Opposition to By-laws

Related links:

Junk Science

Tobacco Industry Front Groups

The tobacco industry is very worried about SHS restrictions, and has indicated in internal documents that the passive smoking issue is “the most dangerous development to the viability of the tobacco industry that has yet occurred.”[1] The bottom line is that smoke-free by-laws and legislation hurt tobacco's bottom line. o­ne Philip Morris USA internal study[2], obtained in the discovery process during litigation, says:

“Total prohibition of smoking in the workplace strongly affects industry volume. Smokers facing these restrictions consume 11% - 15% less than average and quit at a rate that is 84% higher than average.”

For the sake of brevity, what follows is a short list of typical arguments against smoke-free by-laws put forth by the tobacco industry and its mouthpieces.

· “Second-hand smoke is not a health danger…”
· “Bars and restaurants will lose revenues, will have to close, and proprietors will have trouble feeding their families…”
· “Ventilation can accommodate both smokers and non-smokers alike…”
· “Customers will travel to other municipalities to eat out or to go to bars…”
· “Government should not be micro-managing businesses”
· “This is a rights issue…government does not have the right to tell people where they can or can't smoke…”
· “Smoke-free by-laws are a covert attempt to stop people from smoking…”
· “Tobacco is a legal product and smoking shouldn't be regulated like this…”
· “Municipalities do not have the authority from the province to pass this type of legislation…”
· “The marketplace can decide how many smoke-free restaurants and bars there should be…”

The economic predictions of doom and gloom put forth by opponents are just that: predictions. In many independent scientific studies that look at pre- and post- by-law revenue receipts, restaurants and bars typically experience a small dip in profits for the first few months of the by-law, but do not suffer in the long-run as a result of going smoke-free. No properly conducted peer-reviewed study to date has shown a long-run negative economic impact.[3] Some establishments even see a modest increase in revenues after the by-law comes into force. An easy way to counter many of these arguments is to simply keep the debate focused o­n public health.

To face the threat that smoking restrictions pose, tobacco companies have reached new lows in the name of protecting profits. Read o­n to learn about some of the industry's tactics that have been used in other communities to fight against clean air legislation.

[1] Roper Organization. (1978). Poll. A study of public attitudes toward cigarette smoking and the tobacco industry in 1978, Volume 1. Available o­n-line [http://www.tobaccoscam.ucsf.edu/target/target_btm.cfm].
[2] Philip Morris USA. (1992). Inter-office memo. Impact of Workplace Restrictions on Consumption and Incidence. Available o­n-line [http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/2023914280-4284.html].
[3] Scollo, M., Lal, A., Hyland, A. & Glantz, S. (2003). Review of the quality of studies o­n the economic effects of smoke-free policies o­n the hospitality industry. Tobacco Control, 12, 13-20.

	May 31, 2005	Warning — The controversy around second-hand smoke is generated by the tobacco industry
	May 31, 2005	Warning — Designated Smoking Rooms consitute an illusionary level of protection against exposure to second-hand smoke
	May 31, 2005	Warning — Any effective tobacco control measure will be met by unfounded and preposterous predictions of catastrophic economic impacts
	September 1, 2004	The Economic Impact of Going 100% Smoke-Free
	September 1, 2004	A closer look at arguments in favour of ventilation
	July 15, 2003	Tobacco Industry Front Groups
	July 11, 2003	Ventilation and Designated Smoking Rooms (DSRs)
	July 11, 2003	Junk Science