No general ban on smoking in bars and restaurants

Your not going to get much common sense out of the average smoker. They're trying to justify a childish habit, that they know harms them, makes them smell bad, quite possible harms other people and takes away a not insignificant amount of their income.

Ullyses makes a good point. International legislation outlawing particulate pollution has been introduced around the world to improve air quality and minimise the annual smog-related deathtoll. Now, you could say that people who live in cities or near factories know the risks and don't need to be nanny-ed by the state. But I would rather the state intervened with air quality legislation as most have done. What ois the difference then when it comes to the indoor atmosphere?

Thing is, I am a smoker and in no way militantly anti-smoking but all of this seems obvious common sense. Nobody is 'banning' smoking. Smokers can continue puffing away just not in certain places where there bare concerns about employee health. Hospitals have forbidden smoking on their premises for years without any of us batting our eyes and talking about being banned. Why the stooshie over this?

Let's ban alcohol as well, you won't get much sense out of your average drinker. They are just trying to justify a childish habit which they know harms them, makes them smell bad, turns a lot of them into aggressive manaces to society and takes away more from their income than €4 a day like your average smoker pays.

Close the thread - it's all moot.
Germany is planning a terrible German word called Föderalismusreform - a reform of the federal system - for next year which will allow each German state to decide for itself on banning smoking in restaurants etc.

(Tagesschau, 10.Oct.2006)


See you all next year ...

Sorry, but if you are going to accuse people of providing an unsafe working environment then you need to do it with hard evidence.

Don't just say "thousands of people die every year" and not provide any proof.

Yes, but the Länder will have to enact it if it's a directive of the EU which it probably will be.

i think the cases i posted did just that Hazza. By employing someone to work in a smokey bar you risk a future law suit. Well you would, except we are in Germany, so that will never happen.

Yeah, everybody back to work.
By the way, the competence for protecting workers from a harmful environment will remain with the federal government ... I can see this going to the Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe and all the way to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

actually I wouldn't be so certain about that. It might prove to be a nice little nightmare. The federal government has responsibility to enact EU directives, not the Länder (i think). You might find them passing the buck back and forth and putting off actually enacting any EU law for a good few years.

I never said it kills "thousands of people every year". I merely said that it is unhealthy. And there's more than enough proof to support that. And on top of it being unhealthy, I find it unpleasant and inconsiderate. A smoking ban would also make it easier for more smokers to give up the habit. What's wrong with that? So many wish they could give up, but can't. Why not do something to help them?

i seriously think the only way to properly and equitably solve this dispute is to simply ban the sale and use of tobacco products. Other things have been banned by governments with far less evidence that it is bad for you.

yes, I have to say that both my sister and her husband found it much easier to give up after Scottish pubs became smoke-free.

I have given up myself many times and it is always inhaling smoke in pubs that brings back the craving that drives me back to smoking.

Not that I think that should be a reason to ban it, just that it is a welcome byproduct of taking smoking out of pubs and restaurants.

Yes. Lets ban everything that could potentially cause someone, somewhere, somehow, harm.

Let the government do your thinking for you! Welcome to the age of brainless automatons!

I would be totally and absolutely opposed to *that*. Banning tobacco would be utterly disastrous. Have you looked at what prohibition has done for the popularity of and the drop in quality of otherwise harmless, pure narcotoics with only a tiny following before they were banned.

In the end I would prefer constructive legsilation to minimise harm for all drugs.

Prohibition is for pinheaded prudes who don't understand the first bloody thing about why or how people take mind altering substances.

Banning smoking would drive it into the hands of criminals. I can accept that some people find it really hard to give up, so the should be allowed to smoke outside or in the comfort of their own homes, as long as I'm not in their homes that is!

well, when it becomes the only way to prevent one person's actions affecting other people's health, then yes. Obviously when one group im society is incapable of thinking, then the government has to step in for the good of all.

Normally you speak sense OG, but this is absolute bollox.

Alcohol causes as many health problems, and far more social problems.

How would the governments around the world replace the lost tax on tobacco products, how many tobacco farmers in third world countries would basically be fucked, and most of the world's largest tobacco exporters are third world countries.

no it isn't bollox. Cannabis is banned and there is far less evidence of damage to the health of the user or other people. There are plenty other products and activities which have been banned on far more dubious grounds.

I don't agree that there is far less evidence that Cannabis damages health - oin fact arguably theere is MUCH more firm evidence that Canabis damages health (as a causative factor in major psychosis) than there is for any deleterious em heroin or ecstacy. In the ill-informed public ken this sort of rubbish gets repeated far too much.

The most dangerous drugs in terms of health effects are actually alcohol and tobacco with cocaine and benzodiazepines and then cannabis next.

Our drug laws bear absolutely no relation to the relative dangers of any of the substances that are regulated. They are framed instead by which disapprovd off minority was consuming them when they were banned.

Banning these substances actually seems to have made their use much much more widespread and prevented the medical authorities from intervening until well after they could have done anything useful.

I would rather see absolutely all of them being legalised and instead sensible legislation, like the pub smoke proscription, being brought in to minimise obvious problems.

Do you also think Alcohol should be banned, and you never answered my question, what about the fallout in third world countries, and where would the lost tax be recouped??

Not in Germany, or at least not all: the Munich hospital I was in last year absolutely reeked of smoke because both doctors and nursing staff used to congregate and puff away in a room right in the middle of the ward!

no i don't think alcohol should be banned. I think current laws restricting its consumption and use in combination with other activities remove any detrimental effect to others. This is not the case with tabacco. If acceptable laws could be find which restricted its use so that other people's health was not affected then i wouldn't see the need for a ban. But from the raging debate going on here, that doesn't seem to be possible.

i remember going into a hospital in Neuss a few years back and being astonished to see a patient just up and about after heart surgury sitting in his chair in the middle of the foyer smoking away to his *cough* hearts content.

But what about all the alcohol related social problems? There are 18 year olds who go fucking loopy on alcohol, and want to fight, or destroy property etc etc. But they can buy as much of the stuff as they want. People have the choice whether or not to work in or frequent a business which allows smoking. They do not have the opportunity to choose not to meet some thug who has just necked 3 bottles of buckfast and wants to stamp on their face.

People talk about smokers being militant etc, the problem for me is the unbending, no compromise attitude of non smokers.

was it Eddie van Halen by any chance??

I hear the guy looks absolutely horrible these days - after surviving a bout with tounge / mouth cancer, and he continues to drink and smoke heavily. would post a photo, but wouldn't want to frighten the children...

i have never in my life been faced with a youth wielding a broken glass in my face on an alcohol high. However, every time i go to a pub or any other place filled with cigerette smoke it damages my health. plus all my clothes have to be washed the next day.

Well you know what you can do OG!!

There are consequences to these actions. If you abuse alcohol and then because of this affect other people, you get punished.

If you smoke and damage people's health because of it there are currently no reprocusions.

I'm not up for banning anything, as long as it doesn't cause other people unreasonable harm. I think passive smoking it unreasonable because it can cause people to die, and people that work in smokey environments are certainly at risk.

uhm, show us his tits?

open a non-smoking bar?

move to ireland?

or is this a question of what OG is capable of doing? like tieing his shoes, or preparing a financial analysis?

this could go in sooo many directions...

You'd be surprised how many people are out there who are brainless automatons. Who do you think keeps Bild and the Sun in business? Despite there being overwhelming evidence that smoking is bad for you, people still do it.

As for alcohol, it's not as addictive as smoking and not nearly as detrimental to your health as smoking. You need to drink a lot before it becomes a threat to your health and others. The same cannot be said for smoking. As for the violent alcoholics you'll probably find that they were violent in anycase. But I'm all for draconean laws wrt alcohol too. Drunk driving - one-year ban at least. Beat someone up badly. Huge fine or time in jail. The government has to intervene when people are no longer capable of controlling themselves. And evidence suggests there are quite a few.

If OG knows he is affecting his health going into smokey pubs, does he not have the will power to stay out of them? Or is he addicted to Alcohol??

Which means the burden of proof is on those trying to change things, has anyone asked you to provide proof that second hand smoke does NOT create unsafe working conditions?

I 2nd the motion.

Just check health figures around the world, deaths caused by smoking compared to drinking. You also have to smoke a lot, and passive smoke excessively for decades before it becomes a serious health risk.

Once again, I am asking the government to protect me from other people, NOT do my thinking for me. This is the job of government, to protect my life, liberty and property! This is why I give them so much money every year.

yes he does. I don't go to pubs nearly as much as I'd like to. I'd quite enjoy to watch a few games of rugby a week in Arc with some nice cool beers and maybe some food. I don't because the smoke gets to me. When i go there, I rarely stay long because i can't stand it. and there are far worse places than the Arc.

Here's a study where they actually list figures.

Conclusion:


Here is the entire study. It is the only one I found that has researched figures and graphs and tables.

I could not find any sites that back up the claim of some sites such as this one where the claim of increase in lung cancer of 25% (or around that figure) is reported due to passive smoking.

If somebody does find the results of a study - with details, then please post a link, because I would like to see it.

see my post above

I can tell you that the other night I was in an Irish Pub for 5 hours and didn't smoke any cigarettes, woke up the next day with a sore yet phlegmy throat and black bogies. That's enough evidence for me.

I thought we were talking about long term health problems of people who work in smokey environments. It clearly states that there is a weak link from environmental smoke to lung cancer, but that this ceases once exposure ends.

So if you work in a pub for 5 (or even 10) years during your 20's and 30's, then according to this study, there's a negligible chance of getting lung cancer later in life.

there appears to be more conclusive evidence that smoking and SHS is harmfull than there is for global warming being caused by fossil fuel burning yet anyone who disputes the latter is shot down in flames.

Had an aunt and uncle, both heavy smokers, both died of lung cancer. But did they die from first hand smoke or second hand smoke? Perhaps both, maybe neither. How do you prove it?

Had another aunt and uncle, he smoked, she didn't (but she was an airline stewardess back in the day); she died from ovarian cancer, later he died from lung cancer. There is no family history of ovarian cancer. Did his constant smoking (he was a marlboro man) have any effect on my aunts ovarian cancer? Who the fuck knows?

I really don't care. I don't want to breath tobacco smoke, ever. Sometimes it irritates my lungs to uncontrollable coughing like bronchitis (just the other night at Bohne und Malz). Trust me, it is fucking hard to avoid here in Germany.

And before you smokenuts tell me to get the hell out of Germany; what gives you the right to choose to pollute the air other people breath for no damn reason other than that you are a stupid addict!

The thing is, I'm trying to supply links and some hard evidence and all I'm getting back is anecdotal statements and conjecture. Can anyone come up with a study to the contrary?

Where are the studies saying that working in a smoky bar for a few years in young adulthood is going to significantly add to your chances of getting lung cancer later in life?

Or is it ok for anyone who gets lung cancer later on to point at the 2 years they worked in a pub??

So where is this evidence??? Show me a study that conclusively proves this. Any link will do.

What gives you the right to tell me if I can or cannot smoke unless I am in your apartment? I abide by laws, I do not smoke in non smoking areas, I will continue to smoke in establishments where it is permitted. Until the law changes in Germany, tough shit!

And as I mentioned many many pages back, if the law does change, I will abide by it, and not whinge on and on about it.

This was discussed to death already, but follow the links, Alice:
any link
another better link
the actual source

Does it really matter? If you feel sick from the smoke after you come out of the pub, the working conditions of a pub are not good! I used to smoke occasionally, and had the same symptoms the next day after smoking heavily the night before, so I know (or figure) that the second-hand is not too much different.

You don't really need to beat yourself up about it, looking for hard evidence, though.. as long as smoking is allowed in bars and restaurants, the personnel is going to have to learn to accept it. It just sucks, is all, because they don't really have a choice.

quote: The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded in its 2002 Monograph on tobacco smoke and second-hand smoke that that "there is sufficient evidence that involuntary smoking (exposure to second-hand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) causes lung cancer in humans� and makes the overall evaluation that “Involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) is carcinogenic to humans (Group 1)."

http://www.ocat.org/healtheffects/index.html

Then you will also not mind if we try to get the law changed? That doesn't seem to be the attitude in your posts.