Photo: www.JoeJackson.com

Steppin' out for a smoke

Published: 11 May 09 17:00 CET
Online: http://www.thelocal.de/opinion/20090511-19213.html

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.

ADVERTISING
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.

The Local (news@thelocal.de)

What do you think? Leave your comment below.

Fark It! Digg This Facebook  Share everywhere
Send to a friend Printable version Twitter This

Your comments about this article:

18:42 May 11, 2009 by romber58
Well put Joe,I live in Berlin too and i love the way that the people are sticking 2 fingers up to this ban.
21:45 May 11, 2009 by Steven Scott
Smokers are selfish. People want to be able to go out to a bar, to dinner, or a club, and not come home smelling like an ashtray, or waking up with a smoke hangover. This is not political, it's personal. Second hand smoke is harmless? Ok....if you say so.

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.
23:05 May 11, 2009 by KBCraig
Joe wrote: "The real question, I think, is: who has the right to forbid me to smoke, and on what grounds?"

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.
00:24 May 12, 2009 by Yoram
LOL, seriously? So much righteous indignation to support smoking? A habit that is developed at the same age and intellectual maturity as a D.S.D.S. viewer? Sheesh, I can understand some delivery truck driver or other member of the non-thinking-consuming public having a pithy opinion about "rights", but not a grown man. Joe, it's just some burning twig, not the taste of freedom. It's o.k. to admit they're hard to quit, they're quite addictive and will even make real men sweat in their absence. But don't sing us a song about "rights". Not exactly the most noble barricade to stand on, is it? Collusion of the pharma-industry, ROFL... Dude, seriously, there are ranting homeless guys that make more sense than this. I guess I better go tighten my tin-foil hat... made from the shiny stuff inside my Parliaments...
01:07 May 12, 2009 by Mr_V
I know it's an opinion piece and all, but why is The Local being irresponsible enough to give a platform for such a misleading article?

(And, oh my, that bit of anti-intellectualism lobbed at the DKFZ is just... precious.)
04:17 May 12, 2009 by verga
I am a nonsmoker, allergic to tobacco smoke, so I see it as a measure of freedom that I am not obligated to smell cigarette smoke when I go out in public. I can stay home, of course, but then so can smokers. But I think I have a right to enjoy the outside city as much as smokers. I also think some venues have made money from me that before the ban they would never have made, because I would never go to their establishmentes. I work as a health care professional and I can state that you are misrepresenting the facts about second-hand smoke, especially as it affects the children I work with: those in homes with smoker parents have FAR MORE respiratory sickness and malaise (headaches, lack of concentration) than my young patients whose parents do not smoke.
12:19 May 12, 2009 by Oliver.Twist
Well, well, another incondite piece of arrogant commentary by the haughty smoker. I have no problem with your tobacco addiction as long as you are not infringing on my right to breath clean air and to access to the clean facilities.

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...
12:27 May 12, 2009 by Janx Spirit
To be continued...
...God help us.
12:36 May 12, 2009 by lilplatinum
This topic has certainly never been discussed on Toytown.
14:23 May 12, 2009 by Giles
Aarf, aarf

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
14:43 May 12, 2009 by williamsburg-berlin
Uh oh! Big tobacco has Joe now, and they've slipped something into his ciggys and taken his brain. Never have so few killed so many with so much money. Joe has crossed over from rational socialism in which a society protects the vulnerable and institutes practices like social health care for example, to a disorganized me-rights anarchy in which the majority rules even if it is wrong or racist or discriminatory.

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....
14:53 May 12, 2009 by don_riina
I see it as a measure of freedom that I am not obligated to smell cigarette smoke when I go out in public. I can stay home, of course, but then so can smokers.
Well indeed. The solution is to offer the public places to go that are smoking, like pubs, and places to go that are non-smoking, like libraries and museums. I've never heard a smoker complain about not being able to smoke in a museum or library. Shame the non-smokers had to attack our pubs.
15:36 May 12, 2009 by kato
The answer is that smokers need to become more militant to assert their rights. Shove non-smokers out of the Yellow Cages at train stations, since they take up valuable smoking space. Demand designated smoking corners in every place of work, even if no employee smokes. Blow in the faces of people who complain. And so on.
16:59 May 12, 2009 by Etheldread the Undeady
I can understand some delivery truck driver or other member of the non-thinking-consuming public having a pithy opinion about "rights", but not a grown man. Joe, it's just some burning twig, not the taste of freedom.
wow you sound like a real judgemental prick. Truck drivers make up a part of society, and I dare say there are a fair few who are considerably more intelligent then you.
17:20 May 12, 2009 by croessler
To say that second hand smoke hurts no-one is an ignorant and irresponsible statement. Children are at particular risk of the dangers of second-hand smoke. In addition to the fact that their bodies are still developing, children who spend an hour in a room of second hand smoke - inhale enough toxins to equal smoking 10 cigarettes.

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.
17:32 May 12, 2009 by Hazza
Pubs are NOT places you should be bringing children to anyway.

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"
17:36 May 12, 2009 by Janx Spirit
To say that second hand smoke hurts no-one is an ignorant and irresponsible statement. Children are at particular risk of the dangers of second-hand smoke. In addition to the fact that their bodies are still developing, children who spend an hour in a room of second hand smoke - inhale enough toxins to equal smoking 10 cigarettes.

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.
What are "1) Low birth rate babies"?
18:03 May 12, 2009 by croessler
Type-O - sorry - that should read

low birth weight babies.
18:12 May 12, 2009 by Janx Spirit
Ah, I see. Thanks. Kind of liked the idea of low birth rate babies though. I thought it was some sort of genetic manipulation birth control thing...
18:42 May 12, 2009 by croessler
I guess it's that too.

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.
18:47 May 12, 2009 by hellfire99
What about the positive things.

[attachment=101993:monkey_and_elmo.jpg]
18:54 May 12, 2009 by croessler
It's something to do with your hands and goes great with a rum and coke.
22:58 May 12, 2009 by Soren
The passive smoke scam is like so many other propaganda tricks. There is no material evidence that passive smoke is the cause of any disease. But the health brigade wants to eliminate everything it does not like. Bars are not health clubs.

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.
23:28 May 12, 2009 by Nipper McCoy
Well said, Joe. It 's high time the passive smoking scam was repudiated - in court!
23:45 May 12, 2009 by splitradix
The passive smoke scam is like so many other propaganda tricks. There is no material evidence that passive smoke is the cause of any disease.
Hear hear. I for one can't wait until smokers can once again legally smoke in every bar, restaurant, primary school, oil refinery and hospital in the world!
23:48 May 12, 2009 by andyd
Great article Joe

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.
00:03 May 13, 2009 by Betsy47
This issue is still one of human rights. Smoking has been an acceptable practice for centuries if not millenia. Why not ban pasteurized milk, barbequed meats, red meat in general, and dozens of other health threatening items. Why zero in on cigarettes with such a vengeance? Pharmaceutical drugs have been killing and disabling millions of people but that's okay?

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
07:44 May 13, 2009 by Kay
How intriguing: four people of "Unspecified" nationality and sans location joining TT in quick succession late last night, all within one hour, for the express purpose of posting pro-puffing propaganda on this thread.

I guess it's safe to assume they're all one and the same person.
07:45 May 13, 2009 by keepingtime
Nobody but a fool would say otherwise. The entire issue could be easily made to accomodate everyone with a little common sense and utilization of modern HVAC systems. No need for Gestapo like tactics or laws.
I guess if you were to know that HVAC systems are not used in Germany as they are in the good ol' USofA.

More common sense for those that live here is to OPEN A WINDOW!!!
07:57 May 13, 2009 by keepingtime
Well indeed. The solution is to offer the public places to go that are smoking, like pubs, and places to go that are non-smoking, like libraries and museums. I've never heard a smoker complain about not being able to smoke in a museum or library. Shame the non-smokers had to attack our pubs.
This is correct. It is a choice. Do not eat there if you do not like the scent of smoke that is there when you are eating. Eat outside. Who is so ignorant to think they will go into a pub without seeing or smelling smoke. Do not go if you do not like the smoke. Go somewhere else.

The Choice is up to you.
08:34 May 13, 2009 by interplanetjanet
The opposite could be said and makes a lot more sense. If you really MUST smoke while drinking, then either go outside to do it or do not go if you do not like that you can't smoke there. The choice is up to you. Why do you think it's so ignorant for people to think that they will go into a pub without seeing or smelling smoke? There are many places in the world in which this is the norm. The ban in California has worked great - and I say that having been a smoker at the time the ban started. It's not that big of a deal to go outside to smoke. I always did and had no problem with it (and before you go on about how California has nicer weather, it wasn't that big of a deal to smoke outside in Colorado either). Even when I was a smoker, I never understood why so many smokers are so selfish that they have to throw a fit about walking outside to smoke for the sake of the health and hygiene benefits of others.
08:53 May 13, 2009 by Exile
The passive smoke scam is like so many other propaganda tricks ...
I think this thread is suffering from passive bullshit. What about the non-flat earth scam?
09:04 May 13, 2009 by SKershaw
1.) I am all for everyone having their vices and I do not judge... even if your thing is sticking a needle in your arm... its your business, however, if you are infringing on someone else, then game's up.

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!
09:11 May 13, 2009 by jon-nj
How intriguing: four people of "Unspecified" nationality and sans location joining TT in quick succession late last night, all within one hour, for the express purpose of posting pro-puffing propaganda on this thread.

I guess it's safe to assume they're all one and the same person.
sock-puppet-jon-nj: You certainly had a good point there jon-nj!

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.
09:16 May 13, 2009 by Janx Spirit
Some people just don't WANT to understand the political and social dynamics inherent in government actions in relation to the populace.

Ride on, ride on...
09:19 May 13, 2009 by SKershaw
forgot one: economic... money is always first with government... then political, then social... if they even get that far...
09:22 May 13, 2009 by Hazza
The choice should simply be up to the owner of the premises if it's an otherwise legal product and if there is no compulsion for anyone to go there...
09:29 May 13, 2009 by SKershaw
no... its about public health... that is what the government angle is... hence the regulatory interest.

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.
09:40 May 13, 2009 by Hazza
I note that you completely ignored my 3rd criteria - having a compulsion to go there.

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?
09:42 May 13, 2009 by bavariablu
Here we go again.....

Smokers stink, smoke stinks end of
09:47 May 13, 2009 by Hazza
Here we go again....

Smokers stink, smoke stinks end of
What a clever way to argue. I wonder if it works with other things too?

"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...
09:49 May 13, 2009 by Janx Spirit
Trying to make militant anti smokers see reason is like wanking in time to music from Britney Spears. It's frustrating and leaves you strangely unsatisfied...
09:52 May 13, 2009 by Exile
In most countries you need a license to serve alcohol and there are conditions attached to that license. So one solution would be to license smoking venues.
09:57 May 13, 2009 by keepingtime
The opposite could be said and makes a lot more sense. If you really MUST smoke while drinking, then either go outside to do it or do not go if you do not like that you can't smoke there. The choice is up to you. Why do you think it's so ignorant for people to think that they will go into a pub without seeing or smelling smoke? There are many places in the world in which this is the norm. The ban in California has worked great - and I say that having been a smoker at the time the ban started. It's not that big of a deal to go outside to smoke. I always did and had no problem with it (and before you go on about how California has nicer weather, it wasn't that big of a deal to smoke outside in Colorado either). Even when I was a smoker, I never understood why so many smokers are so selfish that they have to throw a fit about walking outside to smoke for the sake of the health and hygiene benefits of others.
Well, I guess When Germany becomes the 51st State it can change its ways.

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.
10:00 May 13, 2009 by SKershaw
I note that you completely ignored my 3rd criteria - having a compulsion to go there.

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?
hazza, i completely agree that property owners should have the right to make their own decisions without government intrusion. in fact, you wont find a more liberal, "almost anti-government" sort of guy.

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.
10:04 May 13, 2009 by SKershaw
Well, I guess When Germany becomes the 51st State it can change its ways.

The choice is up to you where you go.
actually the first country to ever enforce smoking bans was canada back in the 80's... america is still not as caught up with the entire smoking ban thing as compared to europe... only in some places...

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
10:11 May 13, 2009 by Hazza
Right - your sidewalk/stairs clearing example gets exactly the same response as the mobile phones in cars example. You may not be compelled to live there, but you're compelled to live somewhere.

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.
10:11 May 13, 2009 by keepingtime
actually the first country to ever enforce smoking bans was canada back in the 80's... america is still not as caught up with the entire smoking ban thing as compared to europe... only in some places...

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
I was replying to interplanet's constant referral to the US and its laws. And yes, to many's disliking here. I get the last quote.
10:45 May 13, 2009 by SKershaw
Right - your sidewalk/stairs clearing example gets exactly the same response as the mobile phones in cars example. You may not be compelled to live there, but you're compelled to live somewhere.

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.
its not a comparison or analogy... it is regulation based on "public safety"... the very same that they are running anti-smoking campaigns. again... the government stepped in to ENSURE that the right thing be done when getting stuck with a faulty PC or having to be subjected to unclean establishments... one could argue, isnt this up to the discretion of the establishment?

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 ;-)
11:04 May 13, 2009 by seth17
tobacco is a regulated and controlled substance... not a "legal product" per see, like alcohol, like several narcotics
Curious here..could you explain this?
11:08 May 13, 2009 by Hazza
its not a comparison or analogy... it is regulation based on "public safety"... the very same that they are running anti-smoking campaigns. again... the government stepped in to ENSURE that the right thing be done when getting stuck with a faulty PC or having to be subjected to unclean establishments... one could argue, isnt this up to the discretion of the establishment?
Well it is up to the establishment as long as they advertise the fact. It would be perfectly legal for me to open a store that sold only broken PC's - as long as everyone knew that this is what I am selling. The food one is slightly more difficult - however, I would have absolutely no problem with a place selling food from an unclean kitchen if they advertised honestly that they didn't follow any hygenic standards (obviously they wouldn't get much business either). You're comparing businesses that are sneaky and dishonest to bars that have never hidden the fact that they allow smoking...
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.
Yes - and what's the restriction on the sale and use of tobacco? You must be over 18. And what's the restriction on going to bars? Pretty similar, eh?
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.
Pretty much everything that you mention - the long list of regulations, is designed to make sure that you pay tax properly. The rest are health and safety standards. These standards are put into place, because it would otherwise be impossible for the customer to know whether the food (or drink) is clean or not. Things like emergency exits are also tested, because until an emergency occurs, no customer is going to really know if it's effective or not - same with fire extinguishers. However, as I've stated several times already, there is no such mystery involved in a place that allows smoking...
11:19 May 13, 2009 by interplanetjanet
[quote]Well, I guess When Germany becomes the 51st State it can change its ways. . The choice is up to you where you go.
actually the first country to ever enforce smoking bans was canada back in the 80's... america is still not as caught up with the entire smoking ban thing as compared to europe... only in some places...[/quote]Yep, most states in the US haven't adopted bans yet. You really see a huge difference traveling from a state with a ban to one without. They also have a ban in pubs here in Australia, and it works great.
I was replying to interplanet's constant referral to the US and its laws.
I make one reference to a single law in a single US state (along with laws in other countries, though I wasn't specific about which ones), and suddenly it's a 'constant referral to the US and its laws'? Gee, like to pidgeon-hole people much?
11:25 May 13, 2009 by Portnoy
Tell me why I'm supposed to care what an anemic two-hit wonder has to say about smoking. Fear irrelevance much, Joe?

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!
11:36 May 13, 2009 by Hazza
...You're right -- go ahead and commit all sorts of atrocities on private property. It's private property after all!
I love it when people get all hysterical and overdramatic about this topic.

Atrocities...hahahahahaha
11:48 May 13, 2009 by dasheight-8
The smoking ban (in the US, at least) was to protect workers in the bar/pub/etc. It never was about the patrons. Business owners are required to provide a safe work environment for their employees. The US government has agreed that second hand smoke is hazardous therefore business owners must protect their employees from second hand smoke. Hence the indoor smoking ban.

It has nothing to do with personal rights/choice/etc.
11:49 May 13, 2009 by BattalionBoy
The Local is right.

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]
11:53 May 13, 2009 by BDannyBoi
Smoking's really cool and fun, right Joe? Why not ask George Harrison, Warren Zevon, Chris Whitley, Freddie Fender, or Nat King Cole if it's worth ending your life - and career - 15-25 years early. We all lose when a great talent dies young.
12:01 May 13, 2009 by Hazza
The smoking ban (in the US, at least) was to protect workers in the bar/pub/etc. It never was about the patrons. Business owners are required to provide a safe work environment for their employees. The US government has agreed that second hand smoke is hazardous therefore business owners must protect their employees from second hand smoke. Hence the indoor smoking ban.

It has nothing to do with personal rights/choice/etc.
As has been pointed out in similar threads, this is not the reason that smoking has been banned here. If it was, then it would be a federal issue - however, the federal government wants nothing to do with it, and has thus never named this as the reason and thus passed the responsibility to the individual states.

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.
14:24 May 13, 2009 by ron1amr
Joe Jackson certainly has done a lot of research and has a lot to say about smoking. In the past you could not go to one pub that is smoke free and as a none smoker have to put up with the smoke from other people. The chemicals in cigarettes gives me a headache. What about our right to breathe clean air?

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?
20:07 May 13, 2009 by janebrown
breathe clean air? Are you serious with the car pollution that we constantly are breathing in... LMAO. Keep believing their hype, and blame the smokers.... next it will be you that is targeted.
01:28 May 14, 2009 by interplanetjanet
breathe clean air? Are you serious with the car pollution that we constantly are breathing in... LMAO. Keep believing their hype, and blame the smokers... next it will be you that is targeted.
Apples and oranges. The pollution from cars OUTSIDE in the open air is miniscule in comparison to the hot box of smoke inside a bar. Notice nobody is complaining about smoking in biergartens, where smoke wafts away.
06:52 May 14, 2009 by SKershaw
dont look to german elected officials to care about the rights of workers, public health or freedom... they arent really that serious about providing employees with a healthy, smoke free environment to work in... if they were, as Hazza pointed out, they would do something about it on a federal level. (German politicians are extremely spineless and weak and are more concerned about their position and status than the job at hand)... hmmm... might want to remove "politicians" and insert "people"... but that is a stereotype/generality and of course NOT EVERYONE...

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!
07:44 May 14, 2009 by interplanetjanet
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)
Scientology has nothing to do with human rights of religion/belief. It's a scamming organization.
11:04 May 14, 2009 by Janx Spirit
I agree with Kuzzer
11:55 May 14, 2009 by Kuzzer
In case anyone is confused by Janx's comment, my original comment which appears to have been modded out for some reason, was as follows:
11:59 May 14, 2009 by Silly Point
That's what I thought you said.
12:32 May 14, 2009 by Johnno
Putting aside the (not inconsiderable) question of whether smokers are giving me cancer or not, why should I have to come back from pubs and clubs with clothes stinking of tobacco? Why should I have to put up with burning, irritated eyes when I'm in these places with smokers? (because strangely enough my eyes don't feel that way when no-one is smoking Joe).

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)
12:48 May 14, 2009 by Keydeck
Putting aside the (not inconsiderable) question of whether smokers are giving me cancer or not, why should I have to come back from pubs and clubs with clothes stinking of tobacco? Why should I have to put up with burning, irritated eyes when I'm in these places with smokers?
Eh, because you are choosing to go to places which permit smoking? I think that answers all of your questions.

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?
13:14 May 14, 2009 by Hutcho
If you don't want to have your clothes smelling of smoke, then don't go to a smoking bar.

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.
15:38 May 14, 2009 by genuss-berlin
The dose alone makes the poison.

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?
15:51 May 14, 2009 by genuss+berlin
Another point is the economical issue. First of all, a pub is not a public place! It is private property of the owner who welcomes people to sit, to eat, to drink, to enjoy themselves. What allows a government to cut the owners right to allow his guests to do what they want to do? And at the end of the day: Where are all the non-smokers who were supposed to crowd the pubs and bars now?

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.
15:55 May 14, 2009 by kduffy
Absolutely ridiculous! I came here to read news, not nonsense. Everyone but this guy agrees that 2nd had smoke is cancer-causing, and now even 3rd hand smoke can be bad for your health as well - it's no longer about the rights of the people who choose to smoke. It's about protecting the health of the employees, patrons, and the establishment its self. Aside from the getting cancer, what about gettin burned w/ a cigarette from a drunk dancer or in a crowded bar, or the huge increase in your dry cleaning bill. Allowing indoor smoking isn't just bad for your health, but a pain in the neck.

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.
15:55 May 14, 2009 by Hazza
Here's an interesting article from the Telegraph on the passive smoking paranoia
For decades scientists had tried to measure the risk in dozens of studies, but three-quarters of them came up empty.

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.
15:58 May 14, 2009 by Hazza
...what about gettin burned w/ a cigarette from a drunk dancer or in a crowded bar, or the huge increase in your dry cleaning bill.
Last weekend when I was out, someone spillt their beer on me. An outrage, I tell you...I shall be writing to my local member of parliament to get beer banned from pubs forthwith...
16:10 May 14, 2009 by Hutcho
Another point is the economical issue. First of all, a pub is not a public place! It is private property of the owner who welcomes people to sit, to eat, to drink, to enjoy themselves. What allows a government to cut the owners right to allow his guests to do what they want to do?
Exactly! My friend owns a building site, and he didn't want to supply any safety equipment to his workers. Why should he, it's his property! Then the government told him his had to for the well being of his workers. How dare they!
16:14 May 14, 2009 by Hazza
Thing is - there is no conjecture or doubt whatsoever that working on a building site without proper safety equipment results in more deaths.

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:
They can?t actually prove even one death.
16:18 May 14, 2009 by Hutcho
I don't buy your argument. Working 8 hours in a smoke filled environment every day cannot be good for your health. 4 hours in a smoke filled bar and I feel like crap. That is evidence enough for me.
16:20 May 14, 2009 by Hazza
Well that's a scientific result...

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"
16:22 May 14, 2009 by interplanetjanet
There is a lot of scepticism and indeed doubt even within the scientific community, whether this is the case for passive smoking.
This statement is just not true. The general consensus in the scientific community is quite clear. Go search medical journals for "second hand smoke" and see what you get. The only place there's controversy is on the internet.
16:27 May 14, 2009 by cb6dba
Never mind second hand smoke (which is bad enough) we now have to suffer second hand topics that are recycled and given a different name/slant.

Soon we will have more re-runs than a cable TV station!
16:27 May 14, 2009 by Hazza
This statement is just not true. The general consensus in the scientific community is quite clear. Go search medical journals for "second hand smoke" and see what you get. The only place there's controversy is on the internet.
Ah - so I take it that the largest ever study conducted on the subject (118 094 adults) over the longest period of time (39 years), and published in the British Medical journal doesn't count then...
16:34 May 14, 2009 by don_riina
and now even 3rd hand smoke can be bad for your health as well
3rd hand? So, somebody smokes in a bar, I breath some in, then hold my breath, run somewhere else, and breath that onto somebody?

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.
16:38 May 14, 2009 by Matt T
Ah - so I take it that the largest ever study conducted on the subject (118 094 adults) over the longest period of time (39 years), and published in the British Medical journal doesn't count then...
[James] Enstrom is a controversial figure who has accepted funding from the Philip Morris tobacco company and the Center for Indoor Air Research (a tobacco industry front group), and subsequently published research that contradicted scientific consensus about the health effects of secondhand tobacco smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke, or ETS.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_E._EnstromTalking about statistical proof of the dangers of 2nd-hand smoking is where the last thread on this subject died. I'm kinda surprised you want to go back there.
16:41 May 14, 2009 by cb6dba
I think I'll sit back and get some popcorn.

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
16:43 May 14, 2009 by don_riina
Nah, this thread won't die; 2nd hand smoking as an argument will always make people say "what about cars? What about their fumes? Shall we ban cars". Then I'll come in and blame it all on Saudi Arabia - they make the petrol for gods sake - if cars exhaust fumes are so safe, how come that nobody in the entire Middle East, where they make the oil, has a car, and instead prefer to drive camels? Nobody will be able to answer, I'll win the argument. FTW FTW!!!11!! lolzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
16:47 May 14, 2009 by Hazza
Well you need to get your funding from somewhere, don't you?

Article again...
By the late 1990s, it became clear what that answer would be; unfortunately for Prof Enstrom, it was not the right answer. Funding for the study was suddenly cut off and he was compelled to accept funding from the only organisation apparently interested in the outcome: the tobacco industry.
16:47 May 14, 2009 by topcat 1
The don, are you on the blow again?

Anyways you win man!
16:55 May 14, 2009 by Exile
Here's an interesting article from the Telegraph on the passive smoking paranoia
A pity the Telegraph wasn't so keen on scientific proof with its reporting on suspected links between MMR & autism.
16:57 May 14, 2009 by cb6dba
Scientist accepts funding from interest group shocker...

I really liked the bit about driving camels - it does so much to strengthen an amusing stereotype.
16:58 May 14, 2009 by don_riina
Yeah, screw the Telegraph. They just pick and choose their facts, or even worse, pepper them with opinion. Take the Chelsea Barca game - I don't care if the sports editor thinks Drogba is an overpaid ponce, there were at least at LEAST, 2 concrete pens in that game. Facts.
17:00 May 14, 2009 by cb6dba
@Don - Chelsea were cheated, however as a northerner I really try hard to let it bother me
17:22 May 14, 2009 by BadDoggie
You have to love scientists, always changing their minds
Yeah, stupid dum-dum-doodyheads changing their minds whenever presented with new facts. How silly. They ought to be more like religions where it doesn't matter what evidence is shown: once you have an opinion you don't change it ever.

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.
17:32 May 14, 2009 by BigEnglish2009
@Don - Chelsea were cheated, however as a northerner I really try hard to let it bother me
I agree, Chelsea were cheated. But it means we don't have to see John Terry crying in another final...and it will teach them for not getting enough goals in the first place.

As for smoking. Let people do what they want.
17:33 May 14, 2009 by don_riina
the added benefit that they don't have to shower immediately after getting home to remove the stench.
I hate it when people go on about having to shower to remove smell - THAT IS THE POINT OF A SHOWER. Also means you can fit in a crafty whilst geting all lathered up with soap, but nobody ever says, "bloody smokers, I had to have a when I got home last night", because that would sound a little odd.

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.
17:43 May 14, 2009 by cb6dba
@BD - you missed out in this case 'when paid funding to find evidence to the contrary'.

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...
17:53 May 14, 2009 by Jimbo
Jesus Riina, I tell you about my shower cubicle on a Monday, and on Thursday it's all over the net. .
17:55 May 14, 2009 by Hazza
Are you suggesting that Enstrom engaged in misconduct and faked his findings?

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...
18:41 May 14, 2009 by Exile
A bigger problem is can a comparison between non-smoking spouses of smokers and non-smoking spouses of non-smokes really provide any insight into exposure to smoke levels in a bar, especially in relation to the staff?
18:52 May 14, 2009 by Timmeh
Argh, another smoking thread...nooooooooooooo! If only I had a way to have the final word about how non-smokers were being complete twunts about smoking in pubs and then lock the thread from anyone else posting, like some sort of overlord modding power, that'd be awesome!
21:40 May 14, 2009 by KreuzbergKris
part 1

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?
21:42 May 14, 2009 by Hutcho
Argh, another smoking thread...nooooooooooooo! If only I had a way to have the final word about how non-smokers were being complete twunts about smoking in pubs and then lock the thread from anyone else posting, like some sort of overlord modding power, that'd be awesome!
Likewise, but the other way around.
21:48 May 14, 2009 by KreuzbergKris
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.
22:16 May 14, 2009 by KreuzbergKris
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?



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...
22:28 May 14, 2009 by Hazza
A bigger problem is can a comparison between non-smoking spouses of smokers and non-smoking spouses of non-smokes really provide any insight into exposure to smoke levels in a bar, especially in relation to the staff?
Well it stands to reason that spouses of smokers are exposed to more 2nd hand smoke than those of non-smokers - especially through the 60's and 70's when nobody stepped outside to smoke.
Argh, another smoking thread...nooooooooooooo! If only I had a way to have the final word about how non-smokers were being complete twunts about smoking in pubs and then lock the thread from anyone else posting, like some sort of overlord modding power, that'd be awesome!
I thought you were a moderator...
07:48 May 15, 2009 by Hutcho
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!
Actually, I think you are missing the point. People do not have outright freedom. For example, maybe I want to go on a killing spree. But wait, I can't, that "freedom" has been taken away from me!

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).
08:39 May 15, 2009 by Hazza
That's only a valid argument if your freedom to not be there was infringed on...

I'd still like to know if anyone has ever been proven to die of passive smoking.
08:41 May 15, 2009 by Exile
Well it stands to reason that spouses of smokers are exposed to more 2nd hand smoke than those of non-smokers - especially through the 60's and 70's when nobody stepped outside to smoke.
So you have changed your mind (cf. post 80) on only relying on scientific method then. Also in 60s-70s non-smokers where more likely to be exposed to smoke in pubs, cinemas, public transport and at work.

sockpuppet-o-meter rates KreuzbergKris at 9.7
09:07 May 15, 2009 by Hazza
So you have changed on mind (cf. post 80) on only relying on scientific method then. Also in 60s-70s non-smokers in where more likely to be exposed to smoke in pubs, cinemas, public transport and at work.

sockpuppet-o-meter rates KreuzbergKris at 9.7
Post 80, I was responding to Hutcho's post of "feeling crap is enough evidence for me"

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...
09:21 May 15, 2009 by interplanetjanet
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.
The sample size was NOT almost 120,000. That was the total number of participants in the survey, most of which were smokers. Less than 1/3 of the group were non-smokers, and only non-smokers are considered when looking into second-hand smoke. Regarding your original posting of that study, I'd just like to point out that a single study showing one thing amidst a sea of other studies showing the complete opposite doesn't say a whole lot, no matter how big the sample size.
09:22 May 15, 2009 by gretelg
what a lot of drivel! Remind me never to have anything to do with Joe Jackson. I will not spend money to see him, or purchase anything music he sells.

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
09:26 May 15, 2009 by Hazza
The sample size was NOT almost 120,000. That was the total number of participants in the survey, most of which were smokers. Less than 1/3 of the group were non-smokers, and only non-smokers are considered when looking into second-hand smoke. Regarding your original posting of that study, I'd just like to point out that a single study showing one thing amidst a sea of other studies showing the complete opposite doesn't say a whole lot, no matter how big the sample size.
So who do you know who undisputedly died of passive smoking?
09:34 May 15, 2009 by interplanetjanet
Actually, the grandmother of a college friend. She died of lung cancer and never smoked in her life. Her husband, on the other hand, smoked more than a pack a day. He brought it up anytime I had a smoke in front of him.
09:45 May 15, 2009 by Exile
There are a few people I know that have got food poisoning and thankfully none of them have died, but I still don't want to be exposed to it in a pub or restaurant.
09:50 May 15, 2009 by Matt T
So who do you know who undisputedly died of passive smoking?
Come on, Hazza. We've been here before.

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".
13:16 May 15, 2009 by KreuzbergKris
The issue of 2nd hand smoke "killing people" is ridiculous... Statistics, in general, are non-objective compilations of information generally steered by those "creating" the tests... there's no clear objective/real life scenario tests that prove this howl. If people are so concerned or in fear of 2nd hand smoke, then they should "choose" to not associate in such an environment! CHOICE. The vulnerability of disease, infection & etc regarding anything on the most part is vulnerable to the individual person's immune system. I've personally had friend's whom have died of cancer who were vegetarians, athletic & absent of 90% of the time of any possibility of smoke inhalation. I also know many people living in their 70/80's whom have been smoking since a teenager - none have cancer! The installation of "fear filled" brainwashing, is the greatest toxic waste. Believe it, and you'll become it.
13:22 May 15, 2009 by cb6dba
Is it me or do we seem to have a lot of new poeple posting in the more argumentative topics...?

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...
13:26 May 15, 2009 by Exile
People smoke grass but do they smoke astroturf?
13:31 May 15, 2009 by Kay
(...) do we seem to have a lot of new poeple posting in the more argumentative topics...?
Yup, no fewer than 14 of them (that's right, fourteen) on this thread alone.
13:45 May 15, 2009 by cb6dba
@Kay - I smell something fishy and it isn't the content of Baldric's apple crumble....
14:07 May 15, 2009 by Kay
There's no smoke without fire...
14:09 May 15, 2009 by Feli
Is it me or do we seem to have a lot of new poeple posting in the more argumentative topics...?
Yup, no fewer than 14 of them (that's right, fourteen) on this thread alone.
The count is now up to 16 (no personal info in the profile of any kind). Hey, we should all go and get ourselves a Sockpuppet identity.Makes one wonder List of sockpuppets so far:

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
14:45 May 15, 2009 by seth17
Page 7 and it's still a big fight. Every body is dead set in their beliefs. But I do like the freedom of choice thought because we are losing to many freedoms today.

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!!!
15:12 May 15, 2009 by leky
Nicked from the Telegraph expat, pic taken in Dublin

[attachment=102346:short_ar...1385369i.jpg]
15:33 May 15, 2009 by Bipa
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.
[post="1641997">Pubs are already on the ban list.[/post]
16:07 May 15, 2009 by Exile
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?
Smoking isn't banned, just where you can do it is restricted, a bit like alcohol in many countries.
16:35 May 15, 2009 by cb6dba
Ah Seth - just when I thought you would say something ground breaking and revolutionary...
16:42 May 15, 2009 by Steven192
Can one of the anti smoking group explain why a pub with a big sign on the door saying >This is a smoking pub. Enter at your own risk< would be such a bad thing?

This would be real freedom of choice for the owner and the patrons.
16:43 May 15, 2009 by Janx Spirit
Too much choice for the anally clenched
17:06 May 15, 2009 by Exile
Can one of the anti smoking group explain why a pub with a big sign on the door saying >This is a smoking pub. Enter at your own risk< would be such a bad thing?

This would be real freedom of choice for the owner and the patrons.
If it was compulsory it might work, but would be better with a licensing system.
17:11 May 15, 2009 by nicoleisthenewblack
slaves of an addiction now need to exercise free choice

i get it
21:03 May 15, 2009 by Hutcho
Can one of the anti smoking group explain why a pub with a big sign on the door saying >This is a smoking pub. Enter at your own risk< would be such a bad thing? This would be real freedom of choice for the owner and the patrons.
But no choice for the workers inside.
22:43 May 15, 2009 by Hazza
We've been over this before too.

Work somewhere else...
23:08 May 15, 2009 by seth17
Ah Seth - just when I thought you would say something ground breaking and revolutionary...
Kinda my point there is nothing ground breaking and revolutionary to say...it's just the same ole same ole...
10:18 May 16, 2009 by jon-nj
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?

...
This has to be one of the stupidest rants I've heard by a celebrity since Mel Gibson was arrested for DUI.

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)
11:59 May 16, 2009 by Giles
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.
To me personally this is the most important argument. And without a ban it also means that every bar/café serving food, or even every restaurant, is a 'smoking establishment'.

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
01:30 May 17, 2009 by Hutcho
We've been over this before too.

Work somewhere else...
We have been over it, but your arguments are not sufficient to stop me from speaking out on the issue.

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.
01:58 May 17, 2009 by Punchbear
Smokers are a dying breed anyways.
10:21 May 18, 2009 by bavariablu
Giles,

Perfect comparison!
10:40 May 18, 2009 by Hazza
To me personally this is the most important argument. And without a ban it also means that every bar/café serving food, or even every restaurant, is a 'smoking establishment'.

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
I'm all for a smoking (and heroin usage) ban in S-Bahn stations - and I reckon just about everyone else here is too. People are compelled to use public transport to get to around and to be able to lead unrestricted lives. What compells you to go to the pub? It is a pure leisure activity - and you know what you're getting yourself into when you go. So your analogy is closer to trying to get heroin users to stop shooting up in authorised heroin shooting galleries...
We have been over it, but your arguments are not sufficient to stop me from speaking out on the issue.

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.
Where's your outrage then that Alaskan crab fishing hasn't been banned? At 300 deaths per 100,000, it's far more dangerous than working in a smoky pub. Crabs are a luxury item and there's plenty of other food available, so it's hardly necessary to put all those people in danger.

So where's your thread calling for the banning of Alaskan crab fishing, because of the outrageous danger it poses to the workers?
11:01 May 18, 2009 by Feli
This has to be one of the stupidest rants I've heard by a celebrity since Mel Gibson was arrested for DUI.
Hear, hear!!!
When there is NO ban, EVERY bar is a smoking bar. This, despite the fact that the majority of the people are non-smokers.
Well, as Giles said, (nearly) every establisment serving food (including restaurants!) would then be smoking establishments. And, as jon_nj rightly says, despite the fact that smokers are actually in the minority, I found these facts and figures regarding smoking in Germany interesting:

  • 76,5 % of the population are non smokers (although this figure also includes infants and children),

  • 25% of adults smoke regularly, a further 4% occasionally

  • 82 % of adult smokers started smoking before the age of 20. (BTW, this is why the tobacco industry targets teenagers in particular, they need to get to them young).



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!
11:18 May 18, 2009 by MadAxeMurderer
When there is NO ban, EVERY bar is a smoking bar. This, despite the fact that the majority of the people are non-smokers.
I'd like to join the chorus agreeing with this statement.

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
13:27 May 18, 2009 by Hutcho
Where's your outrage then that Alaskan crab fishing hasn't been banned? At 300 deaths per 100,000, it's far more dangerous than working in a smoky pub.
There are plenty of dangerous jobs out there. The responsibility of the government should be to ensure employers provider their employees with as safe a workplace as possible. For example, if it wasn't law to have the people working on these crabbing boats have life jackets, I would be pushing for a law to ensure that.

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.
13:59 May 18, 2009 by Libertarianme
As passive smoking is no health risk (even 5 out of 6 of these junk science studies about ETS and lung cancer can't show any significantly elevated risk), smoking bans don't make workplaces safer. With most of German waiters and waitresses being smokers anyway, it's just making their workplaces less pleasurable (thus less healthy).

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.
14:05 May 18, 2009 by Kay
smoking bans don't make workplaces safer. With most of German waiters and waitresses being smokers anyway, it's just making their workplaces less pleasurable (thus less healthy).
Absolutely priceless!
14:12 May 18, 2009 by Exile
Does make the SP count 15 now?
14:22 May 18, 2009 by Hazza
I'd like to join the chorus agreeing with this statement.

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
Why do you allow yourself to be bullied by 1 or 2 people? Seriously - if you organise a night out and tell people that you're going to a non-smoking bar, because 9 out of the 10 people you're going with are non-smokers and want to go there, then surely the 1 smoking friend will have to come along and smoke outside or miss out on the night out.
There are plenty of dangerous jobs out there. The responsibility of the government should be to ensure employers provider their employees with as safe a workplace as possible. For example, if it wasn't law to have the people working on these crabbing boats have life jackets, I would be pushing for a law to ensure that.

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.
But even with life-jackets, it's still a far more dangerous job than working in a smoky bar. And it's completely non-essential. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to allow it to continue.

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?
14:33 May 18, 2009 by Kay
Does make the SP count 15 now?
It seems they're not SPs but regular people commenting on the story on The Local's site. It's cross-posting, if I remember correctly what EB wrote on another thread.
11:37 May 20, 2009 by SKershaw
We've been over this before too.

Work somewhere else...
uh, doesnt work that way... its not 1909... its 2009... you cant set up a business of any kind and/or make your own rules for employing people, the condition of the establishment, the working environment, what you are servicing/selling, etc....there is no argument here... period.

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...
11:47 May 20, 2009 by Bipa
Err.... in many companies in USA there are already hiring and firing practices which consider smoking as being of more importance than a person's background experience and work skills.

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.
11:51 May 20, 2009 by seth17
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?
You had a pretty good argument up until this point, do you even understand why this analogy doesn't work?
11:56 May 20, 2009 by seth17
And fat is coming next along with what you can and cannot eat....Freedoms being stripped? No one cares until??? they're yours....
11:57 May 20, 2009 by Hazza
You can't just say that there's no argument or debate. Obviously there is and it's still going on here and in other countries. So you can't just say I'm wrong and you're right, just because you happen to have a different opinion. The fact that we're discussing it here means that it is in fact...a debate!!

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?
12:14 May 20, 2009 by cb6dba
I always laugh when people say 'There are more dangerous things than smoking' - maybe, but the last time I was in a bar before the smoking ban no one was trying to catch Alaskan Crabs (maybe that's some kind of condition as well as food) or Deep sea Cod.

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.
12:21 May 20, 2009 by Hazza
We're talking about the health of workers here and you're obviously talking about the customer, who has absolutely no compulsion to go into a bar. As I've stated a lot of times before - it's a place where people spend their leisure time. Don't like how the place is set up? Well spend your leisure time in a place where you do like the set-up.

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.
12:31 May 20, 2009 by Janx Spirit
Let's put this into a different perspective. The are "shoot up" places for H-addicts. What happens when they become so plush and comfy that your normal non-addict person comes along and says, "well I don't shoot-up skag but I would like a nice cup of tea and a sit down in this lovely place". After a while he/she is annoyed when junkies come in to shoot-up and goes to the council and says "here, I'm not having these people shooting up here, mugging me and soiling this place with their presence. I demand a junkie free shoot up room so I can sit down and enjoy my cuppa with no risk to myself." One of the workers says, "too right, it's damaging my health, I demand junkie free junkie rooms too, to protect me."

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.
13:10 May 20, 2009 by SKershaw
You had a pretty good argument up until this point, do you even understand why this analogy doesn't work?
i was making a point... it is ridiculous, but hazza thinks any business can simply make their own rules at their own discretion: hence: "dont work there"
13:13 May 20, 2009 by Keydeck
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
Do they just throw all the live ones back?
00:54 May 21, 2009 by the tent
How can a grown up man be so uneducated on the health issue?? And YES passive smoking is harmful. Would he smoke around a pregnant woman too?

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!
01:24 May 21, 2009 by splitradix
Remember before toilets were invented when we used to piss anywhere we wanted? We eventually grew out of that habit partially because it stank up the place, hopefully the same will happen with smoking.
01:51 May 21, 2009 by interplanetjanet
This comparison to crab fishing is just stupid. Nobody wants to outlaw dangerous professions or even dangerous hobbies. Nobody is telling smokers that they can't be smokers or that pub owners can't be smokers. Just that they have to (shock, horror) walk a few meters to do it. Working in a pub is NOT in and of itself a dangerous profession, and there's absolutely NO reason why smoking HAS TO BE a part of it. It is something that is avoidable. You can't do crab fishing without fishing for crabs, but you certainly can run a successful pub without allowing smoking in it. And guess what? People can still smoke there! They just have to walk outside to do it.
06:54 May 21, 2009 by Hazza
How can a grown up man be so uneducated on the health issue?? And YES passive smoking is harmful. Would he smoke around a pregnant woman too?

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!
Many people HAVE to use public transport to get around to do ordinary day to day things...Let's also not forget that the stinkiest people are often in pubs. Do you want to ban them too?
Remember before toilets were invented when we used to piss anywhere we wanted? We eventually grew out of that habit partially because it stank up the place, hopefully the same will happen with smoking.
And everyone HAS to go outside to do lead a normal life.

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...
07:00 May 21, 2009 by Hazza
This comparison to crab fishing is just stupid. Nobody wants to outlaw dangerous professions or even dangerous hobbies. Nobody is telling smokers that they can't be smokers or that pub owners can't be smokers. Just that they have to (shock, horror) walk a few meters to do it. Working in a pub is NOT in and of itself a dangerous profession, and there's absolutely NO reason why smoking HAS TO BE a part of it. It is something that is avoidable. You can't do crab fishing without fishing for crabs, but you certainly can run a successful pub without allowing smoking in it. And guess what? People can still smoke there! They just have to walk outside to do it.
Oh - but working in a pub is generally a dangerous profession. People who work late nights are also at a higher risk of contracting health problems, including certain types of cancer. Pubs don't HAVE to be open until 3am. They could function perfectly well by shutting at 9 or 10pm - and those people who stay late and force them to keep working, are contributing to this. So if you ever stay at a pub late, then you should be ashamed of yourself...
07:59 May 21, 2009 by interplanetjanet
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...
That doesn't work either. A business where people are allowed to piss all over the floor would never pass a health and safety inspection (much as people are suggesting it should be for smoking).

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.
09:54 May 21, 2009 by Hazza
That doesn't work either. A business where people are allowed to piss all over the floor would never pass a health and safety inspection (much as people are suggesting it should be for smoking)...
But if everybody knew that pissing all over the floor was allowed somewhere, and it was advertised as such, then what problem would you have with a place like that being allowed to operate?

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...
09:55 May 21, 2009 by Hazza
...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.
Really? Who are you to say it's not a smoking establishment? For hundreds of years, it could be argued that a pub was a drinking AND smoking establishment. Both were allowed and both were synonomous with the pub industry.

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...
10:01 May 21, 2009 by SKershaw
a business is a business... regardless if they are selling "leisurely time"... technically, depending on the individual's perception: going to Plus or Karstadt could be leisure time... there are no set boundaries... ive never seen any government legislation differentiating if a business is meant for leisure or not... why is this subjective adjective that is entirely opinionated keep popping up as some sort of keyword in this debate?

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)
10:22 May 21, 2009 by Hazza
a business is a business... regardless if they are selling "leisurely time"... technically, depending on the individual's perception: going to Plus or Karstadt could be leisure time... there are no set boundaries... ive never seen any government legislation differentiating if a business is meant for leisure or not... why is this subjective adjective that is entirely opinionated keep popping up as some sort of keyword in this debate?
Who goes to Plus as a leisure activity? Do you go to Plus because you just want to hang out there, or because you need to eat?

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...
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.
If smoking was so "uncool", then people wouldn't want to hang out in places where smoking was allowed, and then the owners of the premises would ban smoking without the need for government legislation.

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?
11:52 May 21, 2009 by Bipa
ive never seen any government legislation differentiating if a business is meant for leisure or not... why is this subjective adjective that is entirely opinionated keep popping up as some sort of keyword in this debate?
So you've never noticed that you can buy a beer late at night in a pub, but can't buy a beer late at night at Aldi or Lidl or Penny or Netto? And if there's no difference in laws, then why are soccer stadiums, theatres, and amusement parks open on Sundays but grocery stores and hardware stores and pet stores and clothing stores aren't allowed? Seems to me like not all businesses are subject to the same laws.

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.
13:13 May 21, 2009 by SKershaw
I will restate:

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.
13:31 May 21, 2009 by Punchbear
Jesus. Just when I thought you'd learnt to capitalise and punctuate. Nightmare to read.
13:42 May 21, 2009 by Hazza
I will restate:

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)...
There is legislation that affects certain types of businesses, depending on what services it offers. You seem to be arguing that it's best to have blanket laws that cover all businesses, regardless of what they offer. Surely I don't need to explain just how stupid that would be. It is also quite possible to have legislation that covers one type of business, but not another. And I think it's quite acceptable that the government allows businesses to operate where the customers may put themselves at some manageable risk. In my opinion, it is even more acceptable if the business is one that is purely designed for leisure and easily avoided by anyone who doesn't want to take that risk.

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?
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.
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?
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.
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...
13:50 May 21, 2009 by interplanetjanet
But if everybody knew that pissing all over the floor was allowed somewhere, and it was advertised as such, then what problem would you have with a place like that being allowed to operate?

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...
Sure, I'd avoid it, because I'm not into pissing on the floor. But there are these places that exist for the purpose of DRINKING, and I'd like to go there without having to put up with someone else's invasive habit that has nothing to do with drinking aside from the fact that they have a hard time doing one without the other.
Really? Who are you to say it's not a smoking establishment? For hundreds of years, it could be argued that a pub was a drinking AND smoking establishment. Both were allowed and both were synonomous with the pub industry.
So you're trying to claim now that a pub is the same thing as a tobacconist? If the purpose of a pub is for smoking, then where are the humidors in these places? Where is the selection of fine rolling and pipe tobacco? A cigarette machine in the corner makes a pub no more of a smoking establishment than a maxi-pad machine in the toilet makes it a feminine hygiene establishment.

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?
13:58 May 21, 2009 by Hazza
Sure, I'd avoid it, because I'm not into pissing on the floor. But there are these places that exist for the purpose of DRINKING, and I'd like to go there without having to put up with someone else's invasive habit that has nothing to do with drinking aside from the fact that they have a hard time doing one without the other.
Sure - well then those places are free to ban smoking themselves if they want to do that. There's no need for government legislation.
So you're trying to claim now that a pub is the same thing as a tobacconist? If the purpose of a pub is for smoking, then where are the humidors in these places? Where is the selection of fine rolling and pipe tobacco? A cigarette machine in the corner makes a pub no more of a smoking establishment than a maxi-pad machine in the toilet makes it a feminine hygiene establishment.
No - see one is a place where you BUY the tobacco and the other is a place where you USE the tobacco.
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?
Oh - we're onto slavery now...brilliant. There is a CHOICE involved in either working at or visiting a smoky bar. I believe that slaves weren't actually given this CHOICE.
13:58 May 21, 2009 by Bipa
Shit, I wouldn't mind having a few household slaves.

(Gratuitous "" included to see if this comment goes over to The Local )
14:04 May 21, 2009 by Hazza
No it doesn't...even the word "piss" doesn't make it over there.
14:52 May 21, 2009 by Bipa
Hmm... seems like "piss" is allowed after all. Your comment is there on The Local. But mine has been skipped over.
15:34 May 21, 2009 by Hazza
Strange - because all the posts which mentioned "Pissing on the floor" have been skipped over too...
20:46 May 21, 2009 by MonksTown
A business where people are allowed to piss all over the floor would never pass a health and safety inspection (much as people are suggesting it should be for smoking).
Factually wrong.

Not my cup of tea (sic) but such places do exist.

No one is forced to go to them.
07:55 May 22, 2009 by SKershaw
Jesus. Just when I thought you'd learnt to capitalise and punctuate. Nightmare to read.
"nightmare"? is that all it takes ms drama queen? Shall I get you a maxi pad?

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.
08:02 May 22, 2009 by SKershaw
There is legislation that affects certain types of businesses, depending on what services it offers. You seem to be arguing that it's best to have blanket laws that cover all businesses, regardless of what they offer. Surely I don't need to explain just how stupid that would be. It is also quite possible to have legislation that covers one type of business, but not another. And I think it's quite acceptable that the government allows businesses to operate where the customers may put themselves at some manageable risk. In my opinion, it is even more acceptable if the business is one that is purely designed for leisure and easily avoided by anyone who doesn't want to take that risk.

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...
your argument is becoming weak... you are starting to graze now on ridiculous and "save face/win at any cost"... come on man... people that dont know when to stop playing devil's advocate on a moot subject, paint themselves into a corner... if we were in business/sitting in a conference room, and you were trying to use this logic and back pedal, your goose would be cooked.

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 ...
08:36 May 22, 2009 by Kay
by the way '"learned"... "learnt"?

seriously... oh the irony.
British English not good enough for you?
08:38 May 22, 2009 by Keydeck
bickering with a bunch of people on a ex pat forum is futile and fruitless ...
Yet you've been doing it for years. Hilarious.
08:47 May 22, 2009 by Kommentarlos
Let's also not forget that the stinkiest people are often in pubs. Do you want to ban them too?
I didn't realise that was an option. Yes please.
09:04 May 22, 2009 by Hazza
your argument is becoming weak... you are starting to graze now on ridiculous and "save face/win at any cost"... come on man... people that dont know when to stop playing devil's advocate on a moot subject, paint themselves into a corner... if we were in business/sitting in a conference room, and you were trying to use this logic and back pedal, your goose would be cooked.

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 ...
It's not a weak argument.

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...
12:08 May 22, 2009 by Bipa
I will restate:

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)...
Ah... I see... that must be why there's no mention of leisure activities written into laws... oh, wait a sec...

Gesetz über die Ladenöffnung in Baden-Württemberg (LadÖG)

§ 7 Kur-, Erholungs-, Ausflugs- und Wallfahrtsorte
or 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.
15:54 May 22, 2009 by RevImmigrant
The smoking ban is not such a problem in places where the climate is warm enough for people to eat outside most of the year, but here in Germany where it's cold much of the year it's a problem for those of us who smoke.

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!!!
16:13 May 22, 2009 by Keydeck
Is fecal matter the same as ?
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.
Sounds like you let your smoking define who you are. Does that not worry you at all?
16:39 May 22, 2009 by murphaph
The smoking ban is not such a problem in places where the climate is warm enough for people to eat outside most of the year, but here in Germany where it's cold much of the year it's a problem for those of us who smoke.

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!!!
Yeah but fleas don't carry cancer last time I looked. It's peurile to compare a mangy mut to smoking in the workplace. I as a person who goes to bars to have a drink don't really mind people smoking, even though I know it's potentially fatal to me. I'm just used to it, but staff should not have to endure carconegenic smoke every day at work, regardless of what type of work they do.
16:43 May 22, 2009 by goodlife
The nerve of some people in here...
19:55 May 22, 2009 by RevImmigrant
Keydeck, fecal matter is another term for . I didn't phrase my last sentence very well. The smoking does not define who I am, but I am tired of non and anti-smokers cramming their views down my throat.

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.
11:39 May 23, 2009 by chicken1900
Hey, you guys out there, come on, don't be so abusiv e to eachother. Pe? make mistakes esp. by wriring here. Some reasons: heated heads, to be quicker, or even to slap one in the face, verballyI sometimes don't even know how to spell a word, that i ought to . So, take easy, volks. Smoking is unhealthy and you smell horrible after visting. a pub or so.

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.:))))
14:41 May 24, 2009 by Punchbear
"nightmare"? is that all it takes ms drama queen? Shall I get you a maxi pad?

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.
What? Still haven't learnt to resist typing like a retarded dyslexic 11 year-old blind paraplegic midget balancing on the one good leg on a skateboard? Dearie me. Get back to me when your IQ reaches room temperature princess.
10:31 May 26, 2009 by Portnoy
Just a quick note here:

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.
13:49 May 26, 2009 by marion23
I don't see what the big deal is. If a Bar wants to be smoking they can just open up as a members club and carry on as before. This is what I found to be the case when I came here first.
15:38 May 26, 2009 by RevImmigrant
With respect to smoking in the workplace, many people who work also smoke. How much time is lost from work by workers taking smoke breaks?

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.
00:05 May 28, 2009 by Vargaz
Right after you finish puffing that last coffin nail and they hammer it into your casket we will all join in for a chorus we believe you'd like (too bad and too late if you don't) "...Jack, YOU'RE DEAD".
13:28 May 28, 2009 by MeckPommes
Hahaha. You smokers can suck it. The Berlin initiative to repeal the smoking ban couldn't get enough popular support. THE NON SMOKERS HAVE SPOKEN.

Democracy. Yes.
13:43 May 28, 2009 by lolo
SMOKERS STOP BEING SUCH A SHOWER OF WHINERS.

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.
10:50 May 29, 2009 by black1
I can think of instances where passive smoking can be very bad for people's health, especially the smoker. Blowing smoke into a child's face is the one that comes to mind - parents goes apeshit about that.
COMMENTS NOW CLOSED
Today's headlines
Photo: DPA

Match-fixing ring rocks European football

Some 200 football matches in nine European countries including at least three Champions League games may have manipulated in a huge match-fixing scandal, German prosecutors said on Friday. READ (2 COMMENTS) »

Photo: a screenshot of taz.de

Editorial feud erects artistic six-metre penis

In a massive escalation of a long-standing editorial feud, the newspaper Die Tageszeitung has unveiled an artwork depicting the naked editor-in-chief of its right-wing rival Bild sporting a six-metre penis up the façade of its headquarters. READ (8 COMMENTS) »

Photo: DPA

Disabled woman fired for eating pâté meant for patients

A disabled Hannover woman working at a nursing home has been fired after 18 years on the job for eating pâté intended for patients, daily Hannoversche Allgemeine Zeitung reported on Friday. READ (15 COMMENTS) »

A file photo of Hitler in 1925 at an NSDAP meeting in Bavaria. Photo: DPA

France finds lost spy file on young Hitler

Secret French intelligence service documents on the young Adolf Hitler have surfaced in the country’s national archives, daily Le Monde reported on Friday. READ (4 COMMENTS) »

Photo: DPA

Von der Leyen moots expanded child subsidy for poor families

German Family Minister Ursula von der Leyen has proposed expanding a monthly child subsidy for low income parents, daily Passauer Neue Presse reported on Friday. READ (2 COMMENTS) »

Photo: DPA

Defence minister expects Karzai to take action

NATO countries expect "more than just words" from Afghan President Hamid Karzai after he promised to combat corruption, German Defence Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg said Thursday. READ (3 COMMENTS) »

Photo: DPA

Springlike highs expected for weekend

Anyone planning a weekend outing will enjoy sunshine and springlike temperatures in the coming days as a high pressure system moves over the Alps and into central Germany, the DWD weather service reported on Friday. READ »

Photo: DPA

Chestnut tree kills pedestrian

A 47-year-old Frankfurt woman died late on Thursday after a chestnut tree suddenly fell and crushed her, police reported. READ (7 COMMENTS) »

More Analysis & Opinion
Highlights
Photo: DPA
SOCIETY »
Born amid Cold War rivalry yet loved by children on both sides of the Iron Curtain, Germany’s bedtime TV character the Sandman celebrates his 50th birthday this weekend

See all ads | Join the Marketplace

Jobs in Germany, in English

579 jobs in Germany, in English
323 new jobs this week
0 new jobs today

ALL JOBS »

Latest news from The Local in Sweden
Blog
Essentials

Dating
Looking for your own blonde bombshell? Or is the strong, silent type more your style? Find a German sweetheart here.

Weather
"After clouds comes clear weather," say the Germans. But what about after that? Find out in The Local's weather section.

Blog
German stuff that's distracting us today.

Noticeboard
Whether you want to buy, sell, hire, announce or promote something, here's the place to do it - completely free of charge.

Discuss
Debate the news, ask for advice, make friends - or just let off steam.

Search News


Register

Register now for:
> Free use of noticeboard
> Special discounts
> Weekly news roundup
> Unlimited use of discuss

REGISTER FOR FREE »

News from the Goethe-Institut
News from Young Germany
News from DeutschlandOnline
JOB: Account Executive Global Brand Team
Edelman, the worlds largest privately owned PR agency, is looking for a native English speaking Account Executive (m/f) for the Global Team in Hamburg (starting in January 2010)
FULL JOB DETAILS
Food and drink gift baskets
We offer a wide range of exquisite and unique hampers, elegantly decorated for all occasions. Our service is first class and allows you to send personalised baskets to your loved ones across Europe.
FIND OUT MORE
Snappy summary of the week's best stories
The newsletter is sent out every Friday with an easily swallowed digest of the week's happenings allowing you to pepper your conversations with nuggets of news about the issues of the hour.
SIGN UP HERE>>>
Advertising 2.0
MARKETPLACE - promote your business to half a million targeted readers a month on The Local. Find great products and services in Germany or tell The Local's readers about your own business.
CLICK HERE>>>
Sales manager - Berlin
The Local is seeking a talented and experienced media sales professional for our online advertising sales in Germany
FULL JOB DETAILS
Best Foreign exchange rates dealing - all major currencies
Foreign Currency Direct voted as offering the best exchange rates. All currency exchange transactions are managed by Ben Amrany. We guarantee that readers of The Local/Toytown receive a 5 star service
FULL DETAILS HERE>>>
Editorial intern - Berlin
The Local needs an editorial intern at its office in Berlin starting in January
FULL JOB DETAILS

The Local Europe GmbH
Linienstrasse 214
10119 Berlin
Germany