Countering IndustryInitiated Economic Arguments

1
(No Transcript)
2
Countering Industry-Initiated Economic Arguments

• History of Tobacco Control in California
• The Wheels Are Turning 1985 -1994
• Labor Code Implementation
• Fiscal Impact (The Science)
• What The Science Means
• Tourism
• Businesses
• Employment
• The Future

3
Effects Causally Associated with ETS Exposure

• Low Birth Weight
• SIDS
• Respiratory Infections in Children
• Asthma Induction and Exacerbation
• Eye and Nasal Irritation
• Ear Infections in Children
• Cancer Lung and Nasal Sinus
• Heart Disease Morbidity Mortality

Source Health Effects of Exposure to ETS,
California EPA, September 1997
4
Estimated Annual Morbidity Mortality in
Non-Smokers from ETS Exposure in California

• 147,660 - 351,820 Illnesses Hospitalizations
• 4,696 - 7,945 Deaths

Source Health Effects of Exposure to ETS,
California EPA, September 1997
5
The Law

• Regulates smoking by employees and patrons in
  most enclosed workplaces in California.
  
• Adopted as part of the Labor Code to protect
  workers from involuntary exposure to ETS.
  
• Both business owners and patrons may be issued a
  citation.
  
• Is enforced at the lowest jurisdictional level.
• Does not apply to owner operated establishments
  or Native American (sovereign) lands among other
  exemptions.

6
Primary On-Sale Alcohol License Types

• Type 40 On-Sale Beer (Beer Bar) - 1,510
• Type 41 On-Sale Beer and Wine Eating Place
  (Pizza Place) - 20,113
  
• Type 42 On-Sale Beer and Wine Public Premises
  (Beer and Wine Bar) - 1,202
  
• Type 47 On-Sale General Eating Place
  (Full-Service Restaurant) - 10,966
  
• Type 48 On-Sale General Public Premises
  (Stand-Alone Bar) - 3,261
  
• These numbers are from June 30, 2000 and these
  five types constitute 94-96 of all On-Sale
  licenses in California annually

7
Smoke-free Workplace TimelineHighlights

• June, 1994 Assembly Bill 13 Signed by Governor
  and becomes Labor Code Section 6404.5
  
• November 1994 Proposition 188 (Philip Morris
  Initiative) defeated (71 to 29) guaranteeing LC
  6404.5 stays in place
  
• January 1, 1995 Nearly all enclosed workplaces
  go smoke-free
  
• 1996 AB 3037 passes postponing Bar/Gaming Club
  implementation by one year
  
• January 1, 1998 All bars, gaming clubs and
  bingo halls go smoke-free 1 Media Story in the
  Country!

8
Smoking in Bars Compliance

• 75 of California Bar Patrons DONT SMOKE IN BARS
  (1997)
  
• 86 of Bar Patrons REPORT COMPLIANCE WITH THE
  LAW (2000)

July 1997 and October 2000 studies conducted by
the Field Poll Corporation for the California
Department of Health Services, Tobacco Control
Section.
9
Study Populations

• July 1997 Field Poll
• Total Respondents 1,023
• Bar Patrons in the Last Twelve Months 686 (67)
• Smokers 215 (21)
• Non Smokers 808 (79)

• March 1998 Field Poll
• Total Respondents 1,001
• 100 Patronized Bars in the Last Twelve Months
• Smokers 255 (25)
• Non Smokers 745 (75)

August 1998 Field Poll Total Respondents 1,020
100 Patronized Bars in the Last Twelve
Months Smokers 255 (25) Non Smokers 765 (75)

October 2000 Field Poll Total Respondents 1,020
100 Patronized Bars in the Last Twelve Months
Smokers 255 (25)
Non Smokers 765 (75)
10
(No Transcript)
11
Bar Patrons Support Smoke-Free Bars A
Survey of California Bar Patrons July 97, August
98 October 2000
July 1997, August 1998 October 2000 studies
conducted by the Field Poll Corporation for the
California Department of Health Services, Tobacco
Control Section.
12
Bar Patrons More Likely to Visit Smoke-Free Bars
Now that smoking is prohibited in bars, are you
more likely, , to visit them?
10.6 less likely to visit bars
56.4 more likely to visit bars
31.4 no difference on visits to bars
1.6 No opinion
October 2000 study conducted by the Field Poll
Corporation for the California Department of
Health Services, Tobacco Control Section.
13
Bar Patrons More Likely to Visit Smoke-Free Bars
Now that smoking is prohibited in bars, are you
more likely, , to visit them?
Percent
August 98 October 2000 studies conducted by the
Field Poll Corporation for the California
Department of Health Services, Tobacco Control
Section.
14
Patron Approval for Smoke-free Bars
FIELD POLL February 1998, August 1998 October
2000.
Approval for Smoke-free Bars Increases
March 1998, August 1998 October 2000 studies
conducted by the Field Poll Corporation for the
California Department of Health Services, Tobacco
Control Section
15
Quality Literature on Smoke-Free Bars and
Restaurants

• Data for towns with smoke-free restaurant laws
• Massachusetts (Bartosch and Pope, 1999)
• New York City (Hyland et al., 1999)
• Data for towns with smoke-free restaurant and bar
  laws
  
• California and Colorado (Glantz and Smith, 1994,
  1997)

16
Quality Literature on Smoke-Free Bars and
Restaurants

• Aggregate sales data for state restaurant and bar
  laws
  
• California (Glantz, 2000)
• Taxable sales and tourism
• 3 States and 6 cities (Glantz and Charlesworth,
  1999)
  

17
Poor Quality Literature on Smoke-Free Bars and
Restaurants

• Supported by Tobacco Industry
• Survey of bar owners on predicted impacts or
  anecdotal information
  
• Bizarre time periods or inappropriate control
  groups for comparison
  
• Non-peer reviewed

18
Data

• From California Board of Equalization (BOE) from
  Q1 of 1990 to Q4 of 2000
  
• Categorized as follows
• Eating and drinking establishments that serve all
  types of liquor (about 25 stand-alone bars)
  
• Eating and drinking establishments that serve
  beer and wine
  
• Eating and drinking establishments that serve no
  alcoholic beverages
  

19
Eating establishments taxable annual sales in
California by liquor license type, 1992-1999
Billion Dollars
Smoke-free Restaurants
Smoke-free Bars
Source California State Board of Equalization.
Prepared by California Department of Health
Services, Tobacco Control Section, November 2001.
20
Methodology

• Examine bar sales divided by all retail sales
• Tries to account for underlying economic trends
  and inflation
  
• Examine bar sales divided by all eating and
  drinking sales
  
• Change in proportion

21
Methodology

• Variables considered for modeling
• Quarter, Time
• Change in intercept and slope for smoke-free
  restaurants
  
• Change in intercept and slope for smoke-free bar
  law
  
• Autoregressive error terms
• Proc Autoreg in SAS V8

22
Percentage of quarterly bar revenues as a total
of all retail revenues, 1990-2000
Smoke-free restaurant law
Smoke-free bar law
Percentage
Source California State Board of Equalization.
Prepared by California Department of Health
Services, Tobacco Control Section, November 2001
23
Bar/Retail Results

• No change in intercept and slope after
  implementation of smoke-free bar law
  
• Change in intercept and slope after
  implementation of smoke-free restaurant law
  

24
Percentage of quarterly bar revenues as a total
of all eating and drinking revenues, 1990-2000
Smoke-free restaurant law
Smoke-free bar law
Percentage
Source California State Board of Equalization.
Prepared by California Department of Health
Services, Tobacco Control Section, November 2001.
25
Percentage of quarterly bar revenues as a total
of all eating and drinking revenues, 1990-2000
Smoke-free restaurant law
Smoke-free bar law
Percentage
Source California State Board of Equalization.
Prepared by California Department of Health
Services, Tobacco Control Section, November 2001.
26
Bar/All ED Results

• Change in intercept and slope after
  implementation of smoke-free bar law
  
• Change in intercept and slope after
  implementation of smoke-free restaurant law
  

27
Conclusions

• Slowing in decrease of bar/retail sales
  associated with the smoke-free restaurant law
  
• Due to only 25 of bars being stand alone bars,
  the law could have increased sales at the 75
  bar/restaurant combinations
  
• No negative change in bar sales for either
  smoke-free law
  

28
Conclusions

• The decrease in bar/all ED sales has reversed
  and is now increasing
  
• A portion of it can be explained by the
  smoke-free restaurant and the smoke-free bar law
  
• Limitations
• Retail sales are changing at a rate different
  than bar sales ? possible change in consumption ?
  change in demographics
  
• 25 of bars are stand alone bars

29
Conclusions

• Bar patrons - spending more time in bars
• Smokers prefer smoke-free bars and restaurants
• Because of large scale of data, length of time
  and sound methodology, use to contradict
  anecdotal data from TI and front groups
  

30
Tourism in CaliforniaCalifornia Travel Spending
and Related Impacts 1995-2000
Billions of Dollars
Source California Trade and Commerce Agency,
Division of Tourism, October, 2001
Total Payroll definition changed in 1999 to
include sole proprietors such as owners of Bed
Breakfasts and their family members instead of
just the hired staff of such establishments.
Destination Spending includes spending on
accommodations, eating and drinking, groceries,
ground transportation, recreation and retail
sales. Total spending also includes air
transportation and travel arrangement services.
31
Tourism and EmploymentCalifornia Travel Spending
and Related Impacts 1995-2000
Source California Trade and Commerce Agency,
Division of Tourism, October, 2001

32
Number of Eating and Drinking Establishments in
California by Major License Type1991-2000
Smoke-free Restaurants
Smoke-free Bars
Establishments
Year
Data reflects mid-year count of establishments.
Data missing for 1995 due to computer failure
and loss of data. Source State of California, A
lcohol Beverage Control (5/00)
33
Number of Individuals Employed in Eating and
Drinking Places in California 1992-2000Annual
Average Labor Force
Smoke-free Restaurants
Smoke-free Bars
Number of Employees
Increase of 19.5 in 9 years as compared to a
13.5 increase for all employment statewide over
the same period.
Year
Source State of California, Employment
Development Department, Labor Force Statistics
(4/01)
34
Taxable Sales per Eating and Drinking
Establishment Serving All Alcohol in
California1993-1999 for Second Quarter Only
Smoke-free Restaurants
Smoke-free Bars
Dollars
Increase of 30 in 7 years!
Year
Data reflects mid-year count of establishments
(end of the second quarter).
Data missing for 1995 due to computer failure
and loss of data at Alcohol Beverage Control.
Source State of California, Alcohol Beverage
Control Board of Equalization (5/00)
35
Taxable Sales per Eating and Drinking
Establishment Serving Beer /or Wine Only in
California1993-1999 for Second Quarter Only
Smoke-free Restaurants
Smoke-free Bars
Dollars
Increase of 38.3 in 7 years!
Year
Data reflects mid-year count of establishments
(end of the second quarter. Data missing for
1995 due to computer failure and loss of data at
Alcohol Beverage Control. Source State of Calif
ornia, Alcohol Beverage Control Board of
Equalization (5/00)
36
Avg. Per-Capita Taxable Sales per Eating and
Drinking Establishment Serving Alcohol vs.
Eating and Drinking Group as a Whole in
California1993-2000 for Second Quarter Only
Smoke-free Restaurants
Smoke-free Bars
Since 1995, per-capita sales for all eating and
drinking increased by 27 and establishments
serving both food and alcohol increased by 25.
Dollars
Year
Source State of California, Board of Equalizati
on (12/01)
37
Keys to Success

• Collaborate You CANT do it alone.
• Prepare and Educate This wont happen
  overnight.
  
• Develop and Maintain a Solid Support Base You
  can match their numbers, but this will be a
  time-intensive task.
  
• Advertise Make your issue known. Do it early
  and often.
  

38
Keys to Success

• Educate Opinion Leaders Educate key officials
  to become your advocates.
  
• Gather Your Facts Who will be impacted and
  how and why is this important to your target
  population.
  
• Involve the Target Survey the target audience to
  find out what they need and what will be most
  effective in reaching them - Give them what they
  need!.
• Understand Diversity Prepare culturally
  appropriate messages and delivery avenues.
  

39
Keys to Success

• Uniformity in Implementation Investigate or
  design, promote and implement a modifiable, but
  uniform implementation plan.
  
• Consistency in Enforcement Know who is enforcing
  the law and what message will promote buy-in.
  If any law is not enforced, it will not be
  respected.

40
Keys to Success

• Never Forget the Past Learn form your mistakes
• Keep Your Eye on the Next Step Where will your
  current strategy take you next?
  

41
Next Steps

• Smoke-free Nursing Homes 88.7 Support
• Smoke-free Playgrounds 88.1 Support
• Smoke-free Hospital Grounds 86.5 Support
• Smoke-free Hotel Lobbies 85.6 Support
• Smoke-free Apartment Common Areas 82.5 Support
• Smoke-free Outdoor Entertainment Venues 82.5
  Support
  

Field Research Corp - January 2001 - Survey of
1812 California Adults
42
For more information...

• Paul Hunting, MPH
• California Department of Health Services
• Tobacco Control Section
• P.O. Box 942732, MS 555
• Sacramento, CA 94234-7320
• [phone]
• phunting_at_dhs.ca.gov

David Cowling, Ph.D. California Department of Hea
lth Services Tobacco Control Section P.O. Box 94
2732, MS 555 Sacramento, CA 94234-7320 (916) 3
27-4446 dcowling_at_dhs.ca.gov
Tim Filler Americans for Non-Smoker Rights 2530
San Pablo Avenue Suite J Berkeley, CA 94702
[phone]
tf_at_no-smoke.org