Ban on smoking in public and tobacco advertising

If they ban smoking in pubs, then they would also have to ease noise restrictions outside pubs in residential areas.

We have enough trouble with neighbours complaining about the noise, and you can't expect a group of smokers to stand outside at 2am and not say a word.

If pubs were no longer responsible for people making noise outside on the street, then sure, no problem...

I'd love to throttle the ones wandering down my street at 2 am - half coming from one pub (I suspect) that has a sign begging them to be quiet (about a block away, by the time they get here they've forgotten) and half coming from the U-Bahn heading home.
Doesn't help that the daft grumpy German in the building next door yells back at them. (Just makes them start slagging off Germany).
Any suggestions? (ok, a bit off topic...)
(Never been loud outside myself, ever, honest)

People don't even need to be too loud. Everyone has their windows open at the moment and even ordinary conversation is too loud.

So unless they can find a solution to that, then banning smoking will be a problem to many establishments (includind The Arc)

No - I can deal with the normal level voices (even though I live on a very sound-reflecting street), it's the idiots yelling down the street or kicking bikes or screaming Ihr Seid Alle Scheisse that I have a hard time with.

a certain degree of loudness kind of goes with the territory of living in Schwabing doesn't it


although that is perhaps a bit excessive

Maybe you can deal with it, but a lot of people can't. And the law is pretty strict on this.

If responsibility for noise outside was removed from the pub and placed on the people actually making the noise, then it might work. Even then, it's a difficult one...

Yup - schwabing is schwabing - even though this is a pretty quiet street and area in it. I wouldn't have a problem with people standing outside Nabucco and smoking (the closest place to my bedroom window). As long as the smoke didn't drift in It's the yelling of drunks that is too much (and is a pretty recent development since a certain bar changed owners...)

Does that mean I can threaten the bar owners for their drunken guests a block away? That seems a bit harsh as well. Though if I were to recognise one as a repeat offender, I might talk to them.

i heard a news report on the radio a few weeks ago about the food service industry and their connection with the tobacco industry in germany. it said that the german food service industry has been heavily lobbied by the tobacco companies for over two decades. tobacco companies have given their support to the food service industies. (ie money for unions and associations)

Hmm theoretically you could also get some mates and go stand outside a pub you dont like and make noise to get them in trouble... German laws...

And blow smoke into DDBugs windows...

my neighbors do that already I'm an ex-smoker, I can take it.
(Oldest kiddo can't though)

http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/Smoking/tb/3640
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/06/27/invol...g.ap/index.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-0...y-smoking_x.htm

Christ. Has this started up again? Well, I must admit that it is nice to see ADE posting again...

Right. We have had racism this week so I guess we need to go back to the good old, tried and tested Anti-Pikey thread to even things out a bit

You are talking complete shite. You really are. In fact this is bigotted comments coming from you.

You have absolutely no evidence that in ventilated establishments passive smoking can have any impact on one's health whatsoever. There are plenty jobs out there if you don't like smoking as well.

If i'm allergic to motor oil im hardly going to demand that garages dont put oil in cars in case i get affected. extreme example but perfectly applicable. you dont like it you dont work or socialise in such environments. if you need a nanny state to intervene and get right up everyone's tits its says little of you.

I'm not even a smoker I just find it fucking appalling that people like you and the scottish executive etc have nothing better to do than preach about these mythical passive smoking health complaints and ruin hard working people's enjoyment of cigarettes.

people should stand up to bullshit laws like the anti smoking as if not we will invariably go down the road of the nanny state taking control like i said next on the agenda is pubs not being allowed to serve more than 3 beers per customer in a night. so how the fuck they police and prevent mass pub crawls then? ridiculus. cant you see whats happening.

nothing you can say is in the slightest bit worthwhile as regards why smoking should be banned.

Two of those point to the same story btw, which is just a report on other reports, no doubt selectively chosen.

But anyway, even if we assume it is totally unbiased, the worst the anti-tobacco people can come up with is that if you spend most of your life in a smokey environment, your chance of lung cancer will be 10-30% higher than someone who doesn't. Not exactly very serious for someone who spends a few years working in a smokey pub. Using their figures, for someone who works 4 years full time in a smokey pub, they are 100x more likely to die in a car crash!

noone is forcing them to work there. i remember back in the day starting scouts as a young lad we could play british bulldogs, have tugs of war and lots of other fun games. before i left both had been banned as it was too "dangerous". hilarious. think about it. soon nothing will be legal. no doubt they will try banning getting your haircut, jogging and contact sports like rugby. maybe even tiddlywinks, just think what would happen if you got one in your eye


"harrassed"?! get real. the great thing about smoke is you can see it. that should be warning enough for pedantics like you.

the world is going to be a sad boring place to live in a 100yrs if shit like this keeps getting introduced.

People are not (just) alergic to smoke, it kills people, all people who come into enough contact with it. This is a completely different matter.

I'm not going to respond to every one of your points, but suffice to say that there is enough evidence linking smoking to cancer and other illnesses. People who do not wish to smoke should not have to be subjected to it, nor should they have to work in such environments (or be discriminated against because of it ie. not get a job because they want to work in a non-smoking environment).

ffs fine but nor should people who do want to smoke or own establishments and want to make them obviously smoking bars/clubs not be allowed to continue smoking.

i know of one such small town in the country that had 5 pubs. 3 were clear non smoking and 2 were smoking (well before the ban). clearly a fair system, people had CHOICE. now there is nothing for the smokers.

there is absolutely nothing fair about preventing people from having such a choice.


do you also agree then with soldiers suing the government because they were shot at or saw bodies??? same sort of brigade you tend to find. fucking weird opinions regardless!

if i want a more risk-free life i wont join the forces. if i want a smoke-free life i won't start working in a smoking pub. where is the problem in having this attitude?

cant you see what im getting at? should people join the army and demand that they dont be sent to world hot spots like iraq and afghanistan? the examples are pretty similar when you think about it.

i dont like smoke but i dont parade around demanding smoking places becoming non-smoking cos i am trying to act high and mighty and ruin other people's pleasures (smoking not my bag, but just accept it is for lots and lots of people, ok!?)

@n Hutcho, haven't we been here before ?

same old, same old, smokers want to and some prefer to save us and them from theirselves, whatever happens smokers will continue to do so and some will complain about it, end of ....

If America can do it, small Germany can and will. When friends come over here from the states to visit, everyone has said "I can not believe how many people smoke here." Myself, I am a smoker, however, I step outside. I never saw anybody in my life smoking in an office, nor have I seen anyone ever smoking that greeted the public until I came here. However, it has been proven that smoking does cause medical problems. But this is the main reason why Americans went totally smoke free in all public buildings. As you age it stands to reason that you have more medical problems, however, if you were a smoker your problems are greater. Sorry, but medical problems do cost money, even in a socialized country where the medical is free. If you smoked and now are aging they can not afford you. Now if you want to pay more taxes for your aging smokers then be my guest. However, these same discussions of anti smoking bans took place in America several years ago. All of us were against it, saying our freedoms, our this and our that. But it happened, and every bar, lounge, pub, office, restaurant, school or any building had to oblige. Law. There are so many bars, lounges, restaurants and etc in America and they all thought that this will kill these places. It did not. They are just as full as they ever were. But what it did do was make people quit smoking. When the ban went into effect they raised the price of cigarettes. Had to , to make up for the taxes they weren`t collecting. But when the people started quitting they raised them again. Figuring that we have so many people hooked there is no way they will quit. Wrong they did. America was just named the number 1 smokeless nation. They have already raised the price of cigarettes here, either higher or less in the package thinking you are saving money. Your not. You are getting less. Making you buy another pack more often then before. Companys here will not be allowed to have a smokers room, if they do, then they will have to pay a stiffer penalty for the aging medical. You pay a stiffer penalty, no raises. Now when it hits your pocketbook you will think differntly.

and where exactly do the drug addicts and obese people with undoubtedly more medical problems come into play? can noone afford them either?

i wonder what small germany plans for them!

From the money you will be saving on every person that steps outside to smoke. All of a sudden those once every hour smokers that have to leave the building will be cutting it down to perhaps three times a day. Then once they are down to perhaps three times a day they quit totally. And if it stated on this thread that 26% smoke, then once that tapers off to say perhaps 10% or 15% all of the drug medical people and the Obese medical problems will be by themselves with lots of money to spend on them. As in this case smokers here exceed drug and obese people by far. Oh and by the way, Small Germany was taken for size of a country as compared to the size of America.

Can you write this in English please ?

I understand to a degree the age old argument that it effects peoples health that don't smoke. And I agree that they should be some non-smoking bars as well as smoking bars.

However, with regards to the smoking relating illnesses costing the NHS (as is here) more bugs me. Taxes rasied by cigarettes was 9.5bn and the cost to the NHS for smoking related illnesses was 1.7bn (2001 figures, all I could find this time of the morning). I'm betting that people who do dangerous sports probably ending up costing the NHS more than smokers.

What annoys me a little more as well. Is a few years back the government made many bars and establishments install extremely expensive ventilation systems to purify the air for non-smokers which when the total ban comes in here will not really be needed, however, some small business are still paying of the loans they had to get to have these installed in the first place.

Thanks for digging this out, I wanted to post this point myself but could not be bothered looking for the facts this morning.

The crux of this is that us non-smokers should WANT people to smoke more for the sole purpose of them reduxing our taxes! You just know that if they lose that 9.5bn to smoking then they will just put it onto every other bloody thing we buy/consume.
This holds for the UK at least.

As a non-smoker myself I have to say I have liked coming home and not stinking of smoke from time to time but it doesnt really bother me either way. I say let them have dedicated smoker bars. I agree with the side of the argument through this thread that people, even smokers, should have the choice.

Taking the choice away from people is not really the right thing to do IMHO*. There is too much choice being taken away from people in this world. I hate the nanny state.

*although, I just realised I am a hypocrite as I am a fan of the forced no shopping on Sundays rules here and think they should have them in the UK.. ho hum

I'll wager anything this will not happen, in fact people will simply spend more time away from their desks, or whatever it is they do at work, whilst they slowly make their merry down the stairs to the new smoking area oustide with countless colleagues, proceed to engage in animated conversation for longer than is normal as they've all had to make such a trek to get there (might as well make it worthwhile), before trundling back upstairs at a dawdling pace. 10 minutes instead of 5.

Although I understand your agrument you are making way too many assumptions here for it to be valid.

no, "dangerous sports" don't cost the health system much at all. Soccer and skiing injuries cost quite a bit, as they're mass sports with so many people playing, that there are lots of injuries. Keeping people fit by playing sports is still cheaper than having them quit for fear of injuries though, because then obesity rates would rise etc.


Where are those bars and establishments with air purifying systems that work? I want to go there!

dunno either but regardless the point is if you want to install such equipment why not then allow smoking on the premises? if you dont want to, then dont allow smoking. then the law could actually be classed as 'fair'. once again, CHOICE!


this is completely made up. you've never smoked have you? i know a fair amount of people trying to deal with the ban in different ways and this certainly isn't what anyone is doing.

Yes, very selectively, the first three links from a google search.

If it helps, here is a direct link to the US Surgeon General's report:
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/

selectively chosen, of course, this way I don't have to "make up my own statistics"

I meant the report author probably decided which reports to include or not to include in his. Anyway, did you read my analysis of the figures? Even if we agree with the anti-smoking people, it's not all that bad!

I suppose that depends on what your idea of a dangerous sport is. In my mind skiing (chucking yourself down a mountain on two planks of wood) can be classed as a dangerous sport. Skateboarding, inline skating, mountainbiking etc etc.

Did you know that for charity parachute jumps every pound raised for charity costs the NHS anything between £13.00 and £20.00.

I'm not finding where you are getting this 100x number from.


link


link

100x?

3000 out the population died from lung cancer, they said risk was 10-30% higher if you spent the majority of your life with a smoker. Someone who works in a pub full-time for 4 years is spending about 10% of their life in a smokey environment, so I'd say 300 out of the population chance, which is over 100x less than the chance of dying in a car accident...

And that is looking at it from the point of view of an anti-smoker, no doubt the real figure is even less.

lol big hand mate

come on anthony we're all waiting for your next installment of made up crap!

Sorry, sBG27 is not going to be topped for made up crap after that load. I can't tell from your post, do you actually believe that mess?

and then later

From here:

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact04.html

Anybody who thinks more people die in car accidents than die from cancer needs their head read - there would need to be multiple pile ups on every fucking corner every fucking morning.

Nobody said that though, we're talking about lung cancer due to ETS, (not due to smoking or any other reason), which the anti-smokers claim 3000 people a year die from, 10x fewer than the number of people who die on roads (both figures are just for the US).

Anyway, I was just showing AdE how it is very easy to make headline figures that can show basically anything you want, even with the figures from the anti smoking groups themselves...

i quite agree. i always knew it was safer smoking than driving a car!

Ah, sorry - should have read the whole thread.

Here's the crux of the matter - people don't need to smoke. People, on the whole, pretty much do need cars. Therefore cars won't be banned, smoking might be. QED.

What do people think about the idea of having a section of the pub which is blocked off where no drinks/food can be served, however can be consumed within? It would have to be solidly blocked off from the other side so no smoke got through, but I guess this would save employee's from health risks.

I thought of a reason this was a bad idea a while back, but I can't think of it now.

I'm not sure I understand this. How do you get the drinks/food into the section without going inside? Teleportation?

I think it means that customers can take their food in there, but staff don't need to go in there. But staff still need to clean the area, maybe a gas mask or something could be available for those that don't want to breathe in the smoke

True, technically cleaning it could be a issue while there is still smoke in there.

Possibly some cold war nuclear bunker type doors can be rigged up just in case of some contamination getting in.

do you think it would be out the question to assume that many large pubs serving food will have at least some staff who like smoking and happily volunteer to serve smoking areas? anyone that sees discrimination in that really has nothing better to think about.

As I was leaving the pub tonight I noticed the door propped open because of the heat and that there was a bit of a draft blowing inwards. I took great pleasure in lighting up as i walked over the doorway and watching the smoke drift back into the pub. ha ha ha

You would, wouldn't you? Anyone who's seen any of your posts would know that it's just the kind of Schotte shitty behaviour you'd go for.

And if there wasn't? They'd have to hire a smoker. Look, its discrimination. You might not like it, or agree with it, but it would be discrimination none the less.

A system might be devised which would make it possible for bar staff never to have to go into the smoking area while the pub/bar was open. A refundable deposit charged for drinks (glasses/bottles) would give people going to the bar from the smoking area an incentive to bring their glasses/bottles with them (people in the smoking area would also be responsible for emptying their own ashtrays) . If organised properly it needn't cause more than a minimal slowdown in service.

Nothing worse than unruly todlers.

Why would they have to hire a smoker? Just put in the advert "must be willing to serve in a smoking section". How is that discrimination? How is it any different from hiring for any other job? Here is a list of far more dangerous jobs, how do they recruit for those?