01/26/2009

This is a portion of a letter sent the Lancet Oncology to request that data quoted in a study/paper be corrected:

 

 

Today, I came across the 2008 State Legislated Actions on Tobacco Issues (SLAT) Mid-Term Report issued by the American Lung Association.  In it, the ALA referenced the above Lancet article, Page 3

On June 30^th, a working group of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) released a report in the journal Lancet Oconology looking at the effectiveness of smokefree policies, and made a number of conclusions that adds to the overwhelming evidence in favor of implementation of such policies.  These conclusions included: smokefree policies substantially reduce exposure to secondhand smoke, smokefree workplaces decrease cigarette consumption in continuing smokers and that smokefree policies do not hurt restaurant and bar businesses.  Backing up the last point, the Washington State Department of Revenue released data in June showing that bar business jumped by 20 percent in the second year of its comprehensive smokefree law.  Also, data from the Ohio Division of Liquor Control shows that permits to sell alcohol for on-premises consumption have risen by 211 since December 2006 when Ohio’s smokefree law took effect indicating no overall economic impact.

 

Upon reading this, we wrote to correct this information about Ohio.  Although the authors of this report inform readers that 211 permits for liquor-serving businesses were issued since December, 2006 when Ohio’s smokefree law took effect, they fail to include the fact that 313 liquor permit holders closed their businesses.  This is how antis omit data to publish and proclaim “smokefree policies have no economic impact on the hospitality industry.  This could not be further from the truth.  From a public records request of the Ohio Department of Taxation[i].  “Drinking Places” is a category where sales taxes are coded separately for places who mainly serve alcohol; food is incidental.  When reviewing the number of “drinking places” in 2007, there appeared to be an increase in the number of them over previous years.  My public records request asked if businesses were double counted.  For example, Joe’s Bar closed in 2007 however someone bought the bar and re-opened as Tom’s Bar.  What was found was that BOTH bars were counted.  The Ohio Department of Taxation person with whom I worked reviewed and extracted the data for me.  What she found was that in the 1^st half of 2007, 162 “drinking places” ceased paying sales tax that paid in 2006.  The 2^nd half of 2007 showed an additional 151 “drinking places” that ceased paying sales taxes that paid in the first half of 2007.  It is fairly safe to assume the reason these 313 businesses stopped paying sales taxes is because they closed.  As you can see from her email, she could not get the same information for me for previous years.  Her phone number is included in the email exchanges in case anyone wants to verify my claims.  Again, this does not include other hospitality businesses not coded as “drinking places”.  All it shows is that official records prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that 313 “drinking places” in Ohio closed their doors or suddenly decided to illegally stop paying sales taxes.  The authors of this study should have pursued this information as I did.

 

Further:

Below is a compilation of the data I received from my public records requests from the Ohio Department of Liquor Control.  I have included pdf documents from Liquor Control for 2003[ii], 2004[iii], 2005[iv], 2006[v] and 2007[vi].  Ohio’s ban was effective 01/01/2007.  The number of bottles cannot be manipulated nor can there be any other factors influencing those numbers other than the actual number sold or not sold.  As you can see from this table, both wholesale and retail sales in number of bottles increased from 2003 – 2006.  However, 2007 was an entirely different picture.  Liquor permit holders lost the potential of sales from 444,399 bottles from the previous year. Factoring in the growth wholesale had been previously experiencing puts the losses at approximately 702,517 bottles of liquor.  Even conservatively, taking 702,517 bottles x $3 per shot x 32 shots per bottle, puts the estimated losses of liquor permit holders at potential losses of $67,441,632 the first year alone. That equates to approximately $4,264,446 in lost sales taxes for the State of Ohio.  I used very conservative figures in my calculations as bottom shelf typically sells for $2.75 per shot but top shelf liquor sells for up to $6 per shot.  These losses don’t take into consideration beer sales, incidental food, musician/entertainment, taxi cab or vending machine losses. 

What are even more glaringly obvious are the retail sales.

 

Retail (home consumption) increased the year after the ban by nearly 1.4 million more bottles.  Customers now drink (and smoke) at home rather than in an adult venue.  I don’t believe Tobacco Control considered these consequences.  The anti-smokers never replaced the smoking customers Ohio lost.  Ohio is not unique.  One large Cincinnati Distributor[vii] claims losses of 7.2% for on premise packaged beer and 8.1% losses for on premise draft.  Off premise packaged beer increased 1.7%.  The vending industry is another casualty.  According to David Corey, Executive Vice-President of the Ohio Coin Machine Association, they’ve lost 20%-30% since the ban.  However, since a man’s word is not scientifically acceptable, I will stick to statistics provided by neutral state agencies.

 

	# Bottles	# Bottles	Total #	# Bottles	# Bottles	$	$	$	$	$
	Sold	sold	Bottles	Wholesale	Retail	Sales	Sales	Wholesale	Retail	Sales
Year	Wholesale	Retail	Sold	+/-	+/-	Wholesale	Retail	+/-	+/-	Total
2003	12,165,908	24,947,914	37,113,822			$193,619,453	$342,470,689			$536,090,141
2004	12,547,239	26,172,992	38,720,231	381,331	1,225,078	$205,391,748	$365,591,184	$11,772,295	$23,120,495	$570,982,932
2005	12,737,300	27,528,918	40,266,218	190,061	1,355,926	$221,678,827	$389,840,704	$16,287,080	$24,249,520	$611,519,531
2006	12,940,262	28,713,331	41,653,593	202,962	1,184,413	$239,141,549	$416,587,696	$17,462,722	$26,746,992	$655,729,245
2007	12,495,863	30,097,479	42,593,342	(444,399)	1,384,148	$237,776,501	$448,793,667	($1,365,048)	$32,205,971	$686,570,168

 

Further proof is the unemployment in Ohio.  On August 15^th, 2008, The Gongwer News Service (Ohio’s legislative news service) issued this release “Ohio Unemployment Rate Hits 7.2% in July, Highest Percentage Since 1992”[viii].  It reads “Service provider employment was down 9,100 during the period.  The biggest declines were in leisure and hospitality (-3,000) and trade, transportation and utilities (-2,500).”  Even with July’s high gas prices, the losses in leisure and hospitality beat trade, transportation and utilities COMBINED.

 

“Ohioans are Staying Home to Drink Their Liquor[ix]” – Dayton Daily News, January 15, 2009

“Ohioans are drinking more booze than ever before, and they’re drinking it more often at home and less often in bars and restaurants, according to sales figures released Thursday by the Ohio Division of Liquor Control.

But it’s clear Ohioans’ drinking habits are changing. Wholesale sales of liquor — purchased by bars, restaurants, fraternal organizations and other permit holders — fell for the second straight year in both dollars and gallonage, while retail sales of booze in groceries and other liquor stores recorded robust increases. Overall, dollar sales reached $32.6 million in 2008, up 4.8 percent over 2007, while gallonage rose to 10.5 million gallons, up 2.6 percent.”

For a second straight year in a row sales fell.  Our ban was effective 01/01/2007.

The article above is just one of many that hit the major Ohio newspapers the week of January 11, 2009.  This begs the question: is Ohio different than all the other states with smoking bans or does no one in Tobacco Control research read newspapers?  Obviously, the information is available for those seeking it, unless the researcher feels compelled to keep looking until he/she finds a number that, on the surface, seems to fit their need.

 

We really have reached our limit on researchers who selectively use data to prove their desired outcomes.  Reports such as the Pierce, Leon paper lend credence to people like Shelly Kiser of the American Lung Association.  She claims she doesn’t mean to call us business owners “liars” however studies show there is no economic harm to the hospitality industry”.  Our documentation should be extensive enough to require either 1) a revision of this report, so that it does not continue to be cited as further justification that smokefree policies do not harm the hospitality industry, or 2) our letter to be accepted and posted with the Pierce, Leon paper. 

 

The information about Ohio is absolutely biased and should be removed.  Smokefree policies do hurt the hospitality industry, especially bars.  And our data proves it.

 

Ohio is experiencing the highest unemployment rates since 1992, with the Services Industry leading the losses; the Hospitality Industry leads the Services Industry in job losses, more than Trade, Utilities & Transportation (with today's gas prices) COMBINED.

 

Ohio liquor permit holders lost a potential of $67.44 MILLION in lost sales in 2007 while the State of Ohio lost $4,264,446 in potential sales taxes.

 

According to the Ohio Department of Taxation, 313 businesses coded as "drinking places" (for sales tax reporting purposes) did NOT pay sales & use taxes in 2007 who paid in 2006.  They either closed or kept the sales tax receipts (guess which it was).

 

Not only are employees and business owners in the Hospitality Industry losing, the State of Ohio is losing MILLIONS in lost tax revenue.  Who do you think make up those losses?  THE TAXPAYERS!!  In essence, smokers and NON smokers are picking up the bill.  Do you think the antis knew that?