2004_0816_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

E�� Document 12 Smoke-Free Restaurant Ordinances Dio Not Affecf Restaurant Business. Period. ■ THE STORY has becometediously familiar: aconcemedlegislatoror group of citizens decides that i t i s timeto pass a local clean indoorair ordi- nance to protect the public and woricers from the toxins in secondhand tobacco smoke.'� After mustering the scientific w id e n ce that secondhand smoke causes heart disease,-cancer, sudden infant death, asthma, and a variety of other problems, public health advocates ap- proach the city council or other legisla- tive bodyto act Shortlythereafter, a con- cemed restaurant association sidesteps the issue that secondhand smoke is dan- gerous and produces a'stucl�!' claiming that the result will be economic chaos, with 20-40 percent drops in restaurant business. Ps time passes, local tobacco control adv�ocates or the media force the restaurantassociation to admitthat it're- quested and received some support." Often, it ultimately comes out that the tobacco industry or one of its public rela- tions firmss organizedthe'restaurant asr sociation" (Figure 1). After a long debate, the ordinancepasses.4-' After Glantz and Smith'�-" published their study demonstrating that smoke- iree restaurant ordinances have no effect on restaurant revenues in the first 15 cit- �� R work was supported in part by Na- tional �pilnstitute grantCA-61027, and a gift from FGlith and Henry Everett Address for correspondence: Stamton A. C�a�tz. PhD Professor of Medicine Box 0130 University of California Sazx Francisco, CA. 94143-0130 Telephone: 415-476-3893 F� 415-476-0424 �mail: glantr.(a�medicine.ucsf.edu Stanton A. Glantz, PhD ies to pass such ordinances, the tobacco andustry's claims of economicchaas lost credibility, particularlyin Califomiaand Colorado, where the cities were located. While this study was also useful to adva cates in other states (includingthase in New Yorlcand Massachusetts�, the indus- try started to argue that there was som� -thing unique about California or Colo- rado and, wh'ile there might not have been economic chaas there; it would happen elsewhere. The articles in this is- sue of the Journal of Public Health Marr agement and Practice �PHMP) show that, i n contrastto claims by the tobacco industry, smoke-free restaurant ordi- nances have had no impact on revenues after New Yor1c City and several commu- nities in Massachusetts passed such ordi- nances. With the addition ofthe articles in this issue ofJPHMP, there are now published ��a'4"•'¢" on the economic impact of smoking restrictions on restaurant sales for 81 localities in six sfates, 67 of which are 100 percent smoke-ireei n restaurants (Appendix 1). While there are some dif- ferences i n the ordinances and the meth- ods used to study them aa�ss localities, all have relied on objectivesales tax data to � economic impa� The salestax data from these �� localities are consis- tent in demonstratingthat ordinances re- strictine �mokinE in estaurants have no efFect on revenues. � Studies of economic impact based on sales tax rwenues have several advan- tages. �rs#,, and most important, the data are objective. They are collected by tax authorities with no interest i n the impact of a clean indoor air ordinance. Seoond, they are complete; they include all resr taurants. Third, they are available ov�er time, so it is possibleto adjust for under- Cr1 lying economic trerxls ar seasonal vari- ability. The problem with studies of the impact of clean indoor air ordinances based on sales tax data is thatthey are not available until well after an ordinance passes. TYxas, when confronted with�r� clictions of disaster based � industry-�n- spired surveys of the city i n question, ad- vocates can only pointto evidence from other cities. The appropriate response to such pre- dictionsiromthetobacco industryand its allies and front groups is to point out that these claims have been made every- where else and. when the �i�Gm� aata � became available a vear ar two later, they tumed out to be wronq. Faced with the growing widence that restaurant ordinances do not affecf rev- enues, the tobacco industry has fallen backonaseriesofsecondaryclaims, that the public wil I not comply with the ordi- nance or that it will somehow hurt err� ployment or tourism (wen though rev enues are not affec�ec�. Other articles in this issue of JPHMPaIso debunk thes� claims. Indeed, New Yor1c City added restaurant jobs faster than the rest of the state afterthe ordinance went into effed. As already demonstrated i n other places,"^�'the publicsupports and com- plies with these ordinances. TY�ese resulGs are not surprising, given growing pu blic awareness of the dangers of secondhand srrioke. Indeed, despite a major public relations campaign de- signed to undermine i� the public sup- Stanton A�jvr��, Ph7J, is a Profes- sor of Medicine at the Institutefor Health Policy Stud ies and Depart- ment af Medicine, Uruversity of Cali- fornia, San F�ncisco, California.