February 9, 2012
Published: 8 Jul 10 16:13 CET
Online: http://www.thelocal.de/opinion/20100708-28385.html
The opponents of Bavaria’s strict smoking ban have lost, just like most people whose arguments are based on tradition rather than reason, argues Malte Lehming from Der Tagesspiegel.
What do you think? Leave your comment below.
After exporting power to France earlier this week, Germany has switched on reserve energy plants amid surging demand for electricity due to the ongoing deep freeze hitting Europe. READ (5 COMMENTS) »
A Munich court on Thursday awarded an artist €2,000 in damages because a gallery lost two 22-year-old chips that were the basis of an artwork in which the fries lay across each other in a cross. READ (1 COMMENT) »
Germany’s most famous cyclist Jan Ullrich was found guilty of doping and stripped of his third place in the 2005 Tour de France by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on Thursday. READ (6 COMMENTS) »
German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said on Thursday Germany was expelling four diplomats from the Syrian embassy in Berlin after the arrest of two men suspected of spying on regime opponents. READ (1 COMMENT) »
Diane Kruger stars as Marie Antoinette in "Farewell My Queen," a lush costume drama set on the eve of the French Revolution that will open the 62nd Berlin film festival on Thursday. READ »
An eight-person family that avoided paying rent for years by moving house every two to three weeks has finally been caught in the northern German town of Schneverdingen. READ (6 COMMENTS) »
This Week's Highlights: The star-studded Berlinale film festival kicks off in Berlin, Munch goes on view in Frankfurt, and a ukelele orchestra sets up in Munich. READ »
German police this week rescued 92 puppies from a van, after the dogs had spent 13 hours being transported across Europe without food or water. READ (5 COMMENTS) »
See all ads | Join the Marketplace
1328 jobs available
874 new jobs this week
222 new jobs today
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.
Register now for:
> Free use of noticeboard
> Special discounts
> Weekly news roundup
> Unlimited use of discuss
Your comments about this article:
Nevertheless, it's much much cheaper. I gave it to my father on his birthday and since then he saves around a hundred Dollars each month. He tells me its great that he can decide on his own how much nicotine he inhales (the cartridges come in 0-16 mg nic.).
My mum also loves it, because the "smoke" is mainly composed of water-vapor, so now she doesent need to send my dad outside each time he wants to smoke, haha. You can check them out on www.greensmoke.com/disc10-18621 , this link contains a 10% discount.
There is an upfront cost for the starters kit, but the cartridges are more than 50% cheaper than cigarettes, so in the end you'll only save money. Try it, I cant see how you'll be disappointed. Furthermore, they offer every customer a 30 day money back guarantee, meaning if you dont like it you can return it without having to pay any cost.
1) NO ONE NO WHERE does anyone need to endure the second hand smoke smokers produce and
2) Smokers forfeit the rights to any publicly funded health care.
There you are, to simple...
?'They have created a fear that is based on nothing?'?'
World-renowned pulmonologist, president of the prestigious Research Institute Necker for the last decade, Professor Philippe Even, now retired, tells us that he?'s convinced of the absence of harm from passive smoking. A shocking interview.
What do the studies on passive smoking tell us?
PHILIPPE EVEN. There are about a hundred studies on the issue. First surprise: 40% of them claim a total absence of harmful effects of passive smoking on health. The remaining 60% estimate that the cancer risk is multiplied by 0.02 for the most optimistic and by 0.15 for the more pessimistic … compared to a risk multiplied by 10 or 20 for active smoking! It is therefore negligible. Clearly, the harm is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low.
It is an indisputable scientific fact. Anti-tobacco associations report 3 000-6 000 deaths per year in France ...
I am curious to know their sources. No study has ever produced such a result.
Many experts argue that passive smoking is also responsible for cardiovascular disease and other asthma attacks. Not you?
They don?'t base it on any solid scientific evidence. Take the case of cardiovascular diseases: the four main causes are obesity, high cholesterol, hypertension and diabetes. To determine whether passive smoking is an aggravating factor, there should be a study on people who have none of these four symptoms. But this was never done. Regarding chronic bronchitis, although the role of active smoking is undeniable, that of passive smoking is yet to be proven. For asthma, it is indeed a contributing factor ... but not greater than pollen!
The purpose of the ban on smoking in public places, however, was to protect non-smokers. It was thus based on nothing?
Absolutely nothing! The psychosis began with the publication of a report by the IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer, which depends on the WHO (Editor's note: World Health Organization). The report released in 2002 says it is now proven that passive smoking carries serious health risks, but without showing the evidence. Where are the data? What was the methodology? It's everything but a scientific approach. It was creating fear that is not based on anything.
Why would anti-tobacco organizations wave a threat that does not exist?
Simple's the word, alright!
7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
November 2004.
http://cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/cotstatementtobacco0409
"5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke - induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease."
In other words ... our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can't even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact ... we don't even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.
The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.
Icemonkey: not exactly. lots of people ae willing to be around others who are smoking. I don't know anyone who'd like to eat snot. You perhaps?
Some are addicted and perhaps it is not their fault. Even so, does everyone else have to suffer the smells and the coughing that goes with it?
The most lethal cancers that kill young people are those due to smoke.
Service industries like restaurants, casinos, bars and the like always say they are worried that they will lose business if they ban smokers. No-one seems to consider the poor folk who stay away from such places because they know that the air will be foul. Some places may increase business by excluding smokers. I would not go near a club, cafe, restaurant, shop, cinema, pub, art gallery, shop where there are people fouling the air outside the place let alone inside the place.
If people wish to smoke, they still can. As yet there is nothing illegal in manufacturing, selling and smoking the products that are one of the main causes of sickness, suffering, and premature death. But if they cannot or will not beat the addiction, they must do it by themselves. Other people have an absolute right to expect the air they breathe to be clean, not poisonous.
It makes you old faster. You die younger. But when you die you look old. In 10 years time, people will vomit when they see an image of a young woman with thick carcinogenic smoke lingering between her lips. Take action now and reduce suffering. There is no cure except prevention. Prevention means getting rid of it.
I'm really curious about something: Bavaria right now has loads of non-smoking pubs and restaurants those who dislike smoke can patronize. In fact, aren't the majority smoke-free? So why would all those people vote to deprive their smoking neighbors of places they can go???
And that's the big issue. Maybe you'll apppreciate this recent quote from a more famous "Okie":
"I had more freedom as a parolee in 1962 than the average citizen has today." --Merle Haggard
Harry: You said iit
About "freedom":
- I don't care. Smokers (including myself) have acted like children when it comes to responsibility in order to excercise that freedom.
- Look at the streets, you will see cig butts everywhere. You don't see as many bottles of drinkers, or people peeing on you as you get the smoke from other people. It is so hard to take the cig butt to a trash can?
- Go outdoors to enjoy a pizza, and you will have a guy smoking a big cigar with a so strong smell that will just ruin your evening.
- You still see people smoking in the elevator or the subway station, just because it is forbidden but not enforced.
Smokers just don't deserve the freedom to smoke because they have pissed off everyone else's freedom for a long time.
So may be it could had been possible for smokers and non-smokers to live together in a "partial ban" system". But it did not work, because smokers just do not care. I would even forbid smoking on the street just to avoid having it full of cig butts. If you want to smoke, use your living room.
dmacvicar: so why not have a public campaign to encourage smokers to ditch their butts in proper places--and provide proper places to do so. As for the guy with the cigar, do the wonderful new laws ban him from smoking outside as well? One thing all you folks seem to have forgotten is that once you force smokers outside, they become a lot more noticeable. And you'll have to deal with a lot more smoke. And you'll still complain.
And as far as your living room do you think the Smoke Nazis will leave you in peace there? There are places in the US where you can't smoke in your living room if you live in an apartment.
I assume you don't enjoy anything that other people disapprove of, do you? What will you do when the forces of moral uplift and healthy living decide society would be nicer without alcohol? (like they did 1920-33?) Or that deliciously fatty Bavarian cuisine? Again, the US already has food bans in some places.
there are going to be many more of them now that smokers can't be inside where there are proper ways to dispose of them.
Also, many places that have adopted stringent antismoking policies, like Ireland, Scotland and Italy have actually seen the rate of smoking go UP as smoking becomes more visible and the age-old human tendency to crave Forbidden Fruit kicks in. Tobacco company profits are way up, BTW, as their product gets a new "outlaw" image.
Viel Spass!
Brilliant!
Question I've been asking that hasn't been answered: aren't the majority of bars in Bavaria currently non-smoking? So why don't you go to them? And why is it so imprortant to deny smokers their places?
Slawek: that's right: we're doing everyone a favor. Now leave us alone.
Still waiting for an answer to the question in #31.
Summary:
If you don't like smoke chose one of the many many bars that don't allow smoking and not those that do. Take responsibility for your own actions. There is such a thing as a compromise.
If smokers are to be refused medical treatment so are drinkers (alcohol related costs on health services far outway smoking related ones if you include the average hospital on a weekend evening !), fat people, high stress workers who have bad blood pressure and heart attacks, people who cause accidents, extreme sports fanatics including skiers etc. etc. Don't single out one group because of your own prejudices. Look to history. That never ends well !
Smoking is bad for you. We all know that but so are many other things. Smokers chose to smoke. That's up to them not you. You go your way and let them go theirs. Just avoid them if you don't like it. Again, take your own responsibility instead of bleating about it...
But worst of all, we have to walk past banks, shops, and inhale the foul fumes. We go inside and the stale odour pervades everythink. Go to a non-smokers' hotel, and the room still reeks from past users of the room. Businesses should put smokers on the roof of buildings. They should not advertise hotel rooms as non-smoking unless they have been gutted and totally refurnished. Many businesses, and including places like bars and casinos, just do not know how many folk stay away because they know the place reeks of you know what. And yet you hear some saying they do not want to lose the business of the pathetic addicts. Some day we will look back in anger and disbelief.
As far as smokers being apologetic, or even considerate, given the level of hostility and gloating by nonsmokers, that's a non-starter. Viel Spass!
"Other people's habits are always in need of reforming"
--Mark Twain
While we're at it, can we ban anything else that I dislike?"
Personally, I feel much healthier in an environment where I have the freedom to make my own choices, within reason. Those ugly little "No Smoking" signs are most certainly a blight on the psychic landscape. Since you're such a devotee of clean air, I assume you don't drive, do you?
So36: Right, just as smokers are paying for the health care of nonsmokers with cigarette taxes.
By the way, which is it?: do smokers die early, which seems to bother some on here, or do they live on using up health care resources that should go to the more "deserving"?, which also seems to rankle some?
I for one, wants to smoke a stick of ciggie or two every few days to stay sane in this mad world.
As far as "still" being able to smoke in my home or car or even outdoors, I suggest you study what antismokers in other places are doing in regards to these areas. Like all fascists, they're never satisfied and once they achieve one of their intolerant victories in one place, they look for another. Give it a year and they'll be howling about outdoor smoking and how there has to be a ban on that.
A truly democratic solution would be to let the patrons of each bar vote on whether smoking should be allowed and under what circumstances. I wonder why, since the antismokers claim a democratic majority, they didn't do this at their own bars? Maybe they don't go to bars. Or maybe having smoke-free bars is not really the goal, so much as punishing smokers?
Be proud you live in Berlin, where people are still allowed to be people and if you don't want to be insulted, don't be so smug.