HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0013.226 2002-2004
Good Morning Mister Chairman, Council Members and Guests,
1, along with most people here today believe in legislation, fair and equitable
rights for all citizens, free enterprise and I take pride in ownership of business and
property. Bi11260, draft 3, is too restrictive and infringes on personal rights and legal
activities. Similar bills in many states, once passed, have now been changed to
reflect those rights which we are here today to defend.
Monday night, June 30, the Denver City Council presented for the second
and final vote, their smoking ban which had passed the first reading. Citing "trivia"
and "other priorities" Denver City Council defeated that bill by a 7 - 5 vote pleasing
the majority of their 560.415 citizens.
Arizona cities of 'Tempe and Glendale, which once banned smoking much
like our bill 260, are now requiring more Council time and money by making
amendments to their bill because of loss of revenue.
Texas likewise, after the Hyatt lost $750,000 when two conventions pulled
out of their state, decided to revisit their smoking ban and make changes to benefit
hotels, restaurant and bars.
New York, probably the most visible to date, is already realizing the loss of
revenue and allowing exemptions. Likewise, Michigan, Iowa and California have
had to go back and amend or revise their smoking bans. This should be telling all
States, total smoking bans do not work. They impose unnecessary cost to the
States and cost proprietors their businesses.
California lost 1039 fine restaurants within a four year period, 293 in the
first year. As I stated before the "industry" statistics were finally broken down for
the truth to prevail, and the truth is; fast food and take out establishments did
increaser, but, restaurants business declined. Sales of Liquor and beer, showed an
increase overall, however, the increase was for the liquor stores, grocery stores and
drug stores such as Longs, not "on site" businesses such as restaurant and bars.
Judges have blocked these bans in other states and some states are now in
litigation because of these bans The State of Montana mandated "no bill will
impose stronger restrictions that the state has already implemented".
A suggestion from this Council was to revisit this issue in 6 months. Statistics
prove in other states there has been a 30 to 50% loss of business in restaurants and
bars , and I venture to say, many of our struggling Big Island establishments will be
Comm. No._~_~~_~ I
R; f. Ta ~NMry 4 ~
Ref. Date .111 ~ 2-
l~_
gone in 6 months if you pass this bill today.
Statistics as old as 20 to 35 years regarding smoke have been refuted and
proven wrong. Anti tobacco coalitions would have you believe they still prevail.
Current research tells us a 10 pound bag of charcoal contains more carcinogens
than 160 packs of cigarettes, and you inhale more carcinogens walking across a
street with automobiles than if you sat in a smoking area for over two hours. Early
studies were also conducted in closed establishments, not in open air, well ventilated
areas subject to trade winds, such as we are privileged to enjoy here in Hawaii. I
believe, as a property owner or a business owner, I should have the right and the
choice to smoke on my property or in my business which I pay taxes to own.
I have lived in Hawaii over eight years and am well aware of the shortage of
police, increase in crime, accidents and illegal drug usage. We know our ice
epidemic is the worst in the nation per capita. We have approximately 280 police
officers who cover over 4,000 miles on this island, protecting over 148,500 citizens,
not including tourists. These officers responded to over 78,000 major accidents, calls
and cases last year alone. We now expected them to enforce a smoking ban as
well? Where are our priorities? Where is the money for additional officers that we
need to fight illegal drugs and where is our courtesy and common sense?
The only change over 20 years, is in public opinion manifested by
misinformation distributed through the media, who has nothing to gain except
revenue from the high cost of advertising paid for by special interest groups,
including the Hawaii Health Department and Coalition for a Tobacco Free
Hawaii who paid over $66,000 Cigarette Tax Money for an anti smoking
campaign.
There are actually three groups who are debating this issue, not two. The one
over looked frequently is the non smoker who support rights and choice of the
people. I urge you on behalf of the smokers, along with our supportive non-
smoking friends, to vote using courtesy, common sense and concern for the
benefit of all people, so everyone will be treated equally, intelligently and with
respect for one another.
Aloha, and thank you, for your time, and for allowing me the privilege of the floor.
SMOKING BAN IMPACT ON CALIFORNIA RESTAURANTS
After obtaining data on "Taxable Sales in California" (Sales and Use Tax), I
analyzed the Periods of 1989 to 1993 (Pre-smoking ban year), and 1994 to
1999 (Post smo'ng ban). The media, with furnished information from the anti-
smoking industry, wants to tell us that everything is fine, there is NO damage to the
restaurant industry. In fact they tell us that the restaurants are doing better than ever
since the ban and there is no cause for alarm. When you look at those two periods,
you also have to consider the overall economic tendencies
1989 to 1993 was at the tail end of a recessionary period, with ZERO
growth. The "Eating and Drinking" group contains eating places where no alcoholic
beverages are sold; eating places where beer and wine is served; and eating places
where all types of liquor is served.
I call the first group FAST FOOD or FF, and combine the two remaining
groups into RESTAURANTS AND BARS or RB. The analysis I conducted
shows the following: Even though there was Zero growth, the FF sector
showed an increase in sales of 11.7% Whereas the RB showed a modest
gain of l.2%.
Another interesting feature of the report issued by the Board of Equalization is the
number of permits issued in the various categories.
The permits for the FF sector increased during this period by 15.7%,
while the perrnits for the RB group declined by .9%, or 293 fewer RB.
Looking at the period from 1994 to 1999, the overall economy (taxable sales
statewide) increased by an incredible 31.9%.
Looking at the sales for FF and RB I found that they increased also, with FF
sales outpacing the overall figure at 38.4%, while the RB sales were below
the overall economy figures, at 28.6%.
However, the clincher, and what the Media and the anti-smoking industry does
NOT tell you, is that the number of permits issued for FF rose by 12.7%,
whereas the number of permits for RB DECREASED by 3.3%, which
means that there were 1,039 fewer RBOs in California. In other words, during
a period in which we saw a tremendous increase in the overall economy, 1,039
restaurants or bars went out of business
That is the real impact of the smoking ban. So if you hear of anyone saying that
the smoking ban in restaurants and bars does not hurt anybody, you can quote my
figures, which are based on the official reports issued by the State Board of
Equalization here in California.
Otto J. Mueksch President, Californians For Smokers Rights