Protecting workers in licensed premises from the effects of secondhand smoke.

EDITORIAL Protecting workers in licensed premises from the effects of secondhand smoke Over the summer, the Department of Health has sought opinion regarding implementation of its proposed partial smoking ban for licensed premises. Since the General Election in May, Patricia Hewitt, the new Secretary of State is rumoured to be more sympathetic to a complete ban, so everybody is asking—is the lady for turning? And if so, what might encourage her to turn? The details of the ban are contained in the public health white paper Choosing Health: Making Healthy Choices Easier [1]. Many submissions will argue that the proposals are impractical and that a complete ban—as in other workplaces—would be preferable. Woodall et al. [2] argue that a partial ban is likely to worsen socioeconomic inequalities in health and smoking prevalence, as most licensed establishments in the poorest areas would be exempt from the workplace ban on smoking, while most in the more affluent areas would be subject to the ban. Bar workers, who are usually locally recruited, will therefore be at greater risk in these poorer areas. In these largely non-unionized establishments , a variety of unproven and ineffectual measures (not smoking at the bar, smoking rooms, exhaust ventilation) are proposed to protect bar workers. Further, banning smoking completely only in establishments which serve food may encourage 'dry' pubs to give up serving food. Similarly, the exemption of private member clubs will result in an uneven playing field which may further increase health inequality. The debate about the risks of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and the necessity for smoke-free workplaces has continued for many years, while many countries and cities, such as Eire, have banned smoking entirely in enclosed workplaces. Back in 1998, the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (SCOTH) estimated the increased risk to non-smokers of lung cancer from ETS at 24%; the excess risk of heart disease in non-smokers compared with those not exposed was 23%, and important risks to the children of smokers were identified [3]. These statistics were sufficiently compelling for Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), the anti-smoking lobbying group, to write to leading hospitality industry employers suggesting that the date of 'guilty knowledge' had now been passed and consequently employers were vulnerable to serious legal risks if they continued to knowingly expose employees and others to secondhand smoke. So far, no claims from non-smokers have yet succeeded before the courts (though …