowans can begin to be protected with a law that allows for local communities the control to enact clean air policies in the workplace. Whv We Need Local Control • Currently, Iowa communities are prohibited from enacting local clean air policies. • Local control legislation (SF 236/HF 778) would allow a community's elected officials to have the power and authority to protect their citizens against the health hazards of secondhand smoke. Every Iowan Deserves to be Protected • The Surgeon General's report on secondhand smoke concluded that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Breathing secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system causing coronary heart disease. • According to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report, about 90 percent of nonsmoking people in the United States are exposed to environmental tobacco smoke. • Over 46,000 Americans die every year from coronary heart disease as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke. • Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25-30 percent, • According to a study published in the Journal of Public Health in September 2007, the statewide smoking ban enacted in New York led to an 8% decrease in hospital admission for heart attacks in 2004. This equated to nearly 4,000 heart attacks that were averted due to the state's smoke-free policy. • The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that those at risk of coronary heart disease should avoid exposure to secondhand smoke. Other Smoke-Free Facts • As of January 2008, twenty-eight states and commonwealths will have a 100% smokefree law in effect for at least one of the three following categories: workplaces; restaurants; bars. This includes our neighbors, Illinois and Minnesota. • Countries as diverse as Ireland and Bhutan have passed national smoke-free laws. • Currently Iowa's cities and counties are unable to pass clean indoor air laws. • In November 2007, a poll showed overwhelming support for local control for clean air with over 70% of voters in favor of allowing communities to enact smoke-free policies. • Exposure to secondhand smoke is a preventable cause of heart disease, stroke and death in both adults and children. For more information, contact Randy Yontz, State Advocacy Director (515) 246-4564 ^ rendy.yontz~heart.org Updated f 1-2007 Why Local Control? When a community's elected officials have the power and authority to move forward to protect their citizens against the health hazards of secondhand smoke, the usually influential tobacco companies are suddenly powerless. This is why they work so diligently to close the door to local ordinances via preemption at the state level. Local Control Means Meaningful Local Debate and Community Change Local control is at the heart of our broader goals of: 1) educating the public about the health effects caused by secondhand smoke and 2) changing attitudes and behavior of smokers in order to protect others from secondhand smoke. A powerful change process unfolds as a community debates the issue of secondhand smoke. Letters to the editor, town hall meetings, public debate, and media coverage all ensue. During this process, the community gains an increased understanding of the health risks associated with secondhand smoke, resulting in strong community support for a law protecting nonsmokers. Ease of Enactment Meaningful smokefree air legislation is much easier to enact at the local level where policymakers are most responsive to the concerns of constituents and less influenced by tobacco industry lobbyists and campaign contributions. The tobacco companies are forced to work at the local level through fake front groups and allies, whereas they are able to directly engage policymakers at the state and federal level without as much of a credibility gap. Big Tobacco would much rather bottle up or weaken one bill at the state house rather than try to track and fight hundreds of local policy efforts throughout a state. Ease of Enforcement Because local residents typically have a higher understanding of the need for a smokefree law at the local level, compliance rates tend to be very high for local ordinances. Local enforcement agencies such as health departments are easily accessible to the community, whereas statewide enforcement can be less reliable or responsive. In addition, not every community in a state is at the same level ofpublic education regarding secondhand smoke. People Have the Right to Breathe Smokefree Air Everyone needs to breathe. Secondhand smoke is a very easily prevented cause of disease and death, both in adults and children. Local officials have the right and responsibility to deal with matters of public health and public safety in response to public concerns. A community's public health laws should be determined by research-based evidence, public support and local policymakers, not by tobacco industry lobbyists in backrooms of the state legislature. American. Heart. ~ ` AMERICAhI Assaciarion~ LUNG AaSC?CIA`~`IC)N~ Learn and Live, # ~ AMERICANS fvr~ N+QNSMC}KCRS' RIG~~ITS Clrsr~ Ah 15rz 4~tr,¢xn• The Effect of Preemption on Tobacco Control "The impact of preemption on public health goes beyond its impact on the number and protectiveness of local regulations. Local smoking regulations generate public debate and community organization around the issue of ETS. Through this process, the public is educated and the social norms regarding tobacco use may change. By preventing new regulations from being adopted, preemption blocks an effective means of educating the public." -Conlislc, E. et al. "The status of local smoking regulations in North Carolina following a state preemption bill." Journal of the American Medical Association, 273:805-807, 1995. Preemption remains the tobacco industry's chief legislative goal. Passage of preemption prevents the enactment of local ordinances and has a devastating effect on tobacco control. Why? Preemption results in: • Weaker public health standards. With few exceptions, statewide proposals have proven to be weaker than local measures. When preemption passes in a state, the elimination of local ordinances and/or local governments' inability to pass and enact their own smokefree measures means that more nonsmokers will be exposed to secondhand smoke. • Loss of community education. Each local ordinance campaign involves a unique community education process. From proposal to passage and implementation, the media and public engage in an ongoing dialog about tobacco. The result is awell-publicized, low cost education effort, with the tobacco industry invariably the loser. If preemption passes, this local education process ends completely. • Lower compliance. As a result of local enforcement provisions and the community education that accompanies their passage, local tobacco control ordinances enjoy a high level of compliance. If local ordinances are replaced with a weak, poorly enforced state law, compliance will drop. • More difficulty with enforcement. Local ordinances provide meaningful local enforcement mechanisms. In contrast, most state smoking laws have abysmal enforcement records. If preemption passes, effective local enforcement will be replaced with poor statewide enforcement. ~1I22eI'1Ci~L] H['~.Tt ~ . ~ : ~~~ - ~l55~1CIat10It~ ~,eur~n ar~d Li~~~, A~S~C~4T1+0-h~~ 10/30/06 IOWA TOBACCO PREVENTION !"1 L. L.I A N C E CJ~nn Air For ISecnonc States with Preemption of Smokefree Air Laws American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation July 3, 2447 wA Hn ~ ~ ® ~'ie'~ ~ yr ~ ~ L wY Hv HE CA ` ~ CO ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 0H KS I MO ~ ~+-.rJ`flfY w ~ ~ AZ ~ ~ AR ~ I AL ~ GA v© C.4 ~ 4 tket.,~ . TX ~ ~ States with Preemption Yes „ Partial Proimption or Status Unsadid No ~~ares wrcn rarnat Preemption or Status Unsettled MI: Statewide preemption law applies to restaurants and bars. reached opposite conclusions on the issue. This must now be resolved either by the PA: The law with respect to preemption is unsettled. Although both an appellate appellate courts or the Legislature. court and a trial court have ruled that there is preemption, the trial court case is Note: Oregon's statewide preemption law has been repealed, e, fJ`ective January 1. being appealed and another trial court case is underway. Thus, the situation remains 2009, when the state's smokefree law goes into effect, and Montana's preemption to be resolved either by the appellate courts or the Legislature, law expires on September 1, 2009, when the state's smokefree air law becomes SC: The law with respect to preemption is unsettled, as two trial courts have effective with respect to bars and casinos. wti~w.nrotertl~~calcunirc~Lu~; ~ERlN 1 owA American Heart Association LUWG Tosacco ' PREVENTION Learn and Live., ASS{3CfAT1~C)-N. ALLIANCE ci~•d~, a~~ r~~~ e~~•rv~~~~~ The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 6 Major Conclusions of the Surgeon General Report Smoking is the single greatest avoidable cause of disease and death. In this report, The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General, the Surgeon General has concluded that: 1. Many millions of Americans, both children and adults, are still exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes and workplaces despite substantial progress in tobacco control. 2. Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smolce. 3. Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more severe asthma. Smoking by parents causes respiratory symptoms and slows lung growth in their children. 4. Exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer. 5. The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. 6. Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General was prepared by the Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The Report was written by 22 national experts who were selected as primary authors. The Report chapters were reviewed by 40 peer reviewers, and the entire Report was reviewed by 30 independent scientists and by lead scientists within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services. Throughout the review process, the Report was revised to address reviewers' comments. Citation U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006. The Facts about Secondhand Smoke Secondhand smoke is a serious health hazard. • Secondhand smoke contains more than 4,000 chemical compounds, more than 60 known to cause cancer including formaldehyde, arsenic, cyanide, and carbon monoxide.' • Secondhand smoke causes as many as 53,000 deaths every year in the U.S. from heart disease and lung cancer deaths among nonsmokers each year." • Secondhand smoke can cause or exacerbate a wide range of adverse health effects, including cancer, respiratory infections, and asthma."' There is no risk free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. • The US Surgeon General concludes 100% smoke-free workplace policies are the only effective way to eliminate secondhand smoke exposure in the workplace." • Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposure of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke." • The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the preeminent U.S. body on ventilation issues, has concluded that ventilation technology cannot be relied on to control health risks from secondhand smoke exposure." • Stnoke-free laws should create places that are completely smoke-free - 100% smoke-free workplaces and restaurants and bars. Exemptions do not protect employees or the public from secondhand smoke." No one should have to choose between their health and a good job. • Nonsmokers exposed to high levels of tobacco smoke on the job double their risk of getting lung cancer.'" • Casino workers are at greater risk for lung and heart disease because of secondhand smoke exposure." • Food service workers have a 50% greater risk of dying from lung cancer than the general population, in part, because of secondhand smoke exposure in the workplace."'' "" • Research published in leading, scientific journals has consistently and conclusively shown that smoke-free laws have no adverse economic effects on the hospitality industry.""'' 'x • Establishing smoke-free workplaces is the simplest and most cost effective way to improve worker and business health." • Smoke-free policies decrease absenteeism among non-smoking employees, increase productivity, reduce housekeeping and maintenance costs, lower insurance rates and lowers the risk of fires.x Everyone Has the Right to Breathe Smoke-free Air. Atneric.ttn EEeltrt AM~R~~AN ~, ~ ! AMERIC:A~~S 1~„ Assctriatirsn~ _ LIJ~~ ~~'' NOIti'SMC)KERS' lcrur~t and Litrr.. ~ ~ RIGHTS '~ ASSOCtATlflN ...... .. ... ...n.., ' U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1992). Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders. Washington, D.C.: EPA. " U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006. "' California Environmental Protection Agency. Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke. June 2005. '" Stayner, L., et al. (2007) Lung Cancer Risk and Workplace Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke. American Journal of Public Health, 10.2 I OS/AJPH.2004.061275. " CwTan, J., "For casino workers, smoke study underscores hazard," Newsdav/AP, October 17, 2004. "' Shopland, D.R.; Anderson, C.M.; Burns, D.M.; Gerlach, K.K., "Disparities in smoke-free workplace policies among food service workers," Journal o/Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 46(4): 347-356, April 2004. "" Siegel, M. "Involuntary Smoking in Restaurant Workplace: A Review of Employee Exposure and Health Effects." JAMA, 270:490-493, 1993. Available at: httn:/hvww.ncbi.nlm.nih.s_ov/entre~Jqucn~ fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=RtbMed&list aids-83207R9~Cdopr Abstract. viii Scollo, M., A. Lal, A. Hyland, and S. Glantz (2003). Review of the Quality of Studies on the Economic Effects of Smoke-Free Policies on the Hospitality Industry. Tobacco Contra! 12: 13-20. ix Scollo, Michelle and Anita Lal (2004). Summary of Studies Assessing the Economic Impact of Smoke-free Policies in the Hospitality Industry. Melbourne: VicHealth Centre for Tobacco Control. httu:;;www.vctc.ore.au/tc-res%Ilosnitalitvsunmiarv odC x Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Saves Live, Save Money; Make Your Business Smoke-Free. Atlanta, Georgia: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, June 2006. Clearing the Air: The Facts about Ventilation Secondhand smoke is a public health hazard. Ventilation technologies do not sufficiently protect individuals from the harmful effects of breathing in secondhand smoke. Environmental, occupational, and public health authorities in the United States have all identified secondhand smoke as a health hazard.''-' 3, a, s, e, ~ While ventilation or air purification systems are sometimes touted as a solution to the secondhand smoke problem, ventilation cannot purify the air at rates fast enough to protect people from secondhand smoke exposure. The "most direct and effective method" for eliminating secondhand smoke is to exclude smoking from the workplace.8' 9 Tobacco control organizations support local, state, and federal initiatives to stop public exposure to secondhand smoke. However, these organizations do not support ventilation, even as a compromise to secure smoke-free ordinances. What the Exuerts Say Ventilation uses controlled airflow to control airborne contaminants.10 The tobacco industry has attempted to promote ventilation as a method to accommodate both smokers and non-smokers. The US Surgeon General concludes 100% smoke-free workplace policies are the only effective way to eliminate secondhand smoke exposure in the workplace.9 Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposure of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke.9 The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), the preeminent U.S. body on ventilation issues, has concluded that ventilation technology cannot be relied on to control health risks from secondhand smoke exposure.9 The Facts on Secondhand Smoke and Air Oualitv Secondhand smoke is a major source of particulate matter, a type of air pollution. Particulate matter, of the size found in cigarette smoke, is easily and deeply inhaled into the lungs and can lead to death from heart disease and lung cancer. • Between 90 and 95 percent of airborne pollution in Delaware hospitality venues was caused by smoking before the state's smoking ban went into effect. ~' • The pollution generated from three lit cigarettes in a room of 197 cubic feet was higher than the pollution generated from a diesel engine in a closed private garage.12 • Levels ofcancer-causing pollutants were found to be 4 times greater than National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) outdoor requirements in six Delaware bars, one casino, and one pool hall before implementation of a statewide smoking ban.13,'a • Pollution levels decreased 84 percent among 20 hospitality venues in western New York after the state's smoke-free law was implemented on July 24, 2003.15 • Lexington, Kentucky experienced a 91 percent drop in cancer-causing pollution in nine hospitality establishments (three restaurants, three bars, two music clubs, one bowling alley, and one coffee house) after Lexington-Fayette County's smoke-free ordinance was implemented.16 • Pollution levels in seven hospitality venues in Bloomington, Indiana decreased 89 percent after the city's smoke-free ordinance was enacted.' Page 1 of 4 Ventilation is Ineffective and Costly No U.S. science agency has found that ventilation systems reduce occupational exposure to secondhand smoke to an acceptable level. ts, ~9, zo o Local exhaust technologies, such as ventilated ashtrays or canopy hoods over restaurant and gaming tables, are ineffective, according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) experts.21 o In theory, "smokeless" ashtrays may have the most potential to reduce levels of sidestream smoke-smoke exhaled from the lungs of tobacco users; however, government and industry experts believe the placement and maintenance required by local exhaust systems would pose operational challenges to the hospitality industry largely due to recurrent cleaning requirements of internal filters, ducts, and hoods.zz "[T]ornado-like levels of ventilation" would be needed in restaurants, bars, and gaming establishments to protect hospitality workers from secondhand smoke.zs o Before Delaware's smoking ban, it was estimated that a hospitality worker in a ventilated, full occupancy space where smoking was permitted was still exposed to cancer-causing pollutants at 2.6 times above the NAAQS outdoor requirements -despite the ventilation.24 o A ventilation system in a smoky Delaware bar would need to circulate air at an unrealistic ventilation rate - 4.4 times greater than recommended standards for outdoor air quality.zs o Ventilation was unable to control deadly cancer-causing pollution in seven hospitality venues that were surveyed in Boston, Massachusetts, prior to the city's smoke-free ordinance. Indoor air pollution levels were four times higher than NAAQS outdoor requirements.z6 o Placing hoods over gaming, restaurant and bar tables to filter secondhand smoke would require "impracticably high" minimum airflows in excess of 300 cubic feet per minute per hood. (cfm/hood).27 Manufacturers and sellers of air filtration technologies admit that their products do not protect consumers from the health risks unposed by secondhand smoke.28 o The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) in a recent position statement recommends that "the only means of effectively eliminating health risk associated with indoor exposure is to ban smoking activity." ASHRAE acknowledges that no current engineering approaches can control health risks from secondhand smoke exposure.9, z9 o Wein Products, Inc. states, "No air filtration or air purification system has been designed that can eliminate all the harmful constituents of secondhand smoke." 30 o Allergy Control Products, Inc. "does not claim that air cleaners offered in [their] catalog will protect people from potential health risks associated with secondhand smoke.i31 Even the tobacco industry has known that ventilation and air filtration technologies are ineffective at removing secondhand smoke. o British American Tobacco (BAT) acknowledged that its Colt air filtration unit was only 34 percent efficient at removing particulate matter from tobacco smoke. The unit failed to eliminate carbon monoxide and other volatile organic compounds found in cigarette smoke.32 o The Colt unit only reduced "haze, tobacco-smoke aroma and total perceived smoke," thus making the air more comfortable to breath, but not less harmfu1.33 Ventilation is expensive. o The Dover, New Hampshire Health Board found from contractors that creating dual ventilation systems to separate smoking areas would cost from $30,000 to $50,000.34 o Estimates for air cleaning or air dilution construction costs start at $25 per square foot while a displacement design utilizing isolation and exhaust techniques starts at $20 per square foot.3s o The U.S. Surgeon General determined that cost-effective technologies for filtrating tobacco smoke from the air are currently unavailable.36 o Cost pressures and lax enforcement may be responsible for businesses under-ventilating their buildings.37 Page 2 of 4 Conclusion Ventilation systems would need to simulate windstorm conditions in order to meet air quality levels that are acceptable to federal regulatory agencies. Smoke-free laws are "the most cost-effective, easiest-to-enforce, and lowest risk alternative" for reducing secondhand smoke exposure.38 Iowa's tobacco control advocates are committed to saving lives and reducing the death and disease caused by tobacco. We are committed to protecting everyone's right to breathe smokefree air and will oppose any legislation that contains a ventilation provision. TVe oppose preemptive state legislation that restricts local authorities from regulating clean indoor air and stand ready to work with together to implement legislative and regulatory measures that limit smoking in public places and work environments. ~ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1992). Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA. EPA/600/6-90/006F. z U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Public Health Service (PHS), National Toxicology Program (2002). Report on Carcinogens, Tenth Edition. s National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Current /ntelligenc•e Bulletin #54: Environmental Tobac•c•o Smoke in the Workplace-Lung Cancer and Other Health Effects. Publication # 91-108. Available online at www. cdc.gov/ni osh/nasd/docs2/as73 OOO.html. a Department of Labor (DOL), Occupational Safety and Health Adminstration (OSHA) (1994). Federal Register Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, "Indoor Air Quality," FR 59:15968-16039. Available online at www.osha-slc.gov/FedReg_osha_data/FED19940405.htm1. S U.S. HHS, PHS, Centers for Disease Control (CDC) (1986). The Health Consequences oflnvoluntary Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General. Washington D.C.: GPO. ~ National Cancer Institute (NCI) (1993). Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders; The Report of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Cancer Institute Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph 4. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health (NII-I). NIH Publication # 93-3605. ~ NCI (1999). Smo/cing and Tobacco Control Monograph 10. Health Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke, Final Report. The Report of the California Environmental Protection Agency. s NIOSH (1991). 9 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences oflnvoluntary Exposure to Tobacco Smolce: A Report of the Surgeon General. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006. 10 Repace, James (2000). "Can Ventilation Control Secondhand Smoke in the Hospitality Industry?" Available online at http://www.dhs.ca.goy/ps/cdic/tcs/documents/pubs/FedOHSHAets.pdf. ~ ~ Repace, James (2004). "Respirable Particles and Carcinogens in the Air of Delaware Hospitality Venues Before and After a Smoking Ban." Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 45(9): 887-905. 12 Invernizzi, G., A. Ruprecht, R. Mazza, E. Rossetti, A. Sasco, S. Nardini, and R. Boffi (2004). "Particulate Matter from Tobacco Versus Diesel Car Exhaust: An Educational Perspective." Tobacco Control 13:219-221. is There are no official indoor air quality (IAQ) standards governing secondhand smoke in the U. S; however, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) implemented the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in 1997, which set outdoor air standards for articulate matter. Researchers rely on this standard to assess tobacco-related pollution levels. Repace (2000). ° Repace (2004). is Travers, M.J., K.J. Cummings, A. Hyland, J. Repace, et al. (2004). "Indoor Air Quality in Hospitality Venues Before and After Implementation of a Clean Indoor Air Law-Western New York, 2003." MMWR 53(44): 1038-1041. i6 Hahn, E.J., K. Lee, C.T.C. Okoll, A. Troutman, and R.W. Powell (2005). Smoke-Free Laws and Indoor Air Pollution in Lexington and Louisville. Louisville Medicine 52(9): 39]-394. ~~ Travers, M. and A. Hyland (2005). "Indiana Air Monitoring Study, December 2004-January 2005." New York, NW: Roswell Park Cancer Institute. ~" DOL (1994). ~`' Repace (2000). 2° U.S. HHS, PHS, Centers for Disease Control (CDC) (1986). The Health Consequences oflnvoluntary Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General. Washington D.C.: GPO. 21 Ibid.. zz Ibid. zs Ibid. za Repace (2004). zs Ibid. Page 3 of 4 z6 Repace, James (2003). "An Air Quality Survey of Respirable Particles and Particulate Carcinogens in Boston Pubs Before and After a Smoking Ban." Bowie, MD: Repace Associates, Inc. 27 Repace (2004). zs Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights (2004). "Ventilation and Air Filtration: What Air Filtration Companies and the Tobacco Industry Are Saying." Available online at http://www.no-smoke.org/ventilationquotes.pdf. z9 Environmental Tobacco Smoke Position Document. June 30, 2005. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. 30 Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights (2004). "Ventilation and Air Filtration: What Air Filtration Companies and the Tobacco Industry Are Saying." Available online at http://www.no-smoke.org/ventilationquotes.pdf. 31 Ibid. }'` Leaven, N.R., Muggli, M.E., Hurt, R.D., and Repace, J. (2006). Blowing Smoke: British American Tobacco's air filtration scheme. British Medical Journa1332: 227-229. }' Ibid. 34 Dover Health Board. November 1, 1999. Accessed on October 27, 2005 at http://www. ci.dover.nh.us/Archives/Minutes/Health/ 1999/ 11-1 %20min.htm. 3s Turner, WA. (2000) "Ventilation IAQ for the Hospitality Industry." Heating/Piping/AirConditioning Engineering, 37-44. Accessed on October 27, 2005 at http://www.hpac.com/microsites/egb/pdfs/turner 0700.pdf. se HHS (1986) 37 Repace (2000). 3s Ibid. Page 4 of4 - 4, Smoke-Free Policies: Good for Business The American Cancer Society supports local, state, and federal initiatives to stop public exposure to secondhand smoke. In 1993, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a landmark report, documenting the link between secondhand smoke, cancer and other chronic diseases. Since that time, many communities have decided to go smoke-free, protecting the health and lives of their residents. Tobacco companies spent years trying to discredit the science regarding secondhand smolce...and failed. Now, they have turned their attention toward smoke-free initiatives. Hospitality business owners and workers are scared; they have been led to believe their livelihoods will end if their businesses go smoke- free. In an advertisement designed to educate the public about secondhand smoke, a leading tobacco company coined the slogan: "In any controversy, facts must matter."~ Here are the facts: FACT: Smoke-free Laws Do NOT Harm Restaurant Sales • On March 30, 2003, New York City passed one of the strongest, and arguably, one of the most contentious smoke-free ordinances in the country. Fueled in part by the tobacco industry's propaganda machine, many restaurant owners believed their businesses would fail under the new ordinance. Yet, one year after the law went into effect, New York City bars and restaurants were booming. Data from the New Yorlc City Department of Finance show that tax receipts increased by 8.7 percent, or approximately $1.4 million. Moreover, the New York State Department of Labor found no evidence that restaurants were closing as a result of the smoke-free law, and the rate of restaurant openings remained unchanged since the law went into effect.Z • Over the years, many studies have reached similar conclusions-that smoke-free restaurant ordinances do not harm restaurants' sales. These studies looked at smoke-free ordinances from different parts of the country during different economic cycles. They include communities in California, New York, Massachusetts, Texas, Arizona, Indiana, Wisconsin, Florida, Maryland, and Kentucky. s, a, s, 6, ~, s, 9, io,~ i, iz, ~3, ~a, is, i6, i~, is, ~9 • For example, researchers compared aggregate restaurant receipts of 32 Massachusetts communities that adopted smoke-free restaurant and/or bar policies between January 1992 and December 1995 with the receipts of 203 communities that did not. The study found that smoke- free laws do not cause a significant change in communities' overall meal and alcohol revenues. Only seasonal changes and changes in a community's population were shown to have an effect on restaurant and bar revenues.20 • Even in the tobacco growing state of North Carolina, where adult smoking rates are higher than the national average, researchers found that smoke-free restaurant ordinances did not impose economic hardships on restaurants or restaurant owners. Researchers compared the impact of smoke-free ordinances on restaurant sales in ten North Carolina counties-five with smoke-free ordinances and five without-and concluded that there were no differences in restaurant sales among the ten counties after the ordinances took effect. 21 • Restaurant owners should also be interested to know that smoke-free ordinances may increase the resale value of their business. Smoke-free restaurants in California and Utah had a 16 percent median, or $15,300, increase in sale price compared to restaurants in communities where smoking was permitted.22 • More people are demanding smoke-free establishments. In a June 2003 Zogby International poll of registered voters, 63 percent of New Yorkers approved of the state Clean Indoor Air Act Page 1 of 6 (CIAA) in comparison to 35 percent who opposed the law. The poll showed greater support among New York City voters, with 69 percent overall support.23 A 2004 Zagat New York City Survey showed that 23 percent of those surveyed said they would patronize smoke-free restaurants on a more regular basis, which is nearly six times higher than the four percent of survey participants who reported they would frequent restaurants less often than they did before the smoking ban.z4 The Bowling Proprietors' Association of America (BPAA) found that more bowling centers were choosing to go smoke-free voluntarily. The BPAA also found that fewer bowlers smoke and the top reason why people choose not to bowl is because of the smoky environment. Moreover, non- smokingbowlers outspent smokers, making nonsmokers a lucrative customer base.zs FACT: Smoke-free Laws Do NOT Harm Bars • No independent study has proven that smoke-free laws negatively affect the bar industry. Research looking at communities in California, Massachusetts, Oregon, Texas, New York, Florida, Maryland, and Kentucky showed that smoke-free ordinances had no negative effect on bar sales.26,z~, za,z9,3o,3i, 32, 33, 34 In fact bar businesses are not more sensitive to changes in smoking behavior than other hospitality businesses.3s • Researchers compared California bar sales for the first five cities and two counties requiring all bars to be smoke-free with bar sales of comparable cities and counties in the state that did not. Smoke-free ordinances were found to have no effect on aggregate bar sales.36 • Since New York City's smoke-free law went into effect in 2003, the New York State Liquor Authority has issued more liquor licenses to the city's restaurant and bar establishments. Compared to 2002, there were a reported 9,747 active liquor licenses in the city in 2003, a net gain of 234.37 • One of the most recent studies to look at the relationship between smoke-free ordinances and bar revenues was conducted in El Paso, Texas by the Texas Department of Health (TDH) and the CDC. Researchers concluded that the sales of alcoholic beverages were not affected by the El Paso smoke-free ordinance.3S Similar results were found in the state of Florida, where retail receipts for taverns, night clubs, bars which serve food, and liquor stores, remained unaffected by the state's smoke-free law. Of particular note, the number of people employed in Florida's drinking and eating establishments increased by 4.53 percent after the smoke-free law went into place. 39 FACT: Smoke-Free Laws Do NOT Increase Unemgloyment Opponents of smoke-free laws cite unemployment as another reason why smoking bans are bad. To examine the merits of this claim, researchers assessed the number of restaurants and the number of restaurant employees. What researchers learned is that restaurants were more profitable with asmoke-free ordinance in place. When New York City first made its restaurants smoke-free during the mid-1990s, the city experienced a boom in employment. Between April 1993 and April 1997, New York City, as well as its neighboring smoke-free communities, experienced increases in both the numbers of restaurants and restaurant employees. New York City's restaurant employment growth was found to be more than three times that of the entire state.40 By 1999, four years after the smoking ban in restaurants was put into effect, researchers found that more than 22,000 restaurant employees were employed in New Yorlc City-an 18 percent increase from 1990.41 Today, New Yorlc City's hospitality workers are doing exceptionally well despite claims that the smoke-free law would have a negative impact. Between March 2003 and December 2003, New Yorlc City reported 10,600 new jobs in its bars and restaurants.42 In fact, despite the city's post- Page 2 of 6 9/11 hardship, 164,000 workers are employed in the city's bars and restaurants-the highest number recorded in the last 10 years. FACT: Smoke-Free Laws Do NOT Reduce Tourism • Several, studies have shown that smoke-free policies do not affect tourism or hoteUmotel revenues.as,aa,as, 46, a7 • One study found that smoke-free laws were associated with increased hotel revenues in four localities: Los Angeles, California, New York City, New York, Mesa, Arizona, and the state of Utah.48 • Another study found that the number of tourists that visited California and New York also increased after the implementation of these states' smoke-free policies. The study also looked at seven other localities and observed no significant changes in tourist rates following the implementation of smoke-free policies,a9 • The state of Florida, known for its world-class theme and amusement parks, implemented its smoke-free law on July 1, 2003. The law prohibits smoking in most of the state's enclosed workplaces. Approximately one year after the smoking ban went into effect, researchers found that there was no significant change in the number of recreational admissions across the state. Moreover, the number of people employed in the leisure and hospitality industry increased almost two percent during the year the ban was in place.so FACT: Smoke-Free Laws Save Businesses Monev • The social costs of secondhand smoke are substantial. In 2005, the estimated economic value of lost wages, fringe benefits, and services associated with secondhand smoke exposure amounted to $4.7 billion per year nationwide.sl • In 1994, the EPA estimated the net health savings of eliminating secondhand smoke in all indoor workplaces (from reducing premature deaths and tobacco-related illness) to be between $35 and $66 billion a year.sz • Allowing smoking in the workplace increased business owners' costs by $1,300 per year per smoking employee.ss • Smoking employees have significantly higher absentee, injury, accident, and disciplinary rates than their non-smoking colleagues.sa, ss, s6, s7, sa • Other costs associated with smoking in the workplace are increased housekeeping and maintenance costs. The EPA found that if most businesses implemented smoking restrictions, nationwide, between four and eight billion dollars a year could be saved in operating and maintenance costs.s~ • Some business owners have been found liable in lawsuits filed by sick employees seeking damages related to smoking in the workplace.6o,61,62,63,6a • By allowing smoking in the workplace, business owners increase their costs of doing business: Employers pay increased health, life, and fire insurance premiums, make higher workers' compensation payments, incur higher worker absenteeism, and settle for lower work productivity.6s,66,67,6s, 69, 70, 71, 72 • A 2003 survey of air quality before and after the Delaware smoking ban was implemented concluded that the state's smoke-free law significantly reduced the risk of cancer, heart disease, stroke and respiratory disease among workers and patrons in the hospitality industry.73 • New York is well on its way to improving the health of its residents, which could lead to a reduction in related health costs. Before New York City implemented its smoke-free ordinance, an air quality survey conducted by the New York State Department of Health found that air pollution levels in bars permitting smoking were as much as 50 times greater than pollution levels Page 3 of 6 at the Holland Tunnel entrance during rush hour. Six months after the Smolce-Free Air Act was in force, the Health Department found asix-fold reduction in air pollution levels in the same establishments.74 One year into New York City's smoking ban, 157,000 fewer adult New Yorkers reported being exposed to second-hand smoke at work or at home.75 The New York State Department of Health found tremendous gains among the city's hospitality workers; cotinine levels-a byproduct of secondhand smoke exposure-declined by 85 percent among a sample of the city's bar and restaurant workers.76 Smoking among the city's adults declined 11 percent, resulting in 140,000 fewer smokers, preventing 45,000 premature deaths, and saving over $500 million annually in tobacco-related health care costs."•'g Conclusion• After looking at the facts, it becomes clear that concerns about the business costs of smoke-free policies are unfounded. The facts are that smoke-free laws are good for businesses; they're good for the people who frequent them; and they're good for the people who work in them. Anecdotal evidence does not accurately gauge the effect of smoke-free laws on business activity. Research published in leading, scientific journals has consistently and conclusively shown that Smolce-free laws have no adverse effects on the hospitality industry,79•80 and, in fact, can actually be good for business. The only negative effects of smoke-free air laws are on the tobacco companies themselves, as evidenced by the following statement from a tobacco company executive: "If smokers can't smoke on the way to work, at work, in stores, banks, restaurants, malls and other public places, they are going to smoke less. Overall cigarette purchases will be reduced and volume decline will accelerate."$' Finally, it must be taken into consideration that while restaurant and bar patrons can choose in which establishments they spend their time, workers do not have the same choice. The American Cancer Society believes that no one should have to choose between a job and good health. Therefore, the Society stands ready to work with our partners, both private and public, to implement legislative and regulatory measures that limit smoking in public places and work environments. Further, the Society opposes preemptive state legislation that restricts local authorities from regulating clean indoor air. The American Cancer Society urges policymakers and community leaders to support smoke-free efforts, so we can make life-saving progress that reduces and prevents death, suffering, and disease from tobacco. Policy National Government Relations Department June 2006 ' Philip Morris, USA (1993). Were You Misled? Today, Read Another Side of the Story About Secondhand Smoke. Bates Number 947063108. Obtained online on 3 February 2004 from http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ivt90c00. z New York City Department of Finance, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York City Department of Small Business Services, and New York City Economic Development Corporation (2004). The State of Smoke-Free New York City: A One Year Review. ' Glantz, S.A. and L.R.A. Smith (1997). The Effect of Ordinances Requiring Smoke-Free Restaurants and Bars on Revenues: A Follow-Up. American Journal ofPublic•Health (87)10: 1687- 1692. a Glantz, S.A. and L.R.A. Smith (1994). The Effect of Ordinances Requiring Smoke-Free Restawants on Restaurant Sales. American Journal of Public• Health (84)7: 1081-1085. 5 Glantz, S. A. and L.R.A. Smith (1997). The Effect of Ordinances Requiring Smoke-Free Restaurants and Bars on Revenues: A Follow-Up. American Journal of Public• Health (87)10: 1687- 1692. 6 Hyland, A., K.M. Cummings, and E. Nauenberg (1999). Analysis of Taxable Sales Recipts: Was New York City's Smoke-Free Air Act Bad for Restaurant Business? Journal of Public• Health Management Practice 5(1): 14-21. ' Hyland, A. and K.M. Cummings (1999). Restaurateur Reports of the Economic Impact of the New York City Smoke-Free Air Act. Journal of Public Health Management Practice 5(1): 37-42. Page 4 of 6 a Bartosch, W.J. and G.C. Pope (2002). Economic Effect of Restaurant Smoking Restrictions on Restaurant Business in Massachusetts, 1992-1998. Tobacco Control 11(Suppl II): ii38-ii42. ~ Bartosch, W.J. and G.C. Pope (1999). The Economic Effect of Smoke-Free Restaurant Policies on Restaurant Business in Massachusetts. Journal of Public Health Management Practice 5(1): 53-62. 10 Connolly, G.N., et al. (2005). Evaluation of the Massachusetts Smolce-Free Worlcplac•e Law: A Preliminary Report. Paper resented to the Harvard School of Public Health Tobacco Control Working Group, Boston, MA. ~ Huang, P., et al. (]995). Assessment of the Impact of a 100% Smoke-Free Ordinance on Restaurant Sales-West Lake Hil]s, Texas, 1992-1994. Morbidity and Mortalit)~ Weekly Report 44(19): 370-372. 12 Hayslett, J.A. and P. Huang (2000). Impact of Clean Indoor Air Ordinances on Restaurant Revenues in Four Texas Cities: Arlington, Austin, Piano and Wichita Falls 1987-1999. Texas Department of Health, Bureau of Disease, Injury and Tobacco Prevention. ~' Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2004). Impact of a Smoking Ban on Restaurant and Bar Revenues-E1 Paso, Texas, 2002. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 53(7): 150-152. is Sciacca, J.P. and M.I. Ratliff (1998). Prohibiting Smoking in Restaurants: Effects on Restaurant Sales. American Journal of Health Promotion 12(3): 176-184. is Styring, III, W. (2001). A Study of the Fort Wayne Restaurant Smoking Ban: Has It Impacted the Restaurant Business? Indianapolis: Hudson Institute. is Dresser, L. (1999). Clearing the Air: the Effect of Smokefree Ordinances on Restaurant Revenues in Dane County. Madison: Tobacco-Free Wisconsin Coalition. ~' Dai, Chifeng, et al. (2004). The Economic Impact of Florida's Smoke-Free Workplace Law. Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida, Warrington College of Business Administration, Bureau of Economic and Business Research. is Evans, W.N. and Andrew Hyland (2004). [The Impact of the Montgomery County Smoke-Free Restaurant Ordinance on Restaurant Sales and Employment]. Unpublished raw data. ~~ Hahn, E.J., et al. (2005). Economic Impact of Lexington's Smoke-Free Law: A Progress Report. Lexington, Kentucky: University of Kentucky, College of Nursing and Gatton College of Business and Economics. 20 Bartosch, W.J. and G.C. Pope (1999). The Economic Effect of Smoke-Free Restaurant Policies on Restaurant Business in Massachusetts. Journal of Public Health Management Practice 5(1): 53-62. 21 Goldstein, A.O. and Sobel, R.A. (1998). Environmental Tobacco Smoke Regulations Have Not Hurt Restaurant Sales in North Carolina. North Carolina Medical Journal. (59)5: 284-287. zz Alamar, B.C. and S.A. Glantz (2004). Smoke-Free Ordinances Increase Restaurant Profit and Value. Contemporary Economic Policy 22(4): 520-525. z3 New York City Department of Finance, et al. (2004). zv Ibid. zs Bowling Proprietors Association of America, inc. (2005). 2005 BPAA Smoking Ban and Restriction Study. Accessed online 9 February 2006 at http://www.bpaa.com/SmokingBanLegislation/ImpactStudy/. ze Glantz, S.A. (2000). Effect of Smokefree Bar Law on Bar Revenues in California. Tobacco Control 9(Spring): 11 I-112. 27 Bartosch, W.J. and G.C. Pope (1999). za Connolly, G.N., et al. (2005). zy Dresser, J., S. Boles, E. Lichtenstein, and L. Strycker (1999). Multiple Impacts of a Bar Smoking Prohibition Ordinance in Corvallis, Oregon. Eugene: Pacifica Research Institute. w CDC (2004). Impact of a Smoking Ban on Restaurant and Bar Revenues-El Paso, Texas, 2002. Morbidity and Mortalih~ Weekly Report 53(7): 150-152. 31 New York City Department of Finance, et al. (2004). 3z Dai, Chifeng, et al. (2004). 37 Evans, W.N, and Andrew Hyland (2004). sa Hahn, E.J., et al. (2005). 3s Dunham, J. and M.L. Marlow (2000). Smoking Laws and Their Differential Effects on Restaurants, Bars, and Tavers. Contemporary Economic Policy (18)3: 326-333. 3e Glantz, S. A. and L.R.A. Smith (1997). 37 New York City Department of Finance, et al. (2004). 'x CDC (2004). Impact of a Smoking Ban on Restaurant and Bar Revenues-El Paso, Texas, 2002. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 53(7): 150-152. 3e Dai, Chifeng, et al. (2004). ac' Hyland, A. and K.M. Cummings (1999). Restaurant Employment Before and After the New York City Smoke-Free Air Act. Journal of Public Health Management Practice 5(1): 22-27. ai Hyland, A. and J. Tuk (2001). Restaurant Employment Boom in New York City. Tobacco Control 10(Summer): 199. az New York City Department of Finance, et al. (2004). as Glantz, S. A. and A. Charlesworth (1999). Tourism and Hotel Revenues Before and After Passage of Smoke-Free Restaurant Ordinances. Journal of the American Medical Association 281(20): 191 l -1918. as Sciacca, J.P. and M.I. Ratliff (1998). Prohibiting Smoking in Restaurants: Effects on Restaurant Sales. American Journal of Health Promotion 12(3): 176-184. Page 5 of 6 as Hyland, A., K.M. Cummings, and E. Nauenberg (1999). Analysis of Taxable Sales Recipts: Was New York City's Smoke- Free Air Act Bad for Restaurant Business? Journal of Public• Health Management Practice 5(1): 14-21. ae Dai, Chifeng, et al. (2004). a~ Hahn, E.J., et al. (2005). a8 Glantz, S.A. and A. Charlesworth (1999). a9 Ibid. 50 Dai, Chifeng, et al. (2004). s' Behan, D.F., Eriksen, M.P., and Lin, Y (2005). Economic Effect of Environmental Tobacco Smoke. Society of Actuaries: Washington, D.C. Available online at http://www.soa.org/ccm/contentlareas-of-practice/life-insurance/research/economic- effects-of-environmental-tobacco-smoke-SO A/. s' United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1994). The Costs and Benefits of Smoking Restrictions: An Assessment of the Smoke-Free Environmental Act of 1993 (H.R. 3434). Office of Air and Radiation. Washington, D.C.: U. S. EPA. s3 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, Office of Smoking and Health (OSH), Wellness Councils of America, American Cancer Society (1996). Making Your Workplace Smokefree: A Decision Maker's Guide. Available online at http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/research data/environmental/fullguide.pdf. sa Halpern, M.T., Shikiar, R., Rentz, A. M., and Khan, Z.M. (2001). Impact of Smoking Status on Workplace Absenteeism and Productivity. Tobacco Control ] 0:233-238. ss Ryan, J., Zwerling, C., and Orav, E.D. (1992). American Journal ofPublic•Health 82(]): 29-32. s~ Ryan, J. Zwerling, C., and Jones, M. (1996) Cigarette Smoking at Hire as a Predictor of Employment Outcome. JOEM38(9): 928-933. 57 Penner, M. and Penner, S. (1990). Excess Insured Health Care Costs from Tobacco-Using Employees in a Large Group Plan. Journal of Occupation Medicine 32(6): 521-523. ss Robbins, A.S., Fonseca, V.P., Chao, S.Y., Coil, G.A., Bell, N.S., and Amoroso, P.J. (2000). Short Term Effects of Cigarette Smoking on Hospitalisation and Associated Lost Workdays in a Young Health Population. Tobac•c•o Control 9:389-396. s9 EPA (April 1994). ~° Uhbi v. State Compensation Insurance Fund (CA, 1990). ~~ Magaw v. Middletown Board of Education (NJ, 1998). b2 Shimp v. New Jersey Bell (NJ, 1976). e3 Smith v. Western Electric• Co. (MO, 1982). va McCarthy v. Department of Social and Health Services (WA, 1988). 6s Kristein, M.M. (1983). How Much Can Business Expect to Profit from Smoking Cessation? Preventive Medicine. 12:358- 381. ee Marion Merrell Dow, Inc. (1991). The Economic Impact of Smoking: In the Workplace; On Cardiovascular Health; On Wound Health and Recovery from Surgery; On Infants and Children; On Pulmonary Health; On Dental and Oral Health. Medical Information Services, Inc. 67 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, et al. (1996). ve Musich, S., D. Napier, and D.W. Edington (2001). The Association of Health Risks With Workers' Compensation Costs. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 43(6): 534-541. ev Halpern et al. (2001). 70 Ryan et al. (1992). " Ryan et al. (1996). ~z Penner & Penner (1990). 73 Repace, J. (2003). An Air Quality Survey of Respirable Particles and Particulate Carcinogens in Wilmington Delaware Hospitality Venues Before and After a Smoking Ban. Available online at http:!/www. tobaccoscam.ucs f. edu/pdf/RepaceDel aware.pdf. ~a New York City Department of Finance, et al. (2004). ~s Frieden, T.R., Mostashari, F., Kerker, B.D., Miller, N., Hajat, A., and Frankel, M. (2005). Adult tobacco use levels after intensive tobacco control measures: New York City, 2002-2003. American Journal of Public• Health 95(6): 1016-1023. ~~ New York City Department of Finance, et al. (2004). "New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (2004). New York City's Smoking Rate Declines Rapidly from 2002 to 2003, the Most Significant One-Year Drop Ever Recorded. Available online at httnalwNtiv.nvc.eov/htmlldoh html!oublic/press04/n~52-O51~ hurl. ~" Frieden, T.R. et al. (2005). 79 Scollo, M., A. Lal, A. Hyland, and S. Glantz (2003). Review of the Quality of Studies on the Economic Effects of Smoke-Free Policies on the Hospitality Industry. Tobacco Control 12: 13-20. ~0 Scollo, Michelle and Anita Lal (2004). Summary of Studies Assessing the Economic Impact of Smoke-free Policies in the Hospitality Industry. Melbourne: VicHealth Centre for Tobacco Control. http://www.vctc.org.au/tc-res/Hospitalitysummary.pdf. "' Merlo, Ellen (14 January 1994). Merlo/Vendor Conf Draft #3. Bates Number 2044333814. Obtained online on 4 February 1994 at http://lcaacv.Iibraryucsfcduhid,~doq~5e00. Page 6 of 6 Studies that Measure the Economic Impact of Smoke-free Policies on the Hospitality Industry An extensive body of literature shows that smoke-free laws have no negative effect on the hospitality industry. The results of 25 studies involving 13 states are summarized below. The first two review the smoke-free literature in its entirety. The next 23 sources, organized alphabetically by author, look at specific cities or regions of the country and specific sectors of the hospitality industry where smoke-free ordinances have been itnplemented. Each study is coded to show whether it addresses the effect of smoke-free policy on specific areas of interest, such as restaurants, bars, hotels, revenues, sales tax, employment, tourism, gambling, air quality, and/or public opinion. Much of this research, highlighted in bold type, has appeared in scientifically-published, peer-reviewed journals. State health departments, public universities, and private think tanks have also contributed to the smoke-free literature. After analyzing ordinances from various parts of the country during different economic cycles, these studies have consistently shown that smoke-free laws have not hurt the hospitality industry, and in fact, may even be good for it. t ~_ t ~ 1 ~ i t t A comprehensive review of scientifically sound studies shows that smoke-free ordinances had no negative effect on the hospitality Scollo, Michelle and Anita Lal (2004). Summary industry. Researchers examined 145 studies that claimed to analyze th i of Studies Assessing the Economic Impact of e econom c impact of smoke-free policies on the hospitality industry. 21 studies were methodologically sound (using objective Smoke-free Policies in the Hospitality Industry. Summary/Compilation of Smoke-Free Studies measures such as sales receipts, controlling for outside factors and Melbourne: VicHealth Centre for Tobacco Control. http://www.vctc org au/tc- trends, using appropriate statistical tests, and including data prior to . . and following implementation of the smoking ban), and showed that res/Hospitalitysummary.pdf. smoke-free policies did not adversely affect the economic health of restaurants and bars. Studies showing a negative economic impact were based on subjective, unverified data and estimates, were methodologically flawed and largely funded by the tobacco industry. A comprehensive review of scientifically sound studies shows that smoke-free ordinances had no negative effect on the hospitality industry. Researchers analyzed 97 studies that focused on the Scollo, M., A. Lal, A. Hyland and S. Glantz (2003) economic impact of smoke-free laws on restaurants, bars, recreational , . Review of the Quality of Studies on the Summary/Compilation of Smoke-Free Studies venues, hotels, and tourism. Reviewers assessed these studies based on their overall quality, which included the use of objective data a Economic Effects of Smoke-Free Policies on the , pre-/post study design, and statistical methods. The paper concludes Hospitality Industry. Tobacco Control 12: 13-20. that lower quality studies (which used subjective data, received tobacco industry funding, and were not subject to peer-review requirements) were more likely to find a negative association between smoke-free laws and the hospitality industry. In contrast, well-designed, high quality studies found either no impact, or a positive association between smoke-free laws and the hospitality industry's overall sales and employment. Page 1 of 9 * R=Restaurant, B=Bar, H=Hotel, RV=Revenue, S=Sales Tax, E=Employment, T=Tourism, G=Gambling, AQ=Air Quality, PO=Public Opinion Bold Type Source =Peer reviewed t Alamar, B.C. and S.A. Glantz (2004). Smoke-Free Ordinances Increase Restaurant Profit and ~_ t Utah and Calif i t RV 1• i t t The authors find that restaurants in localities with smoke-free Value. Contemporary Economic Policy 22(4): orn a ordinances sell at a higher price than restaurants in areas that are not 520-525 smoke-free. There is a median increase of 16 percent, or $15,300, in . the sale rice of restaurants in smoke-free communities. Massachusetts Amherst, Andover, Arlington, Attleboro, Bedford, Belmont, Bartosch, W.J. and G.C. Pope (2002). Economic Brookline, Chicopee, East Longmeadow, Easthampton, R, S Smoke-free laws do not affect overall restaurant sales in the Massachusetts communities included in the analysis. This is a Effect of Restaurant Smoking Restrictions on Foxborough, Greenfield, follow-up to a 1999 study and uses additional data to examine the Restaurant Business in Massachusetts, 1992- Holden, Holyoke, Lee, Lenox, economic effects in cities and towns with and without smoke-free 1998. Tobacco Control 11(Suppl II): 1138-1142. Lexington, Longmeadow, B, RV ordinances between January 1992 and December 1998. Seasonal Medfield, Montague, changes and changes in county population and per capita income are Northampton, Norwell, the only factors shown to have an effect on restaurant and alcohol Plainville, Plymouth, Reading, revenue. Sharon, South Hadley, Southampton, Stockbridge, Sunderland, Tewksbury, West Springfield Massachusetts Amherst, Andover, Arlington, Attleboro, Bedford, Belmont, Bartosch, W.J. and G.C. Pope (1999). The E Brookline, Chicopee, East Longmeadow Easthampton Smoke-free laws do not cause a significant change in communities' conomic Effect of Smoke-Free Restaurant Policies on Restaurant Business in , , Foxborough, Greenfield, R, S overall meal and alcohol revenues. Only seasonal changes and Massachusetts. Journal of Public Health Holden, Holyoke, Lee, Lenox, changes in a community's population were shown to have an effect Management Practice 5(1): 53-62. Lexington, Longmeadow, B, RV on restaurant and bar revenues. Researchers com ared a re ate P gg g Medfield, Montague, restaurant receipts in 32 Massachusetts communities that adopted Northampton, Norwell, smoke-free restaurant and/or bar policies between January 1992 and Plainville, Plymouth, Reading, December 1995 with the receipts of 203 communities that did not. Sharon, South Hadley, Southampton, Stockbridge, Sunderland, Tewksbury, West Springfield Page 2 of 9 * R=Restaurant, B=Bar, H=Hotel, RV=Revenue, S=Sates Tax, E=Employment, T=Tourism, G=Gambling, AQ=Air Quality, PO=Public Opinion Bold Type Source =Peer reviewed ~ ~ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Mixed-beverage revenue analyses indicate that sales of alcoholic (2004). Impact of a Smoking Ban on Restaurant beverages were not affected by the El Paso smoke-free ordinance. and Bar Revenues-EI Paso, Texas, 2002. EI Paso, TX R, B, S, Researchers from the Texas Department of Health (TDH) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) examined Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 53(7): ~ RV restaurant and bar revenues 12 years before and 1 year after El Paso 150-152. , Texas enacted its smoke-free ordinance on January 2, 2002. Restaurant, bar, and mixed-beverage revenues varied by quarter (and were found to be highest between the October-December quarter). The study concludes that Massachusetts' state-wide smoking ban, implemented on July 5, 2004, has improved indoor air quality in a Connolly, G.N., et al. (2005). Evaluation of the sample of 27 bars and restaurants and has had no negative impact on Massachusetts Smoke-Free Workplace Law: A R, B, H, leisure and hospitality revenues or employment. Indoor air pollution decreased 93 percent among sampled establishments Restaurant and Preliminary Report. Paper presented to the Massachusetts RV, S, E, . bar patronage and monthly meals and alcoholic beverage tax Harvard School of Public Health Tobacco Control Working Group Boston MA G, AQ collections did not change. Employment in food services and , , . drinking establishments remained the same and there was an increase in the number of workers employed in accommodation venues (i.e. hotels, motels, etc.). No change in lottery revenues, as measured by net Keno sales, was observed after the law's im lementation. Florida's smoke-free law did not negatively impact revenues and employment. Using data from January 1990 to April 2004, the study Florida looks at the economic effect of Florida's smoke-free law on Dai, Chifeng, et al. (2004). The Economic Impact Daytona Beach, FL Lauderdale, F restaurant and bar sales and employment levels within the state's leisure and hospitality industry Amon the six economic of Florida's Smoke-Free Work lace Law. p Gainesville Florida: University of Florida t. Myers, Gainesville, Jacksonville, Lakeland R, B, T, . g measures, three-retail sales from restaurants, lunchrooms and catering , , Warrington College of Business Administration Melbourne, Miami, Orlando, RV, E services; employment in drinking and eating establishments; and ' Bureau of Economic and Business Research Pensacola, Sarasota, Tallahassee employment in the leisure and hospitality sector-increased after ' . Tampa, West Palm Beach Florida s smoke-free law went into effect. The other measures- retail sales from taverns, night clubs, bars and liquor stores; retail sales from recreational admissions; and employment in accommodations-experienced no change after the law went into effect. Page 3 of 9 * R=Restaurant, B=Bar, H=Hotel, RV=Revenue, S-Sales Tax, E=Employment, T=Tourism, G=Gambling, AQ=Air Quality, PO=Public Opinion Bold Type Source =Peer reviewed t ~_ t t 1 ~~ t t Corvallis, Oregon's smoking ban appears to have no economic impact on most bars, with an increase in nonsmokers offsetting a loss Dresser, J., S. Boles, E. Lichtenstein and L in smokers. On July 1, 1998, Corvallis, Oregon required all bars to , . Strycker (1999). Multiple Impacts of a Bar Corvallis, OR B, G, S, go smoke-free. Using four data sources (distilled spirits sales, malt liquor sales, video poker sales, and alcohol sales) researchers find Smoking Prohibition Ordinance in Corvallis, Oregon. Eugene, Oregon: Pacifica Research RV , that Corvallis' smoke-free ordinance had generally no economic Institute. impact on bars. However, the evidence suggests that establishments catering to video poker players did experience a decline in sales. Overall, there appears to be a loss of some smokers to bars outside Corvallis, however, this migration effect was offset by an increase in non-smoking patronage. Glantz concludes that (I) California's smoke-free restaurant law increased retail sales of eating and drinking establishments, with a larger increase following the enactment of smoke-free bars and (2) Glantz, S.A. (2000). Effect of Smokefree Bar Law the smoke-free restaurant law had no effect on bar revenues for those on Bar Revenues in California. Tobacco Control California B, RV businesses established solely for the purpose of drinking. Glantz investigates: (I) Whether Califomia's smoke-free restaurant la 9(Spring): 111-112. w harmed businesses that were both eating and drinking establishments and (2) Whether Califomia's smoke-free bar law had negative effects on bar revenues. He compares revenues for eating and drinking establishments before and after January 1, 1995, when all restaurants were required to go smoke-free. He also compares bar revenues before and after January 1, 1998, when all bars were required to go smoke-free. Smoking bans either increased or had no effect on hotel revenues and tourism. Researchers compared hotel revenues and tourism rates in 3 states and 6 cities. The authors found that smoke-free ordinances increased hotel revenues in 4 localities (Utah; Los Angeles, Glantz, S.A. and A. Charlesworth (1999). Tourism California, Utah, Vermont California; Mesa, Arizona; and New York City, New York), had no effect on revenues in 4 localities (Califomia; Vermont; Boulder and Hotel Revenues Before and After Passage of Smoke-Free Restaurant Ordinances. Journal o /~ Boulder, CO; Flagstaff, AZ; Los -J , Colorado; and San Francisco, Califomia , and slowed the rate of ) . the American Medical Association 281 20:1911- ( ) Angeles, CA; Mesa, AZ; New , RV, T increase in one city, Flagstaff, Arizona (which, at the time of the i 1918. York, NY; San Francisco, CA nvestigation, was expanding its hotel stock). Smoke-free ordinances were also shown to increase the number of Japanese tourists who visited California and the number of European tourists who visited New York City. As for the seven remaining locales, no significant changes in tourist rates were observed, either before or after the implementation of smoke-Gee policies. Page 4 of 9 * R=Restaurant, B=Bar, H=Hotel, RV=Revenue, S=Sales Tax, E=Employment, T=Tourism, G=Gambling, AQ=Air Quality, PO=Public Opinion Bold Type Source =Peer reviewed Colorado Aspen, Snowmass, and Telluride Smoke-free ordinances were found to have no effect on aggregate Glantz, S.A. and L.R.A. Smith (1997). The Effect California restaurant or bar sales. Researchers compared sales tax and total retail sales for 15 cities with smoke-free restaurant ordinances against of Ordinances Requiring Smoke-Free Restaurants and Bars on Revenues: AFollow- Aubum, Beverly Hilts, R, B, S, 15 cities without. They also compared bar sales for the first 5 cities Up. American Journal of Public Health (87)10: Bellflower, El Cerrito, Lodi, RV (Anderson, CA; Davis, CA; Redding, CA; San Luis Obispo, CA; 1687-1692 Martinez, Palo Alto, Paradise, Tiburon, CA) and 2 counties (Shasta County, CA and Santa Clara . Roseville, Ross, Sacramento, County, CA) requiring smoke-free bars with the bar sales of matched San Luis Obispo, cities and counties that did not (Red Bluff, CA; Chico, CA; Healdsburg, CA; Sausalito, CA; Butte County, CA; and Alameda Anderson, David, Redding, San County, CA). Luis Obispo, Tiburon, Shasta Co., Santa Clara Co. This is the first study that used taxable restaurant sales to examine the Colorado economic impact of smoke-free laws on business as well as the first Aspen, Snowmass, Telluride study to find that smoking bans generally do not harm restaurants. Glantz, S.A. and L.R.A. Smith (1994). The Effect California Researchers compared sales tax and total retail sales for 15 cities with smoke-free ordinanc i t 15 i i of Ordinances Requiring Smoke-Free Restaurants on Restaurant Sales American Auburn, Beverly Hills, R, S, RV es aga ns c t es, similar in population, income, and smoking prevalence, where an ordinance was not in . Journal of Public Health (84)7: 1081-1085 Bellflower, El Cerrito, Lodi, force. Among the 15 communities, the data show that restaurant . Martinez, Palo Alto, Paradise, sales from 1986 through 1993 remained unchanged as a fraction of Roseville, Ross, Sacramento, total retail sales. There was some evidence that retail sales to San Luis Obispo restaurants increased in Bellflower and Martinez, but may have decreased in Roseville. When compared to cities without asmoke- free ordinance, sales also appeared to increase in Palo Alto but decrease in Paradise. It is not clear what factors may have driven these changes. Glantz, S.A. and R. Wilson-Loots (2003). No Massachusetts Statistical analysis suggests that observed revenue declines in bingo Association of Smoke-free Ordinances with P Communities that permitted charitable gamin between 1985 G, RV were not related to community smoking bans. Using annual bingo receipts for the years 1985 through 2001, researchers found that net rofit from Bingo and Charitable Games in Massachusetts. Tobacco Contro112: 411-413 g and 2001 (not listed in study) profits from charitable gaming in Massachusetts fell over time. This . trend preceded the passage of local smoke-free ordinances in the state. Page 5 of 9 * R=Restaurant, B=Bar, H=Hotel, RV=Revenue, S=Sales Tax, E=Employment, T=Tourism, G=Gambling, AQ-Air Quality, PO=Public Opinion Bold Type Source =Peer reviewed Goldstein, A.O. and R.A. Sobel (1998) The authors conclude that there were no differences in restaurant . Environmental Tobacco Smoke Regulations North Carolina sales among the ten counties studied in either the period (1990-1993) before smoking bans were implemented or in the period (1994-1997) Have Not Hurt Restaurant Sales in North Carolina. North Carolina Medical Journal Craven Co., Halifax Co., R, RV after. Researchers compared the impact of smoke-free ordinances on . (59)5:284-287. Oran e Co., Wake Co., g restaurant sales in ten North Carolina counties-five which had a Buncombe Co. smoke-free ordinance (Craven, Halifax, Orange, Wake, and Buncombe) and five that did not (Rockingham, Brunswick, Cabarrus, Mecklenburg, and Davidson). Lexington, Kentucky's smoke-free law, implemented on April 27, 2004, has had no negative impact on employment, payroll withholding taxes, or business openings and closings among the Hahn, E.J., et al. (2005). Economic Impact of ' city's restaurants, bars, and hotels. Restaurant employment increased, bar employment remained unchanged and hoteUmotel Lexington s Smoke-Free Law: A Progress Report. Kentucky , employment decreased in the five months after [he law went into Lexington, Kentucky: University of Kentucky, R, B, H, E effect. There are methodological problems with this last result The College of Nursing and Gatton College of Business and Economics Lexington . authors used five years of employment data, but the pre-9/1 i data . appear to be statistical outliers and should have been controlled for in the analysis. Workers' earnings, as measured by payroll withholding taxes, remained unchanged among restaurant, bar, and hotel/motel employees. There was no change in the number of openings or closings in food service or alcohol servin establishments. This study finds that smoke-free ordinances had either no effect or increased restaurant revenues across four Texas cities. Arlington, Austin, Plano, and Wichita Falls, Texas implemented smoke-free restaurant ordinances in July 1994, March 1996, August 1995, and Hayslett, J.A. and P.P. Huang (2000). Impact of Texas July 1995, respectively. These four cities have different geographies in the state, as well as different economies Researchers examined Clean Indoor Air Ordinances on Restaurant Revenues in Four Texas Cities: Arlington Arlington, Austin, Plano, R . thirteen years (1987-1999) of restaurant and retail sales data to look , Austin Plano and Wichita Falls 1987-1999 Wichita Falls , S, RV at the effect of smoke-free ordinances on the economic health of , . Bureau of Disease, Injury and Tobacco these cities. For Plano and Wichita Falls, the smoking ban had no i Prevention. Texas Department of Health. mpact on restaurant revenues. For Arlington and Austin, the smoke- free ordinance was associated with an increase in restaurant revenues. With respect to restaurant revenue as a proportion of total retail revenue, the smoke-free ordinance was found to have no effect in Austin, Plano, and Wichita Falls. In Arlington, the smoking ban was shown to increase the city's restaurant sales as a proportion of total retail revenue. Page 6 of 9 * R=Restaurant, B=Bar, H=Hotel, RV=Revenue, S=Sales Tax, E=Employment, T=Tourism, G=Gambling, AQ=Air Quality, PO=Public Opinion Bold Type Source =Peer reviewed Huang, P., et al. (1995). Assessment of the Impact The study concludes that there were no adverse economic effects ' of a 100°/a Smoke-Free Ordinance on Restaurant associated with West Lake Hills smoke-free ordinance. On June 1, Sales-West Lake Hills, Texas, 1992-1994. West Lake Hills, TX R, RV 1993, West Lake Hills, Texas implemented asmoke-free ordinance requiring all commercial establishments, including restaurants and Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 44(19): restaurants with bars, to be 100 percent smoke-free. Researchers 370-372. examined aggregate monthly sales from 7 restaurants before and after the ban. This study finds no decrease in restaurant employment following the passage of New York City's smoke-free ordinance. Researchers compared the number of restaurant employees per month between New York City, NY April 10, 1994, one year before NYC required all smoke-free Hyland, A. and J. Tuk (2001). Restaurant E (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens Staten Island) R, E restaurants, and April 10, 1999, four years after the -aw's im lementation. In addition to lookin at em to ment data for the p g P Y mployment Boom in New York City. Tobacco Co~:trol 10(Summer): 199 , N city's five boroughs-Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, and . assau Co., Westchester Co., Staten Island-researchers also included the nearby counties of Rockland Co. Nassau, Westchester, and Rockland. They conclude that more than 22,000 restaurant employees were employed in NYC four years post- ban; this was an 18 percent increase from 1990. While all five boroughs experienced an increase in restaurant employment, Bronx and Richmond counties outpaced other regions at 36 percent and 31 percent, res ectively. Hyland, A. and K.M. Cummings (1999). Restaurateur Reports of the Economic Impact of New York City NY After randomly surveying 434 New York City restaurateurs, h d i ' the New York City Smoke-Free Air Act. Journal , Bronx Brooklyn Manhattan R, PO researc ers eterm ned that New York City s Smoke-Free Air Act had no effect on restaurant sales. 34 percent of smaller restaurants o Public Health Mana ement Practice 5 1:37- 2 g () , , , Queens Staten Island and 36 percent of restaurants with bar areas reported a decline in 4 , business compared with 35 percent of larger restaurants and restaurants without bar areas reporting similar results. Page 7 of9 * R=Restaurant, B=Bar, H=Hotel, RV=Revenue, S=Sales Tax, E=Employment, T=Tourism, G=Gambling, AQ=Air Quality, PO=Public Opinion Bold Type Source =Peer reviewed New York City's smoking ban was not shown to affect employment in or the growth of the city's hospitality industry. Researchers looked at the number of restaurants and restaurant employees in New York City (comprised of the five boroughs of Manhattan, Bronx, Hyland, A. and K.M. Cummings (1999). New York City, NY Richmond, Kings, and Queens), three nearby counties (Nassau, Westchester, and Suffolk) and the rest of the state using data from Restaurant Employment Before and After the New York City Smoke-Free Air Act. Journal o f Bronx, Brookl}m, Manhattan, R, E two years before and after the passage of New York City's Smoke- Public Health Management Practice 5(1): 22-27 Queens, Staten Island Free Air Act. Between April 1993 and April 1997, New York City, . as well as the rest of the state, experienced increases in both the Nassau Co., Westchester Co., numbers of restaurants and restaurant employees. New York City's Suffolk Co. restaurant employment growth was found to be more than three times that of the entire state. Brooklyn was the only county to show a decrease in both restaurants and employment, however, Brooklyn also lost population during the study period, making a decline in overall restaurant and restaurant employees likely. Hyland, A., K.M. Cummings, and E. Nauenberg Researchers conclude that New York City's smoke-free law did not (1999). Analysis of Taxable Sales Receipts: Was New York City's Smoke-Free Air Act Bad for New York City, NY change sale revenues at restaurants and hotels. This study measures Restaurant Business? Journal o Public Health f Brooklyn, Bronx, Manhattan, R, H, S the level of taxable sales receipts before and after the implementation ' Management Practice 5(1): 14-21. Queens, Staten Island ofNew York City s Smoke-Free Air Act on April 10, 1995. New York City Department of Finance New York This study suggests that New York City's smoke-free law has not , City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York City, NY hurt the hospitality industry, and that New Yorkers approve of the ban. Researchers looked at the effect of New York City's Smoke- New York City Department of Small Business Services, and New York City Economic Brooklyn, Bronx, Manhattan, R, B, S, E, Free Air Act, enacted March 30, 2003, on the city's employment and Development Corporation (2004). The State of Queens, Staten Island A Q, PO its restaurant and bar sales. Since the law went into effect, employment in the city's restaurants and bars increased by 10 600 Smoke-Free New York City: A One Year Review , jobs while sales tax receipts increased 8.7%, or nearly $1.4 million. . While the number of restaurants and bars did not change, there was a 4% increase in the number of new liquor licenses issued. Moreover, 69% of registered NYC voters approved of the smoking ban. Sciacca, J.P. and M.I. Ratliff (1998). Prohibiting Flagstaff, Arizona's smoking ban had no effect on the city's tourism. Smoking in Restaurants: Effects on Restaurant R, H, T, S, The authors compared restaurant, motel and hotel sales data three- and-a-half years before Flagstaffs smoke-free restaurant law and Sales. American Journal of Health Promotion 12(3): 176-184. Flagstaff, AZ RV one-and-a-half years after its enactment. In comparison to Prescott, Yavapai County, Yuma, Yuma County, and the state of Arizona, Flagstaffs motel and hotel sales did not change before or after the ordinance. Page 8 of 9 * R=Restaurant, B=Bar, H-Hotel, RV=Revenue, S=Sales Tax, E=Employment, T=Tourism, G=Gambling, AQ=Air Quality, PO=Public Opinion Bold Type Source =Peer reviewed i , ~ 1 1 ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 Fort Wayne, Indiana's smoke-free ordinance, enacted in January 1999, had no effect on food and beverage tax revenues. Styring, a researcher for a prominent, conservative think-tank, looked at the levels of Allen Coun[y tax revenue before and after the ban. He Styring, W. III (2001.). A Study of the Fort Wayne concluded that changes in Allen County Personal Income explained (IN) Restaurant Smoking Ban: Has It Impacted Fort Wayne, IN R, S, PO over 96 percent of the change in food and beverage tax collections. the Restaurant Business? Indianapolis: Hudson Styring followed up his statistical analysis with a telephone survey of Institute. 250 Allen County residents. Of the 238 residents who said they were aware of Fort Wayne's smoking ban, 164 (69%) said it made no difference in their decision to patronize a restaurant; 39 (16%) said the ban made it less likely and 35(15%) said the ban made it more likely that they would patronize a restaurant. Policy National Government Relations Department June 2006 Page 9 of 9 * R=Restaurant, B=Bar, H=Hotel, RV=Revenue, S=Sales Tax, E=Employment, T=Tourism, G=Gambling, AQ=Air Quality, PO=Public Opinion Bold Type Source =Peer reviewed