DavidJS, your merely anecdotal evidence about California is not a very relevant point. I've seen hard statistics from the USA showing that bans on smoking in pubs has harmed business for proprieters. I think that's one reason why the AHA is opposed to bans here.

I agree with the bans in the relevant PUBLIC utilities and places that you have listed. But surely you can see that the situation with pubs is a little different. Children are FORCED to attend school - they have no choice in the matter. It would be wrong to subject them to the teachers smoking in class. Pubs on the other hand are PRIVATELY owned. The issue here is property rights. No one is FORCED to go into a pub. You go there by your own free will.

We seem to have accepted smoking bans in restaurants and they were forced to have smoke-free settings (inside the premises) by government legislation. They didn't decide to one day ban smoking. And other private businesses accept a whole host of government restrictions relating to occupational health and safety. It doesn't stop them raking in a profit. I don't see how the issue of private ownership makes a significant difference. Both private schools and public schools have to operate within health and safety guidelines - the restriction on smoking just being one.

At my school teachers weren't allowed to smoke in the classroom. However, they could and did smoke in the childfree staffroom.

DavidJS, my point about children being FORCED to attend school still stands. It's true that private businesses must accept health and safety regulations, but with smoking it's a little different. Proprieters are specifically wanting to provide customers with an environment where they can smoke if they so choose and many hotel patrons expect to be able to smoke in that environment. All I'm saying is that if that's what customers and proprieters want, well then let them.

Furthermore, I am disputing that the so-called dangers of passive smoking are conclusive anyway.

And all I'm saying is that the rights of workers who have to serve beer, clean up ashtrays, mop up vomit and take orders for food are paramount in my list of concerns. Without them, the hotel doesn't run. The customers could help themselves but I don't think management would like that.

I deal with clients in my line of work (I work for an NGO - how does that factor in regarding this public/private dichotomy you are posing?). None of them are allowed to smoke in my office or anywhere in the building. I fail to see why hotel workers cannot have the same rights.

If you work for a hotel there are a reasonable set of requirements you must adhere to. Turn up on time, serve the customers, do your job properly, don't leave early, make sure you conform to RSA regulations. Having smoke blown over you is unreasonable given the (smoke free) conditions in other areas of the hospitality industry - such as restaurants or airline bookings.

DavidJS, your argument doesn't wash. People aren't FORCED to work in hotels. They do it by choice. If they don't like it - get a job elsewhere. The hotels wouldn't close - they'd simply employ people who don't mind cigarette smoke. I disagree strongly with mandatory bans in restaurants also. Some patrons like to have a smoke with a meal - if proprieters want to provide for this - let them. Freedom of choice is generally a very good thing for human beings, David. Just leave things up to market forces - that way property rights are respected and all different types of customers will be catered for.

Hi im an 18 year old female, just happened to come across this forum, while searching the risks of passive smoking while working in a pub/bar.I am currently working in a pub which has a bar (smoking) and a restaraunt/bar (non-smoking). I have confronted my managers about working only in the non smoking section as i am very concerned about my health. i find it harder to breathe, my eyes water, and my throat becomes very sore.

But they have told me i have no choice. No we are not forced to work in this environment but i live in a small town and this is just about the only other job, (apart from my full time receptionist job) i can take on that provides me with enough income to live off. I am living on my own. I am also currently playing state league netball which is very demanding on my body and my budget having to travel three times a week from as little as half an hour to 3 hours.

So i really have no choice when it comes to this matter as i cannot afford to lose this job, but i am putting my health and sporting career at risk. Just for those who dont or have never worked in a pub, my shifts sometimes start from 5pm and dont finish until 3am, thats 10 hours of secondhand smoke without a break, as i dont have time for a break, all this after finishing my full time day job. My pub job is only part time but i feel it is very exhausting working sometimes 4 shifts a week, just so i can put some milk in my fridge, pay my rediculously high rent, bills, put fuel in my car and manage to save around $10 a week. So please have some consideration for us bar workers because sometimes wen dont have a choice, as to how we earn our living. thankyou