Facts

Secondhand smoke contains at least 250 chemicals known to be toxic, including more than 50 that can cause cancer.

Secondhand smoke exposure causes heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmoking adults.

Breathing secondhand smoke has immediate harmful effects on the cardiovascular system that can increase the risk of heart attack. People who already have heart disease are at especially high risk.

Secondhand smoke exposure causes respiratory symptoms in children and slows their lung growth.

Secondhand smoke causes sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more frequent and severe asthma attacks in children.

Researchers at the Health Department in Portland, Ore., examined the prevalence of NNK, a known carcinogen associated solely with tobacco, among nonsmoking Oregon bar and restaurant workers in establishments where smoking was permitted and in those where it was prohibited.  Each hour of exposure to secondhand smoke at work was associated with about a six percent increase in the level of urinary NNK.  (Source: American Journal of Public Health)

COMMUNITY IMPACT
According to the CDC, studies conducted in several communities, states, regions, and countries have found that implementing smoke-free laws is associated with rapid and substantial reductions in hospital heart attack admissions. These reductions appear to be more pronounced among nonsmokers than among smokers.

A 2008 study shows heart attack hospital admissions in the city of Pueblo, Colorado fell sharply after the implementation of a municipal law making workplaces and public places smoke-free, and this decrease was sustained over a 3-year period. These findings suggest that smoke-free policies should be considered an important component of interventions to prevent heart disease morbidity and mortality.  Source:  Centers for Disease Control, 2009

VENTILATION SYSTEMS DO NOT WORK
Ventilation systems are ineffective at protecting people from secondhand smoke and are costly. While ventilation systems can help reduce the smell and sight of cigarette smoke, they are not capable of getting rid of all of the carcinogens. Most cancer-causing particles and all cancer-causing gasses are too small to be trapped by filters.

Separating smokers from nonsmokers, air cleaning technologies, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate secondhand smoke exposure. (Source: Centers for Disease Control and the U.S. Surgeon General Report, 2006)

Local evidence of ventilation not working.  A study by the Roswell Park Cancer Institute, "St. Louis City Bars Air Monitoring Study", finds unhealthy air quality in bars that allow smoking in St. Louis City.  According to the study, bars in the City that allow smoking had indoor air pollution levels 6 times higher than smoke-free bars. 
Click here for the Executive Summary
Click here for the Full Report & charts

The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers, the international standard-setting body for indoor air quality, has adopted a position document that states: "At present, the only means of effectively eliminating health risks associated with indoor exposure is to ban smoking activity... No other engineering approaches, including current and advanced dilution ventilation or air cleaning technologies, have demonstrated or should be relied upon to control health risks from ETS [environmental tobacco smoke] exposure in spaces where smoking occurs..." (ASHRAE position document, 2005)

ECONOMIC IMPACT
Every independent economic impact study examining sales tax data has found no negative economic impact from secondhand smoke laws in communities across the country, and some have found an increase in business. The only studies showing economic losses have been conducted or paid for by the tobacco industry. Their studies are based on business owners' perceptions rather than sales tax data.  They typically emphasize anecdotal stories about how a restaurant or bar owner allegedly lost money after implementation of such a law. These anecdotal stories are neither supported by documented facts nor do they take other factors into consideration.

In 1987 in California, political operatives of the tobacco industry created the myth that restaurants would lose 30% of their revenue as a result of smoke-free air ordinances. Today, the percentage has inflated to claims of 40% to 50% in economic losses for business. Despite the fact that these declines have never come to pass in any community in the country, the opposition has not stopped trying to use this myth to divert attention away from the health-basis of smoke-free air laws.

"The economic arguments often used by the industry to scare off smoking ban activity were no longer working, if indeed they ever did. These arguments simply had no credibility with the public, which isn't surprising when you consider that our dire predictions in the past rarely came true." - David Laufer, Philip Morris. (Quoted in: Laufer, D. "Draft 7/8/94 Presentation #4," Philip Morris website http://www.pmdocs.com)

An August 2008 poll showed 80% of St. Louis City voters would go out the same or more often if all bars, restaurants and casinos in St. Louis City were smoke-free.

The 2006 Zagat Survey: America's Top Restaurants of 115,000 Americans found that 58 percent of respondents said they would dine out the same amount if restaurants were smoke-free and 39 percent would dine out more. Only 3 percent said they would dine out less often. 

A FEW CASE STUDIES

Ballwin, MO (click here for a Ballwin Fact Sheet) - enacted a 100% smoke-free policy on January 1, 2006. 

Comparing 2006 sales tax data to the years 2004 and 2005 shows no significant change in restaurant related revenue as a whole.  (City of Ballwin)

Tom Akin, economic development director in Ballwin, said life after the ban has remained status quo. After reviewing business license fees, which are based on gross receipts, two years prior to and one year following the ban, there was no dramatic difference in any business's numbers.  (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 6/28/07)

Springfield, IL - enacted a 100% smoke-free policy in September 2006

The city's tax revenue from bars and restaurants grew after the ban. (Illinois Dept of Revenue)
In the first two quarters since the ban was enacted, city tax revenue from restaurants grew twice as fast as before the ban. (Springfield Journal Register, September 9, 2007)

Restaurants' contribution to the city's share of sales tax in 2006's fourth quarter increased by 10 percent over the same period in 2005 (before the ban went into effect). Restaurant contributions during the first quarter of 2007 were 7 percent higher than the same period in 2006 (pre-smoking ban).  (Springfield Journal Register, September 9, 2007)

For bars, their contribution to the city's share of the state sales tax in the fourth quarter of 2006 was 4.81 percent higher than the same period in 2005. Revenue had seen double-digit growth the previous three quarters.  Bar contributions during the first quarter of 2007 increased 12.2 percent over the same period in 2006. (Springfield Journal Register, September 9, 2007)

Appleton, WI - enacted a 100% smoke-free policy in 2005, population of 70,000 people

No closures of any bar on the city side of the Appleton border with neighboring communities. Opponents of smoke-free bars predicted a financial catastrophe and numerous closings for bars located adjacent to neighboring communities. However, data indicates that there has not been a single bar closure in those areas. This indicates people stay in their local community and do not "drive to smoke." (source - City Health Department - Appleton)

On average, the assessed value of property in the Appleton's Central Business District increased by 32% since the last assessment in 2003.  The city's central business district, home of many bars, has thrived since the ordinance. More people feel welcome in bars and restaurants and this has jumpstarted the financial recovery of this key sector of the urban economy. (source - City Assessor's Office - City of Appleton)

El Paso, TX - enacted a 100% smoke-free policy in 2002, population of 563,000 people

No decline in total restaurant or bar revenues occurred in El Paso, Texas, after the city's smoking ban was implemented on January 2, 2002. (CDC, 2002)

Of those El Paso residents surveyed in 2001, 26.8% responded that they would eat out more often if restaurants were smoke-free, 62.9% responded that they would eat out the  same amount, and 10.4% responded that they would eat out less often.