Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association Update…
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons
Volume 18 Number 4 Winter 2013
Environmental Tobacco Smoke
Several recent articles report that a new nationwide study,1 commissioned by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and funded by the pharmaceutical company Pfizer, had found that smoking bans don’t hurt the bottom line of bars and restaurants. As a regional director of Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association, I’ve watched friends lose their bars and some their homes under a 2006 statewide smoking ban, so I question the objectivity of this study.
First, in announcing this study in a 2011 press release, CDC Director Thomas Frieden stated as established truth that smoke-free policies “don’t hurt business,” and promised to use the coming study to counter the perception that smoking bans “might negatively affect restaurant and bar business.”2 At the time, Dr. Michael Siegel of the Boston University School of Public Health questioned “how objective the research process can be if the agency conducting the study has already drawn a conclusion.”
3 Imagine the pressure on these researchers to interpret the data to support the claim their boss had already made about their future findings.
This study was funded by Pfizer, which stands to profit from its anti-smoking drug Chantix when smokers can no longer light up in their favorite establishment.
And the study was conducted by RTI International. In a 2010 interview, RTI CEO Victoria Franchetti-Haynes stated, “Alcoholism and smoking are all health issues in which behavioral interventions can go a long way toward reducing their impact and lowering total healthcare costs.”4 Might that introduce a bias?
The studies showing no economic loss to businesses are commissioned by tobacco control or government agencies, both with the same agenda. Other studies do not support their conclusions. Michael Marlow analyzed the claimed health benefits and economic impact in this journal.5 Some businesses show statistically significant losses.6 Economist Jonathan T. Tomlin of LECG critiqued the statistical methodology in various studies, concluding that there is often significant economic harm to bars and restaurants.7
With a pre-announced conclusion, smoking cessation product funding, and execution by a research company friendly to “behavioral interventions” for the sake of health, any hope for an objective, independent economic study was doomed from the start.
Bar owners already suffering under bans simply want a truly open-minded, independent economic investigation of smoking bans before more of these destructive laws are passed. This new CDC/Pfizer/RTI smoking ban study just can’t be trusted. The CDC is yet another rogue federal agency attempting to drive policy and justify increased funding through junk science.
Pam Parker
Grove City, Ohio
