2004_0816_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

work. A study of employees found that workers in businesses that permit customer smoking have higher levels of cotinine (a metabolite of nicotine) in their saliva and report a higher prevalence of respiratory and irritation symptoms than employees m smoke-free ��p��-" Studies have shown that smoke-free workplaces not only protect non-smokers from secondhand smoke, they also encourage smokers to quit or to reduce their ��r��mpti�n-'�� A recent study conducted in a Minnesota casino found that non-smoking casino patrons had increased levels of a tobacco-specific lung carcinogen in their urine following a 4-hour visit to the casino. These findings demonstrate that exposure of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke in a public, commercial setting results in increased levels of a tobacco-specific lung carcinogen in these indi��idua�s," Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Regulations on Restaurants and Bars Extensive research has been conducted on the economic effects of smoke-free regulations on restaurant and bar revenues. When reviewing this research, it is important to consider study methodology, funding source, and publication venue. The best studies for examining economic effects of smoke-free regulations on restaurant and/or bar revenues look at hard data such as municipal tax receipts and/or employment statistics. Studies funded by the tobacco industry have used less rigorous methodology including anecdotal information and non-representative surveys of restaurant/bar proprietors and patrons. For instance, surveys may indicate that restaurant/bar owners perceive an economic downturn, but only sales tax receipts collected over at least a one-year period can tell the real story. A review of 97 studies that made statements about economic impact found that 100 percent of well-designed studies reported no impact or a positive impact of smoke-free restaurant and bar laws on sales or employment. The review also found that all of the studies concluding a negative impact were supported by the tobacco industry-94 percent of the tobacco-industry-supported studies found a negative economic impact compared to none of the non-industry-supported �tudics? Other research findings: � In a study comparing a diverse group of cities and counties, municipalities with ordinances requiring smoke-free restaurants and bars (e.g., Aspen and Telluride, Colorado, Sacramento and Palo Alto, California) showed no decrease in revenues compared to municipalities with no such ordinances {e.g., Vail and Steamboat Springs, Colorado, Mountain View and Fresno, California).' � Sales tax data from 81 localities in 6 states consistently demonstrate that ordinances restricting smoking in restaurants have no effect on revenues.9 • A study of 3 states and 6 cities found that smoke-free ordinances do not appear to adversely affect, and may increase, tourist business." � A study analyzing sales-tax and mixed-beverage-tax data for 12 years preceding and l year following implementation of a smoking ban in El Paso, Texas found that no