Tobacco Scam: Smokefree Restaurants: Ventilation Hoax

How much does Big Tobacco want the hospitality industry to pay for the privilege of protecting Big Tobacco profits?

1. Higher insurance, maintenance, and labor costs.

2. Legal costs for tort claims by people exposed to secondhand smoke.

3. Costs of ineffective ventilation systems imposed by Big Tobacco-backed "accommodation" laws.

Big Tobacco runs up the bill...

Big Tobacco pays consultants to sell ventilation systems. It creates and finances new marketing channels for ventilation equipment manufacturers. It uses the web to propagandize for ventilation systems. It infiltrates engineering and hospitality organizations to shape ventilation standards and stampede restaurant owners. It funds political campaigns to impose new ventilation requirements on businesses like yours.

But who actually pays for the ventilation systems? Not Big Tobacco.

Insults the service and customers...

Big Tobacco knows ventilation systems do not protect people from the toxins in secondhand smoke. After minute legal review, the only two ventilation claims Big Tobacco now "approves" for use in anti-smokefree campaigns are:

1. Air containing environmental [Secondhand] tobacco smoke is judged acceptable from a comfort perspective by smokers and non-smokers if there is sufficient ventilation, according to some laboratory studies.

2. Ventilation options can provide a comfortable environment for smokers and non-smokers, according to some studies in actual hospitality and workplace settings.

� Philip Morris

No mention of health protection against asthma attacks, heart attacks or cancer � because ventilation does not adequately reduce the risks. No mention whether these "studies" are commissioned and paid for by Big Tobacco.

And walks on the check...

Big Tobacco knows, but does not publicly reveal, that even its "comfort" ventilation systems are prohibitively expensive. A Philip Morris internal review of restaurant consultations by the Chelsea Group, paid for by Philip Morris to promote Big Tobacco's ventilation agenda, suggests the project is backfiring:

1. PM [Philip Morris] may be funding models that are financially unrealistic for similar establishments, resulting in ventilation upgrades being viewed as unattainable.

2. PM could be giving the marketplace the impression that in order to "accommodate non-smokers and smokers in a comfortable environment" the cost may be prohibitive for many establishments.

3. Catalyzation of an industry will prove increasingly difficult if we continue to "require" a standard that is not required by code or law while at the same time demonstrating unreasonable costs against projected revenue gains.

� Philip Morris

Of course, there are no gains to balance against costs. The "revenue gains" have to be "projected" because they have never been documented based on objective evidence, such as sales tax data � not even by Big Tobacco's pet researchers. If they did, they would say so.

On the other hand, genuine economic studies across the U.S., including in communities completely surrounded by smoking jurisdictions, find simply going smokefree never hurts restaurant and bar sales. Sometimes, it actually helps.

And going smokefree does not involve buying an ineffective $10-50,000+ ventilation system, with higher maintenance and energy costs down the road � on top of secondhand smoke's everyday operating expenses.

Still ready to comp Big Tobacco? Don't expect a tip.