H259 – Prohibit Smoking in Public Places

Economic Impacts of Smoke-Free Policies: No objective, peer-reviewed study has found a negative economic impact associated with smoke-free air legislation.

Empirical, independent data demonstrates smoke-free laws do not harm business:

Employment in Delaware’s food service and drinking establishments increased in 2003 following the implementation of the state’s Clean Indoor Air Act, according to the Delaware Department of Labor.¹

New York City’s restaurants and bars added 10,600 jobs while sales tax receipts increased by 8.6 percent since going smoke free, according to the New York City Department of Finance.²

California’s 131 smallest bars—those the tobacco industry claimed would be hurt the most—showed a 35 percent increase in business one year after California’s smoke-free law was implemented, according to California’s sales tax collection agency.³

Rhode Island’s bars and restaurants generated 20 percent more tax revenue in the first quarter following the implementation of the state’s smoke free law in March 2005, according to the Rhode Island Division of Taxation.⁴

The tobacco industry has funded research to frighten bar and restaurant owners:

This research is not objective or reliable. Similarly, those that oppose clean indoor air regulations often use anecdotal or subjective measures to claim lost revenues. Consider:

In 2003, a comprehensive review was conducted of 97 studies addressing the impact of smoke-free laws on the hospitality industry. Analysis of the studies found every single study claiming a negative impact was supported by the tobacco industry. These studies were 20 times less likely to have been scientifically peer-reviewed. The study concluded that “all of the best designed studies report no impact or a positive impact of smoke-free restaurant and bar laws on sales or employment”.⁵

In May 1998, the American Beverage Institute released a survey of selected bar owners and managers in California claiming a decline in business of 59.3 percent and an 81 percent drop for stand alone bars. However, an analysis of taxable sales conducted by California’s sales tax collection agency found the state’s smallest establishments that serve alcohol had a 1 percent increase in revenues. There was a 6 percent increase in taxable sales for all eating and drinking establishments compared with 1997.⁶

Smoke-Free Policies Save Lives: In contrast to claims of lost business and scare tactics by the tobacco industry, North Carolinians can expect one concrete impact from a smoke-free workplace ordinance: cleaner air and better public health. Secondhand smoke contains 69 different kinds of chemicals which cause cancer. Secondhand smoke kills at least 35,000 nonsmokers a year. Hospitality industry employees are especially vulnerable—an eight hour shift in a smoky bar is the equivalent of smoking 16 cigarettes.⁷

For more information contact James Browning, PennPIRG Director, (215) 732-3747

[1] Meconi, Vincent, Secretary of the Delaware Department of Health and Social Services, “Secondhand Smoke Deserves Regulations,” Delaware State News, (December 30,2003).

[2] New York City Department of health and Mental Finance, Small Business Services, and Economic Development Corporation. The State of Smoke-free New York City: A One-Year Review

[3] Magzamen S., and Glantz S., “The New Battleground: California’s Experience With Smoke-Free Bars”, American Journal of Public Health (2001); Vol. 91, No.2

[4] John J. Nugent, Assistant Tax Adminstrator, “Revenues up from smoke-free bars, restaurants,” Associated Press, September 1, 2005.

[5] Scollo M, et al, “Review of the Quality of studies on the economic effects of smoke-free policies on the hospitality industry”, Tobacco Control (2003); 12:13-20.

[6] Magzamen S., and Glantz S., “The New Battleground: California’s Experience With Smoke-Free Bars”, American Journal of Public Health (2001); Vol. 91, No. 2

[7] American Cancer Society, cited, University of California at Berkeley School of Public Health, 2002