What is meant by tobacco-free public places?
Tobacco-free public places means that ALL indoor workplaces and indoor public places should be 100% smoke-free. Designating indoor spaces for smokers breaks these standards and is not in conformity with the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control guidelines. Designated smoking areas should not be allowed indoors.
Why does the tobacco industry lobby against tobacco-free public places?
The tobacco industry considers smoke-free laws to be the “most dangerous development to the viability of the tobacco industry that has yet occurred”. The industry works through front groups to vigorously oppose the passing and implementation of smoke-free laws, whether at local, sub-national or national level.
What false claims does the tobacco industry make about smoke-free laws?
The tobacco industry claims that smoke-free laws are: unnecessary; not feasible; and will have a negative impact on business (particularly restaurants, cafes, bars and casinos). They also claim that ventilation is an acceptable alternative.
What does the evidence show us about smoke-free laws?
The evidence shows that smoke-free laws are popular, enforceable and have a positive or no impact on business.
- How to counter tobacco industry myths
Myth 1: Smoke-free laws are just a nuisance
- Wrong!
Smoke-free laws reduce exposure to second-hand smoke and help smokers quit.
Smoke-free laws save lives and reduce health care and other costs associated with tobacco use.
Myth 2: Exposure to tobacco smoke is not harmful to health
- Wrong!
More than 600 000 non-smokers worldwide die each year from exposure to second-hand smoke, mostly women and children.
Tobacco smoke is not just a nuisance to non-smokers, it harms them.
Tobacco smoke contains about 4000 chemicals, more than 50 of them known to cause cancer.
Evidence has proven that while smokers get sick or die prematurely from tobacco use, non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke also get sick or die unnecessarily from heart disease, respiratory diseases and cancer.
Myth 3: Smoke-free laws have no positive impact on health
- Wrong!
Evidence has shown that 100% smoke-free laws can reduce up to 40% of heart attacks within only one year of their implementation.
Evidence also suggests that 100% smoke-free environments play a powerful role in reducing the social acceptability of smoking, leading to decreased smoking initiation among youth.
Myth 4: Designating smoking areas protects non-smokers from tobacco smoke
- Wrong!
Separating smokers and non-smokers within the same airspace is ineffective. The only way to protect non-smokers from tobacco smoke is to completely ban smoking indoors.
Evidence has shown that designating indoor smoking areas does not eliminate non-smokers’ exposure to second-hand smoke; offer protection to workers required to work in them and may also intensify smokers’ own exposure to second-hand smoke, thus increasing risks to their health.
Myth 5: Ventilation systems eliminate tobacco smoke and protect non-smokers
- Wrong!
The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control guidelines for Article 8 clearly indicate that even the best ventilation systems cannot remove smoke pollutants and are ineffective in protecting from secondhand smoke.
The tobacco industry has promoted the installation and use of expensive ventilation systems and equipment, in an attempt to accommodate smokers and non-smokers in the same indoor enclosed spaces.
Ventilation systems do not protect health. Only a 100% smoke-free environment protects the public from exposure to second-hand smoke.
Myth 6: 100% smoke-free laws are unconstitutional and violate the personal rights and liberties of smokers
- Wrong!
Smoke-free laws do not prohibit smokers from smoking. They only limit where they smoke to protect others from exposure to tobacco smoke.
“The right to smoke” is not stipulated in any constitution or international human rights law. Conversely, “the right to life, health, healthy environments and other rights” are at the core of international human rights law.
Smoke-free laws promote this fundamental right to life and health.
Myth 7: 100% tobacco-free public places damage profits of cafés and restaurants
- Wrong!
Smoke-free laws do not damage the profits of catering and drinking establishments.
Evidence has shown that smoke-free laws have no impact or a positive impact on sales and employment. Studies reporting a negative impact were commissioned by the tobacco industry.
Smoke-free laws can help businesses improve their profits by increasing worker productivity – less breaks and absenteeism due to illness – and decreasing costs associated with permitting smoking, including medical and insurance costs.
Smoke-free environments are good for health, business and the economy.
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.
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 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.
