Many factors besides anti-smoking law affect bottom line

The London Free Press
Thu 04 Mar 2004

In attempting to "set the record straight once and for all" about London's smoking bylaw, Smoking bylaw warnings become painful reality (Feb. 27), one of your readers completely undermines his own argument by pointing to the many factors that cause economic difficulty for the hospitality industry.

The letter refers to increasing alcohol prices, utility costs, wages and insurance premiums as "numerous blows" recently suffered by the hospitality industry. To then claim the smoking bylaw as the main cause of business closures is simply not credible.

Any economist -- and there are many in both Canada and the United States who have studied this issue -- will tell you the impact of smoke-free policies on hospitality performance can only be determined by taking all factors affecting performance into account.

Objective measures such as sales tax receipts must be compared for equal periods before and after implementation, and related to these other factors, to determine what the real effect of one or more changes in the local regulatory and economic climate is on performance.

As one of the people your author would no doubt characterize as a "zealot," I'm amused to see his claim that he "(doesn't) have a problem with people trying to get rid of tobacco in our community," but then goes on to disparage anyone, whether health community representatives or city councillors, who tries to do so using a proven effective intervention such as smoke-free workplaces and public places.

Contrary to his assertion, the bylaw has indeed protected non-smokers as well as workers in London hospitality premises. As usual, however, whether or not workers are in less danger of lung cancer and heart disease from occupational exposure to a proven cause of these diseases, doesn't rate a mention.

Michael Perley
Director
Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco