Bel-Air - a non-smoking campaign

Smoking in bars and restaurants has recently been banned in Ireland, Italy, Norway, and Cuba. Scotland will be following suit in 2006. No such laws exist in Munich. Yet. But a new campaign is being launched here on Friday. The Bel Air project's aim is not to persecute smokers, but to protect non-smokers from being forced to breathe secondhand fumes. Mayor Christian Ude's wife, Edith von Welser-Ude, has been asked to serve as official patron for the organization. With a bit of luck Munich law will soon be brought into line with modern public opinion. As can be seen from TT's list, there are currently far too few non-smoking restaurants in the city.

[img]http://www.toytowngermany.com/munich/non-smoking_munich.jpg[/img]

The Bel Air Project is hosted at:
www.belair-muenchen.de

For info on smoking bans worldwide see:smokefreeworld.comBBC News: Worldwide smoking bans

Thanks to Klaus Eck for the alert on this.

It's not the ban, it's the enforcement.
Smoking's been Verboten at all S-bahn stations since January - do the smokers give a toss?

New Zealand has also banned smoking in all bars and restaurants.

Surely there is no demand. Otherwise, for purely business and profit reasons, restaurants and bars would change without being forced to do so. Market forces rule.

My thoughts exactly. If there is a demand the markets will react and satisfy it. Obviously the demand isn't high enough, otherwise there would be shitloads of non-smoking restaurants opening all over the place.

> Munich law will soon be brought into line with
> modern public opinion.

Correct. And Modern Public Opinion says:
if you can't stand the smoke, don't go there.

It's coming in Stockholm too as soon as the weather gets a bit better. They can sometimes be considerate like that.

No objections from me at all. In fact I'm in favour of it, so long as I don't have to listen to the sanctimonious neverending waffle which regularly eminates from many of the anti-smoking lobby. The smokers fumes may damage your lungs but having to listen to some of the ranting that goes on can surely induce brain damage.

Er, Mr. "Public Opinion", on what basis do you make your assertions? Have you conducted a survey of public opinion?

Cos we have. And the results are clear.

I find a certain group in the public smoking debate odd... it's the "government must increase taxes and take care of us/protect us" in many social issues, but then when it comes down to public smoking and health it becomes a personal rights issue... it sounds more like "I want the government to force people to do x,y,z as long as it's not my rights they're interfering with"

The problem is, German non-smokers are way too tolerant and don't seem to feel they have the right to breath fresh air. There are MANY social smokers too who only smoke at bars and when they drink because others around them are doing it.

I'm sorry, but a fitness studio having a bar with chain smokers huddled around it? You have to walk through it all to get to the gym or squash courts. That is just sick and wrong...people need to stand up and say NO...the only reason it all worked in USA is because the health insurance comps. sued the ciggy comps...why doesn't AOK do the same???

Right on man,
Smokers always seem to be complaining about whinging non-smokers! What they don't realise is that they STINK. To me the smell is much more important than the health aspects. Although seeing parents smoking in front of there toddlers is scary.

I can't wait until the battery powered cig comes along...

www.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/02/1820221

People have a choice where they eat and drink. If they wanted non-smoking restaurants then they would frequent them, then more of them would open. The people who have no choice and are most vulnerable are children whose parents smoke at home. If the law changes at all, it should be to protect them by making it an offence to smoke at home if you have children.

Seven non-smoking restaurants / bars (count 'em) in a city of over 6,000 licensed establishments is not something I'd call "having a choice".

First off, I am not a smoker, in fact, I have allergy problems, when I am in a smoke filled room for too long. With that said, I donÂ’t really think that a ban is the best way to go. They should however require a ventilation system to be installed that removes the smoke and filters in fresh air. Another step would be to make parts of the restaurant/pub where that is not possible smoke-free. It would be much easier and less expensive to help the restaurants pay for the ventilation than it would be to try and enforce a law banning smoking all together. A law requiring ventilation may also be easier to push through. Everyone would benefit from it from the restaurant employees to the patrons, and in the end it will be worth it for the owners as well: the employees will be more healthy, and the food will taste better so more people may come...
it maybe a draw back for a few restaurants though, that is if you can actually taste the food and it tastes like poison! :-)

"Seven non-smoking restaurants / bars (count 'em) in a city of over 6,000 licensed establishments is not something I'd call "having a choice"."

As has been said over and over, if there is such a demand from 'the people' for non-smoking restaurants and whatnot then why have such places not opened? There are enough enterprising people out there that if they saw a demand they would go for it. That said, where are you getting the figure of 7 non-smoking premises from?

1. Governments spend too much time butting in on our lives already. I want small government, not a babysitter.

2. There is a cultural difference. If germans really wanted to ban smoking, then it would be a bigger issue. It only shows up here because we have so many expats from big-brother lands.

3. You have to die of something. I just cannot understand the desire to live forever. There is an old saying - "If you don't drink, smoke or cheat you'll live 10 years more - but what for?".

"The Bel Air project's aim is not to persecute smokers, but to protect non-smokers from being forced to breathe secondhand fumes"

That's a lie. If the issue here was the health of non-smokers, what about the negative health effects of the alcohol they drink in their smoke-free bars or the fatty Bavarian food that clogs up their arteries in their smoke-free restaurants? The latter two surely have as much an effect on the health of these delicate flowers as passive smoke (despite the BMA's repeated attempts to re-classify passive smoke as the equivalent of inhaling cyanide while drinking strychnine).

Ban smoking - but also ban alcohol and unhealthy food in that case.

Oh please...eating and drinking is a CHOICE! Inhaling smoke is NOT!

"Oh please...eating and drinking is a CHOICE! Inhaling smoke is NOT!"

1) If you CHOOSE to eat and drink unhealthily, don't whine about passive smoke.

2) Inhaling smoke in a bar IS a CHOICE in the same way that I choose not get run over by cars by not stepping out in front of moving ones. Can't hack the smoke in a boozer? Don't go!

Consumer demand will bring change?

If I am a restaurant owner and I can cater to two sets of people (smokers and non-smokers) then I stand a better chance of having a full restaurant. Why would I choose to alienate half (or in Germany more than half) of my clientele? This argument of if you can't stand the smoke go somewhere else is complete BS as it implies that I should change where I might want to eat or drink because of the voluntary actions of others which are proven to be unhealthy to me.

I was recently in Rome where the smoking ban is in place and visited my restaurants and bars and I didn't see any difference in who many customers each place had only that at the end of the night my clothes didn't smell like smoke!

This whole argument by the smoking group assumes that because something was alright in the past (public smoking) it should be alright in the future. When was the last time you smoked on an airplane?

The worst thing for me about this whole smoking problem that the Germans have is in a sushi restaurant you might be sharing a table with two other people and just as your nice fresh sushi comes to the table the bastards next you decide it is time to smoke. What happened to common courtesy and etiquette?

@ Ted Maul
"Ban smoking - but also ban alcohol and unhealthy food in that case."

Are you really that sad of a person to not understand the difference between what I decide to put in my body (alcohol and food) and what smoking actions of others ar putting into my body.

And who said anything about bars, it also happens in healthy locations as earlier pointed out in such as gyms, sushi restaurants, coffee shops, etc.

In Dallas they came up with a law that seperated restaurants and bars by putting a ban in place unless your estabishment derived 75 percent or more of revenue from alcohol sales

In most of countries no more than 33% of the population (average) smoke but no-smokers(kids included) suffers others' smoke everywhere, and some smokers many times don't respect the few the public areas where it banned.
"Market forces rule" somebody posted here... I totally disagree with that, definitely in this case, society forces rule and more and more people of that 70% of the non-smoker realized that they are being forced to breath others' "freedom" to the detriment of their own freedom and their choice of being a non-smoker.
I am not worried for the bars and restaurants, people have gone and will go always to bars and restaurants, everybody wants to have fun. But law makes that every business plays under the same rules. That is what the restaurants and bars are really afraid of, to have a 33% + the smokers' friends of disadvantages of the are smoke free. But law will make all equal and I agree with that.

No, the market doesn't always rule when it comes to health issues. Non-smokers rights are being violated because we essentially have no serious options where we should eat, work out or hang out without being opposed to the annoyance and ill health effects of smoke. No bars or restaurants in any country that I know of have willingly offered to make their establishments smoke-free, just as few chemical manufacturers have simply volunteered to stop dumping chemicals in the river. It took government intervention.
I never was a militant about this issue until I moved to Germany. That's because I feel I simply have no rights as a non-smoker here. I can't even ask to open a window in a tiny smoke-filled room because that would make it drafty. I can't go out anywhere in the evening without getting my clothes ruined. My free choice is to stay home, I guess.

It's a German group starting this initiative by the way. I've just jumped on the bandwagon. It's the same group that's also agitating for avoiding genetically manipulated food. The other non-smoking initiatives listed on Toytown are also all German groups. So much for noyb's comment "It only shows up here because we have so many expats from big-brother lands."

TT has 15 restaurants with non-smoking sections listed in our restaurant section -- Julian H. Stacey has even more on his site.

Ah...my favorite topic.

Smoking stinks, and I hate going out and coming home and realizing that my hair, my skin and all of my clothes stink of someone elses disgusting cigarette smoke. The problem is, that someone else might actually be my husband. Because he smokes. Not in the apartment, but when we go out, yes. I have tried every method I could think of to get him to quit - and nothing has worked so far. It's really a bad situation - I am a militant nonsmoker but I have to live with this - or get divorced, I guess, which I'd rather not do.

So for me avoiding cigarette smoke basically means - don't ever go out - not to any restaurants, clubs, bars, whatever. That sucks. I don't agree AT ALL with the opinion that nonsmokers who can't stand cigarette smoke shouldn't go out anymore. How is that fair? How about - smokers should go outside to smoke...and pick up their disgusting cigarette butts!

I think it's really priceless the way people smoke in front of their young children...and then yell at me for having my dog in the restaurant because it's "unsanitary". So are ashes in the food, but whatever.

dogs in a restaurant-absolutely DISGUSTING, possibly more disgusting than smoking

Report tonight on RTL München: 18:00 - 18:30. Watch for it! Not sure it was a promise to broadcast about the press conference, but there should be some mention of it and maybe introduction of the people involved. Also there were Radio Gong and Charivari, which may mention the group sometime today, sorry I don't know when.

You have the right to shut up, move your non-smoking ass to the Gewerbeamt and open up your own friggin restaurant where your rights and those of your clients will not be violated. Your restaurant/bar thingy will turn into a goldmine with all these fun people posting on this thread hanging out at your place.

Or maybe not, because they will start to complain about each others cologne, choice of laundry detergent, dryer sheets and other olfactory attacks.

Still, it's worth a try.

The above comment demonstrates precisely the arrogance and inconsideration that smokers have toward their fellow human beings.

Anyway, smokers' days are numbered. Gradually the world is waking up to the fact that smoking is not a civilised habit. And as for Munich, smoking in bars and restaurants WILL be outlawed here by the end of the decade. Mark my words. Come back to this page on 1st of the 1st 2010.

The restaurant wasn't exactly sanitary - it was a fast food "restaurant" with discarded food all over the floor, mud, etc. I don't bring my dog to real restaurants. I don't think it's unsanitary, but rather an inconvienience.

Dog are certanly better behaved than most kids and in most cases have better table manners than the majority of the germans you find in restaurants.

Anyway, back to smoking. The only reason there aren't more non-smoking establishments is because there is always one or more smoker in a group of friends. Non-smokers are generally too considerate to go and sit in the non-smoking area and deprive their friends of a fag in company.

Strange. I know some german smokers who hate going into smoke-filled rooms... they must be in the "addicted" set, whereas most Munich smokers only do it/started it to appear cool. I've got used to the girls who light up and draw max twice from a cig before its spent.

Just up the cig price to UK levels and everything will happen automagically. No need for silly rules.

Ummm, no smoking areas of restaurants and bars would be good enough in my book--like in the US. Why now?

Smokers are a dying breed - figuratively and literally. In the long run, they have no chance. The anti-ban brigade can only hope to fend off bans/restrictions for a few more years of their shortened lives.

In developed countries, bans or strong restrictions on smoking in enclosed public places are inevitable. Hence, the debate should really be about when such measures will be introduced, not if.

I've often considered responding to smoke being blown in my face with a swift dose of mace. The kind that women use to fend off rapists and such.

Unfortunately I'd most likey get arrested for doing something like that. Despite the fact that the mace is probably less damaging to the smoker's health than his smoke is to mine.

I've often thought about that when waiting for the lights to go green and I can cross the road. All that exhaust cannot be good for my lungs either :-))

A survey by the SZ last week found that 37 out of 1033 Munich restaurants have a non-smoking section.

That's less than 5%.

See the belair website for details and link.

"Ummm, no smoking areas of restaurants and bars would be good enough in my book--like in the US. Why now?"

Then why are states starting to ban smoking in restaraunts/bars? California's had a no-smoke policy for years. Because the smoke doesn't know which section it's in. What torques me is the table of 10 behind me that hold off their smoke while they enjoy their meal and light up as soon as the plate is clean...just as I get my entree.

And if all the bloody whingers used the 37 restaurants, there would soon be 38, then 39 and so on.

Cafe Forum is full every time I go (at least twice a month). I don't see all the neighbouring bars and cafes suddenly opening non-smoking sections.

The argument about leaving it to market forces is clearly flawed.

Lung Cancer,

I can only assume you puff like a chimney since the comment you provided on Cafe Forum is madness. Of course, no other establishment in Munich is going to take the lead in establishing no smoking bars or non smoking areas within ! That would lose their clientel for sure. Only government legislation will make the change happen. OK, this is only coming from someone who lived through the 1999/2000 California era when all the ashtrays were removed between 31st Dec. and the 1st Jan.

PS...there are still places in San Fran today where you can smoke inside
- just depends on the tobacco :-)))

Have to totally agree with universal ban. Only 2 years ago a pub in Galway in the west of ireland unsuccessfully tried out the idea of going it alone smoke free. (its right beside my favourite pub in the world which is why this sticks in my mind!) It had to give up on the idea pretty soon after due to lack of trade. To quote the article, the owner "Ronnie admitted he couldn't sustain a pub that excluded smokers. " That was in the days before the ban. Now that all pubs are smoke free, theres a level playing field and at least the choice of going to a Non Smoking pub.

From a pub owners view it looks like it has to be all or nothing. Why not all non smoking?

Article on non smoking pub in Galway here:

archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2002/02/01/story22255.asp

Is that supposed to make any sense whatsoever???

* Now that all pubs are smoke free, theres a level
* playing field and at least the choice of going to
* a Non Smoking pub.

Choice of going to a non-smoking club? What about the choice of going to a smoking-allowed club?

You can have this car in any color you want as long as it's black that you want.

Great choice.

Choices choices choices! Thats it indeed. I've heard above that if i want to avoid smoke i have the fabulous choice of either staying at home or choosing one of the 5% of restaurants that are smoke free. By looking at the list from Julian H. Stacey i see that i have the vast "choice" of zero smoke free pubs or clubs to go to. Now which one will I "choose" to go to this evening! Some many places so little time! I think i might have to flip a coins a few times to choose and make my decision easier. My head is cracking up with all the options.

Lets do a deal then so big lad. Lets NOT have a total ban! Lets have 95% ban! Then you have the staggeringly large "choice" of 5% smoking places. Thats it! Just exactly the same proportion as there are non smoking places at the moment! That would be choice i suppose.

Threads like this remind me why Toytown sucks.

The hell with smokers.

What about the people who work in bars or restaraunts? Do they have the 'Choice'?

"Smokers are a dying breed - figuratively and literally." How true. Eventually it'll happen, they'll ban it, no matter how much smokers complain and that will be a great day.

I can't believe what sh*t I hear in defence of smokers (mainly from smokers). If you want to kill yourselves, do it at home so no one has to join you.

And to the idiot who said 'Ban smoking - but also ban alcohol and unhealthy food in that case.' ...
.ugh... You fool, do people inhale other people's beer? Do others get a lung full of evil Bavarian wurst?? Nope. It's that fact that smoking affects OTHERS. Do what you want to yourself as long as no one else has to put up with your dumb choice.

Smoking is a stupid choice. Cigarette companies are laughing as smokers die.

Nice trade, Cigarette companies get rich, smokers get Cancer.

Here's an idea: whenever a smoker puffs their smoke through your hair, clothes & lungs, dig deep, hack up a big chunk of spit, and spray it down the back of their neck. Then the smokers might start getting the point (although admitedly the spit won't affect their health the way smoke does)

We need some sort of apartheid to keep these two warring factions apart. Bars for smokers only, bars for non-smokers. No compromises. That way, smokers can enjoy their pint in peace with an accompanying cigarette and the non-smokers can all drink together and whine about something else.

Crazy taleban anti-smoking mujaheddin wrote:
You fool, do people inhale other people's beer? Do others get a lung full of evil Bavarian wurst?? Nope. It's that fact that smoking affects OTHERS.

Well, if your health is so precious to you it is hypocritical to poison yourself and then with all the indignation and self-righteousness you can muster you whine like an air raid siren about breathing in smoke, the adverse health effects of which do not justify it.

Has anyone tried lighting it up while doing the morning dump? It's got to be the most satisfying way to start the day..ahh when the two 'fragrances' blend together...it's just like that wonderful aroma you get when chatting up with another fellow smoker who has just lit up...only thing is, it's from the other end.

Consumption of food and drink, solids and liquids, is voluntary. Air is not. The request is simple, keep your poisons to yourself.

I would support a law creating non-smoking sections in ALL establishments that have more than one dining room, favorably making the larger rooms non-smoking. If they have the capacity, they can support it. You cannot simply remove an ash tray or sign and call it a non-smoking section when someone is smoking at the next table.

Similarly, with the presence of outdoor seating at many restaurants, I think it's worthwhile to experiment with changes to smoking policies corresponding to the weather. Like smog, my tolerance of cigarette smoke gets much worse as the heat goes up. This should be much easier here where outdoor drinking is acceptable, unlike the combination of open-container laws and smoking bans I'm accustomed to in America that keep smoking outside and drinking inside.

Keeping smokers away from entrances to buildings would keep some of the carbon monoxide out of my face too.

Not exactly relevant to second-hand smoke, but here are some more common sense opinions:
Germany should raise its legal age to keep smoking out of its secondary schools, and even the existing minimum age of 16 could be better enforced.
Vending machines could either somehow require scannable ID or be limited to bars. Over the counter sales should be eliminated and replaced with a system similar to pharmacies.

Smoking isn't cultural, it's socio-political. Uncontested acceptance makes it social. Legislation and public outry can make it anti-social.

The scary thing is...
for a long time the German government was earning more money from the tax on cigs than they were putting out in smoking related health care.

This is changing. This situation is exactly what got the US government to push for a change. First the health insurances sued the tobacco companies...

but that was not enough...

then The health insurances stopped giving enough money to the politicians because of their high costs on smoking related illness...this of course made the government do something...

I am really surprised that the German health insurance companies don't sue...I am sure they are spending TONS on smoking related illness...don't you think?

I am not a fan of law suits...but in some sad cases it is the only way...