Default
National Smokers Alliance
April 23, 1997
At Issue: The Meaning of "Smoke-Free"
At the heart of Dr. Stanton Glantz's study, "The Effect of Ordinances Requiring
Smoke-Free Restaurants on Restaurant Sales," published by the
American Journal
of Public Health in July 1994, are Glantz's repeated assertions throughout the paper
of "100% smoke-free restaurant ordinances" in his 15 test cities.
For the lay person, whether a restaurateur or an elected official, common sense and
common experience would accept "100% smoke-free restaurant" to mean there is
no smoking permitted anywhere on the premises.
Indeed, Dr. Glantz, Americans for Nonsmokers Rights (an activist group of which
Glantz was a co-founder) and the many others who use the Glantz study as the
standard reference in pressing for restaurant smoking bans around the country
make no suggestion to those they are trying to persuade that "smoke-free" means
anything other than what common sense tells us it means -- "you can't smoke
there."
In fact, during the periods of Dr. Glantz's study, in 14 of his 15 test cities with "100%
smoke-free ordinances," one could have a meal and enjoy a cigarette perfectly
legally in hundreds of restaurants in those cities. That remains true for most of his
test cities three years after the study was published. Smoking was restricted, but
smokers had available restaurants with separate rooms for smokers, patio dining,
full-service dining in the bar area, and sometimes simply a separate section of the
restaurant. Further undermining Dr. Glantz's study is the fact that in many of his
"control" cities, smoking was no more or less restricted than in his test cities.
Public officials and restaurateurs are being deceived by both the language of
Glantz's study and those who use it to promulgate restaurant smoking bans into
believing that "100% smoke-free restaurant ordinances" will have no adverse effect
on restaurant sales or sales tax revenue generated by those sales.
Since the Glantz study was published in a well-recognized journal that lay persons
would ordinarily have no reason to question, the statements in the study and
statements by those pushing the study are often accepted at face value. The
restaurant industry and public officials are being misled.
Why This Issue Passes the `Who Cares?'Test
"The economic consequences to America's restaurant industry are too great to
allow the Glantz study to stand uncorrected," according to Thomas Humber,
president of the National Smokers Alliance.
Just what is the scope of the problem of having public officials rely on bad
studies as they consider "100% smoke-free restaurant ordinances" for their
cities, counties and states? What is the scope of the problem if the U.S.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration relies on a groundless study as
part of deliberations that could result in a nationally mandated smoking ban in all
restaurants and bars?
As we have pointed out, the greatest impact would be on the category of fullservice restaurants, including taverns, where food is an integral part of the
service.
The National Restaurant Association defines the full-service category as those
establishments in which wait staff serves the food and beverages, in which
patrons are seated and in which patrons pay after dining.
The National Restaurant Association projects that 1997 food and drink sales in
the full-service category will total more than $104 billion, an increase of more
than 4 percent from the projected 1996 figures. Wages paid to employees in the
full-service category are estimated at $35 billion in 1996.
We make no effort here to predict percentage losses due to smoking bans. We
say only that Dr. Glantz's study concluding no negative impact is erroneous, and
must not be used in a way to support making drastic changes in how the fullservice restaurant sector does business. The scale of the economy involved
here is enormous. If there are, in fact, negative consequences of smoking bans
(as we believe there would be), even small percentage losses could result in
billions of dollars in lost sales and massive disruptions in the work force.
Policy decisions of this magnitude must be made on the basis of sound data.
