Tobacco and Public Health - TCSC Indonesia

you are subject, but this does not hold for some levels of partial ban (Borland et al.
1992) suggesting that such things as smoking rooms can be problematic.
Research from industrial countries indicates that workers are more likely to be protected
from ETS if they are employed in firms with 50 or more people, have a higher
level of education, are female, and worked indoors. Those workers more likely to
be exposed to ETS included blue-collar workers, self employed, service occupations
(e.g. bar workers), and lower skill occupations which tend to have higher prevalence of
smokers than higher skilled groups (Borland et al. 1997a;Brownson et al. 2002). Larger
companies are more likely to have organized occupational health and safety policies
and are less likely to have policy affected by one influential person (e.g. the boss).
All of the evidence points to the net effect of workplace bans being positive. The
health and well-being of non-smokers (at least) is improved. In addition, the workplace
is made more attractive without the unpleasant smells of tobacco smoke, and
cleaning costs are reduced. The only potential downside is possible loss of productivity
among smokers. One of the most notable features of workplace smoking bans is the
phenomenon of smokers leaving their workplace to have a cigarette (Borland et al.
1997b). This exiled smoking seems to persist and serves social as well as dependenceserving
functions. While some exiled smoking occurs in work breaks, some smokers
take extra breaks, which can place extra demands on their co-workers and/or
reduce their productivity. One effect of exiled smoking is that it results in lots of workers
smoking on city streets. This can create nuisance value to non-smokers exposed
to the smoke, and by being so public may contribute to perception that smoking prevalence
is higher than it actually is, a known risk factor for uptake among adolescents
(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1994). It is also not clear to
what extent it affects productivity of those smokers who take breaks during work
time. However, some organizations have taken action to minimize such adverse effects
by either banning such practices or having workers clock-off and make up the time
spent.
Smoking bans in other public places
RON BORLAND AND CLAIRE DAVEY 717
In this section we consider movement toward implementation of bans in other public
places, with a special emphasis on hospitality venues.
Partly because most public venues are also workplaces and partly to protect patrons,
there is strong movement towards increased bans or smoking in public places. These
range from shops to enclosed arcades, residential business such as hospitals and hotels,
public transport, and indoor or enclosed sporting facilities. Public places such as transport,
hospitals, cinemas, and theatres have commonly become smoke-free in many
countries (Melihan-Cheinin and Hirsch 1997). There is very little published about
bans in these areas. In some cases the implementation of bans in such places occurs in
concert with legislation to ban smoking in workplaces (as most are also workplaces),