HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0746.033 2000-2002 ors,are,rxsnorn.~aa~,a®m~,aa,~r~r~~as p aeda~a eats, ~e
ORIGINAL, CO L)'T'ION
~ '
i
•
Stanton A. Glanta, I'hD Cea Claims that ordinances regaiiring smoke-free restaurants will- adversely af-
Annearlarie Charlesvvoreh, MA fact ttburism have been used to-argue against passing such ordinances. i3ata exist re-
garding the validity of these claims.
s T~ twtnENCg'rt3nT s~COtv~- To determine the changes in hotel revenues and international tourism af-
hand tobacco smoke endan- #er passage of smoke-free restaurant ordinances 6n k9cales wfsese the effect has been
gars nonsmokers has accu- debated.
mulated,l•~ more and mare Comparison of hotel revenues and tourism rates before and after passage
communities have elaminated sanok- of 1ofB% smoke-free ra~taurant ordinances and comparison with lDS hotel revenue _
ing in public places and workpflaces. As overall.
of September 1998, 212 communities ~ states (California, Utah, and ~/ermontD and 6 cities (Boulder, Colo; Flag-
and 3 states had enacted laws mender- staff, Ariz; Los Angeles, Calif; Mesa, Ariz; 6Vew York, 6dY; and San Francisco, Calif) in
ing smoke-free restaurants' and 1 state which the effect on tourism of smoke-free restaurant ordinances had been-debated.
(California') and 31 communities' had 'sn ~e>~oeete ~g@aau Hotel room revenues and hotel revenues as a fraction
enacted local ordinances requiring ®f total retail seise compared vvit$r preordinance revenues and overall t!S revenues.
smoke-free bars. These ordinances not ~~a In constant 1~7 dollars, a of the smoke-free restaurant ordinance
only proeect nonsmokers from the tox- eves associated with a statistical~+ signifacarat "sncr~se in the rate of change of hots!
ins in secondhand smoke, they also ere- revenues in 4 localities. no significant change in 4 localities, and a significant slowing
ate an environment that encourages in the rate of increase (but-not a decrease) in 1 locality. Them was no ~gnificant change
smokers to quit.5 ~ in the rate of change of hotel revenues as a fraction of tote! a+etail sales il'=.'l6) ®r
The tobacco andustry° vigorously op- tote! US hotel revenues associated with the ordinances-when pooSed across all k~cali-
poses these public health measures to ties 6P = .93D• international tourisrro was either unaffected or increased following imple-
protectits sales. I3urirag the debates over mentation of the smoke-free ordinances.
these laws, it is common for the to- Ca~e@uairars Smoke-free ordinances do not appear to adversely affect, and may in-
~bacco industry (acting directly or crease, tourist business.
through front groups`') to claim that ~anrta. 7s99:1ss:9994.791E maw.jama.com
j these ordinances create severe eco-
nomic problems for the restaurants and yielded similar findings for smoke-free vea~sely affect tourism. In some places,
bars. After Glantz and Smith°•10 pub- restaaurant ordinances in 89 cities in 6 the industry has claimed rhea eourisan
lished shalt study demonstrating that States.l~av respite eobaeeo industry pro- from countries such as Japan and Ger-
smoke-free restaurant ordinances have testations to the conttaaay, all the empiri- iuaany wail be particularly affected. There
had no effect on restaurant revenues in cal evidence supports the pr®posation is only 1 study of 1 clay on the effects
the first 15 cities co pass such ordi- thatsmoke-free restataaaratordinancesdo of a smoke-free ordinance on tour-
nances, the tobacco industry's claims of not burs she restaurant business.20 ism.18 We identified 3 states and 6 cit-
economic chaos lost credibility, particu- As the tobacco industry's claims of
laxly in California and Colorado, where adverse effects on the restaurant and bar sot AfH6ia4ioresc ansfat~ee for Ftealth Peary stud-
ses Departmen4 of Medicine, Un~easity of Cuff®r-
the cities were located. Glanu and business have lost credibility, it has ad- nie. ~r~i1~. .
Smieh11.121aterupdatedtllisstudyandex- vented a new economic argument eaarespoa+~traseaaathorarsdae~aast:: Stanton n.
Glantz. PhD, D'nrision of Cardiology, University of Cali-
• tended it toincludesmoke-free bars. Sub- against passing smoke-free restaurant forma, San Francisco, San ~ranclsco, c . ~
• Sequent work by other researchers ordinances: abase orditiatices will ad- o9aa ce-mail: ~ c"snf.edu).
(Submitted by Laura Bollinger) ~a~nnA.t~taya'~# y e2sa, o.
' .
def. sae
I3,ef. i~a~ r ~
SMOKE-FREE RESTAURANTS AND TOURISM
ies in which opponents of clean in- trary to industry claims, these ordi-
door air ordinances specifically nat;eces were not associated with sig- l~Jesearcltednewspaperdaeabasesand
advanced claims that the ordinance nificant drops in tourism. Quite the publications by tobacco industry groups
would adversely affect tourism contrary, in several locales the ordi- (such as the National Smokers' Alli-
(TABLE 1''35) and obtained data on nances mere associated with signifi- ante that was created for Philip Nlor-
tourismfrom the local authorities. Con- cant increases in tourism. ris lncorporated3b) and contacted
lratsle 1. Predicted Effects of Smoke-Free Res4auranY Ordenance on Tourism Made by 4he Tobact:o Industry and ReEated Groups'
Location
Effectitre Bate of Law
PopulaYion21 (1989) Predlcteet Effect
CaN4omla Revenues of hotels aexl outer lodging plac:as Create a signifioarrt number of jobs in California. If the proposed
January 1, 1995 smoking ban is adopted by the state of CaNfomia, soma tourists, visitors, and Convention delegates may travel .
29 760 021 40 other states or forgo travel+tssg aifo~ther. In particular, a smoking ban in Cal'rfomia could reduce expenditures
in the following way:
• • reduced DarnrZatic Out-of-State 7owrsrn-Marry travelers, vi~tws, vacatiorsers, 2nci businasspeople may
choose not Yo travel 4o California.
• Reduced Fasetgre Tounsm-Some foreign tourists. visitors, and tx~siness people may ehoose not to visit
Cafffomia.
• Reduced Conve»fir
tors-Some groups may decide not 40 hold Conventions in Calrfornia.
Tha expenditures of these consumers signif~Canty Contribute to California's economy:
Potential Losses for Each 1 Percent Reduction in Foreign Visitor Expenditures, $31017 51822
Utah Richard Davis, Salt Lake Oornrentiow ~ visitors Brre~sa presider:t, said his agetxy supported the concept of
January 1, 1995 protecting nonsmokers from dartgenous second-hand Smoke in restaurants. But he said malting Utah the firs4
1 722 850 state 4o enact such a ban would result in tourism bases. '
"Utah already is a leader in liquor c~troi arad aborfsopt," Mr Davss said. Ling in smokers would "have a
negative BffeC4 Orr our totarism rrrariae~tg efft9etS." Mr fJavis warned passage of itte biN Could COSY Utah $50
• mitGort in bat CortventiprlS right off the ba4.~
Opponents-including 4he TobacxA Institute-say tJtatt's maastaTe wilt ~xdart public &s by separa4ing
smokers and-could darnaga t;Jtah'S toueism industry.2'
Vermont Since the Vermont Clean Indoor Act took effect on July 1, 1995, owners have Claimed sales losses between 3%
July 1, 1995 and 30%.
562 758 Members of the Vermont Business and Restaurant Coalition and the Vermon4 mg and Restaurant Association
• said the ban would reduce tourism, average restaurant tabs, and sales overall.
Boulder, Colo After a ferocious campaign to defeat the measure, some bar and restacaant owners said 4he ban would slash 4heir
November 14, 1995 business and drive smoking customers out of town. Some said 4hey likely would go out of business.
83312
Flagstaff, Ariz Vote Yes on Proposttion 310...to protect tourism revenues (estimated $150 miNion annual economic impact to
June t 8, 1993 Flagstaff from Yotuism!}?'
45 857 This could be a great loss for Flagstaff. Tour groups won't return, guests wNl never come to Flagstaff again.2B
Los Angeles. Calif "Forget about loss of local business: that's bad enough "Richard SchilNng, general manager of Hotel Sofdel Los
July 26. 1993 Angel, says. 'What about tourism receipts?" The throngs of European visitors who fbck to LA annuaNy wiR
3 485 396 ~ ins4ead fy south to Florida B 4hey Can't smoke while they dine, he says. "And ware not the only ones who are
' goang to get hurt: These tourists take cabs. rant cars, and shop fn bcal boutiques." fte adds.'
"Since implementa4ion of 4he ban in January 1995, 46.2% of the California restaurants sunreyed reported lower
gross sales receipts white only 15.5% reported higher gross sales eeCeipts," states Barbara Bouttinghouse. a
KPMG Peat Marwick LL.p manager who coordinated the survey. "The reported losses of this magnitude are
• ~ devasta4ing to California's hospitality industry.*3D
Mesa. Ariz Tom Laurie, spokesma: t for ttxs Tobacco ins4itute, a tobacco msnufac4uring industry trade association, said t>ti
December 20. 1996 expects local hospitality and restaurant associations to mount the defense agains4 4he irtitiaYive. "tf they're not
288 091 already wall organ¢ed, they wilt be once they gauge the economic impact. "31
Chaos is 4he only word to deSCribe-what is happening in Mesa. Ariz. Business owners left the economic blow
immediately. Restaurant and bar owners are losing customers to n~rby communi4ie, where snicking is still
allowed, and one res4aurateur cited the ban as the reason he went out of business. A convention has changed
its meeting sits from 144esa.32
New York. NY On a larger scale, tVew York stands to lose mans o4 c~oNars as the me~ings and cxirevarttiorts YPta4 bring visitors
Aped 10. 1995 from all over YPte world take 4lteir fwsiness arxS v7catiorts _ Fdeva Yoek 4oday has over 25 tri~lNon visitors
7 322 564 every year. Tourism is a $14 biNion industry. This helps support our city. tt means jobs. Outer tag cities mat
compete for flea buss wN1 be very gfa~ to see this smoking ban pass
New York has oar 25 mlion visitors a year. Tourism is a $14 b'sNzxt industry. Butrf this biN passes in its present
form, tourists will steer clear o4 a Cdy so harshy intolerant of smokers. Ttte bill would encourage many smokers,
touris4s and resiCents alike, Yo abandon restaurants altogether in favor of bars and cabarets, where smoking
would not tae restricted 3'
San Francisco, Calif The hospitality industry es a group is and has long baert one of the largest employers in San Francisco. However,
January t , 1995 the cumen4 recession, combined with the aftereffects of the 1989 earthquake, has caused Weary every
723 959 restaurant artd hotel to cut their s4affmg drasticaly. The jobs are scarce: the job/labor pool ratio have reduced
some wages to 4he kswesY levels in 4 years. Arty attempt to restrict activities of our patrons vdould reduce the
traffic in our re54auranYS. Not ony do the hardworking operators lose but tttei' employees bse as well (Gdden
Gate RBS4auranY Association, written communication, February 13. 1992).
•al data are dWect quotes from res~sctive sources.
~o~~ IAMA AAn.r loon-v„i jai ra.. ~n
SI~A®~- tt~STAUItANTS AIVD 70URIS1vf
'Pa$b9e 2. Data Sources'
Location @tott3! ffis ts~f ~ f fea~x
CaGforttia Tiave.° ~ by C,etarety, foe itt3 A ft ~ Ovar~as try
D'evisiort of Tour~rrt. Trade artd is of Toll~tt, f
19~> .
. Cam Tram81 a~ . .
' imP~s, Tratret byTyPa of Bts, 1 .
ions (CY ease-199a~
Taxable 5ai~s s? C>a5torrua fps & Use Tax). stat:;~vside
s sages, by type a¢ fem. ret,~ tags,
P by the C~farhia state Boned of •
(cY uses-~~sa. second ~
tJtatr Gross Taxable Sa#~s, dices & (f15E Tax9 vtsiteticxt to 19Bah, t1s city ave~e
ar tltah, prePased by State of A~ Tax ~ 133-97: p tsN Diet
~S 19, Services, tioiets 8 todgirx,) (7011-7041) of?ems l1S
(CY 1990-1997} of Cotxxiterce,
Tot7i letdt
Gross Taxable Retail Sates, Services & (Use Tax) Purcfrases
in UPalt, by State of Utah Taae C.omee>issiort,
Gross it1 Sates artd ~ TotaE 1990-1997)
Vermont State of Verrrtorit. of T8>nes, ft~&R Staie'S, hbrttt~st txbaPt
Vermott4Departrrtent ~
T~aues (FY 997i~$ ~
State of UP,irrtor+f t~rtraaer?t of Taxes Sales Statistics,
gross sales. grand toter, by State of Vemitont
Departrrtertt of Taxes {FY 19138-1~7}
Boulder, Cob AcY.rommodations Tax Revernee. Prepared t3y City of . Botrld~, and
Ba.~tcier, Finance Divasbn (CY 1990-1998 • fdo
Sales and Use Tax Revenue Report. retail s~S tax,
PrePar~ by ~Y of Boulder' fa~,artce dt~, rem
t~tbactoort sirPervisor, aPb btadg®t :~ir>3Ctar far a aly
matla~r, May 1998 (CY 1990-1998x°§ '
Flagstaff, Ariz City of if3 f~ Sales Hlsfeuy, hotelsf Vrdest
preFaeed by City of Flt3gstaff (CY 1988-1998)
Retail Sales Report, Prepared by City of Flagstaff (CY
1988-1998)
Los Angeles, Transient Occupancy lax Revenue, PreP~ by City of Los Los Angeles, t~iverside,
Calii Angeles, Office of the City Glerk, Tax and Permit Division and ~ Count,
(FY 1988-1997)§ Calrfotr>ia
Taxable Sales in California (Sales & Use Tax), taxable sales in
the 240 largest cleie.S. by type of btJS~tess, eeYail stogies
totals. pied by the Cafifarnia State-Board of
Equalization (CY 1986-1997, stx~rtd quarter)'~# •
Mesa. Ariz Summary of Total Transient Qccupancy Tax ire, !Nest urban
prepared by City of Mesa lax 8 Licensieeg Adrturtistrator
(CY 1989-1997J"'§
' ~ Sales Tax Revenue Information, prepared by City of Mesa
Tax 8 Lac~r>sing (FY 1990-1998)§ '
New York. NY NYC Hotel Tax CoNectmns by Quan'er, Prepared by Nave a ltsrfc City tllsitor Statistics, ~ Nev+s York, noethem New
York City Department of Finara:e, Office of Tax Policy Prepared by tdew York City Jersey, t.rortg islaetd,
(FY 19$9-1998 Cottvetition & Visator's Buret Corvtut, artd
NYC Sales Tax Cdlections by QuaRer, Prepared by New
York City Department of Finance, Office of Tax Policy
(f-Y 1989-1998}§
San Francisco. Annua! Report. business tax section. stat~tical activity. hotel San Francisco. Oakland.
Cates tax collection. Prepared by San Francesco Treasurerlfax and San Jose, Calif
Collector (FY 19$9-199701§
Taxable Safes in California (Sales 8 Use Tax), taxable sales in
Otte 240 largest cities. by type of business, retail stores
totals, prepared by the Caliornia State Board of
Equalization (CY 1986-1397, second quarter)t
United States Nafianal Accounts Data, Gross Domestic Product by
Industry in Current Dollars, 1987-1991 and 1992-1997,
line 62: Hotels and other lodging places, US Department
of Commerce Bureau of Economic Anaysis45q~
•CY indicates caterxtar year; FY, fiscal year.
ladled quarterly figures to obtain i1tU7tJal results.
TAddel quartery figums to obtain FY results.
§flevenues ca~utated based on tax receipts end tax rate.
~Fiscaf-year results by averaging 2 relevant CYS.
JAf1AA, May 26, 1999-Vol 281. No. 20 913
SIv9®IG~-E RESTAUI2ANT5 AND TOURiStdt
fecu of the ordinance on the number the law went into force. The dummy cording to L = 0 if no ordinance and
of tourists over time. The dependent variable L eluantiftes the presence of a L =1 if an ordinance is in effect. pot the
variable was the hotel revenues in the smoke-free restaurattt o nee ac- period in which the ® ce goes into
study locality divided by coeal US ho-
eel revenues for the same year. To fa- _
Tam 4. &~ufnba°s of lrlterrtafdona9 Tmueists as Thatasands°
cilitate comparisons between locali-
ties, this ratio was normalised by 1989 Y'
population for each locality (Table 1) T®ur#st 4•Bo Bro. m s59~ q P R=
divided by the US population
(248 709 873} froth the 1990 cen- Germany a81 -32 t 25 -es to 25 .23 o.7s
sus.21 Data were analysed with linear Japan s2s t t 7 t as ~ a to 220 .03 0.51
regression: y = bp+ b,t + b1(t - ti•w) ueah
L + ~b;S; where y indicates the depen- Germany 115 -25 t 13 -59 to 8 .11 0.a8
dent variables in TAE 3 and TA~H.E 4; Japan ~ s.e 7 t 3 -1 40 16 :07 0.65
t, time to represent the underlying secu- t+ v~ t:~ty
lar trend; L, a dummy variable that in- Europe 22x8.6 230 t ai ~ 16 to 3a5 .005 0.55
dicates whether a sinoke-free restau- Asoa 7s6.1 3T t 55 -117 to 151 .5a 0.75
rant law is in force; and If,,,., the tune =cr irtdicatss ;nterval.
F6giuire 1. Ho4el Revenues Before and After Omp9erroentation of the ®rdinance
_ • tfl096 SmaEce-Free n Effect
9000 Galifomi2 800 LOS . Ca1d x00 UPafs o Srewlc®-Few Pb8 n ~Ftece
j 750 Fiore Of t
6500 700 700 ~ .
8000 650 °
0 0
800 ° • 600
7500 0 0 0 55p 0
° 0 ° 500 • • 500
7006 450 •
_ 400 400
c 3$p
6000 350 30D
1986 t988 t990 rasa t99a 1996 t998 t986 1986 1990 t992 t99a t938 1998 1366 rase 109p t992. rasa teas tg98
a
25 Mesa. Ariz 220 ~ `teerttaeI 800 Naw Yak, NY
•
o
~ ~ 210 ° 700 • •
4 95' •q • 60D o ° •
ri
~ ; , , le 200 0 . . ° °
t0 az ~ ° 0/ 500
r. ~ ~ ° • .
~ 5 _ 0 190 0 4Dp mO °o
000 0
~ o
0 180 g 300
1986 7986 1990 t992 1394 t~6 1338 1986 1988 1990 t992 1~4 1396 1998 1980 1988 99~ 7992 1994 1536 7998
B Balder, Cob t000 San Francisco; Calif 6 Flagstaff9. Ariz
Y • ~ ~ •
7 gyp , 7
6 900 / 6 t
5 0 r 850 0 i 5 ~ 4
3 ~ • 800 3
4 4 1
r
2 ~ ~ ~ o • • 750 0 0 ° 2 • ~ • •
. 1 700 ° t
0 650 0
1986 1988 1990 1332 1994 1996 1998 1986 1~8 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 198F, 1988 1990 t ,199a 1936 19~
Yea? Year Yet
Hotel revenues in constant 1997 doNars for the 3 states and 6 sties with smoke-free restauravrts included in this study. Significant changes in slope (P<.05) occurred
for Utah. Los Angeles, Mesa, flew York City, and Flagstaff. .
JAMA, May 26, 1999-Vol 281, No. 20 19695
SMOKE-FREE RESTAURANTS AND TOURISM
E's~ee~ 2. Annual International Tourists and Effect of Smoke-Free Ordinances
l40o cauaomia 3000 New vork City 16o Utah
2soo loo ~ •
o ~ ~anan* lao 0 o c
2000 ° t~
800 0 ° p
N lsoo ao
s soo ~ ~ ° loo0 80
400 .
~p ° ~ Germany 500 ° Asia ~ o ,bapan
~
0 0 0
1986 1888 1~0 1992 1994 189& 1998 4886 188Fi 18S° 1392 1894 19,96 1888 49&36 1 199D 1882 4994 1996 1998
Year Yex Peer
Annual visitors from Japan (or Asia) and Germany (or Europe) to 3 kxales where the effects ofsmoke-free restauraert ordinances oea in4ernational tourism were an issue.
The years in which 100% smoke-free bar ordinances wen: in effect are shown as solid points. Aster~ks indicate slgn6ficant changes bn slope.
E's~alre 3. Reactions of European and American Smokers to Smoke-Free Ordinances revenues divided by total US rev-
in Restaurants enues, we also conducted a pooled
analysis with the equation above by
®conrux,e co ~t ow Just as r~equenty ~ Eal Out Ins Frequaney ®Stop Eating Out adding effects-coded dummy vari-
ables to code for between-locality ef-
• , ~ facts. The pooled analysis was done us-
~ ing annual data for all localities. A
. 9 18 n 10 - change is considered statistically sig-
16 t7 18 ~ 16 _ _ 12 96 nifflcant when PG.05.
4U ~ _ _,2 l1~1E~11~~'~
ld 15 ?4 t3.
73 -
~ , 6 Table 3 and F1Gt1RE 1 present the results
i;~ for total hotel revenues over time before
~ andafter implementation of the law. In
a r terms of constant 1997 dollars, the
stroke-free law was associated with a
s2 s7 al: s6: ss ~ sa ~s ~ significant increase in the rate of growth
of hotel revenues in 4 localities, no sig-
nifitcatatchange in 4 localities, and a sig-
o nificant slowing in the rate of increase
Turxey _ _ soar,- - itaryr r-~,ce sue- iy - s Win.. 3r of hotel revenues lIi 1 city (1~lagstaff)
where revenues tended to flatten out.
A survey done by Philip Morris Incorporated in 1989 demonstrated that European smokers were more accept- t#nalySis Of hotel revenues In Current
ing of smoke-free regulations than were Americans. Source of the data was the Minnesota Tobacco Litigation
l>epository (Bates No. 2500147496).'6 dollars or as a fraction of total retail sales
(Table 3) yielded similar results. Pooled
effect, L is set to a value between 0 and sensed in this areicle using the model across all localities, there was no sig-
1 that corresponds to the fraction of the above. For locations where data were nificant change in the fraction of hotel
period that the ordinance was in force. available more frequently than annu- revenues as total retail sales (P a .16).
The term b,, {t - t,°,,.)L models the ef- ally (ie, quarterly or monthly), we also The smoke-free law was associated
fact of the smoke-free law as a change included a dummy variable, 5;, to al- with no significant change in the rate of
in the slope of tourism revenues or vol- low for seasonal variability. The esti- growth of hotel revenues compared with
ume over time. This approach differs mate of the coefficient b, quantifies the cite United States as a whole in 5 locali-
from our earlier work, which modeled annual rate of increase (or decrease) in ties, a significantspeeding in 2, and a sig-
the effect of the ordinance as a simple the dependent variabley tech year. The nif`aeant slowing in 2 localities (Table 3).
intercept change. We found that mod- coefficient b~ quantifies the magni- Pooled across all localities, there was no
eling it as a slope change consistently rude of the effect of the ordinance on significant change in the rate of change
gave better fits to the data than an in- the rate of change over time of the de- of hotel revenues compared with the
tercept change model; the results ob- pendent variable. United States as a whole (P = .93).
rained with an intercept change model For hotel revenues as afraction of re- FIGURE 2 and Table ~ 4 show the
were qualitatively sitl;lilar to those pre- tail sales and normalised lacalityftocel changes in the number of tourists from
1916 LAMA, Ma}' 26. 1999-Vol 281. No. 20
SMOKE-&I<EE RESTAURANTS AND TOURISM
Japan (or Asia) and Germany (or Eu- have in the generality of the results. secs tobaccosmokewithoutthe
rope) associated with implementation The result that smoke-free restau- fear of adverse effects on tourism.
of the California, Utah, and New York rant ordiiaataces did not hurt, and taaay irtdeed, those ordinances anay even be
City smoke-free restaurant ordi- have helped, international tourisanwas beneficial for business.
nattces. The implementation ofthe or- surpalsing because of the coanmoatly held ~ a~ . srapported by rda-
diatances was associated with a sigttifi- belief that Europeans are snore willing , ~ grans CA-s1oa1 and a gaPt ~
• cane increase in the rate of change of to tolerate secondhand smoke and less Ewe and
' tourists from a co California and su alive of clean indoor air r~,..'1,, a we lteana: lererreiato Patnawan-
J P~ PPo egtda- Mnete, Ms. far his oomrreents on qhe manexcrapt
from Europe to New York City. The Lions than are Americans_ Secret ae-
other trends were not significantly af- search conducted for Philip Morals in-
fected by the ordinances. corpoaat~ in 1989, however, shows fleet us Erevaronenentaa ProBecaiore wry. Respin-
The regressions for Flagstaff and ehis belief is incoa'rtct.~ Philip M®rris ~f ®f sma~ing: lung canoes
Mesa, Ariz, exhibited si nificant lied 1000 le in each of 10 Euro- ' ~0 • oc: us Envir®ee-
8 Po P ~naae ~ n agency: lea. tTouament EPe4/
Durbin-Watson statistics, indicating the peen countries and found that smokers sons-~/.
presence of serial correlations in she re- were naorr acct of smoke-free res- a. office ~ Ef1°BH~QiS~i°~a saeaath a•dazard A4sess-
P~g m~F.ldsaMlr ¢ffeefsofExpa~nelo Environrr?entad 70-
siduals. We attempted a variety of al- tauaatit ordinances than wart Amen- • b~osna~e. • C~
ternatemodels usin functions of tints, cans (FFGURE 3). tectaon agency: i9R7. Awaa9abae a4: h44p://
$ s+~evneroeh~.mrgOsris~fi~etsOfin~ts.tetar+. Aeoessaa!
changes in the intercept term assoei- in our analysis o$ ern®ke-fete testau' r5.1•
ated with the ordinance, or interac- rant ordinances, we include Boulder, ~ - ~®0°~ -
tionsbetween the seasonal variables and Colo, which pea°atits she construction a;~,,q~ ~ 1~ ~
the pretence of the ordinance. None of of a separately veneilated smoking 4• aa, GOan$ s• Tfae politicaa reaaities os
these a roaches substantiall than ed room. While the Boulder Enviaontrien- ~ $°`1'g t' ~ paw of eaaifor-
PP y g ream's a~ 13. lob Conboe. 195i:6:a1-5a.
the value of the Durbin-Watson stabs- tai Enforcement O~'tce has n®t done a s. T, a. Pi~J. G9aegta s• Loin
tics. Fi ure 1 su eats that the si nifi- formal suave , th ae reed that "ac- ~ ~ °'P°8pb°19 N1
g ~ g y ~ P® ~ Caaafoinia. Aida 9rrletn Med.1993;153:
cant Durbin-Watson statistic [oa Flag- tual use" of such sepaaate smoking 1aa5-1as3.
staff is due to a period of rapid hotel moans is rare. We also included Flag- 1.a 1pa
~ ~f aocaa t°bac`°
building between 19d9 and 1993; the staff and Mesa, cities that allowed for 7_ saroo~aeasa,~gayM.Haa.areaGlarNas.PhEipNaor-
rate of change in hotel revenues be- the applicaeion of hardship exemp- ras'faaedexperimer:tanPatYSburga~•lalrattdrPo/dtPoJeey
law. 1~a;17329-351.
fore and after this period (which in- bons or exceptions. The Flagstaff .e. TraynorM.a3egayMt.Gaaresz5a~.raewtobacc®~+-
cludes the time covered by the smoke- County lrlraith Department reported derstaysba4egytopree~eaatbr~aYobacooetuetrol.reudta.
free ordinance) were similar. For Mesa, that no such hardshi exam [ions have ~~~'a7o'a~-ass'
P P 9. GlaraBa 5. Srne1•at LRA. The e4feet of ordinanos re-
the significant Durbin-Watson static- been granted. As of August 1998, the egsmdce-freesestaarantsonres6aea~retsa~s.Arse
tic is due to the disproportionate sea- City of Mesa Code Compliance Office as ~
S ~ 1 t ~ or-
sonal increase in business following cited 73 (3.5%) of 2080 businesses (in- direareees tteQuaring smoxe-Free Restaurants on Res-
implementation of the smoke-free or- eluding smoke shops) thaw vase graaated~~sG~'~
~ P~" of ~7rxde~n~an~c~s see-
. dinance. such exceptions. Our results are based quiaing smoke-free res8aurants and bas on rev-
on aggregate data, not aesults from in- ereuec: a fellow-up. e4m I Public Jaeateh. ,1997:87:
dividual businesses. As a result. we can- 16a7-a693.
1B. Giants S. Smith t. Erratum for °The Effect of Gtr-
This seudv debunks the tobacco Indus- not exclude ehepossibility thaesome es- dinareees aequarangsrnoke-Pee ttesaaeuaren and ears
try allegation that smoke-free reseau- tablishments experienced gains in ~.11~~A""0-`tit''-n?nJPwb/itJ•OaaBPh'199a:
rant laws adversely affect tourism, in- business that exactly offset losses in 19. Maroney N, Sherwood o, stvbbaeb+n w. the Jrra-
cluding international tourism. Quite the other businesses. At the same time, no ~~~1 iaorCa~ar~
ont~Cairf: c
re
wnc
contrary, implementation of these laws data have ever been published to sup- irestiaeteforErxP~aysaua~.caarernontGradr,-
is often associated with an increase in port this possibility. In any event, is is ate school; January 1994.
` the rate of growth of tourism rev- the aggregate data that are necessa to 1a' ~OS`a' w, Pope G. The Konomic impact of
Brookline's RestaurantSrnoJcing Ban. wahham, Mass:
enues. In the pooled analysis, the or- test the tobacco industry's hypothesis health Ec®nomea tzesearcn ant: naover"ber 1~.
dinanees had no significant effect, one that business is several de reseed b 1S. Solaces J, Ra4liff M. Prohibiting smoking in rel-
y P y taurants: effects on restaurant sales. Aon / NeaJlh Pro-
way or the other, on tourist revenues these laws. motion. 199a;1a:176-1a4.
as a fraction of total retail sales or tom- Food-service workers enjoy the least 1s• tewasag P, Tof~as s, tcoh~t s, et al. >Assessrnene
of 4he iee~aet of a 10096 sre~&e-fry ordinance on s-
pared with the rate of change in the protection from secondhand tobacco xaurant sages. west t.at<e a•aaai, Texas, 199a-1394.
United States as a whole. The cities and smoke of any employer group." Leg- 9i4i~e sorbA. Glarttst s
T~ob~a~ exarrtrol an d\riaona.
states included in this study represent islators and government officials can 1973.1997. can Franci¢m: university of CaNfomia. can
a wide range of geographic locations enact such healeh and safety require- Franrixo anstate,le for aieaatn Policy 5tudaes. Avail-
abRe ar. http:/n~w.Nhsary.,x~.ednoeoma«o/av.
and types of tourist destinations, a fact meats to protect paerons and employ- ceased Plpria 15 1999.
that increases the confidence one can ers4e in restaurants faom the toxins in 1i. #iY?and A, cummangs K. Nauentrerg E. AnaVysis
JAMA. May 26. 1999~•Vo1261. No. 20 1317
SMOKE-FREE RESTAURANTS AND TOUR75M
of taxable sales receipts: was tV~+r York Crty's smoke- 29. Wagner G. Smolting ban threatens LA Lodging www.dced.state.ut.us/traveE/ResearchPlanning
free air bad for restaurant business? ! Pulsl6c Headflr Hospitality. 1993:48. / ta97.pdf. Apr6015, 7999.
Manage Pratt. 1939;5:14-21. 30. LaSMgetes County P4ote1 aru! EAote9 Groacp. Cab- 40. City of ~uEder. ,Safes and tBse Tait Revevoue i4e-
19. Bartosch W, Pope G. The seen®rreit effect of forma sneoking law rausang revenue ins In vestaaa- p~ 79.98. ~9'de'r. CoB®: City of BouVder; dlAay 19~.
smoke-fees restaurant poCtdes on restaurant busi- rant and industry: a recentstrrdy sfosows next 41. Lines LM. Surrseesary of total transient ocaopancy
Hess in Massachuset~.lPubdicNea/~/btanage,9aaacf. yearssglaanforbaPareasexpec~tog+etworse Ran revenue, do~esa, Ariz, 9392-1998 Hmetno to C. K.
1999:5:53-62. ~ (pnE:ss r7.4os Angeles, Calif: KPMG Peat Mar- luster]. Mesa. Ariz: Office of Tax and Licensing Ad-
20. Glaesffi S. restaurant oedinantxs don't widt LLP;1996. a0sr, Gty of Mesa Tax and Licensing; 1992,
affect restaurant business. I Peebles Health 1r'Baraage 31, lei D.Aran-totem mea~ere oea dsaR~ would 1994.1996.139$.
!'tact. 1999;5:v1-ix. beta sera~ing in a6 `paablie places.' d~
f~a, Ariaorpa Tii- 42. PILF Consulting. ~°eva York Catyv visiQor statistle~.
21. USCera~s8uteau.199DCer~asDataLookupToraBs bume.Augaastl2,1995:81,66. Sm.d9esvvYorkCity,d~PY.•YordrConmentitendVisi-
(database onNne7• C906iF3C1, Surrsrrary Lesxl, tdation. 32. tdatlona! Srraoker's Atl:ancc. The rnessus Mesa. NSA rev's Bureau: P9eev York, fdY: PKF Consulting: 1998.
Available at: http://venus.census.gov/cdrom Voiee.t~dovember/Decereebet9996;4:4. 43. Sara Frara~oTrea~ateer6faxCo4~or.AnnualRe-
/kaoltup/921606659. Acces3ed Febniar~r 4.1999. 33. Ueid4ed Restaurant Flotel Tavares e4ssocation. The fY96-97.5an Eratostrco, Cif: San Frarers%o Trea-
22. Price Waterhouse. Potential Ecoretxraac Effec?s of City Council has it backward. New York Tirraes. Sep- saarerPPax CoNecttu: 9997.
a Smoking Ban in the 5tete of Caldfornia: Prepared for tereatser 23.1994. 4S. San Frarst$ooT/Tax Codeztor. Arrrural d4e-
Soutdrem California Brasimess Assaflation, Los Ange- 34. Totsaceo Institute and United Resffiurarst Hotel port; fY92.93. Saes Frar~co. Calif: San Francisco Teea-
des County Hotel Motel Group, Sere Dft~o Tavern d Tavern Assodati0rs of Alew Yos1c Stale. Tdels B a ryes- ~er/Tax CoYectoa; 9993.
Restaurant Association.PeiceWaterfoouse,May1993. ZaeaeanPBidlNewYorkCitlrCan'tAffordtoPay.Wash- 45. US of Commerce Bureau of Ern-.
23. Hectic D, Crosby C. Senate regects ban. Sala Lake ingtors, DC: Tobacco Irsstitrate; Albany: United Res- saoseelrAesaly~s. a data. gross domes-
Tribune. February 20, 1992:61. taurant Hotel Tavern Assoaation of flew York State: tic product by industry in oaererat douars,1987-91 and
24. Semerad T.Anti-srnoldng bl9 dears ano9her hur~e: 1994. 9992-97. liras Ps2: ttotets and other kedging places. [US
Senate passes measure. returns it to House forfires- 35. Stauber 1. RampOon S. Toxic Sludge h Good Oor Dept of Co?ssenerte Vl/eb site]. Available at: http://
tuning. Salt Lake Tribune. Maeda 1, 1994:A7. You. Monroe. Me: Common Courage Press: 1995. sww;ra.bea.doegovObea/dn2/gpaxYhtree. Aaessed No-
25. Houskeeper E. Despite smoking ban, meals ee- 36. Dean Rueayan Associates; forCalifortaiaTradeend a~ernber 92, 999&.
ceipts grow: vititism of law continues to rage. Sun- Commerce Agency. Divaion of Tourism. Calfforeada 46. Moms Incorporated Web site. Totraeco es-
day Rutland Herald & Sunday Tutees Asgaes. Apea114, Traaneldnapat~sbyCounty. Portlaaad. Ore: Dears Runyan ' rarer 1989: haw today°s smokers and non-smokers in
1996:3. Assodates:9998. Europefeelabou[smoking, Available al http://
26. Evans C. Smoking ban didn't bum bars, eateries. 37. CtC Reseacd+ L A Mavkef 13oBk ofOarerseas 1/isi- raeaw.pmdoes.wrrs. Accessed April 15, 1999.
Darly Camera. December 28, 9996:1A, 8A. taus to Calffomia. Sala Diego, Calif: CPC Research 47. Siege' M.1nvoGarstary smoking in the resffiurarst
Z7. Restauranteurs for Respon~ble Choire. Table Tent 1998:xxi, xxiiL w3rkplaae: a review of ernpkayee exposure and healBfa
Advertisement ®pposing Flagstaff Paoposition 370. 38. 5ffite Board of . Taxab/eSales in Cali- . JAMA. 9993:270:490-493.
Flagstaff. Ariz: Restauranteurs for Choice: forma. Sales and Llse Tas4 9986-1Sa97. Sacramento, 48. Geelada K. Shopland D. Hartman A, Gibson J.
i 992. Calif: Sffiffi Board of Equalisation: 9986-1997. Pedsaeek T. Workplace smoking polides in tlee United
28. Inner C. Smoking ban revisited. Ariaona Daily Sun. 39. Utah Division of Trove! Development. interne- States: eesults from a national survey of over 100000
Iuly 18, 1993:1, a. tiortalvtiontoUtah,1990-1997.AvaNa~eatht~a:!/ workers. Tob Co»trod. 9997;6:199-206.
1998 LAMA, May 26, 1999-Vol 281, No. 20
Printed and Published rn the United Slates of America
~~~®r~l
r~®~~r ~c~~~~ yin c ~ ~t e
fc~rr~t ire ~i .
Stmt®n fit.. Glitz, P~
I-IE STORY has become tediously ies to pass such ordinances, the tobacco lying economic trends or seasonal vari-
familiar: a concerned legislator or industry's claims of economic chaos lost ability. The problem with studies of the
group of citizens decides that it is credibility, particularly in California and impact of clean indoor air ordinances
time to pass a local clean indoor air ordi- Colorado, where the cities were located. based on sales tax data is that they are noY
Hance to protect the public and workers While this study was also useful to advo- available until well after an ordinance
from the toxins in secondhand tobacco cafes in other states (including those in passes. Thus, when confronted with pre-
smoke.'~ After. mustering the scientific Flew York and Massachusetts), the Indus- d'adions of disaster based on industry-in-
evidence that secondhand smoke causes try started to argue that there was some- spired surveys of the city in question, ad-
heart disease, cancer, sudden infant 4hing unique about Ca{ifomia or Colo- vocates can only point to evidence from
death, asthma, and a variety of other rado and, while there might not have other cities.
• problems, public health advocates ap- been economic chaos there, it would The appropriate response to such pre-
proach the city council or other legisla- happen elsewhere. The articles in this is- didions from the tobacco industry and its
tive body to act. Shortlythereafter, acon- sue of the journal of Public 1-feaBed~ Man- allies and front groups is to point out that
cerned restaurant association sidesteps agement and- Practice QPHMP) show these claims have been made every-
the issue that secondhand smoke is dan- that, in contrast to claims by the tobacco where else and, when the objective data
gerous and produces a "study" claiming industry, smoke-free restaurant ordi- became available a year or two later,
that the result will be economic chaos, nances have had no impact on revenues they tamed out to be wrong.
with 20-40 percent drops in restaurant after Flew York City and several comma- Faced with the growing evidence that
business. As time passes, local tobacco nines in Massachusetts passed such ordi- restaurant ordinances do not affect rev-
control advacates or the media force the nances. enues, the tobacco industry has fallen
restaurant association to admit that it "re- With the addition of the articles in this back on a series of secondary claims, that
quested and received some support." issue of JPHMP, there are now published the public will not comply with the ordi-
Often, it ultimately comes out that the data"•10•"~'~-18 on the economic impact of Hance or that it will somehow hurt em-
tobacco industry or one of its public vela- smoking restrictions on restaurant sales ployment or tourism (even though rev-
tions firmss organized the "restaurant as- for 81 localities in six states, 67 of which enues are not affected). Ctther articles in
sociation" (Figure 1). Auer a long debate, are 100 percentsmoke-free in restaurants this issue of )P6-iMP alsa debunk these
the ordinance passes ~ (Appendix 1). While there are some d'af- claims. Indeed, tdew York City added
After Glantz and Smith1O~" published ferenees in the ordinances and the meth- restaurant jabs faster than the resti
of the
their study demonstrating that smoke- ods used to study them across localities, state after the ordinance went into effect.
free restaurant ordinances have no effect all have relied on objective sales tax data As already demonstrated in other
on restaurant revenues in the first 15 cit- to assess economic impact: The sales tax places,'¢21 the public supports and corn- •
data from these 81 localities are consis- plies with these ordinances.
This work was supported in part by Na- tent in demonstrating that ordinances re- These results are not surprising, given
tional Cancer Institute grant CA-slozi striding smoking in restaurants have no growing public awareness of the dangers
and a gift from Edith and I-denry Everett. eff~t on revenues. of secondhand smoke. Indeed, despite a
Studies of economic impact based on major public relations campaign de-
Address for correspondence: sales tax revenues have several advan- signed to undermine it, the public sup-
Stanton A. Glantz, PhD Cages, First, and most important, the data
Professor of Medicine
Box oi3o are objective. They are collected by tax
University of California authorities with no interest in the impact Staaitoea A. Glareta, I'Ir~, is a Profes-
San Francisco. CA 94143-0]30 of a clean indoor air ordinance. Second, son of 11l~ledicine at the Institute for
Telephone: 415-476-3893 they are complete; they include all res- IlealYh P®licy Sit~dies and I)epart-
Fax: 415-476-0424 taurants. Third, they are available over menYof Medicifle, Ufliversity of Cali-
E-mail: glantz~medicine.ucsf.edu time, so it is possible to adjust for under- forflia, San Francisco; California.
vi
C®~8F1®ENTtAL.: IUtB$81NP~t~r/A7'®®dl1CC® t-t~i~A~i®~
PI-ttUP NIORF115, ItVC.
. Dolphin Group. Inc.
Ca&t. PAA ®ar®~t San Card.
sled Tat+am ana9 Tas~aro arvd
6is~tauraetit Durant
d4s~c. Assoc.
Calii'omia Ae~ian Plan
Elem®nt 1 ~m®nt 2 Elerraertt 3
Point of 5~ AB 13 E~esAauran4 CaEefomia Tavern
Protein Program Accommoda46on Association
Program
figure 1.Organization chart prepared by the Dolphin Media Groups a California Public Relations firm, probably for
Philip Morris Tobacco, describing planned efforts to fight impiernentation of California's smoke-free workplace law,
A613, which also includes restaurants and bars. This chart clearly shows that "organizations" such as the California
Business and Restaurant Alliance, San Diego Tavern and Restaurant Association, and Northam California Tavern and
Restaurant Association are creations of the tobacco industry. Such organizations seek to. appear to be legitimate
representatives of the business community (as opposed to the tobacco 'industry) when dealing with the public, the
press, and legislators.
ports and complies with California's 1980s, when it created the Beverly f°lills San ®iego Tavern and Restaurant Also-
smoke-free bar law, which went into of Restaurant Association for purposes of ciation (Figure l ).6•'•'•='•2' In addition,
fact on January 1, 1998. A )une 1998 seeking a repeal of Beverly Hills' clean sincethe industry now knows that public
statewide poll conducted by the nonpar- indoor air ordinance.° As documented in health advocates are looking for this tac-
tisan Field Institute showed that 85 per- the history of how 4he New York ordi- tic, it may be moving to work through
cent of bar patrons go to bars as much or Hance passed, the industry is continuing 'legitimate restaurant organizations, per-
more than they did before the ordinance. this strategy. Public health advocates Naps by funding their efforts or directly ®r
At the same time, local health depart- should investigate carefully the bona indirectly underwriting their lobbying
meats reported that compliance is good fides of "restaurant" or"business" groups expenses. Public health advocates
(90% in restaurant-bar combinations and that suddenly appear willing to spend should demand that any organization
70% in stand-alone bars), and is improv- large amounts of money opposing to- thatopposes a local clean indoorairordi-
. ing over time.u bacco control ordinances, with reason- Hance dasclose fully its involvement with
The tobacco industry has created "res- able sounding names like the California the 4obacco industry or its public rela-
taurant associations" since the early Business and Restaurant Alliance or thae lions apparatus. '
vii
The articles in this issue of JPFiMPcon- Surgeon General. Washington, D.C.: Control Ordinances on Restaurant Rev-
firrrt that continuing local activity to pass US. Department of Health and Human enues in California. Claremont, CA: The
clean indoor air ordinances tailored to Services, Public Health Service, Centers Claremont Institute foe Economic Policy
meet local conditions is the best way to for Disease Control; 1986. Stud'aes;TheClaremontGraduate5chool;
protect nonsmokers from secondhand 2. National Research Council Committee 1994.
tobacco smoke?s Aware of this fact, it is on Passive Smoking. Environmental To- 15. Baetosrh, W., and Pope, G. The Eco-
bacco Smoke: Measuring Exposures and nomic Impact of Brookline's Restaurant
particularly impoetant that public health Assessing 0-dealeh Effaces. Washington, SmokingBan.eM1lahham,MA:HealthEeo-
advocates defeat efforts by the tobacco D.C.: National Academy Press; 1986. ~ nomics Research, Inc.; 1995.
industry to enact weak state legislation 3. U.S. Environmental Proteceion Agency. 16. Sciacca, J., and Ratliff, M. Prohibieing
preempting the ability of local eommuni- Respiratoey Health Effects of Passive Smoking in Restaurartts:.Effetts on Res-
ties to enact tobacco control ordi- Smoking: Lung Cancer andOeher®isor- taurantSales.American/ournalofHealth
nances.'s.ze,z~ ders. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Environmental Promotion. 1998;12, no. 3: 176-184.
The real reason that the tobacco Indus- Proteceion Agenty; 1992. 17. Hwang, P., et at. Assessment of the Im-
4ry opposes these ordinances is that the 4. Office of Environmental Heahfe Hazard pact of a t00°fo Smoke-Free Ordinance
creation of smoke-free restaurants repre- ~~'t'FBeafrd'fffecu°f`Exp°sr'ret° ®n Restaurant Sales--West Lake Hill,
Bents a strong message that smoking Environmental Tobacrn Smoke. Berke- Texas, 1992-1994. Morbidity and Mor-
ley. CA: California Environmental Protee- eality Weekly Report.1995;44:370-372.
around other people is no longer socially lion Agency (htipJ/www.calepa.cahw 18. Gol~tein, A., andSobel, R. Environmem-
acceptable. Creating smoke-free work- feet_govloelaha/docsdinalees.html; lgg7, talTobac~SmokeRegulationsliaveNot
places reduces cigarette consume- 5. PhilipMoerisTobaceo.CafifomiaAction Hurt Restaurant Sales in North Carolina.
tion.20•z&'" This changing social environ- Plan (Philip Morris Bates numbers North Caroldna Medical Journal. 1998;
ment will help people quit smoking and 2044325927-36 in flee Minnesota To- 59: 284-288.
reduce tobacco industry sales and prof- bacco Document Depository). 19. Brener, L., and Siege€, M. Behavior Inten-
zo.zs For example, Glasgow et a1.3O anti- 6. Samuels, B., and Glantz, 5. The Politicsof Lions of the Public after Bans on Smoking
mate that if all workplaces in the United Local Tobacco Control. IAMA. 1991; in Restaurants and Bars. American lour-
States were smoke-free, an additional 266' 2110-2117' nil of Public Health. 1997'87' 2042
178,000 smokers would stop smoking, 7. Traynor, M., and Glantz S. Neva Tobacco 2044.
Industry Strategy 7o Prevent Local To- 20. Pierce, J.P., et al. Tobacco Use in Califor-
and, among those who continued io Conixol. /AMA. 1993;270. nia: An Evaluation of the Tobacco Con-
smoke, they would consume 10 billion g- Bialous, S_A., and Glantz, S. Tobacco trol Program, 1989-1993. University of
fewer cigarettes per year. There is simply Control in Arizona, 1973-1997. San California, San Diego; 1994.
no other tobacco control intervention Francisco, CA: UCSF Institute for Health 21. Corson, D., etal. Should NYC's Restaura-
that can contribute this much to public Policy Studies (http://wvwv.library.uaf. tears Lighten Up? Cornell Notel and Res-
health this quickly-$or bo8h nonsmok- eduftohacco/aa.!); 1997. taurane Administration Quarterly. 1996;
ern and people who would like to quit- 9• Smith, L. Big Apple Breathes Easy. 7o- 37: 26.
as creating smoke-free environments. bacco Control. •1995;4:15-17. 22. Rankon, T., et al. Letter to Calafomia Leg-
The battle over clean indoor air in restau- 10. Glantz, S., and Smida, L.R.A. The Effectof islature. Sacramento, CA:.BREATH, A
rants has become symbolic for the whole Ordinateees Requiring Smoke-Free Res- Propect of the American Lung Associa-
eaurants on Restaurant Sales. American lion; 1998.
battle overclean indoor air. /oumal of Public Health. 1994;84, no. 7: 23. Samuels, B., et al. Philip Morris' Failed
In any event, there is now evidence 1081-1085. ~ ~ Experiment in Pitesburgh. /ournal of
from so many cities of varying location, 11. Glantz, 5., and Smith, L: Erratum for "The I-l~aleh Politic, Policy, and (aw. 1992;
size, and demographics that the question Effect of Ordinances Requiring Smoke- 17:329-351.
of whether clean indoor air ordinances Free Restaurants on Restaurant Sales. 24. Smoke-Free Educational Services. Philip
affect restaurant revenues--adversely or American loumal of Public Health. 1997; Morris Front Geoups. New York, NY;
otherwise-should be considered closed. (in press). 1995.
Local officials tan now go about their t2. Glantz, S., and Smith,, L. The Effete of 25. Glantz, S.BacktoBasies:GeatingSmoke-
business of protecting the public from the Ordinances Requiring Smoke-Free Res- Free Workplaces Back on Track (edito-
toxins in secondhand smoke without ~uranesandBarsonRevenues:AFollow- rial).Tot?accoControl.1997;6:i64-166.
wo in about this hOn ensue. Up. American /oumal of Public lieahh. 26. Conlisk, E., eY al. The Status of Local
~Y g P Y 1997;87:1687-1693. Smoking Regulations in North Carolina
13. Glantz, S., and Smith, L. Erratum for "The Following a State Preemption Bill. /AMA.
REFERENCES Effect of Ordinances Requiring Smoke- 1995;273: 805-807.
Free Restaurants and Bars on Revenues: A 27. Siegel, M., et a1. Preemption in Tobacco
1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Follow-Up". American Journal of Pu61ic Control. Review of an Emerging Public
Services. The Health Consequences of Healeh. 1998;88:1122. Health Problem. LAMA. 1997;278: 858-
involuntary Smoking. A Report of the 14. Maroney, N.etal.ThelmpactofTobacco 863.
viii
28. Woodruff, T., et al. Lower Levels of Ciga- COMMIT. Tobacco Control. 1997; 6 33. eartosch, W., and Pope, G. The Eco-
rette Consumption Found in Smoke-Free (suppl 2): 544-548. nomic Effect of Smoke-Free Restaurant
Workplaces in California. Archives of In- 31. Patten, C., et al. Workplace Smoking Policieson Restaurant Business inMassa-
ternal Medicine 1993;153: 1485-1493. Policy and Changes in Smoking Behavior chusetts. Journal of Public Ffealth Man-
29. Stillman, F., et al. Ending Smoking at the in California: A Suggested Association. agementand Practice. 1999;5, no. 1:53-
)ohns Hopkins Medical Institueions: An Tobacco Control. 1995;4: 36-41. 62.
' Evaluation of Smoking Prevalence and 32. Taylor Consulting Group. The San Lufs 34. fiyland, A., Cummings, K.M., and
Indoor Pollution. /AMA. 1990;264: Obispo Smoking Ordinance: A Study of Nauenberg, E. Analysis of Taxable Sales
1565-1569. the Economic Impacts of San Luis Obispo Receipts: Was New York Ciry's Smoke-
30. G?asgow, R., et al. A. Relationship of Restaurants and Bars. San Luis Obispo, free Air Act Bad for Restaurant Business
Worksite Smoking Policy to Changes in CA: Taylor Consulting Group(undercor?- journal of Public Flea/th Management
Employee Tobacco Use: Findings from VacttotheCiryofSanLuisObispo);1993. and Practice. 1999;5, no. 1: 14-21.
Appendix 1
Cities and Counties with Ordinances Restricting Smoking in Restaurants or Bars that Have Been Studied Based on
Sales Tax Data
Amherst, MA33 Halifax County, NC1B *t Roseville, CA'o.ii.iz-~'
Anderson, CAlz.'3 Holden, MA33 ROSS, CAao.ii.r3a3
Andover, MA33 Holyoke, MA33 Sacramento, CA70'"•12.13
Arlington, MA33 Indian Wells, CAl' * San Luis Obispo, CA1O•'l.lz-1*•3z
Aspen, COlo.ll.lz.13 Lanesborough, MA33 San Joaquia County, CAl'
Attleboro, MA33 ~ Lee, MA33 San Mateo County, CAl'
Auburn, CAlo.ll,l2-~• Lenox, MA33 Santa Clara County, CA12•'3
Bedford, MA73 Lexington, MAJ3 Saratoga, CAl' *
Bellflower, CAlo.ll.lz-la Lodi, ~ioas.iz-t4 Sharon, MA33
Belmont, MA33 Long Beach, CAl' * Shasta County, CAtz'"
Beverly Hills, CAlo.ll.lz-la Longmeadow, MA33 Snowiness, eOlo.ll.lz.13
Brookline, MA35.33 Los Gatos, CA" South Hadley, MA33
Buncombe County, NCt° t Martinez, CA°•70.12.13.33 Southampton, MA33
Chicopee, MA33t Medfield, MA33 Stockbridge, MA33
Colfax, CAl' Mesa, AZ° Stockton, CAl'
Contra Costa County, CAl' Montague, MA33 Sunderland, MA33
Craven County, NC18 *t New York, NY3' Sunnyvale, CAl' *
Culver City, CAl' * Northampton, MA33 Telluride, COlo.l 1.1 z.13
Davis, CA12•'3 Nortnrell, MA33.F Tewksbury, MA33
East Longmeadow, MA33 Orange County, NC18 t Tiburon, ~1z.13
• Easthampton, MA33 Palo Alto, CAlO.11.12-" Tracey, CAl'
El Cerrito, CA70•".'~-" Paradise, ~lo.u,lz-~, Wake County. NC76 *t .
Flagstaff, AZtB Plainville, MA33 Wakefield, MA33
Foxborough, MA33 Plyffiouth. MA33 Walnut Creek, CAl'
Framingham, MA33 Rancho Mirage, CAl' * West Springfield, MA33
Grass Valley, CAl' Reading, MA33 West Lake Hills, TXl'
Greenfield. MA33 Redding, CA12•'3 Yountville, CAl' *
_
*Less than 100% smoke-free restaurants, tRepealed or overturned in court after a period of time in force.
ix