around other people --
more information, please see
the links below.
-- the Virginia current law
March 9, 2009 -- Virginia's Governor Timothy Kaine has signed the no-smoking in restaurants, bars legislation, 2 pm at Croc's 19th Street Bistro in Virginia Beach, Va.
2009 Virginia -- history of legislative efforts -- compromise bill passed on restaurants and bars, to be effective December 1, 2009. Excerpts of news articles from 2009 on this and other no-smoking bills is at this link.
Secondhand Smoke hurts and kills
2006 -- Remember Heather Crowe:
22nd May, 2006 -- Death of Heather Crowe, only 61, a Canadian waitress for about 40 years, who died of lung cancer from secondhand smoking at her job. She became an eloquent spokesperson fighting to be the "last Canadian to die of secondhand smoking." She had hoped to see the May 31st beginning of a smoke-free Ontario. Thank you, Heather, for speaking out to save all our lives.
For more information: Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada.
2007 -- Waitress collapsed at the bar where she worked, and died soon after:
The online edition, American Journal Industrial Medicine, Dec. 7, 2007, published the extract of an article by M. Stanbury, D. Chester, E. Hanna, K. Rosenman of Michigan, noting that:
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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
that are smoke-free:
States in the USA -- smoke-free
restaurant laws, most have far more than restaurants smoke-free:
Additionally: Washington, D.C.;
Guam, Puerto Rico
Ban on smoking in restaurants
smoke-free restaurant legislation in
from The Denver Channel, Colorado, March 15, 2007,
headlined: March Madness Has
Different Smell This Year, writer Tyler Lopez.
Sports lovers can root for their favorite team without the haze of cigarette smoke. Eight months into Colorado's statewide smoking ban, patrons and staffers say it's changing the look of the "sports bar" at this popular time of year for the hoop-addicted. "We sold about 15 percent more food at the restaurant, which is a pretty significant increase for any restaurant, I would think," said Matthew Brown, manager of the Cherry Cricket in Cherry Creek North. "A lot more families (are) coming in now. Which, sometimes smoking would curtail the families from coming in in the past. And so, it's a welcome environment for everybody now. (It's) Not just the bar crowd." Parents seem to agree. "Honestly, yeah I feel a lot more free to go pretty much anywhere," said Tracy Hughes Staffers said that tips have remained steady as food sales have risen.
Strange Bedfellows: The History of Collaboration between the Tobacco Industry and the Massachusetts Restaurant Association
By Wendy RIch and Mike Begay; Available at the UCSF Library Tobacco Control Archives web site.
This and other
information may be searched at: http://repositories.cdlib.org/ctcre/
the historical relationship between the tobacco
industry and the Massachusetts Restaurant Association (MRA), a nonprofit
trade association for the food and beverage industry.
analyzed web-based tobacco industry documents, MRA
Federal tax returns, public relations materials, news articles, testimony
from public hearings, requests for injunctions, court decisions, economic
impact studies, handbooks, private correspondences, and public records.
Results: Tobacco industry documents that became public after various state lawsuits reveal that a long and productive history of collaboration exists between the MRA and the tobacco industry. For more than twenty years, they have focused primarily on efforts to defeat state and local laws that would restrict smoking in public places, particularly in beverage and food service establishments. The resources of the tobacco industry, combined with the MRA's grassroots mobilization of its membership, have accounted for their successful opposition to many state and local smoke-free restaurant, bar, and workplace laws in Massachusetts.
opposition of the Massachusetts Restaurant
Association to smoking bans in food and beverage establishments is a
reflection of its historic relationship with the tobacco industry. This is
contrary to public statements made by the MRA that it is working
independently of the interests of Big Tobacco. State and local lawmakers,
as well as local boards of health, must realize that when the MRA opposes
state and local smoke-free legislation it does so primarily because it has
been and continues to be a close political ally of the tobacco industry.
Since the city banned smoking in restaurants in 1995, restauranteurs have complained that the prohibition is bad for business. On Monday, a group of academic researchers, admittedly anti-smoking ones, released a series of six analyses suggesting that the ban has not hurt.
The studies indicated
that the anti-smoking law, which took effect
April 10, 1995, has had no
effect on local sales, job growth or income. The studies, which were financed by the Substance
Abuse Policy Research Program, which receives money from the Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation, showed that restaurant industry jobs rose 18 percent from 1993 to 1997, to 19,347.
During the same
period, sales tax receipts rose 2 percent at
in the city but dropped 4
percent in the rest of the state. The number of restaurants in the city during that period increased 6 percent.
At a news conference,
the researchers characterized their work as
first comprehensive look at
the city's ban on smoking in restaurants with 35 or more seats. They said earlier studies suggesting
economic harm were smaller and were financed by the tobacco industry.
"Local officials can
now go about their business of protecting the
from the toxins in
second-hand smoke without worrying about this phony issue," said Dr. Stanton Glantz, who wrote
an editorial accompanying the articles, which are published in the January issue of Public Health
Management and Practice.
Mike O'Neal, who owns
O'Neal's restaurant on West 64th Street, near
Lincoln Center, supported
the ban, saying it has helped his business. "If 75 percent of people don't smoke and 25 percent do,
that means 75 percent are going to eat out more and 25 percent are going to eat out less," he said at
the news conference.
Others in the
restaurant industry took sharp issue with the studies'
methodology and conclusions.
Scott Wexler, executive director of the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association, a trade
group, said in an interview that his group sponsored a study in 1996 that showed jobs at city
restaurants declining 4 percent.
The restaurant trade
group is heavily supported by the Tobacco
which recently admitted
funneling $443,072 to the group, after earlier claiming a far lower amount. The money was used to
lobby the state Legislature for less stringent laws than the city's.
from U.S. Newswire, January 11, 1999, titled, "Studies Find
Massachusetts' Smoke-Free Ordinances Having No
Restaurant Revenue", Contact: Prabhu
Ponkshe, 703-288-4325, or Ellen Wilson,
The studies were
funded by The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation-
Policy Research Program and published in the January issue of The Journal of Public Health
Management and Practice. This month's issue of the Journal is devoted entirely to studies that look at the various aspects of smoke-free laws in public places.
Based on taxable meal
receipts submitted by restaurants to the
Revenue before and after the imposition of local smoke-free ordinances in the state, the study shows
that, on average, restaurant revenue in smoke-free towns rose four percent. Restaurant revenues in
the communities that did not severely restrict smoking over the same time period rose only two
For the study, "The
Economic Effect of Smoke-Free Restaurant
on Restaurant Business in
Massachusetts," the researchers estimated changes in sales over time rather than comparing meal
sales in towns at one given time. By pooling towns into two groups -- those that had smoke-free
policies (32 towns) and those that didn't (203 towns) -- the researchers were able to compare total
per capita taxable meal revenue for each group from January 1992 through December 1995.
Drawing a trend line for each group of towns, they found no divergence between the two groups of
communities. The researchers called a community smoke-free if a diner could eat anywhere in the
community without being exposed to second-hand smoke.
"After controlling for
seasonal trends, population and disposable
our models failed to find a
statistically significant effect of local, smoke-free policies on restaurant business," said study author
William J. Bartosch, M.P.A., an analyst with the Center for Health Economic Research in Waltham,
In recent years, an
increasing number of Massachusetts communities
smoking policies. Between 1981 and 1998, more than 139 cities and towns across the state -- out
of a total of 351 -- have enacted some type of smoking restriction for restaurants. Local enactment
activity has been particularly noticeable since 1993, when the state increased its excise tax on
cigarettes by 25 cents and used the proceeds to establish the Massachusetts Tobacco Control
Program (MTCP), a state-wide initiative to reduce tobacco-related health risks. Last October,
Boston implemented a public health regulation similar to New York City's Smoke-Free Air Act.
According to sources cited in the study, opposition to the local policies has come from the restaurant and tobacco industries, which have argued that the restaurant business would be harmed. "The results of our study seem to question the validity of these claims," said study author Gregory C. Pope, M.S., vice president and senior scientist at the Center for Health Economics Research.
The researchers also gathered separate data on restaurants that serve alcohol, allowing the study to make a comparison to restaurants that do not serve alcohol. "Because studies show that people who smoke heavily also tend to drink heavily, one might expect that restaurants that serve alcohol would be disproportionately affected by smoke-free policies," Bartosch noted. "But this was not the case."
In a related study,
"Local Restaurant Smoking Policy Enactment in
-- also published
today in The Journal of Public Health Management and Practice -- Bartosch and Pope conclude that
there is more support for smoke-free policies in white-collar communities than in those with a higher
proportion of blue-collar workers.
published in the Journal -- "Smoky Bars and
Who Avoids Them and
Why?" -- reports that almost one half of the non-smoking respondents to a survey of 5,000
Massachusetts residents had resisted going somewhere in order to prevent exposure to second-hand smoke. Healthy people and those with college educations were more likely to report avoiding smoky places than those with less education and those who perceive themselves as less healthy.
"Most of the time,
those who avoided smoky places said they did so
they didn't like the
lingering smell of smoke in their clothes and hair," said study author Lois Biener, Ph.D., senior
research fellow at the Center for Survey Research at the University of Massachusetts at Boston.
"The second most cited reason was out of concern for their health, and the places they said they
usually avoided were restaurants and bars."