Prohibiting Smoking in Restaurants: Effects on Restaurant Sales

Sciacca, John; Ratliff, Michael I.

doi:10.4278/0890-1171-12.3.176

Cited by 51 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…33 The findings from this study are consistent with other research from the United States using aggregate data on restaurant sales. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] The findings are also consistent with reported data on dining out from the community and restaurateurs in South Australia. 30 While it is possible that some smokers may avoid, and persist in avoiding, smoke-free restaurants, the overwhelming evidence is that the percentage of smokers who do this is extremely small and is more than compensated for by increased patronage on the part of non-smokers.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…esearch from the United States on the impact of restrictions on smoking in restaurants has repeatedly demonstrated that smoke-free laws do not reduce overall restaurant business, when examined by using restaurant sales tax data, [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] restaurateur reports, 8 change in employment of staff [9][10] or consumer surveys. [11][12] Yet, wherever laws that prohibit smoking in restaurants are proposed or enacted, the tobacco industry and local restaurant and hotel associations attempt to prevent the legislation being adopted or to weaken it, claiming its impact on business is likely to be negative.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effect of a smoke‐free law on restaurant business in South Australia

Wakefield

Siahpush

Scollo

et al. 2002

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Despite evidence to the contrary from overseas research, the introduction of smoke‐free legislation in South Australia (SA), which required all restaurants to go smoke‐free in January 1999, sparked concerns among the hospitality industry about loss of restaurant business. This study aimed to determine whether the law had a detrimental impact on restaurant business in SA. Methods: Using time series analysis, we compared the ratio of monthly restaurant turnover from restaurants and cafes in SA to (a) total retail turnover in SA (minus restaurants) for the years 1991 to 2001 and (b) Australian restaurant turnover (minus SA, Western Australia and the Australian Capital Territory) for the years 1991–2000. Results: There was no decline in the ratio of (a) SA restaurant turnover to SA retail turnover or (b) SA restaurant turnover to Australian restaurant turnover. Conclusion: The introduction of a smoke‐free law applying to restaurants in SA did not adversely affect restaurant business in SA.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of a smoke‐free law on restaurant business in South Australia

Wakefield

Siahpush

Scollo

et al. 2002

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In their study of smoking laws in North Carolina, Goldstein and Sobel (1998) conclude: 'Even in the number one tobacco-producing state in the U.S., ETS regulations present no adverse economic impact, and there is no need for exceptions to the ordinances based on such fears. ' Sciacca and Ratliff (1998) conclude in their study of Arizona firms that: 'This study seems to indicate that prohibiting smoking in all Flagstaff restaurants has had no effect on total restaurant sales. ' Dunham and Winegarden (1999) examined data from the 1996 survey of restaurant owners discussed above in Dunham and Marlow (2000b) and found that customers patronize hospitality establishments in order to placate three distinct needs: the desire for food, the desire for social companionship and the desire to seek status.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The economic incidence of smoking laws

Dunham¹,

Marlow

2003

Applied Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although laws restricting smoking in restaurants are becoming commonplace, most research has focused on either the health benefits that laws may provide customers and workers or whether laws harm owners. But while smoking laws may directly alter profits, owners may alter prices, output, and other business attributes in ways that affect the welfare of customers and workers. This study examines whether restaurant and bar owners alter prices, entertainment, hours of operation and other business attributes in response to local smoking laws. Substantial support is found for these attribute changes in the Wisconsin hospitality industry. One implication is that an overall assessment of the desirability of smoking laws should consider economic effects imposed on owners, customers and workers, as well as health benefits that follow laws.

show abstract

“…In Massachusetts, the percentage of the population living in communities essentially prohibiting smoking in restaurants increased from 0.2% in 1992 to 30.0% in 1998. 4 A number of studies have considered the economic effect of smoke-free restaurant laws, either through analyses of their impact on employment or sales [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] or through surveys of the public's intentions or behavior with respect to patronizing restaurants after the implementation of regulations. 14,15 However, there have been almost no published studies of levels of public support for smoke-free restaurants.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Support for smoke-free restaurants among Massachusetts adults, 1992-1999

Brooks

Mucci²

2001

Am J Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVES: The authors examined trends and predictors of public support for smoke-free restaurants in Massachusetts. METHODS: Since 1992, the Massachusetts Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System has asked survey respondents about their attitudes toward smoking in restaurants. Analyses using data from 1992 to 1999 characterized changes over time in support for smoke-free restaurants and the role of demographic and smoking-related factors in predicting support. RESULTS: During 1992 to 1999, the rate of support for smoke-free restaurants increased from 37.5% to 59.8%, with similar increases among current, former, and never smokers. After adjustment for smoking status, support was associated with socioeconomic characteristics, race/ethnicity, and household smoking rules. Among current smokers, lighter smokers and those who were trying to quit were more likely to endorse smoke-free restaurants. CONCLUSIONS: There has been a substantial increase in support for smoke-free restaurants among both smokers and nonsmokers in Massachusetts.

show abstract

Prohibiting Smoking in Restaurants: Effects on Restaurant Sales

Abstract: Study findings indicate that prohibiting smoking in Flagstaff, Arizona, restaurants has had no effect on restaurant sales.

Cited by 51 publications

References 6 publications

The effect of a smoke‐free law on restaurant business in South Australia

The effect of a smoke‐free law on restaurant business in South Australia

The economic incidence of smoking laws

Support for smoke-free restaurants among Massachusetts adults, 1992-1999

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About