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.