English musician and Berlin resident Joe Jackson explains why he’s delighted Germany’s smoking ban appears to be unravelling faster than a self-rolled cigarette.
Having lived in Berlin for the better part of three years, I’ve been asked to write something about my ‘right’ to smoke here. But I’m not sure I have one. The real question, I think, is: who has the right to
forbid me to smoke, and on what grounds? Consider the following:
(1) Tobacco is legal in Germany.
(2) Smokers are adults.
(3) Smokers contribute enormous amounts of tax revenue.
(4) Pubs, bars, clubs and restaurants are private property.
(5) If some people don’t like smoke, this is a matter of taste and therefore for the free market to sort out, not the government.
(6) A decent modern ventilation system can render smoke virtually unnoticeable.
(7) ‘Second-hand,’ or ‘passive’ smoke hurts no one anyway.
This all seems pretty obvious to me, but the last point may need some explanation. Seven years of research has convinced me that the potential risks involved in smoking are currently hugely exaggerated, for reasons which have more to do with politics than health.
In the case of ‘second-hand’ smoke, though, anyone who really looks at the evidence – how the studies are done, who pays for them, what the statistics really mean – is soon reminded of the old story of The Emperor’s New Clothes.
You remember the one: the Emperor thinks he’s wearing a fabulous invisible costume, and no one has the nerve to tell him he’s naked because, well, he’s the Emperor! We’re not so impressed by emperors these days, or by priests or popes or politicians. But we seem to practically swoon at the sight of a doctor’s white coat. That’s why, more and more, it’s the uniform of choice for anyone in authority who wants to nag you, bully you, raise your taxes and generally push you around.
In Germany, the ‘official’ figure for yearly deaths from ‘passive smoke’ has been, for the last four years, exactly 3,301 – two-thirds of whom, incidentally, are supposedly over 75 years old and one-third over 85. This comes from a cancer research centre in Heidelberg. How do they know? Well, they don’t. They have just cherry-picked a few dubious statistics from a few trashy studies, and done computer projections from them. They can’t actually prove even one death.
I’m happy to say there seems to be a bit more (healthy!) scepticism about this sort of thing in Germany than, say, the UK. I’m delighted, too, that in the face of court rulings, fierce resistance, and half-hearted enforcement, smoking bans are unravelling in Berlin and the rest of the country.
Very few people, it seems, wanted them in the first place, and even most non-smokers favour some kind of freedom of choice. After all, a Berlin
Eckkneipe, or corner pub, is typically a place where the owner, the bartenders, and most of the customers smoke. How far are authorities willing to go to stop them? The Nazis were fierce anti-smokers, but even they did not ban smoking in pubs.
There are bigger things bothering me than some nebulous ‘right to smoke.’ Basic democratic principles (freedom of choice, property rights, free enterprise, tolerance) are increasingly regarded, by politicians and lobby groups acting in the name of ‘health,’ as nothing more than obstacles to be scornfully swept aside.
People need to look beyond their personal prejudices and wake up. The phenomenal recent success of the anti-smoking movement is evidence not of the ascendancy of a noble cause, but of phenomenal infusions of cash. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been extorted out of the US tobacco industry in behind-the-scenes deals like the Master Settlement Agreement. Add to that punitive taxation and especially, the enthusiastic support of the pharmaceutical industry – which wants to sell nicotine products and antidepressants to the world’s 1.2 billion smokers. This is how a fairly small network of prohibitionist fanatics grows into a juggernaut which simply intimidates any opposition into silence.
Anti-tobacco in Europe is driven to a large extent by the World Health Organisation – in an explicit partnership with three of the world’s biggest drug companies. AIDS, typhoid and dysentery are rampant in developing countries, and two million children a year die just from lack of clean water. Yet the WHO now prefers to bully the generally healthy citizens of prosperous countries over ‘lifestyle’ issues such as tobacco, alcohol, diet, obesity, and road safety.
Every aspect of our personal lives is being dictated, more and more, by unelected and unaccountable bodies like the WHO or various bit of the EU bureaucracy. If you don’t smoke, you may think it’s none of your business. But don’t kid yourself. If you’re a few pounds ‘overweight,’ or drink more than two government-defined ‘units’ of alcohol per day, or eat ‘unhealthy’ foods, then you’re next in line to be scapegoated and stigmatised, denied health care or insurance, denied jobs or housing, forbidden to adopt children . . . the list is growing daily.
These things are already happening in nanny states like the UK, Canada and Australia, and Germany can’t be so far behind. Nevertheless there is some cause for cautious optimism here. Germany, at least, won’t be the first country to sleep-walk into a joyless, squeaky-clean, socially-engineered future. So light a cigarette, raise a glass, and drink to that healthy disrespect for authority which is still alive and well in the bars of Berlin.
Click here to find out which smoky venues Joe Jackson will playing in Europe this summer.
Your comments about this article:
If you want to live with your head in the sand, and slowly kill yourself, be my guest. But if you want to smoke, just go outside.
That is indeed the question, Joe. The answer is that no one has such a right except a private property owner, and sadly their property rights have been taken out of the picture.
Government doesn't have rights, they have authority backed up with guns. Every law comes with the threat that if you don't obey, government agents will shoot you.
(And, oh my, that bit of anti-intellectualism lobbed at the DKFZ is just... precious.)
Smoking is not like drinking alcoholic beverages. Beverages doesn't waft on their own to the innocent bypassers and wreak havoc on their lives like smoking does. You are in denial about the danger of second-hand smoking by selecting just one study instead of many studies, let alone visiting the respiratory or children's department at the hospitals.
To be continued...
But nonetheless, point 7) is really a bit naughty and tendentious, especially from a guy as intelligent as JJ.
Skip over to Wikipedia on Passive Smoking and take a look for yourself.
The essence being: "Currently, the health risks of secondhand smoke are a matter of scientific consensus, and these risks have been one of the major motivations for smoking bans in workplaces and indoor public places, including restaurants, bars and night clubs."
And regarding point 6): Alas, also not true. Wish it were...
You might as well say that modern advances in quieter jet engines now mean that a large passenger jet on its final approach path over your house is virtually inaudible...
Still love your music, JJ, and have some great memories of LPs and concerts. But can't follow you on this one.
Best wishes,
Giles
But this doesn't matter because now Joe is his own scientist! Maybe he can write text books for Japanese school children and help fleeting right wing brains scurry over inconvenient facts that they're writhing with.
Joe, we hardly new ya....
The results of second-hand smoke on children are 1) Low birth rate babies 2) Developmental issues such Cerebral Palsy & other learning disabilities 3) Higher risks of SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) - an EPA study determined up to 2700 children die annually of SIDS due to second hand smoke. 4) Asthma, bronchitis, pneumonia, & chronic middle ear infections.
It is egoistic, irresponsible and just plan rude to intentionally subject another person our own bad habits (whatever they might be) - it is negligence when that habit has known harmful effects on others - especially children.
That shows far more irresponsibility on your part, than on any smoker...
EDIT: I really hate idiots who think that everything in the world should be "Family friendly"
The results of second-hand smoke on children are 1) Low birth rate babies 2) Developmental issues such Cerebral Palsy & other learning disabilities 3) Higher risks of SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) - an EPA study determined up to 2700 children die annually of SIDS due to second hand smoke. 4) Asthma, bronchitis, pneumonia, & chronic middle ear infections.
It is egoistic, irresponsible and just plan rude to intentionally subject another person our own bad habits (whatever they might be) - it is negligence when that habit has known harmful effects on others - especially children.
low birth weight babies.
A study in 1999 showed that men who smoke have a lower sex drive, as well as impaired sperm count, sperm motility, reduced sperm lifespan, and may cause genetic changes that affect the offspring.
[attachment=101993:monkey_and_elmo.jpg]
Be warned of the anti smoking brigade. It wants total prohibition. Remember what happened with alcohol prohibition? Al Capone once said "You can get farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone". That is how alcohol prohibition was broken. That is also how anti smoking and its stupid passive smoke 'science' will be broken.
Of course property owners should be able to decide to the allow the consumption of a legal product on their own premises. No-one is forced to enter a smoking bar no more than they are forced to enter an Indian restaurant. Its called choice! Spot on too about passive smoking which of course was conceived as an a strategy by the pharmacuetical companies sponsored anti-tobacco industry in the 70's. It was the Nazis who first invented 'passiverauchen' using junk science as a propaganda tool against 'undesirable' elements of society.
And Joe like you say the health zealots are now coming for the drinkers and the overweight. No doubt the holier than thou commenters on this article dont fall into these categories either.
If both sides of the issue would show some tolerance and understanding we can all find an acceptable medium. Places to smoke and places not to smoke then bury this hatchet once and for all.
Betsy47
I guess it's safe to assume they're all one and the same person.
More common sense for those that live here is to OPEN A WINDOW!!!
The Choice is up to you.
2.) Mr. Jackson sounds as intelligent as a rotting onion... "second hand smoke not harmful"??? wow... some out of work musician now negates what for over half a century has been widely accepted in the health community, even corroborated by the tobacco industry itself? After reading that, I can not take "the opinion" of this dolt seriously and basically let his own words discredit him.
3.) J Jackson is not objective, again hard to take him seriously... just because someone likes to smoke (and yes, its addictive, but never the less, its enjoyable)... be objective and honest. dont live in denial thinking it isnt harming you or others... dont think you arent stinking and that others dont smell how nasty you are... plus dont think that it doesnt effect your health or blood flow and that your sex life isnt suffereing... it is. Hey, nothing wrong with you enjoying smoking... but dont kid yourself: you stink, you most likely cant walk a flight of stairs, you suck in bed and more than likely will die way before your time.
4.) good luck finding a smoke ventilation system... they arent part of building codes or even standardized... which means it is at the entire expense and decision of the establishment owner and guess what... if you dont have to have something, why purchase a 25K? system? This is Germany, standards are much lower than other places with what you can get away with.
if you enjoy smoking... then do it... but dont be an idiot about it and blow it in other people's faces... it isnt your right, it is your privileged... and yes, it will be eventually banned, but it always takes a while, even in 1st world countries that have 3rd world like governments (i.e. Germany)...
TOBACCO... JUST SMOKE WEED!
I guess it's safe to assume they're all one and the same person.
jon-nj: Thank you very much sock-puppet-jon-nj. And may I say how astute it is of you to notice.
sock-puppet-jon-nj: Thank you very much. And can I add how I've always enjoyed your posts.
jon-nj: Yes of course, likewise I'm sure.
Ride on, ride on...
mobile phones are legal, but the use whilst driving an automobile is considered hazardous to public safety, therefore regulated... grilling in the park used to be legal in many berlin parks, but due to people abusing their civic responsibility, it has been regulated...
hey, i hate big government, and oddly Germany has way too big a government and there is way too much intrusion to people's lives here... however, its the irresponsibility of people and not being able to trust people (the masses) to "do the right thing" that causes more rules, more regulation and eventually more taxes to pay for it all. The masses complain, but dont realize it begins with them.
You can't avoid using the road. You have to sometimes drive, or take the bus or ride your bike to get to work, go shopping - basically to be able to live a normal life. So the government has to make the roads safe for all users. But what is it that compells you to go to the pub? Plus, the road belongs to the city, so it's their call.
As for grilling in the park - well hey, that land also belongs to the city, so they get to make the rules...
But who owns the pub?
Smokers stink, smoke stinks end of
Smokers stink, smoke stinks end of
"Here we go again...
Drinkers get obnoxious, obnoxious people fight, end of"
Yep - I reckon you can use this way of arguing to ban anything...
The pubs/restaurants cater to the money. If the restaurants/pubs are loosing money due to non smokers leaving in droves they would change the establishments rules and seating preferances. Sometimes laws should be consumer driven not always driven by the government.
The choice is up to you where you go and spend your money.
You can't avoid using the road. You have to sometimes drive, or take the bus or ride your bike to get to work, go shopping - basically to be able to live a normal life. So the government has to make the roads safe for all users. But what is it that compells you to go to the pub? Plus, the road belongs to the city, so it's their call.
As for grilling in the park - well hey, that land also belongs to the city, so they get to make the rules...
But who owns the pub?
however, pub/restaurant owners have a long list of regulations that protect public safety... not just the smoking issue.
public safety doesnt extend to "restricted land/property" (e.g., state owned)... it extends to all... hence why your landloard MUST clean the sidewalk, stair wells, take care of the maintenence of the house... you arent compelled to live there, but they are regulated in doing so...
not public safety issue, but along same regulatory lines "protecting public"
also... consumer rights are regulated and ensured by the state as well... if you buy a PC from media markt and its a lemon, by regulation, you have up to 2 years to claim it and by regulation media markt MUST compensate/trade/replace.
restaurants MUST maintain a level of cleanliness in all areas of their establishment (including bathrooms, entry and even their sidewalks in front of the place, which they dont own)... it is simply regulation... obviously clean food products, etc. are a given for this, but it falls under public safety.
if an establishment sells a food product, for example, that doesnt have all ingredients listed, it is illegal... again, a regulation protecting public under guise of public safety.
the anti-smoking, smoking ban, eventual wide spread ban on tobacco products (they will eventually be triple in price - its coming...) is being delivered under the guise of "public safety" by regulators/legislators.
however, politics/profits are the only thing stopping it... not the voice of smokers... dont think for a second that regulation or laws get held up due to "public outcry"... as in this case, smokers are a minority, Bundesweit.
I say, meet in the middle... let the smokers do their thing... but step outside or have an establishment that offers two areas... in accordance to already existing legistlation: if an establishment is small enough that you can stand in the door and observe the entire place and only have 1 to 2 employees that agree to it, then let the owner decide... however, but be clearly marked to the public prior to entering.
The choice is up to you where you go.
however, the tobacco lobby is so strong, a president was actually impeached and disbarred for his administration's pursuance of tobacco company settlements issues. (hint: Kenneth Starr's firm is and has always been the chief legal council representing the interest of the tobacco companies and its lobbies.)
PS: technically speaking, germany has been the 51st state since 1945 and/or American has been an extension of Germany since mid 1800's
Your analogy of unclean restaurants or selling defective goods also doesn't stand up, because the consumer is expecting his PC to work or his food to be clean when he orders it. If he goes into a pub and the pub clearly advertises that it allows smoking, then the consumer can have no complaints - much like if you buy a PC in the full knowledge that it doesn't work.
The government has deemed (rightly or wrongly), that smoking is not harmful enough to ban completely. So given that it's a legal product, and people are in no way compelled to ever go to the pub (it's a place where people voluntarily spend their leisure time), surely the decision on whether a place is smoke free or not should then be the call of the owner of the premises and not the government.
however, the tobacco lobby is so strong, a president was actually impeached and disbarred for his administration's pursuance of tobacco company settlements issues. (hint: Kenneth Starr's firm is and has always been the chief legal council representing the interest of the tobacco companies and its lobbies.)
PS: technically speaking, germany has been the 51st state since 1945 and/or American has been an extension of Germany since mid 1800's
Your analogy of unclean restaurants or selling defective goods also doesn't stand up, because the consumer is expecting his PC to work or his food to be clean when he orders it. If he goes into a pub and the pub clearly advertises that it allows smoking, then the consumer can have no complaints - much like if you buy a PC in the full knowledge that it doesn't work.
The government has deemed (rightly or wrongly), that smoking is not harmful enough to ban completely. So given that it's a legal product, and people are in no way compelled to ever go to the pub (it's a place where people voluntarily spend their leisure time), surely the decision on whether a place is smoke free or not should then be the call of the owner of the premises and not the government.
tobacco is a regulated and controlled substance... not a "legal product" per see, like alcohol, like several narcotics and prescriptions, etc. Even the "bio" label found on products.
public smoking's time is nearing end... regardless how we personally feel or whatever our personal habits are... it is. and the way its being done: under the label of public health/safety.
simply opening a bar/restaurant/cafe/pub isnt your RIGHT... it is a privileged and one has to apply, pay the appropriate dues and adhere to a long list of regulations, rules and stipulations in order to engage in this kind of business (or any business for that matter)... so you cant simply just show up at some flea market with a grill and begin grilling wurst and selling them to the public... you will be fined... you have to have proof of health departments standards being met, that you have a tax number, listed in local handelskammer/commercial trade, etc., etc. etc.
people spending their leisurely time is their choice where... but not because someone decided on a whim to set up shop... and then they do what they want in that shop.. doesnt work that way.
PS : you offer a very objective and intelligent debate Hazza ;-)
simply opening a bar/restaurant/cafe/pub isnt your RIGHT... it is a privileged and one has to apply, pay the appropriate dues and adhere to a long list of regulations, rules and stipulations in order to engage in this kind of business (or any business for that matter)... so you cant simply just show up at some flea market with a grill and begin grilling wurst and selling them to the public... you will be fined... you have to have proof of health departments standards being met, that you have a tax number, listed in local handelskammer/commercial trade, etc., etc. etc.
people spending their leisurely time is their choice where... but not because someone decided on a whim to set up shop... and then they do what they want in that shop.. doesnt work that way.
I'll be sure to drop a copy of this by the oncology ward when your arrogance catches up with you.
You're right -- go ahead and commit all sorts of atrocities on private property. It's private property after all!
Atrocities...hahahahahaha
It has nothing to do with personal rights/choice/etc.
This smoking ban doesn?t seem to work - the feckers are now standing outside smoking and polluting the whole planet.
The Local is a smelly kipper.
[attachment=102107:atemp.jpg]
It has nothing to do with personal rights/choice/etc.
The reason they've given here for the ban, is protection for the public - which given that going to a bar is a pure leisure activity, is a somewhat flawed premise.
Why should we be forced to breathe the air from a cigarette? I have not gone to any pubs for many years because I will not go somewhere where there are smokers. So the times I happen to passively smoke I get a headache. What do they put in cigarets? strychnine? Come on Joe you know very well smoking is bad for you and the people around you. For one thing it shortens your breathe and as a singer I doubt singers are encouraged to smoke?
The government waste more time and tax money on things like "trying to find out the evils of scientology" (aka: restricting human rights of freedom of religion/belief), trying to cleverly ban NPD due to its extreme right ties (aka: restricting human rights of freedom of belief/creed), not implementing a minimum wage (really looking out for the well being of workers, huh?), cutting funding in schools, arts and development programs (might as well develop a nation of dull, non-well rounded, unemployable people), create more failing programs to enable unemployment (Harz V, IchAG, MiniJob and other anti-social "social programs" that look good on paper and lower "negative statistics"), etc etc etc... taking real action or a real stand would be way too political dangerous.
Germany needs an Obama!
These are not questionable scientific phenomena, they are factual results of having to put up with smokers.
I'm a fan of Joe Jackson the musician but Joe Jackson the pseudo scientist leaves me cold (and smelly)
Most teenagers bug the out of me. So I choose not to go to places which will have lots of teenagers in them. I really don't like ear-splittingly loud dance music. So I choose not to go to most nightclubs. You see a pattern forming...apart from the obvious one of me being old and boring?
That said, workers shouldn't have to work in a dangerous work place, nor should someone have to reject a job because they value their health more than their potential employer does. That is why we have workplace health and safety regulations. Smoking should be banned at the workplace period. That is the only justification for a smoking ban, and is the reason almost every other countries has enacted it.
This "protect the people" argument is complete nonsense. It might hold up when you try to make public services buildings smoke free, because people have to use them. But no one is forcing you to go into a smokey bar.
Paracelsus (1493 - 1541)
This sentence should in any terms be considered when we talk about smoking bans. I don' put into question that smoking is not healthy. But I like to sit with some friends and to smoke some cigarillos at the end of the day. This is my personal kind of relaxation and enjoyment.
The point in the current discussion about smoking bans is that up to now there is no scientific proof that "second hand smoke" in restaurants, cafes and pubs is dangerous to non-smokers. It is rather a matter of convenience / inconvenience. As a matter of fact we have to realize that all smoking-ban-laws in the world are based on faulty statistics and their adventurous interpretations. And here I see the danger. Why don't the governments simply set up a research on a really scientific basis? Perhaps they are afraid that there is no evidence at all?
And here we come back to Paracelsus' quote: Exaggerated laws can be much more dangerous not only to a single person but to all of us. We have to keep a careful eye on our governments.
I thought Germany was an advanced member of the western world, but the relaxation on the indoor smoking ban is proving that theory totally wrong. How is it that you can't take out the glass recycle on a Sunday cause you might disturb the neighbors, and yet you can freely give your neighbors cancer? Nothing like guaranting your social healthcare system will have plenty of patients.
Then, in October 1997, the British Medical Journal published two studies by researchers from St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, which pulled all these inconclusive studies together and put them through the statistical mangle.
Out dripped the result that many just knew was in there: evidence that passive smoking leads to a 26 per cent increased risk of lung cancer, with a similar increase for heart disease.
There is a lot of scepticism and indeed doubt even within the scientific community, whether this is the case for passive smoking.
Normally we look for proof before we start implementing laws that harm people's livelihoods and Joe Jackson is 100% correct when he says:
EDIT: and "cannot be good for your health" is a vastly different result to "might kill you"...sitting at my desk in the office is also not "good for my health"
Soon we will have more re-runs than a cable TV station!
Does that happen? Sounds like a weird sort of part game.
I came back from a biergarten stinking of smoke the other day - not cigarettes; stecklefisch. Yep, smoky fishy smell. Rank. Really horrible waking up with a bit of a hangover, and smelling fishy smoke on the pile of clothes that you threw on the floor. I suppose I could choose to not go to places where they prepare stecklefisch, but I think it my "right" to do so, and that the militant fish grillers should well go somewhere else. Everyone knows that fish cause cancer anyway, so they are just loosers! I prefer to be a winner!! FTW! FTW!!!11! lol. rofl. lmao.
You have to love scientists, always changing their minds, sometimes taking part in trials payed for by one interest group or the other.
However as they say, science keeps on evaluating itself and coming out with new results - which is a good thing.
I believe Stephen Hawking said nothing could escape a black hole - until he changed his mind that is.
Does one journal entry count as being the most of the scientific community? Plus, 118094 is a very small number of people compared to the trial number of people who smoke.
I can't say if it is small enough to make it statistically (given the small number of people in the experiment compared to the number of poeple smoking in total) unsound or not. then again,you can make statistics say what you want.
I say down with all fish sellers
Article again...
Anyways you win man!
I really liked the bit about driving camels - it does so much to strengthen an amusing stereotype.
As far as Jackson, he can piss off. It really isn't that much of a hardship to walk outside for a smoke and it lets the majority of the population who don't smoke attend his shows without having to breathe in the noxious, carcinogenic smoke with the added benefit that they don't have to shower immediately after getting home to remove the stench.
woof.
As for smoking. Let people do what they want.
People also don't say "bastard nightclub. Kept playing music that made me dance with loads of nubile young girls. Got well sweaty and had to shower immediately after getting home to remove the stench", though some people do go home for a .
Anyway, I've forgotten my point.
It could also be said that in this case, the new evidence was incorrect and tainted by funding from an interest group who stood to lose out if the evidence went against them
So we are screwed - religions don't change their mind, some scientists do if paid through funding. We can't win, at least one group believes what they say.
Having said that, I do like scientists types, they are the reason I do not have to go out clubbing animals to death in order to eat. The most dangerous thing I have to do is shop in Penny just after they have swapped the shelves round.
Those trolleys can leave a nasty mark
@DR - I think the 'had to shower' is as much as anyone says after getting home after a night of dancing with nimble sweaty young girls. They may however go ahead with...
Because that's what the American Cancer Society accused him of.
He was investigated and found not guilty
If we discount his study because a tobacco company sponsored it (and only in the latter stages, when others withdrew their support), then surely we must also discount any studies conducted and/or sponsored by health organisations who have an interest in finding passive smoking harmful...
Commenter's missing the point? Freedom Of Choice?
"Oppression" is the bigger issue here... not smoking. The subject of smoking, sets the platform for a much greater issue and fragility in regards to "our" freedom of choice. "All People" should have the right to choose, live & be who & how they want.... whether they smoke or not!
Oppression, simply doesn't work as a means proactively to uplift any culture by downing another . One can simply replace the "smoking issue" with: Religion, sugar, hi-fat products, dog allowance, alcohol or many other "legal acts/choices of freedom". For example - Should the practice of a specific religion also be on the great ban list? Religious institutions have certainly been a much larger cause of deaths & oppression than smoking. And how about sugar, hi cholesterol products, televised brain-washing marketing, alcohol, automobiles… and politics?
"Oppression" is the bigger issue here... not smoking. The subject of smoking, sets the platform for a much greater issue and fragility in regards to ?our? freedom of choice. "All People" should have the right to choose, live & be who & how they want... whether they smoke or not!
Oppression, simply doesn't work as a means proactively to uplift any culture by downing another . One can simply replace the ?smoking issue? with: Religion, sugar, hi-fat products, dog allowance, alcohol or many other ?legal acts/choices of freedom?. For example - Should the practice of a specific religion also be on the great ban list? Religious institutions have certainly been a much larger cause of deaths & oppression than smoking. And how about sugar, hi cholesterol products, televised brain-washing marketing, alcohol, automobiles? and politics?
If people like or don't like smoking, then they can simply CHOOSE (if free) to go to a place that supports their "choice". Establishment owners, SHOULD have the right to choose WHAT they wish to entertain at their bar, restaurant or whatever. To ban an activity & that freedom of choice, and especially if it is within the confines of legal magistrates - is moronically puritanical.
I being a smoker and mostly a non-smoker over the varying cycles of my 40+ years, support ?Freedom Of Choice?. Also my experience as a professional therapist & artist, I have never seen oppression once work as a method of uplifting consciousness, health or community.
Consensus schemes are also on the most part NOT objective ? but tainted by the mind-set of those creating them. If one is a hard core non-smoker and creates a consensus ? how may you imagine how the consensus results were piloted?
The rebuttals that I read here by those who are not objective and hunger for a ban on "smoker's rights" are simply inane, short sighted and biased. Those who make personal attacks on Joe?s statements are just short of a ?witch hunt? to castigate the guy?s voice as well - blindly. Responsibility is the ability to respond. To do that with objectivity I believe is "key", thus it doesn?t take sides, but clearly sees the issue at hand.
In regards to Pharmaceutical companies and a greater percentage of Western medicine??? Both have been greatly damaging to society via their persuasions of the white cloth persona, marketing, scientific ignorance and greed.
Freedom is becoming more & more fragile in the world... don't take it for granted, and we should all see the deeper issue here...
I would agree with you if they were trying to ban smoking outright, but they are not, they are just trying to stop your freedom from infringing on the freedom of others (in this case, the freedom to breathe fresh air at the workplace).
I'd still like to know if anyone has ever been proven to die of passive smoking.
sockpuppet-o-meter rates KreuzbergKris at 9.7
sockpuppet-o-meter rates KreuzbergKris at 9.7
But it stands to reason that the extra 4 hours a day and the entire weekend that people spent at home with their smoking partners would have had some increased impact. Furthermore, there are still plenty of people who didn't work in offices and didn't go to smoky pubs, etc in those days. In fact, if you think about it logically, those non-smokers with smoking partners were probably also more likely to be exposed to 2nd hand smoke if they went to pubs/cinemas/public transport with their partners, as they would be sitting right next to a smoker the whole time.
But, yeah - I'm sure some partners of non-smoker were exposed to the same amount or even more air pollution than partners of smokers - however the beauty of a sample size as large as almost 120,000, those sort of variations even out and overall, partners of smokers would be subject to more 2nd hand smoke than those people who's partners didn't smoke.
If this study had gone the other way, though - then you'd be all over it, not trying to discredit it...
Smoking is not about the rights of the smoker. It's about the rights of clean air. Germans want to be so eco friendly. But as another article states, Germany is only so so when it comes to the environment in practise. We were born non smokers. Clean air is a right in all environments for all.
Anyone who believes someone else's smoke does not affect them is an ostrich with their heads in the sand.
Common Germans, what are you afraid of? that you will no longer want to smoke? You wont be able to waste all your money on cigarettes? Keep up the smoking ban, The rest of the developed world is becoming non smoking. Visitors to Germany who are used to clean air in public places detest all that cigarette smoke.
G.Griffin,
Canada
Statistical proof can confirm that second-hand smoke increases your risk of lung cancer, without being able to say "Him. He died of second-hand smoke".
Newbie Kreutzbergkris - So you are saying that, statistically that smoking is not a contributing factor in the deaths of your friends etc.
Oh, hang on, you just said statistics didn't mean anything...
Pro-smoking lobby
KBCraig, verga, williamsburg-berlin, Soren, Nipper McCoy, andyd, Betsy47, janebrown, genuss-berlin, KreubergKris
Anti-smoking lobby
Yoram, Verga, williamsburg-berlin, BDannyBoi, kduffy and gretelg
Here is a shift. What if you talk about another legal addictive substance that has killed more people in history than tobacco? Alcohol? Ban the Pubs. That way no one can drive home drunk. Or walk in front of a car train etc.... Or ban Alcohol for public health reasons. Changes the whole freedom thing doesn't it when it impinges on yours?
Go ahead and pick anything, everyone who does it will be up in arms, those anti wil be Ban Ban Ban!!!
[attachment=102346:short_ar...1385369i.jpg]
This would be real freedom of choice for the owner and the patrons.
This would be real freedom of choice for the owner and the patrons.
i get it
Work somewhere else...
Having lived in Berlin for the better part of three years, I'’ve been asked to write something about my ‘right’ to smoke here. But I'’m not sure I have one. The real question, I think, is: who has the right to forbid me to smoke, and on what grounds?
...
It hits on all the same stupid points that pro-smokers always bring up:
- smokers have an ABSOLUTE right to smoke anywhere and everywhere
- we are in danger of becoming a nanny state (I'll call you a whambulance)
- anti-smokers are nazis ("first they came for the smokers" to force them to live longer)
- people who don't like smoke or have health problems have NO RIGHTS and should JUST STAY HOME, they should not even be allowed to talk
- smoking is the same as alcohol (I'll drink to that)
- I don't believe in science so you can't either
- let the free market decide.
When there is NO ban, EVERY bar is a smoking bar. This, despite the fact that the majority of the people are non-smokers. If cars have the same rights as pedestrians to use a street, I can never cross a street until there is no traffic.
I am looking forward to this so-called dystopian world where these modern opium dens become "squeaky-clean". But maybe by then there will be some new stupid addiction.
List of smoking bans (Wikipedia)
The comparsion with alcohol doesn't really hold water (hmm, please forgive the infelicitous metaphor...). If someone sitting next to me in a bar drinks beer or whisky or antifreeze or whatever, that's their business, their pleasure and their responsibility to manage the inherent health risks to themselves. Long live personal freedom (yes, really...). If that person doesn't throw up on my table/shoes or whatever or start getting aggro with me or anyone else, then live and let live. If someone smokes next to me in a café, then obviously this becomes my issue as well, because I start smoking as well. And please check Wikipedia on "Passive Smoking" for the scientific consensus on health first, before simply denying this point...
Any of you normal smokers ever been in an S-Bahn when some poor junkie soul on the seat opposite gets out his spoon and lighter and starts freebasing heroin? Feel nice and comfortable when the fumes start enveloping you as well? Is it then his personal freedom to do his thing? If I don't like the sensation and idea of inhaling heroin-laden fumes, does that mean I'm reactionary and illiberal and that, after all, I'm free to walk or buy a car instead?... If he shoots up with a needle then it's his lookout and it doesn't really impinge on my freedom. But if he freebases, then to my mind it does.
Just for the sake of clarity, I'm not putting tobacco on the same level of health risk as heroin, OK? I'm not totally stoopid But otherwise the comparsion is to my mind useful - certainly as regards the difference between alcohol and tobacco with respect to 'personal freedom' issues.
All the best und nix für ungut,
Giles
Work somewhere else...
In my opinion, someone should never have to turn down a job because their workplace is unsafe, when it could easily be made safe. That is what the smoking ban does. It forces 50% of people (which is an overestimation) leave the pub for a few minutes while they have a cigarette. Like we've seen around the world, this is no big deal for most people.
Perfect comparison!
The comparsion with alcohol doesn't really hold water (hmm, please forgive the infelicitous metaphor...). If someone sitting next to me in a bar drinks beer or whisky or antifreeze or whatever, that's their business, their pleasure and their responsibility to manage the inherent health risks to themselves. Long live personal freedom (yes, really...). If that person doesn't throw up on my table/shoes or whatever or start getting aggro with me or anyone else, then live and let live. If someone smokes next to me in a café, then obviously this becomes my issue as well, because I start smoking as well. And please check Wikipedia on "Passive Smoking" for the scientific consensus on health first, before simply denying this point...
Any of you normal smokers ever been in an S-Bahn when some poor junkie soul on the seat opposite gets out his spoon and lighter and starts freebasing heroin? Feel nice and comfortable when the fumes start enveloping you as well? Is it then his personal freedom to do his thing? If I don't like the sensation and idea of inhaling heroin-laden fumes, does that mean I'm reactionary and illiberal and that, after all, I'm free to walk or buy a car instead?... If he shoots up with a needle then it's his lookout and it doesn't really impinge on my freedom. But if he freebases, then to my mind it does.
Just for the sake of clarity, I'm not putting tobacco on the same level of health risk as heroin, OK? I'm not totally stoopid But otherwise the comparsion is to my mind useful - certainly as regards the difference between alcohol and tobacco with respect to 'personal freedom' issues.
All the best und nix für ungut,
Giles
In my opinion, someone should never have to turn down a job because their workplace is unsafe, when it could easily be made safe. That is what the smoking ban does. It forces 50% of people (which is an overestimation) leave the pub for a few minutes while they have a cigarette. Like we've seen around the world, this is no big deal for most people.
So where's your thread calling for the banning of Alaskan crab fishing, because of the outrageous danger it poses to the workers?
It certainly makes sense that smoking at eating establishements is banned when the majority of the clientele doesn't smoke anyway, these people want to have the choice of not wanting to inhale smoke! And, as experience in the past has shown, without non-smoking legislation they don't seem to have this choice.
Poor Joe Jackson, the air seems to be getting thin for him, he seems to be desperately relocating as soon as non-smoking legislation catches up with him. He left New York in 2003 soon after the smoking ban there and now seems to have left Portsmouth, UK, probably because of the UK smoking ban. No wonder he's complaining about Berlin/Germany, the smoking bans are catching up with him. The problem is, that there are hardly any countries left that don't have smoking bans - as far as I can see these are Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, other countries in Central and Western Africa and Cyprus. Do Joe Jackson and the other smokers really want to move there?
I think they might just have to adapt and accept the inevitable that they have to step out for a smoke!
Market forces, if I was a pub owner no way would i make it the only non smoking joint in town. I'd lose money. The fact that isolated non smoking pubs are not crowded does not mean that nobody wants non smoking pubs. You go out for a drink on Saturday night. Either with your friends or hope to meet them there. One is a smoker. He wants to go to a smoking pub, and his non smoking friends tag along. If the smoking friend is considerate he'll step outside for a smoke, a lot won't. Not required so can't be bothered.
If all pubs are non smoking, the smokers will still happily go out for a night's drinking, and step outside for a smoke because they have no choice. Its -15 outside, they want nicotine, so out they go. But if going outside was voluntary, what idiot is going outside to -15 when he can comfortably enjoy his cigarette perched on his bar stool, admiring talent??? (Answer an unusually considerate one)
The human race is intrinsically selfish. Even though smokers realise the benefits of coming home from a night in the pub, without their clothes stinking of smoke, if its voluntary at least one will not bother. And if one doesn't bother why should the rest bother? But if the law demands they go outside to smoke, it becomes a non issue. You might just as well complain about gravity or the GEZ
Likewise, you can just ask smokers to walk outside or use a smoking room away from where the employee works to make their job safer. It seems like an incredibly small ask for a big payoff in my opinion.
And if you can't stand the smell of smoke, the sight of overweight people or the noses of jews then that's your problem, not mine or that of some bar/restaurant owner.
Market forces, if I was a pub owner no way would i make it the only non smoking joint in town. I'd lose money. The fact that isolated non smoking pubs are not crowded does not mean that nobody wants non smoking pubs. You go out for a drink on Saturday night. Either with your friends or hope to meet them there. One is a smoker. He wants to go to a smoking pub, and his non smoking friends tag along. If the smoking friend is considerate he'll step outside for a smoke, a lot won't. Not required so can't be bothered.
If all pubs are non smoking, the smokers will still happily go out for a night's drinking, and step outside for a smoke because they have no choice. Its -15 outside, they want nicotine, so out they go. But if going outside was voluntary, what idiot is going outside to -15 when he can comfortably enjoy his cigarette perched on his bar stool, admiring talent??? (Answer an unusually considerate one)
The human race is intrinsically selfish. Even though smokers realise the benefits of coming home from a night in the pub, without their clothes stinking of smoke, if its voluntary at least one will not bother. And if one doesn't bother why should the rest bother? But if the law demands they go outside to smoke, it becomes a non issue. You might just as well complain about gravity or the GEZ
Likewise, you can just ask smokers to walk outside or use a smoking room away from where the employee works to make their job safer. It seems like an incredibly small ask for a big payoff in my opinion.
Oh, hang on, I have a solution. Perhaps people could just choose to work in a different profession if they weren't happy to take the risks associated with any particular job...
EDIT: Hutcho, have you ever worked in a bar?
Work somewhere else...
we have been over this before and like before, you are wrong. rule and regulations, no matter how much of a rebel you want to be, ensure people do the right thing.
how about this one: if an employee is found out to be a smoker in his private life: he will be terminated immediately and fined for all past salary. dont like it? then dont work there... get the point?
there is no debate or argument, no matter how many tobacco "scientist" you find blogging on the net... get over it and stop trying to rationalize your addiction... call it what it is...
This May, for example, the University of Massachusetts Medical School banned all tobacco use from their campus and hospital, including parking lots. If an employee is caught smoking, they risk being fired.
Some companies forbid their employees to light up at all -- even at home. There are at least 20 states that allow for this type of work policy...
In Massachusetts, Scott Rodrigues, was fired from Scotts Miracle-Gro Company -- which bans its workers from smoking at all -- after testing positive for nicotine. Rodrigues has sued the multibillion dollar corporation for an invasion of his privacy and civil rights. The case is still being decided in the Massachusetts courts. A spokesperson for Scotts Miracle-Gro said the company does not comment on pending litigation.
- from Can your company force you to be healthy?
So people are already being refused employment or being fired for smoking anywhere at all.
Also - why are you (like Hutcho) not outraged that Alaskan crab fishing is not banned? It has a very high death toll of 300 per 100,000 and doesn't even provide an essential sevice. Where is your thread condeming the industry for putting those workers at risk?
These professions have their own health and safety regulations and, did I mention, these activities have nothing to do with me.
An alcoholic drinking at home as nothing to do with me.
Someone smoking near me does have something to do with me because I have to put up with their habit/addiction. That is why I think most poeple just try to ignore what smokers say, they are ranting about personal rights in connection with an addictive substance. As such only the addicts rights are of importance.
If crack addicts went on about their rights to take it, would we really listen? Most people would take the view that they are just saying that because they are an addict.
*term 'me' used as this seems to be a personal topic to some poeple and addiction is a 'me' kind of subject to addicts.
It's like people going to amusement parks and then getting all pissed-off with the rollercoaster because they're scared of heights. Just don't go on it...
EDIT: and if there were places that specifically allowed crack addicts to smoke their crack, and I knew about it, then I could also make the choice to go there or to avoid them.
Pubs aka Public Houses were just that: Public Houses, were the patron could decide who came in and what went on. I don't give a flying about the smoking/non smoking palaver but I do consider the patron of a pub to be the man in his own house and visitors to abide by his rules. Not some trumped up bollocks about "protecting" workers health. I also say that a good 90% of bar workers smoke, so that argument is also bollocks. If you can't stand the smoke get out of the kitchen, err pub.
Edit: Hazza has just touched on this but I didn't see it before I posted.
I smoke myself but for fxxk sake it's just polite to consider people around you before lighting a cigarette! In other words you wash if you stink! Ie you don't blame other people for being on the bus complaining if you stink of 5 weeks sweat would you? Consider other people - that is your responsibility living in a city! Don't act like a teenager who just left home!
I smoke myself but for fxxk sake it's just polite to consider people around you before lighting a cigarette! In other words you wash if you stink! Ie you don't blame other people for being on the bus complaining if you stink of 5 weeks sweat would you? Consider other people - that is your responsibility living in a city! Don't act like a teenager who just left home!
Does nobody understand the difference between these places and a place you go to purely in your leisure time?? If there were private businesses open where people who liked to piss all over the floor were welcome to go and the owner of the place decided to offer a niche business for these people, then why not let them do it? You don't have to go there. That such a thing doesn't exist is more due to the lack of demand than any legislation. Demand does, however exist for smoking in bars...
A pub is not a smoking establishment. It's a drinking establishment. I'm not sure how it is in Germany, but I know that in California and also in Australia, it's perfectly acceptable under the ban to open establishments that are specifically for smoking.
Obviously, as you're not compelled to be there - if it's not your thing, you just go elsewhere and let the people with the strange fetish have their fun...
So could I open an establishment in California or Australia that allows both drinking and smoking? Because a lot of people like to do both together...
okay, im going to go totally manic random now...
smoking is going by the wayside... that isnt debated... its "out" for more than 20 years... it hasnt been considered cool, hip or trendy since early 80's... smoking is generally considered being a little too conservative old school - most think its a "sign of weakness" "only losers do it" ... plus, your SEX LIFE WILL be affected. Sorry... smokers are worse in bed than non-smokers... fact. blood flow is limited due to the weakened arteries, cardiovascular is lower, cerebral concentration proven lowered. So, not a bright/quick thinker... not good in bed... cant barely go on a walk or up stairs... stink (which will also affect your love and most likely professional life)... sleep poorly... can affect poor diet (due to sensory of smell and taste being dulled)... what is the draw? the majority of smokers want to quit but dont know how?
so what is the draw?
ahhhh, yes... that proven fact that addictive chemical agents are used... ahhhh... yes... and when in carbon form or gas form, produces toxins that break down peptides and amino acids topically and inhaled - hence why you get light headed that the nicotine/chemicals replaces oxygen going to all your cells (proving that second and third hand smoke is harmful... however, would have to be in increased amounts, not from one or two smokers... say a room full, yes... you will notice a difference)
a lot of establishments have actually built a smoker's room/glass room/separate, whatever... interesting that these rooms are always somewhat empty and becoming more and more empty... the crowds of people standing outside bars/clubs/cafes smoking butts is getting smaller... and im talking about perhaps the most hippest, trendy parts all of Germany: Berlin: P-Berg, X-Berg, F'schain, Sch-berg and obviously Mitte. I get out a lot so I see and know the difference.
PS: also the on-going trend Im finding... bars that allow smoking (usually after certain time) also allow "alternative" smoking (i.e. weed)... Berlin is completely tolerant of weed smoking...
PSS: FDP political party actually is a major supporter of legalizing cannabis for personal and medicinal purposes and launching major awareness campaigns about alcohol and tobacco abuse (which they say Germany is one of Europe's most frightening afflicted countries)
There is and has always been a differentiation between businesses that deal with leisure activities and those that deal with essential services. Do you think that your local Plus could run if the death or injury rate of going into one of their stores was the same as, say skiing??
If you don't want to differentiate, then does that mean you also want to ban anyone from partaking in those activites too? Because there are many, many sports and other leisure activities that have a much, much higher level of danger than sitting in a smoky pub...
so what is the draw?
ahhhh, yes... that proven fact that addictive chemical agents are used... ahhhh... yes... and when in carbon form or gas form, produces toxins that break down peptides and amino acids topically and inhaled - hence why you get light headed that the nicotine/chemicals replaces oxygen going to all your cells (proving that second and third hand smoke is harmful... however, would have to be in increased amounts, not from one or two smokers... say a room full, yes... you will notice a difference)
a lot of establishments have actually built a smoker's room/glass room/separate, whatever... interesting that these rooms are always somewhat empty and becoming more and more empty... the crowds of people standing outside bars/clubs/cafes smoking butts is getting smaller... and im talking about perhaps the most hippest, trendy parts all of Germany: Berlin: P-Berg, X-Berg, F'schain, Sch-berg and obviously Mitte. I get out a lot so I see and know the difference.
Obviously, given that most places somehow try to circumvent the ban, it's not as "uncool" as you think.
And in my observation, the smoking areas are normally more packed than the non-smoking areas. Interesting is the UK, where nobody seems to sit inside pubs anymore. Everyone stands outside and only comes in to buy drinks...
EDIT: Oh yeah - and what is third hand smoke?
I've never in my life been forced to enter a bar or pub, nor been forced to work in one. Perhaps all this outrage over the poor bar workers might be better used to help improve the working conditions of young women lured and exploited and forced to work in bordellos? I doubt they're being protected from smoke, either.
THERE EXIST NO LEGISLATION THAT CLASSIFIES ONE BUSINESS OVER ANOTHER AS "LEISURE" ... and you certainly can buy beer late at night at any of the establishments you mentioned... it is up to those companies' discretion if they want to open or not... Penny Markt near me stays open until midnight... Reichelt opposite side of the street stays open 24/hours a day, 7/days a week... yes, at 4am, it is possible to see "leisureliness" of its "patrons"...
I can name 8 grocery stores open on sunday always, clothing stores, etc. again, its subject to those companies wishing to operate or not... government doesnt hold them back anymore with those archaic blue laws from year's past (ironic that governments in "socialized" countries actually inhibit social growth... hence, why economy is always stagnate in growth)...
interesting to bring up the "allowed" human trafficking and sex slaves that goes on in this country... i know it wasnt your point, but I dont really take populous' opinions very seriously of a country where this is allowed and tolerated, along with other common human right's abuses.
hazza: you actually think smoking is cool? LOL... wow... are you guest staring with Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz on the Ed Sullivan Show? sorry... i dont even know smokers who think smoking is cool... they seem more ashamed of it... "smoking is cool"... ha ha ha ha ha ha... that has to be the most hilarious thing ive seen yet.
THERE EXIST NO LEGISLATION THAT CLASSIFIES ONE BUSINESS OVER ANOTHER AS "LEISURE" ... and you certainly can buy beer late at night at any of the establishments you mentioned... it is up to those companies' discretion if they want to open or not... Penny Markt near me stays open until midnight... Reichelt opposite side of the street stays open 24/hours a day, 7/days a week... yes, at 4am, it is possible to see "leisureliness" of its "patrons"...
I can name 8 grocery stores open on sunday always, clothing stores, etc. again, its subject to those companies wishing to operate or not... government doesnt hold them back anymore with those archaic blue laws from year's past (ironic that governments in "socialized" countries actually inhibit social growth... hence, why economy is always stagnate in growth)...
If you suffer from a fear of heights and have a weak heart, then are you forced to go to the amusement park and ride the rollercoaster? No more than anyone who has a problem with smoky places is forced to go to the pub. And you can't expect the amusement park to have to make the track flat along the ground and slow the ride down just to make it suitable for you.
Now I didn't see you respond at all to my assertion that there are businesses that place their customers at far greater risk than a smoky bar. So I'll ask again - given that you want all businesses to be treated exactly the same, do you think that all of these should be shut down?
Obviously, as you're not compelled to be there - if it's not your thing, you just go elsewhere and let the people with the strange fetish have their fun...
Arguing that smoking has always been allowed is not an argument. Hey, for THOUSANDS of years humans have been used as slave labor, and their presence was synonymous with construction and manual labor in general. Should we still enslave people for labor?
(Gratuitous "" included to see if this comment goes over to The Local )
Not my cup of tea (sic) but such places do exist.
No one is forced to go to them.
oh stop whining... either dont read it or dont get pissy because you fail to comprehend the point .. by the way '"learned"... "learnt"?
seriously... oh the irony.
If you suffer from a fear of heights and have a weak heart, then are you forced to go to the amusement park and ride the rollercoaster? No more than anyone who has a problem with smoky places is forced to go to the pub. And you can't expect the amusement park to have to make the track flat along the ground and slow the ride down just to make it suitable for you.
Now I didn't see you respond at all to my assertion that there are businesses that place their customers at far greater risk than a smoky bar. So I'll ask again - given that you want all businesses to be treated exactly the same, do you think that all of these should be shut down?
You're making yourself look laughable by being so hung up about workers rights here, but completely ignoring the real dangers other workers face. How is anyone supposed to take you seriously?
I didn't say that I thought smoking is cool. Show me where I said that? I was merely pointing to the fact that market forces dictated that basically every pub in the country allowed smoking and even after the ban has been put in place, most have tried to find loopholes...
there is really not debate you have offered that can be taken seriously or that hasnt already been blown out of the water... its all back and forth, back and forth.
we simply will agree to disagree. henceforth... this thread and debate will continue to rage on with more people "interpreting" or "pretending to understand" what the actual legislation and regulations are. bickering with a bunch of people on a ex pat forum is futile and fruitless ...
seriously... oh the irony.
there is really not debate you have offered that can be taken seriously or that hasnt already been blown out of the water... its all back and forth, back and forth.
we simply will agree to disagree. henceforth... this thread and debate will continue to rage on with more people "interpreting" or "pretending to understand" what the actual legislation and regulations are. bickering with a bunch of people on a ex pat forum is futile and fruitless ...
The weak argument is the protection of customers crap...You haven't been able to show why anybody NEEDS to frequent a bar, or even provide a suitable analogy. And then it's very easy to just call my rollercoaster analogy weak, without stating how the logic doesn't stand up...If you think my reasoning and logic is weak - then show me where and counter it.
Just for the record, I would ban smoking anywhere where young children are allowed to go. Adults can choose where they go, but children are usually just taken along. So the restaurant smoking ban would stand - unless there was a separate room, where children were banned. It would even allow pubs and Gaststätte to let children in during the day and then ban them late at night and allow the patrons to smoke then.
But as adults can make their own decisions, they can surely decide for themselves what sort of environment they want to put themselves in. And those people who want these laws to be forced onto the general population are saying "I can't seem to control where I go myself, so I need the government to help me". I think it makes you look stupid.
As far as employees safety goes...well I think that if only places where children aren't allowed can allow smoking, then it's a very minor percentage of workers that will have to work in smoky conditions. Certainly a small enough number to be able to allow them to choose whether they want to work there or somewhere smoke-free, without limiting their choice of where they work unreasonably. Seriously - if enough workplaces allowed smoking to have such an impact on people that they had no choice but to work in a smoky environment, then I'd be on the streets protesting with everyone else...
EDIT: just as a caveat, I would also keep the office smoking ban on top of the "no smoking where children are". People in offices also don't have much choice but to be there...
EDIT2: Actually, I take that back - if offices want to allow smoking than they should be allowed to. However, I reckon that there would be so much opposition to allowing it that just about every company would have smoke-free policies themselves, without the need for legislation...
THERE EXIST NO LEGISLATION THAT CLASSIFIES ONE BUSINESS OVER ANOTHER AS "LEISURE" ... and you certainly can buy beer late at night at any of the establishments you mentioned... it is up to those companies' discretion if they want to open or not... Penny Markt near me stays open until midnight... Reichelt opposite side of the street stays open 24/hours a day, 7/days a week... yes, at 4am, it is possible to see "leisureliness" of its "patrons"...
I can name 8 grocery stores open on sunday always, clothing stores, etc. again, its subject to those companies wishing to operate or not... government doesnt hold them back anymore with those archaic blue laws from year's past (ironic that governments in "socialized" countries actually inhibit social growth... hence, why economy is always stagnate in growth)...
Gesetz über die Ladenöffnung in Baden-Württemberg (LadÖG)
§ 7 Kur-, Erholungs-, Ausflugs- und Wallfahrtsorteor laws based on type of business... oh, wait a sec...
Gesetz über die Ladenöffnung in Baden-Württemberg (LadÖG)
§ 9 Besondere Warengruppen
Could you perhaps point out an Aldi, Lidl, Netto or Penny less than 500km away from me, which is open at 11pm? Preferably within 25 km.
I don't see why the same sort of differences and exceptions can't also be used to allow both smoking and non-smoking pubs and bars. Oh, wait a sec... they are... at the moment smaller pubs that don't serve meals, meaning they are meant purely for leisure, can allow smoking.
Personally, I think they should ban dirty stinking dogs in restaurants, grocery stores, malls and other public places. Dogs are inherently dirty and will stink if not bathed frequently. In addition, they have fleas unless the owner uses flea control drops. My strictly indoor cats got fleas last year because all of the people with apartments in this Treppenhaus have dogs except me and I brought the flea larvae in on my shoes, according to the vet. Who wants to be sitting in a restaurant and be attacked by fleas? Dogs also have other untidy habits, such as urinating and eliminating fecal matter whenever and wherever the spirit moves them. A woman on another webboard I am frequently on reported that she and her huband went into a restaurant about the time someone was coming out with a dog and she stepped in fecal matter. This is highly unsanitary, not to mention aggravating. Until dogs are banned from restaurants, dogs have more rights than smokers. A dog in a restaurant is still a dog; a smoker can't smoke now in restaurants so we're not being smokers.
I am a smoker, but I'm a clean kitty and use the box, albeit a different one than the two my cats use, so no one will step in it. And no one has to put flea drops on my neck either to keep me from having fleas unless the fleas from some miserable dog jump on me.
LOBBY TO BAN DOGS IN RESTAURANTS, GROCERY STORES, MALLS AND OTHER TYPE ESTABLISHMENTS!!!
Personally, I think they should ban dirty stinking dogs in restaurants, grocery stores, malls and other public places. Dogs are inherently dirty and will stink if not bathed frequently. In addition, they have fleas unless the owner uses flea control drops. My strictly indoor cats got fleas last year because all of the people with apartments in this Treppenhaus have dogs except me and I brought the flea larvae in on my shoes, according to the vet. Who wants to be sitting in a restaurant and be attacked by fleas? Dogs also have other untidy habits, such as urinating and eliminating fecal matter whenever and wherever the spirit moves them. A woman on another webboard I am frequently on reported that she and her huband went into a restaurant about the time someone was coming out with a dog and she stepped in fecal matter. This is highly unsanitary, not to mention aggravating. Until dogs are banned from restaurants, dogs have more rights than smokers. A dog in a restaurant is still a dog; a smoker can't smoke now in restaurants so we're not being smokers.
I am a smoker, but I'm a clean kitty and use the box, albeit a different one than the two my cats use, so no one will step in it. And no one has to put flea drops on my neck either to keep me from having fleas unless the fleas from some miserable dog jump on me.
LOBBY TO BAN DOGS IN RESTAURANTS, GROCERY STORES, MALLS AND OTHER TYPE ESTABLISHMENTS!!!
The point about dogs vs. smokers is that dogs are just as offensive to some of us, particularly those of us who are afraid of dogs or hate dogs, as much as smoking is offensive to non and anti-smokers.
There is so much disagreement between the two groups (smokers vs. non and anti-smokers) that there can never be a common meeting ground. It's like the pope discussing the existence of God with an atheist.
I could't imagine living with a smoker. Not because it a bad person, but the scent, Honestly, smokers are friendlier than non smokers. Oh, I'm a non smoker.:))))
oh stop whining... either dont read it or dont get pissy because you fail to comprehend the point .. by the way '"learned"... "learnt"?
seriously... oh the irony.
The volksbegehren against smoking, that is where people could sign a petition AGAINST the smoking ban, FAILED. It's over. Apparently there is popular support for a smoking ban.
Many people do not want to sign petitions and that is also a possible explanation for why the petition against the smoking ban failed. You can't say with absolute certainty that it failed due to lack of popular support, although the anti-smokers would have you believe tht is the case.
Aoparently there are some restaurants that either have a smoking area enclosed as the law provides or are all smoking and are posted. The Karstadt across from the Kaiser Wilhelm church has a totally enclosed smoking area (their food's pretty good too).
I live on the border and you can still smoke in restaurants in Poland, so when I'm home and go out to eat, I usually go to Poland. They have some good restaurants there.
Democracy. Yes.
the decision has been made, you don't like it...tough. but smoking as a habit a pastime or a leisure activity has been on th way out get over it. its not like you are being treated heroin users
...yet.