Bavaria's non-smoker protection law now passed

Maybe that's just me, or in Vermont people are just different... did 50% of the people back where you came frome were drink driving and could only be disciplined by a law... explains quite alot...

To the acting and Nazis: Once over again... we have no spoken law over here, so called roman law - hence what is written in the law applies. The GSG (Gesundheitsschutzgesetz) explicitly names acts of performing arts as an exception to the GSG. Demonstrations of right wings, left wings or pink elephants have to be applied for at the authorities and they have to grant them first. If they do, the demonstration will take place - tis democracy. If the pink elefants should choose to carry along some swastikas, the "Reichskriegsflagge" or sing some happy songs i.e. like "Horst Wessel Lied" it's against the law and there is no exception there. Yes theatres or movies do use Nazi symbols, but the misuse will follow investigation by the BKA (=FBI) and the Verfassungsschutz (=CIA) and is also as a severe crime, while smoking is nothing more than an administrative offence.

As usual there is reality and tfl-world...

There were no percentages of population cited in the original statement, so what you bring up is irrelevant. The original statement was that since people are grumbling and ignoring the law, it must be wrong. I, quite correctly, pointed out that this happens in a variety of situations so it doesn't really have a bearing on the law one way or another.

With regards to the Nazis... you are talking about public demonstrations on public property. I was specifically thinking of private uses... or, for the sake of argument, how about if a bar wants to specifically cater to this political persuasion and hold rallies? I assume that is currently illegal. They could quite easily just use the same twisted "actors" logic being used here, couldnt' they?

You compare smoking to drink driving. At least 50% of the people in pubs who try to keep smoking up must be smokers. Hence 50% of the people in Vermont must have been pissed behind the wheel.

If you are a theatre or some director who wants to use such symbols you have to file in a special application to gain the allowance to use these symbols. It's a crime to use them since they are illegal. Cigarettes are not illegal. That's why the GSG is crap. Don't prohibit smoking in pubs people wanna smoke in - does nothing but infringe the freedom of choice - only if you prohibit smoking you would have a point. If it's illegal it's illegal. Basta.

Again, I don't know where you're getting these numbers from. My point is quite clear: when a new law is introduced there are always people who try to worm around it and ignore it. I'll guarantee this happened at the beginning of drunk driving laws. Such actions have no bearing on whether a law is crap or not... because it happens all the time.


Let's not start this again, please. You don't need to make something illegal in entirety in order to regulate its usage. there are a host of things which are perfectly legal, but not legal to use in any way you want. Drunk driving is a good example, so would be setting off fireworks in a bar.

My general point is that, as is typically done, people are looking at common occurrences and bumps that occur all the time in the legislative process, but viewing them through their own biased opinion on this particular issue and trying to force the conclusion that this law is wrong. I'm merely pointing out that grumbling and non-compliance is quite common in many cases.

Thanks for the info on the Nazi symbols in plays though, I was kind of curious how that was handled. It seems this whole thing could be quite neatly solved by disallowing smoking in plays as well, and only allowing it upon application for a permit.

Hey now, don't go attacking Vermont!!

Besides, people in VT don't drive drunk... that would make it more difficult to shoot the deer from our truck windows.

Exactly.

Well IF they had exempted small pubs and IF they had allowed separate smoking rooms, then the law would have been followed. Then there would be no outside noise problem and no excuse to not heed the law. I'm working in Hessen and the law here allows for separate smoking rooms. I've gone out here and it works well - it seems that it's a way that's OK with everyone.

I still don't think it's something that should be legislated on, but if you must, then at least make it workable. Hutcho complained on another thread about Papasitos allowing smoking. Do you think that if they were allowed to have a separate smoking room, that they would still let people smoke in the whole bar? So can anyone actually come up with a good reason why a smoking room (properly closed off, of course) shouldn't be allowed?

The blanket ban was thought up by some brain-dead idiots.

Not too sure about the exemption idea but separate rooms could well have been made to work from a customer's point of view, although how do you protect the staff serving in those rooms? As long as I get to eat and drink in a smoke free environment then I'm happy.

is there actually an outside noise problem or it is just another bandwagon all you pro-smokers have jumped on? Of the places where I've been where there was a small huddle of smokers outside, they managed a fair job of NOT creating a noise violation.

well, you could make it that customers have to come to the bar and get their own stuff if they insist on a smoking room. The room would have to be ventilated so that it wasn't full of smoke when the cleaners go in.

I don't recall which café it is on Leopoldstrasse but the landlord has banned smoking in a 20 m circumference of the door due to neighbors' complaints.

fairy muff.

German implementation of this law had nothing to do with staff protection - it was never mentioned by the lawmakers as a reason, and it has not been an issue in Germany. So why mention it here?

are employees less equal than all the people the law was made for?

What about infringement on the choice to not be subjected to a smokey atmosphere? I feel like smoking around a non-smoker is more of an impostition on the non-smoker than is forcing the smoker to not smoke or to go outside. But then it's kind of like the argument of whether child birth or getting kicked in the balls hurts worse - neither party can really defend their position without an argument. Therefore this thread will go on and on until eventually it competes with the movie thread and has to be chaptered on a monthly basis.

Own up Hazza... you can't ask if anyone can think of a reason, then when someone does simply reply... well that isn't why they did it. You asked for a reason, and one was provided.

In fact, it something I mentioned repeatedly in this damned thread, but you pretend not to heard it.

Another tired response to the same crappy question: It can not be fairly implemented by all bars, so it would be the government handing out an advantage to only certain businesses. If you're honest, you'll admit you'd be here complaining about that same fact and citing it as evidence that this law "wasn't very well thought through"

P.S. I'm done... the pro-smokers continue to ignore reality and the valid arguments presented to them. The smoking ban continues to be implemented with the typical bumps of any new law, the sun rises in the morning, the bars are open, civilization has not collapsed.

As do the anti-smokers. As far as I can see so far in this thread it's the happy middle ground peeps making the most sense.

Exceptions for a bar that had a separate smoking room and single roomed bars under X M² would have covered EVERY location.
I'm off out to the pub later (as a non smoker) and three of the four venues I am going to are officially smoking clubs now.

The law has landed on its arse with a big bump.

The law's here, and I'll bet those loopholes are going to be closed pretty quickly. As for the actor thing, I don't think it'll be too long before he's in court for defying the ban. Just another prat with a cocky idea about breaking the law.

You still don't get it do you? When you compare those people who try to find a loophole in the GSG with the people who drink drive, it makes no sense cause people who drink drive are actually commiting a crime and as far as I know there was never a drink driving club or some drink driving acting performances on the scale, the smoking clubs have reached by now, so once again you don't have a valid point... apples and oranges mate!

I actually made the 50% up yes, but the "official" numbers on the smoker / non-smoker ratio is somewhat 30/70 on the allover population (that incl. everyone from 0 - 120). There is a majority of non-smokers, so why would any patron with more than one brain cell, open a smoking club or think of other loopholes, if his customers weren't made out of at least 50% (if he has two brain cells he wouldn't even try to loose the other 50% so it must be actually way more) he wouldn't do that - that's the 50% I was refering to, so -yes- I made them up for those pubs who try o get around the law.


See that's your problem. You don't have any valid arguments - except for the "you kill me / employes / orphants / humpback-whales / white-fluffy-baby-seals by smoking - yes smoking isn't beneficiary to health and all the pro-smokers on here actually support the protection of non-smokers if you didn't notice at some point, but as long as it's not illegal to smoke and people gather to do so, they should be allowed to do so. In Rheinland-Pfalz the Constitutional Court of that state actually just ruled out that small bars run only by the owner can never actually come under the Nichtraucherschutz, since if the bar states it's a smoking pub, the patron and the customers are free to choose if they wanna be expose themselves to the smoke or not, since they are free, independent and self determined beings to the law therefore the Nichraucherschutz doesn't apply here (other courts will follow that decision soon...).

And please finally accept that violating the GSG is NOT a crime but only a administrative offence. This actually means a big difference in any constitutional state.

Helter, I realized "debates" with you really are worthless right about the time you went off trying to lecture that the word "militant" can only be used to describe a soldier. Now, just as then, you display a remarkable ability to miss the really simple point...

Here's the original quote I was responding to:

He states that the normal procedure for new laws is that they are accepted and followed immediately after introduction without anyone "blatantly ignoring" it. That is why I chose drunk driving... but I could have chosen any law since his statement was a blanket one about the general introduction of laws. It is apples to apples... because we are simply comparing the implementation of laws, not what the laws are about.

My point is that many laws are grumbled about and blatantly ignored after they are passed, so the fact that it is happening now has no bearing on whether this law is "bad" or not...

do you understand?

Why you always tend to avoid facts, logic, comon sense - your passion for denial and opportunism and your always eminent reading adynamia? Yes I do - I did actually read your posts.

Great! now the HofBrauKeller wants to implement its self as a Smoker's Club, was so nice to be there yesterday without smokers! What will they do with the kids play area now? Make that the non smoking area?

Where did you hear that Carm?

Bizarre and horrible, particulary as they now offer children's birthdays there!!

It was just on the Kable Eins news, apparently he (the owner) feels that he is above the law, and that he should be allowed to have smokers- most of his stammkunden were old people that would sit all day nurse a beer and smoke.
But they interviewed alot of guests in there, and they all wanted it to stay nosmoking, and would speak with their feet.
Will be intersting to see how it unfolds, I know personally I am only going to non smoking places now, I did enjoy hanging out at the HBK yesterday, and not coming home like a stinky cigarette.

It was in the Süddeutsche Zeitung (German link) this weekend. The landlord wants to erect a glass wall between the inner rooms and the back room facing the Biergarten and declare it a dedicated smoking club. This is the area where the locals, regulars and seriously elderly congregate whose children are grown up enough to join them drinking and smoking but have not yet procreated. Or whose children are busy enough with grandchildren to not have time to join them.

This is especially interesting as the Hofbräukeller, an affiliate of the Hofbräuhaus, is under direct administration of the Bavarian state.

I don't think anyone is trying to be "above the law".
The loophole exists and is in fairly wide use ( 4 out of 5 venues I went to over the weekend)
If the business is losing revenue with the ban then he'd be a fool not to use the loophole if he wants to.

losing business? I was there yesterday with Renia, and EVERY table, and I mean Every table was full, big families drinking and eating.

Venues that have food and are more family orientated can weather the smoking ban better for sure.
But judging from the liks above, it also seems they have a lot of REGULAR customers who drink beer and want to smoke.
They can go to a half a dozen other locations, so is the manager of this place prepared to lose their trade?

Thats against my human rights, its like a sort of murder

Fair point, emphasis on the word 'if'. Here's my prediction - in 2 years there will hardly be a single smoking club left and the vast majority will either go bust or return to being normal bars.

I agree with your prediction.

A social trend tht was already established become the mainstream?
So the laws weren't really needed then?

Oh come on MT... don't be ridiculous...

After the CSU got spanked state wide in yesterday's council elections, the SZ was suggesting today there may be a relaxation of the Bavarian law...
Especially mentioned were temporary beer tents and one roomed pubs...

So the CDU actually see the law as having a negative impact on their political popularity. The only conclusion one can draw is that the current law is unpopular with the general community.

So much for those people on these boards claiming "Democracy in action" when the law was forced in then...

Oh yeah, that saves them facing up to the idea that their anti-ausländer stance was unpopular! The smoking ban is working fine, leave it as it is.

I agree. & even our ´smoking acquaintances´ agree it´s ok too.

They are in a bind. The extensive smoking ban is unpopular with some and threatened to cause so much loss of trade that the majority of pubs I go to are no smoking clubs. It's as if there was no ban.
On the other hand the anti smoking lobby are going to scream blue murder if a relation is made. Even thought that would only apply to pubs that have effectively never been non smoking or the Wies'n that has never been non smoking. It depends how jittery they get over the next few weeks...

If it's "working fine" and "OK", then why are there so many smoking clubs?

And why would the CDU be looking at relaxing the law?

they aren´t looking about removing the ban just about amending it aren´t they?

the emergence of smoking clubs is a good thing; can it really be attributed to the ´failure´of the present smoking ban? no one ever said smokers can´t smoke, just they are now restricted to where they can smoke. so they have their smoking clubs now too which is fine.

So then the law as it stands it not OK? Or they wouldn't be looking to amend it...

in my opinion yes it is ok.

what the CDU think & whether they successfully manage to eventually amend it is another matter.

Perhaps you're in the minority then...

Are there really "so many"? Since the introduction of the ban I've been in approximately 10 different bars, not a huge amount but enough to get a decent impression I think, and in every one of them the smokers just popped out for a couple of minutes had a quite smoke and returned. The places seem as popular as ever and I don't come home smelling like an old ash tray. I also read here on Toytown that the ban was no problem at the stark bier fest either. As it goes on the ban will become they absolute norm.
The CSU got beaten up due to their stance on furriners and the Transrapid in my opinion.

hmmm...I understand some of the ban-relaxations being explored are in whore-houses and the beer festivals. I guess we´ll just have to see what transpires. in any case the smoking ban cannot be declared a failure unless the ban is completely lifted.

Walking from my house, my local is the 10th licensed premises I pass by.
Of those 10, 5 are now "smoking clubs".
The places that are "smoking clubs" are generally smaller, with a large regular trade and primarily sell drinks.

I reckon two of the currently non smoking bars may go for the smoking club route soon, heard some vague gossip about it last week.

So the law isn't working, at least not 50% in the areas of Munich with the highest concentration of licensed premises.

well in the 3 places we regularly haunt it´s working out fine, so that´s a 100% success rate...(sorry just being flippant)
and in my local pub-crawl-Strecke in the UK it´s also worked out ok.

is it really so hard for some bars to have to become a smoking club then? how much is the license?

The logic here is painful: personal anecdotal evidence of people looking for a loophole in a law mean the law should be repealed. By that logic, the Lichtenstein tax debacle means we should no longer tax the rich.