Well it Must be true if Otto and SheLion say it. Or try this...

Restaurant Smoking Bans Do Not Hurt Tourism

Smoking bans in restaurants do not hurt tourism, and may actually increase business, according to a new study by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco.

The study, published in the JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (JAMA), examined hotel revenues, comparing figures before and after smoking bans were enacted, in three states and six cities.

The researchers looked at hotel revenue in California, Utah and Vermont, and the cities of New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Mesa and Flagstaff, AZ, and Boulder, CO. In each location, the tobacco industry and opponents of the bans claimed that tourism would suffer as a result of the restaurant smoking bans.

Hotel revenue actually jumped in half of the locations after the bans were enacted. "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 Stan Glantz, the UCSF professor who conducted the study. "Those dire warnings simply were not true."

The study also shows that international tourism rose in California and New York City.

Thomas Humber, president of the National Smokers Alliance (NSA), said the study is "an advocacy piece masquerading as research" and that it used "too broad an ax, too broad a methodology to understand what is going on in very specific circumstances."

Glantz argues that the study shows that the dire predictions of the industry and its front groups were unfounded. "At some point people are going to stop believing the industry since every claim they've made about smoking laws has been proven wrong," Glantz said.

Glantz adds further that the main criticism raised by the tobacco industry -- through the NSA -- is that the only reason they found increasing tourism revenues is that business was going up anyway. Glantz provides two responses to this:

1. They controlled for the health of the underlying economy and the tourist economy in particular.
2. The criticism begs the question: The industry claimed that the ordinances would make tourism go DOWN. It never did. They are now arguing about whether the ordinances affected how fast tourism was going up.

Sources:
"No Change In Tourism After Passage Of Smoke-Free Restaurant Laws," JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, May 26, 1999, p. 1911;
Eric Bailey, "Smoking Ban's Effect On Tourism Studied," LOS ANGELES TIMES (on-line), May 26, 1999;
Tracy Boutelle, "Study: Smoke Ban Won't Hurt Tourism," ASSOCIATED PRESS, May 25, 1999;
"Smoke-Free And The Bottom Line," WASHINGTON POST, May 26, 1999, p. A9.

Ohio high court: Health boards can't ban smoking in bars, restaurants

08/28/2002- CNN.com

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- Local health boards in Ohio have no authority to ban smoking in all public places, including bars and restaurants, the state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

In a 6-1 ruling, the court called the goals of anti-smoking activists well intentioned but said state law does not allow them to overrule the Legislature, which exempted bars and restaurants.

"We refuse to extend by mere implication the authority of local boards of health beyond clearly stated and well-defined limits," said Justice Andy Douglas, writing for the majority.

Justice Paul Pfeifer dissented without giving a reason.

The court's decision went against a ban approved in June 2001 by the Toledo-Lucas County Board of Health.

The ban was challenged by Arnie's Eating and Drinking Saloon, a popular sports bar.

U.S. District Judge David Katz had kept the ban from taking effect while the lawsuit was pending, and he asked the Supreme Court to clarify state law.

Louis Tosi, a lawyer for the bar, argued that state law exempts restaurants and bars from the definition of a public accommodation for the purpose of limiting smoking.

Tosi said the issue came down to the rights of business owners to run their establishments.

"What this case is about is unelected officials laying down a trump card over the people in the electorate," Tosi told the Supreme Court in April.

An attorney for the county board cited state law that allows local health boards to enact regulations "for the public health."

"When this court makes a determination that they have power to regulate indoor smoking and pass regulations that promote the public health, those regulations take the force of state law," board lawyer Andrew Ranazzi told the justices.

he only other comprehensive smoking ban in Ohio is Meigs County in the southern part of the state. The county health board approved the ban in November, including bars and restaurants, and it is being enforced.

In 1999, a judge barred the Delaware City-County Board of Health from enforcing a rule regulating smoking in public places.

The Licking County Health Board in 1992 required restaurants to set aside a nonsmoking section and banned smoking in most public buildings, including private stores. That ban survived federal challenges and is in effect.

Smoking bans in restaurants do not hurt tourism, and may actually increase business, according to a new study by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco.

Sure! San Francisco maybe. But this thread is about OHIO!!!!!

Excuse me: NEW YORK! heh!

Nice LIBERAL sources there, Drano.

Sources:
"No Change In Tourism After Passage Of Smoke-Free Restaurant Laws," JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, May 26, 1999, p. 1911;
Eric Bailey, "Smoking Ban's Effect On Tourism Studied," LOS ANGELES TIMES (on-line), May 26, 1999;
Tracy Boutelle, "Study: Smoke Ban Won't Hurt Tourism," ASSOCIATED PRESS, May 25, 1999;
"Smoke-Free And The Bottom Line," WASHINGTON POST, May 26, 1999, p. A9.

Compiled by LIBERAL academic, Scott Goold.

You should be ashamed of yourself, trying to palm-off these socialist sources on a conservative website.
But I guess it says a lot about who/what you really are.

You dare post a "study" here by self-proclaimed "anti-tobacco lunatic" Stanton Glantz as if it were FACT???? ROFLMAO!

This is the guy whose entire fame rests on his anti-smoker rhetoric, the guy who sued the state because they cut his grants from $15 MILLION A YEAR to $12 MIL, the guy whose "studies" have been completely debunked by every decent, HONEST economist in the country, the guy who claims a PhD in economics but is instead a mechanical engineer, the guy who has said the War on Smokers is waged to pay his mortgage, the guy who admits he won't do a "study" if it doesn't "prove" his preconceived opinion.

ANTISMOKING "GURU" STANTON GLANTZ ADMITS MISREPRESENTATION OF DATA IN BAR STUDY
PR Newswire 01/15 1605 - Anti-Smoking Activist Stanton Glantz Admits Using Wrong Data in Bar Study

ALEXANDRIA, Va., Jan. 15 /PRNewswire/ -- The following is being issued by the National Smokers Alliance:

University of California San Francisco professor Stanton Glantz has now publicly admitted using the wrong data in his study of smoke-free bar ordinances, which analyzed the economic impact of bans in bars in seven communities in California.

In a letter to the editor published in The Dominion Post in Morgantown, West Virginia, Glantz wrote: "In his attack on our work Auxier (Gary Auxier of the National Smokers Alliance) did identify one error we made. Two of the bar ordinances covered unincorporated areas of counties and we used data from the entire counties."

The National Smokers Alliance had pointed out numerous errors when the study was released last November. Despite overwhelming evidence of misrepresentation, Glantz originally insisted to a reporter for the San Francisco Examiner that he had used the correct data and attacked National Smokers Alliance revelations as "politically motivated."

"Glantz's admission came not in California; not in the American Journal of Public Health, which published the study; not in a press release from the University of California, which promoted the study; and not in an apology to the reporter to whom he lied. Rather, it came in a letter to the editor of a small newspaper in West Virginia," said Thomas Humber, president of the National Smokers Alliance.

"We believe the people of California should have the same information since California smokers and businesses are now the guinea pigs for a field test of Glantz's bizarre theory that a smoking ban won't hurt bar business."

Glantz also stated in his letter to the editor that: "We have since obtained the correct information and analyzed it. Our conclusion remains the same: Smoke-free ordinances do not affect the bar business."

"The bars in those two counties did not lose money because the vast majority of them -- all of them in Santa Clara County -- were ignoring the law and continued to allow smoking, which we documented in our original criticism," said Humber.

"Faced with the proof of our charges against him, Glantz is desperately trying to cling to his tattered credibility. He can't, because at the end of the day, he is nothing but an academic con man who would already have been exposed were it not for the political correctness of his cause," Humber said.

"We have attempted, time and again, to bring Glantz's abuse of his university position and taxpayer grant money to the attention of the university, the media, the courts and the people of California. Perhaps now someone will pay attention.

"As every journalist in California knows, Glantz has held himself up to be an expert on the California Board of Equalization data he has used in his studies," Humber continued. "His desperate 'oops, but I fixed it' explanation just doesn't pass the smell test.

"If smoking bans do not have a negative economic impact on the hospitality industry, then why are thousands of business owners up in arms as a result of the bar smoking ban implemented on January 1, 1998? Because they are pawns of the National Smokers Alliance, as Glantz would have people believe, or because they see their livelihoods going down the drain? If the law is enforced, the State of California is about to pay for the most expensive economics lesson it has had in some time," Humber said.

As a result of Glantz's new admission, on January 14, Humber wrote University of California President Richard Atkinson to reinforce the request for an investigation of Glantz's bar study that Humber made in a letter to Atkinson on December 2, 1997. (The text of the January 14 letter to Atkinson follows below.)

"I continue to believe that President Atkinson is an honorable and responsible president of an honorable and responsible university. Because of the deep emotions over the issue of tobacco use in this country and attacks on the National Smokers Alliance by university staff aligned with Glantz, he has thus far defended his own. Now hard evidence is on the table. A partial admission by Glantz is on the table, and I believe that President Atkinson will do the right thing," Humber concluded.

Supporting documentation of all misrepresentation by Glantz is available on request.

THE LETTER OF THOMAS HUMBER (NATIONAL SMOKERS ALLIANCE) TO DR. RICHARD C. ATKINSON, PRESIDENT OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

THE LETTER OF THOMAS HUMBER TO MR. MERVYN SUSSER, EDITOR, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH

CONTACT: Kathy Fairbanks, 916-341-1000, for National Smokers Alliance/ CO: National Smokers Alliance ST: California IN: SU:

> BACK TO FORCES MAIN PAGE <