Replies

Some of the worst hit places in Delaware, when it comes to restaurants, were those that had gone non-smoking on their own. Their market niche was taken away from them by the government.

If a place does a booming business with the same management and the quality of food and service for 20 years, bad food and bad management have nothing to do with why they are in financial trouble after a smoking ban. Stop being so silly and start being realistic.

The weather in Florida is vastly different that that of Delaware or other places in the northeast. Folks are not going to go where they don't like and why should they - it is their money they are spending.

Studies have shown that smoke-free policies implemented in other communities do not result in a lossof revenue for restaurants and bars. In many cases, such establishments experience increased salesfollowing a smoking ban.•

A study by Cornell University researchers found that a smoke-free policy attracted more businessand revenue to restaurants than it drove away. The study examined how New Yorkers’ dining habitsand spending patterns changed in the four months following New York City’s Smoke-Free Air Actimplementation. The results showed that non-smokers are eating out more, and are more thanmaking up for the lost revenues caused by smokers not eating out as frequently. (David Corsun et.al., “Should NYC’s Restaurateurs Lighten Up?” Cornel Hotel and Restaurant AdministrationQuarterly, April 1996.)•

A survey of Massachusetts adults, published in the American Journal of Public Health (Dec. 1997)found that an overwhelming 89% of respondents would go out to bars more often or the sameamount if all bars in the state were 100% smoke free.•

A study of the aggregate restaurant sales data from West Lake Hills, Texas (a suburb of Austin)found that the city’s smoke-free ordinance enacted in June 1993 did not decrease sales revenueamong restaurants. (“Assessment of the Impact of a 100% Smoke-Free Ordinance on RestaurantSales West Lake Hills, Texas,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Centers for Disease Controland Prevention, May 19, 1995.)•

A study of the economic impact of smoke-free bar ordinances on bar sales in seven Californiacommunities found no significant impact on business. Published in the American Journal of PublicHealth, the University of California study (Dr. Stanton Glantz and Lisa Smith) examined sales taxreceipts for five California cities and two counties that have laws requiring bars to be 100% smokefree. They found that none of these communities suffered any significant loss of business due to thesmoke-free bar ordinances. In fact, relative to total retail sales, bar sales actually increased in all butone of the communities.• A study of 15 communities in California and Colorado concluded that smoke-free ordinances donot hurt restaurant sales. (Stanton Glantz and Lisa Smith, “The Effect of Ordinances RequiringSmoke-Free Restaurants on Restaurant Sales,” American Journal of Public Health, July 1994.)• The publishers of Zagat Restaurant Guides found in their annual survey of more than 16,000 NewYork City restaurant patrons that eating out had increased in the six months since the city’s cleanindoor air law took effect. (Nov. 15, 1995, Press Release, 1996 Zagat NYC Restaurant Survey.)•

A study of the aggregate meal tax receipts in Brookline, Massachusetts found that a smoke-freepolicy for all restaurants did not have a measurable immediate effect on the city’s total restaurantbusiness. (“Preliminary Analysis of the Economic Impact of Brookline’s Restaurant Smoking Ban,”Health Economics Research Inc., November 20, 1995.)•

A study of restaurant sales data in Flagstaff, Arizona, found that the city’s restaurant smoking bandid not adversely affect restaurant sales. (John Sciacca et. al., “Prohibiting Smoking in Restaurants:Effects on Restaurant Sales.”)