CHICAGO SMOKING BAN FACT SHEET

•	Eating and drinking businesses that serve beverage alcohol will be devastated by a smoking ban that does not permit smoking anywhere in these establishments.  Do not believe claims from activists that a complete smoking ban will not have a negative impact on small-family owned businesses.  Businesses in California and New York that serve beverage alcohol have experienced sales losses in the 25 to 30 percent range.  A 25 percent decline in revenue from eating and drinking establishments would mean a projected $30 million annual loss in sales tax revenue for the City of Chicago.
•	Passage of a complete smoking ban will cause an estimated 25 percent loss in sales tax revenue from eating and drinking establishments in Chicago (based on similar experience in New York City).
•	Annual sales tax receipts for the City of Chicago in 2004 were $ 487,556,141.  Of this total, 26.74 percent, or $ 130,416,233 came from eating and drinking establishments.  This is the City share, and does not include the State share, or the RTA and Metra share. (Illinois Department of Revenue)
•	Liquor pouring establishments are more than twice as likely to experience revenue declines than non-liquor pouring establishments (Smoking laws and their Differential Effects on Restaurants, Bars and Taverns)
•	Sales taxes from liquor pouring establishments in California grew 15 percent less than the rest of the economy (California Board of Equalization)
•	Over 1,000 bars and restaurants in California that serve alcohol permanently closed their doors in the first year of their smoking ban. (American Beverage Institute)
•	The Massachusetts Restaurant Association study of restaurant smoking bans in 23 Massachusetts communities found that there was a 21% decline in restaurant jobs on average and in those communities with total smoking bans the job loss averaged 30 percent. (Massachusetts Restaurant Smoking Bans)
•	According to a study examining the impact of a restaurant smoking ban in Boston, Massachusetts’s restaurant employment was reduced by about 475 jobs. (The Case of the Boston Restaurant Smoking Ban)
•	A study conducted by the Oregon Department of Health that examined the impact of a smoking ban in Corvallis shows that 50 percent of respondents lost business after the ordinance went into effect, while only 30 percent gained customers. Nearly 30 percent reduced staff (none added staff). An analysis of beer sales shows a 15 percent decline of beer sales versus a 31.5 percent increase in beer sales in “near Corvallis” establishments. (Multiple Impacts of a Bar Smoking Prohibition Ordinance in Corvallis, Oregon)
•	A University of Mississippi study in 1998 estimated that the impact of a proposed smoking ban on casinos in that state could reduce gaming revenue by 14.6 percent. This loss was projected to grow over time and the study found that the loss could reach as much as 28.5 percent within five years. (Economic Consequences of Banning Smoking in Casinos in the State of Mississippi)
•	Beverage alcohol sales in Dallas are down $11.8 million in the year since their smoking ban went into effect. (Greater Dallas Restaurant Association)
•	Liquor pouring establishments in Talbot County, Maryland experienced an 11 percent decline in sales (approximately $3 million) the last seven months in 2004 after their smoking ban went into effect as compared to the same period in 2003.  (Maryland Office of the Comptroller)
•	There were 25 percent fewer liquor pouring establishments in Talbot County, Maryland in December 2004 as compared to a year earlier when there was no smoking ban.  (Maryland Office of the Comptroller)
•	There are fewer liquor pouring establishments in upstate New York in the first full year since the smoking ban went into effect. (New York State Department of Health)
•	Sales of wine and spirits in the New York metropolitan area declined more than 40 percent in the first six months their smoking ban was in effect (Empire Restaurant and Tavern Association Study)
•	Scotland’s smoking ban will cost 2,300 jobs, close 140 pubs and result in a loss of 59 million pounds (the equivalent of $105 million in United States currency) according to an assessment by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.  (The Scotsman publication in Scotland)
•	More than 200 pubs have closed in Ireland since their smoking ban went into effect.  (Vintners’ Federation of Ireland)
•	Lincoln Nebraska keno revenues dropped $600,000 or 23 percent in January 2005, as compared to January 2004 when the smoking ban was not in effect.  (Lincoln Nebraska Office of Finance)
•	The Hennepin County Board (Minnesota) is poised to amend their smoking ban ordinance to exempt liquor pouring establishments because of the dramatic loss of business in these venues.  (Star Tribune)
•	Almost 7,000 retail hospitality employment positions were eliminated in the New York metropolitan area in the first six months their smoking ban was in effect (Empire Restaurant and Tavern Association Study)
•	As employees are laid off or their hours are cut back, there will be a substantial income loss for thousands of Chicago residents and their families.
•	The Madison City Council (Wisconsin) is seriously debating amending their smoking ban ordinance because bars and restaurants have lost a great deal of business since the ban.  Many City Council members are ready to vote to exempt liquor pouring establishments.  Former Madison City Council member Dorothy Borchardt surveyed 40 establishments that serve beverage alcohol and found business was down 30 percent to 60 percent as compared to the same period the previous year.  (Wisconsin State Journal)
•	Smoking ban advocates claim the smoking ban in New York City has actually improved business in hospitality venues.  The reality is hospitality businesses were severely impacted by the 9/11 tragedy.  It is completely illogical to claim the smoking ban is what turned these businesses around.  Furthermore, the sales tax data used in the New York City analysis includes fast food restaurants, carryout establishments, delivery locations and other industry segments that never allowed smoking prior to the ban.  This same deceptive tactic has been used by smoking ban advocates in other jurisdictions across the country.
•	Smoking ban advocates continually label bar and restaurant owners as partners with “big tobacco.”  Restaurant and bar owners are not tobacco advocates.  The reality is we are simply looking out for our customer desires and watching our bottom line from a financial perspective.  Simply put, smoking bans are very harmful to liquor pouring establishments.
•	Tens of thousands of jobs are being eliminated in places that have imposed smoking bans—approximately 7,000 in New York City alone.
•	A complete smoking ban in Chicago will induce consumers to simply spend their money in suburban Chicago and Indiana.  Smokers will continue to smoke.  The only thing a complete smoking ban will accomplish is sending tobacco users to spend their money in restaurants and taverns in neighboring communities.
•	If a significant sector of the public truly desires restaurants and taverns that have a complete ban on smoking, then the business community will answer that call voluntarily and provide what the public wants.  This is and should remain a choice for businesses and consumers.
•	Hundreds of Chicago hospitality businesses have elected to go smoke-free.  Hundreds more hospitality business owners have elected to invest in high-tech ventilation and air-filtration systems to provide an environment that is conducive for smokers and non-smokers alike.
•	A lot of generalizations are being made about the dangers of second-hand smoke.  Furthermore, EPA has failed to establish standards on indoor clean air.  Therefore, business owners are not provided the opportunity to use technology to address the situation.
•	A British Medical Journal study used American Cancer Society data tracking 35,561 Californians over 39 years, and concluded, “The results do not support a casual relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco-related mortality.”
•	A UCLA study that evaluated more than 100,000 people concluded their results also do not support a casual relation between secondhand smoke and tobacco-related mortality.
•	The debate over prohibiting smoking in hospitality venues hinges on accurate measurements of exposure among employees who work in those businesses.  According to several recent field studies, a bartender in a smoking-permitted tavern (with no smoke abatement systems in place) will inhale only a fraction of a cigarette per shift.  These measurements were taken by means of monitors worn by bartenders and waitresses, with the collected respirable suspended particulate analyzed in a laboratory.  These findings correlate with similar studies conducted by EPA.
•	The retail licensing system proposed in the Natarus–Coleman ordinance provides necessary funding for administration and enforcement of a Chicago Smoking Ban; and provides additional funding to educate the public on smoking cessation programs.

The only smoking ban proposal that warrants passage in Chicago is the proposed Natarus–Coleman ordinance.  Please encourage your Alderman to support the Natarus–Coleman ordinance proposal.  Thank you.