, who reads alt.smokers
but cannot post to it.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 17, 1994
Contact: Carl Thompson
GLANTZ ECONOMIC STUDY OF SMOKING BANS IS FLAWED!
Inaccuracies discovered in widely accepted report.
AUBURN -- Stanton Glantz, California's leading proponent of government
imposed smoking bans, conducted a March 1992 study which was updated in
February of 1994, of cities in California and Colorado that which he
claims have passed 100% smoking bans during the past seven years. In his
study, Mr. Glantz concludes that 100% smoking bans have no negative effects
on local economies and his conclusions have been frequently cited. Close
study of nine cities mentioned in Glantz's report reveals major inaccuracies
in his research. Three of the cities Glantz studied do not have 100% smoking
Senior Researcher of Ferret Research, Carl Thompson points out,
"Mr. Glantz's research is far from accurate. Release of any study that
contains patently false information is less than responsible. The public
should be aware that Mr. Glantz's report is funded in part by public monies.
Not only should the public be informed as to the real effects of a 100%
smoking ban they should also know how their tax dollars are being spent.
I'm sure Californians didn't vote for Prop. 99 so that Mr. Glantz could pay
his mortgage with tax payers money. The money from Prop. 99 is not intended
to fund one man's attempt to impose his personal beliefs on others.
4375 Bell Road
Auburn, California 95602
Stanton Glantz's Economic Study on
Smoking Bans is Flawed
Economic Study on Smoking Bans is Flawed
Economic Study on Smoking Bans is Flawed
Professor Glantz, Author of Controversial Study, Scores an "F"
Stanton Glantz, California's leading proponent of government imposed
smoking bans, conducted a March 1992 study of eight cities and towns
that have passed 100% smoking bans during the past seven years. Glantz
is a professor of biostatistics at the University of California, San
Francisco School of Medicine. He holds a Ph.D. in applied mechanics,
and is considered the father of anti-smoking legislation in the state of
California. Since 1978, Glantz has been the leader to ban smoking in
public places. Glantz has authored studies ranging from the economic
effects of 100% smoking bans to the mechanics of cardiac function and
Professional economists and statisticians criticized the questionable
methodology of Glantz's research. On March 30, 1993, Glantz released
an update of his previously conducted studies on the economic effects
of 100% smoking bans in the California cities of Auburn, Bellflower,
Beverly Hills, Paradise, Ross, San Luis Obispo, and the Colorado cities
of Aspen, Snowmass Village, and Telluride. Glantz's most recent study
makes claims that are factually false. The three Colorado cities
mentioned in Glantz's study do not even have 100% restaurant smoking
bans, two of the California cities repealed their bans Glantz's study
does not weigh shifts within the restaurant industry. And every city
cited in Glantz' study has experienced problems including business
closures, loss of sales as a direct result of their 100% smoking bans.
Closures translate into lost revenue for citizen and cities. Vacant
buildings, unemployed people are only two of the ripples which Mr.
Glantz has overlooked in his need to thrust his rationality on us all.
Following are details of some of the flaws and omissions in Mr.
Auburn (11,156) is a relatively isolated community on the way to Lake
Tahoe. Restaurant owners in Auburn argue that the city's 100% smoking
ban is causing customers to go to the nearby community of Rocklin.
The Rocklin City Council canceled discussion of a smoking ban after
restaurant owners in Rocklin reported sales gains due to a migration
of smokers from Auburn. Restaurant owners are not the only losers
of the 100% ban, Bingo players are too.
Bellflower (63,002) repealed its 100% smoking ban after fifteen months
during which sales dropped an average of 17%. Resulting in seven
fewer restaurants doing business in Bellflower. On May 13, 1992, a
newly constituted City Council repealed the 100% smoking ban at its
Beverly Hills (32,225) The first city to experiment with a 100% smoking
ban passed its ban by a 5-0 City Council vote. Restaurants experienced
such extreme losses that the same City Council repealed the ban by a
5-0 vote 4" months later. Beverly Hills restaurants owners recorded
sales losses of up to 30% during the period the ban was in effect. During
the same period, restaurant sales in Los Angeles increased 10.3%. It
is interesting to note that since the Bellflower ban the number of
restaurants in Beverly Hills has increased by twenty-two.
Paradise (26,008) In addition to recording individual restaurant losses
of 25- 30%, restaurant owners in the city of Paradise experienced
aggregate sales losses of "$723,000 the fourth quarter of 1991 compared
to 1990." During the same period, restaurant revenue in nearby
Oroville and Chico increased $1,099,000 and $27,000, respectively.
Ross (2,174) In the entire town of Ross, there are only three restaurants.
San Luis Obispo (42,595) Certain restaurants and bars in this isolated
college town have experienced losses since the ban went into effect in
1990. In the first four fiscal quarters the smoking ban was in effect,
restaurants recorded 26.5% in lost sales. The city's only bowling
center, Laurel Bowl, immediately experienced a 30% decline in sales that
has amounted to $400,000 since the smoking ban went into effect in
1990. After 2 quarters there were 14 fewer restaurants in the city.
This translates into 14vacant buildings and 14 fewer employers in the
city of San Luis Obispo.
Aspen (5,079) There is no 100% smoking ban in Aspen. Aspen's Municipal
Code, Chapter 11-4.4 allows smoking in separate areas in an establishment,
therefore it does not have a 100% smoking ban in restaurants.
Snowmass Village (1,675) There is no 100% smoking ban in Snowmass
Village according to Snowmass Village Municipal Code, Chapter 6-2-6 it does
not have a 100% smoking ban in restaurants.
Telluride (1,375) There is no 100% smoking ban in Telluride. That is
according to Telluride Municipal Code, Chapter 8.03.030. Additionally, in
the November 2, 1993, election, the citizens of Telluride prevailed,
thoroughly defeating a 100% smoking ban.
Professor Glantz's conclusions are based on incomplete and
inaccurate research of the economic effects from 100% smoking bans.
Furthermore, the wide acceptance of the report as proof positive that
100% smoking bans do not have negative effects on businesses reflects
an irresponsible use of statistics and scientific data. Not only are
Glantz's conclusions empirically false, they are misleading and
potentially harmful to California businesses and citizens alike.
In closing, the California Supreme Court in R.E. Cox 3 C3d 205,
474 P.2d 992 at page 224 best sums up what we at Ferret Research believe
should be the basis of any reasonable law, ordinance or regulation.
"The man who goes either by himself or with his family to a
public place must expect to meet and mingle with all classes
of people. He cannot ask, to suit his caprice or prejudice
or social views, that this or that man shall be excluded
because he does not wish to associate with them. He may draw
his social line as closely as he chooses at his home, or other
private places. But he cannot in a public place carry the
privacy of his home with him. Or ask that people not as good
or great as he is shall step aside when he shall appear"
There are requirements for the use of public funds which Mr. Glantz
may have not met. Lawmakers need to know if advocates and protestants of
the 100% ban are receiving funding. Ferret Research receives no funding
from either sides on this issue.
 Dr. Glantz co-authored his studies with Lisa R. A. Smith, a Prevention
Secessionist with the Regional Tobacco Prevention Center.
 American Men and Women of Science, 18th ed., pg163.
 Dr. Glantz is also an aerospace engineer for NASA and has done research
in applied biostatistics, bioengineering, and statistics.
 Auburn, CA, The Auburn Journal, Oct. 13, 1993.
 Office of the City Clerk, City of Auburn.
 Auburn Journal February 17, 1994, Bingo battle.
 Price Waterhouse, Jan 1994.
 State of California, Board of Equalization.
 Paradise CA, The Paradise Post, Oct. 1, 1992.
 State of California, Board of Equalization.
 San Luis Obispo, CA, The San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, Mar 25, 1992.
 Pete Colombo, General Manager and Partner, Laurel Bowl
Ferret Research February 17, 1994
And... from three years later:
Subject: Learn from Nixon's Mistakes, Stan.
From: Joel Beatty
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 10:39:21 -0500
Well, Stan Glantz is in "deep doo-doo" again. You;ll remember that he
was charged with converting taxpayer monies to his personal political
agenda? Turned out the charges were true, so what does Stan do? He
starts shredding documents after the court warned him not to do this.
The very first documents he shredded were related to his study claiming
that restaurant revenues are unaffected by smoking bans. Sort of tells
us something, doesn't it? Anyway, the courts are seriously considering
charging him with contempt, and have issued an order restraining him
from continuing to destroy documents. Part of the order requires that
Glantz' computer hardware be sealed pending a hearing.
Once Glantz falls, people might begin to question the entire anti smoker
business. Can we hope for truthful reporting from the news media? Not
just yet, I'm afraid. But you folks in California should start calling
your newspapers and TV stations inquiring about the status of the
investigation. After all, you live in the belly of the beast.
Subject: Re: Learn from Nixon's Mistakes, Stan.
From: Saint Smokey Aqua
Date: 8 Nov 1997 12:01:10 -0000
Was that hospital-funded tax-hike advertising in YOUR town, Fejj..?
maybe i'm incorrect, didn't that Gantz fella release a study on the anti
smoking laws and their non effect on establishments...
He does economic studies. He does medical studies. He does political
science studies. A jackboot of all trades. If it can support his
cause, he get grants for it, studies it, suggests cigarette taxes to
pay for grants for studying it, get those grants, studies it, suggests
more cigarette taxes, gets another grant... Is there a pattern here?
Subject: Cigarette Makers Attack Study on Smoke-Free Laws
From: anon3c........... (Bruce Watson)
Date: 5 Nov 1997 17:59:52 -0700
Cigarette Makers Attack Study on Smoke-Free Laws
Sabin Russell, Chronicle Staff Writer
Less than two months before smoking is banned in California bars,
cigarette makers have renewed their attack on researchers who contend
that smoke-free laws haven't hurt restaurants and won't hurt bars.
At issue is a study by University of California at San Francisco
researchers Stanton Glantz and Lisa Smith, who reported in 1994 that
smoke-free restaurant laws in 15 cities and towns had no significant
Today, the American Journal of Public Health is publishing a revised and
expanded version of that study, reiterating its earlier findings and
adding new data. "The numbers change a little bit, but the basic results
don't," said Glantz.
The latest study was published in response to an attack last March on the
initial findings by the National Smokers Alliance, a Washington, D.C.,
association financed by tobacco makers Philip Morris, Brown & Williamson
The group commissioned a study by Chicago economist Michael Evans that
harshly criticized the UCSF report, declaring the findings the result of
"faulty assumptions and methodology."
Evans' critique--which had not undergone the peer review of academic
journals--said Glantz's earlier study included as "smoke-free"
restaurants that allowed patrons to smoke in the bar area. He also found
that Glantz misstated the effective dates for some smoking bans, a point
Glantz concedes and corrects in his revised study.
Following the release of Evans' report, a Smokers Alliance-backed
organization called Californians for Scientific Integrity sued UCSF and
the University of California, charging scientific misconduct and misuse
of public funds. The suit demanded access to data used to support
Although a Sacramento Superior Court judge initially rebuffed the lawsuit
in July, on Friday he issued an order barring Glantz from erasing e-mail
in his computer pending a hearing on several motions related to the case.
According to Jeffrey Speich, the Sacramento attorney representing
Californians for Scientific Integrity, Glantz last week acknowledged
erasing e-mail despite the plaintiff's demand for records.
Glantz could not be reached yesterday for comment on the court order. But
he earlier characterized the case as an attempt by the tobacco industry
to smear him and derail his career.
In an editorial accompanying the latest article in the American Journal
of Public Health, editor Mervyn Susser delivered a ringing defense of
Glantz, calling him a "metaphorical David" against a tobacco industry
He said Glantz's studies had survived the journal's peer review process
and denounced Evans' unpublished report.
National Smokers Alliance spokesman Gary Auxier said Susser and his staff
"did a pretty good job of rallying around their buddies." He contended
that Glantz's study remains fatally flawed, even with the revisions.
And finally, from an old and valued friend in alt.smokers:
Subject: Re: Glantz 'Fesses Up
From: cliffr@..... (Cliff Roberson)
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 04:37:29 GMT
On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 18:50:52 -0500, Joel Beatty wrote:
Well, Glantz has finally admitted using the wrong data in his study of
smoke-free bar ordinances. Did he make this admission in the San
Francisco newspapers, or in the American Journal of Public Health which
published the study?
Alas, no. In typical Auntie fashion, he did it through a letter to the
editor of the Dominion Post in Morgantown, W.V. The fudged data
concerned bars in Santa Clara county. Glantz had reported that the bars
experienced no revenue loss...of course they didn't, because they
ignored the ordinance and simply allowed their customers to smoke.
But Glantz, who has never let himself be confused by the facts,
maintains that this admission doesn't change his conclusions. "We have
since obtained the correct information and analyzed it. Our conclusion
remains the same: Smoke-free ordinances do not affect the bar business."
The truth is slowly oozing out. Stay tuned.
Thank you, Joel.
I hope that's for real.
I already pointed out here that someone had gone around and surveyed the 9
bars involved and reported that the owners were not enforcing anything, but
that even if they had been the amount og revenue involved in them is less than
1 percent of the restaurant-bar busines in Santa Clara County, where I live.
The bars were in unincorporated Santa Clara county. I live in Santa Clara
County in an incorporated area, a city, and 99 percent of the business is in
incorporated areas. If all 9 bars went out of business altogether, It wouldn't
change the figure Glantz used by one percent. If all of them doubled their
business, it wouldn't change the results by 1 percent.
The fraudulent part of it is that his study meant something. It meant
nothing, even if everything he said was accurate.
"Politically correct" signature
(that does not rouse the
anti-whatever hysterics to "spit-bubble-blowing frenzy")
And, one more note, this from Marty Ronhovdee a while ago, a longtime and well-read critic of "Dr." Glantz and his cohorts:
'perhaps we should say he has a BS in Social Engineering and I
don't mean that academically. Your description of Management Science
and Engineering certainly does fit the practice of our Mr. Glantz.
Here's how my conversations went down when I called Stanford
University. My first call was to the Office of the Registrar. I was
told that Glantz has two degrees: 1) MS Applied Mechanics, 2) PhD
Applied Mechanics. I was told there is no degree associated with his
minor. I requested certification and it was mailed to me.
I called Stanford's Admissions and Courses department after receiving
the written certification asking more about the minor in
Engineering-economic Systems and trying to learn how many units would
have been taken in economics. She needed to know if his dissertation
was in economics and I was able to tell her that it wasn't since Wanda
had already researched that area. It was explained to me that the
Engineering-economic Systems field of study had merged twice with
other fields in the last few years and there was not a written
description of the field and the students can select the classes they
want within that field and there are many. When I read the
certification to her she felt certain that the student did only the
required 20 units in the minor but only the transcript would tell how
many of those units were in economics. A PhD requires 90 units and
the student must also take an extra 20 units in a minor when going for
the PhD even though it's not part of the PhD. Unfortunately, the
student's transcript can only be given out with the permission of the
student and I didn't think Glantz would be receptive in allowing us a
Regarding post-doctoral studies I spoke with the Registrar's office
about this in general, asking if it can be in a completely different
field than the doctorate. I was told the post-doctoral study is
always in the same field as the doctorate. I brought this up because
Glantz's 1995 c.v. doesn't mention post-doctoral studies, only
Research Fellow Cardiology 1973-1975, but his later c.v. claims
post-doctorate, 1975, cardiology at Stanford and at UCSF,
post-doctorate, 1977, cardiovascular research.
I just noticed something.... According to the c.v. you've just
posted, Glantz has removed "Postdoc" from his c.v.. So now he's
changed it again. Glantz could give classes on "when, why and how to
alter your c.v.."
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.com
Illinois Smokers Rights - http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com
mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org - Respect Freedom of Choice!
Stanton Glantz - The Anti-Smokers' Poster Boy!