HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0013.074 2002-2004 TESTIMONY FOR BILL 260, Hard Copy to Follow
May 6, 2003 -
To: Dr. Holschuh, f
Chair of Human Services & Economic Development Committee
My name is Chris Dein-Gaughen, and I am the coordinator for Hawaii Island
Tobacco-Free Partnership, West Hawaii Unit. I fully support Bill 260 in its intentions to
protect workers by restricting smoking in certain places including restaurants, bazs,
nightclubs, and bowling alleys.
Like many other Hawaii residents, I have worked in restaurants. I remember that when I
returned home at the end of a shift, I would immediately have to shower and wash my
hair due to the stench of the cigazette smoke that I had been exposed to at work. I would
then take my work clothes from inside of the house to an outside laundry azea, as the
smell of cigarette smoke would permeate everything azound. If left inside, by morning,
the clothes hamper and the room would be reeking of the smell of stale smoke.
To this day I think about the hours and hours I spent in the unhealthy environment of a
smoky building. It disgusts me to think that, with all we know about the hazards of
second hand smoke; there aze still workers who are exposed to those dangers every single
day here on the Big Island. ALL workers deserve the protection that Bi11260 offers. No
one should be protected less because they "choose" to work in a restaurant, or baz, or the
lanai of a restaurant. Hawaii Island needs to proceed with protecting every worker on the
island from second hand smoke.
Some incorrectly assume a negative economic impact to bazs from a smoking ban. A
recent article in a Hilo newspaper gave a quote from written testimony that stated there
was a drop in revenue in bars where smoking was banned. The information was
attributed to a study done at California Polytechnic State University; Michael Mazlow did
such a study in 1998. That study found that baz and tavern owners PREDICTED that a
smoke free ordinance would hurt their business, it was not a study based on what actually
happened. The study was funded by Philip Morris. [1] Compare these "predictions" to
factual studies. In actuality, scientifically credible studies show that revenues aze not
reduced by smoke-free laws, and, in most cases, they increase following the passage of
such laws. In August 2000, Dr. Stanton Glantz of the University of California at San
Francisco released a report that states, "The tobacco industry's primary azgument against
smoke free restaurant and bar laws has become the claim that these laws will hurt
business revenues for the hospitality industry. These claims have been studied in nearly
100 different communities using objective sales tax data and found NOT to be true". [2]
page I of 2
Comm. No. I.7.7~
Ref. To~~!!1-~
Ref. Uate.Jy,~~_D~.~?
Please do not let subjective studies, with a tobacco industry bias, be the basis for your
decisions. Use fact based science and studies to guide you in making the correct choice,
one that will protect ALL employees in Hawaii County, from second hand smoke. Bill
260 should be passed as quickly as possible, and allow workers, including restaurant and
baz employees, to enjoyed the beneficial effects of a smoke free working environment.
Sincerely,
Chris Dein-Gaughen
P.O. Box 385203
Waikoloa, HI 96738
References:
l .American Nonsmokers' Foundation, "Economic Impact Studies Circulated by the Tobacco Industry",
Apri12003.
httu://www.no-smoke.org/TI econ.~f
2. Stanton A. Glantz, PhD, "The Dunham and Marlow 'Studies' of Smokefree Restaurant Laws, More
Tobacco Industry Hot Avon Smokefree Restaurants", August 23, 2000,
httQ://www.no-smoke.ore/dunham mazlow htrnl
page 2 of 2
http://www.no-smoke.org/TI_econ.pdf
~~scc~r~i/l~i~sioker~'~~ ~s~o~
rwtag rou trsehe, title enia
ECONOMIC I1~iPACT STUDIES CIRCtiLATED BY
TIIE TOBACCO Il~'DUSTRY
Apri12003
For years, dtc tobacco industry has circulated economic impact studies claiming that clean indoor
air ordittanccs that restrict smoking in restaurants and bats arc harmful to sales. While the names of
those conducting the studies may change from place to place, the allegarion always stays tht same:
smokefree restaurant aril baz ordittanccs are bad for business. The trouble for the tobacco industry
is, it's just not taste. Numerous reputable studies, based on objective sales tax data from a period
before and after implementation, have provrn that smokefree restaurant and bar ordinances do nor
halm sales. The tobacco atdustry's own studies, based on subjective mearures like perceptions and
anecdotal irJarmation, claim othernise. Ftowever, these are the only studies that claim clean indoor
air ordinances are harmful to restaurant and bar sales.
\Vhat are somt of the industry's false claims.'
1. Sales of food and liquor (as well as convention and tourism sales) will decline 20-30°x° after the
enactment of a 100% smokettce restautanr ordinance.
2. When a smokefree restaurant ordinance is in effect, smokers eat out less, !ceding to lotver
restaurant revenues.
3.In the absence of a smokefree ordinance, smokers eat otu more end spend mart than
nonsmokers, leading to higher restaurant revenues.
a Smokefrec ordinances will lead to widespread job losses.
5. Smokefree ordinances are difficult to enforce and can lead to widespread non-compliance.
Some of the iadnstry-sponsored studies:
!Michael L. Marlow, of California Polytechnic State University;
• The Economic F.,~'ects of Smoking Lmvs on Bats and Taverns, 1998.
The study developed an ecotomic model of how smoking restrictions influence bars and
taverns and tested the model using surveys of restatuant, baz, and tavem owners and
managers conducted by Roper Starch for the National Licensed Beverage Association.
Study found that 82% of bar and tavern owzters predict that a smokefree ordinance would
hurt their businesses. The study was funded by Philip Morris and presented at the National
Licensed Beverage Association annua] conference in 1998.
Critique of Dunham and Marlow studies Page 1 of 4
j 94' +kln, Y"~ Y-~.. %:?,'s ,<`.t iii,
~o~k¢nd Join ANR ~ Donate to the ANR Foundation ~ Free Subscription ~ Merchandise
About Us ~ Links ~ Home
Ywnntc:tree The Dunham and Marlow "Studies" on Smokefree Restaurant Laws
Adw.r~~ More Tobacco Industry Hot Air on Smokefree Restaurants
August 23, 2000
The tobacco industry's primary argument against Smokefree restaurant and bar laws
has become the claim that these laws will hurt revenues for the hospitality industry.
!;~rrd;rfrcr• These claims have been studied in nearly 100 different communities using objective
t)rdinanGr ta4r.^ sales tax data and found not to be tme.~
In an effort to keep this argument alive, John Dunham (of Philip Morris) and Michael
Marlow (of California Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo) have published two
papersZ s claiming that these laws hurt business even though there are no overall
revenue effects.
Airport s
t'nmpaign
These papers are a great example of how one can do a sophisticated looking statistical
analysis on a meaningless data set. There are many problems:
' The entire analysis is based on a survey conducted in 1996 for the National
'roAaera"s Licensed Beverage Association (a major tobacco industry ally) of 650 restaurants
tNMy'rrickq and bars asking what the owners predict will happen if they are required to be
Smokefree. Such surveys have almost always shown that people predict ill effects;
the actual data on what happens has never confirmed these predictions.
' The analysis separates states that the authors claim have laws restricting smoking
lint fk+cumaats. in restaurants and those that do not. Of the 32 states that Dunham and Marlow say
restricted smoking in 1996, only 5 had specific requirements for the size of the
nonsmoking section, and some preempt local ordinances." Given the large errors
in their assessment of state laws, the results of their complex statistical analysis
are meaningless.
~rC/ltYthtlpt
' Dunham and Marlow criticize the earlier research on effects of smokefree laws on
revenues on the grounds that they do not study profits, yet Dunham and Marlow do
~ not present any hard data on profits, just opinions on revenues.
f
Prremption ' If 38% of establishments experienced lower revenues (and only 6% experience
increased revenues) as Dunham and Marlow predict, this effect would be large
enough to detect using aggregate revenues. The aggregate revenue data based
y 'y
j on sales taxes shows no such effect.
4mokefrea Atts ' Dunham and Marlow ignore the fact that the State of California did an analysis of
the effects of California's smokefree bar law at the level of the individual
establishment, and found that the law did not adversely affect business, and was
associated with an increase in business.s
' Dunham and Marlow criticize the early work by Glantz and Smith,6 ~ which showed
http://www.no-smoke.org/dunham marlow.html 5/5/2003
Critique of Dunham and Marlow studies Page 2 of 4
^r that smokefree restaurant ordinances do not affect revenues on the grounds that
they studied all the does with 100°h smokefree restaurant ordinances that had
been in force for long enough to get data on actual effects for at least a year as
Youth opposed to a random sample. Including all the cities is always better than a
sample. There are no biases when one considers all the cities. Considering all the
sties is not "cherry picking."
' Dunham and Marlow state, incorrectly, that the communities that enacted
smokefree restaurant ordinances have "relatively few smokers." This is not correct;
the adult smoking prevalence in the cities Glantz and Smiths included varied from
18.9% to 25.2°h, well within typical smoking rates at the time.
* Dunham and Marlow rety heavity on an critique of Glantz and Smith's earlier work
prepared by Michael Evans for Philip Morris' National Smokers Alliance, which was
never subjected to peer review. After the National Smokers Alliance submitted
Evans' critique to the American Journal of Public Health as part of a complaint
about the fact that the journal published the study on the effects of smokefree
restaurant ordinances on restaurant revenues, the journal subjected Evans' critique
to peer review and the editor observed the following:
Instead of a compelling critique, however, we find a melange of
scientifically inadmissible manipulations of data to obtain a desired
result. These are conflated with a flurry of suppositions as to what
could be. Suppositions are then translated by mere assertion into
factual "serious" flaws. Even if Evans critique can pass in the field of
economics for legitimate science -something I do not credit-it cannot
pass in this Journal. Certainly, no economist has submitted so
tendentious and meretricious an argument during my tenure.8
' Dunham and Marlow claim that one reason that there is not an effect on revenues
is widespread civil disobedience of the law and cite two newspaper articles to
support this claim. They ignore the results of the California Tobacco Survey, a
large scentifically valid study, which showed that 75% of respondents reported fast
food restaurants, 75% of family restaurants, and 70% of full service restaurants
were smokefree. This is hardly "widespread civil disobedience." e, P. a-iz
* Dunham and Marlow ignore the conclusions of fellow Philip Morris employee David
Laufer, in a presentation to other Philip Morris political operatives:
Also, the economic arguments often used by the industry to scare off
smoking ban activity were no longer working, if indeed they ever did.
These arguments simply had no credibility with the public, which isn't
surprising when you consider that our dire predictions in the past
rarely came true. io, a. za
Overall conclusion:
The Dunham and Marlow "studies" are just repackaged versions of earlier tobacco
industry claims that have been proven wrong. Policy makers are still left with the choice
of basing decisions on what actually happens (using sales tax data collected by neutral
tax authorities) or what people predict will happen (using biased surveys conducted for
the tobacco industry).
http://www.no-smoke.org/dunham marlow.html 5/5/2003
Critique of Dunham and Marlow studies Page 3 of 4
References:
1 Glantz S. Smoke-Free Restaurant Ordinances Do Not Affect Restaurant Business.
Period. J Pub Health Mgt and Practice 1999;5:vi-ix.
2. Dunham J, Marlow M. Smoking laws and their differential effects on restaurants,
bars, and taverns. Contemp Econ Policy 2000;18:326-333.
3. Dunham J, Marlow M. The effects of smoking laws on seating allocations of
restaurants, bars, and taverns. Econ Inquiry 2000;38:151-157.
4. Welch C. State Legislated Actions on Tobacco Issues. Washington, DC: American
Lung Association. December 31, 1996.
5. State Board of Equalization Statistics Section. Comparison of 1st Quarter 1997 and
1st Quarter 1998 Taxable Sales of Selected Eating and Drinking Places with
General On-Sale Licenses. Sacramento, CA: State Board of Equalization, Agency
Planning and Research Division. October 1, 1998.
6. Glantz S, Smith LRA. The effect of ordinances requiring smoke-free restaurants on
restaurant sales. Am. J. Pub. Health 1994;84:1081-1085.
7. Glantz S, Smith L. Erratum for "The effect of ordinances requiring smoke-free
restaurants on restaurant sales. Am. J. Pub. Health 1997;(in press).
8. Susser M. Goliath and Some Davids in the Tobacco Wars (editorial). Am. J. Pub.
Health 1997;87:1593-1595.
9. Pierce J, Gilpin E, Emery S, Farkas A, Zhu S, Choi W, Berry C, Distefan J, White
M, Soroko S, Navarro A. Tobacco Control in California: Who's lMnning the War?
An Evaluation of the California Tobacco Control Program, 1989-1996. La Jolla, CA:
University of California, San Diego, 1998.
10. Walls T, et al. CAC Presentation #4.: Philip Morris Tobacco (www.pmdocs.com).
July 8, 1994. Report No. Bates 2041183751-90.
Prepared by:
Stanton A. Glantz, PhD
Professor of Medicine
Institute for Health Policy Studies
University of California San Francisco, CA 94143-0130
email: glantz@rnedicine.ucsf.edu
Second".and Smoke ~ 3mokefree Advocacy ~ Smokehee Ordinance Lists ~ Nrporfs Campaign To6awo's Dirty
Tncks
http://www.no-smoke.org/dunham marlow.html 5/5/2003
Critique of Dunham and Marlow studies Page 4 of 4
Hot DocumenYS ~ Ventilatmn ~ Pree mpllon ~ Smokefree Advertsing ~ Youth
/s~ 2002, Americans for Nonsngkers' Rights, American Nonf:npkers' Rights Foundation
Some images are ®2002 ww.v.arttoday.com
Designed and rnaintained by Diane Jones.
http://www.no-smoke.org/dunham marlow.html 5/5/2003