Smoking Bans Are Good For Tourism
Benjamin P. Carter
Contrary to arguments by the tobacco industry, laws banning smoking in
restaurants do not hurt tourist business, and may be related to increased
business, according to an article in the May 26 issue of The Journal of
the American Medical Association (JAMA).
Stanton A. Glantz, Ph.D., and Annemarie Charlesworth, M.A., of the
University of California at San Francisco, examined tourism rates in three
states and six cities with laws requiring restaurants to be 100 percent
smoke-free. The states are California, Utah and Vermont. The cities are
New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Mesa and Flagstaff, Ariz., and
Boulder, Colo. The cities and states included in the study represent a
wide range of geographic locations and types of tourist destinations. In
each of the locations, the issue of tourism was raised in debates over
smoke-free restaurants ordinances.
The researchers used hotel revenues as a measure, comparing figures before
and after the passage of smoke-free restaurant laws and overall U.S.
revenues in the nine locations. They analyzed hotel revenues as a fraction
of total retail sales, and found no significant change associated with the
passage of smoke-free restaurant laws.
The tobacco industry has argued that smoke-free restaurant ordinances will
have an adverse effect on tourism, especially international tourism from
countries such as Japan and Germany.
"This study debunks the tobacco industry allegation that smoke-free
restaurant laws adversely affect tourism, including international
tourism," the authors write. "In terms of constant 1997 dollars, the
smoke-free law was associated with a significant increase in the rate of
growth of hotel revenues in four localities, no significant change in four
localities, and a significant slowing in the rate of increase of hotel
revenues in one city (Flagstaff) where revenues tended to flatten out,"
they report.
International tourism was up significantly in two localities with
smoke-free restaurant laws. "The implementation of the ordinances was
associated with a significant increase in the rate of change of tourists
from Japan to California and from Europe to New York City," the authors
write.
"The result that smoke-free restaurant ordinances did not hurt, and may
have helped, international tourism was surprising because of the commonly
held belief that Europeans are more willing to tolerate secondhand smoke
and less supportive of clean indoor air regulations than are Americans,"
they write.
As of September 1998, three states and 212 communities had laws mandating
smoke-free restaurants. The state of California and 31 communities had
laws requiring smoke-free bars.
The authors suggest that more smoking bans in restaurants can be enacted
without fear of hurting tourism.
"Food service workers enjoy the least protection from secondhand tobacco
smoke of any employee group. Legislators and government officials can
enact such health and safety requirements to protect patrons and employees
in restaurants from the toxins in secondhand tobacco smoke without fear of
adverse effects on tourism," the authors conclude. "Indeed, these
ordinances may even be beneficial for business." (JAMA.
1999;281:1911-1918)
--
Ben Carter
Michael Yewen
realise that they are not winning this one. Non-smokers rights are
snow-balling down a big mountian and only gathering force.
Great Work Benjamin!
Michael Yewen
Mark Pellow
argument no good. This egomaniac will have his day in court, you can bet on
that.
Benjamin P. Carter wrote in message ...
Dave Hitt
All you need to know about this study is that it was conducted by
>Stanton A. Glantz, Ph.D., and Annemarie Charlesworth, M.A., of the
>University of California at San Francisco,
He has been caught faking data before. Therefore, anything he says is
highly suspect and likely to be fabricated.
How can you tell if he is lying? His lips are moving.
----
Cops Always Have the Best Marlboros:
A Modest Proposal for the Tobacco Companies
http://home.nycap.rr.com/hittman/may99/modest.html
-Dave Hitt hit...@bigfoot.spamblocker.com (Remove "spamblocker" to reply)
Benjamin P. Carter
>b...@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter) wrote:
>All you need to know about this study is that it was conducted by
Of course I did not write that; Dave Hitt did. What I wrote included
the following:
>>Stanton A. Glantz, Ph.D., and Annemarie Charlesworth, M.A., of the
>>University of California at San Francisco,
Professor Glantz could probably collect damages from Dave Hitt for the
following libel:
>He has been caught faking data before. Therefore, anything he says is
>highly suspect and likely to be fabricated.
>How can you tell if he is lying? His lips are moving.
Professor Glantz's scholarly reputation is intact, despite attempts by
the tobacco industry to convince the University of California that his
research should not be supported. To its credit, the University
continues to support Professor Glantz. It would not do so if there were
any truth to Dave Hitt's accusation of "faking data".
Shame on you, Dave Hitt.
--
Ben Carter
Dave Hitt
>Boy....@Hate.spammers (Dave Hitt) writes:
>
>>b...@netcom.com (Benjamin P. Carter) wrote:
>
>>All you need to know about this study is that it was conducted by
>
>Of course I did not write that; Dave Hitt did.
My apologies if I cut and pasted wrong - I never misquote people
intentionally - it's not my style.
> What I wrote included
>the following:
>
>>>Stanton A. Glantz, Ph.D., and Annemarie Charlesworth, M.A., of the
>>>University of California at San Francisco,
>
>Professor Glantz could probably collect damages from Dave Hitt for the
>following libel:
>
>>He has been caught faking data before. Therefore, anything he says is
>>highly suspect and likely to be fabricated.
Please don't take my word for it:
http://www.forces.org/evidence/carol/carol10.htm
and
http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/benzo.htm
Of course, he doesn't just lie about benzene.
http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/har-glan.htm
And on page
http://www.independent.org/tii/content/pubs/review/books/TIR33_Sullum.html
we hear this telling quote from Stanton: "The main thing the science
has done on the issue of ETS [environmental tobacco smoke], in
addition to help people like me pay mortgages, is it has legitimized
the concern that people have that they don't like cigarette smoke"
Also note that he participated in the EPA study on second hand smoke
that has not only been debunked scientifically, but specifically
thrown out by a federal judge as useless.
>>How can you tell if he is lying? His lips are moving.
>
>Professor Glantz's scholarly reputation is intact, despite attempts by
>the tobacco industry to convince the University of California that his
>research should not be supported. To its credit, the University
>continues to support Professor Glantz.
Gee, A California university supporting a nanny. What are the odds?
>It would not do so if there were
>any truth to Dave Hitt's accusation of "faking data".
Sorry, sparky, but any university will continue to support anyone who
supports their agenda. Right or wrong, correct or incorrect has
nothing to do with it.
>Shame on you, Dave Hitt.
Same on you, Benjamin P. Carter, for repeating lies and gathering
support for someone with a history of faking data.
Benjamin P. Carter
>My apologies if I cut and pasted wrong - I never misquote people
>intentionally - it's not my style.
Apology accepted. I don't question your motives, but I question whether
you have thought carefully about what you posted here. I still maintain that
>>Professor Glantz could probably collect damages from Dave Hitt for the
>>following libel:
>>
>>>He has been caught faking data before. Therefore, anything he says is
>>>highly suspect and likely to be fabricated.
Of course truth is always a defense against libel. Dave Hitt thinks
he has found evidence to back up his accusation that SG "has been caught
faking data before. Dave writes:
>Please don't take my word for it:
>http://www.forces.org/evidence/carol/carol10.htm
This web page (part of a slick pro-tobacco web site) accuses SG of
"sophistry, half-truth, and exaggeration, which becomes obvious from the
bigger picture that he doesn't tell us." This web page argues only that
Glantz's conclusions are not supported by experimental data. Nothing on
this web page supports Dave Hitt's charge of "faking data".
Dave Hitt continues:
>and
>http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/benzo.htm
This web page consists mostly of a letter from Dr. Cyrus Stow, which is
described (inaccurately) at the top of the page as "warning us against the
next wave of lies coming from the antismoking cartel". The letter
recommends pro-tobacco strategies but does not accuse SG of faking data or
any other scientific misconduct. The letter doesn't even accuse SG (or
anyone else) of lying. Dave Hitt didn't read his own source carefully, for
he added (referring to SG):
>Of course, he doesn't just lie about benzene.
as if SG had been caught lying about benzene, and as if evidence for other
lies could be found on yet another web page:
>http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/har-glan.htm
Once again, Dave Hitt didn't read his own source carefully. This web
page, like the previous one, is inaccurately described by an introductory
paragraph. The introductory paragraph contains the headline: THE CHEAT
CRITICIZES THE LIARS, THE LIARS REFUTE THE CHEAT. But what follows is a
polite exchange of views, in the form of a letter to the editor of JAMA
and a reply to the letter, in which nobody is accused of either cheating
or lying.
Non-smokers may be interested to know that the web site cited by Dave Hitt
is maintaned by an organization whose purpose is to "Fight Ordinances and
Restrictions to Control and Eliminate Smoking" (FORCES). Their web site
proclaims that "Forces, Inc. is a non-profit educational corporation
organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia." This is
obviously a front for the tobacco industry.
The remainder of Dave Hitt's sources do not have any bearing on the issue
of "faking data":
>And on page
>http://www.independent.org/tii/content/pubs/review/books/TIR33_Sullum.html
>we hear this telling quote from Stanton: "The main thing the science
>has done on the issue of ETS [environmental tobacco smoke], in
>addition to help people like me pay mortgages, is it has legitimized
>the concern that people have that they don't like cigarette smoke"
>Also note that he participated in the EPA study on second hand smoke
>that has not only been debunked scientifically, but specifically
>thrown out by a federal judge as useless.
This is both irrelevant and wrong.
--
Ben Carter
Dave Hitt
I will leave the accuracy of my references as an exercise for anyone
interested in reading them. But there is one thing I can't let go:
>Non-smokers may be interested to know that the web site cited by Dave Hitt
>is maintaned by an organization whose purpose is to "Fight Ordinances and
>Restrictions to Control and Eliminate Smoking" (FORCES). Their web site
>proclaims that "Forces, Inc. is a non-profit educational corporation
>organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia." This is
>obviously a front for the tobacco industry.
Why do you assume that it is a front for the tobacco industry? Do you
find it hard to believe that smokers are tired enough of being shit on
that some of them would form their own organization? Is everything
that dares to disagree with the establishment, an establishment that
stands to profit handsomely by vilifying smokers, automatically "a
front for the tobacco industry?"
Or are you so enthralled with the anti's techniques of misdirection,
misinformation and outright lying that you're using them yourself?
FORCES agenda is right up front - you know exactly where they're
coming from and what they are after. Do you have a problem with that?
Personally, I prefer sites and sources to show their biases and
agendas clearly and without apology over those who pretend to be
objective.
Robert Broughton
Boy....@Hate.spammers (Dave "Pussy" Hitt) writes:
>
> FORCES agenda is right up front - you know exactly where they're
> coming from and what they are after.
Yes. Here's something I found on their web page a couple of
years ago.
"These anti-smoking conspirators must be prosecuted, and pay for their crimes
against over 50 million people with the DEATH PENALTY. Nothing else will be
sufficient for the magnitude of their offenses." -Carol Thompson
>Do you have a problem with that?
Yes, but she hasn't killed anybody yet. You haven't beaten up anyone,
either.
Only a fool would take these people seriously. According to their
Web page, their leader lives in both Canada and Italy.
--
Spammer toll-free numbers: (800) 607-6006 ext. 2668, (877) 299-5465
Bob Broughton
mailto:rbrought@infomatch*xspam*.com
WWW: http://infomatch.com/~rbrought
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Gazmuth
>interested in reading them.
Greetings!
I have just read the three references that were cited in an earlier post.
I would definitely like to know where Dr. Cyrus Stow is getting his sources
from on the chemical benzo[a]pyrene that he is talking about.
I work in the oil industry, and currently do not seem to have access to
documents, but will at the end of July, 1999. So, if challenged, then I
will need a few days to have someone retrieve a document. Please bear with
me due to my being in Malaysia.
We deal with Benzene in the refining process, which is claimed as a
carcinogen. Benzene is a problem in working with different chemicals such
as "gasoline" and "diesel". While in the refining process, there are other
raw products that have to be handled carefully, so not to expose a worker to
harmful benzene, they are not generally available to the public, or are, but
are contained in such a way that the fumes are usually not a problem or
there is a warning that they are harmful.
My point is, while Dr. Cyrus Stow is placing the blame of exposure to
benzo[a]pyrene mostly on ETS (or at least in this particular document), he
is not addressing that even more exposure is surely coming to individuals
from the fact that we have to be exposed to fumes while refueling our
vehicles. I am certain that we each breath more benzene fumes in from
gasoline than we ever receive from Second Hand smoke, and at a whole lot
greater degree. However, the body also reduces the amount of benzene that
is absorbed into the body through urination, and the amounts in the body can
be checked by this method.
If any one is aware of where Dr. Cyrus Stow is receiving his information,
please forward the URL to me. My address is not blocked, and you will not
receive any SPAM from me from the mailing.
I am certain that smoke does contain benzo[a]pyrene, for I have read about
that before. I am sure that I am exposed to it in even heavier amounts than
anyone even being in the same room with several smokers due to my being in
Asia, and they are burning the fields during this time of the year. But as
I recall, it is not the benzo[a]pyrene that is so dangerous in cigarettes,
but it is the amount of sugar in the rice paper that is rolled around the
cigarette. As I have read, and I am looking for the URL, it is the carbon
that is formed that provides the greatest degree of carcinogen in the
cigarette, both to the smoker and to the Non-smoker.
He also states:
"People who work in coal tar-production plants; coking plants;
asphalt-production plants; coal-gasification sites; smoke houses; municipal
trash incinerators; and facilities that burn wood, coal, or oil may be
exposed
to B[a]P in the workplace air."
This may be true, but I happen to actually be heavily involved with the
"coking" part of the oil refining industry, and there are a lot more hazards
involved with the process than exposure to B[a]P. Carbon Black plants are
"coking" plants, as well as Delayed Cokers in refineries. The difference is
that "Carbon Black"{ is mainly used in things like automobile tires. It is
what makes them last. Delayed Coking units make Anode Coke, which is used
for electrodes in the Aluminum industry.
Both are not the cleanest places to be around, but they are getting better.
However, a lot of the older workers in these types of plants died from
things like "black lung" in the sixties, which is from carbon impregnation
into the lungs. The lungs could not purge out the large particles of
carbon, and so as the many pores in the tissue got filled up and clogged,
then the patient slowly died due to asphyxiation. Not a good way to go, in
fact, probably worse than, or at least just as bad as Emphysema, where you
drown due to liquid in the lungs.
I am a non-smoker, and I enjoy a good debate, but I really wish that the
information that some people who are authoritative would put out ALL the
information, and not just the parts that they would like for certain groups
to believe. If you want to debate sensibly and accurately, then you need to
have more information than just one sides. So, as I stated, if anyone has
the sources that Dr. Cyrus Stow used in his report, please send me the URL
or post it in this thread. I would like to see the REST of the story!
Thanks, and sorry about all the band-width!
--
Gazmuth
--
gaz...@pd.jaring.my
gaz...@fullnet.net
No SPAM Trap, I can handle it myself! But can you??
dej...@my-deja.com
> Why do you assume that FORCES is a front for the
> tobacco industry?
Perhaps because of the tobacco industry's
history of using front groups. "Californians for
Statewide Tobacco Restrictions". "People for
Choice". "National Smokers Alliance".
The "National Smokers Alliance" for instance,
was created by the PR firm Burson-Marsteller on
behalf of their client, Philip Morris, the largest
tobacco company in the world. Although the NSA
claims to be a grassroots organization of smokers,
in fact the total paid by members wouldn't cover
the salary of its president, Thomas Humber, who
just happens to be a Burson-Marsteller
vice-president. The NSA has now been thoroughly
exposed as a well financed, well organized, front
for the tobacco industry in general and Philip
Morris in particular.
FORCES has been less exposed. Founded in 1995, it
started by harrassing San Francisco health
department using public records act requests. It
expanded to harrassing the California public
health department and a federal tobacco education
program. In 1996 it registered as a PAC
(political action committee). Since then, FORCES
has established "chapters". It has a
sophisticated web site. Its activities, both in
scope and sophistication, would now appear to be
beyond the capacity of its claimed staff: two
volunteers who have day jobs. FORCES got the
money to place an LA Times ad that it ran against
Congressman Henry Waxman in 1996 from Philip
Morris, via Steve Handman of the American Smokers
Alliance, another industry front.
For more information on tobacco industry front
groups:
http://www.prwatch.org/Q3-96/wolves.html
http://desert.net/tw/11-22-95/cover.htm
http://bsd.mojones.com/mother_jones/MJ96/stone2.htmln
http://www.toolworks.com/bilofsky/astrotrf.htm
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
dej...@my-deja.com
> Why do you assume that FORCES is a front for the
> tobacco industry?
Perhaps because of the tobacco industry's
history of using front groups. "Californians
for Statewide Tobacco Restrictions" (the
"Californians" turned out to be 5 out-of-state
tobacco companies). "People for Choice", or
"People Against Unfair this-or-that". The
"Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association".
And of course, the "National Smokers Alliance".
The "National Smokers Alliance" was created by the
PR firm Burson-Marsteller on behalf of their client,
Philip Morris, the largest tobacco company in the world.
Although the NSA claims to be a grassroots organization
with millions of dues-paying members, in fact the total dues
paid by members is less than 1% of NSA's funding, and
wouldn't even cover the salary of NSA president
Thomas Humber -- whose previous job just happened to be
Burson-Marsteller vice-president. The NSA has now been
thoroughly exposed as a well financed, well organized,
front for the tobacco industry in general and Philip Morris
in particular.
FORCES has been less exposed. Founded in 1995, it started by harrassing
San Francisco health department using public records act requests. It
expanded to harrassing the California public health department and a
federal tobacco education program. In 1996 it registered as a PAC
(political action committee). FORCES got the money to place an LA Times
ad that it ran against Congressman Henry Waxman in 1996 from Philip
Morris, via Steve Handman of the American Smokers Alliance, another
industry front. Since then, FORCES has established "chapters" elsewhere.
It runs a sophisticated web site. Its activities, both in
scope and sophistication, would now appear to be beyond the
capacity of its claimed staff: two volunteers who have day jobs.
For more information on tobacco industry front groups:
http://www.prwatch.org/Q3-96/wolves.html
http://desert.net/tw/11-22-95/cover.htm
http://bsd.mojones.com/mother_jones/MJ96/stone2.htmln
http://www.toolworks.com/bilofsky/astrotrf.htm
http://www.no-smoke.org/nsa.html
http://www.no-smoke.org/shenanigans.html
Robert Broughton
dej...@my-deja.com writes:
>
>> Why do you assume that FORCES is a front for the
>> tobacco industry?
>
> Perhaps because of the tobacco industry's
> history of using front groups. "Californians
> for Statewide Tobacco Restrictions" (the
> "Californians" turned out to be 5 out-of-state
> tobacco companies). "People for Choice", or
> "People Against Unfair this-or-that". The
> "Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association".
> And of course, the "National Smokers Alliance".
>
>
> FORCES has been less exposed. Founded in 1995, it started by harrassing
> San Francisco health department using public records act requests. It
> expanded to harrassing the California public health department and a
> federal tobacco education program. In 1996 it registered as a PAC
> (political action committee). FORCES got the money to place an LA Times
> ad that it ran against Congressman Henry Waxman in 1996 from Philip
> Morris, via Steve Handman of the American Smokers Alliance, another
> industry front.
They also got the money from somewhere for the .com domain, and the
"$3,000 reward". How much did it cost to get set up as a PAC?
PAC's have to disclose where they get their money from, don't they?
That could be interesting.