• Homepage

ASHRAE, the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers, is the international standard setting body for indoor air quality. This standard can then be adopted into state and local building codes. At its summer 2005 conference, the ASHRAE board of directors unanimously adopted a new position statement on secondhand smoke, which states that ventilation cannot eliminate the health dangers posed by secondhand smoke and that smoking does not belong indoors.

Scientists have not been able to identify a safe threshold level of exposure to secondhand smoke – even very low levels can cause illness or even death. It's what scientists call a non-linear dose response. Therefore, while a ventilation or air filtration system may be successful in reducing the level of visible smoke in the air, this reduction doesn't eliminate hazardous toxins and gases found in secondhand smoke.

Ventilation is often promoted as an alternative to going smoke-free. Although this might seem like an enticing solution, it fails on two fronts.

• First, ventilation systems cannot remove the health hazards posed by secondhand smoke.
• Second, not all businesses can afford to install expensive ventilation systems; allowing an exemption for ventilation systems would erode the level playing field that is so important to business.

Although great claims are made about the efficiency and power of ventilation systems, the most that ventilation systems can do is reduce some of the immediate physical discomfort caused by secondhand smoke such as odor or burning eyes. Removal of some of the odors without removal of toxins can create the illusion of clean air among patrons and workers, making them think they are safe when in fact they are not.

There is no ventilation technology that can remove the health hazards caused by secondhand smoke. Even Philip Morris notes this on its Options ventilation website, with a disclaimer that reads:

“Options, Philip Morris, USA does not purport to address health effects attributed to environmental tobacco smoke.”

FACT: Smoke-free Laws Do NOT Harm Restaurant Sales

• A scientific review of four cities in Texas (Arlington, Austin, Plano, and Wichita Falls) analyzed tax receipts from restaurants after a smoke-free ordinance was passed and found no long-term effect on restaurant sales or revenue.
• Over the years, many studies have reached similar conclusions—that smoke-free restaurant ordinances do not harm restaurant sales. These studies looked at smoke-free ordinances from different parts of the country during different economic cycles. They include communities in California, New York, Massachusetts, Texas, Arizona, Indiana, Wisconsin, Florida, Maryland, and Kentucky.
• Even in the tobacco growing state of North Carolina, where adult smoking rates are higher than the national average, researchers found that smoke-free restaurant ordinances did not impose economic hardships on restaurants or restaurant owners. Researchers compared the impact of smoke-free ordinances on restaurant sales in ten North Carolina counties—five with smoke-free ordinances and five without—and concluded that there were no differences in restaurant sales among the ten counties after the ordinances took effect.

FACT: Smoke-free Laws Do NOT Harm Bars

• No independent study has proven that smoke-free laws negatively affect the bar industry. Research looking at communities in California, Massachusetts, Oregon, Texas, New York, Florida, Maryland, and Kentucky showed that smoke-free ordinances had no negative effect on bar sales. In fact, bar businesses are not more sensitive to changes in smoking behavior than other hospitality businesses.
• One of the most recent studies to look at the relationship between smoke-free ordinances and bar revenues was conducted in El Paso, Texas by the Texas Department of State Health Services (TDSHS) and the Centers for Disease Control. Researchers concluded that the sales of alcoholic beverages were not affected by the El Paso smoke-free ordinance.
• Similar results were found in the state of Florida, where retail receipts for taverns, night clubs, bars which serve food, and liquor stores, remained unaffected by the state’s smoke-free law.

FACT: Smoke-Free Laws Do NOT Increase Unemployment

• Opponents of smoke-free laws cite unemployment as another reason why smoking bans are bad. To examine the merits of this claim, researchers assessed the number of restaurants and the number of restaurant employees. What researchers learned is that restaurants were more profitable with a smoke-free ordinance in place.
• Today, New York City’s hospitality workers are doing exceptionally well despite claims that the smoke-free law would have a negative impact. Between March 2003 and December 2003, New York City reported 10,600 new jobs in its bars and restaurants. In fact, despite the city’s post-9/11 hardship, 164,000 workers are employed in the city’s bars and restaurants—the highest number recorded in the last 10 years.
• The number of people employed in Florida’s drinking and eating establishments increased by 4.53 percent after the smoke-free law went into place.

FACT: Smoke-Free Laws Save Businesses Money

• Allowing smoking in the workplace increased business owners’ costs by $1,300 per year per smoking employee.
• Smoking employees have significantly higher absentee, injury, accident, and disciplinary rates than their non-smoking colleagues.
• Some business owners have been found liable in lawsuits filed by sick employees seeking damages related to smoking in the workplace.
• By allowing smoking in the workplace, business owners increase their costs of doing business. Employers pay increased health, life, and fire insurance premiums, make higher workers’ compensation payments, incur higher worker absenteeism, and settle for lower work productivity.