I find it somewhat ludicrous and hypocritical that bans on smoking in bars are being introduced as a "Health and Safety at work" measure. This has only happened since a ruling (I can't remember where) that said a town/state couldn't generically ban a legal activity in a private establishment - which is what they were trying to do. It's just so convenient that they can talk about the waitresses' health to achieve the same motive.
Every job has risks - chemists work with dangerous chemicals, biologists with organisms, builders with heights and machinery, radiologists, dentists and their staff with radiation, electronic engineers with leaded solder, interior decorators with paint fumes/old leaded paint etc, software engineers with management-induced stress, etc.

Maybe we should ban cars from the road since they pose a risk to the traffic cop at roadworks? And houses since they pose a risk to firefighters when they catch alight? Electricity since it poses a risk to the electrician fixing your wiring? Cooking equipment because it poses a risk of burns to cooks?

Maybe once we're done, we can all sit around in a (smoke-free) bar bemoaning the fact that none of us can afford a beer, and that we are all either hungry or suffering from salmonella. ( Although without chemists there won't be any beer, and we're going to have trouble that bar, considering that no-one could build it, decorate it, wire it etc. )

Maybe we should just sit in a field instead. That would be progress.

There comes a time in life where you choose a vocation. It is unfortunate that this time is usually in your early teens, and that whilst the advisor tells you about the rewards, benefits and challenges of that vocation, they rarely tell you about the risks. But whatever, once that vocation has been chosen, it is up to you to research the risks involved and decide whether it is worth pursuing further. And it's unfortunate that sometimes the risks just are not known yet. Whatever.
My point is that it is *impossible* to remove every risk from every workplace, only to reduce it where it is possible to do so without making that business a non-viable one. We'll stop using leaded solder in electronics when safer viable options exist, just as we stopped painting our houses with lead paint. We'll stop using foam that emits toxic chemicals when burned, just as we stopped using 'wire and spool' as an electrical standard. And so on. Making the workplace a safer place.
But do you see these towns and states introducing legislation to mandate effect air filtrage in bars? That would be an effective manner of increasing the air quality - and could also reduce other airborne pathogens such as pollen and viruses (virui?, virii? Where's Bitt?). Do you see them introducing legislation to mandate better communication of risks to employees? Or to mandate employer health insurance to cover periodical checkups?
No, they just want to generically ban smoking in bars, and can't do it any other way.

This to me is just sneaky, backhanded and an abuse of power. It's right up there with federal lawmakers tacking on a controversial piece of legislation as an amendment to an unrelated and popular bill, just because they know they couldn't pass it any other way.

BTW, the 'sin tax' idea unfortunately becomes a tax on the poor. A higher percentage of the lower classes smoke. And the argument of using tobacco tax to "pay for the additional health costs due to smoking" is not a good one either - the UK currently earns 3 times more in tobacco tax than it costs to run the NHS. So you could say that smokers pay for the health of everyone...and then some. And in the US, smokers already pay a premium hike for health insurance - I'd love to see the underlying figures to justify the amount.