Action on Smoking and Health A National Legal-Action Antismoking Organization Entirely Supported by Tax-Deductible Contributions    Info About ASH  | ash.org |  To Join ASH

Excerpts from SMOKING BAN'S EFFECT ON TOURISM STUDIED

BYLINE: ERIC BAILEY, Los Angeles Times [05/26/99] [SEE JAMA ABSTRACT BELOW]

Restaurant smoking bans have not hurt tourism in California and other states or cities that adopted tough restrictions, according to a new study disputing a key tobacco industry argument against such laws.

The report by two UC San Francisco researchers, to be published today in The Journal of the American Medical Assn., found that hotel revenue in about half the states and cities actually jumped after strict smoking laws were enacted.

The study also concluded that tourism from foreign lands--where smoking often is more accepted than in the United States--was not curtailed by restaurant restrictions.

"Before many of these laws were passed, there were very specific predictions of catastrophe voiced all over the country by the tobacco industry and their toadies," said Stanton A. Glantz, the UC San Francisco medical professor who conducted the study. "Those dire warnings simply were not true."

The study by Glantz and research associate Annemarie Charlesworth marks the third time in the last five years that Glantz has produced a study playing down the economic effects of smoking restrictions.

A 1994 Glantz study found that smoking bans do not cause economic chaos for restaurants, while his 1998 report disputed the effect of smoking prohibitions in bars. The tobacco industry characterized both reports as slanted.

The tobacco industry has attempted to block anti-smoking campaigns or soften existing laws by voicing concerns that tourism could be hurt.

To determine if that had occurred, the researchers looked at hotel revenues to measure the effect of anti-smoking laws on tourism in California, Utah and Vermont as well as Boulder, Colo., Flagstaff and Mesa, Ariz., New York City, Los Angeles and San Francisco.

California and the two other states saw an increase in hotel receipts after smoking laws took effect, as did San Francisco, the study found. Four other cities, including Los Angeles, had no significant change. Only Flagstaff experienced a significant slowdown in the rate of increase for hotel revenues.

The study also showed that international tourism rose in California, with an increase in visitors from Japan. New York City saw a jump in European visitors despite restaurant smoking restrictions.

Such results should be of no surprise to tobacco companies, Glantz said. He said that tobacco giant Philip Morris commissioned a 1989 study, kept secret until recently, that found people in 10 European countries were more accepting of smoke-free restaurant ordinances than were Americans.

Glantz and Charlesworth conclude that efforts to restrict smoking elsewhere should not be deterred by tourism worries. "Indeed," they suggest in the study, "these ordinances may even be beneficial for business."

Instead, Lawrance said, reports from lodging operators seem to back the Glantz study. Visitors have continued to come, and have willingly segregated themselves into smoking or nonsmoking rooms.

                  Tourism and Hotel Revenues Before and After Passage of
                  Smoke-Free Restaurant Ordinances

                  Stanton A. Glantz, PhD
                  Annemarie Charlesworth, MA

                  Context  Claims that ordinances requiring smoke-free restaurants will
                  adversely affect tourism have been used to argue against passing such
                  ordinances. Data exist regarding the validity of these claims.

                  Objective  To determine the changes in hotel revenues and international
                  tourism after passage of smoke-free restaurant ordinances in locales where
                  the effect has been debated.

                  Design  Comparison of hotel revenues and tourism rates before and after
                  passage of 100% smoke-free restaurant ordinances and comparison with
                  US hotel revenue overall.

                  Setting  Three states (California, Utah, and Vermont) and 6 cities (Boulder,
                  Colo; Flagstaff, Ariz; Los Angeles, Calif; Mesa, Ariz; New York, NY; and
                  San Francisco, Calif) in which the effect on tourism of smoke-free restaurant
                  ordinances had been debated.

                  Main Outcome Measures  Hotel room revenues and hotel revenues as a
                  fraction of total retail sales compared with preordinance revenues and
                  overall US revenues.

                  Results  In constant 1997 dollars, passage of the smoke-free restaurant
                  ordinance was associated with a statistically significant increase in the rate of
                  change of hotel revenues in 4 localities, no significant change in 4 localities,
                  and a significant slowing in the rate of increase (but not a decrease) in 1
                  locality. There was no significant change in the rate of change of hotel
                  revenues as a fraction of total retail sales (P=.16) or total US hotel revenues
                  associated with the ordinances when pooled across all localities (P=.93).
                  International tourism was either unaffected or increased following
                  implementation of the smoke-free ordinances.

                  Conclusion  Smoke-free ordinances do not appear to adversely affect, and
                  may increase, tourist business.

                  JAMA. 1999;281:1911-1918

click here to return to ASH's Home Web Page: http://ash.org
click here for more information about Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)
click here to learn the many benefits of joining ASH on-line, over the Internet