Tobacco Documents Online

p`I MEMBERS A:ai.vesforQiildrenundYouth -` A~~i~ an Acade of Pad'a'ri Ma lard ~ a . , .. , ry ~_ at ' A°i3rimn Cancer Saiety, Maryland Didsian, Inc M a~~Y ~ n~ A uliniHeanAssa iafioryMwyandABihote ~ 6.1, 1111,1.11 111 I - A Coalilionfor 1o1~r, t n_tol,. A,nedcunlungAs<.aiotlanafMaryland,ln. , Smoke Free Workplaces are Good Business Local coverage in Maryland of the battle over the workplace smoking ban has emphasized the supposed economic impact of the regulation, and not thc healtli impact Arguments have been skewed toward the notion that smokefree workplaces would be, bad for business, and not worth the well recognized protection to worker and public. ;- health they would provide. While the tobacco companies have been able to use their massive resources to promote a misinformation campaign, and to "patch" callers through to their representatives in Annapolis, public opinion and scientific evidence in favor of smokefree workplaces are very strong. The Smoke Free Maryland Coalition would like to set the record straight.  Maryland restaurants would stand to gain, not lose customers. A recent survey conducted in Maryland shows that, in fact, a majority of the public (approximately 60%) favors banning smoking altogether in restaurants. Further, approximately 90% of the public says that they would cat out either the same amount or more often if all restaurants were smokefree, (Mathematica Policy Research, Inc - Maryland Tobacco Control Survey- 1995)  Scientific evidence is encouraging. To date, all credible scientific studies have found either a osn itive impact or no change after implementing smokefree restaurant olp icies. A study of smokefree ordinances in California, for example, showed that the ordinances "did not adversely affect restaurant sales." (Glantz S, and Smith, L. "The Effect of Ordinances Requiring Smokefree Restaurants on Restaurant Sales," American Journal of Public Health, July 1994, Vol. 84, No.7)  Maryland would join other healthy states. Other states have similar smoking restrictions in place to protect employees and the general public from secondhand smoke. Washington, Vermont, Utah and California have found that smokefree businesses saved money through improved worker productivity, lower health benefit premiums and lower cleaning costs.  Smoky workplaces are risky business. Allowing smoking in the workplace can increase an employer's liability. Restaurant and bar employees, who are often exposed to high levels of secondhand smoke, have increased rates of cancer. Non-smoking employees have won workers compensation and disability payments because their employers failed to provide smokefree workplaces. Ar.nconMedicalWom?dsAuaiation(8mndil) ;~ . F r-r °vzl, D= `P, 1li-, al .: n_~s p a ic ~; 4;:rk;tiaces t tl r o1tT;`ell 't're`ofia,hoccato ~~ h..,,. ,..„s,.,..,arvamry School of Hygiene and ~ Public Health l tcfins Hopkins Unirersity Schoal a(Medidne ~ League of Women Yoters of Maryland, Inc ° Maryland Acudemy of Family Physlcians Maryland Ascaiation of Counry Hedth OfDcers MarylanE Graup Agcinst Smokers' Pollutiol Maryland Stete Schod Health Council _ Madical and Chimrgicaf FPoculty of Mc.ryland Medical and o-Erurgical Faculty of Moryland, Alliance MetropahtanWashingtonPuhlicHealth Assac:ofion NafiorAl Smcking Cessation Campaign for ASimn American Wanen Parent Acfion of Ma.rylond Pmiact Bless Yaung Demacrats of Maryland ' W SMOKE FREE MARYLAND A Coalition forTobacco Control 1211 Cathedral Street Baltimore, MD 21201 410-539-0872 FAX 410-547-0915