This section describes how smokefree laws have been opposed and weakened through a range of strategies aimed at delaying or diluting public health policy action. A recurring feature of industry opposition to smokefree laws is the promotion of alternatives to comprehensive bans. These ‘alternatives’ include the use of ventilation systems and air-cleaning technology, and the provision of designated smoking areas.
The tobacco industry and allied groups have also frequently raised concerns about the potential economic impacts of smokefree policies, particularly for hospitality venues. Economic arguments are not supported by the overall body of evidence, which shows that smokefree laws do not have a negative long-term economic impact on businesses.
15.3.1 The ventilation debate
Technology cannot control tobacco smoke to minimal levels for workers or customers without a ‘tornado-like level of ventilation’ (p5).1 The tobacco industry strongly pursued the ‘ventilation option’ for many years, through various forums and in arguments to governments about appropriate management of secondhand smoke (SHS).2,3
In Australia, Philip Morris used Healthy Buildings International to advocate ventilation solutions to SHS exposure in workplaces. Healthy Buildings International publicly denied its association with the tobacco industry, andbreached Standards Australia protocols in providing Philip Morris with confidential public submissions made to a review of the Australian standard on ventilation. It acted as an undeclared cipher into the review for Philip Morris’s concerns, leading to the eventual dismissal of the Healthy Buildings International representative from the standards sub-committee.4
By the late 2000s, major engineering and ventilation authorities had concluded that no ventilation technology could adequately control the health risks associated with secondhand smoke. In 2010, the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) (the world’s leading professional body on ventilation standards) released a report concluding that ‘the only means of effectively eliminating health risks associated with indoor exposure is to ban smoking activity.’5 This position was reaffirmed in 2023, in ASHRAE’s revised position document.6
15.3.2 The economic impact of smokefree policies
The tobacco industry has claimed on many different occasions throughout the world that banning smoking in dining and licensed premises measures would lead to a 30% or greater decline in sales.7 During the lead-up to the introduction of legislation mandating smokefree licensed premises in New South Wales, the Australian Hotels Association made ‘wildly exaggerated economic predictions’ about the likely effect of a smoking ban (p679).8
Documents released as part of settlements of legal action between state attorneys general and tobacco companies in the US suggest that the tobacco industry has attempted to influence the debate on smokefree policies by enlisting the aid of the hospitality sector3,4,7 on numerous occasions in other jurisdictions internationally.
‘The tobacco industry has effectively turned the hospitality industry into its de facto lobbying arm on clean indoor air. Public health advocates need to understand that, with rare exceptions, when they talk to organised restaurant associations they are effectively talking to the tobacco industry and must act accordingly’ (p94).7
Objective indicators of economic impact include sales tax receipts and revenues, employment, and the number of restaurant and bar licenses issued by state health departments and liquor authorities. Studies analysing these sorts of indicators have generally found no evidence of negative economic impacts.9,10
A 2003 review examined the discrepancies between tobacco industry and non-industry funded research on the economic effects of smokefree policies.9 It found that over 90% of studies supported by the tobacco industry concluded there was a negative economic impact, while studies not supported by the industry found no such impact. No peer-reviewed study found an adverse economic impact of smokefree laws on restaurants and bars. Of the studies that used objective indicators and controlled appropriately for underlying economic trends, none detected a negative economic impact. The reviewers concluded that ‘policymakers can act to protect workers and patrons from the toxins in secondhand smoke confident in rejecting industry claims that there will be an adverse economic impact’ (p13).9 Subsequent to the 2003 review, two of the authors continued to compile findings of studies examining the economic impact of smokefree policies in the hospitality industry. The pattern of results has been maintained.11
In 2009 a scientific panel of the International Agency for Research on Cancer systematically examined the evidence concerning the economic effects of smokefree policies on the hospitality industry and concluded the evidence is sufficient that such bans have no negative impact.12 A meta-analysis undertaken in 2014 reached a similar conclusion, finding no substantial economic gains or losses overall for the hospitality sector.13 The meta-analysis examined the impact of smoking bans in the US and Australia, as well as countries in South America and Europe. Research on the economic impact of smokefree laws in various other countries has likewise found no negative effects on the hospitality industry.14-19 This appears to hold true even in regions with high smoking rates and pro-smoking societal attitudes.20
In addition, evidence suggests that smoking bans do not create significant burdens on enforcement staff or government budgets.21
15.3.3 The ‘enclosed spaces’ loophole
In Australia, because smoking was initially mostly banned within enclosed areas of dining and licensed premises, there emerged a need to precisely define the term ‘enclosed’. There is a great deal of variability across states. In the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory the definition of ‘enclosed’ broadly means a structure that has an overhead covering or a roof and is at least 75% enclosed. Similarly, in New South Wales, a public place is considered to be enclosed if the total area of the ceiling and walls is more than 75% of the ‘notional wall area’. In South Australia, the threshold is 70%. In Western Australia, a structure that has a roof and is 50% enclosed around its sides is considered to be enclosed. In Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria the term ‘substantially enclosed’ has been used and no specific percentage has been specified. In Victoria, smoking is only permitted in a roofed outdoor drinking area if the walls are less than 75% enclosed. Smoking is prohibited in outdoor dining areas.
In practice this meant that attractive and sheltered areas were built by clubs, pubs, bars, cafes and restaurants in order to accommodate people who smoke when legislative changes occurred. In many cases, the tobacco industry has provided venue operators with financial assistance to construct these areas following the introduction of smoking bans.22 Given that researchers have shown that SHS can reach dangerous levels in these sorts of crowded areas,23 hospitality workers in most states were not fully protected by ‘enclosed’ smoking bans.
During the debate to enact smokefree legislation in New South Wales, the Hon. Dr Arthur Chesterfield Evans MP expressed his frustration with the ‘enclosed’ loophole: ‘the regulation definition to allow areas almost 75% enclosed to be defined as not enclosed—which will allow smoking to continue—will fail to protect workers or patrons, including gamblers, from the well-known, seriously harmful effects of second-hand smoke … No-smoking indoors should mean no smoking indoors’(p21501).24
Smoking is now restricted in outdoor dining or drinking areas in the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory, Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia. In remaining jurisdictions (New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria) the ‘enclosed spaces’ loophole remains a problem.
Related reading
Relevant news and research
A comprehensive compilation of news items and research published on this topic
Read more on this topic
Test your knowledge
References
1. Repace J. Can ventilation control second-hand smoke in the hospitality industry? An analysis of the document 'Proceedings of the workshop on ventilation engineering controls for environmental tobacco smoke in the hospitality industry'. sponsored by the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, 2000. Available from: http://www.repace.com/pdf/CALDOH_OSHA_Vent_Review.pdf
2. Bialous S and Glantz S. ASHRAE standard 62: tobacco industry's influence over national ventilation standards. Tobacco Control, 2002; 11(4):315-28. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/4/315
3. Drope J and Chapman S. Tobacco industry efforts at discrediting scientific knowledge of environmental tobacco smoke: a review of internal industry documents. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 2001; 55(8):588–94. Available from: http://jech.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/55/8/588
4. Chapman S and Penman A. 'Can't stop the boy': Philip Morris' use of Healthy Buildings International to prevent workplace smoking bans in Australia. Tobacco Control, 2003; 12(suppl. 3):iii107-12. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/suppl_3/iii107
5. Office on Smoking and Health and National Centre for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Ventilation Does Not Effectively Protect People Who Don't Smoke from Secondhand Smoke. CDC Archive: CDC, 2021. Last update: 30 November 2021; Viewed 24 June 2026. Available from: https://archive.cdc.gov/www_cdc_gov/tobacco/secondhand-smoke/protection/ventilation.htm.
6. American Society of Heating and Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers. ASHRAE Position Document on Environmental Tobacco Smoke. Georgia, USA 2023. Available from: https://www.ashrae.org/file%20library/about/position%20documents/pd-on-environmental-tobacco-smoke-english.pdf.
7. Dearlove JV, Bialous SA, and Glantz SA. Tobacco industry manipulation of the hospitality industry to maintain smoking in public places. Tobacco Control, 2002; 11(2):94-104. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/2/94
8. Champion D and Chapman S. Framing pub smoking bans: an analysis of Australian print news media coverage, March 1996-March 2003. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 2005; 59(8):679–84. Available from: http://jech.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/59/8/679
9. Scollo M, Lal A, Hyland A, and Glantz S. A review of the quality of studies on the economic effects of smoke-free policies on the hospitality industry. Tobacco Control, 2003; 12:13-20. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/12/1/13
10. Eriksen M and Chaloupka F. The economic impact of clean indoor air laws. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 2007; 57(6):367–78. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17989131/
11. Scollo M and Lal A. Summary of Studies Assessing the Economic Impact of Smoke-free Policies in the Hospitality Industry - includes studies produced to January 2008. Melbourne, Australia: VicHealth Centre for Tobacco Control, 2008. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237263823_Summary_of_Studies_Assessing_the_Economic_Impact_of_Smoke-Free_Policies_in_the_Hospitality_Industry.
12. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Evaluating the effectiveness of smoke-free policies. Handbooks of cancer prevention, tobacco control, vol. 13.Lyon, France: IARC, 2009. Available from: https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/handbook13.pdf.
13. Cornelsen L, McGowan Y, Currie-Murphy LM, and Normand C. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the economic impact of smoking bans in restaurants and bars. Addiction, 2014. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24529192
14. Bakhturidze GD, Popova L, Kirpich A, Berg CJ, and Eriksen MP. Smoke-free legislation impact on the hospitality sector in the Republic of Georgia. Tobacco Control, 2024. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39214693
15. Noh JW, Cheon J, Seong H, Kwon YD, and Yoo KB. Impacts of Smoking Ban Policies on Billiard Hall Sales in South Korea Using Objective Sales Information of a Credit Card Company: Quasi-Experimental Study. JMIR Public Health Surveill, 2024; 10:e50466. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38630526
16. Boles M, Dilley J, Maher J, Boysun M, and Reid T. Smoke-free law associated with higher-than-expected taxable retail sales for bars and taverns in Washington State. Preventing Chronic Disease, 2010; 7(4):A79. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2010/jul/09_0187.htm
17. Noh JW, Choi M, Kwon YD, and Yoo KB. Impacts of smoking ban policies on restaurants in Seoul, South Korea: Analysis of objective sales information. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 2019. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31083716
18. Cornelsen L and Normand C. Impact of the Irish smoking ban on sales in bars using a large business-level data set from 1999 to 2007. Tobacco Control, 2014; 23(5):443-8. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24105827
19. Lal A and Siahpush M. The effect of smoke-free policies on revenue in bars in Tasmania, Australia. Tobacco Control, 2009; 18(5):405-8. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/5/405
20. Talias MA, Savva CS, Soteriades ES, and Lazuras L. The effect of smoke-free policies on hospitality industry revenues in Cyprus: an econometric approach. Tobacco Control, 2014. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25293955
21. Kennedy RD, Zummach D, Filsinger S, and Leatherdale ST. Reported municipal costs from outdoor smoke-free by-laws-experience from Ontario, Canada. Tobacco Induced Diseases, 2014; 12(1):4. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24581326
22. Houston C. Big tobacco flicks cash at pub ban. The Age, 2006. Available from: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/big-tobacco-flicks-cash-at-pub-ban/2006/08/04/1154198331806.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2
23. Klepeis N, Ott W, and Switzer P. Real-time measurement of outdoor tobacco smoke particles. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 2007; 57(5):522–34. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17518219/
24. Chesterfield-Evans A. Smoke-free Environment Act: Disallowance of Smoke-free environment amendment (enclosed regulations) regulation 2006. 28 March: 21501–4: Hansard Legislative Council of NSW, 2006.