Article

Effect of smoke-free laws on bar value and profits.

Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, Department of Medicine (Cardiology), University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143-1390, USA.
American Journal of Public Health (Impact Factor: 4.23). 09/2007; 97(8):1400-2. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2006.095315
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The tobacco industry has claimed that smoke-free bar laws caused bar revenues to decline by 30%. After we controlled for economic variables, we found that bars located in areas with smoke-free laws sold for prices that were comparable to prices for similar bars in areas with no smoking restrictions. Other studies have reported that sales did not decline, and we also found that neither price nor sales declined. Therefore, bar owners' concerns that smoke-free laws will reduce the value of their bars are unfounded.

0 Followers
 · 
140 Views
  • Source
    • "As such, a smoking ban might have only minor repercussions on bar business. Nonetheless, owners of bars and restaurants worldwide are concerned about losing business after a smoking ban (Alamar & Glantz, 2007; Eriksen & Chaloupka, 2007). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: On May 1, 2005, the city of Flagstaff, Arizona enacted a smoking ban in standalone bars. All other establishments already had smoking bans in place for at least three years. Trained observers carried air monitoring equipment and counted lit cigarettes and patrons on two weekends before and four weekends after the ban. Monthly hospitality revenues from 2003 to 2006 were also collected from the Coconino County Tax Assessor's office and analyzed for changes after the ban. Air quality improved immediately by 87% in bars, with no appreciable decrease in the total bar revenues over the next three years. All hospitality businesses experienced a general leveling off of growth after the ban, suggesting a change in more general economic factors. As an industry, hospitality was unaffected by the smoking ban, though individual establishments could have been adversely affected. The standalone bar industry revenue continued to increase after the ban. Alcohol and cigarette co-consumption was not supported.
    Journal of drug issues 04/2009; Spring 2009:401-416. DOI:10.1177/002204260903900210 · 0.38 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Although the world has ''begun to reclaim clean air as the social norm'' [Koh et al., 2007], countless numbers of workers are still being involuntarily exposed, and legislative change requires continued perseverance. In the absence of smoke-free legislation, employers would be well off voluntarily adopting smoke-free policies, given that employers have been held legally liable for employee exposure to ETS [Zellers et al., 2007], and the evidence that smoke-free policies do not have a negative financial impact on bars [Alamar and Glantz, 2007]. A pro-smoking website has posted a statement that ''[T]he only real justification for a total ban [on smoking in public places] would be incontrovertible proof that environmental tobacco smoke is a deadly health hazard'' [Forestonline .org, "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite epidemiologic, experimental and observational data on the association of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and adverse health effects, bar and restaurant workers remain exposed to ETS in the majority of states and countries. Three public health surveillance systems were used to identify and conduct a follow-up investigation of a reported acute asthma death of a young waitress in a bar. The waitress collapsed at the bar where she worked and was declared dead shortly thereafter. Evaluation of the circumstances of her death and her medical history concluded that her death was from acute asthma due to environmental tobacco smoke at work. This is the first reported acute asthma death associated with work-related ETS. Recent studies of asthma among bar and restaurant workers before and after smoking bans support this association. This death dramatizes the need to enact legal protections for workers in the hospitality industry from secondhand smoke.
    American Journal of Industrial Medicine 02/2008; 51(2):111-6. DOI:10.1002/ajim.20538 · 1.59 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: decreased by 14% (95% CI, 12%-16%) in current smokers, 19% (95% CI, 17%-21%) in former smokers, and 21% (95% CI, 18%-24%) in never smokers. Overall, 67% of the decrease in admissions for ACS occurred among nonsmokers. The reductions in ACS admissions were greater in women as compared with men and in older patients as compared with younger patients regardless of smoking status. The proportion of former smokers who reported no exposure to secondhand smoke increased from 57% to 78% (P < 0.001), with similarly significant changes seen among never smok- ers. These findings were supported by reductions in the geometric means of cotinine among former smokers (from 0.68 ng/mL to 0.56 ng/mL; P < 0.001) and never smokers (from 0.71 ng/mL to 0.57 ng/mL; P < 0.001). Smokers admit- ted for ACS showed no change in geometric mean cotinine level (P = 0.72). Conclusion. Admissions for ACS across a large part of Scotland decreased significantly after implementation of smoke-free indoor air laws. Most of the reduction was seen among nonsmokers, and the overall reduction could not be explained by temporal, geographic, or seasonal trends. Ex- posure to secondhand smoke among nonsmokers declined after the legislation by both self-reported and biochemically verified measures.
Show more