“The bars in California have been raped and stripped of what they do well, and that’s hospitality”. “Boycott California!”. “This thing is scary to us … It could go national”. National Licensed Beverage Association, April 29, 1998. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
“The bars in California have been raped and stripped of what they do well, and that’s hospitality” “Boycott California!” “This thing is scary to us … It could go national” National Licensed Beverage Association, April 29, 1998 “California bars are experiencing an average sales decline of 26.2%” “first definitive proof that the bar smoking ban has had severe negative impacts” “This is conclusive evidence that the California smoking ban is an experiment that has failed” The American Beverage Institute, April 29, 1998
Transcript
“The bars in California have been raped and stripped of what they do well, and that’s hospitality”
“Boycott California!”“This thing is scary to us … It could go national”
National Licensed Beverage Association, April 29, 1998
“California bars are experiencing an average sales decline of 26.2%”
“first definitive proof that the bar smoking ban has had severe negative impacts”
“This is conclusive evidence that the California smoking ban is an experiment that has failed”
The American Beverage Institute, April 29, 1998
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
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
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
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.
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) - 3,261These numbers are from June 30, 2000 and these five types constitute 94-96% of all
On-Sale licenses in California annually
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!
Smoking in Bars & Compliance• 75% of California Bar
Patrons DON’T 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.
Study Populations• July 1997 Field Poll
– Total Respondents: 1,023– Bar Patrons in the Last
– 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 1,020100% Patronized Bars in the Last Twelve MonthsSmokers: 255 (25%)Non Smokers: 765 (75%)
October 2000 Field Poll
Total Respondents 1,020100% Patronized Bars in the Last Twelve MonthsSmokers: 255 (25%)Non Smokers: 765 (75%)
USA SNAPSHOTS®
A look at statistics that shape the nation
Smoke gets in their hairMore than half of Americans say they regularly avoid places to keep from smelling of cigarette smoke afterward. Places they avoid:Bars/lounges
NightclubsHomes of smokers
RestaurantsPrivate parties
Source: NFO Research for Banish By Anne R. Carey and Suzy Parker, USA TODAY
70%59%59%
48%33%
5542
68
31
75
240
1020304050607080
Percent
July 97 August 98 October2000
Year of Study
Very/SomewhatImportantNot Too/Not at AllImportant
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.
Bar Patrons More Likely to Visit Smoke-Free Bars
56.4%“more likely” to
visit bars
Now that smoking is prohibited in bars, are you more likely, …, to visit them?
1.6% No opinion
10.6%“less likely” to
visit bars
October 2000 study conducted by the Field Poll Corporation for the California Department of Health Services, Tobacco Control Section.
31.4%“no difference” on visits to bars
Bar Patrons More Likely to Visit Smoke-Free Bars
Now that smoking is prohibited in bars, are you more likely, …, to visit them?
August 98 & October 2000 studies conducted by the Field Poll Corporation for the California Department of Health Services, Tobacco Control Section.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60Aug-98Oct-00
Perc
ent
Patron Approval for Smoke-free Bars
59
39
65
33
72.5
25.2
01020304050607080
"Approve Strongly &Somewhat"
"Disapprove Strongly& Somewhat"
Perc
ent Feb-98
Aug-98Oct-00
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
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)
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)
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
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
Eating establishment’s taxable annual sales in California by liquor license type, 1992-1999
Source: California State Board of Equalization.Prepared by: California Department of Health Services, Tobacco Control Section, November 2001.
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
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
Percentage of quarterly bar revenues as a total of all retail revenues, 1990-2000
3.45
3.65
3.85
4.05
4.25
4.45
4.65
4.85
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Actual Model
Perc
enta
ge
Source: California State Board of Equalization.Prepared by: California Department of Health Services, Tobacco Control Section, November 2001
Smoke-freerestaurant law Smoke-free
bar law
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
Percentage of quarterly bar revenues as a total of all eating and drinking revenues, 1990-2000
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
3619
90
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Actual Model
Per
cent
age
Source: California State Board of Equalization.Prepared by: California Department of Health Services, Tobacco Control Section, November 2001.
Smoke-freerestaurant law Smoke-free
bar law
Percentage of quarterly bar revenues as a total of all eating and drinking revenues, 1990-2000
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
3619
90
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Actual Model
Per
cent
age
Source: California State Board of Equalization.Prepared by: California Department of Health Services, Tobacco Control Section, November 2001.
Smoke-freerestaurant law Smoke-free
bar law
Bar/All E&D 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
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
Conclusions• The decrease in bar/all E&D 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
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
Tourism in CaliforniaCalifornia Travel Spending and Related Impacts: 1995-2000
01020304050607080
DestinationSpending
Total Spending Total Payroll
199519961997199819992000
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.
Bill
ions
of D
olla
rs
Tourism and EmploymentCalifornia Travel Spending and Related Impacts: 1995-2000
850
900
950
1000
1050
1100
1150
Persons Employed by Travel Industry (000 Jobs)
199519961997199819992000
Source: California Trade and Commerce Agency, Division of Tourism, October, 2001
Number of Eating and Drinking Establishments in California by Major License Type:
1991-2000*
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
1991 1992 1993 1994 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
4041424748
Data reflects mid-year count of establishments.
* Data missing for 1995 due to computer failure and loss of data.
Source: State of California, Alcohol Beverage Control (5/00)
Year
Smoke-free Restaurants
Smoke-free Bars
Est
ablis
hmen
ts
Number of Individuals Employed in Eating and Drinking Places in California: 1992-2000
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)
Do l
lar s
Year
Increase of 30% in 7 years!
Smoke-free Restaurants
Smoke-free Bars
Taxable Sales per Eating and Drinking Establishment Serving Beer &/or Wine Only in California:
1993-1999 for Second Quarter Only*
60000
65000
70000
75000
80000
85000
90000
95000
1993 1994 1996 1997 1998 1999
Food/Beer&Wine
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)
Do l
lar s
Year
Increase of 38.3% in 7 years!
100120140160180200220240260280300
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
E&D GroupAlcohol Serving
Smoke-free Restaurants
Smoke-free Bars
Avg. Per-Capita Taxable Sales per Eating and Drinking Establishment Serving Alcohol vs.
Eating and Drinking Group as a Whole in California:1993-2000 for Second Quarter Only*
Source: State of California, Board of Equalization (12/01)
Do l
lar s
Year
Since 1995, per-capita sales for all eating and drinking increased by 27% and establishments serving both food and alcohol increased by 25%.
Keys to Success• Collaborate: You CAN’T do it alone.
• Prepare and Educate: This won’t 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.
• 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.
Keys to Success
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.
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?
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
Paul Hunting, MPHCalifornia Department of Health ServicesTobacco Control SectionP.O. Box 942732, MS 555Sacramento, CA 94234-7320(916) [email protected]
For more information...
David Cowling, Ph.D.California Department of Health ServicesTobacco Control SectionP.O. Box 942732, MS 555Sacramento, CA 94234-7320(916) [email protected]
Tim FillerAmericans’ for Non-Smoker Rights2530 San Pablo Avenue Suite JBerkeley, CA 94702 (510) [email protected]
