• S A Glantz and A Charlesworth.
• Institute for Health Policy Studies, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco 94143-0124, USA. glantz@medicine.ucsf.edu
• JAMA. 1999 May 26; 281 (20): 1911-8.

ContextClaims that ordinances requiring smoke-free restaurants will adversely affect tourism have been used to argue against passing such ordinances. Data exist regarding the validity of these claims.ObjectiveTo determine the changes in hotel revenues and international tourism after passage of smoke-free restaurant ordinances in locales where the effect has been debated.DesignComparison of hotel revenues and tourism rates before and after passage of 100% smoke-free restaurant ordinances and comparison with US hotel revenue overall.SettingThree states (California, Utah, and Vermont) and 6 cities (Boulder, Colo; Flagstaff, Ariz; Los Angeles, Calif; Mesa, Ariz; New York, NY; and San Francisco, Calif) in which the effect on tourism of smoke-free restaurant ordinances had been debated.Main Outcome MeasuresHotel room revenues and hotel revenues as a fraction of total retail sales compared with preordinance revenues and overall US revenues.ResultsIn constant 1997 dollars, passage of the smoke-free restaurant ordinance was associated with a statistically significant increase in the rate of change of hotel revenues in 4 localities, no significant change in 4 localities, and a significant slowing in the rate of increase (but not a decrease) in 1 locality. There was no significant change in the rate of change of hotel revenues as a fraction of total retail sales (P=.16) or total US hotel revenues associated with the ordinances when pooled across all localities (P = .93). International tourism was either unaffected or increased following implementation of the smoke-free ordinances.ConclusionSmoke-free ordinances do not appear to adversely affect, and may increase, tourist business.

23 keywords...

hide…