|
|
|
 |
|
| |
|
Tourism Warnings
As Big Tobacco's disaster predictions for the restaurant business have lost credibility, it has resorted to claiming that smokefree measures are bad for tourism and that foreign tourists will stop coming to communities with 100% smokefree restaurants.
Those claims are also fraudulent.
| What Big Tobacco predicted.... |
What really happened.... |
| Mesa, AZ |
1996 |
...Tom Lauria, spokesman for the...Tobacco Institute, a tobacco manufacturing industry trade association, said he expects local hospitality and restaurant associations to mount the defense against the initiative. "If they're not already well organized, they will be once they gauge the economic impact..."(1)
Chaos is the only word to describe what is happening in Mesa, Ariz....Business owners felt the economic blow immediately. Restaurant and bar owners are losing customers to nearby communities where smoking is still allowed, and one restaurateur cited the ban as the reason he went out of business. A convention has changed its meeting site from Mesa...(2)
|
Tourism grew significantly faster after the ordinance than before it |
| California |
1995 |
...revenues of hotels and other lodging places create a significant number of jobs in California. If the proposed smoking ban is adopted by the state of California, some tourists, visitors, and convention delegates may travel to other states or forego traveling altogether. In particular, a smoking ban in California could reduce expenditures in the following way:
- Reduced Domestic Out-of-State Tourism - Many travelers, visitors, vacationers, and business people may choose not to travel to California.
- Reduced Foreign Tourism - Some foreign tourists, visitors, and business people may choose not to visit California.
- Reduced Conventions - Some groups may decide not to hold conventions in California.
The expenditures of these consumers significantly contribute to California's economy.
Potential Losses for Each 1 Percent Reduction in Foreign Visitor Expenditures - $31,017,518.(3)
|
No significant change in the rate of growth of tourism |
| San Francisco, CA |
1995 |
The hospitality industry as a group is and has long been one of the largest employers in San Francisco. However, the current recession, combined with the after effects of the 1989 earthquake, has caused nearly every restaurant and hotel to cut their staffing drastically. The jobs are scarce; the job/labor pool ratio have reduced some wages to the lowest levels in four years. Any attempt to restrict activities of our patrons would reduce the traffic in our restaurants. Not only do the hard working operators lose but their employees lose as well.(4)
|
No significant change in the rate of tourism's growth. |
| Boulder, CO |
1995 |
After a ferocious campaign to defeat the measure, some bar and restaurant owners said the ban would slash their business and drive smoking customers out of town. Some said they likely would go out of business...(5)
|
No significant change in the rate of growth of tourism |
| New York City, NY |
1995 |
On a larger scale, New York stands to lose millions of dollars as the meetings and conventions that bring visitors from all over the world take their business and vacations elsewhere. New York today has over 25 million visitors every year. Tourism is a $14 billion industry. This helps support our city. It means jobs. Other big cities that compete for this business will be very glad to see this smoking ban pass.(6)
New York has over 25 million visitors a year. Tourism is a $14 billion industry. But if this bill passes in its present form, tourists will steer clear of a city so harshly intolerant of smokers.... The bill would encourage many smokers, tourists and residents alike, to abandon restaurants altogether in favor of bars and cabarets, where smoking would not be restricted.(7)
|
Tourism grew significantly faster after the ordinance than before it. |
| Utah |
1995 |
Richard Davis, Salt Lake Convention & Visitors Bureau president, said his agency supported the concept of protecting non-smokers from dangerous second-hand smoke in restaurants. But he said making Utah the first state to enact such a ban would result in tourism losses.
"Utah already is a leader in liquor control and abortion," Mr. Davis said. Leading out in restricting smokers would "have a negative effect on our tourism marketing efforts." Mr. Davis warned passage of the bill could cost Utah $50 million in lost conventions right off the bat.(8)
Opponents - including the Tobacco Institute-say Utah's measure will burden public establishments by separating smokers and could damage Utah's tourism industry.(9)
|
No significant change in the rate of growth of tourism |
| Vermont |
1995 |
Since the Vermont Clean Indoor Act took effect on July 1, 1995, owners have claimed sales losses between 3 and 30 percent.
Members of the Vermont Business and Restaurant Coalition and the Vermont Lodging and Restaurant Association said the ban would reduce tourism, average restaurant tabs and sales overall.(10)
|
No significant change in the rate of growth of tourism |
| Flagstaff, AZ |
1993 |
Vote Yes on Proposition 310...to protect tourism revenues (Estimated $150 million annual economic impact to Flagstaff from tourism!)(11)
This could be a great loss for Flagstaff. Tour groups won't return, guests will never come to Flagstaff again.(12)
|
Tourism continued to grow after the law went into effect but at a slower rate. Flagstaff coincidentally completed a major expansion of tourist facilities as the smokefree measure went into effect. |
| Los Angeles, CA |
1993 |
"Forget about loss of local business: that's bad enough," [Richard Schilling, general manager of Hotel Sofitel Los Angeles] says. "What about tourism receipts?" The throngs of European visitors who flock to L.A. annually will instead fly south to Florida if they can't smoke while they dine, he says. "And we're no the only ones who are going to get hurt: These tourists take cabs, rent cars, and shop in local boutiques," he adds.(13)
"Since implementation of the ban in January 1995, 46.2% of the California restaurants surveyed reported lower gross sales receipts while only 15.5 percent reported higher gross sales receipts," stated Barbara Boultinghouse, a KPMG Peat Marwick LLP manager who coordinated the survey. "The reported losses of this magnitude are devastating to California's hospitality industry."(14)
|
Tourism grew significantly faster after the ordinance than before it. |
Sources for Industry Statements:
- Nowicki D. Anti-tobacco measure on ballot: Would ban smoking in all 'public places'. Tribune, 1995.
- National Smoker's Alliance. The mess in Mesa. NSA Voice, November/December, 1996: 4.
- Price Waterhouse. Potential economic effects of a smoking ban in the state of California: Southern California Business Association, Los Angeles County Hotel Motel Group, San Diego Tavern & Restaurant Association; May, 1993.
- Golden Gate Restaurant Association. Letter to Supervisor Angela Alioto. letter; February, 1992.
- Evans C. Smoking ban didn't burn bars, eateries. Daily Camera; December 28, 1996.
- United Restaurant Hotel Tavern Association. The City Council has it Backwards. New York Times; September 23, 1994.
- Tobacco Institute and United Restaurant Hotel Tavern Association of New York State. "This is a restaurant bill New York City can't afford to pay." Advertisement. New York; 1994.
- Harry D, Crosby C. Senate rejects ban. Salt Lake Tribune; February 20, 1992.
- Semerad T. Anti-smoking bill clears another hurdle: Senate passes measure, returns it to House for fine-tuning. Salt Lake Tribune; March 1, 1994.
- Houskeeper E. Despite smoking ban, meals receipts grow: Criticism of law continues to rage. Sunday Rutland Herald & Sunday Times Argus; April 14, 1996; Sect. 3.
- Restaurateurs for Responsible Choice. Table tent advertisement opposing Flagstaff Proposition 310. In; 1992.
- Innes C. Smoking ban revisited. Arizona Daily Sun; July 18, 1993; Sect. 1,4.
- Wagner G. Smoking ban threatens L.A. Lodging Hospitality; July, 1993.
- Los Angeles County Hotel and Motel Group. California smoking law causing revenue loss in restaurant and hospitality industry, a recent study shows: Next year's smoking ban for bar areas expected to get worse. In; 1996.
|
|
Adapted from Glantz and Charlesworth (1999)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
