Just a
mathematical exercise
BUT it might conclude that total bans are likely to kill more
than bans with exemptions for the Hospitality Industry
- 49 out of 700 Workplace deaths
in Hospitality industry. This may be true and Royal
College of Physicians claim c. 12,000 die each year from
exposure to ETS. Most, 11300, are from exposure in the
home.
- Hospitality deaths are 0.41%
of that total. A proportion of that 0.41% would be
protected by the encouragement of voluntary smokefree
premises and restrictions on smoking in child-friendly
venues.
- By driving smokers from the
pub smoking will reappear somewhere so alternate
unregulated venues mainly the home will be found.
- UCL report Smoking bans
kill kids http://www.ucl.ac.uk/media/library/smokingban full report at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/media/library/smokingban
- By leaving Hospitality alone
would remove a major cause of a possible rise in ETS
exposure at home.
- A slight change in smoking
prevalence of only 0.11% would cause/prevent the same
number of deaths attributed to the whole of the
hospitality trade. An even smaller change would be
required if some venues accepted voluntary restrictions.
- Smoking is on the increase in
Ireland + ETS exposure in the home fell less in Ireland
than in the UK +ETS exposure in cars fell less than in UK
yet the UK does not have a total ban - http://tc.bmjjournals.com/preprint/tc13649.pdf
- Is the Irish ban
causing unnecessary deaths especially in the
home closure & damage to rural businesses
hardship to socially excluded smokers and
non-smokers.
- A choice to exclude the
hospitality industry would not risk the success of
current progress (approx 0.6% pa).
- A 0.6% fall is the equivalent
of c.200 lives saved each year and if the other 651
workplace lives are added we should expect over 850 lives
to be saved without a total ban.
- More could be added through
existing trade agreed policies to increase smoke-free
environments
- Hospitality workers,
frequently smokers, can choose not to work in
smoke-laden atmospheres.
Many employers such as WHO choose not to employ smokers.
Smoke-friendly businesses could protect non-smokers by
employing only smokers.