Bavaria's non-smoker protection law now passed

With that post, it's quite obvious to me that you have no experience either and have absolutely no idea of how things actually work.

My god, so now basic staffing is impossible for pub owners? Anticipation of demand based on night of the week is not something done in the catering industry?

Again - no clue...

Tell us your experience, thefirelane.

Tell us where you get your knowledge of the pub industry from?

As I said...


The law has been passed, for good or bad. Smokers (like me) have to cope with the new laws. We will see what happens.

In my opinion, it's a waste of energy to continue this pissing contest.

So, this is what your argument has been reduced to?

You might also note, I have very little experience in the following industries:

Coal Mining
Asbestos manufacturing
Nuclear Power

Yet, I have opinions about worker health and safety regulations for them as well.

So I have no experience of what, precisely? My experience of bars is going to them, I assume you mean I must have owned a bar to have an understanding of how alcohol affects people's judgement and ability to talk quietly which is as logical as saying that one must understand how a car works to have an opinion about how they look.

Anyway, I'm now in awe of your vastly superior experience of life won by being a publican, a wisdom a non-publican can never hope to achieve.

What are you waffling about?


Publican code langauge? You make publicans out to be a rare intelligent species... C'mon!


Exactly! Just deal with it and shaddup whinging! This topic has started to bore me...

No - I'm talking about what levels of noise are tolerated outside and how the residents, the KVR and the police react.

Any personal experience? No, thought not.

But when someone who actually has personal experience tells you that your assumptions are wrong, then attack him instead. If we were discussing a point in a profession where you've had a few years of experience and I had none, and I kept telling you that I was right and knew better than you, then you'd be saying the same thing.

There's a reason why on telly you sometimes see an ex-cop interviewed to give his opinion on a crime and never an accountant who likes to speculate on who did it and thinks he's a gun at cluedo...

I guess you need it spelt out to you. When a publican says "I can't control what someone does on the other side of the bar because my eyesight is bad" What he's really saying is: "I'm going to ignore this law" Understand now?

Fuck off somewhere else then

I wouldn't exactly say this rule is simple, when one has to try to figure out what the hell each rule is in each state, I still don't really have much of a clue what the exact law says in Baden Wurty and can't find anyone who can tell me either

And folks please stop loosing things, what the hell is loosing!! You can loosen something or lose something, quite different things, if you are in a pissing contest and you are not winning then you are LOSING, with only one O. Ok rant over.

Maybe you should go back and reread it, it's quite clear what I'm waffling on about you plonker

A publican won't ignore the law when it's in his favour. If I bring in a bottle of beer, he'll soon notice and demand I take it outside. Publicans can control if they want to. It's in the interest of their greasy tills.

And there's no need to be rude. I won't f*ck off somewhere else. The smoking ban will enter into force in Jan. So I don't need to f*ck off. YOU do. It favours me - the cutsomer - thank you very much.

Well, most of our friends seem to have come up with a simple solution to the whole situation: they are now throwing many more houseparties. Practically every weekend there's something going on at somebody's place. They've realised that they save tons of money, and one of them has a travelling DJ service that he says is now getting lots more bookings than in the past 5 years.

The only losers are the bars and pubs that we don't visit very much anymore. But we're still having good times and hardly notice any real change except that the bathrooms tend to stay clean all night and don't run out of toilet paper .

What a load of selfish crap...

Hazza is, as you might have noticed, not the only person on here opposing this law and especially the way it was introduced. You accuse him of "completely ignoring the other side, their proposals and motivation." while you don't even respond to a single point he raises.

Hazza never ignored the health and worker safety motivations, because he most likely knows much better than you do what it means to work in a pub, since he owned one here in Munich and worked there himself.

I know that the antis won't get Hazza's point with the late working, just as they won't get it that next there will be a fat food or alcohol ban (most likely both...) - once you open pandoras health box, it can't be closed again - that's what Hazza is trying to say.

Publicans weren't stubborn at all, but most of yous on here don't even have a slight grasp, what the smoking / non-smoking situation here in Germany ( or all of europe) was just 10-15 years ago. The whole of Germany (same as in Ireland, England, France, Italy... incl. the non-smokers) were laughing their arses off when the US introduced smoking bans. Back that time there was not one single non-smoking restaurant - these days I never have probelms to find non-smoking restaurants - they were mushrooming within the last five years, most likely because their owners were following a certain demand.

The agenda changed - eventhough there is not one single scientific study, which actually can prove that passive-smoking causes cancer, it got big coverage in the media and created panic, fear and hysteria with the people. If you have any clue about sociological system theories (Talcott, Luhmann etc.), you'll know, that the only reason for people/systems to actually make a go for a change of lifestyle or culture is fear, panic, hysteria.

Regarding the noise problem, I do believe you will agree that people who had a couple of drinks, won't be really quiet while having a ciggie with their friends - if you can't agree on that, I'll have to assume you've never been out for some drinkies. Given the fact that most pubs in Munich are suited in residential areas, there will be complaints by the neighbours. If there are too many complaints, the bar won't be shut down, but there is several other things that will happen (because they already happen these days if there are noise complaints), i.e.: the KVR reconsiders your closing license (you loose out on money) and if you can't get it under controll will fine you (loose more money), the police shows up very often and controlls every customer just to annoy them (loose customers), the landlord raises the rent because the other inhabitants can cut their payments down (they can do that by law) if the noise level is too high (loose money or maybe even contract), the residents throw water (ur lucky if it's only that) out onto ur customers (loose customers)... that's only the every day ones without a smoking ban yet. Some antis claim, that you decide on where you live yourself, so you could move outside the city to avoid the noise, but that's totally utter bollox... let's move 500.000 people to a refuge camp in Taufkirchen so the smoking ban can come in...

Solution? You have to employ a doorman, if your barstaff has no possibilty to oversee your outside area, for the night from at least 10 to 3-4ish... If you pay him 10 Euros (which would mean he's not working on papers -> no taxes, insurances incl. -> therefore illegal -> therefore problem at some point) you loose out on a minimum of at least 50 Euros, which is, believe it or not, a lot for most publicans (could you afford to flush a min. 50 Euros down the toilett every night a week?).

There was not one single (reasonable) solution for the noise problem brought up by the antis. Either they claim it's not gonna happen (it will), or just say smokers have to shut up and be quiet (which drunk people never were nor will be - smoker or non-smoker alike).

So come off your high horse and for once think about it in a logical way and put your hysterical goody-do-gooder mentality on pause for a second.

Oh well, looks like the fabric of society will fall apart starting Jan 1st then. Thanks for sharing your experience with us, shame you publicans didn't speak up a bit louder to those who made the law to prevent them from passing this catastrophic legislation. No doubt come Feb they'll be looking to repeal it and we can look forwards to smoke filled pubs again, and we can all nod quietly over our pints at the wisdom contained within all smokers.

Enough of that. I'm off in a flounce, taking my smokey coat with me...

Yes, well spotted...a business doing what they think is best for making money - fancy that.

I didn't say f*ck off. I said Fuck off - what's with the star? You're the one bored. Go read something else then. Nobody's forcing you to read this thread.

I'm sorry, what? Care to repeat that into my good ear?

For the record, I usually start to nod off when people claim that 'their problems' are caused by a "media conspiracy"

I'll fix this for you:

The changes are I made are in bold so it's easy for you

Ok so the solution is to smoke outside and have a bouncer if necessary to sort out the noise problem.

So if the health issues of employees are a major driving force behind the ban, what is going to be said about the poor bouncer who has to stand outside surrounded by smokers?

I would still like to know what you non-smokers are going to do if surrounded by people smoking outside in the summer are you going to move or would you not sit there anyway because of the chances of people smoking?

Do I need to explain to you how to read these studies? All they do is saying there is a strong indication, that people who are eposed to second hand smoke seem to be more likely to end up with cancer.

For the record I, I usually tend to ignore people who twist my words around and put others in my mouth. Grow up, will ya.

Boz... both questions in your post imply a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between outdoors and indoors.

and your reply implies a fundamental misunderstanding of what a cnut you are

Is it not possible to breath in smokey air outside or something? I don't get it.

Mind your language please, you lout! And no, I'm not bored. Your tiresome whinging entertains me...

Ah, ok… I see the problem. You want a ‘scientific study that proves second hand smoke causes cancer’. It appears you have a more fundamental problem with science itself then, since you can never prove a positive.

In other words, you might very well be right, second hand smoke might not cause cancer. It could be caused by undetectable pixie dust which correlates with second hand smoke enough so as to bias the study you are conducting.

This is why in studies they try to normalize things, and isolate the thing being tested (as I mentioned in Hazza’s earlier sleep studies) however, you can never prove anything since you can’t be certain pixie dust doesn’t exist.

This is the same philosophical door Intelligent Design proponents try to wedge their foot into by the way.

No I understand quite well

Mother smoked for 50 years...inhaled. She's still alive. No cancer anywhere. Tell me how bad smoking is for you? Please.

Oh yawn! What a cretinous post...

Could this be the reason why bar staff may get lung cancer?

This post lowers the intelligence in an thread already bordering on mouth breather levels (due to the concerted efforts of myself and others)

(mostly myself)

Ah, nothing quite like anecdata to not prove a point. The point being that there is a very high statistical correlation between smoking (or rather inhaling the cloud of toxic fumes in tobacco smoke) and suffering from cancer. It is therefore a reasanable inference that smoking (or rather blah blah blah) increases the probability that you will suffer from cancer, not that it automatically gives you cancer.

Buying two lottery tickets increases your chances of winning the lottery - it doesn't mean you will win it.

You said you were bored earlier. Make up your mind.


I have a problem with article that say "3000 people (or whatever the figure might be) died of passive smoking last year" How do they know that? Have they just claimed everyone who got lung cancer but didn't smoke? Because that would be wrong. I'd just like to know how those figures are derived.

Sure, but that is a long way from what the post I responded to claimed. His post dealt with whether there was any scientific 'proof' at all, instead of arguing accounting.

Funny, but that's exactly what happened in Ireland, private house partys went up. The money saved was a major factor, as well as, the freedom to smoke, end of things. I think also, at the end of the week, you want to go for a few pints and relax. Nanny type rules and regulations aren't conducive to relaxing on a night out, and for that reason, I feel people will do what they can to avoid that scenario. It's a shame a smoking room solution couldn't be found, by way of a compromise, because some pubs will suffer.

It's Ironic that on one hand, that air pollution from cigarette smoke, will be replaced by other environmental damage from wasteful use of gas and electric heaters, in beer gardens/smoking areas of the pubs that provide them.

I guess the law is the law now, and that's that. What i'd like to see as a follow up though, is an equally agressive campaign, against gas guzzling SUV's, slapping them with a massive tax. I mean if its about clean air, and public health, why stop at cigarette smoke?

what I also found odd in Ireland, was the fact that non smokers, more often than not, had no problem putting up with cigarette (or other) smoke at house partys.

Still not had an answer from any of the non smokers tho have I.

Honestly, I didn't think you were seriously posing this as legitimate questions.

1) Being 'exposed' to smoke outdoors is fundamentally different than indoors. You are well aware of this.
2) I will make a choice based on how much the smoke bothers me as to where I’ll sit.

Happy?

Something akin to indoors with ventilation systems perhaps?

Still here. Don't see much point in continuing the discussion, though, now that it's degenerated into not much more than name-calling.

Although we don't agree on many things, I'll have to agree with Matt T, there's not much point in having a pissing contest.

The effects of the ban will be apparent, in a reasonably short space of time. People are touchy about how they spend their free time at the end of the day, and will vote with their feet, and their pockets. It's unfair I guess for smokers, to expect non smokers, to sit in a smokey atmosphere, if they really hate it. I personally think a smoking room, with no waiter/waitress service would have been the ideal compromise. That way, nobody is too badly put out. I can't help feeling though, that smokers would have been more inclined to compromise on this issue than non smokers, who, by all accounts, seem to be for an 'all or nothing' scenario.

Of course I’m aware of this, but the bouncer is going to be near people smoking near on 100% of his working hours. Are you saying this will not cause him health issues?

In fairness BfB, the bouncer is going to be standing outside, in polluted city air, 2nd hand cigarette smoke wont really be an issue. What I am curious to know though, is whether cigarette smoke at house parties, bothers non smokers, and, as a non smoker, what will you do about that in winter ? stand in the garden, or put up with it ? (Assuming, for arguemments sake, the host is a smoker himself/herself)

Then why give any figures at all? I don't think it's possible to quantify and if it's just an estimate, then I'd like to know how they derived it.

To me it looks like either all non-smokers who die of certain smokers illnesses are classified as having died of passive smoking, or someone's just pulling numbers out of their arse.

Interesting point Hazza. My cousin died of lung cancer during the summer - despite the fact that he lived in a remote area of the country and never smoked himself (neither actively nor passively), at the hospital the health officers kept wanting to put down on his form that he was a "passive smoker".

Nope it's not. The antis keep posting throughout the thread numbers of such and such people being killed by passive-smoking, everyone screams that smokers do wanna hurt or even kill them - including you as well if I remember correctly, but I can't be bothered to read through all of this again - which is based on nothing but the claim of some "experts" who take these studies and make their own truth out of them. I just did it the other way around. I know there can't be no proof, therefore the antis shouldn't claim there is.

So why no separate rooms or ventilation?

Ventilation doesn't work unless it's done exactly right, and it doesn't completely eliminate the health risk.

Separate rooms only work when they are completely separate. Again, if you can smell it, then the health risk isn't eliminated.

Separate sections wouldn't eliminate the risk to employees at all.

And when you provide loopholes people will use them. From a planning perspective exceptions will create more headaches for the enforcement authorities.

The goals of a smoking ban are probably not just inside but a societal goal on the part of the authorites as well. Loopholes would work counter to the intent of the law.

So then sending a bouncer outside as noise control is also a no-no. I'm sure he'd be able to smell the smoke at times and he'd be surrounded by smokers all night. So how then would you ensure that the smokers outside were quiet? Would you give the doorman a gas mask?

In fact, if you gave your bar staff gas masks and allowed them to work with them on, then surely as an employer you've provided for a safe work environment. Obviously you leave it up to the individual employee whether they wear it or not - but then the risk is entirely on their heads, right?

I come back to my goldfish bowls for smokers idea. That would be fairer.

Work on that goldfish bowl idea, Pas. If you made something effective, you'd make millions...

Except for small drinking man's pubs in the inner city that don't do food and don't have an outdoor area that won't annoy the neighbours the smoking ban is BAD for their business.

Working for a world leader in Industrial Filtration you'd think I'd be able to make this one happen. I've still not worked out how to get the cigarette in and out of the mouth.