Select your language
Myth 10: Countries that have implemented smoke-free laws have suffered economic losses
- Wrong!
The World Bank has concluded that smoking restrictions can reduce overall tobacco consumption by 4%–10%.
Studies in Australia, Canada, Germany and the United States concluded that smoke-free workplaces result in a reduction in consumption of 29% by smokers.
On average, smoke-free workplaces reduce consumption by 3.1 cigarettes per day per smoker and reduce smoking prevalence by 3.8%. This impact is greatly attenuated when smoking is allowed in designated rooms or areas.
Several countries and hundreds of subnational and local jurisdictions have successfully implemented laws that require almost all indoor workplaces and public places to be 100% smoke-free without significant difficulties in implementation and enforcement.
Myth 9: Cafes and restaurants cannot maximize their profits due to 100% tobacco-free public places
- Wrong!
Smoke-free laws do not drive away existing clientele in the tourism and hospitality sectors. In fact, they attract new clientele.
They also appear to result in reduced maintenance and insurance costs as well as decreased employee absenteeism both for this sector and others.
It is estimated that smoke-free environments would save employers the equivalent of 0.515% to 0.77% of gross domestic product (GDP) in Scotland and between 1.1% and 1.7% of GDP in Ireland.
The United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration has estimated that clean air increases productivity by 3%. Thus, the tobacco industry has a powerful incentive to oppose robust smoke-free laws since their impact on the workplace results in a major reduction in cigarette consumption.
Myth 8: Smoke-free laws harm the hospitality and tourism sectors
- Wrong!
Not a single study using objective data and sound research methodology has found an overall negative impact because of smoke-free laws. The effects are uniformly neutral or positive, with little short-term effects on the hospitality sector and some positive long-term effects as non-smokers start going to cafes and other venues that they once avoided because of second-hand smoke.
A 2005 review of 115 studies from Australia, Canada and the United States found that “smoke-free legislation does not have a negative impact on the sales of hospitality venues sales, revenues, profits and employment of restaurants, bars, and hotels, over the long term”.
In the United States, two years after smoke-free laws was implemented in Washington State, sales revenues were US$ 105.5 million – higher than expected for bars and taverns.
In New Zealand in 2004, despite concerns that smoke-free laws would reduce tourism, the country experienced a 1.5% increase in overseas visitors and a 3.3% increase in visitors’ expenditures in 2005.
In Norway, customer frequency figures for bars and restaurants were virtually unchanged after the smoking ban, including for smoking customers.
In Scotland, a review of the health and economic impacts of smoking restrictions on the hotel, bar and restaurant industries – using sales tax and employment data – “have failed to find any statistically significant effect”.
In the United Kingdom, a survey found that 20% of non-smokers reported that they frequented pubs more often since the smoking ban.
In Canada, a report demonstrated that the implementation of Ontario’s comprehensive smoke-free law in 2001 had no negative impact on sales in bars and restaurants.
