The majority of people taking part in the survey visited public houses once or twice a week (45%) and about half visited restaurants less than once a fortnight (53%).
People from rural locations visited public houses and restaurants more frequently than people from urban locations.
The main reasons for going to public houses were to meet friends (78%), to drink (64%) and to relax and unwind (47%). The main reasons for going to restaurants were to eat (66%), meet friends (41%) and for special occasions (such as birthdays and anniversaries) (29%).
The majority of non-smokers said they tended to avoid smoky public houses and restaurants (70% and 80% respectively). However, less than a quarter of smokers (23%) said they avoided smoky public houses and almost eight out of 10 (79%) said they went to public houses whether or not they were smoky. Smokers also avoided smoky restaurants more than public houses (37% and 23%).
Eight per cent of smokers and 30% of non-smokers said the atmosphere in the public house they last visited was too smoky. Eight per cent of smokers and 30% of non-smokers said there were public houses they did not visit at present, but would if they were less smoky.
Although many smokers clearly felt their right to smoke in public houses was fundamentally important, many also supported the right of non-smokers to smoke free areas. Urban non-smokers felt much stronger about their right to smoke free areas in public houses compared with rural non-smokers.
Although many smokers considered their right to smoke in restaurants important, it was less so than their right to smoke in public houses. Urban smokers felt stronger about their right to smoke in restaurants compared with rural smokers.
Non-smokers felt more strongly about their right to smoke free areas in restaurants than in public houses.
Most people were unaware of smoking restrictions or a ban in the public house they last visited (80%). Less than one in 10 (9%) were aware of restrictions or a ban and 10% said they did not know or could not remember.
Of those who said they were aware of restrictions or a ban, 77% said smoking was restricted to certain areas, 13% said smoking was banned near or at the bar and 11% said there were partitioned areas in the public house. More than six out of 10 (65%) were made aware of the smoking restriction via 'no-smoking signs', and a quarter by signs telling people where they were allowed or not allowed to smoke. Fourteen per cent said there were no ashtrays visible.
More than one in 10 smokers said they had ignored smoking restrictions in public houses they had visited. However, 27% of non-smokers said they were aware of people smoking in areas of public houses where smoking was not allowed.
Sixty four per cent of smokers and 70% of non-smokers thought it was practical for restaurants to have smoke free areas, compared with 39% of smokers and 47% regarding public houses. Amongst those who thought it was practical to have smoke free areas in public houses, the most mentioned reasons were that it gave people a choice (17%), it was good for non-smokers to have separate areas (15%) and it let people drink without a smoky atmosphere (14%).
Of those who thought it was not practical to have smoke free areas in public houses, the most mentioned reasons were that it depended on the size of the place (39%), it allowed people to be together (10%) and that often drinkers like to smoke (10%).
Of those who thought it was practical to have smoke free areas in restaurants, the most mentioned reasons were that most restaurants had areas set aside so non-smoking was already provided (19%), that theenjoyment of food was affected (14%) and that it gave people choice (9%).
Of those who thought it was not practical to have smoke free areas in restaurants, the most mentioned reasons were that there were not enough rooms or space (16%), that separate tables did not work because smoke drifts (11%) and that they were not sure it would work (9%).
Respondents were asked how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the government's view that non-smoking should be the norm in public places, with provision for smokers where possible. They were asked to give their opinion for each of: public places in general, ii) public houses, iii) restaurants, and iv) public transport. The order of importance (from most to least) was:
1 Public transport. More than eight out of ten (85%) non-smokers and half of smokers agreed or strongly agreed non-smoking should be the norm on public transport.
2 Restaurants. Twice as many non-smokers (84%) compared with smokers (42%) agreed or strongly agreed non-smoking should be the norm in restaurants.
3 Public places in general. Almost seven out of 10 (68%) of non-smokers and a quarter of smokers agreed or strongly agreed non-smoking should be the norm in public places in general.
1 Public houses. Six times as many non-smokers (54%) as smokers (9%) agreed or strongly agreed that non-smoking should be the norm in public houses.
Smokers (42%) were less likely than non-smokers (74%) to feel there was a health risk from inhaling other people's smoke in public houses.
The most frequently mentioned risks were unspecified cancers (36%), lung problems/respiratory diseases such as bronchitis and emphysema (25%) and that passive smoking leads to ill health/death (19%). Only 18% mentioned cancer of the lung specifically although medical experts state that this is one of the major health risks from passive smoking.
Both smokers and non-smokers felt they were better protected from the risks of passive smoking in restaurants than public houses.
The main reasons smokers considered they were adequately protected in public houses were that they considered most places had sufficient ventilation (32%), and that non-smoking areas were designated (20%). Forty three per cent of non-smokers said people had a choice of where to sit or where to go. Nineteen per cent felt most places had good ventilation.
The main reasons respondents considered they were not adequately protected in public houses were that there was no separation of smokers and non-smokers (34% smokers, 19% non-smokers), that it was not easy to keep areas separate and/or contain smoke (21% smokers, 41% non-smokers) and there were not any, or too few non-smoking areas (20% smokers, 19% non-smokers).
The main reasons people thought they were adequately protected in restaurants were that many restaurants already implemented no smoking policies or areas (47% smokers, 74% non-smokers) and that most places had good ventilation (13% smokers, 11% non-smokers).
The main reasons respondents considered they were not adequately protected in restaurants were that smoke travelled in open plan areas (35% smokers, 54% non-smokers) and that there were not enough non-smoking tables or areas (21% smokers, 9% non-smokers).
Over eight out of 10 of respondents said they were unaware of the Voluntary Charter. Of those who were (154), over half (55%) had heard of it on television, approximately a tenth (11%) said they had heard of it on the radio and 9% had heard about it in a public house.
Only 15% of respondents said they had heard of the Approved Code of Practice and most of these (47%) said they had heard about it at work, 24% on the TV and/or radio, 13% by word of mouth and 10% from newspapers.
Those aged between 41-59 years had the most awareness of the Voluntary charter and Approved Code of Practice (20% and 22%). Those aged between 17-25 years were the least aware (11% and 8%).
Almost eight out of 10 (79%) smokers felt that a smoke free environment had no benefits for them as customers of public houses whilst most non-smokers (79%) felt there were benefits. However, smokers considered there were more benefits for them regarding smoke free restaurants than smoke free public houses (26% and 15% respectively). This highlights the fact that when restrictions are in place, some smokers acknowledge the benefits.
Respondents were asked what they felt was the main benefit in having smoke free public houses and restaurants. The majority of smokers felt there was no benefit for either public houses or restaurants (76% and 67%), compared with non-smokers (14% and 12% respectively).
Of those who felt there was a benefit with regard to public houses, seven times as many non-smokers than smokers felt that increased comfort and enjoyment was the main benefit (41% and 6%). Almost four times as many non-smokers as smokers said health issues were the main benefit (36% and 11%).
Of those who felt there was a benefit with regard to restaurants, the most frequently mentioned by both non-smokers and smokers was increased comfort and enjoyment (45% and 16%), followed by health issues (36% and 10/%).
These findings highlight the low levels of awareness surrounding the health risks of passive smoking amongst both smokers and non-smokers.
Respondents were asked what they thought was the main disadvantage of banning or restricting smoking in public houses and restaurants. Twenty eight per cent of smokers felt there was no disadvantage with regard to public houses compared with 46% for restaurants. The majority of non-smokers said there was no disadvantage for either public houses or restaurants (78% and 83%).
Of those smokers who felt there was a disadvantage with regard to public houses and restaurants, the most frequently mentioned problem areas were social and commercial (48% and 33% respectively). For non-smokers, these figures fell to 17% and 10%.