FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -
No Change in Tourism After Passage of Smoke-Free Restaurant Laws.   Tourist business increases or holds the steady in most locals with smoke-free establishments

Chicago- Contrary to the tobacco industry, laws banning smoking in restaurants do not hurt tourist business, and may be related to increased business, according to an article in the May 26 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

Stanton Glanz, Ph.D., and Annemarie Charlesworth, M.A., of the University of California, San Francisco examined tourism rates in three states and six cities with laws requiring restaurants to be 100 percent smoke-free. The states are California, Utah, and Vermont. The cities are New York, Los Angles, San Francisco, Mesa and Flagstaff, Ariz, and Boulder, Colo. The cities and states included in the study represent a wide range of geographic locations and types of tourist destinations. In each of the locations, the issue of tourism was raised in debates over smoke-free restaurant ordinances.

The researchers used hotel revenues as a measure, comparing figures before and after the passage of smoke-free restaurant laws and overall U.S. revenues in the nine locations. They analyzed hotel revenues as a fraction of total sales, and found no significant change associated with the passage of smoke-free restaurant laws.

"This study debunks the tobacco industry allegation that smoke-free restaurant laws adversely affect tourism, including international tourism," the authors write. " In terms of constant 1997 dollars, the smoke-free law was associated with a significant increase in rate of growth of hotel revenues in four localities, no significant change in four localities, and a significant slowing in the rate of increase of hotel revenues in one city (Flagstaff) where revenues tended to flatten out," they report.

International Tourism was up significantly in two localities with smoke-free restaurant laws. " the implementation of ordinances was associated with a significant increase in the rate of change of tourists from Japan to California and from Europe to New York City," the authors write.

"The results that smoke-free restaurant ordinances did not hurt and may have helped, international tourism was surprising because of the commonly held belief that Europeans are more willing to tolerate secondhand smoke a less supportive of clean indoor air regulations than are Americans," they write.

Jim Harrington from the Marquette County Tobacco Free Community Coalition said the research supports the City of Marquette decision to eliminate smoking in restaurants and public places from an economic and health standpoint. "Food Service workers enjoy the least protection from secondhand smoke of any employee group, legislators and government officials can enact such health and safety requirements to protect patrons and employees in restaurants from the toxins in secondhand smoke without fear of adverse affects on tourism," These ordinances may even be beneficial for business."

JAMA 1999;281:1911-1918

To contact Stanton Glanz, Ph.D., or Annemarie Charlesworth,M.A., call Wallace Raven at 415-476-2557

###