Bavaria's non-smoker protection law now passed

I laughed at the health minister comment about the gastronomy industry losing money:

Bollox... the € wasn't gonna affect the peoples individual freedom, no one was driving pissed out of their minds on purpose, seat belts at first actually killed more people than they safed so people would hesitate using them, the use of opiates in drugs was possible because pharmacology developed new derivatives. Not allowing people to set up smoking rooms is nothing comparable to any of these points - it's pure dictatorship.

One argument against seat belts was they 'restricted people's freedom' in that the government was invading a private space, the car. This is, of course with today's mentality, complete arse speak. On balance seat belts save more people than they kill, so are a net benefit and this should have been the simple and only argument raised. Same parallel with the smoking ban - more people will be saved by it than harmed so it's simply a no brainer from the public health point of view, arguments about individual freedom notwithstanding. Then who wants to talk about public health vs. rights of a minority to harm it?

Nope, when they were introduced, more people were killed or hurt by seat-belts than actually saved... That's why people were against them in the beginning.

HS, don't quite follow you here. Are you saying that the wearing of seatbelts shouldn't be compulsory because they do more harm than good?

I am speechless at the seatbelt argument!

really???
think you may see some more accurate info here.

An excerpt from Wikipedia's safety belt page:

So are you saying that the compulsory wearing of seatbelts should be abolished - that they actually cause more injuries?

No, if I was saying that I would have said that. I was just adding to what HelterSkelter said. When seatbelts were introduced, it increased road deaths in some places.

Hmmm, that's pushing it. It's a leap of logic to go from the hypothesis that seat belt laws encourage bad driving, and the fact that bad driving causes injury to the conclusion that therefore we should ban seat belts. If you had bad driving and no seat belts then driving would be even more hazardous. The best situation is to keep seat belts and good driving. Your argument, in any case, has lost the parallel to the smoking ban.

Hey brainiac, it's not my argument.

OK, when I lookup the wiki site, I can't find the quote you just used, but the bit that references Adams' research is with regard to an increase in injuries to children using adult seat belts.

However, it does say

"One large observation studying using US data showed that the odds ratio of crash death is 0.46 with a three-point belt, when compared with no belt.[11] In another study, that examined injuries presenting to the ER pre- and post-seat belt law introduction, it was found that 40% more escaped injury and 35% more escaped mild and moderate injuries.[12]

The effects of seat belt laws are disputed by some, stemming from observed finding that following the passage of seat belt laws, road fatalities often did not decrease."

Now, what has this to do with smoking?

It was my analogy, not from a POV of comparing seatbelts to smoking from a health view, but comparing different changes that have occurred in the past, that people perhaps thought would never take.

Try here

For me, it has nothing to do with the smoking legislation, I was just (as I have previously stated) adding to what Helter Skelter said, as he was dismissed out of hand, when in fact there was more truth to it than most of you chaps were giving it.

There are often unintended consequences following a change of law, seat belts causing more reckless driving may be one. Banning smoking may cause more noise outside pubs or whatever but that does not make the ban less effective at promoting the reasons for its introduction.

Ah, nice one - I was looking under seat belt, and not legislation - and I can't say I dismissed it out of hand, just asked if he thought they did more harm than good and should be scrapped.

edit: OK, but you can't really compare the two, as according to Adams (and he seems to be a bit of a lone voice on this), passing the law cost lives, whereas the side effect of the smoking ban is (potentially) more noise on the street

Lets make this easy to understand for some people:

The first seat-belts actually were harming more people than protecting them, they would only go around your waist and didn't have any some sort of safety flex as in these days. People were hurt by these "prehistoric" seat belts and people kept that in mind, so when proper seat-belts were introduced and they were supposed to put a seat belt on by law, they hesitated due to the experiences with the old ones, but not because they couldn't be bothered or just didn't like "change".

You may think it's an analogy, but it's not.

Hahaha...this thread gave me a big big laugh, and I needed it...what a bunch of idiots...

I DON'T CARE about you smokers...yayyyy January 1!

Cool. So what the hell's it got to do with smoking then? Oh, and real christian of you Shelley

...Or bar owners, or the police or residents living near bars or the people at the KVR who have to deal with noise complaints...

You don't really care about a whole lot of people, do you?

Honestly!---, six months everyone will have forgotten about smoking inside and will learn to be quiet.

And I explained already that I was making a different comparison.

Based on the thickheadedness of smokers on this thread, I don´t have much sympathy.

you know, triumph bob and hazza, you're right...what i said wasn't very nice, let me clarify...

i don't smoke, and am one of those people who DESPISES cigarette smoke. but i like going to bars and clubs, so i DEAL WITH IT.

all i ask is that smokers do the same as all the rest of us have done for years...if you want to go out, then DEAL WITH IT. shut up or stay in.

it may not be easy, but people and businesses will adapt. and can anyone really argue that a smoking ban does not benefit the greater population??

Can't be bothered reading the whole thread, but one thing is worrying me. I have never in my life smoked tobacco in any form. If I need a smoke, I go in a nice smoky bar and just breathe the air. How am I going to get my nicotine fix after Jan 1st?

Shelley, as you have been so kind as to spell it out, maybe I can just clarify for - I don't fucking smoke, and Green Tea, come next year you'll just have to buy your own snout, you tight-arsed git!

There was a guy in the pub last night with some snuff. This is obviously the answer for smokers who don't like the cold. It has the big advantage of killing you but not others.

Snuff: For the unselfish smoker.

One thing I noticed is that the possibility of going out and just not smoking hasn't been brought up. Why are the two so strongly linked?

Habit. Even if you rarely smoke, chances are that the times you will will be when you're having a pint.

@ryhntyntyn - I believe I brought it up already. If you're out you can use a bit of willpower and not actually smoke. It's not necessary like breathing or going to the toilet for instance. If you don't want to stand outside a bar in the cold then don't smoke. It's pretty simple really.

That sounds like common sense. I don't trust common sense. There seems to be such a strong link between the two that it never occured to the Smoking avocattii that maybe not smoking was an option. Maybe it isn't. Why?

No one said "How will I quit? How will enjoy myself if I can't smoke inside? The question was instead "Where will I smoke" or rather the statement "When I go outside to smoke, which I will, how will I avoid trouble with the the Carabinieri?"

After weeks of being a complete dick about this I have to say that I understand that smokers are addicts. Nictoine creates as strong an addiciton as any other drug or controlled substance (chemically, not culturally. Not alot of people equate smoking and Heroin use, but they are about as strong on the brain in terms of addiction) So smokers as addicts and 'needing' to smoke I guess can actually understand. I guess that answers the "why not just give it up?" But if I can recognize that addicts are addicts then the addicts should also recognize that as well. That would be a big step I think. Because if it's an addiction then they can't help themselves and that strengthens the arguement that the Governemnt needs to be the regulating force.

So which is it? Entitlement or addiction?

I take the point about smoking and heroin use in fact I believe smoking may be more addictive than heroin.

Also, is it not true that cigarettes are the only product that when used in accordance with the manufacturers instructions will kill you or at least harm your health ? I can't think of any other product that does that.

Ermmm, alcohol?
McDonalds/Fast food?
Some prescription drugs?
Cars/trucks/motorcycles

There are plenty of items which when used as they are supposed to will harm ones' health

Dude,
Bikes don't kill people, pissed off bikers who've just heard the expression 'Sorry mate, I didn't see you' kill people

@Timmeh, I don't think so. Alchohol companies always tell us to drink sensibly. A couple of drinks can be beneficial. A couple of cigs ?? Maybe not. MacDonalds ? They say you shouldn't eat more than a couple a week. Cars ? I drove to work today and I don't think I lessened my lifespan by 5 minutes for doing it. But cigarettes, when used properly will still harm you and others around you.

@Weevil,
I actually have a pamphlet from McDonalds explaining why it should be part of your daily diet.
A couple of drinks can be dangerous and have negative health effects for some people.
Cars pollute, you are shortening your life span by breathing their fumes, so not only are you harming yourself but everyone else too

Most of the nicotine is absorbed by smokers themselves. But the dangerous thing about a cigarette is not the nicotine thing. It's the rest of the poison and dirt that pollutes the air when cigarette is burnt and smoke is exhaled. A cigarette is a cocktail of harmful substances and some of the chemicals are added by the tobacco industry. Nicotine can be bought in pure form (injection, plaster or chewing gum) if you're so crazy for it. But doctor needs to give prescription. But then the effect of "being cool" is away. Then you'll be called a junky only. Nicotine is part of some medicines and used in pharmacy also. There even exists a vitamin called "nicotine acid amid". If the dose is low and correct, then nicotine can even have positive effects. For example, it's used in Alzheimer's therapy. But now smokers should not tell me that they have to keep on smoking to protect themselves against Alzheimer's. As I told the problem in a cigarette is not the nicotine. Main problems are 2000 different harmful substances that are inhaled and exhaled that poison the air and many of them are even identified as strongly cancer causing.

I'm so proud, Kylie's mastered google.

This whole smoking ban is a load of bull.
I went out last night to my local "Boatzen" and in the course of a chat with the landlord we got on to the smoking ban topic. (This place is about 50 sqm, 80% smokers at least last night)
Well this guy told me that he was going down the "smokers club" road from 1st Jan and then he told me something ridiculos: When I asked him if I as a member could bring someone as a guest with me he told me that the KVR told him that that would be ok, but if my guest wanted to smoke he/she would have to go outside. And that in a smokers club!!!

If it's a smoking club, then profit making is not allowed. Clubs are run on non profit basis. Then it's not a pub. It's a closed society. Smokers can smoke in such clubs until they go to hell.

Did a cigarette attack you as a child, cos you're almightily cuntish about them

One is surrounded by smokers everywhere in Germany and non smokers are just fed up. It is the LAST country that finally had to follow smoking ban. It was because of corruption and lobbyism that it did not happen earlier. Finally German government was threatened by EU that it will be fined by millions of Euro if ban law will not be released. It would have been a big scandal if fine had been paid with tax payers money. We German people and our children have the right on clean air like everywhere it is like this. If you can't accept it, why don't you try your luck in US or UK ?!? You will find yourself being thrown in prison if you break the anti smoking laws. So what do you smokers want here on this thread ? This is my question. It should be an anti smoker's thread so that we can breathe out of relief finally and not a thread for "weepy smokers" who are crying like babies that their Schnullers (baby's dummies) are taken away, because of the new law.

After reading the last pile of doo-doo I just had to light up and exhale in the direction of a German baby carriage.
Do me a favour ( good manners caused me to edit this) and after that have good wash with a hose!
You stop driving your car I´ll stop smoking.

Yo bitch, learn some English

HAHAHAHA!!! Sweet! That has as much to do with Nicotine as Vitamine C with Santa Claus! Don't just copy and paste baby!

Sorry to disappoint your totalitarian views, but no one is gonna get imprisoned for breaking the no smoking ban... if you smoke and break tha ban you will receive a "Bußgeld" - you'll get fined. If you don't pay the fine, authorities can call you in and force you too, if you still won't comply or can't you'll spend time in "Haft", but that is gonna be measured by the so called "Tagesgeld" a equivalent of your day based income. There will be no "Strafgeldbescheide", only "Bußgeldbescheide". Sorry little Ms.!

Really ? Is it like this ?

http://forum.fettrechner.de/read.php?f=2&a...3773&t=3675

As I said, don't just copy and paste sweetie...

I am a non smoker for anybody who cares. I THINK THIS IS A STUPID LAW
who ever heard of going to a non smoke filled jazz bar.
It's just not the same.
With this law can you have a bar - pub for smokers only? Seems only fair

BAN JAZZ! BAN IT NOW!

No, no no...that would be logical, make perfect sense and be fair. Therefore the antis aren't happy