No general ban on smoking in bars and restaurants

No, the point is that supply and demand should (and does) dictate the number of smoking and non-smoking places. If the smoke-free places are totally packed and the others are empty, what will happen next? There shouldn't need to be a law to set these things, it will happen by itself (as you suggest).

What I don't understand in Germany is that they make a point of showing children how to cross the street - only when it's green. They even put signs everywhere alerting people to become a "Vorbild für Kinder."

Why not also with smoking?

Yes that is an opinion. I personally don't believe totally unfettered market economics is a good idea. Anyway there is a demand for a law banning smoking in restaurants and that will have to be supplied.

apples and oranges that one. kids will immitate what adults do thats right, but the ability to successfuly re-educate a child after i've given him his first ciggie is greater than when i've run him over at 40 kmh.

Yup. When it's strong enough it will be supplied. It isn't strong enough now so deal with it.

Exactly why many non-smokers avoid such occupations, thus raising the portion of smokers among waiters/pub owners, etc. Why would they want a smoking ban?

Newsflash, everybody has a different level of sensitivity to toxins, duh.

Same way you will have to deal with it when it comes. Methinks you will find a different excuse though. Just like all of the a la carte opinionated.

I will deal with it when it comes, it won't effect me in the slightest. I'll find a different excuse for what?

Just wondered that Timmeh myself Timmeh, I suppose I must be one of the a la carte opinionated as well. Until the day comes, I will blacken my lungs happily in pubs and clubs. Hopefully my 2nd hand smoke will keep the likes of you away from there Mystery Man!!

I mean you won't be shouting about supply and demand when the ban comes, you will find a different reason why it is a bad idea.


Touche. Believe me, we don't frequent the same places. [adminabuse], asshole.[/adminabuse]

Vote with your wallet. If all those against smoking in restaurants would take a stand and refuse to frequent smoking establishments this wouldn't require government intervention. If you're still going to restaurants that allow smoking you're just contributing to the problem.

Clearly it's much more appealing to just sit around and whine about it though.

I only think it's a bad idea if the government steps in and forces a ban. I don't disagree with a ban when the PEOPLE demand it, if it's important to them, then it will happen...then good!

Good man, you stick to the sheep shagging locals down in Grafing

That would be cutting off your nose to spite your face, though, innit, since very few restaurants have a smoking ban.

I do tend to go to restaurants that have no smoking sections or rooms, and always ask specifically. In fact over the weekend in sheep shagging grafing, I asked in a restaurent if they had a no smoking section and left because they didn't and let them know exactly why. But I do go to pubs where there are smokers because there is no alternative, yet.


And telling someone to go fuck themselves or alleging grafing to be a hotbed for proponents of the scottish national sport is not against the guidelines?

This is all really besides the point. This ban is not coming in because the public want it. It is because smoke makes an unhealthly workplace. This is why "voting with your wallet" doesn't make a difference.

The government is stopping it in other countries because they feel they have to protect their workers. I think this is perfectly acceptable.

Its just a bonus for those who don't want to have to breathe in other peoples smoke while at a restaurant.

If more people acted like you MysteryMan then I have no doubt that there would be many more non-smoking restaurants popping up. Unfortunately though, enough non-smokers care more about convenience and choice/quality of food than whether there is smoking or not, so there is no reason for restaurant owners to change. But over time no doubt more and more people will behave like you and demand non-smoking areas, and then there will be a supply of new places. That's how it works, see?

Sure sticking to your principles can be slightly unpleasant at times and you may have to give up a few things you like but that's the price you pay.

One of my favourite analogies: girls who wear push-up bras lose the right to complain about boys staring at their chests.

Don't forget you are talking about germany here
1. the connection between customer service and customer loyalty is just not there. Based on the reaction of the staff in the aforementioned restaurant, I would not be encouraged to ask again. But I will anyway, for the craic like.
2. Germany is not exactly the shining example of a free market economy anyway.

Don't you think it's a bit sad that the demand outstrips the supply (according to you at least), when it is well-known that you are doing your health absolutely no favours whatsoever. It's amazing how much tax payer's money was wasted teaching people to think for themselves when they all of them just ended up trying to impress their mates by smoking. The majority isn't always right either. Nazi Germany is a good example. Supply and demand only works in a perfect world. Unfortunately, our world is far from perfect, but a smoking ban would be a step in that direction. If the Italians and Americans can do it, then why can't the Germans? Oh sorry, I forgot, supply and demand doesn't exist there.

This is very true but calling for even more government intervention just makes things even worse than they are already.

Maybe if your posting style wasn't so condecending you'd get a warmer reception.

Sorry, did I give the impression I was looking for affirmation, from you or anyone here? I merely do not like being censored, especially when it is in a hypocritical manner.

Absolutely correct, and what I always say. If you are going to a busy bar, you know there are going to be smokers, so instead of going there and moaning like a whiney little twat, just don't go there...

Like I said, I hope you heed you own good advice when the ban comes...

Why would I complain, I have the option to go there or not. I will happily abide by whatever the laws are. I can still smoke outside, or give up. Certainly will not turn into some sort of anal retentive over the whole thing.

Good lad

absolutely Hutcho.

Now, I am a smoker myself and I do like a smoke and a pint. But having been back to Scotland recently I have to admit that smokefree bars and restaurants are a dramatic improvement from the eyewatering hellholes we normally put up with. Hell, if pubs were non smoking it would probably help me give up and that would probably be good for my health.

I have never understood the really militant smokers. When I was at college we inexplicably had a college library in which smoking was permitted. It was so smokey inside that non -smokers usually set up desks on the corridor outside. Anyway, following a fire inspection we were informed that the smoking in a library stacked to the roof with inflamable books constituted a fire risk (doh) and would have toi be closed if smoking was not banned. Most smokers agreed that there was sense in that and the JCR Exec even provided an adjacent smoking room for those that just had to smoke. But nevertheless a bunch of militant smokers staged a #Puff-in' in the library chained to the desks because they believed the smoiking ban discriminated against them. Absolutely unbelievable.

I still say bollocks to the argument about protecting the workers. It's their decision to work in a smokey environment, they can deal with the consequences.

I think that is more to do with the fact that some students are right up themselves with their belief that everything is impingeing upon their rights rather than the smoking aspect. They would probably have staged a drink in if coffee had been banned

Banning smoking in libraries makes sense. In restaurants makes sense as well. I also believe a better way forward for pubs and clubs would be for the government to offer establishments incentives to become non-smoking, or a grant that can be applied for if they open a separate smoking or non smoking area, so they can pay for proper ventilation of the smoking area. Having a smoking section in a place which is not properly ventilated seems rather pointless.

well, seems to me that complete bans are the most likely way forward for most countries in Europe so that fact that Germany has opted not to follow suit is rather odd. But as others have noted this will probably be sorted by a Europe-wide ban in any case. And smokers will just have to get used to that.

Tyranny of the majority!

I think it should be banned to protect children from their own parents

I think there are many non-smokers who are married to or hanging with smokers so they go to smoking restaurants for the smokers, and with the Germans, you are simply not allowed to inconvenience the smokers

No, not when you are calling for the government to do the right thing.

This argument applies to any form of worker protection. Doesn't the German government pride itself on worker protection?

Smokers can always go and stand outside Europe when they feel like a quick ciggy!


It amazes me to see the way people treat their own kids here!

Indeed, whatever profession you go into, you should know the risks.

Office work - boredom, RSI
Porn - STDs
Bouncer - getting punched
Taxi Driver - car accident
Bar person - 2nd hand ciggie smoke
Construction - having something fall on your noggin

If you can't handle that, then find a profession more suitable for yourself.

I'll never forget the time (this was in Switzerland, some years ago) when I was in a café and two women came in and sat down at the table next to mine; one of them had a little boy about 3-4 years old. Her friend took out a packet of cigarettes and then paused, looking at the child, whereupon the mother said, believe it or not: "Oh, just go ahead, he's used to it!"

Pro smoking people bring up this argument all the time and its absolutely bullshit. There are risks in some jobs, but your employer has the responsibility of lowering these risks or removing them altogether if they are not part of the job.

It is part of the job of a policeman for example, to encounter dangerous situations at times, which is why they get protective vests and guns/pepper spray. It is part of the job for a fireman to go near fire, that is why they get masks etc. It is not part of the job of a barman/waiter to breathe other peoples smoke. This is not part of their job function, nor need it be. Their job is to serve food and drinks.

Its like allowing someone in construction to work on a dangerous worksite without protection, when you could make it much safer by taking the necessary steps. People in charge of building sites get sued all the time over unsafe work practices. Are you saying that the blame is not on them, and that the workers just have to accept their dangerous work conditions?

But their job is to serve food and drinks in a place where people smoke, the owners NEED people to work in these areas otherwise they would lose a lot of profit. So it is unreasonable to reduce the risk that far just so the employees are safer. Just the same as it would be unreasonable for a construction company to refuse to build anything taller than 2 stories to make it safer for the workers. At some point you have to draw the line and say "hang on, I still need to stay in business here".

BTW, surely the employees have accepted the risks, because they accepted the job in the first place?

That's my logic behind it too.

Some people will accept risks because they need to put food on the table, but these are risks that are unnecessary to take, and as such we have unions and the government to mandate laws making sure that employee's are looked after. In the past, there were many many more dangerous jobs than there are today, and they are only safer today due to workplace health and safety regulations.

As for the point about losing money, I have read various reports that there has been no financial disadvantage in many countries where these laws have been instated. I could understand if the smokers had a choice to go elsewhere, but when it is law and everyone has to abide by it, there should be no reason to lose business. Smokers will just have to stand outside when they want to smoke.

In ireland there has been a 10% rise in profits, 80% of people are for the ban including 65% of smokers. But that's just me being anal again.

I had a look on the net about passive smoking and found this interesting

A simple attempt to find anyone who's died of passive smoking.

You are not allowed to let people stand outside and make noise outside your business after 10pm in a residential area.

So what do you do?

Quit smoking...

Look folks, the only alternative to a smoking ban in restaurants and bars would be to require that all have powerful air extraction systems put in so that smoke was piulled out of the atmosphere almost as soon as it was exhaled. I believe this approach was looked at by the Scottish government but it was decided that the cost outlay would have been prohibitive to all but the largest chains of pubs. A compromise whereby venues with such extraction systems c ould be exempted was also rejected because the pub industry would not have been willing to fund the policing and licensing of this. The only option therefore was to ban.

and to be honest, once banned it has proved popular even with smokers.

well this is the same in Scotland. You just require that they are quiet. But in reality only a very small number of people ever seem to go outside to smoke anyway.