What are even more glaringly obvious are the retail sales.

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 stuck to statistics provided by an Ohio state agency.

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.